UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2024: +0.90 deg. C

June 4th, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2024 was +0.90 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the record-high April, 2024 anomaly of +1.05 deg. C.

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

The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 17 months (record highs are in red):

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.13-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.09+0.17+0.00-0.10+0.68-0.24-0.11
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.17-0.13-1.43+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.26-0.03-0.37+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.40+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.35+0.45+0.07
2023July+0.64+0.73+0.56+0.88+0.53+0.91+1.44
2023Aug+0.70+0.88+0.51+0.86+0.94+1.54+1.25
2023Sep+0.90+0.94+0.86+0.93+0.40+1.13+1.17
2023Oct+0.93+1.02+0.83+1.00+0.99+0.92+0.63
2023Nov+0.91+1.01+0.82+1.03+0.65+1.16+0.42
2023Dec+0.83+0.93+0.73+1.08+1.26+0.26+0.85
2024Jan+0.86+1.06+0.66+1.27-0.05+0.40+1.18
2024Feb+0.93+1.03+0.83+1.24+1.36+0.88+1.07
2024Mar+0.95+1.02+0.88+1.35+0.23+1.10+1.29
2024Apr+1.05+1.25+0.85+1.26+1.02+0.98+0.48
2024May+0.90+0.97+0.83+1.31+0.37+0.38+0.45

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


2,263 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2024: +0.90 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. TheFinalNail says:

    Down on last month anomaly-wise, but still the warmest May in the UAH global record by a substantial margin. June 2024 just has to beat +0.44C for a clean sweep of 12 new consecutive monthly warmest records starting July 2023.

  2. E. Swanson says:

    Dr. Spencer, may was another exceptionally warm month. What’s your explanation for this?

    • I can only speculate: Some combination of El Nino, Hunga Tonga (I’m skeptical of that), cleaner skies from less aerosol pollution, a decrease in cloudiness (measured by CERES) due to either positive cloud feedback on warming or some unknown mechanism, and increasing CO2 (which can’t explain a short-term peak, but can explain a tendency for each El Nino to be warmer than the last). And maybe some other influence we don’t know about?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Thanks. Any thoughts about the effects of Tropospheric black carbon from all the wild fires and (perhaps) the war in Ukraine the past few years? I included the war in Ukraine because of an indirect effect as Russia was said to be desperate for soldiers, which might have reduced any efforts to fight fires in their vast area, such as Siberia.

      • Clint R says:

        “[CO2]…can explain a tendency for each El Nino to be warmer than the last”

        If you believe CO2 can warm the oceans, then it follows that you would believe warmer El Niños follow.

        The problem arises with the realization of science. CO2’s 15μ photons can not raise ocean temperatures.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Lets include on the long list of temporal variations the current residence of the 4 gas giants all in a mean sector of the sky aligned on the semi-minor axis of the sky.

        We know that the discovery of the two outer gas giants was arrived at via our knowledge of the orbital disruption of the known planets. We are still looking for the source of an orbital disruption that remains unexplained in Neptune’s orbit.

      • sam shicks says:

        What is the physics behind positive cloud feedback on warming? I think warming causes negative cloud feedback.

      • Luuk W says:

        thanks for your ideas on this. I am somewhat surprised that you do not mention the warmer ocean temperatures – I would like to think that such arge excursions as we are seeing now would require a very large heat source, such as the oceans yielding much more heat from deep below – perhaps built up over many years?

      • There isn’t heat from deep below… the deep ocean is exceedingly cold, and has only warmed by a few hundredths of a degree C. The recent warmth seems to be most anomalous over NH land areas. I don’t have any strong opinions on the cause.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” CO2’s 15μ photons can not raise ocean temperatures. ”

        When will Clint R stop to post this stoopid, ignorant nonsense?

        CO2’s tiny action lies in the reduction of the amount of IR directly reaching space, and is not due to back-radiation.

        But maybe Clint R loves Robertson’s Shula blah blah about the Pirani gauge.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Bindi, but you’re wrong again.

        CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise ocean temperatures.

        And reducing the “amount of CO2’s 15μ photons directly reaching space” cannot raise ocean temperatures either.

        You can try a third time to bite my ankles, or you can learn the science.

        Your choice….

      • bdgwx says:

        sam schicks, It is related to a few factors. The first is the coverage of clouds which is expected to decline because relative humidity increases do not keep up with specific humidity increases thus resulting in less reflection of sunlight. The second is the height and timing of clouds which is also expected to change in way that reinforces more warming. The third is the microphysics of cloud formation. There are two broad cloud phases: liquid and ice. It’s a spectrum with mixed phase being a combination of the two. As the planet warms we expect the ratio of liquid-to-ice to increase. Liquid drops have higher optical depths as compared to ice crystals so we expect this mitigate warming. When all factors are combined it is believed that the net effect will positive mainly as a result of the mixed-phase negative feedback exhausting itself as many of the clouds transition from mixed phase to entirely liquid phase. Newer observational studies have shown that there is less ice in clouds than originally believed meaning that the transition to all liquid will occur sooner.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Or how about something we’ve always known – that satellites do not measure surface temperatures. Surface data sets have been down around +0.6 (using the UAH baseline) for the past couple of months.

      • gbaikie says:

        Thermosphere is hot, last time it was this hot was 2003, though it was much hotter during 20th century Solar grand maximum, when their solar max, but if 20 year is recent, it is been hotter recently.

        So hotter and more water vapor [high up, there}.

      • Bellman says:

        “cleaner skies from less aerosol pollution”

        I’m skeptical that there could have been that much of a change in just a couple of years. But if it is the case that there has been a significan warming effect caused by cleaner skies, doesn’t that suggest the warming caused by CO2 so far has been significantly masked by pollution.

      • G Fraser says:

        New Zealand in 2024 has just had the coldest May in 15 yearsref: NIWA

        We had very high rainfall in 2022some say HT moisture?

      • gbaikie says:

        Re: “So hotter and more water vapor [high up, there}.”

        This could be more of satellite measurement thing and less of measuring warming air in white box 5 feet above ground, measurement, thing.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        If CO2 could raise ocean temperatures then how are we here?

      • Willard says:

        Where else should troglodytes be, if not dead?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Nate says:

        Gee, DREMT has already posted 71 times, while adding nothing to any discussion.

        Is he simply marking his territory?

  3. Drewski says:

    “Only” 0.9C above the May average. At this rate, Boston will feel like Atlanta in a few decades and Dallas will feel like Phoenix.

  4. Edim says:

    A short multiannual spike (nothing unusual) on top of the multidecadal/multicentennial plateau (nothing unusual). Natural global climate change/varibility.

  5. Bellman says:

    No detailed figures as I’m away from my laptop. But this of course is another monthly record. Beating the long standing May 1998 by almost 0.4C.

    This is the 11th monthly record in a row, with last June being only the second warmest.

  6. martinitony says:

    This spike was all about Tonga plus El Nino. A perfect storm. The next several months should confirm that with dramatic drops in average temperatures throughout sphere as the effects of both wear off.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      “This spike was all about Tonga plus El Nino.”

      See Dr Spencer’s comments above the HT eruption. Minimal impact at most.

      This is CO2 warming, temporarily boosted by El Nino.

      Much more to come.

      • Clint R says:

        Much more to come? Much more of your false beliefs?

        Why do you fear science?

      • TheFinalNail says:

        “Why do you fear science?”

        Why would I fear something that informs me?

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry, but you appear MIS-informed.

        Do you have any science that says CO2’s 15μ photons can warm Earth’s surface?

        Remember, beliefs ain’t science….

      • TheFinalNail says:

        “Do you have any science that says CO2s 15μ photons can warm Earths surface?”

        You might want to take that up with Dr Spencer, who seems to agree that CO2 has a warming influence on surface and lower atmosphere temperature.

        You just seem to be coming out with nonsense. Sorry.

      • Clint R says:

        It’s interesting that you hide behind Dr. Spencer, who claims to be a Lukewarmer. He’s not an alarmist, but you are.

        And, as usual with cultists, you have NO science to backup your beliefs.

      • TheFinalNail says:

        “Its interesting that you hide behind Dr. Spencer, who claims to be a Lukewarmer. Hes not an alarmist, but you are.”

        What’s interesting that you accuse me of ‘hiding behind’ the guy who runs the site we are both posting on.

        He’s quite clear on CO2; it has a warming influence on surface temperatures.

        Maybe you know better than Dr Spencer.

        If so, I have to say, it isn’t obvious.

      • Clint R says:

        What is interesting is you are still here, with NOTHING to support your false beliefs.

      • Nate says:

        So sez Clint, who never never ever ever supports his claims with evidence, data, links to real papers that agree with his fake physics.

        But that’s ok, since he is just here seeking negative attention.

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong child Nate. I always support what I say. But, I can’t understand it for you.

        Maybe when you grow up you will get it….

  7. Joachim says:

    1) How much energy has been added to LT since June 1 2023?
    2) What is that in W/m2?
    3) Where did this energy come from?
    4) Has something stopped Earth from releasing heat? What, and how much?
    5) Is Hunga Tonga still seen as a insignificant part of this warming?

  8. Charles Best says:

    The last 12 months have been the underwater volcano ,El Nino and the peak of solar cycle 25.
    Strong coo!ing is coming as all three fade.

    • Bindidon says:

      Charles Best

      ” … and the peak of solar cycle 25. ”

      Wow. Where dou you have that from, Mr Best?

      *
      And when Roy Spencer tells in a reply

      ” Hunga Tonga (I’m skeptical of that)… ”

      then I can only say that his words match the sum of all what I read about HTE since September 2022, and was confirmed by regularly looking at UAH’s monthly grid data for the Lower Stratosphere:

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/

  9. Bad Andrew says:

    Something is broke.

    Andrew

    • skeptikal says:

      Yep, I’m seeing it too.

      For the last few months I’ve been saying that something is seriously wrong with those numbers.

  10. AaronS says:

    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 curious how this isn’t Tonga? The two times there is not high correlation between data are for the P I A N ATUB O Cooling and Tonga (the UAH spike matches Tonga vapor distribution). I suspect this trend may endure for some extended time. Happy to hear alternatives, but cleaning the atmosphere is a gradual process, this is an abrupt spike like an E l N I No but too early. Something causes the high frequency climate change in paleorecords, and volcanic eruptions fit the bill.

  11. I have seen at least one popular report that suggested that the recent few months of high anomalies can be explained using changes in shipping fuels alone. The reasoning appears to be that the reduction in sulphate emissions has led to a reduction in reflective cloud formation. Does the good Dr. or any of our more technically-literate contributors have an opinion on this?

  12. Rob Mitchell says:

    I would like to get the opinions from Dr. Spencer and the scientifically literate here if we’ve hit the peak yet. How many months in a row below +1.05C do we need before we can comfortably say that?

    • bdgwx says:

      +1.05 C is probably the peak for this ENSO cycle. Because the UAH TLT response lags ENSO by about 4-5 months and because ONI peaked 5 months ago we probably only need a few more months to confirm this. Longer term, however, UAH TLT will march higher due to the positive Earth energy imbalance. It might take several years or even a decade for 1.05 C to get eclipsed, but it will happen…eventually.

      • TheFinalNail says:

        “It might take several years or even a decade for 1.05 C to get eclipsed, but it will happeneventually.”

        Regrettably, I suspect it will just take until the next El Nino; even a small to moderate one.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        TFN

        Possibly true for the surface data sets, but I don’t see UAH getting this high again soon in a low-moderate El Nino. They overrepresent high temperatures and underrepresent low temperatures, and the crossover point seems to be in the moderate-strong El Nina regime.

      • b.nice says:

        And Fungalnail now ADMITS that the El Ninos are the source of the warming.

        So funny !!

    • Mark B says:

      Dr Spencer gave a reasoned explanation for why April was probably the peak in last month’s blog post that seems sensible enough. The gist is that El Nino is waning and the surface temperatures, which lag El Nino less than tropospheric temperatures, seem to be declining.

  13. Mark Shapiro says:

    Dr. Roy conveniently neglects to mention that this past May is, by far, the warmest May in his data set.

    Meanwhile, climate change is on track to take a substantial bite out of personal incomes across the planet.

    https://youtu.be/BPG_Gu6lxls

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Really? Global warming is going to take a bite out of personal incomes?? Well, let’s get rid of the most affordable fuels that have enabled global prosperity for the last 150 years! That will help!

      • PhilJ says:

        The only thing taking a bite out of incomes here in Canada is the industry crushing carbon tax and the subsequent inflation as costs are passed on to consumers

      • Yes, let’s all become climate refugees. That will keep us prosperous!

      • Dr. Roy – Why is it always how affordable fuels USED to be that is supposed to sway the argument?

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        You can’t legislate markets. Governments only hurt markets. Cheap available energy has fueled all the prosperity. Expensive unavailable energy will destroy prosperity. Then, many people will die.

    • Ken says:

      Fossil Fuels:

      -Population soared to 8 Billion
      -Life Spans doubled
      -Famine eradicated
      -Billions lifted out of grinding poverty
      -End to slavery

      Take away fossil fuels and all that human flourishing is going to be reversed. Roger Bezdek says cutting fossil fuel emissions by 90% of 1990 levels by 2050 (Paris Agreement) means GDP gets cut by 95%.

      95% cut to GDP means average income gets cut by 95% too. Can you live on $300 per month? Cutting fossil fuels is going to have a much much much bigger impact on your personal income than any alleged climate change ever will.

      • Post hoc ergo propter hoc, followed by a non sequitur. The economic impacts of climate change are already well understood. Moreover, they’re unnecessary. Some of the wealthiest nations are already peaking at 100% renewable energy. The poorer ones will leapfrog them. Fossil fuels are going out, whether you want to accept it or not.

      • Nate says:

        “Take away fossil fuels and all that human flourishing is going to be reversed. ”

        Weird.

        Humans flourished for centuries before fossil fuels.

        They are finite, so will run out in any case, and obviously humans will have fully converted to alternative sourced of energy by then.

        The fossil fuel era will be a short blip in human history.

      • Ken says:

        ‘obviously humans will have fully converted to alternative sourced of energy’

        Its not obvious at all. There is no alternate source of energy that matches fossil fuels. Its irresponsible to plan on technological advance that hasn’t happened.

        See ‘Fusion’ for details; its been one ‘breakthrough’ away from reality for my entire life.

      • Seems pretty obvious to me. Fossil fuels would have run out anyway, even if sink capacity for the emissions hadn’t been exhausted first. Existing renewable-energy technologies can provide far more energy than we need, and are increasingly the cheapest options. They even save lives due to reduced particulate pollution and provide quieter streets.

        In a generation or so people will look back in astonishment at our archaic ways.

      • Ken says:

        ‘Existing renewable-energy technologies can provide far more energy than we need’

        Evidence needed. Everything I can find is renewables are about 5% of global energy.

        ‘and are increasingly the cheapest options’

        The issue is obfuscated so badly that its almost impossible to prove or disprove. What is clear is that investors think renewable isn’t worth the candle without massive government subsidies.

        ‘They even save lives due to reduced particulate pollution’

        This is patently false when you consider the entire life from mining the materials to sending them to land waste at end of useful life.

        ‘and provide quieter streets’

        Hurrah; lets wreck our economy in exchange for quieter streets.

      • nate says:

        I agree, solar power is plentiful.

        Example: an area of desert of around the size of Phoenix metro area, is sufficient to power the peak US electric demand.

        Of course storage is needed to take full advantage.

      • nate says:

        Even now, mid day , California’s power is about half solar. See chart here:

        https://www.gridstatus.io/

      • Ken says:

        Pillar of civilization

        Concrete
        Iron
        Plastic
        Ammonia

        You can’t do any of these with solar.

        Any place that uses solar pays really high prices for electricity.

        See Australia, Germany, UK etc for details. Its costing billions in subsidies to industry that cannot compete due to high energy costs.

        California is an exception because government has forced PG&E to keep rates down.

        Something has to give and those huge fires that have killed hundreds in California are the direct result of sparking power lines that haven’t been maintained due to lack of funds. PG&E went bankrupt.

      • nate – Yes, and photovoltaic, just to take one of the solar options, is following an exponential growth curve. Countries in Europe are already peaking at 100% renewable power. We need more storage and more power-management to reach 100% at all times, but there are plenty of inexpensive solutions. Pumped storage is one we use in Switzerland, for instance. My own village just opened a hydroelectric plant a couple of years ago which produces 60% of the greater town’s electricity needs.

        The desert regions, currently mostly poor, are going to be solar-energy superpowers in a decade or two.

      • Nate says:

        “Any place that uses solar pays really high prices for electricity.”

        Perhaps a bit. It cost less than some sources (Nuclear, clean coal) more than others (gas).

        That hardly supports your claim:

        “Its not obvious at all. There is no alternate source of energy that matches fossil fuels. Its irresponsible to plan on technological advance that hasnt happened.”

      • Nate says:

        “Concrete
        Iron”

        Why must they be done with fossil fuels?

      • Electric arc smelters are already in operation in some places, notably Iceland, which is increasingly exporting its abundant hydro-power in the form of metal components.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Elliott, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Here’s how Graham D. Warner perceives Elliott.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  14. phi says:

    UAH LT as a proxy for surface temperatures: https://www.zupimages.net/up/24/23/r0zo.png

  15. Eben says:

    The satellite got a tilt , the spike is not real

    • Alex A says:

      I do find it very strange to correlate these temperatures with the cool spring here in the UK (and apparently in the states). It doesn’t seem real.

      • I get that as well. It’s mostly been dreadful here in Switzerland this year. The upper Rhine is almost bursting its banks in the areas where it is on open land. We had fresh snow above 2,000m a couple of days ago, although it’s gone again now, where I am. There’s a real sense of disconnect.

      • Bellman says:

        Cool spring in the UK? It was the warmest on record.

        https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmean/ranked/UK.txt

        I appreciate there are many reasons why it didnt feel so warm. But objectively it certainly wasnt cool.

      • Bindidon says:

        I live in Germoney, and we experience

        – since at least a decade, increasing westerly winds (to such an extent in between that the Krauts around me begin to speak about ‘Berlin an der Ostsee’ because since decades, the weather patterns have slowly switched from ‘continental’ to ‘rather maritime’;

        – since a few years, cooler springs following warmer winters.

        Latest data download from the German Weather Service was in February this year.

        Here is a superposition of
        – absolute
        and
        – anomaly data (wrt the mean of 1981-2010):

        https://tinyurl.com/Germoney-absol-anoms (d c syndrome)

        The polynomials explain perfectly the situation, but nearly everybody uses linear trends (in C /decade):

        1941-now:
        – absol: 0.19 +- 0.09
        – anoms: 0.18 +- 0.02

        1979-now:
        – absol: 0.58 +- 0.21
        – anoms: 0.54 +- 0.05

        2000-now:
        – absol: 0.73 +- 0.55
        – anoms: 0.58 +- 0.22

        The trends since 2010 I didn’t want to add cuz no one would believe them.

        *
        Since 2018 there is a slight cooling, but there were many of them since measurement begin.

    • Bad Andrew says:

      Just eyeballing, this persistent deviation kind of renders the info prior to it insignificant, for want of a better phrase. It’s been so extreme for such an extended period… really?

      Andrew

  16. Bellman says:

    Cool spring in the UK? It was the warmest on record.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmean/ranked/UK.txt

    I appreciate there are many reasons why it didn’t feel so warm. But objectively it certainly wasn’t cool.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      “Cool spring in the UK? It was the warmest on record.”

      Yes, I was surprised by this. N Ireland, where I live, had its warmest May on record. I was out of the country for the second half of May, but it didn’t feel that warm when I was there.

      • Bellman says:

        As I said, I think there are a number of reasons why this spring feels cooler than the thermometers show. It’s been unusually wet and cloudy. It’s been relatively warmer at night than during the day, and these are sir temperatures, nit what we feel in direct sunshine.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The Met Office??!!!

      Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-!!!!

      Alarmist central. Completely fudged data,direct from NOAA.

      • Bellman says:

        Do you have an alternative source showing it being cool in the UK this spring?

      • There’s a big difference between calling a source “alarmist” because you do not want to accept its data, and actually showing a fault in that data, or producing better data.

      • Bindidon says:

        Elliott Bignell

        Don’t expect anything valuable from a pseudo-engineer a la Robertson

        – who is unable to download and present any data let alone to process it

        but

        – who violently discredits and denigrates anything he doesn’t understand.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You wrote-

        “Theres a big difference between calling a source “alarmist” because you do not want to accept its data, and actually showing a fault in that data, or producing better data.”

        Who cares, anyway?

        There’s a big difference between claiming a GHE exists, and actually being able to describe it.

        Why are you refusing to describe the GHE? Worried you might look stu‌pid? Probably a valid concern, but you can just shrug of any laughter and derision that might come your way, can’t you?

        It’s probably easier to stay in your fantasy world, where you are no doubt wise and respected.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        > Who cares

        Nobody cares if you care about something or not, Mike Flynn.

        Another beer?

      • Swenson says:

        > Who cares

        Nobody cares if you care about something or not, Mike Flynn.

        Another beer?

      • Theres a big difference between claiming a GHE exists, and actually being able to describe it.

        We can describe it, and have done, over and over. Your refusal to understand the explanation is nothing but lying.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        “We can describe it, and have done, over and over. Your refusal to understand the explanation is nothing but lying.”

        The usual nonsense. Your present excuse is that you have already done it over and over, so you spend more time refusing to provide a description than it would take to be helpful, and provide one!

        That makes you unhelpful, as well as ignorant.

        You even babble about an “explanation”, but refuse to describe the object of this missing “explanation”.

        Not very convincing, are you?

        I don’t blame you for refusing to describe the GHE – you’d probably claim it was responsible for the Earth cooling. That would be bizarre, wouldn’t it? How about the surface cooling at night? Due to the GHE? Even sillier!

        You might as well keep refusing to describe the mythical GHE – just claim someone else has – thousands of times!

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        > The usual nonsense.

        Nobody cares about what you refuse to understand, Mike Flynn.

        Long live and prosper.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  17. Bindidon says:

    For some, satellites get a tilt if and only if they show warm things; otherwise, everything is perfect.

  18. MFA says:

    Almost everyone here is functionally a ChatBot; spewing out regurgitated drivel for clicks, with little to no comprehension of what is coming our way and no sense of shame for any culpability in producing the problem the data describes.

    • Bindidon says:

      Instead of a trivial critique, what about YOU showing us what you missed and expect?

      • Mfa says:

        I am in the cultured valley on The Dunning Krueger curve; smart enough to understand a thing well enough to be aware of how much more there is for me to learn before asserting something contrary to published consensus. Many folks here are at the peak of ignorance, certain they understand a thing fully when they understand the margins at most, and that unevenly. But oddly they have yet to publish anything in an appropriate venue.

        So I dont fake the science I havent mastered. But I understand the process of science well enough to discern what is testable & predictive, and hey folks, temperatures rising!

        Also:

        I remember arguing with Creationists back in the day; Usenet, talk.origins stuff. This reads exactly the same. Reason finds no purchase here. Not worth the time & effort.

        Decline.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        A self-declared smart person … precisely a D-K trait.

        You might be on the right side of the climate debate, but I suspect you lean more towards the McPherson/Beckwith nonsense.

      • The parallel with creationists occurs to me a lot, too. On some fora the creationists and the AW deniers are the same people.

      • George Monbiot actually suggested referring to our denialist brethren as “climate creationists”. One of the better coinings, I thought.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You wrote –

        “George Monbiot actually suggested referring to our denialist brethren as “climate creationists”. One of the better coinings, I thought.”

        You and your ilk are definitely denialists.

        You deny that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.

        You deny that each night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s remnant heat.

        You deny that when all of the Earth’s available water was in the atmosphere, before the first liquid water formed, that the Earth continued to cool.

        You deny that your denialist brethren refuse to describe the GHE.

        Fell free to correct me if I am wrong.

        [what a strange reality denying nutter he is]

      • Willard says:

        > Fell free to correct me

        Nobody cares to correct you, Mike Flynn, for you’re a crank who’s always wrong.

      • Swenson says:

        Fell free to correct me

        Nobody cares to correct you, Mike Flynn, for youre a crank whos always wrong.

      • You deny that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.

        There you go, lying again.

        You deny that your denialist brethren refuse to describe the GHE.

        And again.

    • PhilJ says:

      Shame on you for trying to shame people who have no culpability for the non existent problem you are trying to get them to fear

    • TheFinalNail says:

      “Many folks here are at the peak of ignorance, certain they understand a thing fully when they understand the margins at most, and that unevenly.”

      Very well put. I am in that category myself.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Can’t you find a blog that features conspiracy theories? If you really know what’s coming perhaps you should check into a clinic for assessment.

  19. Bindidon says:

    UAH 6.0 LT, May months: top ten of a downsort of the absolute data reconstructed out the 2.5 degree grid anomalies and the 1991-2020 climatology they were constructed out:

    2024 5: 265.35 (K)
    1998 5: 264.97
    2020 5: 264.87
    2016 5: 264.86
    2023 5: 264.82
    2017 5: 264.77
    2010 5: 264.74
    2019 5: 264.65
    2022 5: 264.62
    2015 5: 264.59

    Source

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/

  20. Bindidon says:

    Grrrand Coooling Aheaddd

    2024, Jun 2

    Huge ice projectiles fell from the sky in the US state of Texas. A new hailstone record for the state was set northwest of the community of Vigo Park. The diameter of the hailstone was 18.4 centimeters.

    The previous record was 16.3 centimeters and dates from Hondo in 2021.

    Just kidding a bit :–)

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Not so funny if you get caught in such a hailstorm. In Edmonton one summer there were hail stones the size of softballs (3.5″ dia.) falling and dented cars, broke windshields, and dented aluminum awnings on homes. I’d hate to think what one of those would do to your head.

    • I saw a news report that claimed there were 40cm just recently in China, I forget where exactly. Get hit on the head by one of those and it would drive you into the road up to your armpits.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Elliott, please stop trolling.

  21. bdgwx says:

    Here is the Monckton Pause update for May. At its peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is now +0.34 C/decade. As Ive 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.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      The fall from +1.05C in April to +.90C in May might tempt The Monck back into speculating about another ‘pause’.

      You know how it works.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Why do we even deign to discuss his nonsense?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      As Arnold stated as the Terminator, ‘Ah’ll be back”. What comes around, goes around. Anyone who thinks this spike is here to stay is somewhat naive.

      We live a short life span compared to the overall extent of it all. At best, most humans live about a century. I’d like to talk with someone who experienced the heat waves and dust storms of the 1930s to see how they compare that to this decade.

      It’s amazing how many wannabees try to compare current temperatures to the past and presume they are cause by a trace gas.

  22. Tim S says:

    Does the warm Atlantic Ocean have something to do with this? Would the predicted strong hurricane season have some effect on cooling the ocean and the planet?

    • Clint R says:

      Hurricanes DEFINITELY cool the ocean. In season, you can track a hurricane by warm water in front of it and cool water behind it.

      Think of a hurricane as a large vacuum sucking energy off the ocean surface.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Funny how a few years ago you and your buddies were using the plethora of hurricanes at the time as an excuse for the WARM surface temperatures.

      • Clint R says:

        Where did I ever do that, Ant?

        The reason you have to use false accusations is because you’ve got NOTHING.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        How convenient that Mr Spencer has made all old comments invisible in order to prevent us digging up your nonsense.

      • Clint R says:

        But, that’s very convenient for you. Now you can make any false accusation you want, and hide behind the fact that the comments have been erased.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Cooling suggest a loss of heat. Have you changed you mind and now regard heat as energy?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Except Mr Spencer would not do something designed to benefit me.

    • Ken says:

      Hodges and Elsner think its sunspot activity that influences hurricanes. No sunspots mean upper atmosphere is cooler. The difference between upper atmosphere and ocean surface temperatures determines hurricane frequency and intensity.

      https://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/temp/PDF/Research/HodgesJaggerElsner2014.pdf

  23. TheFinalNail says:

    “Would the predicted strong hurricane season have some effect on cooling the ocean and the planet?”

    Very good question.

    I would suspect that energy released by the oceans in the form of storm activity would lead to a reduction in the heat content of the oceans.

    Nature’s way of ‘venting off steam’.

    I stand to be corrected.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      better be careful of our resident science expert, Clint, will be after you for suggesting there is heat in the ocean. In the text books he reads, heat is not energy but only a transport mechanism for ‘energy’. He refuses to answer when asked what energy is being transported, an energy which is obviously heat, According to Clint heat is not energy but a transport of heat.

      Anyway, the amount of heat hurricanes remove from the ocean are a spit in the ocean so to speak. Any heat removed will be replaced next day by solar energy.

      • Clint R says:

        Where did I ever state any of that, gordon?

        The reason you have to use false accusations is because you’ve got NOTHING.

  24. Nick says:

    Wow this “China hoax” thing just won’t go away. 🙄

  25. gbaikie says:

    SpaceX lands FAA license for next Starship megarocket launch on June 6
    https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-4-faa-launch-license
    “SpaceX and the FAA have even outlined 3 ways Starship’s Flight 4 could fail and skip an anomaly investigation.”
    Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/

  26. Mike Roberts says:

    How do you calculate the linear trend? I wouldn’t expect a single month, or even several months, to have much impact on a trend over 45 years (your reported decadal trend has only increased by 0.02C since February last year). But isn’t a more recent trend (say, over the last 30 years) more important?

    • Bindidon says:

      ” But isnt a more recent trend (say, over the last 30 years) more important? ”

      Good question.

      Here is a chart showing for UAH 6.0 LT the running monthly 30-year trend i.e. the sequence of 30-year trends in °C / decade, calculated month after month, starting with the period [Dec 1978 – Dec 2008: 0.127] and ending with the period [May 1994 – May 2024: 0.157]:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/18PS1NJ91PsbqbKGbq4RI-deOVNzkwrxL/view

      This running trend has itself a trend, denoting the acceleration within LT’s time series, which is currently

      0.016 +- 0.001 °C / decade².

  27. Gordon Robertson says:

    Elliot Bignell…”Its mostly been dreadful here in Switzerland this year. The upper Rhine is almost bursting its banks in the areas where it is on open land. We had fresh snow above 2,000m a couple of days ago, although its gone again now, where I am. Theres a real sense of disconnect”.

    ***

    A couple of year ago here in the Vancouver, Canada area, we had an abnormal heat wave that consisted of a heat dome extending 500 miles north to south parking itself over us. That was followed by abnormal flooding a few months later. The doomsters began claiming the sky was falling and that we needed to cut fossil fuels immediately.

    Last year we had unprecedented warming in May that gave way to a normal summer. This year…nada. Back to a normal early June of cloud interspersed with rain and sunshine. No comments from the alarmist peanut gallery re gloom and doom. Gas prices dropped recently.

    The heat dome was explained by the alarmists at NOAA as a La Nina effect. Same with the flooding. The warming last May was likely due to Hunga Tonga.

    Move along folks. Nothing unusual to see here.

  28. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Forecasts show temperatures could reach 108F (42.2C) across a width swath of California, from Sacramento to Bakersfield.

    The National Weather Service (NWS) issued an excessive heat warning for the state’s Central Valley region on Tuesday.

    Sacramento is expected to see its first triple digit high temperature of the year on Tuesday. Last year, California’s capital city didn’t get that hot until the end of June.

    On Wednesday that warning will expand further east from Las Vegas to the Lake Havasu City, Arizona, region.

    The NWS also issued heat warnings to southern Texas. Some areas of south Texas saw temperatures reach 117F (47.2C) Tuesday.

    Thursday is expected to be the worst day this week for excessive heat.

    Forecasters expect temperatures to be 10 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit above normal.

    Phoenix, Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Fresno could see previous records for high temperatures squashed.

    Residents facing the heat wave have been advised to drink extra fluids, stay inside in air-conditioned rooms out of the sun and wearing loose-fitting clothing.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqlle2v2dpxo

    Bakerfield is still far away from Vancouver, so the world is safe.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Nothing new in California. Ask gbaikie, who lives there.

      • gbaikie says:

        It’s warm. It’s summer. I live in the hottest region on Earth.
        It’s not currently getting down to 15 C. My dwarf lemon tree is currently safe and happy. My experimental mango tree doesn’t look like it’s going to survive. It was a silly idea to try to grow one- but I probably try it, again.
        But it’s tropical island paradise type warm, it’s a desert. We are living in an Ice Age, cold ocean and dry world- unless you living in the tropical ocean.
        But if you don’t want cold air or warm air, Mars has no air temperature as it is close to a complete vacuum which is not cold or warm. Living under water on Mars [which does have pressure and temperature] and one could live in tropical heat on Mars.

      • Willard says:

        > Ask gbaikie

        I’d rather not, for my own sanity.

        Californians see previous records for high temperatures squashed every year.

      • Swenson says:

        Weird Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “> Ask gbaikie

        Id rather not, for my own sanity.”

        Ooooooooh! Sounds like you are a bit delicate, sanity wise. Are you still worried about “mind probes”?

        I’d be more worried that people might laugh if I used your description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”. People might assume that you were both ignorant and stu‌pid.

        Keep worrying.

      • Willard says:

        > Sounds like

        Nobody cares about what anything sounds to you, Mike Flynn.

        Go easy on the beer.

      • Swenson says:

        > Sounds like

        Nobody cares about what anything sounds to you, Mike Flynn.

        Go easy on the beer.

      • Californians see previous records for high temperatures squashed every year.

        If anything, Europeans even more so. I understand that we are warming at four times the global rate. It’s very noticeable here in the Alps, where the glaciers are rapidly retreating and bits of mountain keep falling off and hitting villages and roads. Wildfires are also turning up where they shouldn’t, historically, be seen. British waters now have anchovies and yellowfin tuna.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Elliott, please stop trolling.

  29. Gordon Robertson says:

    Out of curiosity I began reading Dessler’s book on climate change. The first problem I have noted is in his definition of science, particularly the scientific method.

    Dessler claims…after describing the scientific method as creating a hypothesis, stating the method, making observations and forming conclusions…

    “In reality, this is only the first step of the true scientific process. Before the conclusion of this experiment can be considered true, it must first be judged valid by the rest of the scientific community. This begins with the experimenter writing up a detailed description of exactly how the experiment was performed, the data that was collected, and the calculations or other methods of analysis that were done, all in enough detail that someone knowledgeable in the field could reproduce the work.

    The resulting manuscript is then submitted for publication in a scientific journal. The first formal control that the scientific community exercises on the quality of scientific work comes at this point. Scientific journals will not publish the paper until it has been critically reviewed by other experts in the field. In this process, known as peer review, the reviewers job is to look for errors or weaknesses in the analysis that might cast doubt on the conclusions. The identity of the reviewers is typically not revealed to the author, so that the reviewers can give their unvarnished opinion of the work without fear of later retribution.

    If the reviewers do not identify any problems in the paper, then it gets published in the peer-reviewed literature”.

    ***

    According to Dessler, a scientist, or any person, cannot do an experiment and publish the results before getting approval from the scientific community. Does that mean each and every person in the scientific community is consulted?

    Nope.

    If the experimenter follows the rules he can then proceed to ‘other controls’ such as peer review. This means the paper will not be published in a journal where real peer review can take place, a review by the experimenter’s peers. After all, that’s what peer review means, doesn’t it?

    Well, er…em…no. The journal editor submits the paper to one reviewer who has the power to accept or deny the paper. So, science comes down to the opinion of one person, not the peers per se,

    I recall Roy complaining that he had a paper rejected by a reviewer. Roy claimed the guy did not seem to understand what he was saying. It’s more likely that the reviewer was an alarmist like Dessler and simply did not want the paper to be published.

    True peer review would automatically publish a paper from a degreed professional like Roy. Why would anyone not want his paper published? I recall another paper co-authored by John Christy, which was accepted for publication by a journal editor, and how the editor was forced to resign over pressure from other scientists like Kevin Trenberth who did not think the paper should have been published.

    The implications of that are enormous. No scientist is allowed to publish a paper unless it agrees with the views of other scientists, even after the paper has been reviewed.

    Furthermore, according to Dessler, the sole reviewer can reject the paper simply because he doubts the veracity of the conclusions. Excuse my ignorance, I thought such a process required a separate experiment to prove the conclusions wrong.

    When Australian researcher, Barry Marshall submitted a paper claiming that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria, h. pylori, that can survive in the human stomach. The editor rejected the paper before peer review simply because he thought the idea was wrong. In fact, he claimed Marshall’s paper was one of the worst he’d ever read.

    Of course, Marshall’s theory was eventually accepted and he won a Nobel for it. That is a perfect example of what is wrong with Dessler’s idea about science, which is essentially biased and fixed.

    Once journal, The Journal of Climate, had Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, acting as editors. Can you imagine the chances of any skeptic getting published? As far as I know, Dessler is friends with both.

    • Entropic man says:

      The test of a scientific paper is coherence, consistence and consilience.

      Coherence is internal logic. If a paper contradicts itself or has other logical errors it will be rejected.

      Consistence is agreement with other results within the field. If a paper says that electrons have a positive charge while everyone else finds that electrons have a negative charge, the paper is not consistent and will be rejected.

      Consilience is agreement with the underlying physics. This a paper presenting results which violate 2LOT will not be consilient and will be rejected.

      Very occasionally a paradigm shifting paper such as Marshall’s H.pylori paper comes along, but they are genuinely rare.

      In the field of climate there is now a considerable body of evidence. It is difficult for a sceptic to write anything coherent, consistent and consilient which contradicts that evidence; hence the difficulty getting sceptic papers published.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Good theory Ent but we know that’s not how it works. Peer review today is corrupt. It is used as a means of rejecting papers which disagree with a meme.

        Do you think Roy’s paper was rejected due to things you mentioned? No. It was rejected because alarmists like Trenberth did not agree with it.

      • The problem is that any sap can convince himself that his own work exhibits coherence, consistence and consilience. The number of deluded cranks out here on the web exceeds the number of trained technical specialists by at least an order of magnitude. Even a trained technical specialist can become senile or corrupt. Worse, even honest technical experts producing large numbers of studies will occasionally produce spurious results by chance alone.

        The only reliable defence against these forces is the social nature of science. Following Popper, there is no “Robinson Crusoe” science. The state of scientific knowledge is the state of the entire community of scientists in a field. A single scientist will occasionally propose a theory which is not immediately adopted by the entire community, but the ONLY legitimate way to distinguish him from a crank or a bad actor is that his results start to be replicated and accepted by the community. Bad actors get found out because their theories cannot produce replicable results.

        What marks out anthropogenic warming as legitimate science is that it has persisted for 150 years and come to dominate the entire field as a consensus. Examine the “sceptic” positions and they are all over the place, yielding no replicable work at all.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        To me, a “scientific paper” is worthless unless it contains reproducible experiment.

        From Nature –

        “More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 a new record”.

        All initially passed peer review, editorial scrutiny, and so on. Most retractions are opposed by their authors, and those mentioned represent only those that are so egregiously wrong that even prestigious editors of scientific journals are reluctantly forced to admit they have accepted good money to publish rubbish!

        Many papers are just speculation, without experimental support of any sort. As Richard 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.”

        Every “climate scientist” refuses to even describe the GHE. It’s obviously impossible to form a hypothesis relating to an effect that everybody refuses to describe!

        Strange but true.

      • More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 a new record.

        Quite right, too. That is the system working as it should. Peer review is the MINIMUM standard a piece of research must pass to enter the literature, the point at which it STARTS to come under critical attack. Withdrawal of a paper is a routine measure when certain further standards are found not to have been met. Research enters the canon and becomes a basis for consensus when it has stood up to a barrage of attacks and has given birth to a family of replications.

      • – To me, a scientific paper is worthless unless it contains reproducible experiment. –

        So you would reject as worthless a paper by Bjrn Lomborg containing critical discussion of the statistical methods used in a paper on AW? You would reject as “worthless” a meta-study summarising the findings of a whole class of study?

        I find this confusing. Please illustrate what you mean with reference to Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Darwin and Wallace’s joint paper postulating evolution by natural selection, or the obervational determination of radiative forcing by CO2: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, Elliott, and gordon all make the same mistake regarding science. They confuse “science” with “debate”. REAL science is about REALITY. “Debate” is too often about finding ways to pervert reality.

        Ent sounds very astute when he mentions “coherence, consistence and consilience”, but he has claimed passenger jets fly backward, in an effort to support his cult beliefs.

        Elliott, where is your “coherence, consistence and consilience”, and VIABLE, description of the GHE?

      • Nice to see that you dodged answering regarding Lomborg’s experiment-free offerings.

        How long a description would you like? How about Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

        The greenhouse effect is the mechanism by which the Earth’s surface temperature is maintained at 32K higher than that of the moon. It is caused by “greenhouse gases”, which are gases in the atmosphere which absorb and emit infra-red radiation. Radiation from the Sun is admitted to the Earth’s surface in the form of, for instance, visible light and warms the surface and atmosphere. This warming causes the surface and gases to re-emit radiation. Some of this radiation takes the form of infra-red light at frequencies which greenhouse gases absorb. These gases again re-emit the heat as infra-red light with no preference for direction, so some of the radiation returns to the Earth and lower levels of the atmosphere. By this means, the re-emission of heat to space in the form of infra-red light is hindered and the Earth rendered warmer.

        Experimental evidence for this effect can be and is adduced in schools using lamps and containers of gases. Further evidence is legion, and includes the direct experimental measurement of back-radiation and the cooling of the stratosphere as a consequence of increases in greenhouse gases.

        Very simple once you stop TRYING to not understand it.

      • Consensus and replication are the means by which reality overrules debate.

      • – Elliott, where is your coherence, consistence and consilience –

        Let us just consider two lines of evidence, as these suffice to illustrate the principles. The actual evidence for the GHG and AW consists of dozens of different lines of evidence, all of which tend consistently in the same direction. This, incidentally, is inseparable from the meaning of consensus in science, because different lines of evidence supporting the same theory require different teams and sets of replications. They literally require the entire community to study different lines of evidence which are forced by reality to reflect the same truth.

        The two lines of evidence to which I refer are stratospheric cooling and the measurement of back-radiation. These are COHERENT, in that they both show the same reality: That greenhouse gases hinder radiation in moving upwards through the atmosphere. They are CONSISTENT, in that they reflect the same underlying theory and lead to no contradiction or inconsistency. They are CONSILIENT, in that they represent two different lines of evidence supporting the same picture of reality.

        I recommend E.O. Wilson’s book of that name, by the way.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Elliott, but that’s pretty much what the GHE cult says, with the exception they use an imaginary sphere instead of Moon.

        The essence of your statement is:

        By this means, the re-emission of heat to space in the form of infrared light is hindered and the Earth rendered warmer.

        Do you realize that is a belief? It is NOT science. Your cult confuses “heat” with “infrared”. And, “hindering” infrared is NOT “heat”.

        Your cult needs to show how CO2’s 15μ photon can raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface.

        Hint: That doesn’t happen.

      • Not just a river in Egypt…

      • Clint R says:

        Elliott, you folded a lot faster than most cultists.

        It’s “science” that overrides debate. Consensus by itself means NOTHING.

        Ice cubes can NOT boil water, and passenger jets do NOT fly backward.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, here’s a description of the greenhouse effect:

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        Silly sock puppets!

      • Swenson says:

        Wayward Wee Willy wrote –

        “Hey Puffman, heres a description of the greenhouse effect:”

        and provided a link which doesn’t provide a description of the GHE at all!

        That’s because Willard is a del‌usional GHE cultist – both ignorant and gullible.

        He has described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”!

        How dim‌witted is that?

      • Willard says:

        > provided a link which doesnt provide a description of the [greenhouse effect]

        Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.

        Another coffee?

      • Swenson says:

        > provided a link which doesnt provide a description of the [greenhouse effect]

        Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.

        Another coffee?

      • Elliott, you folded a lot faster than most cultists.

        Your posts are content-free, except where you are lying. I am only prepared to expend the effort to describe the GHE once, or perhaps once every few months. After that, it is only necessary to point out that you are lying. This site does not offer the facility to block imbeciles, otherwise you can rest assured that I would expend no energy on you at all.

        You are just noise.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        “I am only prepared to expend the effort to describe the GHE once, or perhaps once every few months.”

        No, you’re not. You refuse to describe it at any time – you are, on the other hand, prepared to continually lie about being able to describe the GHE.

        Go on, run whining to Dr Spencer!

        Idio‌t.

      • Nate says:

        “Elliott, you folded a lot faster than most cultists.”

        No he didnt. Bot at all.

        But Clint did. When, as usual, he makes claims, tells people they are wrong, throws ad-homs grenades, but offers NO science rebuttal, no evidence, no links to evidence, nothing at all.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “show how CO2s 15μ photon can raise the temperature of Earths 288K surface.”

        Its pretty simple. Some photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up. Some more photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up more.

        Whatever the wavelength or source, more photons absorbed than before = more energy absorbed than before = higher temperature than before.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        You wrote –

        “Its pretty simple. Some photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up. Some more photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up more.”

        Photons are not absorbed unless they possess sufficient energy.

        That’s why you cannot warm a teaspoon of water with a gazillion joules of energy emitted by ice. You are obviously confused – or maybe just stu‌pid.

        Maybe if you could ask yourself why it is that you refuse to describe the GHE, you might be able to figure out why you believe in the impossible, ie., forcing a hotter object to become even hotter by absorbing the radiation from a colder object.

        The contents of your obviously fertile imagination are not reality.

        The Earth has cooled, not become hotter. You are free to refuse to accept reality, but don’t be surprised if some consider that a mark of insanity.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Photons are not absorbed unless they possess sufficient energy.”
        There are certain quantum mechanical limits on what energies of photons can be absorbed by various materials. But both water an ice can and do absorb over a wide range of infrared.

        “Thats why you cannot warm a teaspoon of water with a gazillion joules of energy emitted by ice.”
        No this is a completely different issue, dealing with the intensities of the photons emitted.

        Photons from ice can and will be absorbed by water.
        Photons from water can and will be absorbed by ice.

        But the photons from ice are less intense, meaning the net transfer of energy is always from warmer surfaces (eg water) to cooler surface (eg ice).

    • Sig says:

      Regarding your comments on paper rejections: I have attempted to post a simple figure on this site a few times to get feedback, but it has been rejected each time. Is this site subject to cen sor ship? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18_AlgGr7tCmcIAz9OnV1jy4-JysUp8_UXZDkk3rK7U4/edit?usp=sharing

  30. Tim Wells says:

    Coldest May I have ever known in the Uk and they claim the warmest.

    • Then it was almost certainly the warmest. Trust your subjective impressions over properly-calibrated instruments and you’ll get it wrong every time.

      Here in Switzerland, for instance, the glaciers are almost all retreating. The fact that it “feels cold” does not add more ice.

    • Bindidon says:

      Tim Wells

      It seems that you don’t understand the sometimes huge difference between those temperatures measured in weather stations and those you either measure on your terrace or simply subjectively feel.

      *
      In Germoney we had on average the fifth warmest May since 1881, according to the German Weather Service.

      But we didn’t feel nor could we measure anything of that nice warmth because we experience in Northeast year after year more and more wind compared with say 20 years ago.

      And unlike the weather station thermometers which are protected against solar, precipitation and wind influence, ours told us in May temperatures sometimes 1-3 C below what we saw on weather service pages for our local corner.

  31. This site still has an infuriating habit of swallowing posts and leaving no trace of them.

    • Seems to have blocked the word “****”, meaning “clown”. This is a test.

    • Bindidon says:

      Yes indeed.

      Please avoid any posts containing (in concatenated form) ‘d c’ or ‘rp t’, as well as ‘Cot ton’ or ‘Do ug’.

      Absorp tion written in one word lets your post disappear without notification.

      The same is valid when posting comments with links containing such sequences like (blank inserted for posting now)

      http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncd c_lt_6.0.txt

      I put such ‘forbidden’ links into tinyURL, obtaining e.g.

      https://tinyurl.com/mr3f7evs

      and post the result instead.

      *
      Such character sequences are reminders of a time where the blog tried to get rid of an impetuous, opinionated poster endlessly trying, if I well remember, to teach Roy Spencer about the true origin of the ‘greenhouse’ effect.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      elliott…I am so used to it now that I seldom get caught with it. If you do, post one paragraph, then progressively narrow it down sentence by sentence, then word by word, till the offending word is found.

      Some hints…

      absorp-tion
      d-c
      stoopid
      i-d-i0t
      trohl…which blocks controhling or controhler
      fuhl replace uh with oo

      Roy got fed up with our bickering and name calling and I don’t blame him.

      Mind you, there are other issues which don’t make a lot of sense. WordPress may be the culprit. There are days when nothing I post will work. On those days I’ve had success using the free Tor browser.

      • That’s basically how I tracked it down. I need to establish the habit of copying my text to the clipboard before posting, then it becomes a fairly trivial problem.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Elliott, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        > I need to establish the habit of copying my text to the clipboard before posting

        A good habit in general.

        Sometimes one can get the comment back by clicking the “back” button from their browser.

  32. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Just checking Clint … you are saying that you never claimed that the high UAH anomalies of late 2017 were caused by hurricanes … is that correct?

    • Clint R says:

      Ant, have you found yet another way to falsely accuse me?

      I’m not even sure I was commenting back then, but maybe you found something on another blog you believe you can take out of context?

      Who know what devious tricks you have up your sleeve, since you have NO science.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Did you ever claim that high UAH anomalies were caused by hurricanes? Yes or no?

        It is not a difficult question, and you are free to pick whichever of those two options you wish.

        I don’t read other blogs. And you were definitely commenting back then, g**e**r**a**n.

      • Clint R says:

        Okay, I see your devious trick. I’d be happy to address your hero’s comment, just link to it.

        It’s fun to debunk futile efforts to misrepresent me.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, silly sock puppet, you definitely were huffing and puffing at Roy’s in 2017.

        Under another sock puppet.

        You don’t recall which one?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Again, you are avoiding the question. Forget the past – just answer as you see it NOW.

        Do hurricanes effect the UAH anomaly? If so, in which direction?

      • Clint R says:

        Ant, hurricanes provide a heat-transfer mechanism from ocean to atmosphere. So UAH global could be affected in certain conditions, but the thermal energy eventually gets radiated to space.

        The net result is cooling of the ocean area involved.

      • Swenson says:

        “Hey Puffman, silly sock puppet, you definitely were huffing and puffing at Roys in 2017.

        Under another sock puppet.

        You dont recall which one?”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        What are those conditions?

        What direction is “affect”?

        And will the surface record and the satellite record be affected equally and in the same direction?

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “What are those conditions?

        What direction is “affect”?

        And will the surface record and the satellite record be affected equally and in the same direction?”

        Well, that’s certainly obscure enough, isn’t it? Why are you asking, anyway? Trying to make someone look stu‌pid?

        That will divert attention away from your refusal to describe the mythical GHE, I suppose.

        Here’s a question for you – describe the role of the GHE in surface cooling each night. How hard can it be for an intelligent chap like yourself?

        [laughing at inept and ignorant tr‌oll]

      • Clint R says:

        Ant, Swenson has already shown the folly of your effort, but since you can’t understand any of the science, here are the answers:

        * Depends on pressure and temperature, aka “thermodynamics”

        * “Up” is warming, “Down” is cooling. (Get an adult to explain a thermometer to you.)

        * Not likely. Too much time lag.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Your first two statements say nothing, as expected, especially given that you basically said “temperature depends on temperature”.

        But your final statement is all I needed – an admission that satellite anomalies are a poor indicator of surface anomalies.

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        You wrote –

        “But your final statement is all I needed an admission that satellite anomalies are a poor indicator of surface anomalies.”

        It’s good to know you now have all you need, although why you accept the authority of an anonymous blogger about a meaningless matter is a mystery to me.

        Now you have all you need, what do you intend to do with it?

        Are you going to stop commenting, and sit about admiring what you have obtained?

        Temperature measurements of any sort are a bit useless, aren’t they? The change nothing, and don’t predict the future. What use are they? In my area, even the weather reporters don’t like thermometer temperatures, and gloss over them, choosing to use “feels like” figures!

        Why bother with thermometers? Sometimes it feels hot, sometimes it feels cold, sometimes it feels just right. I don t need a thermometer to tell me how I feel. Do you?

      • Willard says:

        > It’s good to know

        Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.

        Creams and sugars?

      • Swenson says:

        > Its good to know

        Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.

        Creams and sugars?

  33. Bindidon says:

    Antonin Qwerty on June 4, 2024 at 8:43 PM

    ” How convenient that Mr Spencer has made all old comments invisible in order to prevent us digging up your nonsense. ”

    This was certainly not intentional.

    I discovered this too as I was looking for the starting post of a long stalking series in 2021. Nada!

    *
    But luckily, an incredible amount of web pages were/are crawled by various robots and stored in the Web Archive (aka Wayback Machine); and so were probably many many Spencer blog’s pages.

    Often, the crawling activity is transitive, so you can access a page and move within Wayback to saved subpages.

    The drawback is of course that you can’t directly search there for items; you therefore need an approximating idea of which page(s) might contain what you are looking for, e.g. sometime in 2019.

    Enter the 2019 URL

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019

    into the Wayback corner

    https://web.archive.org/

    select a crawling day and time, and explore therein thread by thread until you find the place you were looking for, e.g.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20200108205813/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/2019-the-third-least-chilly-in-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comments

    C’est ennuyeux, mais… vraiment mieux que rien!

  34. Earth’s “recent” global warming is a millenials long slow orbitally forced process.
    It happens so, Earth on its orbitally forced process, the global warming is in its culmination “moments”.

    Please compare with the yearly seasonal periods of the colder and warmer phases. The highest solar insolation occurs at June 22, but the warmest phase is in mid-July.

    Our planet Earth, in its orbitally forced warming is, by analog around the July 7.
    Thus, it is going to become warmer during the millenial and half to come, and only then the orbital path will change into the global cooling trend.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Entropic man says:

      “Earths recent global warming is a millenials long slow orbitally forced process.”

      That turns out not to be the case.

      http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg

      The cooling trend due to slipping away from the Holocene “sweet spot” started 5000 years ago.

      Without our artificial warming the natural trend would be continued cooling. Instead we are now warmer than at any time in this interglacial.

      • Thank you, Ent, for your response.

        ” Instead we are now warmer than at any time in this interglacial.”

        We are warmer, than at any time in this interglacial.
        Yes, because we are in the middle of this interglacial.

        When in the middle of glacial – it is the most cold.
        When in the middle of interglacial – it is the most warm.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Bindidon says:

        Entropic man

        As we can see, Vournas always dissimulates what he doesn’t want to be seen:

        ” The cooling trend due to slipping away from the Holocene sweet spot started 5000 years ago.

        Without our artificial warming the natural trend would be continued cooling.

      • Entropic man says:

        Christos

        The graph shows the natural Holocene peak, the Holocene Optimum, between 10,000 and 5000 years ago. Even before the Industrial Revolution we were well into the natural end-of-interglacial cooling trend.

      • Thank you, Bindidon, for your response.

        ” The cooling trend due to slipping away from the Holocene “sweet spot” started 5000 years ago.”

        What “sweet spot” 5000 years ago?

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Thank you, Ent.

        “Even before the Industrial Revolution we were well into the natural end-of-interglacial cooling trend.”

        LIA was an episode of the land glaciers growing, not the global temperature cooling.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Entropic man says:

        Christos

        Look again at the graph. Starting 22,000 years ago temperatures began to rise.

        They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago. That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.

        Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.

        Since 1880 artificial warming has raised the temperature by 1.1C to 14.9C.

        All these values have confidence limits of +/- 0.1C and are real values. Why they changed is a valid topic of debate, but denying them is not a reasonable option.

      • Thank you, Ent, for your response.

        “Starting 22,000 years ago temperatures began to rise.

        They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago. That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.

        Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.

        Since 1880 artificial warming has raised the temperature by 1.1C to 14.9C.”


        “They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago. That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.”
        It is not possible, it is not possible to remain at the same temperature (around 14.3C) for a so long period (5000 years).

        “Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.”
        Why temperature began to cool?

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Entropic man says:

        Whether or not it’s impossible, that’s what the data shows;stable 14.3C, plus or minus the confidence limits.

        Mind you, the proxies used are not sensitive enough to detect year on year variations. They are more like decadal averages.

      • Thank you, Ent.

        What I can is to reconstract a trend for some period of time.
        It is a warming trend for the last ~ 11000 years.
        First it was aslower warming, then as it proceeded, the rate of warming accelerated.
        What we witness now are the culmination times of the warming trend.

        In about a millenial and half it will start gradually cooling.

        Now, how it is possible to reconstract the global temperatures for tens thousands years back – I think it is impossible.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • gbaikie says:

        “What sweet spot 5000 years ago?”

        That was point in time, Sahara desert was starting to become more of desert.
        Quite a bit earlier it was a lot wetter:
        ” The African Humid Period occurred between 14,800 and 5,500 years ago, and was the last occurrence of a “green Sahara”. Conditions in the Sahara during the African Humid Period were dominated by a strong North African Monsoon, resulting in larger annual rainfall totals compared to today’s conditions.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_climate_cycles

        It wasn’t too long ago, around 100 years ago, some were blaming human activity with their goats, could have been the cause. But more recent [say last 50 years] it was determine is happens every time after peak warm period of the interglacials.
        Our peak was not much of a peak – sea level were only 1 to 2 meters higher than present sea levels.
        Past peak warming was +4 meters higher than present sea levels.
        Perhaps it was because the recent Glacial Max was the coldest time that Earth has ever known to be. Certainly the coldest time within the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and had lowest level of global CO2 levels- ever known.

    • EM is quite right. Orbital forcing would currently have us in a COOLING period.

      Strange, but I thought the scatter of papers back in the 1970s predicting a new Ice Age were an article of faith among our denialist brethren.

  35. E. Swanson says:

    Just in time, there’s a new report from 57 climate researchers regarding the recent warming.

    HERE’s a news story from the AP.

    And, HERE’s a link to the report.

    The AP story comments, among other things:

    The report said the reduction of sulfur pollution from shipping which had been providing some cooling to the atmosphere was overwhelmed last year by carbon particles put in the air from Canadian wildfires.

    The report also said an undersea volcano that injected massive amounts of heat-trapping water vapor into the atmosphere also spewed cooling particles with both forces pretty much canceling each other out.

    There it is, folks, enjoy!!

    • bdgwx says:

      Hot off the press and relevant here is Yaun et al. 2024: Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3

    • Clint R says:

      I always like the anti-science from the cult: “…heat-trapping water vapor…”

      There’s probably no better example of the cult’s ignorance of radiative physics and thermodynamics.

      • That’s rather a rude way to talk about Dr. Roy, don’t you think? You are, I presume, aware that he understands and endorses the greenhouse effect.

      • I may put another heat-trapping quilt on my bed tonight, given the unseasonable chill. I suppose you think the people who make them are “anti-science”, too.

      • Bindidon says:

        Elliott Bignell

        Like Robertson, DREMT and a few other ignorant and arrogant posters, Clint R is a 360 degree denier who always discredits, denigrates and insults others who post info about things like the GHE, the lunar spin, Einstein’s results etc etc.

      • Clint R says:

        Elliot, I’m NOT disrespecting Spencer. He has admitted physics is not his area of expertise. I respect him for that. He has decided to debunk the GHE alarmism based on his knowledge of climate. He’s fighting nonsense with the weapons in his arsenal. That’s science.

        I choose nuclear weapons. That’s also science….

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman,

        You and your sock puppets have been banned many times. Roy has stated many times that he does not want Sky Dragon cranks coming here to re-litigate. Unless they come with some kind of numerical model.

        Yet you continued to come back under different sock puppets and try to poison the well.

        Looks like disrespect to me.

      • Clint R says:

        Silly willy stalks me relentlessly. And, as usual, offers no science. I continually predict such childishness, and silly willy continues to prove me right.

        Child Nate will be angry because silly willy gives me so much attention….

      • Willard says:

        Once again Puffman proves me right.

        Our silly sock puppet got NOTHING.

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker.

        “Looks like disrespect to me.”

        And precisely nobody values your opinion, because you have precisely no power or influence.

        That’s the way it should be – in my opinion.

        Your idio‌tic sly appeals to authority don’t seem to be getting you anywhere, but at least they give me the opportunity to have a laugh at your expense.

        Just like your GHE description – “not cooling, slower cooling”! How laughable is that?

        Keep it coming.

      • Swenson says:

        Elliott Bignell,

        You wrote –

        “Thats rather a rude way to talk about Dr. Roy, dont you think? You are, I presume, aware that he understands and endorses the greenhouse effect.”

        You are aware, I presume, that neither Dr Spencer, nor anybody else, has described the GHE. That’s because it’s a myth. You plainly refuse to provide a description, no doubt because you wouldnt like the laughter your description would create!

        You may claim that Dr Spencer understands and endorses the greenhouse effect, but endorsement is meaningless in physical terms, and it is not possible to understand what cannot be described.

        You also wrote, in a fit of madness –

        “I may put another heat-trapping quilt on my bed tonight, given the unseasonable chill. I suppose you think the people who make them are anti-science, too.”

        Stu‌pid, stu‌pid, stu‌pid. What have quilts to do with the GHE which everybody refuses to describe? Why would quilt manufacturers be thought of as being “anti-science”? “Anti-science” is a phrase used by.ignorant and gullible people who do not understand the scientific method. Rather like calling people “climate deniers”. I warrant that you cannot name a single sane person who denies that climate exists!

        You and your ilk refuse to describe the mythical GHE, and complain bitterly that if you do, people will try to find fault.

        Do you really deny that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years? Do you deny that the surface loses all the heat of the day during the night?

        It’s easy to see why everyone refuses to describe the mythical GHE, isn’t it? Fact would have to be rejected in favour of fantasy!

        Carry on.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        I once again found myself defending the existence of the Earth’s “greenhouse effect”. I’m talking about the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, not mankind’s small enhancement of it. And it’s amazing how many scientists, let alone lay people, dispute its existence.

        I’ll admit I used to question it, too. So, many years ago Danny Braswell and I built our own radiative transfer model to demonstrate for ourselves that the underlying physics were sound.

        In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect April 1st, 2009

        Fifteen years ago!

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        Still no description of the greenhouse effect, is there?

        From your link –

        “Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket”

        A greenhouse blanket? Somewhat analogous to a real blanket?

        No wonder everybody refuses to describe the GHE! Nobody can even decide what the mythical GHE is supposed to do! You refuse to say, don’t you?

        You cant blame me for laughing at you!

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Also from “my” link:

        So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be little more than hand waving.

        In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect April 1st, 2009

        Fifteen years ago! Still no alternate models, only denial.

      • Clint R says:

        Ark, I’ve already explained Dr. Spencer’s position, as he’s explained it to us. He calls himself a “Lukewarmer”, while you are an out-of-balance, five-alarm, Alarmist.

        How long are you going to hide behind him, just because you have NO science.

        It makes you look very amateurish….

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        I’ve already explained Dr. Spencer’s position

        How long are you going to hide behind him

        Projection

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        “I consider objections to the existence of the “greenhouse effect” to be little more than hand waving.”

        This is the greenhouse effect which is a greenhouse blanket or some other greenhouse effect?

        Your attempts to bending Dr Spencer to your will don’t seem to be working too well. Why do you refuse to describe the GHE yourself? Dr Spencer certainly hasn’t, nor has anybody else.

        There is no greenhouse effect – it can’t even be described! You are just demonstrating your ignorance and gullibility if you are implying otherwise.

        Carry on your comedy routine – nothing wrong with laughter.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        A DENIAL

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        Ooooooooh! A completely irrelevant and meaningless link!

        How clever is that! Maybe nobody will notice that you are refusing to accept reality!

        Oh well, keep refusing to describe the GHE – nobody can find fault with what you say, if you say nothing, can they?

        Dim‌wit.

      • Willard says:

        > irrelevant

        Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.

        Good morning.

      • Swenson says:

        > irrelevant

        Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.

        Good morning.

      • He has decided to debunk the GHE alarmism based on his knowledge of climate.

        Dr. Roy is notorious among the reality-based community for being a lukewarmer, a position that I do not share but can at least respect. He is more qualified than I, after all, if not necessarily more qualified than some people I know personally. The only point of relevance here is that he accepts and endorses the fact of the greenhouse effect. You are outright denying its existence, and lying about the existence of descriptions of its operation. When you deny the GHE, you insult Dr. Roy, along with the rest of the RBC.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You wrote –

        “The only point of relevance here is that he accepts and endorses the fact of the greenhouse effect. You are outright denying its existence, and lying about the existence of descriptions of its operation. When you deny the GHE, you insult Dr. Roy, along with the rest of the RBC.”

        This would be the greenhouse effect that nobody has described? Are you refusing to provide these “descriptions” which you claim exist? That would be mean-spirited and unhelpful, wouldn’t it?

        Or maybe you are lying, and hoping people will believe that you have something which you are not allowed to show anybody.

        Not even to Dr Spencer, who would welcome a useful description of the GHE, Im sure.

        No, nobody can deny that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist.

        You are just trying to involve Dr Spencer in your fantasy. Good luck.

        (chortling at presumptuous nitwit)

      • Nate says:

        “Elliot, Im NOT disrespecting Spencer. He has admitted physics is not his area of expertise. ”

        Roy has a PhD in Meteorology, and would certainly have a good understanding of heat transfer in the atmosphere, far better than our resident ‘almost a physics minor’, Clint!

      • Clint R says:

        Just to repeat for child Nate and the new kid, Elliot: I’ve already explained Dr. Spence’s position, as he’s explained it to us. He calls himself a “Lukewarmer”. He prefers to debunk the alarmism based on his areas of expertise, climate and weather. Physics is not his area of expertise.

        How long are you going to hide behind him, just because you have NO science.

        It makes you look even more childish than you are….

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        Ceci n’est pas une pipe

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

        A pile of blankets is not the Greenhouse Effect, but an analogy.

        You are very sloppy with your Maypo.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        “A pile of blankets is not the Greenhouse Effect, but an analogy.”

        No, Entropic Man said “The GHE is a pile of blankets”.

        You stilll refuse to describe the GHE, don’t you?

        Good for you – keep it secret.

      • and the new kid, Elliot [sic]

        Actually, I’ve been visiting for more than a decade and I have always used my real name. I’ve certainly encountered your user name in the past. I just don’t participate very often. Most of the postings here are worthless white noise, and I usually have better things to do with my time than sift through them.

        I’ve been visiting so long that I have seen several rounds of deniers predicting the next cooling period then changing their user names when it doesn’t turn up.

      • Nate says:

        “He prefers to debunk the alarmism based on his areas of expertise, climate and weather. Physics is not his area of expertise.”

        Whereas Clint, has no apparent expertise, is just here to tr0ll, and thus his dismissal of the physics of the GHE can be safely ignored.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “You stilll refuse to describe the GHE, dont you?”

        No I don’t.

        I have described it many times specifically for you.

        You seem to have blackouts, perhaps you should stop drinking, and if you continue to have blackouts, go to the emergency room, if that is what they call it in your penal colony.

        I’ll describe it again, but I need some koalas, kookaburras, emus, or kangaroos.

        Preferably the gold ones.

        As the second law states, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

    • bohous says:

      I read the abstract and I am shocked: In the period 2014 to 2023 was 1.19C of which 1.19C was human induced: Is it possible to distinguish human influence on an interval of 9 or 10 years? Is 2023 a suitable ending year?

      • Entropic man says:

        The in certainty in a global annual average temperature is about +/-0.1C. For the trend or the difference between years the uncertainty is about 0.2C.

        1.19C is a big enough change that lets us be very confident that it is real.

        Is it human induced? All the natural factors we know of are either neutral or presently causing cooling. That leaves human influence or something unknown.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        “That leaves human influence or something unknown.”

        Probably human influence – eight billion people produce a lot of waste heat.

        Thermometers respond to heat.

        Seems possible to me. What do you think?

      • Willard says:

        > probably

        Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.

        Coffee?

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “eight billion people produce a lot of waste heat.”

        Give is an order of magnitude estimate of “a lot”.
        How much solar energy is absorbed in a year by the earth?
        How much heat comes up a geothermal heat?
        How much heat is generated by humans burning fossil fuels?
        How much heat is generated by humans using nuclear fuels?

        Once you have those numbers, then you can comment usefully on the significance of human heat.

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy wrote –

        “> probably

        Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.

        Coffee?”

      • Swenson says:

        Tim Folkerts,

        Human influence eight billion people produce a lot of waste heat.

        Thermometers respond to heat.

        Seems possible to me. What do you think?

        You refuse to describe the GHE. Why do you refuse to accept that anthropogenic heat affects thermometers? Do you just deny reality on principle, or do you have reasons?

        You wrote –

        “Give is an order of magnitude estimate of “a lot”.” An order of magnitude estimate? That makes no sense at all. Why should I give “is” (whoever that is), anything at all?

        If you want to deny that man-made heat affects thermometers, feel free. That’s about as stu‌pid as believing in a GHE which everybody refuses to describe!

        Your silly list of irrelevant got‌chas has been carefully considered.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        > Seems possible to me.

        Nobody cares if it seems possible to you, Mike Flynn.

        Beer?

      • Swenson says:

        The idio‌tic Willard wrote –

        “> Seems possible to me.

        Nobody cares if it seems possible to you, Mike Flynn.

        Beer?”

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn wrote –

        Who cares about what he wrote?

        Aw diddums!

      • Swenson says:

        Mike Flynn wrote

        Who cares about what he wrote?

        Aw diddums!

      • Once you have those numbers, then you can comment usefully on the significance of human heat.

        Quite!

      • Swenson says:

        “Once you have those numbers, then you can comment usefully on the significance of human heat.

        Quite!”

      • PhilJ says:

        “Is it human induced? All the natural factors we know of are either neutral or presently causing cooling. That leaves human influence or something unknown.”

        Or something that is being ignored.
        Such as increased uvb insolatiom of the oceans..

      • Nate says:

        “Human influence eight billion people produce a lot of waste heat.

        Thermometers respond to heat.

        Seems possible to me. What do you think?”

        Sure, anything seems possible when you have no math or science ability. You just guess, and declare you have found the answer!

        Sorry, Swenson, real science makes real estimates, ya know, with real numbers.

        Obviously you are unable.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Seems possible to me. What do you think?”

        Sure it seems possible that fossil fuel burning has a significant global impact on climate. But “seems possible” and “actually happens” are two very different things. “Seems possible” is just a hypothesis.

        You should be able to make at least order-of-magnitude estimates of various heats and energies to know, for example, hot much fossil fuels are burned, the heat released, and the impact on the world.

      • Nice of you to open up that opportunity. Here is an example of a paper that calculates precise quantities for the change in radiative forcing due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.

        the 17502011 RF is about 25% higher (increasing from 0.48 W m−2 to 0.61 W m−2)

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

      • Clint R says:

        “precise quantities”???

        What a joke.

        Elliot, you need to learn the basics:

        Why the GHE is bogus.

        Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”

        The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy. Whenever the cult mentions the bogus EEI, that means they don’t understand the basic physics.

        Flux has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area”. Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity. Flux “in” and flux “out” do NOT need to balance, and often don’t balance. A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m² at its base will be emitting 180 W/m² at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m² does NOT equal W/m². Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.

        To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy-in MUST be compared to energy-out. “Energy” must be used, not flux.

        But Earth’s energy seldom balances, as both incoming and outgoing energies constantly vary. That’s not a problem, as the laws of thermodynamics control temperatures. Weather is just one example of thermodynamics at work.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You wrote –

        “Here is an example of a paper that calculates precise quantities for the change in radiative forcing due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.”

        Complete nonsense. There is no “radiative forcing” – that’s an imaginary concept.

        As to the “paper”, 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.”

        The authors are del‌usional.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim Folkerts,

        The effects of man-made heat on thermometers is obvious – it’s called anthropogenic global warming by some.

        As Einstein supposedly said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        You may not employ the principle of parsimony or Occam’s Razor, and that is your choice. If you prefer to ascribe hotter thermometers to some effect that you refuse to describe, you have that right.

        For my part, I have the right to consider you quite mad, and laugh at you.

        Fair enough?

      • Willard says:

        > is obvious

        Nobody cares about what is obvious to you, Mike Flynn.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “The effects of man-made heat on thermometers is obvious”
        The effect of lighting a match under a thermometer would be obvious. The effect of millions of fossil fuel fires around the world on distant thermometers is not obvious. I am asking you to estimate how much the burning of fossil fuels actually matters. Could it account for the warming that is indeed observed?

        “its called anthropogenic global warming by some.”
        No, “Anthropogenic global warming” is warming by ALL human activities. This would include changes in land use, changes in the atmosphere, and direct heat from burning fossil fuels.

        But not JUST direct heating, as you claim. The fact that you don’t understand basic terminology suggest you don’t really have any idea.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        If you refuse to believe that man-made heat affects thermometers, that is your right. Obviously, man made heat includes lighting a match, burning anything, life processes, bouncing balls, clearing land, generating and using energy – even rubbing your hands together generates heat.

        If you don’t believe anthropogenic global warming is due to anthropogenically generated heat, maybe you could describe some other mechanism which makes thermometers hotter without the involvement of heat.

        You wrote “The fact that you dont understand basic terminology suggest you dont really have any idea.”

        OK Tim, and you’re sure as hell going to refuse to help by explaining why you think I don’t understand basic terminology, aren’t you?

        At least you managed to avoid mentioning the mythical GHE! Well done, you dont have to refuse to describe what you refuse to mention, do you?

        Carry on being an evasive idio‌t. It suits you.

      • I am asking you to estimate how much the burning of fossil fuels actually matters. Could it account for the warming that is indeed observed?

        See the link I posted above. This is the exact datum that is calculated in the paper – how many Watts per square metre anthropogenic CO2 “matters”. From that you can derive from the area of the Earth’s disc a power in Watts, and from that you can estimate the increase in average temperature over time.

        How that temperature rise is distributed and what its detailed effects will be are decidedly non-trivia matters to predict, but the fact of heating follows ipso facto from the power value.

      • Nate says:

        “To actually find Earths energy balance, energy-in MUST be compared to energy-out. Energy must be used, not flux.”

        Sure, when people like Clint are incapable of multiplying by a constant, such as the Earth’s surface area, then they cannot imagine how to find energy flow rate from flux.

        It just makes their head explode.

        Why can’t we get better skeptics?

      • Why cant we get better skeptics?

        Amen to that.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “If you refuse to believe that man-made heat affects thermometers, that is your right. ”

        No! What I am refusing to ‘believe’ is that ALL the recent warming is due ONLY to heat from burning fossil fuels.

        “even rubbing your hands together generates heat.”
        Yes and no. The energy comes from chemicals you digest. If you didn’t digest them, some other animal or microbe would have. The same heat would have been released either way. So rubbing hands or just keeping your body warm is not a net warming effect on the planet.

        “OK Tim, and youre sure as hell going to refuse to help by explaining why you think I dont understand basic terminology, arent you?”
        This is me — once again — explaining. I can’t make you listen or learn. Just like I can’t make you listen or learn about the well-understood, well-supported, well-explained GHE.

      • Tim Folkerts – Just like I cant make you listen or learn about the well-understood, well-supported, well-explained GHE.

        And there you have it. One rapidly learns here that les nuls simply refuse to learn, and that there’s no way to make them if they refuse. It makes using the site very frustrating, because they spam their aggressive and mendacious ignorance after every post. The casual visitor can barely follow a substantive discussion even when one crops up.

        I vote for a “block” button.

      • Nate says:

        “If you refuse to believe that man-made heat affects thermometers, that is your right. Obviously, man made heat includes lighting a match, burning anything, life processes, bouncing balls, clearing land, generating and using energy”

        As ever, Swenson fails to ask what science asks, and answers, which is: HOW MUCH does that man-made heat warm thermometers?

        He can declare all he wants that man-made heat affects thermometers significantly, but lacking a realistic numerical estimate, this is just hot air (so to speak).

      • Clint R says:

        Child Nate, you and your playmate Elliot need to learn radiative physics.

        You can’t just simply multiply an estimated flux by the disk area of a sphere. You MUST match the exact area to the exact flux. Otherwise, your error margin makes your calculation worthless.

        Or, maybe you like worthless crap….

      • Nate says:

        ” You MUST match the exact area to the exact flux. Otherwise, your error margin makes your calculation worthless.”

        Did Clint say silly unsupported stuff again?

        Then, as always, it can be safely ignored.

        Earths average input flux, or output flux, in W/m^2, is measured by satellite. Then it is quite straightforward to find, if desired, the average rate of energy flow per second from/to the Earth, in Watts, by simply multiplying by the surface area of the Earth at the top of the atmosphere, 4*pi*R^2.

        Anybody claiming energy flow cannot be obtained from flux, or vice versa is being plain stoopid.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim wells…”Coldest May I have ever known in the Uk and they claim the warmest”.

    ***

    That’s Had-crut for you. They get their data from the notorious data fudger NOAA, as does NASA GISS.

    A former leader of Had-crut, Phil Jones, was front and centre in the Climategate email scandal. He bragged about using Michael Mann’s ‘trick’ for hiding declining temperatures.

    His best though, was when he implicated ‘Kevin’. He bragged that he and Kevin would see to it that papers from skeptics would not make it to the next IPCC review. Just so happened that he and Kevin Trenberth were Coordinating Lead Authors at IPCC reviews and they had the clout to do that.

    • That’s all you have left? Name-calling and “climategate” lies? Why do you waste the energy when you know you’re just going to be laughed at?

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        Presumably, if you call someone a liar, you know what the truth is.

        What is he lying about? Can’t say? Won’t say? You won’t mind if I a laugh quietly at your silly attempts to appear clever?

        Oh dear, your attempts to deny reality are not going too well, are they? Maybe you could make a sly appeal to Dr Spencer, and get him to intercede on your behalf.

        Would that help to get others to value your opinions?

      • Willard says:

        > Presumably

        Nobody cares about what you presume, Mike Flynn.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Presumably

        Nobody cares about what you presume, Mike Flynn.

        Cheers.”

        OK, Willard.

  37. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 367.5 km/sec
    density: 1.64 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 06 Jun 24
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    Sunspot number: 193
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 195 sfu
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 27.17×10^10 W Hot
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: -5.0% Low

    12 numbered spots. 5 numbered spots are fading and/or leaving to the farside.
    1 spot coming from farside

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      The neutron counts have been closer to 6% under average this week.
      To put that in perspective, only 6% of days in the last 60 years have been more than 10% lower than the average. And the running 6-month average is currently about half way between SC24 and SC23.

      Further, the running 11-year average (to filter out the cycles) has been falling since 2017.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        Neutron count, e‌h?

        Well, that’s relevant to something, I suppose. Neutrons?

        Not neurons, that’s for sure! Sorry about that, I couldn’t help myself.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Dear coolists:

        Your buddy Swenson agrees with me that neutron counts have no relevance to climate.

        .
        .

        Good to have you on my side Mikey.

      • Progress at last! It’s not the Sun, stoopid.

      • Swenson says:

        You wrote (trying to put words in my mouth) –

        “Dear coolists:

        Your buddy Swenson agrees with me that neutron counts have no relevance to climate.

        .
        .

        Good to have you on my side Mikey”

        I’ll take a page out of the GHE cultist playbook, and say “Show me where I said that!”

        In any case, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, so here’s your chance to refuse to say how a “neutron count” can affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way. You might as well refuse to describe the GHE while you’re at it.

        See how easy it is to look like an idio‌t?

        Carry on.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        So now it’s relevant, Mikey?

        Flip flop flip flop …

      • Swenson says:

        “So now its relevant, Mikey?

        Flip flop flip flop ”

        What are you babbling about? Obscurity is not your friend.

        Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Haha – the inevitable “I’m out of ideas” response.

        So which is it Mikey … are neutron counts relevant, are they irrelevant, or are you a mindless tr0ll who has no idea and no ability to investigate?

        (I predict we’ll get an option-3-type response.)

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote (trying to put words in my mouth)

        “Dear coolists:

        Your buddy Swenson agrees with me that neutron counts have no relevance to climate.

        .
        .

        Good to have you on my side Mikey”

        Ill take a page out of the GHE cultist playbook, and say “Show me where I said that!”

        In any case, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, so heres your chance to refuse to say how a “neutron count” can affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way. You might as well refuse to describe the GHE while youre at it.

        See how easy it is to look like an idio‌t? You don’t need my help!

        Carry on.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Bullseye! Option 3 it is. I wonder how I predicted that …

        I wonder how many times you’ve been warned about duplicate posts.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote (trying to put words in my mouth)

        “Dear coolists:

        Your buddy Swenson agrees with me that neutron counts have no relevance to climate.

        .
        .

        Good to have you on my side Mikey”

        I’ll take a page out of the GHE cultist playbook, and say “Show me where I said that!”

        In any case, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, so heres your chance to refuse to say how a “neutron count” can affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way. You might as well refuse to describe the GHE while you’re at it.

        See how easy it is to look like an idio‌t? You dont need my help!

        You even say really silly things like –

        “I wonder how many times youve been warned about duplicate posts.” Maybe somebody cares what you wonder about. Can you name one person who will admit to it?

        Carry on.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Neutron counts cannot affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way.

        Good to see you’re back in agreement. But of course your deliberately ambiguous comment will permit you to flip flop again.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        “Neutron counts cannot affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way.”

        Why did you write “The neutron counts have been closer to 6% under average this week.” and all the rest, then?

        No effect on weather, no effect on climate.

        Were you just wasting time, or trying to appear clever?

        Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        > Why did you write

        Nobody cares about your why-questions, Mike Flynn.

        Long live and prosper.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Because your buddies believe it has an effect on weather, Mikey.

        Why do you keep responding when you don’t care what I say, as you keep telling me?

        Or when you ask “who cares?” should I be responding with “Mike Flynn”?

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “Because your buddies believe it has an effect on weather, Mikey.

        Why do you keep responding when you dont care what I say, as you keep telling me?

        Or when you ask “who cares?” should I be responding with “Mike Flynn?””

        Which “buddies” are you referring to? Do you believe you have mindreading abilities? Everything has an effect on weather – the atmosphere is chaotic. As you said “Neutron counts cannot affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way”. Quantifiable being the operative word. CO2 has no quantifiable effect on weather, either, although you might refuse to agree.

        As to comment, I comment as I wish, how I wish, and when I wish – and there’s nothing you can do about, is there?

        You can respond how you like – you might notice I simply don’t value the opinion o& such as you, unless it is based on fact. If you feel better by calling me Mike Flynn, do it. It makes no difference to me.

        Carry on. Still no GHE, is there?

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about your copypastas, Mike Flynn.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your copypastas, Mike Flynn.”

        Excellent!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 370.3 km/sec
      density: 4.15 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 07 Jun 24
      Sunspot number: 149
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 191 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 27.46×10^10 W Hot
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -5.0% Low
      9 numbered spots. 1 coming from farside, 1 leaving.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 276.2 km/sec
        density: 1.00 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 08 Jun 24
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 184 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 27.62×10^10 W Hot
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -4.8% Low
        9 numbered spot, new one, 3709, have spots near it, following it, which may not be counted yet. And no spot going to farside, within a day.

      • gbaikie says:

        Sunspot number: 150

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 453.7 km/sec
        density: 2.09 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 09 Jun 24
        Sunspot number: 143
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 190 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 27.90×10^10 W Hot
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -4.8% Low

        9 numbered spots. 2 numbered spot “could” be leaving to farside and/or fade. No spots coming from fatside, though spot not numbered yet appeared on nearside- could grow bigger or not. Still about 3 days before X-flaring spot leaves to farside.
        Neutron counts lowering, and Thermosphere getting hotter.
        Hard to predict, I will wait and see.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 359.9 km/sec
        density: 3.62 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 10 Jun 24
        Sunspot number: 148
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 28.03×10^10 W Hot
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -4.1% Low

        10 numbered spots
        “Sunspot AR3697 (a.k.a. AR3664) has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
        AR3697 is leaving to farside.
        No spots coming, yet. The biggest sunspot [3709] recently came from farside and will be around for quite some time, but sunspot number will probably drop a bit

  38. gbaikie says:

    Starship 4th test launch is planned at 7:20 am CDT
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg

  39. There’s an awful lot of white noise on this blog, isn’t there?

    • Bindidon says:

      Yes.

      It’s easy to detect the major part of it by counting the number of comments posted, and applying a descending sort.

      Top 2 of the previous thread

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comments

      Swenson: 1355
      Willard: 1309

      Number of posts containing ‘Xyz, please stop tr0lling.’ : 701

      And it goes further with Robertson’s and Clint R’s endless egomaniacal, incompetent trash about everything.

      • Nice technique. The blog could probably do with some more advanced features, such as a “mute” button, but I suppose that’s a matter of taste. I’m a full-stack developer these days, so if anyone wants the job done…

      • Just to see how far HTML formatting goes:

        One
        Two
        Three

      • Bindidon says:

        A poster nicknamed ‘WizGeek’ wrote here years ago that he used an own Firefox add-on to get rid of all comments he didn’t want to see.

        I have forgotten in between how he did that.

      • The HTML on the blog contains the semantic tag “cite”, containing the author name. I’ve never tried to build a Firefox plugin – I don’t even use Firefox at the moment – but it shouldn’t be too hard to navigate up from those tags to the parent tag and set it to invisible. Might be worth doing it pro bono just to have it in my portfolio.

        The problem is that the blog is such that one can enter a different user name, e-mail and home-page URL every time one posts, so it would be trivial to get around being hidden.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        It’s pretty easy. Just don’t read the comments you don’t want to.

        Of course, it’s not easy unless you have a semblance of self control.

        Most GHE cultists can’t help themselves – they believe anything!

      • Another consideration, of course, is that just hiding the posts in the browser does not stop les nuls from spamming their replies after everything you post. It would be nice to suppress interaction with some of these clowns altogether, so that we could pursue a sensible conversation that silent visitors can follow. Anyone just dropping by would still find the site full of white noise.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You wrote –

        “It would be nice to suppress interaction with some of these clowns altogether”

        Its pretty easy. Just dont read the comments you dont want to.

        Of course, its not easy unless you have a semblance of self control.

        Most GHE cultists cant help themselves they believe anything!

      • Another formatting attempt: Angry text. Angry text.

      • Bindidon says:

        Elliott Bignell

        Here is a little 5 min shell script I wrote a few years ago:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PBYIf-bjGwJZvLaJxlx7KQlVK0m87de-/view

        Of course it could be implemented much cleaner, much this, much that.

        Seems to work, however.

      • Finally a language I understand! Thanks.

    • Swenson says:

      EB,

      You wrote –

      “Theres an awful lot of white noise on this blog, isn’t there?”

      Of course, you refuse to say what you really mean, don’t you?

      Typical waffling GHE cultist. They refuse to say what they really mean – so they can always deny having said anything definite. Too clever by half, as the saying goes.

      Go on – refuse to describe the GHE, and blame your refusal on someone else!

      • Swenson, could you self-block, please?

        Worth a try.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You wrote –

        “Swenson, could you self-block, please?

        Worth a try.”

        Not worth a try at all. Are you stu‌pid or just pretending?

        Only joking, I know you’re not pretending, but correct me if Im wrong.

        [laughing at self-appointed idio‌t]

      • With all due respect, go block yourself.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You wrote –

        “With all due respect, go block yourself.”

        Of course, you refuse to say what you really mean, dont you?

        Typical waffling GHE cultist. They refuse to say what they really mean so they can always deny having said anything definite. Too clever by half, as the saying goes.

        Go on refuse to describe the GHE, and blame your refusal on someone else!

      • DMT says:

        “Go block yourself” !!!!

        I love it.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Flynnson insists that we must:

        Go on refuse to describe the GHE, and blame your refusal on someone else!

        But, he already described the perfect example of the GHE when he pointed to the example of the Inca’s using the conditions at high altitude with clear skys to make ice.

        The air with low humidity allows thermal IR radiation to easily pass thru the atmospheric window, causing the surface temperature to drop below that of the air above. Those of us who live at temperate latitudes often experience the low humidity cooling as dew or frost forming on the surface, a process which actually moves energy from the warmer atmosphere to the surface. Under very dry conditions, the surface temperature can drop considerably. For days with higher humidity, the water vapor absorbs the emissions, limiting the night time cooling of the surface.

        Flynnson insists on ignoring and other such well known facts, as it spoils his attempts to “prove” by assertion tht there’s no GHE and therefore, no AGW.

      • Swenson says:

        ES,

        You wrote –

        “But, he already described the perfect example of the GHE when he pointed to the example of the Incas using the conditions at high altitude with clear skys to make ice.”

        This would be a perfect example of the GHE which you refuse to actually describe, would it?

        By the way, I can’t remember using the Incas and high altitudes as an example of anything. Maybe you could quote me directly? I usually refer to lower altitudes in other countries like India, but you may be right.

        If you refuse to quote me directly, that’s fine.

        You also wrote –

        “Flynnson insists on ignoring and other such well known facts, as it spoils his attempts to prove by assertion tht theres no GHE and therefore, no AGW.”

        Not at all. Fanatical GHE cultists simply refuse to describe the GHE, then claim that phenomena such as surface cooling at night, or the cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years are “evidence” of a GHE – which of course they refuse to describe.

        As to AGW, you might be referring to the observed fact that man-made heat affects thermometers. Nothing mysterious there, is there?

        You still refuse to describe the GHE. How hard can it be? Or are you just trying to be as unhelpful and recalcitrant as you possibly can?

        The world wonders.

      • Willard says:

        > I cant remember

        Nobody cares about your amnesic episodes, Mike Flynn.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Flynnson, I Must apologize about that comment regarding Incas. You previously wrote:

        As a matter of fact, a few thousand years ago, desert dwellers were making ice by exposing water to the back radiation beloved of GHE cultists.

        I had some old memory, which popped up with what may have been an incorrect reference to the Incas. Anyway, HERE’s a commentary about the process.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your amnesic episodes, Mike Flynn.”

        That’s nice.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Swenson says:

        ES,

        Thanks. I usually quote peoples’ direct words to prevent misunderstandings.

        Yes, desert dwellers have used the technique for a few thousand years, as your link indicates.

        The professor’s explanation is misleading nonsense –

        “This window allows some of the heat that goes up as infrared light to effectively escape, carrying away that pool’s heat”.

        All heat radiated by the water escapes to space, no “windows” involved. Just radiative frost encouraged to continue.

        As one keen greenhouse user says “TO anyone who lives in a cold climate with a greenhouse, as freeze is inevitable.” Heaters run out of fuel or blow up, panels break – things happen.

        One solution is to use something like bubble wrap fitted close to the panels on the inside. All good fun – trying to keep your greenhouse warm needs heat, not a mythical greenhouse effect!

      • Willard says:

        > Thanks

        Nobody cares about your thankfulness, Mike Flynn.

        Good night.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  40. Bindidon says:

    A recent publication about HT’s eruption

    The Impact of the Hunga TongaHunga Ha’apai Volcanic
    Eruption on the Stratospheric Environment

    Qian Sun, Taojun Lu, Dan Li and Jingyuan Xu (2024)

    https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/15/4/483/pdf?version=1713176174

    • Clint R says:

      They finally mentioned “atmospheric waves” in the conclusion, but somehow missed their effects!

      But there was plenty of use of keywords like, “radiative forcing”, and “greenhouse gases”.

      Just more cult agenda….

      • Try to step outside yourself for a moment and perceive how completely you have walled yourself off from a technical discipline in which these are valid terms.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Elliot, but those are “cult” terms. Your cult has NO “technical discipline”. They can’t even come up with a valid description of the bogus GHE, as you’ve seen.

        Do you have any meaningful background in physics?

      • I didn’t think you could manage it.

      • Clint R says:

        I take that to mean have NO meaningful background in physics?

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, how did you end up with your IT job – your sock puppetering got noticed in St.Petersburg?

      • I take that to mean you have NO resort but transparent deflection?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Clint

        Please elaborate on YOUR background in physics.

        Years, institution, degrees.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        “They cant even come up with a valid description of the bogus GHE, as youve seen.”

        You used to sing a different tune.

        You used to claim the GHE violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so you must have had a valid description of same.

        And you were wrong about that as well.

        As well as your claim that 15 micron photons can’t heat the surface of the Earth.

      • Clint R says:

        Yes bob, your cult can’t come up with a valid description of the bogus GHE.

        Thanks for quoting me correctly.

        But your comment goes downhill from there, when you make false accusations.

      • Swenson says:

        The GHE nutters still refuse to describe the object of their worship.

        Sounds like religion to me – based on faith, not fact.

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about your abbreviations, Mike Flynn.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Whenever you’re ready, Clint.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your abbreviations, Mike Flynn.”

        I’m glad.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint and Swenson,

        For your clan, the greenhouse effect is indistinguishable from magic, because you are not technologically advanced enough to comprehend it.

        For the rest of us, it is just applied science.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  41. Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.

    “Our peak was not much of a peak sea level were only 1 to 2 meters higher than present sea levels.
    Past peak warming was +4 meters higher than present sea levels.
    Perhaps it was because the recent Glacial Max was the coldest time that Earth has ever known to be. Certainly the coldest time within the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and had lowest level of global CO2 levels- ever known.”

    The past times sea levels are not a solid evidence of the former global climate.
    The Earth’s system the H2O content should not be considered constant, because it has a strong ability to change in a long time scales.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  42. professor P says:

    It is fascinating to see the response to a complaint about white noise on this site.

    The guilty typically react with impotent fury.

    Just like a wasp trap.

    • Swenson says:

      “It is fascinating to see the response to a complaint about white noise on this site.

      The guilty typically react with impotent fury.

      Just like a wasp trap.”

      Well, that’s certainly obscure. Another fo‌ol who cannot bring himself to say what he really means!

      Guilty? Wasp trap?

      Maybe you could just refuse to describe the GHE, like the rest of the idio‌ts who talk in circles, trying to appear clever!

      Carry on denying reality. No GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, but you can deny it if you like. I don’t mind.

      • professor P says:

        You are obviously feeling guilty Mr Wasp.

      • Swenson says:

        “It is fascinating to see the response to a complaint about white noise on this site.

        The guilty typically react with impotent fury.

        Just like a wasp trap.”

        Well, thats certainly obscure. Another fo‌ol who cannot bring himself to say what he really means!

        Guilty? Wasp trap?

        Maybe you could just refuse to describe the GHE, like the rest of the idio‌ts who talk in circles, trying to appear clever!

        Carry on denying reality. No GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, but you can deny it if you like. I dont mind

      • Swenson says:

        Elliot, please stop tro‌lling. You are just not very good at it.

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about your guilty feelings, Mike Flynn.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your guilty feelings, Mike Flynn.”

        Excellent!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

  43. New development in heat pumps being trialled in Scotland. These yield 3-4x the heat produced by the same amount of electricity.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/06/at-heart-its-the-same-technology-the-heat-pump-that-uses-water-instead-of-air?ref=upstract.com

    • Swenson says:

      “It delivers 350% to 400% more heat than the electricity it needs to operate”

      Gee, how good is that! Use 350% increase in heat to boil water to run a steam powered generator, and use the excess energy to to provide air conditioning, heating, lighting, electric car charging etc.

      Perpetual motion – for every 100 in, 350 to 400 out! Just like the fictional GHE!

      Free energy for all. Better than CO2.

      Are you gullible enough to believe everything you read? You really have no clue about “heat pumps”, do you?

      • No, perpetual motion would be when it produced 3-4x the ELECTRICITY input. If you knew anything about heat pumps then you’d know that to work against a differential large enough to boil water would require far more energy than is required for this scheme: If you turned it up that high it would require more energy to boil the water than you got out.

    • Tim S says:

      The system makes sense, but like many of the media stories concerning climate, the story in your link is completely wrong. Glycol is not “compressed”. Thank you for giving me a good laugh.

    • Tim S says:

      Part 2 — found more banned words.

      The efficiency of a heat pump works by running an air conditioner in reverse. Instead of throwing away the heat from the compressor, that heat is used inside the building and the refrigeration effect is thrown away. The water tank and glycol remain warm enough to evaporate the “refrigerator stuff” (acceptable word) when the outside air temperature is too cold.

      Like all of these concepts to use electricity more efficiently, there are several problems. The compressor is expensive and it wears out over time. Modern refrigerator stuff has very low la-tent heat (better word) because the good refrigerator stuff hase been outlawed for environmental reasons. Ammonia and propane work really well in industrial facilities, but are too hazardous to use for the general public.

      • Willard says:

        > In other words

        Nobody cares about your other words, Mike Flynn.

        Good morning.

      • Swenson says:

        “> In other words

        Nobody cares about your other words, Mike Flynn.

        Good morning.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about your little HTML tricks to bypass moderation, Mike Flynn.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your little HTML tricks to bypass moderation, Mike Flynn.”

        Good.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Swenson says:

      EB,

      “It delivers 350% to 400% more heat than the electricity it needs to operate”

      In other words, you don’t understand the implications of the pointless quote you provided, no doubt in support of the mythical GHE which you refuse to describe.

      Go on, try and explain what your quote means, in terms of energy and power.

      Or refuse, if you like. You’ll discover you lose either way.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      elliott…the amount of heat a heat pump can deliver depends on how deeply it is buried. The deeper you dig in the Earth, even in the Arctic, the hotter it gets. As I understand it, the standard heat pump cannot deliver enough heat to heat a home.

  44. This is a test: Angry text.

  45. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Antonin Qwerty burbled about neutron counts, for no particular reason, refusing to say why.

    Eventually, he became annoyed for some reason (possibly because I asked about his refusal to specify any connection between “neutron counts” and weather.

    He wrote –

    “Haha the inevitable “Im out of ideas” response.

    So which is it Mikey are neutron counts relevant, are they irrelevant, or are you a mindless tr0ll who has no idea and no ability to investigate?

    (I predict well get an option-3-type response.)”

    The usual idio‌t try at evasive got‌chas.

    Relevant to what? Investigate what? These GHE cultists are a strange lot. They refuse to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years (continuous sunlight, CO2 and H2O notwithstanding), but won’t actually admit it. Too embarrassing.

    They refuse to describe the GHE, claiming others have done it “thousands of times”.

    Here are a few attempted “descriptions” –

    Willard – “not cooling, slower cooling”

    Entropic Man – “The GHE is a stack of blankets”

    Bindidon – “In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.”

    and so on. No two the same, and all worthless.

    There is no GHE.

    • professor P says:

      You are obviously not comprehending much.
      Not even sarcasm.

      • Swenson says:

        “You are obviously not comprehending much.
        Not even sarcasm.”

        Ooooooh! That’s deep and meaningless, isn’t it?

        P, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about what you refuse to understand.

        Cheers.

      • professor P says:

        Willard,
        A lot goes over this poor fellow’s head.
        He is not very bright.

      • Swenson says:

        “Willard,
        A lot goes over this poor fellows head.
        He is not very bright.”

        Even more deep and meaningless.

        P, Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your PSTering.

        Coffee?

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your PSTering.

        Coffee?”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

  46. Stephen P. Anderson says:

    New Alarm: The Earth has breached a GRIM climate threshold.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      could have fohled me. I have seen no evidence of climates changing in my locale.

    • PhilJ says:

      The sky is falling!

      Just give us control and we’ll save you.

      Oil the propaganda is thick.

      • Swenson says:

        Quick! Run for the hills! The climate is changing!

        Oh, wait – climate always changes. It’s the historical statistics of a chaotic system!

        Whew, I had myself worried for a second.

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about your sarcasm, Mike Flynn.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your sarcasm, Mike Flynn.”

        Moi? Sarcastic?

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

  47. Willard says:

    SOLAR NEWS UPDATE

    There was a big moral panic about not smoking in bars and restaurants more than 20 years ago:

    Reaction to the smoking ban in New York has been mixed. Some businesses claim that trade is down and that smokers are deserting bars in droves.

    Others say that that the effect on businesses has been minimal although smokers are now going out onto the streets to enjoy a smoke.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northeast/series4/smoking_smokingban_cigarettes_health.shtml

    After all these years, have all the bars and restaurants closed?

    • Swenson says:

      Weary Wee Willy,

      You wrote –

      “After all these years, have all the bars and restaurants closed?”

      You tell me. That sounds like a remarkably stu‌pid got‌cha.

      No doubt the best you can do.

      Carry on.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      It was far more than moral. As a non-smoker I was subjected to the smoke belched from the lungs of smokers. When I got home, my hair was stiff from tobacco tars and my clothes stank of smoke. I had trouble breathing as I slept since my nasal passages and sinus cavities were clogged with filthy tars.

      I was in a bar during the day once when it was closed. The carpets had burns on them where slobs had dropped their cigarettes and stopped them out on the carpet.

      A question I always had was why it was necessary to pass laws to prevent this. Why did smokers lack the awareness to stop blowing their smoke in the faces of others? Why did smoker regard it a divine right to light up in a car with other passengers suffering their habit?

      When laws came into effect here, smokers went ballistic, complaining about their rights. How about the rights of non-smokers?

      I have friends who were considerate smokers. They were always concerned about the effect their smoking would have on others.

      • Willard says:

        Mr. Asshat, please stop blowing smoke.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mr. Asshat, please stop blowing smoke.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy…thanks for confirming that you are a smoker. The cost of a pack of cigarettes locally is $15+. Does it make you feel good to burn up $15 per pack while damaging your lugs and your entire body? If you drink on top of smoking, it’s a double-whammy.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Obviously that is lungs, not lugs. If you had to light your ears on fire that would likely stop the habit toute suite, but doing something similar to your lungs, your heart, your liver, kidneys and bladder, being a slower process, is more manageable.

      • Willard says:

        Mr. Asshat, please stop displaying the same illogic as always.

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Go home, Mike.

        You are already drunk.

      • Swenson says:

        “Go home, Mike.

        You are already drunk.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

  48. 1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
    Tmean.earth

    R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
    Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
    Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
    N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.

    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
    We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
    So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)

    Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:

    Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4

    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150*1*1)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
    Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )^1/4 =

    Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

    These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

    ****
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • How about the moon? I only ask because I have read many, many times that the moon’s surface is 30K cooler than that of the Earth. It’s also pretty rocky. Are you sure that satellite temperature is the surface temperature, and not e.g. the temperature of the upper atmosphere or the whole Earth system?

      • Thank you, Elliot, for your response.

        “How about the moon? I only ask because I have read many, many times that the moons surface is 30K cooler than that of the Earth. Its also pretty rocky. Are you sure that satellite temperature is the surface temperature, and not e.g. the temperature of the upper atmosphere or the whole Earth system?”

        Yes, the satellite temperature is the average surface temperature.

        Moon’s average surface temperature is 68C lower, than Earth’s.
        (Moon’s T =220K vs Earth’s T =288K)

        I have theoretically calculated the average surface temperatures for all planets and moons in solar system.
        Please visit my site,

        Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You wrote –

        “I only ask because I have read many, many times that the moons surface is 30K cooler than that of the Earth”

        The Moon’s surface is both colder and hotter than that of the Earth. It receives more solar radiation due to lack of atmosphere, and loses the absorbed energy faster than the Earth for the same reason.

        Presumably, you are trying to support the existence of a non-existent GHE in some bizarre fashion, or you are just tr‌olling, trying to make someone look stu‌pid.

        Posing a gotcha starting with “Are you sure . . . ” indicates that you think you already know the answer – so why bother asking?

        Come on, don’t refuse to describe the GHE – be a man. Stand proud, and be prepared t9 defend your description of the mythical GHE!

        Idio‌t.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        elliott…the ***AVERAGE*** is cooler than Earth average.

        The average global temperature of the Earth is about 1C ***since 1870***. There are parts of the planet that are about -4C lower than the baseline while other parts are +5C. Th average is 1C.

        It’s all statistical bs, means nothing.

      • Willard says:

        > Presumably

        Nobody cares about what you presume or not, Mike Flynn.

        Enjoy your coffee while it’s hot!

      • Swenson says:

        > Presumably

        Nobody cares about what you presume or not, Mike Flynn.

        Enjoy your coffee while its hot!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        > Come on

        Nobody cares about your begging, Mike Flynn.

      • Swenson says:

        “> Come on

        Nobody cares about your begging, Mike Flynn.”

        OK, Willard.

      • Its all statistical bs, means nothing.

        Deliberate ignorance, then.

      • Swenson says:

        “Deliberate ignorance, then.”

        And of course, you refuse to say why, don’t you?

        What are you scared of? Do you think someone might accuse you of being helpful?

        Unlikely, because you aren’t!

        Go on, refuse to describe the GHE – demonstrate how clever you are!

        Donk‌ey.

      • Willard says:

        You have been told many times, Mike Flynn, and because you have been told many times.

        Nobody cares about your sammich requests.

      • Swenson says:

        “Deliberate ignorance, then.”

        And of course, you refuse to say why, dont you?

        What are you scared of? Do you think someone might accuse you of being helpful?

        Unlikely, because you arent!

        Go on, refuse to describe the GHE demonstrate how clever you are!

        Donk‌ey.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares to know why you still play dumb after having played dumb for more than a decade on this blog.

        Cheers.

      • Thank you, Tim, for your response.

        “The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level”. When there are greenhouse gases, then (at least some of) the radiation comes from higher than the surface, where the atmosphere is cooler. The surface will be warmer than the “effective radiating level”.”

        Tim, what I do is planets and moons the satellite measured average surface (Tmean) temperatures comparison.


        Here it is what I have found about the “effective radiating level”:

        https://aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld012.htm#:~:text=At%20some%20height%20most%20radiation%20emitted%20upwards%20makes,heights%20that%20all%20vary%20in%20a%20similar%20manner.

        “In the long run the solar energy absorbed at the earth’s surface must be compensated by emission to space of infra red radiation. Emission from the surface alone cannot do this, because the atmosphere as a whole is largely opaque in the infra red, implying that such radiation would be absorbed at higher levels. As one moves upward, the amount of matter absorbing infrared radiation between oneself and outer space decreases rapidly, both because the mass of air above is less and also because the concentration of water vapor in that air also decreases. At some height most radiation emitted upwards makes it to outer space without being reabsorbed on the way. This height (in practice around 8-10 km) is called the Effective Radiating Level. It is idealized as representative of a band of heights that all vary in a similar manner.”

        Tim, the above doesn’t say about:

        “The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level””.


        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Tim, the above doesnt say about:

        The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level”.”

        Yes. It does.
        “This height (in practice around 8-10 km) is called the Effective Radiating Level.”
        The effective blackbody temperature is derived from the outgoing thermal IR, which comes from the Effective Radiating Level.

      • Tim, what I do is planets and moons the satellite measured average surface (Tmean) temperatures comparison.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47”

      We have been through this many times. Bond Albedo is intended to include ALL reflections. There is not some 47% correction needed for “smooth” planets.

      • Thank you, Tim, for your response.

        “We have been through this many times. Bond Albedo is intended to include ALL reflections. There is not some 47% correction needed for smooth planets.”


        Let’s consider the planet Mercury then.
        Mercury is a smooth planet, because it its surface is formed from basalt (basalt redemblances glass).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)

        Albedo: 0,088 (Bond)

        Temperature 437 K (164 C) (blackbody temperature)[13]
        Surface temp. min mean max
        0N, 0W [14] −173 C 67 C 427 C

        Thus planet Mercury’s mean surface temperature is 67 C = 340 K

        Let’s compare with planet Mercury blackbody temperature 437 K
        The blackbody temperature is almost 100C higher.

        But the corrected blackbody temperature Te.correct = 364 K, which is very much closer to the measured Tmean =340K.

        Now, we see how it is important to correct the smooth surface planets and moons their respective blackbody temperatures (effective temperatures Te).


        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Christos, you have one interesting hypothesis. But not the only hypothesis (and not the best).

        “The blackbody temperature is almost 100C higher.”
        The effective blackbody temperature is ALWAYS higher than the mean temperature. This is due to the T^4 dependence of radiation. 100 C difference between average surface temp and effective BB temperature is not at all surprising.

        So, yes it is important to correct the effective BB temperature. But this can be done easily based on temperature variations across the planet. There is no need to imagine astronomers are 47% off on their albedo measurements!

      • Thank you, Tim, for your response.

        “The effective blackbody temperature is ALWAYS higher than the mean temperature. This is due to the T^4 dependence of radiation. 100 C difference between average surface temp and effective BB temperature is not at all surprising.”

        “The effective blackbody temperature is ALWAYS higher than the mean temperature. ”
        (Emphasis added)

        No, it is not. Quite the opposite happens

        In the graph (I demonstrate in my site) we can observe those three major scientific truths:

        1). (Tsat/Te) ratio, except for the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon,
        the (Tsat/Te) ratio is (Tsat/Te) >1 .

        So there is Tsat > Te almost for all cases. And it is a very important observation.

        2). We can see the obvious relation – the higher the Warming factor (β*N*cp)^1/16, the higher is the (Tsat/Te) ratio.

        3). The six smooth surface planets and moons – Mercury, Moon, Mars, Ganymede, Europa, Earth (the red dots) are streched in the lower line, under the heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons – (the green dots), which are streched in the upper line.


        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        ME: The effective blackbody temperature is ALWAYS higher than the mean temperature.
        CHRISTOS: Quite the opposite happens

        Consider a very simple, very extreme example. A planet is 500 K on one hemisphere and 100 K on the other hemisphere.

        The arithmetic mean temperature is (500+100)/2 = 300 K.
        The effective BB temperature is [(500^4+100^4)/2]^0.25 = 420K

        The effective BB temperature is higher (by 120 C in this case).
        The more extreme the temperature differences (eg due to slow rotation), the more dramatic the difference between T(eff) and T(mean). Only for a completely uniform planet will then be the same.

      • Thank you, Tim.

        “Consider a very simple, very extreme example. A planet is 500 K on one hemisphere and 100 K on the other hemisphere.

        The arithmetic mean temperature is (500+100)/2 = 300 K.
        The effective BB temperature is [(500^4+100^4)/2]^0.25 = 420K ”

        “A planet is 500 K on one hemisphere and 100 K on the other hemisphere.”

        Tim, we cannot make that consideration. A planet is solar irradiated with some intensity flux W/m^2.
        A flux W/m^2 which induces the solar lit average hemisphere temperature of
        500 K, doesn’t make the planet dark side to have average hemisphere temperature of 100 K.


        “The more extreme the temperature differences (eg due to slow rotation), the more dramatic the difference between T(eff) and T(mean). Only for a completely uniform planet will then be the same.”

        It is a MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINT.

        For identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, for those with higher differentiated surface temperatures, the average surface temperature (Tmean) will be lower.

        Thus, the higher the spheres’ differentiated surface temperatures, the lower their average surface temperature.

        So, consequently, the spheres with UNIFORM (not differentiated) surface temperatures will have the highest (the maximum) AVERAGE surface temperature.

        For them,
        Tmean(maximum) ≤ Tuniform

        It is true for identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy.

        We should mention here, that those spheres emit the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, but the source (or sources) of that emitted energy are originated from the spheres’ inner layers. That energy comes from the inside of the spheres.

        Thus that mathematical constraint cannot be applied to the planets and moons the surfaces’ temperatures estimation.

        Because, for planets and moons, the source of emitted IR EM energy is very much different: for planets and moons, the source of emitted IR EM energy originates from the INTERACTION with SOLAR IRRADIATION.


        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Of course, (everything else equals), for planets and moons, the less their surface temperatures are differentiated, the higher their average surface temperatures are.

        But the theoretical Teff does not pose any Mathematical CONSTRAINT to planets’ and moons’ the average surface temperatures (Tmean).

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Thus that mathematical constraint cannot be applied to the planets and moons the surfaces temperatures estimation.”

        Mathematical constrains based on fundament physics ALWAYS apply. The source of heat that causes the temperatures is immaterial. The arithmetic mean will ALWAY be lower than the effective blackbody temperature.

        We could divide Mercury into 1000 sections and measure the temperature of each for a more accurate result than my 2 section example. The constraint still applies — the arithmetic mean of those 1000 sections will be lower than the effective BB temperature. Or integrate a function over the surface; the integrated mean will be lower than the effective BB temperature.

      • Thank you, Tim.

        “Mathematical constrains based on fundament physics ALWAYS apply. The source of heat that causes the temperatures is immaterial. The arithmetic mean will ALWAYS be lower than the effective blackbody temperature.”

        Also there are two basic physics planetary AXIOMS:

        1. The planet’s equatorial mean surface temperature (Tmean.equatorial) is always higher than the entire planet’s the global mean surface temperature (Tmean.global).

        and
        2. The faster a planet rotates, the bigger is the difference

        Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global

        and, likewise, the slower a planet rotates, the smaller is the difference

        Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global.

        *******
        These two simple axioms led us to the following very important conclusions:

        1. No matter how fast a planet rotates, planet surface never approaches a uniform surface temperature (Tmean.uniform).

        and
        2. For a very slow rotating planet the

        Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global

        the difference “Δt” is very small, and for the entire planet surface, the global mean surface temperature (Tmean.global) is very close to the equatorial mean surface temperature value (Tmean.equatorial).


        Mercury, in reference to the sun, is a very slow rotating planet. Thus its Equatorial mean temperature is very close to its average surface temperature Tmean.


        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim,

        “The arithmetic mean will ALWAYs be lower than the effective blackbody temperature.”

        The satellite measured planets’ and moons’ mean surface temperatures Tsat or Tmean represent their respective surface arithmetic mean.

        Those measured surface temperatures are ALWAYS higher than the effective blackbody temperature.
        The only exceptions are the slow rotating planet Mercury and our Moon.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim,

        “Mathematical constrains based on fundamental physics ALWAYS apply. The source of heat that causes the temperatures is immaterial. The arithmetic mean will ALWAYS be lower than the effective blackbody temperature.”

        There are different fundamental physics – the emitting behavior of a previously warmed body, vs the emitting behavior of EM energy irradiated body.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Nate says:

        “In the graph (I demonstrate in my site) we can observe those three major scientific truths:”

        Science needs to be testable and falsifiable. If falsified by observations, such as your theory is here, then it is wrong.

      • Nate says:

        Your theory also says that the Earth’s abs0rbed solar is 112 W/m^2.

        But this does not agree with observation that it is 240 W/m^2, and it is much less than the emitted IR radiation, which is 240 W/m^2.

        So your theory is falsified, Christos. And you cannot simply ignore this criticism.

      • Thank you, Nate, for your response.

        “Your theory also says that the Earths abs0rbed solar is 112 W/m^2.”

        Not exactly. The theory is not averaging solar flux over the entire global surface.
        What theory says is “the Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux is:

        π*r^2*448 W

        where “r” is the Earth’s radius in meters.

        When discussing with opponents, for the comparison reasons I averaged the “Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” and that is how the number 112 W/m^2 came up.

        But I have shown, that the “Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” cannot be averaged over the entire global surface.

        The global average surface temperature is a result of the incident solar EM energy interaction with planet surface.

        A planet responds to the incident solar energy with all its surface features, a planet responds as a whole – the planet’s respond to solar EM energy interaction process results to the average surface temperature Tsat or Tmean.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “2. For a very slow rotating planet the

        Δt = Tmean.equatorial Tmean.global

        the difference “Δt” is very small, and for the entire planet surface, the global mean surface temperature (Tmean.global) is very close to the equatorial mean surface temperature value (Tmean.equatorial).”

        No. Even for a tidally locked planet, the equatorial mean temperature is significantly higher than the global mean temperature. They do not get “very close”.

        “Those measured surface temperatures are ALWAYS higher than the effective blackbody temperature.”
        This is a different issue. In fact, this is at the heart of the greenhouse effect.

        The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level”. When there are greenhouse gases, then (at least some of) the radiation comes from higher than the surface, where the atmosphere is cooler. The surface will be warmer than the “effective radiating level”.

      • Tim, the above doesn’t say about “The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level”.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672043

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “What theory says is the Earths not reflected portion of the incident solar flux is:

        π*r^2*448 W”

        Theory ACTUALLY says …
        Total incident power = (area)*(solar flux) = (π*r^2)*(1370 W/m^2)
        Total not reflected = (1-albedo)*(incident)
        > = (π*r^2)*(0.7*1370 W/m^2)
        > = (π*r^2)*(960 W/m^2)
        There is no valid theory that says only 47% of this is absorbed.

        “But I have shown, that the “Earths not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” cannot be averaged over the entire global surface.”
        *Everyone* knows that day and night exist and that flux is not actually a uniform 960/4= 240 W/m^2; that 240 W/m^2 is not sufficient for temperature swings from day to night or summer to winter. But for very broad strokes, a global annual average is a useful number.

      • Thank you, Tim, for your response.

        “There is no valid theory that says only 47% of this is absorbed.”

        I never said “absorbed”. It is the “not reflected portion of the incident solar flux”.

        It is not “absorbed”. It is the portion of the incident solar flux that takes part in the (solar EM energy)/ (surface matter) interaction process.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        ” It is the “not reflected portion of the incident solar flux”.”

        There are three possibilities when light hits an object. It can be
        * absorbed
        * reflected
        * transmitted

        We know that no light is transmitted through the earth. If 30% is reflected (albedo = 0.3), then 70% must be absorbed (i.e. “not reflected portion”).

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Christos, it basically come down to one of two options.

        1) No astronomer ever considered the possibility of specular reflection, and their measurements of bond albedo are dramatic wrong.

        2) Astronomers DO know about specular reflection, and you are wrong.

      • Tim,

        “There are three possibilities when light hits an object. It can be
        * absorbed
        * reflected
        * transmitted”

        Also light (SW solar EM radiative energy) can be instantly transformed into LW (IR) outgoing emitted EM energy.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim, what I do is planets and moons the satellite measured average surface (Tmean) temperatures comparison.

        YOU: “Christos, it basically come down to one of two options.

        1) No astronomer ever considered the possibility of specular reflection, and their measurements of bond albedo are dramatic wrong.

        2) Astronomers DO know about specular reflection, and you are wrong.”

        Astronomers have re-defined the Bond Albedo. They consider the planet specular reflection insignificant.

        But the smooth surface planets and moons have a strong specular reflection.
        The Bond Albedo is defined now as the measure of planet surface diffuse reflection only.
        And, as such, it is perfectly measured.

        But those measurements have left out the smooth surface planets and moons the strong specular reflection.

        Therefore, for the smooth surface planets and moons, the SW “Energy in”, and consequently the IR emitted “Energy out” is very much overestimated!

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Also light (SW solar EM radiative energy) can be instantly transformed into LW (IR) outgoing emitted EM energy.”

        No. That is light being absorbed.

        By getting absorbed, those photons add energy to the object, and those photons cease to exist. The object independently emits new thermal IR photons based on its own temperature. Two separate processes.

      • Tim,

        “”Also light (SW solar EM radiative energy) can be instantly transformed into LW (IR) outgoing emitted EM energy.”

        No. That is light being absorbed.

        By getting absorbed, those photons add energy to the object, and those photons cease to exist. The object independently emits new thermal IR photons based on its own temperature. Two separate processes.”

        Thank you, Tim, for your response.

        Two separate processes, there is no time for energy to get conducted into inner layers.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • I insist on term “instantly transformed” and emitted as LW (IR) outgoing EM energy, because by that we exclude any “averaging” over the planet entire surface, because there is not much of the “not reflected portion” of the incident solar flux left to average.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Astronomers have re-defined the Bond Albedo.”
        No, it is still the fraction of the total energy reflected at all wavelengths and all angles. I would challenge you to find any astronomer who would agree with your ‘new’ definition.

        “But the smooth surface planets and moons have a strong specular reflection.”
        No.
        * Smooth metals have strong specular reflection … but no planets have smooth metal surfaces.
        * Some minerals have reflective flat surfaces … but a) these are not common b) the random orientation of the surfaces will cause basically diffuse reflection as tiny bits of specular reflection go off in random directions.
        * Smooth water has strong specular reflection at glancing angles … but a) oceans are not smooth, creating glitter like above, b) waves cause less reflection at glancing angles, reducing refection c) foam, plants, etc reduce reflection d) only 2/3 of earth is water e) at glancing angles, light has to pass through a lot of atmosphere, reducing the intensity of specular reflections.

        So, no, there is not strong specular reflection from any planet. Earth is probably at the top of the list of specular reflection due to our oceans, and even here it is probably less than 5% of incoming light that is specularly reflected due to all the factors above.

      • Nate says:

        “What theory says is the Earths not reflected portion of the incident solar flux is:

        π*r^2*448 W”

        The units make no sense here.

        Wm^2

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “I insist on term “instantly transformed” and emitted as LW…”

        Then you also insist that the ground can’t warm up during the day! If all of the energy is “instantly transformed” and there is “no time for energy to get conducted”, then the rock and dirt at and near the surface will stay the same temperature all day long!

      • Thank you, Tin, for your response.

        There is not Pure Specular Reflection – it is theoretical abstraction. It is close onto infinitesimal small services, but only close.
        Only close, because, there is not sun beam as it is imagined being streched in perfect line a homogenous EM energy flux.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim,

        “Then you also insist that the ground cant warm up during the day! If all of the energy is instantly transformed and there is no time for energy to get conducted, then the rock and dirt at and near the surface will stay the same temperature all day long!”

        Of course ground warms up during the day. It is warm all the time it is solar irradiated.
        But only a part of the not reflected solar energy penetrates in, so to be kept after sunset.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim,

        “No, it is still the fraction of the total energy reflected at all wavelengths and all angles. I would challenge you to find any astronomer who would agree with your new definition.”

        It is the original Bond Albedo definition.
        When measuring the planets’ surfaces reflection astronomers measure only the diffuse reflection.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim, since the incoming solar energy is directional, it is impossible to get reflected in an isotropical manner.
        The reflection inevitably should have a strong directional behavior.

        There are planets and moons with heavy cratered surfaces. Those surfaces resemblanse dense urban areas, where solar light is many times reflected downwards the deep streets.
        Those planets and moons have Φ =1.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Christos, you seem to be grasping at straws now; proposing any possible explanations. You seem to be starting with the idea that your theory *is* right, and then adjusting facts to fit your pre-ordained conclusion.

        You could always try to publish your ideas. Or go visit real astronomers at a real university. But I am running out of time to correct each new idea.

      • Thank you, Tim, for your response.

        “Christos, you seem to be grasping at straws now; proposing any possible explanations. You seem to be starting with the idea that your theory *is* right, and then adjusting facts to fit your pre-ordained conclusion.

        You could always try to publish your ideas. Or go visit real astronomers at a real university. But I am running out of time to correct each new idea.”


        Tim, it is a dynamical world we live in. Any possible explanations should be very much seriously taken in consideration, because there is nobody out there to explain us what exactly is going on, and why it is happening that way, and not the other way.

        The only method we, the living creatures, have is the comparison. By comparing things and by comparing phenomena, the every newly born in this world, either it is a human child, or it is every
        other specie’s “child”, has to successfully adapt in its environment…
        And the only method is the comparison. Even when experimenting, or when measuring we do compare things.

        “Christos, you have one interesting hypothesis. But not the only hypothesis (and not the best).”
        (emphasis added)
        Tim, I’ll keep this what you have said.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Any possible explanations should be very much seriously taken in consideration”

        Yes. But any possible explanations should be very much seriously challenged to find weaknesses and flaws. You need to be your own toughest critic. Your theory simply does not hold up to tough scrutiny.

      • Thank you, Tim, for your response.

        “But any possible explanations should be very much seriously challenged to find weaknesses and flaws. You need to be your own toughest critic. Your theory simply does not hold up to tough scrutiny.”

        Please, Tim, tough-scrutinize my theory. Your tough scrutiny is very much constructive for further developing.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      A forcing is a mathematical concept in which a forcing function is input into a differential equation to ‘force’ a response’. There is no such thing in the real world, only in models, where differential equations are the basis of the models. eg. Navier-Stokes

      Those you cannot differentiate the real world from a computer model have serious issues. There can be not forcings in the atmosphere in the manner specified by the use of terms like radiative forcing. It is a term applicable only to computer models.

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      Oooooooh! An irrelevant link!

      Are you still refusing to describe the mythical GHE? How about “radiative forcing”?

      Go on – try to describe the role of “radiative forcing” in the Earth’s cooling over the last four and a half billion years (four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight notwithstanding).

      Anybody gullible and ignorant enough to believe nutters who use terms like “radiative forcing” deserves all the laughter directed their way.

      About as stu‌pid as people who believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter!

      How del‌usional is that?

    • Clint R says:

      Ark appears to be in early meltdown, where he reverts to his youthful ways trying to deal with his false religion being trounced on.

      Then gordon jumps in demonstrating once again his lack of knowledge about science.

      It all allows for another “teaching moment”.

      A “radiative forcing” refers to any time a hotter object can warm a colder object, radiatively. The clear example is Sun. Sun provides a “radiative forcing” to Earth.

      Another example is an infrared heater, or a campfire. If you sit close to either, you can feel the “radiative forcing”.

      Radiative forcing is a real thing. But the cult perverts it. The cult believes that ALL infrared is “heat”. That is, they believe that ALL infrared can warm any object it impacts. That’s why some of them will claim that ice can boil water. That’s why they claim the sky can warm the surface. They don’t understand radiative physics, or thermodynamics.

      Now, let the children play….

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…”A radiative forcing refers to any time a hotter object can warm a colder object, radiatively. The clear example is Sun. Sun provides a radiative forcing to Earth”.

        ***

        The Sun supplies electromagnetic radiation, the Earth absorbs it, and converts the EM to heat. It’s conversion, not forcing. No one is forcing the Earth to warm, it’s just in the way, like all the other planets, and atoms/molecules on the planet react to radiation from a hotter source as expected.

        Once again, the word forcing comes from the climate modelling community and it is related to the differential equations used in the models. Of course, anyone who had studied differential equation theory, and who had applied a forcing function, would know that. We regularly applied the unit impulse forcing function since a square wave offers an unlimited number of frequencies and pushes an amplifier like no other.

        Of course, climate modellers like Gavin Schmidt cannot differentiate between the reality of the atmosphere and the virtual reality of a climate model, so they pass their virtual world onto the real world. And, the naive like Clint buy into it, just as he rushes to embrace other pseudo-science, like heat being a definition and not an energy, and entropy not being about heat but about disorder.

        Other than that, Clint’s not a bad guy.

      • Willard says:

        Puffman says mean things of Mr. Asshat, bad.

        Puffman says Dragon crank stuff, good.

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • entropy not being about heat but about disorder

        Might I draw your attention to the close relationship between entropy and information, with particular respect to Maxwell’s Demon. The modern proof that Maxwell’s Demon cannot, in fact, violate the 2nd Law is entirely formulated in terms of information theory and, crucially, disorder.

        Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        May I draw your attention to the fact that you are refusing to describe the mythical GHE?

        Has your comment about entropy to do with anything at all?

      • Clint R says:

        Well, gordon and silly willy didn’t disappoint. Neither showed any signs of learning. Two that have never grown up,

        But Elliot surprised me! He seems to understand the connection of entropy to information, discovered and formalized by Claude Shannon. Or, at least he’s been exposed to it. A glimmer of hope….

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your drawings.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your drawings.”

        Thank you, nobody.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

  49. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob d …”You used to claim the GHE violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so you must have had a valid description of same”.

    ***

    It’s not the GHE that contradicts the 2nd law, it’s the AGW theory. One version of AGW has heat being transferred from colder GHGs to a hotter surface. The other version is just as inane. It has a trace gas in the atmosphere controhling the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.

    • And yet here we are, on a planet tens of degrees warmer than its own moon. So your understanding of the 2nd law is wrong.

      • gbaikie says:

        When sun is near zenith, on Earth the ground surface can heat to about 70 C. In comparison the lunar surface heats to more than 120 C.
        But 3″ below the lunar surface, it’s about 50 C cooler and 1 meter below the surface it’s about 150 C cooler than 120 C {-30 C or colder}. Or average temperature of top 1 meter of lunar surface is well below 0 C despite many, many hours of the sun being near zenith on the Moon.
        Or the Moon doesn’t absorb much energy from the Sunlight. Solar panels would get twice as much electrical power and you get it for 1/2 of the lunar day. Whereas Earth one has what is called peak solar power, which is only 1/4 of a day. Solar power works on the Moon {or anywhere in space- as that is what were designed to do, they don’t work on the Earth’s surface, in terms of making grid electrical power}.
        Because Earth has an ocean, it absorbs far more energy from the sunlight. Btw, it makes some economic sense to heat water with sunlight, as water stores heat. Or water is a “battery of thermal energy”, and if want hot water [rather than boiling temperature water] it’s pretty cheap and simple. Though the moon could easily give water above the boiling point at 1 atm pressure.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        Highest moon surface temperature – more than 125 C. Highest Earth surface temperature – less than 100 C.

        Maybe you are confused, or your degrees are different to mine.

    • Maybe I’m not deliberately trying to stupify myself by cherry-picking the maximum temperatures. As gbaikie points out, a very short distance into the regolith, where the temperature variations are smoothed, the temperatures are well below freezing. The Earth’s average temperature is 15C. The temperature of an object at 1AU is -17C.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        The first refuge of the incompetent – the irrelevant average.

        The temperature of an object 1 AU at 1 AU is whatever it is. In the case of the Earth’s surface, it varies between roughly 90 C, and -90 C, depending on surface location. The interior varies from roughly 6000 C to about 10 C.

        You really don’t know what you are talking about, do you?

        No wonder you refuse to describe (or even mention) the GHE. You realise that your gullibility and ignorance are making you look quite detached from reality – or just stu‌pid.

        You don’t need to stupify [sic] yourself – it’s your normal condition.

        Carry on.

      • Nate says:

        “is whatever it is.”

        Yes, it’s called science.

        Again, why do you visit a science blog, when you clearly hate science??

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote “Yes, its called science.”.

        No it isn’t, you idio‌t , it’s called temperature. Measured in degrees of hotness.Not calculated, measured. Are you completely stu‌pid, or just pretending?

        No wonder you refuse to describe the mythical GHE! You dimly realise that you don’t know how.

        You are not really the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

      • Nate – I often ask that question. These imbeciles are just railing at the fundamental purpose of the blog. So why come here at all?

      • its called temperature

        Which happens to be a statistical average by its very nature. Duh.

      • PhilJ says:

        “The Earths average temperature is 15C. The temperature of an object at 1AU is -17C.”

        A self contradictory statement as the Earth is at 1AU

      • A contradiction easily resolved when you take the greenhouse effect into consideration. Which was rather the point.

      • PhilJ says:

        “A contradiction easily resolved when you take the greenhouse effect into consideration. Which was rather the point.”

        Ah, another demonstration of the fundamental flaw of this whole GHE nonsense.

        The Earth is not a cold BB heated only by the sun, but a hot ball of molten rock and gasses that has been cooling for 4+ billion years despite solar input.

        Your -17 figure is the limit that it would approach given enough time to cool, not some temperature that a mythical GHE has warmed the surface up from.

        Physical and chemical changes that occur as the Earth cools may change the rate at which it cools but they cannot stop it as the 2lot demands

      • PhilJ – Your -17 figure is the limit that it would approach given enough time to cool, not some temperature that a mythical GHE has warmed the surface up from.

        Your blind faith is touching, but every technical discussion of the GHE gives quantitative substance to the observation that it is the GHE which maintains the Earth’s surface temperature. The flux of internal heat can be taken into account and it fails to explain the difference. This reality is corroborated by a consilience of evidence, including satellite measurements of the radiation imbalance due to greenhouse gases and direct observation of back-radiation. Kids can demonstrate the GHE in schools using a lamp and a glass container full of CO2. It is really elementary science, with a huge freight of experimental and observational support.

        Just going, “but I have faith that the internal warmth of the Earth causes the temperature difference” cuts no ice.

      • Clint R says:

        All wrong, Elliot.

        I don’t have time to debunk all of it right now, but let’s start with Phil’s point — The fictitious temperature of 255K (-1F, -18C) is the calculated value from an imaginary sphere. It’s one of many reasons the GHE is bogus.

        Try to claim Earth “should be” at 255K, ain’t science.

      • Nate says:

        “The Earth is not a cold BB heated only by the sun, but a hot ball of molten rock and gasses that has been cooling ”

        Whose heat escapes from Earth’s surface at the measured rate of 87 mW/m^2, which is very very tiny compared to the solar input.

        Not sure why PhilJ keeps thinking it is relevant or significant.

      • Clint R says:

        Another example of the crap the cult swallows: “Whose heat escapes from Earth’s surface at the measured rate of 87 mW/m^2…:

        Poor child Nate swallows everything his cult spews. That value, 87 mw/m², is based on an estimation of Earth’s core temperature. It ain’t science.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Elliott Bignell says:
        June 7, 2024 at 6:25 AM

        A contradiction easily resolved when you take the greenhouse effect into consideration. Which was rather the point.–

        Though one must realize, the Earth ocean is significant part of the greenhouse effect. And the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world. Or the tropical ocean heat engine warms the polar region as well as the rest of the world.
        The lunar surface doesn’t heat the rest of the Moon. And permanent dark crater can be less the 50 K [-223.15 C].
        If you shade an acre at lunar equator, it also can be 50 K.

      • PhilJ says:

        Hello Nate,

        “Whose heat escapes from Earths surface at the measured rate of 87 mW/m^2, which is very very tiny compared to the solar input.

        Not sure why PhilJ keeps thinking it is relevant or significant”

        The ocean depths are about 4-5 C

        No solar radiation has ever generated to that depth. Therefore that is all geothermal internal energy.

        How about starting with that and THEN add your solar input.

        Certainly a better model than a BB at 0k heated only by the sun

        Doing such would demonstrate clearly the cooling effect of water on the surface.

        I estimate it to be a cooling effect of about 30-40 C on average

      • Nate says:

        “The ocean depths are about 4-5 C”

        Which is not an answer for the fact the average geothermal heat flux is 87 mW/m^2, which is about 1/3000 of the solar input, and thus NOT significant.

        Oh well, PhilJ. This is a non-issue.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “One version of AGW has heat being transferred from colder GHGs to a hotter surface.”

      Almost correct, just replace heat with energy.

      “It has a trace gas in the atmosphere controhling the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.”

      The trace gas CO2 is very good at transferring energy to N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.

      • Swenson says:

        “The trace gas CO2 is very good at transferring energy to N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.”

        At night?

        Don’t be stu‌pid, bobby. The temperature falls at night.

      • gbaikie says:

        “At night?

        Dont be stu‌pid, bobby. The temperature falls at night.”

        The land surface and the atmosphere above it, falls at night.
        The ocean surface and atmosphere above it, slightly goes down at night.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “Dont be stu‌pid, bobby. The temperature falls at night.”

        What does that have to do with CO2 transferring energy to N2 and O2, and N2 and O2 transferring energy to CO2?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  50. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie….”he already described the perfect example of the GHE when he pointed to the example of the Incas using the conditions at high altitude with clear skys to make ice”.

    ***

    Duh!!! Those conditions would be sub-zero temperatures.

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      I usually refer to India, but here’s a snippet off the internet –

      “Believe it or not, its actually stated in the Bible that people could make ice in the desert at a time long before electricity and fridges. This practice seems baffling for modern society, but it was actually quite simple and practical and most often used in Persia.”

      The phenomenon is also noted when radiative frost occurs – air temperature is above freezing but frost occurs on the ground, ants sometimes citrus fruit, etc.

      No GHE, just basic physics.

  51. Gordon Robertson says:

    elliott…”Theres an awful lot of white noise on this blog, isnt there?”

    ***

    There is a lengthy period, at times, between Roy’s monthly updates and his editorial comments. It’s hard to be serious all the time and we tend to drop into various levels of humour. Much of it is good-natured humour which the casual blogger mistakes as your white noise, or worse.

    If you have experienced many blogs you will notice the same in most of them, unless the blog owner goes off on an ego trip and tries to be king. Roy, much to his credit, has allowed us the freedom to drift, which makes his blog fa superior to most.

    It’s actually a good exercise in democracy. Our current versions feature minorities trying to suppress the input of others who disagree with their propaganda. Here in Canada, we are faced with Draconian legislation aimed at hate crimes which could put a person in jail for life simply for expressing what one party deems to be hate speech.

    We need to put an end to such fascism and hopefully, in the next election, both here and in the US, we will se this Nazi mentality driven from office.

    • Willard says:

      Mr. Asshat, please stop conflating democracy with chan4-like free-for-all, with sociopaths such as Mike Flynn bragging about being free to say whatever they please, including using words that have been moderated by Roy.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        your version of democracy extends to the right to stalk people and harass them by publishing their real names. Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer Swenson’s definition, someone you refer to as Mike Flynn for some reason. Mike, a good guy, has not posted here for years.

      • Swenson says:

        Weepy Wee Willard,

        You wrote –

        “Mr. Asshat, please stop conflating democracy with chan4-like free-for-all, with sociopaths such as Mike Flynn bragging about being free to say whatever they please, including using words that have been moderated by Roy.”.

        I just point out the facts. You don’t like them, deny reality. I’m not sure whether Dr Spencer needs your help running his blog, but Im sure he will give your comments the consideration they deserve.

        If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them. If you don’t want other people to like them, tell others not to read them.

        Keep refusing to describe the GHE – I’ll keep laughing at you.

        Carry on.

        [what a dim‌witted tr‌oll is Willard]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, nobody cares about the comment you post after Mr. Asshat’s whining.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn, nobody cares about the comment you post after Mr. Asshats whining.”

        Excellent!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your appreciation.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your appreciation.”

        I need to thank nobody, then.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Tim S says:

      There is an urban rumor that Quentin Tarantino is planning a sequel to the movie Django Unchained. The tentative title is “The Donald Unhinged”. Alec Baldwin is being consider for lead role. Firearms will not be allowed on set.

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    professor p…it has recently come to my attention that the ‘p’ stand for poo. Professor poo…how apt. Not a full bs, artist, just a toned-down version.

    • professor P says:

      How mature.

      But the question is: Why?

      The answer is (of course) because GR knows he is guilty of white noise. Like an angry wasp, he knows he has fallen into the trap by trying to defend it.

      Please buzz off.

      • Swenson says:

        P,

        You wrote –

        “How mature.

        But the question is: Why?

        The answer is (of course) because GR knows he is guilty of white noise. Like an angry wasp, he knows he has fallen into the trap by trying to defend it.

        Please buzz off.”

        How mature is that?

        P, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your answers, they don’t mean a thing.

        Long live and prosper.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your answers, they dont mean a thing.”

        Good!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, nobody cares about PSTering, more so that you portrayed them as commands on the other thread.

        Swoon.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn, nobody cares about PSTering, more so that you portrayed them as commands on the other thread.

        Swoon.”

        Ah, back to the homosexual love insinuation.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about your casual homophobia, Mike.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your casual homophobia, Mike.”

        Good to hear. Thank your friend nobody for me.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares if you keep trying to clarify your silly joke.

        It only gets sillier.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  53. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…”Glycol is not compressed.

    ***

    Tim, it would be helpful if you’d say why not. They are trying to extract heat from water.

    The glycol is in a tube and it is warmed then compressed. That raises its temperature to a point where it can heat water for showers and baths. It’s not intended to be part of the heat pump per se but an adjunct to it that raises the water heat level to a point where the system can heat water to the point it can be used for a bath or a shower.

    I was surprised to see the reason glycol stops water from freezing at 0C. It apparently interferes with hydrogen bonding, the weak binding mechanism that holds water molecules together to form water.

    • Tim S says:

      I found a thermodynamic diagram. There are 4 states in an AC system. Hot high pressure vapor, hot high pressure liquid, cold low pressure liquid, and cold low pressure vapor. The sequence start with cold vapor entering the compressor. High pressure vapor is condensed. Hot liquid enters the expansion valve or restriction. Cold liquid evaporates. Cold vapor enters the compressor to complete the cycle:

      https://hvac-eng.com/refrigeration-cycle-diagram-explained/

      If that is too technical there is this: (Alright!!!)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscHn6GPWO0

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…we’re not talking about HVAC or air-conditioning. The latter uses a low pressure gas in a radiator, working in reverse, that extracts heat from a room. Then the warmed gas is compressed to a high pressure, high temperature liquid. The liquid runs through a radiator which allows the high temperature to be conducted and radiated away to a hotter environment and that leaves a cooler high pressure liquid which is run through an aerator. There it is converted to a low pressure mist and the process repeats.

        The heat pump referenced in the Scottish unit operates differently. It extracts heat from water but the temperature of the water will be too low for a bath or a shower. So, they run it past a coil with glycol that is compressed, causing it to warm. That coil is use to raise the water temp from the heat pump.

        At least, that my take. Airplane motors in WW II used glycol to cool motors. If it is good for cooling, then compressing it makes it good for warming the glycol.

      • Tim S says:

        My apologies for those who do not understand AC systems. The original, very poorly written article, in The Guardian tried to explain that the glycol is “removing heat from the water”. That is technically correct. The glycol is a closed system that allows any old nasty and dirty water to be utilized. The clean and warmed glycol then provides the warming fluid for the AC system condenser to boil the “refrigerator stuff” (allowable word). In effect we have a three step heat transfer from the water to the glycol and then to the”stuff”. Any and all heat pump systems must use “stuff”. Glycol and water are not volatile enough. Trust me!

      • TimS – The Grauniad‘s technical literacy mostly leaves something to be desired. They’re just a news source. It’s always better to pursue original sources when one has the time, and I welcome the links.

    • professor P says:

      More white noise.
      No information content at all.

      • Tim S says:

        Gordon has no intent to provide “information”. He is playing his usual game of being just enough wrong, but maybe close, and catching people who do not understand the subject. Sometimes he is amusing. Other times he is just plain wrong.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…you obviously have not the slightest idea how an AC system works or how glycol is used in the Scottish mechanism.

        When corrected, you respond typically, with ad hom and insults.

      • Tim S says:

        Did I mention that Gordon gets upset when he is caught in his game. He is actually rather clever to be only slightly wrong, but not completely wrong.

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      What is ironic? So many people attending a political rally in high temperatures that some suffered heat stress?

      You sound like a typical GHE cultist – saying nothing of use, while attempting to project an aura of intelligence.

      Why can’t any of you idio‌ts say what you mean? For the same reason you refuse to describe the GHE?

      Fear of derisive laughter, or just some severe mental deficit?

      You tell me.

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about telling you anything, Mike Flynn.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” … or just some severe mental deficit? ”

        Flynnson finally admits his deep pathological disease.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard and Bindidon are off with the fairies again.

        Willard’s description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”.

        Bindidon has given up completely on CO2 – “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.”

        At least Willard states that the result of GHE is cooling. Bindidon refuses to say.

        A right pair of peanuts!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares if you keep gaslighting.

        Long live and prosper.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares if you keep gaslighting.”

        Good ol’ nobody. Just can’t help caring.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Talk about poetic justice…

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…you rally need to get around more. Arizona’s climate is arid to semi-arid. Average temperatures in the south range from 40C to 45C.

      People got heat stroke, whoda thunk?

    • Swenson says:

      “Nobody cares if you keep gaslighting.”

      Good ol’ nobody! Just can’t help caring!

      Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

  54. A brief account of statistical mechanics for those who do not grasp the fundamentally statistical nature of thermodynamics and temperature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

    There is no temperature without averages.

    • RLH says:

      Is that ‘average’ a mean or a median?

      • RLH says:

        A mean requires that everything is equally distributed.

      • Nate says:

        “A mean requires that everything is equally distributed.”

        No it doesnt!

      • Willard says:

        Hey Richard, you got a call on line 2 –

        But we have also experimented with a weighted average of MSU channels 3 (TP) and 4 (LS), (AMSU channels 7 and 9), which produces an averaging kernel in the upper troposphere (nearly insensitive to stratospheric cooling in the tropics, but somewhat sensitive to stratospheric cooling in the extra-tropics where the tropopause [the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere] is lower). This

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/

      • RLH says:

        “Another time when we usually prefer the median over the mean (or mode) is when our data is skewed (i.e., the frequency distribution for our data is skewed). If we consider the normal distribution – as this is the most frequently assessed in statistics – when the data is perfectly normal, the mean, median and mode are identical. Moreover, they all represent the most typical value in the data set. However, as the data becomes skewed the mean loses its ability to provide the best central location for the data because the skewed data is dragging it away from the typical value. However, the median best retains this position and is not as strongly influenced by the skewed values..”

      • Willard says:

        Richard does not always use the mean, but when he does it’s when it’s equal to the median.

        Everything else is skewed.

      • RLH says:

        “Everything else is skewed.”

        So sayeth the expert.

      • Willard says:

        I make a fairly basic point of logic, and Richard, the self-avowed logic expert, cannot follow through.

        We definitely need better contrarians.

      • Tim S says:

        Once again Willard posts information he does not understand. What is the difference between a “weighted” average a simple average?

        You might be able to find something on Wikipedia.

      • Willard says:

        TS once again butts in something without realizing that his riddle has very little to do with Richard’s pet peeve, which goes back ca 2022. At the time Richard had to be reminded of the concept of median. In fact he still has no idea that he’s rediscovering what is called robustness.

        Perhaps he could tell us if he prefers the DMA, the EMA, the DEMA, the HMA, the SMA, the WMA or perhaps a fancier one, and how it relates to Richard’s pet peeve?

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You wrote –

        “A mean requires that everything is equally distributed.

        No it doesnt!”

        And you are going to refuse to explain what you mean, aren’t you? Why don’t you demonstrate your intelligence, and be helpful?

        Is your refusal due to mean-spiritedness or ignorance?

        [snigger]

      • A mean requires that everything is equally distributed.

        No, if everything were equally distributed then none of the three averages would even be necessary. You could just take a single element and use its value for the entire distribution.

      • Nate says:

        “And you are going to refuse to explain what you mean”

        No, it’s perfectly clear for anyone who isn’t clueless.

    • Swenson says:

      “There is no temperature without averages.”

      A measured temperature is what it is. A maximum or minimum temperature is not an average.

      You are confused.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      elliott…I understand thermodynamics and temperature well and I don’t appreciate either being redefined by a depressed scientist, Boltzmann, who took his own life over his failure to emulate the 2nd law and entropy using statistical methods.

      Statistical mechanics had its day in the Sun, out of desperation. It was initially promoted by Clausius in the 1850s as the kinetic theory of gases. He left it to a mathematician, Maxwell to develop it further and Boltzmann got in on the act. Clausius had more important things in mind, like developing thermodynamics based on the interaction between heat and work.

      In those days, nothing was know about atomic structure or the electron. The electron was not discovered till 1898 and atomic theory was developed by Rutherford between then and 1910. It was a student of Rutherford, Bohr, who put it all together in 1913, using Planck’s quanta theory. Bohr explained the real relationship between EM and electrons, making statistical theory obsolete, as well as blackbody theory.

      Maxwell and Boltzmann tried to make sense of atomic structure in gases and out of desperation they applied statistical theory to the problem. Boltzmann in particular tried to explain the 2nd law and entropy using statistical mechanics, and he failed. However, wannabees adopted his theories and still try to apply the anachronisms today.

      Clausius laid down the 2nd law and entropy based on heat transfer. It was sheer arrogance for Boltzmann to redefine both and sheer stoopidity for anyone who listened to him to carry on his nonsense. They don’t get it that he failed.

      • Nice argumentum ad hominem, but it does nothing to change the fact that temperature and pressure are phenomena arising out of the average behaviour of molecules, and that statistical mechanics accurately predicts such macro-scale physical phenomena.

      • Willard says:

        It is worse that that, Elliott –

        Mr. Asshat disses statistics but touts information theory, which is a based on statistics!

      • Yes, that also scores pretty high on the hilarity coefficient.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.

  55. “Alternatively you could use Greenland ice core record which is higher resolution than Antarctica, and has an overlap with Had-CRUT.”

    https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/gisp2-and-had-crut-4.png
    the (had-crut should not have “-“.


    When studying the Graph it is another strong confirmation of the “It is the warming trend for the last ~ 11000 years.”

    You see, it is upside-down again, as it is with Milankovitch cycles effect.
    The ice core record is preciselly measured the previous millenials the captured atmospheric gases the CO2 content.

    But it is wrongly assumed, that “the warmer the atmospheric air was at the time, the higher in ice cores the captured atmospheric CO2 content should be”.

    It is exactly the opposite what happens. The colder the air, the more CO2 is captured in the ice cores.


    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Entropic man says:

      Most people would disagree with you.

      Please explain what mechanism you think causes ice formed in a colder world climate to store extra CO2 in the trapped gas bubbles.

      • Thank you, Ent, for your response.

        “Most people would disagree with you.

        Please explain what mechanism you think causes ice formed in a colder world climate to store extra CO2 in the trapped gas bubbles.”

        When snows, air bubbles get trapped in the layers of snow. When snow is formed into ice, the air bubbles get trapped in the ice.
        Those air bubbles CO2 content gets trapped in the ice too.

        Now,

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

        Density:

        1562 kg/m3 (solid at 1 atm (100 kPa) and −78.5 C (−109.3 F))
        1101 kg/m3 (liquid at saturation −37 C (−35 F))
        1.977 kg/m3 (gas at 1 atm (100 kPa) and 0 C (32 F))

        Solubility in water:

        1.45 g/L at 25 C (77 F), 100 kPa (0.99 atm)

        Now, One liter of ice cold water can hold about 3.3 grams of CO2. The cold polar water can absorb a lot of CO2.


        Snow gets formed from the tiny water droplets in the air. The colder the air, the more CO2 is absorbed in those tiny water droplets. When snow gets formed from those droplets, the trapped air bubbles get enriched with CO2.

        Eventually, the colder the air, the higher the ice core’s captured air bubbles CO2 content.

        Also, when it is colder than −78.5 C, the CO2 becomes solid, and it “falls” on the glacier’s top and then it gets covered with snow etc.


        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Entropic man says:

        That’s not going to work. When snow falls on an ice sheet it forms firn, a water/ice/air mix with open pores which allow the CO2 coming out of solution to escape to the atmosphere. Only when the firm finally freezes fully is air trapped in bubbles. Their composition then matches the atmosphere.

        Not that it matters to the proxy temperature measurement. This is not determined by theamount of CO2, but by the oxygen isotope ratio in the water. Water containing 18oxygen is more reluctant to evaporate than water containing 16oxygene, especially at lower temperatures. Lower ocean temperatures produce water vapour with less 18oxygen which leads to ice with a smaller proportion of 18oxygen.

      • Thank you, Ent, for your response.

        “Thats not going to work. When snow falls on an ice sheet it forms firn, a water/ice/air mix with open pores which allow the CO2 coming out of solution to escape to the atmosphere. Only when the firm finally freezes fully is air trapped in bubbles. Their composition then matches the atmosphere.”

        “with open pores which allow the CO2 coming out of solution to escape to the atmosphere.”
        No, the CO2 doesn’t escape in atmosphere. The other, the lighter gases escape, so the CO2 concentration becomes even densier.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        christos…”When snow falls on an ice sheet it forms firn, a water/ice/air mix…”.

        ***

        In our geology classes, they told us firn is partially compressed snow. When it sits around it begins to settle and loses its flakiness. As it settles further,it becomes ice.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        A question one might ask first is what relation the cold has to CO2. CO2 is absorbed in colder water and out-gassed in warmer water. So, the extremely cold water off Antarctica should absorb more CO2. The denser water then sinks and is recirculated to warmer areas where it rises and is out-gassed.

        It would appear to me that process should reduce the concentration in the Antarctic air and increase it in Tropical air.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Cristos, Your graph presents the GISP2 data for Greenland with the HADLEY CRT4 data spliced onto the end. That’s a bogus presentation, since the Greenland data includes the high latitude Arctic Amplification, therefore has rather large excursions compared with the global data.

      Where did you find that graph, https://rclutz.com/?

  56. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Gordon Robertson wrote:

    A forcing is a mathematical concept… There is no such thing in the real world

    In physics, the term “forcings” refers to external factors or influences that cause changes in a system. Forcings can be natural or anthropogenic and can affect various physical systems, from climate to mechanical systems.

    Forcings are fundamental in physics.

    The concept of forcings can be traced back to the development of classical mechanics, particularly Newton’s Second Law. In this context, the “forcing” is the external force acting on an object, causing it to accelerate.

    In thermodynamics heat and work are considered as forcings that drive the system.

    In Electromagnetism electric and magnetic fields act as forcings that influence the behavior of charged particles and electromagnetic waves.

    In Climate Science forcings refer to factors that affect the Earth’s climate system.

    • Clint R says:

      Thanks for correcting gordon, Ark. He needs all the correcting he can get.

      Adding to your statement:

      “In Climate Science forcings refer to factors that affect the Earth’s climate system.”

      A “positive” forcing raises temperatures, while a “negative” forcing lowers temperatures.

      Sun and the HTE are example of positive forcings, and radiative gases are examples of negative forcings.

      • Ball4 says:

        … on the stratosphere.

        Clint R omitted the reality of measured soundings.

      • Clint R says:

        Keep stalking me Ball4, with your false accusations.

        It not only proves me right, but it makes child Nate mad because I’m getting attention.

        Win-win!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…”A positive forcing raises temperatures, while a negative forcing lowers temperatures”.

        ***

        When I studied thermodynamics in a course, they taught us that heat raises temperatures and a removal of heat lowers temperatures.

        Now Clint has a further redefinition of heat. He not only thinks it is not energy but a transfer of heat, and he thinks it is a forcing as well.

        Heat is the Rodney Dangerfield of science, it gets no respect.

      • Clint R says:

        gordon, you never passed a REAL course in thermodynamics. It’s pretty obvious. You would know the thermodynamic definition of “heat”, if you had.

        That’s part of the reason you feel you have to misrepresent me so much. The other reasons are immaturity and insecurity.

        Go ahead and prove me right some more. I can take it.

      • Nate says:

        “It not only proves me right, but it makes child Nate mad because Im getting attention.

        Win-win!”

        Proves me right, that you are seeking attention, again. Negative attention is easiest for you to get.

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      “In Climate Science forcings refer to factors that affect the Earths climate system.”

      There is no such thing as climate science. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.

      Any self-styled climate scientist claiming to use forcings is either a fo‌ol (ignorant) or a fraud (knows he is foo‌ling others).

      You are attempting to conflate forces (valid) with “forcings”. Semantic games, to give an air of science to the nonsense called “climate science”.

      Just as bizarre as conflating W/m2 with temperature, or waffling about imaginary “energy balances”. You refuse to describe the GHE, and lately refuse to even mention the GHE, worried that someone might ask you to describe the effects of this mythical thing.

      So keep the jargon coming, and keep dreaming. It’s always good to find a reason for humour I; pseudoscience.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ark…”In this context, the forcing is the external force acting on an object, causing it to accelerate”.

      ***

      Newton called it a force, not a forcing. A force is a real phenomenon, a forcing is a mathematical function used to model a real force, or something that drives a process. Ergo, a force is real and a forcing is virtual.

      f = ma refers to a force, f. The ‘f’ does not mean forcing. Only dweebs using models in climate science would call it that.

      In all the time I spent studying differential equation theory, I never heard the word forcing used outside a reference to a forcing function. There are no forcing functions in the atmosphere, just real forces. Not once in several physics classes or in any physics textbook did I see the word forcing used, let alone in place of force.

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      Every science and engineering student has done the mass on a spring experiment in physics lab.

      1/ Start with a weight suspended from a spring.

      2/ Give the weight a pull downwards.

      3/ The system will start oscillating up and down.

      4/ Now give the weight a small push downward during each oscillation.

      It will be found that,

      5/ Provided that the weight is always pushed at the same stage of each oscillation. A violent motion will be built up.

      5a/ This is known as forcing an oscillation in resonance.

      5b/ Forcing because of the pushes, and in resonance because the pushes are timed to come at the exact same stage of each oscillation.

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        And completely irrelevant to weather. What resonance do you believe in being reinforced, and by what?

        No wonder you refuse to describe the GHE! Nothing will force you to do that, will it?

        You idio‌t, “forcings” is a nonsense-word, pseudoscientific jargon used by GHE cultists. Accept reality – the reason you refuse to describe the GHE is because you know you will look like a complete fo‌ol if you do!

        Carry on dreaming.

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about what you find relevant or not, Mike Flynn.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ark…”5/ Provided that the weight is always pushed at the same stage of each oscillation. A violent motion will be built up.

        5a/ This is known as forcing an oscillation in resonance”.

        ***

        The push, or pull, must be of sufficient force to sustain resonance. That is of sufficient force to overcome losses due to gravity. I hardly think that applies in the mass and spring setup.

        With resonance there is a thing called damping. If damping is strong enough (eg, spring too stiff), resonance dies and the oscillation tapers off.

        Resonance brought down the Seattle-Tacoma bridge, however. The suspension bridge had supporting cables that vibrated in the wind, and the vibrations were transferred to the bridge structure, which began resonating at its natural frequency of vibration. Eventually the resonance increased till the entire span was weaving like a sine wave, before it broke up and collapsed.

        You can get a similar resonance in a guitar when the strings vibrate at a similar frequency to the natural resonant frequency of the body. You can sustain the resonance by strumming the guitar strings but it cannot be amplified to destruction.

        Just watched a show on TV in which resonance was induced in a building from a metal group’s (Motorhead) sound system. Plaster began dropping from the ceiling and the caretaker had to flip the breaker to shut them down, because the group refused to lower the volume.

        That is a re-enforced sound situation but still not forced. You don’t need to force an oscillator to resonate, that is a basic function, of an oscillator, to resonate. It is built to resonate and if it does not, it won’t oscillate.

        In all my years in electronics, many of them related to sound systems, I have never heard of a system being forced to oscillate in resonance. All oscillators resonate at a given frequency which is determined by the components used such as inductors, capacitors, crystals, etc. An inductor/capacitor oscillator is called an LC-tank.

        If you don’t supply an oscillator with a regular pulse of current, the oscillation will die naturally. You can call that a forced oscillation if you like but the circuit has already been deigned to resonate at a specific frequency.

        I have never once heard that described as a forcing.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about what you find relevant or not, Mike Flynn.”

        Good to know.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about what you find good to know.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about what you find good to know.”

        That’s good to know. Thank your mate nobody for me.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your adolescent misreadings.

        Good night.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Gordon Robertson,

        Note that your 348 word reply contradicts your original assertion that “A forcing is a mathematical concept… There is no such thing in the real world.” You described several real world forcings.

        Your confusion may be due to the fact that in physics, a “forcing” typically refers to any external influence that drives a system. In electronics and sound systems, the term might be used less frequently, leading to the assertion that you “have never once heard that described as a forcing.”

        I’ve said all I’m going to say about this subject.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        “All oscillators resonate at a given frequency which is determined by the components used such as inductors, capacitors, crystals, etc. An inductor/capacitor oscillator is called an LC-tank.”

        Is a speaker an oscillator?

        Does a speaker emit only at a given frequency, or does it emit all the frequencies the amplifier sends to it?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, Arkady, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      democrats desperately trying to revive their chances in the next election. They thought they could railroad Trump out of the next election using a kangaroo court run by a corrupt Democrat judge. Instead, they have turned US voters against them because they think that sort of behavior does not belong in a democracy.

      O what a tangled web we weave
      When first we practice to deceive.

      …Walter Scott.

  57. Gordon Robertson says:

    christos…”The colder the air, the more CO2 is captured in the ice cores”.

    ***

    Christos…I think the entire theory is wrong. Ice cores in Antarctica reveal variations of CO2 trapped in ice from 200 ppvm right up to 2000 ppvm. The IPCC cherry picked the lowest value they could find, 270 ppmv for the pre-Industrial era.

    http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

    https://web.archive.org/web/20180811094623/http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

  58. Swenson says:

    EB wrote earlier –

    “Kids can demonstrate the GHE in schools using a lamp and a glass container full of CO2. It is really elementary science, with a huge freight of experimental and observational support.”

    Why does he refuse to describe the GHE, then? What is it supposed to do?

    Why cannot “climate scientists” say where this mythical GHE be reliably observed, measured, and documented? Because it’s imaginary, that’s why!

    The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. The surface cools each night, losing all the heat of the day (plus a little of the Earth’s remnant heat).

    Elliott Bignell and his ilk are quite mad. They even think climate controls weather, although they refuse to say such a stu‌pid thing explicitly.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      What they demonstrate is that CO2 can absorb IR. We all know that. The inference drawn is that the atmosphere contains CO2 and it warms, and that greenhouse warms, therefore the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse, and warms due to absorbing infrared energy.

      Pseudo-science. A greenhouse warms due to the glass in it trapping molecules and atoms of heated air. There is nothing in the atmosphere that can trap molecules of air therefore it is nothing like a greenhouse.

      Joe Postma summed it up well. We build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.

  59. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…”Gordon,

    I usually refer to India, but heres a snippet off the internet

    Believe it or not, its actually stated in the Bible that people could make ice in the desert at a time long before electricity and fridges. This practice seems baffling for modern society, but it was actually quite simple and practical and most often used in Persia.

    ***

    We both know that water requires temps below 0C to freeze. It is well known that temps in deserts can drop below 0C at night. What they don’t tell you is the altitude involved.

    One of the largest deserts on the planet is the Tibetan Plateau, with an average elevation of 15,000 feet. Tends to get might cold at those altitudes at night. The original quote was for a region in South America which has similar altitudes. In Persia, the altitudes range from 300 feet to 10,000 feet, all of it desert.

    I think it is presumed that deserts are all hot and at sea level, but even Death Valley, which is below sea level, gets freezing temperatures in winter.

  60. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Sit in front of a piano sometime and sing a loud brief note at it with the dampers off its strings (Figure 15.7.1
    ). It will sing the same note back at youthe strings, having the same frequencies as your voice, are resonating in response to the forces from the sound waves that you sent to them. This is a good example of the fact that objectsin this case, piano stringscan be forced to oscillate, and oscillate most easily at their natural frequency. In this section, we briefly explore applying a periodic driving forced acting on a simple harmonic oscillator. The driving forced puts energy into the system at a certain frequency, not necessarily the same as the natural frequency of the system. Recall that the natural frequency is the frequency at which a system would oscillate if there were no driving and no damping forced.

    https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_I_-_Mechanics_Sound_Oscillations_and_Waves_(OpenStax)/15%3A_Oscillations/15.07%3A_Forced_Oscillations

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      wee willy…”This is a good example of the fact that objectsin this case, piano stringscan be forced to oscillate, and oscillate most easily at their natural frequency. In this section, we briefly explore applying a periodic driving forced acting on a simple harmonic oscillator. The driving forced puts energy into the system at a certain frequency, not necessarily the same as the natural frequency of the system. Recall that the natural frequency is the frequency at which a system would oscillate if there were no driving and no damping forced”.

      ***

      Don’t know why you insist on getting involved in matters you know nothing about.

      We were talking about the word forcing as applied to the atmosphere. I tried to explain the derivation of the word, which is from a forcing function in differential equation theory. In the real world, we use the word force to represent mechanical energy in action. When such action is applied to a mass, the mass accelerates, provided the force is strong enough to do that.

      I have never heard the word forcing used in such a situation. In all my engineering studies, the word forcing was never used. The word was in none of my textbooks. It was not till this nonsense about climate models was introduced that the word gained popularity.

      In your quote above, you are using the word forced in a completely different manner. If you pluck a guitar string you force it to vibrate, In the past tense, you can claim the string was forced. At no time, would anyone in command of the English language call that a forcing.

      If you apply a force laterally to guitar string, then release the string, it will vibrate naturally at a frequency. There is no force causing the vibration other than the tension in the string. It’s a natural process with a string under tension when it is deviated laterally and released.

      Ergo, there is no separate forcing causing the vibration other than a tension in the string. You cannot call the initial deviate a forcing because it does not cause the vibration, it merely initiates it. The vibration is due to the tension in the string being increase by the external force then when the force is released, the string begins vibrating due to its mass and the internal tension.

      As I explained, the applied force to sustain oscillation is a force applied to make up for energy losses in the vibrating medium. If you pluck a guitar string with a pick,the string will vibrate at its natural frequency. It will gradually reduce vibration till it stops. If you pluck the string repeatedly, the string will keep vibrating indefinitely.

      I call that plucking the string repeatedly, not forcing it. I have never heard a musician playing guitar to claim he is forcing his guitar to play or a string to vibrate.

      Again, the word forcing comes from the differential equation theory where another function is used to force the modeled system to respond. For that reason, it is called a forcing function, and the only place that applies is in a model using a differential equation.

      Climate modelers, being the obstinate and stoopid clowns they are, have transferred the use of forcing from differential equations to the real world, where it mean noting.

      CO2 cannot be a forcing. For one, it is not a forcing function. For another, it applies no force to the atmosphere. Heat transfer is not a force, nor are any of the phenomena attributed to forcing. It’s just a dumb word.

      • For one, it is not a forcing function.

        Thus forcing me to point out that in all your engineering studies you never encountered the term, thus making any statement on what CO2 is or is not terminally vacuous.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        “I have never heard a musician playing guitar to claim he is forcing his guitar to play or a string to vibrate.”

        Well you push a plectrum or your fingers against the string with a certain amount of force, moving the string a certain distance and then releasing it.

        That means you are doing work on the string, adding energy to the string, the result being that it vibrates.

        So I would say that I am forcing the guitar string to vibrate, so let me be the first guitar player to claim that.

        The guitar isn’t going to play itself.

    • Swenson says:

      Wonky Wee Willy,

      No “forcings” to be seen.

      Just forces. Unlike pseudoscientific fakers calling themselves “climate scientists”, who think “forcings” control weather.

      What a pack of fo‌ols!

    • Willard says:

      [MR ASSHAT] In all my years in electronics, many of them related to sound systems, I have never heard of a system being forced to oscillate in resonance.

      [ALSO MR ASSHAT] We were talking about the word forcing as applied to the atmosphere.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I keep telling you, it’s Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat to you.

      • Willard says:

        Mr. Asshat has never opened a textbook on Mechanics, Sound, Oscillations, and Waves.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mr. Asshat has never opened a textbook on Mechanics, Sound, Oscillations, and Waves.”

        And?

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your lack of reading skills, which is almost as deep as your lack of social skills.

        Long live and prosper.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  61. Swenson says:

    Earlier, the bumbling GHE cultist Willard avoided mentioning “forcings”.

    Here’s what NOAA says –

    “The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planet’s radiative forcing”

    Completely pointless nonsense. Just pseudoscientific jargon, a way of saying that the Sun heats the .surface.

    So what?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      In a climate model, the Sun is not represented physically, it is represented mathematically as a radiation flux function. If it is the input to a differential equation representing the atmosphere and or surface, it becomes a forcing function.

      I wonder if the Sun shines inside a climate model, or if it rains all the time? CO2 is also represented as a radiative flux function but it is given 400 times too much warming effect.

      • Modern climate models attempt to account for both clouds and precipitation. These are both extremely hard to model accurately, so there is still room for improvement. At the level of individual cells, changes are “parameterised” using real-world observations.

      • it is given 400 times too much warming effect.

        Citation needed.

        I must also point out that “it is given 400 times too much warming effect” and “the warming effect is mythical and violates the laws of thermodynamics” are contradictory assertions. Just for anyone who was in any doubt.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Elliott, please stop trolling.

  62. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Radiative forcing is defined in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report as follows: “The change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W/m2) due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the concentration of volcanic aerosols or the output of the Sun.

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

    No wonder Sky Dragon crank ship is without pilot.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      How can a summation of an upward and downward flux, in w/m^2, be defined as a forcing? Where’s the force, all I see is subtraction?

      You might send that to Ark, he thinks a forcing is another word for force, which represents mechanical energy? You might send it to Clint as well, since he thinks a flux has nothing to do with energy.

      • Willard says:

        [MR ASSHAT READS] The change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W/m2) due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the concentration of volcanic aerosols or the output of the Sun.

        [MR ASSHAT ASKS] How can a summation of an upward and downward flux, in w/m^2, be defined as a forcing? Wheres the force, all I see is subtraction?

    • Ian Brown says:

      Sounds like garbage in and garbage out to me.just like the thought that atmospheric C02 remained constant for millions of years.even though temperatures fluctuated greatly, and volcanic activity was much more pronounced, it all boils down to one fact,when it comes to climate changes,we are stumbling around in the dark.

    • Swenson says:

      Weepy Wee Willard,

      The IPCC is obviously a collection of clueless clowns. Sunshine occurs when the sun shines.

      Climate changes as the statistics of historical weather observations change – which is continuously.

      The past four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, has proved insufficient to prevent the Earth cooling, and also insufficient to prevent the IPCC from appearing foo‌lish in the extreme.

      At least the IPCC Clown Show’s output of humorous nonsense continues undiminished, providing some relief from their constant and unremitting predictions of doom, accompanied by doleful cries of “It’s worse than we thought!”.

      Their predictive abilities are obviously even worse than they thought, changing from week to week.

      Forcings? Try farcings – about as useful a word.

      [continuing laughter ]

    • Good definition, with the merit that it is impossible to argue that such an incremental change cannot exist if something in the atmosphere alters the radiative flux.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        Indeed. The onset of night, clouds, no clouds, solar eclipse, volcanic eruptions, particulate pollution, dust storms, rain, fog – all change the amount of sunlight reaching the ground.

        Probably the most effective medium preventing “radiative flux” (sunlight) reaching the surface is seawater, as it covers about 70% of the globe, and ice, about 10%.

        Nobody can quantify the effect of “radiative flux” on the statistics of historical weather observations. That is why people who bang on about “radiative flux” (sunlight) refuse to try to describe its effects. You certainly refuse to explain what your comment means, don’t you?

        Do you believe in some sort of mythical “greenhouse effect”? What sort of effect would it have on weather observations?

        Can’t say? Won’t say? You cant blame me for laughing at your attempts to imply that you know what you are talking about, can you?

        Carry on being evasive and obscure.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody can indeed quantify radiative forcing.

        You just have to ask them nicely.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody can indeed quantify radiative forcing.”

        In your fantasy, of course.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares if you can’t play along.

        Cheers.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  63. Even in the US, renewables continue their upward march:

    American Solar Panel Manufacturing Capacity Increases 71% in Q1 2024 as Industry Reaches 200-Gigawatt Milestone

    Florida and Texas charge ahead on solar installs while California stumbles due to policy changes

    https://www.seia.org/news/american-solar-panel-manufacturing-capacity-increases-71-q1-2024-industry-reaches-200-gigawatt

    • Swenson says:

      EB,

      All energy production and use is eventually observed as waste heat. AGW.

      A joule is a joule – regardless of what creates it.

      Are renewable joules distinguishable from non-renewable joules?

      Things like gas, oil, and coal, being plant-based, are obviously renewable. Have you some reason for wanting people to starve while they freeze in the dark? I can’t see anything wrong with replacing the CO2 that Nature removed from the atmosphere – even if humans can’t replace it all.

      At least we can do our best. Don’t you agree?

    • Nate says:

      “Things like gas, oil, and coal, being plant-based,are obviously renewable”

      Science deniers say the darndest things..

    • Yes, that’s pretty funny.

      • Swenson says:

        “Things like gas, oil, and coal, being plant-based,are obviously renewable”

        Are you really stu‌pid enough to say plants are not renewable?

        Living organisms renew themselves. That’s how you determine they are alive. After they die, their descendants live on – renewal.

        Even yours, possibly. Nothing’s perfect.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares if you come with a definition of renewables that includes fossil fuels.

        Silly semantic games are for silly cranks.

      • Nate says:

        “Things like gas, oil, and coal, being plant-based,are obviously renewable

        Are you really stu‌pid enough to say plants are not renewable?”

        Notice the silly bait and switch tactic that tr0ll Swenson regularly employs.

        When people reject his stoopidity about fossil fuels being renewable, he tries substituting ‘plants’ for ‘fossil fuels’.

        His frauds are becoming too obvious.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  64. Coming is a definition of the GHE generated by Googol’s AI. I am posting it as a top-level post because the thread is yet again clogged up with lies that no-one can define the GHE. In fact, even Googol’s AI does it without hesitation. I suggest we keep something like this visible in future threads, in case I am too sick of the white noise to come and do it for another half a year, so that the nature of the lie is obvious to casual visitors. This seems preferable to simply repeating the definition over and over and thus sinking to the level of les nuls.

    I am forced to post it piecemeal as replies to this post as the site’s filters won’t allow it through.

    • Definition of the greenhouse effect
      The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.

      • Re-emission: Blocked by filter.

        Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.

        Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.

      • Importance of the Greenhouse Effect

        Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        A definition of something which you refuse to describe? Complete nonsense, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a molten state. Nothing can prevent heat from escaping to space. That’s how the Earth cools.

        Even ChatGPT agreed with me that the mythical GHE could not stop the Earth from cooling –

        “Yes, thats correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.”

        You arent just refusing to describe the mythical GHE, are you? You cannot find a description at all! You are just pretending that one exists!

        You can deny reality all you want. It’s a sign of insanity.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        “Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.”

        Complete nonsense. You might not accept it, but the surface cools at night.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        “Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.”

        No, sunlight warms the Earth’s surface. In the absence of sunlight, the surface cools.

        Temperatures in sunlight vary between about -90 C and +90 C. Habitable with a bit of help, I suppose.

        The Earth cooled. Man evolved to take advantage of the conditions, according to one widely accepted theory of evolution.

        No GHE.

      • Clint R says:

        Elliot, you’re new here so you don’t realize why your “AI” effort to describe the GHE has failed. In simple terms, the Google AI is brain-dead. Everyone accepts that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared. Some of that re-emission goes to space, unlike what your AI states — “…preventing it from escaping into space.”. But the portion that returns to the Earth’s surface (15μ photons), can NOT warm the 288K surface.

        Your cult does not understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. They continually confuse things like “heat”, “flux”, and “energy”. They believe that all infrared is “heat”. They believe all parts of the GHE nonsense without understanding any of the relevant physics.

        If you can’t show how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface, then you’ve got NOTHING. Also, don’t be confused by the “atmosphere effect”, which is Earth’s REAL “natural process” of insulating the surface from space temperatures.

        (Please don’t be insulted by anything I say. I’ve seen you say some intelligent things here, so I’m offering constructive criticism, not insults. This has all been discussed many times. You have some catching up to do,)

      • Clint R says:

        More nonsense: Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life.

        Those temperatures are for an imaginary sphere. It’s how the cult attempts to pervert reality. It ain’t science.

      • PhilJ says:

        “Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), ”

        Complete nonsense.

      • You might not accept it, but the surface cools at night.

        Svensdottir – Until I can build a plugin to eradicate you, I am mostly going to treat you as invisible. I trust that most posters can see that you are worthless. However, in this case your dimness is instructional.

        Yes, the surface cools at night. However, it does not immediately cool to -17C. Nor does the Earth’s temperature continue to heat towards infinity merely because there is a greenhouse effect. The GHE reduces the outward flux. It does not stop it. The greater the GHE, the higher the equilibrium temperature. When the incoming flux stops during the night, the system loses energy, but that loss is reduced be the GHE. When the inward flux resume during the day, the outward flux is similarly reduced by the GHE, and the average temperature increases.

        Any halfway intelligent observer could work this out.

        Any halfway intelligent visitor can see that you are lying when you pretend that I did not post that description.

      • Nate says:

        “Im offering constructive criticism”

        But Clint will not explain why or offer any real evidence to support his declarations that mainstream science is ‘a cult that does not understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.’

        He is confused by what ‘constructive’ means.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry child Nate, but science is not for children.

        Maybe when you grow up?

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        This has all been discussed before, you were wrong then and you are still wrong now.

        “Everyone accepts that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared. Some of that re-emission goes to space, unlike what your AI states preventing it from escaping into space.. But the portion that returns to the Earths surface (15μ photons), can NOT warm the 288K surface.”

        The original infrared from the surface has been prevented from escaping to space, who cares that some of the re-emitted IR escapes to space, some still doesn’t, because it can be re-abxorbed by CO2 on the way down, or abxorbed by the surface, where it adds its energy to the surface. Which may or may not warm depending on all the other ways the surface can be heated.

      • PhilJ says:

        ” The GHE reduces the outward flux.”

        Slower cooling is not warming.

        If it was then one would have to believe that the north polar ice cap warms the ocean.

        Ludicrous

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry bob, but you’re believing ALL infrared is heat. You’re one of the ones that believe ice can boil water.

        But beliefs ain’t science.

      • He is confused by what constructive means.

        Nicely put.

      • Slower cooling is not warming.

        Yes, it is.

      • Willard says:

        > Slower cooling is not warming.

        I bet you can’t cook an egg, Phil.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint you are gaslighting again.

        “Sorry bob, but youre believing ALL infrared is heat. Youre one of the ones that believe ice can boil water.”

        Infrared transfers heat, it is not heat itself.

        And yes, you can use ice cubes to cause water to boil, you have been shown that to be true.

        Does the peak of a blackbody curve mean that all photons emitted by that blackbody are that wavelength?

        Where did you learn your fake physics?

      • Tim S says:

        Heat is not trapped except for people who do not understand the science. Heat is “transferred” by the “heat transfer gases” in such a way that the heat escapes at different temperatures and at different levels in the atmosphere. Heat is not trapped.

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim S,

        Heat can be transferred by convection, conduction, radiation, and phase transfer, not by heat transferring gases.

        CO2 and the other greenhouse gases do trap the energy from infrared from the surface and transfer it quite nicely to the other non greenhouse gases.

        You may not like to say CO2 traps heat, but the result is an increase in atmospheric temperature with increase concentration of those heat trapping gases.

      • Tim S says:

        Bob, I have suspected for some time that you are not very bright, and now you have literally stepped in it. Is that a joke? Are you competing with Gordon for the fake science award?

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim S,

        What’s my IQ?

        What did I post that you think is not so bright?

        You are the one who claims heat is transferred by heat transferring gases.

      • Tim S says:

        I found this after a brief search. It may help:

        https://www.thermal-engineering.org/radiative-heat-transfer-in-gases/

      • Tim S says:

        From the link above we have this at the very bottom which seems to be loaded with banned words because it would not post in total:

        Challenges in Modeling Radiative Heat Transfer

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        You asked “Whats my IQ?”

        Bigger than your shoe size? Are you boasting about being below average?

      • Clint R says:

        bob claims “… you can use ice cubes to cause water to boil…”

        THAT is what cultism does to a mind.

        At one time, bob was probably a semi-functioning individual.

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim S,

        “I found this after a brief search. It may help:”

        Not so much, I knew everything that your source explained,

        But it does not say heat is transferred by heat transferring gases.

        It does say that heat is transferred by radiation.

        Some of the other clown car riders could gain some insight from reading that source.

      • bobdroege says:

        So Clint, if I post a link to a vid showing the addition of ice causing water to boil, you will promise not to post on this blog for 60 days.

      • Swenson says:

        “So Clint, if I post a link to a vid showing the addition of ice causing water to boil, you will promise not to post on this blog for 60 days.”

        Provided that the water is boiling at standard temperature and pressure, why not?

        The boiling point is defined as 100 C under standard conditions. You are just playing silly semantic games.

        Just refuse to describe the GHE. That will be more up your alley.

        Bobby, please stop tro‌lling.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “Provided that the water is boiling at standard temperature and pressure, why not?”

        Clint never specified that it had to be at standard temperature and pressure.

    • I bet you cant cook an egg, Phil.

      That’s the evening’s glass of port down the nose.

  65. How it Works

    Solar Radiation: The Sun emits solar radiation, which enters the Earths atmosphere.

    • Swenson says:

      EB,

      How what works? The GHE which you refuse to describe?

      You cant even commit yourself to saying what the GHE is supposed to do, can you?

      Go on, try. No?

      Why am I not surprised?

  66. Elliott Bignell says:

    I’m having consistent problems posting anything, probably because so many segments of that description were blocked. If this gets through, please note that the litany of lies instantly started up. For some reason, repetitive posting is allowed when it comes from, les nuls.

  67. Okay, the blog seems to have blocked me for the last hour. I suspect that the reason is that I posted too many fragments from the Googol text that were blocked for their content, and that after a certain number of blocks I got sent to the benches for an hour or so. I will continue to try to refine the text so that it does not violate the blocking conditions and try to keep it visible in future.

    The message is simply that les nuls are lying, and the GHE is childishly simple both to describe and to explain.

    • Willard says:

      When your text is getting blocked too often, you are being flagged as a spammer. Then it does not matter what you post.

      Wait for 30 minutes.

      • Yes, thanks. Dr. Roy has had persistent trouble over years with spammers and eejits. He takes a pretty laissez faire approach to the blog, and we have to respect his choices, but I can imagine that it gets frustrating. Mister Excavated Natural Fabric was a particular plague. He’s still ranting away, to my last knowledge, on other sites.

      • Swenson says:

        “we have to respect his choices”

        Yes, you do, don’t you?

    • Bindidon says:

      Elliott Bignell

      The blog never blocks you.

      What happens is that you have sent many times in series comments containing the same ‘forbidden’ text items, e.g. ‘rp t’, ‘d c’, ‘idyot’, etc etc.

      • Yes, I had worked it out, more or less. It’s a bit frustrating to use the site. Instead of getting a message saying what one did wrong, the blog just reloads without one’s text. I don’t like to make demands as it is good to even have the blog, but it could be improved.

      • Bindidon says:

        I hope that like me, you always write and save your comments in WinWord, Libre Office Write or equivalent before posting :–)

        *
        ” … but it could be improved. ”

        If that was so simple, it would very certainly have been done since years.

      • Willard says:

        It’d be really simple to improve upon the current WP install.

      • Swenson says:

        “It’d be really simple to improve upon the current WP install.”

        And a really simple person like you would be just the person for the job. Are you volunteering? What was Dr Spencer’s response?

        [laughing]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares what you think.

    • Swenson says:

      EB,

      The problem is that “descriptions” of the GHE almost invariably come down to saying that the GHE “warms the Earth”, where in fact the Earth has cooled, and no amount of jumping up and down and screaming can change that fact.

      That is why everybody who claims that they can describe the GHE simply cannot do so in any way that acknowledges reality. You may think you can do what nobody else can do because you are a very clever fellow, but you can’t.

      As Richard 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.”

      You have no experiment, because you are a fantasising GHE cultist.

      Keep at it. The mental contortions of such as yourself inject a little light relief into the matter.

      Accept reality. The Earth has cooled. You are an idio‌t.

  68. This is the currently available fragment:

    Definition of the greenhouse effect

    The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.

    How it Works

    Solar Radiation: The Sun emits solar radiation, which enters the Earths atmosphere.

    Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.

    Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.

    Importance of the Greenhouse Effect

    Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.

    • Clint R says:

      Elliot, well over half of that is pure nonsense.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672006

      This is about science, not beliefs. Study up and try again.

    • I’ll try to get another fragment through now:

      Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.

      • Swenson says:

        “Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.”

        Where it does nothing at all. An example of this can be noted at night, where the surface temperature falls. All the radiation emitted by the surface proceeds to space – more rapidly in the absence of any attenuating factors – the arid deserts demonstrate how fast temperature can fall (and rise during the day).

        Some ignorant people believe that because they can say “quantum mechanics”, they must understand it.

        You are one such – but feel free to demonstrate otherwise, if you feel I have maligned you unjustly.

        [laughing at ignorant cultist]

      • Willard says:

        > Where it does nothing at all.

        Nobody cares about your silly denial, Mike Flynn.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your silly denial, Mike Flynn.”

        Good to know. I thank nobody for that, do I?

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling – you need to get better at it.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your sweet nothings.

    • Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.

    • Okay, so that section is:

      How it Works

      Solar Radiation: The Sun emits solar radiation, which enters the Earths atmosphere.

      Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.

      Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.

      Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.

      Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.

    • Now for the remaining sections:

      Human Impact

      However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

    • Key Takeaway

      The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.

      • Clint R says:

        Key Takeaway — Elliot keeps avoiding the science. He has yet to explain how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.

        Like the rest of the cult, he doesn’t understand radiative physics and thermodynamics.

        Maybe the cult kids, like silly willy, bob, and Nate, can provide cover for him?

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        Why are you shying away from responding to Mighty Tim, e.g.:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1671612

        Is it because you are a silly sock puppet who knows NOTHING?

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        Key takeaway:

        You haven’t explained why a 15 micron photon can not raise the temperature of a surface.

        As useful as tits on a boar.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        “You havent explained why a 15 micron photon can not raise the temperature of a surface.”

        You don’t have to believe anyone. Just do an experiment which supports your fantasy about some greenhouse effect which everybody refuses to describe, and show how cleve4 you are.

        You can’t of course, because you are an idio‌tic GHE cultist.

      • Swenson says:

        Elliott,

        You wrote –

        “The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.”

        Well, no, that’s in contradiction to fact. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. No warming. At night, as Fourier wrote, all the heat of the day is lost to space, plus a little of the Earth’s remnant heat – hence the gradual but inexorable cooling of the initially molten Earth over the past four and a half billion years.

        There are similar path‌etic attempts to “describe” the GHE as a “process”, here is one from a government body “The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. When the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and some is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.”

        Similarly pointless.

        As Richard 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.”

        Every reproducible experiment ever performed shows that reducing the amount of radiation from a heat source like the Sun reaching a thermometer, lowers the temperature. This principle has been known since the dawn of man, and before. If the direct sun is too hot, move into the shade. Reduce the sunlight hitting you.

        Look at John Tyndall’s quite meticulous experiments, if you have the courage.

        You will see that describing the GHE as a “process which warms the Earth’s surface” is about as silly as saying that “a dragon is an animal which breathes fire and heats the Earth”.

        That’s ridiculous, isn’t it? There is no GHE. Just claiming it exists is not a description. The Earth has cooled – try to describe your mythical GHE in accordance with fact.

        Or just refuse.

      • Clint R says:

        Poor bob tries to protect his cult — “You haven’t explained why a 15 micron photon can not raise the temperature of a surface.”

        Poor bob has changed my wording. I never said “a surface”. I said “a 288K surface”.

        See how the cult tries to pervert reality?

        They hate reality.

      • Swenson says:

        Clint,

        Idio‌ts love playing silly semantic games.

        Their love for reality is not quite so ardent.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares when you call yourself an idio​t for playing silly semantic games.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        “Poor bob has changed my wording. I never said a surface. I said a 288K surface.”

        What is so special about a 288K surface.

        How does it not increase in energy when it abxorbs a 15 micron photon.

        A 288K surface emits 15 micron photons and cools by doing that, so if it abxorbs a 15 micron photon, it abxorbs energy which can be expressed as heat.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        You wrote –

        “A 288K surface emits 15 micron photons and cools by doing that, so if it abxorbs a 15 micron photon, it abxorbs energy which can be expressed as heat.”

        Except that a 288 K surface can’t get hotter absorbing photons from another 288 K surface. Two objects in thermal equilibrium stay at the same temperature.

        You are probably trying to imply that a colder atmosphere can make a hotter surface even hotter, although you will refuse to say such a silly thing.

        As you say, a 288 K surface will emit energy and cool. Having cooled, it will emit photons of lower energy ie longer wavelength. It has cooled. Now, any hotter surface is also cooling, by emitting photons of higher energy, which will be absorbed by the cooler surface. Eventually, both surfaces will be at the same temperature.

        What you suggested previously is quite impossible – like the slightly confused Willis Eschenbach and his Steel Greenhouse, or Eli Rabbett’s Green and Blue plate illusion, even reflecting all the radiation emitted by a surface back to that surface will not make it hotter!

        Bad luck, bobby. You should just stick to refusing to describe the GHE.You’ll look like less of an idio‌t that way.

        Carry on.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard wrote –

        “Nobody cares when you call yourself an idio​t for playing silly semantic games.”

        I really have nobody to thank, do I? He’s obviously as confused as Willard, who agrees with that other idio‌t Elliott Bignell that slow cooling is really warming!

        A pair of peanuts! Oh, and Elliott Bignell makes three!

        [snicker]

      • Clint R says:

        bob, when you get caught changing my words and meaning, I waste little time with you.

        You should have learned that by now, but you can’t learn.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your snickers.

        Or for your mars bars, for that matter.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “You are probably trying to imply that a colder atmosphere can make a hotter surface even hotter, although you will refuse to say such a silly thing.”

        Well, that is what is observed in this experiment we are conduction on our atmosphere.

        As someone once said, if your theory disagrees with observations, it needs correcting.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        You forgot to specify that the 288 K surface is an average.

        Any way, 15 micron photons get abxorbed by any solid or liquid surface.

        Still working on that minor in physics?

    • Tim S says:

      As I explained above, heat is not trapped except for people who do not understand the science. Heat is transferred by the “heat transfer gases” in such a way that the heat escapes at different temperatures and at different levels in the atmosphere. The lower atmosphere is warmer and the upper atmosphere is cooler. There is more instability in the atmosphere.

      Heat is not trapped.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        “Heat is not trapped.”

        Exactly. Anybody who thinks heat emitted by the surface can be prevented from moving to the cold sink of space is del‌uded.

      • Tim S says:

        For clarity in the context of the post above about the greenhouse effect, when I mention “heat transfer gases” I am referring to radiant heat transfer. So the correct way to identify the greenhouse gases with terms that are scientifically accurate, is as follows:

        Radiant Heat Transfer Gas

        Nothing in that title suggest a “trap”. The term “heat trapping gas” is a media term for the uneducated. It is not a correct, useful, or accurate science term to describe “greenhouse gases” as used in climate studies.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim S,

        As Tyndall showed by meticulous experiment, increasing the amount of gas between a heat source and a thermometer, reduces the amount of heat reaching the thermometer, and the temperature falls.

        The Earth’s atmosphere prevents about 35% of the suns heat from reaching the Earth, resulting in the maximum surface temperature being far less than that of the airless Moon.

        GHE cultists just refuse to accept reality, claiming that less radiation results in higher temperatures, or that “greenhouse gases” heat the cooling planet, or similar idiocies!

        It’s even difficult to get GHE cultists to say what they think the GHE does – particularly at night, when the surface cools. Nutters all.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim s…”…the heat escapes at different temperatures and at different levels in the atmosphere”.

        ***

        Tim…before you espouse such inanities, why not go into what heat is and how it is dissipated via EM, conduction, and convection.

        Heat cannot escape as you put it, it is energy and energy related to atoms. In order for heat to leave the Earth, atoms would have to leave the planet.

        In the 1800s, it was defined as the energy of atoms in motion, or the kinetic energy of those atoms. Some called it a mode of motion, same thing, the motion suggests KE. To increase KE, you have to add energy to atoms and the only energy that fits such a description is heat, aka thermal energy. If you add heat, the KE increases and if you remove it, the KE decreases.

        Therefore heat never leaves the planet as heat, nor does heat leave the Sun as heat. First, the heat has to be converted to EM, and EM leaves either surface as radiation, which is not heat.

        With regard to surface radiation, heat is dissipated the moment radiation leaves the surface. So, the notion of trapping heat is nonsense since their is none to trap when IR is trapped by trace gases. Those gases can create new heat but it has nothing to do with surface heat.

        There is an important mechanism at play that is ignored by alarmists. Heat is removed from the surface by conduction and transported into the atmosphere via convection. As the heated air rises, it loses heat naturally as it expands into ever-thinner air above.

        Shula has proved that mechanism is 260 times better at removing heat than radiation. Not only that, it dissipates the heat as it goes higher.

      • Willard says:

        > Radiant Heat Transfer Gas

        TS shows once again that he should stick to creative writing:

        https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%22Radiant+Heat+Transfer+Gas%22

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim S

        The infrared emitted by the surface that is abxorbed by CO2 becomes internal energy of the CO2 molecule, then almost all of the time that internal energy then becomes kinetic energy of an N2 or O2 molecule so it is no longer heat.

        It might become heat again but for now it is trapped.

      • Swenson says:

        Brai‌nless bobby,

        You wrote –

        “The infrared emitted by the surface that is abxorbed by CO2 becomes internal energy of the CO2 molecule, then almost all of the time that internal energy then becomes kinetic energy of an N2 or O2 molecule so it is no longer heat.”

        You must have made that up, all by yourself. Nobody else would write that collection of word salad with a straight face.

        Do you understand what you write, or do you just cobble together random stuff, hoping others will think you are intelligent?

        [snicker]

      • Swenson says:

        Willard wrote –

        “TS shows once again that he should stick to creative writing:”, linking to the usual irrelevant nonsense.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        You have not taken advanced courses in Thermodynamics, so it all looks like word salad to you, indistinguishable from magic.

        You are not advanced enough to take part in this discussion.

      • Nate says:

        “Heat is not trapped.”

        Well..if we have a heated system, and then insulation is added to it, it will warm.

        One could say some heat has been trapped.

        An oven that is heated with the door open, when the door is closed, the oven warms.

        One could say some heat has been trapped.

        The Ignorati here always forget that the Earth’s surface is a heated system. Add insulating gases to the atmosphere, and it will warm.

        One could say some heat has been trapped.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  69. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Swenson wrote:

    A,
    … to use forcings is either a f00l (ignorant) or a fraud (knows he is f00ling others)

    The Ballad of Swenson

    There once was a man who’d
    had no sleep
    he’d been up 6 days on
    m3themphetamine

    the voice grew loud
    through the blinds he’d
    creep
    paranoia is starting to grow

    soon will the shadow men
    come
    probably while he’s digging
    through the carpet for
    crumbs

    one day when the tw3akin is
    done
    off to bed he’ll go

    the next day he will start
    once more
    knowing that another batsh1t
    bender’s in store

    you’ll find him in a window
    looking for drones
    they’re all after him you
    know

    soon will the shadow men
    come
    probably while he’s digging
    through the carpet for
    crumbs

    one day when the tw3akin is
    done
    off to bed he’ll go

    one day he’d finally had
    enough
    so he flushed what he had
    left of the stuff

    he no longer could stand to
    live like that
    and started walking down
    recovery road

    now no shadow men will
    come
    and he’ll never have to dig
    through the carpet for
    crumbs

    finally the tw3akin is done
    off to bed he goes

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      That’s all well and good, but why are you still refusing to describe the GHE?

      What was its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?

      Are you an evasive fo‌ol, or an evasive fraud?

      Arkady, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Don’t quit your day job to earn a living writing poetry.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Nobody cares about what you find all well and good.

      Long live and prosper.

  70. Swenson says:

    Just in case anybody missed the Elliott Bignell “GHE description” illusion, here’s what he wrote earlier –

    “Definition of the greenhouse effect

    The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere,”

    Ta-da! A “definition” magically becomes a “description” later on!

    “So what’s the difference?”, I hear you ask? Well, a description of a scientific effect is specific enough to ensure that a testable hypothesis can be composed to explain the phenomenon, which has not been documented before.

    Thermometers showing increased temperatures is not a new phenomenon.

    What else do fanatical GHE cultists have? Nothing, that’s what! That’s why they refuse to describe the “greenhouse effect” – it doesn’t exist, and the fo‌ols or frauds who promote it, know that it doesn’t exist!

    That’s why all they can do is shout “The GHE is heating the planet!”, and “Stop climate change!”, and all the rest of the nonsense they spout.

    All good fun, I suppose. Gives the nutters something to do.

  71. Swenson says:

    You have to smile sometimes.

    Elliott Bignell commented –

    “‘Slower cooling is not warming.’

    Yes, it is.”

    No it’s not, idio‌t. Cooling is cooling – decreased temperature.

    Warming is warming – increased temperature.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Or…decreased temperature means less heat and increased temperature means more heat. Add heat, something warms, remove heat, something cools.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Nobody cares if you smile sometimes.

      Cheers.

    • No its not, idio‌t.

      Yes, it is, you sedimentary coprolite. If the Earth cools overnight and the magnitude of that cooling becomes less over time, the result is an Earth that is warmer in the mornings.

      This is really simple stuff.

      • Swenson says:

        “If the Earth cools overnight and the magnitude of that cooling becomes less over time, the result is an Earth that is warmer in the mornings.”

        Warmer than what? No, cooling is a decrease in temperature – as in “The surface cools at night”, or “The surface cools during winter”. As in “The Earth is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago.”

        Slow cooling is not warming, you idio‌t. It’s cooling – decreased temperature.

        The Earth loses energy at about 44 TW or so. Very slow cooling -nor warming.

        Maybe you are ignorant – or thick.

      • If the atmosphere cools overnight from 20C to 10C in year x, then in year y it cools from 20C to 11C then the net result is a warming of 1C. As I said, this is really simply stuff.

      • Swenson says:

        Elliott,

        If the atmosphere cools, it cools.

        The temperature drops. It doesnt warm – that requires an increase in temperature.

        If one year the temperature drops by 10 C, and the next year it drops by 11 C, after 2 years it has dropped by 11 C. No warming to be seen.

        Your level of cultist stu‌pidity remains the same in either case.

        Are you still refusing to describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality? Or maybe you just define the GHE as having nonsensical plane5 warming properties?

        Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

        Elliot, please stop tro‌lling.

      • If the atmosphere cools overnight from 20C to 10C in year x, then in year y it cools from 20C to 11C then the net result is a warming from 10C to 11C. As I said, this is really simply stuff.

      • Nate says:

        Fraudster Swenson shamelessly tries to fake his opponents arguments”

        “then in year y it cools from 20C TO 11C”

        becomes

        ” the next year it drops BY 11 C”

        He obviously realizes he cannot win against his opponents actual arguments.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        The Sun heats the Earth by 170,000 terawatts.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Elliott, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  72. Gordon Robertson says:

    elliott…”The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun”.

    ***

    Whereas the atmosphere and oceans do trap heat produced in the atmosphere and oceans when atoms/molecules convert EM from the Sun to heat, it has nothing to do with a greenhouse or a greenhouse effect. A real greenhouse warms because the glass traps heated physical air molecules but here is no such mechanism for trapping heat as molecules in the atmosphere.

    Alarmists are scurrying to distance themselves from the real meaning of the GHE. The original version claimed that short wave solar enters through the glass and heats the infrastructure, soil and plants, and they emit infrared. However, the glass traps infrared since it won’t pass through it. Somehow, in a fit of pseudo-scientific logic, that trapped IR somehow heated the greenhouse air.

    No one has ever explained how trapped IR can warm the air in a greenhouse. The theory is an anachronism dating back to Tyndall’s experiment in which he discovered the ability of certain atoms and molecules to absorb/emit IR. However, even Tyndall tought any atmospheric warming would be minimal.

    When R. W. Wood in 1909, an expert on gases, saw the current explanation for greenhouse warming, he doubted it. He could not see how a trace gas could possibly warm a real greenhouse. He did an experiment that disproved the theory, concluding the heated air was a result of a lack of convection.

    Wood’s conclusion came 4 years before Bohr discovered the real relationship between heat and IR. He discovered that electrons in atoms absorbed and emitted EM (including IR) in hydrogen according to an orbital relationship between electrons and the atomic nucleus. The relationship involved an increase and decrease in the orbital energy levels where the KE represented heat over an entire mass.

    As electrons absorb and emit EM, the mass increase and decreases in temperature. Therefore, as atoms/molecules making up the infrastructure, soil, and plants emit IR, and it is blocked by the glass, it cannot be recycled to increase temperature. Reason…when the IR was emitted originally, the surfaces cooled, and re-circulating IR, at best, could only return part of the lost heat.

    Remember, perpetual motion cannot work due to losses.

    There are people in this blog who think IR is magically produced in a black box in a molecule, via vibration, but they don’t get it that the vibration occurs in electron bonding orbitals and that the vibration is due to an unbalanced condition caused by those electrons emitting and absorbing IR.

  73. Willard says:

    > the atmosphere and oceans do trap heat

    There’s at least one crank who argues that this is impossible, for otherwise we wouldn’t be building greenhouses…

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I said the atmosphere traps heat, not GHGs. It traps heat by holding it in air molecules till the air rises and naturally dissipates the heat.

      • Willard says:

        > I said the atmosphere traps heat, not GHGs.

        Mr. Asshat might as well argue that an apple contains vitamins, not its peel.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mr. Asshat might as well argue that an apple contains vitamins, not its peel.”

        You might as well argue that you are not a complete idio‌t.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your white knighting.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  74. Gordon Robertson says:

    elliott…”human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

    ***

    It is claimed the CO2 level pre-Industrial was 270 ppmv. Now it is claimed to be around 400 ppmv. The 400 figure becomes 0.000400 which translates to 0.04%. Therefore the 270 ppmv becomes 0.000270, hence 0.027%. Say 0.03% for arguments sake.

    Could you kindly explain how a rise of 0.01% in 265 years translates to catastrophic global warming? Where’s the science that translates a 0.01% rise in the CO2 level to any significant warming? The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation calculate a warming of about 0.06C out of the claimed 1C warming since then.

    • Could you kindly explain how a rise of 0.01% in 265 years

      CO2 concentration (not CO2e) on 7. June was 426ppm. An increase from 270 to 426 is an increase of 58%.

      I thought you were claiming to be an engineer.

  75. PhilJ says:

    Elliott,

    “Slower cooling is not warming.

    Yes, it is.”

    I see. So you believe the polar ice cap warms the ocean do you?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      phil…when you listen to alarmists it’s like watching a Star Trek episode.

    • So you believe the polar ice cap warms the ocean do you?

      Brief introduction to logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

      • PhilJ says:

        Nice attempt to dodge.

        Ice is a great insulator. The polar ice cap prevents almost all heat from leaving the ocean beneath it.

        Following your logic? that Slower cooling isbwarming, the icecap therefore must be treat at warming the ocean lol

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        Maybe you could link to logic which says that slow cooling is warming?

        Or logic that describes a mythical GHE?

        Are you really as stu‌pid as you appear?

        [derisive snorting]

      • Willard says:

        Nobody cares about your maybes, Mike Flynn.

      • Nate says:

        Slow cooling is warming?

        Cooling means dissipation of heat from a heated object. If that is slowed, then indeed warming can be the result.

        Think: computer processor failing when the fan stops working.

        The Earth is a heated object.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” So you believe the polar ice cap warms the ocean do you? ”

      Typical contrarian message lacking any sense.

      So you think that in the graph below

      https://tinyurl.com/CONUS-Tmin-Tmax-79-23

      since the blue line indicates less cooling at night, only the red line can indicate warming, right?

      Oh Noes…

      • PhilJ says:

        Binding,

        “Typical contrarian message lacking any sense.”

        Just the same amount of sense as the GHE nonsense, see below.

        Nate,

        “The Earth is a heated object”

        Indeed, and the polar ice cap slows the cooling of the heated ocean.

        Following ‘ghe’ logic , if the ice cap wasn’t there, the ocean would be colder ergo the ice cap ‘warms’ the ocean.

        Ludicrous I know, but that’s the GHE for you

      • Bindidon says:

        I see, PhilJ

        You aren’t able to escape out of your superficial, polemical, egomaniacal blah blah, just like do here all ‘specialists’ who claim that there is no lunar spin.

      • Nate says:

        “Indeed, and the polar ice cap slows the cooling of the heated ocean.”

        Where are you going with this?

        In any case not much solar heating going on beneath polar ice. And melting ice cools the water.

  76. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob d…”The infrared emitted by the surface that is abxorbed by CO2 becomes internal energy of the CO2 molecule, then almost all of the time that internal energy then becomes kinetic energy of an N2 or O2 molecule so it is no longer heat.

    It might become heat again but for now it is trapped”.

    ***

    The internal energy to which you refer, according to Clausius, is part work and part heat. Therefore, 7% of the radiation absorbed by CO2 becomes heat. However, the process of passing that heat to the 99% of air that is N2 and O2 is called heat diffusion and the associated equation tells us that CO2 at 0.04% can only warm the N2/O2 by about 0.06C for every 1C the N2/O2 increases. And that is for a doubling of CO2.

    It’s OK to call internal energy by its proper constituents, heat and work. When you add heat to a gas, part of it raises the temperature of the gas and part causes the molecules to vibrate harder.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      Try 20th century physics.

      “Its OK to call internal energy by its proper constituents, heat and work. When you add heat to a gas, part of it raises the temperature of the gas and part causes the molecules to vibrate harder.”

      That’s what I was talking about, the work done on the CO2 molecule by radiation causes the molecule to vibrate like a spring.

      Remember the CO2 molecule can abxorb again after it has transferred that internal energy to the other gases in the atmosphere.

      • Tim S says:

        Bob, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you made another mistake. How do you define a heat trap? You seem to be suggesting that the Kinetic Theory of Gases prevents special molecules from trapping heat to themselves, but then you claim it actually is a trap. Which is it?

        The larger question on the heat trap concept is the action of back radiation. If back radiation is the mechanism of surface warming, then it cannot by definition be a trap because it is omnidirectional. Do you see the problem with the word trap?

      • Willard says:

        Hey TSman, riddle me this –

        Would whales need to trap all the fish in the sea to say that they really do trap-feeding?

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim,

        You have to look at what happens to a CO2 molecule after it absorbed a photon.

        It either passes the energy off to other molecules as kinetic energy, which is no longer heat, so that’s what I mean by trap.

        I know that’s a trigger for denialist’s who think heat can’t be trapped.

        And you can look at what happens to a CO2 molecule in the ground state, it can be excited either by absorbing a photon, or by colliding with another molecule.

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim S,

        You are making mistakes.

        “If back radiation is the mechanism of surface warming, then it cannot by definition be a trap because it is omnidirectional. Do you see the problem with the word trap?”

        Most don’t like the idea of back radiation being the mechanism of surface warming. Back radiation is not the way of the trap, trapping occurs when CO2 transfers the energy to other gas molecules and the stray atoms in the atmosphere.

        Because CO2 can do two things when it’s in an excited state.

        1 is remit the radiation, and 2 is transfer the energy to other molecules by collision.

        The vast majority of the time it does the second, transfers the energy by collision, better than 99% based on thermalization research by deniers.

        Previously discussed on this site.

      • Tim S says:

        Okay Bob, so now your position is that the trap exists because back radiation is not real. I have news for you. Radiant heat transfer gases can also emit. That is the source of the back radiation. Most of those who are following the science would concede that the net effect of back radiation is to pass the energy toward outer space where it finally defeats any concept of a trap. A long sequence of transfers (from the radiant heat transfer gases) does lead to complexity and additional activity, but it is not a trap.

        Do you care to try again?

      • Tim S says:

        Bob, I think you are confusing equilibrium as a mechanism. The Kinetic Theory of Gases says that average kinetic energy (not a weighted average) of all neighbors will be the same. It is not a transfer mechanism, but rather a dynamic state of equilibrium. The radiant heat transfer mechanism used by the climate modelers is between layers in the atmosphere because that is the easiest way to approximate the molecule to molecule transfer of radiant energy.

        If it is good enough for the climate modelers, you might consider accepting it as real.

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim S,

        I did not say back radiation was not real, it’s just not the real greenhouse effect.

        To be clear, two things can happen when CO2 absorbs an infrared photon, one is that it re-emits a photon, the other is that it transfers energy to other molecules and atoms in the atmosphere.

        “I have news for you. Radiant heat transfer gases can also emit. That is the source of the back radiation.”

        What is Kirchoff’s law, Alex? You think I didn’t know that. I also said that here.

        [Bob] “1 is remit the radiation, and 2 is transfer the energy to other molecules by collision.”

        Yes they can emit, but the question is where do they get to the excited states so they can emit?

        Some of the energy to emit comes from collisions with the other gases in the atmosphere.

        Here is another one of your mistakes.

        “Most of those who are following the science would concede that the net effect of back radiation is to pass the energy toward outer space where it finally defeats any concept of a trap.”

        No, they would say most of the back radiation reaches the surface instead of escaping to space. Most of the CO2 radiation that escapes to space is emitted high in the atmosphere.

        I did make a mistake in failing to complete a sentence here.

        [Bob]”It either passes the energy off to other molecules as kinetic energy, which is no longer heat, so thats what I mean by trap.”

        I forgot to add the or it can emit the radiation.

      • Tim S says:

        Bob, I am beginning to like you. You have effectively stated that the climate models are wrong. Good work!

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim S,

        No shit, the models are all wrong, but the ones I have looked at in published sources that I would trust, are less than 1% inaccurate with respect to predicting average global temperature.

        Besides all that, I didn’t put any numbers to my description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, so you can’t compare it to the output of models.

        Except to say more greenhouse gases will make the surface warmer.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  77. Okay, here’s trying to post the whole thing. For the record, this is the description of the GHE that anyone can get in seconds from the Googol AI. Its presence here serves to show that those that claim that the GHE cannot be or is not described are liars. For this reason, I have no interest in their anti-scientific opinions about its content and will generally not respond to them.

    Definition of the greenhouse effect

    The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.

    How it Works

    Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.

    Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.

    Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.

    Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.

    Importance of the Greenhouse Effect

    Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.

    Human Impact

    However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

    Key Takeaway

    The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.

    • Swenson says:

      Elliot,

      “Definition of the greenhouse effect

      The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet”

      I can understand why you still refuse to describe the greenhouse effect, but I guess that avoiding a description by providing a definition is about par for a GHE cultist.

      Unfortunately, defining the GHE as a natural process which warms a planet, begs the question “Which planet are you talking about?”

      Obviously not the Earth which has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight.

      Maybe a fantasy planet, which you have just defined into existence?

      Can you find A GHE description which reflects reality – four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, and a surface that cools each night after sunset? A faint hope, I know, but reality has a habit of displacing fantasy – for rational people anyway.

      If you can’t or won’t describe a real GHE, I understand – you are a fanatical GHE cultist who lives in a fantasy world.

      Carry on.

      • Clint R says:

        Silly willy swallows everything his idol, Folkerts, spews. So now silly willy believes he’s really got me!

        Folkerts attempts to respond to “…show how CO2’s 15μ photon can raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface”, here —

        “It’s pretty simple. Some photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up. Some more photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up more.”

        What silly willy’s idol fails to understand is not all photons get absorbed. And even if some photons are absorbed, that does not always result in a higher temperature. That’s why ice cubes can not boil water.

        But, silly willy’s idol believes ice cubes can boil water. He’s even provided his bogus equation that supports his false belief! It’s a great example of cult anti-science.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        Do you really think nobody would notice that you switched from “cannot” to “does not always”?

      • Clint R says:

        This is WAY over your head, silly willy.

        C02’s 15μ photons “cannot” raise the temperature of a 288K surface.

        Low energy photons “do not always” result in higher temperatures.

        It’s specific case vs. general case.

        Get a responsible adult to help you.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        Have you noticed that you are treating your specific case as a general one, and vice versa?

        You really should stick to armwaving empirically false claims. Your lack of logic is there for everyone to see.

      • Clint R says:

        Silly willy wasn’t able to get a responsible adult to help him.

        I can tell….

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        If you generally commented on this blog under a sock puppet, would you say that you CANNOT try to bypass moderation using sock puppets?

      • Clint R says:

        Probably the reason silly willy never grew up is because he’s not around any responsible adults.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        If you presume I’m wrong, why did you need to make your special pleading explicit here:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Thats why ice cubes can not boil water.”
        Nope! That’s not why.

        “But, silly willys idol believes ice cubes can boil water.”
        Nope. Ice cubes can’t boil water.

        “Hes even provided his bogus equation that supports his false belief!”
        Nope! No equation I have presented says ice can boil water.

        “Reality” is that I have never claimed any of these things. It would be fascinating to hear you explain where you think I said or wrote equations saying hte flux from ice (alone) can boil water.

      • Clint R says:

        Silly willy provides us an example of what happens when kids have no responsible adults raising them. When dad is in prison and mom is a crack ho, the kid only has two futures — either become a criminal or a pervert.

        Silly willy is too much of a coward to go criminal….

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        Don’t you have DDOS attacks to help prevent somewhere, instead of creating a conceptual one with your bunch of cranks?

    • gbaikie says:

      “Definition of the greenhouse effect

      The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.”

      What about the other greenhouse effect, or one call them “warming effects”

      It’s said that our cold ocean absorbs more than 80% of all global warming.
      Now, could agree, that if ocean is warmed, the heat is not lost?

      Can agree that if so how our ocean which averages about 3.5 C, and was warmed over time by .5 C {1 or 2 C} would increase global average air temperature.
      Or within our 33.9 million year Ice Age, our ocean average temperature was 5 C and warmer. And when ocean was warmer, Earth global air temperature was higher than it is now.

      Or said differently, if our ocean had average temperature of 5 C, it wouldn’t any polar sea ice during the summer, and it might not have any polar sea ice in the winter.
      And Canada, Europe, and Russia would be much warmer during the winter.
      And we would have open sea routes thru thru the arctic.
      But also sea level would rise quite bit due to oceanic heat expansion.

    • Tim S says:

      Does anyone see the obvious contradiction in this absurd statement. The heat is trapped in the atmosphere and it is also “re-emitted in all directions”. Which is it? Is it trapped or re-emitted?

      • Willard says:

        And so our beloved TS is trying to replace Puffman as our Sphinx.

        Who will win by producing the silliest riddle of the thread?

        Tune in next week for another episode of Climateball!

      • bobdroege says:

        The very small fraction is re-emitted, the vast majority is transferred to N2, O2, and the rest of the non IR active molecules in the atmosphere.

      • Tim S says:

        What is this small fraction? It might be easier to admit that the term “heat trapping gases” is used to confuse the public rather than convey scientific information.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        No, “heat trapping gases” is actually used for the benefit of the lay public. You know they’d never understand αbsorpτion and extinction coefficients and the like, no?

      • Ball4 says:

        Tim S. 1:33pm, there is no contradiction.

        In the winter with 0F measured by thermometer outside & windy, a properly insulated, closed window house (painted green on the outside) can trap heat at a set temperature of 72F even though its radiation is also “emitted in all directions”.

        You can call that trapped heat the green house effect of 72F if you wish as it will last until the forcing changes or the windows are opened.

      • Ball4 says:

        Btw, Tim S., cold can also be trapped in the summer same way with A/C at a set point lower that OAT. A negative green house effect even though the green house is radiating in all directions.

      • Swenson says:

        Some idio‌t calling himself Ball4 wrote –

        “Btw, Tim S., cold can also be trapped in the summer same way with A/C at a set point lower that OAT. A negative green house effect even though the green house is radiating in all directions.”

        Cold can be trapped? News to me – and everybody else who accepts that cold rays only exist in fantasy worlds.

      • bobdroege says:

        Tim S,

        “What is this small fraction? It might be easier to admit that the term heat trapping gases is used to confuse the public rather than convey scientific information.”

        You will find that answer in here

        https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/satco2paper.pdf

      • Swenson says:

        TimS,

        You wrote –

        “Does anyone see the obvious contradiction in this absurd statement. The heat is trapped in the atmosphere and it is also re-emitted in all directions. Which is it? Is it trapped or re-emitted?”

        Both, of course. That’s the miracle of the GHE. The atmosphere re-emits radiation towards the hotter surface where it is absorbed, making the surface hotter by being trapped. The atmosphere which emits energy does not cool as a result, because it has an inexhaustible reservoir of trapped heat. Now the hotter surface re-emits radiation which is is absorbed and trapped by the atmosphere (being colder) but does not cool, because it also has an inexhaustible reservoir of trapped heat. So the atmosphere heats the surface, and the surface heats the atmosphere, with neither becoming colder, due to the conservation of energy, otherwise known as the energy balance.

        The obvious outcome of this process is that both the surface and atmosphere will continue heating until the Earth finally disintegrates in a coruscating display of amazing proportions. No doubt accompanied by the swelling strains of a heavenly choir.

        And if anyone believes that, they are completely crazy. I await a resident crazy like Willard to claim that I have described the GHE.

      • Donald says:

        For people wasting so much time ‘debating’ on a site dedicated to scientific information, there sure are a lot of folks who have seemingly never heard of the concept of ‘equilibrium”

  78. I’m getting bored with all the white noise again now. I think I’ve done my public service by making an easily-accessible description of the GHE available, thus showing that les nulls are lying. As I mostly use Chromium-based browsers, I will perhaps try to build a publically-available plugin for Chromium, Brave and cetera to screen out contributions by Svensdottir and their ilk. It would obviously be preferable if they could be blocked at source, but perhaps that will be added to the blog later.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    • Swenson says:

      Elliott,

      Why do you allow yourself to become bored? Have you no control over your emotions?

      Grow a backbone, laddie.

      [laughing at pretentious dim‌wit]

    • Clint R says:

      Elliot, maybe it’s not boredom? Maybe it’s frustration?

      Maybe you’re frustrated because your cult beliefs all collapse with the weight of reality?

      Do you understand that not all infrared is absorbed?

      Do you understand that even if some infrared were absorbed, it would not raise temperature?

      For example, do you understand that ice cubes can NOT boil water?

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Nobody needs to grow anything.

      You are a silly crank who is being silly.

    • Tim S says:

      Nice work Elliott. You have taken a political statement generated by AI and pushed it out as a scientific conclusion. Then you claim that any rational assessment of that statement must be “white noise” to which you are above responding because you are a better person.

      Congratulations!

      • Swenson says:

        Tim S,

        I love AI.

        Question –

        “So the Earth actually cools, and the greenhouse effect doesnt prevent it, is that it?

        ChatGPT

        “Yes, thats correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.”

        The effect with no effect.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your love for AI, even less so that they care about our pompous twat’s ridicule.

      • You have taken a political statement generated by AI and pushed it out as a scientific conclusion.

        I’ve taken a description that anyone can find in seconds and used it to prove that those who claim there is no such description are liars. You have predictably turned around and pretended that a simple description of objective reality is “political”. Denialism 101.

        And I am a better person. It would be a shameful thing were I not.

      • Yes, thats correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.

        An object can undergo cycles of warming and cooling processes while still warming overall. Anyone with even the most rudimentary reasoning capabilities could have worked this out without having to be told.

        You’ve done your denialist thing and posed questions that are slanted to get the answer you want to hear. No amount of artificial intelligence can help you if you deliberately set out to mislead yourself in this manner. Nor is there any way artificially to compensate for your innate deficit.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Elliott, please stop trolling.

  79. I think you can all see why anyone with a normal mind and a technical bent would grow bored.

    • Swenson says:

      If you choose to be bored, good for you.

      If your idio‌t companions choose to be bored, good for them.

      Why do you think anybody has a responsibility to keep the intellectually afflicted amused?

      [chortle]

  80. Archie Debunker says:

    Elliott Bignell:

    There are many serious readers here who do appreciate nuanced well sourced discussions. Unfortunately the blog is also targeted by various categories of tro11s.

    Wikipedia defines a “tro11” as: “…someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

    Tro11s exploit the natural human instinct of self-defense.

    When the targets of abuse by tro11s respond they do three things.

    1/ They reiterate tro11 dribble.
    2/ They legitimize a vacuous ideology as valid for discussion.
    3/ They confirm to the tro11s that their targets are listening to them and are affected by what they read, which reinforces the tro11s’ behavior.

    https://tinyurl.com/Dark-Tetrad

    • Tro11s exploit the natural human instinct of self-defense.

      Yes, and that’s why I think it important not to feed the little grumbles*. Making them invisible to ourselves with a plugin would be a good start. Better yet would be if the site could hide our own contributions from them with a block so that they cannot respond. Then the blog might not be such a blizzard of methane snow.

      *Cockney rhyming slang. “Grumble and grunt”.

      • Swenson says:

        Or you could start your own blog, and ban anyone who disagrees with you!

        Or stop commenting here. Or dont respond to comments you don’t like.

        Or demand that the blog operator dance to your discordant cacophony.

        And so on. Or you could accept the reality that not everybody will agree with you. Of course, fanatical GHE cultists like yourselves believe that they are the fount of all knowledge about everything. “Experiments?”, they say, “We don’t need no stinkin’ experiments!”. They agree that slow cooling is really heating, that the Earth alternately gets hotter and colder for no particular reasons, and that climate controls weather!

        Of course, a cunning cultist will refuse to say anything definite at all – even to describe the mythical GHE! Who can possibly find fault with what is not said?

        As Richard Feynman 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.” He agrees with me, must be a smart fellow.

        He also wrote that one cannot prove a vague theory wrong. This is because vague theories lead to vague or indefinite consequences. Unfortunately, GHE cultists refuse to describe the GHE in any way which could lead to a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory!

        What a pack of dills!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your Dick quotes.

      • Swenson says:

        Nice to know.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Typical alarmist. Suppress any opinion or thought that disagrees with you.

        One reason I favour Roy’s blog is the wide range of expression. I tried Judith Curry’s site and I like Judith but the atmosphere is stifling. Judith tends to be dogmatic and tends to steer the conversations.

        There is little more boring than listening to science students and theorists bickering over inane theories. When you cannot challenge a theory or you need to be a Ph.D. to comment, what’s the point?

      • Willard says:

        > I tried Judith Currys site and I like Judith but the atmosphere is stifling.

        Mr. Asshat tried:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672408

        He tried really hard.

      • Suppress any opinion or thought that disagrees with you.

        The people I have in mind aren’t posting anything so coherent as an opinion. I’m talking about white noise.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.

  81. professor P says:

    Re tro11ing as a hobby for retirees.

    “I classify this as a purely mental pursuit since you dont need to leave your chair nor genuinely interact with other humans. This is an ideal pastime for crusty retirees who love arguing, belittling their opponents, resorting to sarcasm, outright lying, anonymously libelling public figures, joking and, in the end, wishing all concerned a happy new year! I indulged in this pastime activity for a few years and consider myself an expert. But, be warned, it takes time to develop the right persona(s) and thick skin to participate in this blood sport. Dont take it too seriously and you can have a lot of (admittedly, trivial) fun.”

  82. The First Conclusions

    Conclusions:

    1). We have written the theoretically exact the planet mean surface temperature equation as a very much reliable theoretical formula:

    Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)

    The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).

    2). We shall now compare the theoretically calculated Earth’s (without-atmosphere) the average surface temperature (Tmean) with the satellite measured one, the (Tsat), because we are very much interested to estimate the magnitude of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    Planet……Te…..Te.correct….Tmean….Tsat.mean

    Mercury….440 K…..364 K……325,83 K….340 K

    Earth……255 K…..210 K……287,74 K….288 K

    Moon……270,4 K….224 K……223,35 Κ….220 Κ

    Mars…….210 K…..174 K……213,11 K….210 K

    The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.

    When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.

    3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

    There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.

    Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:

    Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.


    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Ball4 says:

      “Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.”

      Christos, just go ahead adjust your Φ slightly to find your calculation becomes exactly equal to measured.

      With the new Φ’ find calculated 288K = measured 288K for Earth.

      Then do the Φ adjustment for each case mentioned at 8:25 am, and all your calculations will become exact. There really is no need to ever differ your calculations from measurement even a small amount with your methodology.

      • Thank you, Ball4, for your response.

        “Then do the Φ adjustment for each case mentioned at 8:25 am, and all your calculations will become exact. There really is no need to ever differ your calculations from measurement even a small amount with your methodology.”

        Ball4, what you asking is impossible.

        Now, please comment on scientific paradox.
        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1672279

      • Ball4 says:

        “Ball4, what you asking is impossible.”

        Tmean = [ Φ’ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) = 288K calculated for Earth = 288K measured for Earth. Exact.

        So possible (if the copy and paste works).

      • Ball4 says:

        If Earth’s surface had uniform temperature Tunif =288K, then Earth’s surface blackbody emission temperature would have been
        ~398 W/m^2.”

        There is no paradox, Earth’s L&O surface emission is radiometer measured ~398 W/m^2. Earth’s system emission from space is radiometer measured ~240 W/m^2 you can find in published reports from the 1970’s after NIMBUS’ radiometer measurements were analyzed.

        So the difference (surface borne radiometer under the atm. at ~1bar and satellite borne radiometer above 99.99% of the atm.) in measured planetary brightness temperature is ~33K.

        Christos continues: “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.”

        Christos’ calculations are simply off by about 33K because Christos does not appropriately consider the IR opacity of Earth’s atm. as explained in beginning meteorology college level texts. Christos is unfortunately not a meteorologist.

      • Ball4, what you asking is impossible.

        Φ =0,47 for the smooth surface planets and moons, namely:

        Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede.

        Φ =1 for the heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons.


        Ok, I see now what you mean. You are saying that every separate planet and moon should have its own unique value of ” Φ ” , right?

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ball4 says:

        Right, and each unique planetary Φ’ with atm. can be fairly easy (after accomplishing study in beginning meteorology) to back calculate from measured satellite space borne radiometer data (where it exists) to be exact.

        Your planetary atm. science problem, Christos, is your methodology can not explain what happens to planetary near surface median atm. temperature due to changing atm. IR opacity of planets because planetary median atm. IR opacity is completely ignored in your calculation for Tmean.

        Yes, Φ and Φ’ are 1 (fall out of the Tmean eqn.) for celestial objects with no atm. thus having nil atm. IR opacity.

      • Thank you, Ball4.

        Time to go, it is 2:20 AM in Athens, Greece.
        BTW, what is your AM now?

        Good night.

      • Ball4,

        “Yes, Φ and Φ are 1 (fall out of the Tmean eqn.) for celestial objects with no atm. thus having nil atm. IR opacity.”

        But there are many planets and moons with Φ =1. The Tmean eqn. is doing very well for them.

        Example:

        9. Titans (Saturns satellite) Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
        Tmean.titan

        So = 1.362 W/m (So is the Solar constant)

        Titans albedo: atitan = 0,22

        1/R = 1/9,5826 = 1/91,826 = 0,010890

        Titans sidereal rotation period is 15,9 days

        Titan does N = 1/15,9 rotations per day (synchronous rotation)

        Titan is a rocky planet, it has atmosphere of 95% N2 and 5% CH4, but very opaque. Titans atmosphere is 8 times larger with respect to square meter planets surface compared to Earth, so we consider Titan a gaseous planet and Titans surface irradiation accepting factor Φtitan = 1.

        Titan can be considered as a liquid methane ocean planet,

        Cp.methane = 0,4980 cal/gr*oC

        β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant

        σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant

        Titan’s Without-Atmosphere mean surface temperature equation Tmean.titan is

        Tmean.titan = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴

        Τmean.titan = { 1*(1-0,22)*1.362 W/m *0.010890*[150 *(1/15,945)*0,4980]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ }∕ ⁴ =

        Tmean.titan = 93,10 K

        Tsat.mean.titan = 93,7 K (- 179,5 oC)

        Titan has an atmosphere of 95% N2 nitrogen plus 5% of greenhouse gas methane CH4. Titan has a minor greenhouse effect phenomenon. This phenomenon is so insignificant that it hasn’t appeared in calculations.

        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).”


        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ball4 says:

        Christos, your methodology of ignoring the atm. IR opacity with Φ=1 does work for celestial objects with nil atmospheres.

      • Ball4,

        “Christos, your methodology of ignoring the atm. IR opacity with Φ=1 does work for celestial objects with nil atmospheres.”

        Yes it works.
        Please look at photos of Earth and of Titan. When comparing those photos you distiguish Titan reflects diffusely only, because its atmosphere is full of tiny particles which work like hase.

        Earth’s photo shows Earth surface – the oceans and lands. Earth exibits a strong specular reflection.

        Albedo on Titan and Albedo on Earth were measured the same way. They have measured the diffuse reflection in both cases.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ball4, Also I have read in Wikipedia (Europa moon) it is the smoothest object in solar system, thus Φ =0,47.

        (Callisto moon) is the most cratered object in solar system,
        thus Φ =1.

        (Io moon) Io has more than 450 operating vulcanos, thus Φ =1.

        The farest from sun the celestial bodies, because of very low temperatures are mostly covered with old snow and ice. Their surface is full of cracks and pores, so for them Φ =1.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos – How did you manage to add the Greek letters? I have noticed others trying to render “mu” by using the HTML codes, but the semicolon gets stripped out by the blog.

    • Christos – How did you manage to add the Greek letters?

      • Thank you for asking, Elliot.

        Well, since I am in Greece, I have the privilege to use an English-Greek claviature.

        Here it is what you can do.
        At the bottom of display there is the language (Eng, Gr etc) You install the Greek language on your claviature, and most of Eanglish letters appear there in Greek.
        Example, push the m or s or d buttons – there will appear the respective μ ορ σ ορ δ .

        I also give you a sample of all Greek letters:

        Α α , Β β , Γ γ , Δ δ , Ε ε, Ζ ζ ,

        Η η , Θ θ , Ι ι , Κ κ, Λ λ , Μ μ , Ν ν ,

        Ξ ξ , Ο ο , Π π , Ρ ρ, Σ σ , Τ τ , Υ υ ,

        Φ φ , Χ χ , Ψ ψ , Ω ω ….

      • Efharisto. I managed to do it myself below, thanks. Useful for units!

  83. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Nine out of 10 of Death Valleys hottest summers have been in the past ten years. Death Valley, California, already the hottest place on the planet, is now in the middle of the heat dome, making it an interesting place to look at the implications of such high temperatures so early in the year.

    https://www.vox.com/climate/354222/death-valley-extreme-heat-record-climate-change

  84. Clint R says:

    Elliot believes he described the GHE. What he actually did was regurgitate the cult’s nonsense — confusing flux, energy and heat, using an imaginary sphere, believing infrared is always heat, believing flux simply adds, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

    The REAL science is actually easy. It only requires an understanding of the basic physics, like heat, flux, photon absorp.tion, temperature, and so forth. It isn’t that hard to grasp. I like to say “If I can understand it, anyone can understand it”. But, I’ve been shown that is wrong, based on the brain-dead cultists here, who are unable to understand even the basics..

    So, for the responsible adults, here’s an easy-to-understand explanation of “temperature”:

    A bucket of water has a temperature. Humans invented a way to measure that temperature. A simple mercury thermometer is placed in the water. The molecules in the water have kinetic energy — they are moving. As the molecules strike the glass tube of the thermometer, their energy gets transferred to the glass and then to the mercury. If the water is hot, the water molecules cause the mercury molecules to become more active, causing the mercury to expand, causing its level in the tube to rise. We calibrate the tube for whatever temperature scale we prefer — Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin (Absolute), Rankine, or other.

    Simple.

    The temperature of the water becomes the temperature of the mercury. We say the temperature is due to the average kinetic energy of the molecules. If no new thermal energy is added to the water, or lost, the temperature remains constant, and the thermometer reads the same temperature.

    If a heater raises the water temperature, the thermometer reads higher.

    If ice is added to the water, its temperature drops. The average kinetic energy of the molecules is reduced, the level of the mercury falls, and the thermometer reads a cooler temperature.

    It’s important to note here that adding ice adds both mass and energy to the water. Mass does not determine temperature, so we need to only consider the energy. The average kinetic energy of the ice molecules is less than the average kinetic energy of the water molecules, so the average kinetic energy decreases, and the thermometer reads a lower temperature.

    Energy is added, but the temperature decreases!

    So, adding energy does NOT always result in a higher temperature. It HAS TO BE the right kind of energy. As applied to climate science, the frequency of absorbed photons would have to raise the average kinetic energy of the water molecules. That’s why we know ice cannot boil water, and CO2’s 15&mu photons can not warm Earth’s 288K surface.

    It’s simple. Just basic physics.

    • Willard says:

      [PUFFMAN] Its important to note here that adding ice adds both mass and energy to the water.

      [ALSO PUFFMAN] Mass does not determine temperature, so we need to only consider the energy.

      So beautiful.

      • Ball4 says:

        Better yet, Clint R states: “the average kinetic energy decreases… Energy is added.” !! in which Clint confuses forms of energy.

        That confirms Clint’s writing is often confused so as to be a leading laughing stock commenter on this science blog.

        Clint R should also humorously explain when radiation from ice is absorbed by water how THAT process decreases the average water molecular kinetic energy as Clint R repeatedly claims.

        Clint should know basic high school physics experiments explain IR light is not heat, temperature is not heat, heat is only a measure & has no existence in nature (Joule’s experiments), and a heater is not needed to increase the equilibrium temperature of water.

      • Swenson says:

        Ball4,

        You wrote –

        “Clint R should also humorously explain when radiation from ice is absorbed by water how THAT process decreases the average water molecular kinetic energy as Clint R repeatedly claims.”

        Why should he? Don’t you know? Are you boasting about being ignorant and stu‌pid?

        If you are trying to imply (without having the guts to say so) that the radiation from ice can be used to heat water, then I would have to say that you are away with the fairies, quite divorced from reality.

        What you wrote makes no sense at all. Can you quote Clint saying what you allege he said, or did you just make stuff up to suit yourself?

        You refuse to to describe the GHE, so its odd that you are demanding help, while at the same time being as unhelpful as you possibly can.

        Have you thought of just trying to be a tr‌oll? You might do better than some of the wannabe tr‌olls here at the moment. Good luck.

    • Very convincing and very clearly.

      Thank you, Clint!

      • Ball4 says:

        Christos, 1) in your newly postulated real “instant” transformation of SW light incident on Earth surface into LW light, what happens to the difference in energy in that “instant” transformation from SW to LW & how is entropy produced in your process? Recall photon energy is directly proportional to its frequency (photonic E = hf).

        2) How do the radiometers on CERES separate specular from diffuse light in their looking down measurements thus ignoring specular reflection as you claim? Remember CERES instruments do not wear polarizing sunglasses.

      • Thank you, Ball4, for your response.

        “Christos, 1) in your newly postulated real instant transformation of SW light incident on Earth surface into LW light, what happens to the difference in energy in that “instant” transformation from SW to LW & how is entropy produced in your process? Recall photon energy is directly proportional to its frequency (photonic E = hf).”

        what happens to the difference in energy in that instant transformation from SW to LW”
        (emphasis added)

        difference in energy in that “instant” transformation from SW to LW
        is the HEAT absorbed in the inner layers!

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ball4,

        “2) How do the radiometers on CERES separate specular from diffuse light in their looking down measurements thus ignoring specular reflection as you claim? Remember CERES instruments do not wear polarizing sunglasses.”

        They do not separate specular from diffuse light in their looking down measurements.
        They do not “see” the directional constituent of diffuse light (the specular like reflection), because it doesn’t enter the radiometers.

        Ball4, actually there is not apure specular reflection – it is an abstraction.
        Also, the diffuse reflection is not isotropic.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ball4 says:

        OK, so now Christos changes tune about the energy difference “It is not “absorbed”” previously (11:11 am) to now write the difference is “the HEAT absorbed in the inner layers” after Tim F. pointed that out. There is never a need to consult that dot com link given as Christos should have been busy updating.

        However, physics experiments have long shown there is no “heat” in SW IR light to be absorbed during Christos postulated “instant” transformation into LW IR light, there is only difference in hf = E. Christos needs yet another physics correction to agree with experiment.

      • Ball4 says:

        So, at 4:07 pm, we now have Christos writing “they do not separate” light but Christos in the same commentthen writes they do separate out light they “do not “see””.

        Readers are confused by Christos writing? They should be. Readers should consult a CERES dot com informational link not Christos’ disinformation link.

      • Thank you, Ball4.

        “Readers do not wear polarizing sunglasses.”

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ball4 says:

        Sometimes readers do wear polarizing sunglasses in bright sunlight to dim down & ignore (Christos’ term) some specular reflection.

    • bobdroege says:

      But we can add energy without adding mass by adding photons, which have no mass when they stop moving, which happens when they are absorbed.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        Maybe you don’t want to believe Albert Einstein, who wrote e=mc2.

        Energy is mass, and vice versa. As you say (in a roundabout way, but true nevertheless), photons have no rest mass, but certainly possess momentum.

        You really have no clue. Unfortunately, nor do many highly qualified physicists who operate outside the field.

        You mentioned something interesting, when you wrote “adding photons, which have no mass when they stop moving, which happens when they are absorbed.” Allowing for the somewhat tortured prose, what do you think happens to the photon’s momentum (it had mass whilst moving) when it is absorbed by an electron?

        I don’t expect you to provide an answer, or even be interested (not being terribly bright), but lurkers might find a variety of answers on the internet. Which explanation is supported by experiment? That’s the only one worthy of consideration, in my humble opinion.

        You do write a lot of tosh, bobby. Maybe some good might come of it.

      • Ball4 says:

        Bumbling Swenson, Albert Einstein, who wrote e=mc2, was correct when there is mass present. Light (on which bob was commenting) can be present but has nil mass and light’s photonic e is not nil. Puzzle that out and let us know the result, if any. Maybe some good might come of it.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        Maybe you dont want to believe Albert Einstein, who wrote e=mc2.

        Energy is mass, and vice versa. As you say (in a roundabout way, but true nevertheless), photons have no rest mass, but certainly possess momentum.

        You really have no clue. Unfortunately, nor do many highly qualified physicists who operate outside the field.

        You mentioned something interesting, when you wrote adding photons, which have no mass when they stop moving, which happens when they are absorbed. Allowing for the somewhat tortured prose, what do you think happens to the photons momentum (it had mass whilst moving) when it is absorbed by an electron?

        I dont expect you to provide an answer, or even be interested (not being terribly bright), but lurkers might find a variety of answers on the internet. Which explanation is supported by experiment? Thats the only one worthy of consideration, in my humble opinion.

        You do write a lot of tosh, bobby. Maybe some good might come of it.

      • Swenson says:

        Brai‌nless bobby,

        You wrote –

        “Bumbling Swenson, Albert Einstein, who wrote e=mc2, was correct when there is mass present. Light (on which bob was commenting) can be present but has nil mass and lights photonic e is not nil. Puzzle that out and let us know the result, if any. Maybe some good might come of it.”

        No bobby, e=mc2 is correct, even when no rest mass is present. Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining the photo-electric effect, which depends on discrete quanta of energy with no rest mass being absorbed, and the consequences.

        What are you burbling about with “light’s photonic e is not nil”? That’s a puzzle alright, and the answer is that you a a self-proclaimed idio‌t.

        Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “What are you burbling about with lights photonic e is not nil? Thats a puzzle alright, and the answer is that you a a self-proclaimed idio‌t.”

        Please link to the post where I said that, that doesn’t sound like my prose style.

      • Swenson says:

        Sorry, bobby,

        I quoted a different bumbling idio‌t – Ball4.

        Am I right in assuming that you share my opinion that Ball4 is a bumbling idio‌t, or do you agree with his nonsensical outpouring?

        Feel free to let me know. Fanatical GHE cultists who refuse to even describe the GHE all look the same to me. Sorry if that sounds racist, or stu‌pidist, or something.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        Sorry but I think Ball4 is more on the ball than you.

        And I feel sorry for you, that you can’t recognize a description of the greenhouse effect that has been repeatedly posted for you.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        “And I feel sorry for you, that you cant recognize a description of the greenhouse effect that has been repeatedly posted for you.”

        Well, gee, maybe you could keep your sorrow for yourself – I don’t need any.

        I would recognise a description of the greenhouse effect. It would say it was a description of the greenhouse effect. If it agreed with reality, it might even be a valid description.

        Of course, you refuse to provide such a description, instead claiming “it’s here, it’s there, it’s everywhere!” You just be can’t be helpful, and provide it, can you? Keep it secret – why should I care? The GHE is a myth – it doesn’t exist.

        Keep pretending.

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        You quoted –

        “Sorry if that sounds racist, or stu‌pid, or something.”

        Are you trying to say something? Are you worried about racism or stu‌pidism?

        Why don’t you do something about if you are so concerned? If you are choosing to feel offended, annoyed, upset, or something of that nature, why not just go back to feeling bored?

        Or retreat back into your fantasy, where you are probably considered wise and powerful. If you arent, good for you!

        Good luck.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your silly requests.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        The greenhouse effect exists whether or not you understand it or not.

        So far you haven’t grasped the physics necessary to even have a conversation with you.

        Take a break, take a physics, and take a long walk.

      • The greenhouse effect exists whether or not you understand it or not.

        Ah, but he’s actually trying to not understand it.

        So far you havent grasped the physics necessary to even have a conversation with you.

        You got that right.

    • Clint R says:

      As usual, silly willy, Ball4, and bob struggle to respond, but only display their ignorance of the subject.

      They simply don’t understand that incoherence is incompetence.

      Kids these days….

      • Ball4 says:

        No science rebuttal from Clint R? Actually none was expected, just more laughs.

      • bobdroege says:

        Not so fast Clint,

        We have exposed your incompetence, over and over.

      • Clint R says:

        Just basic physics always draws a lot of ineffective flak from the cult kids. They see their false beliefs being crushed by reality, right before their eyes.

        Yet, all they have are their false accusations, which don’t deceive responsible adults.

      • Ball4 says:

        No science rebuttal from Clint R again? Actually none was expected, just more well earned laughs at Clint.

      • Swenson says:

        Ball4,

        You wrote –

        “No science rebuttal from Clint R again? Actually none was expected, just more well earned laughs at Clint.”, but of course you are refusing to say what you are talking about.

        You are an idio‌t who can’t even explain where the photons from a volume of water (completely surrounded by ice) go!

        Or do you claim that you know, but are going to refuse to be helpful and share your knowledge?

        You might as well keep refusing to describe the GHE, and claim someone else has done it, but you lost your copy, so there’s no point asking you.

        What a donk‌ey you are!

        [hee-haw]

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        [hee-haw]”

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        “[hee-haw]”

        Thanks for the flattery. I accept it from anyone.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares what you’re braying about.

      • Swenson says:

        Excellent. Thanks for caring.

    • Thats why we know ice cannot boil water, and CO2s 15&mu photons can not warm Earths 288K surface.

      I love the massive non sequitur at the end there.

      The atmosphere is not warmed by ice, you coprophagous Clintard. It is warmed by the Sun, at 5,800K. Nor is anything adding mass to the atmosphere. Heat energy goes in and less heat energy goes out. End of.

      Its simple. Just basic physics.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Elliott, please stop trolling.

  85. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Why getting the right model of electricity matters:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0

  86. Swenson says:

    “Why getting the right model of electricity matters:”

    Really? What’s wrong with real electricity – the kind that makes lights work?

    Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

  87. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy…again..stray into an area of physics about which he knows nothing. Being somewhat weak minded, he insists on falling for cartoons about physics.

    A model is a inane attemp.t of the human mind to explain electrical current. This guy’s explanation is beyond inane.

    He describes a conductor as being made up of atomic nucleii with a ‘sea of electrons’ flowing between them. That modern definition is one of the more inane theories.

    Consider a copper wire. It is made up of copper atoms bonded together by electrons. Copper has 29 protons and 29 electrons but the outer valence shell has only 1 electron to engage in electric current.

    Where is this sea of electrons going to reside? The video makes it appear as if there are only nucleii, among which electrons float randomly. A nonsense model. There is a definite structure to a copper conductor and in order for electrons to flow through it, the flow must be atom valence shell to atom valence shell.

    As I said, the theory is nonsense. Electrons flow through copper one at a time with one added at the battery negative terminal and one leaving at the positive terminal.

    But that’s not how current flows. Current is electric charges and the electrons have a means of passing their charge on down the line at the speed of light. Of course, no one knows how that worked, it just does.

    Repeat…current is not the number of electrons passing point in a circuit it is the number of charges passing that point.

    I had it explained once in a class. There used to be wooden rulers with a groove running the full length. You can set playing marbles along the groove, touching each other and if you carefully hold the first one in place and tap it, the force of the tap is transmitted through all the marbles, causing the marble at the other end to shoot off.

    I don’t think the actual mechanism has been discovered but charges on electrons apparently have a way of moving independently. Charges can move through a circuit at the speed of light whereas electrons as particles move at only a few centimetres per second.

    As for the author’s claim that an electric field has nothing to do with a battery, he completely ignores the fact that it is negative charges from electrons in a battery that drive electrons and their charges through a copper conductor. Therefore, the electric field is created by electrons themselves, stored in the battery. The notion that the electric field is produced by atoms in the copper is typical of the nonsense being taught to the modern generation.

    To emphasize that, a copper conductor with no battery attached has no electric field.

    • Willard says:

      > stray into an area of physics about which he knows nothing.

      Mr. Asshat courageously takes on Richard Abbott, who works on LIGO.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Are you trying to say something?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Not so, I have replied to a dim-twit who uses Richard Abbott as an authority figure. Abbott is likely the janitor at LIGO.

      • Willard says:

        Had Mr. Asshat watched the video, he’d have seen Richard Abbott in action, building the very device that proves him wrong.

      • Fairly typical of this cohort to confuse a practical demonstration with an argument from authority. Richard Feynmann encountered the same syndrome during a discussion on the Challenger disaster. He took a length of O-ring material and dunked it in iced water in front of all the political types, then pinched it with pliers. The ring stayed pinched, thus demonstrating a loss of elasticity at low temperatures.

        The political types dismissed it as some kind of “stunt”, but he’d basically diagnosed the cause of the explosion.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “I had it explained once in a class. There used to be wooden rulers with a groove running the full length. You can set playing marbles along the groove, touching each other and if you carefully hold the first one in place and tap it, the force of the tap is transmitted through all the marbles, causing the marble at the other end to shoot off.”

      Never played croquet when you were a kid?

      What, were you raised by wolves?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I was an unusual child, I loved to run, the faster the better. I excelled at soccer, a game that requires constant running and a high level of endurance. Croquet was far too boring for me.

        As an adult, I’d go for 18 mile runs just to sight see. I called it an adventure.

        If kids these days were asked to run like I did for enjoyment they’d get nosebleeds.

      • bobdroege says:

        I was referring to the rule in Croquet where if you hit another players ball with yours, you get another turn, and if you can get your ball to nestle against the other person’s ball, you get to put your foot on your ball and hit your ball with your mallet and send the other players ball flying.

        Like Newton’s cradle, have you seen one of those.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  88. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint…I would have let this slide but you insisted on attacking a fellow skeptics (me) for no apparent reason.

    Based on your novella at June 9, 2024 at 2:05 PM, would you please stop clogging the blog? I know you fancy yourself as a teacher and perhaps you could pass for one at grade school level, but your efforts here are more comedy than anything.

    Unlike you, I will refrain from stopping at ad homs and insults and explain my point.

    [clint]”for the responsible adults, heres an easy-to-understand explanation of temperature:

    A bucket of water has a temperature. Humans invented a way to measure that temperature…”

    ***

    yes…but temperature is not a physical reality, it is an invention of the human mind to indicated the relative intensity of heat. What does it measure in the water?

    A thermometer measures heat, as is depicted in the name…’thermo’-meter. Heat is real energy, temperature is a human invention to measure it. A thermometer is a meter that measures the relative intensity of heat.

    —-

    [clint]”The molecules in the water have kinetic energy they are moving”.

    ***

    “yes…but that’s what kinetic means, moving, or, in motion. Kinetic energy tells you only that energy is in motion. We want to know what kind of energy is in motion. In the case of atoms in motion, there is only one energy involved…heat. Therefore the kinetic energy to which you refer is heat.

    If it was the KE related to force that moves a mass, the KE would be mechanical energy. If the force was related to gravity, the KE would be gravitational energy. KE tells us nothing about the kind of energy in motion.

    —-

    [clint]”The temperature of the water becomes the temperature of the mercury. We say the temperature is due to the average kinetic energy of the molecules. If no new thermal energy is added to the water, or lost, the temperature remains constant, and the thermometer reads the same temperature”.

    ***

    Finally, you acknowledge the kind of energy, thermal energy. Most of us acknowledge that thermal means heat but you have this obtuseness by which you insist heat is a transfer of energy, not energy itself. The word thermal has its root in Greek, the word therme. Therme means heat in Greek, I checked with Christos, who speaks Greek.

    Your entire novella could have been summed up thusly: if you add heat to water it gets warmer, if you remove heat from water it gets colder. But you have painted yourself into a corner by refusing to acknowledge heat as energy.

    Ergo, if you add ice to water, it uses (loses) heat to melt the ice, therefore the water must cool. Alternately, you could have invoke the 2nd law “heat cannot, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot.

    • Clint R says:

      gordon, you’re sicker than I thought.

      To write all that rambling bμllshit is proof of serious mental issues. You’re way beyond mere jealousy. You’re deep into psychotic behavior.

      Get professional help, soon!

  89. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob d “But we can add energy without adding mass by adding photons, which have no mass when they stop moving, which happens when they are absorbed”.

    ***

    We can add energy by heating amass as well. You don’t seriously think that absorbing a photon into a mass retains the photon as a unit? Photons, for want of a better word (I prefer quanta), when absorbed, disappear completely. They have no momentum because they lack mass, and cannot produce a force. No way they physically affect mass. They are converted from EM to heat.

    If photons could affect mass, then heat should be able to do the same. So, if you heated a mass it should get heavier.

    Photons do not add energy to electrons by an exchange of momentum, the effect is purely electrical and magnetic. Those are the only two energy fields available with EM.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “You dont seriously think that absorbing a photon into a mass retains the photon as a unit?”

      Of course not, did you read all of my post.

      I clearly stated the photon turns into kinetic energy.

      “We can add energy by heating amass as well.”

      I was explaining how something happens, not how something could happen.

      “They have no momentum because they lack mass, and cannot produce a force. ”

      Sorry that is incorrect. Photons or quanta if you insist, do have momentum.

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

      That’s a spacecraft using a light sail, interesting reading. It shows photons, or quanta can put a force on something and cause it to accelerate.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Do these klowns realize their is a solar wind comprised of protons and electrons?

        A photon has no mass. Momentum = mass x velocity and kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2.

        Do the math…

        momentum = p = mv = 0.v = 0

        KE = 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 0.v^2 = 0

        I know what those who think photons have momentum are doing, but all it is sums to playing. Serious physicists understand that zero-mass has no momentum.

      • The momentum of a photon is given by hv/c, where v is the frequency, h is Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light. The rest mass of a photon is zero. But:

        The experimental upper limit on the photon mass[20][21] is very small, on the order of 10^−50 kg. (Wiki)

        Light has momentum and exerts pressure.

        Serious physicists understand that a photon with rest mass of zero moves at the speed of light, and due to relativistic considerations an object with finite mass at c has zero rest mass.

      • Also quite easy to look up, by the way.

      • Are you sure you haven’t been spending too much time around Svensdottir and her ilk? I don’t know if you checked before posting, but it looks exactly like you looked up “mass of a photon” instead of “momentum of a photon”, thus guaranteeing an answer that fit your prejudices.

        If you actually knew the physics, you could go straight to the equation showing the momentum of a photon. I had forgotten it, but at least I knew enough to know where I would find it.

      • Swenson says:

        Elliott, please stop tro‌lling.

        Stick to refusing to describe one of your many GHEs.

        Or just keep being bored.

      • Ah, again the repeated lie. Here’s the reality:

        Definition of the greenhouse effect

        The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.

        How it Works

        Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.

        Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.

        Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.

        Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.

        Importance of the Greenhouse Effect

        Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.

        Human Impact

        However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

        Key Takeaway

        The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Elliott, but you’re just repeating cult nonsense.

        That ain’t science.

        Here’s some science:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        You (or possibly some AI bot) wrote –

        “Definition of the greenhouse effect . . . “, followed by a farrago of unsupported nonsense. The surface has demonstrably cooled since it was molten.

        Why are you refusing to provide a description of the GHE? You can define yourself blue in the face, but you cannot turn cooling into heating – in reality, anyway.

        Maybe you could say something idio‌tic?

        Carry on.

      • Sorry Elliott, but youre just repeating cult nonsense.

        Name-calling tends to reinforce the impression that you cannot argue with the content, Clintard. Just saying.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your (possibly alcool-induced) incoherent ramblings.

      • Nate says:

        “Serious physicists understand that zero-mass has no momentum.”

        Gordon, please find us a serious physicist who ‘understands’ that.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        Fermions and Bosons have different equations for momentum.

        You didn’t get that far in physics, which is not very far, first year engineering.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Elliott, Little Willy, bob