UAH Upper Tropospheric Temperatures Corroborate LT Temperature Trends

June 7th, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The recent record-setting UAH satellite-based temperatures of the lower troposphere can be compared to a different combination of satellite MSU/AMSU channels which help to corroborate the temperature trends from our “lower tropospheric” (LT) combination of channels.

The three channels we use for LT are MSU channels 2 (“MT”), 3 (“TP”), and 4 (“LS”), (AMSU channels 5, 7, and 9). The primary channel used comes from “MT” (MSU channel 2 or AMSU channel 5), which has the largest weight:

LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.01*LS

Here is a figure from our 2017 paper on Version 6 of our dataset, showing the three main temperature sounding channels and how they are combined for the LT product:

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 provides an independent check on our LT synthesized channel, keeping in mind one is centered in the lower troposphere and the other is centered in the upper troposphere.

We noticed that last month (May, 2024) produced a record warm global average temperature in the tropopause channel (AMSU channel 7), so I decided to investigate. Combining channel 7 and 9 for an Upper Troposphere (UT) synthesized channel,

UT = 1.35*TP – 0.35*LS

The resulting vertical profile of weight in the atmosphere is the purple curve, below:

That UT synthesized channel produces the following temperature anomalies:

Note that for the global average, the synthesized UT channel reached record warm values in February, then March, then April, and then May, 2024.

In the tropics, March and then May produced records, but not by much… the 1997/98 El Nino produced upper tropospheric warmth nearly as strong as our recent El Nino.

If we look at just the extra-tropics (next chart) we see the northern latitudes had record warmth in March. But the southern latitudes May came in only 3rd warmest, behind September 2019, and November, 1988.

Note also that the global UT trend is the same as the lower tropospheric (LT) trend, +0.13 C/decade. Since the global UT has some small contamination from lower stratospheric cooling, the “true” UT value (if the stratospheric influence could be removed) would be somewhat warmer. By how much? I’m not sure… maybe +0.15 rather than +0.13 C/decade as an educated guess.

Taken together, I believe this shows that our traditional LT (lower tropospheric) temperature trends are basically corroborated by the other channels of MSU/AMSU.

Keep in mind that when John Christy and I compare these various trends to climate models, it is always apples-to-apples: the climate models’ atmospheric pressure level data are combined and weighted to approximate the same weighting functions as the satellite senses.


362 Responses to “UAH Upper Tropospheric Temperatures Corroborate LT Temperature Trends”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Bob Weber says:

    Your self-checking system is appreciated; here’s a quick climate check.

    Your first figure with the upper tropospheric tropic and global changes being synchronized shows the importance of the ENSO to global warming.

    It showed no relative difference in changes re the ’98 and ’23 El Nio.
    This fact should put a big damper on those with other ideas of what caused this recent spike, such as the HT-HH upper atmospheric water vapor injection, or carbon dioxide emissions, or 2020 SO2 reductions.

    Historically the LT lags SST by two months, which is also borne out by the last year of data, thus we can know for certain that the source and longevity of the recent UAH LT temperature spike was the recent global SST spike concurrent with the 2023 El Nio.

    Since 1980, the integrated 30-year MEI and 30-year SST have correlated nearly perfectly, demonstrating the importance of the ENSO to the global warming trend.

  2. Entropic man says:

    ENSO peaks are always above the long term trend, as one might expect. Thus it is reasonable to expect that ENSO has contributed to the 2023/24 surge in monthly temperatures.

    However, blaming the surge entirely on ENSO is not tenable. There is an underlying long term warming trend which leverages El Nino peak temperatures upward over time.

    Whatever causes this long term warming trend is ultimately responsible for the higher anomaly temperatures we observe, though short term variations such as ENSO determine precisely when each new record global temperature arrives.

  3. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer

    I agree with Bob. Thank you for confirming that the high anomalies recently observed are genuine temperature changes in the climate system, and not the data errors that some of those here would have us believe.

  4. Buzz says:

    Data have long shown that tropospheric warming is associated with stratospheric cooling. It is remarkably reflected in that of the lower stratosphere, and papers have shown a tight coupling between the spatial pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling.

    BUT…despite evident tropospheric warming, there appears not to be equivalent lower stratospheric cooling. There was…up until 1995, but cooling almost flatlined since. In 2020, there was actually a short rise back to 1990 levels. This is odd, surely? Some have explained this by stating that, in fact, the cooling we did see prior to 1995 was due to issues in the ozone layer, and actually nothing to do with the CO2 hypothesis. This presents a problem (for the hypothesis) as it would imply that the two (stratosphere and troposphere) are actually not coupled, and that we have the theory wrong. I have seen attempts to get around this by saying that it isn’t the ‘lower’ stratosphere, but the two higher levels. However, that is not what the hypothesis states. I have seen paper after paper naming the LOWER stratosphere as the one which will cool as the troposphere warms. I say again, that is not what is happening.

    • Entropic man says:

      Do you have data?

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      What you are talking about is for short-term variability, where convective heating and expansion of the troposphere upward leads to lower stratospheric adiabatic cooling from lifting. For trends there are additional mechanisms involved. The stratosphere has ozone and water vapor changes, which affect the radiative energy budget. Climate models actually show almost identical trends for LS as what we get measure from satellite. But moist processes in the troposphere can affect trends in ways that the stratosphere really doesn’t care about.

      • Buzz says:

        Thanks for replying, Roy. What happened to it in 1995? Why the halt?

      • skeptikal says:

        Buzz,

        The early part of the dataset has issues. The period from 1982 to 1993 is so bad that Roy had to ‘adjust’ the MSU3 data to better match MSU2 and MSU4. He then pushed that adjustment through the entire dataset. He knows what the problem is and he could fix it, but that would increase the overall warming trend.

    • Bindidon says:

      Buzz

      Can you provide a paper that not only talks about LT/LS coupling, but also about coupling of the same magnitude, i.e. LS decrease equal to LT increase?

      If we look at an exact superposition of the two

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/17WdFRdhYPI4wL3DJZRa6GddFBJWne7Sr/view

      we can see that indeed the negative LS trend is very high until 1995 but that it does not vanish later on.

      Trends 1995-now (C/decade)

      LT: +0.15 +- 0.01
      LS: -0.08 +- 0.01

      Apparently we lack at least 20 years of data before UAH’s start in 1979.

      • Buzz says:

        Sorry, I don’t have any papers to hand. I last looked into this at least four years ago (spare time during covid), and it was Roy’s article that reminded me.

        It’s not my field at all, but I don’t understand why volcanoes like El Chichn and Mount Pinatubo don’t cool the troposphere (when they halt cooling in the stratosphere for a short while). I’m sure someone here knows why. But what I really don’t understand is why no one else makes a point of saying anything about an ALMOST halt to stratospheric cooling. Despite the uptick in tropospheric warming of late, I see no coupling to stratospheric cooling so far.

        As for data prior to 1979, the best I have on my laptop is this from 1958
        https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-temperature-lower-stratosphere

        I just happen to believe that the coupling is easily disconnected for some reason, and actually bears little connectivity with the troposphere (despite what the science says). I think that in time, we will come to understand that we actually know very little about how the climate system works. There’s a huge re-think going on in cosmology at present, thanks to input from the JWST, and we really have to start grasping that we don’t know stuff, and to stop assuming (don’t get me started on dark matter). With input from Dr Arthur Viterito on the excellent correlation between warming and mid-ocean seismic activity, we need to re-evaluate our understanding of climate. With Net Zero, we are about to embark on spending trillions trying to solve something we clearly cannot fully grasp. And that is really the issue. Shouldn’t we be spending this on lifting so much of the world out of poverty? Sorry to rant on, but if we’re wrong (and I think we are) Net Zero is going to be the biggest waste of money ever.

        I read the comments here, and see how the conversations go. It saddens me that those who fully believe the CO2 warming idea cannot see that even if it’s true, so what? We cannot change – we cannot halt progress, and lowering our emissions would do NOTHING to the average Earth temp. So what’s the point? I’m in England, and we’re about to elect a new government which plans to spend 77 million A DAY on Net Zero ($98 million). Not just for a few years, but for decades. Again, sorry for going on, but it’s something that is really getting to me of late.

      • Nate says:

        “I read the comments here, and see how the conversations go. It saddens me that those who fully believe the CO2 warming idea cannot see that even if its true, so what? We cannot change we cannot halt progress, and lowering our emissions would do NOTHING to the average Earth temp.”

        Non-sequiturs.

        If true that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, then it certainly follows that lowering emissions will have an effect on that warming.

        And given that fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, finding alternative renewable energy sources IS progress.

      • Swenson says:

        “If true that CO2 emissions are causing global warming”

        Well, they havent for four and a half billion years.

        When did the laws of physics change?

        [laughing at gullible GHE cultist]

      • nate says:

        “Well, they havent for four and a half billion years.”

        False.

        Since 20,000 years ago, the Earth warmed quite a lot.

        And since a century ago, the Earth warmed more.

        Oh well, you will probably keep ignoring these contradictory facts.

      • Bindidon says:

        Buzz

        ” It’s not my field at all, but I don’t understand why volcanoes like El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo don’t cool the troposphere (when they halt cooling in the stratosphere for a short while). ”

        Don’t cool LT?

        The two did very well, but this cooling is far less apparent in the graph than the LS warming.

        Look in Roy Spencer threads and you’ll find hints on this fact.

        Even warming deniers like ignoramus Robertson ‘acknowledge’ El Chichón’s and Pinatubo’s effect when they speak about a ‘no warming since 1979: only a recovery from the volcanic cooling’.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        The Earth’s surface is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.

        As Fourier said, each night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little remnant heat.

        As present the Earth is losing around 44 TW of energy, which means it is cooling. Around 2 millionths of a Kelvin per annum.

        You claim something heated the Earth 20,000 years ago, but you refuse to say what it was, or how it achieved this miraculous heating! Is that because you don’t know, you are trying to be unhelpful, or because you are an idio‌t?

        Bad luck, no GHE.

      • Tim S says:

        Nate, I think you get credit for a comment that is half correct. Fossil fuels will run out. Children born today who live long enough will witness the complete phase out of petroleum and possibly natural gas as well as an energy source. These fuels will still provide value as chemical feed-stock for a long time.

        The problem is that it is not an emergency. Rushing into an all-electric economy in a panic does not make sense. Most importantly, there are still parts of world where fossil fuels make sense. There is not much the industrialized world can do to effectively reduce world-wide emissions for the foreseeable future.

        Someone who is cooking their food with cow dung probably is not ready for a solar panel. They need something more basic.

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        You wrote –

        “The Ballad of Swenson.”

        Well thanks. Have you composed any words, or is a title all you have at this time?

        Keep me informed.

        [dim‌wit]

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Have you composed any words

        Well yes…

        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,

        Re The Ballad of Swenson.

        Don’t give up your day job.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your career advice, yours isn’t that rosy.

      • Swenson says:

        Thanks for showing that you care. It warms my heart, cockles and all.

      • Nate says:

        “As Fourier said, each night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little remnant heat.”

        Not when the Earth is in a warming trend, as it has been in recent decades. Oh well!

        “As present the Earth is losing around 44 TW of energy, which means it is cooling. Around 2 millionths of a Kelvin per annum.”

        Again, this sounds like a big number to the ignorant folk such as yourself, but it is still only 1/3000th of the solar input to the Earth, hence insignificant.

        “You claim something heated the Earth 20,000 years ago, but you refuse to say what it was”

        Why play dum?

        In summary, all we get is old, tired, irrelevant, debunked, talking points from Swenson, while we used to occasionally get new, useful, factual posts from him.

        Obviously Swenson is a dried up shell of his former self, and has nothing left to contribute.

        Really sad.

      • Nate says:

        “The problem is that it is not an emergency.”

        In your opinion.

        “Rushing into an all-electric economy in a panic does not make sense. ”

        What panic?

        How long did the transition from gas-light to electric light take?

        How long did the transition from horses to automobiles take?

        Maybe 25 y each?

        EV’s are increasing in number, but the transition will unlikely be any faster then those.

        “Someone who is cooking their food with cow dung probably is not ready for a solar panel. They need something more basic.”

        Nor are they a large consumer of energy right now.

        The largest consumer’s of energy like China, are transitioning to renewable.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        The Earths surface is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.

        As Fourier said, each night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little remnant heat.

        As present the Earth is losing around 44 TW of energy, which means it is cooling. Around 2 millionths of a Kelvin per annum.

        You claim something heated the Earth 20,000 years ago, but you refuse to say what it was, or how it achieved this miraculous heating! Is that because you dont know, you are trying to be unhelpful, or because you are an idio‌t?

        Bad luck, no GHE.

      • Nate says:

        The sun’s input to the Earth is 120,000 TW.

        FYI for the slow learners like Swenson, 120,000 is a lot bigger than 44.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        There won’t be a transition to EVs anytime soon. If they can make an inexpensive efficient battery that will provide about 750 miles per charge driving at 70mph on the interstate, a power grid capable of charging all the EVs, and possibly fusion power, then EVs could become universally attractive. Now? No.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Also, the transition will have to be market-based, like from the horse to trains and then automobiles. It can’t be forced by government mandate. It has to be economically advantageous to drive an EV. Cars were more expensive than horses but owners could improve their productivity by buying them.

      • Nate says:

        “Also, the transition will have to be market-based, like from the horse to trains and then automobiles. ”

        You think the govt wasn’t involved in the transition to trains and then automobiles?

        Bwa ha ha!

      • Nate says:

        “Cars were more expensive than horses but owners could improve their productivity by buying them.”

        Similar to today..

        Personally, I bought plug-in hybrids. The latest one is EV for ~ 40 miles. This works well for us, and avoids the concern of having to find a charge on a trip.

        Just as the interstate highway system was built to facilitate travel by automobiles, I expect that in a few years the charging infrastructure will be better.

  5. professor P says:

    What a relief to hear some robust, intelligent arguments from people who know what they are talking about.
    Importantly, I can disagree with them but still respect them.
    …….
    …….
    …….
    (unlike others who know who they are).

    • Entropic man says:

      Ah well, it was nice while it lasted.

      • Buzz says:

        Yes, and I’m of the opinion that Dr Spencer needs to block some posts. I’m not usually a fan of censorship, but clearly, some of the posts do this website no credit at all.

      • Swenson says:

        Buzz wrote –

        “Yes, and I’m of the opinion that Dr Spencer needs to block some posts.”

        I’m sure that Dr Spencer will give your opinion due consideration.

        Winston Churchill said –

        “Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”

        My opinion is that you are a nitwit. Carry on opining.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your opinion.

  6. Roy, thank you for the data and graphs presented on this site and closing in on the yet unanswered questions.
    I won’t start worrying about burning up or drowning though until grapes are harvested in Scotland and Norway (Roman warm period, I believe) and then some.
    Keep up the good work!

  7. 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.”

    ******
    The above doesn’t say about:

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

    • Swenson says:

      “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.”

      The atmosphere as a whole is not “largely opaque to infrared”. Images using IR wavelengths are routinely taken from satellites, and just standing in sunlight tells you that IR is making its way through the atmosphere nicely. Cooling by moving into sharply delineated shade shows that the IR is coming fairly directly from the Sun.

      IR thermometers seem to be able to transmit and receive IR through air, and FLIR cameras look through smoke as well as air.

      Considering that all radio frequencies are IR by definition, and a 5w radio transmitter built inside an Altoids tin can reach around the world, through at least 20,000 km of atmosphere, the quoted authority is at least misleading, or ignorant.

      Good qualifications for a climate scientist.

  8. RLH says:

    “New MIT Discovery Just Solved one of Physics BIGGEST Mysteries!”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17Y82tJDk2o

    “the Photo-Molecular Effect”

  9. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Still appears to be a warming bias in the UAH dataset.

    If for example you look at the Rutgers Snow Lab data NH snow cover anomaly trends dead flat over the last 25 years.

    https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php

    You can download the data and run the trends, which I’ve done. The dataset is basically the NH snow line position – the zero Celcius isotherm, which has not budged on average since the early ’90’s.

    That suggests the NH extratropics dataset has warming bias, or the snowline would have moved northwards over that time. The snow cover data unlike AMSU temperature data is easy to measure, just the white pixels on the sat pic. It therefore does not need to be corrected.

    If the UT and LT data are consistent with each other it suggests the systemic error affects both datasets.

    • barry says:

      The UAH dataset is consistent with all other global temperature data sets in that warming has continued post 1990s. This is further corroborated by rising global sea level, sea surface temperatures, global sea ice decline, sub-surface global ocean temperatures, and a host of other indicators, including NH sea ice decline.

      Why NH snow-line position should be a superior measure compared to al these other indicators is not obviously clear. Nor have you seemed to explore why there has been little retreat post 1990s. One answer could be increased precipitation, as when you look at the data month by month, you see a decline in snow line extent in Spring and Summer, and an increase over Autumn and Winter. These seasonal differences are a good line of inquiry to understand the evolution of NH snow line evolution in an obviously warming world.

  10. Swenson says:

    Dr Spencer wrote –

    “Im not sure maybe +0.15 rather than +0.13 C/decade as an educated guess.”

    I’d be interested in an educated guess from someone as to when this “warming” will stop. 0.15 C/decade is of course 150 C after 10,000 years!

    My educated (or uneducated, if you disagree) guess is that the seas will not have boiled away in a few thousand years, but maybe somebody might like to hazard a guess as to when this “warming” might stop.

    I fully expect refusal from GHE cultists, because this would require them to explain why the GHE stopped working!

    I live in hope, although getting GHE cultists to commit themselves to anything definite is like nailing jelly to a tree. Remarkably evasive creatures, GHE cultists.

  11. Entropic man says:

    Swenson

    An answer to your repeated request to lighten your ignorance regarding the greenhouse effect.

    “The reduction of the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), relative to longwave radiation emitted by the surface, is at the heart of the greenhouse effect.

    More specifically, the greenhouse effect may be defined quantitatively as the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the surface that does not reach space. On Earth as of 2015, about 398 W/m2 of longwave radiation was emitted by the surface, while OLR, the amount reaching space, was 239 W/m2. Thus, the greenhouse effect was 398−239 = 159 W/m2, or 159/398 = 40% of surface emissions, not reaching space.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectral_Greenhouse_Effect.png

    The graph illustrates outgoing radiation and greenhouse effect as a function of frequency. The greenhouse effect is visible as the area of the upper red area, and the greenhouse effect associated with CO2 is directly visible as the large dip near the center of the OLR spectrum.”

    • Clint R says:

      Ent, your beliefs indicate how little you understand about the science, as usual.

      * Those figures are bogus

      ** Fluxes don’t simply add/subtract

      Ent is also the one that believes passenger jets fly backward.

    • Ent,

      “More specifically, the greenhouse effect may be defined quantitatively as the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the surface that does not reach space. On Earth as of 2015, about 398 W/m2 of longwave radiation was emitted by the surface, while OLR, the amount reaching space, was 239 W/m2. Thus, the greenhouse effect was 398−239 = 159 W/m2, or 159/398 = 40% of surface emissions, not reaching space.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectral_Greenhouse_Effect.png

      “…about 398 W/m2 of longwave radiation was emitted by the surface, while OLR, the amount reaching space, was 239 W/m2.”
      (emphasis added)

      Earth’s average surface temperature is Tmean = 288K
      If Earth’s surface had uniform temperature Tunif =288K, then Earth’s surface blackbody emission temperature would have been
      ~398 W/m^2

      We have a scientific paradox here.
      There is a widely known 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.

      Since Earth’s surface temperature is not at all uniform, Earth’s surface emitting ~398 W/m^2 should have a much lower average surface temperature (Tmean),
      than the actual Tmean = 288K.


      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      “An answer to your repeated request to lighten your ignorance regarding the greenhouse effect.”

      No, I have not requested that anybody “lighten my ignorance” at all. You just made that up to make yourself feel better, I guess. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      You just refuse to describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality – why, I don’t know.

      If you don’t want to describe the GHE, you don’t have to, and I don’t blame you. You would probably wind up saying stu‌pid things like –

      “More specifically, the greenhouse effect may be defined quantitatively as the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the surface that does not reach space.”

      That statement is complete nonsense – all radiation emitted by the surface (which is hotter than the nominal 4 K of outer space) goes to space. That’s why the surface cools at night, and the Earth has progressively cooled for four and a half billion years.

      You don’t seem to realise that even using the words “may be defined qualitatively” is not a description, rather an attempt to turn fiction into fact – by definition. The GHE is mythical – if you, or any of your fellow fantasists, believe that you have a valid GHE description, but are refusing to share it, that is your affair.

      By the way, your multicoloured graphic does not show any radiation at all being prevented from reaching outer space. Just as well, otherwise I could laugh at it like I laugh at the wi‌tless Trenberth’s stu‌pid “energy balance” cartoon.

      Carry on acting the fo‌ol.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        the next day he will start
        once more
        knowing that another batsh1t
        bender’s in store

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        You wrote –

        “the next day he will start
        once more
        knowing that another batsh1t
        benders in store”

        Well, that’s certainly informative. Very mature. Is it supposed to mean something, or are you just acting the fo‌ol for no reason at all? Cryptic obscurity might not give the appearance of vast knowledge of the field of physics – if that’s what you are trying to achieve.

        Carry on.

        [laughing at tr‌oll]

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Is it supposed to mean something

        Yes. It means you need to get help.

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        You wrote –

        “”Is it supposed to mean something”

        Yes. It means you need to get help.””

        Oh yes, and I am supposed to value your opinion because . . . ?

        Do you often have del‌usions of grandeur? If need help, I’ll ask for it. Having considered your unsolicited advice, I’ll treat it with the disdain it merits.

        Why not? Who would willingly accept unsolicited advice from some anonymous idio‌t?

        Would you?

        [what a dim‌wit he is]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares if you do not value anything.

    • Tim S says:

      I do not disagree with the qualitative or quantitative aspect of your statement, but it does not describe the mechanism or a “heat trap” in the strict sense of that term.

      First, there is a problem with using averages and weighted averages because the surface of the earth is not uniform. Yes, the surface emits more longwave than the amount that actually escapes, but on any given day, on average, there is only a slight different in the net incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing energy of all types.

      Some days the earth warms and some days the earth cools, but it is nowhere near 159 W/m2 of net difference. That number represents the amount that moves back and forth between different layers of the atmosphere. This effect leads to instability in the atmosphere. The surface is typically warmer than the atmosphere immediately above and there is a continued reduction in temperature with increasing altitude. The exception would be an inversion layer which can occur in a high pressure weather condition.

      The question of whether the instability is increased or the entire atmosphere increases at the same rate with increasing CO2 is a different question. The question of the effect of increasing CO2 in different regions with different surface humidity is also an open question it seems to me.

      • Tim S says:

        I will expand on the humidity question. In the tropics humidity is commonly about 4% (on a molar basis, not a weight basis). That is 1 water molecule for every 20 air molecules. CO2 is currently about 1 in 2400. That is a difference of 2 orders of magnitude.

      • Willard says:

        > it does not describe the mechanism or a “heat trap” in the strict sense of that term.

        TS fabricates a “strict sense” of a term that wasn’t mean in a strict sense, and in fact wasn’t even meant as a “term.”

      • Tim S says:

        Waiter, there’s a fly in my soup!

      • Entropic man says:

        Tim S

        The flux values I gave are totals for the Earth as a whole, treated as a black box emitting and absorbing radiation.

        When you look in detail every square metre of the planet will have different values. The computer models used for weather forecasting attempt to produce a physical description of the energy flow in detail, which requires a supercomputer.

        Depending on which questions you want to answer, different levels of detail are appropriate.

        For the effects of global forcings such as solar insolation or increasing CO2 on global average temperature the top down approach used in the global energy budget will suffice.

        For projections of the regional effects of climate change you need to work from the bottom up.

        Weather forecasters and regional climate modeller recognise that they need a bottom up approach and are always keen to use the latest supercomputers. More and faster computing power allows them more detailed simulations.

      • Entropic man says:

        Tim S

        No arguments about water vapour. On the graph I linked, most of the red area, the radiation prevented from leaving to space by the greenhouse effect, is due to water vapour.

        Perhaps I should remind the audience of the difference between forcing and feedback in this context.

        The conventional view of AGW is that humanity is releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels. About half of that CO2 accumulates over time and causes a stronger greenhouse effect. This changes the radiation balance by decreasing the outgoing radiation, which causes heat to accumulate and raising the temperature. This is an external effect, a forcing.

        The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. Roughly a 7% increase in WV for each 1C increase.

        A 1C increase in temperature forced by doubling CO2 immediately causes a 7% increase in water vapour and a stronger WV greenhouse effect which further increases the temperature. Th system settles to an equilibrium with 21% more water vapour and temperatures 3C warmer.

        Water vapour acts as a feedback amplifying the effect of CO2.

      • Swenson says:

        “A 1C increase in temperature forced by doubling CO2 immediately causes a 7% increase in water vapour and a stronger WV greenhouse effect which further increases the temperature. Th system settles to an equilibrium with 21% more water vapour and temperatures 3C warmer.”

        Except when it’s hot, of course.

        Say Death Valley or the Lut Desert. Makes a mockery of your bizarre nonsense, doesn’t it?

        You might need to alter your fantasy in the direction of fact. Or not, as you wish

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares if you ignore that the Death Valley had nine of its ten hottest years in the last ten.

        Cheers.

  12. E. Swanson says:

    Dr. Spencer, discussing this latest work, wrote:

    …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).

    I presume that you and John use a temperature vs. pressure profile known as the U.S. Standard Atmosphere when you computed your weighting profiles shown in your graphs, as did RSS. That data is intended to represent warm season temperate data, starting with a surface temperature of 15C. As you note, higher latitudes during winter exhibit a lower level for the Tropopause with a much colder surface temperature.

    How would a more realistic computation capture the impact of the Winter months on your weighting curves? Wouldn’t this be especially relevant for your latest UT product, which sort of straddles the Tropopause?

    Also, why don’t you produce a tropic to polar “mid-latitude” series, as did RSS, instead of your “extra-tropics” series, which includes the polar regions. Your current products may be said to “double count” the polar regions.

    • Bindidon says:

      E. Swanson

      ” Also, why don’t you produce a tropic to polar ‘mid-latitude’ series… ”

      Something like this, for example?

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kj-K7bvWf6Kzf3qthYi0Om50HGvU3L2M/view

      *
      Using the same mid-latitude band as for RSS (25N-60N) we can compare the two series:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/19F7vDMUEbCmbW9xnFo-W8TPxWzUf5fem/view

      As always: while UAH is high on start and low at end, RSS conversely is low on start and high at end.

      Linear estimates in C/decade

      UAH: 0.19 +- 0.01
      RSS: 0.30 +- 0.01

      *
      Nota bene

      I intentionally avoided to use polynomials let alone cascaded means because they destroy the tiny wriggles shown by a simple running mean.

      It is amazing to look at the two SLRs in the graph and to see how many of these wriggles they share – despite being the 60 month averages of two completely different time series generated by even two different teams.

      People ideologically discrediting anomalies, averages and simple running means are stubborn and incompetent, to say the least.

      • Bindidon says:

        Anticipating styupid annotations by the 150% opinionated Brit boy

        https://tinyurl.com/UAH-RSS-midlats-C3RM60

      • Swenson says:

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

      • RLH says:

        A simple running mean is well known to produce distortions. Not that is matters to Blinny.

      • RLH says:

        Why not point out that others agree with UAH?

      • E. Swanson says:

        RLH, Why not point out that said agreement is the result of the manipulation of the other data to match the UAH processing?

      • RLH says:

        Are you saying that NASA manipulates data?

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Why not point out that others agree with UAH? ”

        Blindsley H00d’s typical egomaniacal, ideological reaction.

        Why does the over and over opinionated Brit boy not look himself for NOAA STAR’s grid data and shows us the same comparison as I made?

        Answer: this is because Blindsley H00d isn’t able to do the job, and therefore cannot resist superficial small talk and stalking.

        *
        ” A simple running mean is well known to produce distortions. Not that is matters to Blinny. ”

        Once again Blindsley H00d’s snippy, effeminate behavior – typical of old, dried-out spinsters.

        What a styupid lie, which reminds us Robertson’s 1500 NOAA station nonsense, or Clint R’s astrologer and ball-on-a-string blah blah.

      • RLH says:

        NOAA STAR says that they agree with UAH.

      • RLH says:

        NOAA STAR does not agree with RSS.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Are you saying that NASA manipulates data? ”

        This is simply the best: Blindsley H00d suddenly defending NOAA!

        But he does that ONLY because

        – it’s not about surface temperatures at all

        and because

        – NOAA radically changed its LT calculation strategy some time ago, so that its data show just as little warming as UAH.

        *
        The only thing that matters for Blindsley H00d: probably no GHE, nor man-made warming, and even no warming at all if possible.

        He showed the last very well in 2021, when he saw that UAH gave us several times in sequence a lower anomaly for every month than the same month the previous year.

        He then started a veritable witch hunt against every poster who was not prepared to derive global cooling from it.

      • RLH says:

        In Blinny’s own words

        “NOAA radically changed its LT calculation strategy some time ago, so that its data show just as little warming as UAH.”

        So sayeth NOAA STAR.

  13. Greg Goodman says:

    ” UT has some small contamination from lower stratospheric cooling”

    It would be nice to see what TLS looks like too. How much has it cooled since the Mt Pinatubo downstep?

    Id really like to see how models compare to TLS in a similar way that was done for LT.

    Since TLS is much less noisy than tropo, it is an interesting check on how well models are doing at matching real climate drift.

  14. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    I would have liked to see more research on the effect of increased UVB radiation on water vapor, which over the equator above sea level makes up to 4% of the air composition.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2024.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
    Can increased UVB radiation cause zonal wind inhibition over the equator by increasing the temperature of the troposphere?
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png

  15. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Is the troposphere in the northern hemisphere really that warm, since it still snows in June in the mountains of southern Norway?
    https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png

    • Bindidon says:

      How could Great Britain suffer from the heat in June?

      For weeks now, one low pressure system after another has been rolling in from the northwest Atlantic, bringing cold and rain not only to England but also to Germany, down to the Alps: just a few days ago, 60 cm of fresh snow fell on the Zugspitze (3000 meters). In June!

      From the Black Forest to eastern Bavaria, the tributaries of the Danube have been overflowing their banks every day for weeks, so that several cities along the Danube have experienced heaviest flood alerts since 100 years.

      *
      And there are people dumb enough to call you an alarmist just because you write such things.

      • Swenson says:

        “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.” – Yogi Berra.

        I agree.

      • Bindidon says:

        It seems that Flynnson now uses a random generator for his replies.

      • Swenson says:

        If you say so, Binny. Thanks for your interest.

      • just a few days ago, 60 cm of fresh snow fell on the Zugspitze (3000 meters). In June!

        We had some fresh snow above 2,000m just a week or so ago, although it didn’t hang around long. And it’s been pissing down for days here. The upper Rhine is an angry slate-grey and lapping at the top of the banks. My wife is wearing warm clothes in the flat because of the cold.

        But when we first moved here, nearly 20 years ago, snow on the valley floor at 500m was not completely unknown in July and August. The local ski industry has suffered badly in several recent years, and almost always uses snow cannons now. The change is erratic but unmistakeable.

      • Swenson says:

        Elliott,

        Yes, weather is always changing unpredictably.

        Glaciers often advance and retreat. Here’s a snippet from one paper –

        “The history of catastrophic advances of Vernagtferner (tztal Alps, Tyrol) is described briefly. To all appearances these advances were surges. They occurred periodically with a short active advance and a much longer time of retreat; the whole cycle lasted on an average 82 years. The mode of flow of the ice changed typically, i.e. speed during surges increased more than one order of magnitude with heavy crevassing. Dimensions of advance and of retreat were much larger than known from other glaciers in the area.”

        Michael Mann (HockeyStick Mann – tree whisperer extraordinaire, fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat) wrote about glacial advances and retreats with whole villages being swallowed up. He confesses he has no idea at all why this sort of thing occurs.

        Pretty simple, really. The atmosphere is chaotic, like the rest of the universe. Anything may happen, but on the other hand it may not. As Lorenz pointed out, the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may cause a tornado in Texas, or prevent one occurring.

        The approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

        There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled – unless you can invent some new physical laws to stop it.

  16. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    High pressure over the Arctic Circle means cool summer in middle latitudes.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png

  17. John Reeves says:

    Am just curious Dr Spencer if you have an opinion on the ’cause’ of the recent 6 month temp spike?

    At first it looked similar to an el.nel Nino spike but has been longer. I saw a recent paper about increased sunlight since covid as air pollution has been less etc..

    Thanks

  18. John Reeves says:

    Hi.. am just curious as to your opinions on the probable cause of the recent 6 month temperature spike ?

  19. Bindidon says:

    Roy Spencer wrote above

    ” Note also that the global UT trend is the same as the lower tropospheric (LT) trend, +0.13 C/decade. ”

    This does not match very well the recent monthly communications about LT:

    ” 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). ”

    Did I overlook something?

    • Bindidon says:

      No idea what the opinionated Blindsley H00d Brit boy wants to tell us here with his links having nothing to do with my comment.

      *
      What I wrote above is confirmed by doing the same job, i.e. comparing the weighted combination of TP and LS giving UT to the weighted combination of MT, TP and LS giving LT:

      https://tinyurl.com/UAH-6-LT-vs-UT

      Linear trends Dec 1978 – Apr 2024 in C/decade

      – LT synthesis: 0.149 +- 0.006 -> 0.15
      – UT synthesis: 0.127 +- 0.008 -> 0.13

      *
      For me as a layman it is interesting to note that MT is missing in the UT combination.

      • RLH says:

        Yet again surface and satellite temperatures show something different.

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        “Yet again surface and satellite temperatures show something different.”

        Hopefully, nobody is surprised. Surface temperatures are not actually surface, and there is no guarantee that air temperature is actually being measured. Organisations such as the WMO confirm the problems.

        Measuring the temperature of a volume of air continuously changing its density and composition, remotely, requires many assumptions and estimations.

        If both data series agree, something is very, very, wrong.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Yet again surface and satellite temperatures show something different. ”

        What a superficial, ignorant, dumb statement which Blindsley H00d religiously writes but never would be able to accurately prove.

        And of course, Blindsley H00d is a short-sighted ideologue: satellite temperatures are correct if and only if they show less warming than surface temperatures – or even better: no warming at all.

        For this reason, only those satellite readings are good which confirm his stubborn ideology; RSS and above all AIRS are automatically evil.

      • Swenson says:

        “What a superficial, ignorant, dumb statement which Blindsley H00d religiously writes but never would be able to accurately prove.”

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about your PSTering.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about your PSTering.”

        Thank nobody for their concern.

  20. Bindidon says:

    It may be of interest to compare UAH’s UT to NOAA STAR’s TUT

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xBxKIro2hOkPSR0O5GYx3bi49zZAOu9b/view

    Maybe LS’ influence is higher in NOAA’s TUT than in UAH’s UT, what could explain TUT’s very high anomalies at the time series’ begin.

    *
    Source

    https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v5.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Global_Mean_Anomaly_Time_Series/

    (Direct links to specific STAR levels are short-lived.)

      • E. Swanson says:

        Bindidon, note that the NOAA STAR TUT is analogous to the UAH TP. Both use the MSU channel 3 / AMSU channel 7 data. Comparing the two groups graphs for weighting functions, the UAH TP has peak weighting at about 10.5 km, while the NOAA STAR TUT has it’s peak at about 9 km.

        Thanks for posting that PDF. Glad see they included a note about my efforts to correct their missing data.

      • Bindidon says:

        E. Swanson

        ” Both use the MSU channel 3 / AMSU channel 7 data. ”

        Yes I saw this yesterday evening too:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PTK5VhwOr4nrv_Tk-dGxKCn813IFJMmP/view

        ” Glad see they included a note about my efforts to correct their missing data. ”

        That was indeed fair of them.

    • RLH says:

      NOAA STAR agrees with UAH much closer than to RSS. And they say why.

    • Bindidon says:

      What else coluld we expect from an opinionated coolista like Blindsley H00d?

      He’s not even able to understand what it means to have a TUT series nearly equal to that of UAH’s TP.

      It is evident to anyone having a working brain that if UAH hadn’t switched from 5.6 to 6.0 nor had RSS from 3.3 to 4.0, coolista Blindsley H00d would write exactly the contrary of what we read now.

      • RLH says:

        Blinny yet again fails to agree with NOAA STAR.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” … fails to agree with NOAA STAR. ”

        A few centuries ago, many did not agree with the Church’s geocentric ideology and were tortured and burned at the stake.

        Everyone can easily imagine how Blindsley H00d would have behaved back then.

      • Swenson says:

        He would have complained about being tortured unmercifully by such as Bindidon.

        Bindidon has threatened people who had the temerity to disagree with him with electrification, torture, imprisonment, slow death by incurable infectious disease and so on.

        Not the most tolerant of free speech, is Bindidon.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Bindidon has threatened people who had the temerity to disagree with him with electrification, torture, imprisonment, slow death by incurable infectious disease and so on. ”

        Oh look! Flynnson suddenly starts even lying.

        More and more mental derangement…

      • Swenson says:

        “Flynnson suddenly starts even lying.”

        If you say so, Binny, if you say so.

      • RLH says:

        Blinny admits he does not agree with NOAA STAR.

      • Bindidon says:

        Apparently, Blindsley H00d admits being a snippy, effeminate dried-out spinster who permanently insinuates what she can’t prove.

        I agree neither with NOAA STAR nor with UAH let alone with RSS.

        *
        The reality is that the stubborn spinster Blindsley H00d actually disagrees with RSS – and only because this time series shows more warming than she can ideologically accept.

  21. Entropic man says:

    For some reason, whenever I think of Donald Trump I am reminded of the Rev. Nehemiah Scudder.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67272569

    What particularly worried me is Schedule F. This plans to replace senior civil servants with Trump loyalists.

    Those who study history will recognise one of the necessary steps preceding a dictatorship.

    • Eben says:

      Go see a shrink

      • Entropic man says:

        A psychiatrist would agree with me.

        Donald Trump shows many of the personality traits one sees in dictators.

        If he becomes POTUS for a second time it will severely test the Constitutional limits on Presidential power.

      • Swenson says:

        “Donald Trump shows many of the personality traits one sees in dictators.”

        Well, that’s certainly good to know. Is that good or bad?

        Fanatical GHE cultists never say anything specific – so they can always say they didn’t really say anything. Nobody can criticise you for what you didn’t say, can they?

        For example, an idio‌t might say –

        “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets.”

        Who could criticize such a pointless description? It says nothing at all.

        Maybe you could say what you really mean, and support it with some facts, rather than your worthless opinions, but I doubt it.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares about you wondering if fascism is good or bad.

      • Swenson says:

        “Nobody cares about you wondering if fascism is good or bad.”

        I’m pleased to hear it.

    • Those who study history will recognise one of the necessary steps preceding a dictatorship.

      Yes, loading of the courts, police and civil services are one of the signs. Creation of private, armed militias is also a good indication – these can be rapidly regularised once the political system is seized.

      • Tim S says:

        Elliot, I think you are describing Communism in China under President Xi, or Putin in modern Russia (do they really have elections?).

        Although many, including some who worked in his first administration have observed that Trump has the wrong personality traits to be an effective leader, many of his policies are very popular with the people who vote for him. That is the problem.

        The US Constitution has many checks and balances. The President is basically an administrator with very limited long term authority, but tremendous short term power. It is that short term power that worries many people including some of his supporters.

        Former Attorney General, Bill Barr, is one of Trump’s biggest critics, claiming that Trump lacks self-control, but he has endorsed him believing the alternative is worse.

      • Nate says:

        “Former Attorney General, Bill Barr, is one of Trumps biggest critics, claiming that Trump lacks self-control, but he has endorsed him believing the alternative is worse.”

        Party before country, apparently…

      • Tim S says:

        No Nate, people such as Bill Barr have openly and honestly expressed their views. Former Speaker, Paul Ryan is putting party first and not supporting Trump. Like many conservatives, he thinks Trump harms the party.

        Everyone has to make up their mind for themselves. There are three choices this year. Some think Kennedy, the “science denier”, is a good choice. As always, the independents in the rational middle from just a few competitive states will decide the Electoral College vote.

        I am most definitely not a Trump supporter or a Republican supporter. I do not support Socialism either, so that makes it difficult.

        Biden needs to listen to the people who say he should step aside at the convention. They need someone who is awake and alert. The prime candidate seems to be Gavin Newsom. He was a conservative businessman before he decided to become a politician. Kamala Harris would be a very bad choice.

      • Nate says:

        When I say party before country, I mean the R party has become the MAGA party. Anyone with integrity has been booted from the party. It’s all about bending the knee to the Dear Leader, regardless of the risks to the country or the Constitution.

      • Tim S says:

        Nate, I think you have been watching too many Game of Thrones episodes. I am not sure who is “bending the knee”, but it does make for good rhetoric. If you are referring to all of the VP candidates lining up like puppy dogs, then yes, it does look rather silly.

        It would interesting to see an honest contest between Haley and Newsom. Instead we have the maniac vs the demented guy. Most voters will probably be voting against someone rather than for someone. Is that party first?

      • Nate says:

        “. I am not sure who is bending the knee”

        McConnell, and all other Rs still in Congress who blamed him for the events of January 6.

      • Nate says:

        I think that he has undermined trust in elections and democracy, and will continue to do so. And if people don’t trust democracy, then it ends.

        The last time he tried to undo the results of an election, there were people like Pence, the Attorney General, the White House Counsel, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Senators, Congressmen, and State Election officials, who basically were ultimately not loyal to him, and upheld the rule of law.

        This time around he will try to make sure people in those positions are loyal to him.

      • barry says:

        Trump has surrounded himself with people who will not restrain his worst impulses, and with others who are bent on dismantling the government.

      • Tim S says:

        Nate, if you really are concerned, you should read the Durham report. The media description of a “nothing burger” is fake news. It does not matter what you think, the full report is available to anyone who wishes to be informed. Many informed voters have read the report. The list of people who have “undermined trust in elections and democracy” include Hillary, her dishonest lawyers, the guy with the fake dossier, Comey, McCabe, the Love Birds, Obama, Biden, Mueller, all of the Mueller attorneys who smashed their subpoenaed phones, Pelosi, most of the dishonest media who failed to investigate the source of Hunter’s laptop (the guy was available for interviews, but nobody called), and finally, the 50 former intelligence officials who wrote a fake statement accusing Russia of fabricating the laptop.

        I am not defending Trump, but he and his supporters have much to be concerned about.

      • Nate says:

        Tim,

        So you are going with Whataboutism?

        Trump is the only one who tried hard to undermine and undo the results of an election. He was deservedly impeached for that. And 10 R congressmen (now gone) voted for it. And 7 R senators voted for conviction. The main concern of many other Senators was that his Presidency was over.

      • Nate says:

        Tim, you promote these Right Wing Media Whataboutisms

        “The list of people who have undermined trust in elections and democracy include Hillary, her dishonest lawyers, the guy with the fake dossier, Comey, McCabe, the Love Birds, Obama, Biden, Mueller, all of the Mueller attorneys who smashed their subpoenaed phones, Pelosi, most of the dishonest media who failed to investigate the source of Hunters laptop”

        But you claim: “”I am most definitely not a Trump supporter or a Republican supporter. ”

        Pullleez!

      • Tim S says:

        Nate, read the Durham report, and then tell us the media description of a “nothing burger” is correct. If you think that corruption is only a problem when one side does it, and not the other, that is on you, not me.

        Objectivity in Science means being skeptical of wild claims. For me that means also being skeptical of the skeptics such as those on this site who claim radiant heat transfer does not occur in the gas phase.

        Objectivity in politics involves leaving your comfort zone to be exposed to information that might be unsettling. Some are not wiling to do that.

      • Willard says:

        And so TS rediscovers the luckwarmer’s gambit.

        Sometimes he’s cute.

      • nate says:

        ” Hunters laptop”

        “not a Trump supporter or a Republican supporter.”

        Bwa ha ha!

      • Nate says:

        “Nate, read the Durham report”

        The point is, Tim, all that you mentioned is an attempt by the Right to build a False Equivalence.

        Nothing in there is equivalent to what Trump tried to do. Nothing in there EXCUSES Trump for his multiple attempts to subvert the election and democracy.

      • Tim S says:

        It seems that we have capital Nate and lower case nate. Hmmm

        Anyway, both of you have explicitly demonstrated the problem with partisan politics. It blinds people to reality. You people think it is okay for “our” side to do whatever is necessary because winning is all that matters. The funny thing is that I have insulted Trump at least 3 or 4 times right here in this exchange, but I am accused of being a supporter.

        CNN is doing a debate. Since both candidates are a complete mess, I predict a terrible performance with comedic moments on both sides, but people with partisan blinders will miss the fun. More seriously, there are no good outcomes. Maybe Kennedy the Science Denier will get invited at some point. Then we will have some genuine comedy and tragedy at the same time.

        Ultimately, climate is also a partisan sport, and that is the real tragedy for science. I have clearly taken the position of being more of a student than an expert, but both sides criticize me. I must be doing something right. It it precisely my failure to fully understand how climate can be predicted one way or the other, that convinces me, that nobody else can either. The effects are extremely subtle, but the claims are extreme. I know all of the science extremely well, and that is the basis for my belief that accurate prediction, or projection if you prefer, is not possible. The partisans have allowed their belief to get in the way of good science, and that is a tragedy for the public perception of science.

      • Nate says:

        “Anyway, both of you have explicitly demonstrated the problem with partisan politics. It blinds people to reality.”

        But Tim, your comments show you name-checking every prominent Democrat, plus Hunter, plus non-right-wing media, and lumping them all together as if they must be part of the Cabal of Evil.

        Judging by your comments, it appears to me that you are strongly influenced by the talking points of Right-Wing media.

        “You people think it is okay for our side to do whatever is necessary because winning is all that matters.”

        False, I never indicated that. Your use of ‘you people’ gives you away.

        What I pointed out is that there is a False Equivalence narrative being promoted here.

        That it should be obvious that Trump’s actions are not Equivalent to the others.

        It should be obvious that whatever you believe Hunter or Nancy have done (??) in no way excuses Trump.

        When will you address that?

      • Tim S says:

        So there you have it. The partisans want you to be on one side or the other. There is no middle ground.

        Climate is the same way. Climate is politics. Science is the losing out to public opinion. The Climate Change Believers and the “Deniers” want you to take sides, but not everyone is willing to comply. In the same way that “Decline to Specify” is the fastest growing political party, there still is a large segment of educated scientists and engineers who are open minded and want to learn the facts.

        The media are not helping because that has become partisan as well. People choose the media that feeds their bias and then it becomes like and echo chamber. Too few people are willing to step outside their comfort zone and listen to both sides.

        The climate story is evolving. The current situation is not clear. What will happen next month or next year? The future is very uncertain except for those who have already made up their mind.

      • Nate says:

        So there you have it. You accept the Equivalence theory promoted by Right Wing Media.

        Audiences are told that whatever Trump has done must be equally balanced by what Lib-tards have done.

        Any Biden will do.

        Yet, the concerted effort to find something, anything, to impeach Joe Biden for, has failed miserably.

  22. Entropic man says:

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

    Five months in, the GISS global average anomaly to date for 2024 is 1.29C.

    This compares with the previous record global average anomaly of 1.18C for 2023.

  23. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    High temperatures are not seen over the Pacific.
    https://i.ibb.co/2gBMgWc/gfs-pacific-sat-t2anom-d1.png

  24. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The summer of 2024 may see more snowfall in the northern hemisphere than in 2023.

    https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/eu_swe.png

    • Bindidon says:

      Palmowski

      ” The summer of 2024 may see more snowfall in the northern hemisphere than in 2023. ”

      To properly show us that you need to add the data for 2022-2023, don’t you?

      Moreover, I say again: you don’t necessarily show more snowfall when using SWE. You have to use volumes instead of weights.

      Until now (week 22), 2023/24 is indeed higher than 2022/23 when considering surfaces (which are less good than volumes as well):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A3Uy377a89yXvDV1k91I38UtaMquwlTX/view

      From week 33 till week 22 of next year
      – 2022/23: 29.50 Mkm^2
      – 2023/24: 28.85 Mkm^2

      Wait and see!

  25. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Bureau of Meteorology

    Another cold morning gripped Australia with parts of every state recording temperatures below their winter averages.
    The unusual thing about this current cold outbreak is how long it is expected to last. Across large parts of Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, daytime temperatures and the overnight temperatures will be colder than usual for the next 7 days and in some cases even longer.
    This will mean frosty mornings all weekend and next week for many areas, with daytime temperatures in the low-to-mid teens.

    • RLH says:

      But is is supposed to be sweltering.

    • Nate says:

      Have you guys heard about this phenomenon? Its called weather. It makes temperature and precipitation change every week.

    • Archie Debunker says:

      The locals call it winter.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” The locals call it winter. ”

        Oh yes, for example those locals living in Newman or Jigalong :–)

    • Bindidon says:

      As always, Palmowski only reports on cold weather and deliberately ignores what Nate has shown or what anyone can see by looking at Umaine’s Climate Reanalyzer:

      https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst_outlook/maps/d1-3/gfs_ausnz-ced_t2anom_d1-3.png

      where we see that the small area in East Australia (with at best 2-3 C below norm) is peanuts compared to the much bigger area in West Australia (with up to 6 C above norm).

      And of course, Blindsley H00d is quick to support his Polish coolista friend with his little snippy 5 o’clock tea time posties.

      Oh my dear! It’s sooo cold in Australia, you can’t imagine!

      • Swenson says:

        “Oh my dear! Its sooo cold in Australia, you cant imagine!”

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Bindidon says:

      Another ‘current cold outbreak’

      Temperatures expected for Newman, Western AUS (ASN00007176, lat 23.4169 S, lon 119.7989 E, alt 524.0) on Sunday, June 16 2024:

      – night: 18 C (10 C above Newman’s mid of June TMIN norm, 1980-now)
      – day: 30 C (7 C above Newman’s mid of June TMAX norm, 1980-now)

      { Some happen to dislike averages and anomalies, thus it’s best to show absolutes for a single station instead. }

      Oh my dear! Its sooo cold in Australia, you cant imagine!

      • RLH says:

        Climate

        Newman has a hot desert climate (Kppen climate classification BWh), with very hot summers and mild winters. The temperature reaches or exceeds 38 C (100 F) for many days in the summer. On 15 January 1998, the temperature reached an all-time recorded high of 47 C (117 F). The annual average rainfall is 329.5 millimetres (13.0 in) which would make it a semi-arid climate except that its high evapotranspiration, or its barrenness, makes it a desert climate.

      • Bindidon says:

        Anybody able to read Wiki pages has already read your blah blah, Blindsley H00d.

        This blah blah however has NOTHING to do with the discussion about people like Palmoswski and you endlessly showing exclusively cooling and deliberately ignoring the wider warming around smaller cooling entities.

        I have no problem in showing warmer versus cooler:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q1nAZRyAgkgmwkGCJAbwGGXzB_AAwf22/view

      • RLH says:

        Running means again. You obviously do not listen to what others say.

      • Nate says:

        “Newman has a hot desert climate”, which explains the average T in this season.

        But what we are discussing are the current departures from average.

      • RLH says:

        Why is that ‘average’ a mean?

      • Willard says:

        You have been told ant least an hundred times, Richard – because extremes matter.

      • Bindidon says:

        JLH’s legacy to his nephew: Treat every data series as if it were the input for a hi-fi amplifier!

      • RLH says:

        Alternatively you should treat Statistics as Statisticians say you should.

      • Willard says:

        Nobody says that we should never use means, Richard.

        Not even statisticians.

      • Nate says:

        “Why is that average a mean?”

        Off topic.

      • RLH says:

        ‘Off topic’ to say that we should obey statistics!

      • RLH says:

        “Nobody says that we should never use means”

        just that we use them where appropriate!

      • Nate says:

        “Off topic

        The topic was your portrayal of warmer than normal winter conditions over the majority of Australia, as being unusually cold.

      • RLH says:

        But I was asking ‘Why is that average a mean?’

      • Willard says:

        You were not asking anything, Richard.

        It’s just your usual rhetorical question to elide the fact that the only case where you’d accept means is if they were the medians, which means that you are in reality rooting for abolishing the concept.

      • RLH says:

        The only time the median is equal to a mean is when the distribution is equal. But you know that don’t you?

      • RLH says:

        “You were not asking anything”

        Willard now says the ? mark means nothing.

      • Willard says:

        Is Richard so dumb as to not realize what’s a rhetorical question?

      • Willard says:

        > The only time the median is equal to a mean is when the distribution is equal

        Is Richard really that thick?

        If we could only use the mean when it’s equivalent to the median, then what purpose does the mean serve?

        Under Richard’s “robust” fantasy, wouldn’t we always be referring to medians?

        How many leading questions would Richard need to realize that, sometimes, ending a sentence with a question mark is only a rhetorical device?

        Hasn’t Richard read enough of Mike Flynn’s comments to see how arguing by questions works?

      • RLH says:

        “The only time the median is equal to a mean is when the distribution is equal”

        is what statisticians say.

      • RLH says:

        “In a distribution with zero skew, the mean and median are equal.”

      • Willard says:

        Richard, you silly goose.

        Let’s spell out your argument –

        (P1) When a distribution is symmetrical (you don’t say exactly that, but I like precision), the mean is equivalent to the median.

        (P2) For asymmetric distributions, we should always use the median.

        Now, let’s follow through –

        (C1) When will you ever use a mean that is not a median, dummy?

        (C2) Why would we need the concept of mean if we never need it?

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • RLH says:

        “For asymmetric distributions, we should always use the median.”

        That is correct. Not a statistician are you?

      • RLH says:

        “We find that the mean is being dragged in the direct of the skew. In these situations, the median is generally considered to be the best representative of the central location of the data. The more skewed the distribution, the greater the difference between the median and mean, and the greater emphasis should be placed on using the median as opposed to the mean.”

      • RLH says:

        “In a strongly skewed distribution, what is the best indicator of central tendency?

        It is usually inappropriate to use the mean in such situations where your data is skewed. You would normally choose the median or mode, with the median usually preferred.”

      • Willard says:

        Richard still confuses various fields of statistics.

      • Willard says:

        > That is correct.

        Richard does not even realize that I am not disputing the premises of the argument I had to spell out for him. Not a logician is he?

      • Willard says:

        “[O]ne of its important properties [of the mean] is that it minimises error in the prediction of any one value in your data set. That is, it is the value that produces the lowest amount of error from all other values in the data set.”

      • Willard says:

        “An important property of the mean is that it includes every value in your data set as part of the calculation. In addition, the mean is the only measure of central tendency where the sum of the deviations of each value from the mean is always zero.”

      • RLH says:

        “An important property of the mean is that it includes every value in your data set as part of the calculation”

        No matter if that calculation is acknowledged to be wrong.

      • Willard says:

        And now Richard argues with his own source.

        Splendid.

      • RLH says:

        It is usually inappropriate to use the mean in such situations where your data is skewed.

      • RLH says:

        Willard uses alternative facts. Splendid.

      • Willard says:

        Richard imagines that an empty prescription is a fact.

      • Willard says:

        Richard denies the facts laid out by his own source.

      • RLH says:

        I just don’t restrict my quotes to things that only support my views.

      • RLH says:

        Empty facts are very important, apparently.

      • Bindidon says:

        Every month, Blindsley H00d never tires of proudly demonstrating his supposed technical skills with a chart based on UAH data, showing the difference between a 12-month running mean and a 12-month running medians:

        https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/05/24/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-may-2024/

        But interestingly, to date, he has never managed to explain which of the two is better, and most importantly: to prove why it is so.

        *
        Instead, he permanently resorts to lots and lots and lots of general, non-committing statements like e.g.:

        ” It is usually inappropriate to use the mean in such situations where your data is skewed. ”

        *
        It is always correct, of course, to refer to specialists from a field relevant to a discussion; however, it is much better to provide concrete examples to show that the behavior criticized in that discussion is actually covered by the specialists’ statements.

        *
        Here is an example of ‘skewed’ data:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view

        *
        Why doesn’t Blindsley H00d finally show us what this chart based on SILSO’s Sun Spot Number monthly data would look like

        – if the running means were replaced by running medians

        and, of course,

        – explain what he apparently failed to explain so far?

        *
        Here is the source for him to do the trivial job:

        https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-monthly

      • RLH says:

        So Blinny chips in with a comment about something he obviously doesn’t understand.

      • Bindidon says:

        As expected, Blindsley H00d is absolutely unable to provide us with any technical/mathematical proof that the median-based average of the UAH data is more appropriate than the mean-based one, and most importantly: why this is so.

        *
        He is also absolutely unable to technically respond to my comment above by posting the link to a chart presenting my monthly SST charts – this time based on moving medians rather than means, and instead resorts to poor discrediting!

        *
        What bad behavior, reminds me exactly of Robertson’s and Clint R’s styupid nonsense regarding our Moon’s rotation about its polar axis.

        *
        If I have some free time today, I will do the little SST median job for him.

      • RLH says:

        Why do you think the median is consistently one side of the mean? Accident? Hardly. It screams lopsided data. But Blinny does not want to acknowledge that.

      • RLH says:

        “posting the link to a chart presenting my monthly SST charts”

        Oh really? Where?

      • Willard says:

        There’s no such thing as a median “consistent with” the mean, Richard. That’s just a silly way to try to escape the consequence of your own policy. And that policy leads you to *never* use the mean.

      • RLH says:

        “that policy leads you to *never* use the mean.”

        Please explain when you consider the mean is more accurate. Given that the data almost never splits evenly.

      • Bindidon says:

        Blindlsey H00d

        ” Oh really? Where? ”

        You perfectly know that I meant YOUR job consisting, as I explained above, to show us a chart showing, like mine, SSN data for the three solar cycles SC23, 24 and 25:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view

        but with medians instead of means.

        You actually don’t want to do the job; otherwise, you would have posted its result since hours.

        *
        But let us first talk about your condescending, discrediting assertion:

        ” So Blinny chips in with a comment about something he obviously doesnt understand. ”

        As always, you don’t give us any technical proof for your ridiculous assertion.

        *
        What about comparing our respective results?

        As always, you intentionally post a graph showing data points instead of lines between points:

        https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/uah-global.jpeg

        I post a chart as do ALL persons and groups all around the world. You are the only one hiding the lines, hence hiding the source.

        *
        Moreover, we should first compare simple means and medians, and later on cascaded means and medians.

        Here is therefore my first comparison:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TzSt54iVVoxoktOMxaqhaZ4EQkSlVMLj/view

        *
        Please show us yours.

      • Willard says:

        [HOW IT STARTED] You have been told ant least an hundred times, Richard – because extremes matter.

        [HOW IT’S GOING] Please explain when you consider the mean is more accurate.

      • RLH says:

        Willard and Blinny are not statisticians – obviusly.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Willard and Blinny are not statisticians obviusly. ”

        And once again, Blindsley H00d prefers to avoid a fair technical debate and cowardly sticks to the superficial, polemical line.

        This is clear proof that he is not able to assert himself technically.

        Decades ago, one of my former university professors explained me:

        ” Anyone who is unable to contradict scientifically or technically quickly begins to discredit polemically. ”

        This exactly what Blindsley H00d is doing here.

        *
        That’s why I quickly did the little job Blindsley H00d actually is not able to do, namely to create a graphic that shows us the comparison between the mean and the median for the monthly Sun Spot Number time series from SILSO:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D4GXMr6jT9_twFu5DbtejkPqfszVMNZY/view

        *
        Please see for yourself how incredibly small the difference between mean and median is (especially when looking at the polynomial means shown for the data) – even though this Sun Spot Number data is extremely skewed compared to, for example, UAH LT.

        *
        Why can’t Blindsley H00d show us such a graph?

        Quite simply because he is not capable of doing so, instead he tries to act like a person who knows statistics and therefore endlessly stuffs us with general knowledge that he himself actually cannot apply.

  26. Eben says:

    nobody is going to mars

    https://youtu.be/WRlvAhTEy4o

    • gbaikie says:

      Informative, but there is a lot wrong.
      Where to start?
      You have to mine million a million tons of water per year.
      A government or NASA can’t mine a million tons of mars water per year.
      To explore Mars, you don’t need to mine much water. And one could mine the water you need from the Mars sky- there is billions of tons of water in Mars atmosphere, but for explorational purposes, one needs, might be as much as 100 tons of water per year from the Mars sky. Which would also give thousand of tons of N2, and a lot of trace gases and 100,000 tons of CO2.
      Having 100,000 tons of CO2 would be far more important than the water. And the mere amount of 1000 tons of N2 is more valuable than 100 tons of water.
      The nuclear orion wouldn’t solve going to Mars surface- everything prior to Starship or New Glenn, can’t land enough payload on Mars surface to do any kind of crew exploration.
      Though there is some effort of making an inflatable heat shield which could land 10 or more tons to Mars surface- but it’s not made or tested yet. {nobody could have done it earlier, within a inflatable heat shield OR a reusable second stage rocket {which SpaceX and Blue Origin are attempting to do, presently}.

      So first exploration {and find mineable Mars water} then only the private sector can do human settlements Mars and they need to mine at least 1 million tons of Mars water per year {and later, mine billions of tons of water per year.

      If you mine 1/2 million tons of water, you get a big lake of water on Mars, and some people can live in a Mars lake. And others could live above the lake and around the lake.

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A lot of fresh snow will fall in the Alps above 3,500 meters.
    https://i.ibb.co/4W6fpmp/Screenshot-2024-06-15-07-37-28.png

    • Bindidon says:

      Don’t forget to show us other cool corners like the NZ Alps, the Andes and the Himalaya!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Would be nice if you alarmists included them in your propaganda. It’s summer in the Alps, with so-called global warming/climate change, is that not a bit odd?

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson shows here once more what a one-sided dumbass he is.

        What he replied to me he in fact should have written to Palmowski because he is the true alarmist here, who endlessly reports about irrelevant, 100% usual weather events he endlessly tries to upgrade into an alleged global climate cooling.

        But… this is exactly what dumbass Robertson expects from global cooling helpers a la Palmowski, Blindsley H00d etc.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I have never seen ren claim the planet is cooling, He simply presents evidence that the reports of catastrophic global warming/climate change are seriously over-stated.

        It seems to really bother you, an uber-alarmist and general dumbass (dummkopf).

  28. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    A severe heatwave continues to wreak havoc in India as the eastern state of Odisha on Monday reported eight deaths within a 72-hour period.

    Official figures released in May suggested 60 people died between March and May across India due to heat-related illnesses.

    But the number is likely to be much higher as heat-related deaths go under-reported in rural areas.

    Officials say India is in the middle of the longest heatwave it has seen since records began. Temperatures have crossed 50C in some areas recently.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz77jkk420lo

    What is Ren doing in that thread?

  29. CO2isLife says:

    Newsflash, no way can CO2 cause that temperature profile. That is curvilinear, and CO2 certainly isn’t.

    • barry says:

      curvilinear:

      contained by or consisting of a curved line or lines

      Nope, your remark still makes no sense.

  30. Gordon Robertson says:

    an elevated channel 7 suggests stratospheric warming, n’est pas? Wonder what the temps would be with only channel 5?

    • Bindidon says:

      ” … suggests stratospheric warming… ”

      Which is supposed to create cooling in the lower troposphere, n’est-ce pas?

      As always, the ignorant pseudo-engineer Robertson tries to eliminate what does not fit his stubborn, egomaniacal global cooling narrative.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Binny Dumbo opens his mouth before his brain has a chance to think things through.

        Did Roy not explain that UAH now mixes channel 7 with channel 5 and 9? Or is that too much for you to comprehend?

        In case it has escaped you, the weighting curves for those channels overlap to one extend or another.

      • Bindidon says:

        I perfectly understand what Roy Spencer wrote. You don’t.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    If the air in the troposphere is pushed out by high pressure over the Arctic Circle from the north, it is logical that it will be cooler in middle latitudes and warmer in low latitudes.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png

  32. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy…”Richard still confuses various fields of statistics”.

    ***

    wee willy continues in his role as the blog’s uber-trohl. Richard’s command of statistics is sound whereas wee willy can barely spell the word statistics. wee willy should stick to his alarmist propaganda it is the only thing he does well, the Joseph Geobbels of climate propaganda.

    • Willard says:

      Mr. Asshat continues his practice of kicking down threads to say sweet nothings and pretend he’s hosting Roy’s website.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      Name calling other people with the name of one of the bloodthirstiest Nazis: does freedom of speech really include such disgusting behavior?

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Every month, Blindsley H00d never tires of proudly demonstrating his supposed technical skills with a chart based on UAH data”

    ***

    Richard (RLH) is heads a shoulders above you when it comes to statistics. He understands it, you just feign an understanding of it.

  34. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”The only time the median is equal to a mean is when the distribution is equal. But you know that dont you?”

    ***

    Explaining that to wee willy is like talking to a wall. In fact, the wall might give you an intelligent answer, something that is beyond the intelligence of wee willy.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson recently mentioned Tyndall’s book… Heat: A Mode of Motion. I have skimmed through it and decided to take some time reading more closely, which I did last night.

    I want to be clear in the following that I am not taking shots at Tyndall. I admire the man as a good scientists who exceeded, with brilliant insight, the limitations of the day. I have criticized Clausius in the same manner, not out of disrespect, but for the same reason…he had no means of verifying his views on radiation.

    The book is actually a series of lectures he gave to university students. Tyndall was obviously a good scientist and has remarkable insight for his times even though he was handicapped by not being privy to atomic structure and the relationship of atoms to radiation. Being Irish, he could not help being a showman, so his lectures tend to be somewhat subjective in places.

    The importance to this blog is that today’s anthropogenic and climate change theories are based on Tyndall’s discovery that certain gases like CO2 and water vapour absorb infrared energy. He covers that discovery in detail in the book and nowhere does he give the amount of warming to expect from CO2, especially as a trace gas in the atmosphere. He offers relative levels of response but nothing like climate modelling claims that CO2 account for 9% to 25% of warming.

    There are other important revelations in Tyndall’s work that are completely ignored by modern alarmists in their zeal to use his work as a basis for the anthropogenic theory. They are…

    1)that CO2 traps heat
    2)that heat is a motion
    3)that Tyndall’s experiment is 100% valid given our current knowledge of quantum theory and thermodynamics.

    details…

    1)it is painfully obvious in the book of Tyndall that he, like all other scientists of the time, believed heat flows physically, as radiation, through an ‘ether’ as heat. That is obviously an effort to explain how heat is related to radiation. They thought heat flowed through air and a vacuum as heat rays.

    page 81 of 623…Heat is a motion, expansive, restrained, and acting in its strife upon smaller particles of bodies.

    [GR]How does a motion act on particles? Only energy can do that.

    page 304 of 623…to examine the laws and properties of heat thus propagated through the ether, in which form it is called Radiant Heat.

    [GR]It is painfully obvious that this anachronism is still in use by some scientists today and it is the basis of the anthropogenic theory. No one has bothered to test Tyndall’s theory of heat, they have simply cherry picked what they needed from his work and completely misrepresented it.

    Bohr disproved this anachronism once and for all in 1913 when he positively equated radiation as EM to electrons in atoms. It appears climate alarmists today have never read Bohr’s work or are even aware of it.

    2)Tyndall presents heat as a form (mode) of motion. He seems to miss the point that adding heat to a gas, liquid, or solid causes the atoms and molecules of those forms of matter to move more rapidly, and that removing heat has the opposite effect. Therefore heat is a motivator, not a motion, and as such, presents itself as energy.

    Clausius was closer with his claim that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Kinetic means ‘in motion’, so removing the kinetic descriptor, he was stating that heat is energy.

    3)I immediately questioned Tyndall’s experiment when I first read through it. He was using a primitive thermo-pyle, which is a series arrangement of thermo-couples to get amplification of a weak voltage. Tyndall admits right off that his thermo-pyle was driven by heat, not infrared, However, he believed that infrared was heat.

    He also makes an egregious error when he claims that infrared is far more powerful than ultraviolet. To be fair, this was not known till much later, but the fact that Tyndall almost brags about this mistake offers insight into his naivete on the matter. It would appear, in his lectures, he was prone to showmanship while neglecting the objectivity of science.

    His experiment featured a 4 foot brass tube which had halite (rock salt) windows at either end. At one end was a Leslie cube, which was heated by boiling water and acted as the source of ‘heat’. The alleged heat rays would enter one end of the brass tube and exit at the other end where they are detected by the thermo-pyle. The brass tube could be evacuated or filled with air or a gas.

    I think it is possible that IR could travel the length of the brass tube and cause some heating in the thermo-pyle but I think the mount reaching the thermo-pyle would be very small, requiring amplification by the thermo-pyle. I give my reasons i a following post.

    Tyndall’s detector was a galvanometer that received a voltage from the thermo-pyle. It appears he used some kind of bridge since a galvanometer has its indicator (needle) at mid-scale and is designed to operate with a bridge where it averages voltages between two legs of the bridge. When the voltages are equal, the galvanometr reads mid-scale, or zero. In fact, the other legs was driven by an independent heat source which caused the needle to read mid-scale when no IR passed through the tube.

    Tyndall found that when the tube was filled with air, with the CO2 and WV removed, there was no deflection of the needle. It seems a little suspicious to me that he would remove CO2 and WV first, suggesting he was looking for an outcome from gases like CO2. That can be dangerous to objectivity because it can prompt a scientist to skew an experiment to fins such an outcome, or to exaggerate it.

    He first added olefant gas, which is made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. This gave a strong deflection of the galvanometer reading indicating a reduction in heating in the thermo-pyle in one leg.

    My critique of these finding follows in the next post.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      With Tyndall’s 4 foot brass tube, he is claiming that infrared, as actual physical heat energy, is moving down the tube and activating a thermo-pyle at the other end. A thermopyle cannot be activated by IR unless the IR is from a source close enough to the detector to actually warm the detector.

      So, the question is, can IR from a container with boiling water travel though two sheets of halite as windows at either end of the 4′ tube and cause the thermopyle to warm enough to detect it as heat? If so, that heat is not the heat from the source but a heat created independently in the detector by absorbed IR. Therefore, there is no way with Tyndall’s setup to determine exactly how much IR is blocked by various gases.

      My doubts are based on a similar subjective experiment I have offered. Boiling water has a maximum temperature of 100C. A ring on an electric stove heated till it glows red has a temperature of at last 1000C when it just begins to glow red. With a full red colour I would estimate about 1500C. In fact the colour temperatures of red-orange are 2000K to 4000K, much hotter than boiling water.

      If I hold my hand a few inches above the ring I can definitely feel heat but it is also coming from the super heated air above the ring. If I pull me hand 4 feet back I feel nothing. That is subjective but it also has meaning. Exactly how much IR is left at the end of Tyndall’s tube after moving more than 4 feet and through two halite windows?

      I am not in any way disputing Tyndall’s conclusions that certain gases absorb IR. However, Tyndall’s setup failed to detect IR absorp.tion by nitrogen and it is known to absorb some IR. That indicates that his sensor lacked the sensitivity to detect IR absorp-tion accurately. In fact, Tyndall did not even try to quantify the amount absorbed, he simply offered ratios wrt to ordinary air.

      Since modern alarmist climate science is based on Tyndall’s experiment, exaggerating the warming effect of CO2, I claim the anthropogenic theory is fraudulent.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      btw…my two lengthy posts are dedicated to Clint, who appears to enjoy them. I would dedicate them to wee willy as well, but he lacks the ability to understand anything beyond a few words.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”…where we see that the small area in East Australia (with at best 2-3 C below norm)…”

    ***

    Why is the area below normal in an era when catastrophic global warming has been predicted?

    Weather anomalies would explain it but climate alarmists don’t think weather anomalies are the issue, they think a trace gas is causing havoc on the planet.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      Why can people like you and Flynnson not stop posting irrelevant nonsense?

      Does freedom of speech really include your permanent trash?

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares when you get lost in threads.

      • Bindidon says:

        Willard

        I asked

        ” Why can people like you and Flynnson not stop posting irrelevant nonsense? ”

        You posted

        ” Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares when you get lost in threads. ”

        I now ask YOU:

        Does freedom of speech really include your permanent trash?

        What is the difference between Flynnson’s trash and YOURS?

      • Willard says:

        Dear Binny,

        When you’ll stop responding to Mr. Asshat and to Ren when nobody’s asking you, we’ll see. For now, you’re acting more like a pompous twat than anything. That definitely does not help your case of being Roy’s Hall Monitor.

        As far as I’m concerned, the state of this blog rests first and foremost on your own shoulders.

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Have you guys heard about this phenomenon? Its called weather. It makes temperature and precipitation change every week”.

    ***

    yes…but according to you alarmists recent temperature records and heat waves have nothing to do with weather but are related to an unproved climate change due to trace anthropognic gases.

    • Willard says:

      > recent temperature records and heat waves have nothing to do with weather

      Where in the hot hell is Mr. Asshat getting his lunatic mispresentations?

      Without weather there’s no climate. Climate is the statistic of weather events. When climate changes, trends of weather events change too.

      It’s really not that complex.

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Yet, the concerted effort to find something, anything, to impeach Joe Biden for, has failed miserably”.

    ***

    When a recent charge was being investigated the prosecutor deemed Biden too mentally incompetent to face the charges.

    “Special Counsel Robert Hur said in a report that he opted against bringing criminal charges following a 15-month investigation because Biden cooperated and would be difficult to convict, describing him as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-receives-report-bidens-handling-classified-documents-source-2024-02-08/

    It amazes me that people like yourself continue to defend the assault on democracy by a US legal system that is obviously biased in Biden’s favour while stacked against Trump.

    I an not a right-winger and I disagree with Trump’s politics but I will defend his right to democratic values and I will oppose any corrupt movements like his recent kangaroo-court trial to prevent him running for office.

    • Entropic man says:

      The Republicans are putting up videos showing Biden senior moments and the Demorats are putting up videos showing Trump senior moments.

      Perhaps they should both be replaced with younger candidates.

      On that subject of kangaroo courts I note that an ex-president has been found guilty of fraud and the current President’s son has been found guilty of gun offences.

      The US legal system seems to be working well.

    • Bindidon says:

      You, ‘not a right-winger’ ??

      Only people like you continue to defend the assault on democracy that was sparked on January 6, 2021 by an ultra-right wing insurrection that was demonstrably incited by Trump himself.

      You ARE a true right-winger.

      • Willard says:

        > Only people like you continue to defend the assault on democracy

        Tankies are against democracy, and they’re at the left. Mr. Asshat is more or less at the extremum of what has been called a “dirtbag leftist.” Think of how Chomskyians and Paleocons often reconcile their viewpoints. Dirtbags and Troglodytes often indulge in the same conspiracy ideation on climate change, COVID, etc.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        There was no assault on democracy on Jan 6th. A load of protestor got carried away, as mobs are prone to do, and invaded the White House. None were armed, even though the lying media tried to portray it as an armed insurrection.

        Unfortunately some people died. One, a guard, had a heart attack. No one died from direct violence from the protestors.

        It was pretty pawthetic when the Dems tried to milk that event for political gain.

        And, no, I am not a right winger.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        a tankie is someone who engages in a militant oppositions to capitalism. That’s a hoot since I have run my own business as a contractor.

        We willy’s brain-power deteriorates by the hour.

      • Willard says:

        Mr. Asshat can’t even read properly.

        A dirtbag ain’t a tankie.

    • Tim S says:

      Well Gordon, once again you are wrong, and you actually hurt your cause (if you have one) by being wrong. The problem with Jan 6 was the attempt to pressure the VP and others to certify fake electors. Like many of Trump’s actions then and in the past, it hurts the legitimate case.

    • Tim S says:

      There were problems with the election concerning mail-in ballots. The election was not decided on election night or even the day after. How long did it drag out? The practical reality is that once ballots are sent out into the either of space (yes, hyperbole for those who are not very sophisticated), they have to count the ones that come in. There is no effective way to validate ballots after they are sent out, except to massively delay the election result. We can do better!

    • Tim S says:

      There was a legitimate concern. After all of the misdeeds in 2016 and 2017 with genuine interference from the FBI and others, directed at a duly elected President, there was cause for suspicion, but it was too late.

    • Tim S says:

      The net effect of the speeches and riot was that any other disruption or investigation was killed by Trump’s incompetence and poor judgement. It was time for everyone to play straight and restore faith is whatever result we had — legitimate or not. The rest is history. If they do another mail-in election, there will be more chaos.

    • Tim S says:

      Found the bad word. Sorry for making 4 posts.

  39. The very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ( N*cp )^1/16

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

  40. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    RESTON, VAA new global report released Monday by the U.S. Geological Survey revealed that every place on earth currently has the wrong amount of water. New satellite data confirms that every corner of the earth has the incorrect quantity of water, the report read in part, noting that even though the total amount of water on the planet seemed to be about right, give or take a few hundred milliliters, the distribution of that water across the globe was way off. In every case, there is either too much or too little water, with zero exceptions. Even when we try to move it around ourselves to make it even, someone keeps moving it back. Its very frustrating. The USGS did, however, note that the amount of fire on earth had been properly disbursed.

    https://www.theonion.com/report-every-place-on-earth-has-wrong-amount-of-water-1851544516

  41. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Robertson

    Name calling other people with the name of one of the bloodthirstiest Nazis: does freedom of speech really include such disgusting behavior?”

    ***

    Goebbels is synonymous with propaganda. Wee willy’s propaganda will likely harm people in the long run in the same manner as that of Goebbels. That’s why I take such vehement oppositions to his mindless posts supporting global warming/climate change.

    I am in no way comparing the treachery of Nazi Germany to the current propaganda from climate shysters. However, it is apt to compare the harm such propaganda will do to people, especially the poor and disenfranchised. Would a capitalist give a hoot what happened to those people?

    During WW II, young men volunteered to fight for democracy and many of them did not come back. I imagine they thought they’d be rewarded by their governments for their sacrifice but in the end, most of them got screwed. It’s the same with climate propaganda. Governments assure us that we will be looked after when oil is banned, another huge lie.

    In Russia, brave men who fought for for Russia and who helped the Allies immensely, were sent off to gulags upon return. Stalin did not want anyone in his society who had witnessed democracy. The sad part is that many Russians did not want to return to Russia and heroes like Churchill forced it upon them to appease Stalin.

    The moral is that politicians cannot be trusted. They are lying to us about fossil fuels and the reason is not apparent.

    • Willard says:

      > Goebbels is synonymous with propaganda.

      But not the other way around.

      What is Mr. Asshat doing here?

    • Entropic man says:

      Gordon Robertson

      “The moral is that politicians cannot be trusted. They are lying to us about fossil fuels and the reason is not apparent. ”

      The politicians are indeed lying to us. They tell us that fossil fuels are safe and the fossil fuel lobby pay them to do so.

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy…”Mr. Asshat has a knack to bet on the worst horse of any race”.

    ***

    Wee willy admits he’s a horse. I regard him as the rear end of a horse.

  43. Tim S says:

    Breaking News:

    Okay it is actually a DEVELOPING STORY, but while discussing climate on CNN and after Bill Weir does his thing, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, is introduced as one of the top experts studying this issue. Needless to say, these guys are very poorly informed. Nye made news by saying that the most recent science says the “tipping point” is not going to happen. It is just going to be progressively hotter at a faster pace due to positive feedback. Everything will always be warmer.

    He also says that China is leading the world in nuclear power which he endorses. He may be confused with nuclear weapons.

Leave a Reply