Home/BlogThe 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.
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.
Bob Weber
You write:
” 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. ”
*
Here is a graph showing a comparison of
– MEI V2 (scaled down such that UAH and MEI peak in 1998 at approximately the same place)
– HadISST1 SST rawest SST data known to me)
– UAH 6.0 LT, ocean split
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oFf7gCwMP4m1Yhmw56Ni0UERRZUaKObv/view
*
The graph does not show any correlation between MEI’s ENSO evaluation and ocean time series for surface and lower troposphere.
*
Recently I made a similar comparison but
– with sea temperature averaging restricted to MEI’s area (30N-30S — 70W-110E)
– based on uniform scaling to percentiles of the respective maxima:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H1hzJE5Vs5ZQcRir4nAf6VcP8d5wqKx5/view
This doesn’t change much.
*
Why do you feel the need to integrate anything here?
Ooops?!
percentiles -> percentages!
You used just MEI v2, not the ext.ts, & you didn’t use 30-yr averages.
The 30-year averages were used to show “climate change” evolution.
The integration is meant to illustrate the long-term net ENSO effect, as a counter to people who claim the ENSO zeroes out over time.
Also the UAH Tropics correlates at r=.88 with UAH Ocean, if you’re interested in knowing the basis for the iMEI-SST 30-year connection.
I made a series mixing MEI’s historical and recent data in last December
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iejbq6-3oA2T8k9LEqffYJhJe2r72WFx/view
If you think that integrating MEI is a good idea: feel free to use it!
I prefer to compare ‘as is’.
*
Anyway, we can’t compare apples with apples here: the inverted MEI (V2 of course) is nearly identical to OLR
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bj5jp6xb8BqPByqwAxzo9foMeJtB486a/view
” Also the UAH Tropics correlates at r=.88 with UAH Ocean, if you’re interested in knowing the basis for the iMEI-SST 30-year connection. ”
Agreed.
But… there seems to be a high redundancy in UAH’s grid data because the averaging of evenly distributed grid cells (e.g. 256) leads to time series which are amazingly similar to a series generated out of the full grid (66 latitude bands = 9504 cells):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ij_jKmyrBJOMUdwtRP6NYqyGXibNPnRb/view
The iMEI & iOLR indicate a connection to cloud cover, changing at the ’97/98 El Nio, after which cloud cover increased for about five years.
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.
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.
So who is claiming data errors?
Troglodyte is playing dumb, for he knows that Mr. Asshat does.
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.
Do you have data?
Don’t have raw, just the graph – UAH & RSS – British Met Office.
https://climate.metoffice.cloud/upper_air.html
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.
Thanks for replying, Roy. What happened to it in 1995? Why the halt?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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]
“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.
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’.
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.
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.
The Ballad of Swenson
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]
“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
A,
Re The Ballad of Swenson.
Don’t give up your day job.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your career advice, yours isn’t that rosy.
Thanks for showing that you care. It warms my heart, cockles and all.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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!
“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.
Do you mean by building roads? They didn’t subsidize trains or the automobile industry early on. I know they tried to prop up trains in the 20th century. Have you ever read the biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt? He mostly fought governments.
Cars were a major technological improvement over horses. I know you wish we had remained on horseback. Government didn’t subsidize Ford. There was a huge market-based demand. There is no such huge demand for EV’s. EV’s will die unless the technology improves substantially. There is no guarantee of that. As for your hybrid, I think hybrids are here to stay. There are a lot of advantages there. But, they still shouldn’t be forced on people or bad things will happen.
One more thing, the structure upon which our economy functions traditionally has government involvement. Government involvement in roads, mail, waterways, utilities, etc. has a basis in the Constitution. Providing subsidies or favoring one group over another is not. I’m OK with EVs as long as they make it on their own. Let the market decide. It will decide correctly.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
That’s from memory so it might be out of order.
> Providing subsidies or favoring one group over another is not.
Troglodyte might appreciate that he pawned to the fossil fuel industry, in 2023 alone, $757 billion.
” roads, mail, waterways, utilities, etc. has a basis in the Constitution.”
True. Thus Lincoln initiated the Transcontintal railroad, and creating a railroad company in the West to build it.
Thus Eisenhower created the Interstate highway system.
Thus assisting the development of a charging network is no different.
“Providing subsidies or favoring one group over another is not.”
I agree subsidies should not favor one company over another.
But historically we have subsidized whole industries, nuclear power, hydropower, the electric grid, the fiber optic network, farmers, oil industry.
LED lighting was subsidized to increase energy efficiency, and now these bulbs are affordable on their own
Not really the same though, is it?
Railways were not funded by Congress. They did offer land grants in the form of right of ways that governments do today. It is promoting the general welfare. Trains were not funded by Congress. Congress issued bonds that were paid back by the railways. They weren’t subsidies. Cars were not funded by Congress. Trains and Cars were economically attractive on their own merit. Oil and gas production was not funded by the government. The interstate highway system was partially paid for by the states and solely maintained by the states. I am not for the government building charging stations, increasing CAFE restrictions, restricting oil exploration and drilling in order to kill gas powered cars in favor of EVs. If they do it will kill the economy. Biden might already have succeeded. We will know soon.
The economy is propped up by debt and Biden is adding more to it every day with his loan forgiveness to the tune of billions of dollars. He is defying and circumventing a Supreme Court ruling by doing so. He is squeezing the economy, adding to our burdens by keeping the borders open, not allowing oil drilling, increasing CAFE standards, etc. The worst President in the last 100 years.
Troglodyte seems to have forgotten that teh Donald is responsible for the biggest debt balloon in the history of humankind, something like 8T.
He also seems to be utterly oblivious to the fact that foreign states contributed to teh Donald’s campaigns. And it’s not like the money has been given by accident. He kept asking for it:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/29/trump-campaign-donations-foreign-politicians
Government didnt subsidize Ford.
Nor did Ford invent cars. That was the Germans.
Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Few want or need a $70K golf cart.
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).
Ah well, it was nice while it lasted.
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.
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.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your opinion.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I care about Swenson’s opinions. He realized Buzz was a nitwit early. Just like he quickly realized you are a nitwit.
Exactly, Troglodyte.
Nobody cares about Mike Flynn’s opinions.
“I care about Swensons opinions.”
So hearing the same red herring phrases endlessly repeated is soothing to you?
Uh oh.
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!
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””.
“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.
“New MIT Discovery Just Solved one of Physics BIGGEST Mysteries!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17Y82tJDk2o
“the Photo-Molecular Effect”
Key word in the video – “imagine”.
RLH, you found another link you can’t understand. Why?
Why do you want to believe in nonsense. What’s wrong with reality?
And why bring your crap here?
Did you miss the bit about ‘the climate models may need to be updated’?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37903260/#:~:text=We%20call%20the%20light%2Dinduced,clean%20water%20and%20energy%20technologies.
https://news.mit.edu/2024/how-light-can-vaporize-water-without-heat-0423
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2320844121
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/water-discovery-mit-evaporation-weather-b2534696.html
https://www.iflscience.com/the-photomolecular-effect-it-appears-light-can-evaporate-water-without-any-heat-71378
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220210646T/abstract
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358142896_Photomolecular_Effect_Leading_to_Water_Evaporation_Exceeding_Thermal_Limit
https://physicsworld.com/a/light-evaporates-water-without-heating-it/
Remember, approx. 70% of the worlds surface is ocean.
Yes, this looks significant.
So much for all the “basic physics” that models are build on which we should never question. In fact the entire water cycle is a much hacked and fudged estimations called parameterisation because we do NOT have analytic descriptions of every detail and models are a long way from having the resolution to model it anyway.
The water cycle basically IS climate on this water world. All the rest is window dressing to mask the fact that models are a crude , jerry-rigged hack which looks a bit like certain periods of the climate record.
The MIT work should shake up the models quite a bit.
RLH, finding a whole bunch of links doesn’t help you.
You MUST understand the links.
Are you saying the links are wrong?
Are you trying to cover up your incompetence?
No. Are you saying the links are wrong?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1672155
RLH,
Yes.
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
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.
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.
barry, please stop trolling.
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.
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.”
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
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.
the next day he will start
once more
knowing that another batsh1t
bender’s in store
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]
“Is it supposed to mean something”
Yes. It means you need to get help.
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]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you do not value anything.
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.
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.
> 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.”
Waiter, there’s a fly in my soup!
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.
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.
“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
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you ignore that the Death Valley had nine of its ten hottest years in the last ten.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Dr. Spencer, discussing this latest work, wrote:
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.
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.
Sources
UAH
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
RSS
https://images.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
Anticipating styupid annotations by the 150% opinionated Brit boy
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-RSS-midlats-C3RM60
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
A simple running mean is well known to produce distortions. Not that is matters to Blinny.
Why not point out that others agree with UAH?
RLH, Why not point out that said agreement is the result of the manipulation of the other data to match the UAH processing?
Are you saying that NASA manipulates data?
” 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.
NOAA STAR says that they agree with UAH.
NOAA STAR does not agree with RSS.
” 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.
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.
” 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.
John Christy did this comparison a couple years ago… the average of the climate models looked just like our LS time series.
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
The zonal wind over the equator is inhibited. That’s why La Nina can’t develop.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2024&month=06
30-day SOI negative again. Far from La Nina.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
So these sort of predictions are wrong?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Palmowski didn’t even see that he merely presents SOI’s daily data till today. Far from a forecast.
Nor did Blindsley H00d of course.
NOAA’s CFS2 forecast looks good; I just compared it to the data I saved on March 27th, va bene.
We are not in La Nina at present, I merely pointed out that the near future looks different.
Yes, the predictions are wrong.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://i.ibb.co/VVhYVdj/cdas-sflux-ssta7diff-global-1.png
Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
SOI values for 10 Jun, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days -2.31
Average SOI for last 90 days -2.65
Daily contribution to SOI calculation -19.47
Monthly average SOI values
Mar -0.35
Apr -6.43
May 3.93
” Yes, the predictions are wrong. ”
Palmowski still doesn’t understand that he merely presents current data with a small, one week window running till this June 18.
Still far from a long range forecast like
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
running till… February 2025!
*
Here is NOAA’s CFS2 forecast for Nino3+4 dated March 27 of this year:
https://i.postimg.cc/wvZfxfRN/nino34m270324.png
Anyone can see the forecast’s continuity.
From the Australian BoM
Long-range sea surface temperature forecasts for Nino34, Nino3, Nino4, IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole)
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs®ion=NINO34
Probabilities for Nino3+4 in Dec 2024
– La Nina: 3%
– El Nino: 7%
– Neutral: 90%
That NOAA’s CFS2 forecast currently (!) does not anticipate a long-living La Nina ist clearly visible.
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
As always, Palmowski shows snow statistics based on water equivalents, and thus on weight, rather than on surface area.
Such statistics only tell us how wet the snow was, not how much snow fell.
*
A surface based approach
1. Superposed seasons and mean
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A3Uy377a89yXvDV1k91I38UtaMquwlTX/view
2. Absolute snow cover values since 1979
https://tinyurl.com/Rutgers-snow-absol (grrr d c)
3. Snow cover anomalies wrt 1981-2010 since 1979
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R5CSSdlMh2SiqMcntu5mTL1lcooYLOLv/view
The UK will certainly not suffer from the heat in June.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/06/15/1200Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-351.79,58.37,1096
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.
“It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.” – Yogi Berra.
I agree.
It seems that Flynnson now uses a random generator for his replies.
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.
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.
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
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
Hi.. am just curious as to your opinions on the probable cause of the recent 6 month temperature spike ?
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?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-06-10.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-06-10.gif
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.
Yet again surface and satellite temperatures show something different.
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.
” 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.
“What a superficial, ignorant, dumb statement which Blindsley H00d religiously writes but never would be able to accurately prove.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your PSTering.
“Nobody cares about your PSTering.”
Thank nobody for their concern.
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.)
NOAA STAR info
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v5.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Readme_STAR_V5.0_Mean_Layer_Temperature_CDR.pdf
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.
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.
NOAA STAR agrees with UAH much closer than to RSS. And they say why.
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.
Blinny yet again fails to agree with NOAA STAR.
” … 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.
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 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…
“Flynnson suddenly starts even lying.”
If you say so, Binny, if you say so.
Blinny admits he does not agree with NOAA STAR.
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.
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.
Go see a shrink
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.
“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.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about you wondering if fascism is good or bad.
“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.
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.
“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…
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.
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.
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?
“. 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.
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.
Trump has surrounded himself with people who will not restrain his worst impulses, and with others who are bent on dismantling the government.
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.
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.
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!
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.
And so TS rediscovers the luckwarmer’s gambit.
Sometimes he’s cute.
” Hunters laptop”
“not a Trump supporter or a Republican supporter.”
Bwa ha ha!
“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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-06-11.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-06-11.gif
Yes, both graphs show about 0.4C warming in the 365 day average in twelve months. The 0.2C warming in the GISS data over last year might even be conservative.
Both graphs now also show cooling over the last few months.
For some reason your 365 MA is cutting short, Richard.
I talked about this with the site and you have to understand that the 365 day summation is half of that late.
” For some reason your 365 MA is cutting short, Richard. ”
No it’s correct: a 365 day running mean is shorter than a 91 day running mean because it has a higher ‘inactive’ window:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-06-11.gif
And for the same reason, the 91 day running mean is shorter than the data (what is a bit less apparent on the graph).
*
A bit suspicious is the running mean over the short period:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-06-11.gif
which has the same size as the data: shouldn’t happen, except the average was made by Loess, Lowess or Savitzky-Golay filters whose result encompasses the whole data window.
> it has a higher “inactive” window
Why on Earth would we need that?
If I want to know what’s the last year’s daily MA on the SPY, you sure bet I’m not asking for one month ago!
Whacky Wee Willy,
“If I want to know whats the last years daily MA on the SPY, you sure bet Im not asking for one month ago!”
That’s good to know. Thanks.
What are you babbling about?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you are totally clueless.
“Nobody cares if you are totally clueless.”
Good to know. Thanks.
Blinny: Talk to the site and you will get the correct answer.
Blindsley H00d
Why should I ‘talk to the site’ ?
You did, so make their answer public.
” Both graphs now also show cooling over the last few months. ”
Like Coolista Palmowski, Coolista Blindsley H00d is all about cooling, even if it’s only for a few months.
Never would you see one of the two admitting that there are here and there some nearly invisible, tiny bits of… warming. Never and never!
*
Blindsley H00d sees the world the same way as the ignorant Robertson, the genius who believes that a few cold nights over Vancouver in October/November 2023 are conclusive proof that there is ‘no warming’.
*
We just need to look at how perfect the match is between surface temperatures (GHCN daily stations) and satellite temperatures (UAH 6.0 LT) measured within resp. over Vancouver’s grid cell:
1. Absolutes
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVI6cFMxkr6V838aPv5FVYbnhluNwE8M/view
2. Anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i6noE4x5yOq3EGTY8MqhEsPa_2Yi1RHM/view
*
If I were as superficial as Blindsley H00d and looked only at recent values, I could say for the periods 2010-2023 and 2016-2023 that the temperatures measured by the UAH over Vancouver (absolute values, anomalies) were even higher than those measured at the surface, which was not the case at all before.
*
By the way, here are once again lots and lots of horrible wriggles and distortions caused by these desperately wrong running means, which were made better visible by a 250% scaling of parts of the two graphs above.
1a. Absolute values
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CAo3YabvQewWpskbKuXlTff61T4eAZrT/view
2a. Anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nX_FQb_-CQ8hF0BjMLaOer3oCEuZZZS6/view
*
Don’t be like Adam
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A30WTB/adam-accepts-the-apple-A30WTB.jpg
Do not trust these twists and turns, no matter how similar they may seem!
They are a reflection of the worst kind of devilish deception, which is only meant to distract from the holy cascaded mean truth.
I am merely reporting what others show. If you do not like, that take it up with them.
” I am merely reporting what others show. ”
Again you can’t hide your subcutaneous dishonesty.
The problem, Blindsley H00d, is not that you show what others show: it is that you show always the same side of the medal.
I never had problems to show both.
“Again you cant hide your subcutaneous dishonesty.”
Bindidon , please stop trolling. You’re just being silly, now.
I did not create those graphs.
High temperatures are not seen over the Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/2gBMgWc/gfs-pacific-sat-t2anom-d1.png
… but nearly anywhere else:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/maps/gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_d1.png
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/maps/gfs_nh-sat1_sstanom_d1.png
Palmowski’s greatest strength, as always, is to show what happens the least and hide what happens the most.
“Palmowskis greatest strength, as always, is to show what happens the least and hide what happens the most.”
Good to know? What are you trying to say? Or are you just trying to be gratuitously offensive for no good reason at all?
Most perplexing! Only joking, you’re an ignorant and gullible nitwit who refuses to describe the GHE which he implies he believes in, without actually saying so. Feel free to prove me wrong,
My opinion, based on your comments, is that you are dim, and in denial of the reality that the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight.
You can always gnash your teeth, if you feel annoyed.
> Only joking.
Nobody cares about your jokes, Mike Flynn.
https://i.ibb.co/p4VKGHM/global-small-c.gif
https://i.ibb.co/DGkwdHJ/equatpac-fc.gif
https://i.ibb.co/gjLqtjt/ventusky-temperature-anomaly-2m-20240613t0300.jpg
Snowfall continues in the mountains of southern Norway.
https://i.ibb.co/7zkGF3W/Screenshot-2024-06-13-08-59-46.png
Me the least, Willard.
Flynnson’s urging to post his completely irrelevant nonsense everywhere reminds me the title of an Zappa song out of his ‘Zoot Allures’ LP:
” The torture never stops “
Allez, Palmowski, encore un lien, trois ne me suffisent pas!
Bonne continuation :–)
Je ne parle pas Francais.
Willard wrote –
“Nobody cares about your jokes, Mike Flynn.”
Bindidon went further –
“Me the least, Willard.”
Now it seems there is a competition to see who is least caring.
So far, Bindidon is in the lead, caring less than nobody.
[laughing at idiots competing to see who is most stupid ]
Like does the mentally deranged Flynnson Ozboy all the time, I exceptionally repeat what he apparently did not manage to sufficiently grasp:
Flynnson’s urging to post his completely irrelevant nonsense everywhere reminds me the title of a Zappa song out of his ‘Zoot Allures’ LP:
The torture never stops
*
And really, really: Flynnson never will stop torturing us with his permanent poops.
Willard wrote
“Nobody cares about your jokes, Mike Flynn.”
Bindidon went further
“Me the least, Willard.”
Now it seems there is a competition to see who is least caring.
So far, Bindidon is in the lead, caring less than nobody.
Bindidon’s response is more of his faecal obsession –
“And really, really: Flynnson never will stop torturing us with his permanent poops.”
[laughing at idiots competing to see who is most stupid]
Good night, Mike.
No obsession, Flynnson…
The word best fits your output, that’s all.
Bindidon,
What about Pajama People?
I wish they would all go away.
bobdroege
In fact, it’s written ‘Po-Jama’, a song in ‘One size fits all’.
Is that not how the Pacific usually looks during la Nina? The trade winds cause the warm waters to pile up around Indonesia and cooler water to well up over the Eastern part of the Pacific.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
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
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!
“Wait and see!”
That’s how you peer into the future?
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.
But is is supposed to be sweltering.
Sweltering in Winter?
Have you guys heard about this phenomenon? Its called weather. It makes temperature and precipitation change every week.
Freezing weather.
Suggesting the strawman that winter was supposed to be cancelled this year?
By the way, here are the departures from average in Australia over the next few days.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst_outlook/maps/d1-3/gfs_ausnz-ced_t2anom_d1-3.png
I see that only the southeast corner is cooler than average.
Is that what’s weirdly exciting you guys?
Nate,
You wrote –
“I see that only the southeast corner is cooler than average.”
Averages are generally derived from a range of values.
Do you find this surprising, or are you just ignorant and stupid?
The world wonders.
Swenson demonstrates his sub-normal intelligence, again.
“Swenson demonstrates his sub-normal intelligence, again.”
Oh well, someone might value your opinion. Pity you can’t name them.
[he’s not the sharpest tool in the shed]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody values your opinion, whereas I just used Nate’s example for cranks who argue that deterministic chaos isn’t deterministic:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/15/gcms-cannot-predict-climate/#comment-3926780
The locals call it winter.
” The locals call it winter. ”
Oh yes, for example those locals living in Newman or Jigalong :–)
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!
“Oh my dear! Its sooo cold in Australia, you cant imagine!”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
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!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman,_Western_Australia
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.
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
Running means again. You obviously do not listen to what others say.
“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.
Why is that ‘average’ a mean?
You have been told ant least an hundred times, Richard – because extremes matter.
JLH’s legacy to his nephew: Treat every data series as if it were the input for a hi-fi amplifier!
Alternatively you should treat Statistics as Statisticians say you should.
Nobody says that we should never use means, Richard.
Not even statisticians.
“Why is that average a mean?”
Off topic.
‘Off topic’ to say that we should obey statistics!
“Nobody says that we should never use means”
just that we use them where appropriate!
“Off topic
The topic was your portrayal of warmer than normal winter conditions over the majority of Australia, as being unusually cold.
But I was asking ‘Why is that average a mean?’
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.
The only time the median is equal to a mean is when the distribution is equal. But you know that don’t you?
“You were not asking anything”
Willard now says the ? mark means nothing.
Is Richard so dumb as to not realize what’s a rhetorical question?
> 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?
“The only time the median is equal to a mean is when the distribution is equal”
is what statisticians say.
“In a distribution with zero skew, the mean and median are equal.”
https://builtin.com/sites/www.builtin.com/files/styles/ckeditor_optimize/public/inline-images/national/3_skewed%2520data.png
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?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“For asymmetric distributions, we should always use the median.”
That is correct. Not a statistician are you?
https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/measures-central-tendency-mean-mode-median.php
“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.”
“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.”
Richard still confuses various fields of statistics.
> 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?
“[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.”
“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.”
Op. Cit.
“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.
And now Richard argues with his own source.
Splendid.
It is usually inappropriate to use the mean in such situations where your data is skewed.
Willard uses alternative facts. Splendid.
Richard imagines that an empty prescription is a fact.
Richard denies the facts laid out by his own source.
I just don’t restrict my quotes to things that only support my views.
Empty facts are very important, apparently.
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
So Blinny chips in with a comment about something he obviously doesn’t understand.
P.S. Try
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/uah-global.jpeg
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.
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.
“posting the link to a chart presenting my monthly SST charts”
Oh really? Where?
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.
“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.
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.
[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.
Willard and Blinny are not statisticians – obviusly.
” 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.
Why do you think the median is consistently one side of the mean?
In UAH temperature?
According to his own data, it looks like the mean and the median are not so consistent in SILSO data.
nobody is going to mars
https://youtu.be/WRlvAhTEy4o
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.
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
Don’t forget to show us other cool corners like the NZ Alps, the Andes and the Himalaya!
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?
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.
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).
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?
Wistful Wee Willy reports the news again.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your minimization.
Good to hear, thank you for your interest.
Nobody cares about you, Mike, but even if somebody did you would not feel any difference.
Thank you for your concern.
No one cares about your responses in my threads, Mike.
At some point you need sleep.
Thank you for your concern.
Nobody cares about your false thankfulness, Mike.
Thank you.
Nobody cares about you, Mike.
that’s old. No new propaganda?
Mr. Asshat believes that a report from six days ago is old news and propaganda.
Robertson the dumb pseudo-engineer actually lives in a strange contrarian pseudo-world in which he has no access to real information.
The Indians in Lucknow (what an ironical name these days) will be happy that the current heat wave slowly stops.
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240622&daytime=day&iid=II
Sure: there were many heat waves before this one; this is no reason to ignore it.
It’s propaganda when presented by an uber-alarmist as evidence of the pseudo-science of climate change.
binny…there is a reason to ignore it when it is presented as evidence of catastrophic global warming/climate change.
[OFFICIALS] India is in the middle of the longest heatwave it has seen since records began.
[MR ASSHAT] Propaganda!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Newsflash, no way can CO2 cause that temperature profile. That is curvilinear, and CO2 certainly isn’t.
curvilinear:
contained by or consisting of a curved line or lines
Nope, your remark still makes no sense.
barry, please stop trolling.
an elevated channel 7 suggests stratospheric warming, n’est pas? Wonder what the temps would be with only channel 5?
” … 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.
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.
I perfectly understand what Roy Spencer wrote. You don’t.
Six Aussie states below zero degrees this morning, more to come
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/six-aussie-states-below-zero-degrees-this-morning-more-to-come/1889534?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=20240617_news_six-aussie-states-below-zero-degrees-this-morning-more-to-come&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1JMh6FwY4MugUNyVemMuuJx3EQVAu2_1I5z6_uG8ZpqOjeejyuVgazL00_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw
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
Which is clearly visible at an altitude of 2,500 meters.
https://i.ibb.co/gt2Pdz8/ventusky-temperature-750hpa-20240617t0900.jpg
” … it is logical that it will be cooler in middle latitudes and warmer in low latitudes. ”
Which latitudes do you exactly mean, forecaster Palmowski?
And… when will that happen?
Bookmarked anyway.
*
” Which is clearly visible at an altitude of 2,500 meters. ”
Like your snow at 3,500 meters in the Alps, right?
What’s the altitude from where you post?
Ours is… < 50 meters above sea level.
ren is smart, he is not lured in my your mindless badgering and propaganda.
Robertson
Does freedom of speech really include your permanent trash?
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.
Mr. Asshat continues his practice of kicking down threads to say sweet nothings and pretend he’s hosting Roy’s website.
Robertson
Name calling other people with the name of one of the bloodthirstiest Nazis: does freedom of speech really include such disgusting behavior?
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.
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.
Mr. Asshat interposes himself once again in an exchange he hasn’t read.
My very point is that Richard is ONLY considering using means when they’re equal to medians, which means (pun intended) that he eliminates the need to have medians.
What an asshat!
> the need to have medians.
…the need to have means, of course.
Don’t be stoopid, you have no idea what Richard is talking about.
Mr. Asshat does not even realize that I just took Richard’s handwaving to thoroughly beat him with it.
you are welcome to your deloosions.
Mr. Asshat has a knack to bet on the worst horse of any race.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robertson
Why can people like you and Flynnson not stop posting irrelevant nonsense?
Does freedom of speech really include your permanent trash?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you get lost in threads.
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?
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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
> 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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Mr. Asshat can’t even read properly.
A dirtbag ain’t a tankie.
Gordon,
“A load of protestor got carried away, as mobs are prone to do, and invaded the White House.”
Wrong building.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Found the bad word. Sorry for making 4 posts.
was it one of the standard banned words?
“by a US legal system that is obviously biased in Bidens favour while stacked against Trump.”
If the conviction of Hunter Biden, and the trial of Dem Sen. MENENDEZ, and the SCOTUS and various other courts efforts to delay Trump trials, are all designed to trick us into thinking the legal system isn’t biased in Biden’s favor or stacked against Trump.
The most consequential interference by the FBI was Comey’s October announcement about Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.
The very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ( N*cp )^1/16
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Its powerful, as long as you don’t compare it to observations!
Sorry Christos, the Earth simply is not abs.orbing only 112 W/m2 of solar, on average. Nor is it emitting 112 W/m2 of IR, on average
Both of these are ~ 238 W/m2.
You cannot go on simply ignoring these huge discrepancies between observations and your theory!
The 238 w/m^2 is theory as well. Not only that, radiation cannot be measured in watts, which is a measure of mechanical energy. Since heat and work are equivalents, heat is often expressed in watts even though its natural measure is the calorie and its expression in watts is merely an equivalent.
The energy expressed by w/m^2 is the heat dissipated at the surface and not a measure of radiation. They are not equivalent because heat is also dissipated via conduction/convection, which is 260 times more efficient than radiation at dissipating surface heat. Based on that fact, I’d say the 112 w/m^2 claimed by Christos is closer to the reality.
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
Another weather report from wee willy under the guise of climate change propaganda.
Mr. Asshat doesn’t even know The Onion.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
> Goebbels is synonymous with propaganda.
But not the other way around.
What is Mr. Asshat doing here?
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.
Where have you been hiding out, Ent? I have heard very few politicians who have the courage to state what you stated.
Like shooting fish in a barrel:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-vows-target-electric-vehicles-meeting-with-oil-ceos-report-2024-05-09/
What is Mr. Asshat doing here?
“I imagine they thought theyd be rewarded by their governments for their sacrifice but in the end, most of them got screwed.”
GI bill. My dad used it to go to college.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
Mr. Asshat can’t even create a good simile.
What is he doing here?
no simile, you are a horse’s pitootie.
Mr. Asshat doesn’t even know what’s a simile.
Let’s entertain him a bit with these two cases:
(C1) My podometer indicates that I made 10K steps last week on average.
(C2) My podometer indicates that my median day was 9K the week earlier.
Which case tells me how much calorie I burned?
you are still a horse’s pitootey and that is no simile, which suggest ‘like a horse’s pitootey’. No…you are an actual horse’s pitootey.
Mr. Asshat reduces himself to spit silly ad hom.
What is he doing here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
Bill Nye is an alarmist ijit. He was schooled by Lindzen in a debate in which Nye looked absolutely stoopid. We are blessed that all the ijits are in the alarmist camp.
Though US clearly leads with 95 installed GW generating ~ 800 TWh/year (i.e. twice as much as in China), maybe the Nye guy has read things like these:
https://www.power-technology.com/news/the-us-is-15-years-behind-china-in-nulcear-energy/
TS is not that serious:
https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=960,quality=80,format=auto/sites/default/files/20170128_WOC703_3.png
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim s…”…with genuine interference from the FBI…”
***
They were trying to cover up illegal activity on the behalf of Hillary Clinton and were finally forced to reveal it. Besides her illegal email server she was involved in the Steele spying incident and the FBI was involved.
I don’t know how anyone can deny with a straight face that the Democratic Party was up to its ying-yang in illegal activity.
As long as it is proven in court, then anyone may believe that Dems or Repubs have been up to no good.
Well, not anyone. Right-wing partisans believe the justice system is crooked, and convicted Repubs have been completely wronged.
Whereas Lefties… no, actually they tend to agree when Dems are proved in a court of law to have done wrong. A recent example is Hunter Biden.
Any argument with that?
Yogi Berra had the perfect quote for this: It ain’t over till it’s over. When all of the appeals are over, we will know who is convicted. Future trials have much more at stake.
Hunter is facing tax charges and possible money laundering (why did they need 20 shell companies?).
Trump is facing his most serious charges in D-C and Florida. The Supreme Court will decide whether the D-C case goes forward and the Florida Judge is doing a good job of delaying that case.
[D and C are bad letters]
barry…in the US, half of the state-level judges are appointed and half are elected. Your fate as a Republican like Trump lies largely on the state in which you are charged. He has been heard largely by Democrat judges. The last one in NY was so crooked that US attorney, Dershowitz claimed he had never seen anything like it.
Sadly, the US Supreme Court is highly unreliable. When asked to intercede following the last election, they sat on their hands rather than becoming involved. There was valid evidence that needed to be evaluated at that level and they ran for the hills.
Gordon,
Hunter Biden was prosecuted by the DoJ. His father is the president. Sure looks to me like justice trumped politics.
Donald Trump was convicted by a jury, not a judge. But I already know how you will adjust your spin, so try to surprise me.
Gordon,
The US justice system, where politicos, not the bar, appoints judges, or judges are elected with support from campaign money, and often sell themselves on future rulings, is quite bizarre to me. The judiciary should be independent, but the process of bringing people to the bench is ludicrous. It also breeds partisan judges.
I have a theory that nobody is going to like. I think the FBI has a lengthy and detailed file on Donald Trump. I think it has a psychological profile that reveals his various problems. The executive summary has him rated as unfit for office and a threat to national security.
Comey, McCabe, the Love Birds (with the “insurance policy”) and their merry band of criminal FBI agents who made 17 “unexplained” errors (Horowitz report) in 3 separate FISA filings, were actually acting as patriots in their minds by protecting the country. The Mueller people were probably mostly just partisan, but they got their kickoff from Comey when he leaked those FBI documents after Trump fired him.
The problem is that the FBI Director does not have a constitutional role to decide if he likes the choice of the people to be their president. I also blame Hillary. If she has spent more time campaigning in the upper Midwest instead of cooking up schemes with phony allegations, then she would still be President and Trump would be running his TV network competing against FOX.
I found 2 new bad words: nar-cissism with de-lusions of grandeur
Narcissism.
Of grandeur.
“The Mueller people were probably mostly just partisan, but they got their kickoff from Comey when he leaked those FBI documents after Trump fired him.”
Mueller was a Republican. Comey had to deal with agents who favored Rs who were leaking info about Hillary investigation.
Comey and DOJ had to push back against Trump seeking loyalty to HIM, as opposed to loyalty to Constitution.
Trump seems to feel that he can direct DOJ to investigate and prosecute who he selects, whereas DOJ has traditionally been independent. Biden seems to get that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
“Axial tilt (obliquity)
Main article: Axial tilt
22.1-24.5 range of Earth’s obliquity.
The angle of the Earth’s axial tilt with respect to the orbital plane (the obliquity of the ecliptic) varies between 22.1 and 24.5, over a cycle of about 41,000 years.
The current tilt is 23.44, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt last reached its maximum in 8,700 BC. It is now in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum around the year 11,800 AD.[12]
Increased tilt increases the amplitude of the seasonal cycle in insolation, providing more solar radiation in each hemisphere’s summer and less in winter. However, these effects are not uniform everywhere on the Earth’s surface. Increased tilt increases the total annual solar radiation at higher latitudes, and decreases the total closer to the equator.[12]
The current trend of decreasing tilt, by itself, will promote milder seasons (warmer winters and colder summers), as well as an overall cooling trend.[12] Because most of the planet’s snow and ice lies at high latitude, decreasing tilt may encourage the termination of an interglacial period and the onset of a glacial period for two reasons:
1) there is less overall summer insolation, and
2) there is less insolation at higher latitudes (which melts less of the previous winter’s snow and ice).[12]”
(emphasis added)
Interesting:
“The current tilt is 23.44, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt last reached its maximum in 8,700 BC. It is now in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum around the year 11,800 AD.”
(emphasis added)
“The current trend of decreasing tilt, by itself, will promote milder seasons (warmer winters and colder summers), as well as an overall cooling trend.”
(emphasis added)
–
–
Ok. What is clearly obvious – yes, the currently decreasing tilt promotes an overall cooling trend.
But what is also clearly obvious – it is a very slow and a very minor cooling trend.
Conclusion:
The 22.1-24.5 range of Earths obliquity is not capable to promote any significant Climate changes (which could be slightly compared to the Glacials and Interglacials periods)
because Earths obliquity range forcing magnitude is very small and very insignificant.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“decreasing tilt may encourage the termination of an interglacial period and the onset of a glacial period”
Unfortunately this prediction does not match observation. If decreasing tilt was the main climate driver one would expect increasing ice cover, increasing ice albedo and decreasing temperatures.
Other natural changes such as weakening solar cycles would also predict cooling.
Instead we measure decreasing ice cover, decreasing ice albedo and warming temperatures.
The best interpretation is that artificial warming is overwhelming the natural cooling.
–Unfortunately this prediction does not match observation. If decreasing tilt was the main climate driver one would expect increasing ice cover, increasing ice albedo and decreasing temperatures.–
Well we did have what was called the “little ice age”, which added to glaciers worldwide, and hasn’t fully retreated from that, yet.
This little ice age was very long period of time, and would require many centuries repeat it and unlikely to begin something like it within a couple of centuries.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“decreasing tilt may encourage the termination of an interglacial period and the onset of a glacial period”
–
The 22.1-24.5 range of Earth’s obliquity is not capable to promote any significant Climate changes (which could be slightly compared to the Glacials and Interglacials periods)
because Earth’s obliquity range forcing magnitude is very small and very insignificant.
–
Please compare, what difference it makes the
cos(65 o )/cos(66 o) = 0,422618 /0,406737 = 1,039 ~ 4%
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It should be noted that the best we can say about the global average
is about 15 C and in terms of the 20th century about 14 C.
During the 20th Century it was said global average temperature was 15 with decimal points, which we now can say is wrong.
Our measurement of global average temperature, has not improved much in last hundred years, with satellite measurement, the change in average global temperature, has improved significantly.
But it doesn’t allow us to say about 15.1 C
And with lowering of cost of rocket launch and cost satellites, the cost one satellite or four satellites measuring global temperature is about 1/100th of satellites launched before 1980. And they are better. Or adding 20 or 50 satellites to measure global average temperature, wouldn’t cost much.
“The current tilt is 23.44, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt last reached its maximum in 8,700 BC. It is now in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum around the year 11,800 AD.”
(emphasis added)
–
–
Let’s see now:
4% /8000years = 0,0005 (%/year)
It is a too small, it is a too insignificant forcing – it doesn’t play a major role.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now, on the other hand
Please compare, what difference it makes the
cos(30 o) /(cos(31 o) = 0,866025 /0,857167 = 1,0103 ~ 1%
Lets see now:
1% /8000years = 0,000125 (%/year)
It is a too small, it is a too insignificant forcing it doesnt play a major role.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The glacier began receding at least 12,000 years ago, so about 3,000 years before the maximum tilt. So the situation will reverse in about 8 thousand years. Besides, the precession in the northern hemisphere will begin to interact with the decrease in the tilt angle and the perihelion will shift to the spring months. This will automatically result in colder winters in the northern hemisphere. Warm oceans will give up heat in the form of increased snowfall and albedo will increase.
When will glacier formation begin in the north? When summer snowfall increases. Of course, first in the mountains and Siberia.
https://i.ibb.co/Jj91VR2/nh-swe.png
You are right, Ireneusz.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Within weeks, the nation will deploy 9,000 people to begin restoring landscapes, erecting solar panels, and taking other steps to help guide the country toward a cleaner, greener future.
The first of those workers were inducted into the American Climate Corps on Tuesday during a virtual event from the White House. Their swearing-in marks another step forward for the Biden administrations ambitious climate agenda. The program, which President Joe Biden announced within days of taking office in 2021, is a modern version of the Climate Conservation Corps, the New Deal-era project that put 3 million men to work planting trees and building national parks.
https://grist.org/solutions/american-climate-corps-swearing-in-ceremony/
That’s right. What real presidents do.
Nix Net Zero … it leads only to a return to serfdom and slavery.
Troglodytes waste their last dance on Earth rooting for total frauds:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/witness-tells-house-ethics-committee-matt-gaetz-paid/story?id=111217102
hopefully, the fascists will be out of power after the next election. That will save the civil war that will surely follow if the ijits carry on with their zero emission philosophy.
Mr. Asshat keeps projecting:
https://newrepublic.com/article/182204/texas-republicans-platform-one-party-rule
What is he even doing here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
First tropical storm of Atlantic hurricane season, Alberto, in Gulf of Mexico, heading towards Mexico, making land fall tomorrow, about 500 miles south of Boca Chica, Texas:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Nothing happening, yet on my side.
Lots of wind and rain for Starbase, coming
— Tropical Storm Alberto forms, delivering flooding rain, storm surge to Gulf Coast
The strengthening tropical storm is predicted to make landfall by Thursday morning, and it is already causing flooding issues for parts of Texas and Mexico.–
https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/tropical-storm-alberto-forms-delivering-flooding-rain-storm-surge-to-gulf-coast/1660294
” Heavy coastal rain and flooding are expected to occur across northeastern Mexico, southern and eastern Texas and Louisiana through Thursday.
Rounds of intense downpours
Between 4-8 inches of rain can fall across a widespread area from south of Houston to far northeastern Mexico from Monday to Thursday night, while rainfall totals as high as 8-12 inches can occur over South Texas and the higher elevations of northern Mexico. The AccuWeather Local StormMax for rainfall is currently set at 30 inches. “
Much of that area is experiencing drought.
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/nadm/home/NADMByArea.aspx?MX
Tim S
Thank you for
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/NADM/Home.aspx
All need to hurricane on my side and it could greatly wipe most of North America’s drought conditions.
The hurricane season has just started.
The longest days in Europe, with temperatures as much as 5 C below average.
https://i.ibb.co/DQ8p5kY/ventusky-temperature-anomaly-2m-20240620t0300-52n2e.jpg
-2.1 near Warwick in Queensland this morning. Frozen Scene Golden Light at sunrise near Swan Creek.
https://i.ibb.co/rFrfSZy/448542048-1027514032096754-3537052458359016640-n.jpg
Warwick, Tmin
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 1999 6 18 -5.7 (C)
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 2001 6 16 -5.6
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 1999 6 17 -4.2
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 2006 6 16 -4.1
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 2004 6 17 -4.0
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 2004 6 18 -4.0
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 2009 6 12 -3.9
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 1994 6 13 -3.8
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 1999 6 19 -3.8
ASN00041525 ___WARWICK____________________ 2003 6 16 -3.7
Upthread, at the end of a long sequence of superficial miniposts from Blindsley H00d (aka ‘RLH’) about ‘medians being always better than means’, I added a chart comparing these two averaging functions, based on SILSO’s monthly Sun Spot Number data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D4GXMr6jT9_twFu5DbtejkPqfszVMNZY/view
Hoping that Blindsley H00d – after all, according to the ‘genius’ Robertson: a poster with impressive statistical knowledge – would show us his skills and present similar work.
*
Instead, he wrote with his typically suspicious undertones, subtly suggesting that, in his opinion, something was ‘not so’ correct:
” According to his own data, it looks like the mean and the median are not so consistent in SILSO data. ”
That’s brazen, to say the least. If anyone thought that he then would give us technical details explaining his suspicion and proving me wrong, s/he will be left wanting as always.
As usual: 100% doubt versus 0% proof.
*
He could not resist writing further:
” Why do you think the median is consistently one side of the mean?
In UAH temperature? ”
Again, my question: Why does he ask, instead of showing us results?
Here too, I had to do the UAH-based mean vs. median job he apparently can’t manage to deliver:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V2WXZbbFeDqHTLq9X64hJkyFXuUTcrn5/view
*
Why use polynomials? Simply because they actually represent the essence of time series and best show how they basically either differ or are similar.
It’s not quite easy to see, but in this UAH-based chart, the polynomial of the simple running median starts a tiny bit lower than that of the mean, and ends another tiny bit above it.
The trend difference between simple mean and simple median is below the fourth digit after the decimal point!
**
Let’s now switch to the cascaded running means and medians:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V2WXZbbFeDqHTLq9X64hJkyFXuUTcrn5/view
Woooaah. Here, Blindsley H00d can triumph! The polynomials show for the cascades the other way round, {sarc} by an amazing amount! {/sarc}
Trend difference between cascaded means and medians: 0.002 C / decade.
Sorry: This is simply laughable.
*
But… Blindsley H00d never admits that he is wrong, and will once again invent something suitable to emerge as the actual winner.
For sure!
Should read:
Lets now switch to the cascaded running means and medians:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTXSx8fYuMUsQVio9V71vOBbD-kf-pnP/view
I have never claimed that SILSO data was anything other the mean = median. i.e. symmetrical in distribution frequency. Indeed Binny’s own data shows that to be true.
I have solely claimed that UAH temperature data for LT is asymmetrical. As below shows.
What other suggestions for
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/uah-global.jpeg
is there?
“I had to do the UAH-based mean vs. median job he apparently can’t manage to deliver:”
Liar.
See https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/uah-global.jpeg
Blindsley H00d
I wrote above:
” I had to do the UAH-based mean vs. median job he apparently can’t manage to deliver:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V2WXZbbFeDqHTLq9X64hJkyFXuUTcrn5/view ”
*
You reply with
” Liar.
See https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/uah-global.jpeg ”
*
No, Blindsley H00d: I did NOT lie, and you perfectly know that.
What I meant was that you do nothing else than to show mean and median in the same chart – but actually lack to do the main job.
This job you failed to execute is to technically compare the mean and median time series, for example by comparing their linear trends, what I very well did out of the time series I show in my graph, and explained more precisely with a comparison of their third order polynomial means.
Trends in C / decade within the cascade’s active window (Mar 1980 – May 2023)
– for the UAH source: 0.134 +- 0.006
– for the simple mean: 0.136 +- 0.005
– for the simple median: 0.134 +- 0.005
– for the cascaded mean: 0.136 +- 0.004
– for the cascaded median: 0.134 +- 0.005
– for the cascaded mean polynomial: 0.135 +- 0.0005
– for the cascaded median polynomial: 0.134 +- 0.0004
The trends for simple and cascaded running averages are identical (what you very certainly won’t accept).
*
I ask you again, Blindsley H00d: Where are your comparison results, if you are even able to publish them?
If you don’t show them, you will be yourself the liar – by omission.
**
Moreover, a comparison of your cascaded mean and median time series with those I showed above
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTXSx8fYuMUsQVio9V71vOBbD-kf-pnP/view
lets me question the correctness of your median time series.
Because while our cascaded triple Pratt means (the green plots) perfectly match, your red median plot does not at all look like mine.
But… exactly like all computation steps in my mean cascade are based on Excel’s AVERAGE function, all computation steps in my median cascade are based on its MEDIAN function.
The cascade sequences are identical and are 100% derived from Goodman’s 2014 Excel example anyone can find on his blog.
*
The accuracy of my jobs you can doubt as you wish. No problem for me!
Let us nevertheless all hope that you won’t be that brazen to doubt Excel’s accuracy (a tool used since 1985 by hundred thousands of professionals all around the world) nor that shown in Goodman’s examples.
Blindsley H00d
Here is the next UAH-based mean vs. median comparison, this time using a 60/50/39 cascade:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EU0pwhpAu6s1Leh1rBg9QccyoGG7O-hd/view
Trends in C / decade within the cascades active window (Feb 1985 May 2018)
for the cascaded mean: 0.132 +- 0.002
for the cascaded median: 0.137 +- 0.003
… and this is all perfectly on par with what you never were able to disprove:
1. Tmiddle vs Tmedian vs Tavg from hourly data published by DWD, the German Weather Service
1.1 Absolutes
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1XsuuPoLUhMvtZg9SJoLPE4CX7Gc9Ss/view
1.2 Anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iEdxm4i1JxbVPOa_ZA5GVR1Er8OE2GY2/view
*
2. Tmiddle (aka (Tmin+Tmax)/2) vs Tmedian vs Tavg from the pristine USCRN hourly data published by NOAA
2.1 Absolutes
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BhgrAn-eVrX9JZUhr_y4ceVWAKsXtqml/view
2.2 Anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_F00TcPvlRBk4NQ8GR_Q6cdhUtQ4CUIQ/view
2.3 Average over all stations in all years
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
*
Data updated in 2023, but… I await your disproof since… 2021.
you have failed to prove that RLH is wrong, In your usual style you offer a rebuttals with no rebuttal. Can we call this the null rebuttal?
Robertson
” you have failed to prove that RLH is wrong… ”
*
You don’t understand what I wrote, nor what Blindsley H00d aka RLH replied.
No wonder: you lack the technical training and skills to follow discussions like this one.
Therefore, it would be best for all of us if you stopped commenting here, just as you stopped commenting on anomalies after you finally (and hopefully definitely) understood how wrong NOAA’s extremely simplistic, public-facing explanation on anomalies actually was.
What is chances of China [a totalitarian state} having a major coal miner strike within 10 years?
Pooh bear will be older and maybe dumber than Joe Biden.
They should imagine they should get better wages.
RLH
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/07/climate-sensitivity-a-new-assessment/
This is a recent probability distribution for climate sensitivity.
Note the long right tail on the distribution. The mean is about 3.0 and the median 4.5.
Should those forecasting future temperatures use the mean 3.0,generally accepted and confirmed by physics and observation?
Or should they use the larger value of 4.5 derived from the median.
To illustrate the effect, a doubling of CO2 concentration is expected to force temperature directly by 1C. Feedback then produses a final temperature of forcing*climate sensitivity.
Using the mean the increase is 1*3=3C.
Using the median the increase is 1*4.5=4.5C.
Is this your intent? It is quite unusual to find a sceptic arguing that future warming is being underestimated.
ent..realclimate is an uber-climate alarmist site run by two of the biggest alarmists out there, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. Surely, as a biologist, you have better sources than that.
Gavin Schmidt once made a claim that positive feedback causes amplification. It’s the other way around to anyone who understands feedback, that positive feedback requires amplification. PF cannot work without an amplifier ad there are no heat amplifiers in the atmosphere..
His partner, Mann, who was engaged in a 1000 year study based on proxy data, thought it perfectly kosher to switch the data to real data when he found the proxy data showing cooling while real temperatures were increasing. That’s Mann’s trick, aimed at hiding declining temperatures in proxy data.
EM,
You wrote –
“This is a recent probability distribution for climate sensitivity.”
There is no such thing as “climate sensitivity”. Maybe you are gullible enough to believe “Specifically, it describes how much warmer the planet will get if the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere doubles.” -IPCC (another pack of dreamers).
The planet is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago. It continues to cool, losing energy overall at about 44 TW.
If you believe that the concentration of CO2 surrounding a thermometer increases the amount of radiation reaching it, compared with no CO2 at all, you are dreaming.
In other words, you are a fanatical GHE cultist who refuses to accept reality.
Feel free to demonstrate that I err. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
> There is no such thing as climate sensitivity.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Statisticians say that the median is preferred over the mean if the data data is skewed in distribution.
If you get 50% difference in the outcome if you use a different statistic….
Floating Wind Madness in Maine
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/18/floating-wind-madness-in-maine/
[{and they are so ugly}]
…
“The floater has to be large enough to keep this monster tower from blowing over. Then, it has to be even bigger to contain enough air to be buoyant. It also has to be anchored to the ocean floor in ways that require a lot of different mooring lines.
The small existing floating generator systems cost around three times what fixed wind costs per MW, but the big and hurricane-proof generators might cost even more. Over a hundred designs have been proposed, which shows just how immature Floating wind technology is.”
Over hundred designs, would mean none of them, work.
But burning wood is bad, and solar energy in Maine is just, really dumb.
wee willy…”WASHINGTON, May 9 (Reuters) [Convicted felon teh Donald] vowed to reverse….”.
***
Where was such disrespect shown by the same rag when Bill Clinton was convicted of far worse crimes? He took advantage of a young intern to have sex with her in the Oval office. He paid out $800,000 to Paula Jones to prevent a conviction for sexual harassment rather than be convicted.
Hillary Clinton blamed the women for leading poor Bill astray rather than face the music that she had been jilted on numerous occasions. And she had the nerve to run for president.
Trump has been convicted by a kangaroo court run by a corrupt judge who bent over backwards to favour the prosecution. Judges in New York are elected by voters and most of them tend to be Democrats.
Mr. Asshat just can’t help himself. He needs to lie:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/keyfeb99.htm
Besides:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/article/2024/jun/19/will-lewis-washington-post-publisher-boris-johnson-partygate
What is this serial liar doing here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
gb…just watched a good video on Mars called 7 Days on Mars. it is narrated by Brian Lewis.
They covered the Perseverance module that is looking for evidence of life on Mars. Thus far, nothing.
sorry.. that is Brian Cox, not Lewis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPLY5UsfqQo
Seven Days on Mars: An Interview With Brian Cox
Hmm, there is no evidence that Mars had a body of water {a lake or ocean] for 100 million years. And no evidence Venus has has had body of water [a lake or ocean] for 1 million years.
Mars has been explored a lot more than Venus, and Mars has had little exploration- we probably know more about the Moon- which was a PR stunt of the cold war- but we returned Lunar samples.
We got quite a bit of lunar samples, but we need to get a lot more.
It’s thought that Mars get hit by impactors twice as much as Earth.
Impactors of Earth have been far more dangerous than nuclear weapons.
So, every 200 million on average, Earth, gets hit by a impactor far more dangerous than all our nukes. So with 3.8 billion years life on Earth, that life has lived thru, impactors which happen on average every 200 million years. Canada has pretty big impactor site and it’s major mining site in Canada:
Sudbury Ontario Canada 130 km 1849 millions of years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_structures_on_Earth
It should keep in mind that 70% of Earth surface is ocean, and oceanic rocky surface is less than 250 million year, most of it’s around 70 million or less.
And very unlikely we found all impact structures on the land surface [which is billions of years old].
Or we haven’t really explored, Earth.
With the Moon we have an ancient surface {or the best guess it is ancient]. What little we have explored regarding the Moon has informed us a lot about Earth’s history- and should tell us a lot more.
Brian Cox Seven Days on Mars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MesgxyTbsjI
The long movie
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Nearly 2,000 children under five are dying every day from air pollution, which has overtaken poor sanitation and a lack of clean water to become the second biggest health risk factor for young children around the world.
More than 8 million deaths, of children and adults, were caused by air pollution in 2021, according to a new study from the Health Effects Institute (HEI), as both outdoor and indoor pollution continue to take an increasing toll on health.
Dirty air is now the second biggest killer globally, overtaking tobacco use, and second only to high blood pressure, as a risk factor for death among the general population. Among children under five, air pollution is second only to malnutrition as a risk factor in mortality.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/18/almost-2000-children-die-every-day-from-air-pollution-report-finds
Two for the price of one.
The Guardian is now the new national Enquirer. The difference between the two is that some of the Enquirers claims were based on truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer
Here is the report:
https://www.stateofglobalair.org/resources/report/state-global-air-report-2024
What is Mr. Asshat doing here?
which bean-counter counted the 8.1 millions deaths? Did starvation and disease play a part? That would not impress propagandists looking for dirt.
Children die each year of malaria and the best antidote is DDT. Of course, the same eco-weenies who made up the 8.1 million deaths number contrived to have DDT banned because it was theoretically causing Raptor egg-shells to be damaged.
You brain-damaged alarmists are worse than malaria.
What has DDT anything to do with air polution?
Is Mr. Asshat countering anything with his ignorance?
What is he doing here?
So many questions, so little time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bindidon wrote:
“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.”
Indeed, Trump was the instigator of the January 6, 2021 assault, and CONTINUES to reject the election results. In my view, he is a dangerous man who prioritizes personal power over the interests of the United States and democracy worldwide.
To my knowledge, his supporters mainly are of ultra-right-wing Q-Anon conspiracy theorists, like you know who.
brilliant analysis, John. [/sarc off].
Where’s your proof that Trump rounded up hundreds of Yanks and made them invade the White House?
Somebody had the forethought to bring a gibbet with them to the Trump rally that morning, complete with a sign saying “Hang Mike Pence”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/jan-6-gallows.html
Evidence of preplanning.
(Incidentally, they invaded Congress, not the White House.)
Gordo wrote:
Here we have another interesting screw up from Gordo. It’s as if he doesn’t live in North America, where the news has been saturated with stories and photos of the events of January 6. I even watched Trumpy give his speech and the events which followed on my TV that day. And, I wouldn’t call the people who invaded the Capital “Yanks”, I’d say they were “Rebs” trying to re-animate the US Civil War. Hey, it’s a long way from Russia to Washington.
Entropic Man, Swanson, please stop trolling.
A detailed timeline of all the ways Trump failed to respond to the coronavirus
“Though new discoveries such as the December case in France mentioned above keep pushing the timeline of the virus back, much of the world began to take note of a mysterious pneumonia-like illness in China in January 2020, which at the time was mostly centered in the Hubei province. On January 5, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a preliminary news item about the then-unidentified disease; at the time, it was a relatively distant concern in the US, particularly given the country had yet to see any confirmed cases.
But the coronaviruss threat was of concern to US national security officials, who, as the Washington Post reported in March, were warning Trump of the global danger posed by the virus in daily intelligence briefings as early as January.
Nonetheless, in public comments and tweets, the president consistently played down the fledgling pandemic even as the first US case was reported in Washington state. He also applauded Chinas handling of the virus at several points in January, before taking action to protect the US in the form of a limited travel ban from China on January 31.”
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/8/21242003/trump-failed-coronavirus-response
no covid virus has yet been physically isolated. I can visualize wee willy rushing off to wiki to find a picture of the covid virus. He does not begin to understand that all the photos are either computer simulations or incorrect claims. An official EM micrograph will be in black and white and have a size marker on it. Furthermore, it will be from a reliable source where scientists know how to tell a virus photo from an old boot. That excludes typical sources like the CD.C.
The test and the vaccine are both based on an inference that certain strings of RNA are from a virus. In other words, the test and vaccine are fraudulent since there is zero proof that the RNA is from a virus.
Covid was about hysteria based on the opinions of epidemiologists. Today, it has been downgraded to the class of a common cold or flu simply because no on has been able to identify what it is.
Covid is classified as a corona virus like SARS. When a scientist claimed to have discovered it and submitted a paper, it was rejected on the grounds that what appeared on an electron microscope was inconclusive.
This nonsense dates back to the HIV virus when Luc Montagnier ‘inferred’ the virus using retrovirology techniques. he admitted that he was unable to see HIV on an EM and sought ‘other’ proof. Since his inference was accepted as proof, all viruses since have been based on the same kind of inference.
Robertson
” When a scientist claimed to have discovered it and submitted a paper, it was rejected on the grounds that what appeared on an electron microscope was inconclusive. ”
You are as always such a idyot and a liar.
This is one of a lot of sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7537546/
binny…”but the virus‐like particles described in several organs have been highly contested”.
***
Do you ever read the articles to which you blithely link?
You have a foremost expert on viruses living in Germany and he is actually German, unlike you. Stefan Lanka discovered the first virus in the ocean and he has defended his theories successfully in court. He claims retroviruses do not exist and he supplies convincing evidence, even for a layman.
An older article on Lanka which reveals his objection to so-called identified viruses.
http://www.whale.to/a/lanka5.html
Part 2 of a newer paper…
“The other defining factor, and not just for the SARS- and the Corona-virus, is that virologists who allege that pathogenic viruses exist suppressed a well-known fact for understandable reasons. The virus test that is used is a genetic test. The genetic sequences which they seek in the test are not isolated from a virus. They isolate typical genetic sequences, which are released in increasing quantities when tissues and cells die. These generally short genetic sequences, which are component parts of the human metabolism need to be studied further. Virologists can theoretically construct, with the help of a computer program, long genetic strands from many short genetic sequences. These are then claimed to be real viral genetic strands. That is the reason why healthy people who are repeatedly tested have a positive test”.
https://yummy.doctor/blog/misinterpretation-virus-ii-2-by-dr-stefan-lanka-beginning-and-end-of-the-corona-crisis/
At one point there were stories circulating that the WHO helped China conceal the fact that the virus was transmitting human-to-human in the early days. It seems the Chinese still have not been open and honest about many aspects of SARS-CoV-2. Further, I thought Fauci was in charge of the response.
Is any of that true? Just asking for a friend.
No virus has ever been physically isolated. The initial paper in January 2020 offered by Wuhan scientists ‘inferred’ a virus due to material extracted from the lungs of those infected in Wuhan. They admitted that the inference is based on RNA ‘suspected’ to be from a virus.
Christian Drosten, credited with the RNA-PCR test for covid, also admitted that he had not isolated a virus but based his test on the inference of Wuhan scientists. The vaccine is based on the same inference.
The gold standard developed at the Louis Pasteur Institute requires that a suspected viral specimen be isolated by mixing it in a density graded sucrose solution and centrifuging it. If the material settles in a certain density band, that confirms viral activity but not a virus. The virus, if there, must then be prepared into a thin slice of about 100 micron thickness so electrons in an EM can pass through it. Then it is viewed on an EM micrograph.
The micrograph must be marked with the relative size and will be in black and white except for cases where a coloured solution is used to protect the slice from electron bombardment. In an EM, the specimen is generally degraded by electron bombardment.
If there is a virus present, it should appear as particles of uniform density, meaning they should all be a similar size. Density = mass/volume. Today, that method has been scrapped because Montagnier and his group looking for HIV failed to see a virus on the EM test. When he could not find HIV he turned to retrovirus theory which was only 10 years old at the time and which proved inconclusive when trying to claim a virus based on RNA, the main molecule in RV theory.
A pioneer in RV theory had already warned researchers not to place too much faith in RNA theory because the same RNA that causes scientists to suspect a retrovirus is also commonly found in the human body under certain conditions.
Stefan Lanka, an expert in viruses, claims retroviruses don’t even exist. He has researched the history of viruses and claims the evidence for an RV is based on some pretty fancy speculation. When the theory was first produced circa 1970, based on the new-founded DNA molecule theory, many scientists refused to accept the theory. There is no telling how many today think it is fraudulent.
The test is based on converting RNA to DNA then amplifying the DNA using the PCR method for DNA amplification. Kary Mullis won a Nobel for inventing the PCR method and he strenuously objected to the PCR method being used diagnostically to claim a virus that cannot be seen on an EM. He claimed that if a virus is somehow being hidden so it cannot be identified by an EM then amplifying the viral mess won’t reveal anything since PCR amplifies everything equally.
You mentioned Fauci. He was the ijit, along with David Ho, who invented the first RNA-PCR test for HIV. Fauci told him he could not use PCR in that way, and Fauci arrogantly told the inventor of the test that he was wrong. For year afterward, Mullis openly called him a liar and Fauci did not bring charges against him. Evidently, Fauci lacked the confidence in his test to defend it in court.
That shows just how elusive the claimed HIV virus has become. Montagnier could not see it on an EM and Fauci thought that amplifying the RNA inferred by Montagnier would reveal a virus. However, there is not a shred of evidence that the RNA they are using comes from a virus.
That’s how sad the science is behind HIV and covid, it is all smoke and mirrors.
Yes, but from my perspective, they faced political pressures, and failed to communicate objectively. Both the WHO and the CCP mishandled the situation initially.
There were signs of human-to-human transmission then, and downplaying these early indicators and failing to take action made containment less feasible, resulting in the outbreak spiraling out of control, as we observed.
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavirus-tweet-was-to-appease-china-guardian-2020-4
*from my perspective*
Gordon, I happen to be very knowledgeable about the distinction between viruses, bacteria, and fungus. I am not a biologist, but I have a pretty good understanding of the human immune system and vaccine technology. You post is just nuts, and that is being polite.
John W, the part that concerns me is news reports that the Chinese government knew early-on that is was transmitting human-to-human. I do not remember the exact timeline, but there was about a 10 day period that they had isolated the entire area around Wuhan. They blocked all surface travel in and out, but they kept the international airport open. Spain and Italy were effected the worst in the early phases because they had the most business travelers leaving Wuhan. It is possible that they also had enough experience to know that the virus was capable of asymptomatic transmission for at least 3 and up to 10 days.
tim…you always think my posts are ‘nuts’. From my perspective, it reveals the lack of research you do into such matters.
If you read though papers at the links I posted on Lanka for Binny, you ‘might’ begin to understand the problems with current viral theory. There is nothing cut and dried about the theory, it has been arrived at through quantum leaps in faith.
Till the 1950s, no one could definitely define a virus. There was simply nothing to based it on. In the early ’50s, following the discovery of the DNA helix, DNA theory went forward in leaps and bounds. The definition of a virus was redefined based on that research, but still, no one could define definitely what a virus is. As I stated earlier, the proclamation of retroviral theory has still to be accepted by many scientists, and both HIV and covid are mysterious retroviruses.
I am not making a stand by declaring whether they exist or not, my interest is in the abject failure of both viuses based on the current theory. HIV was declared by the WHO as a serious danger to heterosexuals and that proved wrong. The WHO also recommended testing and vaccines for covid, and neither have proved effective. Last time I looked, hospitalization and deaths from covid involved 70% of population who had been double-vaccinated.
The only people who have profited from the covid hysteria were the pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer has been fined over 5 billion dollars over the years for misrepresenting their products, while others like Bristol Myers and Johnson & Johnson are close behind at 3 billion each.
If you want to talk about ‘nuts’, all you have to do is look at the current definition of a virus, which is not a definition, but an inference. The virus is now inferred by the association of RNA with a disease, even though there is no way of positively associating that RNA with a virus. That is nuts.
The proof is in how quickly covid was discarded as a danger to society. We went from lockdowns and infringements on our democratic rights, to covid being arbitrarily declared endemic, making it no different than the flu or a cold. The experts simply washed their hands of it and wrote it off as endemic.
They should all be in jail as public nuisance after what they put us through.
Tim S,
I can’t find any source that says the international airport was kept open after the lockdown. Instead, I’ve been reading that is just a popular rumor.
Tim S, I cant find any source that says the international airport was kept open after the lockdown. Instead, Ive been reading that is just a popular rumor.
Gordon … You post is just nuts, and that is being polite.
A miracle!
“The first thread was the zoonotic route. To make a long story short, the gain-of-function (GoF) community of researchers all over the world really wanted this to be zoonotic, so they all went to work to find the missing link animal that jumped the virus from bats to humans. So far, that has failed.”
“There is no link.”
The scientific community was naturally applying their previous experience with such viruses, like SARS. And there were clues that this was the case given the majority of early cases were among workers of the live animal market.
You weirdly suggest this reasonable thinking, can only have been politically motivated.
BS.
Then you are clearly demonstrating that you have different standard of evidence for the lab leak.
People have looked for the smoking gun link to the lab have not found one.
False. We don’t yet know that.
Ignore last line:
“False. We dont yet know that.”
Nate, I like you. I really do. You are persistent and it is sometimes fun to figure out what you are up to.
So here is the latest from Nate:
[Im simply taking the quote at face value.
What are you doing?]
I would throw the strawman back at you, and ask what are YOU doing, but that would spoil the fun.
I thought maybe I already answered what I am doing. Let me reveal some more. I am a professional investigator. Corporations retain my services to investigate complex technical issues involving science and engineering problems. I then write reports which they read with interest. I have repeat work, so I must be doing something right. And yes, full disclosure I have done work for “the Texas oil Companies”. As I explained, investigators have to answer the basic questions, what is wrong, what doesn’t fit, or maybe just what doesn’t look right? The answer starts a thread. You pull on the thread until the fabric unravels.
Many years ago, following the collapse, when most of their best investigators resigned in protest (2015), I interviewed with the US Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board (CSB). I decided I did not want to live in Washington, but I did interview with some of their top officials.
The question before us will have a simple solution. The GoF lab leak can never be confirmed 100% so long as Chinese scientist are afraid they will “disappear” when they cooperate with the outside world. Many people know the answer one way or the other.
The zoonotic route still needs an intermediate animal and a mechanism as found for SARS-CoV-1, MARS, and Bird Flue. It would also be useful know exactly what bat virus was the starting point. Nobody is claiming it went direct form bats to humans. If it did, that would be astounding.
I think there is a lot of blame to go around and a lot of mistakes were made. Most of that was based on a lack of knowledge. It took a long time to understand the virus was capable of asymptomatic human-to-human transmission as an aerosol. Six feet to stop the spread was useless.
The only outright lies came from China, the WHO, and a large number of those in the science community who insisted the lab leak was impossible and zoonotic transmission was certain. We now know it is the opposite. There is zero evidence of any natural reservoir or intermediate animal. The only evidence against the lab leak of a gain-of-function experiment is the lies and coverup from the Chinese government. Independent investigators where never given access to the lab or its records.
Yes, I agree. I don’t believe the COVID-19 outbreak was an act of biowarfare by China. Destabilizing the global economy wouldn’t be in their strategic interest, given their deep integration into it.
I think it was a serious accident at a lab in Wuhan, and the CCP initially covered it up to protect their party’s image. For authoritarian regimes, showing instability to their population is a significant weakness.
“We now know it is the opposite. There is zero evidence of any natural reservoir or intermediate animal.”
Your sense of certainty that we ‘know’ such things is unwarranted.
DNA of the virus was found on tables in the live-animal market where animals known to carry coronaviruses were sold.
Nate, you are confused and in your lack of understanding, you have just validated the way in which the virus spreads. Someone breathing can produce viable aerosols that last a long time.
Squeamish people may not like this, but the spike protein is not the most important aspect of the virus. The internal proteins are protected inside the structure. The whole thing can only survive outside the host body by surrounding itself in an envelope of mucus. Saliva does not provide enough protection. The mucus has to be strong enough to coat and protect the proteins. Soap and other chemicals work by washing the mucus away and exposing the proteins which quickly degrade.
An infected person could leave DNA on a surface if a large enough aerosol or a snot wads lands intact with enough mucus to keep it from decomposing. The “six feet to stop the spread” instruction was based on the belief that the virus needed a really large mucus hunk to survive. We now know that it survives as and aerosol and that makes it infectious to anyone breathing the same air as an infected person even without symptoms. It also means it can survive on surfaces.
None of that helps make your sense of certainty that we know such things warranted.
And weirdly you express certainty about Climate Science not knowing anything.
“An infected person could leave DNA on a surface if a large enough aerosol or a snot wads”
Sure but on the very tables where the suspect live animals were sold??
Think, Tim.
This is what happens when science gets obscured by politics. SARS-CoV-2 has never been found anywhere in nature. It is based on a bat virus, but no bats have it. It is different.
The intermediate animals in SARS-CoV-1 and MERS where identified. It is also worth noting that neither of those viruses ever became well adapted to human transmission. SARS-CoV-2 was highly transmissible from the start.
The real issue here is that scientists wants to continue using gain-of-function research. I have no opinion on that, except that stopping responsible experiments now will not prevent it from being used in the future by others with bad intentions. It is effective at producing viruses that are adapted to human transmission. I think the attempts by many to direct people away from gain-of-function as the most likely source was a mistake that now creates distrust.
After more than 4 years of intense effort, no path from nature can be found. The only evidence against the lab leak is actually evidence for a lab leak. The Chinese government has prevented outside investigators from the access they need.
“The only evidence against the lab leak is actually evidence for a lab leak.”
How’s that? Source?
It is easy to find people trying to doing science and hitting a roadblock in China:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y
The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature has learned.
The Chinese ministry of foreign affairs did not respond to Natures e-mailed requests for comment on why the phase-two studies have stalled.
Another study3 by researchers from China, which has not been peer reviewed, reported finding traces of SARS-CoV-2 in January and February 2020 at the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, which was visited by many of the earliest known people with COVID-194. Samples were taken from sewage, drains, the surfaces of doors and market stalls, and the ground, among other places. The researchers concluded that the virus was probably shed by humans, but Rasmussen and others are keen to take a closer look at the raw data, which included swabs from a defeathering machine, to see whether they can identify animal species.
Don’t see how this certainty
“The only evidence against the lab leak is actually evidence for a lab leak.
or this
“insisted the lab leak was impossible and zoonotic transmission was certain. We now know it is the opposite”
Follows from your link.
You are taking China’s usual secretiveness to arrive at certainty, that experts do not have.
The Chinese were also secretive about the live-animals at the market.
What I see here from you is reflective of right-wing media’s obsessive need to create enemies and scapegoats. And this is seen in the congressional committee on Covid19 response. Where the emphasis is not on finding truth and improving OUR response, instead it is about showing that Dr. Fauci and the NIH and the Libs together with China must be to blame for COVID-19.
The hyperbolic effort to turn Fauci into the devil is particular strange.
Now even the journal Nature is “right wing” politics when it does not fit Nate’s narrative.
Once again, I am posting science and Nate is stuck on politics with a nice little strawman to top it off.
“Now even the journal Nature”
It doesnt support your erroneous certainty that you know things that even the experts don’t know.
BBC
https://www.bbc.com news wo…
Intelligence report says US split on Covid-19 origins
“The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, as both (natural and lab) hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting,” said the 10-page report.”
Tim, YOU brought politics into it..
“This is what happens when science gets obscured by politics.”
This is what happens when you get your information from politically motivated sources.
It all depends on what the definition of the word is, is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research
However, most recently NIH deputy director Richard Tabak[90] clarified in Congressional testimony on May 16th, 2024, that the NIH did fund “generic” gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[91] When asked if the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the WIH, Tabak replied, “It depends on your definition of gain-of function research. If you’re speaking about the generic term, yes we did, because- but this is research, the generic term goes on in many many labs around the country, it is not regulated, and the reason it is not regulated is because it poses no harm or threat to anybody.” Tabak did not clarify what “generic” gain-of-function research was or how it differs from normal gain-of-function research, so it is unclear to what extent this testimony differs from previous statements by the NIH, which claimed no gain-of-function research at all was funded by the NIH.
Confirming that scoring political points is your goal here.
As I noted about the hearings you reference:
“Where the emphasis is not on finding truth and improving OUR response, instead it is about showing that Dr. Fauci and the NIH and the Libs together with China must be to blame for COVID-19.”
What do you find sinister about this?
“the generic term goes on in many many labs around the country, it is not regulated, and the reason it is not regulated is because it poses no harm or threat to anybody.”
Nate, please do not scare me like that. For a minute I thought I posted the wrong link. My intent was to show that the technology exists. The Chinese are obviously clever enough to figure this out and clearly secretive enough to get away with people not knowing what they did, This is from the link above:
Gain-of-function research (GoF research or GoFR) is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products. This may include an altered pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range, i.e., the types of hosts that a microorganism can infect. This research is intended to reveal targets to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to develop vaccines and therapeutics.
In virology, gain-of-function research is usually employed with the intention of better understanding current and future pandemics.[4] In vaccine development, gain-of-function research is conducted in the hope of gaining a head start on a virus and being able to develop a vaccine or therapeutic before it emerges.[4] The term “gain of function” is sometimes applied more narrowly to refer to “research which could enable a pandemic-potential pathogen to replicate more quickly or cause more harm in humans or other closely-related mammals.”
Some forms of gain-of-function research (specifically work which involves certain select agent pathogens) carry inherent biosafety and biosecurity risks, and are thus also referred to as dual use research of concern (DURC).[7] To mitigate these risks while allowing the benefits of such research, various governments have mandated that DURC experiments be regulated under additional oversight by institutions (so-called institutional “DURC” committees)[8] and government agencies (such as the NIH’s recombinant DNA advisory committee).[9][10][11] A mirrored approach can be seen in the European Union’s Dual Use Coordination Group (DUCG).[
TS is full of hot air as usual:
https://pca.st/60zon68p
Not sure what your point is any more, Tim.
Your last post describes types of GOF research confirming that some is hazardous and others are not.
The NIH guy indicated that the NIH funded GOF work in China was the latter.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Let’s be clear. In the beginning we were told that there was no sign of “genetic engineering” and the virus was “completely consistent with coming from nature”. Both of those statements were true.
Later when there were reports of a GoF lab leak, we were told that was a conspiracy theory because there was no sign of genetic engineering. That was technically true. The problem is that hundreds if not thousands of scientists knew that GoF was happening at labs all over the world.
As reports started to emerge that GoF was not genetic engineering, but something different, that was another conspiracy theory. It took a long time before GoF was even acknowledged as being real. Now, GoF has its own web page on Wikipedia. That is the point. People were withholding information or outright lying. That is the problem.
Along the way, the lab leak went from conspiracy theory to maybe possible. Currently, the FBI has lab leak as most likely. The Chinese are not going to cooperate, so that can never be confirmed. The CIA says it is not known. Really? How many belief that? The CIA is much more interested in protecting methods and sources than telling the public what they know.
Let’s be clear. TS is onto Step 3 – Saying Stuff:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-with-worobey-andersen-holmes-the-lab-leak
“In the beginning we were told that there was no sign of genetic engineering”
Yep and that is still the case.
https://www.intelligence.gov/index.php/publics-daily-brief/public-s-daily-brief-articles/1089-odni-releases-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins
All we know is that we, ie the experts and those with full access to the intelligence, don’t know the origin with any certainty.
But you are certain. Why? Is because you gave access to information the government doesn’t have. Or is it because you lean in to conspiracies?
Nate, you are trying too hard to paint me as a right-wing conspirator. I bet even Willard understands basic logic, even though he thinks he is being humorous in his response about “saying stuff”. Soon his buddies will arrive with their attempts at humor.
So why am I “certain”, and you are confused? It could be that I am smarter than you, but sometimes people pushing an agenda can just get caught-up in the narrative. Would I bet the house? No. There are in my mind different levels of certainty. So I will concede that.
The only place SARS-CoV-2 has ever existed is inside human beings, their snot, and that petri dish inside the Wuhan lab. There is no path to nature. If the Chinese could prove that it did not come from the lab, they would swing those doors open fast enough to make your head spin. Instead, they keep those doors closed tight. That is enough for me.
Nate, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
TS tries really hard to invoke plausible deniability.
He can’t deny having no story to explain how researchers could have proceeded to engineer the virus the way it evolved. He can’t deny not having consulted the resources I have shown him. For he’d have know that people already looked into his conspiracy ideation, and found nothing. By researchers whom at first found the lab leak hypothesis more plausible.
And the most beautiful of it all is that the less he can try to learn about this issue, the more he will be able to feel vastly superior to us all here.
I should add that I have zero concern about being wrong. My purpose here is to learn from others and share what I know, or at least what I believe. Epistemology theory says there are no facts, just well justified beliefs.
If proven wrong, I will be the first to admit I was wrong, but that is exceptionally unlikely. I did admit I was wrong when I misstated the moon-spin relationship. I included the correct statement in my admission of guilt.
“but sometimes people pushing an agenda can just get caught-up in the narrative”
Certainly seems to be the case, the more people push back on your claims, the more certain you get about them, it seems.
FYI, it took over 12 years to pin down the animal origins of SARS in China, and that was back when they were much more cooperative.
It seems clear that the politicization of this by Trump calling it the China virus and Kung-Flu, and their own politics, has caused China to stop international cooperation.
https://apnews.com/article/covid-virus-origins-coronavirus-lab-leak-wildlife-wuhan-raccoon-dog-4dafbb46a575e14eff9fedf2e705aee2
Nate is confused again, but I am here to help with the science. The AP story from March 17, 2023 is not the missing link. No path from nature exists.
The 12 year claim for the original SARS-SoV-1 is misleading at best:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-1
[In late May 2003, studies from samples of wild animals sold as food in the local market in Guangdong, China, found a strain of SARS coronavirus could be isolated from masked palm civets.]
The intermediate animal, the missing link for the path from nature was found very quickly. The 12 years was the time to find the precise bat virus that infected the civets.
[No direct progenitor of SARS-CoV was found in bat populations, but WIV16 was found in a cave in Xiyang Yi Ethnic Township, Yunnan, China between 2013 and 2016, and has a 96% genetically similar virus strain.]
Nate, look on the bright side, at least Willard agrees with you.
I already cited the TWiV episode, but the boomers among us who can’t find the show notes:
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-1121/
Listening to 15 minutes might have been enough for TS to stop putting his second foot in his mouth, which might portray under a different light his lack of concern for being wrong.
No path from nature has yet been found.
So Nate, are we having fun yet? One of your team members, Willard, who constantly posts information he does not understand, has made a mockery of your position. One of his links is citing Peter Daszak as reliable expert and source of unbiased information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Daszak
Aside from the potential for political bias from actual right-wing conspiracy theorists, we have this from the link:
In May 2024, the United States Department of Health and Human Services suspended all federal funding for Daszak and the EHA, saying that he did not properly monitor research activities at the WIV and failed to report on their high-risk experiments. The department also began proceedings to permanently debar Daszak and the EHA from federal funding.[43]
So that would be a government agency under the current administration, and that begs the question whether Xavier Becerra is a right-wing conspirator in disguise. I have to acknowledge that he may have incompetent employees who gave him wrong advice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Becerra
Nate, I await your thoughts.
Nate,
Check how TS is just a garden variety contrarian:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.368.6491.561
Looks like TS shares teh Donald’s proclivity to allege without providing evidence!
Nate, now your team member is posting 4 year-old news stories that he somehow thinks are relevant. You might need do something like clarify that you are interested in modern news, or something. It is up to you, but your case is falling apart.
Sounds like Eco-Health did violate NIH policies, and deservedly had its funding cut off.
“though Republicans did not produce any evidence linking the COVID-19 pandemic to EcoHealths research.”
Again, you won’t let absence of evidence hinder your certainty.
TS ignores that the NIH still recognizes that the specific experiments it’s auditing could not have caused the pandemic, the viruses involved being too distant, Nate. Or that the hit job was led by Brad Wenstrup, who praised teh Donald in his report.
In fact our convicted felon asked the NIH to terminate the grant, which it did, in 2020. And then it reinstated it because, well, pleasing teh Donald sometimes leads to irregularities. It finally rescinded it again in 2022, all the while asking for receipts, receipts it did not get in large part because it has pre-modern IT.
None of that matters for the point he’s trying to intimate, but then he’s just a pretentious rookie.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-fbi
This guy’s expert analysis is compelling. Should at least make you reconsider your level of certainty, Tim.
He notes that all large cities in China have labs doing this type of research, hence there is no coincidence of the virus arising in Wuhan to explain away.
OTOH, “more than half the early cases diagnosed had a clear link to the (live animal) market a huge share for a workplace with about 1,500 employees in a sprawling city of 11 million.”
“Also, both of the earliest two lineages of SARS-CoV-2, designated A and B, appeared to be geographically linked to
the market”
The lack of scientific rigor in the Times article is concerning and once again more than a year old. We have this:
[I asked Nature to request that Shi publish several SARS-related coronavirus sequences that had been reported in the journal. Within days, she provided them. The result: no smoking gun; they were all much more distantly related to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13.]
The next paragraph in a rigorous analysis would be something to this effect:
Clearly, the lab at Wuhan is in a large building and there would be other work taking place. The work of Dr Shi is not conclusive. There have been media reports that other scientists who released information or cooperated with scientists in the US have disappeared from family and friends. There are media reports that military experiments are conducted at the lab.
Try again.
Once again, evidence contrary to your narrative must be, somehow, rejected…
You trust the intelligence analysts that support your narrative, but suggest those that dont are untrustworthy.
You certainly won’t do as this author did, open yourself to alternative possibilities, or try to falsify your favorite scenario..
“Clearly, the lab at Wuhan is in a large building and there would be other work taking place.”
This is another example where you think low probability scenarios should be amplified. As the author noted, HER lab researched the very bat species that carried the closest natural relatives of Covid 19.
Thus her lab would be by far the most likely source, would it not?
All of the information is here, so let me put it together. The most important task of an investigator is pulling threads. That starts with the question, what is wrong or what doesn’t fit. You keep pulling the thread until the fabric unravels.
The first thread was the zoonotic route. To make a long story short, the gain-of-function (GoF) community of researchers all over the world really wanted this to be zoonotic, so they all went to work to find the missing link animal that jumped the virus from bats to humans. So far, that has failed. There is no link.
The second thread is the lab. In order to hide GoF from the public and keep doing this dangerous work, we were told by a whole host of “experts” that there was no lab leak because the virus showed no sign of “genetic engineering”. Then GoF was labeled as a conspiracy theory because no such technology exists.
The problem is that GoF technology does exist and this virus behaves precisely, yes precisely, as a GoF virus does. After years of being literally trained to be infectious to humans, it was.
I do not fault researchers who want to keep their jobs and income. I might do the same thing. The problem is that many of them lied to us first, before now finally admitting that it is real.
The virus that leaked from the lab in Wuhan is a GoF virus. No path to nature has been found after extensive effort. No virus in the history of viruses has ever been so good, that it could infect people for days from a host who is showing no symptoms, right from the start. The virus has continued to learn and become infectious, but fortunately less lethal. That is yet another story.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1676589
Wrong placement
The virus that leaked from the lab in Wuhan is a GoF virus.”
“No path to nature has been found after extensive effort.”
No path to the lab has been yet found.
Obviously you hold a different standard of evidence for these two scenarios.
More review is needed. I wrote this:
[Would I bet the house? No. There are in my mind different levels of certainty. So I will concede that.]
And this:
[The problem is that GoF technology does exist and this virus behaves precisely, yes precisely, as a GoF virus does. After years of being literally trained to be infectious to humans, it was.]
And finally this:
[No virus in the history of viruses has ever been so good, that it could infect people for days from a host who is showing no symptoms, right from the start.]
“The problem is that GoF technology does exist and this virus behaves precisely, yes precisely, as a GoF virus does. After years of being literally trained to be infectious to humans, it was.”
Unsupported claims, like these, are not evidence.
Getting more certain, the more you are challenged.
Any virus, like SARS, that moved naturally from one animal to another animal then to humans and then became contagious has by definition, gained that function through genetic evolution.
Obviously the scientific community of experts cannot determine if that happened naturally or from GOF research for covid19
But the amazing thing is that you think you know better!
As always Nate is criticizing me instead of the science. Here is an interesting article that would seem to support Nate’s narrative. It concerns that pesky furin cleavage site. Indeed it can come from nature, but wait a minute. It takes time and millions of mutations to make changes. SARS-CoV-2 came right out with what appears to be those same millions of mutations to make it highly effective from the start with some really terrible effects. It took millions and maybe billions of mutations in humans before the virus started making successful variants. It is a mixed bag. I concede that. My point is that absolute everything about the virus is “completely consistent” with a GoF experiment. The path from nature requires a number of very unusual conditions.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(23)00144-1/fulltext
“SARS-CoV-2 came right out with what appears to be those same millions of mutations to make it highly effective from the start”
Millions? Hardly.
From the start? When was the start? How long has the virus been percolating through the animal kingdom?
Nobody knows. You dont know.
But obviously GOF can happen naturally as it did with SARS.
The paper illustrates my point that the experts in the scientific community, who know much more about this, don’t have your non-expert’s certainty that natural is not possible.
I am self aware that judging who is right and wrong in a scientific controversy, outside my area of expertise, is very difficult.
What do you make of this:
“For SARS-CoV-2, the best known of these changes was D614G, which arose and became embedded within lineage B just a few months after the initial outbreak. 614G markedly increases infectivity and is a gateway mutation upon which all the specific FCS changes in the variants of concern were built.”
Seems to indicate infectivity got very high naturally within humans.
Really? How many mutations occurred in “just a few months after the initial outbreak”?
Nobody is suggesting it was becoming more human in nature.
Once again, SARS-CoV-1, MERS, and now bird flue have a very difficult time becoming infectious in humans in the short term. It takes time. Maybe months or years in a petri dish.
I’m simply taking the quote at face value.
What are you doing?
Seems they have DNA sequences of the initial virus lineages that infected humans, and of the virus a few months later.
I replied in the wrong place. Here is where it belongs:
Nate, I like you. I really do. You are persistent and it is sometimes fun to figure out what you are up to.
So here is the latest from Nate:
[Im simply taking the quote at face value.
What are you doing?]
I would throw the strawman back at you, and ask what are YOU doing, but that would spoil the fun.
I thought maybe I already answered what I am doing. Let me reveal some more. I am a professional investigator. Corporations retain my services to investigate complex technical issues involving science and engineering problems. I then write reports which they read with interest. I have repeat work, so I must be doing something right. And yes, full disclosure I have done work for the Texas oil Companies. As I explained, investigators have to answer the basic questions, what is wrong, what doesnt fit, or maybe just what doesnt look right? The answer starts a thread. You pull on the thread until the fabric unravels.
Many years ago, following the collapse, when most of their best investigators resigned in protest (2015), I interviewed with the US Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board (CSB). I decided I did not want to live in Washington, but I did interview with some of their top officials.
The question before us will have a simple solution. The GoF lab leak can never be confirmed 100% so long as Chinese scientist are afraid they will disappear when they cooperate with the outside world. Many people know the answer one way or the other.
The zoonotic route still needs an intermediate animal and a mechanism as found for SARS-CoV-1, MARS, and Bird Flue. It would also be useful know exactly what bat virus was the starting point. Nobody is claiming it went direct form bats to humans. If it did, that would be astounding.
Interesting line of work.
I’m a physicist. We tend to be arrogant.
But in my experience, it is actually quite hard to make a sound judgment of who is right and who is wrong in another technical area just by dabbling, which is what you seem to be claiming to do.
You have to admit that the biology here is quite technical, so unless you claim to be an expert, which clearly you are not, then I hardly think you can make a sound judgment on the science.
So what else is there to make judgement?
Intelligence? You have access? Doubtful.
So whats left? Political agendas. Conspiratorial thinking.
Which gives some people certainty about the JFK assassination and 9/11.
But is hardly reliable..
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The reported death toll from the scorching heat in Saudi Arabia surged past 900 hajj pilgrims on Wednesday, June 19, as friends and family searched for missing loved ones.
An Arab diplomat told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that deaths among Egyptians alone had jumped to “at least 600,” from more than 300 a day earlier, mostly from the unforgiving heat. That figure brought the total reported dead so far to 922, according to an AFP tally of figures released by various countries.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/06/19/death-toll-from-heat-at-hajj-pilgrimage-in-saudi-arabia-passes-900_6675195_4.html
Where’s Ren?
ren is far too intelligent to engage with the likes of you. The only reason I bother with you is to counter the propaganda|garbage you leave strewn about the blog.
Saudi Arabia is experiencing weather events, nothing more. Over the past century, we’ve all encountered heat waves, the worst coming in the 1930s.
Mr. Asshat still fails to connect the dots:
Op. Cit.
What is he doing here?
Like I said, ren is far too intelligent to bother with an ijit like you. I am too intelligent to interact with you but I feel the need to protect the naive from your alarmist propaganda.
Mr. Asshat does not even realize that a weather event does not last decades.
What is he doing here?
‘According to a Saudi Study…’!!!????
The study is uncited and the claim is based on hearsay.
What am I doing here? Besides discussing the science presented by Roy, I am here to try reversing the abject propaganda spread by climate alarmists like you on a site where the site owner also opposes climate alarmists and their Draconian agenda. Or have you failed to notice?
A better question is why are you here? I joined because I believe in what Roy and UAH are doing. You are obviously here to disrupt the message of Roy and UAH, and that makes you a scumbag, alarmist trohl.
Instead of owning his blunder, Mr. Asshat switches to
Step 2 – Sammich Request
What is he doing here?
Gordon Robertson keeps pretending that he is here on behalf of Roy’s best interest.
I am here because I respect Roy and John Christy and what they stand for. I have no interest in what alarmists think who are here to disrespect the science of Roy and John.
Mr. Asshat has so much respect for Roy that he stays here even after he told Sky Dragon cranks to get lost year after year, starting in
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
He expressed the same wish as recently as last summer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/#comment-1518969
So the question remains – what exactly is he doing here?
Exactly, Willard. Here are some of Gordon’s views:
– Kirchhoff’s law is obsolete.
– R. Wood’s experiment in 1909 proved the greenhouse effect isn’t real.
– No virus has ever been physically isolated.
– The 2020 election was fraudulent.
This is just a small sample from my personal interactions with him. I’ve also read that he doesn’t believe photons exist. I don’t think he genuinely believes everything he posts. Holding all these views collectively is so extreme that it would stand out even among other conspiracy theorists.
Don’t forget:
-Ukraine is led by Nazis
-Russia is only there to root them out
-Relativity and Quantum mechanics after Bohrs model are wrong.
-Black body radiation laws only work at very high temperatures.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 490.2 km/sec
density: 1.46 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 181
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 196 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.49×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.0% Low
7 numbered spots
SSN at 181?
Where does that come from?
EISN these days:
2024 06 18 2024.463 131 25.9 18 22
2024 06 19 2024.466 154 17.4 24 28
2024 06 20 2024.469 158 13.8 16 21
It comes from: https://www.spaceweather.com/
At this moment it still say 181, it will change in about 4 hours, but spaceweather.com gives next day spot number first, and few hours later give the new picture of numbered spots.
So right now:
Solar wind
speed: 440.1 km/sec
density: 1.45 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 181
Updated 20 Jun 2024
Etc
Or current picture of sun still has 7 numbered spots.
–EISN these days:
2024 06 18 2024.463 131 25.9 18 22
2024 06 19 2024.466 154 17.4 24 28
2024 06 20 2024.469 158 13.8 16 21
—
And I thought:
Daily Sun: 15 Jun 24: 117
Daily Sun: 16 Jun 24: 134
Daily Sun: 17 Jun 24: 152
Daily Sun: 18 Jun 24: 171
Daily Sun: 19 Jun 24: 150
Daily Sun: 20 Jun 24: 181
And need about 4 hours to get June 21 2024 from
spaceweather.com
Now, that what I posted. And check spaceweater’s “time machine”
I I posted it’s numbers] Can use time machine for 13, 12, 11, 10, and say 9, start with June 9:
143
148
146
95
And 13th:
145
Why not do rest of it, 8th:
150
149
193
224
208
186
194
And 1st of June:
135
Missed 14th:
124
It seems if I didn’t make mistake, average of 2/3rd of month is 157.25.
So going to be quite similar to last month, though likely quite a bit less.
Or I would say NOAA experimental forecast still has a chance. Hasn’t been proven to be horribly wrong, yet.
Actually, there is something right on edge of farside- hard to say how big {could be big] it’s somewhat nearer to small unnumbered spot. It would be highest spot in northern hemisphere.
Solar wind
speed: 416.6 km/sec
density: 1.37 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 138
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 196 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.37×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
6 numbered spots.
A new spot 3818 which grew on nearside faded a bit. There is unnumbered spot, which is small but may become a numbered spot.
No spot going to farside, within 2 days.
Don’t see new spot coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 339.2 km/sec
density: 2.59 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 133
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 197 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.19×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.2% Low
7 numbered spots, 3722, and 3721 came from farside {3721 was the spot I could slightly see- more spots might follow them, but don’t see any, now]. 3718 {which I mistyped 3818] has disappeared. No spot are leaving for farside in 1 or perhaps two days.
As said, not sure how they count it, perhaps these late two numbered spot weren’t “fully counted” and I am going to guess that the daily spot number will increase tomorrow without more numbered spots coming.
Solar wind
speed: 362.7 km/sec
density: 6.34 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 139
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 196 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.10×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
7 numbered spot. Another spot coming from farside behind, 3722.
No spots going to farside, within a day.
Solar wind
speed: 337.8 km/sec
density: 2.13 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 176
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 196 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.99×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.6% Low
11 numbered spots. 3 are going to farside.
Behind 3723, looks like large spot, no other spots appear to coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 308.4 km/sec
density: 2.44 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 141
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 199 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.12×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
“Sunspot AR3723 appears to be the return of old sunspot AR3664, which caused the May 10th superstorm. It poses a continued threat for X-class solar flares.”
9 numbered spot. 2 going to farside {only 1 of 3 left}. And the large spot I could see coming was already numbered as part of 3723.
If you think this frosty Thursday morning in Cooma NSW looks cold, you’re right! The temperature at Cooma Airport dropped to -8.9C, making it the coldest place in NSW this morning.
ASN00070217 ___COOMA_AIRPORT_AWS__________ 1992 6 16 -11.0
ASN00070217 ___COOMA_AIRPORT_AWS__________ 1992 6 15 -10.9
ASN00070217 ___COOMA_AIRPORT_AWS__________ 2000 6 14 -9.9
ASN00070217 ___COOMA_AIRPORT_AWS__________ 2000 6 15 -9.6
ASN00070217 ___COOMA_AIRPORT_AWS__________ 1992 6 17 -8.8
It’s winter there, Palmoswki… and it was much, much colder at COOMA AIR in 1992 and in 2000.
definitely a sign of the global cooling we have been expecting.
It is official. Summer is here.
Yah!!!!
Enjoy it while you can. Here is Canada it is a brief luxury.
Alongside mishandling the epidemic, the CCP silenced a doctor who initially attempted to raise the alarm about the outbreak. This doctor thought it was a resurgence of the SARS epidemic that had spread across China in 2002-03.
The CCP’s response to the SARS epidemic mirrored its handling of COVID-19. They withheld information about the initial three months of the outbreak and did not notify the WHO until February 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS
Good to know?
In 2016, 25,000 people died in Italy related to the common flu. No one took notice. In 2020, another 25,000 died from a mysterious epidemic claimed to be covid. Everyone freaked out.
Once more, the stoopid, ignorant Robertson lies about Covid19.
In Italy, there were over 100,000 excess deaths due to Covid in 2020.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) – Deadly heatwaves are scorching cities on four continents as the Northern Hemisphere marks the first day of summer, a sign that climate change may again help to fuel record-breaking heat that could surpass last summer as the warmest in 2,000 years.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/millions-sweltering-under-extreme-heat-worldwide-summer-arrives-2024-06-20/
It’s official. Summer is here.
Typical June weather her on the West Coast of Canada. We had our heat waves last year and the year before.
Magical stuff that trace gas CO2, when it can raise temperatures in specific regions by 10C to 20C and leave other regions unscathed.
According to alarmist pundits, the entire planet has warmed an average of 1C over 170 years. How that causes heat waves and climate changed has never been explained.
Mr. Asshat dares to mention Canada:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-heat-wave-relief-1.7241054
And that’s North of the heat dome Ren would witness in the US of A was he really interested in weather-related events.
What is Mr. Asshat doing here?
like I said dickus modicus, the weather here on the West Coast is totally normal for June. No heat waves, no floods, no droughts, nada.
I am sorry people elsewhere are suffering heat waves but it’s about variabilities in weather, nothing else.
Mr. Asshat keeps trying to minimize what’s happening in North America:
https://weather.com/forecast/national/news/2024-06-13-record-heat-forecast-midwest-northeast
Funny that he never mentions natural variability when Ren issues his solar minimum updates.
Have you ever politely asked Ren? You, Binny, and others go after Ren for no reason I can see. On the other hand, all of you are here to undermine Roy’s apparent message that the catastrophic theories related to global warming/climate change are over-stated.
Mr. Asshat keeps squirming.
Does he have any proof that his “But CAGW” is more than the central square of the Climateball Bingo? No, he does not. Same goes for his “But Alarmism.”
That being said, he does not stop at “But CAGW.” He’s into “But Plant Food,” “But Trace Gas”, “But ABC” (Anything But Carbon), and worse crap.
What is this crank doing here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
swannie…”Its as if he doesnt live in North America, where the news has been saturated with stories and photos of the events of January 6. I even watched Trumpy give his speech and the events which followed on my TV that day”.
***
We, in North America are inundated with fake news from ijits in the media. A while back, one of our Premiers, a good-hearted person who believes strongly in democracy, was referred to by a fake news columnist as a ‘dour Stalinist’. Our national TV outlet, CBC, invited Fred Sigger to offer his skeptic views, but the reason they got him here was to expose his defense of tobacco companies in the ’60s, an era where smokers ruled. In other wors, CBC was trying to further their climate alarm by trying to make Fred look like an undesirable.
It appears to me, Swannie, that you are an ijit who believes the fake news.
When was the last time you listened to the rantings of a politician? The angst of those on Jan 6th who invaded the White House went far deeper than anything Trump said.
john w…thanks for giving m the opportunity to comment and to clarify…
“Here are some of Gordons views:
Kirchhoffs law is obsolete.
R. Woods experiment in 1909 proved the greenhouse effect isnt real.
No virus has ever been physically isolated.
The 2020 election was fraudulent”.
***
-Kircheoff’s voltage and current laws are not obsolete, just his uninformed views on black bodies. I am not knocking Kircheoff himself, it’s just too bad that the lack of understanding of radiation in his day was seriously lacking and he was forced to go with the blackbody model.
For the same reason, theories put forward by Tyndall, Clausius, Maxwell, Boltzmann and Planck on radiation are also obsolete. They all thought radiation and heat were the same energy and formulated theories accordingly. They were all wrong.
The full understanding of the atom did not begin till 1898, when the electron was discovered. In the following ten years, Rutherford put forward good theories on the protons in the atomic nucleus but the neutron was not theorized till 1932. Rutherford referred to the protons as alpha particles.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr, a student of Rutherford, stumbled onto the correct theory that electrons absorb and emit radiation as they change orbital energy levels.
That made the murky theories of blackbody radiation obsolete. No longer did scientists need to work in the dark with remote and statistical theories, they now had theories that could be proved mathematically.
-And, yes, Wood’s experiment in 1909 disprove the anachronism that trapped radiation in a greenhouse caused greenhouse warming. He proved the real mechanism is a lack of convection. The current GHE theory is based on the incorrect notion that radiation and heat are the same energy and that trapping radiation is equivalent to trapping heat. Wrong!!!
-I have never said that no virus has ever been isolated I said that no virus since and including HIV has been physically isolated.
Comprehension!!!
-There is no doubt the 2020 election was fraudulent. The Dems cheated by manipulating the voting system, especially absentee votes.
john…”Ive also read that he doesnt believe photons exist”.
***
Can you supply me scientific proof they have a physical existence? Although I have been slamming Einstein’s relativity theory which is based on a non-existent time, he said something profound later in life. He claimed that some scientists think they know whether light is a wave or photons, but they would be wrong. In other words, no one knows.
I like to call photons ‘quanta’. That’s how EM begins life, as an emission from an electron that has a discrete frequency, based on an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. There is no such thing as a multi-frequency photon.
The frequency is closely related to the angular frequency of an electron in an atomic orbital and the electron has an electric field which can produce a magnetic field.
The photon is often presented as a particle with no mass but momentum, a goofy idea. I will use the word photon occasionally to keep the peace but what I mean is a quantum of electromagnetic energy that has a definite frequency.
The question arises as to how individual quanta from individual electrons combine to form the colossal number of frequencies in light. That question confounded Einstein to the point he could not understand it. At least he had the class to admit that.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[MR. ASSHAT] definitely a sign of the global cooling we have been expecting.
[ALSO MR. ASSHAT]
I am sorry people elsewhere are suffering heat waves but its about variabilities in weather, nothing else.
I am also sorry, wee willy, that you have a brain that does not work. Your disjointed replies are a sign of that.
Mr. Asshat, caught being a total hypocrite, goes full ad hom.
What is he doing here?
Simple…any intelligent, scientific reply to wee willy is met with ad homs and insults. If you insist on living in a glass house, don’t throw stones.
Mr. Asshat pretends that there’s a need to have a SCIENTIFIC REFUTATION of his obvious double standard.
What is he doing here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For anyone seriously interested in the science related to viruses, on this following page (under the ‘English’ heading …(provided you speak English)) you can find an in-depth explanation of Lanka’s investigation into viral theory.
http://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
Lanka discovered the first virus in the ocean and has successfully defended himself and others in German courts related to viruses like measles and HIV. He has a running 100,000 Euro reward for anyone who can prove the measles virus exists based on the scientific literature. His claims are often astounding but from what I have read independently on other medical science, not that astounding.
Circa 1915 there was an outbreak of pellagra in the southern US. A government worker was sent to investigate and his preliminary observation was one of diet. His views were disregarded while researchers pursued a theory based on viruses and bacteria for 30 odd years. Finally, it was discovered in the 1940s that the cause of pellagra is a diet lacking in a certain b-vitamin. It was diet-related and the original researcher was correct.
The annals of medical research are filled with such nonsense and for that reason, I don’t find Lanka’s claims to be overly simplistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellagra
“Pellagra was first described for its dermatological effect in Spain in 1735 by Gaspar Casal. He explained that the disease causes dermatitis in exposed skin areas such as hands, feet and neck and that the origin of the disease is poor diet and atmospheric influences.”
It was clever of Casal to observe the relationship between pellagra and diet. My point is that someone sent by Washington to investigate the pellagra outbreak identified the cause right away and he was ignored for more than 35 years while researchers looked for a viral or bacterial cause.
It appears to be no different today. When AIDS became prominent in the early 1980s, the first approach was to look for a virus. Even when Montagnier failed to see a virus on an electron microscope he persisted in looking fora virus.
Seriously, researchers seem to have virus-on-the-brain. If no virus can be seen on an EM they persist in finding one by inference. The cause of AIDS was right in front of them, homosexual males doing drugs and have intimate relationships with multiple partners in the steam baths of New York and San Francisco.
Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, although he only claimed to have inferred it indirectly, eventually came around to that conclusion, that AIDS is oxidative stress caused by lifestyle. He still believed in HIV but he claimed it would not harm anyone with a healthy immune system.
The point being made by Lanka is that current issues like HIV and covid can be explained by other scientific explanations. He explains covid as a either typical or atypical pneumonia. However, atypical pneumonia, which accounts for many covid cases, has no known cause.
He has never claimed viruses don’t exist, he has only claimed that viruses are not normally related to infectious diseases.
That may sound shocking to the uninitiated but if you read him in-depth he supplies credible reasons. He has also defended his views in court with experts observing.
For example, there is not a shred of evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Montagnier could find no virus on an electron microscope and had to resort to inference based on retroviral theory. However, the Reagan admin, under pressure from homosexual lobby groups anointed HIV the cause of AIDS without peer review.
Dr. Peter Duesberg immediately identified the real cause of AIDS and it initiated such a fury against him that his career was ruined by Fauci. Duesberg was no lightweight, he was the first scientist to discover a cancer gene and he was the youngest person of his time to be inducted into the National Academy of Science. Fauci controhlled the purse strings for researchers and ensured Duesberg would receive no more funding.
Anyone who disagrees with Lanka should at least ask why there was such chicanery involved with Fauci as to cripple the ability of a top researcher to do his work.
This illustrates how science is done today. Those who fail to follow the current paradigm are ostracized.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
BELGRADE, Serbia (AP) – Authorities in Western Balkan countries warned citizens Friday to be cautious, drink water and avoid sunshine during an early heat wave that sent temperatures soaring to up to 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit.)
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/europe/balkan-countries-swelter-in-early-summer-heat-wave-with-people-warned-to-take-extra-care/article_d0ef0902-7c76-535a-8ebc-b78eed6e9d43.html
A big power outage at the same time isn’t helping.
Duh!!! Summer just began in the Northern Hemisphere and we are having heat waves? Double duh!!!
Get over it, this is typical weather. The same weather that set rcords for heat waves in the US and Canada in the 1930s.
[MR. ASSHAT] definitely a sign of the global cooling we have been expecting.
[ALSO MR. ASSHAT] Get over it, this is typical weather.
What is he doing here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Does he have any proof that his But CAGW is more than the central square of the Climateball Bingo?”
***
You’re off the deep end…certifiable. What the heck are you ranting about? Are you denying that you are an alarmist and that your climateball fantasy is not about climate alarm? Are you seriously that deeply in denial?
Mr. Asshat can’t parse sentences anymore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmism
Where’s his proof, and what is he doing here?
“Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm of a real or imagined threat”.
***
Exactly…anything you post in your trohling efforts here are based on excessive and exaggerated alarm. Besides that, you are a scumbag.
Still no proof from Mr. Asshat.
What IS he doing here?
Whatever your demented mind sees, Dickus Modicus.
Our pathological liar in chief can’t prove anything.
What is he doing here, except probe minds?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
An isolate is the name for a virus that we have isolated from an infected host and propagated in culture. The first isolates of SARS-CoV-2 were obtained from patients with pnemonia in Wuhan in late 2019. A small amount of fluid was inserted into their lungs, withdrawn, and placed on cells in culture. The virus in the fluid reproduced in the cells and voila, we had the first isolates of the virus.
https://virology.ws/2021/02/25/understanding-virus-isolates-variants-strains-and-more/
I have already told you, you ijit, that the Wuhan scientists who alleged the virus did not isolate it.
THEY ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD NOT PHYSICALLY ISOLATED A VIRUS!!!
Drosten, who designed the test for covid, admitted he did not see a virus, he inferred it based on the Wuhan report.
Why do you insist on shooting off your big mouth about science you cannot possibly understand?
Mr. Asshat keeps backtracking:
First, it was
[MR. ASSHAT] I have never said that no virus has ever been isolated I said that no virus since and including HIV has been physically isolated.
Now, it’s
[MR. ASSHAT] the Wuhan scientists who alleged the virus did not isolate it
WHAT is he doing here?
Your lack of comprehension is typical of an alarmist. What is it you don’t understand about the Wuhan scientists admission that they did not physically isolate a virus? Same for Drosten and his covid test.
Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering HIV, admitted he did not see HIV on an EM. He admitted to inferring the virus based on RNA he ‘thought’ came from a virus but he never proved that.
In the end, Montagnier arrived at a sane conclusion when he claimed HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS is oxidative stress related to lifestyle. That’s what Duesberg claimed years before him, that AIDS is about the male homosexual and IV drug user lifestyle.
Mr. Asshat keeps digging:
– no virus
– since and including HIV
– has been physically isolated
This claim has nothing do to with Wuhan’s researchers.
What is he doing here?
“Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering HIV, admitted he did not see HIV on an EM”
Gordon, appeal to authority.
Einstein won a Nobel, yet you claim he is all wrong about Relativity.
Montagnier got a very severe form of Nobel’s disease.
“Nobel disease is a hypothesized affliction that results in certain Nobel Prize laureates embracing strange or scientifically unsound ideas, usually later in life.”
“Montagnier claimed that solutions containing the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses could emit low frequency radio waves that induce surrounding water molecules to become arranged into “nanostructures”. He suggested water could retain such properties even after the original solutions were massively diluted, to the point where the original DNA had effectively vanished, and that water could retain the “memory” of substances with which it had been in contact claims that place his work in close alignment with the pseudoscientific tenets of homeopathy. He further claimed that DNA sequence information could be ‘teleported’ to a separate test tube of purified water via these radio waves.”
Gordon you are beating your head against a wall.
An isolate is whatever science wants to define it as. It can be a giant loogy spat up by an infected person and isolated in a dish.
Like Fauci’s NIH defining as they wish what ”gain of function is” and using their official defining powers as legal means of circumventing the laws and intent of Congress.
Bill…how’s it going? Don’t worry about me, I enjoy writing and setting the record straight.
Fauci should be in jail. If you want to see how much that little creep has defiled science, read Kennedy’s book, ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’.
The biggest problem facing AIDS researchers initially was the inability to find the HIV virus. That lead the ijit Fauci, and David Ho, to find a means of amplifying the virus. Th first question is why anyone would have to amplify a virus that should be readily seen on an electron microscope.
Montagnier had to infer the virus based on RNA, a science that had only been invented 10 years before, in 1970. Fauci ueed that fraudulent method couple with the PCR method for DNA amplification to claim a virus.
How does that work? First they need to identify an RNA specimen then they have to convert it to DNA. The DNA is applied to the PCR method to amplify it. Then what? Can you now see the virus on an EM? No!!! They count the number of DNA molecules and if it exceeds a certain amount, they claim a virus.
Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, was adamant that PCT could not be used diagnostically in that manner. He claimed that a virus that could not be seen on an EM could not be seen after amplification with PCR.
Gill tries to save Mr. Asshat by deflecting on Fauci.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,!,!!!,!,,,,,!,,,!!!!!,!,!,!!,,
“He claimed that a virus that could not be seen on an EM could not be seen after amplification with PCR.”
Very confused Gordon. Viruses are not ‘amplified with PCR’, only DNA is.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy, aka Dickus Modicus…”What is he doing here?”
***
Who are you talking to? You don’t seriously think anyone pays any attention to your warped ideas?
Is Mr. Asshat talking to me?
How can he be talking to me and not pay any attention to what I am saying?
What is he doing here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon, you fathead.
The COVID virus was isolated early 2020, and you could buy it for medical research from a number of medical repositories by the middle of that year. I linked you to one of those repositories at the time. You can also find with great ease nuerous papers describing the isolation of the virus.
You got this completely wrong in early 2020, and you continue to repeat what must surely be a purposefully ignorant line to the contrary.
barry
Robertson is the absolutely ignorant liar.
I just need to search for this info and find
” In Germany, researchers at the Institute of Virology at the University Hospital Düsseldorf were also able to successfully isolate the SARS coronavirus type 2 from patient swabs on March 25, 2020. ”
What he writes about Christian Drosten (Charit Hospital Berlin) is sheer nonsense he probably obtained out of US contrarian, antivax blogs which replicated the misinformation permanently published online by German ultrarightwing groups.
*
It is also easy to debunk his nonsense about Lanka and the measle stuff. I have all info needed.
1)where are the EM micrographs with size marker?
2)what method did they use to claim the isolation?
Robertson
Try to finally behave like an adult and not like a stubborn child.
Instead of asserting, learn, e.g. from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504884/
Barry Bonehead…The US CD.C put out an alleged photo of the covid virus from a SEM (scanning electron microscope). It can only penetrate surfaces a few microns and it was coloured, suggesting it was done by computer enhancement. Even I, as a complete layman, could see the photo was a fraud. The particles ranged in size so much they could not possibly be the same density.
Covid was not isolated in the early 2020 year, it was inferred based on an RNA analysis.
But, hey, what would climate alarm and viral fraud be without the gullible, like you? You claimed I had lied when I posted that the IPCC had called the 1998 – 2012 period a warming hiatus. When I posted the link where they said that, you waffled, claiming 15 years meant nothing.
When I linked you to a statement by NOAA that they use less than 1500 stations globally to determine surface temperatures, you whined that the article was old.
Robertson
” When I linked you to a statement by NOAA that they use less than 1500 stations globally to determine surface temperatures, you whined that the article was old. ”
No one whined, Robertson.
You still did not understand that the NOAA page you proudly referred to all the time was written around 2007/2008, during the GHCN V2 era.
I have shown last year to you documents stored in the Web archive (station list and station data), proving the existence of 7280 stations in 2013, but you stubbornly discredited them because you don’t understand anything of these documents.
Just like you don’t understand anything of anomalies, of the lunar spin and of libration, of Einstein’s relativity, let alone of Lanka’s incredibly disgusting lie:
https://www.anonymousnews.ru/2017/01/20/pharma-luege-aufgeflogen-bgh-urteil-bestaetigt-masern-viren-existieren-nicht/?fbclid=IwAR2YAxMQeVy50jPnk0Ukf0xuNZIxIsXniY_DWafAGfOqt0kf1OisFccVn_Q
*
” BGH-Urteil bestätigt: Masern-Viren existieren nicht ”
Never did the BGH (Bundesgerichtshof, Germany’s Supreme Court) confirm anything in that case.
Here is their short decision not to do anything:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n-AJcyIb8zKAq6Yb6ns1YtcU6ogRbzMI/view
Major point
” The plaintiff’s complaint against the non-admission of the appeal is dismissed because the legal matter is not of fundamental importance… ”
*
I can show you the links to all documents you yourself would never find, Robertson.
For example, what the Justices of the Oberlandesgericht (appeal court) Stuttgart wrote about your Lanka hero.
You are exactly of the same vein as Lanka: a liar.
binny…”I have shown last year to you documents stored in the Web archive (station list and station data), proving the existence of 7280 stations in 2013, but you stubbornly discredited them because you dont understand anything of these documents”.
***
I don’t now what it takes to penetrate the dense boney matter that surrounds what is left of your brain. I don’t care when NOAA issued the statement, you have provided no proof that they have changed to what you think they use. The statement made it clear that they had slashed the number of stations they use globally from 6000 to less than 1500. That means they don’t use all the stations available to them through GHCN but only a small subset.
At the chiefio site, the guy has done exhaustive work into the stations they use and those they don’t. Yet all you can do is ad hom his site.
re the German High Court decision…they were ruling on an appeal by Lanka to a lower court decision. They were not ruling on the veracity of the Lanka’s theories, only that the lower court had erred. However, it was the presentation Lanka offered, based on his theories, that ultimately influenced them. They had appointed an exert in viruses who agreed with Lanka, that no proof had been submitte that the measles virus exists.
The upshot is that Lanka did not have to pay out the 100,000 Euros he had offered to anyone who could prove the measles virus had been isolated. Therefore, the high court, by their ruling, upheld his theory.
[MR. ASSHAT] he has taken his theories to court and won
[ALSO MR. ASSHAT] They were not ruling on the veracity of the Lankas theories
Robertson (NOAA, part 1)
I’m afraid that the problem is on your side: you are the one here who doesn’t know anything about weather stations, let alone about how to generate temperature time series out of their data.
For this reason you have to rely on bloggers like E.M. Smith aka chiefio, whose incompetence in that domain is so incredible that he didn’t even realize the reason why he suddenly, in 2009, ‘saw’ no more than only one GHCN V2 station in the Canadian Arctic !!!
*
The reason for his masterful failure was that he had apparently unknowingly downloaded the GHCN V2 material at the exact moment when NOAA was transferring the contents of the since empty V2 directory to its new V3 directory!
And Robertson of course is gullible and credulous enough to believe such ‘Musings from the Chiefio’.
Robertson (NOAA, part 2)
” I dont care when NOAA issued the statement … ”
So you don’t care? But that is EXACTLY the source of your endless manipulation!
This page you refer to
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-V2-2010-03-23
was written at a time of huge reorganization of NOAA’s global station data fetching: all stations worldwide were given up which didn’t provide for automated, fixed-time reporting. Most of them were however replaced by numerous other, newly acquired ones.
This is EXACTLY what you intentionally omit to mention.
*
” … you have provided no proof that they have changed to what you think they use. ”
That, Robertson, is the same kind of brazen blah blah you write each time, regardless what you write about.
You write the same trash when ignoring what I wrote e.g. about Mayer, Newton, the lunar spin, libration vs. rotation etc etc etc, and endlessly resort to your old notes.
Robertson (NOAA, part 3)
Of course I provided you this proof, Robertson – and more than once in the last years; here is my most recent – and most complete – comment about NOAA and your woeful ‘1500 station’ nonsense:
https://tinyurl.com/4nw6bu57
Not only you lack any technical competence, training and skills to understand the comment’s contents; fact is above all that you are also not at all interested in accepting any such comments: you immediately ‘forget’ them all.
Any real skeptic (and you are actually the exact opposite) who is both competent and honest enough would immediately understand that the link
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-GHCN-V3-2013-10-25
offers a download to the GHCN V3 data available on 2013, Oct 25.
*
” That means they don’t use all the stations available to them through GHCN but only a small subset. ”
Your endless attempts to discredit the reality of the available data demonstrate nothing other than the immense extent of your incompetence.
Anyone could understand your claims if you had ever been a real engineer, able to generate time series out of that data and to compare it to the data available prior to the elimination of 4500 stations lacking automated data transmission.
*
But you never have been at any time a real engineer in your life, Robertson.
Robertson
” re the German High Court decisionthey were ruling on an appeal by Lanka to a lower court decision. They were not ruling on the veracity of the Lankas theories, only that the lower court had erred. However, it was the presentation Lanka offered, based on his theories, that ultimately influenced them. They had appointed an exert in viruses who agreed with Lanka, that no proof had been submitte that the measles virus exists. ”
*
This is a pure lie, Robertson.
I’ll reply to that in detail.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Musk thinks there will be billion of AI robotics on Earth, I tend to think there will be more on Mars.
If going to make billion of AI robots, where do you make them, Moon, Mars, Venus or Earth?
Net zero for humans, but not for robots?
It seems the need for data center, could end the net zero, soon. But generally it seems humans would rather have heavy industry off world.
I tend to think there could be millions of people living on Mars, but they would have billions of robots.
One doesn’t like to blow one’s own trumpet – indeed, it one could blow one’s own trumpet one would not be wasting time on blogs. However, the version of the “Tarderase” plugin I am using at home shows the pictures linked in the posts above in-line, on the blog itself. This particular page looks REALLY good with all the graphics.
I’ll roll it out ASAP.
Let me get this straight. You, an alarmist, come onto Roy’s blog, who is not alarmist, and you want to filter out the views of skeptics who support Roy?
What kind of ijit are you?
Robertson
Let me get straight the fact that you never did support Roy Spencer nor John Christy and their UAH team.
You support only yourself by endlessly posting sheer nonsense and incredible lies.
You contribute daily to making Roy Spencer’s blog absolutely ridiculous.
beggar of you ijit. No one can rely on someone like you who announces he is leaving the site only to reappear under his girlfriends nym. Sissy!!!
This is a blog about the UAH temperature series, duffnutz. I am filtering out the white noise, abuse and idiocy.
We’ll be able to filter out posts that call people “alarmist” too, in the same vein.
Might I also point out that only an eejit could pretend that the deniers here “support” Dr. Roy. They deny everything he stands for.
And once more one of Robertson’s most styupid lies:
” … who announces he is leaving the site only to reappear under his girlfriends nym. ”
Robertson of course never understood what I told years ago as I posted a reply under my lady Rose’s pseudonym ‘Pangolina’: at that moment I was watching the blog on her notebook, using her Firefox, hence her autofill plugin which of course inserted herpseudo and heremail address into the reply fields.
Robertson is simply to dumb to grasp such things. He probably would never be able to download a plugin let alone to customize it.
He’s the dumbest pseudo-engineer the Globe ever experienced.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
bill hunter…”An isolate is whatever science wants to define it as. It can be a giant loogy spat up by an infected person and isolated in a dish”.
***
That’s exactly what Lanka claims and he is an expert on viruses. Not only that, he has taken his theories to court and won.
I don’t regard it as beating one’s head against the wall when corruption is happening right in front of us and one protests. I am fully aware that people tend to regard me as a crank but that’s hardly my problem. The bigger problem is the sheer naivete of those observing me as such.
We have utter nut jobs here on this blog, like wee willy, who is so deluded he thinks he now runs the site, and is asking what I am doing here. That’s the MO of a trohl. They infiltrate a site and try to take over by enrolling sympathizers to their cause.
The sad part is that Roy is going to tire of this nonsense and shut down the site, or cut off comments. Of course, that would please the scumbag wee willy, aka dickus modicus, since that is ultimately why he is here, to agitate to the point the site will be closed.
Roy has become a target from alarmists in more ways than one. He is targeted at the professional level by ijits trying to prevent him from publishing and by professionals telling outright lies about UAH. He is targeted by scumbag sites like desmogblog who try to neutralize him with lies defaming him. And he gets targeted by alarmists posting here.
I apologize to Roy for resorting to ad hom and insults against the alarmists, especially the scumbag type like wee willy. If that gets me banned, so be it, but I know how to deal with such scumbags. I’ve had considerable experience dealing with trohls and I know you cannot reason with them.
If it has not occurred to anyone that wee willy is a major trohl who is here only to agitate and interrupt the flow of science, then they simply have not been around.
One more lie of Robertson:
” I apologize to Roy for resorting to ad hom and insults against the alarmists… ”
You resort to ad homs and insults against anyone, including Andrew Motte, one of the many translators of Isaac Newton: you even called him a ‘cheting SB’!
Yes, Robertson: that’s you, one of the worst, dumbest posters on this blog.
Gordon Robertson,
Dr. Spencer approved my comment highlighting that he does not appreciate your presence or that of your colleagues on his blog. Isn’t that funny?
john…please refrain from forming conclusions you know nothing about. You are just another ijit alarmist who disrespects Roy’s POV upon which this blog is based.
Do you approve of alarmist scientists ganging up to block Roy and John of UAh from publishing papers? Or telling outright lies about UAH temperature series?.
John W,
It would seem that Dr Spencer also “approved” my comments.
Isn’t that funny?
Maybe your imagined “approval” is indeed imaginary.
How funny would that be?
No, I believe respect should be mutual. I do not hold DeSmog in high regard.
However, you are not here with Roy’s best interests at heart. You and your friends are tro+lls who are clearly exploiting this blog’s lenient moderation. If science truly matters to you, I challenge you to comment at WUWT or Climate Etc. in the exact same manner you do here.
To clarify my position, I recognize DeSmog’s mission to defend science and combat misinformation for the public good. But I believe many skeptical researchers are driven more by ideology or personal convictions rather than intentional deceit. While I align with mainstream scientific consensus, I maintain empathy for both perspectives.
John W, making false accusations is a cult tactic. You haven’t presented any REAL science, yet you’re trying to falsely accuse Swenson.
Got a viable description of the GHE?
I already gave it to you, Clint R. How about you actually take time to study science?
Sorry, but I must have missed it. Please let us see it again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1673298
John W, but that’s not viable. CO2 15μ photons returning to the 288K surface can NOT raise the temperature. That’s what your cult cannot understand.
An easy-to-understand discussion of temperature is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287
Once you understand temperature, then you can easily understand why a photon with lower-than-the-mean frequency can NOT raise the temperature.
That’s why ice cubes can not boil water.
And that’s also why the GHE is bogus.
Puffman,
Still waiting for you to come up with your Skies-Shooting-Cold-Rays theory.
Whenever you are ready.
Clint R,
In that link, you didn’t even bother to respond to the feedback on your post. Instead, you just claimed that Willard, Ball4, and Bob are ignorant. That approach isn’t convincing at all. Do you think you can assert dominance by simply making bold claims, like a silverback gorilla beating its chest?
John W, either you haven’t been here long enough, or you haven’t been paying attention, but the three cult children you mentioned seldom have anything intelligent to offer.
I’ve learned not to waste my time with such immaturity, incompetence, and ignorance.
Disregarding your unfounded criticism of me, were you able to learn that the GHE is bogus?
binny…”Robertson of course never understood what I told years ago as I posted a reply under my lady Roses pseudonym Pangolina: at that moment I was watching the blog on her notebook, using her Firefox, hence her autofill plugin which of course inserted herpseudo and heremail address into the reply fields”.
***
Sure, Binny, you continued to post using her nym until we put it together that her posts were an awful lot like your posts. It seems par for the course for alarmists. Barry, a legend in his own mind, threatened to kick his girlfriend out unless she got the covid vaccine.
These examples are part of the reason I resist alarmists so vehemently. If they treat their girlfriends with such insensitivity I hate to think how cold-heartedly they will treat the poor and disenfranchised when it comes to depriving them of the fossil fuels they need to survive.
Robertson
” Sure, Binny, you continued to post using her nym until we put it together that her posts were an awful lot like your posts. ”
This is a simple lie.
I wrote a few comments with ‘Pangolina’ as pseudonym on her notebook, as I explained above, until I discovered my stoopid mistake.
Moreover, Rose stopped writing on this blog due to YOUR dishonesty, Robertson: she got sad of your lack of scientific education and technical skills, and of you permanently ignoring contradictions and resorting to old notes, a behavior you did not change a bit of since then.
*
You are in no way endorsing Roy Spencer and John Christy on this blog, Robertson: your only aim is to promote yourself and your egomaniacal, contrarian views.
> he has taken his theories to court and won.
He did not, unless by “theories” Mr. Asshat is referring to his theory of contract:
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/german-judges-in-court-cases-did-not-rule-on-whether-measles-virus-exists-idUSL1N3721SR/
What is he doing here?
Once again, you comment on something you don’t understand.
The trial was not about the existence of the measles virus, it was specifically about a 100,000 Euro prize that Lanka had offered with strict stipulations. He stated that he’d give the prize if anyone could prove, based on the scientific literature, that the measles virus had been isolated.
The lower court awarded the prize based on a misinterpretation of the evidence offered. The higher court overturned that decision after examining the proof offered. The court used their own expert and he agreed with Lanka that the evidence submitted was lacking.
Mr. Asshat says that Stefan took his theories and won. This has been shown false time and time again. Only then does Mr. Asshat switches back to “oh but the court case wasn’t about deciding anything scientific, projecting his own mistake on his correctors.
What is he doing here?
wee willy…you have proved over and over your utter inability to understand what has been written. It’s equally obvious that your replies are simplistic efforts to salvage a semblance of credibility but it’s not working.
Your best bet is to post somewhere where the requirements for intelligence are much lower, like realclimate, desmogblog, or skepticalscience.
(Vlad) Pozzo has taken his theories to court and won.
(Estr) He did not. All he won is the right to decide himself on the rules of his silly game.
(Vlad) Once again, you comment on something you don’t understand.
(Estr) You said many times that Pozzo has taken his theories to court and won. This is false.
(Vlad) You have proved over and over your utter inability to understand what has been written.
(Estr) What are you doing here?
Gordon Robertson says:
”bill hunterAn isolate is whatever science wants to define it as. It can be a giant loogy spat up by an infected person and isolated in a dish.
***
Thats exactly what Lanka claims and he is an expert on viruses. Not only that, he has taken his theories to court and won.”
Well humans have long been convinced in believing something exists that no proof can be offered up thats convincing. The standards of science run up against this barrier constantly and is found wrong more often then they are found right.
However, what they are found right on is extremely valuable information to mankind. What they are found wrong on can be very dangerous and do a lot of damage but smarter individuals aren’t sucked in. Its dead on smart to not act until the evidence is extremely strong. When it comes to vaccines one should carefully pay attention to the results. Mankind has dealt with measles at least since the 9th century. I had measles in the 1950’s and never had a vaccination as far as I know.
Facts are that over 3,000,000 kids got measles every year and about 500 died from it making your odds something like 6000:1 for survival.
Considering that care varied and health varies many of those who died would have died young anyway greatly increasing your odds of you had access to healthcare, a nutritious diet, and were in good health.
It certainly isn’t supportable to make these vaccines mandatory. They claim you have much greater odds of not dying taking the vaccine but thats practically a joke when your odds are already as low as .015%.
The blockheads in here who think they are everybody else’s keeper. . .we know who they are. . .are a much bigger problem than measles ever was.
That said each parent should make their own choices informed by what information is available. In the long run its always good to have a few eggs in a different basket.
And of course Willard is all wet. The judges in Lanka’s case simply weren’t convinced by the evidence either and in that case Lanka could choose to pay or not pay. OTOH, they could have been convinced and order Lanka to pay. . .its simply not appropriate for anybody to ever claim the non-existence of something so that certainly wasn’t on the table for the judges. . .and Willard is simply confused as to why.
https://www.livescience.com/what-are-photons
“What are photons?
Photons are fundamental subatomic particles that carry the electromagnetic force or, in simpler terms, they are light particles (and so much more). The photon is also the “quantum,” or fundamental unit, of electromagnetic radiation. Everyone is surrounded by photons: The light coming from the screen you’re viewing is composed of photons, the X-rays doctor use to see bones are made of photons, the radio in a car receives its signal from photons, and the magnets on a fridge use photons to hold themselves up.”
John W,
The photon is not “the fundamental unit” of anything.
It can have any energy at all, from approaching zero to infinity (in theory).
Photons exhibit wave or particle properties depending on circumstances.
Magnets do not “use photons to hold themselves up”.
Either you don’t know what you are talking about, or you do not know how to express yourself.
By the way, there is no GHE, if you were heading in that direction.
Photon are NOT subatomic particles. You will not find a photon in any atom. The moment one is absorbed by an electron in an atom it is converted to kinetic energy and realized as heat.
The entire article is in error and represents an amateurish attempt to explain something the author fails to understand. A photon is a concept in the context he uses it. EM is emitted by electrons in atoms but the light e see is unknown as to its content. It is regarded as a wave and it is unknown how quanta emitted by various electrons over a wide bandwidth relates to light.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you deny the photon to be.
Good to know. Thanks.
Traditional understanding of ‘subatomic’
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Atomic_Theory/The_Atom/Sub-Atomic_Particles
*
Contemporary understanding of ‘subatomic’
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/physics/subatomic-particles
” Subatomic particles are particles that are smaller than an atom. Early in the twentieth century, electrons, protons, and neutrons were thought to be the only subatomic particles; these were also thought to be elementary (i.e., incapable of being broken down into yet smaller particles).
However, the list of subatomic particles has now been expanded to include a large number of elementary particles and the particles they can be combined to make. “
The point you are missing is that sub-atomic particles exist within an atom.
(holding my nose)From Wiki…”According to the Standard Model of particle physics, a subatomic particle can be either a composite particle, which is composed of other particles (for example, a baryon, like a proton or a neutron, composed of three quarks; or a meson, composed of two quarks), or an elementary particle, which is not composed of other particles (for example, quarks; or electrons, muons, and tau particles, which are called leptons)”.
A photon dos not meet that definition. It is a quantum of electromagnetic energy with a frequency and an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field.
I think an egregious error was made by de Broglie when he offered his wave-particle duality theory. It should be noted that his theory was his Ph. D thesis, so he was essentially a rookie making a rookie mistake.
If…a big if…an electron orbits a nucleus like a planet orbiting the Sun, it can be claimed to have harmonic motion. Harmonic motion is essentially a periodic motion that repeats, often modeled as a mass suspended from a spring. The key is the regular motion which can be graphed as a sine wave.
If you regard an electron orbiting a centre as a circle on an x-y axis, and you project the electron position onto the x-axis, the motion of the electron along the x-axis can be depicted as a sine wave. Furthermore, the electron has an angular frequency that is regular per orbit and that angular frequency can be modeled as a sine wave with a definite frequency.
That does not mean the electron, a particle with mass, is also a wave, it is still a particle whose motion can be modeled as if it is a wave. Also, as an excited electron drops one or more orbital energy levels, it emits a quantum of energy that has a frequency and is made up of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Therefore, the electron can emit a wave of energy but it is not a wave itself.
de Broglie may not have been privy to the actuality. An electron is not only a particle with mass, it also carries an electric charge. I am stating all this to make it clear that the electron is still a particle with mass but the photon it emits has a frequency, making it a wave. The photon is a wave not a particle and it is created by the electron charge.
All Mr. Asshat had to do is to read the end of the same paragraph he quotes:
Op. Cit.
What is he doing here?
“What is he doing here?
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him?
Or you could whine about Dr Spencer, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your ignorance.
It’s amusing to see how much ignoramus Robertson can rely on Wiki when it fits his egomaniacal narrative, and how quickly he discredits and denigrated the very same Wiki when it doesn’t.
Gordon,
“The point you are missing is that sub-atomic particles exist within an atom.”
Nope, it is you Gordon, that is missing the point.
Sub-atomic particles are particles that are smaller than an atom.
They can exist within an atom, like protons, neutrons, electrons, or quarks.
Or they can exist outside an atom, like protons, neutrons, electrons, positrons, or photons.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Davos, Jakobshorn, June 23,2024
https://www.davos.ch/informieren/news-aktuelles/livecams
Jakobshorn Davos – 2562 (!) meter
*
Snow depths
Last 48h: 3 cm
Today: 1 cm
Forecast next 8 days: 0 cm
https://www.skigebiete-test.de/schneehoehe/skigebiet/jakobshorn-davos.html
*
Temperatures there
Today: min -1 / max +5 C
Tomorrow: min +4 / max +11 C
and so on for a week:
https://www.skigebiete-test.de/wetter/skigebiet/jakobshorn-davos.html
*
Typical coolista alarmism… 100% grrrand coooling aaahead!
We now wait for Robertson’s next utter nonsense a la
” … definitely a sign of the global cooling we have been expecting. ”
Brain damage through Canadian Mist excess, probably…
Have a chill pill!
” Have a chill pill! ”
You’d never have written that if Palmowski was a warmista and I’d have posted the same comment – but the other way ’round.
The threat of tropical storms in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico is increasing due to highs over the cool eastern Pacific.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Thursday’s heat was enough to scorch new records into Prince Edward Island’s logbooks for a second day in a row.
New daily highs for June 20 were recorded at four weather reporting stations across P.E.I., according to data released Friday morning by Environment Canada.
Charlottetown was Thursday’s hot spot with a high of 32 C, besting the previous record of 28.5 C set in 2001.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-new-heat-records-june-20-1.7242740
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tropical storm over Mexico.
https://i.ibb.co/j8Yd1k3/goes16-ir-93-L-202406231607.gif
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
An expanding heat dome Sunday had 100 million people across 27 states on alert for extremely high temperatures coast to coast, including America’s two largest cities.
While Los Angeles is under a heat advisory with temperatures forecast to reach 90 to 100 degrees on Sunday, an extreme heat risk warning has been issued for New York City, where a daily high-temperature record that has stood for 136 years could be broken.
On June 23, 1888, the record high for New York City was 96 degrees, according to the National Weather Service.
https://news.yahoo.com/expanding-heat-dome-100-million-174200244.html
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
elliott…”I am filtering out the white noise, abuse and idiocy”.
***
White noise is your term and by using it, you make it clear you don’t understand white noise. White noise is random noise that has no form. What you refer to here as white noise has a definite form, excluding it from being any form of random noise.
You are one of the worst offenders when it comes to noise. You post inane drivel then refuse to back it when challenged. You have been challenged several times to offer your version of the GHE and all you come up with is the stock incorrect explanation from authority figures.
You’re also committing a stock no-no, being new on a site and trying to change things before understanding them. Things are not nearly as bad here as some are making them out to be.
Mr. Asshat has a knack for misunderstanding metaphors.
What is he doing here?
Why don’t you ask him? Too scared?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you keep misunderstanding speech acts.
Good to know. Thanks.
being new on a site and trying to change things before understanding them.
I was on this blog long before you, sunshine.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
elliott…”Might I also point out that only an eejit could pretend that the deniers here support Dr. Roy. They deny everything he stands for”.
***
This reveals your abject ignorance of what is going on around here. I support both Roy and John Christy for their humanitarian views. Both have expressed concerns that people will suffer, especially the poor and disenfranchised, if the extreme view of alarmists come to fruition. Their message is that the climate models are exaggerating the situation and that it’s not as bad as models make it out to be.
John Christy taught school in Africa and he has seen first hand what damage a lack of fossil fuels can cause. He has also served on IPCC reviews both as a lead author and reviewer. John’s report on his experiences is not flattering to the IPCC, claiming many of the reviewers he encountered came to the reviews with their minds made up.
Alarmist scientists have reacted unfairly to UAH, trying to discredit UAH by various means. They have emphasized minor errors in satellite orbits that were fixed long ago. In the Climategate emails, Phil Jones, a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews, had bragged that he would block papers submitted by people like John Christy. Another IPCC CLA, Kevin Trenberth, went after a journal editor for publishing a paper co-authored by John Christy (maybe it was Roy), forcing the editor to resign. In the same emails, uber-alarmist Michael Mann is seen to be interfering with peer review. He verbally assaulted a female scientist, using misogynist inferences, because she changed sides from alarmist to skeptic.
If that’s the chicanery you support, say no more, you are a friggin ijit. Poster you refer to as deniers are denying nothing. All of us admit the planet has warmed about 1C since 1850, we differ only in the cause. We do deny that the warming has come from anthropogenic sources and claim it is a natural re-warming from the 400+ year Little Ice Age that ended in 1850.
None of us deny that climates can change, what we deny is that all climate are changing unilaterally based on a 1C warming over 170 years. There is simply no proof that all climate in the plant are changing based on the evidence of average-weather over 30 years.
In other words, all we are denying is propaganda projected by climate alarmists. We are not denying any science based on the scientific method. That is the arrogance of climate alarmists, that their propaganda is science and any disagreement with it is denial.
Some of us deny there is a GHE based on a real greenhouse. Why would anyone name such an effect after a real greenhouse if there is no evidence of a similarity between the two? We skeptics have supplied plenty of evidence to refute such a similarity whereas you alarmists have supplied no convincing evidence to support your argument.
Roy disagrees with our stance on the GHE but that is fair since he has presented his view scientifically. All you alarmists present are the theories of authority figures. You fail to grasp the science alleged to support it.
If you offered a theory to support the GHE and it held water scientifically, I would have no axe to grind. However, you offer no arguments that cannot be defeated easily.
Mr. Asshat denies the greenhouse effect. That makes him a crank. A Sky Dragon crank.
Roy asked these cranks to go away. Mr. Asshat stayed.
What is he doing here?
Worried Wee Willy,
You asked “What is he doing here?”
Why dont you ask him? Still trying to manipulate Dr Spencer into doing your bidding?
Maybe you could threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. Would that work, do you think?
[laughing at ineffectual wannabe social engineer]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares what you think, among other reasons because you decided to return under many sock puppets over the years.
Thanks.
You deny the very existence of the greenhouse effect. That is science-denial, which places you in square opposition to Dr. Roy.
“That is science-denial, which places you in square opposition to Dr. Roy.”
Good to know, if completely witless. Are you seriously claiming that something which you refuse to describe, exists? I dont even accept the existence of unicorns, even though descriptions of those exist! Do you?
Have you communicated your thoughts to Dr Spencer, or do you think he may be aware of my opinions? He might even be more intelligent than you think, and be capable of thinking for himself.
My opinion is that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, both gullible and ignorant. Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
Or refuse to show that you are not just ignorant and gullible!
You can’t really blame me for laughing, can you?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your diversions.
Hells, I can’t even see his diversions.
EB,
“Hells, I cant even see his diversions.”
Pleased to hear it.
Why would anyone name such an effect after a real greenhouse if there is no evidence of a similarity between the two?
It’s a metaphor, you cretin. It was used in that form decades before deniers came along and started applying legalistic objections to mere language.
EB,
Ah, I see, naming something that you refuse to describe “the greenhouse effect” is just a metaphor for cretins, is it?
NASA don’t seem to have received your opinion, and write –
“As you might expect from the name, the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse!”
The IPCC are similarly cretinous, and believe –
“The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet”.
It seems that a greenhouse is related to the greenhouse either as a metaphor, an analogy, or an example. Exceptionally clever! Who could possibly deny it is one of those?
You’ve picked the metaphor, so NASA and the IPCC need to rethink their opinions, I suppose. Only joking, nobody is likely to value the opinion of an ignorant and gullible donkey like you, are they?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you pretend to see.
Willard, are you really that obsessed with nobody?
Is that nobody at all, or nobody in general?
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
Does anybody care about your mind probing?
No, nobody does.
(Nobody cares about your incorrect square brackets either.)
A very accurate and thoughtful and sensible assessment!
“Roy asked these cranks to go away. Mr. Asshat stayed.”
“Roy” doesnt seem to mind why do you? Don’t you respect Dr Spencer’s decision?
You’re an idiot.
He does mind. He just gave up trying to keep you and your sock puppets out.
John W,
Ah, so you imply he is feeble-minded, and lacking in will, do you?
That’s a pretty pathetic attempt at social engineering, isn’t it?
Oh dear, Dr Spencer not doing as you wish? What a pity! Accept reality.
There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you’re asking these silly questions as if you felt like a bully pushing your fingers on your victims’ chests.
Good to know. Thanks.
john w…”you are not here with Roys best interests at heart. You and your friends are tro+lls who are clearly exploiting this blogs lenient moderation. If science truly matters to you, I challenge you to comment at WUWT or Climate Etc. in the exact same manner you do here”.
***
I have been here for a long time and I have seen why Roy bans posters. He does have a high level of tolerance and what it takes is generally someone who disrespects his position in the academic community and challenges him in an insulting manner. I don’t blame him in the least for taking that position.
I am not exploiting anyone, when I post ad homs or insults I generally explain my position scientifically. In fact, I have never seen a skeptic go after anyone for the sake of it. When I first came here, there was a rivalry between alarmists and skeptics but it had a lower tone to it. More recently, we have been getting agitators like wee willy who get some kind of perverted pleasure from stalking posters and harassing them.
A clarification on that. I don’t reply to wee willy to ad hom him or insult him. I do it because he posts to lure posters in to replying to him. Then he goes after them. I reply because people who read his drivel should have an alternate view. However, wee willy cannot respond with science so he has to resort to mindless drivel.
WUWT is far too tame for me, basically because it is far too restrictive. At one point, Anthony was banning people for disputing the 2nd law. Well known skeptic, Fred Singer, took skeptics to task for claiming the GHE contradicted the 2nd law. Fred had it wrong, we were not disputing the GHE, it is AGW that contradicts the 2nd law. You simply cannot have heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that produced the energy in the first place. Besides a contradiction of the 2nd law that represents a recycling of heat to increase the heat quantity.
I have spent countless hours reading Clausius and the 2nd law and he made it clear that heat cannot be transferred, ***BY ITS OWN MEANS*** from cold to hot. He specifically claimed that a heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. I have followed his reasoning as he developed it using heat engines. Any arguments I have seen that allows a heat transfer cold to hot relies on thought-experiments, or a redefinition of the 2nd law that is based on net energy, or that accepts radiation as heat.
What you find at WUWT and Climate Etc is a form of intellectual bullying where certain people set themselves up as authorities that cannot be questioned. I could hold my own with any of them but I prefer the atmosphere here on Roy’s site where anyone with a valid scientific theory can present it without fear of it being rejected.
The best way to counter intellectual bullying is to present an argument that cannot be refuted. However, some intellectuals don’t take kindly to being proved wrong and they retaliate by banning people.
There is nothing new to that. Over the years, scientists have set up paradigms that must be accepted at the risk of being ostracized. That is not the way science should be done.
I have spent countless hours reading Clausius and the 2nd law and he made it clear that heat cannot be transferred, ***BY ITS OWN MEANS*** from cold to hot. He specifically claimed that a heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law.
Yet you consistently refuse to understand that the 2nd Law operates on average, for net heat flows. Back-radiation from the GHE does not reverse net flow, so there is no problem for the 2nd Law. It merely returns some of the radiant heat, thus reducing the bet outflow of heat from the lower atmosphere.
Your denials are ideological in nature, not technical, as this difference is so trivial to understand that and high-school student could grasp it.
Erratum: Any high-school student.
Erratum: Net heat outflow. Grr. We need an edit or delete function.
“It merely returns some of the radiant heat, thus reducing the bet outflow of heat from the lower atmosphere.”
Reducing the outflow of heat is called cooling, not heating. A polished silver teapot reduces the rate at which the hot tea cools. The tea still cools. You can reduce the outflow further by using a tea cosy.
If you want to reduce the outflow even further, you can put tea, teapot, tea cosy and all in a Dewar flask. The tea still cools.
The Earth is cooling slowly, but inexorably. It is cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
You can keep refusing to describe the GHE which you imply exists, without actually saying so.
I don’t blame you – you are too gutless to admit that you cannot find a GHE description which agrees with fact.
Carry on saying nothing, donkey – that way, at least, nobody can prove you wrong, can they?
[hee-haw]
Sorry Elliott, but there is no such thing as “net heat flow”. You’re confusing “heat” with “energy”. “Heat” is defined as the flow of energy from “hot” to “cold”, so “heat” only flows one way. The radiant energy that moves from “cold” to “hot” is NOT “heat”. That energy is unable to raise the temperature of the “hot”.
Your cult does not understand thermodynamics and radiative physics.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
John W (in a fit of insanity) wrote elsewhere –
“This slows the rate at which energy escapes to space and adds extra energy to the Earths surface, beyond what it would receive from solar radiation alone.”, trying to describe the GHE (and failing miserably).
Absolute and complete nonsense, if he is trying to imply the existence of a GHE making the planet hotter.
Yes, the atmosphere slows the rate at which solar energy reaches the surface, even preventing about 30% even reaching the surface), but the surface still reacts to the sunlight by getting hotter in general. Unfortunately, even with 6 months of continuous sunlight, Antarctic polar temperatures rarely rise above freezing. Sunlight doesn’t add, or accumulate.
And at night, all the heat of the day is lost to outer space, resulting in falling temperatures overnight.
No “extra energy” from anywhere. John W allows his fantasy to overcome reality, making him look like another fanatical GHE cultist – both ignorant and gullible.
As a matter of fact, the Earth’s surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, whether reality denying fantasists like John W want to believe it or not.
There is no GHE. Even its most ardent supporters refuse to provide a valid description, due to fear of being laughed at.
“In gases, heat transfer occurs through collisions of gas molecules with one another. In the absence of convection, which relates to a moving fluid or gas phase, thermal conduction through a gas phase is highly dependent on the composition and pressure of this phase, and in particular, the mean free path of gas molecules relative to the size of the gas gap, as given by the Knudsen number.”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.pngYou can see from the graphic that the average height of the troposphere above the equator is only 13 km, with a maximum pressure of 100 hPa.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Gases, like anything else, lose heat by radiation. Apparently not a well known fact, but true nevertheless.
Allowed to do so, gases will radiate energy, and get colder, all the way to absolute zero.
Gases, like all matter, lose energy by the emission of photons from electrons.
That’s it – no more, no less (apart from nuclear processes).
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you keep repeating trivial stuff.
Thanks.
Actually, this part is not trivial, but it is wrong.
“Allowed to do so, gases will radiate energy, and get colder, all the way to absolute zero.”
Getting near absolute zero is rather difficult.
Some light reading:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-temperatures-clos/
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Bill Nye, The Science Guy, has a new job as a comedian. Someone should tell him that he looks silly:
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/extreme-weather-us-beginning-new-normal-bill-nye-111348454
I just submitted Version 0.1.0 of the extension for review. When it’s up, it will give you inline images in place of just text links and a usage histogram at the bottom showing who is taking up all the bandwidth.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
In summary, air is a good insulator due to its low thermal capacity and low thermal conductivity. Its low thermal capacity is due to its classification as a fluid and the mean free path of its molecules. Additionally, the specific heat capacity of air is lower for gases with more massive molecules. Convection is another mechanism for heat transfer in gases, where the heat capacity may play a role.
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-make-air-a-good-insulator.599036/
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2023.png
Ren,
Air is a shocking insulator. There’s maybe 100 km above you at present, but you’ll burn in sunlight, and freeze at night in the desert.
Most radiation passes through air without much attenuation – visible light and IR (getting heated by sunlight) are obvious examples.
About 30% of solar radiation is reflected by the atmosphere, including suspended particulate matter. Gaseous reflection. Is noted with coloured gases eg chlorine, reflecting visible yellow/green. IR reflection can be a problem, with IR mirages affecting IR (thermal) imaging devices fitted to firearms.
It can get quite complicated quite quickly.
If CO2 absorbs 100 units of IR, then emits 50 units as “back-radiation” has it “reflected” the IR? It only transmitted 50 units in the “forward” direction, so the other 50 units can be considered as diffuse “reflection” – and why not?
In practical terms, it doesn’t matter – about 30% of insolation doesnt reach the surface. Call it what you like.
Still no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you unknowingly describe the greenhouse effect.
” … and IR (getting heated by sunlight) … ”
Excellent, outstanding, non plus ultra.
Flynnson at his very best.
Apparently, denial always makes you a little more intelligent than the rest of the world.
Since air is an excellent insulator, the temperature in the troposphere can only rise significantly by conduction and convection.
The cooling of the troposphere is one prediction that corroborates the greenhouse effect.
Silly willy believes his bogus GHE cools the troposphere!
When the cult children get that confused, there’s no way to help them….
Palmowski
” Since air is an excellent insulator, the temperature in the troposphere can only rise significantly by conduction and convection. ”
Here you show you absolute lack of knowledge.
What you in fact should have written is this:
Since air is an excellent insulator, the temperature in the troposphere can NOT rise by conduction.
Without temperature increase at the surface, no convection can take place, as it requests warm air at the surface being exchanged with cold air above.
*
In fact, effective convection takes only place above rain forests and ocean surfaces in the Tropics, due to what is termed evapotranspiration.
So gliders above ploughed fields only happen around the Equator.
https://airexperiences.co.uk/gliding/gliding-your-questions-answered/
“darker areas of ground such as built-up areas and brown ploughed fields produce stronger thermals, because they absorb more heat and therefore warm the air more.”
“Glider pilots gain altitude by circling over a large plowed field because a plowed area gives off heat. Heat rises so the glider takes advantage of that to gain altitude.”
Puffman still believes that non-radiative gases shoot cold rays down the Earth!
Silly sock puppet.
As always, Blindsley H00d compares what is not comparable, e.g. small fields with rain forests.
Well done, median genius!
In the troposphere only conduction (starting from the surface) and pressure-dependent convection (air density), in the stratosphere only radiation.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
Oh no. Small fields cause convection. Who knew?
“Well done, median genius!”
That’s statistician to you.
” That’s statistician to you. ”
You, a statistician, Blindsley H00d?
You are not even able to generate a correct median-based time series:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1674903
Are you saying that
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/uah-global.jpeg
is not correct?
” Are you saying that
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/uah-global.jpeg
is not correct? ”
YES.
*
As it seems, you did not understand what I wrote upthread, or simply ignored it:
Moreover, a comparison of your cascaded mean and median time series with those I showed above
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTXSx8fYuMUsQVio9V71vOBbD-kf-pnP/view
lets me question the correctness of your median time series.
Because while our cascaded triple Pratt means (the green plots) perfectly match, your red median plot does not at all look like mine.
But… exactly like all computation steps in my mean cascade are based on Excels AVERAGE function, all computation steps in my median cascade are based on its MEDIAN function.
The cascade sequences are identical and are 100% derived from Goodmans 2014 Excel example anyone can find on his blog.
I’m with RLH on this.
Conduction from surfaces warmed by sunlight warms the air above it. The body of warm air then convects.
What breaks away first is a turbulent mass of air, followed by a continuous flow of air, a stalk. The result resemble an invisible nuclear mushroom cloud.
If there is a breeze, the stalk breaks free of the ground source and the whole thermal rises until it reaches the condensation level and usually cools to the temperature of the air around it. It forms a curious cloud. Occasionally it continues to convect, fuelled by latent heat of vapourisation , and becomes a cumulonimbus.
How do I know? I’ve ridden thermals in gliders. If you catch one newly released it is quite extensive and can be very turbulent. If you fly into the stalk it is much narrower with a faster rising core giving climb rates of several knots.
Entropic man on June 24, 2024 at 3:22 PM
” Im with RLH on this.
Conduction from surfaces warmed by sunlight warms the air above it. The body of warm air then convects. ”
Sure.
But you made the same mistake as Blindsley H00d (‘RLH’ 4u).
I’m not speaking about microscopic effects but on worldwide ones.
Convection is just moving fluid from one place to another, against the force of gravity.
The fluid cools by radiation. Emission of photons by electrons.
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
“Because while our cascaded triple Pratt means (the green plots) perfectly match, your red median plot does not at all look like mine.”
Could it be that the red line instead shows a cascaded triple Pratt median instead? (i.e. the only difference is that one use a mean and one uses a median).
Blinny thinks that large effects are not related to small ones.
Blindsley H00d
” Could it be that the red line instead shows a cascaded triple Pratt median instead? (i.e. the only difference is that one use a mean and one uses a median). ”
As usual, a vague assumption instead of clear, committing words.
Which red line do you mean, Blindsley H00d?
Yours or mine?
*
My red line is a cascaded triple Pratt median.
My mean and median cascades are computed a la Greg Goodman
– following exactly the same Pratt specifications (implying, for centred running averages – mean or median – asymmetric front and rear subwindows in case of even window sizes, e.g. 6 at front resp. 5 at rear for a 12 sized window, as opposed to 19 resp. 19 for a 39 sized window);
– through exactly the same cell specifications on all colums and rows of the consecutive cascade columns, the only difference being the function to be executed by the spreadsheet calculator (AVERAGE vs. MEDIAN).
*
This ensures an identical computation of means and medians for time series.
*
I hope that
– you can be as specific as I am, and
– above all, accept my description correct.
Blindsley H00d
” Blinny thinks that large effects are not related to small ones. ”
*
The blind person here: that’s you with your usual, incompetent and polemic tones.
Because of course I don’t think like that, as I know that large effects inevitably are the average (no matter here whether mean or median) of small ones.
*
What you don’t understand is that you are here ‘robertsoning’ instead of reasoning: Robertson (and Simpleton Hogle as well) namely think for example that
– one very unusual, local station measurement with -10 C near Vancouver in October 2023 can very well matter more than the average of the UAH 2.5 degree grid cell encompassing the city
and hence that
– this very local temperature contradicts the warming indicated by both GHCN daily surface station temperature measurements and UAH satellite microwave soundings for the same cell:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVI6cFMxkr6V838aPv5FVYbnhluNwE8M/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i6noE4x5yOq3EGTY8MqhEsPa_2Yi1RHM/view
*
Feel free to think like them: you’ll be in best ‘compagnie’.
Swenson,
“If CO2 absorbs 100 units of IR, then emits 50 units as back-radiation has it reflected the IR? It only transmitted 50 units in the forward direction, so the other 50 units can be considered as diffuse reflection and why not?”
Well, it doesn’t work that way, not surprised you get it wrong.
If it absorbs 100 units of IR, it transfers 99 plus units of IR energy to the other molecules and atoms in the atmosphere, there is very little back-radiation.
Because it’s not reflection, that’s why.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2022.png
On all planets with fairly dense atmospheres, the tropopause with the lowest temperature is at about 100 hPa (0.1 bar). You can see from this how thin the Earth’s troposphere is. Convection and cloud weather operate up to this level.
Bindidon
I must have come late to the conversation. Based on my own experience:-
1) Convection is a real effect. You can observe it, measure it and experience it.
2) The temperature differences are small and convection is localised and intermittent. Convection is probably a small percentage of the total energy loss from the surface.
“Convection is probably a small percentage of the total energy loss from the surface.”
Evidence (from chrome water radiators) show this to be incorrect.
Shula’s Pirani gauge info confirms it is incorrect. According to Shula, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing surface heat than radiation.
Gordo still can’t understand how the Pirani gauge works. The sensing wire is usually gold plated, thus has a very low emissivity, so it’s no surprise that the IR radiation emitted from said wire is very, very small.
“thus has a very low emissivity”
Yet the wire has no problem getting rid of energy. I wonder how?
“Shulas Pirani gauge info confirms it is incorrect. According to Shula, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing surface heat than radiation.”
Yes, but in the vacuum conditions where one would use a Pirani gage, there is very little convection or conduction, and the current measured by the gage is proportional to the vacuum.
“Yet the wire has no problem getting rid of energy. I wonder how?”
Still by radiation, the only way it can get rid of energy.
“by radiation, the only way it can get rid of energy.”
Except by convection which the Pirani gauge measures.
“in the vacuum condition”
which a Pirani gauge is not used in.
Of course chrome water bathroom radiators and towel bars (which also have significant convection) don’t operate in a vacuum.
“As gas molecules collide with the filament wire, heat is transported from the hot wire. The heat loss is a function of the gas pressure” No vacuum. Gas molecules.
“in the {near} vacuum conditions”
“Typically, chrome radiators and chrome heated towel rails emit between 20 and 30% less heat than radiators with paint finishes”
https://www.bestheating.com/info/why-do-chrome-radiators-have-a-lower-heat-output
RLH,
“Except by convection which the Pirani gauge measures.”
“which a Pirani gauge is not used in.”
From Wikipedia
“The Pirani gauge is a robust thermal conductivity gauge used for the measurement of the pressures in vacuum systems.[1] It was invented in 1906 by Marcello Pirani.[2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirani_gauge
I spent a fair amount of time watching a computer screen, monitoring the a Cyclotron, and one of the important things to monitor was the Cyclotron vacuum which was measured by a series of gauges, an electronic pressure gauge, a Penning gauge, or a Pirani gauge, depending on the pressure level.
The Pirani gauge showed the pressure of the Cyclotron vacuum under operating conditions, both with beam on and beam off.
Beam off, expected pressure was 10^-7 mtorr, while beam on pressure was in the range of 10^-5 mtorr.
Not much conduction or convection at those pressures.
Stick to statistics which you know little about, rather than things you know nothing about.
“The Pirani gauge is a robust thermal conductivity gauge used for the measurement of the pressures in {near} vacuum systems!” Who knew your quote was wrong?
They are even used down to atmospheric regions!, 1000 mb according to the manufacturers.
“Measurement range (air, O2, CO, N2) 510-4 1000 mbar ”
https://www.lesker.com/newweb/gauges/pdf/kjlc-piranigauge-manual.pdf
More accurate as it get near to 1000mb too!
I’m sorry that should be
“Measurement range (air, O2, CO, N2) 5*10-4 to 1000 mbar”
Damn parser!
bobdroege
” Stick to statistics which you know little about, rather than things you know nothing about. ”
Blindsley H00d (RLH 4u) knows NOTHING about statistics. He wrote once on the blog: ‘ I learned statistics’.
However, there was never any evidence of this ominous learning process.
He simply publishes small pieces of text that he finds in online textbooks or articles about statistics.
By the way: I also know NOTHING about statistics, but would never claim that I do.
“I also know NOTHING about statistics”
says Blinny. No surprise there. I was taught simple statistics as part of my MSc.
[BOB] Stick to statistics which you know little about, rather than things you know nothing about.
[RICHARD] says Blinny. No surprise there. I was taught simple statistics as part of my MSc.
So Willard, what is your reasoning for chrome radiators having so much energy dissipated by convection? Or do you just claim such things are not possible?
Because hot air rises.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
(Reuters) – More than 100 million people across the U.S. were under heat warnings on Sunday, with cities on the East Coast bracing for record-breaking temperatures as the heat dome causing the dangerous conditions expands to the West Coast.
Baltimore and Philadelphia are forecast to touch records near 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) on Sunday, while temperatures rise into the 90s F in states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, as much as 15 degrees above normal for this time of year. The extreme heat will then shift to Nebraska and Kansas on Monday, the National Weather Service (NWS) said.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/severe/heat-wave-scorches-us-east-coast-as-dangerous-temperatures-expand-to-west
Weather. Move along folks, don’t feed the trohls.
Mr. Asshat wants his cake and eat it too.
That’s what he’s doing here.
Hang on there, Willard.
You asked –
“What is he doing here?”, and then, like the idiot troll you are, you answer yourself “Thats what hes doing here.”
Not looking too clever, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares to wait for you.
Thanks,
Out of curiosity, I looked up a few historical weather outlets in the US. All of them are playing the same game, they have cut off the historical record so it excludes the 1930s, which had the most heat waves in North American history.
Mr. Asshat almost threatens to do some work.
It would be irrelevant work, but it would do him good.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
This the ‘no warming’ forecast in Irak for Friday, July 5:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240705&daytime=day&iid=IQ
Basrah: 50 C
Does anyone want to call me an alarmist just for pointing something like this out?
No problem for me.
It is spelled Iraq in English.
Technically, it ought to be Iraq in German, too. The Q is a transliteration for the Arabic letter qaaf, which has no exact counterpart in any European language of which I am aware. But German media insist on calling it Irak.
Elliott Bignell
Exactly.
No one would call you an alarmist for presenting a fact based on temperature. However, when coupled with your history as an uber-alarmist, one would be entitled to call you an alarmist since you are obviously promoting the 50C as a product of anthropogenic warming.
Mr. Asshat can’t write three sentences without saying stuff or contradicting himself twice.
What is he doing here?
“What is he doing here?”
I don’t know. Why don’t you make at least a tiny effort to find out?
Because you are just trolling, that’s why.
Carry on,
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you’re doing here.
Once again, you boast about representing nobody.
Strange, very strange.
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if it took you one month to get the point.
You will still ignore it.
Thank nobody.
Continued cooling of the eastern North Pacific and increased convection in the Gulf of Mexico.
https://i.ibb.co/M16JJKV/Screenshot-2024-06-24-07-37-01.gif
What does your
” Continued cooling of the eastern North Pacific … ”
have to do with a chart made about a few hours of precipitable water information?
Ren is obviously referencing a past claim.
Ren is obviously clinging to the tiny bits that are not burning in Conus.
Wonky Wee Willy,
As the IPCC acknowledges, the atmosphere acts chaotically.
End of story.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly implications.
Excellent. You speak on behalf of nobody. I can live with that.
[snigger]
Nate,
“Sorry Christos, the Earth simply is not abs.orbing only 112 W/m2 of solar, on average. Nor is it emitting 112 W/m2 of IR, on average
Both of these are ~ 238 W/m2.
You cannot go on simply ignoring these huge discrepancies between observations and your theory!”
What observations?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/outgoing-longwave-radiation-monthly
ent…from your link…
“The monthly Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) Climate Data Record (CDR) measures the amount of terrestrial radiation released into space, as well as the amount of cloud cover and water vapor that intercepts that radiation in the atmosphere.
…The final record was developed through a combination of statistical techniques, including OLR regression, instrument ambient temperature prediction coefficients, and inter-satellite bias corrections”.
***
Firstly, note that the water vapour spectrum and the water spectrum of clouds overlies the CO2 spectrum, hence WV absorb a lot of the same radiation as CO2. Therefore the radiation received by the sats cannot tell which is which.
Secondly, they admit the final numbers are based on statistical guesses and prediction. In other words, models.
Thirdly, the instruments on the sats are not capable of measuring the full bandwidth of the IR spectrum. That’s where th fudging comes in re statistics and predictions.
> WV absorb a lot of the same radiation as CO2
Asserts a crank who denies the greenhouse effect, no less.
There is no GHE.
All gases absorb and emit IR.
The Earth is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago.
What is the mythical GHE supposed to do? You refuse to say, and I don’t blame you.
You’re in denial of reality.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you’re trying to cover for Mr. Asshat’s contradictions.
Good to know. Thanks.
Note the range from 140 W/m^2 to 320 W/m^2.
Your 112 W/m^2 is way below the minimum for the observed monthly average.
EM,
Irrelevant and erroneous measurements are worthless.
It’s a matter of observation that the Earth is considerably cooler than it was four and a half million years ago.
Therefore, the Earth emits more energy than it receives.
Any calculations showing otherwise are wrong.
There is no GHE. “Surface” thermometers are responding to man-made heat – unless you can provide a better explanation, backed up by reproducible experiment.
And you can’t.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly proclamations.
I know you are desperate to be liked but you have it backwards. No one is interested in what you have to say. In fact, no one is interested in what I have to say, and I am sure you’ll cherry pick that to use as an ad hom. However, I put information in scientific terms and apparently the science troubles certain people and they feel a need to respond.
Swenson asks a simple question…prove the GHE exists, and that troubles a lot of people because they can’t prove it.
“Nobody cares about your silly proclamations.”
That’s good to know. Thank nobody for me.
> no one is interested in what I have to say
Mr. Asshat has a moment of lucidity.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you’re PSTering like Graham D. Warner.
Speaking for nobody, as usual?
Good to know.
troubleshooting…
binny…”Since air is an excellent insulator, the temperature in the troposphere can NOT rise by conduction.
Without temperature increase at the surface, no convection can take place, as it requests warm air at the surface being exchanged with cold air above”.
***
The insulation qualities of air resist conduction through the air but they do not prevent absor.p.tion of heat at a surface in contact with the air. Therefore there is a temperature increase of air at the contact surface.
As that air rises (convection), colder air from aloft rushes into replace it. It warms due to conduction and the cycle repeats.
As Shula points out, there are something like 10^27 air molecules per square metre in contact with the surface. Each one can absorb heat and as it collides with adjacent molecules and those above, that entire layer of air can warm, and rise as convection.
Obviously, this is a continuous process as glider pilots know. The air rises in continuous volumes as thermals.
If the molecules in contact with the surface warmed and stayed and did not rise, a stasis would be formed that prevented further heat transfer. Lindzen estimated that in such a condition, surface temperatures would rise to 70C. However, convection carries the heated molecules aloft in bulk and cooler air from above replaces it.
A note to anyone having trouble posting. The post above failed due to the word absorp.tion (without the dot). After failure, and correcting the error, it failed to post. Breaking it into two parts solved that, it posted fine.
gordon, are you clogging the blog because your therapist recommended it?
Or are you on the loose without your medication, again?
Gordo wrote:
Not exactly. Air at the surface warms and becomes less dense than the surrounding air. Adding water vapor also reduces the density of the warm air mass. The cooler air nearby flows under the warmer air mass and the cooler air lifts the warmed parcel upwards. As the warmer air rises, it tends to expand and mix with the surrounding air, reducing the parcel’s temperature. When cooling reaches the dew point of the parcel, the water vapor begins to condense, releasing latent heat into the parcel. This leads to a further decrease in density, etc. When all the water vapor is condensed (or frozen) the process runs out of steam and the parcel stops rising, often at the Tropopause.
To really explain the entire process, one must also include the effects of the greenhouse gasses which both absorb and emit. To do that, one must use a model of some sort, not just hand waving and BS.
swannie…”To do that, one must use a model of some sort, not just hand waving and BS”.
***
According to Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics, there is no way to track radiation through the atmosphere, even though alarmists represent it as a straight-line photon to photon process. G&T claim Feynman diagrams would be required.
There is also no way a model can be used to explain conduction/convection. Models are nothing more than hand-waving that has been sanctioned by consensus.
Swannie claims I am wrong by agreeing with me. As heated air rises it expands due to an increased average KE and since density is the number of molecules per unit volume, decreasing that number per unit volume, due to expansion, decreases air density. I agree that the descending cold air helps lift the heated mass by getting underneath it.
All in all, I don’t see what Swannie is disagreeing about, other than his claim that trace gases have a significant effect. He has not shown why they should.
Yet again, Clint opens his mouth and let’s his belly rumble. No science offered, just ad homs and insults. At least Swannie interspersed his insults with science.
It’s too bad that my posts are so far above Clint’s head that he is left speechless. But, hey, that’s the way of it.
Gordon,
“According to Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics, there is no way to track radiation through the atmosphere, . . .”.
They are obviously wrong. The Sun is visible, as are other celestial bodies. IR also travels through the atmosphere in straight lines. IR photos are taken from satellites, and stepping into a shadow cuts the IR from the Sun. A very small proportion of of the EM (light) spectrum is absorbed and reemitted by the atmosphere.
Maybe your authorities were talking about insignificant portions of the total energy involved involved in entering the system..
Still no GHE – the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
gordon, are you seeing a therapist?
You’re not deceiving anyone here. Even your neighbor, Ken, knows you’re a phony. You clog the blog with your opinions, that are mostly junk. Worse, you claim to be an electrical engineer, but you can’t even understand the convention for current flow. No wonder you flunked out….
Please get help, soon.
More whining from Clint who lacks the scientific understanding to reply intelligently.
Swenson trips over himself and finds a truffle.
“They are obviously wrong.”
I agree, gin and tonic are wrong.
They did not falsify the greenhouse effect.
“They did not falsify the greenhouse effect.” – because there is no “greenhouse effect” to falsify.
Like all GHE cultists, the IPCC, and every self-styled “climate scientist” in the universe, all point-blank refuse to describe the GHE. Why? Because they can’t (in any way which agrees with reality).
Delusional each and every one.
wee willy…”Mr. Asshat wants his cake and eat it too.
Thats what hes doing here”.
***
As Swenson has already astutely pointed out, you ask a dumb question then answer it with an equally dumb answer.
Furthermore, since I no longer eat cake, there is little point in wanting it while wanting to save it as well.
Mr. Asshat can’t even recognize that it’s not a question.
What is he doing here?
Don’t you know? Are you admitting that you are stupid, or boasting about it?
Questions, questions!
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you can’t recognize a rhetorical question even if that’s mostly what you’re doing here.
Cheers.
“Nobody cares if you cant recognize a rhetorical question even if thats mostly what youre doing here.”
Maybe you could try to explain what nobody knows? Nobody is making no sense at all!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly sealioning.
Thank nobody for me.
ren…”air is a good insulator due to its low thermal capacity and low thermal conductivity”.
***
The reason it’s a good insulator is the tremendous relative distances between molecules. However, it absorbs heat at a surface very well and it transfers heat very well via convection. That’s why air is a better dissipator of heat at the Earth’s surface than radiation. There are 10^27 molecules of air per square metre absorbing heat directly, then the absorbed heat is moved via rising air (convection).
swenson…G&T are not talking about radiation getting through the atmosphere, we all know it does. They are talking about tracking the path it takes.
“But it is misleading to visualize a photon as a simple particle or wave packet traveling from one atom to another for example. Things are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality or Feynman graph picture”.
Alarmist climate science claims a photon leaving the surface goes straight to a CO2 molecule or find its way directly to space. G&T claim it is not that simple, that describing the path of a photon requires complex Feynman diagrams to describe the path.
In other words, alarmist science is spooned out like pablum to a child. There is no intention of describing the actuality, they offer only generalities that best suit their pseudo-science.
For example, the GHE is modeled on a real greenhouse, otherwise why call it that? Lindzen admits the general GHE theory is far too simplistic to be viable. Problem is, their GHE theory is based on the anachronism that radiation is heat in a form that can travel through space or a vacuum. That was disproved long ago, but the theory is still presented as if IR trapped by glass is actually trapping heat.
Here is the full context of G&T’s statement re Feynman…P.12 of 115 of Falsification of the CO2 Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect…
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
“For instance in many calculations climatologists perform calculations where idealized black surfaces e.g. representing a CO2 layer and the ground, respectively, radiate against each other. In reality, we must consider a bulk problem, in which at concentrations of 300 ppmv at normal state still
(hope the formatting hold up)…
N ~ (3×10^-4). V.NL
~ (3×10^-4).(10×10^-6)^3. (2.687×10^25)
~ (3×10^4).(10^-15).(2.687x 10^25)
~ 8×10^6
CO2 molecules are distributed within a cube V with edge length 10um, a typical wavelength of the relevant infrared radiation. In this context an application of the formulas of cavity radiation is sheer nonsense.
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coeffients must be a highly involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic interactions mediated by the electromagnetic field. But it is misleading to visualize a photon as a simple particle or wave packet traveling from one atom to another for example. Things are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality or Feynman graph picture”.
Clint should learn this so he can understand what 10um means. Of course, anything beyond a sentence is too much for him to absorb in one sitting. After running to grab a Kleenex to mop up his nosebleed produced by more than one sentence, he might be ready for two sentences. But that might require a full box of Kleenexes.
What I’ve learned from gordon is that he has no knowledge of the science. He has claimed he is an engineer, but goes on to exhibit an ignorance of Heat, Energy, Photons, Entropy, Flux, Time, Gravity, Current Flow, S/B Law, 2LoT, WDL, IR Thermometers, Vectors, Orbital Motion, and Heat Sinks.
It’s no wonder he can’t convince anyone he’s an engineer. All he can do is clog the blog.
There is no GHE “theory”. G & T mention a IPCC “hypothesis” for the GHE, but you will notice that no description of the GHE Is mentioned anywhere. All implication and suggestion, with nothing definite to back it up.
G & T might just as well have quoted Feynman “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.
There is no GHE theory. There is no GHE.
So Gin and Tonic published a paper refuting the greenhouse effect, so there must have been something to refute.
Bereft bobby,
You wrote –
“So Gin and Tonic published a paper refuting the greenhouse effect, so there must have been something to refute.”, and as usual you are going to as unhelpful as you can, and refuse to describe what that vague “something” is, aren’t you?
There is no GHE theory. There is no GHE. You are in denial of reality.
Carry on being an idiot.
Swenson,
Are your English skills that bad?
Allright, just for you, I’ll rewrite that sentence.
“So Gin and Tonic published a paper refuting the greenhouse effect, so there must have been a greenhouse effect to refute.”
Maybe you should check out your local community college, or whatever they call it down there in your penal colony, and take a course or two in English, so fewer of us will think you are a bogan.
Gordon, and Gin and Tonic, if you are listening
“In this context an application of the formulas of cavity radiation is sheer nonsense.”
Of course that is nonsense, and it’s not what climatologists claim.
CO2 in the atmosphere is not acting like a blackbody or cavity radiation.
“But it is misleading to visualize a photon as a simple particle or wave packet traveling from one atom to another for example.”
How is that misleading, it’s actually a pretty good description of what is happening.
A photon is emitted from the surface and absorbed by the CO2 molecule in the atmosphere provided it has an acceptable energy.
Burbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Of course that is nonsense, and its not what climatologists claim.”
Climatologists are not all that foolish. They claim absolutely nothing that can be examined in any scientific way.
Rat cunning, but not very clever in the long term.
Like you, perhaps? Refusing to describe the GHE in any valid way? You can’t, of course, because there is no GHE – you just deny the reality that the Earth is cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. No GHE, you see. Just cooling.
Cooling.
Swenson,
“Climatologists are not all that foolish. They claim absolutely nothing that can be examined in any scientific way.”
Climatologists make a lot of claims that can be scientifically examined.
For one, the surface air temperature measured in stevenson screens show that Earth warms with increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
swenson…interesting subject. When we look at the sky overhead it appears blue. Sunlight should appear white but at best, it has a yellowish tinge. That is good evidence that all sunlight does not reach us directly. It gets through alright but it is scattered by the atmosphere, meaning it takes an indirect path.
That’s what G&T are getting at. The same should apply to IR leaving the surface, it must be scattered as well. Obviously, IR does no take a straight path to GHGs. Feynman diagrams would be required to describe the paths putting the problem into the field of electrodynamics, which is highly theoretical. He admitted that. No one knows what is going on but apparently the equations they have derived can be tested.
Gordon,
Looking at the Moon through a good telescope can provide very sharp pictures (to the limit of resolution), as can point images of distant stars. In other words, the light rays involved are at least travelling parallel to each other, not being diffused to any discernible degree on their path thought the atmosphere. A little of every wavelength is attenuated and absorbed.
I dont know what your authors are talking about, but it is certainly not true that all radiation is scattered by the atmosphere. Certainly, if the atmosphere was infinitely thick, all radiation would eventually be scattered and absorbed.
Im not sure why Feynman diagrams would be required. Primitive man observed celestial bodies (visible light) and sought shade from the Suns IR output when he became too hot.
Even stepping behind a pillar will cut the IR emitted by a large fire some distance away. The photons have to interact with electrons to change their path, otherwise they just proceed unaffected. Like photons from a colder body impinging on a warmer – the photons are unaffected. No interaction with matter, no energy transferred.
No GHE though. Regardless of the properties of the atmosphere, the Earth has demonstably cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
“Like photons from a colder body impinging on a warmer the photons are unaffected. No interaction with matter, no energy transferred.”
If you are correct most modern physics is wrong.
Please provide experimental evidence for your ground-breaking discovery
EM,
You wrote –
“If you are correct most modern physics is wrong.”
Only “most”? Which part remains unaffected? Can’t say? Won’t say?
Submerge a block of ice (which is emitting IR – all matter above absolute zero does) in hot soup. The IR photons from the ice do not interact with the soup, no energy transferred from the ice to the soup.. Prove me wrong if you feel like it.
That’s what the scientific method is all about. As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”. Einstein agrees with me, which makes him a smart fellow.
In any case, the Earth is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago, if you were trying to imply that a colder atmosphere can transfer energy to a hotter surface, and make it even hotter.
That would be about as silly as expecting the IR radiation from ice to make soup hotter, wouldn’t it? Go on, prove I’m wrong, O denier of reality!
Swenson,
“Prove me wrong if you feel like it.”
The radiative heat transfer equation proves you wrong, no need for me to do that.
Q = εσA1-2(T1^4 −T2^4) [J/s]
Two bodies that radiate towards each other have a net heat flux between them, given by the above equation.
That equation is just more evidence the cult does not understand the science. That equation has no value. Different fluxes do not simply interact. It’s like subtract racting 12 elephants from 15 oranges. You can do the subtraction, but it has no meaning.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
What is ten dollars minus 245 cents?
Clint,
For once you are right, the fluxes do not interact with each other.
The fluxes only interact with the surfaces, determining the direction and amount of the heat transfer.
Your cargo cult does not understand the equation.
Sorry bob, but YOU are the cultist. You’re so blind to reality that you don’t even see you’re just like gordon — can’t learn and can’t stop spewing nonsense.
That equation has NO value. Fluxes don’t simply subtract because they are composed of photons and photons don’t simply subtract. Try subtracting a 10μ photon from a 15μ. What is your answer?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
What happens to your cubicle when you turn off the light of the room where you do your IT menial work?
Clint,
“That equation has NO value. Fluxes dont simply subtract because they are composed of photons and photons dont simply subtract. Try subtracting a 10μ photon from a 15μ. What is your answer?”
Photons don’t interact, so asking me to try subtracting one photon from another makes no sense.
The equation has value in determining the heat transfer, which you seem to have trouble understanding.
You see, the photons emitted from one surface are compared to the photons emitted from the other surface, that determines the heat transfer.
Go get your Quantum Physics textbook and take the plastic wrap off of it.
That’s where you should start, and then stop making up your own world of Physics.
Learn from those smarter than you.
bob, the reason you can’t subtract photons is the reason you can’t subtract fluxes, since fluxes are photons.
The equation has NO value in determining the heat transfer, since all flux is not “heat”. You’re having a lot of trouble with the basics because you have no understanding of the basics.
But, thanks for being such a good example of a cult child.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How come photon and flux are the same whence only flux has units?
Clint R
YOU: “That equation is just more evidence the cult does not understand the science. That equation has no value.”
I have asked you for evidence supporting you opinion. At this time you have offered zero (and you never will offer any as a cult minded poster that does not understand the difference between science and cults).
So you claim the equation has no value yet engineers involved in designing heat transfer equipment use it successfully. If it had not value, as you falsely believe, then no one in the field would use the equation. The reality that the equation is used is strong evidence you are as phony as you claim Gordon Robertson is.
You have never studied real science. You read a few blogs and think they are factual. You come here and insult most posters and make up wrong science ideas with zero evidence and make claims you can’t support.
Why do you think this is a wise thing to do with your time?
Clint,
You are right, flux is watts/meters^2, and flux is also (photons/second)/meters^2
Good one, I didn’t think of that.
Norman, thanks for quoting me correctly. Unfortunately, that was the only science in your whole comment. As I’ve explained to you before, insults and false accusations ain’t science.
But, you can’t learn.
Yes bob, fluxes consist of photons, as I’ve explained. That’s why you can’t simply add/subtract fluxes.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“The radiative heat transfer equation proves you wrong, no need for me to do that.”
No, the radiative heat transfer equation is not a reproducible experiment which demonstrates that immersing a block of ice in a bowl of soup will make the soup hotter.
The radiative heat transfer equation is an equation, and proves only that you do not understand the scientific method, as well as being in complete denial of reality.
You really dont know where the photons emitted by ice in the form of IR radiation go, do you?
Don’t worry, bobby, nor do any of the other fanatical GHE cultists, either. Those that do know cannot believe in a GHE.
Go on, ask any of your dimwitted fellow travellers. None of them know – they’ll twist, turn and squirm, and refuse to accept reality – just like you!
Clint R
Another flawed point you make. You claim, falsely, that I can’t learn. I have learned you don’t know anything about physics. You are similar to Gordon Robertson.
I also have learned you will never support or provide any evidence your endless opinions of how you think science should work.
No experiments, no reference, no textbooks. Just your opinions and insults over and over.
Norman,
And that’s why you refuse to describe the GHE, is it?
At least you have learned something.
Norman, you stalk me just like gordon does — birds of a feather….
And as I’ve explained to you before, your insults and false accusations ain’t science.
But, you can’t learn.
Clint R
Master of diversion. Why do you complain about insult when that is all you ever do in your posts?. You insult people on a continuous basis.
On the other point. I have asked you to explain why you for evidence to support you claim about the radiant heat transfer equation you do not accept. What is your foundation of this claim when engineers in the field use this equation (a more complex version but still this is a valid equation for many applications).
You do not provide evidence at all but go on a blah blah diversion.
I think most here know you will never provide any evidence for you opinions. You will insult and cry about it when the insults flow back to you. That is about all you do here. Insult and cry. You claim all science minded people are cult minded even though you are certainly a non-science cult mind. A science mind would provide evidence. You do not. You have these strange ideas of heat transfer and photons and flux that are as poorly thought out as Gordon’s ideas.
Norman, the more you behave like an impudent child, the more you prove me right.
Your insults and false accusations just prove you can’t learn. Keep proving me right — I can take it.
Swenson,
Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection, radiation, and phase transfer.
Adding an ice cube to a bowl of soup is not an example of heat transfer by radiation, that heat transfer by radiation from an ice cube to the soup, and the heat transfer by radiation from the soup to the ice cube is overwhelmed by the other three methods of heat transfer that happen when an ice cube is put in your bowl of Maypo.
“No, the radiative heat transfer equation is not a reproducible experiment which demonstrates that immersing a block of ice in a bowl of soup will make the soup hotter.”
Of course not, the radiative heat transfer equation is the result of reproducible experiments.
No one is claiming you can heat a bowl of soup by putting an ice cube in it.
Clint,
The equation does not “simply” add or subtract fluxes, it calculates the heat transfer between two objects.
The result of the equation is heat, not flux.
Wrong as usual, bob.
You’re confusing “heat” with “energy”. “Heat” does NOT flow both ways. “Heat” only flows from “hot” to “cold”.
You won’t be able to understand it because you can’t learn.
No shit Clint,
Heat is only on the left side of the equation, it’s the difference in two flows of energy.
You can’t understand it because it is above your paygrade.
It is called Rayleigh scattering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
Just one of many specific ways in which radiation can be scattered by the atmosphere.
Beware of trying to jump from specific forms of scattering such as Rayleigh scattering or the GHE to the behaviour of the whole atmosphere at all wavelengths.
EM,
You wrote –
“Beware of trying to jump from specific forms of scattering such as Rayleigh scattering or the GHE to the behaviour of the whole atmosphere at all wavelengths.”
Beware of nonsense such as that you just wrote. Which GHE are you talking about? You said “The GHE is a stack of blankets”, but now you claim the GHE is a photon scattering process?
All a bit odd. You see what happens if you say “The GHE is a stack of blankets”. You really have no choice but to refuse to describe this “GHE scattering”, otherwise you will look confused at best, and stupid at worst.
When photons from the Sun are “scattered” by your “stack of blankets”, what happens to a thermometer on the surface? You can’t or won’t say!
Not terribly clever, Entropic Man.
Carry on.
wee willy…aka modicus dickus…
“> no one is interested in what I have to say
Mr. Asshat has a moment of lucidity”.
***
This how pawthetic you are, I predicted you’d latch onto that bone I threw you, like a salivating dog.
Mr. Asshat has no business here.
Whack Wee Willy,
Have you appointed yourself Business Manager, now?
[derisive snort]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you appoint yourself jester of a court that would like you gone.
Silly sock puppet.
I’m glad nobody cares. Thanks.
GR – In fact, no one is interested in what I have to say
A glimmer of self-knowledge, after all. In that case, to pursue Willard’s point, what are you doing here? You’re manifestly out of your depth, and obviously deeply unpopular. I haven’t muted you yet because you’re at least sporadically courteous, but you have obviously never taken an interest in science and are unwilling to learn.
So why don’t you bugger off?
EB,
You write –
“I havent muted you yet” – because you are completely incapable of doing so, on this blog.
Saying “So why dont you bugger off?” invites a similar juvenile response – “Bite me!”.
You certainly seem to have delusions of grandeur, for an ignorant and gullible GHE cultist.
Keep refusing to accept reality.
Mike Dlynn,
Nobody cares if you not understand muting someone.
Good to know. Thanks.
[snicker]
Gordon Robertson’s only friend is Swenson.
Awwww, gee! You’re too nice!
I feel a tear starting to roll down my rosy cheek.
elliott…in case your addled brain missed it, I predicted this sort of response. It was so obvious. That’s your only come back to my scientific input, is an ad hom/insult.
You, A Swiss ijit, think you can come on this blog and tell me to buggar off? That’s the same mentality offered by the Swiss in WW II when they opted out of fighting the Nazis and jailed anyone in Draconian condition, who desperately escaped into Switzerland. You display a similar arrogance to the Nazis.
This blog got along fine before you appeared and we will get along fine if you leave. Please feel free to depart, and don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out.
GR – You claiming to provide scientific input and accusing someone else of using argumentum ad hominem is actually pretty funny. There’s that absence of self-knowledge again.
How about actually learning some thermodynamics, for instance, before pestering people with any more of your drivel?
Gordon,
A true Scotsman would come up with better insults.
Elliott, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
In our solar system we are very fortunate to have various types of planets and moons to compare.
There are planets with thin atmosphere, and there are planets with thick atmosphere, a very dense atmosphere.
An example of a thin atmosphere is the Earth’s.
An example of a thick and very dense atmosphere is the Venus’.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…the lie perpetuated by alarmists is that Earth will end up like Venus if we don’t get rid of fossil fuels. The father of climate alarm, James Hansen, former head of NASA GISS, used that scare tactic as the root of his ‘tipping point’ theory.
The theory was disproved in 1978 when the Pioneer probe went to Venus and found surface temperatures of 450C, far too hot to be the product of a greenhouse effect. That truth did not prevent Hansen from carrying on with his lie.
In the troposphere, areosols can directly absorb radiation from the sun. Most areosols contain a water molecule. At the top of the troposphere, thermal radiation occurs upward due to the sparse atmosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
No warming near the surface above the equator (10N-10S).
New version of the “Taderase” extension is online. It gives you embedded images in the posts and a histogram of user activity. Chromium-based browsers only so far.
Feel free to try it out on another blog. It won’t fly here, posters are inured to the current setup where posters are free to post.
If provided, I will enjoy the Firefox version.
I’ll be doing it for my own interest, because being able to write extensions is a potentially useful skill. If people use it and request features, all the better.
I might add that having the ability to mute two of the three stooges, plus some cosmetic changes I have made, add a great deal to my blogging pleasure.
That’s the difference between deniers and the technically literate. The denier arrives in Hell and declares that everyone is inured to the climate and that it is impossible to turn off the screams anyway. The technically-literate damned just gets down to installing air-conditioning and sound-proofing.
Elliott, maybe when you finish learning keyboarding, you can learn some science?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Long before President Joe Biden pushed for OSHA to develop a heat illness prevention rule, OSHA has understood heat as a hazard to workers – they created their first document for recommended heat standards back in 1972. Their webpage on heat exposure details how to spot heat illness and injuries, heat-related case studies from past OSHA investigations, and even updated criteria for a recommended heat standard for employers.
But that’s all it is: recommendations, guidance, suggestions. Unlike OSHAs work safety standards, such as respiratory protection or their hazard communication standard, none of the things OSHA lists on heat exposure are mandatory for employers to comply with until a final rule on heat is published.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/356217/osha-federal-workplace-heat-standard-protections
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If the decline in upper stratospheric ozone production continues, as evidenced on level 5 hPa drop in temperature, climate change will be greater than expected, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. It can be seen that the temperature in the upper stratosphere will decrease as solar activity decreases during the 25th cycle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
The zonal circulation in the Atlantic weakens as the solar wind speed decreases.
https://i.ibb.co/FHLkWrC/mimictpw-europe-latest-1.gif
https://i.ibb.co/N7n66mN/latest2day.png
Batteries are only efficient the faster their cycles of charging/discharging goes on.
If battery factories get seldom discharged to the 1/2 of their capacity the project never going to pay off the costs.
It is much better to backup the solar farms with fossil fuels burning electricity production. It is very much cheaper and it is the only perfectly balanced scheme.
Again, the fossil fuels burning does not pose any danger to global climate.
The global warming observed happens due to orbital forcing it is a millenials long slow warming trend.
The more planet Earth gets along that trend the faster the global average temperature rises. At the top of the Globe, at the Northern areas every year there is less sea ice cover.
Since the higher the latitude, the smaller the area is thus the advance of sea-ice melting is every year proportionally higher.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It seems storing a lot chemical energy could also be very dangerous.
And CO2 is plant food.
And knowing when next impactor hits Earth, is important.
Governments have spend trillion dollars to reduce Global CO2 levels and have not reduced global CO2 levels.
gb…and governments won’t make an impact on CO2 levels since anthropogenic CO2 accounts for only 4% of all CO2 production. Th other 96% comes from natural sources.
Let’s face it, this is not about reducing CO2 levels it’s about a small group pf eco-fascists trying to impose their Draconian beliefs on the rest.
–gband governments wont make an impact on CO2 levels since anthropogenic CO2 accounts for only 4% of all CO2 production. —
So, you saying, Governments have go to war against nature to lower global CO2 levels?
I just meant according to their faulty system of how they measure human CO2 emission, it is not lowering, this CO2 emission.
It seems to me that burning natural gas, makes less CO2 emission than burning dung and there could less dung being burnt in the world.
But government seem to want more dung being burnt, as could count as a renewable energy or something.
gb…CO2 smells a lot better than dung. I’m sure wee willy and elliott will find a way to turn that around against me, both being experts in dung.
Plenty of storage mechanisms which are not batteries.
Well, dam water could be counted as dangerous, I suppose.
US stored crude oil in salt mines, probably less dangerous than water dams.
But markets don’t tend to store energy or anything- as it’s expensive. And people do complain when their are shortages and higher prices as a consequent, the term used is price gouging, and want to make illegal:
“Is price gouging illegal in California? Yes, in certain circumstances. California’s anti-price gouging statute, Penal Code Section 396, prohibits raising the price of many consumer goods and services by more than 10% after an emergency has been declared.”
It seems the plan of global warming cult is to have a lot more “legal price gouging” or at least, that’s what has been happening.
elliott…are you talking about storage of electrical energy? There is no other viable electrical energy storage facility than batteries.
“Plenty of storage mechanisms which are not batteries.”
Plenty of things are wet which are not water.
Gordon,
The solution to flat batteries is to tow a 350 kW power plant behind your EV, so that you don’t have to worry about public chargers.
The power plant can be solar powered, or use a wind turbine which will produce power as the vehicle moves forward. Other power can be generated by alternators built into the wheels of the power plant trailer, which will provide power as the wheels are turned by the EV tow vehicle. Some sort of constant speed (best efficiency) turbo diesel can be used as backup.
Completely ridiculous of course, Im only joking.. EVs have their place, and so do ICE vehicles.
Hybrid sounds like the best of both worlds, but it’s getting a bit silly. Suzuki have a “hybrid” with a 10AH 12v battery – which will provide under 3kW of additional electric power for less than 3 minutes. Woo hoo!
Horses for courses, but I won’t be getting rid of my ICE vehicle just yet.
Fossil fuels are just stored solar power, anyway, so I can always say my vehicle is “solar powered”, I suppose.
Have fun.
swenson…”Suzuki have a hybrid with a 10AH 12v battery which will provide under 3kW of additional electric power for less than 3 minutes. Woo hoo!”
***
I once helped install a backup battery system that could support a 48 volt city telephone system for 8 hours. It used lead acid batteries that were 4 feet tall and 2 feet square and each battery could supply 2 volts at 800 amps.
These days, the tendency is toward lithium ion batteries in humungous packs. The batteries are the typical ones you find in cordless drills and you can imagine how many are required to produce 100 volts at an appreciable current. Hundreds to thousands of them in series-parallel arrangements. Problem is, lithium batteries are prone to fire.
Batteries are great in their place but the idea of using them to store large amounts of electricity is far off in the future, if at all.
GR – Pumped storage, among a range of options, has been use at the Dinorwic plant in Wales for decades now. Pumped storage, compressed air, liquid air and stored thermal solar generation are all storage mechanisms from which electricity can rapidly be retrieved on demand.
Elliott,
“Pumped storage, among a range of options, has been use at the Dinorwic plant in Wales for decades now. Pumped storage, compressed air, liquid air and stored thermal solar generation are all storage mechanisms from which electricity can rapidly be retrieved on demand.”
–
Of course they are energy storage mechanisms. Energy storage always reduces the renewables efficiency.
It is meant that we shall storage when we have excess renewable electricity production.
There will be times the storage capacities were full, and still having plenty of exceesive renewable electricity.
How much storaged energy should we have untouched, for the emergency cases?
Now, imagine, there is not for long periods renewable energy and the storage capacities already empty.
Should we have supplementary renewable energy production to always support the storaging efforts?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t recall anyone arguing that fossil fuels were unviable because one had to add a margin of error into the maximum generating capacity. Why would it suddenly become a problem for storage capacity?
Elliott,
“I don’t recall anyone arguing that fossil fuels were unviable because one had to add a margin of error into the maximum generating capacity. Why would it suddenly become a problem for storage capacity?”
Fifty years ago there always were variations on the electric energy demand. When there were lower demand electric plants went on idle, or even stopped for a while. When there was higher demand the plants worked full capacity.
The emergencies higher demand was covered by gas turbines and by hydros.
On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today.
How can the cost going up, up, up have a trend to go down?
We need a cheaper, not a more expensive electric energy.
There is no need to have built a tremendous gigantic infrastracture in order to store more and more electric energy, because the main argument – the Anthropogenic Global Warming is a huge scientific mislead.
There is not any problem for Earth’s climate when we proceed using fossil fuels as we always used to.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
EB,
“I dont recall anyone arguing that fossil fuels were unviable . . .”.
Probably because nobody did. Or do you mistrust your memory?
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Renewables are already the cheapest sources in many places and circumstances, and will continue to decline in cost. Fossil fuels are only going to get more expensive from now on – indeed, the US position as an exporter only came about because gas and oil became so expensive that fracking became economically viable. EROI is approaching parity for oil, beyond which you’ll need more renewable energy to get hydrocarbons out of the ground than the oil and gas yield in return.
Fossil fuels are dead anyway. Why fight it? Are you frightened that we’ll create a cleaner and healthier world for nothing?
Elliott,
“Fossil fuels are dead anyway. Why fight it? Are you frightened that well create a cleaner and healthier world for nothing?”
–
Why fight dead fossil fuels? We do not fight fossil fuels.
–
“a cleaner and healthier world for nothing?”
(emphasis added)
The last assertion needs argumentation.
Elliott, are you frightened by fossil fuels? What it is so much frightenning,
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Well, there’s all the people who die from air pollution, all the money wasted on subsidies and, oh yes, a little matter of a heating climate.
Elliott,
“Well, there’s all the people who die from air pollution, all the money wasted on subsidies and, oh yes, a little matter of a heating climate.”
–
Yes, air pollution should be limited by strict filters. There is already a lot has been done since the early seventies.
Now, think of all these billions (8) people who strugle to make ends meet, think of their everyday hard work in their desperate efforts to improve their very low standarts of living.
Climate is heating, allright, but it happens due to the orbital forcing.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Climate is heating, allright, but it happens due to the orbital forcing.
No, according to orbital forcing we should now be in a cooling trend. This is widely known.
Now, think of all these billions (8) people who strugle to make ends meet
Yes, and now think of all those whose children can already do their homework due to a cheap LED bulb and a solar panel.
Elliott,
“No, according to orbital forcing we should now be in a cooling trend. This is widely known.”
–
You reffer here to the widely known (in specialists’ community, not the next door people, because they do not know) so it is widely know between the specializing scientists, what Milankovitch assumed.
Milankovitch assumed the small (~ 1 degree) change in Earth’s axial tilt led planet to the cooling trend.
Because early in his scientific life, Milankovitch witnessed Earth having a Global cooling tendencies.
Milankovitch didn’t see though, there is a very much stronger forcing from the Pressecion of Equinoxes cycle. The Pressecion of Equinoxes cycle is now at the culmination phase of its current warming forcing trend.
–
“think of all those whose children can already do their homework due to a cheap LED bulb and a solar panel.”
I am quite happy for them.
And yes, and among other very important lessons, about two (2) billions children are tought right now the scientifically mistaken concept of alleged Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is spelled
” precession “.
The scientifically literate are not about to hold it against a person when he occasionally misspells a word from a language which uses a completely different alphabet. We’re not about to argue over homoousios contra homousios with an actual Greek person.
On the other hand, when you screw up the phase of the Milankovitch Cycle and deny the very existence of anthropogenic warming…
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Elliott,
“On the other hand, when you screw up the phase of the Milankovitch Cycle and deny the very existence of anthropogenic warming…”
–
Elliott, are you the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon denier?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Instead of “electric vehicles,” we could call them “battery mobiles,” which of course shortens to batmobiles.
https://bsky.app/profile/celestelabedz.bsky.social/post/3kvrgkel6xc2d
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Elliott Bignell
Can I disable your ‘Commenter Activity’ report? It’s disturbing.
It would be nice if you could expand also links like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i6noE4x5yOq3EGTY8MqhEsPa_2Yi1RHM/view
The reason why I never use Chromium (you seem to work on a Linux system) is that it shows a minuscule typesetting in this blog’s reply fields. Do you know how to get rid of that?
Not yet. I’ll set it to disabled by default in the next version and then add the option to switch it on.
The font in the reply field had never bothered me, but yes, I can change it to a bigger one.
Yes, I can definitely expand those links.
Elliott Bignell
Thx.
Wotcher. I just got a Firefox version working. It was much harder to port than I had been led to believe – harder than the whole development cycle for Chromium! I’ll try to push it to the store over the weekend.
Your embedded Googol files work, but they look a little muddy, probably due to the scaling to fit on this page. I’ve tried to play with the contrast and saturation but no joy. We’ll probably have to live with them the way they look.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBracK6a3dA
Live #53
Ah, some philosophy.
But the number 53, doesn’t mean much to me.
{Btw, I never trusted the angels.}
swenson…”Looking at the Moon through a good telescope can provide very sharp pictures (to the limit of resolution), as can point images of distant stars. In other words, the light rays involved are at least travelling parallel to each other, not being diffused to any discernible degree on their path thought the atmosphere. A little of every wavelength is attenuated and absorbed”.
***
I get your point and I tend to agree, especially with your point that a little of every wavelength is attenuated and absorbed. The intent of my response was not to disagree, only to point out that the actual problem is far more complex than what we tend to make out. We tend to regard EM in the atmosphere simplistically as a point to point motion whereas the real motion is far more complex.
I am no expert on this nor do I claim to be an expert in physics in general. My point re G&T is that EM does not travel point to point through an atmosphere. The figure they give for CO2 density at 0.04% is 8 x 10^6 molecules of CO2 in a cube with 10um sides gives an indication of the problem.
Add to that the 99.96% of molecules make up the rest of the atmosphere and layer them vertically and you can see the problem for EM trying to penetrate it. I liken it to a fog. We know light gets through a fog but much of it is dissipated. The question is, how does it penetrate the atmosphere?
The same must apply to IR radiated from the surface. The point made by G&T is that CO2 cannot be regarded as a blackbody a la S-B since CO2 at 8 x 10^6 molecules of CO2 in a cube with 10um sides cannot possibly represent a blackbody. Therefore, S-B cannot be applied there. They infer elsewhere that S-B cannot be applied at terrestrial temperature because the T^4 value does not apply and must be adjusted.
Whichever way you look at it, reality demonstrates that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
The surface cools at night, even when the atmosphere is hotter than the surface, indicating that hotter bodies cannot always prevent cooling.
An example is the Earth itself, where four and a half billion years of continuous radiation from a very hot Sun (5600 K or so) has not stopped the planet from cooling.
GHE cultists are deniers of reality.
Gordon,
“The point made by G&T is that CO2 cannot be regarded as a blackbody a la S-B since CO2 at 8 x 10^6 molecules of CO2 in a cube with 10um sides cannot possibly represent a blackbody.”
That’s another point that Gin and Tonic missed, and you misinterpreted.
In the GHE theory, CO2 was never treated as a blackbody, Gin and Tonic were telling us something already known.
CO2 in the atmosphere is a gas, not a blackbody.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d…”The radiative heat transfer equation proves you wrong, no need for me to do that.
Q = εσA1-2(T1^4 −T2^4) [J/s]
Two bodies that radiate towards each other have a net heat flux between them, given by the above equation”.
***
As I pointed out in the past, if you expand that equation there is a problem. Note that the equation relies on a generic A and e. So, upon expansion, we have…
Q = e.sigma.A.T1^4 – e.sigma.A.T2^4
Both surfaces must have the same emissivity and the same area, which is far too specific. Also, Q has been added in reference to heat, which is wrong. In the original S-B equation, it is not heat being measured but radiation intensity.
Therefore, the equation presumes that heat and EM are one and the same energy. That was the belief back in the mid 19th century and proved wrong by Bohr in 1913 when he theorized the true relationship between EM and electrons in atoms.
The equation is just plain wrong. Moreover, it contradicts the 2nd law, which specifies that heat can only be transferred hot to cold by its own means.
Gordon Robertson
The equation IS NOT WRONG. Your understanding of physics is the error. Neither you, Clint R nor Swenson have studied any real physics. You come here after reading some crackpot paper that no real scientist accepts and peddle it as if were gold. You don’t know anything about the 2nd Law but act like you are an expert.
You do not understand heat or EM or anything about physics. You think only electrons generate EMR and can’t grasp the concept of dipole vibration. Clint R is correct to tell you about you ignorance. His major flaw is he can’t see he is as lacking in real physics as you.
Nothing seems to change your bad science. You have peddled it for years. Several posters point out the flawed in lots of you posts but you ignore it all and continue on with bad science.
Nutty Norman,
You wrote –
“You think only electrons generate EMR and cant grasp the concept of dipole vibration.”
Photons (EMR if you like) are emitted only by electrons (apart from nuclear processes). You may believe in magic if you wish. “Dipole vibration” is nonsensical if you believe that “dipoles” emit EMR.
You may play semantic games with “generate” and “emit”, but the facts won’t change.
Electrons absorb and emit photons.
No GHE.
“You do not understand heat or EM or anything about physics. You think only electrons generate EMR and cant grasp the concept of dipole vibration”.
***
Norman…I have asked you several times to explain where else EM can come from if not from electrons orbiting an atom. Bohr seemed to think so too so I guess you think he’s a nutjob as well.
I grasp the concept of dipole vibration well and I have explained it to you. In fact, I posted a link from a science site that agree with my contention that dipoles are formed between atoms of different electronegativity. That explains the dipoles in CO2 well since both oxygen atoms are more electronegative than the carbon atom and cause the electron charge to spend more time near the oxygen atom ends of the bonds. Tat makes the O-end more negative than the C-end.
Norman…you are way out of your league arguing electrical/electronic theory with someone who has spent most of his life working directly in both fields. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about in that respect.
Cerenkov radiation, synchroton radiation, Hawking radiation…
Elliott Bignell wrote –
“Cerenkov radiation, synchroton radiation, Hawking radiation” for some reason he refuses to divulge.
Obviously, a fanatical GHE cultist, attempting to appear wise and knowledgeable by being cryptic.
And failing.
Swenson
You can believe what you want. I already know you know nothing of science or Chemistry. Most your posts are repetition about the Earth cooling. You are so ignorant you do not understand the difference between the whole Earth (which is cooling very slowly) and the Earth Surface which is not currently cooling by any measure out there.
You falsely believe all the energy absorbed during the day is lost at night but are not intelligent enough to grasp that the night temperature both rise from winter to summer months. Logic is not your strong point. Blabbing seems to be your strong point. Carry on with you endless pointless posts that neither educate, teach or contain any useful information.
You are one of the Three Stooge posters. Your pals are Gordon Robertson and Clint R. None of you know physics. You endlessly state opinions. Reject any facts that demonstrate your flawed thinking. You and Clint R are mostly just rude insulters to other posters. Gordon is just a crackpot who gets mad and lashes out.
Gordon Robertson
You actually don’t know what you are talking about. I have sent you several links on dipoles, how they work how they produce IR. How Chemists use this information to identify unknown compounds (understanding which molecules will produce what band of IR).
Nothing I claim goes against what Bohr worked on. He was working on visible light and attempting to create a model to explain what was being observed. Light emission that came in discrete bands and was not continuous.
You falsely believe a positive end of a dipole is just less negative. Not actually positive. You just made that up with no evidence, no observation. You make up stuff often. I countered you incorrect logic by explaining NaCl has a strong ionic bond. If Sodium was not actually positive and Chloride negative a bond could not form to hold the atoms together in a strong crystalline structure. If the Sodium ion was just less negative it would still be repelled by the negative Chloride ion. This is electronic facts based upon multiple years of experiment and obseravation.
Norman is having another meltdown — great entertainment,
Norman,
You wrote –
“and the Earth Surface which is not currently cooling by any measure out there.”
Well yes, it is. Measured by real scientists – geophysicists, geologists. By instruments below the surface.
You are probably confused about above surface thermometers showing increased temperatures due to anthropogenic heat.
At least you agree “. . . the whole Earth (which is cooling very slowly) . . . “.
You claim that the slowly cooling Earth has a surface which is heating up for some reason which has not been in evidence for four and a half billion years, and which you refuse to describe. You see, alleged “greenhouse gases” have been in the atmosphere in far greater concentrations in the past, and as you agree, the Earth (including the surface) has cooled!
So any recent “heating” is not due to any mythical “greenhouse effect”, which has only appeared recently. You also refuse to say when this alleged GHE heating started!
Unfortunately for you and your ilk, the interior is hotter than the surface, and the surface is hotter than outer space. Heat flows naturally from hot o cold. No GHE.
So sad, too bad.
Gordon,
Any charged particle can emit radiation, if you accelerate protons, they emit radiation as well.
I can’t be bothered to correct every mistake you make.
Try reading a physics textbook, and here is some light reading.
https://casa.colorado.edu/~wcash/APS3730/c8_radiation.pdf#:~:text=Protons%20can%20emit%20too%2C%20and%20have%20the%20same,output%204%20million%20times%20lower%20than%20an%20electron.
Pun intended
Gordon,
“Therefore, the equation presumes that heat and EM are one and the same energy. That was the belief back in the mid 19th century and proved wrong by Bohr in 1913 when he theorized the true relationship between EM and electrons in atoms.”
Heat is a form of energy, not quite the same thing.
Bohr is now a little outdated.
“Heat is a form of energy, not quite the same thing.”
Not quite the same thing as what, precisely?
Are you trying to be clever by saying nothing?
Swenson,
“Are you trying to be clever by saying nothing?”
You wouldn’t recognize clever if it slapped you in the face.
Infrared transfers heat, it’s not heat in and of itself.
The fact that you do not understand that speaks volumes.
Do I have to explain that too?
Gordon,
“Moreover, it contradicts the 2nd law, which specifies that heat can only be transferred hot to cold by its own means.”
Except the two terms on the right side of the equation are both energy terms, not heat.
The difference tells you which way the heat flows.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d…”You are right, flux is watts/meters^2, and flux is also (photons/second)/meters^2″
***
Flux is nothing physical, it’s a mathematically-based attempt by the human mind to quantify the amount of energy crossing a surface per unit time.
If you talk about magnetic flux, you are talking about a measure of the magnetic field strength per unit area. But what is a field? It is a representation of magnetic energy wherein energy cannot be defined. We are saying there is something there causing things to happen but we don’t know what it is.
Newton derived the term fluxion to indicate the rate of change of a function, the basis of calculus. From Britannica…”Newton referred to a varying (flowing) quantity as a fluent and to its instantaneous rate of change as a fluxion. Newton stated that the fundamental problems of the infinitesimal calculus were: (1) given a fluent (that would now be called a function), to find its fluxion (now called a derivative); and, (2) given a fluxion (a function), to find a corresponding fluent (an indefinite integral)”.
That’s what the modern reference to flux means. However, it is usually reserved for energy like magnetic or electromagnetic energy. It means a magnetic or EM field is changing in intensity at a surface. It could be applied to any flow, like water, but usually not.
I don’t get the point of using photons in that context. There is no way to measure them as photons, the only measure being the effect EM has on a surface, such as producing heat or electrical current. For example, EM can be detected by an antenna, which converts the EM to an alternating current. In that way, you can specify an EM field strength based on the current produced in the antenna.
I expect Clint along shortly to add more insults and ad homs.
Gordon,
Maybe you could think of photons in terms of quantum fields.
In any physical space, an infinite number of photons can exist at the same time, without interfering with each other. You can isolate the fields of interest – say TV photons (wavelengths if you think it sounds better), by getting the field to interact with electrons to produce the desired result.
A slightly odd way of describing connecting an antenna to a tuned circuit to show a picture on a screen.
Fields can be tricky – you can’t be sure it’s there unless you measure it.
From Harvard (Chandra X-ray Observatory) –
“There are many kind of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and they are distinguished by their wavelengths if you consider EMR as waves. You can also think of electromagnetic radiation as consisting of particles of light, called photons, and each photon has a certain amount of energy associated with it”
Waves if you like, particles if you like. No GHE, either way.
Once again, no intention of getting an argument going, the point I am making is in the spirit of sharing information.
There is a major flaw in that theory of EM waves being thought of as photons. EM is produced in an antenna when high frequency electric currents run up and down the antenna. The discovery of that relationship goes back to the early 1800s with people like Faraday, Lenz, Oersted, etc. They investigated the EM field, mainly with direct current moving through a conductor.
Note…the electrons forming the current are free electrons and not associated with an atom. There are no transitions involved at any time. The frequencies of photons produced by transitions are extremely high.
An interesting aside. When I studied microwave theory with a prof who likened wave guides to soup cans joined together, he used to joke that lower frequencies were D.C.
It is vital to understand the difference between an EM field generated from electrons and their charges moving through a conductor and EM quanta (photons) generated by electrons dropping through orbital energy levels. Electrons moving through conductors do not go through transitions and they do not produce photons.
For example, the EM fields produced by electric motors and transformers have nothing to do with photons.
It is known that an electron current running through a conductor produces a magnetic field, and that a conductor moving in a magnetic field produces an electron current in he conductor. The current and the EM fields are produced in an entirely different manner than via electron transitions. Also, if the frequency is high enough, the electric field of the electrons and the magnetic field produced will be transmitted, however, the fields are separated by 90 degrees orthogonally.
In other words, a high frequency electric current running in an antenna does not produce photons. All you get is a continuous sine wave of EM.
For example, if I run an electron current of 3 Mhz through an antenna, I get an EM field produced of exactly 3 Mhz. If I run the current through a semiconductor, or another non-linear device, it will produce the 3 Mhz signal plus sideband frequencies which are multiples of the 3 Mhz.
On the other hand, if a photon is generated by an electron transition, it takes on the frequency of the electron’s orbital frequency. The EM fields are produced in an entirely different manner and the word photon was coined in relation to electron transitions that produce light.
The word photon is Greek for light (photos).
EM generated by an antenna cannot be associated with photons, which are packages of EM produced by electron transitions.
“EM generated by an antenna cannot be associated with photons, which are packages of EM produced by electron transitions.”
What distinguishes light from other EM (other than its frequency).
Gordon,
“On the other hand, if a photon is generated by an electron transition, it takes on the frequency of the electrons orbital frequency.”
If that were true, and electron in a Hydrogen atom dropping from the n=7 orbital to the n=3 orbital would have the same frequency as dropping from the n=7 orbital to the n=1 orbital.
But it doesn’t.
So you need to revise your theory.
“Electrons do not orbit a nucleus in the manner of a planet orbiting a star, but instead exist as standing waves.”
from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Gordon,
Flux is definitely physical.
I am not going to read the rest of your post.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote “Flux is definitely physical.”
Unless it isn’t of course.
Swenson,
Got an example of when flux is not physical?
Of course you don’t.
All you have is Maypo.
From Wikipedia
” A photon (from Ancient Greek φῶς, φωτός (phôs, phōtós) 'light') is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.
Photons are massless particles that always move at the speed of light measured in vacuum.
The photon belongs to the class of boson particles. ”
Photons belong to the ‘subatomic’ particles – except of course for those ignoramuses who stopped to understand Physics after… 1913.
That’s an error in Wikipedia I’m afraid.
The speed of light in a vacuum is the speed limit.
Light always travels slower if the medium is not a perfect vacuum.
Other subatomic particles can exceed the speed of light in water.
Google Cherenkov radiation if you like.
Wiki is pretty good, and I’ve always found it to be spot-on in my own field. It’s a good place to get a fast overview. I believe it should primarily be referenced as a demonstration of how easy it is to find something out, not as an authoritative source.
For the most part, wiki is pretty good, but use the references in your high school papers, not wiki itself.
“Photons are massless particles that always move at the speed of light measured in vacuum.”
That should read
Photons are massless particles that always move at the speed of light in the medium the are traveling in.
That’s why diamonds sparkle, us guys might like it if that didn’t happen, save us some money if diamonds didn’t sparkle.
bobdroege, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Yes, that’s a valid correction.
I saw a fascinating piece a year or so ago about the observation of Hawking radiation under laboratory conditions. Apparently there are materials whose refractive index varies according to the flux of light passing through them. Using such a material, it is possible to pass a pulse of light that reduces the speed of light as it passes. This, under the correct conditions, has the effect of creating a moving event horizon in the laboratory! It was apparently possible to detect Hawking radiation emitted from the event horizon.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Volkswagen (VW) says it will invest up to $5bn (3.94bn) in US electric vehicle (EV) maker Rivian.
The deal creates a joint venture that will allow the German car making giant and the Tesla rival to share technology.
Rivian shares jumped by around 50% after the announcement.
The tie-up comes as competition intensifies between EV makers in the face of slowing sales and more companies entering the market.
Under the agreement, VW said it will initially invest $1bn in the electric truck and SUV maker, with another $4bn to be put into the company in the coming years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ddmxmz1lpo
Sorry, Elon fans.
Still no GHE.
1 Elon Musk $215.5 B
$2.7 B | 1.26% Age: 52
Tesla, SpaceX
United States
2 Jeff Bezos $203.7 B
$721 M | 0.36% Age: 60
Amazon
United States
3 Bernard Arnault & family $200.1 B
$2.7 B | 1.36% Age: 75
LVMH
France
4 Mark Zuckerberg $179.0 B
$4 B | 2.31% Age: 40
Facebook
United States
5 Larry Ellison $170.3 B
$560 M | -0.33% Age: 79
Oracle
United States
6 Larry Page $151.9 B
$3.7 B | 2.53% Age: 51
Google
United States
7 Sergey Brin $145.3 B
$3.5 B | 2.47% Age: 50
Google
United States
8 Warren Buffett $135.6 B
$711 M | -0.52% Age:93
Berkshire Hathaway
United States
9 Bill Gates $133.9 B
$5 M | 0.00% Age:68
Microsoft
United States
10 Steve Ballmer $131.7 B
$777 M | 0.59% Age:68
Microsoft
United States
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires
I thought Musk had 8 kids, but apparently, he has 12:
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/elon-musk-children/
If you’re to do pissing contest, gb, at least choose the relevant unit:
1. MSFT $3.351 T
2. AAPL $3.205 T
3. NVDA $3.101 T
4. GOOG $2.282 T
5. AMZN $1.939 T
6. Saudi Aramco $1.812 T
7. META $1.295 T
8. TSM $895.15 B
9. BRK-B $887.45 B
10. LLY $859.74 B
11. AVGO $735.83 B
12. NVO $654.30 B
Source: https://companiesmarketcap.com
Well it’s always about space, with 2 of richest making rockets.
Musk has the best rocket, he just wants a better one… to go to Mars.
The next trajectory window to Mars is in Sept 2024, Bezos want to send NASA robotic mission to Mars in that window.
And next window is in Nov 2026.
What matters is that Elon has released another lemon:
DETROIT (AP) Tesla is recalling its futuristic new Cybertruck pickup for the fourth time in the U.S. to fix problems with trim pieces that can come loose and front windshield wipers that can fail.
https://apnews.com/article/tesla-cybertruck-recall-fourth-time-f3709f24063695bc231763fb07d7d700
For your space oddities, gb, you’re trusting a guy who can’t properly do windshield wipers.
Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin is annoyed with SpaceX’s big rocket launches
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-faa-spacex-starship-super-heavy-launches-2024-6
[I think we need ocean launches.
With pipelauncher you going up, and lighting rocket engines at + 50 meters above the waterline.
But you could do it some other way, but it seems if lighting the rocket 50 meters above water, it shouldn’t much effect on things.]
“Musk responded to the complaint on X by writing “Sue Origin,” adding another swipe at Bezos to their 15 years of public feuding.”
–After being asked to decipher Musk’s initial message, xAI chatbot Grok wrote that his post “appears to be a tongue-in-cheek comment” about Blue Origin’s “history of resorting to legal action rather than competing fairly in the marketplace.”
The Tesla CEO simply replied with a bull’s-eye emoji.–
Elon has more practical problems to solve:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/12/24176705/spacex-elon-musk-gwynne-shotwell-sexual-relationships
Please, do continue.
Worried Wee Willy,
“He then denied her a raise and complained about her performance.”
It sounds like she didnt perform as requested.
Maybe she should seek alternative employment?
What do you think?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about you.
Awww, thats so nice!
Thanks.
Solar wind
speed: 349.7 km/sec
density: 3.53 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Jun 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 129
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 194 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.33×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.2% Low
8 numbered spots. a few spots in group coming from farside and will be numbered.
Solar wind
speed: 342.3 km/sec
density: 16.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 135
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.31×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.9% Low
9 numbered spots.
Solar wind
speed: 320.5 km/sec
density: 7.18 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 146
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 183 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.37×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.2% Low
10 numbered spots
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
24 June – 20 July 2024
Solar activity is likely to reach moderate on 24-25 Jun due
primarily to the flare potential from active regions near the west
limb. A decrease to low levels, with a slight chance for M-class
activity (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate), is likely from 25 Jun – 20 July.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to be at low to moderate levels throughout the outlook
period.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to reach unsettled levels on
24 Jun, 14-16 Jul, and 20 Jul due to anticipated influence from
multiple, recurrent, CH HSSs. The remainder of the outlook period is
likely to be at mostly quiet levels. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
If I accepted this, it seems the NOAA experimental forecast is likely wrong. But at this point in time, it’s still alive. And probably need a few more month, before it’s not alive.
As said if get couple 180 months in next 6 months, Valentina Zharkova
idea is in trouble. Nothing in near term threatens NOAA original guess.
Solar wind
speed: 462.3 km/sec
density: 7.13 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Jun 24 {it should be called 29 Jun 24}
Sunspot number: 162
Updated 29 Jun 2024
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.47×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.5% Low
12 numbered spots.
A small group coming from farside. None going to farside- for 2 to 3 days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEBSYCLymsg
A G4 Solar Storm from an Unexpected Source | Space Weather Live Briefing 28 June 2024
Excitable.
She says leaving solar grand min or something.
Hmm not sure we were in a solar grand min.
I wonder do have to be in a solar grand max or solar grand min.
It seems we left the Solar grand max, and if leaving it, means we in a solar grand min, then what she says makes sense.
But instead of focusing on Solar Max, a solar grand minimum, could be more about the solar min.
But in terms of practical matters, we have window to Mars starting in september. If crew leave for 2 years, how much cosmic rays will the crew get?
It this cycle picking up, then not much radiation for crew.
And/or NOAA experimental forecast is correct.
Solar wind
speed: 476.8 km/sec
density: 5.45 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 205
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 186 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 28.30×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.5% Low
15 numbered spots. None going to farside within a day.
No coming from farside, yet.
July going to start with high spot number.
Don’t have any guesses about July, though:
“All of these sunspots have relatively stable magnetic fields that pose little threat for strong solar flares.”
Apparently, X flares are off the table, at the present.
An increase in convection in the Caribbean Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/xsFBT4V/goes16-wv-rgb-94-L-202406260835.gif
Observed decrease in sea surface temperature.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Yes, the surface is cooling but it may not show up in June’s UAH Global. It appears the HTE is still active. The Polar Vortex just can’t get back to its usual strength.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1675155
“It appears the HTE is still active. The Polar Vortex just cant get back to its usual strength.”
Hmmmmmmmm.
Has anybody heard of the terms:
“hand waving”
or
“clutching at straws”
?
Yes, those are cult tactics, used when your cult has nothing constructive to add.
Clint R
” It appears the HTE is still active. ”
You have been asked several times for a couple of scientific proofs of this superficial claim you have been in between making for over a year, but you have never been able to provide them.
And… could you please stop using this dumb ‘cult’ blah blah?
It is so ridiculous and boring.
Bindi, you need to quit pretending you have any interest in “scientific proofs”. You can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You can’t provide a viable description of your cult’s GHE.
You have no interest in REAL science. Quit pretending.
The greenhouse effect is already a sufficient model. It is backed by 170 years of research.
You cannot understand that N2 and O2 do not emit infrared radiation, because of their symmetric vibrational modes.
” You can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You can’t provide a viable description of your cult’s GHE.
You have no interest in REAL science. Quit pretending. ”
I see. Always the same trash, as usual.
The best way to avoid any need to prove anything based on scientific results – regardless what the discussion is about.
In Clint R.’s world, everything is driven by concepts whose complexity can never exceed that of the ‘ball on a string’.
Anything else comes from the ‘cult’.
John W. says: “The greenhouse effect is already a sufficient model. It is backed by 170 years of research.”
Another “learning opportunity”. See John, that is what you BELIEVE. Beliefs ain’t science. If you can’t state a viable description of the GHE, then you’ve got NOTHING.
And I’ve never stated that N2 and O2 emit infrared. You’re making things up, which is typical of cultism.
Bindi, you’re STILL pretending. You can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You can’t provide a viable description of your cult’s GHE.
You have no interest in REAL science. Quit pretending.
And a cult is identified by those rejecting reality to support their false beliefs.
That’s why you’re in a cult.
Like ‘JD*Huffman’ and ‘ge*r*an’, Clint R can’t resist to endlessly post replies until he is sure that his last post in a discussion is also the last one…
“ge*r*an”
I do recall encountering that nym in the past. Same guy?
Bindi, referencing your heroes doesn’t help you. But, at least you’re no longer pretending you have any science.
Progress….
Yes, JW.
Same Puffman.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R says on June 22, 2024 at 10:10 AM:
” The Polar Vortex has finally recovered and looks very healthy, after being weak the first half of June. Maybe the HTE has finally ended. ”
Only four days later, Clint R says on June 26, 2024 at 6:02 AM
” Yes, the surface is cooling but it may not show up in Junes UAH Global. It appears the HTE is still active. The Polar Vortex just cant get back to its usual strength. ”
*
That tells us everything about Clint R’s ‘ball-on-a-string’-like knowledge
I read upthread:
” Out of curiosity, I looked up a few historical weather outlets in the US. All of them are playing the same game, they have cut off the historical record so it excludes the 1930s, which had the most heat waves in North American history. ”
*
Robertson the dumbass is lying again – that is all he is able to do, together with discrediting, denigrating and insulting (even historical relevant persons, what is the reason for me to insult him back).
He is not even able to accurately search for any source because he exclusively selects information arising from contrarian blogs, let alone would he, the pseudo-engineer, be able to process any historical data.
*
As opposed to him, John Christy is very well able to do such a job. Here are two examples:
(1) https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg
(2) https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
*
I confirmed John Christy’s well done work when switching from the historical USHCN station data to the far bigger GHCN daily station data (both maintained by NOAA, btw !!!):
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BLH5HzZzU2di7DVxLtW4b9gKh-HcNIkq/view
Even blind, opinionated persons can see that on all graphs above, the 1930’s are perfectly represented as the years with the highest numbers of daily maxima (in CONUS).
*
But if now you extend your statistics up the whole Globe and take care to perform area weighting with a grid (*), you see a completely different picture:
(4) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pExxoH5V2t-BK2xuijU1thtmuoj-VSES/view
*
Robertson has been shown such graphs many times but, as he is a fundamental contrarian, he endlessly, silently discards these contradictions, and always resorts to his old notes – regardless what the discussion is about.
(*)
When comparing at a global level on station basis, you compare about 10,000 stations in the US with about 10,000 stations outside of it, what lets the Globe look like the US backyard.
By switching to a grid based comparison, you then compare 200 grid cells in the US with 2000 grid cells outside of it, what gives of course a very different result.
I made a comment that alarmists are cutting off past temperature data at 1060 or so, to avoid the 1930, where record temperatures and heat wave records were set.
Binny replies with a red herring argument that does not address what I said. Typical!!!
Must be hard to be a Frenchman exiled to a foreign country.
Binny is still trying to get over the NOAA admission that their surface record temperature set is based on less than 1500 stations. He thinks that the many station reports in GHCN are used by NOAA even though they admit otherwise.
Put yourself in NOAA’s shoes. Even though I regard them as alarmist cheaters, each month they have to process data from so many stations. They must verify it and analyze it. Is it more likely they will use less than 1500 stations or comb through a 100,000 stations monthly?
Gavin Schmidt at NASA GISS has already addressed that. He claims GISS simply doesn’t have the budget to analyze more than a few stations monthly. Besides, both GISS and NOAA are climate alarmists and they don’t want to analyze too many stations since the more they analyze, the lower the temperatures are likely to be. They simply cherry-pick the warmest stations they can find.
> Must be hard to be a Frenchman exiled to a foreign country.
Says the truest Scot from his Vancouver couch.
And once more…
” Robertson the dumbass is lying again that is all he is able to do, together with discrediting, denigrating and insulting (even historical relevant persons, what is the reason for me to insult him back).
He is not even able to accurately search for any source because he exclusively selects information arising from contrarian blogs, let alone would he, the pseudo-engineer, be able to process any historical data.
*
As opposed to him, John Christy is very well able to do such a job.
Here are two examples:
(1) https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg
(2) https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
”
Robertson is so caught up in his world of lies that he cannot even read the simplest things.
You can’t discuss with liars.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R wrote:
“Yes, the surface is cooling but it may not show up in Junes UAH Global. It appears the HTE is still active. The Polar Vortex just cant get back to its usual strength.”
The eruption took place over 2 years ago. Where is your evidence that it still continues to affect global temperatures? No hand waving allowed.
What else is affecting the Polar Vortex? Do you monitor the PV? Do you understand anything about it? Do you have any interest in science, or reality. Or, is your only interest in protecting your cult?
Where is your evidence that the HTE is over?
I asked for your evidence first. I am on the side of science, and the latest research supports the idea that the Hunga Tonga eruption has had minimal impact on global temperatures. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence to the contrary. Your opinions do not count.
Sorry John, but you’re NOT on the “side of science”. You have no science. You can’t even answer my simple questions above.
Simply pointing to abnormal behavior of the polar vortex doesn’t prove anything about the influence of the Hunga Tonga eruption. In science, you need to demonstrate the connection between the two.
John, if you don’t understand the connection of the HTE to the PV, then why are you trying to dispute it?
Can you see how your false beliefs mess you up?
So then show me the connection between the PV and the HTE!
“So then show me the connection between the PV and the HTE!”
Why? Is either somehow connected to the mythical GHE which you refuse to describe?
John W, please stop trolling.
Ok John, I will accept that as your de facto admission that you don’t understand the connection of the HTE to the PV.
You don’t understand it, but you reject it.
You don’t understand your cult’s GHE, but you believe in it without question.
Notice the inconsistency?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly why questions.
Willard, why are you still speaking on behalf of nobody?
Does nobody really care?
[chortle]
Nobody cares if it’ll take you a full month to get the point, Mike.
I’m pleased that nobody cares – apart from you, that is.
Thank you so much.
[laughing]
Nobody cares if your antisociality pleases you, Mike.
John W
In a paper I recently read, the authors explained that
– while the huge amount of WV put up in the stratosphere (150 Gt) certainly had an influence unknown since decades,
– this same amount of WV conversely has increased the liquid aerosol production out of the eruption material.
Unfortunately I didn’t save the link; I’ll try to find the source back.
Thank you, Bindidon.
I would be interested in reading the specific paper if you can locate it. It’s possible I’ve already come across it.
John W
It was much simpler than I thought:
https://tinyurl.com/jerypr7z
*
I have tried to explain to Clint R that if HTE still was active, we should see traces of cooling in the lower stratosphere similar to traces of warming 2 years after the Pinatubo eruption, which of course are not present:
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-LS-grid-May-2024
The entire lower stratosphere is free of strong cooling (at least -6