UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2024: +0.80 deg. C

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

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2024 was +0.80 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the May, 2024 anomaly of +0.90 deg. C.

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

The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 18 months (record highs are in red):

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.13-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.09+0.17+0.00-0.10+0.68-0.24-0.11
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.17-0.13-1.43+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.26-0.03-0.37+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.40+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.35+0.45+0.07
2023July+0.64+0.73+0.56+0.88+0.53+0.91+1.44
2023Aug+0.70+0.88+0.51+0.86+0.94+1.54+1.25
2023Sep+0.90+0.94+0.86+0.93+0.40+1.13+1.17
2023Oct+0.93+1.02+0.83+1.00+0.99+0.92+0.63
2023Nov+0.91+1.01+0.82+1.03+0.65+1.16+0.42
2023Dec+0.83+0.93+0.73+1.08+1.26+0.26+0.85
2024Jan+0.86+1.06+0.66+1.27-0.05+0.40+1.18
2024Feb+0.93+1.03+0.83+1.24+1.36+0.88+1.07
2024Mar+0.95+1.02+0.88+1.35+0.23+1.10+1.29
2024Apr+1.05+1.25+0.85+1.26+1.02+0.98+0.48
2024May+0.90+0.98+0.83+1.31+0.38+0.38+0.45
2024June+0.80+0.96+0.64+0.93+1.65+0.79+0.87

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:

Lower Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Mid-Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt

Tropopause:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt

Lower Stratosphere:

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


2,007 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2024: +0.80 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Nick Stokes says:

    At 0.8C, still a record for June, by a long way, completing a full year of record breaking. Next was 0.44C is 1998.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Your own site has only +0.56 with one day to go.
      Climate Reanalyser has +0.69 with five days to go (adjusted to UAH baseline).
      I think CR is probably closest to reality.

    • Clint R says:

      HTE has been amazing.

    • Hans Erren says:

      Why am I not surprised?
      The rollercoaster is going down Nick

      • Bindidon says:

        Hans Erren

        ” The rollercoaster is going down… ”

        You remind me of one of the biggest “specialists” of this blog, who three years ago claimed that the fact that UAH 6.0 LT in that year showed 10 months in a row lower anomalies than in the same months of the previous year was a clear sign of cooling.:–)

        *
        I tried to explain to him that when you store the UAH time series in a SQL database and select all previous years showing the same behavior, you obtain this:

        1981
        1982
        1989
        1992
        1999
        2011

        *
        Wacht alstublieft, meneer Erren. De achtbaanrit komt misschien sneller weer omhoog dan we denken.

      • Hans Erren says:

        Bindidon Don’t put all your hopes on a transient spike, as people did in 1998

      • Strange, but I remember this blog for years being full of deniers using the 1998 “spike” to confabulate spurious hopes of a “cooling trend”. Right up until about 2016, in fact.

      • Willard says:

        Hans may be a big fan of the Moncton Paws.

        Speaking of whom, where is our viscous Viscount?

      • Bill hunter says:

        Elliott Bignell says:

        ”Strange, but I remember this blog for years being full of deniers using the 1998 spike to confabulate spurious hopes of a ”cooling trend”. Right up until about 2016, in fact.

        —————–
        Wasn’t to be because nobody is looking at the right parameters. CO2 may be one but its not likely the largest one. there is too much natural variation in the instrument and ice core records for the pause to continue beyond 20 years and not show up as a cooling anomaly which requires 30 years.

        the stage is now set for that to occur as the last time we were in this stage was 1940. I am not predicting that because obviously we still need to understand how much warming might be accruing from CO2 emissions, the unmeasured UHI, and human disruption of natural environments for agriculture and wood resources, not to speak of the poorly understood fluctuations of the solar dynamo.

        As Dr. Syun Akasofu said if you want to attribute warming to humans you first have to learn how nature changes the climate. Milankovitch’s work identified many pulses of 20years, 100-400 years, and a large 2500 year pulse that amounted to about 35% the 100,000 year pulse.

      • Bindidon says:

        Hunter boy

        ” Milankovitch’s work identified many pulses of 20years, 100-400 years, and a large 2500 year pulse that amounted to about 35% the 100,000 year pulse… ”

        Your source please?

      • Bill hunter says:

        Elliott Bignell says:

        ”Strange, but I remember this blog for years being full of deniers using the 1998 spike to confabulate spurious hopes of a cooling trend. Right up until about 2016, in fact.”

        Hopes? There was a cooling trend from 1998 thru 2015, the same length of time as Ben Santer’s fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming paper thus it counts as a climate cooling trend per mainstream science media.

        Prior to that there was a cooling trend that lasted from 1930 to 1976 or 47 years. Since then through 2023 46 years of warming.

        that of course requires drawing a trendline line through the 1998 to 2015 climate cooling period in the middle of that trend. So what is needed is an examination of what causes these trend changes.

        You guys would argue that an order magnitude more CO2 emissions is the cause but it leaves a lot of natural variation unexplained.

      • Nate says:

        “Hopes? There was a cooling trend from 1998 thru 2015”

        FALSE!

        A flat trend in UAH and rising (slower) trends in RSS and GISS.

        https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/mean:12/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:1998/to:2016/trend

        FYI. An end at 2016 means ‘thru 2015’.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate had to manipulate the parameters otherwise he wouldn’t have posted anything. Here it is straight up showing a cooling trend.

        https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend

      • Nate says:

        Its the same data. What ‘manupulation’?

        If you zoom WAY in the 0.009 C drop in T of the fit line over 17 y, looks like a cooling trend to the ignorant masses.

        And the warming of RSS over the same period shows the uncertainty is much larger.

        Let’s show the honest presentation.

        https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016

        Sorry that your effort to find cooling has failed.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Your manipulation changed the cooling trend of -.014 (not -.009) to a warming trend of +.013.

        Yes its small but it shows that climate length natural phenomena clearly exists of sufficient force to overcome claimed warming from CO2.

        And if we actually monitored the solar constant in a fully calibrated manner over time we would be likely, per the works of Milankovitch and others, find much of the recent warming is merely part of a solar cycle that rolled out over the past 80 years especially if you multiplied by a reasonable water vapor driven M&W lapse rate variation and ice melt feedback cycle.

        IMO, the ice core records validate the short term Milankovitch cycles (2500 years and less) he managed to document from planetary movements without access to modern climate records.

        https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf

        So far I have mapped out a major confluence of planetary forcing that can explain the 1940’s bump and an equal or larger one ending perhaps in 2024-2026. At a minimum it represents a large chunk of the recent warming.

      • Bill hunter says:

        One has to wonder about the silence of Bindidon. After asking for my source 5 days ago he has made no comment. One has to wonder if he read it or he was already familiar with it.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy insists on repeating the bogus claims promoted by Monckton and others. Start with the relatively warm year of 1998 and there’s a slight cooling trend. But start with 1999 instead, the result is a warming trend:
        https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2016
        Fun with data, indeed! Maybe that’s why climate is usually considered over a period of at least 30 years.

      • Nate says:

        “Your manipulation changed the cooling trend of -.014 (not -.009) to a warming trend of +.013.”

        Nope. No manipulation. Same exact data as yours!

        No change in trend, it is -0.009 degrees in 18 years, which is -0.005 degrees/decade, which is zilch.

        You dont seem to know how to read a basic graph.

      • Nate says:

        “Milankovitchs work identified many pulses of 20years, 100-400 years, and a large 2500 year pulse that amounted to about 35% the 100,000 year pulse

        Nothing in your paper agrees with that. You mustve imagined it.

        In fact it clearly states that the Milankovitch cycles predict

        “a long term cooling trend which began 6000 y ago will continue for the next 5000 y.”

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy insists on repeating the bogus claims promoted by Monckton and others. Start with the relatively warm year of 1998 and theres a slight cooling trend. But start with 1999 instead, the result is a warming trend:

        Fun with data, indeed! Maybe thats why climate is usually considered over a period of at least 30 years.
        ————–
        Fine Swanson you live in the world of shifting goal posts that scientists dig up and replant each time their statements are proven wrong, which is a lot in climate.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Nope. No manipulation. Same exact data as yours!

        No change in trend, it is -0.009 degrees in 18 years, which is -0.005 degrees/decade, which is zilch.

        You dont seem to know how to read a basic graph.”

        Nope! Your mean samples = 12 parameter eliminates raw data.

        And as far as zilch is concerned that was what I was trying to achieve to show that anthropogenic climate change can be overridden by natural change. Looking at ice core data it appears that is done regularly perhaps roughly once every 800 years. . .or in alternatively to overriding, actually create 800 years of warming that you are taking to be anthropogenic warming should it be shown that CO2 is only a paper tiger as a climate influence.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        You leftists want everybody to hyperventilate about the weather. It’s just another hot Summer. It was cold last Winter. Natural variation. No more, no less.

      • Nate says:

        Before:

        ” There was a cooling trend from 1998 thru 2015″

        Now, after looking at actual data:

        ‘And as far as zilch is concerned that was what I was trying to achieve”

        The usual silliness.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ” ”Milankovitchs work identified many pulses of 20years, 100-400 years, and a large 2500 year pulse that amounted to about 35% the 100,000 year pulse”

        Nothing in your paper agrees with that. You mustve imagined it.

        In fact it clearly states that the Milankovitch cycles predict

        ”a long term cooling trend which began 6000 y ago will continue for the next 5000 y.” ”

        Its actually really good you brought that up at this point in time.

        As the conversation was revolving around disturbances ”Shorter term cooling cycles in the instrument record within a long term warming trend” you have tripped yourself up.

        Likewise the Milankovitch paper which was prepared to support the Milankovitch 100,000; 41,000; and 21,000 year cycles of axial tilt and changes in eccentricity maxima minus minima.

        they only pay far less attention to shorter term orbital cycles documented in the orbital perturbation section of Figure 2.

        Using a ruler and the logarithmic scale the 2,500 year variation comes up to as much as 35% of the 100,000 year insolation variation from eccentricity variation (insolation isn’t affected by axial tilt or axial precession).

        So examining Figure 2 you have a bump at 2,500 year periodicity of 341 times 13% times 35%=15.5 watts. This would be Milankovitch’s approximate estimate of short term variation occurring over 1 to 3 centuries during the last 400,000 years and would result in approximately 3C variation. Boy isn’t that a coincidence?

        And furthermore, there is nothing in this paper to refute that. The model can be correct and its estimated 44w/m2 from the peak of the 100,000 year anomaly to the bottom of the anomaly would represent the maximum rate of change in global temperatures over the past 400,000 years.

        That would put the depth of the glacial below the top of the interglacial at about 9k difference in mean surface temperature from insolation variation due to orbital perturbations.

        Take a gander at this graph. Figure 5 at
        https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

        It shows a climate cycle of 10-15C in greenland ice cores and 2-3C occurring simultaneously in the Antarctic during the last glacial period that are spaced ~3,250 years apart.

        Finally you have this in the paper supporting that the 100,000 year cycle doesn’t progress smoothly and does significantly deviate from that alleged gradual path suddenly.

        ”Provided that monthly insolation (i.e., a detailed seasonal cycle) is considered for the different latitudes, their long-term deviations can be as large as 13% of the long-term average and sometimes considerable changes between extreme values can occur in less than 10,000 years.”

        So absolutely not am I imagining any of this. All you have to do is read past the abstract.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, Did you actually read the commentary about your referenced graph from the BAS? Here it is:

        Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America.

        They think that those cycles only pertain to glacial conditions. So, there’s no Milankovitch there.

      • Bill hunter says:

        The problem Swanson is they are in the Holocene ice cores as well both in Greenland and Antarctica. One can only develop theories like that if all you look at are glacial ice core records.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        The problem Swanson is they are in the Holocene ice cores as well both in Greenland and Antarctica.

        Oh? Remember that the Holocene period is defined as beginning at 11,650 cal years BP (2000). That’s AFTER the end of the Younger Dryas period, which saw the last big excursion in temperatures recorded in the ice core data. The only other such event was the 8,200 year BP event, which was a short lived cooling followed by a rapid return to warmer temperatures.

      • Nate says:

        Bill, you are imagining things that are not in the paper at all.

        In the discussion on p 625 of the variability in figure 2, they make clear that only the peaks longer than 2500 years are Milankovitch related, ie astronomically driven.

        Your pure speculation that Milankovitch is driving shorter period stuff is unsupported by this paper.

      • Nate says:

        “Take a gander at this graph. Figure 5 at”

        You are looking at variations of unknown origin, and speculating as to their origin.

        That aint science.

        Nothing in that graph indicates the CAUSE of these variations must be due to Milankovitch.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”The only other such event was the 8,200 year BP event, which was a short lived cooling followed by a rapid return to warmer temperatures.”

        Yeah well that one should be good enough for you. Pick up any detailed ice core record covering the Holocene and you will find numerous 1.5c to 3.5c excursions of temperatures.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate says:

        Bill, you are imagining things that are not in the paper at all.

        In the discussion on p 625 of the variability in figure 2, they make clear that only the peaks longer than 2500 years are Milankovitch related, ie astronomically driven.
        —————-
        You are selectively reading.

        First, this record is a study of Milankovitch’s work and only encompasses astronomical theories and astronomical frequencies, and recent use of models. (2nd paragraph of introduction)

        Second, Figure 2 labels the 10yr and more spikes as orbital variations.

        Third, the description of Figure 2 says the base of these variations (the shaded area at the bottom) is a ”background level of variability, deriving from internal stochastic mechanisms and corresponding to a low degree of predictability, appears to increase in amplitude toward the longer time scales and to be overlaid by band-limited variability, due to external forcing processes and corresponding to a high degree of predictability (adapted from Mitchell [1976]).
        (that completely destroys your take Nate)

        Fourth, the highly predictable external caused spike amplitudes that overlay that low level of predictability due to internal stochastic mechanisms have logarthmic scales on both the x axis (relative temperature variance) and the y axis (relative frequency in years) yield starting with a maximum .34C monthly variance (max shown in UAH6) yields a maximum internal variation for times greater than 80 years of 1.15C, spikes in the range of 100 to 400 years of 1.45c, spikes of a 2500 year frequency of 3C, and a maximum glacial to interglacial mean global temperature of 10C.

        Ice core records which weren’t available at the time of this paper appear to do nothing but fortify this that external variation is more than adequate to explain the warming we have seen.

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        Nate says:

        ” ”Take a gander at this graph. Figure 5 at”

        You are looking at variations of unknown origin, and speculating as to their origin.

        That aint science.

        Nothing in that graph indicates the CAUSE of these variations must be due to Milankovitch.”

        Where did I say they ”must” be due to Milankovitch? I am saying they according to Milankovitch could be primarily due to Milankovitch theory. You obviously have absolutely nothing to reject that theory.

        Obviously more work has to be done as opposed to relying on completely unestablished 3rd grader radiation models and claims that CO2 can change the dry lapse rate. See the comments above.

        I think its important to note that Milankovitch may have been including solar internal variation in the internal stochastic mechanisms thus the recovery of the sun after the maunder minimum to the modern solar grand maximum from 1938 to 2010 and its feedbacks could well explain all the warming through 2020. Add an El Nino, and the convergence of the planets in the last half of 2023 through 2024 and you have the current warming blip perhaps aided some by Hunga Tunga (still waiting on quantified data of the effect on the recent depletion of ozone)

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy misses the facts of ice core data. The delta18O measurements represent both the WV source temperatures and that of the location at which the snow is deposited. There’s also seasonal variations with snow fall, for example, in colder years, winter snow fall may be small while more summer summer snow fall would add warmer fractions. The 8200 event was likely to be the last gasp of several large flooding events, which wouldn’t be repeated without warmer conditions. Then too, the region experiences Arctic Amplification, which would result in wider temperature swings compared to global averages, just as happens today.

        Hunter still needs to do more homework before he hits the big time with his analysis. Have you read Alley’s book yet?

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Hunter guy misses the facts of ice core data. The delta18O measurements represent both the WV source temperatures and that of the location at which the snow is deposited. Theres also seasonal variations with snow fall, for example, in colder years, winter snow fall may be small while more summer summer snow fall would add warmer fractions. The 8200 event was likely to be the last gasp of several large flooding events, which wouldnt be repeated without warmer conditions. Then too, the region experiences Arctic Amplification, which would result in wider temperature swings compared to global averages, just as happens today.”

        So what are you claiming here? According the EPA: ”Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.03 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.18 inches per decade.” Its also been getting warmer, not colder.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        So what are you claiming here?

        “Hunter guy misses the facts of ice core data.”

      • Bill hunter says:

        In non-polar regions there is more GHE effect at night than in the daytime thus these regions often experience higher mean daily temperature with nighttime temperature increasing twice as much as daytime temperature from a combination of more sunlight due to orbital variation and solar changes. . .and who knows CO2 emissions also.

        But summer and winter on the ice sheets is different. Summer is all sunlight and winter is all darkness.

        Summers in the Arctic have gotten cooler and winters warmer.

        We went through this before when you were criticizing UAH data gathering claiming they underestimated the hot summers. Probably because you read this somewhere and you can’t reject it.

        Yet DMI arctic temperature monitoring shows the arctic getting cooler in the summer and a lot warmer in the winter, just the opposite of what you just claimed.

        So does this explain Antarctic deamplification? Seems so. While Arctic amplification is simply more water surfaces and less ice surfaces in the winter with the ice getting colder far faster than the water. . .because. . .wait for it. . .water convects and ice does not and as we know thats why oceans heat and cool much slower.

        And worse here you and I are arguing the same point again.

        So if anything Swanson perhaps those graphs under estimate the orbital variation excursions as water vapor plays its game out.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, you’ve managed to miss-state my perspective on recent Arctic changes. I don’t deny that the satellite data shows less warming during Summer than Winter, in fact I specifically pointed that out in my AGU poster paper in 2017. My point at the time was that the MSU/AMSU data understates the rate of warming during the summer months because the declining trend in sea-ice introduces a negative trend in the satellite data. That’s because open water and melt ponds appear cooler than sea-ice in the MSU 2 and AMSU 5 measurements. This is still true in the latest UAH data.

        Your analysis of Arctic Amplification ignores the effects of declining snow and ice cover on albedo, which declines with a reduction of either. And, I’ve said nothing regarding the Antarctic, except that I agree with RSS’s approach, which is, to delete data poleward of 70S.

        Obviously, your post is just another redirection to move away from discussing ice core data.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:
        My point at the time was that the MSU/AMSU data understates the rate of warming during the summer months because the declining trend in sea-ice introduces a negative trend in the satellite data.
        Thats because open water and melt ponds appear cooler than sea-ice in the MSU 2 and AMSU 5 measurements. This is still true in the latest UAH data.
        ———————
        And I pointed out to you, and you don’t seem to have absorbed my response, that the trends in the european combined climate monitoring systems reanalysis shows that there is a negative trend in summer temperatures in the Arctic. https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.php

        Whereas separating out june, july, and august in the UAH data they have a positive trend. +.057C/decade. And the reason is the arctic has descending air sourced from lower latitudes via the large convection loops and that’s what UAH looks at in the lower troposphere rather than the actual surface, ice, melt ponds, and open water.

        Anyway you look at it UAH summers aren’t too cold in the UAH dataset as you claimed. In fact if anything the opposite is true depending upon how much credence you want to allow the non-representative surface records.

        And you are the one who brought up a summer warming trend bias in the ice core data that is simply the opposite of what you claimed there also.

        this is the problem with all the thought experiments folks around here pop up with that they run with and even write papers on that get elevated by the yellow mainstream media with the help of agitating activists to what the public sees as mainstream science and this process goes on in political fora like the IPCC as well while the calmer voices get ignored by nations in the nation edited summary to policy makers and the mainstream media. Add to that pressure to add statements in abstracts to influence all the abstract only readers creates a process exactly like itemized by Dr. Michael Crichton in his novel ”State of Fear”.

        Its exactly the same propaganda as the fear mongering propaganda that comes out of the military industrial complex set up to fleece the public. Thank goodness we have politicians like Dr. Rand Paul to call it out.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        I pointed out to you, and you dont seem to have absorbed my response, that the trends in the european combined climate monitoring systems reanalysis shows that there is a negative trend in summer temperatures in the Arctic.

        And, I pointed out to you that I also found a negative trend in Summer vs. Winter data, which I presented in a paper back in 2017. That was from an analysis of RSS data for North Polar Ocean. What I found back then was a strong negative trend in that data, particularly for the melt season, May thru August.

        BTW, as noted in your reference:

        As described in the data information sheet, the +80N mean temperature index is not a climate data record.

        Then, what is it? It’s the result of applying a model to the actual data. Which data, you ask? In the data information sheet, they write:

        Data from ground, aircraft, bouys, ship, satellites,
        radiosondes, etc. are all combined to adjust the first guess field.

        Not a “thought experiment, but a mixture of different data sets dumped into their weather model.

        You then jump on what you think I referred to regarding ice cores. I was just pointing out what Alley mentioned about the seasonal differences of snow fall, where very cold years have mostly Summer snow, while warmer Winters might see more snow fall then and less during the Summer. This can confuse the interpretation of readings of temperature based on the yearly snow fall. All of that has nothing to do with the current temperature situation regarding the Arctic.

        The rest of your anti-science rant is ignored.

      • bill hunter says:

        well since we agree on all that why do think so many argue that ice core data is more variable than the rest of the globe?

        it makes sense that with higher albedos the temperatures and steeper angles of that insolation icy areas would be less temperature sensitive to changes in insolation than surfaces with low albedo and higher angles. . . and the data you found confirming that in 2017 agrees with our assessment.

        was that data from rss if they were covering 80+ in 2017? if not where did you find it?

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Alley mentioned about the seasonal differences of snow fall, where very cold years have mostly Summer snow, while warmer Winters might see more snow fall then and less during the Summer. ”

        Since you didn’t seem to sure on this statement I looked up Google AI and they say currently during these warmer winters: ” The wettest time of year in the Arctic is July through September, when more than half of the annual precipitation falls.”

        Thats over 50% of the precipitation in 3 months. But since it varies somewhat from year to year Alley might be right that a few years over a few hundred might see more precipitation over the winter 3 months.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        it makes sense that with higher albedos the temperatures and steeper angles of that insolation icy areas would be less temperature sensitive to changes in insolation…

        No, Hunter, it’s not about “changes in insolation”, but changes in surface albedo and what happens to the incoming SW. Open water absorbs more sunlight than ice or snow, warming the area, though the albedo is somewhat greater compared to that at lower latitudes, given the effects of high zenith angles.

        Note that the data I usesd was from the RSS web site and they define “North Polar” as 60N to 82.5N, as you should know by now.

        Your Google AI based reply has nothing to do with weather over Greenland. Just another example of your ignorance, which could be cured by doing some real homework. Provided, of course, you really cared.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”No, Hunter, its not about changes in insolation, but changes in surface albedo and what happens to the incoming SW. Open water absorbs more sunlight than ice or snow, warming the area, though the albedo is somewhat greater compared to that at lower latitudes, given the effects of high zenith angles.”
        ————————————
        So you claim that changes in insolation are too small? What is your data source and how was it calibrated?

        And of course high zenith angles also occur twice a day at the equator and vary over the seasons and so does the texture of the ocean, the texture of the ice, the amount of water vapor, etc. Not to speak of changes in albedo for every element on earth, including water pollution, air pollution, ice pollution, snow pollution etc.

        At least we have the technology to pin down insolation and you need that to correctly calculate any effects of albedo.

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        E. Swanson says:

        Note that the data I usesd was from the RSS web site and they define North Polar as 60N to 82.5N, as you should know by now.

        Your Google AI based reply has nothing to do with weather over Greenland. Just another example of your ignorance, which could be cured by doing some real homework. Provided, of course, you really cared.
        ——————————-

        Seemed at least specific for the Arctic mean which includes Greenland. Thought it might help since you didn’t seem to have anything else. No need to get testy. You could have simply answered the question I posed. Which was: ”well since we agree on all that why do think so many argue that ice core data is more variable than the rest of the globe?”

        Obviously a clear answer would come from some source of managed observations over extended periods of time at an appropriate site. Don’t you think? I mean they called that science in my science classes.

      • Nate says:

        background level of variability, deriving from internal stochastic mechanisms and corresponding to a low degree of predictability, appears to increase in amplitude toward the longer time scales”

        Yep internal variability, ie NOTHING to do with planetary positions which is EXTERNAL.

        “Where did I say they must be due to Milankovitch? I am saying they according to Milankovitch could be primarily due to Milankovitch theory. You obviously have absolutely nothing to reject that theory.”

        Yes I do. It makes no sense!

        Milankovitch is only about Earth’s orbital variation, which are well known to be long term, after many many planetary nudges.

        Whereas you erroneously think the planetary positions have an almost immediate effect on Earth, but offer no numerics or legit sources to back that up.

        That aint science. To imagine the planetary positions have unexplained effects on Earth is very much like Astrology.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy continues his run around the bush to avoid reality, writing:

        Obviously a clear answer would come from some source of managed observations over extended periods of time at an appropriate site.

        Sounds great, except when one refers to the ice core data. That data involves conditions before about ~1850, AIUI. And, where are such sites in today’s Arctic, except land stations around the edges of the Arctic Ocean, which leaves out what happens on the sea-ice?

        Riddle me this, (as Willard might say), if the melt season ocean temperatures above the Arctic Ocean are cooling, as the MSU/AMSU suggests, why has the sea-ice extent and area measurements show decline, with more thin first year ice instead of multi-year ice?

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Riddle me this, (as Willard might say), if the melt season ocean temperatures above the Arctic Ocean are cooling, as the MSU/AMSU suggests, why has the sea-ice extent and area measurements show decline, with more thin first year ice instead of multi-year ice?”

        Quite a few reasons.

        1) Lower troposphere air warmer than surface? Wonder if there are any good trend information from radiosondes.

        2) Surface cooling comes from ERA5 and RSS. Maybe they are both modeled wrong or modeled more to surface temperatures as we can expect that upper air temps would be higher due to subsiding warm air to feed the polar vortex from the tropics via the Brewer Dobson circulation.

        3) Melting surface ice extracts heat from the air thus less melt from air temperatures via both conduction and radiation at the surface.

        4) Primary melt increase due to warmer SSTs moving from tropics. Heat transfer to water per degree is many times that of that to air so even though the oceans are warming more slowly they are going to still melt ice a lot faster.

        We should note that ERA5 has the cooling ended in the Arctic in recent years and recognizes Arctic summer temperatures have recovered to the 0 line. Seems inline with rates of ice melt.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy posts lots of speculation, but no supporting facts. And, please note that the RSS TLT ocean data I used is from about the same pressure height as the UAH LT.

        So, here’s some sea-ice data for you to chew on.


      • E. Swanson says:

        Posted too soon. Trying again for sea-ice monthly trends.

        May, June, July, August, September

        How does these data square with your “80+” data?

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:
        ”Hunter guy posts lots of speculation, but no supporting facts.”
        ———————-
        You asked for my opinion. I labeled one answer as speculation about temperatures of arctic low troposphere versus surface temperatures and asked if you have a good source for Arctic radiosonde data.

        I suspect you probably don’t need me to provide you proof that the melting of water absorbs 80calories a gram (enough to heat a gram of water from 5c to 85c) without warming up at all.

        Nor do I suspect you need me to provide you proof of the existence of the Dobson Circulation.

        Nor do I suspect you need me to prove to you water conducts heat many times better than common air.

        Beyond that I have no idea what you were expecting.

        E. Swanson says:
        ”And, please note that the RSS TLT ocean data I used is from about the same pressure height as the UAH LT.”
        ————————-

        Which version? And are all the versions the same?

        So, heres some sea-ice data for you to chew on.

        E. Swanson says:
        ”How does these data square with your 80+ data?”
        ———————
        Seems fine to me. That Arctic has been warming with enough winter warming to overwhelm summers as summer extent melt rate is very much tied to how thick of a layer of ice is frozen in the winter.

        And note the trends in temperatures provided by ERA5 for the other seasons.

        https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.php

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, it’s well known that the surface air temperature over the sea-ice is constrained by the melting point of the ice below, as the DMI ERA40 yearly model results exhibit. But, the upper air tends to be warmer because of temperature inversion, so why would the RSS data I looked at exhibit a negative trend, particularly for June, July and August? An increase in the strength of the Brewer-Dobson circulation in the Stratosphere might be a factor, but then, one must then explain the reason for the increase in strength of that circulation. Winter warming does not explain a summer cooling trend.

        BTW, one can’t compare previous UAH and RSS satellite data with the latest versions unless one saved the old data for the previous versions.

      • bill hunter says:

        you said you compared it in 2017. have you also done it recently?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Not exactly, I’ve looked at a few points. And, lately, the NOAA STAR data server has been down, according to their web Master yesterday.

      • bill hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Milankovitch is only about Earths orbital variation, which are well known to be long term, after many many planetary nudges.

        Whereas you erroneously think the planetary positions have an almost immediate effect on Earth, but offer no numerics or legit sources to back that up.

        That aint science. To imagine the planetary positions have unexplained effects on Earth is very much like Astrology.”

        gravity is a real force with real effects. gravity is not derived from astrology. quite the opposite astrology is derived from the rotation of the earth sun in which gravity plays a physical role.

        as is true out of sociology there is a belief that pagan religions derived from the physical reality of the earth rotating around the sun with the planets and other celestial objects creating climate changes from the motions induced by those objects.

        in modern science it is upheld as the cause of the ice ages and the glacial/interglatial periods of ice ages and also accounts for natural climate change on shorter term scales. of course the pagan religions quickly introduced myths to go along with those natural physical cycles making Gods of the Sun, moon, and planets as having a mind of their own, like you are doing at this very moment.

      • Nate says:

        Science has to show cause and effect. Specifically and quantitatively.

        When can we expect that?

      • Bill hunter says:

        Be patient Nate. Rome was not built in a day.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, I ran the latest numbers from RSS and the results for monthly trends looked about like those I presented in my AGU paper. Except that for the paper, I had started by subtracting the average of the entire data set so that I could combine similar data from UAH and NOAA STAR on the same graph. As a result of this, when I looked back at my paper, I incorrectly thought that there was a melt season cooling trend in the RSS curves for the North Polar region.

        The latest results show that there is warming for all months, but that for the summer melt season is less than that for the other months of the year. The calculated trends over the entire data set for RSS Land and Sea was 0.47, Land was 0.46 and Ocean was 0.49.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Swanson says:
        The calculated trends over the entire data set for RSS Land and Sea was 0.47, Land was 0.46 and Ocean was 0.49.

        ———————
        So what was the calculated trend for summer?

        .47? What is the base of that trend? 1979 to present? 2017? what?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy asked some questions:

        what was the calculated trend for summer?

        .47? What is the base of that trend? 1979 to present? 2017? what?

        Did you ever try to answer your own questions? You might begin by going to the RSS web page, which gives the same trend value for their North Polar data:
        https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

      • Bill hunter says:

        Thank goods that you have resolved your confusion over whether RSS has a cooling or warming summer trend.

        Now perhaps you can restate the logic behind your original claim that the over representation of summer precipitation in Greenlands ancient ice serves to exaggerate the climate change trends over a few hundred years seen in the detailed ice core analysis.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, The fact remains that the RSS and UAH data have less warming during the summer melt than during the winter freeze season.

        As for Greenland ice cores, now, most of the snowfall is during winter, the cold season, but during colder Ice Age periods, the snow fall may be during the relatively warm summer season. Read Alley’s book.

        BTW, if you are seriously interested, the NOAA STAR data is available again. Here’s a link to the TLT data, from which you can calculate your own anomalies for your choice of base period.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Hunter guy, The fact remains that the RSS and UAH data have less warming during the summer melt than during the winter freeze season.

        As for Greenland ice cores, now, most of the snowfall is during winter, the cold season, but during colder Ice Age periods, the snow fall may be during the relatively warm summer season. Read Alleys book.

        BTW, if you are seriously interested, the NOAA STAR data is available again. Heres a link to the TLT data, from which you can calculate your own anomalies for your choice of base period.”

        Interesting. The problem as I see it is all the long term weather stations in Greenland are coastal stations mostly below 70degN that don’t get a good dose of that 6 months of darkness.

        And RSS trends skyrocket for the south polar where as you say they limit their reporting to north of 70S that encompasses the lionshare of Antartica sea ice and shorelines but not the continent.

        We see the same issue in West Antarctica where its warming in the Western Antarctia peninsula but not hardly warming at all or cooling in the center of the continent.

        I recognize that in the 60-70 coastal zones of Greenland and Coastal Antarctica (where RSS limits its area of operations to)
        you get winter summer patterns like the northern US48.

        And thanks for the link.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        I recognize that in the 60-70 coastal zones of Greenland and Coastal Antarctica (where RSS limits its area of operations to) you get winter summer patterns like the northern US48.

        Please note that RSS masks out the area of Greenland from their TLT and perhaps their other series. They also mask out other areas of high elevations, such as the Himalayas, the Andes and perhaps parts of Alaska(?). Given that they are working with 2.5×2.5 degree boxes, it’s difficult to say how much coastal area is included or excluded without knowing the mask used. I doubt that temperatures poleward of 60N regularly experience temperatures of 90F and above as we see in the Lower 48.

        BTW, i extracted some NOAA STAR TLT data for 60N to 82.5, 70N and 77N. The closer to the pole, the greater the trends for Winter. No evidence of cooling during the summer melt season months, but they don’t break out land and ocean data.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:
        ”I doubt that temperatures poleward of 60N regularly experience temperatures of 90F and above as we see in the Lower 48.”

        When I said winter/summer patterns I meant patterns of precipitation which is what we were talking about. North Dakota also gets most of its snow in winter and hardly any in summer.

        The issue is precisely that above the arctic circle you get 6 months of darkness and temperatures in the winter drop way below freezing causing very low moisture in the atmosphere any distance from a body of non-frozen water. There is plenty of science to show this is the case.

        E. Swanson says:
        BTW, i extracted some NOAA STAR TLT data for 60N to 82.5, 70N and 77N. The closer to the pole, the greater the trends for Winter. No evidence of cooling during the summer melt season months, but they dont break out land and ocean data.
        ————–
        Yes indeed, but you should note that NOAA STAR TLT trend for the entire database is cooler than UAH at .139c/decade with UAH at .153/decade. https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/
        So since UAH has a slight warming trend for summer in the south polar system for reasons previously stated I would expect STAR to be flat or slight also.

        It is only the ERA5 data which used models to smooth surface reports from buoys and ships on the water, and buoys dropped on the ice, and other land sources that records some cooling. That cooling has subsided recently due to the ice pack melting slower. But that might pickup again from recent natural changes in climate.

        Also I would expect that the extraction of heat going into latent heat from ice melt is only noticeable at or very near the surface.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        The issue is precisely that above the arctic circle you get 6 months of darkness and temperatures in the winter drop way below freezing causing very low moisture in the atmosphere any distance from a body of non-frozen water.

        No, Hunter only the North Pole experiences 6 months without sunlight. The circle of darkness expands to the Arctic Circle only t the Equinox. But, of course, the North Polar region does experience very cold temperatures during Winter.

        The BOAA STAR TLT trends I found were:
        60N to 82.5N = 0.312
        70N to 82.5N = 0.373
        77.5 to 82.5 = 0.432

        The largest trend values were for January and February in the 77.5 to 82.5 data at ~0.69 k/decade. That result was like that from the DMI model results for Winter. The DMI model shows a slight cooling trend for the Spring months, which also appears similar to March in the NOAA STAR results. The three other seasons in the DMI plots do not show a cooling at the end.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        The largest trend values were for January and February in the 77.5 to 82.5 data at ~0.69 k/decade. That result was like that from the DMI model results for Winter. The DMI model shows a slight cooling trend for the Spring months, which also appears similar to March in the NOAA STAR results. The three other seasons in the DMI plots do not show a cooling at the end.
        —————————-

        Thanks for admitting to the Arctic summer cooling. (”do not show cooling at the end”) I already mentioned that it had flattened out recently with the reduction in ice meltback over the past decade despite increasing CO2.

        But as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. So here are several thousand words.

        https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.php
        https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy quoted me incorrectly:

        Thanks for admitting to the Arctic summer cooling. (do not show cooling at the end)

        If you could read, you might do better in life. I pointed to a slight dip at the end of the SPRING graph, not SUMMER. As I previously noted, the surface air temperature over the high Arctic is constrained by the presence of lots of sea-ice, no big surprise then that the DMI high latitude data shows little warming during Summer.

        Higher in the atmosphere, all three satellite data sets show a warming trend during the summer months. That’s he result of the temperature inversion over the cold sea-ice and ocean water. The data from the three groups do exhibit a reduced warming “spike” for July, a month with the Sun relatively high in the sky, perhaps the result of melt ponds on the surface of the sea-ice.

      • bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy quoted me incorrectly:

        Thanks for admitting to the Arctic summer cooling. (do not show cooling at the end)

        If you could read, you might do better in life. I pointed to a slight dip at the end of the SPRING graph, not SUMMER. As I previously noted, the surface air temperature over the high Arctic is constrained by the presence of lots of sea-ice, no big surprise then that the DMI high latitude data shows little warming during Summer.
        ——————
        the only quote i made was: ”do not show cooling at the end”
        so the entire argument you are making is built on a lie.

        observe the dmi experts graphing what you are denying in the links i gave you just above and yet you base your entire argument on satellite data that that is supposed to have a higher trend than the surface and doesn’t measure the surface as dmi does. if you want to deny dmi results i can in only part sympathize with your reasoning. the older pre-1990’s data is sparse and have larger potential error. but its the best representation of arctic ”surface” temperatures since we started to intelligently plan where to drop buoys we remained in communication with.

        swanson says:

        ”Higher in the atmosphere, all three satellite data sets show a warming trend during the summer months. Thats he result of the temperature inversion over the cold sea-ice and ocean water. The data from the three groups do exhibit a reduced warming spike for July, a month with the Sun relatively high in the sky, perhaps the result of melt ponds on the surface of the sea-ice.”

        and why would relatively warm water show a reduced warming spike when its present in satellite data measuring something else?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, your quote left out the context, which was:

        The three other seasons in the DMI plots do not show a cooling at the end.

        “The three other seasons” include Fall, Winter and Spring.

        Don’t forget that the DMI stuff is NOT DATA, according to their write up.

        You also asked:

        …why would relatively warm water show a reduced warming spike when its present in satellite data measuring something else?

        The MSU/AMSU instruments “see” open water, such as polynias, leads and melt ponds on the top of sea-ice as colder than se-ice without ponds, etc. As a result, the decline in sea-ice area over the years and an increase in ponding would result in a negative trend added to the data.

      • bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, your quote left out the context, which was:

        The three other seasons in the DMI plots do not show a cooling at the end.

        The three other seasons include Fall, Winter and Spring.

        Dont forget that the DMI stuff is NOT DATA, according to their write up.
        ————————–
        Wrong its as much data as any temperature record showing a regional or larger mean. So if you want to make that argument all you can say is there is no ”data” whatsoever to support any point of view.

        E. Swanson says:
        You also asked:

        why would relatively warm water show a reduced warming spike when its present in satellite data measuring something else?

        The MSU/AMSU instruments see open water, such as polynias, leads and melt ponds on the top of sea-ice as colder than se-ice without ponds, etc. As a result, the decline in sea-ice area over the years and an increase in ponding would result in a negative trend added to the data.
        ———————

        You neglected any explanation of why that ”seeing” results in the results you are claiming. Why would these unfrozen ponds be seen as colder and not eligible to be considered to be part of the surface mean temperature? Are you trying to levitate the ponds into the atmosphere?

        Keep in mind that your argument here holds no pond water. If the surface is colder thats what I am saying DMI found. And you are trying desperately to find something wrong with DMI.

        If the satellites include this colder ”seeing” its still only part of what they show in total as a warming atmosphere.

        Either case the surface may indeed be in a cooling trend as verified by DMI .

        and your argument is too disjointed to amount to anything more than babble. This seems like a totally undocumented or quantified argument for why UAH and NOAA Star are cooler than RSS. A better argument seems to be that the for-profit RSS ignores satellite drift that the non-profit UAH and NOAA star apparently do not ignore.

        Near as I can tell RSS started the drift issue then abandoned it. I have never seen a rational explanation for why.

        If I am wrong about that please be my guest and educate me.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, there’s no “cooling trend” in the DMI summer product, it just appears that it’s flat lined.

        It’s well known that the MSU/AMSU instruments measure lower temperatures over water than over land, which is the result of the differences in surface emissivity. Point of fact, the microwave instruments which measure sea-ice concentration also respond differently for water vs sea-ice, that’s how they determine their products.

        All the early satellites before AQUA lacked station keeping, so the data from must be adjusted to compensate. That story has been repeated many times since S&C first published their work. Here is a list of references for you to read:
        https://www.remss.com/missions/amsu/

      • bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:
        ”Hunter guy, theres no cooling trend in the DMI summer product, it just appears that its flat lined.”
        ——
        Thats what I said Swanson it was cooling from 1990 to 2015 and then it flat lined. But its still a cooling trend from 1990 and the data before that date was pretty flatlined also. So the cooling corresponds to increased ice loss and it has nothing to do with IR detection equipment.

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        E. Swanson says:
        ”Its well known that the MSU/AMSU instruments measure lower temperatures over water than over land, which is the result of the differences in surface emissivity. Point of fact, the microwave instruments which measure sea-ice concentration also respond differently for water vs sea-ice, thats how they determine their products.”
        —————
        Well known by who and whu? Scientists, wannabe scientists. Scientists don’t go by statements like that.

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        E. Swanson says:

        All the early satellites before AQUA lacked station keeping, so the data from must be adjusted to compensate. That story has been repeated many times since S&C first published their work. Here is a list of references for you to read:
        https://www.remss.com/missions/amsu/
        ————
        There is nothing there about ice vs water Swanson. Why are you trying to change the topic?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        So the cooling corresponds to increased ice loss and it has nothing to do with IR detection equipment.

        My highly trained eyeball graphic reader says that the DMI summer curve drops below flat line at about 2002 and returns after 2014. And, you show your ignorance again, the instruments used to measure sea-ice concentration are based on microwave emissions, not the IR ones, which can’t “see” thru clouds.

        Your ignorance of the various satellite instruments is your problem, not mine (SEE ABOVE).

      • bill hunter says:

        You are lying to yourself Swanson.

        1) DMI shows a cooling trend for the Arctic over a period of time consistent with a 30 year definition of a climate change that allows for the 1910 to 1944 natural warming trend (and is not creatable with carbon based modeling) that was followed by a cooling trend that lasted until about 1980. That in turn was followed by a warming trend that has lasted to the present.

        Thus since these oscillations can be seen as either ocean oscillations or as planetary motion, these events are all natural.

        The question is how much may be unnatural. A delay in impacts in the arctic is perfectly understandable as it was necessary to first melt back thick ice before getting into a growing regime of annual ice in the early 1990’s. Since this can be explained at least in part by planetary motion in our solar system the ocean regimes we have seen are also delayed SST wise by what is accepted to be around 10 years.

        2) you are also talking about differences between UAH and RSS that measures the atmosphere some good distance above the surface and may well have some element of surface radiation as well. But what that means is it tells us is

        a) nothing about the surface temperatures. And it won’t until folks start agreeing they figured it out. Currently RSS is carrying the minority opinion banner.

        b) DMI OTOH does tell us something about surface temperatures in the Arctic that isn’t told to us by the non-representative surface station network.

        And that is because in 1979 a program was begun to start actually ‘intelligently” locate surface instruments around the Arctic. . .that at a minimum show us that AGW is overridden during arctic summers.

        I realize you have nothing but satellites from the perspective of a half-assed science argument to go with here. But I am not seeing a logical argument flow out of anything you are saying. If you want to specifically address why you think the satellite data says that these melt ponds are colder than the adjacent ice that would be a good start. I just note that I haven’t seen any information from the Arctic buoy deployment on ice with melt ponds is making any kind of statement beyond the surface is cooling over all. So if you want to pursue that UAH is cooler because of cooling surface pollution that’s fine but what difference I see is RSS has intentionally overweighted the melt ponds by restricting its range to those areas more so than UAH which suggests to me its most likely RSS is too warm as typically water is warmer than ice.

        And then looking to arctic summers overriding AGW sort of says something else about whether CO2 can actually warm warmer surfaces or if its saturated. I am not concluding either way but it makes me lean that way. So if you can actually mount a decent and cogent argument I can certainly be swayed.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter posts another example of rambling word salad, ending with:

        And then looking to arctic summers overriding AGW sort of says something else about whether CO2 can actually warm warmer surfaces or if its saturated.

        Hunter’s conclusion that one model effort from DMI which appears to show little warming in 1 out of 4 seasons “sort of…overrides” decades of research and data gathering regarding the GHE on a global basis. He completely ignores the effects of temperature inversions between the Arctic summer surface boundary layer and the atmosphere above. He then throws in the Slayer red herring about CO2 being “saturated”, which has been repeatedly debunked.

        If you really want to learn, read a text book or take a college level course.

      • bill hunter says:

        swanson does nothing whatsoever to defend either of claims he made that i just itemized but instead now stands in complete denial of the longer than 30 year cooling trend in the summer season of the arctic and refuses to offer any kind of a logical argument as to why he sits in denial.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy fails to understand the facts of meteorology, such as the existence of frequent temperature inversions over the Arctic, which limit the summer surface air temperatures.

        Maybe these reports I found with some searching the ‘Net will help with his enlightenment.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JD032136

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027234

        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.3123

        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(199611)16:11%3C1297::AID-JOC86%3E3.0.CO;2-T

        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.380

        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.3370100509

      • Bill hunter says:

        Hmmm, Swanson changes the topic again from melt ponds to the inversions common in the arctic year round as a result of the great convective loops.

        So Swanson do you consider this natural, or are you arguing that its massive negative feedback?

      • E. Swanson says:

        No, Hunter guy, I was responding to your claims that minimal Summer warming seen in DMI’s 80N+ model represented some sort of proof that there isn’t any global warming. Of course, you still haven’t provided evidence of a “30 year cooling trend in the summer season of the arctic” from the DMI data set.

        Unfortunately, the first report listed was based on a cruse which didn’t make it past 80N, which was your point of reference.

        The second report notes:

        The lower atmosphere over the summertime Arctic Ocean often consists of two well-mixed layersa surface mixed layer and a cloud mixed layerthat are separated by a weak decoupling layer at about 100 to 300 m above the surface.

        About 75% of the time these two layers are separated by a stably stratified inversion at 100200 m altitude. Exceptions are associated with low cloud bases that allow the cloud-driven turbulence to reach the surface.

        I grabbed those report links to allow me to up-date my limited understanding of the scientific issues and the first two supported my thinking about the existence of surface boundary layers over the Arctic Ocean. I can only hope that you also took the time to read and learn.

        The possible effects of melt ponds on the MSU/AMSU data is a separate issue. I think I can see it in the data, but that’s no “proof” it occurs.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”No, Hunter guy, I was responding to your claims that minimal Summer warming seen in DMIs 80N+ model represented some sort of proof that there isnt any global warming.”

        Swanson instantly goes into the strawman building industry and claims I claimed that the fact that natural warming overwhelmed the effects of his theory of CO2 being responsible for global warming means I am trying to prove there is no global warming. Pitiful!!!

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        E. Swanson says:
        ”Of course, you still havent provided evidence of a 30 year cooling trend in the summer season of the arctic from the DMI data set.”

        Sure I did I gave you a graph of that has a line for summer Arctic anomalies that shows a negative trend from about 1990 to the present. Unless you can’t read such a graph then maybe I didn’t give anything adequate for you to comprehend. Again pitiful!!!

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        E. Swanson says: ”I grabbed those report links to allow me to up-date my limited understanding of the scientific issues and the first two supported my thinking about the existence of surface boundary layers over the Arctic Ocean.”
        —————–
        Yes indeed Swanson. Meteorology 101 cover the topic.

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        E. Swanson says:
        ”The possible effects of melt ponds on the MSU/AMSU data is a separate issue. I think I can see it in the data, but thats no ”proof” it occurs.”
        ————–
        Actually that was my point. Melt ponds have been occurring in the Arctic as far as I know even during the glacial periods.

        This whole thread has been about how ice cores show natural warming occurring as show here: https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

        And your response was: ”Hunter guy misses the facts of ice core data.”

        And now 21 posts later, after switching goalposts around, you admit that you are just starting to learn about the topic. Sheeesh!

      • E. Swanson says:

        Previously, I pointed to what Hunter guy wrote:

        DMI shows a cooling trend for the Arctic over a period of time consistent with a 30 year definition of a climate change that allows for the 1910 to 1944 natural warming trend.

        You thus compared model results for 80N+ between 1958 and 2024 With global data with no obvious connection. You then jumped to a different period, cherry picking 1910 as a start date, just before the 1912 volcanic eruption at Katmi, the largest eruption in the 20th Century. I see no reason to accept that of proof of your 30 year cycle, though there are some possible candidates, such as The Hale Sunspot Cycle at ~23 years.

        Hunter claimed the DMI data had a dip between in 1990 to present when I previously suggested only a slight dip starting in 2002 and returns after 2014. Let the unbiased reader make up their own mind.

        Hunter continues, ending with a return to cycles of abrupt change in the data from ice cores, the ~2,500 year timing for which would likely apply only to full glacial conditions. He has yet to provide a physics based explanation for those abrupt temperature jumps, ignoring what was written in the BAS discussion of those excursions.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”You thus compared model results for 80N+ between 1958 and 2024 With global data with no obvious connection. You then jumped to a different period, cherry picking 1910 as a start date,”
        ——————-
        You are confused. Instrument records show the climate warming strongly between 1910-1944 at about the same rate as the modern warming between between 1980-2023.

        And climate science includes the warming during that era (industrial age) as attributable to CO2 even though climate models can’t reproduce the earlier warming.

        +++++++++++++++
        E. Swanson says:
        ”just before the 1912 volcanic eruption at Katmi, the largest eruption in the 20th Century.”
        ——————
        You are just throwing darts at the wall Swanson. Volcanoes are supposed to cool for a couple of years. Global mean temperature anomaly post Katmai eruption in June 1912 were per HC5 were
        1910= -0.531
        1911= -0.539
        1912= -0.476
        1913= -0.467
        1914= -0.262
        1915= -0.192

        So how do you figure Katmai lowered the warming trend from 1910-1944? The only cooling that occurs in that series occurs before the eruption.

        +++++++++++++++++
        E. Swanson says:
        ”I see no reason to accept that of proof of your 30 year cycle, though there are some possible candidates, such as The Hale Sunspot Cycle at ~23 years.”
        ———————
        Thanks for that tip! I wasn’t aware of that cycle. I will have to look it up. Its obvious that climate change has to be a combination of many factors as outlined in the work by von der Heydt, et al, 2021 those include multiple internal and multiple external means of changing the total energy the earth receives during a year. The problem is this isn’t research its just a review of some research that hasn’t dug in a lot into Milankovitch. Whether intentional or not its being slow walked. And how that happens is something I am very familiar with and so is Judith Curry.

        ++++++++++++++++++++
        E. Swanson says:
        ”Hunter claimed the DMI data had a dip between in 1990 to present when I previously suggested only a slight dip starting in 2002 and returns after 2014. Let the unbiased reader make up their own mind.”
        ————————-
        Mark Serreze, Director over at the National Snow and Ice Data Center already suggested it was due to rapid ice melt sucking up latent heat as I have been saying. Matches perfectly the years of maximum sea ice loss. He said that like 15 years ago to explain the drop in mean summer temperature before it returned to flatline after summer melt slowed.

        Let your unbiased readers chew on that too.

        +++++++++++++++++++
        E. Swanson says:
        ”Hunter continues, ending with a return to cycles of abrupt change in the data from ice cores, the ~2,500 year timing for which would likely apply only to full glacial conditions. He has yet to provide a physics based explanation for those abrupt temperature jumps, ignoring what was written in the BAS discussion of those excursions.”
        ——————-
        No I don’t have a full explanation yet.

        But I have found out that mainstream press at a minimum has been misinforming the public about unfounded limitations of the Milankovitch theory. I am not seeing the same misinformation from respected journals or papers on the topic. It all seems to get spread from blogs where the misinformed post.

        Further its some Milankovitch theory paper that suggested a 2,500yr orbital variation. The one in the graphic I posted from the British expedition is closer to 3,500 years.
        Here is the 2500 year one.
        Figure 2 of the following article.https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        Instrument records show the climate warming strongly between 1910-1944…
        Global mean temperature anomaly post Katmai eruption in June 1912 were per HC5 were,(etc.)

        As you note, those data were NOT for the Arctic region (aka, 80N+).

        Hunter continued:

        Mark Serreze…said that like 15 years ago to explain the drop in mean summer temperature before it returned to flatline…

        Got a reference by chance?

        The one in the graphic I posted from the British expedition is closer to 3,500 years.

        Sorry about that, bad math on my end. Berger wrote back in the 80’s about different “cycles”. His Figure 2 with the 2,500 year blip was taken from a paper dated 1976.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Hmmm, seems like we either have a lot of agreement or you don’t have any science to continue to advance the various arguments you have brought up during this thread.

        And no I don’t have link to Mark’s comment he made on a blog 12 to 15 years ago when he made it. I doubt he wrote a paper on it and was just expressing his learned opinion as a lot of us do. But physics does tell us that melting ice does cool the immediate surroundings being warmed by the sun and the immediate surrounding air simply doesn’t convect so its going to be colder than what the satellites measure at altitude.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Yes, I think we agree that the surface boundary layer over the Arctic Ocean exhibits frequent temperature inversions, with the result that there’s little evidence for AGW in data such as the DMI “80+” stuff.

        I’ve some more work to do with the UAH LT to extract some higher latitude data, which I can add to the 60N to 82.5 data they provide. Unfortunately, I can’t separate land and ocean from that data, but today was a rainy day, so I got to practice my programming skills anyway.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Good luck with your project. Just keep in mind that its a lot harder to change the temperature of the ocean surface than it is land. Land with ice would be harder than land to warm than land without ice because of latent heat take up. But I think the ocean is much worse as wave and swell action, and tide changes mix the heat down pretty routinely several meters below the surface. So in effect you have to measure total heat content change to properly compare the two.

    • Bill hunter says:

      .8 minus .44 = .36
      .36 divided by 26 years times 10 years = .138C/decade. . .and 1998 followed Pinatubo in 1992 which sent tons of SO2 molecules into the stratosphere. Seems somewhat inline with what the background warming has been with an El Nino, a solar maximum in the making, and more.

  2. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Called it!

  3. Bellman says:

    Another monthly record. Warmest June by 0.36C. Here are the top ten warmest Junes.

    Year Anomaly
    1 2024 0.80
    2 1998 0.44
    3 2023 0.38
    4 2019 0.35
    5 2020 0.31
    6 2016 0.21
    7 1991 0.18
    8 2010 0.18
    9 2015 0.18
    10 2002 0.17

    And as Stokes says, this means there have now been 12 consecutive monthly records.

    It’s also a record June for the USA, beating 2021 by 0.2C.

    • Bellman says:

      Looks almost certain that 2024 will be a record year. Anomalies will have to average about 0.1 for the rest of the year for that not to be the case. If it is a record this would be the first time in UAH history that there have been back to back records.

      My own very simple regression model predicts 0.79 +/- 0.14C. Which would mean beating the record set last year, by over a quarter of a degree.

      • Swenson says:

        Bellman,

        How hot will August be? Will more people die in New York from heat than 1896?

        “The 1896 eastern North America heat wave was a 10-day heat wave in New York City, Boston, Newark and Chicago that killed about 1,500 people in August 1896.”

        Not to worry, a recent paper co-authored by Andrew Dessler says “We estimate there are an average of 4,819 heat-related deaths per year and 31,625 cold-related deaths.”[in the US]

        Maybe more heat would have resulted in less deaths?

        Are you implying the existence of some heat creating effect but refusing to describe it? That would be silly, of course. Laughable, even.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Which paper? Refusing to say?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  4. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Still well above the land-based records. Climate reanalyser has +0.69 up to the 25th. The last 7 days (June 19-25) is only +0.56.

  5. Antonin Qwerty says:

    2023-24 ENSO season (Jul-Jun) +0.87, just pipping 2019-20 (which just failed to qualify for what would have been the weakest and shortest El Nino) on +0.38.

  6. Antonin Qwerty says:

    I think some people here on my side of the debate forget that these anomalies are not cause for celebration.

  7. Antonin Qwerty says:

    [A copy with slight editing of my post on last month’s thread]
    .
    .

    gbaikies regular solar reports seem to have gone AWOL.

    There appears to be a pattern to their appearance and disappearance, but I cant quite put my finger on it.

    June Update: Zharkova + 39%

    For those who refer to the 22-year cycle, there seems to be a problem.

    The North appears to have peaked a year ago, the SAME hemisphere which peaked early last cycle. (Albeit 4 months later than last cycle, 15% stronger, and not falling away anywhere near as quickly.)

    The South is still rising, as it was doing this time last cycle.
    There has been no switcharoo of the timing of the peaks.

    • gbaikie says:

      I posted it in other thread, but:
      Solar wind
      speed: 360.5 km/sec
      density: 13.16 protons/cm3
      https://www.spaceweather.com/
      Daily Sun: 04 Jul 24
      Sunspot number: 182
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 28.27×10^10 W Hot
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -2.4% Low
      11 numbered sunspots. A couple are leaving within a day.
      None coming from farside, yet.

      She talks about some coming:
      Hurricane Beryl Barrels Down during Minor Storms & Small Flares | Solar Storm Forecast 04 July 2024
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGUb15uWzBw

      But a good guess is, getting weaker.
      And:
      –Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
      01 July – 27 July 2024

      Solar activity is expected to be low levels, with occasional M-class
      flares for the duration of the period.

      No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.

      The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
      expected to be at moderate levels from 01-27 Jul.

      Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be at unsettled to active
      levels on 01-03 Jul due to possible glancing influences from
      multiple CMEs. Unsettled to active levels are expected on 14-16 Jul
      due to influence from a recurrent, positive polarity coronal hole
      high speed stream (CH HSS). Quiet to unsettled levels are expected
      on 05-13 Jul and 17-27 Jul.

      https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 348.3 km/sec
      density: 2.18 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 05 Jul 24
      Sunspot number: 113
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 173 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 28.27×10^10 W Hot
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -2.4% Low

      7 numbered sunspots. An unnumbered is coming from farside. And numbered one, 3737 is going to farside. Which is highest numbered spot, meaning it just appeared on nearside near it going to farside. Or a number of spots are growing and appearing and disappearing- as the reason for the 7 numbered spots {rather than it being somewhat, predictable]

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 354.6 km/sec
        density: 1.90 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 06 Jul 24
        Sunspot number: 111
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 166 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 28.26×10^10 W Hot
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.4% Low

        8 numbered sunspots. 3738 came from farside, and 3737 has not apparently left yet. 3737 will go this time, I imagine. And 3727 “might” leave, also, maybe. And any other looks like +2 days. 3 days for a big one. None coming yet, but small spot appeared and will grow, or not, and probably will be numbered.
        So probably doesn’t change much, tomorrow.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 338.8 km/sec
        density: 2.81 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 07 Jul 24
        Sunspot number: 132
        “Sunspot AR3738 is growing rapidly and merits watching as a possible source of solar flares.”
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 166 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 28.03×10^10 W Hot
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -2.9% Low
        9 numbered spot. 2 small spots grew on nearside and got slightly bigger. 3737 left. 3727 is leaving. No spot are coming from farside, yet.

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 401.6 km/sec
      density: 2.71 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 07 Jul 24
      Sunspot number: 119
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 166 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 28.03×10^10 W Hot
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -2.9% Low

      It will take an hour or so, to update their picture of sun.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 396.8 km/sec
        density: 3.41 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 08 Jul 24
        Sunspot number: 119
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 27.98×10^10 W Hot
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.1% Low
        9 numbered spots. The newest form on nearside {or was not there “when “it came from farside”- it days after coming from farside”. Anyhow, it’s 3171 and small {though could grow quickly OR fade quickly}.
        “Sunspot AR3738 is growing rapidly and merits watching as a possible source of solar flares.”
        Yes it is growing rapidly- and could continue to grow rapidly, or not. How big and how long it stay big, will effect sunspot number for the month.
        3729 and 2733 are leaving to farside. Nothing else is leaving within 4 days. There spots which are suppose to come from farside in less than week, maybe less than couple days, None are coming from farside, yet. And pretty “normal” for spots to appear or disappear on the nearside {and 4 to 5 small spots could fade with couple days, and obviously 4 might appear within a couple days or the small spots could grow}.

        “Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
        08 July – 03 August 2024

        Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate levels
        throughout the period.

        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.

        Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be at unsettled to active
        levels on 08, 11 and 14 Jul due to recurrent CH HSS influences.
        Mostly quiet conditions are expected on the remaining days, pending
        CME activity. ”
        https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
        Which seems to me indicate July could be about 140 or less.

      • gbaikie says:

        140 for July, means last two months of slight increase in blue line, goes flat {sideways}.
        But it doesn’t kill the NOAA experimental forecast, and though confirms, NOAA original forecast, and doesn’t disprove our girl.

      • gbaikie says:

        If we still were in a Solar Grand Maximum, getting a couple months in the next 6 months which were +200 would be “expected” or normal or likely. But if happen, it doesn’t look good for Valentina Zharkova guess Or NOAA’s original is “wrong” and it’s experiment forecast, would immediately look good, but in another 6 month, it could not look “good”. But the people of experimant forecast it have a party if got two or one which was +220, but have to wait more time, before it was actually close to accurate.

        Valentina Zharkova is max cycle starts fast, and drops fast, and does not a second peak higher than the first.

      • gbaikie says:

        And dropping faster, would make cycle 25 min, have more effect, and Solar Grand Minimum, is all about the effects during cycle’s min.

      • gbaikie says:

        And as I have been saying, a effect I am mostly concerned/interested in is the effect of solar min effect upon on cosmic ray {GCR radiation- it would require the adding of mass for a crew Mars mission- since Starship “could” sent a lot of mass to Mars, it’s less of an issue- but still an issue}.
        And there could be some other effects of higher amount of cosmic ray impacted Earth- not seemingly a big factor, but has some unknown.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 366.3 km/sec
        density: 3.49 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 09 Jul 24
        Sunspot number: 90
        “Sunspot AR3738 has a ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares.”
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 27.98×10^10 W Hot
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.1% Low
        5 numbered spots. large spot coming from farside. None going to farside. None going to farside within 3 days.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well it seems they changed it:
        Solar wind
        speed: 388.2 km/sec
        density: 2.84 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 95
        Also saying:
        “Solar wind flowing from this coronal hole could graze Earth on July 13-14, causing minor geomagnetic unrest.”

        And were saying no equatorial coronal holes. And it’s moderate size equatorial coronal hole. I was going to mention it, but I forget.
        equatorial coronal holes seem to me, to happen in Max when it’s quieter, but also there was a lot ribbon like holes when it was very active. It means something, maybe.

  8. Charles Best says:

    This is the start of steady global cooling.
    Water vapor from the underwater volcano reducing.The peak of
    Solar cycle 25 about to finish.
    El Nino actually finishing right now.

  9. Bob Weber says:

    The UAH LT climate response has followed the solar cycle influence on the ocean as expected, up and down. In May 2022 I had predicted that the 1.5C ‘limit’ would be exceeded by the sun’s ocean warming effect.

    Temperatures that rose with the solar cycle #25 ascension in 2022/23 are now in 2024 following the slight TSI decline from the SC#25 peak.

    https://i.postimg.cc/LX3DHrPM/TSIS-and-CFSR-Daily-Jul-2-2024.png

    Until last month 2024 CERES TSI was leading 2023, but larger sunspot areas in recent months have driven TSI downspikes and a lower average.

    https://i.postimg.cc/504vmjXZ/Ceres-TSI.png

    As TSI could float above the decadal ocean warming threshold for a few more years, there could be another solar-driven El Nino spike by ~2027.

    • Willard says:

      > In May 2022 I had predicted

      Citation needed,

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      The correlation coefficient between UAH monthly anomalies and the SSN is NEGATIVE 0.25.

      • Bob Weber says:

        Antonin, the proper order of things is as follows:

        UAH LT lags the ocean by 2 months.

        The ocean warms decadally when SN ≥95 & CERES TSI ≥1361.25 W/m2.

        The ocean warmed in 2022/23 as SC#25 TSI climbed above the threshold, as described in my 2023 LASP Sun-Climate Symposium Poster.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        I just tried out every lag between 1 month and 132 months (11 years).
        The correlation coefficient varied between -0.21 and -0.41.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Bob Weber

        Would you please find me your name in the list of presenters at the 2023 LASP Sun-Climate Symposium:

        https://lasp.colorado.edu/meetings/2023-sun-climate-symposium/2023-scs-agenda/

      • Archie Debunker says:

        “Bob Weber

        Would you please find me your name in the list of presenters at the 2023 LASP Sun-Climate Symposium:”

        https://lasp.colorado.edu/meetings/2023-sun-climate-symposium/2023-scs-poster-session/

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Heads up … makers of posters are not presenters. The verity or otherwise of these posters is not endorsed by LASP, so using their name to justify his claims is deceitful. It is him and him alone. LASP supports the science of AGW.

      • Clint R says:

        “LASP supports the science of AGW.”

        What “science” is that, Ant?

        “Political Science”? “Astrology”? “Phrenology”?

        It ain’t physics.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Bob Weber, your 2022 poster paper is interesting, but I think you missed a few points. Your use of Loehle 2007 apparently missed the fact that his paper was deeply flawed. He messed up so badly that he produced a correction in early 2008.

        Also, using trailing running means produces a time series which is time shifted relative to the original data. Simple running means also tend to introduce aliasing and phase inversion into the data. Your 109 year SSN series ending in ~2019 actually represents the average at a date 54 years earlier than shown. The comment same applies to the 30 year average of the HadSTv3, whee the end point should be plotted ~15 years earlier. You appear to plot them ending at 2019, though you aren’t clear about that. Your Figure 8 also appears to be using a trailing running mean of Loehle’s 2007 results.

        Given those problems, I lost interest in the rest of your paper.

      • bdgwx says:

        And deeply flawed may be an understatement. It defies credulity to think a self proclaimed expert in the material didn’t understand that the academic convention is that “before present” is anchored to 1950. And if that defies credulity imagine how inept the Energy & Environment reviews had to be to not catch that mistake. It gets worse. It has now been almost 17 years and E&E still hasn’t retracted the publication. If this isn’t an example of predatory publishing then I don’t know what is.

      • Bob Weber says:

        The verity or otherwise of these posters is not endorsed by LASP, so using their name to justify his claims is deceitful. It is him and him alone. LASP supports the science of AGW.

        My poster presentations were accepted by the same committee that selected the oral presenters, so it is not deceitful for me to link to my own work which the LASP symposium organizing committee also selected for presentation amongst the other poster presenters.

        As well, my 2018 AGU poster was accepted for presentation even though the AGU supports AGW. It is also not deceitful to use that poster.

        It just so happens actual scientists like me being there too.

      • Bob Weber says:

        E. Swanson

        My figure 8 (from the 2023 poster) is of the 110 year-average Multi-Messenger Cosmogenic Sunspot Number reconstruction provided by Leif Svalgaard, not of the Loehle 2007 timeseries.

        Dr. Svalgaard had plotted Loehle and Moberg et al together which I had used as my figure one to make a point.

        Your concerns about the trailing averages are noted but it doesn’t matter in the end as the physical relationship using the S-B equation bears out the value of the correlation relationship perfectly.

        That time period was for 1890 to 2010, not ~2019.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        “Accepted” does not mean “agreed with”. Just don’t pretend it is any more than your own claims.

      • Swenson says:

        “”Accepted” does not mean “agreed with”. Just dont pretend it is any more than your own claims.”

        But those who claim the existence of a mysterious GHE, and refuse to describe it, think “agreement” and “consensus” can turn fantasy into fact, is that it?

        You wouldnt claim that something exists, but then refuse to describe it, would you?

        Only a fo‌ol would do something like that.

      • Bob Weber says:

        Antonin, I haven’t pretended anything here. Your disposition is unhealthy for science; are you an authoritarian censor?

        One of the responsibilities of a scientist is to communicate their findings to other scientists and to the public, which is what I do.

        Are you suggesting no one can or should say anything about climate that hasn’t been approved of by the UN or ‘climate central’ first?

        If the UN or climate central doesn’t agree then it gets snuffed, right?

        It just so happens that LASP (and climate science in general, the AGU, etc.) does have people with diverse opinions and open minds who are not all in lockstep with the UN and ‘climate central’, and who are not so insecure as you seem to be about hearing others’ opinions like mine.

        Your point about my work being ‘accepted’ is therefore unimportant, because you take advantage of the ambiguous use of that word. I said my poster was accepted for presentation, and you claimed I pretended it was accepted by ‘climate central’. That’s called gaslighting Antonin.

        I guarantee there are people among the ‘climate central’ crowd that wish I was never there to challenge them. Would you be one of them?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Weber wrote:

        Dr. Svalgaard had plotted Loehle and Moberg et al together which I had used as my figure one to make a point.

        Dr. Svalgaard’s web page lists some 18 presentations during 2019. I looked at the main ones and did not find such a plot. Your paper included no references, so, where did you get that plot?

        Since I don’t follow the conversations on Climate Central, I must assume that the replies you receive there have been justified, given your poor performance with your poster.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        E. Swanson, please stop t-word-ing.

  10. barry says:

    Various ENSO forecasts:

    “ENSO-neutral conditions are present. Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are above average in the west-central Pacific Ocean, near average in the east-central Pacific Ocean, and below-average in the far eastern Pacific Ocean. La Niña is favored to develop during July-September (65% chance) and persist into the Northern Hemisphere winter 2024-25 (85% chance during November-January).”

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

    “[The] El Niño event, which had persisted since boreal spring 2023, is likely to have ended.

    It is more likely that La Niña conditions will develop by boreal autumn (60%) than ENSO-neutral conditions will continue (40%).”

    https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html

    “The chance of a La Niña developing in the coming season has increased. When these criteria have been met in the past, a La Niña event has developed around 50% of the time.

    Climate models suggest that SSTs in the central tropical Pacific are likely to continue to cool for at least the next 2 months. Four of 7 models suggest SSTs are likely to remain at neutral ENSO levels, and the remaining 3 suggest the possibility of SSTs at La Niña levels (below −0.8 °C) from September.”

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/

    The Beijing Climate Centre has la Nina forming around September according to statistical models, but the heuristic models remain within ENSO-neutral.

    http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=92

  11. denny says:

    Its not difficult to see where this is going. Down, down, down. In a couple of years we will be having the same discussion that has been going on for decades. When is it going to start warming again. The only thing different is that the warm phase of the AMO is running out of steam. Tick tock, tick tock.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” The only thing different is that the warm phase of the AMO is running out of steam. ”

      That is told since years and years by a poster nicknamed ‘Richard M’.

      AMO is shown everywhere in his detrended variant, which lets it look a lot ‘cooler’ than temperature data.

      Here is the AMO’s most recent data I can find.

      Standardized monthly values of the Klotzbach and Gray (2008) AMO index from 1950-present

      https://tropical.colostate.edu/archive_amo.html

      Data download:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/175bXpfazXtanJj-JdowPaA6frB9nFJAF/view

      If you see here anything ‘out of steam’, feel lucky with it.

    • bdgwx says:

      Do you think the top is in?

      • denny says:

        Yes, for the next decade. After that who knows given the AMO and solar influence. We have to remember we are coming out of the LIA and hundreds of studies have identified long term impacts solar impacts. Throw in the CO2 effect and its a tossup.

      • bdgwx says:

        Great. Thanks. I’ll bookmark this prediction.

        Question…does your prediction consider the Earth energy imbalance and why it is positive right now?

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, the bogus Earth Energy Imbalance is an imaginary concept from the GHE false science.

        Reasons the GHE is bogus:

        Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”

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

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

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

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

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        How would total energy work with a system that continuously receives and emits energy?

      • Clint R says:

        “Energy” is conserved child, “flux” is NOT conserved.

        Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.

      • Willard says:

        Riddle me this, Puffman –

        Step 1 – Pure Denial

        Is this all you got?

        After all these years, you should be able to grok that watts don’t stand alone.

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong again, child. Watts that “stand alone” results in “power”. “Power” is different from both “flux” and “energy”. Power is energy/time, and Flux is power/area.

        Maybe someday when you grow up, you will understand.

      • Willard says:

        Riddle me this, Puffman –

        Where’s the Earth in your universe where watts “stand alone”?

      • Clint R says:

        Ask your mommie to show you her toaster, waffle iron, and other appliances, all rated in Watts, child.

        Now, it’s your bedtime….

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        How does it felt to have lost two of your silly talking points?

        Silly sock puppet!

    • Bindidon says:

      denny

      ” For the time being I will go with this.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uXlnpboAAKGP4?format=png&name=medium

      *
      No problem: that’s ESRL AMO in Wood For Trees:

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo

      ESRL AMO Index
      Source: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
      Data URL: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/

      and thus I can download the raw data in a click without having to search which AMO variant Paul Clark chose:

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-amo

      *
      And… here is the comparison with Colorado State U’s data (ESRL data was scaled up by factor 4 to get it at Colorado’s niveau):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MFHOw7W0b4IVBrXd4pAYJE_6GHz8-NNm/view

      And… what do you see? Your choice (the red plot) shows even less ‘out of steam’, regardless which kind of mean you choose (simple running mean, cascade, polynomial…).

      Unfortunately, the ESRL corner was based on Kaplan SST which was shutdown in January 2023. There is however a new variant based on ERSST5.

      *
      I can only say that AMO predictions showing a downturn as you expect are in between years old.

    • Nate says:

      Oh what about the persistent cool phase of the PDO?

    • David G says:

      Yeah, man. When I look at the chart at the top of this article, especially the red line, I just see one thing:Down, down, down. How could anyone not see that?

    • David G says:

      Yeah, man. When I look at the red line in the chart at the top of this article, I only see one thing: Down, down, down. How could anyone miss that?

      • Willard says:

        DG,

        Markets always need more suckers:

        https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/hottest-year-ever

        What are you waiting for?

      • David G says:

        No betting for me, Will, but I’m thinking that 2024 will end up as the second hottest year. A very close second. Actually, it seems likely to me that 2024 could end up being the hottest year in the satellite record but #2 in the surface temperature datasets.

        It doesn’t really matter. 2023 and 2024 will be so close that it will be a virtual tie. It will be two consecutive extremely hot years. The third hottest year will be a very distant third.

      • Not to criticise, but what is the obsession with the calendar year? That particular sample has no special privilege of which I am aware. The fact that the 13-month running mean just peaked at over 0.4C above any previous high is surely the point of note.

      • David G says:

        Of course, Elliott. I was just responding to the Kalshi link which was entitled “Is this the hottest year ever?”. When you’re tracking climate change you’ve got to look at it in increments of time, and it’s natural to think in terms of calendar years. But you are absolutely correct, the extraordinary heat of the past thirteen months is most noteworthy regardless of which year ends up as the hottest.

      • Willard says:

        It’s really hard to do any kind of measurement without using some kind of conventions, Elliott. Sometimes one needs them just to distinguish versions of a piece of code.

        The point isn’t that years are sacrosanct, but that everyone uses them.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  12. Eben says:

    Trump will fix the climate on day one

    • Nate says:

      True. He’ll just stop us measuring it!

      • David G says:

        LOL!!!

        Actually, Nate, Trump has his own secret measurements. He keeps them pretty close to the vest, but sometimes he gives us a hint about them. As he told us last Thursday, under his his leadership, “We had H2O, we had the best numbers ever!”

        Who could argue with that?

      • Tim S says:

        Oh Nate, there is joke that is a true story. Governor Jerry Brown of California was giving a speech. He defiantly stated that if Trump takes down the satellites, the state of California will put up their own. I saw it CNN so it must be true.

        The obvious irony is that the climate change believers do not like the satellite record. Surface observation will do just fine thank you.

      • Tim S says:

        I actually saw Jerry Brown during a very small-time social function. It must have been 1975 or 76 We did not speak, in fact he did not talk to anyone but the official politicians. There were maybe 20 people in total. He arrived with very light security and little fanfare. He was in a plain looking economy car (Dodge Dart?). There was a uniformed CHP officer driving and another one on a motorcycle. That was it. He stayed about 10 minutes to shake hands and then left.

      • Fortunately there are other scientific organs outside the US which he can’t shut down.

      • Bindidon says:

        Tim S

        ” The obvious irony is that the climate change believers do not like the satellite record. ”

        *
        I fear you, like so many here, are confusing ‘satellite’ and ‘UAH’.

        I can’t imagine that ‘climate change believers’ would ever disagree with RSS, as their temperature data often are higher than those measured at the surface.

        That’s of course the reason why ‘climate change deniers’ reject RSS in favor of the ‘cooler’ series from UAH (and even NOAA STAR since its 180 degree turn).

        Surprisingly, none of the ‘climate change deniers’ would ever disagree with RSS’ precipitation data.

      • Tim S says:

        Bindidon, you frame the question perfectly. There is UAH and RSS for satellite and a large number of other organization doing surface analysis. UAH and RSS use different methods to account for calibration drift and new satellites.

        With so much interest in this, I would think that more organizations with ample resources would tackle this problem, and settle the question, but they do not. Why?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Would not be hard, all he has to do is make NOAA and GISS accountable for their climate fudging.

    • Ken says:

      Nix Net Zero. Net Zero means a return to serfdom.

  13. Bindidon says:

    I read in the previous thread the usual coolista stuff:

    ” A tiny town located on Tasmanias Central Plateau just registered Australias first -10C of the year as southern Australia starts to feel the icy chill of a unusually strong mid-winter high pressure system. ”

    Wooooooaah. Grrrand Coooling Ahhhead!

    Some seem to simply forget that Tasmania’s Central Plateau is here and there at an altitude of about 1000 meters.

    By the way, let us have a look at Tasmania’s lowest Tmins since beginning:

    ASN00096033 ___LIAWENEE___________________ 2020 8 7 -14.2 (C)
    ASN00095018 ___TARRALEAH_VILLAGE__________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
    ASN00096003 ___BUTLERS_GORGE______________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
    ASN00096021 ___SHANNON_HEC________________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
    ASN00095001 ___BOTHWELL_(FRANKLIN_STREET)_ 1972 6 24 -12.5
    ASN00096003 ___BUTLERS_GORGE______________ 1983 7 1 -12.5
    ASN00093036 ___CAMPBELL_TOWN______________ 1972 6 24 -12.2
    ASN00096033 ___LIAWENEE___________________ 2013 7 9 -12.2
    ASN00093027 ___PALMERSTON_________________ 1972 6 24 -11.9
    ASN00093014 ___OATLANDS_POST_OFFICE_______ 1972 6 24 -11.7

    We see that such temperatures actually are not so unusual; especially because Liawenee is exactly on this famous Central Plateau, at 1057 meters.

    *
    However, we see also that all these temperatures below -10 C are recent. Not one night temperature below -10 C visible before 1972!

    This means that Tasmania is over the long term certainly not warming at all:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DJWz-z83DfsgSx6U7J0bklTaRlBvZQTS/view

    Tmin since 1900: -0.12 C / decade, Tmax: -0.09

    And not even since the sat era in 1979: Tmin: 0.10, Tmax: 0.0.

    *
    No: it’s not warming everywhere, he he.

  14. Tim S says:

    If there is a big Atlantic Hurricane season as predicted, what effect will that have? Beryl is still Cat 5, but projected to weaken after Jamaica is hit hard.

  15. AaronS says:

    This spike is most likely Tonga, as I see it. No other explanation FITS as well. Sulfate from boats too long ago, El Nino contribution is there, but timing doesn’t match nor does total energy (integral under this spike) match ocean response. Sun is a lower frequency. More like decadal is the highest frequency recorded in any proxy record. And solar forcing is not large in UAH data.

    So TONGA based on:

    1. Spike originated too Early to be El Nino based on long standing lag in UAH to Nino 3.4

    2. To protracted to be El Nino based on long term average duration and relationship with end of El Nino in Pacific

    3. Tonga sent up Unprecedented water vapor, it still exists today providing the mechanism for causing a spike.

    4. Timing of spike matches Tonga eruption.

    5. Water vapor is the main driver of greenhouse effect.

    • Clint R says:

      The HTE can still be seen in the Polar Vortex, although it is lessening. The atmospheric waves are no longer apparent, but the PV winds are still being slightly affected. Some have said the effects will last 2-3 years.

      With the weakening HTE and the oncoming La Niña, we could see significant drops in UAH by the end of the year.

      • barry says:

        Clint July 2 2024: “The HTE can still be seen in the Polar Vortex”

        Clint February 2 2024: “the Polar Vortex is operating normally again”

      • Clint R says:

        Thanks for quoting me correctly, barry.

        That’s always a good way to learn….

      • barry says:

        It’s a good way to see that you make it up as you go along and thus contradict yourself.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      There is no other scientific explanation. It has to be related to the millions of tons of water dumped into the stratosphere by Hunga Tonga.

      The stratosphere is normally a very arid place, very little WV.

      However, we must remember that the 0.8C is just an average. A slight skewing of temperature in one part of the planet could account for the average tipping upwards.

      • Willard says:

        > There is no other scientific explanation.

        Yes there is.

      • Swenson says:

        “Yes there is.”

        Of course, you are going to refuse to divulge what it is, arent you?

        Not terribly helpful. That’s your aim, isn’t it – to be as unhelpful as possible?

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Using a silly HTML trick to write a verboten word might not be the best way to ask for a sammich.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        Using a silly HTML trick to write a verboten word might not be the best way to ask for a sammich.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Are you going to divulge your silly HTML trick to use the T-word, Mike?

      • AaronS says:

        Willard,

        I have not been here frequently, so sorry if I am missing your previous logic. Can you clarify what is the other viable explanation? I am definitely open to testing other ideas.

        Aaron

        Another thought experiment, is the only other deviation between the Nino 3.4 and the UAH is Pinatubo. So it seems that it takes something at the scale of a decent sized volcano to create an anomaly to a well behaved system (system: UAH lags Nino 3.4 by 5 Months and total energy is highly correlated between data sets such that positive correlate with positive and vice versa).

      • Willard says:

        AS,

        When you’ll tell us about your scientific explanation and if it does not amount to “but volcanoes,” I’ll see what I can do.

      • AaronS says:

        Willard,

        I basically cite this nature paper as the mechanism (
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01568-2) . In Summary Tonga water vapor was an extraordinary event, spread as a GHG in atmosphere, still present today. Then apply to UAH data being an extraordinary response to NINO 3.4 data in pacific ocean and not just an E l Nino

        My personal academic research was in paleoclimate reconstructions, so I am not an expert on atmospheric process. I just see climate shifts in many proxy records, and seek understanding in modern world what drives the high frequency changes. I published a paper on quasi periodic E l Nino patterns and am always curious what else might contribute.

      • Willard says:

        AS,

        Just caught your response. I answered to Mr. Asshat here:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1677405

        Looks like we rely on the same paper! Since there’s no copy of it on the Sci-Hub, here’s where I could get a copy.

        As I see it, the main factor for the secular trend ought to be humans dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow, El Nino the most proximal factor for the monthly spike, and Honga Tonga as accentuating both by 0.04C overall.

        Thanks for stopping by.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

      • Nate says:

        DREMT pls stop trying to censor or censure legit science commenters.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  16. skeptikal says:

    This still looks to me like some kind of instrument failure.

    • Nate says:

      Yep. Worldwide thermometers got Covid, or something.

    • Bad Andrew says:

      I agree.

      Andrew

    • Bindidon says:

      skeptical

      ” … some kind of instrument failure. ”

      *
      Are you serious?

      Let’s compare UAH 6.0 land to the RATPAC-B land radiosondes which were inter-calibrated with UAH 5.x in 2008 at Vienna U, Austria, if I well remember.

      1. UAH LT vs. RAT 500 hPa (5.5 km)

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ayXrwM4S4KQfxQSrsHM7IInT4lhgnJed/view

      2. UAH LS vs. RAT 100 hPa (16 km)

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_juXJ0mfrFU6iO2Df-v5kXdGnr5q7eBz/view

      *
      The correlation between UAH LS and RATPAC at 500 hPa is less good since a few years than for the LT / 500 hPa pair; but when constructing a time series for the lower stratosphere out of no more than 85 balloons, you can’t expect the result becoming nearer to the average of no less than 9504 UAH grid cells than is shown in the 2. graph.

    • bdgwx says:

      What is the minimum value of UAH TLT that you would still consider instrument failure?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      There is another possibility. The satellites are owned by NOAA and its not clear whether UAH gets the data straight from the satellites or via NOAA. If it comes via NOAA, they have the capability of running it through an algorithm before handing it over to UAH.

      Cynical…but possible. I justify my cynicism based on my experience here in Vancouver Canada. This spring and early summer has been cooler than normal. Significantly cooler.

      • Willard says:

        > Cynical…but possible.

        Mr. Asshat never really told that to Roy’s face directly.O

        One has to wonder why.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mr. Asshat never really told that to Roys face directly.O

        One has to wonder why”

        Maybe he didnt feel like it? Wonder away, dummy. I’m sure nobody at all cares about your “wonders”.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mr. Asshat never really told that to Roys face directly.O

        One has to wonder why”

        Maybe he didnt feel like it? Wonder away, dummy. I’m sure nobody at all cares about your “wonders”.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You used the T-word.

        That means you used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        You used the T-word.

        That means you used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.”

        What are you babbling about? Is it anything to do with your refusal to accept the reality that there is no GHE?

        What’s the T-word? Is it like the N-word, or the F-word?

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy’s mind is far below that of a simpleton. Why should Roy be concerned about my thoughts? I am not accusing him or UAH of chicanery, I am accusing NOAA of possible chicanery.

        After all, if NOAA is an intermediary between the sat data and UAH, based on their past chicanery, it would not be beyond them to mess with the data before handing it over.

        By chicanery I am referring to NOAA’s announcement that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Upon closer scrutiny, it was revealed that NOAA was claiming only a possibility that 2014 was the hottest ever, based on a 48% likelihood. GISS outdid their chicanery by claiming a 38% likelihood.

        I have every bit of confidence in the integrity of Roy and UAH integrity.

      • Willard says:

        Mr. Asshat feigns ignorance:

        Mr. Asshat appeared on this site ca 2013. At the time he was a little more hypocritical, e.g.:

        [MR. ASSHAT] It seems NOAA ia bending over backwards to accommodate the IPCC world view on global warming while ignoring their own satellites. That world view involves the IPCC admitting no warming trend the past 15 years while claiming their confidence level has risen 5% that humans are causing the (lack of) warming.

        Roys answer was great:

        [ROY] It would be difficult to ignore the satellite microwave sounders-there are currently at least 5 of them operational. If there was only 1, you might argue it can’t be trusted.

        Source:
        https://web.archive.org/web/20201028171719/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/12/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-nov-2013-0-19-deg-c/#comment-96891

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1676077

        He’ll have to work a little harder for his conspiracy theory to take hold.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” There is another possibility. The satellites are owned by NOAA and its not clear whether UAH gets the data straight from the satellites or via NOAA. If it comes via NOAA, they have the capability of running it through an algorithm before handing it over to UAH. ”

        *
        Once more we see Robertson’s dumb ignorance and utterly arrogant lying.

        If he had a bit of a clue through informing himself, he would know that NOAA’s satellite data is also used by NOAA itself in its STAR department.

        And if he had just a bit of technical education, skills and experience, he would be able to compare UAH’s and STAR’s LT data:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/10MWqbxzBp-JVIi0O8fs4KibpF4WmKSHp/view

        Linear trend for period: Jan 1981 – Dec 2023, in C / decade

        UAH 6.0 LT: 0.149 +- 0.007
        NOAA STAR LT: 0.138 +- 0.007

        But he wouldn’t even know from where to obtain the data, let alone be able to fairly compare the downloaded time series using the simplest features of a spreadsheet calculator.

        *
        All what Robertson is able to do is to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie.

        Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  17. stephen p anderson says:

    The last temperature range oscillated around about 0.25C. It will be interesting to see where the new oscillation will occur. I am going to guess about 0.5C.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      More like 0.2C. Take a look at the period prior to 2016, it featured an 18 year flat trend. The 18 years before 1998 were below the baseline.

      CO2 warming cannot be explained by an 18 year flat trend.

    • barry says:

      “CO2 warming cannot be explained by an 18 year flat trend.”

      Why does an 18-year flat trend for the temperatures of the lower troposphere exclude CO2 as a cause of long-term warming?

      (Never mind that the trend for this period is indeterminate – failing to disprove the null doesn’t prove the null)

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Because CO2 lags temperature in both short and long, time scales. And, Berry has shown that most of the CO2 increase is due to natural emissions

      • barry says:

        This reply does not respond to the question asked.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        I thought it did. Because CO2 doesn’t cause temperature trends. Temperature trends cause CO2.

      • barry says:

        The possible natural sources for CO2 show a net uptake over the period that the atmosphere is also accumulating CO2. There is no natural source that is losing CO2. Only the fossil fuels taken out of the ground and burned by humans.

        Also, while there is a correlation between ENSO events and CO2 fluctuation, it is a factor smaller than the annual variation, and swamped by the long-term growth.

        According to UAH there was 18 year ‘hiatus’ in temps between 1998 and 2016. But CO2 in the atmos climbed very steadily.

        In fact, while the temps fluctuate year to year, CO2 has remained a a remarkably steady incline.

        Regardless, the statement was that 18 years ‘flat’ global temperatures disprove CO2 warming. Your remarks completely ignore that ‘argument’. Gordon isn’t coming back to answer, so that’s that I guess.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        That is a static, accountant’s view of CO2. CO2 flows through the atmosphere. It is dynamic. The rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to inflows minus outflows. It is a first-order linear differential equation. Berry used this model to show that the IPCC’s carbon cycle model is wrong, that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural emissions, Berry shows that the most that humans could have contributed to atmospheric CO2 is about 30ppm. Also, Happer has shown in his paper that if GHE is true that doubling of CO2 would only raise the temperature by about 0.6C.

      • Because CO2 doesnt cause temperature trends. Temperature trends cause CO2.

        This is an elementary non sequitur. The fact that temperature may drive CO2 normally is by no means good news, and by no means implies that “CO2 doesnt cause temperature trends”. In a system in which multiple factors are involved in mutual feedbacks it is perfectly possible that temperature may have driven CO2 in the past while CO2 still drives temperature today.

        We have very few examples in the record of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere in bulk – I can only think of the Chicxulub impact and the Deccan eruptions as potential cases, offhand. Study of these events and their outcomes is not uniformly reassuring.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Ah, the ole pulse argument. CO2 hasn’t been dumped into the atmosphere. Humans only account for approximately 4 percent of CO2 emissions. CO2 flows through the atmosphere. The eTime for CO2 is approximately 4-5 years according to ALL the atmospheric physics textbooks. So, virtually all, including human, CO2 molecules emitted into the atmosphere are gone within 20 years.

      • Nate says:

        Stephen
        Berry cannot explain why all the carbon reservoirs, atm, ocean, land, biopsphere are gaining carbon.

        That can only occur by new carbon being added to all of them from some source.

        Luckily we know a long buried source that has been tapped, fossil fuels.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Nate,

        Berry doesn’t attempt to explain. He just shows mathematically that the IPCC’s carbon cycle model and their accounting are wrong. The atmosphere has gained carbon. It has also warmed a little. So far, neither is a bad thing.

      • Nate says:

        “He just shows mathematically”

        Math by itself is not science.

        There are numerous simple equations that are not sufficient to account for the carbon cycle.

        Science theories must be tested by observations.

        And they have to take into account the constraints of the real system, such as ocean chemistry etc.

        No matter how much you love a theory, if it fails to explain the observations, its wrong.

        Berry’s math fails to fit the observations, its WRONG.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Nate,

        What does that even mean? You can falsify a theory (or a Law) with math. That’s what Einstein did and that’s what Berry did.

  18. Gordon Robertson says:

    Same thing happened in the 1930s, what was the cause then?

    Some have written those records off as pertaining to North America only which is as ridiculous as claiming the 400+ uear Little Ice Age occurred only in Europe. In the 1930s, there was little in the way of globality and many parts of the globe were not covered with thermometers as they are today.

    • Willard says:

      > Same thing happened in the 1930s,

      No it did not.

      • Swenson says:

        “No it did not.”

        What didnt happen? Refusing to say? I don’t blame you.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Mikey, did you notice that your comment applies equally to Gordon’s comment? Why don’t you ask him what DID happen. Let me address your oversight for you.

        Gordon,
        “Same thing happened in the 1930s.”
        What happened? Refusing to say? I dont blame you.
        Mike Flynn

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What didn’t happen is you not using the T-word.

        Did you exploit a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation again?

      • Swenson says:

        “Mikey, did you notice that your comment applies equally to Gordons comment? Why dont you ask him what DID happen. Let me address your oversight for you.”

        You may do as you wish. Waste your time in whatever fashion you like, if it gives you solace. Should I be concerned?

        [what a fo‌olish person]

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        What didn’t happen is you not using the T-word.

        Did you exploit a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation again?”

        Thank you for your concern.

        [snigger]

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        We have someone who spends ALL waking hours EVERY day posting here and continually refreshing the page talking about wasting time.

      • Swenson says:

        “We have someone who spends ALL waking hours EVERY day posting here and continually refreshing the page talking about wasting time.”

        Good to know.

        [snicker]

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Keep snickering at yourself, Mikey. What have you done today Mikey that has nothing to do with using the internet? Then think how much more you could have done if you would just get up off your ass.

      • Swenson says:

        “Keep snickering at yourself, Mikey. What have you done today Mikey that has nothing to do with using the internet? Then think how much more you could have done if you would just get up off your ass.”

        Thanks for your concern.

        [snigger]

      • Willard says:

        See how easier it is to make comments without using any word that requires you to use your HTML trick, Mike?

      • Swenson says:

        “See how easier it is to make comments without using any word that requires you to use your HTML trick, Mike?”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Now you had to use your HTML trick, Mike.

      • Swenson says:

        “See how easier it is to make comments without using any word that requires you to use your HTML trick, Mike?”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling. Or not, as you wish.

      • Willard says:

        Please stop using your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation, Mike.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  19. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The strength of the solar polar field is trending downward. The latest data from 01.07.2024 shows that there has already been a change of polarity on the Sun.
    https://i.ibb.co/YDrZh2t/Polar.gif

  20. Entropic man says:

    Clint R

    You are absolutely right. Flux is rate of energy flow per unit of area.

    For a constant area structure like the Earth, flux correalates exactly with energy flow.

    Thus you can use flux as an indicator of energy flow in planetary energy budgets.

    • Swenson says:

      “Thus you can use flux as an indicator of energy flow in planetary energy budgets.”

      What? Yet another proxy? Why not just use the energy flow as the energy flow?

      All irrelevant anyway, isn’t it? The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. That shows that four and a half billion years of sunlight did not contain enough energy to replace that lost by the planet.

      Measurements dating back to Fourier and earlier show the Earth loses more energy than it gains – currently about 44 tW. That’s called cooling.

      Do you think calling energy flow “flux” will cause the Earth to magically get hotter? Only joking, of course you do!

      Carry on denying reality. Still no GHE.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        Only a significant increase in the mass of the troposphere can cause an increase in pressure over the oceans and ocean surface temperature. Earth is a water planet and its global temperature depends on the temperature of the ocean. Currently, the ocean surface temperature does not exceed 31 C anywhere, and the excess heat, due to the constant average pressure, causes an increase in evaporation, convection and clouds.

      • Swenson says:

        Ren,

        Steady pressure does not cause temperature to rise, in the atmosphere or otherwise.

        For example, “Surface temperatures under the polar highs are one of the coldest on Earth, with no month having an average temperature above freezing.” – Wikipedia.

        Even at extreme pressure, such as under 10 km of seawater, temperatures are only around 2 C, due to heat coming through the crust from below, not from pressure from above.

        Earth is a mostly glowing hot rocky planet, with a very thin film of liquid water of 70% of its surface.

        The planet is still cooling, which it will continue to do as long as the interior is hotter than the surface.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Thanks Mikey for proving to the likes of Gordon that the ideal gas law does not counter global warming.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “Thanks Mikey for proving to the likes of Gordon that the ideal gas law does not counter global warming.”

        Your opinion is noted – and ignored.

        [laughing]

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        You said temperature is not determined solely by air pressure, did you not? Ergo, you have proved what I claimed. Opinion does not enter into it.

      • Entropic man says:

        You don’t have to do the whole job in one step.

        Why not use solar flux to calculate the energy absorbed for each grid square, thus allowing for Sun angle and albedo variation between grid squares?

        Then add up the energy absorbed by all the grid squares to get the total planetary energy absorbed.

      • Swenson says:

        “You said temperature is not determined solely by air pressure, did you not? Ergo, you have proved what I claimed. Opinion does not enter into it.”

        Your opinion is noted, and discarded as having no value whatsoever.

        Thank you for your pointless input.

        [laughing at fo‌ol]

    • Clint R says:

      Sorry Ent, but that won’t work. You’re trying to treat Earth as a homogenous object, with constant temperature and emissivity. The error margins become ridiculous. That’s why the bogus “EEI” is ridiculous, especially when the “imbalance” is reported to two decimal places, with NO mention of error margin.

      That ain’t science. But, it tricks many, which is the purpose….

      • Entropic man says:

        The satellite method of calculating energy imbalance is

        Solar insolation – albedo – outward longwave radiation.

        That gives approximately 1 W/m^2 or 0.1% of the energy absorbed.

        You can confirm this independantly. Over 90% of the total energy absor*bed by the Earth each year is absor*bed by the oceans. Of the approximately 10^24 Joules absor*bed each year 10^21 Joules becomes extra ocean heat content.

        Once again the imbalance is about 0.01%.

        Always nice to have independent ways of checking such measures as EEI.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        You wrote –

        “The satellite method of calculating energy imbalance is

        Solar insolation albedo outward longwave radiation.”

        Which is completely meaningless. Only reality deniers would think such a laughable exercise would provide any useful information.

        Go on, explain the relevance to four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, or the mythical GHE which you refuse to describe in any valid way.

        The “energy balance” is completely nonsensical.

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A weather station at Liawenee registered a minimum temperature of -12.9C shortly after 6am AEST on Wednesday. This was Tasmanias lowest July temperature on record, beating the previous record of -12.5C from Butlers Gorge on July 1, 1983. Launcestons low of -3.1C on Wednesday was also its coldest July morning in seven years.

    Wednesday mornings bitterly cold temperatures are part of a string of icy mornings that are snap freezing Tasmania this week, under the influence of an abnormally strong high pressure system. This high is so strong that it may challenge Australias maximum mean sea level pressure record in the coming days.

  22. John W says:

    Gordon Robertson wrote:

    “Thanks for the proof, Binny, that the planet is cooling.”

    As far as I know of global cooling forecasts, there’s Valentina Zharkova’s grand solar minimum theory, but the current solar cycle has more sunspots than the previous one.

    This blog has seen numerous claims of future cooling over the years, but none have proven correct. Nonetheless, I can respect forecasts that are, at least, supported by solid physical theories. What is yours, Gordon?

  23. Clint R says:

    Confusion remains over “energy”, “power”, and “flux”, so some simple analogies might help.

    Let’s start with only “energy” and “power”. Energy has units of “Joules”, and Power has units of “Joules per time”, which is also “Watts”. Note that Energy is a “quantity”, while Power is a “rate” (quantity per time). “Energy” and “Power” are NOT the same.

    Most people are familiar with a car traveling at a speed, say 50 mph. That speed is a “rate” — quantity per time. No one, but a child, would believe that 60 mph is the same as 60 miles. Yet confusing “quantity” with “rate” is a common mistake in GHE “science”.

    Quantities are typically “conserved”. That just means that things must “add up”, or be accountable. For example, if you purchase 5 apples at the store, you expect to arrive home with 5 apples. If one is missing, then it was either dropped, or eaten. Apples just don’t magically disappear. Apples are “conserved”.

    But, “rates” are NOT conserved. “Rates” do not add or subtract like quantities. For example, if you drive 50 miles, stop, then drive another 50 miles, you have driven 100 miles. But, if you drive at 50 mph, stop, then drive again at 50 mph, you have NOT driven at 100 mph!

    In physics, it’s very important to pay attention to the units. Otherwise, you just end up with nonsense.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      So are you claiming that if water enters a tank through a pipe at 20L/h, and more water enters the tank through another pipe at 30L/h, and there are no other sources or sinks, then water is not entering the tank at 50L/h?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Predicted response: “You do not understand”

      • Clint R says:

        That’s NOT what I’m saying, Ant.

        In your example, 20 l/h for 1 hour, then later 30 l/h for another hour, would NOT equal 50 l/h.

        If you want another example, use the solid cone in space. The total surface area is 5 times the base. The base absorbs 900 W/m². With emissivity equal to 1, and at steady state, the surface is emitting 180 W/m². The flux-in does NOT equal the flux-out.

        Flux is NOT conserved. The EEI is bogus.

      • Willard says:

        Riddle me this, Puffman –

        Why did you not reduce your equation to a common basis, pun intended?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • E. Swanson says:

        Cult Leader Grammie clone has a bone in his craw (as usual). He forgets that the EEI being discussed is presented as “watts per m^2” averaged for the Entire Earth. Thus, each of the components could be converted to Joules by multiplying by the total area of the Earth and an appropriate time period, such as a year. The results for each component would be Joules per year, which one finds used sometimes for ocean heat storage discussions.

        The trouble is, such numbers would be quite large to deal with, so the convention is simply “watts per meter^2” since many of the real world measurements use that metric. Besides, the fractions of each component would still be the same, so why make it hard to understand by requiring the large numbers associated with Joules when w/m^2 gives the same result? Silly boy!

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry E. Swanson, but that won’t work.

        You would have to match each flux with the specific area and emissivity. Otherwise, you’re just making crap up to support your cult beliefs.

        Oh, wait….

      • Norman says:

        Clot R

        I already know it won’t help your thinking. But in your case of water flow, if you had a 20 l/hrs flow and another 30 l/hrs flow, the two flows add and it would be equivalent to 50 l/hrs. Sorry your logic is so terrible!

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, my example considered the two flow rates at different times. The rates would then NOT add.

        You will need a responsible adult to explain it to you.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1677258

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        What’s dimension analysis?

      • E. Swansn says:

        No, grammie clone, those numbers in Trenberth’s famous graph are global averages. There’s no way to dis-aggregate them without going back to the basic data and starting over. Said data already includes parameters such as the fractional area and emissivity so that they can be averaged effectively. Why would you think otherwise?

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        Why do you separate the rates? With the Earth you have energy going in at a rate and leaving at a rate. If they equal the temperature does not change. If you alter either incoming or leaving rates your temperature will change. Really simple stuff. Your cone example is very poor when comparing to Earth since the receiving and emitting surface areas are the same.

      • Clint R says:

        All wrong, Swanson.

        Trying to come up with an “energy budget” from satellite measurements is ludicrous. You obviously don’t understand ANY of the science. Your cult tries to come up with an average close to 240 W/m², because that comes from an imaginary sphere. But the imaginary sphere is at a temperature of 255K. Earth is at a temperature of 288K. Your cult claims Earth is emitting what a cold imaginary sphere emits!

        But, it gets worse. Earth reflects a lot of solar. But the 240 W/m² is only infrared. Your cult omits the reflected energy, and calls the result an “energy budget”! Ludicrous.

        It gets even worse, much more, but I’m busy for the next few hours…..

        ——-

        [Norman, get a responsible adult to explain it to you. You’re all tangled up, as usual.]

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        I think you need more than an adult to explain physics to you and what science is. You think your cult posts are science and then you think real science is a cult. No one can be as confused and mixed up as you seem to be. Somewhere your brain wires got crossed and you are no longer able to function as a rational person. I would like to help you but you just reject all evidence in favor of your cult opinions. It is sad but you are stuck wherever. Like Swenson and Gordon Robertson.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        Despite your opinion of E. Swanson, he would be the scientific one and you are the cult minded opinioned one who will never support anything. Do you understand that science is an evidence based study of nature? It is not your opinions and arrogant declarations based on how you feel about things (IR from a cold source will reflect off a hotter object and not get absorbed is one of your flawed opinions. It is based on zero evidence, no supporting observations, no experiments. You get this from blogs by crackpot geologists who really do not have much knowledge of the physics).

        So go to this link. This is some of the data used to calculate a global average emission of IR and the average is around 240 W/m^2. You can deny the evidence all day long. I might be inclined to listen to your babbling if you would ever link to something that supports your cult opinions. To date you have not provided anything but your arrogant opinions. Much like Swenson and Gordon Robertson.

        https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/resources/images/

      • Swenson says:

        “So are you claiming that if water enters a tank through a pipe at 20L/h, and more water enters the tank through another pipe at 30L/h, and there are no other sources or sinks, then water is not entering the tank at 50L/h?”

        AQ refuses to describe the GHE in any valid manner, but instead diverts into bizarre pointless and irrelevant analogies.

        The planet has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.

        Obviously, nothing at all prevented this cooling.

        AQ finds himself totally snookered, hoist with his own petard, so to speak. As do all his ilk.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        So Clint, is 20W of energy per hour over a square metre of earth from one source plus 30 Watts of energy per hour over the same square metre of earth from another source equal to 50W per hour over the same square metre of earth?

        And if they are not the same square metre:

        The first source supplies 20W of energy per hour over the first square metre and none over the second, for an average of 10W per square metre per hour.

        The second source supplies no energy to the first square metre and 30W per hour to the second square metre, for an average of 15W per square metre per hour.

        Are you claiming that the average over the 2 square metres is not 25W per square metre per hour? That is, are you claiming that it is not valid to add AVERAGE fluxes to get an average flux?

        BTW … the higher order models DO account for varying flux over the earth’s surface. You are looking at the kiddy model, and still getting it wrong.

      • Clint R says:

        I wonder if E. Swanson was able to learn anything?

        For some reason, I doubt it….

      • Willard says:

        How can Puffman live in a house in which only one light is on?

      • Clint R says:

        Ant, your “problem” is very confusing.

        For example, are you saying a surface is emitting or absorbing? “Over” is not very clear.

        Maybe you could find someone that understands physics to help you phrase your question?

        Otherwise, you sound like a cult id10t.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Grammie clone wrote:

        I wonder if E. Swanson was able to learn anything?

        Not from you, air head.

        I however have learned the basics or measuring SW and LW radiation from space, having followed the progress of such measurements since the ERBE experiments. gremmie also ignores the efforts to make necessary measurements at the surface and within the atmosphere. These efforts have continued and have been improved over decades of work .

      • Clint R says:

        As suspected, “Swansn” hasn’t learned anything.

        They can’t learn….

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Clint – my wording is very clear. I am talking about neither emitting nor absorbing. I am talking only about the flux STRIKING a surface, regardless of what happens next. It is clear you don’t know how to respond.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “So Clint, is 20W of energy per hour over a square metre of earth from one source plus 30 Watts of energy per hour over the same square metre of earth from another source equal to 50W per hour over the same square metre of earth?”

        Ooooooh! Another stu‌pid attempt at a gotcha!

        Don’t look more idio‌tic than you have to.

        Completely irrelevant, and pointless. You refuse to describe the GHE in any valid way, so trying to convince anybody that you are wise and knowledgeable is doomed to failure.

        As to your wi‌tless got‌cha, you may as well refuse to illustrate your intellectual brilliance by telling everyone how much energy is flowing through a random square meter of the Earth’s surface at any given time. Given that photons travel at the speed of light, and that there are about 413 CMB (Cosmic Microwave background) photons per cc, commensurate with a temperature of 2.73 K or so, how many photons commensurate with temperatures above and below 2.73 K also occupy each cc of space, and thus flow through a random square meter of the Earth’s surface?

        You can refuse to answer, on any grounds you like. Obviously, fluxes do not “add” in any meaningful sense, unless the “fluxes” are composed of identical entities.

        You don’t understand what I am talking about, do you? You refuse to accept that “climate scientists” are similarly clueless, and deny reality just like you.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Whenever you feel confident enough to reply Clint …

      • Willard says:

        Puffman just wrote a comment admitting that your maths was correct.

        He took the L!

    • barry says:

      If you walk at 2 kph from the back to the front of a train traveling at 60 kph, you will be traveling at 62 kph relative to the ground.

      ” ‘Rates’ do not add or subtract like quantities.”

      Rubbish. Depending on context rates can indeed be summed.

      A company owns a factory that produces 1000 cars a day. The company invests in a second factory that produces 1000 cars a day.

      If we add these rates we get the correct answer for how many cars are produced per day by the company.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry barry, but you’re making the same mistake as Ant.

        A specific example can disprove a general concept, but a specific example can NOT prove a general concept.

        It’s called “reality”.

      • barry says:

        The general concept you gave us was:

        ” ‘Rates’ do not add or subtract like quantities.”

        That’s just been disproved with several examples.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        Why did you have to find a bogus example just to show that you can’t mind your units properly?

      • Clint R says:

        Don’t worry barry. If you can’t come up with something valid, other cult children will cover for you.

      • Willard says:

        Hey, Puffman, riddle me this –

        One of your old sock puppet buys 100 Euros for 108 USD. Another of your sock puppet buys 108 USD for 101 Euros. Can you convince your sock puppets that you can’t tell if they lost money?

      • Swenson says:

        barry,

        You are no doubt an exceptionally clever fellow (in your own opinion, at least).

        You refuse to describe the GHE, but waffle on about anything else – trains, walking thereon, companies, factories, cars – and so on.

        Others might not agree with your opinion of your cleverness. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, losing energy at a rate of 44tW or so.

        Continue to deny reality if you like. Nature can’t be fo‌oled, as Richard Feynman said.

        No GHE.

      • Swenson says:

        “Hey, Puffman, riddle me this. . . .”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Only one forbidden word you can post by injecting an invisible HTML character?

        Please, make an effort.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        Only one forbidden word you can post by injecting an invisible HTML character?

        Please, make an effort.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Mike, riddle me this –

        In one comment at you post one banned word using your silly HTML trick. In another comment at you post banned word.

        Can you measure the flow of your usage of the silly HTML trick?

      • Swenson says:

        “Hey Mike, riddle me this

        In one comment at you post one banned word using your silly HTML trick. In another comment at you post banned word.

        Can you measure the flow of your usage of the silly HTML trick?”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        It’s one banned word per comment, Mike.

      • Swenson says:

        “It’s one banned word per comment, Mike.”

        Oh dear, you have appointed yourself Dr Spencer’s “Word Suitability Arbiter”, have you?

        You do have del‌usions of grandeur, dont you? If Dr Spencer banned any words from appearing on his blog, they wouldnt appear, would they? If you want to accuse Dr Spencer of incompetence, go ahead – while I laugh at your silliness.

        You might be stu‌pid, but at least you’re a fo‌ol as well.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        One banned word per comment is the solution to the puzzle, Mike.

        What are you braying about, and why do you keep using a silly HTML trick to write forbidden words?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Willard,

        Mikey is inserting HTML character #8204 (“zero width non joiner”) into his text. He is happy to lie about that because he doesn’t realise the codes can be seen if one knows where to look.

    • Tim S says:

      Power is energy per time. Flux as used in climate forcing is energy per time per unit area. In the context of the atmosphere fluxes do not add because flux is taken at a plane surface and the atmosphere is dynamic and three dimensional.

      Other than that, the analogy of a moving car, train or whatever is not a flux, and to that extent the analogy does not work. The energy portion of the flux is variously disturbed as it move away the arbitrary reference plane so it really is not worth arguing about.

      Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        > flux is taken at a plane surface

        Not always, but it doesn’t matter either way.

        Try again.

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        There is no GHE. All this talk of fluxes is pointless.

        The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.

        Keep refusing to accept reality. Nature can’t be fo‌oled, unlike fanatical GHE cultists.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Every planet of the Solar system receives energy from the Sun. That energy can be estimated using the solar constant of that planet and the size of the planet. That solar constant is usually expressed as flux density. Geometric contortions like TS’ do not change the convenience of doing so.

        Long live and prosper.

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        There is no GHE. All this talk of fluxes is pointless.

        The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.

        Keep refusing to accept reality. Nature cant be fo‌oled , unlike fanatical GHE cultists.

      • Willard says:

        The algebraic properties of a unit have nothing to do with your usual distractions, Mike.

      • Swenson says:

        “The algebraic properties of a unit have nothing to do with your usual distractions, Mike.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        You must know by now what is this month’s theme, Mike.

        You’re using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

      • Swenson says:

        “The algebraic properties of a unit have nothing to do with your usual distractions, Mike.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        You repeated the same comment, Mike.

        So not only you used your silly HTML trick, but you also inserted a space somewhere in your text.

      • Swenson says:

        “You repeated the same comment, Mike.

        So not only you used your silly HTML trick, but you also inserted a space somewhere in your text.”

        Thank you for your concern.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        This is why you can publish forbidden words on the page.

        Is that too hard for you to understand?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  24. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Hey England,

    Have Fun At Work Tomorrow!

    Get it? England doesn’t celebrate the Fourth of July. So they don’t get a day off. Plus they lost.

  25. Bindidon says:

    I read above, without surprise:

    ” More like 0.2C. Take a look at the period prior to 2016, it featured an 18 year flat trend.

    The 18 years before 1998 were below the baseline.

    Ignoramus Robertson still does not (want to) understand that a baseline is an arbitrary construction depending of the reference period chosen to construct it.

    Years ago already I explained to him that if, instead of accurately using WMO’s specifications for reference periods, Roy Spencer

    – had kept till recently the old period ‘1979-1998’ to construct his baseline and the anomalies out of it,

    and

    – recently switched to a new period ‘1999-2018’,

    the UAH chart would look different depending on the reference period used to display it because the baselines for 1979-2018 and 1999-2018 are themselves different.

    He didn’t understand this because he never managed to actually read anything: instead, he just skimms through the texts to find something to smugly trumpet about.

    *
    But… this is so simple to understand!

    Though UAH – for good reasons – does not publish absolute temperatures (even not at the 2.5 degree grid level), it is nevertheless possible to reconstruct them by combining the grid anomalies with the grid climatology (the 12-month grid baseline), and then performing a monthly, latitude weighted average of the grid.

    *
    Having the absolute data, it is then possible to compute any 12-month baseline out of it:

    Baseline for 1979-1998 in K

    Jan: 262.93
    Feb: 263.00
    Mar: 263.20
    Apr: 263.64
    May: 264.26
    Jun: 264.93
    Jul: 265.23
    Aug: 265.05
    Sep: 264.39
    Oct: 263.70
    Nov: 263.19
    Dec: 263.00

    Mean: 263.88

    or

    Baseline for 1999-2018 in K

    Jan: 263.23
    Feb: 263.30
    Mar: 263.46
    Apr: 263.88
    May: 264.47
    Jun: 265.09
    Jul: 265.42
    Aug: 265.24
    Sep: 264.66
    Oct: 263.98
    Nov: 263.43
    Dec: 263.22

    Mean: 264.12

    *
    Now we can display the absolute data with the two baseline averages:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rE-LYwgMJyOI1bE5JJ2HHUX_NooIpLeo/view

    and show the anomaly time series constructed out of absolute data and the two respective baselines, with a 13 month running mean:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nN316BRnvkmvBMl8jmMm0dpgUnvEizjR/view

    *
    And here is the point which Robertson (and maybe other, similarly opinionated posters) has always wrong.

    Due to the lower average absolute temperature in 1979-1998, the (green) anomalies wrt the baseline are higher than those wrt 1999-2018 (purple).

    As anyone can see now, writing ‘The 18 years before 1998 were below the baseline’ is simple nonsense when looking at anomalies wrt the older 1979-1998 baseline: 99% of the anomaly data since 1994 is… above it :–)

    *
    But Robertson never cares about any contradiction let alone correction.

    He will continue to use his good old ‘pieces of paper’ instead, and feed us the same nonsense as always.

  26. Solar flux cannot theoretically be averaged over some area, because solar flux what it does is to interact with matter.

    When solar flux is averaged, the new interaction result is very different from the actual one.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Willard says:

      Pray tell more about your “Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (1)” equation, Christos.

      • Willard,

        “Pray tell more about your ‘Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (1)’equation, Christos.”

        The Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]^1/4 (K) (1) equation, it is not mine.

        The equation expresses the basic important insight that it is possible to theoretically calculate the planet average surface temperature Tmean from planet IR emission.

        The Te is the first approach, which uses the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, considering a planet as a warm sphere emitting the incident energy, as like that energy had been already storaged on the planet surface (which is not).

        But it is all wrong approach, because S-B emission law is not an absor-p-tion law.

        Also it is wrong because S-B emission law doesn’t describe the actual emission intensity the real matter does at its respective temperatures, which matter is consisted from atoms and molecules, the S-B emission law doesn’t work, that is why a correcting coefficient – the emissivity, was invented.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Willard says:

        Christos,

        That equation works using solar flux.

        You just said this was impossible.

        Please advise.

      • Willard,

        “That equation works using solar flux.

        You just said this was impossible.

        Please advise.”

        Please Willard, what is the question?

        Because I am not so capable in idiomatic English.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Willard says:

        Christos,

        Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

        The question is why you’d use “Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K)” when it obviously uses solar flux and you said that this was not possible.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply del‌usional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it – if I have understood him correctly.

        Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Division and multiplication imply addition and subtraction.

        Perhaps you should stick to comments using forbidden words with your silly HTLM trick?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply del‌usional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly.

        Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Repeating your misunderstanding does not help.

        Start with “S /4σ.”

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply del‌usional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly.

        Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?

      • Willard says:

        Christos does exactly that, Mike, so chances are you misunderstood.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply del‌usional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly.

        Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?

        Of course you are, as your strange response indicates.

      • Willard says:

        What you claim Christos denies, Mike, Christos does with his model.

        Sorry if you can’t read equations anymore.

        It’s been a while since your chemical engineering studies, right?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply del‌usional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly.

        Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?

        Of course you are, as your strange response indicates. Keep diverting.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        “Te” represents effective temperature.

        Over to you.

      • Swenson says:

        “”Te” represents effective temperature.”

        Good to know.

      • Willard says:

        Great, Mike.

        Now, S represents the solar constant.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  27. John W says:

    To those who propose alternate explanations for long-term warming aside from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, how do you account for stratospheric cooling?

    • Clint R says:

      John W, if you want to support your cult, maybe you could give us a viable description of your cult’s GHE.

      I won’t hold my breath….

    • Swenson says:

      John W,

      “. . . how do you account for stratospheric cooling?”

      Because the stratosphere is further away from the Earth’s core than the troposphere, and closer to the 3 K or so of outer space?

      The thermal gradient goes from hot to cold. However, at low pressures, the concept of temperature gets a bit wobbly. For example, the thermosphere is nominally very “hot” – 2000 C or so, but you’d still freeze to death if shielded from the Sun.

      There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.

      Feel free to refuse to account for that reality.

    • John W.
      “…how do you account for stratospheric cooling?”

      This isn’t my area of expertise, but have you considered humidity as a GHG? As the sun warms the sea surface, it releases a little CO2 and a lot of moisture.

      https://localartist.org/media/StratCooling.png

      • John W says:

        Robert Cutler,

        The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is regulated by temperature. As the atmosphere warms, it holds more water vapor, creating a positive feedback loop that amplifies greenhouse gas warming.

      • John W. If I understand the theory it is that the presence of GHG’s limit upwelling radiation which then causes the stratosphere to cool. This idea is often used to “prove” AGW, which I think was your original point. My point is that temperature and humidity could rise due to solar activity, so a cooling stratosphere doesn’t prove a CO2/AGW connection.

        Gordon’s point, which I tend to agree with, is that the sun plays a larger role in regulating the temperature of the stratosphere.

        What a lot of people miss is that, because of the oceans and ice caps, the troposphere, from a global temperature perspective, has a very long time constant, I believe it to be at least 100 years. I can prove that it’s longer than 60 years. So when people say the planet is warming and point to decreasing solar activity as proof that it’s not the sun, they’ve make a serious mistake. My models show that we’re just now entering a cooling phase — current spike not withstanding.

        The stratosphere is not moderated by oceans, and there’s very little thermal mass, so it reacts instantly to solar activity. That’s why, in my graphic, you can see the tops of the sunspot cycles in the stratosphere temperature. So the cooling is more likely to be related to decreasing solar activity.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The stratosphere is a very cold, dry place. The only warming there is due to a scarce amount of oxygen molecules being warmed by UV from the Sun. Calling that warming is like claiming the Arctic, at -60C, has warmed to -55C in places.

      Same for cooling, how much colder can it get? Any cooling has to be related to a slight drop in UV intensity from the Sun.

      • Makes sense, Gordon.

        You can see the effects of the sunspot cycle on stratosphere temps in the my last post. Unfortunately, consensus TSI composites don’t show much of a drop in the quiet sun TSI. Not that I trust consensus composites.

        However, if you look at a my butterfly diagram of the sun’s longitudinally averaged magnetic field strength you can see that the field strength is fading, not just in the lower latitudes where sunspots live, but also in the poloidal regions. Solar activity is decreasing and there’s no reason to assume that UV would remain constant. The stratosphere would respond almost instantly.

        https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/images/Butterfly.png

        The code to produce this diagram from synoptic data is on my website.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Good stuff, Robert. Not up on the sunspot activity, just some theories from Zharkova that seem sound.

        What do you make of her theories?

      • I think Zharkova’s use of principal component analysis shows promise. That said, I think the two PC’s she developed were created using the same data that’s in my version of a butterfly diagram. It’s a very short dataset, so it might be a bit bold to extrapolate more than a few decades in either direction. Also, if memory serves, she’s trying to estimate values for 60 model parameters, so there’s a risk of over-fitting.

        I’m also not convinced that everything about solar activity can be replicated in a harmonic model, so I wouldn’t expect her to be able to precisely predict every sunspot cycle. It’s the longer-term trends that are probably the most important thing to focus on.

        Solar activity is declining, but we’ll have to wait and see if that develops into a grand minimum.

        With the HT temperature spike seemingly on the wane, I do believe that we’re past the highest global temperatures that we’ll see for for a decade.
        This prediction is not based on extrapolation, but on the earth’s delayed response to current solar activity. See my website, or:

        https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx

    • Bindidon says:

      We’ll see in a few months how far McIntosh, Leamon and Egeland were from reality:

      Deciphering solar magnetic activity: The (solar) hale cycle terminator of 2021

      https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/astronomy-and-space-sciences/articles/10.3389/fspas.2023.1050523/full

    • PhilJ says:

      Hello John,

      Less ozone concentration means less uvb absorbed in the stratosphere, hence cooling and more uvb absorbed by the surface, hence warming.

    • Richard M says:

      John W,

      From what I can tell, most of the stratospheric cooling was caused by the two major volcanic eruptions in the last 40 years.

      Also keep in mind, the tropospheric warming by CO2 absorbing energy is countered by surface evaporative cooling leading to a reduction in high altitude water vapor. I haven’t looked at how that would affect the stratosphere. I suspect it would allow some warming to counter the natural cooling by CO2.

      • Nate says:

        “Also keep in mind, the tropospheric warming by CO2 absorbing energy is countered by surface evaporative cooling”

        Weird notion that warming of one body is countered by cooling a DiFFERENT body.

        “leading to a reduction in high altitude water vapor.”

        An another that suggests creating more water vapor leads to LESS water vapor.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      John W, please stop t-word-ing.

  28. Tim S says:

    I saw Andrew Dessler on CNN last night. He started out very reasonably with the fact that we should prepare for unavoidable effects. Then he went off the rails stating that climate is a political issue because “the” fossil fuel industry has bought “the” politicians. I assume he was referring to the politicians he does not like. I would like to see him accuse Bernie Sanders of being bought off.

    The most interesting comment was that wealthy people will not like paying poor people for things like air conditioning to cope with a hot planet unless “we” do something to stop it. Is that some kind of threat? They never mention the rest of the world.

    He is correct that climate is political. The real problem with that is people like him who are not honest about any of the hype that drives the climate discussion.

  29. gbaikie says:

    Hurricane Beryl roars by Jamaica after killing at least 6 people in the southeast Caribbean
    https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-beryl-caribbean-jamaica-cayman-islands-774803fc70e187ea96e7df10f84d8a50
    As tropical storm it’s path could reach Boca Chica.
    I got 40% chance, of something happening, near me:
    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…I did not know you were affected by Atlantic hurricanes in the California desert.

      • gbaikie says:

        You don’t click the link:
        https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
        Which indicates 60% chance {not 40%}.
        Though not a 40 or 60% chance it will have anything to do with me, but it’s the first significant chance, on my side of pond, of something happening vaguely close to me.

      • gbaikie says:

        Though it might hit Hawaii as it last year [a few times}.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Still looks a long ways off from Southern Cal.

      • gbaikie says:

        I got a tropical depression, one-E, it’s moving north/west.
        Roughly towards me, but far away.
        But how big and far will go in a week?

      • gbaikie says:

        Beryl “could be” Cat 1 at boca chica, that would be a bigger distance traveled.

      • gbaikie says:

        one-E, became tropical storm, Atella, and predicted to turn left in direction of Hawaii, and not expected to strengthen {going nowhere}.

  30. Gordon Robertson says:

    aarons…”the only other deviation between the Nino 3.4 and the UAH is Pinatubo. So it seems that it takes something at the scale of a decent sized volcano to create an anomaly to a well behaved system…”

    ***

    Good point, I knew about Pinatobu but I had not connected the obvious to Hunga Tonga. With the Pinatobu eruption in the 1990’s, it was volcanic aerosols that cooled the atmosphere significantly for several years. Hunga Tonga, by injecting millions of tons of water into the stratosphere, seems to have caused a warming rather than a cooling. The mechanism may still be unknown but there really is no better explanation for the warming. It is certainly not a trace gas, which failed to affect global temperatures for 18 years between 1998 and 2015.

    Wee willy sputtered something about a volcano but failed to grasp your point just as he failed to offer an alternative answer to my claim that no other explanation for the current warming can be offered other than Hunga Tonga.

    Wee willy is a true intellect among the denizens of the animal world, including tortoises and hares.

    • Willard says:

      Mr. Asshat does not even realize that volcanoes usually have a negative effect, whereas this had a warming impact but remains a “bit player” (h/t Roy):

      the eruption may end up warming Earths surface by about 0.06 F (0.035 C), according to one estimate.

      https://theconversation.com/global-temperatures-are-off-the-charts-for-a-reason-4-factors-driving-2023s-extreme-heat-and-climate-disasters-209975

      He has no business here.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        From my post…”With the Pinatobu eruption in the 1990s, it was volcanic aerosols that cooled the atmosphere significantly for several years”.

        Is cooling not a negative effect on temperature?

        My business here is to prevent alarmist ijits like you, who have no serious business here, from polluting the blog.

      • Willard says:

        From Mr. Asshat’s post:

        “I knew about Pinatobu but I had not connected the obvious to Hunga Tonga.”

        It’s as if he does not know as much on the Little Ice Age as he pretends? Perhaps he should search for Mount Tambora’s eruption or why pirates disappeared.

        It’s Pinatubo, BTW.

        In any event, one of the largest eruptions of the past 300 years is a bit player in the scale we’re talking about:

        The model calculated the monthly change in Earths energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035C over the next 5 years. Thats a large anomaly for a single event, but its not outside the usual level of noise in the climate system, Jenkins said. But in the context of the Paris Agreement, its a big concern.

        https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming

        Note: over the next five years.

        Still, such events may not mean what our cranks want them to mean. For they introduce more variability than we actually are comfortable with. Anyone who has seen an unbalanced washing machine should know why.

      • Swenson says:

        “Still, such events may not mean what our cranks want them to mean.”

        Of course, you refuse to be helpful in any way – by explaining what the events “mean”, for example. Just like you refuse to describe the GHE in any valid way.

        That would make you a rather inept tr‌oll, wouldn’t it?

        Carry on.

      • Swenson says:

        “Here you go ”

        No i don’t. You’re an idio‌t.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I am not concerned with volcanic eruptions as the cause of the Little Ice Age. Each phase lasted 30 years or more and volcanic aerosols don’t affect climate more than a few years.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Glad to see that Gordo finally admits that he isn’t concerned with reality. But, we already knew that.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        E. Swanson, please stop t-word-ing.

  31. Swenson says:

    Weary Wee Willy,

    “He has no business here.”

    You have appointed yourself Dr Spencer’s Business Advisor now, have you?

    Well done! The amount he pays you no doubt reflects his estimation of your value.

    You really are a strange and quite del‌usional slimy grub, aren’t you?

    Keep the laughs coming!

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Your silly semantic game is silly. You still might like:

      https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks

      Vintage 2013.

      Interestingly Mr. Asshat commented in the thread.

      Wanna see it?

    • Swenson says:

      Weary Wee Willy,

      “He has no business here.”

      You have appointed yourself Dr Spencers Business Advisor now, have you?

      Well done! The amount he pays you no doubt reflects his estimation of your value.

      You really are a strange and quite del‌usional slimy grub, arent you?

      Keep the laughs coming!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        “Appointed” – what are you braying about?

        I can say whatever I please and you can’t do nothing about it.

        Perhaps you could try to emulate Graham D. Warner and try to PSTer me again?

        Silly sock puppet!

        [Derisive snark.]

      • Swenson says:

        “I can say whatever I please and you cant do nothing about it.” Of course I can – I can laugh as much as I like!

        Thanks for the flattery through imitation.

        Obviously, you appreciate my general way with words, and the associated panache I exhibit on occasion. You can refuse to describe the GHE as often as you like, and I can laugh about that as well!

        An all round laugh-fest!

        [laughing at idio‌t]

      • Willard says:

        You don’t seem to recall from whom you borrowed these square brackets, Mike.

        Keep braying!

      • Swenson says:

        “I can say whatever I please and you cant do nothing about it.” Of course I can I can laugh as much as I like!

        Thanks for the flattery through imitation.

        Obviously, you appreciate my general way with words, and the associated panache I exhibit on occasion. You can refuse to describe the GHE as often as you like, and I can laugh about that as well!

        An all round laugh-fest!

        [laughing at idio‌t]

      • Willard says:

        Every time you copy-paste your comments seem so satisfied with them that you must be imitating yourself, Mike.

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        “I can say whatever I please and you cant do nothing about it.” Of course I can I can laugh as much as I like!

        Thanks for the flattery through imitation.

        Obviously, you appreciate my general way with words, and the associated panache I exhibit on occasion. You can refuse to describe the GHE as often as you like, and I can laugh about that as well!

        An all round laugh-fest!

        [laughing at idio‌t, again]

      • Willard says:

        Every time copy-paste comments seem so satisfied with them that must be imitating yourself, Mike.

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  32. gbaikie says:

    Nobody going to the Moon:
    NASA assessment suggests potential additional delays for Artemis 3 lunar lander
    Jeff Foust July 3, 2024
    https://spacenews.com/nasa-assessment-suggests-potential-additional-delays-for-artemis-3-lunar-lander/
    “WASHINGTON As NASA pushes ahead with a crewed lunar landing on the Artemis 3 mission in September 2026, the agencys own analysis estimates a nearly one-in-three chance the lander will be at least a year and a half late.”
    A 1/3rd of a chance.

    The KDP-C also set a cost of $4.9 billion for HLS Initial Capability at the same 70% joint confidence level. That includes the $2.9 billion fixed-price contract to SpaceX, awards to SpaceX, Blue Origin and Dynetics in the earlier phase of the project and NASA project office costs. “

    • gbaikie says:

      Anyways, it seems to me, SpaceX could start refueling in orbit efforts, within 2024.
      But it also seems to me, Blue Origin could beat them to milestone of first refueling of any spacecraft in orbit, before SpaceX does.
      Just like/similar Blue Origin claim of being first to recover a stage of rocket {a sub-orbital rocket} and I think Blue Origin could do this, because they want to do this, and refueling in orbit, is easier or quicker to do. And being the first to refuel in orbit, is good PR thing to “have”.

  33. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    This post has only touched on the ways that [Tropical Cyclones]s are getting more damaging. There are even more ways, such as changes in the tracks of TCs moving to higher latitudes, more frequent rapid intensification, or the slowdown of TC translation speed, all of which can also increase destructiveness.

    When arguing against this, climate misinformers don’t necessarily propagate outright lies. Rather, their method of misinformation lies in the selective emphasis of certain facts that bolster their stance. For example, they will focus on statistics like the number of TCs (or, worse, landfalling hurricanes), emphasizing that we don’t see any trend while conveniently omitting that climate scientists don’t predict an increase.

    And they fail to acknowledge the actual factors that are driving destructiveness, such as the increase of storm surge damage caused by sea level rise or the fundamental physics that tells us that TCs will produce more rain as the climate warms. This is classic cherry picking.

    Instead of the selective offering of climate misinformers, you should look at all of the data. If you do that, it’s clear that hurricanes and other TCs are getting more destructive.

    https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-09e

    Our cranks don’t even quality as climate misinformers.

    • Swenson says:

      “Our cranks dont even quality as climate misinformers.”

      Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling. You’re dim‌witted.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Mike Flynn.

        Mike Flynn?

        You’re still using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        Mike Flynn.

        Mike Flynn?

        Youre still using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        Cheers.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike,

        You wrote:

        “”Mike Flynn,

        Mike Flynn.

        Mike Flynn?

        Youre still using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        Cheers.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌​lling.”

        Or did you?

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike,

        You wrote:

        “Mike Flynn,

        Mike Flynn.

        Mike Flynn?

        Youre still using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        Cheers.”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌​lling.

        Or did you?”

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling. You’re confusing yourself.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        If you press CTRL-U and check for the comment I just wrote, you will notice that I’m not using the same silly HTML trick as you do.

        So in effect you did not exactly *write* what I said you did.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “So in effect you did not exactly *write* what I said you did.”

        Well, that cleared that up, didn’t it?

        [snort]

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      There is not a shred of scientific evidence connecting hurricane intensity to global warming. The stats show there were nearly as many Cat 5 hurricanes in the 1930’s as in the 2000’s. There may have been as many, or more, had there been satellites to detect them.

      Rather than waving your arms in the air, how about scientific proof that modern hurricanes are stronger and caused by global warming?

      • Nate says:

        “he stats show there were nearly as many Cat 5 hurricanes in the 1930s as in the 2000s.”

        Data?

        “There may have been as many, or more, had there been satellites to detect them.”

        Best to look only at stats in the satellite era, since 1960s.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        The heat and the draught were so bad in the 1930s that the resulting dust clouds traveled from the West and blacked out NY City as well as other eastern cities.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        “Draught” … oh dear … how bad does the denier “education” get.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Sorry AQ, never been a good speller. Speller?

  34. Gordon Robertson says:

    christos…”The Te is the first approach, which uses the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, considering a planet as a warm sphere emitting the incident energy, as like that energy had been already storaged on the planet surface (which is not).

    But it is all wrong approach, because S-B emission law is not an absor-p-tion law.

    Also it is wrong because S-B emission law doesnt describe the actual emission intensity the real matter does at its respective temperatures, which matter is consisted from atoms and molecules, the S-B emission law doesnt work, that is why a correcting coefficient the emissivity, was invented”.

    ***

    You are right about S-B. It is an emission law only. It also neglects any heat dissipation by conduction/convection.

    The original Law was created by Stefan and it was a simple relationship between radiation intensity and the temperature of a surface, as in…

    I = sigma. T^4.

    Stefan had no interest other than the relationship between radiation and temperature, his point being that as temperature increased, the radiation intensity increased as T^4.

    When I say intensity, I mean the same as in the standard relationship, E = hf. That is, as EM frequency increases the radiation intensity increases. Stefan knew that and had already predicted that an increase in surface temperature would produce an increased radiation intensity. Temperature and emission frequency/intensity are proportional.

    However, E = hf led to the ultraviolet catastrophe, wherein as frequency increases, the radiation intensity would increase toward infinity. Planck solved that by presuming higher frequency energy was less likely and applied an exponential probability to the EM spectrum to get the current bell-shaped curve.

    The original Stefan equation was based on the Tyndall experiment in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically and noted the colours of the wire as the current was increased. Another scientist converted the colours to a colour temperature and that is what Stefan’s original equation is based on….the color of a heated body.

    That excludes IR immediately. In fact, it excludes any temperature outside the range of Tyndall’s experiment which observed temperatures between about 500C and 1500C. Therefore the sigma in I = sigma.T^4 applies only to the range 500C to 1500C. Any other inference to temperatures outside that range is purely theoretical.

    Then Boltzmann, a student of Stefan, became involved, resulting in S-B. Boltzmann’s work was purely theoretical, he devised a system of treating theoretical atoms/molecules as statistical entities. His goal was to prove the 2nd law and entropy statistically, and he failed. However, his statistical treatment of entropy is still used today even though it is wrong.

    In the era of Stefan and Boltzmann, the atomic structure was unknown. Electrons were not discovered till 1898 and it was not till 1913 that Bohr formed a theory for the atom. Boltzmann’s work would have been unnecessary after the discovery of atoms and how they work. However, there are scientists today who insist on keeping the old theories alive, even though they have no real application today.

    S-B is not used in modern IR meters. If it was reliable, it would be easy to program the equation into an IR meter but it obviously does not work. Instead, the frequency of IR, not the temperature, is detected by a semiconductor material and it is the effect the IR frequency has on a certain semiconductor material that determines the ‘calculated’ temperature of the target. The temperatures must be derived in a lab and stored in the device memory for reference to detected frequency.

    If S-B applied, it would be easy to detect the incoming IR frequency and convert it to a colour temperature using S-B. It obviously does not work at terrestrial temperatures.

    • Nate says:

      “Also it is wrong because S-B emission law doesnt describe the actual emission intensity the real matter does at its respective temperatures, which matter is consisted from atoms and molecules, the S-B emission law doesnt work”

      Yes it does work just fine when incorporating an emissivity factor.

      And this is what is used, for example, to measure the sea surface temperature by satellite, which works very well!

      And the emissivity of the ocean is very high.

      “The sea surface emissivity in the infrared region is determined on the basis of data analyses. Net radiation, surface irradiance and other oceanographical and meteorological variables are measured throughout most of the year at the oceanographical observatory tower in Tanabe Bay, Japan. We have found that 0.9840.004 is a reliable emissivity value ”

      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02233853

  35. Clint R says:

    We’re seeing the meltdown of the cult. It might have started when they realized they have NOTHING. They can’t come up with a viable description of the GHE.

    That’s because the GHE is bogus. There are at least 10 reasons.

    Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”

    The equation — F = 5.35 X ln(C/Co)
    Where Co is the reference CO2 concentration is ppm, C is the current CO2 concentration in ppm, and F is the radiative forcing in W/m^2

    The equation is bogus. It is an example of “curve fitting”, combined with a perversion of physics.

    Baskin/Robbins is a chain of ice cream stores. The chain started about 1950, and now has about 8000 stores, worldwide. Let’s “curve fit” that growth and claim it is “heating the planet”.

    F = ln(S/So) = ln(8000) = 8.99

    Now, let’s simply add units of W/m^2,

    F = 8.99 W/m^2

    And that is now proof that ice cream stores are heating the planet!

    Hint for children: That ain’t science.

    • Norman says:

      Clint R

      Big Hint for you. Nothing you say on this blog is science. It is all your made up cult physics you get from crackpots on blogs.

      Too bad you can’t see the hypocrisy in your many posts. You are actually the cult poster that has nothing. You reject real science in favor of crackpot blog versions (pseudoscience by definition).

      You also have a child like mind. Your posts are very simplistic. You insult and denigrate posters like a child would do. If you read your own posts you might not believe how empty they really are.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman and silly willy are my two biggest stalkers.

        Obviously, I’m doing something right….

      • Swenson says:

        “Big Hint for you.”

        Norman, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…why is it, in your mind, that anything resembling real science is issued by crackpots?

        Norman’s example of a crackpot from ‘some’ blog…Peter Duesberg…inducted into the National Academy of Science for his discovery of the fist cancer gene. Awarded the California Scientist of the year plus numerous other awards.

        Stefan Lanka…who discovered the first virus in the ocean.

        Shula…who proved using a Pirani gauge that conduction/convection is 260 time more effective at dissipating heat from a surface than radiation. In other words, he proved the energy budget theory is wrong.

        You’re a queer duck, Norman.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Just because they had credentials at one time does not mean they are not crackpots. When a person makes claims way outside the accepted (which is based upon observation, evidence and experiments).

        You still bring up Shula as a credible source. You keep bringing this clown up even though his point is very bad. I have explained to you countless times that the wire is made with low emissivity wire intentionally so that radiant energy is reduced to eliminate it as a source. You do not understand emissivity or anything about radiant energy. You have no real knowledge of any physics or Chemistry. You make up nonsense all the time and wonder why you are a crackpot. That is what crackpots do, just make up stuff.

        HIV is a virus that destroys the immune system and causes death when the body can no longer fight infections that grow after the immune system is knocked out. Real scientists, ignoring Duesberg, have now come up with treatments that work and reduce the fatality considerably.

        https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids#:~:text=There%20were%20an%20estimated%2039.0,1.7%20million%5D%20people%20acquired%20HIV.

        In this article the treatment for HIV is “There is no cure for HIV infection. It is treated with antiretroviral drugs, which stop the virus from replicating in the body.”

        You never read more than what a crackpot tells you then you blindly believe it even when it is clearly shown your darling crackpot is wrong.

    • Nate says:

      Gee, it should be very simple for Clint to find and link to evidence to back up his claims if they were true.

      But he never ever does.

      Thus we can safely ignore his bogus claims.

      • Clint R says:

        Nate, I clearly support my physics. I can explain things, but I can’t understand them for you.

        You can’t find one time where I got the physics wrong.

        All you have are your false accusations.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        Why must you blatantly lie?

        Nate is totally correct about your posts and endless unsupported opinions you think are science.

        YOU: “Nate, I clearly support my physics. I can explain things, but I cant understand them for you.”

        This is a lie. You never support your physics (if you want to call it that, more like made up opinion).

        Where is your evidence to support your claim that IR from a cold object will not be absorbed by the surface of a hotter object? You come up with poor arguments about photons adding to make higher energy photons

        I find your “physics” all wrong. Just things you read from crackpot blogs that sound right to you but are not supported by any evidence.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, you need to link to my exact words. I can’t respond to what you believe I said. Also, I won’t respond to your comments that contain insults and/or false accusations.

        Get a responsible adult to help you, and try again.

      • Nate says:

        Gee, it should be very simple for Clint to find and link to evidence to back up his claims if they were true.

        But nope! Guess not.

      • Nate says:


        You cant find one time where I got the physics wrong.”

        Easy.

        The time you claimed the velocities of the far side of the Moon and the near side are the same.

        Bwa ha ha ha!

  36. Tim S says:

    I think it is correct that earth is currently at the apogee. My date and time application says earth is 95.51 miles from the sun. It will 91.4 million miles on January 3.

    • Tim S says:

      Another mistake. Try 94.51 miles.

    • Clint R says:

      “Apogee” applies to Earth/Moon. For Sun/Earth, the term is “Aphelion”.

      And thanks for the reminder, Tim S. This is an important factoid for the “global warming” nonsense.

      Earth’s elliptical orbit means there is considerable difference in distance to Sun between Aphelion (far) and Perihelion (close). The difference in solar flux is about 90 W/m².

      Now, stop to think about this for a minute. Earth’s orbit causes an annual variance of 90 W/m², yet we never see a corresponding change in temperature. Yet the cult wants us to be panicked over an imaginary 1 W/m².

      Just some more science to tweak the cult children….

      • Swenson says:

        And, of course, things are sometimes counter-intuitive –

        “The northern hemisphere receives significantly less energy from the sun when the Earth is closest to the sun!

        When the earth is closest to the sun, the northern hemisphere receives approximately 9% less energy from the sun than when it is farthest from the sun. Gotta love that axial tilt!” – according to a PhD geophysicist. Seems fair to me.

        Opposite to the southern hemisphere.

        The Earth still continues to cool, albeit very, very, slowly.

        No GHE. Not even a teensy, weensy, one.

      • Tim S says:

        I think you are correct. I knew it was a word I am not familiar with and I looked at the wrong reference.

  37. gbaikie says:

    SpaceX Drops Some Incredible Starship News! What Will This Lead To?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CyuBTP6yj8

    And some stuff about recent asteroid sample return.

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It was another cold, icy morning across southern and central Australia with many areas covered in frost. https://i.ibb.co/djkVwmc/449714787-883612957141786-4535587314561364801-n.jpg

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I guess CO2 has failed to warm Australia. Same old, same old. Even in Auckland, New Zealand, in winter, you get frost/ice in the morning even though the climate is sub-tropical. Mind you, by noon, it often rises to 15C.

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Hurricane Beryl will pass over northern Yucatan and enter the Gulf of Mexico, where, as a tropical storm, it could reach southern Texas with heavy rainfall.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      There you go, gb. You might get some rain to make the cactii grow. Maybe more and bigger peyote buds. I hear Death Valley is going to get a smidge hotter.

  40. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…from Christos…”Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply del‌usional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly”.

    ***

    Of course. Radiation emanates from a thin layer of surface atoms/molecules. Radiation can tell you that the Earth’s surface averages 15C but it can’t tell you the Earth has a core that is 5000C. It can’t tell you the temperature a few feet below the surface which is in excess of 15C and getting progressively hotter the deeper you go.

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Winter temperatures in Australia will not rise because the Earth is farthest from the Sun in orbit in July. The difference between January and July is about 5 million kilometers.
    https://i.ibb.co/D4Wx4C7/gfs-T2m-aus-1.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Good point, Ren.

      And we need to remember that as long as the Earth’s axis is tilted as it is, no amount of CO2 will prevent the Arctic freezing over in January and the Antarctic freezing over in July. In fact, the South Pole never gets above 0C, even in summer.

      Some have brayed about warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, which reaches the latitude of South America. Big deal, the Antarctic continent is so cold that glaciers cannot possibly melt.

      Also, since the Arctic has no solar input in winter, and temps reach down to -60C, the flow of that cold air to more temperate regions far to the south will continue to freeze that area in winter.

      Weather sure is fun. Easily overrides any pithy (0.06C) warming from CO2.

      Anthropogenic theory kaput!!!

  42. Willard,

    “The question is why youd use “Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K)” when it obviously uses solar flux and you said that this was not possible.”

    The non-linearity of the S-B radiation law, when coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the INTERACTED solar flux across the surface of a sphere, and with the planet rotational spin, and with the average surface specific heat, creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.

    Jemit = 4πr^2*σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)

    Where:

    Jemit (W) – is the INFRARED emission flux from the entire planet (the TOTAL)

    r – is the planet radius
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Solar Irradiated Planet INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant ( the Rotational Warming Factor constant ).

    N – rotation /per day, is planets rotational spin with reference to the sun in earthen days. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
    cp – cal/gr*oC- is the planet average surface specific heat

    Planet Energy Budget

    When planet surface is in radiative equilibrium, planet energy balance should be met: Energy In = Energy Out

    Jnot.reflected = Jemit

    πr^2*Φ(1-a)S (W) – is on the entire planet surface the not reflected portion (the TOTAL not reflected) of the incident on planet surface solar flux

    Φ – is the planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient).

    a – is the planet average surface Albedo (Bond)

    S – W/m^2 – the solar flux at the planet’s average distance from the sun.

    πr^2*Φ(1-a)S = 4πr^2*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)

    Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:

    Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)


    The Tmean.planet equation uses solar flux, because the stronger the solar energy upon the planet surface – the higher the planet average surface temperature (and it is an obvious observation).

    The difference with equation (1) is that the solar flux is not averaged over the entire planet surface. Thus the (Tmean) is not the planet surface uniform temperature as the (Te) is, but the average surface temperature.

    The equation (1) provides the instrument for transforming flux into temperature T = (S /σ)^1/4
    It is valid on the uniform temperature surfaces.
    Also it is valid for the infinitesimal small points at infinitesimal small instants of time (so we accept each point has its respective uniform temperature).

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Bindidon says:

      All is best – except your Φ which is nonsense; this has been proven to you many times.

      But like Robertson, Clint R and a few other stubborn boys, you never admit being wrong.

      Κανένα πρόβλημα για μένα όμως!

      • Clint R says:

        Bindi, what makes you believe I can’t admit being wrong?

        I once thought you might have some interest in science, but I admit I was wrong. I also make typos, from time to time.

        See? I can admit being wrong, when I’m wrong.

        But you can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You’re wrong about Moon, but you won’t admit it.

    • Willard says:

      > The Tmean.planet equation uses solar flux

      Your equation uses multiplication, Christos. To multiply is to add many times. So in your equation fluxes add.

      This is a fairly basic point.

      Best of luck trying to defeat your own algebra.

      • Willard, I am not so capable in idiomatic English.

        “Your equation uses multiplication, Christos. To multiply is to add many times. So in your equation fluxes add.”

        What do you mean by that?
        Because the equation (3) theoretically calculates the planets’ and moons’ average surface temperatures very much close to those measured by satellites.

        Doesn’t that mean the equation is a good equation?

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Willard says:

        Thank you for your question, Christos.

        What I mean is that 2 x 3 means 2 + 2 + 2.

        To multiply is to add faster.

        An algebraic structure that is multiplicative is also additive.

        It is really hard to write equations with entities that cannot add.

      • Willard,

        “An algebraic structure that is multiplicative is also additive.”

        I never said otherwise, didn’t I ?

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Willard says:

        Christos,

        Thank you for your rhetorical question.

        You actually did. Here:

        > Solar flux cannot theoretically be averaged over some area

        To average is to add a number of elements together, and then to divide that sum by the number of elements.

        Your equation obviously does that.

        In fact, the solar constant is itself an average.

      • Willard,

        “To average is to add a number of elements together, and then to divide that sum by the number of elements.

        Your equation obviously does that.

        In fact, the solar constant is itself an average.”

        Also the average surface temperature adds surface temperatures together and then divides that sum by the number of elements.

        “You actually did. Here:

        > Solar flux cannot theoretically be averaged over some area”

        Yes, because solar flux interacts with matter, it vanishes then.

        Also we cannot average snow over the entire Global area, because snow belongs where it has fallen on.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Willard says:

        Christos,

        Here is one of your claim:

        (C1) Yes, because solar flux interacts with matter, it vanishes then.

        Here is another:

        (C2) Solar flux cannot theoretically be averaged over some area, because solar flux what it does is to interact with matter.

        I’m not sure how you can reconcile the two. Nor do I know what you mean by a “new interaction.” And of course one can add snow over an area. How do you think we estimate snow cover?

      • Snow also vanishes at spring, but you cannot average the amounts of snow over the entire planet surface.

        Of course the math would be correct, but in reality there is not snow at most of the planet surface areas.

      • Willard says:

        Christos,

        Of course we can do all the things you deny:

        The exact amount of snow and ice cover upon the Earth changes drastically with the seasons. Seasonal snow cover can cover up to 33 percent of the Earth’s land mass, but this is not a permanent feature and mainly occurs during winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Only 12 percent of the Earth’s surface is permanently covered in ice and snow, the majority of which is found in the polar regions.

        https://education.seattlepi.com/percent-earth-permanently-covered-snow-ice-4666.html

        We can indeed say that for every meter square of the Earth surface, between 12-33% is covered with snow.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    July 8, Beryl may make landfall in south Texas.
    https://i.ibb.cOno/GPQRR1T/ventusky-temperature-water-20240708t1800-29n91w.jpg

  44. Clint R says:

    Happy July 4th! Let’s keep the fun going —

    More reasons why the GHE is bogus:

    Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”

    The “33K” nonsense comes from the mythical, imaginary blackbody sphere. The mythical sphere is receiving the same average solar energy as real Earth, after albedo, of 960 W/m². We are not told if the mythical imaginary sphere is hollow or solid, or if it is spinning like Earth or always has the same side facing Sun. It’s all a mystery.

    But in a steady-state condition the mythical sphere is believed to be emitting 240 W/m^2. So, using the S/B Law, the emission temperature can be calculated:

    S = σT^4

    T^4 = S/σ

    T = [240*(10^8/5.67)]^0.25

    T = 255K

    Then, the mythical 255K is compared to Earth’s average temperature of 288K. The difference, 33K, as believed by the cult, is due to the GHE.

    (You may sometimes see the difference as 33K, or 33°C, since Kelvins are the same as degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit, the difference would be 59.4°F.)

    The claim is then that Earth is 33K hotter than it’s “supposed to be”. Their math is correct, but their calculation is NOT linked to reality. Earth is NOT a mythical imaginary blackbody sphere. A large bullfrog can weigh 0.5 pounds. If you multiply 0.5 by a large enough number, say 2X10^25, that would make the bullfrog about the size of planet Earth. The math is correct, but the calculation is NOT linked to reality.

    Earth is “supposed to be” the temperature it is, 288K. Comparing it to a mythical imaginary object ain’t science.

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    July temperature anomalies in Ireland and the UK.
    https://i.ibb.co/26Tm4N8/ventusky-temperature-anomaly-2m-20240708t0300-53n5w.jpg

    • barry says:

      Let me guess without looking, the anomalies are really cold for the time of year….

      Yes!

      I can prove that I am psychically linked to Ren’s mind. Every time Ren points to temperatures without saying what they are, I will guess if they are hot or cold.

      I believe I will be able to read Ren’s mind correctly each and every time.

      • Clint R says:

        barry, how do we know you didn’t peek?

        We can’t trust a cult child with your low credibility.

        Let’s see you predict Ren’s next comment, before it appears, if you can actually read his mind.

        Can’t do that, huh?

        Grow up and get a life, child.

      • barry says:

        Ok, give me a moment….

        Ok, I have foreseen that the next time Ren links to temperatures without saying what they are, they will be…. cold.

        And the next time he mentions the quality of or the actual temperature, they will be…. cold.

        I have seen it. Mark my words.

      • barry says:

        Regarding terrestrial temps, of course.

      • Clint R says:

        That’s lame, barry. That’s like predicting a science teacher will teach science.

        You need to provide date/time/location for Ren’s next comment, since you can read his mind.

        No more weaseling….

      • Swenson says:

        Clint,

        Barry is like one of those idio‌ts who says they can “predict” that the Sun will rise tomorrow. They assume the future will be the same as the past. No more intellect than a 6 year old.

        Even the cultists forming the IPCC stopped “predicting”. Now it’s “scenarios” – so they can’t be held accountable for being del‌usional.

      • barry says:

        “That’s like predicting a science teacher will teach science.”

        And that was the point. Ren will only ever mention cold weather around the world. It took you a while but you finally worked it out.

      • Clint R says:

        Well, if you now admit you can’t really read his mind, then I accept that.

        It took you a while but you finally worked it out.

  46. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Successful predictions by climate science: https://youtu.be/QFEUezxK5Do

    1/ Fossil fuel-burning will cause an increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide and that will cause a significant warming of the planet.

    2/ The microwave emission of Venus could only be accounted for by a hot surface maintained by the greenhouse effect of a very thick atmosphere, and using the standard model predicted that Venus has a 50 bar surface pressure.

    3/ Predicted atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations based on economic projections of how much co2 we would emit.

    4/ Predicted that tropospheric warming would be accompanied by stratospheric cooling.

    5/ Predicted Arctic amplification of warming.

    Successful predictions by deniers:

    1/

    2/

    3/

    4/

    5/

    Did I get them all?

    • Clint R says:

      Ark, you can’t provide the physics to support 1 and 2. That’s why they are beliefs, not science.

      3, 4, and 5 are somewhere between obvious and nebulous.

      Let’s see the physics for 1 and 2. Otherwise you’ve got NOTHING.

      • barry says:

        The deniers 3, 4 and 5 predictions are indeed obvious and nebulous.

        But we only have 1-5 of the deniers predictions. Perhaps there are major predictions that they instead got right. Do let us know.

      • Clint R says:

        I predict that the cult will:

        1) Continue to deny reality.
        2) Continue attempting to pervert science.
        3) Continue to hate anyone not in their cult.
        4) Continue trying to discredit/censor/criticize anyone offering correct science.
        5) Continue to close their eyes to perversions of reality promoted by some in their cult.

        Enough predictions for you barry?

      • barry says:

        Zero correct predictions to do with global climate change is typical of ‘deniers’. You’re maintaining the tradition in your own drab way.

      • Clint R says:

        Well you hit 1 and 4, barry.

        Down thread (where you channelled Greta) you hit all 5!

        You’re such a good cultist.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Now, as a rough cross-check, we enter the Venus altitude-versus-atmospheric pressure graph at 1000 millibars (the Earth’s average sea level atmospheric pressure) and go up to intersect the altitude-pressure profile line, and across to the left axis where we find the corresponding altitude of 49.5 kilometers (31 miles). This altitude is only three kilometers (or six percent) different than we found from the temperature graph.
      So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a region in the Venusian atmosphere which approximates that of Earth with respect to temperature and pressure.
      https://web.archive.org/web/20080205025041/http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        You can clearly see in the diagram of Venus atmosphere the troposphere, where a vertical temperature gradient acts. The graph also shows that the Earth’s troposphere is very thin compared to Venus.

      • Entropic man says:

        But you wouldn’t want to live there.

        IIRC the 1 bar pressure level is at 60C and in the middle of a sulphur acid cloud.

    • Ken says:

      You have no evidence to support your claims.

      Climate model projections are not evidence.

      • Willard says:

        > You have no evidence to support your claims.

        Step 1 – Pure Denial

        but also

        Step 2 – Sammich Request

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        “Step 1 Pure Denial

        but also

        Step 2 Sammich Request”.

        Really? From a fanatical GHE cultist who refuses to describe the GHE?

        You really are a del‌usional fellow, arent you? You deny the reality that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, don’t you?

        Definitely insane. Refusal to accept reality.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You wonder, or not –

        “Really?”

        Yes, really.

        Have you considered not using your silly HTML trick to bypass Roy’s moderation?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • For stratosphere cooling, read the discussion above.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1677344

      “Fossil fuel-burning will cause an increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide and that will cause a significant warming of the planet.”

      The problem with this statement lies in causality. [CO2] lags temperature. This is known, but I’ve approached the analysis in a more robust way that allows causality to be separated by frequency (1/period), which allows separation of different processes.

      In these plots I’ve computed the frequency response function between CO2 and temperature after removing the slope in each. In the frequency domain, delay is the negative of dPhase/dFreq. If CO2 drove temperature, then the phase would be above zero degrees. Instead it’s below, and generally falls with a slope corresponding to [CO2] lagging temperature by six months. The delay is less than two months (.13 yr) for seasonal variations (1 yr^-1), and at a frequency of 0.75 yr^-1.

      The magnitude response (top left graph) is a measure of sensitivity. For periods of 10 years, the sensitivity (in paren’s) is 4.9 ppm/degC. Sensitivity falls off with frequency, much as would be expected of an integrator, or low-pass filter.

      https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png

      The frequency-domain approach has its limits on this kind of data, so to look over longer periods I’ve de-trended the data and plotted the residuals. In this next plot, I performed a first-order detrend of temperature and ln([CO2]). Note that the ln([CO2]) does not fit a straight line that well.

      https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_ln_global.png

      In this last plot I’ve performed a second-order detrend on the [CO2] and Southern Hemisphere temp, just for something different.

      The 2nd-order polynomial is a much better fit to the [CO2] data than a ln(), and which also suggests integration of temperature driven [CO2].

      If you look at the residuals, there’s no evidence of [CO2] leading temperature, even for periods longer than 10 years.

      https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_SH.png

      In short, I couldn’t find any evidence that [CO2] affected temperature, and lots of evidence that temperature drove [CO2], on all time scales using 60 years worth of measured data.

    • You asked for predictions. This is for those that deny that the sun is the primary driver of climate change.

      Check out my github site for predictions (not projections), or look at the Excel version. You won’t find anything this accurate coming out of IPCC.

      https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx

      The models (all flavors), predict global temperature from sunspot data. They do this by simultaneously extracting solar activity from the sunspot data and modeling the earth’s integral-like response.

      The accuracy before 1900 is poor primarily because of poor sunspot data accuracy prior to 1800.

      I have a second method for estimating solar activity that’s not as accurate, or detailed, as it uses less information from the proxies. Here I’ve replaced some of the troublesome sunspot data with Usoskin’s 14C solar activity reconstruction. The 14C data comes from carbon dating tree rings. I’ve plotted this next to measured temperature data and Loehle’s 2008 corrected temperature reconstruction, which does not include tree-ring proxies.

      As with my accurate models, you can see many features in the data including the pause prior to 1975. This result also shows that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were global events. It also shows that temperatures will soon begin to fall.

      https://localartist.org/media/SolarAndTempProxies.png

    • Willard says:

      > [CO2] lags temperature. This is known.

      The “CO2 lags temperature” meme is known:

      https://climateball.net/but-abc/#lag

      Contrarians should drop false memes.

      • My analysis is not a meme, and it uses the same measured data (no proxies), that is being used to push anthropogenic warming theories. There’s not even a model involved, just basic signal analysis over the time period of the greatest anthropogenic emissions.

        What can I say, the measured data doesn’t lie.

      • Willard says:

        “CO2 lags temperature” is indeed a meme, Robert, and your frequency response graph is “needles in the eyes,” as Bender would have said.

        Do you really believe we have good measurement of sunspots in 1150?

      • Do you really believe we have good “measurements” of CO2 and temperature over the last 1000 years or longer? That’s what you were pushing with your meme.

        First of all, to answer your question, we have no sunspot observations before about 1750. What we do have is the next best thing, a 14C proxy used to reconstruct sunspots, which are a proxy for solar activity. As I’m sure you know, carbon 14 is an isotope generated when galactic cosmic rays collide with earth’s atmosphere. The generation rate is modulated by the sun’s magnetic fields.

        I’m somewhat skeptical of the amplitude accuracy of Usokin’s solar activity reconstruction. However, with my second method I’m not relying on amplitude, only the frequency of the 11-year Schwabe cycle. If you read Usoskin’s paper, also the Brehm et al. paper he references, you’ll find that they took great pains to establish time alignment between the 13 or so trees used in the analysis. They appear to have done a great job.

        If you don’t understand the frequency response plot, just say so, this type of analysis is not well known in the climate-science community.

      • Willard says:

        > Do you really believe we have good “measurements” of CO2 and temperature over the last 1000 years or longer?

        “But Data” is indeed another meme, Robert:

        https://climateball.net/but-data/#measurement

        This Bingo square may not be compatible with “But Lag,” however. More so that causality is harder to establish in feedback systems.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robert Cutler

        ” What can I say, the measured data doesnt lie. ”

        What a nice joke. As if that was the problem.

        The problem is the wrong, one-sided interpretation of the measured data.

        *
        Btw, Mr Cutler: when you so proudly write:

        As with my accurate models, you can see many features in the data including the pause prior to 1975. This result also shows that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were global events. It also shows that temperatures will soon begin to fall. ”

        (wow wow wow) did you ever publish anything valuable?

        When googling for your activity in the solar/climate context and excluding all links whose target contains the word ‘Russian’, the one and only link of interest is

        How we know the sun changes the climate. III: Theories
        Posted on June 11, 2024 by curryja | 233 Comments

        By Javier Vinós

        https://judithcurry.com/2024/06/11/how-we-know-the-sun-changes-the-climate-iii-theories/

        in which you merely comment what Vinós tells on the Climate Etc thread.

      • Bindidon, based on the amount of flack I received from you I feel like I must be over a target. It doesn’t help that a lot of 4th of July fireworks are going off in the background.

        You wrote: “The problem is the wrong, one-sided interpretation of the measured data.”

        Can you be more specific? It’s hard to respond to non-specific rants.

        As for my models and predictions, I have no idea what your objections are. Were they not as accurate as I described? Do you feel threatened by them? I don’t know you well enough to know if you’re part of the AWG crowd, but if you are, I can understand why you’d be upset.

        If you’re willing to keep the discussion civilized, I’m happy to engage. Otherwise, good luck with whatever it is you do.

      • Typo AWG instead of AGW. AWG is a TLA from a previous life.

      • Bindidon says:

        Mr Cutler

        The lack of an answer to my central question above is also a good answer.

        Feel free to push up with your stuff, you will have enough success here to stay for a while.

        I’m not interested in any discussion with you, especially re. research about solar matter.

        But technically 100% incompetent deniers a la Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson aka Swenson etc will love you.

        Imagine! They all deny historical science like the lunar spin, Robertson even denies the existence of time, let alone time dilation!

        And Earth cools since 4.5 billion years…

      • Sorry Bindidon, I don’t even know what your central question is. If it’s what have I published?, then you have an unfortunately narrow information filter.

        In non-academic environments we have this thing called trade secrets. We don’t even patent most of our work because that would just tell our competition how to replicate our inventions.

        Good luck.

      • Willard says:

        Have you ever tried to publish your stuff, Robert. Considering your obfuscation, the answer must be no. So we should expect something about censorship, gatekeeping, and Galileo.

      • Did it every occur to you, Willard, that I might be socializing my discoveries before publishing in an attempt to gain additional insights and understand technical objections?

        I’ve about decided that, on this forum, the bulk of the regulars only want to play word games and argue about HTML tags. Others who might have something useful to discuss likely won’t post, if they’re even still reading the blog, because they don’t want to be abused, and because there’s just to much useless dribble to wade through. While I had started ignoring your self-serving posts, I cannot ignore the damping effect that you and some of the others have on more productive conversations.

        I’m likely going to stop monitoring this forum, so if anyone has questions or comments about my temperature prediction results, it would be best if you state them now.

      • Willard says:

        Did it occur to you that it’s hard to seek technical objections while trying to protect one’s work as if it had some intellectual property behind it, Robert? Even that doesn’t cohere with having a public repository. So it’s basically a poor man’s excuse.

        Put your stuff on ArXiV. See what happens.

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      “Fossil fuel-burning will cause an increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide and that will cause a significant warming of the planet.”

      Complete nonsense, of course.

      The planet is cooling, losing energy at a net rate of 44tW.

      What mental defect leads you to think the planet is “warming”?

    • Tim S says:

      You left out one of the accomplishments of climate science:

      6/ Accurately predicted that the temperature of earth would increase by one full degree C over a mere 8 month span in 2023!

  47. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Here is the HTML Mike Flynn (Swenson) is inserting into his text.
    He is trying to claim he is not doing it.

    https://tinyurl.com/MikeFlynnBeingUntruthful

    • Willard says:

      Interesting.

      There is a D-word too!

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        I have to wonder why he is also inserting it into your name.
        He can’t be too bright.

      • Willard says:

        It’s really hard to misunderestimate a guy who uses an iPad as his main commenting device.

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “misunderestimate”

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Yes, I wrote “misunderestimate.”

        Do you not know why?

      • Swenson says:

        “Do you not know why?”

        Of course I do. You’re stu‌pid.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        No, Mike.

        That’s not the reason.

        You wrote the S-word using your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation, right?

      • Swenson says:

        “Thats not the reason.”

        Of course it is. Why are you denying it?

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You ask –

        “Why are you denying it?”

        Because it’s true.

        Instead of using your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation, have you considered revisiting your favorite bushisms?

    • Bindidon says:

      I have shown this a while ago: it’s simply using the Cyrillic letter ‘o’ (#x43E)passed thru e.g.

      https://mothereff.in/html-entities

      and inserted into the reply window.

      In the same vein, you can use Cyrillic ‘p’, kidding the scanner with absorрtion…

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        The code he is using is Decimal &#8204, or Hex &#x200c, or HTML &zwnj, called “Zero Width Non-Joiner”.

        People who deliberately subvert blocks like this should be banned.

      • barry says:

        He’s just come back under a different nym and deny ever being Swenson.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Which name is that?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Or did you mean “he’ll”?

      • Willard says:

        That’s a definite possibility, as he just intimated that Roy was incompetent via a hypothetical –

        If Dr Spencer banned any words from appearing on his blog, they wouldn’t appear, would they? If you want to accuse Dr Spencer of incompetence, go ahead – while I laugh at your silliness.

        The first claim is quite wonderful. He knows that he’s using an HTML trick to bypass moderation. Yet he suggests that his trick wouldn’t work if it bypasses moderation!

        Mike Flynn is definitely one of a kind.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        My brain clearly wasn’t working in the wee hours of the morning … not sure where I pulled “subvert” from. I was clearly looking for “circumvent”.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        “People who deliberately subvert blocks like this should be banned.”

        Go ahead and do something about it, then, and stop whining.

        People who refuse to describe the GHE are always in favour of suppression of the truth, which is that there is no GHE, and the planet is now cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago!

        It doesn’t look like Dr Spencer is too worried about me commenting. It won’t change a single fact. He might even support freedom of expression, for all I know.

        Unlike you pa‌thetic losers.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Deliberately circumventing the banning of words has NOTHING to do with “the truth”. You can still post your nonsense without making personal attacks. No one has suggested banning you for your fake science, only for your obscenities and your refusal to accept rules set by your idol.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        “No one has suggested banning you for your fake science, only for your obscenities and your refusal to accept rules set by your idol.”

        Nobody has suggested “banning” me for any reason at all. Nobody with any brains, anyway.

        I had to laugh at “your refusal to accept rules set by your idol.”

        What rules? Which idol?

        You are being a bit too cryptic. Others might assume you are just making stuff up, for some reason you refuse to divulge. Petty spite, perhaps?

        [derisive snorting]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “Nobody has suggested “banning” me for any reason at all.”

        Rightly so: everybody who suggested banning you had their reason.

        When Roy asked you to start your own blog, you disappeared for a while and you came back under another nickname.

        Coincidence?

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        You say

        Nobody has suggested “banning” me for any reason at all.

        Rightly so: everybody who suggested banning you had their reason.

        When Roy asked you to start your own blog, you disappeared for a while and you came back under another nickname.

        Coincidence?”

        Maybe you could address your complaints to an appropriate authority. There is no sense in whining to me. I am as powerless to determine who comments on this blog as you are.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        I believe that you have the power to stop using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        Why would I talk to anyone else but you?

        Live long and prosper. Or not.

      • Swenson says:

        “Why would I talk to anyone else but you?”

        How the heck would I know? Is that a particularly stu‌pid got‌cha, or do you really not understand why you do things?

        Insanity? Lack of self control?

        [Willard is a very, very, odd person]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You ask, or not –

        “How the heck would I know?”

        Because you believe that you have the power to use or not use your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation, perhaps?

        Feel free to tell me otherwise.

      • Swenson says:

        “Feel free to tell me otherwise.”

        I always do.

      • Willard says:

        Thank you for admitting that you have no control over what you write, Mike.

    • Swenson says:

      AQ,

      “He is trying to claim he is not doing it.”

      Really? Doing what?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        You’re welcome.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        So Mikey, after you’ve read the first sentence it is promptly erased from your memory, and you only recall the final sentence?

        Is that deliberate, or has someone been sucking out your amygdala and hippocampus with a straw?

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        “He is trying to claim he is not doing it.”

        Really? Doing what?

        Can’t say? Won’t say?

        You might as well refuse to describe the GHE while you’re at it!

        [laughing at pretentious di‌mwit]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        You’re welcome.

      • Swenson says:

        “Using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.”

        If you say so, Willard, if you say so.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • barry says:

        “So Mikey, after youve read the first sentence it is promptly erased from your memory, and you only recall the final sentence?”

        There is some weird filter that bars him from reading anything properly. Often he can’t get past the first paragraph.

      • Swenson says:

        “There is some weird filter that bars him from reading anything properly. Often he cant get past the first paragraph.”

        Good to know. Thanks.

        barry, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        There is no need for say-sos Mikey. Everyone can now see what you have been doing.

      • Swenson says:

        “There is no need for say-sos Mikey. Everyone can now see what you have been doing.”

        Thank you for your bizarre input. Were you trying to say something relevant?

        Maybe you should stick to refusing to describe the GHE.

        AQ, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Mike, heads up –

        You used your silly HTML trick again to bypass Roy’s moderation.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Hey Mike, heads up

        You used your silly HTML trick again to bypass Roys moderation.

        Cheers.”

        Thank you for your input.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Hey Mike, heads up –

        You used your silly HTML trick again to bypass Roy’s moderation.

        Cheers. Or not.

      • Swenson says:

        Thanks for your interest.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Here is the entire page source:
        view-source:https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/

        Flynn’s comment begins line 3905

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        The first part didn’t get highlighted. You have to copy and paste the entire line.

    • Swenson says:

      Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  48. Поглощение!!!

    • Swenson says:

      For some reason, someone is terrified of the word “absorp‌tion”.

      I have no idea why. Must be an American thing.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        The A-word is banned to hinder Sky Dragon cranks from relitigating it in each and every thread.

        Hence why you need to use a silly HTML trick to bypass Roy’s moderation.

      • Swenson says:

        “The A-word is banned to hinder Sky Dragon cranks from relitigating it in each and every thread.”

        You are obviously just making stuff up. Why do you refuse to explain why you use stu‌pid terms like “Sky Dragon cranks” and “relitigating”?

        Refusal to accept reality is a sign of insanity. Can you demonstrate that you are not completely bonkers? I doubt it, but feel free to show otherwise.

        [laughing at impotent and inept tr‌oll]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        If I ever wanted to ban a word from a WP blog, I’d add it to a blacklist of words that filter out the comments using them.

        What I wouldn’t be able to do is to ban combinations of the letters of these words and your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        I’d ban the special characters you’re using.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Worried Wee Willy,

        “What I wouldn’t be able to do is to ban combinations of the letters of these words and your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.”

        Luckily, it seems that not everybody shares your enthusiasm for censorship.

        Good thing that you are completely powerless to enforce your insane desires, isn’t it?

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “Luckily.”

        Pray tell – how does it feel to go in someone’s house and bypass his house rules by using a silly HTML trick?

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        You say

        Luckily.

        Pray tell how does it feel to go in someone’s house and bypass his house rules by using a silly HTML trick?”

        Why do you ask such a stu‌pid got‌cha?

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What gotcha?

        That you’re coming in Roy’s house and bypass his house rules by exploiting a silly HTML trick?

        There’s no gotcha there.

        Unless for you moral principles are gotchas.

      • Swenson says:

        “That youre coming in Roys house and bypass his house rules by exploiting a silly HTML trick?”

        You have now appointed yourself as guardian of “Roy’s house”, have you? Well done. I presume you have written up some “house rules” for “Roy” to enforce. Did he thank you?

        You obviously claim to be a close friend of “Roy”, on first name terms – no need to call him Dr Spencer, is there? Pardon me (only joking) while I laugh!

        Gee, a choice at last – Dr Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team (DREMT), or Roy’s House Monitor (Willard).

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “You obviously claim”

        Do I?

        Perhaps you could quote me saying so.

        You still have used the T-word, which means you still have used your silly HTML trick to bypass Roy’s moderation.

      • Swenson says:

        Thank you for your concern.

  49. But in real world there is not any +33C greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Willard says:

      Step 1 – Pure Denial

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        You refuse to describe this mythical GHE.

        Can’t or won’t?

        You are denying reality. That makes you insane.

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You deny having been spoon fed at least a thousand times since at least when you commented under your proper Climateball name.

        Meanwhile, you are also evading moderation by using a silly HTML trick.

        Please, do continue to play dumb.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        You refuse to describe this mythical GHE.

        Cant or wont?

        You are denying reality. That makes you insane.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        You copy-pasted your comment, Mike.

        It shows, for there are characters missing.

        Still on your silly tablet?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        You refuse to describe this mythical GHE.

        Cant or wont?

        You are denying reality. That makes you insane.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “Cant or wont”

        What are you braying about?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        You refuse to describe this mythical GHE.

        Cant or wont?

        You are denying reality. That makes you insane.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        “Cant or wont” make no sense, Mike.

        What are you braying about?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        You refuse to describe this mythical GHE.

        Can’t or won’t?

        You are denying reality. That makes you insane.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You still used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        You still used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        Cheers.”

        Whining again, are you? What are you babbling about? I’m not sure why you would think anybody values your opinion, but you seem to.

        Keep at it.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        That you used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation isn’t an opinion.

        It’s a fact.

        Cheers. Or not.

      • Swenson says:

        Thank you for your interest.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation once again.

        That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

        Feel free to deny it. Or not.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        See, Mike?

        *That* is an opinion.

        And you used your silly HTML trick to bypass it.

    • Willard,
      Solar flux cannot theoretically be averaged over some area, because solar flux what it does is to interact with matter.

      When solar flux is averaged, the averaged flux is four (4) times weaker, therefore there would be a new interaction result, which would be very different from the actual one.

      The solar flux /Earth’s surface interaction result comes up with Tmean = 288K.

      The averaged solar flux’s the new interaction result comes up with Te = 255K.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Willard says:

        Christos,

        Solar flux is already an average.

        You should not listen to Puffman on algebraic matters.

        On IT menial stuff, perhaps?

      • Swenson says:

        “Solar flux is already an average.”

        Good to know, if completely obscure and cryptic.

        Does the “average” have something to do with the GHE which you refuse to describe, or are you just acting the goat for reasons which you are not prepared to divulge?

        You could always say that you are not a complete idio‌t – just an average idio‌t.

        Carry on being irrelevant. It’s a reason to laugh at you.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “Good to know”

        Thank you.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        You’re most welcome.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You keep using your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        Why is that?

      • Swenson says:

        “Why is that?”

        Why do you ask?

        [laughing at Idio‌tic tr‌oll]

      • Willard says:

        Why are you still using your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation, Mike?

      • Swenson says:

        “Why . . . ”

        Oh dear, asking for a “sammich” again, are you?

        Maybe instead of posing stu‌pid got‌chas, you might asleep yourself why you refuse to describe the GHE.

        How hard can it be?

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        I ask because I want to know the reason why you are you still using your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

        “Because I can” does not cut it.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Worried Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “I ask because I want to know the reason . . .”

        Want in one hand, pee in the other, see which hand gets wet.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

        [Willard is an incomplete idio‌t]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You are free to fantasize about peeing in your hand. Or not.

        It still would be interesting to know the reason why you are you still using your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.

      • Swenson says:

        Worried Wee Willy,

        You wrote

        “I ask because I want to know the reason . . .”

        Want in one hand, pee in the other, see which hand gets wet.”

        Willard, please stop tr‌olling.

        [Willard is an incomplete idio‌t]

      • Willard says:

        The I-word is hard to write without using your silly HTML trick, Mike.

        Why is that?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Meanwhile, it still snows in the northern hemisphere in July (not in Greenland).
    https://i.ibb.co/L0DxS2d/nh-swe-1.png

  51. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Robert Cutler,

    Because the oceans are net CO2 sinks, and the only significant net sources are of anthropogenic origin, what is the mechanism by which “[CO2] lags temperature?”

    If the oceans were net sources you wouldn’t see decreasing ocean pH, no?

    • gbaikie says:

      The oceans are big. Therefore filled with more life than land, and CO2 is plant food.

    • Arkady, thanks for the question. The analysis has nothing to to say about net sources and sinks. Anthropogenic CO2 can independently contribute to both atmospheric concentrations and ocean acidification. All the results indicate is that changes in temperature will cause CO2 to add or subtract from those contributions.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Robert Cutler,

        We know that natural sources contribute a net -1.7 Gt per year, and anthropogenic sources a net +46.5 Gt per year.

        If, as you say “[CO2] lags temperature,” it’s merely a coincidence then.

        I trust you’ve read Dr. Spencer’s posts on sources and sinks: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/unnecessary-net-zero-part-ii-a-demonstration-with-global-carbon-project-data/

      • Arkady: “We know that natural sources contribute a net -1.7 Gt per year, and anthropogenic sources a net +46.5 Gt per year.”

        I’m not sure I’m following your logic. You haven’t said anything about temperature, so you haven’t said anything about causality. CO2 sources and sinks are irrelevant, the question is what is the temporal relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature, particularly over longer time intervals? Nobody questions that CO2 follows ENSO. Blue lags red.

        New plot with with updated temp/co2 data and slightly different detrend parameters.

        https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_2_1_global.png

        I made this for easier comparison with the linearly detrended ln([CO2]) version

        https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_ln_global.png

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        You haven’t said anything about temperature, so you haven’t said anything about causality.

        Did you already forget your objection to my post?

        Here, again, is what I said: Fossil fuel-burning will cause an increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide and that will cause a significant warming of the planet.

        What more do you want me to say?

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        I’m not sure I’m following your logic.

        The logic is that the only material sources of CO2 are anthropogenic. CO2 from natural sources is balanced by the natural sinks.

      • You believe that CO2 is responsible for warming. I do not. Check out the first plot. CO2 contribution is only 0.06 degree, and I think that’s generous. It’s probably just compensating for UHI bias in the temperature data.

        https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md

        The first plot shows a joint estimation of a CO2 temperature model, and a sunspot-based temperature model, the second and third plots on the page.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        It has nothing to do with beliefs.

        It is simply the intersection of Molecular Spectroscopy and Climate Science, which you choose to pretend does not exist.

    • Swenson says:

      “If the oceans were net sources you wouldnt see decreasing ocean pH, no?”

      What a stu‌pid got‌cha!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Is the S-word another banned word that you keep injecting here by using your silly HTML trick?

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,

        Is the S-word another banned word that you keep injecting here by using your silly HTML trick?”

        Another stu‌pid got‌cha, is it?

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        The T-word is banned word that you and Graham D. Warner keep injecting here by using your silly HTML trick.

      • Swenson says:

        “The T-word is banned word that you and Graham D. Warner keep injecting here by using your silly HTML trick.”

        Your “banning” doesnt seem to be working. Why do you bother? What is a “T-word”?

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say two false things –

        “Your “banning” does not seem to be working.”

        First, it’s not my banning, but Roy’s.

        Second, if it wasn’t working, you would not need a silly HTML trick to bypass Roy’s banning.

        Please try again. Or not.

      • Swenson says:

        “You say two false things . . . ”

        If you say so, Willard, if you say so.

  52. Rob Mitchell says:

    Happy 4th everybody!

    After scanning through many of the comments here, I can tell there is still a great deal of conflict over AGW. And this conflict sure does get emotional. As a BS Meteorology with 40 years weather forecasting experience, I am asking for a quick science lesson from the higher educated.

    For 30 years, I never was interested in climate. My attitude was basically tomorrow’s weather was hard enough, why would I concern myself with trying to predict weather years into the future? I just assumed it was impossible. But when I was assigned to forecast weather off the Alaskan Slope from 2007 to 2015, my interest in climate started to pick up. After hearing predictions by so-called experts that the Arctic would experience an ice free summer within a decade, I knew something was amiss. I just knew there was no friggin way that would happen in such a short amount of time.

    From my limited knowledge of climate, I understand that the earth has gone through extensive periods of time without polar ice caps. Am I correct? I believe the Eocene, about 34-60 million years ago was such a period. During this warm-earth period, I don’t believe life on earth was severely harmed by it. As a matter of fact, I think life flourished.

    Here is my question. Since life on earth did just fine without polar ice caps, why is there so much hysteria about our current warming trend and the very slight ice melt that is going on now?

    • Clint R says:

      There’s nothing wrong with your question, Rob. In fact, it’s a really good question. It hits at the very core of the cult’s unfounded fears.

      Supporting what you’ve heard about the climate history of the poles, evidence of crocodiles has been found in the Arctic:

      During this time, when dinosaurs roamed the almost subtropical forests of an ice-free Antarctic, conditions on the other side of the planet were even more remarkable: the Arctic Ocean was a gigantic freshwater lake infested with crocodile-like reptiles.

      https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826611-200-when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic/

    • Swenson says:

      Rob,

      “I am asking for a quick science lesson from the higher educated.”

      Good luck. If that sounds cynical, so be it.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Rob, There are a few people who post around here that deny climate change, the two before this post being prime examples.

      But, your lead in suggests that there is some similarity between today and the climate “34-60 million years ago”. For starters, about 3 million years ago, the Isthmus of Panama closed and the flows between the tropical Atlantic and the Pacific stopped. One result has been that the tropical Atlantic is much saltier than the Pacific, which has changed the circulation in the Atlantic resulting in the deep diving currents in the polar North Atlantic. As a result, the recent climate is different compared with your earlier period with a pattern of repeated periods of Ice Age conditions with occasional warm periods.

      There’s quite a bit more to be learned. Have fun, but watch out for those who have an agenda and who haven’t taken the time to study the science.

      • Clint R says:

        E. Swanson, why the false accusation? Where did I ever “deny climate change”. Earth is currently in a natural warming phase. Is that “denying climate change”?

        What I deny is your bogus GHE, that you can’t even provide a viable description of. That’s one reason we know it ain’t science.

      • Swenson says:

        “There are a few people who post around here that deny climate change,”

        Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. As weather changes, so do the statistics.

        Go on, name someone who denies that weather changes.

        Can’t do it? Won’t do it? Colour me unsurprised.

    • barry says:

      “Since life on earth did just fine without polar ice caps, why is there so much hysteria about our current warming trend and the very slight ice melt that is going on now?”

      Setting aside the emotive “hysteria”…

      Different geological periods best suited different ecologies. Humanity flourished and civilizations emerged in a single, stable geological period – the holocene. This came after a glacial period where the world warmed by 5 to 6 C over several thousand years, accompanied by sea level change of 130 metres. In the time our civilization have flourished, global temps have not changed much.

      More recently the world has warmed by over 1 C in 100 years. This is 10 times faster than warming from the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago.

      The concern with anthropogenic global warming is not so much that we may be engineering a new geological period with warmer temps and higher sea levels, it is much more the rate at which this may occur, changing weather patterns, agricultural zones and water availability faster than our nation-locked populations can adapt to. If the world warmed at the rate of 1 C per 1000 years, as it did to arrive at our current period, we would not be concerned.

      Cost/benefit analyses generally reckon that it will be much less stressful on humanity to reduce the global experiment with our atmosphere than to adapt to it.

      There is plenty of uncertainty regarding outcomes, but as we are unable to walk away from our ongoing, unmanaged geological experiment, it would be imprudent to do nothing about it and hope for the best.

      It is the fact that we are inside the test tube with no way to escape the results of our choices that makes the issue pointy.

      • Clint R says:

        Great panic-attack there barry.

        You sound like Greta….

      • Willard says:

        Hey Puffman, riddle me this –

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIP2vukNOPc

        Have you called yet?

      • gbaikie says:

        “Humanity flourished and civilizations emerged in a single, stable geological period the holocene. This came after a glacial period where the world warmed by 5 to 6 C over several thousand years, accompanied by sea level change of 130 metres. In the time our civilization have flourished, global temps have not changed much.”

        The Sahara desert become is present vast desert, sea levels have dropped 1 meter, and Earth has become drier and colder.

      • Willard says:

        Almost like Mars.

        Now’s your cue.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”More recently the world has warmed by over 1 C in 100 years”.

        ***

        After it had cooled at least the same amount (Little Ice Age) over the previous 400+ years.

        Come on, Barry, is the reality too much for your alarmist brain to process? What makes more scientific sense, that a trace gas caused the 1C warming or that the warming is actually a rewarming after an extensive period of cooling due to a mini ice age?

        It may still go on recovering for some time. Akasofu (a geophycicist) estimated 0.5C/century rewarming. We are 174 years beyond 1850, when the LIA ended, and if it did cool 2C, we still have about 26 years to rewarm, if Akasofu is right.

        It has only rewarmed 1C and the amount of ice created during the LIA, enhanced by winters, is likely delaying the full extent of the rewarming.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Swenson says:

        “More recently the world has warmed by over 1 C in 100 years”

        No it hasnt. That is a physical impossibility.

        You are probably referring to the fact that heat from human activities has been detected by thermometers.

        That’s life. The planet itself is now cooler than it was four ago and a half billion years ago.

        Accept reality if you dare.

      • Clint R says:

        barry is panicked because he believes Earth is warming faster than “it should”: More recently the world has warmed by over 1 C in 100 years.”

        His cult believes that insignificant increase is due to CO2. Their cult equation calculates a 3.7 W/m². What the cult fails to understand is Earth handles a change of 90 W/m² every year, with no one noticing.

        But poor barry and Greta live in fear of an imaginary 3.7 W/m² increase.

        See what cults can do?

      • barry says:

        I don’t see anything alarmist about my description of the concern with global warming. It starts by dismissing the word ‘hysteria’, and seems a lot more relaxed than the spikey chattering that followed it.

        Relax everyone.

      • Swenson says:

        “I dont see anything alarmist about my description of the concern with global warming”

        Obviously, you wouldn’t, would you?

        You seem to think that anthropogenically generated heat is harmful. Others, like Svante Arrhenius, might think it was positively beneficial, and lead to ” ages with more equable and better climates.”

        Let me know when the Antarctic has warmed to its previous fertile ice-free state. Should I panic if that happens?

        In the meantime, keep worrying on my behalf. I can’t be bothered.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Svante was also a board member of the Swedish Society of Racial Hygiene, an organisation established in 1909 which pursued the study and promotion of eugenics.

        Make that what you will. Or not.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Svante was also a board member of the Swedish Society of Racial Hygiene, an organisation established in 1909 which pursued the study and promotion of eugenics.”

        Good for him! People are free to believe anything they want. So are others who may believe differently.

        Do you have a point, or are you just tro‌ing for no good reason at all?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “People are free to believe anything they want.”

        Just like you are free to let points fly above your head. Or not.

        Do you feel that you’re free to use your silly HTML trick to bypass Roy’s moderation, by any chance?

      • Swenson says:

        “Do you feel that youre free to use your silly HTML trick to bypass Roys moderation, by any chance?”

        What are you gibbering about, fo‌ol?

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • barry says:

        “You seem to think that anthropogenically generated heat is harmful.”

        You didn’t understand my remarks, then.

      • In the time our civilization have flourished, global temps have not changed much.

        Aye, there’s the rub. And that’s a very short time. We are about to move into an envelope in which we have never previously been tested as a civilisation. Maybe our technological talents will help us navigate the change. And maybe not.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Elliott, but we’re NOT moving into some dangerous “envelope”.

        You need to recognize you’ve been fed a system of untruths. Start with some basic easy-to-understand physics, such as — What is “temperature”:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      test

    • A crisis is a combination of danger and opportunity. Global warming presents us with those characteristics. The prospect of more dangerous weather, loss of coastal cities and the disappearance of the glacial “water towers” of Asia is an obvious series of dangers. On the other hand, the transition of the economy to renewable energy is a vast economic opportunity, offering both growth and wider distribution of wealth to poor but sun-rich countries.

      The problem is that in the English-speaking world, in particular, bad actors have made an ideological issue out of the science. It’s a war between tribes. Just like with creationism, smoking and vaccines there is more heat than light, at least from one side.

      • Swenson says:

        “The problem is that in the English-speaking world, in particular, bad actors have made an ideological issue out of the science”

        Exactly. The GHE cultists refuse to acknowledge reality, preferring to believe in something they refuse to describe.

        What a pack of del‌usional fo‌ols!

        AB, please stop tr‌olling.

      • Swenson says:

        Whoops,

        EB, please stop tro‌lling.

  53. Gordon Robertson says:

    Rob Mitchell…re ice-free Poles in the past…our current axial tilt is about 23 degrees. If something happened in the past, like a massive collision with a body of significant mass, it could have knocked the planet from a vertical axis to one with the 23 degree tilt. If the axis was vertical before, that would explain the ice-free poles.

    Such a body my even have affected the orbit itself.

    Have you ever read Velikovsky (worlds In Collision, Ages in Chaos). He is regarded as highly controversial but his work is based on ancient history. I find his writing absorbing even though I am not sold on his claims. However, as I said, the evidence he supplies to back his claims are good.

    The interesting thing for me is that Velikovsky predicted the temperature of Venus to be 800F (427C), based on his claims. He was very close as was discovered by the Pioneer probe in 1978. Till then, the surface temperature of Venus had been thought to have been a lot lower.

    Not only that, the current anthropogenic theory is based on the alleged greenhouse effect on Venus. That was proposed by Carl Sagan and adopted by James Hansen of NASA GISS. Hansen’s tipping point theory, the basis of the catastrophic global warming theory, is based entirely on the thory that CO2 in th Venusian atmosphere caused a greenhouse environment that reached a tipping point and ran away with itself.

    The Pioneer probe proved that theory wrong since a surface temperature of 450C could not be explained by a greenhouse effect. It is far too hot and according to astronomer Andre Ingersoll, it would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    • Rob Mitchell says:

      Thanks Gordon, Clint, and others for your thoughts on climate change and how much of an urgency is actually there.

      I noticed there were some comments about “deniers” yet again. I don’t know of anybody within the field of meteorology who denies that climate changes. We all agree that climate changes due to a multitude of reasons. And we all agree that living organisms also play some role in climate change. The big argument is over how much.

      I think the alarmist gang really went off the rails over cows and their greenhouse emissions. Whenever the fact that millions of buffalo roamed the land before domesticated cows is brought up, the alarmists (mostly non-scientists) were reduced to saying the most absurd thing – domesticated cows have worse burps and farts than the buffalo! I cannot come to any other conclusion than the climate-social justice warriors are going after our food supply. Just look at the current administration and their efforts to blame our farmers for causing too much CO2 emissions. And they are trying to punish our farmers because they dare to use the internal combustion engine for their farming.

      I think Dr. Lindzen is right. Climate change is no longer a scientific argument. It is a political movement.

  54. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A large high pressure system is sitting west of Tasmania and will remain stationary until the weekend.
    A high pressure system is an area of high pressure relative to its surroundings. On the map, it appears with an ‘H’ with the number indicating the pressure.
    This system will impact weather right across the country until Sunday. Parts of southern and central Australia are likely to experience widespread morning frosts, very cold nights with cool and sunny days to follow, while coastal areas of NSW and Qld can expect some showers.
    For places close to the centre of the high, sea levels will be about 30cm lower than usual due to the air pressure pushing down on the water.
    The high is forecast to travel across Tasmania on Saturday before moving into the Tasman Sea late Sunday.
    For the latest forecasts and warnings visit http://www.bom.gov.au or the BOM Weather app.

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Negative temperature anomalies in Europe.
    https://i.ibb.co/NmJ2T9S/ventusky-temperature-anomaly-2m-20240705t0600.jpg

  56. I’ve now banned our Aussie friend “Swenson” from commenting, mostly due to his repeated violations of my comment moderation rules.

    • RLH says:

      Good for you.

    • Bindidon says:

      Thank you.

      • Bindidon says:

        I’m probably not the only one who hopes that the blocking will not only be done at the email address level, but also based on the IP address, otherwise Swen*son aka Amazed aka Mike Flynn will soon reappear under a different nickname.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        I think you’ll find your hope has been realised (times 2).

        And then there was Clint …

      • John W says:

        Roy would benefit most from a genuine moderator, and an AI would be the most practical choice.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Doesn’t Youtube use AI? That doesn’t work too well.

      • My experience with AI to date has been that it depends how intelligently it is used. The initial experience was a big Wow, followed by disillusionment, followed by a big productivity boost once it settled in. As Dr. Roy works at a university, I’d guess that the opportunity to have some students set it up is there. I think it would be worth a try.

        We have seen that just blocking words has little beneficial effect on the quality of conversation. I bet an AI could spot ankle-biting behaviour like svensdottir, given a bit of training.

      • Willard says:

        > also based on the IP address

        And then the Gods of the Internet created VPNs…

        There’s no other way to moderate than to do it by hand. Curation is a duty anyway. According to WP terms, the owner is responsible for the comments on his website.

        Banning “&#x200B” and “&#8204” (and perhaps other special character entities) would help. At least those who want to bypass moderation would have to own it explicitly, like when Mr. Asshat’s uses “ijit.”

        Moderating the blog shouldn’t be that hard. All it takes is a good RSS reader. An easy task would be to “zamboni” the threads from Roy’s posts that are not global temps updates. They alone should be what we call “open threads.”

        Closing comment threads after a while would also make it easier. There’s no reason to let Gill and Graham D. Warner prevaricate the way they do on that other thread.

        Alright, enough chit chat. See you in July.

      • John W says:

        Indeed, Elliot. It seems quite straightforward to bypass bans on this site. Willard pointed out that the IP address block can simply be sidestepped with VIP status.

        History suggests “Swe*nson” will return under a new alias and resume his previous behavior despite the ban. It’s only a matter of time.

        Roy lacks the time to manage the blog alone, so we require a permanent moderator who can flag behaviors Roy finds objectionable, such as denying the greenhouse effect.

      • Eben says:

        Ja Ja Ja Bindidork has been trying to become a moderator for years still no go

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        "Roy lacks the time to manage the blog alone, so we require a permanent moderator who can flag behaviors Roy finds objectionable, such as denying the greenhouse effect…"

        …and do what, exactly? Once "flagged", are they to be flogged? Burn the heretics? Stamp out, silence, ban any opposition to the GHE?

        Just silly. What’s wrong with questioning the GHE?

        What’s wrong with people who question the GHE? Why exactly do they deserve so much hatred, bigotry, and intolerance?

      • John W says:

        “Whats wrong with people who question the GHE? Why exactly do they deserve so much hatred, bigotry, and intolerance?”

        I couldn’t care less about their personal stance on the GHE. What bothers me, and I believe many others, is that a significant number of these individuals come here to disrupt discussions and target those who do support the GHE. Despite Roy’s repeated requests for them to leave, they continue to return.

        Many of us would rather read meaningful conversations. As a moderator, why aren’t you living up to your name?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        On the subject of climate change, I can’t think of a more “meaningful discussion” than whether or not there’s a GHE. Why shouldn’t it be discussed? Why are those who doubt there’s a GHE seen as the aggressors, anyway?

        Why is it OK for a skeptic blog to be dominated by “alarmist” regulars, but those who question the GHE are persona non grata? Doesn’t actually make any sense, when you think about it. Oh well.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner asks a question that has been answered at least a hundred times already:

        [Sky Dragon cranks] have had ample opportunity to answer my challenge: take your ideas, put them into an alternative time-dependent model for surface temperature, and run it from any initial state and see if it ends up with a realistic temperature.

        […]

        [Sky Dragon cranks] have ample opportunity to post comments here outlining their views, often dominating the bandwidth, and those comments will remain for posterity.

        But my blog is no longer going to provide them a platform for their unsupported pseudo-scientific claims…they can post their cult science on their own blog. They have taken far too much of my time, which would be better spent thinking about the more obvious shortcomings of global warming theory.

        https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks

        The “will remain for posterity” part is outdated.

        So the reason is simple: Roy owns the blog. Meanwhile, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that Graham D. Warner just implied that Roy was an intolerant bigot. He (and soon Mr. Asshat when he’ll get his second drink) usually try to dodge that fairly basic point by pretending that they’re not Sky Dragon cranks. But everyone knows they are.

        They deny the greenhouse effect. They have no theory to offer. They dominate the bandwidth.

        Imagine. Graham D. Warner is still defending Puffman, a guy who has been banned multiple times by Roy.

        His current victim playing has no merit at all.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Below, Little Willy trashes and ridicules Dr Spencer’s “lukewarm” position. Up here, he acts like he speaks for him.

        And no, I didn’t imply Dr Spencer was an intolerant bigot. It was John W’s suggestion to get a moderator to “flag” GHE skepticism as a thought crime.

      • Willard says:

        And so Graham D. Warner deflects once again. Here is where he expressed his opinion on moderation:

        I’m not a real moderator. Real moderators are able to just delete any comments they feel like, on a whim, to indulge their fantasies of having some sort of control over other people. Real moderators are here to censor, and suppress freedom of expression. Im just having a bit of fun. When I [PSTer], it doesn’t actually have any effect. People are still able to say whatever they want to say, and it will be posted and there for posterity, no matter how many times I repeat my [PSTering].

        I think what people are really upset about by the [PSTering] is…they don’t get to have the last word.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1635889

        The “for posterity” bit did not age well.

        So Roy has been indulging his fantasy of having some sort of control over people. And he’s “supressing freedom of expression.” Graham D. Warner also said other things about censors elsewhere. They’re consistently not complimentary.

        Oh, and Mr. Asshat compared censors to Goebbels too!

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMT,

        “Why is it OK for a skeptic blog to be dominated by alarmist regulars, but those who question the GHE are persona non grata? Doesnt actually make any sense, when you think about it. Oh well.”

        First off, you are misusing the word skeptic, as your clan refuses to examine the evidence for the greenhouse effect.

        Those of you who have been banned, not because they deny the GHE, but because they are rude.

        It’s just a game to you, with all your PSTing always having to have the last word, while not taking part in the discussions.

        You can be polite and deny the GHE, why don’t you try it.

      • John W says:

        Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team,

        What would you do if you were Roy?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy and bob fish for another ban. Sorry bob, but generally speaking you and Little Willy are a lot more rude than I am. I have my moments, same as everyone else, but generally you two are a lot worse.

        John W, he does not need to do anything. The blog is great as it is, and long may it continue.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner, forever the victim.

        He could at least reflect on the fact that his own PSTering is involved. He could also reflect on the fact that his justification foe PSTering has no merit anymore. He could also reflect on the fact that Roy once asked him why he larped as his moderator.

        No, he has to rip off his shirt once more. By the time he does he could have came up with at least two other names of luckwarmers. Three would be easy, but at least two would be fine.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “Graham D. Warner, forever the victim.”

        Yup.

        There’s more of the regular skeptics here who question the GHE to some extent than there are “lukewarmers”, that’s for sure. Meanwhile, there’s literally about twenty “alarmist” regulars. So, anyone trying to promote a narrative that there would be some “sophisticated discussion” between “lukewarmers” and “alarmists” that is being ruined by the GHE skeptics is definitely out of touch with the reality of this blog. Fact is, discussing the GHE is the reason this blog has so many comments and so much traffic. Also, it is popular due to the relaxed moderation.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        You seem to have reading comprehension issues as I was not angling for a ban.

        I was asking you to stop being rude.

        X was the rudest of the lot, with no self control.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner still rips off his shirt while pushing for a bogus argument.

        There are five main Sky Dragon cranks, now four for a short while. There are more than five luckwarmers already. There will be more when Sky Dragon cranks will accept that they have been disinvited since 2013.

        Not denying the greenhouse effect until one comes up with an alternative numerical model that accounts for the current warming. How hard can that be?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Most of the regular skeptics here question the GHE to some extent, Little Willy. And, there are far more “alarmist” regulars than skeptics, regardless.

        I’m not being rude, bob. You and Little Willy are a lot more rude than I am.</p

      • Willard says:

        And now Graham D. Warner tries to move Sky Dragon cranks under the umbrella of those who deny the greenhouse effect tO SOmE EXtEnT…

        He might as well argue that the Pope of the Luckwarm church too denies the greenhouse effect, at least to some extent!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I said “to some extent” already, in my 7:26 AM comment to be precise. You must not have been paying attention again.

        No, “lukewarmers” most definitely do not question the GHE to any extent. In fact, they defend it as staunchly as the “alarmists” do.

      • Willard says:

        Those who deny that we could reach 5C by 2100 are denying the greenhouse effect, at least To SOmE eXTEnT…

        All Graham D. Warner has is word games, and he’s not very good at them.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Sounds like your usual empty, hate-filled trash talk, Little Willy.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner can’t even admit that his “to some extent” was mere weasel wording. Some, but not me, might argue that trying to weasel Sky Dragon cranks’ concerns on every page is what he does best.

        I would rather argue that PSTering tops it all.

        Speaking of which: will he continue?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        If you say so, Little Willy.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner kinda “forgot” to respond –

        Will he continue PSTering people?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        No idea.

      • Willard says:

        Res ipsa loquitur.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        OK, Little Willy.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        “Im not being rude, bob. You and Little Willy are a lot more rude than I am.”

        You have just admitted being rude, thank you.

        I find your constant, or near constant PSTing to be rude, especially since you only do it to people who thing the GHE is real.

        It is obvious you search the thread for me, and post PST

      • John W says:

        “he does not need to do anything. The blog is great as it is, and long may it continue.”

        Well, that’s your opinion, but Roy (the blog owner) and most participants here would prefer less tro+lling.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I would prefer that too, John W. I politely ask them to stop, but they just won’t.

      • bobdroege says:

        “Just silly. Whats wrong with questioning the GHE?

        Whats wrong with people who question the GHE? Why exactly do they deserve so much hatred, bigotry, and intolerance?”

        Nothing wrong with that, but if it doesn’t lead to learning the science properly, what good is it.

        The science is all sorted, there is a GHE, whether or not if we can explain it to the likings of your cargo cult.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bob wants the last word, again.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        “bob wants the last word, again.”

        Do you have to gaslight me?

        No, I don’t want the last word, if you noticed, I don’t respond to your PSTs anymore.

        However, I would like you to explain your objections to the GHE.

        If there are any that haven’t been refuted already, if you don’t have any new ones that haven’t been discussed to death already, by all means bring them up.

        Or we can go over the same old same old again and again.

        But I am afraid your cargo cult doesn’t have the technology to understand it, so you keep building airplanes out of vegetation.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        See what I mean?

      • bobdroege says:

        Yes, you want the last word more than you want to join the discussion.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Keep on proving me right, bob.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Much appreciated.

    • John W says:

      Thank you!

    • All hail the great Dr. Roy.

    • Eben says:

      Very good , now fix the satellite tilled so it reads back to normal

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Is English your first language? Because it seems the satellite is broken, and needs to have its soil ploughed, while making it literate in a right-to-left written language.

    • Poor old Mike. They broke the mould before they made him.

    • Archie Debunker says:

      Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be i d i o t s will eventually be flooded by actual i d i o t s who mistakenly believe that they’re in good company.

    • Nate says:

      Thank you!

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Oh, that’s a shame. Good commenter.

  57. Apropos blessed silence, the latest Chromium version of the Tarderase plugin for this blog is submitted. Should be up in a couple of days, based on performance to date. I’ll get the Firefox version up ASAP. The current feature set is:

    * Lets you mute simpletons. (Only from your own POV.)
    * Displays inline images in place of links, including from Googol Drive. There is a problem with this on Bindidon’s browser which I cannot yet remedy.
    * Allows you to select a list of authors and filter the blog to just their posts – meant to make it easier to track your interactions.
    * Optionally shows a histogram of user activity.
    * Allows you to open and collapse threads of activity.
    * More features function in real-time, responding as you click.
    * Popup window styled a bit more nicely with Bootstrap.
    * Optionally changes the blog to a nice, sans-serif font.

    I must say, in the few days I have been using the plugin, this blog has been a whole different place. More pictorial, and less plagued by ankle-biters who I can no longer see. All participation welcome.

    • P.S. That’s Version 1.3.0, I should mention.

    • Oh yes, and:

      * Buttons added under the comment field to allow you to change a text selection to Bold, Italic and Block Quote or remove that style. I thought this would make it easier to format your posts.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Doesn’t muting some people mean you don’t understand what the rest are talking about half the time?

      • It does make the conversation a bit disjointed in some cases, yes. If you use it over a period of time, then interactions between you and the simpletons simply do not arise, which may mitigate the effect.

        It’s up to each of you to decide how you want to deal with the tralls. My plugin adds some features which I think are useful, but I can’t tell you how to use the blog.

    • barry says:

      Thanks Elliott, I could do with muting at least one noxious participant.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      A bit like a slightly more sophisticated version of putting your fingers in your ears and singing “la la la, I can’t hear you” as loud as you possibly can, but at least it’s only from your own POV. Harmless enough. Better than openly campaigning day after day to get specific people banned, whilst pretending you’re doing it for the good of the blog rather than your own personal vendetta.

      Quick question: how many people identifying as “luke warmers” regularly contribute to the blog? Of the regulars here, I can only think of gbaikie…and even he goes for a climate sensitivity value that must call into question the GHE to some extent.

      • barry says:

        Cogent disagreement is welcome. Ill-informed sniping is tedious. I would mute at least one person because I can’t seem to help feeding the you-know-what.

        What is a lukewarmer? Agrees with AGW, but thinks it will be mild?

      • Willard says:

        A luckwarmer, as defined by its Arch-Bishop, i.e. Moshpit, is a bet under 3C for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. So basically a hair under what the IPCC suggests. It is *not* defined by denial of climate sensitivity.

        One could argue that the concept evolved over time. For instance, it does not preclude from alarmist claim such as:

        Humans will use 3,000 Quads by 2075. If they all come from coal were ruined.

        https://3000quads.com/

        That’s from Moshpit’s sidekick, whom tends to rip off his shirt in Climateball threads. Not unlike Graham D. Warner, who has a knack to project his own sociopathy unto otters.

      • Ken says:

        A lukewarmer is someone who thinks CO2 emissions are responsible for some of the modest warming observed and in our climate that natural causes, such as climatic cycles, are responsible for most, if not all, of the warming.

        I would add lukewarmer is someone who thinks CO2 absor*tion is saturated; GHE due to CO2 isn’t going to be a factor going forward.

        That is about where my opinion lies too.

      • Ken says:

        Corrected version

        A lukewarmer is someone who thinks CO2 emissions are responsible for some of the modest warming observed in our climate and that natural causes, such as climatic cycles, are responsible for most, if not all, of the warming.

        I would add lukewarmer is someone who thinks CO2 absor*tion is saturated; GHE due to CO2 isnt going to be a factor going forward.

        That is about where my opinion lies too.

      • Willard says:

        Perhaps I should preempt one forthcoming semantic game. The limit of what is usually considered a Luckwarmer is basically what Nic Lewis can find, so a central estimate around 2C. I call that the lowest bound of justified disingenuousness, with a tip of my hat to RyanO. An old discussion can be found here:

        https://web.archive.org/web/20170429151100/http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/

        It should be noted that Nic’s work rests on an Energy Balance Model. So our beloved Sky Dragon cranks might wish to issue their usual caveat emptor. It should also be noted that this means Roy and Tim are luckwarmers.

        Participants of this blog might appreciate the tone and the level of sophistication of discussions.

      • John W says:

        Ken,

        The issue with the saturation argument is that it fails to account for the fact that the saturation effect of CO2 decreases with altitude. As the height of emission increases, the colder temperatures at higher altitudes result in slower emission of infrared radiation.

        *** True. There is no such thing as atmospheric saturation of CO2 emission/absorption. Not even on Venus. It’s not just the altitude effect, but also the pressure broadening effect, with CO2 affecting broader ranges of wavelengths the lower in the atmosphere you are. -Roy

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        They don’t even know what a “lukewarmer” is! That says it all, really. Let’s face it, pretty much everyone that is skeptical of AGW on this blog (amongst the regulars, certainly) is at least somewhat skeptical of the GHE. It seems if you’re a regular here, you’re either a full-on “alarmist”, or you’re a GHE skeptic! So, what does Elliott want to do? Block out all the GHE skeptics so it’s just a bunch of “alarmists” agreeing with each other? What’s the point?

        Oh, Tim S. There’s another “lukewarmer”. So, there’s two.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner had one chance to make amends, and he fails it!

        Here is proof:

        Of course, the simplest definition is [Moshpit]’s: “The simplest definition was given by [Moshpit], who frequently comments on your blog. “Given an over/under on sensitivity of 3C, lukewarmers will take the under.”

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/05/lukewarming/

        This is not rocket science. Graham is trying to make Sky Dragon cranks relevant by trying to intimate that they belong in the luckwarm category. But since he’s a jackass, he can’t come out and *say* it. He has to resorts to a silly Socrates act.

        To demonstrate what? That he is willing to relitigate every single point to the death instead of just accepting that he should pipe up from time time.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        All wrong, Little Willy. I cross-posted with about three other people at once. As I was writing my last comment out, barry’s comment was the only one I could see. The rest hadn’t posted yet. Then when I posted my comment, there they were. So, I was responding to barry alone when I said that it seemed like they don’t even know what a “lukewarmer” is.

        I’m not trying to lump GHE skeptics in with “lukewarmers”. My point is that this blog has hardly any “lukewarmer” regular commenters. So, there is Ken as well. I guess there’s possibly three, then? If Elliott wants to drown out all those who question the GHE, who will be left? Three “lukewarmers” and about twenty “alarmists”!

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner shows his immense reading skills again. Barry’s understanding of what is a Luckwarmer (“agrees with AGW, but thinks it will be mild”) is perfectly fine. His own understanding (“I can only think of gbaikie…and even he goes for a climate sensitivity value that must call into question the GHE to some extent”) is not.

        Sometimes Gill self-identifies as a luckwarmer too. That does not mean much. These days he’s quite busy piling on with Graham on Nate, who calmly tries to reason with these two crooks.

        And no, I wasn’t referring of TS, who’s basically this blog’s John G. Roberts. Mighty Tim is most probably a luckwarmer. He disagrees for instance that all the warming is caused by CO2. Which is true in a way, for it’s more than all the warming…

        But I digress. The main reason why Sky Dragon cranks are unwelcome is because they’re cranks. They got no social skills.

      • Ken says:

        John W

        I like Happer and Wijngaarden paper that shows spectrum is saturated. They’ve done the math for spectral lines at all altitudes.

        ** No they don’t! People keep misrepresenting what they did in that study. They got the same broadband IR radiative forcing from 2XCO2 as others before them got. I verified this with Will Happer. See Table 3 in their paper: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Infrared-Forcing-by-Greenhouse-Gases-2019-Revised-3-7-2022.pdf –Roy

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Actually, Little Willy, I asked how many people identifying as “lukewarmers” contribute regularly to the blog. I happen to know that gbaikie has said he thinks of himself as a “lukewarmer”. So, he counts, regardless.

        And yes, barry’s guess at what a “lukewarmer” is, was fine, but the point was, it was a guess. He didn’t actually even know what a “lukewarmer” was, as in he had apparently never heard the phrase before and so had to guess at it!

        Are there many people identifying as “lukewarmers” posting here? No. Not regulars. They’re in the minority, for sure. Far more people skeptical of the GHE, to some extent, commenting regularly.

      • Ken says:

        ‘Luckwarmer’ is defined here as a boring arts program dropout (he can’t spell lukewarm) who thinks AGW is real and present threat because Steven Guilbeault, ex criminal and Canada’s minister of climate change, says so.

      • Willard says:

        1.4C per doubling (the lowest W.A. can get, Bill is the rubberstamper here) is right under the limit of justified disingenuousness. And that’s notwithstanding the saturation argument. When it’ll get published somewhere else than the CO2 coALiTIoN, we’ll see.

        Meanwhile, luckwarmers might consider that we’re already not far from that 1.4C. Since they really really really like to invoke “observations,” they might need to ponder on how to reconcile with what we’re currently observing. One day we will get out of our solar minimum…

        Besides, a luckwarm sensitivity does not preclude very bad events from happening. It only postpone them by a few decades. Which means debates over sensitivity is utterly irrelevant from a geological standpoint.

        The long and the short of it is that unless we get to net zero we will sooner or later reach what is projected by the most extreme RCPs.

        And that’s the memo.

      • Willard says:

        Oh, and of course I can spell “luckwarm”:

        Somewhat higher in the circle of denial are the luck warmers. Yes, yes, the science is fine, but we will just pick the lower limit which may, or may not be so bad, and let’s all go out and have a drink. Of course, even if you look at their cherry picks things will be pretty awful.

        http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/09/eli-explains-it-all.html

        Incidentally, Moshpit is the art dept drop out, if one counts lichurchur as art. Also, Kennui is not very far from being a crank. If only he could drop the silly saturation argument…

      • Ken says:

        “Meanwhile, luckwarmers might consider that were already not far from that 1.4C. Since they really really really like to invoke observations, they might need to ponder on how to reconcile with what were currently observing. One day we will get out of our solar minimum”

        Why does a boring ‘luckwarmer’ thinks it wise to decide that 1.4C is some kind of threshold?

        How did we get here? Observations of Climate Cycles. There is no artifact of CO2 in any climate data.

        https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/

        I am barely ‘lukewarm’.

      • Willard says:

        > Why does a boring “luckwarmer” thinks it wise to decide that 1.4C is some kind of threshold?

        Only publication decides the limits of justified disingenuousness. It’s really really really really hard to get under 2C with a reasonable model. It’s not like luckwarmers haven’t tried. The Pope of the Luckwarm Church could not even find a reviewer that would vouch for his 0.5C.

        Think about what a so insensitive climate implies for a second. How can we explain the Medieval Warm Period?

        Contrarians just don’t think beyond the talking point they consider. They’re unconstrained by consistency. If they want to take an active part in Team Science, they’ll have to work on that.

      • Ken says:

        ‘Think about what a so insensitive climate implies for a second. How can we explain the Medieval Warm Period?’

        Medieval Warm Period is explained by climate cycles. See Carl Otto Weiss.

        Climate is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. Above 280 ppm, CO2 has only a small effect on climate; most of the modest warming in our climate is due to natural climate cycles. Doubling CO2 means GHE increase by 3Wm-2; too small to matter.

      • Willard says:

        Low sensitivity may not help explain Otto’s cycles. It is called climate sensitivity, not just CO2 sensitivity. Any forcing would do.

        If only Kennui could RTFR from time to time.

      • barry says:

        DREMT,

        “I cross-posted with about three other people at once. As I was writing my last comment out, barry’s comment was the only one I could see.”

        So you were replying only to me but wrote,

        “They don’t even know what a ‘lukewarmer’ is!”

        The term “lukewarmer” has been used in the blogosphere for about 15 years, and it doesn’t have a strict, codified definition. I well know what it generally means. I wanted you to be specific about what you meant by it.

        Instead you gave a typically derisive, scattershot answer that makes Elliott’s extension quite appealing.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        OK, barry. Sorry I somehow upset you with my response.

        My point is, if you block out all of those skeptics who question the GHE to some extent, because you believe they are “tards” to be “erased”, that’s going to leave you with…an echo chamber of “alarmists” (I put that word in square quotes because I don’t really agree with the label, but assume you will generally know who I’m referring to). Maybe a few “lukewarmers” amongst the chattering throng of general agreement. I really don’t see the point.

        And…why would a skeptic blog even be close to being an “alarmist” echo chamber, in the first place? Why exactly are so many of the regulars here of that…persuasion?

      • Willard says:

        Cranks or alarmists. There is no other possibility in Graham D. Warner’s ontology.

        Norman? Alarmist.

        Binny? Alarmist.

        Richard? Alarmist.

        Unless they deny the greenhouse effect tO SoMe eXtENt…

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Bindidon is most definitely “alarmist”, despite his protests.

        If Norman is a “lukewarmer”, he never really fights any “lukewarm” battles. If I see him comment, it’s generally to defend the GHE in some way.

        If RLH is a “lukewarmer”, I’m not sure why he linked to those YouTube videos that question the GHE, a while back.

        At worst, maybe there’s a couple more “lukewarmers” than I thought.

      • Willard says:

        And so Graham D. Warner will continue his silly word games as if his future among us depended on it.

        The fact of the matter is that there most if not commentators are nearer Roy’s position than Sky Dragon cranks.

        Anybody who does not deny the greenhouse effect is. No ifs, no buts. Certainly no tO somE eXtenTs!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        If you say so, Little Willy.

      • Ken says:

        ‘It is called climate sensitivity, not just CO2 sensitivity. Any forcing would do.’

        Actually its called ‘chaotic complex multifactor system’.

        ‘Climate sensitivity’ is actually rather low.

      • Willard says:

        Technically speaking, there are two concepts at play.

        First is CS:

        The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing.

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

        So climate sensitivity is the amount of warming per radiative forcing, whatever that is. One could accept the greenhouse effect, the fact that there’s global warming (GW), a very high climate sensitivity, but deny that the global warming is anthropogenic (AGW).

        Second is what is usually denoted by “climate sensitivity,” i.e. ECS:

        The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is defined as the long-term global warming caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide above its pre-industrial concentration. For a given emissions scenario, much of the uncertainty in projections of future warming can be explained by the uncertainty in ECS (FAQ 7.3, Figure 1). The significance of equilibrium climate sensitivity has long been recognized, and the first estimate was presented by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

        This Sixth Assessment Report concludes that there is a 90% or more chance (very likely) that the ECS is between 2C and 5C. This represents a significant reduction in uncertainty compared to the Fifth Assessment Report, which gave a 66% chance (likely) of ECS being between 1.5C and 4.5C. This reduction in uncertainty has been possible not through a single breakthrough or discovery but instead by combining evidence from many different sources and by better understanding their strengths and weaknesses.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf

        There is also TCR, which is more related to what luckwarmers are usually inspecting. For some reason they always confuse ECS and TCR studies. And there is ESS, which they tend to ignore. For obvious reasons.

        Without Sky Dragon cranks always dominating comment threads, contrarians could RTFR and git gud. But no, we have to babysit them instead.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Without what you call "sky dragon cranks", you’d have hardly anyone on here to talk to on "the other side" of the debate, Little Willy. Why do you keep pretending there would be some amazingly constructive and productive debate on climate change if only the "sky dragon cranks" would stop interfering? Aren’t you the one who created the idea of Climateball in the first place, strongly suggesting you think the entire debate is a game, or pointless, in any case?

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner keeps harping his inane argument. It has already been refuted. He’s wrong, but he’ll keep trying to make himself and other Sky Dragon cranks relevant anyway.

        What’s the point?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        There’s no point…if you have no counter-argument but to assert I’m wrong with no logic or evidence.

      • barry says:

        “My point is, if you block out all of those skeptics who question the GHE…”

        That’s not what I am blocking out. Was I not clear the first time?

        “Cogent disagreement is welcome. Ill-informed sniping is tedious. I would mute at least one person because I can’t seem to help feeding the you-know-what.”

        You use the word “tard,” as if it’s a word I used. I said, “ill-informed sniping.”

        The ratio of cogent, well-informed discussion to ridicule and game-playing is vanishingly small with one participant here. It’s annoying, and drags the discussion down to awful levels. If I could easily resist I would not consider using Elliott’s extension.

        I’ve been too busy to participate much the last few months, and with time away, the sordidness of a lot of the discussion is more starkly obvious. It’s just very unpleasant. I have great discussions with people who disagree with me elsewhere.

        It’s not about the difference of opinion, it’s about the quality of the conversation.

      • barry says:

        You and I have sometimes managed to do quite well here.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner lingers on –

        “if you have no counter-argument but to assert”

        I already proved a counter-argument: there are more luckwarmers here than Sky Dragon cranks. He’s the one who asserts that there are no luckwarmers here. Many commenters here play home. Most of them are not Sky Dragon cranks.

        It’s always the same formula with contrarians. First, they deny something. Second, when challenged, they request a sammich. Third, when they’re caught pants down, they keep saying stuff.

        Suppose that there wouldn’t be for me any reason to comment here, say because he and Puffman and Mr Asshat stopped commenting. I’m sure everybody would rejoice of being rid of three of the most obnoxious cranks in the history of Climateball.

        Thus his presumption falls flat on its face.

        Besides, suppose that Sky Dragon cranks abided by Roy’s wishes and stopped denying the greenhouse effect without providing an alternative numerical model. Who gives a flying truck if they stay? It’s not because they’re Sky Dragon cranks that they’re disinvited, it’s because they keep relitigating the greenhouse effect empty handed.

        It’s as if Graham D. Warner has never had any responsibility in his life.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “I already proved a counter-argument: there are more luckwarmers here than Sky Dragon cranks.”

        You haven’t proved that. Not amongst the regulars here.

        “He’s the one who asserts that there are no luckwarmers here”

        False. I said there’s a few, but that there’s more regular commenters who question the GHE.

        barry says:

        “That’s not what I am blocking out. Was I not clear the first time?”

        OK, then. It seems to be what some people want to block out. Like the person who created the program, Elliott.

        “The ratio of cogent, well-informed discussion to ridicule and game-playing is vanishingly small with one participant here.”

        Yes, and Little Willy just won’t stop.

      • Willard says:

        “You haven’t proved that.”

        Yes I did.

        “Not amongst the regulars here.”

        Yes I did.

        “False.”

        Incorrect.

        “I said theres a few”

        False.

        “there’s more regular commenters”

        False.

        “OK, then.”

        Graham D. Warner indirectly admits that his prediction was wrong.

        Progress.

        “Yes, and little Willy”

        Misdirection.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        OK, let’s just quickly settle this.

        "Luke warmers":

        gbaikie
        Tim S
        Ken

        "GHE skeptics" (those who have questioned the GHE in their comments):

        Swen.son
        Clint R
        Gordon Robertson
        DREMT
        Bill Hunter
        Phil J
        Ren
        Christos Vournas
        Stephen P Anderson
        RLH

        Little Willy loses another one.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner keeps losing.

        Counts a guy who just has been banned because he abused a silly HTML trick he himself uses.

        Counts a guy who got banned multiple times.

        Counts an asshat who’s being told off by the who has been banned multiple times.

        Counts himself as if he was a third person. Here he is:

        https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q

        The rest of his list shows he switches from “dominate thread after thread by denying the greenhouse effect” to “may have minimized the greenhouse effect at least one in their lives”:

        One who calls himself a luckwarmer.

        One who keeps pushing weather updates – no, not me, I’m counterbalancing his crap.

        One who made less than 50 comments in the last year, mostly cryptic one-liners that can be ignored.

        One who makes harmless drive-bys plugging to his own silly website.

        One who mostly takes this website as Truth Social.

        And another luckwarmer.

        ***

        Meanwhile, I got: Roy, Mighty Tim, TS, Richard, Binny, Kennui, Norman, and Nate. Yeah, even Nate is somewhat of a luckwarmer. This ain’t a place were regulars sing Kumbaya. So after all these years, Graham D. Warner does not even realize that those who successfully defended this blog against our Dark Quatuor of Sky Dragon cranks are luckwarmers.

        Not every luckwarmer chose that stratergery. As long as it helps stretch the Overton Windom for their Project-2025-like game plan, Kennui and Gill rather lick their chop.

        And that’s just from the top of my head. Graham D. Warner’s silly test has no relevance whatsoever. Cranks don’t provide any real pushback. Even if there were 10 times less comments the blog would still be fine. In any event Roy expressed a wish that we stop disputing the greenhouse effect, and we should abide by his wish.

        Worse is that he forgot Eboy. Let Graham D. Warner have him. Now, how much does Eboy help foster a healthy debate? He does not. He’s just here to piss off Binny and post weather pin ups when he feels horny.

        Another premise from Graham D. Warner’s argument that falls on its face. It’s not the only one that is false: his take on alarmism is also wrong.

        But at the end of the day it does not matter much because now Graham D. Warner has found himself a way to distract himself from his own responsibility behind Mike Flynn’s ban.

        ***

        If Graham D. Warner stops responding, this might be my farewell until the end of July. Let’s see how much he’d like that.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “You and I have sometimes managed to do quite well here.“

        Yes, that’s true. We’ve managed to work around the t-words that keep constantly butting in, and actually had some good discussions.

    • I added a quick bug-fix in version 1.3.1. The Bold/Italic/Block-quote buttons should now function correctly. A last-minute refactoring and failure to test properly led to an element of upfucking, as we say in the trade, and the buttons remained disabled even when you selected text. Should all work now.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I tried it the other day. Seems pretty good, in fairness, but I wouldn’t use the “blocking” feature personally, which is the main point of it. The other features are worthwhile, though. Keep adding to it, I’d say [the irony is you won’t even see this comment since you’ve decided I’m a “turd” and a “tard”].

  58. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It is likely that Beryl will make landfall over Houston before dawn on July 8.
    https://i.ibb.co/Dzj2K8T/ventusky-rain-3h-20240708t1200-29n95w.jpg

  59. Hi, Gordon, I would like to discuss with you the followiing:

    “The Temperature Amplification leads to what Hansen called a tipping point, meaning the exponential increase of signal per iteration will eventually run away to infinity.”

    “Anyone who think climate models are anywhere near accurate lacks the scientific ability to understand why they are not. There are two main problems. The amount of CO2 warming programmed into them is 9% to 25% whereas the actual value according to the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation is 0.06%.”


    I think the increase of signal is not exponential, and it is limited, it never runs away to infinity.

    Let’s estimate the increase of signal per iteration:

    The first iteration, then the second iteration, then etc. … then towards the infinite iteration…

    Example, let’s assume the Earth’s surface emits ” 240 W/m^2 ” IR outgoing EM energy.

    1st iteration = 240 W/m^2 + 240*0,0006 W/m^2

    2nd iteration = 240 + 240*0,0006 + (240 + 240*0,0006 )*0,0006

    3d iteration = 240 + 240*0,0006 + (240 + 240*0,0006 )*0,0006 +
    + [240 + 240*0,0006 + (240 + 240*0,0006 )*0,0006]*0,0006

    there are not infinite iterations, because there is the succession of day and night, and every day it starts all over again.

    Consequently there is not any exponential increase in Greenhouse Effect.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Christos…sorry if I mislead you. I don’t think positive feedback can exist in the atmosphere.

      By iterations, I was referring to one cycle of an an electronic amplifier. I was trying to demonstrate positive feedback in an amplifier and why it needs an amplifier. A basic Class A amplifier is set up so a small signal introduced at the input varies a larger current supplied to the output circuit.

      If you consider an NPN transistor, in a Class A configuration, the emitter is common to the base and the collector. The input signal is applied between the emitter and base and the output signal is taken from the larger current circuit involving emitter and collector.

      The idea is that a small a/c signal applied to the input varies the impedance between emitter and collector. It is similar to a variable resistor across a power supply that can deliver much more current than runs through the input circuit. By placing a resistor in the collector circuit, the increase current through the emitter-collector produces a larger voltage across that load resistor, and that larger voltage represents the amplified signal.

      If a small signal sine wave is applied to the input of a Class A amplifier, the entire signal will be transferred to the output as an amplified version. However, the signal will be inverted. Feedback affects the output signal by simply making the input signal slightly larger or slightly smaller. Therefore, the output signal will be slightly larger or slightly smaller each iteration.

      However, with PF, a constant amplitude input signal gets larger each iteration therefore the output signal gets slightly larger, without bound, each iteration.

      Positive feedback is normally undesirable in amplifiers for that reason. It makes the amplifier unstable, hence unusable. When it is used, mainly in oscillators, only a small spike of PF is used per iteration to replace the losses in an oscillatory circuit, such as an LC tank. Note that such feedback is not fed directly to the input but to another circuit in the input stage.

      An LC tank is an inductor (L) in parallel with a capacitor (C). Such a circuit, when given a pulse of voltage will oscillate naturally at a frequency determined by the L and C values. However, it will quickly die off due to damping effects and circuit resistance. By inserting the LC tank in the emitter-base circuit of an amplifier, and feeding a spike of voltage back to the tank from the output, the oscillation can be sustained. That is the positive feedback signal is only enough to replace any lost energy in the tank. The resulting output signal is one with constant amplitude and constant frequency.

      Feedback is actually a very simply arrangement of resistors and/or capacitor That take a certain amount of amplified output signal and feed it back to the input. The feedback signal can enhance the input signal (positive feedback) or subtract from it (negative feedback).

      That’s it!!! Feedback does not amplify it merely helps control amplification in a small way. In the atmosphere, there is no heat amplifier hence no positive feedback that can affect warming.

      ***WITHOUT AN AMPLIFIER, POSITIVE FEEDBACK CANNOT EXIST IN THE ATMOSPHERE***.

      Therefore speaking of positive feedback processes in the atmosphere is sheer pseudo-science. I have already pointed out that a servo-type feedback is possible, but there is no amplification in such a processes.

      Moral…you can’t get something for nothing.

      Mind you, there are exceptions but they have nothing to do with the atmosphere per se. The Seattle-Tacoma Bridge, a suspension bridge supported with strong cables, came under the influence of a sustained wind that caused the cables to vibrate. That vibration produced a resonance in the bridge deck that caused the bridge to break up and collapse.

      Natural resonance can produce a a slight amplification, as in an acoustic guitar, but there is nothing in the atmosphere that can resonate or produce an amplified positive feedback effect. Therefore, Hansen’s tipping point theory is pseudo-science.

      • Thank you, Gordon.

        “Natural resonance can product a slight amplification, as in an acoustic guitar, but there is nothing in the atmosphere that can resonate or produce an amplified positive feedback effect. Therefore, Hansen’s tipping point theory is pseudo-science.”
        (Emphasis added)

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo continues his semantic confusion, insisting that a system can only exhibit “amplification” when there is an
        “amplifier” which adds energy within said system. He ignores two processes within the climate system which produce positive feedback, that is to say, their effects increase as temperature increases. The highly non-linear water vapor feedback is one such process, another is the snow and ice albedo feedback.

        Gordo doesn’t “do science”, so he can’t think outside his electrical world box

      • bobdroege says:

        When Jimmy put his guitar near his amp, the output of the amp caused both the strings to vibrate more, as well as directly causing the pickups to increase their output. This makes the amp produce more sound.

        Increase the temperature of the Earth, then there is more water vapor in the atmosphere which increases the GHE, which makes more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the Earth.

        And so on and so on.

      • bobdroege,

        “Increase the temperature of the Earth, then there is more water vapor in the atmosphere which increases the GHE, which makes more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the Earth.

        And so on and so on.”

        The increase will be very small, because Earth’s atmosphere is a thin atmosphere.

        The greenhouse gasses are trace gasses in Earth’s thin atmosphere.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • bobdroege says:

        Yes it’s a small increase in temperature, so far about 0.3%.

        Would you like to see a 1% increase in temperature?

        I wouldn’t.

        A 2% increase would be, as we say in the Midwest, Katie bar the door.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.

  60. gbaikie says:

    –Willard says:
    July 4, 2024 at 7:54 PM

    Almost like Mars.

    Nows your cue.–

    Mars is called a cold desert like world. The desert ground is cold, but vacuum air above it, has no temperature. The top surface of the Moon is on average much colder than Mars, but at 1 meter depth, The lunar ground is warmer than Mars. At 1 meter depth, the lunar ground is about -40 C, though in small permanently shadowed areas of lunar polar region it can be about 50 K [-223.15 C].

    With moon and Mars there is no air temperature, and with spacesuit, it requires refrigeration {one can evaporate water, and don’t need much water to keep cool enough, with Mars one might need more water to keep you cool enough. So for intelligent humans, the Moon or Mars isn’t warm or cold, and requires little energy, to maintain a comfortable temperature for humans or the life that human might bring.

    • Tim S says:

      This Venus quesstion is academically amusing, but has nothing to do with earth. The molecular density of CO2 on Venus is 150,000 times greater than on earth. If anyone wants the calculation just ask.

      • Tim S says:

        From scratch it is this easy. Data:

        Surface Gravity – 0.904 earth g
        Surface Pressure – 95 atm
        CO2 Mole Weight – 44
        Earth Weighted Average Mole Weight – 29
        Venus Atmosphere Composition – 96.5% CO2
        Earth Atmosphere Composition – 0.00042% – CO2

        Calcualtion:

        95 x 0.904 x 0.965 x 29 / 44 / 0.00042 = 130,050

        Okay, so the precise calculation is a bit less than the back-of-the-envelope in my head, but I was pretty close.

      • Tim S says:

        Okay, I see my mistake. The gravity effect changes the calculation for the amount of CO2 on Venus versus Earth . The atmosphere has less effect on surface pressure on Venus than Earth because of the lower g value.

        New Calculation:

        95 x 0.965 x 29 / 0.904 / 44 / 0.00042 = 159,140

      • gbaikie says:

        CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. It’s the not major “greenhouse gas” on Venus. It’s the acid clouds.
        Some will say Earth clouds are greenhouse gas. Earth clouds are more reflective than Venus clouds.
        Some say CO2 causes earth to absorb more sunlight energy.
        Venus absorbs very little sunlight compared to Earth, if replace the acid clouds with water clouds, Venus would absorb, less sunlight.

        And it should be noted that if add water to the acid clouds of Venus, it would produce a lot of heat. Or water would be very explosive to add that strong acid.
        Anyways, that acid is quite valuable. It’s major acid we make lot on Earth- useful.
        And like anything explosive, you make rocket fuel from it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…talk about acid rain. Not a good spot for a vacation in your new SUV.

      • bobdroege says:

        Except the rain on Venus never reaches the ground.

      • gbaikie says:

        The Soviets explored Venus, a bit, the US, not very much other global radar to map it’s rocky surface. It’s kind of unexplored like our oceans, which aren’t good with SUVs, either.
        At the present we got to explore the lunar polar regions, though should finished doing that a couple decades ago.
        In terms of NASA road map of exploring lunar polar region [to determine if there is mineable lunar water, and then send crew to Mars surface; the relationship with Venus to this roadmap is Venus orbit allows more access to getting and leaving from Mars.
        And if we use Venus orbit, there will be more exploration of the planet Venus- we hardly know anything about Venus {the nearest and quickest planet to reach from Earth}.

      • barry says:

        “CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. It’s the not major “greenhouse gas” on Venus. It’s the acid clouds.”

        Sulphuric acid peak absorp.tion is in the ultraviolet range, and thus isn’t “greenhouse gas” on Venus, which emits in the infrared.

      • gbaikie says:

        “bobdroege says:
        July 6, 2024 at 10:08 AM

        Except the rain on Venus never reaches the ground.”

        The much, much stronger than battery acid rain, would dissolve the surface of Venus, and not exist anymore if it could reach the ground.
        If it could reach the ground, Venus would cool significantly.

        And this is part of why, if you dumped water {a significant greenhouse gas, as compared to CO2] Venus would cool, significantly.

      • gbaikie says:

        If we are a spacefaring civilization we will mine, Earth’s ocean amount of water, and the water will be cheaper than Earth water, we could cool Venus to be colder than Earth.
        But in sense, it’s already colder than Earth.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry barry, but you’re wrong again.

        Sulfuric acid’s “peak” absorp.tion” is NOT in the ultraviolet range. And a “greenhouse gas” (absurdly named, BTW) is ANY gas that absorbs infrared.

        Got those Venus energy flows worked out yet?

      • barry says:

        Clint,

        “Sulfuric acid’s “peak” absorp.tion is NOT in the ultraviolet range.”

        Yes it is.

        https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Sulfuric-Acid#section=Spectral-Information&fullscreen=true

        The sulphur clouds are situated 30km above the surface. CO2 absorbs the bulk of the upwelling infrared at Venus temperatures. The sulphuric acid clouds keep out far more solar radiation energy than they absorb surface radiation, and so function oppositely to GHGs.

        You are interminably wrong about things, and apparently shameless about it.

      • gbaikie says:

        Nobody is going to live in bottom of our Ocean- the pressure is the problem. Some {if there is market for it} could live in some deep parts of ocean, as a solution to the pressure problem. Or if living at high pressure, 90 atm is high, operating at 150 atm, is less hard.
        Or living at 90, makes easier to go to +100 atm.

        But no sense to live on Venus at 90 atm. Better to live in .5 atm.
        No temperature problem, and less problem going to Venus orbit. And you do 18th century sailing in the sky.

  61. PhilJ says:

    From somewhere up above:

    “2/ The microwave emission of Venus could only be accounted for by a hot surface maintained by the greenhouse effect ”

    What a ridiculous statement.

    The temperature of Venus surface is easily explained by its lack of water to cool the surface, and thick sulphuric acid clouds absorbing (and remitting to space) all of the solar input

    • gbaikie says:

      Venus is heated in upper atmosphere, around 50 Km.
      If got twice as much sunlight as Earth, and atmosphere is mostly heated at 50 Km up, O Km up, is going to be hot due to lapse rate.
      Or if there was big hole on Earth which was not filled with water, but air, 5 km below sea level hole, would be hot.
      Venus not 50 km down, is not hot, it’s cold.

      But Earth at Venus distance, would be warmer.
      We couldn’t be in an Ice Age.

      • gbaikie says:

        Little holes in the sky:
        “WATCH FIREFLY PUNCH A HOLE IN THE IONOSPHERE: When Firefly Aerospace’s Alpha rocket launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on July 3rd, astronomer David Blanchard of Flagstaff, Arizona, thought he might be too far away to see. ”
        https://www.spaceweather.com/
        “The lingering red glow in Blanchard’s movie is “the hole.” Earth’s ionosphere is a layer of electrically-conducting gas enveloping our planet more than 100 km high. It plays a key role in shortwave radio communications and GPS positioning. When Alpha burned through the ionosphere, water and carbon dioxide in the rocket’s exhaust quenched local ionization by as much as 70%. Red light is the afterglow of this process. …
        “No harm done? Probably. But with launch rates continuing to climb, we are entering uncharted territory. Observers are encouraged to photograph nighttime launches and check their images for the telltale red glow. There may be much to learn.

        Note: Human eyes are notoriously insensitive to the 6300 color of these holes. Cameras have no trouble, though. “Neither my wife nor I could see the red ‘rocket aurora’ in real time,” notes Blanchard. “But it showed up well in the images.”

        Well, there would more excitement if humans weren’t effectively, blind. AI will see them all.

    • barry says:

      Only 10% of sunlight reaches Venus’ surface – the rest is reflected/re-emitted by those same, thick clouds. It’s why Venus shines so brightly in the night sky – it has a bond albedo of 0.77 – more than twice that of Earth.

      Consider – Mercury’s average surface temperature is cooler than Venus’, and Mercury has virtually no atmosphere with a bond albedo of 0.14.

      How could Venus be hotter than Mercury when it’s twice the distance from the sun and 5 times more reflective?

      Because of the very strong greenhouse effect in its dense atmosphere.

      “The temperature of Venus surface is easily explained by its lack of water to cool the surface”

      The temperature of a terrestrial planet is determined by the amount of sunlight it receives and the rate at which that energy is radiated away.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry barry, but your beliefs don’t match reality. With Venus, you’re WAY off.

        The surface of Venus is over 800F. The high temperature is caused by vulcanism. You don’t seriously believe CO2 can cause such temperatures, do you?

      • gbaikie says:

        Venus distance gets about 2600 watts per square meter.
        10% is 260 watts per square meter. Mars gets about 600 watts. Germany in winter gets around 260 watts, or Scotland, or most of Canada, Iceland, etc- they more in the summer. Or very cloudy [when your world is dark] gets about 200 watts.
        Venus gets none in winter or since it doesn’t much in terms of season- anywhere close to polar regions.
        But in polar regions even at high elevation you are in darkness.
        No stars [or moon].
        Venus on it’s land surface, is much worse than Earth for solar power, but in right places and living in the sky, it can be much better than Earth.

      • PhilJ says:

        Hello barry,

        “How could Venus be hotter than Mercury when its twice the distance from the sun and 5 times more reflective?

        Hmm. Maybe because it’s much more massive and hasn’t cooled as much as Mrrcury?

        “Because of the very strong greenhouse effect in its dense atmosphere.”

        Lol. That’s all geothermal energy my friend

        “The temperature of a terrestrial planet is determined by the amount of sunlight it receives and the rate it is radiated away.”

        Hogwash, the amount of sunlight it receives will tell you the limit it will cool to, after it has lost all its atmosphere..

      • bobdroege says:

        15 doubling of CO2 concentration from what preindustrial Earth to present day concentration on Venus.

        The winds at the middle cloud layer are a couple hundred miles per hour.

        The axial tilt is 2 degrees.

        So the weather is always the same cloudy, light winds, and hot.

      • Tim S says:

        Here is where this belongs. I am having a bad day. With the now correct data and necessary corrections for mole weight and gravity:

        This Venus question is academically amusing, but has nothing to do with earth. The molecular density of CO2 on Venus is 154,100 times greater than on earth. Here is the Data for Venus:

        Surface Gravity 0.904 earth g
        Surface Pressure 92 atm
        CO2 Mole Weight 44
        Earth Weighted Average Mole Weight 29
        Venus Atmosphere Composition 96.5% CO2
        Earth Atmosphere Composition 0.00042% CO2

        Calculation:

        92 x 0.965 x 29 / 0.904 / 44 / 0.00042 = 154,100

      • barry says:

        “Hmm. Maybe because it’s much more massive and hasn’t cooled as much as Mrrcury?”

        It’s the same size and age as Earth.

        Before Venus was probed, scientists imagined it to have a tropical, hot surface temperature, not too much different from Earth.

        A young scientist called Carl Sagan theorised that Venus’ surface would be much hotter because of its high CO2 concentration. His predicted high temperatures were shortly verified with the first probe of Venus.

      • PhilJ says:

        Hello barry,

        “Its the same size and age as Earth.”

        Indeed it is. And thus started with approximately the same amount of volatile as Earth.

        3 major factors changed the development of their atmospheres.

        1. Distance from the sun

        2. Rain reaching the surface

        3. Life providing an abundant source of o2

        #1 is part of the reason for #2, the atmosphere not cooling rapidly enough on Venus for rain to reach and cool its surface.

        It’s surface therefore remained hot and thin with much overturning and outgrowing.

        I suspect Venus has very little volatiles left to outgas and it’s interior, now much cooler than the Earth, is perhaps already beginning to congeal into a solid lump like Mercury.

        When the sun has finished cooking off its water and it’s induced magnetic field collapses, I expect the solar wind will quickly blow the rest of its atmosphere away.

      • PhilJ says:

        ‘Outgrowing’ should read outgassing

      • Clint R says:

        barry is back, and as usual, he didn’t learn. Venus is very hot because of vulcanism. There is even lava on the surface!

        This is not to pick on poor barry, but he’s a perfect example of the cult’s indoctrination. Not only do they not understand the science, they often don’t even understand their cult’s teachings. Here’s an example:

        barry says: “Only 10% of sunlight reaches Venus’ surface — the rest is reflected/re-emitted by those same, thick clouds. It’s why Venus shines so brightly in the night sky — it has a bond albedo of 0.77 — more than twice that of Earth.”

        A lot of confusion in only two sentences.

        Venus receives 2600 W/m² from Sun. 10% of that would be 260 W/m². But barry states the albedo is 0.77, which means Venus would get 23% of solar, resulting in 598 W/m².

        barry must somehow believe 598 = 260?

        But, it gets worse….

        The cult believes you must adjust solar for albedo, divide by 4, then adjust for albedo again. Doing all that for Venus —

        Adjust for albedo: 2600 * 0.23 = 598
        Divide by 4: 598/4 = 149.5
        Adjust for albedo: 149.5 * 0.23 = 34 W/m²

        So, according to barry’s cult, Venus surface only receives 34 W/m² from Sun.

        So many things wrong, that’s why it’s nonsense.

      • barry says:

        How about reading what I wrote properly.

        “Only 10% of sunlight reaches Venus’ surface the rest is reflected/re-emitted

        Albedo reflects most of the sunlight. Some of it is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions (including spaceward). Approx 10% of sunlight gets to the surface.

        You couldn’t even get through the first sentence properly, Clint.

        Time waster.

      • Clint R says:

        barry, I showed the various ways to calculate what reaches the surface. Please indicate the value you believe in. If you don’t agree with any, please show us YOUR calculations.

      • PhilJ says:

        “surface the rest is reflected/re-emitted

        Albedo reflects most of the sunlight. Some of it is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions (including spaceward). ”

        And of course the amount of energy emitted spacewards (including of course mass loss)will be greater than the amount absorbed by the sun as the 2lot demands

      • Willard says:

        Imagine if you were right every single second since the beginnings of times, Phil.

      • PhilJ says:

        Hello Willard,

        “Imagine if you were right every single second since the beginnings of times

        If you are referring to the 2LoT, yes it has been true since the beginning of time, hence the word ‘Law’

      • barry says:

        The 10% of sunlight that gets through the atmosphere is daytime sunlight, not divided over the whole globe.

        Clint says:

        “The high temperature is caused by vulcanism.”

        No one knows how much volcanic activity is occurring on Venus. There is no solid basis for what is pure assertion on your part.

        You just make stuff up as you go along.

        “You don’t seriously believe CO2 can cause such temperatures, do you?”

        I rely on the consensus view of experts, not cranks who posit notions that are easily and regularly debunked.

      • Clint R says:

        barry, you didn’t answer. You messed up, but you can’t clean up your mess.

        So now you’re spewing false accusations.

        You’re such a good cultist.

      • PhilJ says:

        “No one knows how much volcanic activity is occurring on Venus.”

        Hello Berry,

        Actually observations show next to no volcanic activity on Venus, but there us evidence of a vast overturning of its surface as little as 650 million years ago

      • Willard says:

        Dear Phil,

        You say –

        “If you are referring to the 2LoT”

        No, I’m not.

        Please try again.

      • Clint R says:

        Several lines of evidence point to ongoing volcanic activity on Venus. Sulfur dioxide concentrations in the upper atmosphere dropped by a factor of 10 between 1978 and 1986, jumped in 2006, and again declined 10-fold. This may mean that levels had been boosted several times by large volcanic eruptions. It has been suggested that Venusian lightning (discussed below) could originate from volcanic activity (i.e. volcanic lightning). In January 2020, astronomers reported evidence that suggests that Venus is currently volcanically active, specifically the detection of olivine, a volcanic product that would weather quickly on the planet’s surface.

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

      • Willard says:

        Conditions perhaps favourable for life on Venus have been identified at its cloud layers. Venus may have had liquid surface water early in its history with a habitable environment, before a runaway greenhouse effect evaporated any water and turned Venus into its present state.

        Op. Cit.

      • PhilJ says:

        “Venus may have had liquid surface water early in its history with a habitable environment,”

        bwahahaha

        talk about anthropocentric blinders

        https://y.yarn.co/072f45ee-7221-494a-9eda-38133aedec4e.mp4

      • Nate says:

        “Lol. Thats all geothermal energy my friend”

        The usual shamelessly made up ‘facts’.

        Where is your evidence Phil J or Clint?

        Don’t bother, we know you don’t have any.

      • Clint R says:

        Here child Nate, I’ll spoon feed you again:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1678036

        But you may need a responsible adult to explain it to you.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        Why do you factor in albedo twice?

      • Clint R says:

        So glad you noticed that, bob.

        That’s some of the nonsense your cult uses. Study your cult’s bogus “Energy Balance” chart, that claims flux is energy and reduces solar to less than 170 W/m².

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        The way you copy other people’s work is wrong.

        In the energy budget diagram, they don’t use the same albedo twice.

      • Nate says:

        “Several lines of evidence point to ongoing volcanic activity on Venus.”

        Same can be said for Earth!

        So, Clint, that how does that become ‘The high temperature is CAUSED BY vulcanism.” in your feeble mind?

        Meanwhile calculated warming due to its GHE show a huge effect..just like what is observed.

      • PhilJ says:

        Hello Nate,

        “Where is your evidence Phil J ”

        My evidence for what Nate?

        The second law of thermodynamics demands that a planet must shed all of the solar input it receives plus some measure of its own internal heat as long as it has colder surroundings. That’s basic physics.

        The Venus Express measured Venus’ atmosphere loss down its magnetotail and found H and O in a 2:1 ratio… (that’s water)

        Venus has been cooking off its water for billions of years.. not much left now..

  62. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Some selected common old wives tales, from Wikipedia and fully sourced, in 4 parts.

    Part I

    (1) ADIDAS means “All day I dream about sex”
    (2) “AR” in AR-15 stands for “assault rifle”
    (3) The image of Santa Claus was created by Coca Cola
    (4) Braising meat adds moisture
    (5) Mussels and clams that do not open when cooked are not safe to eat
    (6) “Sushi” means raw seafood
    (7) Marco Polo introduced pasta to Italy from China
    (8) Fortune cookies come from China
    (9) Microwave ovens cook meat from inside out
    (10) The Wizard of Oz was the first colour film
    (11) It is not permissible to end a sentence with a preposition
    (12) “Crap” comes from Thomas Crapper
    (13) “Rule of thumb” comes from an English law allowing a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb
    (14) The word “the” used to be pronounced ‘ye’
    (15) Xmas originated as a secular plan to “take Christ out of Christmas”
    (16) You must wait 24 hours before reporting a person missing
    (17) The ‘nuclear football’ contains a large red button to launch a nuclear attack
    (18) Last meal requests must be granted
    (19) Crime rates in the US have increased in the last 30 years
    (20) Undocumented immigrants in the US have higher crime rates than US-born citizens
    (21) The first amendment of the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech
    (22) The Mafia regularly use cement shoes to drown their victims
    (23) A US defendant will have their case dismissed if they are not read their Miranda rights
    (24) Mozart was poisoned by Salieri
    (25) Listening to Mozart enhances IQ
    (26) Edelweiss is the national anthem of Austria
    (27) Mama Cass died from choking on a ham sandwich
    (28) The Buddha was fat
    (29) Jesus was born on December 25
    (30) Mary Magdelene was a prostitute
    (31) Members of the LDS church still practise polygamy
    (32) The books of the bible were established by the First Council of Nicaea
    (33) Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire
    (34) The Quran promise martyrs 72 virgins in heaven
    (35) The forbidden fruit was an apple
    (36) Golf is an acronym for “Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden”
    (37) Baseball was invented by Abner Doubleday
    (38) The Egyptian Pyramids were constructed with slave labour
    (39) Tutankhamun’s tomb is inscribed with a curse on those who disturb it
    (40) The Minoan civilization was destroyed by the eruption of Thera

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Part II

      (41) The “Roman salute” was used in ancient Rome
      (42) Julius Caesar was born via caesarean section
      (43) Viking warriors wore horns on their helmets
      (44) Vikings drank out of the skulls of vanquished enemies
      (45) Medieval European scholars believed the Earth was flat
      (46) Christopher Columbus was the first European to visit the Americas
      (47) People accused of witchcraft were burned at the stake during the Salem witch trials
      (48) Marie Antoinette said “let them eat cake”
      (49) George Washington had wooden teeth
      (50) The US Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4
      (51) There was a bill to make German the official language of the United States that was defeated by one vote
      (52) The nose of the Great Sphinx of Giza was shot off by Napoleon’s troops
      (53) Einstein failed mathematics classes in school
      (54) The Nazis referred to themselves as Nazis
      (55) All skinheads are white supremacists
      (56) Abraham Lincoln wrote his Gettysburg Address speech on the back of an envelope
      (57) The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 was caused by Mrs O’Leary’s cow kicking over a lantern
      (58) Prohibition made drinking alcohol illegal in the United States
      (59) There was widespread outbreak of panic across the United States in response to The War of the Worlds radio play
      (60) Women burned their bras outside the Miss America contest in 1969 as a protest in support of women’s liberation
      (61) Astronauts in orbit are weightless because they are outside the gravitation pull of the earth
      (62) The Dark Side of the Moon receives less sunlight than the near side
      (63) Seasons are caused by one hemisphere being closer to the sun than the other
      (64) Velcro and Teflon were spinoffs from technology developed by NASA
      (65) The sun is yellow
      (66) Elephants near death leave their herd to die in an ‘Elephant’s graveyard’
      (67) Bulls are enraged by the colour red
      (68) Lemmings engage in mass suicide by diving off cliffs
      (69) Wolves howl at the Moon
      (70) Bats are blind
      (71) The memory span of goldfish is a few seconds
      (72) Sharks don’t get cancer
      (73) Snake jaws can unhinge
      (74) Tomato sauce neutralises skunk odour
      (75) Porcupines can shoot their quills
      (76) Mice have a special liking for cheese
      (77) Touching or handling eggs or baby birds will cause the adult birds to abandon them
      (78) Ostriches stick their heads in the sand to hide from enemies or to sleep
      (79) A chameleon can change its skin colour to match any background
      (80) Rabbits have a special liking for carrots

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Part III

      (81) Houseflies have an average lifespan of 24 hours
      (82) People swallow a large numbers of spiders while sleeping
      (83) Aerodynamic theory predicts that bumblebees should not be able to fly
      (84) Bees always die if they use their sting
      (85) Termites are closely related to ants
      (86) Applying urine to jellyfish stings relieves pain
      (87) Sunflowers always point to the Sun
      (88) Mushrooms are plants
      (89) The word ‘theory’ in “the theory of evolution” implies scientific doubt regarding its validity
      (90) The theory of evolution attempts to explain the origin of life
      (91) Evolution is a progression from inferior to superior organisms
      (92) All dinosaurs are extinct
      (93) Fossil fuels originate from dinosaur fossils
      (94) Humans are distinct from animals
      (95) Diamonds are compressed coal
      (96) There is a special compound which is added to swimming pools to detect urine
      (97) Lead pencils contain lead
      (98) Chrome’s “Incognito Mode” protects users from being tracked
      (99) Increasing your gross income past a tax threshold can reduce your net income
      (100) Contemporary global warming is not driven by human activities
      (101) Global warming is caused by the hole in the ozone layer
      (102) Nuclear power results in more deaths per MWh than conventional energy sources
      (103) Scientists still use the Richter scale to measure earthquakes
      (104) Lightning never strikes the same place twice
      (105) The Yellowstone Caldera is “overdue” for a supervolcano eruption
      (106) The Amazon rainforest produces 20% of the world’s oxygen
      (107) The Cape of Good Hope is the southern tip of Africa
      (108) The majority of the Sahara consists of sand
      (109) Waking up a sleepwalker harms them
      (110) Seizures can cause a person to swallow their own tongue
      (111) Human blood in veins is blue
      (112) Half of body heat is lost through the head
      (113) Women have more ribs than men
      (114) 98.6F is the ‘normal’ or average temperature of the human body
      (115) Fish oil can cure dementia
      (116) Vitamin C is effective in preventing or treating colds
      (117) Humans can catch warts from toads (or other animals)
      (118) Cracking one’s knuckles can cause osteoarthritis
      (119) Powdered rhinoceros horn is used as an aphrodisiac in traditional Chinese medicine
      (120) Leprosy causes body parts to fall off

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Part IV

      (121) Rust causes tetanus
      (122) Reading in dim light causes permanent damage to the eye
      (123) “Detoxification diets” rid the body of toxins
      (124) Drinking milk increase mucus production
      (125) Sugar causes hyperactivity in children
      (126) Swallowed chewing gum takes seven years to digest
      (127) MSG triggers migraines
      (128) Beta carotene in carrots enhances night vision
      (129) Spinach is the best source of dietary iron
      (130) Alcoholic beverages make the body warmer
      (131) You can get pregnant from semen in swimming pools
      (132) Hand and foot size correlate with penis size
      (133) Children of first cousins are twice as likely to be born with defects
      (134) Sex before sport reduces performance
      (135) The G-spot
      (136) The menstrual cycles of people who live together tend to synchronize
      (137) Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death
      (138) Shaving causes hair to grow back thicker
      (139) Redheads and blondes will soon become extinct
      (140) Dandruff is caused by poor hygiene
      (141) James Watt invented the steam engine
      (142) Joseph-Ignace Guillotin invented (or was killed by) the guillotine
      (143) Thomas Crapper invented the flush toilet
      (144) Thomas Edison invented the light bulb
      (145) Henry Ford invented the automobile and the assembly line
      (146) Al Gore said that he had “invented” the Internet
      (147) Pythagoras discovered Pythagorean theorem
      (148) The p-value is the probability that the null hypothesis is true (or the probability that the alternative hypothesis is false)
      (149) Flipping 5 heads in a row increases the chance that the next flip will be tails
      (150) Toilets drain in opposite directions in each hemisphere
      (151) A penny dropped from the Empire State Building would kill a person or crack the sidewalk
      (152) It is possible for a person to completely submerge in quicksand
      (153) Vaccines cause autism
      (154) Dyslexia involves reading letters and words backwards
      (155) Humans generate all of the brain cells they will ever have by the age of two years
      (156) People use only 10% of their brains
      (157) There are four primary tastes
      (158) A chloroform-soaked rag instantly incapacitates a person
      (159) Bananas are a radiation hazard
      (160) The Bermuda Triangle has more shipwrecks and mysterious disappearances than other waterways
      (161) Toilet waste is intentionally jettisoned from aircraft
      (162) Concrete harms batteries

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Why could you not simply post a link to this trivia rather than clogging the blog with off-topic crap?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Au contraire Mr Robertson, it is highly relevant to the nonsense claims made by you people.

        And YOU of all people talking of clogging the blog with off-topic crap … rich.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        two point…

        1)Wiki is a rag where any ijit can post on a subject. You are surely not so simple that you think the items you post are accurate?

        2)When I go off topic it is always related to Roy’s blog in some way. I see nothing in your post that does the same.

        There is one quote where they are definitely wrong…

        “(116) Vitamin C is effective in preventing or treating colds”

        Linus Pauling was one of the greatest scientists of all times. He wrote the book on the covalent bond that is still used in universities, and he went to Europe in the 1920s to study quantum theory then applied it to chemistry for molecular structures.

        HE continued the work of Irwin Stone on Vitamin C and he was particularly impressed by a study of Swiss school children given vitamin C to prevent colds. Being an eminent scientist he was well able to interpret the results. He thought the results of the study were significant.

        Linus made no rash claims about vitamins C but based on his methodology I have tested it on myself. Since taking the requisite mega doses of vitamin C whenever I feel a cold or the flu coming on, the dose of C kills off the malady. Since starting the routine I have not suffered the effects of a full flu or cold.

        I recall the bad old days when I’d come down with that achy feeling with a fever, only to be plagued by secondary infections like congestion, runny noses, hacking, etc. after the initial onslaught. No more. I never get secondary infection and the original flu/cold disappears as fast as it appeared.

        Believe what you want, the relief I have experienced using mega doses of C has been remarkable.

        Let’s look at it another way. Stop taking C altogether for a couple of months and you will slowly die a miserable death as your body literally falls apart.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        another one of interest…

        “(61) Astronauts in orbit are weightless because they are outside the gravitation pull of the earth”

        The problem I have with most of these is the “gotcha” flavour. It’s like some super-nerd sitting around trying to feel important by trying to entrap people.

        The astronauts would not be orbiting if they were outside the gravitational pull of the Earth, nor would they be weightless. Since weight is a measure of a mass under the influence of a force, this time gravitational force, if their craft is held in orbit by the Earth’s gravity then the astronauts too must be under its influence, not matter how small the force.

        Anyone with basic science should be able to work that one out but such nerds tends to pick on, and impress, people who have little formal education.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “(153) Vaccines cause autism”

        Prove they don’t. I am sure the nerds at wiki have that proof even though no one else in the scientific community does.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        this will be one of the nonsense claims Ant attributes to ‘you people’…

        “(100) Contemporary global warming is not driven by human activities”

        ***

        I would like to see the inane anti-proof supplied for this allegation.

      • Eben says:

        Another twerp post

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        As I said, they are all fully sourced. Do you not understand that concept?

        “When I go off topic it is always related to Roys blog in some way”

        Oh really … explain how the moon’s phases are related to Mr Spencer. (Then admit to how little you understood what causes them.)
        Explain how talking about your limited understanding of electrical engineering is related to Mr Spencer and his blog.

        Vitamin C … who would have known that a sample size of ONE could be used to prove a claim. Let me try that … I haven’t had a cold since July 2019, and I have taken no vitamin C in that time. Has my sample of size 1 proven my claim? What a N.U.T.T.E.R.

        “Prove that they don’t”
        How about you prove that they DO. Do so in reference to the source provided on WP.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Linus made no rash claims about vitamins C but based on his methodology I have tested it on myself. Since taking the requisite m feel a cold or the flu coming on, the dose of C kills off the malady. Since starting the routine I have not suffered the effects of a full flu or cold.”

        Vitamin C {and other vitamins will reduce effects. But stopping colds could be bad idea- it’s like physical exercise.
        Though I am not a fan of doing a lot physical exercise- some amount and stretching- but not too most of a particular type of exercise.
        Long walks would be a good idea, if you are got the time.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        AQ,

        The correct honorific for Roy Spencer would be Dr., not Mr. Where were you educated?

      • Willard says:

        Tis Mr. Asshat who said “Roy’s blog,” Troglodyte.

        If you want to be wrong (hint: you’re on the Internet), at least pick on a fellow crank.

      • Tim S says:

        The Vitamin C question is very simple. Supplements can work to fill a deficiency, but taking extra beyond the amount the body needs to use has no benefit. This is true for all vitamins, minerals, and nutrients.

    • Tim S says:

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

      Elliot retired to an apartment in Mayfair at Flat 12, 9 Curzon Place (later Curzon Square), Shepherd Market, Mayfair, London, owned by singer-songwriter Harry Nilsson who allowed her to stay there. Several hours after Elliot left Jack Martin’s cocktail party, she died in her sleep at age 32. According to Keith Simpson, who conducted her autopsy,[25] she died of a heart attack, and there were no drugs in her system.[27][28][29] Four years later, Keith Moon, drummer for the Who died in the same bedroom, also aged 32 years.[30][31][32]

      Elliot did not die from choking on a ham sandwich.[33][34] According to Lindsay Zoladz in The New York Times in 2024, this “cartoonish rumor propagated in endless pop culture references, from Austin Powers to Lost cast a tawdry light over Elliots legacy and still threatens to overshadow her mighty, underappreciated talent.”[35] In 2020, a journalist and friend of Elliot’s, Sue Cameron, publicly admitted that she promulgated the false ham sandwich story by writing it into Elliot’s obituary for The Hollywood Reporter. She claimed she was asked to print the lie by Elliot’s manager Allan Carr, who decided that the humiliating falsehood was preferable to any implication that Elliot’s death was associated with substance abuse.[35] Elliot’s body was cremated at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery in Los Angeles, California.[36] Her ashes were later buried in Mount Sinai Memorial Park Cemetery in Los Angeles.[37]

      • Tim S says:

        To be clear, it is true that a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich. Swiss cheese and rye bread are not necessary.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Whatever the cause, it’s too bad these young people died so tragically.

        Momma Cass, Janice Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Keith Moon, Bon Scott, Brian Jones, etc.

        I remember being young and facing similar needs and urges. I also thank whomever is up there for allowing me to survive those times.

  63. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico will strengthen to a hurricane before making landfall in Houston.
    https://i.ibb.co/kcvRY8H/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240706t0500.jpg

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    elliott…”…the latest Chromium version of the Tarderase plugin for this blog is submitted”.

    ***

    It reveals you as an anal person who lacks the ability, or understanding of science, to interact with the Big Boys. No on else here, except Binny, needs such control that they have to block posters. Sheeesh!!!

    In Green Bay, US, known for its cheese, at football games they call themselves cheeseheads and wear hats that emulate a large block of cheese. I imagine you sitting around wearing one of those hats with Swiss cheese, complete with holes in it. The holes surely reflect the considerable number of holes in your head and your scientific logic.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      As Gordon shows us the extent of his “scientific logic” with that “argument”.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Hey AQ,

        How many genders are there?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ant…nothing like a witty comeback [/sarc off].

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Oh look … it’s someone who believes a follower of AGW is necessarily a follower of everything supported by that side of politics. Try harder next time … you picked the wrong target.

    • The Great Walrus says:

      Gordon:

      Hilarious and accurate characterization of Elliot “Cheesehead” Bigfall. The Qwerty guy, obsessed with compiling irrelevancies throughout the night in his bed-sitter, also fits the bill.

      • Willard says:

        Walter R. Hogle,

        You didn’t reply in the proper subthread.

        Thank you nevertheless for your scientific output.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        You mean the “irrelevancies” that Gordon have found relevant enough to reply to multiple times? Those irrelevancies?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, Antonin, please stop t-word-ing.

  65. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another tropical storm is developing over Jamaica.
    https://i.ibb.co/9qD155G/goes16-vis-swir-watl.gif

  66. When insisting on EV… a country, in case of emergency, will be challenged without means of transportation.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  67. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Beryl is now a tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico with gusts over 100 km/h: https://www.ventusky.com/?p=21.7;-88.8;5&l=gust&w=soft 🧐In the next few days, it will probably strengthen to a hurricane again and make landfall in Texas, likely between Corpus Christi and Houston.

    • gbaikie says:

      Boca chica is only going to get around 30 mph winds, but I guess, lots rain and some lightening.

  68. PhilJ says:

    Should be an interesting season..

    https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/SH.html

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The propaganda about the ozone hole according to NASA GISS equals their propaganda about global temps and climate change. There is no way the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere at the ozone altitude level is sufficient to block UV as they claim. The concentration of O2 at that altitude is less than the 0.04% attributed to CO2 at the surface.

  69. gbaikie says:

    Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming
    Posted on July 5, 2024 by curryja | 34 Comments

    By Javier Vins
    https://judithcurry.com/2024/07/05/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/#more-31371
    —….
    Buontempo means good weather in English, and his phrase we have entered uncharted territory has become very popular. However, it assumes that we have reached and will remain in this situation, whereas the data suggest that this is a one-off anomaly with diminishing effects. For now, it tells us that nothing dramatic is happening as we approach the politically established warming threshold.

    Gavin Schmidt, director of NASAs climate monitoring institute, also uses the expression uncharted territory when he explains that the 2023 anomaly worries scientists, saying that climate models cannot explain why the planets temperature suddenly spiked in 2023. Not only was the temperature anomaly much larger than expected, but it occurred months before the onset of El Nio. In his own words: The 2023 temperature anomaly has come out of the blue, revealing an unprecedented knowledge gap perhaps for the first time since about 40 years ago. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.[iii] According to Gavin, we could have broken the climate and the models would no longer work.—

    They never worked.

    • Clint R says:

      Javier has a firm grip on reality. I’ve seen his research before. He’s one of the few that understands the importance of the Polar Vortex on Earth’s temperature.

      The cult will hate him….

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        He says nothing about the polar vortex in this article. He blames it all on water vapour, ie. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

      • Clint R says:

        Ant, you will need a responsible adult to explain it to you — I’ve seen his research before.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        It seems you are admitting implicitly that you are not such a responsible adult.

      • Nate says:

        Bwa ha ha!

        So then, link us to it.

      • Clint R says:

        Ant and Nate, why do I have to spoon feed you children?

        If you can’t find it yourselves, stop commenting for 30 days and I will do it for you.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…”…Buontempo means good weather in English…”

      ***

      Actually, gb, tempo means time. Seems that buon should be buen, therefore buentempo should mean ‘good time’.

      The quote from Gavin Schmidt is apt. The models cannot explain the spike, even though the rest of the eco-weenies are convinced it is caused by a trace gas.

  70. gbaikie says:

    The Nationwide 500,000 EV Charger Charade
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/06/the-nationwide-500000-ev-charger-charade/

    Joe is spending $7.5 billion dollars.
    “At this rate, the 500,000 charging stations will cost the government $400 billion, not the $7.5 billion the President has promised.”

    Someone helping him be a big fat liar {though he is thin and sleepy].

  71. gbaikie says:

    A Closer Look At Blue Origin & ULAs FAA Comments
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tASr5adgKCo

    We need an ocean settlement about 10 km off the coast of KSC

  72. Gordon Robertson says:

    ant responds with a knee-jerk reaction, mainly jerk.

    “Explain how talking about your limited understanding of electrical engineering is related to Mr Spencer and his blog.

    Vitamin C who would have known that a sample size of ONE could be used to prove a claim. Let me try that I havent had a cold since July 2019, and I have taken no vitamin C in that time. Has my sample of size 1 proven my claim? What a N.U.T.T.E.R.

    Prove that they dont
    How about you prove that they DO. Do so in reference to the source provided on WP”.

    ***

    ***I am still awaiting any constructive criticism re my understanding of EE. I always offer my insight into EE in relation to the topics in Roy’s blog. For example, I have expounded on positive feedback, using my EE background to illustrate why PF cannot occur in the atmosphere. In case that goes over the heads of alarmists like Ant, PF is an important function in EE and I understand it well.

    ***Re Vitamin C…a sample size of one??? That one is represented by one of the greatest chemists of all times, Linus Pauling, and last time I looked ascorbic acid, aka vitamin C, is a molecule. Pauling was an expert in molecules and he understood the antioxidant effect of C in the body.

    He also put to bed the theory that extra C, or extra vitamins, are a waste of money since they are allegedly peed out. Pauling took a 10 gram dose of C and actually measured the amount eliminated in urine and poop. He found that half is retained. He reasoned that any C eliminated must pass through the urinary tract and bowels and as an antioxidant would protect them against oxidative products like free radicals.

    Good luck trying to do that with the RDA of 75 mg.

    That’s why C is so effective against colds and flus. When those invaders try to alter body composition, C intervenes, provided there is enough in the body.

    ***re proof that vaccines don’t cause autism, Ant rises to the challenge by tossing the question back into my court….the sign of a brilliant debater.

    Based on the ingredients of some vaccines, like mercury, the claim that vaccines in young children cause autism is well grounded.

    But, hey, I would not expect someone as stoopid as an alarmist to understand any of this.

  73. Gordon Robertson says:

    PhilJ…continuing the Venus greenhouse debate…

    “The temperature of Venus surface is easily explained by its lack of water to cool the surface, and thick sulphuric acid clouds absorbing (and remitting to space) all of the solar input…”

    ***

    Phil…interesting point but that can hardly explain a surface temperature of 450C. Still scratching my head on that one.

    The 2nd law tells us that heat cannot come from the atmosphere since it would have to be greater than 450C.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Atmospheric forces can be studied to arrive at a speculation on the climate. As winds blew across the “Mediterranean Sink”, they would heat or cool adiabatically with altitude. In the empty Mediterranean Basin, the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high. As a first approximation, using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 C (18 F) per kilometer, the maximum possible temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 C (72 F) warmer than it would be at sea level. Under this extreme assumption, maxima would be near 80 C (176 F) at the lowest points of the dry abyssal plain, permitting no permanent life but extremophiles. Further, the altitude 35 km (23 mi) below sea level would result in 1.45 to 1.71 atm (1102 to 1300 mmHg) air pressure, further increasing heat stress. However, these simple estimates are likely far too extreme. Murphy et al.’s 2009 general circulation model experiments[49] showed that for completely desiccated conditions, the Mediterranean basin would warm by up to 15 C (27 F) in summer and 4 C (7.2 F) in winter, while for a depressed water surface, temperatures would warm by only about 4 C (7.2 F) in summer and 5 C (9.0 F) in winter. In addition, the model results indicated global stationary wave response to the introduction of the topographic depression causes patterns of warming and cooling by up to 4 C (7.2 F) around the Northern Hemisphere. ”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

      Venus has global wind which travel around the planet every 4 to 5 days. Or this wind at about 100 m/s [223 mph].

    • Willard says:

      Phil and Mr. Asshat go to

      Step 3 – Saying Stuff

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “The 2nd law tells us that heat cannot come from the atmosphere since it would have to be greater than 450C.”

      But it does transmit energy from the atmosphere of Venus to the surface, that is what the GHE does, it does not have to transfer heat from the atmosphere to the surface, all it needs is heat.

  74. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Before dawn, Beryl will arrive in Texas.
    https://i.ibb.co/bBrW79b/ventusky-wind-500hpa-20240708t0800-29n96w.jpg

  75. gbaikie says:

    These amazing images show what Mars snow looks like its nothing like on Earth
    By Jack Lee,
    Weather Science Data Reporter
    Updated Feb 1, 2023 9:31 a.m.
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/weather/article/mars-snow-photos-earth-17755425.php

    Scientists estimate year-round snow accumulation on Mars
    Scientists have attempted to calculate the amount of snow that accumulates at Mars north pole during the year.
    Published: Oct 07, 2023 08:11 AM EST
    https://interestingengineering.com/science/scientists-estimate-year-round-snow-accumulation-on-mars

    • Fascinating to see high-quality images from another world.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well, there are a lot of them. But it seems it’s a given there is lot more of them, not processed into “high quality images”.
        There the story that NASA was going to throw out a lot lunar probe data, but it was rescued from the trash, and effort was made to process it. But rather than putting in the garbage, you can just store it somewhere. Plus one just store it on the internet, for anyone to process it {however they like to do it}.

  76. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Gordo continues his semantic confusion, insisting that a system can only exhibit amplification when there is an
    amplifier which adds energy within said system. He ignores two processes within the climate system which produce positive feedback, that is to say, their effects increase as temperature increases. The highly non-linear water vapor feedback is one such process, another is the snow and ice albedo feedback.

    Gordo doesnt do science, so he cant think outside his electrical world box”

    ***

    Hate to tell you this, Swannie, but engineering is classified officially as Applied Science. In order to apply science, you must first learn science. That’s what we do, we learn it then we apply it. Others, like climate alarmists, get caught in thought experiments then by consensus, agree they must be right.

    In the Earth system, there is one input, solar energy. In order for PF to operate in this system, it must add to the solar energy to cause an amplification of heat, which requires a heat amplifier. The processes you describe do not add heat, they recirculate it, or block it, which is negative feedback if anything.

    Furthermore, such a system requires an output from which to feed energy back to the Sun, to increase its output. If you have such a method, please advise. An increasing effect is not feedback in the context of Hansen’s tipping point theory. Hansen is talking about an amplification of heat. Where would that extra heat come from?

    Albedo simply reduces the amount of EM absorbed from the Sun. Again, not PF.

    Any warming experienced on Earth has been a rebound from cooling. Somehow, solar energy was reduced, the planet cooled, and when the cooling condition was removed, the planet warmed. That’s what the current warming hysteria is about.

    • Entropic man says:

      ” Hansen is talking about an amplification of heat. Where would that extra heat come from? ”

      It is heat which enters the system and is then prevented from leaving.

    • Nate says:

      “In the Earth system, there is one input, solar energy. In order for PF to operate in this system, it must add to the solar energy to cause an amplification of heat, which requires a heat amplifier.”

      Myth. Solar input is a constant energy per unit time…POWER.

      Energy content is not power!

      Only energy content is what is enhanced by feedbacks.

      And that is brought about by retaining more heat-mostly by reducing heat loss.

      Just like what would happen to your PC’s processor chip, if the fan broke.

      • Clint R says:

        You got some things correct, Nate. Congratulations!

        But remember also, “energy” is not always “heat”. You can add more energy to a system without increasing the temperature. Adding more ice to a cup of coffee adds more energy, but the temperature decreases.

        Be aware — if you learn too much science, you will be excommunicated from your cult!

      • Willard says:

        Riddle me this, Puffman –

        How does feedback add energy to a system?

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        What happens if you just add energy, but not mass.

      • Clint R says:

        bob asks: “What happens if you just add energy, but not mass.”

        A simple example would be the energy arriving Earth from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. That energy is entering Earth’s system, but no mass is being added, yet the temperature does not increase.

      • bobdroege says:

        That’s astute Clint R,

        How about solar energy entering the Earth system, that does raise the temperature, right?

        You seem to be excellent at finding exceptions to the rule.

      • Clint R says:

        Solar energy can raise Earth’s temperature, but CO2 cannot. CO2 adds no new energy to the system.

        And, as I have stated, to raise temperature, the energy must be the “right kind”.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint R,

        Solar energy can raise Earths temperature, but CO2 cannot. CO2 adds no new energy to the system.”

        Additional CO2 keeps the energy in the system longer, thus raising the temperature.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry bob, but that’s your belief. Beliefs ain’t science.

        In science, you would have to show how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface. And only children with lasers can do that….

      • bobdroege says:

        That’s been done Clint.

        The ground is perfectly capable of absorbing 15 micron photons, and if that energy is added to energy from the Sun, the result will be to raise the temperature of the ground.

        It is not adding fluxes, it is adding energy.

        It is the right kind of energy.

        I don’t have to show that, as it has already been shown.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry bob, but you’re still not getting it.

        You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        No need to keep trying to boil water with ice cubes, as that has already been done.

        Though I can’t boil water with the infrared radiation from ice.

        But the surface of the Earth is quite capable of absorbing 15 micron or 10 micron infrared photons.

        How is that minor in Physics going?

      • Clint R says:

        bob, if you’re now admitting ice can not radiatively boil water, then you are also admitting CO2 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        “bob, if youre now admitting ice can not radiatively boil water, then you are also admitting CO2 15μ photons can NOT raise Earths 288K surface temperature.”

        You know there is a difference between raising something 70 degrees, and raising something 3 degrees for a doubling of the concentration of CO2.

        Or are you as bad in math as you are in physics or science in general?

      • Clint R says:

        Correct bob, temperatures make a difference. That’s why a “cold” can NOT warm a “hot”.

        And that’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water and a cold atmosphere can NOT warm Earth’s warmer surface.

        I don’t know if you’re actually learning, or just stumbling into some reality.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint,

        “Correct bob, temperatures make a difference. Thats why a cold can NOT warm a hot.”

        Well that depends on what you mean by warm, if you mean does heat transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface, no that does not happen. If you mean can a cold atmosphere cause a warmer surface by restricting the rate of cooling of the surface by absorbing the infrared, that does indeed happen.

        “And thats why ice cubes can NOT boil water and a cold atmosphere can NOT warm Earths warmer surface.”

        You forgot to specify the radiation from ice cubes can not boil water, so you get another zed. The atmosphere can make the surface warmer as I indicated above, you still can’t learn

        “I dont know if youre actually learning, or just stumbling into some reality.”

        You might learn, if you get up off of your mother’s rotten couch in the basement and did some experiments.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry bob, but all that rambling won’t help you.

        A “cold” can NOT warm a “hot”.

        And that’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water and a cold atmosphere can NOT warm Earth’s warmer surface.

        I like to keep things simple so children can understand.

      • bobdroege says:

        Yeah right Clint,

        That’s why a pot of water on a stove boils faster if you put the lid on the pot.

        You can even adjust the amount of heat provided so that the pot is at about 90 C, and then put the lid on and watch the water boil.

        The lid being colder than the water.

        You can even ask your mom for a hotplate so you can try it yourself.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo mentions the “Earth System”, writing (incorrectly) that:

      The processes you describe do not add heat, they recirculate it, or block it, which is negative feedback if anything.

      Gordo is still stuck with his electrical engineering idea of the atmosphere acting as if it were an electric amplifier process. He ignores the complex nature of the internal processes within the atmosphere and ocean climate system coupled with the diurnal and seasonal variations in solar input, ruminating that only negative feedback processes operate within.

      Gordo needs to follow his own prescription and learn the science.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      E. Swanson, please stop t-word-ing.

  77. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob d…”When Jimmy put his guitar near his amp, the output of the amp caused both the strings to vibrate more, as well as directly causing the pickups to increase their output. This makes the amp produce more sound.

    Increase the temperature of the Earth, then there is more water vapor in the atmosphere which increases the GHE, which makes more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the Earth.

    And so on and so on”.

    ***

    and scoobie, doobie, do won

    An amp cannot produce more sound power than it is designed to produce. A more powerful amp requires a more powerful power supply and when the P/S can deliver no more current, the output is limited.

    The feedback squeal that pierces one’s ears happens at a specific frequency. So, a lot of power can be emitted at one frequency. That can be compensated, or eliminated, using an equalizer set to attenuate the feedback frequency.

    Jimmy’s guitar and amp work as I described. The vibrating string is sensed by a pickup and provides an input signal to the amp. The amp amplifies the signal and the speaker emits it as an amplified sound pressure wave. If the guitar string is close enough to the speaker, the sound pressure wave acts as a positive feedback from the speaker, adding to the string vibration and that raises the level of the input signal. It gets re-amplified and each iteration the output signal increases as does the feedback signal.

    How does one go about increasing the temperature of the Earth without increasing the output of the Sun, or cooling the Earth first? If the Earth has stabilized at 15C, based on a certain solar input, how does one add heat to raise the temperature from 15C? Where does that heat come from?

    If you could trap heat, like a greenhouse traps it, the average temp should rise. But a greenhouse does that by trapping molecules of air behind glass.

    The current GHE and AGW theories are wrong in that they think trapping a small amount of surface radiation is akin to trapping heat. That’s wrong, the only way to trap heat is by trapping air molecules. Since the heat involved in creating IR is lost as the IR is created, the small amount of IR trapped by GHGs is not related to surface cooling or trapped heat.

    The atmosphere cannot trap heat, nor can the small amount of trapped IR, converted to heat, be returned to the surface to heat the surface.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo repeats his usual display of his ignorance of physics and systems theory, writing:

      How does one go about increasing the temperature of the Earth without increasing the output of the Sun, or cooling the Earth first?

      The short answer is the same way one increases the winter temperature inside a house by adding insulation. The temperature inside the house is the balance point at which the energy flowing in and out is at steady state. Given the same energy input to the house, adding insulation causes the balance point temperature to increase. No addition energy input is required, it’s just that the system has changed.

      Of course, Gordo continues, pointing to the Wood’s simple analysis of greenhouses, which has nothing to do with the atmosphere or AGW, writing:

      Since the heat involved in creating IR is lost as the IR is created, the small amount of IR trapped by GHGs is not related to surface cooling or trapped heat.

      .
      If Gordo had actually taken a course in meteorology, as he once claimed, he would surely be aware that a moist atmosphere with lots of water vapor is associated with warmer surface conditions than that which would appear with a dryer atmosphere. Massive ignorance, as usual.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      “Thats wrong, the only way to trap heat is by trapping air molecules.”

      The air molecules are trapped by gravity, and the CO2 in the atmosphere trap the energy from the radiation and transfer it to the other molecules in the atmosphere.

      “An amp cannot produce more sound power than it is designed to produce”

      What stops the feedback cycle?

      Something breaking, or a fuse blowing, something melting from too much current?

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      E. Swanson, bobdroege, please stop t-word-ing.

  78. Version 1.3.1 of the Tarderase plugin for Firefox is now uploaded. Based on performance to date, it should be available for installation on Monday or Tuesday. The plugin is for the time being feature-complete, and I’ll spend any time in the ensuing few weeks fixing any bugs that crop up and generally cleaning up. All feedback welcome, as usual.

  79. Antonin Qwerty says:

    I notice that PhilJ made his first post this month just 90 minutes after Flynnson was banned.

    Then there is this post of his from last month:
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1671794
    Does the middle paragraph loom familiar?

    And the last paragraph here:
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672857