Home/Blog
It took the better part of two years to satisfy the reviewers, but finally our paper Urban Heat Island Effects in U.S. Summer Surface Temperature Data, 1895–2023 has been published in the AMS Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.
To quickly summarize, we used the average temperature differences between nearby GHCN stations and related those to population density (PD) differences between stations. Why population density? Well, PD datasets are global, and one of the PD datasets goes back to the early 1800s, so we can compute how the UHI effect has changed over time. The effect of PD on UHI temperature is strongly nonlinear, so we had to account for that, too. (The strongest rate of warming occurs when population just starts to increase beyond wilderness conditions, and it mostly stabilizes at very high population densities; This has been known since Oke’s original 1973 study).
We then created a dataset of UHI warming versus time at the gridpoint level by calibrating population density increases in terms of temperature increase.
The bottom line was that 65% of the U.S. linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023 was due to increasing population density at the suburban and urban stations; 8% of the warming was due to urbanization at rural stations. Most of that UHI effect warming occurred before 1970.
But this does not necessarily translate into NOAA’s official temperature record being corrupted at these levels. Read on…
What Does This Mean for Urbanization Effects in the Official U.S. Temperature Record?
That’s a good question, and I don’t have a good answer.
One of the reviewers, who seemed to know a lot about the homogenization technique used by NOAA, said the homogenized data could not be used for our study because the UHI-trends are mostly removed from those data. (Homogenization looks at year-to-year [time domain] temperature changes at neighboring stations, not the spatial temperature differences [space domain] like we do). So, we were forced to use the raw (not homogenized) U.S. summertime GHCN daily average ([Tmax+Tmin]/2) data for the study. One of the surprising things that reviewer claimed was that homogenization warms the past at currently urbanized stations to make their less-urbanized early history just as warm as today.
So, I emphasize: In our study, it was the raw (unadjusted) data which had a substantial UHI warming influence. This isn’t surprising.
But that reviewer of the paper said most of the spurious UHI warming effect has been removed by the homogenization process, which constitutes the official temperature record as reported by NOAA. I am not convinced of this, and at least one recent paper claims that homogenization does not actually correct the urban trends to look like rural trends, but instead it does “urban blending” of the data. As a result, which trends are “preferred” by that statistical procedure are based upon a sort of “statistical voting” process (my terminology here, which might not be accurate).
So, it remains to be seen just how much spurious UHI effect there is in the official, homogenized land-based temperature trends. The jury is still out on that.
Of course, if sufficient rural stations can be found to do land-based temperature monitoring, I still like Anthony Watts’ approach of simply not using suburban and urban sites for long-term trends. Nevertheless, most people live in urbanized areas, so it’s still important to quantify just how much of those “record hot” temperatures we hear about in cities are simply due to urbanization effects. I think our approach gets us a step closer to answering that question.
Is Population Density the Best Way to Do This?
We used PD data because there are now global datasets, and at least one of them extends centuries into the past. But, since we use population density in our study, we cannot account for additional UHI effects due to increased prosperity even when population has stabilized.
For example, even if population density no longer increases over time in some urban areas, there have likely been increases in air conditioning use, with more stores and more parking lots, as wealth has increased since, say, the 1970s. We have started using a Landsat-based dataset of “impervious surfaces” to try to get at part of this issue, but those data only go back to the mid-1970s. But it will be a start.
Dr. Spencer,
Congratulations and thanks for your contribution to an accurate US temperature record.
Congrats from Germoney too, excellent technical contribution based on solid stats, but at the end of section 3 we read:
” These results can be compared to the Hausfather et al. (2013) analysis of the homogenized temperature data during 1895-2010
which found that “urbanization accounts for 14–21% of the rise in unadjusted minimum temperatures since 1895 and 6–9% since 1960”. ”
*
Frogs would say, with a touch of irony:
” La montagne Spencer/Christy/Braswell a accouché d’une souris Hausfahter. ”
And ultimately, it confirms once again that Watts’ surfacestations.org and the 2011 paper by Fall et al. are a blind-alley that tells us nothing really useful.
Bindi, one of your problems is you don’t understand what orbital motion, without spin, looks like. If you understood that simple motion, you would see that Moon has no spin.
Do you have access to a tennis ball and string?
“And ultimately, it confirms once again that Watts’ surfacestations.org and the 2011 paper by Fall et al. are a blind-alley that tells us nothing really useful.”
Nonsense.
A reduced diurnal temperature range is particularly acute during cloudier nights. Urban areas already tend to cool more slowly than nearby rural locations, but under cloudy night or early morning conditions, the temperature difference between the two can reach up to +13C. I have confirmed this by comparing city temperatures with those recorded at their nearest CRN stations.
EDIT:
Nonsense.
The paper revealed a widespread and systematic suppression of diurnal temperature range across the national climate observatory network. That is significant and carries important implications for the accuracy of climate representation.
A reduced diurnal temperature range is particularly acute during cloudier nights. Urban areas already tend to cool more slowly than nearby rural locations, but under cloudy night or early morning conditions, the temperature difference between the two can reach up to +13C. I have confirmed this by comparing city temperatures with those recorded at their nearest CRN stations.
Revealed is doing too much work here, Walter.
All types of sites show the same mean temperature trend, so the significance you claim is not there.
I understand that Watts’ paper is not directly relevant to Spencer’s new work since Spencer is focused on TAVG. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with Bindi’s claim that ‘Watts’ surfacestations.org and the 2011 paper by Fall et al. are a blind alley that tells us nothing really useful.’ That paper does have value, just for a different purpose.
It all depends on how one weighs negative results, Walter.
I myself like them, but if one rejects that they’re informative, than one must also reject that they indicate anything, including a blind alley.
You might like:
https://archive.ph/flRIT
” These results suggest that the DTR in the United States has not decreased due to global warming, and that analyses to the contrary were at least partly contaminated by station siting problems. ”
” Nonetheless, all the ongoing work to understand the consequences of a faster rise in minimum than maximum temperatures for ecosystems and human health might, just might, be misguided. ”
Yeah.
When you concentrate your look at bad stations and absolute temperatures, yu hardly could come to a different conclusion.
Thanks, Willard. That’s a great link.
“When you concentrate your look at bad stations and absolute temperatures, yu hardly could come to a different conclusion.”
This describes the vast majority of weather stations in the U.S.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that truly accurate climate data for the United States does not exist until the mid 2000s?
To my knowledge, China, Germany, and the UK face similar issues with their long term climate observation networks.
“The bottom line was that 65% of the U.S. linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023” RS
That is baloney whether published or not.
USCRN, with no UHI, since 2005, falsifies the theory.
It has more warming then nClimDiv that includes UHI
““The bottom line was that 65% of the U.S. linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023”
I’m not sure what that 65% of US warming means. The abstract says that 65% only applies to urban and suburban stations, and across all stations the figure is 22%.
Meanwhile we have WUWT and Heartland saying it’s 65% of all global warming.
Also, this article says that most of the UHI warming occured before 1970, which seems an important point, given that most of the CO2 warming has occured since then.
Why do people make this so complicated? CO2 evenly blankets the globe, in other words it is a constant per location. The quntum mechanics of the CO2 does no vary by location or over time, so once again, CO2 is a constant in any model. What has changed over time is the concentration over time, but the concentration shows a log decay with the backradiation. It is much like painting a window black. The first coat does a lot, additional coats does very litte. In other words, beyond a certain concentration CO2 does very little. It is much like taking asprin. The first pills reduce pain, but taking too much will not help the pain, and may make you sick.
In reality all the data you need is the data for temperatures over the oceans and Antarctica to remove the UHI effect. Simply limit the data to the stations that aren’t exposed to any UHI Effect? Adding additional corrupted data sets only decreases the explainatory power of the model and increases the error. I’ve done that and when you simply select the stations with a very low BI score, you basically get no warming. If you comnbine the temperatures over the oceans with the change in cloud cover, to see that what global warming we do see id due to fewer clouds over the oceans than CO2. CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with the warming of the globe. CO2 is a trace gas of 415 ppm that termalizes 15 micron LWIR which is associated with -80C temp in the IR spectrum.
Climate Science claims to be a science. I just outlined a very simply and common sense way to control for the UHI efect and there is no need to worry about the adjusted or unadjusted data. Simply use the raw data from a station that hasn’t been impacted by the UHI efect, it is that simple. Try the unadjusted data from Alice Springs Austraila using the older version of the GISS Data before they broke up the data file.
“CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with the warming of the globe”
CO2 is Life
99.9%+ of scientists since 1896 have been wrong and you are right? You are quite a comedian.
As far as your 99% of government scientists-Ike desribed them in his departing speech.
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Dwight Eisenhower
‘99.9%+ of scientists since 1896 have been wrong and you are right?’
Yes.
Richard, the problem is in the understanding of the basic physics.
Every source that attempts to describe the CO2 nonsense spends 99.9% of the effort on explaining how sunlight converts to infrared and CO2 absorbs some of that infrared, blah-blah-blah. That much is valid. The invalid assumption is that the CO2 can then raise Earth’s average temperature. The basic physics they overlook (ignore?) is that 15μ photons from the atmosphere can not raise the temperature of a 288K surface. If that were possible then you could boil water with ice cubes!
“99.9%+ of scientists since 1896 have been wrong and you are right? You are quite a comedian.”
Once again, this is a science, not a popularity contents. Consensus means nothing in science. I provided evidence, please refute it. I can go to the GISS Website and find you countless stations that show no warming. The only warming you get is if you corrupt the measurments with the UHI effect. The fact that NASA publishes data with data known to be corrupted and they statistically “adjust” the data proves they either don’t know what they are doing, or they are covering up the facts. No one knows how these “adjustments” are made except the people making them. Why not make it trasparent and open source? Simple answer, they don’t want people seeing what they are doing. Once again, simply do your own research. Find stations with a low BI for UHI and you will find no warming. That is how a real scientist would perform a controlled experiment. You simply want to believe a lie.
“Consensus means nothing in science.”
It does matter.
How do we know which pollutants are most harmful to humans?
Should we have banned leaded gasoline?
There was evidence of its harm to brain development, but pushback from industry who claimed it wasn’t collecting in the environment. Finally the scientific evidence was overwhelming, according to a consensus of scientific opinion and the government acted to phase it out.
What about DNA evidence in criminal trials? A scientific consensus on its value is essential.
Between 300 to 400ppm CO2 can cause some atmospheric warming.
But when past 800ppm the CO2 molecule becomes 99% saturated within the infrared.
Radiation to space can only decrease by a tiny amount after 800ppm.
Consensus is everything in science. See Popper on “Robinson Crusoe” science. (Spoiler: There’s no such thing.) Any one scientist can lie, cheat or hit the one in twenty outlier. Science ONLY progresses through replicable results.
Elliot,
It depends on how one defines and aggregates “consensus.” For example, a glaciologist may publish findings showing that ice caps are retreating in response to a warming trend, a result based on direct observation. However, they might attribute that trend to anthropogenic greenhouse gases even if their study didn’t directly test or establish that causal mechanism.
If such attributions are counted toward the broader consensus, even when the evidence in the paper doesn’t directly support that aspect, is that truly a data point in favor of the consensus? Or are we conflating agreement on observation with agreement on cause?
Elliott Bignell.
Most excellent observations!
I would add that scientific consensus is often misunderstood as mere popular opinion or unanimity, as in laymen usage where consensus may lack an evidentiary basis.
Scientific consensus is grounded in rigorous, peer-reviewed research and reproducible results. It arises from a convergence of evidence across multiple studies and disciplines, reflecting the best understanding available at a given time.
While dissent is a natural part of scientific discourse, not all dissenting views carry equal weight and must be supported by robust evidence.
Lastly, as you noted, consensus is not the endpoint of scientific inquiry but a foundation upon which further research can be built. This makes it a dynamic, self-correcting process.
red krokodile – Clearly those are two separate questions around which a consensus might emerge, and need to be assessed separately. Attribution is considerably harder than just plotting a trend, and both peer-reviewers and attempts at replication need to conform to correspondingly more rigorous standards.
BUT: As a lay follower of science, the consensus of experts is by definition the only way to ascertain the status of the science. If a consensus on attribution clearly exists, it is just as authoritative as a consensus on trends. It would be just as foolish to dismiss it.
red krokodile – Clearly those are two separate questions around which a consensus might emerge, and need to be assessed separately. Attribution is considerably harder than just plotting a trend, and both peer-reviewers and attempts at replication need to conform to correspondingly more rigorous standards.
BUT: As a lay follower of science, the consensus of experts is by definition the only way to ascertain the status of the science. If a consensus on attribution clearly exists, it is just as authoritative as a consensus on trends. It would be just as wrong to dismiss it.
Congratulations on getting it through the censorship of peer review.
As far as your 99% of government scientists-Ike desribed them in his departing speech.
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Dwight Eisenhower
I use the estimate of 99.9% but in my 28 years of climate science reading I have only found one scientist who denied the greenhouse effect: Geographer Tim Ball of Cannada.
My reading is almost entirely “skeptic” scientists where there are a few who believe the effect of CO2 is very small.
Among all other scientists, 100% believe there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 adds to it. That has been true since 1896. The consensus is based on evidence and has withstood a 129 year test of time
Among the believers are Dr.’s Spencer, Christy, Happer, Lindzen and Curry. All science PH.D.s. At least 99% of “skeptic” scientists. But you know better?
They disagree on how much warming CO2 causes but not the fact that CO2 impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself, usually described as “warming”.
The CO2 Does Nothing Science Denying Cult helps logical conservatives lose their ability to persuade others on the subject of climate before they even start speaking.
The Cult has a tendency to take over every comment thread o conservative websites.
They must believe the CO2 Does Something Consensus is a global conspiracy, since 1896, and not one scientist of the 99.9% consensus has ever decided to be honest about CO2. Not even on his or her deathbed.
A lot of opinions (beliefs) there, Richard. But beliefs ain’t science.
Now if you could actually define the GHE, that doesn’t violate the laws of physics, you would have something.
As I stated above, the problem is in the understanding of the basic physics.
Every source that attempts to describe the CO2 nonsense spends 99.9% of the effort on explaining how sunlight converts to infrared and CO2 absorbs some of that infrared, blah-blah-blah. That much is valid. The invalid assumption is that the CO2 can then raise Earth’s average temperature. The basic physics they overlook (ignore?) is that 15μ photons from the atmosphere can not raise the temperature of a 288K surface. If that were possible then you could boil water with ice cubes!
RG, Scroll down and read my reply to CO2isLife. Y
This is the only website you need to debunk CO2 causes warming.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
CO2 evenly blankets the globe; in other words, CO2 concentration is a constant per location.
The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule doesn’t change per location, so the backradiation of CO2 evenly blankets the globe.
What has changed over time is the concentration of CO2 over time. The scientific challenge then becomes how to design a controlled experiment that isolates the impact of CO2 on temperatures. How do you tease out the effect of the Urban Heat Island, water vapor, and other exogenous factors?
In other words how do you design this experiment : Temperature = f(CO2) and not Temperature = f(CO2, Water Vapor, UHI, and other factors)
The solution is relatively simple. One simply needs to choose locations, mostly the dry hot and cold deserts, that are shielded from large swings in H2O and impacted by the UHI. When you do that, you see that the temperature doesn’t increase with an increase in CO2. The obvious reason for that is that CO2 shows a log decay in the backradiation with an increase in concentration, and the CO2 concentration and Backradiation function forms an asymptote, and at the current concentration, the slope is approaching 0.00 quickly.
In real science one needs to only find one example where the results don’t agree with the model to reject the null. The above link provides plenty of examples that defy the CO2 causes warming hypothesis.
Albert Einstein famously stated, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
From John Daly’s website, the chart of temperature plots at the Furnace Creek weathers station in Death Valley are fairly flat from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 303 ppmv (0.59 g of CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.73 g of CO2/cu. m.), but there was no increase in the air temperature at this remote desert. The reason there was no increase in the air temperature at arid desert is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wave IR radiation from the desert surface and there is low constant humidity.
The charts of temperature plots from over 200 weather stations from all over the world show no warming up to 2002 and falsify the proposal that CO2 causes global warming.
You are the first person to mention John Daly’s website at this blog. I go to a number of blogs every day and there is no mention of John Daly. Somehow we have inform all the people about John Daly’s website and in particular those in California, the UK, Germany and Australia. Got any ideas how we can do this?
It would really useful if we could post charts and figures as we can at WUWT.
How did you learn of John Daly’s website? There are over 200 charts of temperature plots from around the world that show no warming up to 2002. The chart of the plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley is my favorite and I post it often in comments at WUWT. I
If everyone learned of John Daly’s website, all this CO2 global warming nonsense would vanish overnight and the economies of the UK, California, Germany, and Australia would be saved for collapse.
Why do you think Furnace Creek tells us about global temperature?
Are the other selected sites randomly selected? Why are they representative of the world as a whole?
Dr Roy, well done on getting past the gate keepers.
I see the UHI being a subset of humans influence. The others sources are farming, industrial sites, mining etc.
Farming will again have subgroups of influence. A single cow emits 1000+ watts of heat energy. Albedo and water vapour changes depending on crop type & farming practice.
Power stations will produce a lot of heat over a wide area. No power production is 100% efficient.
So it’s not just population density that corrupts the record.
Dr Roy, well done on getting past the gate keepers.
I see the UHI being a subset of humans influence. The others sources are farming, industrial sites, mining etc.
Farming will again have subgroups of influence. A single cow emits 1000+ watts of heat energy. Albedo and water vapour changes depending on crop type & farming practice.
Power stations will produce a lot of heat over a wide area. No power production is 100% efficient.
So it’s not just population density that corrupts the record.
Dr Roy, well done on getting past the gate keepers.
I see the UHI being a subset of humans influence. The others sources are farming, industrial sites, mining etc.
Farming will again have subgroups of influence. A single cow emits 1000+ watts of heat energy. Albedo and water vapour changes depending on crop type & farming practice.
Power stations will produce a lot of heat over a wide area. No power production is 100% efficient.
Heat pumps routinely exceeds 300%.
Willard doesn’t understand efficiency.
No surprise there….
When compared to using electricity directly.
Puffman doesn’t get another equation.
What else is new?
Willard, so you agree with all the other influences. So the affects of CO2 are even less.
Glad that you finally accept that CO2 contributes to more than 100% of the current warming, and that other influences cancel out only a tiny part of it, Anon.
Willard Nate, my view is that the extra CO2 emitted by mankind has a minor role with warming the planet. If anything the climate change is within natural variability.
The so called temperature record has been fouled up beyond all recognition. Use of junk sites or even made up sites by the UK met office is part of the issue.
Anon, my view is that you are confusing yourself when you interpret 100% as a maximum value. CO2 can cause more than 100% of the current warming. All you need is that natural forcings to contribute less than 0%.
Unconfuse yourself. Help contrarians build better arguments.
Anon, can you calculate how much these other factors contribute to global warming– so we can compare to CO2?
Urban temperature data describes air temperature outside. I wonder what fraction of the total volume of heated or cooled air in urban areas is inside structures and how much heat is added to or removed from the external urban environment by these heating and cooling systems. It is obvious this fraction of conditioned air is very different, much smaller, in rural and even suburban environments. This is among the many reasons to be skeptical of surface temperature records now or in the past.
Good point Norm.
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned cattle and how much they might warm the environment. How about humans? With a mean body temperature of 37C, we are constantly transferring heat to the cooler atmosphere by direct conduction. Any gas atoms/molecules directly contacting a human surface is immediately heated.
The heat is created and generated within our bodies and as long as we are clothed correctly for the environment, we will maintain that 37 C body temperature. The heat will be dissipated from our skin and by direct exhalation, with the heat transferring through our clothing to the atmosphere. With over 8 billion people generating heat like that from a temperature of 37C to whatever the ambient temperature may be, it’s bound to warm urban environments somewhat.
Then there are animals, most of which are generating heat as well. There are also machines generating heat as well as vehicles.
Penguins in Antarctica know about this. They huddle in large groups in devastatingly cold conditions to survive. The heat generated by their bodies is enough to help them survive extremely cold temperatures.
“How about humans? With a mean body temperature of 37C, we are constantly transferring heat to the cooler atmosphere by direct conduction.”
Most people use way more generated energy than they generate from their body.
Humans dissipate ~ 100 W, while using multiple kW of generated power.
My comment on cows, power plants etc was to highlight the extra man made heat in the rural environment. The Urban Heat Island if anything over simplifies the corruption of the temperature record.
Station well-siting, TMIN vs. TMAX (part 1)
*
I wrote above:
” And ultimately, it confirms once again that Watts’ surfacestations.org and the 2011 paper by Fall et al. are a blind-alley that tells us nothing really useful. ”
And the red krokodile answered:
” The paper revealed a widespread and systematic suppression of diurnal temperature range across the national climate observatory network. That is significant and carries important implications for the accuracy of climate representation. ”
*
Later on, even more of that from the red krokodile – who apparently doubts every day a bit more but without presenting any data confirming his doubts::
” This describes the vast majority of weather stations in the U.S.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that truly accurate climate data for the United States does not exist until the mid 2000s? ”
*
Aha. Have these supposedly well-sited historical USHCN stations now suddenly fallen out of favor?
*
Let us nonetheless take as source for such claims the USHCN station subset identified by Volunteers as ‘well-sited’ (source: NOAA, I lost the link and therefore can only present an upload of my download):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ipzDRdJppZDM6ii4qj9h1AKFrC3t0h94/view
and compare this USHCN station subset to all GHCN daily stations respectively located in the 1 degree vicinity of these USHCN stations, regardless of their siting quality:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11sJjcVifKIecrYRr08jB93bjlbujJPDX/view
*
Note:
The goal here is to compare time series generated out of the data of the two stations sets, regardless what they really represent.
The 71 ‘well-sited’ stations are by no means representative of CONUS as a whole – simply because they are distributed across no more than 58 2.5-degree grid cells, i.e. only about one-third of the 171 cells occupied by the over 18,000 GHCN daily stations available in CONUS.
*
‘Climate representation’ means that we can’t rely on comparing single locations: we must compare their averages. Otherwise, we would speak about local meteorology.
*
To avoid comparison bias due to the small number of early-active GHCN daily stations located in the near the 71 USHCN sites, the comparison was limited to the period 1951–2011.
*
Unlike previous comparisons based on TAVG, the station sets are now compared with respect to TMIN and TMAX.
*
In a first step, the comparison of the 71 well-sited USHCN stations with the 258 stations nearby will be based on absolute temperatures.
A comparison is then made on the basis of anomalies, as this eliminates the seasonal dependencies (or as Roy Spencer says: the ‘annual cycle’) in the time series.
Station well-siting, TMIN vs. TMAX (part 2)
*
1. Absolutes
TMAX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NCXucYzNi3IHgfVyqv1NDAPakXUOg-EW/view
TMIN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11dytviUIvgQ4X5jjnuB0IWHe_ZpffuuP/view
Trends are useless here because as so often for absolute data out of few stations, the standard error is higher than the trend.
2. Anomalies (wrt the mean of 1981-2010)
TMAX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RzP181WalVgApyoYdJ9lR1jPwSDTr6NK/view
Trends /decade in °C for 1951-2011
258 GHCN daily: 0.06 +- 0.02
71 USHCN: 0.08 +- 0.03
TMIN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-IHF0hCUK8n-Qki14wwd0YCxQdBSeiy2/view
Trends /decade in °C for 1951-2011
258 GHCN daily: 0.13 +- 0.02
71 USHCN: 0.12 +- 0.02
Yeah: so it looks like when you remove the annual cycle…
Linear trends don’t matter much: polynomials explain more. But they give a first hint.
*
Let’s come back to the absolute data, to extract out of it TMAX/TMIN series for January and July, respectively, and compute the differences between 258 GHCN daily and 71 USHCN for TMAX and TMIN in these months:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c9s45kzAQc0_RB4rqX1A6tcgNFYh3ySs/view
Oh oh oh… What do you see here? The differences between TMIN and TMAX are way smaller than the differences between January and July.
*
I’m sure genius red krokodile soon will explain this to us.
Globally, minimum temperatures (TMIN) have warmed more than maximum temperatures (TMAX) since 1975, particularly in the Arctic. This means that the warming trend has been more pronounced during the nighttime hours. The observation of more TMIN warming compared to TMAX is supported by numerous studies and scientific observations, including data from NASA, NOAA, and other research institutions. night-time temperatures have been warming faster than daytime temperatures globally since 1975. This phenomenon is primarily due to increased greenhouse gas emissions, which trap more heat at night.
Your analysis gets an F
Not global
Not all stations
Not since 1975
1951 to 2011??
High comedy
Greene
” Your analysis gets an F
Not global
Not all stations
Not since 1975
1951 to 2011??
High comedy ”
*
Before boastfully appearing with such arrogant stuff, you’d better ask the ‘red krokodile’ genius what the comparison was for.
You can’t imagine how ridiculous you behave here.
Bindidon’s concerns about the small sample size of well-sited stations were addressed directly in the Fall, 2011 paper.
The authors focus specifically on the post 1979 period, when metadata quality is higher and enough CRN 1&2 stations exist for meaningful comparison.
Their findings show that for well-sited stations, there is no significant trend in diurnal temperature range since 1979, contrasting sharply with poorly sited stations that spuriously show a decreasing DTR trend.
It is also worth pointing out that Bindi continues to ignore station classification, which is essential to disentangle the effects of local siting from regional climatic factors.
*
In this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1701103
— his earlier graphs comparing TMAX and TMIN trends between well-sited and randomly selected stations have now disappeared. I noted in my reply on March 21, 2025 at 10:17 PM that even though his setup differed from Fall et al., his results actually supported their findings.
Strangely, he keeps the graphs that argue siting quality is insignificant, like this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1698036
roy….”It took the better part of two years to satisfy the reviewers…”
***
For any of you alarmists claiming the review process is legit, here’s your evidence that it is not.
This is evidence of corruption in the review process. It is not the business of scientists to satisfy a review process, it is the business of scientists to research and write papers so they can be reviewed by their real peers in the scientific community.
When a journal editor farms out a paper to a reviewer, it is not the business of the reviewer to hold the paper up because he/she does not agree with it, and any reviewer doing so should be prosecuted. It is only the business of a reviewer to ensure the paper is produced in legitimate scientific context and not written by some hacker like Clint, Ark, or Norman. ☺ ☺ And especially not by Binny. ☺ ☺ ☺
Of course, a journal editor can refuse to publish a paper but that would be corruption as well, if his/her’s only reason was to prevent a skeptical view from being presented.
I just described the IPCC review process.
Such is the nature of science today that journals can present only views that agree with theirs.
I see the UHI being a subset of humans influence. The others sources are farming, industrial sites, mining etc.
Farming will again have subgroups of influence. A single cow emits 1000+ watts of heat energy. Albedo and water vapour changes depending on crop type & farming practice.
Power stations will produce a lot of heat over a wide area. No power production is 100% efficient.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705006
It is always comforting to see a critic of the peer-review process finally go through it. It’s like seeing what happens when a conspiracy theorist catches the car.
The peer review system is not perfect, but it is the best that we have.
The peer-reviewed literature represents the body of scientific knowledge, and that knowledge will be polluted if papers are published that are (1) wrong, or (2) don’t add significant knowledge. Those papers must be canned for the sake of the scientific community.
As a rule, the authors have thought about the content of their paper a lot more than the reviewer has. On the other hand, the reviewer is a more sophisticated reader than most. This calls for a combination of humility and assertiveness. If as a reviewer you don’t understand some aspects of the paper, it is the author’s problem, not yours. Rather than assume that the authors are wrong, you must ask them to clarify.
“and that knowledge will be polluted if papers are published that are (1) wrong, or (2) don’t add significant knowledge.”
Like Kaufman 2020’s global multiproxy reconstruction? Somehow that one sailed through peer review.
You know what to do.
ark…”The peer-reviewed literature represents the body of scientific knowledge, and that knowledge will be polluted if papers are published that are (1) wrong, or (2) don’t add significant knowledge. Those papers must be canned for the sake of the scientific community”.
***
You raving ijit!!! You are talking in the same context as burning scientific books based on the opinion of a censor that the books are wrong and harmful.
The peer review process was set up originally to filter out laymen whose understand of science was null and void, and who were talking nonsense. It was not set up to filter all laymen, one of them being Michael Faraday, who essentially wrote the book on initial studies into electromagnetism. Today, the likes of Faraday, even with a degree, are rejected out of hand by the same snotty-nosed bastards in journals.
Without Faraday’s work, Maxwell, a mathematician, would never have been able to work out his electromagnetic equations. However, Maxwell largely got the credit for Faraday’s brilliant work.
Faraday had no formal education even though Wiki and Britannica insist on listing him as a chemist and physicist, to make his work appear at that level. The snobs at those outlets cannot get over the fact that a man without a degree could invent such important theories. The so-called scientific community of the day rejected him for that very reason and Maxwell, much to his credit, came forward and converted Faraday’s theories into the mathematical terms that snot-noses required.
You appear to be relegating Roy to the level of layman. Your credo is now being used by climate alarmists to ban papers written by any scientist skeptical of the mainstream alarmist views.
Roy has a degree in meteorology, Numb-nuts, and John Christy actually has a degree in climate science. What kind of a raving fool are you? The same journals that harass Roy and John are freely publishing papers by raving ijits, simply because they drank the kool-aid, making them bona fide members of the brain-dead alarmist society.
Being brain-dead yourself, I am sure you see no problem with that chicanery.
Richard Lindzen, with a degree in atmospheric physics, and who taught at the heady level of MIT, had a paper held up by a journal editor. When Lindzen inquired as to why he was told bluntly that it was related to his skeptical views.
A few years back, an Australian journal editor rejected a paper by researcher Barry Marshall who had claimed duodenal ulcers were caused by heliobacter pylori, a bacterium that could survive in stomach acid. The editor not only rejected his paper he claimed it was one of the ten worst papers ever submitted to his journal.
Marshall was later vindicated when his theory proved correct and he won a Nobel for it. That raises the question as to why journal editors are able to influence science to a great extent by rejecting scientific papers. I think they should be prosecuted and thrown in jail for such chicanery.
So many papers are wrong the system is seriously polluted. Like many things these days, it’s all politicized. We’ve got “fake news” and “fake science”.
co2…”CO2 evenly blankets the globe; in other words, CO2 concentration is a constant per location”.
***
I question that statement based on the evidence. CO2 is often referenced in alarmist literature as a well-mixed gas, which means at all altitudes and everywhere in the atmosphere. However, CO2 is also a heavier molecule than O2 or N2, and the small difference makes it possible to pour CO2 from one container into another.
If CO2 is put in a beaker, apparently it will stay there rather than escape as will molecules like O2 and N2. The same is true with sour gases, like H2S, that escape through leakage from a pipeline and which flow down into valleys posing a danger to residents. The CO2 put in a beaker can then be pored like a liquid into another beaker.
Why do gases like CO2 and H2S settle in valleys and around swamps? It is known that trapped gases like CO2 can escape the bottom of lakes and asphyxiate residents adjacent to the lake.
I don’t think it’s true that CO2 is well-mixed, it behaves differently in the atmosphere than O2 and N2.
This video is a bit hoaky but there are better ones demonstrating the same effect of CO2 re pouring it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX8R7AOkfsc
You are correct Gordo. Never have understood why CO2 monitoring is at Mauna Loa. Don’t volcanos emit CO2? The CO2 travels down from the volcano since it is heavier than air. I know the planet is huge and it disperses quickly but it still seems like an odd place. Why not pick a mountain observatory that doesn’t include a volcano?
recently, Norman made this statement…” No a positive ion is actually a positive charge! Not less negative. I think you are totally ignoring the positive charge of the nucleus! A positive ion (say your 4 electrons and 5 protons) this positive ion will accelerate toward a negative charge and be deflected in a magnetic field as any positive charge”.
***
Some may regard this to be off-topic but its pertinent to climate change theory. That’s because the theory is about the molecule CO2 about which there is much pseudo-science written. How are we to understand the basic actions of CO2 when we can’t distinguish between an ion and a positive charge?
Much of the theory written about CO2 is at the molecular level, which is ingenuous. That’s because a molecule is a model to represent atoms bonded together and not a reality as a whole and separate entity with its own properties. We use the word molecule to define basic bonds created by two or more atoms. Ergo, we should be examining the atoms making up the molecule, especially the behavior of electrons that do all the bonding. EM is absorbed and emitted by the outer electrons in an atom and has no relationship with the inner positive nucleus, even though the nucleus has an overall effect on the of an atom or molecule.
The atom is defined as a nucleus created of positive charges called protons with negative charges called electrons orbiting the nucleus with various levels of orbitals. Actually that is not entirely correct, that is, the theory. The proton has a unique mass as does the electron, with the protons mass some 1800 times larger than the mass of the electron. However, both have been defined as having equal and opposite charges.
How terribly convenient.
What is this charge? No one knows. All we know is that like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Therefore two protons should repel each other, as they do, and the same for two electrons. However, an electron should be attracted to a proton, as is the case.
Why??? No one knows.
Norman claims that a positive ion will be attracted to a negative ion, but such is not the case in an electrolyte. It is certainly not the case in a copper conductor, where the so-called ions cannot move. When HCL is added to water it dissociates into H+ ion and CL- ions. The ions go their separate ways and are not attracted to each other.
If you introduce electrodes into the electrolyte with HCL and water, with one connected to a positive terminal on a battery and the other to the negative terminal, then chemical reactions begin to happen (electrolysis). In the case of a battery cell, two different types of lead are used and the different types set up chemical reactions with the electrolyte. That allows excess electrons in the Cl ion to enter one of the lead electrodes and accumulate there. It works better with sulphuric acid.
If we have an atom with so many protons in the nucleus and an equal number of electrons in orbits, the atom is said to be neutral re charge. If we remove one electron from an outer shell, the atom is now claimed to be a positive ion, only because one atom now has a ***RELATIVELY*** more negative charge than the other. If we add an electron, a negative ion is formed.
How can the removal of one electron from a group of electrons produce a true positive charge?
Consider a circuit where electrons are forced through the conductor. An electron enter a copper atom valence band temporarily making it a negative ion (theoretically). The electric field pressure (EMF) puts a strain on all electrons in all valence bands in the copper atoms, causing electron to leave and enter valence bands spasmodically. That means we have alternating ions of copper with both negative and positive charges, hardly a good example of an ion.
This is a theory for the simple reason that no one has ever seen it occur nor has anyone ever seen ions at work in a conductor like copper. That does not stop theorists from claiming ions exist in a copper conductor simply because an electric field has been applied and an electron has jumped from an outer orbital to the outer orbital (valence band) of a neighbouring atom. There is a temporary hole representing a missing electron and that is claimed to beproduce a positive ion.
Nonsense, I say. Ions can only truly exist in liquids and perhaps in gases, where they are free to move. In a copper conductor, all of the positive charges are frozen in the nucleus. No positive charges are available outside the nucleus and with ions, the hole left by an escaping electron or added by an incoming electron are strictly signed in a relative sense to an existing negative charge. The absence or addition of an electron to an orbit containing all electrons is not a charge per se. This has nothing to do with a true positive charge represented by a proton in the nucleus.
If HCl is added to water, the HCl dissociates into a positive ion H+ and a negative ion Cl-. However the process is far more complicated than you seem to think. When HCL formed as hydrochloric acid, the one electron in hydrogen was stolen due to the Cl atom being far more electronegative. That means the H electron spends far more time near Cl than near H. The missing electron the makes H+ a true proton, which is a pure positive charge.
In the electrolyte, if the dissociation occurs while the electron is closer to hydrogen it dissociates as hydrogen gas, a common gas produced in a battery and not as a positive ion.
In summary, it is ingenuous to claim that an ion represents a true signed charge. Two negative ions will not repel each other, in fact, they don’t care about each other. If anything, they will repel each other due to the largely electron orbitals whether or not one orbital is an electron shy.
Based on the theory I have just described, which Norman will claim I made up, even though I got it directly from electronic and chemistry theory, we need to examine CO2 molecules at the atomic level rather than inferring properties they are claimed to have where mysterious EM energies are produced and absorbed by the molecule, rather than electrons in related atoms making up the molecule.
When CO2 is examined at the atomic level, much of the properties attributed to CO2 by alarmists simply disappears. We see that electrons are responsible for EM emission and absorption, and that electron properties in this case are governed by specific frequencies that prevent heat being transferred from cooler CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to a warmer surface that produced the warming in them.
“More Truth About Global Warming”
https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/20/more-truth-about-global-warming/
The article cites the actual expert – Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Severe weather dangers spread eastward into midweek, flood risk to increase
On Tuesday, the severe weather threat will move eastward into the lower Ohio Valley and Tennessee Valley, putting regions that were impacted by powerful storms as recently as last Friday once again at risk.
The article “More Truth About Global Warming” published by Issues & Insights (I&I) on May 20, 2025, does not clarify scientific truth. It buries it. It purports to offer a corrective to mainstream climate science by invoking Spencer et al (2025). Instead, it exhibits all the hallmarks of ideological advocacy masquerading as scientific interpretation with cherry-picked quotes, unsupported extrapolations, and a profound misrepresentation of the scope and limitations of the original research.
Most notably, the I&I article implicitly universalizes Spencer et al.’s localized findings without justification, turning their narrow, site-specific analysis into an indictment of global climate science. The article selectively omits the critical methodological caveats and empirical limitations clearly stated in the original paper.
The article concludes with a barrage of ideologically loaded opinions which, though certainly within the purview of editorial writing, are not a substitute for scientific evidence, and cloaking them in pseudoscientific misrepresentation is a disservice to informed discourse. Spencer et al., regardless of one’s views on their methodology, contribute to the technical literature with a well-documented statistical analysis. The article, by contrast, contributes nothing but distortion. It reflects neither scientific literacy nor intellectual integrity.
Translation: I HAVE SPOKEN!
SEALION OFF THE STARBOARD BOW!
Not a word of scientific proof, Ark thinks conjecture and innuendo passes for science.
Yep it shamelessly leaves out Roy’s caveat that:
“But this does not necessarily translate into NOAA’s official temperature record being corrupted at these levels.”
The basic statement of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that it is not possible to precisely know both the speed and position of a sub-atomic particle.
I propose the Climate Change Uncertainty Principle in three parts.
It is not possible to know the surface temperature of the entire earth by taking point measurements at selected locations.
It is not possible to know the precise source of any warming effect from temperature measurement alone.
It is not possible to determine that the climate has changed by observing odd weather events, but it is possible to scare people. Climate is not weather.
Never heard about sampling theory? It tells us how many samples are needed to capture nearly all the information of interest. It is used in many sciences and is well tested.
You ok with all the Trump family deal-making in parallel with his US deal-making with various countries? EG the Middle East, and Vietnam where Eric Is opening a new Trump Golf course and Hotel, just as trade deal is being negotiated..
We have the first incorrect reply by someone who does not understand the subject, and the first attempt to muddy a rather clean comment string with nasty politics. Some people prefer the political sewer to science.
The problem of collecting samples from representative sampling locations has nothing to do with sample variation at the same location, even though some locations do have multiple samples (e.g the airport vs downtown).
No argument here, Tim.
Tim,
You are the one who keeps bringing up the saga of Hunter Biden’s laptop, so I assumed you would be even more concerned about the current President’s blatant family and self enrichment off of the Presidency.
I guess not.
Again you declare with undue certainty and little evidence, what science cannot do. In the end, you always have to dial back these over-the-top claims.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-draws-global-crypto-investors-with-148-million-meme-coin-dinner-2025-05-22/
I’m seriously, why is this not corrupt?
I was watching a local program on the severe fires they have encountered in the Kelowna area of British Columbia, Canada recently. This area is traditionally very dry but the recent dry spells have dried it further creating a tinderbox atmosphere. To show how dry it gets, areas within 100 miles are so dry and hot in summer that prickly pear cactus grows along with sagebrush. Areas not far away have been used to film westerns. It is actually a quasi-desert climate.
I was drawn to a statement made by a fire chief that the dried trees, mainly evergreens, get so dry that they ignite quickly with the fire concentrating in the canopy. He pointed out that the heat from the canopy ignited flames that spread into he air to double the height of the trees. The heat from those flames and the entire fire rises and is replaced by cold air from above, in his words.
What happens to the rising heat> Alarmists claim it must be dissipated to space by GHGs and radiation. I claim that is nonsense.
The rising heat rises into an ever-decreasing pressure/temperature gradient and as the heat rises it is dissipated long before it reaches the stratosphere. 5000 feet above the intense heat it would dissipate so much as not to be detectable. I can claim that because people standing a 1000 feet away could barely feel it and its a lot cooler at 5000 feet.
Same with heat from the surface that is dissipated by radiation but mainly by the 10^28 molecules of air per metre^2 that saps heat directly from the surface via conduction. That heated air rises and is replaced by cold air from above.
In summary, heat dissipated from the surface does not have to be radiated to space since it dissipates naturally within the atmosphere.
Lindzen has confirmed that heat in the Tropics rises vertically and is transported poleward by wind currents where it can warm cooler parts of the planet especially in winter. Same with ocean currents that transport heated water poleward. If that heat is warming cooler air and water it is being dissipated naturally and does not have to be radiatedto space.
Enough of alarmist pseudo-science.
10:40 pm: “heat dissipated from the surface does not have to be radiated to space”
“That heated air rises and is replaced by cold air”
No, enough of Gordon’s pseudo-science and nonsense. Gordon, radiation is NOT heat. And any heated air rising from the surface is replaced laterally by air at or near the same temperature.
“In summary, heat dissipated from the surface does not have to be radiated to space since it dissipates naturally within the atmosphere.”
You think the energy, 240 J/s/m^2, just vanishes in thin air?
So when satellites measure the outgoing LW radiation averaging 240 W/m2, exiting the atmosphere, what the heck is that?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/polr_c.gif
Your mind works in mysterious ways…
Child Nate finds a computer-generated colorized “flat Earth” and believes it’s somehow related to 240 W/m^2!
Kids these days….
Ever confused Clint thinks people using flat maps of the Earth must be Flat Earthers.. Bwa ha ha!
And yes the measurements shown are a snapshot in time, but do average over time and the globe to ~ 240 W/m2.
Sorry if these measurements are inconvenient for your notions.
Incorrect child.
That graphic is completely bogus but with your lack of understanding can’t even find one of the many errors. Averaging fluxes is nonsense. And your flat Earth doesn’t even consider night/day.
Did I mention that Earth does not emit in visible wavelengths?
“And your flat Earth doesn’t even consider night/day.”
It measures over 5 days.
“Did I mention that Earth does not emit in visible wavelengths?”
Bwa ha ha!
Learn what OLR is and do try to make a semi intelligent comment.
Child Nate, your bogus computer-generated graphic is “colorized”. Infrared is outside the visible range. Colors are IN the visible range.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
Grow up.
OMG. First you thought people using flat maps of the world must be Flat Earthers.. now its people using maps with colors must think the world is colored that way..like Sudan is red and Switzerland is blue.
How cute..
Nate,
Dimwit, I was talking about the plot you generally like to link, which is a computer-generated IR spectrum. I don’t believe any of your links can be trusted. They are propaganda, not science.
Yep, you judged without looking..
Nate
There are a lot of people watching this blog.
Is it then not better to post this OLR stuff embedded in a text explaining what it is about, and containing references to articles showing the scientific context?
One of the smallest pdf documents is this:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/cmip5-data/Tech-Note_rlutcs_CERES-EBAF_L4_Ed2-6r_20120606.pdf
*
By the way, this little sentence in KISS genius Clint R’s reply
” Did I mention that Earth does not emit in visible wavelengths? ”
was really amazing.
From your link Bindi: “The data may have
been reprocessed, reformatted, or created solely for comparisons with climate model output.”
IOW, the “product” has no useful purpose. It’s as bogus as the “Earth Energy Imbalance”.
You kids have no science, and can’t learn.
Binny
“So when satellites measure the outgoing LW radiation averaging 240 W/m2, exiting the atmosphere”
This and labels explained it sufficiently for its purpose.
Only dimwit Clint was perplexed.
Child Nate will just keep spewing his childish insults, always needing the last word.
So to shut him up, physics is necessary. Here’s a simple physics problem he can’t answer correctly:
A second sun is placed beside our existing sun so that it provides half the flux of our sun. IOW, our sun provides 960 W/m^2 (after albedo), and the second sun provides 480 W/m^2.
Now considering Earth as a sphere having a surface with 1.0 emissivity, with no oceans or atmosphere, what would be the sphere’s equilibrium temperature with both suns?
That is a fraudulent spectrum. It is similar to the Mann Hockey Stick. It has been manipulated for effect.
“So to shut him up, physics is necessary.”
Try real physics for a change.
Look if all you offer is ‘the data is wrong’ without evidence, followed by insults. Because it doesn’t fit your theory, that is loser talk.
You ain’t doing science, you are just denying it.
And Feynman, when he said ‘No matter how beautiful your theory, if it doesn’t agree with experiment, ITS WRONG’ was talking about you.
Child Nate proves me right, again!
He can’t correctly answer the simple physics problem, so he keeps clogging the blog trying for the last word.
I like being right.
Sometimes Bindi likes to help poor Nate. Maybe Bindi can provide the correct answer?
I won’t hold my breath….
“He can’t correctly answer the simple physics problem”
I’ll answer your distractor question if you will first provide real evidence that the OLR data is bogus, and does not average to 240 W/2, as you claimed.
IOW support your claims before changing the subject.
Clint,
Don’t you know that’s how science works? You have to prove Nate’s fictitious numbers are wrong. That’s how Greenhouse Gas Theory works. It holds a special place in science. It is the only science where correlation equals causation.
Why do you think NOAA satellite data is fictitious Stephen?
And why do you and Clint get to declare such things without evidence?
Child Nate, now you’re just throwing more crap against the wall, hoping something will stick. I never said anything about “data”. I said your bogus computer-generated graphic is “colorized”. You never presented any “data”. You just linked to a graphic you and Bindi don’t understand.
So you’re distracting because you can’t answer the simple physics problem.
Grow up.
Umm..its a graphical representation of actual data. Anybody used to looking at maps should not have a problem with it.
Why do you?
You claimed it was bogus. Now we can see that was BS, with nothing to support it.
Nate,
The IR spectrum of CO2 is a thin IR band. Doesn’t look anything like the satellite spectrum that you keep linking. It has been manipulated.
I believe the satellite CO2 spectra is computer enhanced. It isn’t true raw spectra.
The satellite observation is a sounding observation. They have to determine the four distributions from a single observation: vertical temperature distribution, vertical density of CO2 molecules distribution, vertical extinction coefficient of CO2, the vertical density of aerosols and water vapor. Then a theoretical IR spectra is simulated. The CO2 peak was digitally added.
Nate is unable to solve the simple physics problem because he has no knowledge of physics. Just like the rest of his cult.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705125
“The IR spectrum of CO2 is a thin IR band. Doesn’t look anything like the satellite spectrum that you keep linking. It has been manipulated”
Stephen, dimwit, there is no spectrum in the plot.
Clint failed to support his claims before changing the subject.
No more silly games will be played.
It would be nice if that were true, child. But all you’ve got are “silly games”. You have NO science.
So you’ve continue with the same silly games all cultists play.
Nate,
You calling anybody dimwit is comical, Mr. Revelle Factor. And you still haven’t explained the IPCC’s Carbon Cycle Model.
Stephen you don’t listen or learn. And you had no answers for the evidence you were shown, and tried distraction.
So that was that.
“But all you’ve got are “silly games”. You have NO science”
Translation from Clintspeak:
I don’t get the science and data you showed so I’ll just call it bogus.
A new article titled “Warming of +1.5 °C is too high for polar ice sheets” has been published in Communications Earth & Environment on May 20, 2025: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w
It presents a comprehensive review of the vulnerability of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to global warming. The authors synthesize multiple lines of evidence, including observational data, paleoclimate records, and modeling studies, to assess the thresholds beyond which significant ice loss and consequent sea-level rise become inevitable.
The authors present a compelling case that even the current level of warming poses substantial risks to ice sheet integrity and, by extension, to global sea levels. While emphasizing that further research is needed to refine our understanding of the precise temperature limits that would prevent irreversible ice loss, they underscore the urgency for more aggressive climate change mitigation strategies.
Gosh, Ark found something else to be terrified of. Only, that nonsense has been around for about 40 years. Ark needs something new, but his fear of tariffs didn’t last long.
What will he find next?
Some kids just like to be scared. That’s why horror movies are so popular.
Where I come from is called ‘To draw a devil on the wall’
From the paper:
“During the Last Interglacial (LIG: ~129–116 ka), global mean surface temperatures were +0.5 to +1.5 °C higher than pre-industrial… but GMSL was likely several meters higher than present.”
Their argument rests heavily on comparing 13,000 years of sustained interglacial warmth to a brief contemporary excursion toward +1.5 C, and treating the projected outcome as equivalent.
The pre industrial period offers roughly 50 years of high resolution instrumental data, whereas the Last Interglacial is reconstructed from proxies spanning some 13,000 years.
Yet in this framing, the two appear functionally interchangeable, either because a few decades are assumed to capture the full range of multi millennial variability, or because 13,000 years can be treated as equivalent to 30. That is an impressively unburdened approach to temporal scale.
BTW, the number 30 is 0.23% of 13,000.
That quote is a fabrication that misconstrues the article’s argument by assigning a premise that is not explicitly made by the authors.
You misrepresent the authors’ methodological intent in order to attack a straw man, rather than engage with the actual substance of their argument.
Why lie? Are you that desperate for engagement, or just intellectually lazy?
Where I’m from we do not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.
I originally wrote:
“…or because 13,000 years can be treated as equivalent to 30.”
It should have read:
“…or because 13,000 years can be treated as equivalent to 50.”
Also,
“BTW, the number 30 is 0.23% of 13,000.”
Should be:
“BTW, 50 years is just 0.38% of 13,000.”
Ah Proxies they same proxies we rely on when we try to estimate historic atmospheric C02 ,
“That quote is a fabrication that misconstrues the article’s argument by assigning a premise that is not explicitly made by the authors.”
I did not fabricate the quote. Here is the full, verbatim sentence from page 2 of the paper:
“During the Last Interglacial (LIG: ~129–116 ka), for example, global mean surface temperatures were +0.5 to +1.5 °C higher than pre-industrial, CO₂ concentrations were 266–282 ppm, but GMSL was likely several metres higher than present.”
The paper uses the LIG and other past warm periods to define a “safe limit” for modern climate policy. Under the section “Summary and future perspectives: identifying a ‘safe’ temperature limit for ice sheets,” the authors write:
“Evidence from the palaeo-record clearly shows that a global mean temperature that exceeds +1 °C above pre-industrial leads to several metres of sea level rise (Table 1), with higher absolute values of SLR becoming increasingly likely the higher the warming, and the longer it is sustained.”
They do acknowledge the duration of warming matters (“the longer it is sustained”), but they still rely on paleoclimate derived sea level outcomes as an important analog for today.
My critique is not a straw man. It challenges a core assumption in the paper: that multi millennial climate responses can be used as a reliable basis for defining near term policy thresholds. That is a deeply flawed and inappropriate comparison because of the vast difference in timescales and system dynamics.
Your critique is a straw man because the article does not equate these two periods in a simplistic or interchangeable manner but rather uses the LIG as a conservative empirical analogue to highlight the potential long-term consequences of sustained warming, even at seemingly moderate levels. The comparison is not intended to suggest that current warming will immediately replicate LIG outcomes, but rather that similar thermal forcing has historically yielded significant ice-sheet loss over time.
“Contemporary” warming, even over a few decades, can initiate ice-sheet responses that are slow to unfold but nonetheless irreversible on centennial-to-millennial timescales. The article explicitly acknowledges this by focusing on “long-term sea-level rise” implications, not short-term equivalency.
“…the article does not equate these two periods in a simplistic or interchangeable manner but rather uses the LIG as a conservative empirical analogue to highlight the potential long-term consequences of sustained warming, even at seemingly moderate levels.”
It does operationally equate them, by citing the +0.5 to +1.5 C anomaly of the LIG relative to the 1850–1900 baseline and using that comparison to argue for a modern “safe limit.” That is not an empirical analogue. The LIG spans thousands of years of proxy smoothened climate. The 1850–1900 baseline is a 50 year instrumental window. Comparing them ignores sub millennial variability, lagged responses, and feedbacks that could have operated very differently in the LIG. Dynamics that proxies cannot resolve.
“The comparison is not intended to suggest that current warming will immediately replicate LIG outcomes, but rather that similar thermal forcing has historically yielded significant ice-sheet loss over time.”
I wasn’t suggesting the outcomes were being portrayed as immediate.
““Contemporary” warming, even over a few decades, can initiate ice-sheet responses that are slow to unfold but nonetheless irreversible on centennial-to-millennial timescales. The article explicitly acknowledges this by focusing on “long-term sea-level rise” implications, not short-term equivalency.”
The foundation of that allegation is precisely the problem: the article grounds long term irreversibility concerns in a temperature threshold derived from a multi millennial paleoclimate context. But +1.5 C sustained for decades is not necessarily similar, physically or dynamically, to +1.5 C sustained (*on average*) for thousands of years.
So as not to keep repeating myself, let’s try an analogy this time.
In nature, fractures in rock formations often take millions of years to form under slow tectonic stress. However, in hydraulic fracturing, engineers accelerate this process dramatically by injecting fluid at high pressure, rapidly exceeding the tensile strength of the rock and inducing fractures within hours.
Just as frac’ing compresses geologic processes into an engineered event by exceeding critical thresholds, so too does anthropogenic climate forcing accelerate Earth system responses. The frac’ing analogy underscores that it is not the duration of stress but its magnitude and rate that drive system changes.
The authors’ goal of identifying temperature “thresholds for ice sheets that trigger retreat well before peak climate forcing is experienced” requires a thermodynamic equivalence not a temporal one.
“Strive on, the control of nature in won, not given.” IOW, welcome to the Anthropocene, or is it the FAFOcene?
The problems with your analogy are twofold:
1/ The assertion that it is the magnitude and rate, not the duration, that drives system change is not correct. Ice sheets have strong inertia.
2/ Your analogy fails to engage with the methodological structure of the paper, which is explicitly threshold based. And also, your bias is showing. The authors argue that even modest warming, particularly beyond +1 C, commits the planet to multi meter sea level rise.
That conclusion is grounded in paleoclimate analogs where the global mean temperature anomaly is reconstructed as a multi millennial average, not resolved at sub millennial timescales.
And that is the elephant in the room: the LIG anomaly, cited relative to the 1850–1900 window, is not a high resolution signal. It may have included peaks or longer sustained warming well above 1.5 C – conditions that actually triggered significant ice sheet retreat / sea level rise. But we can’t see them. It’s apples to oranges.
I’ve said all I’m going to say to you on this topic.
You should contact Professor Stokes at Durham and discuss with him.
You sure have.
Ark believes we should let him regulate the planet’s fossil fuel emissions. If he could control the emissions knob then everything would be perfect. Shangrila.
Every exchange I have had with Ark on this forum has been off. I don’t doubt he’s intelligent, but something seems to get lost when it comes to engaging with critiques at their actual depth.
Maybe I am just expecting too much. But I genuinely don’t see how sidestepping the core of someone’s argument contributes to their intellectual development.
Perhaps your assessment is accurate, perhaps not. I try not to rush to conclusions. After all, I have found that assuming good faith, even when it is hard to spot, tends to benefit my intellectual and social growth more.
red krokodile.
I find that it helps communication when we speak a common language.
Tell me about your educational and professional background.
Any science or technical education?
stephen p anderson.
I’m a Petroleum Engineer so, implicitly, I already “control the emissions knob.” Get it?
Yes, I do have a science background, though I am not an engineer, so I don’t know what common language you are hoping for here.
“Yes, I do have a science background” Good for you!
What degree(s) do you have? What was (were) your Major(s) in college?
Associate of Science degree
Correct me if I’m wrong but, as a petroleum engineer, I don’t believe your training covers paleoclimatology. If we were discussing, say, the oil market or extraction methods, that would be a different story.
I have a bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering specializing in reservoir engineering, with Minors in geology and applied mathematics. I also have a Master of Business Administration degree.
The reason I believe it’s important to know your interlocutor’s educational background is so you can tailor your “voice” to their specific background. Formal language can sometimes be perceived as condescending, depending on the context and audience.
Do you understand what I’m saying?
I never claimed to be an expert in paleoclimatology.
Yes, I understand your point. Your credentials are impressive, but I am not sure how tailoring your voice applies when we are discussing topics outside your field of expertise. I don’t believe I’ve ever challenged you on anything specific to reservoir engineering or petroleum systems. In the discussions we’ve had, it seems to me that the strength of an argument depends more on the depth of research.
Yes, I am blessed.
I don’t recall you posting any research in “the discussions we’ve had.” On the contrary, it’s always you trying to step on research that I post, no?
You could take my critique as a step on your research, or you could choose to see it more constructively. Perhaps it raises valid points that warrant reconsidering that paper and others like it. The choice is yours.
Post evidence or peer-reviewed support of your claim and I’ll gladly consider it.
Claiming something repeatedly or emphatically is sophistry. I’m immune to rhetorical persuasion.
Let us take a closer look at their references, Arkady. In Stokes, 2025, we read the following:
“Notably, ice sheets were responding to LIG temperatures that were either similar to present, or within the range expected in the next few decades for polar regions⁶¹,⁶³,⁶⁴, implying that a +1 to +1.5 °C world would generate several metres of SLR.”
But when I checked citation 61 (Hoffman, 2017), here is what the authors themselves say about the proxy data they used:
“The sample resolution ranges from centennial to <4000 years, with a median resolution of 1100 years."
Not even close to the resolution of our modern instrumental record. A 1,100 year smoothed value cannot be meaningfully compared to the preindustrial or recent 20–30 year periods. You do not need a peer reviewed paper to tell you that. Just basic statistical literacy.
It is hard to believe this is a one off mistake. The paper leans heavily on paleoclimate analogues, including this one, to make claims about the meaning and risk of a +1 to +1.5C anomaly. And yet, the resolution mismatch is never acknowledged, even when they cite studies like Hoffman, 2017 that are explicit about it.
See my comment from 8 days ago: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705161
red krokodile says:
“Not even close to the resolution of our modern instrumental record. A 1,100 year smoothed value cannot be meaningfully compared to the preindustrial or recent 20–30 year periods. You do not need a peer reviewed paper to tell you that. Just basic statistical literacy.”
—————————–
Exactly. Like the discussion of O18 proxies used in ice cores to show regular rises in temperature approximately every 3,500 years with a smaller regular signal of around a 1,000 years It is believed that the ice core samples themselves are mixed for roughly a century or more before the firn is compressed into impermeable blue ice blocking further mixing.
That alone blots out anything in the past century plus from being anything but a mean value for the entire century plus.
that leaves us with about a 1/3rd degree mean polar or global warming over the past century. (e.g. half the measured warming)
But to build such a record we do need to do it carefully and with consistent methods retaining the entire history of changes to have any faith in the results a hundred years from now. Financial auditors have to deal with this problem on a running basis all the time. it demands full documentation.
Fact is sea level rise is mostly attributable to melting ice sheets on land and have been going on for 12,000 years with 3.5C variations occurring on those ice sheets (from ice cores). Sea level has risen an average of about a centimeter a year over that time about 3 times the current measured rate. And we are supposed to get excited when the rate of sea level change moves from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr. Get a life folks!
This represents a level of natural noise in the data that our level of attention to natural climate change isn’t adequate to address any change from anthropogenic sources. Dr. Syun Akasofu who is the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center has clearly stated that as fact. So its really sad when the public so misinformed by the media that they come in here and say the exact opposite.
Thank you for your comment, Bill. I strongly agree with the core point you raised. While I haven’t read extensively in paleoclimate literature, I have noticed that even among the peer reviewed studies I have read, there are surprisingly frequent issues related to resolution mismatch. I guess it could be a coincidence. I don’t know. I want to be careful not to overstate my understanding or make sweeping judgments about an entire field.
One example that stood out to me was Kaufmann 2020’s Holocene temperature reconstruction.They compare decadal means from the modern instrumental record to multi-century averages in the proxy record.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697489
Like you said, these kinds of inconsistencies in record keeping, especially temporal resolution and methodological transparency, can lead to misleading conclusions . Reading these studies have been valuable in that sense: they highlight how easy it is for errors in data handling to propagate into broader claims about climate.
Their guessing.
Hurricane season has started:
ZCZC MIATWOEP ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM
Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
1100 AM PDT Thu May 22 2025
For the eastern North Pacific…east of 140 degrees west longitude:
1. South of the Southern Coast of Mexico:
An area of low pressure is likely to form early next week several
hundred miles south of the southern coast of Mexico. Conditions
appear favorable for development of this system, and a tropical
depression could form around the middle of next week while moving
westward to west-northwestward at 10 to 15 mph.
* Formation chance through 48 hours…low…near 0 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days…medium…50 percent.
Forecaster Berg
The basic statement of the Berra Principle is that it is hard to precisely know things, especially about the future. Let’s extend it:
E1. It is not possible to know the temperature of a room, however perfect its thermostat can be, unless the room is the size of that thermostat.
E2. It is not possible to know when the price of $TRUMP will go to zero, even if you hold most of the meme coin and pump and dump it.
E3. It is not possible to know for how long the MAGA crowd will fall for this other fam scam:
https://futurism.com/the-byte/trump-family-crypto-bitcoin-mining
E4. It is not possible to know how much US citizens will pay for the Qatari gift to Donald:
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-tasked-modifying-qatar-boeing-jet-gifted-trump-2025-5
E5. It is not possible to know how troglodytes can justify what ICE did to Kasper Eriksen:
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-tasked-modifying-qatar-boeing-jet-gifted-trump-2025-5
Win win win!
Your waffling
Over at WUWT there’s
this headline attributed
to The New York Times:
We’re not doing that
climate change, you
know crud, anymore
What about posting the true origin of this tremendously dumb statement?
” Trump’s secretary of agriculture, Brooks Rollins, had this to say that other day:
We’re not doing that climate change, you know, crud anymore. ”
Sources, e.g.
https://captimes.com/opinion/dave-zweifel/opinion-chicago-dust-storm-a-harbinger-of-things-to-come/article_15654edc-6c81-4e2f-8699-5285f688b501.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/climate/trump-climate-denial.html
https://www.facebook.com/matthewcookeofficial/posts/the-us-under-trump-alone-in-its-climate-denialthe-administration-is-not-only-all/1229682335170004/
etc etc etc
red krokodile
A few replies to your post dated May 18, 2025 at 7:24 PM, part 1
*
1. ” … his earlier graphs comparing TMAX and TMIN trends between well-sited and randomly selected stations have now disappeared. ”
Wrong. These graphs did not ‘disappear’; they were removed because
– you were either not able or not willing to stop reading in 2011 out of a graph going to 2024;
– between 1895 and 1951 there were not enough GHCN daily stations to provide for a sufficient grid cell coverage, what created a huge comparison bias;
– I discovered a flaw in my automated procedure picking those GHCN daily stations identical to USHCN stations, and therefore had instead to compare the original USHCN data of the 71 stations to GHCN daily stations in their near.
The corrected TMIN/TMAX comparison graphs for 1951-2011 (absolute and anomaly-based) were present both in my younger comment dated May 18, 2025 at 5:43 PM AND in the comment dated April 6, 2025 at 10:00 AM.
*
2. ” Bindidon’s concerns about the small sample size of well-sited stations were addressed directly in the Fall, 2011 paper. ”
I had no ‘concerns about the small sample size’.
What is the problem, apart from the fact that conversely, many ‘skeptics’ think that a time series from Watts’ 71 ‘top-notch’ USHCN stations provides a representative picture of the CONUS temperatures?
*
3. ” Their findings show that for well-sited stations, there is no significant trend in diurnal temperature range since 1979, contrasting sharply with poorly sited stations that spuriously show a decreasing DTR trend. ”
The original information was clearer:
” Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. ”
At a first glance, this looks correct for the 71 USHCN vs. 258 GHCN daily comparison when considering the DTR trends (in C / decade) for the 1979-2011 period:
USHCN: 0.00 +- 0.08
Daily: -0.16 +- 0.06
But for other periods you obtain quite different values, what motivates to compute monthly times series of the respective running DTR trends, and compare them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r-ukIOfqXWz5nVx03NIGnvE6MzK1F9kR/view
Removing the annual cycles by computing DTR out of anomalies doesn’t change much.
Well, no idea how anyone could use such chaotic series as an argument for or against anything.
Here is a graph comparing the two DTR series for absolute temperatures over the full period:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D5pklY3jKnxA61nKx3AlEhDNNCL3RlDt/view
Greenland gives Danish-French group permit to mine rock with green potential, in wake of Trump interest.
I have often pointed out how similar time series computed out of completely different data and even their respective running means can be.
Here is once more an example: the comparison of two time series generated out of data recorded respectively by USCRN (sub)hourly and GHCN daily weather stations.
*
Both time series are anomaly-based, with respect to the means of 2011-2020, and – as always – with removal of the annual cycle:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13PrZ20bsyD1D7gPb2IQOOcitxIa53LOQ/view
The graph was generated as ‘encapsulated PostScript’, allowing to arbitrarily zoom without the usual pixel increase observed when using jpeg, png or the like.
*
Not only do we see lots of perfectly matching red/blue peaks and drops at the monthly level; even more amazing is the similarity of the 36 month running means computed out of the monthly series, which move on par at so many places.
*
Neither the original sources
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
nor the stations considered do have anything in common, let alone my processing of the sources’ data.
*
Don’t get irritated by the opinionated Brit boy always discrediting and denigrating simple running means on this blog just because they contain alleged distortions and wriggles.
Distortions and wriggles must always be mercilessly eliminated wherever they are disruptive.
But… time series have few in commom with
https://jelabs.blogspot.com/2019/03/john-linsley-hood-1969-class-amplifier.html
ed krokodile
A few replies to your post dated May 18, 2025 at 7:24 PM, part 2
*
4. ” It is also worth pointing out that Bindi continues to ignore station classification, which is essential to disentangle the effects of local siting from regional climatic factors. ”
That is now the very best.
I explained from the beginning that my work involved comparing a set of classified stations to an arbitrary set of non-classified stations located in the respective near of the classified ones – in order to discover the differences in the time series constructed out of each of the two sets:
TMIN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-IHF0hCUK8n-Qki14wwd0YCxQdBSeiy2/view
TMAX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RzP181WalVgApyoYdJ9lR1jPwSDTr6NK/view
red krokodile
A few replies to your post dated May 18, 2025 at 7:24 PM, part 3 (of 3)
… dealing with a TMIN/TMAX comparison of 113 USCRN stations to several hundred GHCN daily stations in their 1 degree vicinity for the period 2005-2023, couldn’t be successfully sent to the blog.
No idea what happened.
Last try…
*
5. Now it’s time to submit a similar comparison made last year, between 113 USCRN stations located in CONUS and about 560 GHCN daily stations available in their 1 degree vicinity, isn’t it?
Period: Jan 2005 – Aug 2023
TMIN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zQ5qFsPe5_INNZ1E_5VibXhIn7VSEMvb/view
Linear trends in °C / decade for 2005 – 2023
USCRN: 0.395 +- 0.124
Daily: 0.405 +- 0.110
TMAX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YiPAYIkUCyDgPIqr_fd7eUcNVE3H6go/view
Linear trends in °C / decade for 2005 – 2023
USCRN: 0.364 +- 0.134
Daily: 0.167 +- 0.118
Added today:
DTR
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S22Oxm4s3DPlJlUukxNnzopA5vfFMgl9/view
*
Draw your conclusions.
5. A similar comparison made last year, between 113 USCRN stations located in CONUS and about 560 GHCN daily stations available in the 1 degree grid cells around the CRNs.
Period: Jan 2005 – Aug 2023
TMIN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zQ5qFsPe5_INNZ1E_5VibXhIn7VSEMvb/view
Linear trends in °C / decade for 2005 – 2023
USCRN: 0.395 +- 0.124
Daily: 0.405 +- 0.110
TMAX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YiPAYIkUCyDgPIqr_fd7eUcNVE3H6go/view
Linear trends in °C / decade for 2005 – 2023
USCRN: 0.364 +- 0.134
Daily: 0.167 +- 0.118
*
Added today:
Diurnal Temperature Range
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S22Oxm4s3DPlJlUukxNnzopA5vfFMgl9/view
*
Draw your conclusions.
Trump is again trying to knee-cap our leading University, Harvard, because they won’t bend the knee to him.
After canceling many of their grants, he and his cabinet are now trying to retaliate against them by cancelling all of their international student
Thus is blatantly an authoritarian unconstitutional move.
As a result of this and his efforts to cancel science grants everywhere are already causing a brain drain.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-23/germany-offers-harvard-exile-campus-after-trump-escalation?embedded-checkout=true
Excellent researchers who can attract offers from abroad are leaving.
This anti-intellectuasm, attacks on foreigners, and resultant brain drain is again echoing the events of 1930s in Germany.
It’s called “draining the swamp”, and Trump is doing it brilliantly.
By going after the biggest source of corruption and perversion, the smaller players will fall in line quickly.
Our leading University? Say’s who? Newsweek?
Why doesn’t Harvard fund their research with their endowment of $54 billion?
My taxes shouldn’t be going to a private university. Particularly one where they teach Marxist Green Anti-Christian values.
Then it will be Make America Mediocre Again?
Harvard Derangement Syndrome.
Well it was nice while it lasted having the best and brightest of the world striving to come here and attend the greatest universities.
Now its Make America Dumber Again, MADA.
Wrong again, child.
Cults are why people are getting dumber.
But, you don’t have to worry. You can’t go much lower.
Wokeism has a record of failure so remarkable that only an intellectual can ignore it.
You’re making teh Jesus sad, Troglodyte.
If you bathe every day, you’re a little woke.
Wiltard! Where you been?
Wiltard,
What are people going to do when days are 25 hours long? Will it be a Fall Back day every day?
CERN already made that suggestion, Troglodyte.
Don’t be too overwhelmed by all the shiny new things brought up to this world by folx who score higher than you on prosociality.
Since ASPD is highly comorbid with emotional and physical abuse in childhood, it’s better for you not to wish to return to the old days.
Wiltard,
The days I speak of are several million years in the future.
People aware of history of past and present authoritarian countries understand that Trump’s attack on elite Universities is a standard operating procedure in the authoritarian playbook.
It is the need of an authoritarian to control…everbody..especially independent centers of power and influence.
You are one delusional Marxist. The authoritarians come from the universities.
All arguments with Stephen end predictably, with him calling someone a Marxist.
If the shoe fits wear it. People whose parents or grandparents were Jews are puzzling. Jews were persecuted and murdered by the Marxists but many modern-day descendants of Jews are Marxists. Do you think supporting their ideology is somehow going to save you if they rise to power again? Staggers the imagination. You will be in their crosshairs again just like Israel is now.
Stepen p anderson
Something hopefully you think about! Desire for Power is not a left/right issue as you falsely believe. You think only leftists abuse power! You seem clueless about our System of Govenment and why it was created as such. The Founding Fathers saw that humans (men, woman, right, left, conservative or liberal) abuse Power when given too much! They intentionally created a Govenment of Checks and Balances to limit the power anyone can reach. Trump and Repulicans are on a power trip. They need restraint!!
Norman,
Harvard is an independent center of power and influence. You are correct. But Trump’s decision not to fund their ideology with tax is hardly an example of authoritarianism. If he sent tanks over there then that would be authoritarian.
Stephen p anderson
Tyranny in our system would not be such a drastic action as tanks. It is in the process to see how much he can get away with. Testing the system. He is openlt defying Court orders which act as a break on Presidential Power. Each test and he goes further. Congress is not checking his power.
“But Trump’s decision not to fund their ideology with tax is hardly an example of authoritarianism.”
First of all a President is not a King, who bestows wealth and honors on his supporters and takes it away from those who are not his supporters, as he is doing here .
Second the people, mostly students, doing government funded science research such as world-class biomedical science, are not doing it for Harvard.
They were awarded that funding through a competitive review process, to do science for the public good and for the training of world-class researchers who will likely end up working in the US.
It is not the President’s job to
declare by fiat, that these people are no longer qualified to do that work.
And of course it is really
about his desire to crush and intimidate political dissenters. Or some personal vendetta.
It reminds me of Henry 8, who dissolved all the monasteries and took their wealth because they opposed his divorce.
The thing that astonishes me is Harbard is blatantly anti-semitic but Nate still supports them. That’s how I know he isn’t a Jew. He likes to tell everybody he is a Jew but doesn’t walk the walk.
Harvard produces graduates that are hostile to the civilization that sustains it…..T. Sowell
Foreign students make up 31% of Harvard and their countries pay zero for them to go there. And, they hate Western civilization. Why should we pay for that?
Yes, Stephen we understand that you like that Trump is doing damage to your enemies.
So you don’t have a problem with him acting like a king to do that.
But we dont elect a President to treat half of Americans as the enemy.
The founders of the US got it. We don’t want a King. And thus they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
They were smart.
Stephen, the President of Harvard is Jewish. Plenty of the faculty are Jewish. Guess in your expert opinion, they not a real Jews.
The ‘anti-semitic’ thing is just an excuse to crush Harvard.
Many people believe they have the right to call themselves Jews because their parents or grandparents are Jews. And, they don’t support Jews and practice anti-semitism. And, they support Marxist ideology. And, the Marxists will deny their right to practice their religion and murder them for it. Ironic, isn’t it?
Stephen, calling ordinary Americans absurd names like Marxist is not a convincing argument. Nor is telling Jews what you think they should believe.
To suggest that any Jew who is not supportive of the current horrific Israel government policies in Gaza, is not a real Jew is very ignorant.
The Marxists will murder you even if your parents and grandparents were Jews and you haven’t stepped inside a Synagogue since you were a kid.
I suspect you mean Fascists, or neo-Nazis, who also hated and murdered Marxists.
But this is way off topic and just another of your rabbit holes.
What’s way off topic? Just trying to understand why this supposed Jewish President is allowing Jews to be beaten up by antisemitic activists on Harvard’s campus?
” beaten up ”
Wrong Stephen. Some students feel uncomfortable with students voicing their approval or disapproval of Israel’s policies. Both Jews and Muslims are experiencing this.
Nate says:
The ‘anti-semitic’ thing is just an excuse to crush Harvard.”
——————
Seems to me the federal government should not tolerate the destruction or defacing or denial of access to public accommodations to any segment of the public.
It was obvious to anybody with a conscience that what we saw on TV was anti-semitic.
“From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free”, “Globalize the Intifada”, “There is Only One Solution, Intifada Revolution”, “Resistance by Any Means Necessary” are all anti-semitic slogans that don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. Proponents of those ideas have the right to express them but there is no right of a visa to non-citizens so that they can do it here.
And here you are calling it an ”excuse”. If its an excuse precisely what do you think the government’s motivation actually is?
There appears to be a replication issue. After downloading NOAA’s USCRN data, I observed that TMAX is warming at a faster rate than TMIN.
TMAX:
https://imgur.com/a/raGH1L2
TMIN:
https://imgur.com/a/1D4hIZh
Source:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tmax/1/0/data.csv
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tmin/1/0/data.csv
red krokodile
Oh what a superficial post.
*
Look at the temperature time series TMIN/TMAX history for USCRN and ClimDiv (why do you US people by the way endlessly keep on your egomaniacal Fahrenheit stance?)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YaOnOodqlJg-ncQsPL4EYmaQNOEOIe2g/view
and – above all – at the trend history of the four series above
https://drive.google.com/file/d/199DyAX1tiVX1SBnskeFKMIuAhnF6buM1/view
and you will quickly see
– that the current trend for USRCN TMAX indeed is higher than its TMIN since a while
but also
– that the TMAX/TMIN trend difference for USCRN was the inverse just a few years ago.
You write about a USCRN TMAX/TMIN trend difference of +0.10 C / decade for Jan 2005 – Apr 2025 (0.48 min 0.38).
But had you computed all TMAX/TMIN trends from Jan 2005, you would have seen that the USCRN TMAX/TMIN trend difference for Jan 2005 till Nov 2019 was… -0.18 C / decade.
*
Of much higher interest for those who don’t go with the primitive polemics about low quality station data with regard to the pristine USCRN station set, however, is the impressive on par keeping of ClimDiv TMIN data – and trends – with those of USCRN TMIN.
Also ClimDiv’s and USCRN’s diurnal temperature ranges are similar
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yLBhE9V1ELkGgrWynbVIuzggDaOkVO0i/view
Why then this high difference between USCRN TMAX trends and their ClimDiv counterparts?
*
Just asking, as do many others.
I will come back to this at some point in the future.
Donald Trump gave the commencement address at the U. S. Military Academy (wearing his campaign hat).
He gave a meandering speech in which he attacked his predecessors, bragged about his election win, talked about trophy wives … and then he left, claiming he had to deal with Russia and China.
It’s traditional for the president at academy commencements to congratulate, shake hands, and salute each cadet. Trump skipped that part of the ceremony!
It was a disaster. He used all his usual applause lines, would wait for it, and it never came. He’s so used to just speaking to brain dead MAGAts, but the cadets are smarter.
https://www.westpoint.edu/about/history-of-west-point/graduation
Yeah, they loved him Ark.
Too bad your TDS clouds your vision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e429cIObxnQ
“… and then he left, claiming he had to deal with Russia and China.”
He can’t even deal with South Africa, lol:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/23/trump-ramaphosa-south-africa-meeting
I contacted a local academic who claims skeptics are spreading misinformation re climate change. I laid out my rebuttal using real physics and his reply was the ‘science’ offered by the IPCC…an appeal to authority.
In my rebuttal, I plan to reply tit-for-tat, offering the well laid out information by Ross McKitrick at the following link. I will also be challenging his definition of science, which is obviously skewed.
From Ross McKitrick…What is wrong with the IPCC?
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf
McKitrick reveals that the IPCC is hardly a bastion of science but a political organization controlled internally by political hacks called Coordinating and Lead Authors who blatantly cheat by re-writing all reviews to suit their propaganda.
What many people don’t know is that the IPCC was formed by right-wingers, not the Left. In fact, the IPCC was formed and based on the input of uber-right-winger Margaret Thatcher, then PM of the UK, to combat true Leftists, the coal mining unionists in the UK. She simply could not deal with them and concocted the current IPCC propaganda to counter them by shutting down coal mines.
Early supporters of the IPCC were Helmut Kohl of Germany, George Bush of the US, and Brian Mulroney of Canada, all right-wingers.
https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2022/07/20/margaret-thatcher-and-the-rise-of-the-climate-ruse/
The IPCC’s first co-chair was John Houghton, a climate modeler who was a protege of Thatcher. Houghton steered the IPCC using unvalidated climate model theory.
The worst thing in all of this for me was the fascist assault on the coal miners unions by Thatcher’s Gestapo. Since then, the UK has slowly sunk into a quasi-police state, sinking so low that a man was arrested for asking a cheeky question of a mounted policeman as to whether his horse was gay.
The man was eventually released but the point is that the UK, once a bastion of democracy and free speech, has slowly become politicized by the politically-correct, so much so, that climate alarmists can now lie openly without being contested. Similarly, skeptics are ostracized.
Such actions in the UK have fostered outcries from comedians like Rowan Atkinson and John Cleese re the UK government’s intervention into freedom of speech. Here in Canada, legislation has been forwarded that would introduce penalties of up to life in prison for hate crimes. Of course, the idea of ‘hate crime’ has been poorly defined and such a law in the wrong context could lead to pure facist thought control.
North Carolina voted for Trump; he thanks them by denying them hurricane aid.
They voted for this!
Everyone knows the system is failing, but no one can imagine any alternative to the status quo, and politicians and citizens alike resign themselves to maintaining the pretense of a functioning society. Over time, the mass delusion becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, with everyone accepting it as the new normal. It’s called HyperNormalisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation).
It is feared that more thunderstorm systems will continue to threaten western North Carolina this year.
This report was published almost 20 years ago! JOHN R. CHRISTY, University of Alabama, Huntsville was one of the committee members.
It’s very good work.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS. COMMITTEE ON SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS.
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. Division on Earth and Life Studies.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES. 2006.
Ark, did the “committee” vote on those 2000 year-old temperatures?
You need to understand there were no thermometers in those days. But keep finding things you don’t understand. It might be good therapy for your TDS.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.”
——————
Thats fits right in with Roy’s post here. The current world’s population is 16 times greater than 400 years ago.
Roy’s post explicitly pertains to surface station trends in the continental U.S. during summer months, not global temperatures, not full-year data. You cannot universalize these localized findings and say they are complimentary to the NRC (2006) report which is a synthesis of global paleoclimate reconstructions designed to evaluate long-term climate variability and anthropogenic warming. You’ve misread of both studies.
So your claim appears to be one that says the laws of thermodynamics and/or the effects of urbanization operates differently globally as opposed to nationally. Otherwise I don’t get what point you are trying to make.
UHI is real and it accounts for some of the warming we have felt. Cities can be more than 2c warmer than the surrounding countryside.
It has accounted for more in the surface station record due to non-representative sampling.
The main issue is how to actually tease out how much it is. Uncertainty abounds there. Roy’s is using known issues regarding increases in population causing thermometers. this has been known for over 50 years.
I seriously doubt that UHI occurring in step with population growth that is limited to the rural/urban boundary.
So, according to your claim since the fastest warming region on Earth is the Arctic, it must be the rising population density in Nunavut that is responsible for multi-decadal sea ice collapse, permafrost thaw, and ocean heat uptake.
Why is the warming greatest where the population is lowest?
Spoiler: it isn’t.
Among the populated continents, Africa has had the highest population growth over the last 4.5 decades, 200% while Europe has had the lowest, 7%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/997040/world-population-by-continent-1950-2020/
Among the populated continents, Europe has had the highest warming trend over the last 4.5 decades, 0.48C/decade while Africa has had the lowest, 0.28C/decade.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/europe/tavg/land/12/4/1980-2025?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1980&endtrendyear=2025
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/africa/tavg/land/12/4/1980-2025?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1980&endtrendyear=2025
Arkady Ivanovich says:
So, according to your claim since the fastest warming region on Earth is the Arctic, it must be the rising population density in Nunavut that is responsible for multi-decadal sea ice collapse, permafrost thaw, and ocean heat uptake.
Why is the warming greatest where the population is lowest?
Spoiler: it isn’t.
————————
Mean polar climate change isn’t any different, about .14c/decade, than the global mean change Arkady.
And we know from ice core records that these areas have up to 3.5C natural climate changes occurring on the basis of just a few thousand years.
So there is no way to attribute anything unique to what has happened there with ice free conditions in the Arctic having last occurred just few thousand years ago while little evidence remains of sea ice fluctuations in the Antarctic.
And for Nate that wants to talk about differences in other continents, I welcome that question.
First we can rule out a evenly distributed gas.
Second, he needs to refer to a temperature history based on representative sampling to provide any statistical meaning to his findings.
Third. most of Africa’s growth in population density is in the southern hemisphere which has a warming rate far less than the northern hemisphere suggesting an effect by an evenly distributed gas being much less than what has been globally observed. No explanation has been forthcoming on that score.
And finally Africa is the least developed continent in the world with the exception of Antarctica which essentially has no population which may affect the rural/urban boundary.
Perhaps what we can agree on is that there is climate change that has nothing to do with UHI and the questions are what is the UHI error, how much is attributed to natural changes, and how much is attributed to fossil fuel emissions. There is a lot of uncertainty about all those issues practically none of which has been adequately studied. It certainly doesn’t serve any science-based conclusion to note all these discrepancies as being the product of an evenly distributed gas, thus your questions are supportive of what I have been saying. If you see it another way please be specific about what you are referring to.
Denying Arctic amplification today is like denying gravity because you haven’t personally floated off your porch. That’s not skepticism or critical thinking, that’s curated ignorance.
The Arctic has warmed by over 3 °C since 1980, while the global mean has risen about 1.2 °C since 1880. That’s not a rounding error.
So, you agree that the decadal-scale anthropogenic signal far exceeds the millennial-scale ice core natural variability. Good for you.
Now you want to move the goal posts to Antarctica? While more stable thermally, being an isolated continent surrounded by ocean and circumpolar winds, it’s not immune to the anthropogenic forcing. West Antarctica is rapidly losing ice mass, and Antarctic Sea Ice hit record lows in 2023 and 2024.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”Denying Arctic amplification today is like denying gravity because you haven’t personally floated off your porch. That’s not skepticism or critical thinking, that’s curated ignorance.”
—————–
You need to read with comprehension before making such a ridiculous charge. You talked about Arctic amplification which is a regional effect and really not applicable to a discussion about an evenly distributed gas.
I was talking about ”polar” amplification where ice is globally looked at. UAH has the North polar region warming a .26C/decade and the south polar region warming at .02C/decade. The mean warming of the two regions is .14C/decade which is close to but slightly less than the mean global warming of UAH at .15C/decade.
x
x
x
x
x
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”The Arctic has warmed by over 3 °C since 1980, while the global mean has risen about 1.2 °C since 1880. That’s not a rounding error.”
——————–
thats not correct Arkady. .26c/decade for the arctic for 4 1/2 decades amounts to 1.17C not 3C.
You can’t use non-representative sampling to estimate mean warming.
But even 3C is less than the 3.5C warming peaks I noted that occur on millennial scales so you aren’t even in the game here at all.
x
x
x
x
x
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”Now you want to move the goal posts to Antarctica? While more stable thermally, being an isolated continent surrounded by ocean and circumpolar winds, it’s not immune to the anthropogenic forcing. West Antarctica is rapidly losing ice mass, and Antarctic Sea Ice hit record lows in 2023 and 2024.”
—————-
Your logic here is terrible. 3.5C variations on millennial scales of about 3.5 millenia occur at both poles. They may occur at different times as the tilt of the earth changes but that has nothing at all to do with the made up geographical causes you are arguing.
Yeah, I’m not playing your silly semantic games.
My original point stands: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705298
Arkady a denial that these millennial variations don’t occur at the south polar region is a denial of the ice core records that say they do. The only semantic games being played here is by you.
Milankovic argued that the changing tilt of the earth created ice conditions that favored or disfavored deepening ice sheets. There is a temperature feedback from that which is captured inside of the ice via oxygen isotopes.
Others have taken the liberty to breakdown the many natural variations such that tilt variation is considerably less dominant than orbital variations. Why the northern hemisphere is warming at 150% of the rate of the southern hemisphere could be a logical explanation for and be supportive of that idea.
Duly noted.
Arkady a denial that these millennial variations don’t occur at the south polar region is a denial of the ice core records that say they do.
Milankovic argued that the changing tilt of the earth created ice conditions that favored or disfavored deepening ice sheets. There is a temperature feedback from that which is captured inside of the ice via oxygen isotopes.
These samples of isotopes each represent about a 100 years of ice accumulation and the mean temperature over that period.
Duly noted
Fact Check: Harvard Derangement Syndrome.
Viral messages found on Facebook claimed Harvard was “launching” or was “set to launch” a number of “free (online) college courses” that cover “U.S. Government Basics” or “Basic U.S. Government,” “Understanding the Constitution” and “How To Recognize A Dictatorship Takeover.”
The link to the course catalog often shared alongside the messages did not feature any courses about “dictatorship.”
TDS is strong on this board
https://youtu.be/-Wc8ul-rY0I
I say let Trump be Trump!
As he rolls out of bed, waddles into the sh!tter and begins rage tweeting, there are groups of government, business, and media people in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Canada and Mexico whose sole job is to watch his social media feeds and figure out if tariffs are on again, off again, 50%, 10%, 150%, delayed, postponed, pending, possible, repealed, or randomly applied to some obscure product that has never been made in the United States.
He has created an entire new global industry. So, he actually created jobs, not her, but still!
One of the cult children was stalking me, so I threw him a simple physics problem. It works every time….
But this particular physics problem has important ramifications to the GHE nonsense. So, I thought I would throw it out for all Warmists:
(I predict not one of them can get the correct answer.)
A second sun is placed beside our existing sun so that it provides half the flux of our sun. IOW, our sun provides 960 W/m^2 (after albedo), and the second sun provides 480 W/m^2.
Now considering Earth as a sphere having a surface with 1.0 emissivity, with no oceans or atmosphere, what would be the sphere’s equilibrium temperature with both suns?
The person with NFI what happens when a 15μ photon approaches a 288K surface has the gall to pose a physics problem!
What a joke.
Yes PP, you couldn’t understand photons then and you can’t answer the simple physics problem now.
Thanks for proving me right — again.
268.2K
Thanks for the reply, Ent. I won’t say if it’s right or wrong yet. I want to see if the kids will even try. Ark, Norman, Nate, Bindi, barry, gordon, RLH, and the rest like to fake it, but always flop on their faces at quiz time.
Funny you should say that. I have quizzed you on several points and your only replies are ad homs and insults.
1)I asked you how entropy can be a measure of disorder when it was defined as a measure of heat by Clausius and is measured in joules/degree K. I did not know that disorder can e measured in joules and/or degrees K.
2)I asked you how heat can be redefined as an indicator only of ‘energy’ transfer from hot to cold when it is actually transferring heat. According to you, heat is a transfer of heat.
You like to live in a world of generic energy where the form of energy is never stated. Convenient. In your world, kinetic energy is used in lieu of heat without specifying what energy is in motion.
3)You insist that electric current flows positive to negative but you refuse to acknowledge what constitutes that current flow. Your old buddy, Ben Franklin, defined that current flow more than 100 years before the electron was discovered and there are ijits today still teaching that tommy-rot.
gordon, as usual, all of that is your immature fabrication. You can’t link to where I said any of that.
You have serious mental illness issues. Most of the other children even know you’re a fraud.
But, thanks for proving me right, you can’t solve the simple problem.
282.2K
Prove me wrong.
From photons and tether balls, the discussion has now shifted to Entropy. The fact is that Entropy is needed to satisfy the First Law and it has a physical explanation. The energy that appears to be lost in some irreversible processes is Entropy. The common mistake is to assign “randomness” when the real mechanism is somewhat the oppose. Entropy is understood as an increase in order and it is constantly increasing as the universe becomes more ordered. At least that is what it used to be when I was passing final exams in Thermodynamics.
Tim, entropy is associated with 2LoT, not 1LoT.
And it is said that entropy is constantly increasing as the universe becomes LESS ordered, e.g. the stars burn out.
I don’t understand the science here, but correctly answer the simple problem and prove me wrong:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705301
How much fun is this? Clint took the bait. He has demonstrated his knowledge of Entropy. Next he will explain the derivation of the equations that prove the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the theoretical basis for Statistical Mechanics.
Gordon? Do you wish to give it a try?
Tim, you got caught displaying your ignorance of science. Yet you continue clogging the blog.
I’m not sure you could even scam Norman with such nonsense.
“Entropy is understood as an increase in order and it is constantly increasing as the universe becomes more ordered.”
Backwards. You are not remembering it correctly Tim.
Order means heat concentrated and therefore available to do work. Low entropy.
Disorder means heat evenly dispersed, therefore not available to do work. High entropy.
Almost there, Nate. But, “heat” does not “concentrate”. Try it this way:
Order means energy concentrated and therefore available to do work. Low entropy.
Disorder means energy evenly dispersed, therefore not available to do work. High entropy.
‘Heat’ ie thermal energy.
It seems that the question of describing Entropy produces more wrong answers, or partial answers than correct answers. It definitely raises a lot more questions.
One interesting explanation is that Entropy is the sum of all possible energy states. It does not require them to be random or orderly, they just have to exist. It does suggest that complexity is important.
The more interesting question, since it affects both Entropy and Enthalpy is what is temperature? The zeroth law gives a clue, but does not really define it. It seems to have something to do with the wave-particle duality of the electron, but how does that work in different ways for different forms of energy? The more interesting question is how those electrons that share the same property of temperature produce vastly different thermodynamic and physical properties in different atoms and molecules?
The Kinetic Theory of Gases gives some more insight. The temperature and kinetic energy of gas molecules is essentially one in the same property.
Nobody has yet attempted to describe how the uncertainty principle and statistical mechanics are involved. And what about quantum mechanics? Is there a link, or some kind of relationship? Inquiring minds want to know.
It’s been almost 48 hours, and only Ent has attempted an answer. The cult children know so little science they don’t even know where to start. So, let’s make it easier for them, making it multiple choice. (I’ve included Ent’s answer as one of the choices.)
Which answer is correct?
a) 237K
b) 255K
c) 262K
d) 268.2K
e) 282K
Make a guess kids. Do you feel lucky?
We have a winner! PP got it right. It doesn’t matter if he got help. This was an “open-book” quiz.
The point is, the cult kids don’t even know the basics. Norman, Nate, gordon, RLH, Bindi, and the rest couldn’t even make a guess. At least Ent tried.
The easiest way to understand the problem is to start with the “960” sun. At equilibrium (steady-state), the sphere would then be emitting 240W/m^2. (960/4 = 240, since sphere area is 4 times its “disk”.) So using the S/B equation, the perfect surface emitting 240W/m^2 would have a temperature of 255K. Now add the “480” sun. The sphere would then be emitting 360 W/m^2, and have a temperature of 282K.
This is where it gets interesting.
A third sun, emitting 480, would result in the sphere having a temperature of 361K, and emitting 960W/m^2. Now add another sun also supplying 480W/m^2. Would the new sun also raise the sphere’s temperature?
NO! The sphere is emitting 960 W/m^2, but the incoming flux is only 480W/m^2. You can add as many “480” suns as you want but they can’t raise the temperature of a surface emitting 960W/m^2. That’s why fluxes do NOT simply add.
Responsible adults should be able to figure out the ramifications for the GHE nonsense.
“The sphere would then be emitting 360 W/m^2, and have a temperature of 282K.”
Yep
“This is where it gets interesting.
A third sun, emitting 480, would result in the sphere having a temperature of 361K, and emitting 960W/m^2”
Nope the math doesn’t work.
“Now add another sun also supplying 480W/m^2. Would the new sun also raise the sphere’s temperature?
NO! The sphere is emitting 960 W/m^2, but the incoming flux is only 480W/m^2. Y”
NO. The logic doesn’t work.
You were adding flux correctly, then arbitrarily decided it doesnt add anymore. Explain.
Nate caught another of my infamous typos. That’s actually a good thing, as it shows he’s actually trying to understand.
Here’s the correction:
This is where it gets interesting.
A third sun, providing 480W/m^2, would result in the sphere having a temperature of 303K, and emitting 480W/m^2. Now add another sun also providing 480W/m^2. Would the new sun also raise the sphere’s temperature?
NO! The sphere is emitting 480 W/m^2, but the incoming flux is also 480W/m^2. You can add as many “480” suns as you want but they can’t raise the temperature of a surface emitting 480W/m^2. That’s why fluxes do NOT simply add.
For added clarity:
“960 sun” and “480 sun” –> sphere at 282K
“960 sun” and two “480 suns” –> sphere at 303K
“960 sun” and three “480 suns” –> sphere at 303K
Responsible adults should be able to figure out the ramifications for the GHE nonsense.
Nate,
Why is the base of Mauna Loa warmer than the summit? Can I have a GHE explanation?
NO.
You were adding flux correctly up to 480 W/m2, then arbitrarily decided that is some sort of limit, and stopped adding.
Explain the physics.
It’s NOT arbitrary, Nate. It’s physics.
The sphere emitting 480 W/m^2 is based on its temperature. An arriving flux of 480 W/m^2 would correspond to the same temperature. So, you’re trying to add two glasses of water, both at 70F, and believing the new temperature will be above 70F. That ain’t how it works.
Believing fluxes always simply add means you believe ice cubes can boil water.
But, don’t feel too bad. Hawvawd teaches that kind of crap, as does almost every university. NASA puts out a fraudulent “Earth Energy Imbalance”, and claims Moon is spinning. That’s just the start of the corruption and perversion.
Trump is trying to clean up the mess but he’s got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
“The sphere emitting 480 W/m^2 is based on its temperature. An arriving flux of 480 W/m^2 would correspond to the same temperature. So, you’re trying to add two glasses of water, both at 70F, and believing the new temperature will be above 70F. That ain’t how it works.”
I see no laws of physics, or equations that you used here. All I see is hand-waving that doesn’t add up.
a. initially we have 960 W input and 240 W/m2 output due to the 4x larger area of the Earth.
“A third sun, providing 480W/m^2, would result in the sphere having a temperature of 303K, and emitting 480W/m^2.”
b. So at that point we have a total input flux of 960 + 480 + 480 = 1920 W/m2 and 360 W/m2 output due to the 4x larger area of the Earth.
Now you add another 480.
c. We now have 2400 W/m2 with 480 W/m2 output due to the 4x larger area of the Earth.
Compare c to a. The only difference is a larger sized sun in c.
There is no problem here.
The temperature of the source of that flux is that of the sun, which is 5800 K. That would be a relevant limiting temperature, which would only be reached when the entire sky surrounding the Earth was filled with suns.
Nate, your 2400 comes from simply adding 960 + 480 + 480 +480.
But radiative fluxes do NOT simply add. Fluxes are photons and photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength compatibility. And a surface temperature affects the compatibility. If a surface is emitting 480 W/m^2, then to raise that surface temperature a flux EXCEEDING 480 W/m^2 is required. Lesser fluxes won’t work.
Ice cubes emit about 300 W/m^2. But ice cubes cannot boil water, even if you had 20 ice cubes. (Cult beliefs would claim that 20 ice cubes is the same as 6000 W/m^2, which is about the emission of Sun!)
Correction:
c. We now have 2400 W/m2 with 600 W/m2 output due to the 4x larger area of the Earth.
Logic remains the same.
Nate
You present valid and scientific information. Sad it is wasted on Clint R. You can attempt to reason with him but it will go nowhere.
Let me try to understand your reasoning:
“So using the S/B equation, the perfect surface emitting 240W/m^2 would have a temperature of 255K. Now add the “480” sun. The sphere would then be emitting 360 W/m^2, and have a temperature of 282K.”
So here it was ok to add 960 + 480 W/m2 to get 1440 W/m2 and have the Earth get warmer.
But if instead we added two smaller 240 W/m2 suns, the total would still be 1440 W/m2, but the Earth would not get warmer? Or would it?
Explain that.
I already explained it, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705469
Get a responsible adult to help you understand.
It is interesting that you couldn’t answer the simple problem, but now you will be here for days throwing crap against the wall, just like an immature cult brat.
Poor Norman couldn’t solve the simple problem. And he can’t find anything wrong with the solution.
So he resorts to his usual childishness….
As expected your logic fizzles..and you have no answer.
Hint: the two 240 W/m2 suns could be touching, making them one 480 W/m2 sun.
Then, miraculously the Eartb would begin to warm again by your absurd made-up rules.
Oh well.
Meanwhile you don’t address the actual limiting temperature:
5800 K, of the sun, which actually does affect the wavelength spectrum.
Perfect! Child Nate throws more crap at the wall. And this time, he’s essentially claiming 20 ice cubes can emit more than Sun, if they’re touching!
You can’t help stuuupid.
And Norman has fully supported Nate. So two cult kids are nuked with one comment!
It is your claim that joined together suns can warm, but separated suns cannot.
And we notice that it is indefensible. So you don’t even try.
Wrong again, child Nate. I never made any such claim.
What scam will you try next?
It’s abundantly clear that you have no answers as usual.
Qe’ll just leave it at Clint had a brain another typo.
Child Nate, your incoherent replies just prove your incompetence.
Please continue.
(Maybe Norman will help you with more incompetence. He’s good at it.)
ark…re your recent article praising the IPCC…
You tried to connect John Christy to the vile propaganda of the IPCC, claiming their work was very good.
If it was very good work then why do the IPCC not call John anymore for reviews? Could it be that they don’t want skeptics to input or review papers?
Any why did two Coordinating Lead Authors gang up to block a paper co-authored by John? Why did one of them go after a Journal editor for publishing a paper co-authored by John, causing the editor to resign?
TACO days.
TACO Thursday.
Called it!
TACO doesn’t make sense because many countries have come to the table and arranged new trade agreements with the US. But you can continue your role as a leftist myrmidon.
You can continue your role as a useful eejit.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”TACO Thursday.
”No trade deals are likely with any country as long as an authoritative court has held not only that the basic policy is unlawful”
————————
That was a bit more than just premature since the trade courts ruling was stayed by an appeals court within about 24 hours.
TACO isn’t what is going on. Trump wants trade that doesn’t exploit workers that result in the loss of US jobs.
Fact is the largest reason products may be cheaper after incurring huge shipping costs from Asia and Africa is via the exploitation of labor that billionaire wall street investors are making their money on.
Thats why Trump has lost a lot of traditional Republican billionaire support while gaining millions more worker votes. So now the democratic party is ”out of the closet” in how they have been working trade deals that require enforcement of ”intellectual” property rights (legal monopolies) and nothing more than lip service for worker human rights.
This doesn’t bode well for the future of the democrat party.
This is for Nate and the others who think Fox News is made up out of thin air. FBI Director Kash Patel was interviewed by Bret Baier. Nancy Pelosi was in charge of security that day, so the next question is what did she know, and when did she know it?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fbis-kash-patel-vows-definitive-answer-top-jan-6-question-coming
“People have had questions about January 6th and whether or not there were FBI sources – not agents, sources – on the ground during January 6. And I told you I would get you the definitive answer to that. And we have, and we are in the process again of working with our partners to divulge that information, and it is coming,” Patel said during a “Special Report” exclusive interview Wednesday.
Patel added the answer may “surprise and shock people because of what past FBI leaders have said about it.”
So nothing to report? Why post?
Still waiting for your reaction to all the self enrichment of Trump and family directly off the Presidency?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705024
tim…”The fact is that Entropy is needed to satisfy the First Law and it has a physical explanation. The energy that appears to be lost in some irreversible processes is Entropy. The common mistake is to assign “randomness” when the real mechanism is somewhat the oppose. Entropy is understood as an increase in order and it is constantly increasing as the universe becomes more ordered. At least that is what it used to be when I was passing final exams in Thermodynamics”.
***
Tim…to understand entropy you need to read Clausius on the subject since he defined it. When he defined it in his treatise on the equivalence of heat and work, he first went into great detail developing the 2nd law. He did that using state diagrams for pressure, temperature and volume by holding one steady and letting the other two vary. That lead him through a process that produces a graph like a rectangle with curved sides, the curves being produced by holding P, T, or V constant and allowing the other two to vary wrt each other.
Doing that, he proved that with a heat engine, that the graphs describe, it cannot be run in the opposite direction. That lead to his statement, in words, that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a cold region to a hot region. It is worthwhile looking up his treatise and following it carefully.
Having established the 2nd law he followed it up with a mathematical presentation he called entropy. He defined entropy in words, as the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers at a temperature T. To keep T constant, he drew heat from a constant temperature heat bath.
He arrived at the conclusion that entropy = 0 for a reversible process and is always positive for an irreversible process. In essence, he is restating the 2nd law in mathematical terms where…
S = entropy = integral T.dq
Since T is defined as a constant, you can pull it outside the integral sign as
S = T(integral dq) where dq is the infinitesimal quantity of heat.
That seems to confuse many scientists but if you look at it via the Gibbs free energy equation it makes sense…
delta G = delta H – T.delta S
Be careful not to confuse S with delta S.
where G = free energy, H = enthalpy = total heat, and S = entropy.
Of course, T.delta S comes from the Clausius entropy equation which is S = T.integral dq.
However, S = the sum of infinitesimal heat quantities, call it Qs. and enthalpy is total heat, call it Qh, therefore G is a sum of heat quantities, namely…
Qg = Qh – Qs
That makes it clear that entropy is the heat lost in a system. I imagine it’s called free energy since heat and work have an equivalence (not equality) and as the physicists Joule proved circa 1840. Therefore the heat = Q quantities can be stated in terms of work.
The idea of entropy and randomness or disorder being related came from a misunderstanding of what Clausius said about it. After defining entropy he stated that irreversible processes lead to disorder and generalized that to entropy in the entire universe increasing due to such processes. However, irreversible processes in general, lead to a release of heat and I am sure that is what he was inferring.
At no time did Clausius claim that entropy is a measure of disorder and that is proved by the units of entropy, Joules/degrees K. The joule is a measure of work and an equivalence of heat but it is not a measure of disorder. Joule proved that an amount of work, in joules, created a rise of heat in water, where heat is measured in its natural units of the calorie. Joule’s equation equates joules to calories as 1 calories equals 4.184 joules.
Therefore for every 4.184 joules of mechanical energy expended to turn a wheel in water, 1 calorie of heat (thermal energy) is produced. There is no equality, just an equivalence. The work required to drive the wheel is not directly related to the heat produced. It is the heat released from water molecule bonds produced by the agitation that heats in the water.
It was Boltzmann and his obfuscated claims based on statistical theory, whereupon he replaced real atoms with statistical quantities, and arrived at equally obfuscated conclusions, which lead to the idea that entropy is a measure of disorder. Of course, Clint, being not to bright, has a tendency to read small parts of one author and leap to incorrect conclusions.
Clint is a well-meaning guy mind you, but he’s built too close to the ground and everything goes right over his head. He’s the type who sits up front in a class, in short pants and a beanie on his head with a propeller attached. He brings apples for the teacher and likes to kiss up to get attention.
Above he threw his usual insults at me because he could not answer simple questions I had posed to him.
gordon, your false accusations only verify your desperation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705364
Once again, Clint avoids science and refers us back to another of his ad hom/insult-laden posts.
Sooner or later, readers will think, ‘my goodness, this guy really does not understand science, when he cannot reply objectively to simple scientific principles’.
Earlier, Clint tried to explain to Nate that…
““heat” does not “concentrate”. Try it this way:
Order means energy concentrated and therefore available to do work. Low entropy.
Disorder means energy evenly dispersed, therefore not available to do work. High entropy”.
***
I wonder if Clint understands why modern soldering irons have a rather sharp tip? Besides enabling them to reach smaller areas it also allows heat to concentrate in a smaller area, delivering the required heat to make solder flow in smaller areas.
Order has nothing to do with energy being concentrated, order is about atoms forming into bonds due to the relationship between atoms of certain elements forming together via electron bonds. When heat is applied, the electrons gain energy and if enough is applied, the electron bonds break and the compound breaks apart in a disordered array.
When the bonds break, heat is released, and it is that release of heat that Clausius defined as entropy.
Clint insists on substituting generic energy for thermal energy, which is heat. That only serves to obfuscate the real process in which the released energy is in the form of heat. Entropy, as defined by Clausius, is a measure of the amount of heat released and has nothing to do with the disorder produced in the atoms after the bonds break.
Once again, Clausius DEFINED entropy as the sum (integral) of infinitesimal amounts of heat transferred in a process at constant temperature, T. It is measured in joules/degree K, making it apparently obvious that entropy is a measure of heat transfer.
S = T. (integral dq)
Since T is defined as a constant the entropy equation tells us that entropy, S, is directly proportional to heat and the integral sign tell us the heat is a sum of infinitesimal quantities. Disorder is not mentioned anywhere.
Lower entropy only means that less heat is being transferred.
Delta entropy, the change in entropy, tells us that heat is being transferred at a variable rate. If entropy changes, it means the quantity of heat being transferred is changing.
By using the name entropy from a Greek word meaning ‘transformation’, Clausius stated that he intended the word to represent a form of energy related to a transformation, which he defined as 1)the transformation of heat into work, and 2) the transfer of heat from a hotter body to a cooler body, which he claimed is a transformation of heat from a higher temperature state to a lower temperature state.
So, there you have it from the man who invented entropy, the 2nd law, and the internal energy definition of the 1st law. Later, mathematicians and theorists like Boltzmann created a philosophical definition of entropy which completely missed the mark. We did not need a redefinition following the stellar work of Clausius, yet there are people today who are ignorant of the history and spread nonsense that entropy is a measure of disorder.
Clogging the blog doesn’t seem to be working for you, gordon.
Maybe if you just keep clogging the blog….
Gordon,
Clausius invented entropy?
That’s a good one.
BACK AT THE RANCH
A new Alabama study of hurricane-affected homes sends a clear message to insurers and homeowners nationwide: climate-resilient construction methods can protect homes, and save a lot of money.
https://apnews.com/article/alabama-hurricanes-climate-resilience-fortified-dcf7df9bf9c447ef98eb007ba3b17223#
It’s called adaptation, so not unexpected.
The other view is buildings have become more expensive – the number of properties have increased in line with the growing population. So why anyone would be surprised that the insurance companies need to pay out more.
There’s something about “across the United States, insurance markets are buckling under the pressure of more frequent and expensive climate events, and federal support is shrinking for resilience projects that could reduce that damage” that seems to escape you, Anon.
Willard, to he IPCC states that the hurricanes aren’t increasing, the wildfires are due to poor management, rural development and arson .
And the occasional floods have always happened, thankfully, rarely.
So what climate crisis events are occurring?
We both know that it isn’t exactly what the IPCC is saying, Anon.
Why play these charades?
If you disbelieve the trend that the insurance industry is witnessing, you should think about raising funds for your own reinsurance gig. Undercutting a whole market would allow you to make a killing. When are you opening shop in Florida? Buyers are waiting in line for the private sector to step in.
Warming temperatures lead to permafrost degradation and glacial instability.
Yeah Ark, as glaciers expand they become more dangerous.
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/29/g-s1-69527/switzerland-village-blatten-birch-glacier-landslide-alps
Exactly Ark, as glaciers expand they become more dangerous.
TACO Friday.
On May 28, 2025, The Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a unanimous decision ruling that both International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and reciprocal tariffs are unlawful and exceed presidential authority.
The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and late on May 28, the CAFC lifted the initial block imposed by the CIT.
The plaintiffs requested refunds, but the court did not grant them in this ruling, an issue the plaintiffs will likely follow up on.
Yes Ark, another victory for Trump.
Let them try. This case is going nowhere and the Trade Court got out of its lane and the Appeals Court agreed. Years of precedent underpin Trump’s authority in these matters.
“Let them try.”
That’s you admitting that Trump lied, and American companies and/or consumers pay the tariffs, not the countries.
How gullible!
How gullible am I? You have a GCE. That is a Gross Conceptual Error.
Test
I have previously stated that I would admit when I am wrong. In a comment above, I stated that Entropy is not randomness as some think. I fully stand by that statement, but I substituted the term “order” which apparently has a different meaning than I intended. Going from memory, I then came up with this:
[One interesting explanation is that Entropy is the sum of all possible energy states. It does not require them to be random or orderly, they just have to exist. It does suggest that complexity is important.]
I was close, but no cigar. It is a bit more complex than that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann%27s_entropy_formula
With some editing to shorten the statement, we have this:
[Boltzmann’s entropy formula (also known as the Boltzmann–Planck equation, not to be confused with the more general Boltzmann equation, which is a partial differential equation) is a probability equation relating the entropy S, of an ideal gas to the multiplicity or W, the number of real microstates corresponding to the gas’s macrostate:
S = kB ln W
In short, the Boltzmann formula shows the relationship between entropy and the number of ways the atoms or molecules of a certain kind of thermodynamic system can be arranged.]
tim…I appreciate your sentiments re right and wrong but I don’t regard our discussions as a contest to prove right or wrong. Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant, my mission is to understand science as best as I can, and if that means being wrong, so be it.
I am not challenging you re entropy, I am merely reporting the work of Clausius in which he defined entropy and the 2nd law. I think it is sheer chicanery for anyone like Boltzmann to redefine what was originally elegantly defined in simple words by Clausius, and redefine it in such a manner as to be incorrect.
re Boltzmann, he was an unstable clown who hanged himself while his wife and children were out swimming. Considering the obfuscated work he presented I am not about to take his word for anything, especially considering the state of atomic theory at the time.
How can anyone talk about energy states when the means of measuring them and validating a theory were not only not available, the theory itself was not at all understood. The electron was not discovered till 1898 and it took another 15 years before Bohr discovered the relationship between electron energy states and the atom.
Clausius, on the other hand, was a true pioneer, not only discovering and stating laws related to thermodynamics, he essentially started the science. Why are we so focused on a clown like Boltzmann when we have reams of excellent work produced by Clausius that still makes far more sense than anything Boltzmann ever produced.
IMHO, Boltzmann has done more damage to science than he has helped. The S-B law is a modification of the original Stefan law which lacked Boltzmann’s constant. Stefan based that law on an actual experiment by Tyndall, in which he gradually increased the current through a platinum filament wire while observing the different colours given off at each current level.
Another scientist converted the colours reported to colour temperatures. Stefan used the relationship of colours given off to the temperatures thus confirming his T^4 relationship between surface temperature and EM radiation given off.
Please note…the Stefan confirmation applied only to a temperature range between about 500C and 1500C. There is no proof that S-B applies outside that range and if applied to ice it gives a ridiculous number of watts radiated.
At the time, no one understood the relationship between EM and electrons, and even the work of Clausius is lacking in that regard. He subscribed to the prevalent theory of the day that heat could be transferred via radiation by ‘heat rays’ which were never defined. That theory is not the same as the current theory where heat is converted directly to EM, they actually thought heat…somehow…was transferred through an unexplained aether in an unexplained form.
We have known since Bohr, that heat cannot pass through a space via radiation. It must first be converted to EM, and we still don’t know how EM is transported through a vacuum.
Alvin is not just a Chipmunk.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Let’s go TACO.
Inside Trump and Musk’s Complicated Relationship. WSJ. May 30, 2025.
For those who don’t keep their ‘eyes wide shut‘ [in memoriam Stanley Kubrick], here is a nice summary about entropy:
https://dlab.epfl.ch/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/e/Entropy.htm
Bindi, did you find another link you can’t understand?
The reason you couldn’t answer the simple problem is because you have NO knowledge of the science:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/#comment-1705301
But keep clogging the blog, we enjoy nuking you clowns.
Binny…you should be supporting Clausius, a good, brilliant German, rather than introducing bs from an Austrian clown, Boltzmann.
I find this sort of definition of entropy to reek with arrogance and misinformation. Rather than re-defining the brilliant work of Clausius in defining the 2nd law and entropy they should find their own word for their misinformation.
In the article, they actually, and mistakenly, claim that the 2nd law was developed from entropy, which is sheer nonsense. Clausius defined the 2nd law first, using heat engine theory, and stated it in words, then developed the theory of entropy to give it a mathematical explanation.
Clausius intended the word entropy to mean energy, but that word was taken and he was talking about heat transfer, and wanted to convey the thermal energy loss or gain intended. It is not only ingenuous, but chicanery, to redefine entropy as energy states and a measure of disorder.
Let’s face it, Boltzmann was an emotionally unstable clown who took his own life when he was perceived as a failure over trying to prove the 2nd law using statistical methods. He was such a sicko that he hanged himself while his wife and child were out swimming.
Besides the theory he was working on with Maxwell re the kinetic theory of gases was started by Clausius. He abandoned the theory because it was sapping his time away from thermodynamics. However, Clausius laid much of the groundwork for the theory before Boltzmann or Maxwell thought of them.
The theories of Maxwell and Boltzmann that led to the modern nonsensical definition of entropy, are desperate theories, like quantum theory, accepted because we lack the instruments to observe and measure atoms at the atomic level. There is absolutely no reason to accept those fantasies over the brilliant work of Clausius, who examined heat in real time and formulated real scientific theories that address the reality directly.
Quantum theory and the statistical definition of entropy should be labelled correctly as philosophical theories based on thought experiments, but not science. Neither of them have direct applications in science. Same with Einstein’s relativity theory and alarmist climate science, all sci-fi type fantasies.
In electronics, basic quantum theory serves only to convey a model of atoms that has never been validated. Same in chemistry, the models serve as theory only with no direct applications. In electrons and chemistry the theories must be confirmed to e in the ballpark ut never proved. Nothing in quantum theory can e proved directly and the space-time inferred by Einstein is nothing more than a thought experiment, as revealed by Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock.
Why do we need this nonsense about entropy or the 2nd law being defined in an obfuscated manner when Clausius stated them both elegantly in real terms?
1)2nd law…heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder mass to a warmer mass.
This elegant law applies to all forms of energy.
2)entropy…is the sum of infinitesimal amount of heat transferred during a process at a constant temperature.
We don’t need entropy to define the 2nd law, only people who don’t understand the elegant definition in words by Clausius need the obfuscated version.
Then they complain that the meaning of entropy is not clear.
Duh!!!
The advantage of entropy over the words is that the math offers a means of measuring the amount of heat transferred by various irreversible reactions, in joules/degree K. Thus, tables can be compiled for known reactions. Since heat can be represented in equivalent amounts of work, then entropy can be used to express the amount of work done by various reactions.
A typical table of entropy values…
https://www2.chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genchem/netorial/modules/thermodynamics/table.htm
Note…disorder is not even listed.
I fail to see why this subject has become so obfuscated.
The two replies were 100% predictable: both posters are equally ignorant (see their 100% denial of lots of science – from the lunar spin over relativity to evolution), despite the amazing fact that each of the two claims the other one to be more.
Yes Bindi, that describes you and gordon pretty well. Both of you deny science, as evidenced by you both running from the simple physics problem. You both hate reality, and neither of you can learn.
And, you both suffer from TDS. You could be brothers….
Don’t try to kid the blog, Clint R.
I have nothing in common with neither Robertson let alone you.
You are the one who shares nearly everything with Robertson: the denial of GHE, AGW, the lunar spin, relativity, evolution etc etc.
Wrong again, Bindi. The difference between gordon and me is I rely on science. He makes up his own personal “science”. He tries to pervert Clausius and Boltzmann like you try to pervert Newton. He can’t understand simple things like “heat”, and you can’t understand simple things like a ball-on-a-string.’
tim…”S = kB ln W
In short, the Boltzmann formula shows the relationship between entropy and the number of ways the atoms or molecules of a certain kind of thermodynamic system can be arranged.]”
***
Compare that to the Clausius formula for entropy…and which corresponds directly with to his definition in words…
S = T. (integral dq)
measured in joules/degree K
and you can see what a deluded twit Boltzmann was. Boltzmann’s formula has no practical application and fails to represent the original entropy definition by Clausius as a measure of heat transfer.
Look up any table of entropy and you will see entropy measured in J/K.
gordon says: “I fail to see why this subject has become so obfuscated.”
It’s because people like you, with no knowledge of thermodynamics, keep clogging the blog with rambling nonsense. Your equation for entropy is wrong, you STILL don’t understand “heat”, and your info about Boltzmann’s death means you got it from wikipedia. No thermo book would mention it.
One thing that I think would benefit all climate research is an effort to isolate the impact of CO2 on the climate change. If the Greenhouse Gas Effect is the main contributor of warming due to CO2, every single article should reach a conclusion what can explain how 15 micron longwave infrared radiation can cause the warming. No one denies the greenhouse gas effect, but all wavelengths aren’t created equal, and CO2 has a narrow band of LWIR that is thermalizes. If you control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor it is very easy to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. When you do that, you find that CO2 doesn’t cause warming. This video provides the evidence.
https://app.screencast.com/YhtT15qlGLIsC
Also, one additional observation is that the oceans are warming. 15 micron LWIR won’t penetrate or warm the oceans…but warming visable radiation will. If the oceans are warming it is due to incoming radiation, not outgoing LWIR backradiation.
https://app.screencast.com/hQSOZQaptm6XY
“No one denies the greenhouse gas effect…”
What is your definition/description of the GHE?
A model has to be developed that physically explains why the temperature at the base of Mauna Loa (sea level) is higher than at the summit. Everyone will know it when they see it and it won’t be complicated.
There is already a model, it’s called the adiabatic lapse rate.
PHysically describe how the adiabatic lapse rate works.
The concept of the adiabatic lapse rate dates back almost 200 years. You’ve never heard of it?
Tennessee ranks 31st for education, 39th for higher education. That’s why Trump loves y’all.
How do you derive the adiabatic lapse rate from GHG theory? I already know the answer. You can have another chance.
According to GHG Theory, without Green House gases the atmosphere is isothermal. So explain how Green House gases cause the adiabatic lapse rate. Simple question.
You sound confused.
The adiabatic lapse rate is physically independent of the GHE. It results from pressure and gravity, not from GHGs.
However, the presence of GHGs creates the conditions that trigger convection, allowing the adiabatic lapse rate to manifest in the troposphere.
You can research this yourself, you know?
The adiabatic lapse rate results from pressure and gravity. Yes, that makes sense. But GHG’s triggering convection which allows the adiabatic lapse rate to manifest doesn’t make sense. Change in atmospheric pressure, not GHG’s cause it to manifest. Also, the idea that without GHG”s, the atmosphere would be isothermal, according to your ilk, when adiabatic lapse rate depends on atmospheric pressure.
Could it be that adiabatic compression causes the lapse rate and GHG’s have zero effect? Especially since lapse rate is derived from the Ideal Gas Law?
So, if you answered my question on why the summit of Mauna Loa is cooler than the base is because the atmospheric pressure is cooler at the summit, then that would make sense. To answer the question because of the lapse rate that would be the same as saying it is cooler at the summit because it is cooler. And, it has nothing to do with GHE.
Sorry, meant to say atmospheric pressure is lower at the summit. Anyways, you say I’m confused but you say GHG has no effect on the lapse rate but then say we wouldn’t have a lapse rate without GHG. Another question, since water is a GHG, why is the moist lapse rate lower than the dry lapse rate? I’m confused? I think you’re confused and your theory is confused.
“you say GHG has no effect on the lapse rate”
By which I mean that we can derive the theoretical [dry] adiabatic lapse rate without invoking the GHGs.
“but then say we wouldn’t have a lapse rate without GHG.”
Meaning, the reason we can measure a lapse rate is because the atmosphere is warmed from below and cooled from above. This is due to the presence of GHGs.
“why is the moist lapse rate lower than the dry lapse rate?”
The reason that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate is that moist air carries latent heat aloft.
I am a little surprised you allow convection and conduction into your model. In your model what percentage of atmospheric warming is due to conduction and convection and what percentage is due to radiative forcing?
That explanation about lapse rate doesn’t make any sense scientifically. The lapse rate is derived from changes in pressure due to gravity.
The moist lapse rate should be higher because as Greenhouse gases increase there should be more radiative forcing. The lapse rate starts decreasing even with a slight amount of moisture in the air. Again, your explanation doesn’t make any sense.
Also, there is no cooling at the summit of Mauna Loa due to Green House gases relative to the base of Mauna Loa. But, the atmosphere is much thinner on the summit than the base. You need to go back to physics class. What is it you were saying about Tennessee education?
You keep calling it “your model.” It’s not my model. You can find references to it in Tyndall’s Heat considered as a Mode of Motion (1863), to name just one of the early sources.
I didn’t expect you to understand any of this so you’ve met expectations. That’s a win for you, no?
The same people who call others ‘Nazi’ are also the ones who are incapable of seeking what they themselves demand.
The reason for both of these behaviors is quite simple: It’s a mixture of laziness and cowardice.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Robin McDowell and Margie Mason of the Associated Press win the February Sidney Award for “Prisoners in the US are part of a hidden workforce linked to hundreds of popular food brands,” a sweeping two-year investigation that exposes the pivotal role of prison labor in the U.S. food system.
https://www.hillmanfoundation.org/sidney-awards/associated-press-wins-february-sidney-exposing-prison-labor-tied-hundreds-popular-food
Under the photo, we can read:
“In this Aug. 18, 2011 photo, a prison guard rides a horse alongside prisoners as they return from farm work detail at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, La.”
Oh what a suprise!
https://www.hillmanfoundation.org/sites/default/files/image002.png
Only the guard is white on the photo :-))
*
” We learned that in more recent years, laws have been passed making it easier to ship goods made by incarcerated workers across state lines, turning prison labor into a multibillion-dollar empire.
Though agriculture represents a tiny fraction of the overall workforce, it was a clear throughline from the days of cotton, sugar and tobacco–a story that could help explain the origins of prison labor and how farming still continues today. ”
Yeah. Back to the future.
ark…to Stephen…”You sound confused.
The adiabatic lapse rate is physically independent of the GHE. It results from pressure and gravity, not from GHGs”.
^^^
I think Stephen is dead on with his question re why its cooler at the top of Mauna Loa than at the bottom. He might also wonder why CO2 is measured on an active volcano, since any CO2 emitted sinks in air and should increase the CO2 concentration.
An adiabatic process is defined as one in which heat cannot enter or leave the system. I find it ingenuous to apply such a definition to a column of air in the atmosphere since heat can freely enter and leave the column via convection.
Apparently the adiabatic label is used in the atmosphere because it is presumed heat cannot enter or leave the system fast enough to constitute a heat entry or loss. I’m not buying that for the simple reason that a column of air of unspecified dimensions is inferred. Ergo, I see no reason to imply an adiabatic process.
Seems to me a dodge to avert calling a spade a spade. Gravity is the cause of the negative pressure/temperature gradient, otherwise, in the Arctic during winter there would e little or no lapse rate since little or no warmed, rising air would be available to cause such a lapse rate.
A bicycle pump with a metal case is an approximation of an adiabatic process. It also represent a column of air typical of the atmospheric column model. The metal in the pump, although a conductor of heat, is theorized not to transfer heat fast enough to kill the adiabatic effect. One could further insulate the metal to reduce heat transfer to a minimum.
A column of air in the atmosphere has no such properties. Heat is free to enter and exit the column via lateral convection.
In a real metal-cased bicycle pump, as the plunger is pushed down, the volume decreases and the pressure increases. The temperature should then increase with pressure but theoretically not be transferred out of the cylinder. In practice, heat is transferred out of the compressed air and can usually be felt at the rubber hose connection to the cylinder.
Anyway, I am still confused as to why the GHE is related to a real greenhouse, since it has nothing to do with one.
Thanks, Gordo. There should be a simple physical (mathematical) explanation for why the summit of Mauna Loa is cooler than the base. With the GHE cult, the answer is because we say so and you’re stupid if you don’t understand. That’s not science. They’re fraudsters.
FYI luckily we have a PhD meteorogist to explain this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
“One of the features of a greenhouse atmosphere, which many people don’t realize, is that in addition to the lower atmosphere being warmer, the upper atmosphere is colder than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse gases. For example, addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is supposed to warm the surface, but cool the stratosphere and mesosphere. Greenhouse gases destabilize the atmosphere to the point that convection occurs, which then pushes the lapse rate toward a convective one (between dry adiabatic and moist adiabatic). This was first demonstrated with radiative transfer calculations by Manabe and Strickler (1964).”
And, that is the same thing Ark said, and is bunk and isn’t physics. There is no radiative function in the lapse rate.
Also, greenhouse gases don’t destabilize the atmosphere. Siliest thing I’ve ever heard. And, that still wouldn’t explain the difference in temperature between the summit and base of Mauna Loa which have no difference in greenhouse gases.
So Roy Spencer doesn’t actually understand meteorology, sez you, expert on what… Crankology?
Got it.
Yes, I disagree. You are a typical propagandist aren’t you? You use Dr. Spencer’s view when it suits you. I disagree with Dr. Spencer on this and his view on Greenhouse theory. You disagreed with him on his UHI paper. Greenhouse theory doesn’t explain the lapse rate. Pressure drop does explain the lapse rate. There is still outgoing radiation so there is energy loss to space so not sure what Dr. Spencer means by that. But, the heat flux attenuation isn’t due to greenhouse gases but to pressure drop. When I started realizing that 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for 60F temperature rise with GHE, then I realized GHT can’t account for that. Gravity and hydrostatic pressure can. Not crankology, physics. You keep asking what’s causing the warming then? Changing albedo causing surface temperature warming, causing higher CO2 emission from the surface. That’s my guess. it makes sense. There are so many holes in GHT you need to look for something else unless you’re a propagandist with an agenda.
stephen p anderson.
“When I started realizing that 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for 60F temperature rise with GHE, then I realized GHT can’t account for that. Gravity and hydrostatic pressure can.”
So, Earth’s surface has warmed by approximately 1.2 °C since pre-industrial times, and if this warming is attributed to pressure or gravity rather than greenhouse gases, does that imply that the gravitational force or atmospheric pressure has increased over that period?
Inquiring minds want to know!
You can believe that meteorologists are getting standard meteorology wrong, Stephen. But why should we believe you?
Why are you credible while Roy Spencer is not?
Particularly when you don’t bother to read his explanation nor point out any specific flaws in it.
So your argument is based on ignorance.
He also explained why atmospheric pressure does not cause the warm atmosphere, as you claimed.
stephen p anderson.
I can’t get over the implications of blaming global warming on pressure or gravity instead of greenhouse gases.
For one, since I’ve gained weight since high school, maybe it’s just the increased gravitational pull, or rising atmospheric pressure!
That would explain everything. No need to watch my diet.
Imagine that!
The answer is that more than one thing can be true at the same time. Greenhouse gases contribute to instability in the atmosphere. Air movement from different areas of pressure also has an effect. It is the change in pressure during movement, typically from wind (forced convection) or natural convection, that creates the effect. Wind flowing down-mountain will cause heating. Wind flowing up-mountain causes cooling, as does natural convection without a mountain involved.
Don’t believe me. I don’t care. I’m just trying to understand the lapse rate and it is derived from pressure. That indicates to me that pressure has some role in temperature. So does the Ideal Gas Law by the way. GHT does not explain the lapse rate. It doesn’t explain the temperature difference between the summit and base of Mauna Loa. Why do you believe Dr. Spencer on this when you don’t believe his UHI paper? Also, Dr. Spencer likes the Bern Model. The Bern model is mathematically incorrect. I don’t agree with him on that. Also, there is no way the atmosphere is unstable because of Greenhouse gases. Ridiculous.
“Why do you believe Dr. Spencer”
Because he is describing well established atmospheric physics, and I have read and understand the physics paper he mentioned from 60 y ago.
Nate,
Reading through Dr. Spencer’s argument against atmospheric pressure I think he has the concept wrong. Ark hit on it earlier but wanted to somehow add GHE which doesn’t work. It is the same energy flows. However, the longwave radiation coming from the surface is absorbed by near-surface air. It isn’t re-emited to the surface. It is converted to heat energy and carried up by the convective currents just like Ark said. That thermal energy is dissipated as the air expands adiabatically at lower pressures. The ascending convective currents eventually reach an altitude where the pressure is so low that the LW radiation can escape to space. But the air is cooled adiabatically during its ascent. That would explain the lapse rate. Not GHE.
“However, the longwave radiation coming from the surface is absorbed by near-surface air.”
Yes.
“It isn’t re-emited to the surface. It is converted to heat energy and carried up by the convective currents just like Ark said.”
No reason that you give for it to stop emitting, both upward and downward. Yhr layer above is cooler (sez lapse rate). Therefore some energy is lost by radiation to layer above, warming it, with the help of convection.
“That thermal energy is dissipated as the air expands adiabatically at lower pressures.”
Yes
“The ascending convective currents eventually reach an altitude where the pressure is so low that the LW radiation can escape to space.”
Yes, this radiation upward to next layer was happening all the way up. Until it finally can escape to space.
Now follow your logic here. Since it does escape to space via GHG radiation:
“the upper atmosphere is colder than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse gases. For example, addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is supposed to warm the surface, but cool the stratosphere and mesosphere. Greenhouse gases destabilize the atmosphere to the point that convection occurs, which then pushes the lapse rate toward a convective one (between dry adiabatic and moist adiabatic). This was first demonstrated with radiative transfer calculations by Manabe and Strickler (1964).”
clint…”gordon says: “I fail to see why this subject has become so obfuscated.”
It’s because people like you, with no knowledge of thermodynamics, keep clogging the blog with rambling nonsense. Your equation for entropy is wrong, you STILL don’t understand “heat”, and your info about Boltzmann’s death means you got it from wikipedia. No thermo book would mention it”.
***
Poor old Clint, now he is claiming the equation created by Clausius for entropy is wrong. Next he’ll claim Newton was wrong with f = ma.
It’s pretty tough for Clint Klown when he lacks the science to respond to scientific claims by me, wherein he cannot debate the science but hides behind petty insults and ad homs.
I warned him a while back that if he ever came out and debated science with me I’d kick his butt on the subject. At least he has the sense to hide away rather than engage.
As the real Clint said, ‘A man’s gotta know his limitations’. Obviously the wannabee Clint does not know his.
gordon got the equation wrong, several times. He claimed:
S = T.(integral dq)
But, it should be:
S = (integral dq)/T
gordon couldn’t find his mistake, even after I mentioned it. Instead, he falsely accused me of claiming Clausius got it wrong. NO! I was accusing gordon of getting it wrong.
False accusations is just one of gordon’s tactics.
The fact that he understands none of this yet keeps clogging the blog with his rambling nonsense is concerning. But when he combines that with his hatred of those that bring reality, it clearly indicates serious mental issues.
yeah you’re right and thanks for pointing that out. In fact, I wrote it that way as part of the Gibbs free energy equation. My error re T does not change anything and you are still wrong about heat and entropy. That is, entropy is still a sum of heat quantities.
You have actually confirmed my claim that entropy is related to heat and not disorder. Since the units are joule/degree K, as revealed by dS = dq/T, that proves entropy is a measure of heat transfer.
G = H – T.S (Gibbs)
T.S comes from the Clausius inequality S = (integral dq)/T Some write it incorrectly as (T. delta S). So, Gibbs tells us that the total energy G equals the total heat H (enthalpy) minus the amount of heat lost (entropy) and unable to do further work (T.S)
Note…Clausius defined entropy as a sum, an integral and an integral is a sum of differential quantities over a range. If I am talking about two different levels of heat, I must express the integral as S = 1/T (integral dq) where the integral is calculated between the limits of q2 and q1.
We cannot measure heat, or any energy directly, we must use proxies, like mercury expansion in a thermometer, or the current flow in a thermocouple or semiconductor. In fact, we cannot measure any energy directly because we have no idea what it is. We can only measure the effect energy has on a mass.
For anyone wondering about why T is constant, Clausius explained that as heat being drawn from a constant temperature reservoir. If that’s not the case, where T1 and T2 differ, then the calculation becomes more complex.
Recently I read it as follows. S = Q2/T2 – Q1/T1. Here, we are interested in the difference between Q1 at temperature T1 and Q2 at temperature Q2. Of course, this S is in the integrated form.
We have to be aware that temperature is not real, but a human invention designed to measure levels of heat (the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules). Planck acknowledged that in a book and it is a fact. A temperature scale is simply something like the amount of expansion of mercury in a column that is calibrated in a certain way. That’s why we have at least two definite temperature scales (C and F). Kelvin is actually an extension of C toward absolute zero.
Without integration it can be written as a differential ds = dq/T
This tells you that a tiny change in heat, q, is proportional to a tiny change in entropy. Therefore entropy is directly related to heat transfer. In fact, it’s the sum of heat transferred.
Air gets warmed from the contact with warmer surface. When warmed it rises until it is extended enough to match the surrounding colder air.
Air is colder at hights because it is far from the warm surface. Solar energy doesn’t warm air, because air is almost transparent to solar rays.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Solar energy doesn’t warm air”
Almost 30% of solar transmissions are absorbed by the atmosphere.
christos…with increasing altitude, the temperature has to get lower because the air pressure is lower. Since heat, measured by temperature, is dependent on the number of air molecules per unit area, which is the pressure, then the KE of the molecules must get lower as the number of molecules decrease with altitude hence the amount of heat decreases naturally.
Some heat is obviously converted to radiation but the surface has about 10^28 molecules/metre^2 touching it and transferring heat from it. Those heated molecules rise and as they rise their heat is dissipated naturally. It is simply wrong that radiation is the major form of heat dissipation and that all incoming solar energy must be re-radiated to space.
Alarmists have tried to apply the conservation of energy theory where it does not work, in a gravity-based planetary gravitational system.
That’s why I claim that as air heated directly by the surface rises, it cools naturally due to the negative pressure gradient and that means less heat needing to be radiated to space. Meantime, air heated at the surface remains in the vicinity of the surface for some time, keeping it warmer. Then the cycle repeats as colder air descends and warms after contact with the surface.
That is, our atmosphere, with its natural gravity-induced pressure gradient, dissipates solar-heated surface naturally within our atmosphere.
Rudolf Clausius ΔS ≥ 0.
klaus…actually, it’s S is greater than or equal to zero. Delta S means a change in entropy.
Since Clausius defined entropy as an integral, where it is the sum of differential quantities of heat at a constant temperature, then delta S, being a large scale change in entropy (not differential) must be considered carefully.
Clausius defined entropy as S = T.(integral dq), so what is the meaning of delta S? I take it to mean that heat being transferred at a constant rate can have the rate of transfer change.
If you integrate a differential like dx or dq, for heat, it is necessarily a linear quantity since integral dx = x + constant. Suppose you integrate the heat differential quantity dq and you get the total heat transferred = Q.
Delta S means something altogether different. If I have a heat transfer S1 then another different heat transfer S2, I can get delta S as S2 – S1. What does that mean?
I think we would need to graph S versus time to get a delta S. Again, what does it mean? It seems to suggest that the rate of heat transfer increases, like an acceleration.
klaus… as Clint pointed out, which made his year, I wrote the Clausius entropy equation incorrectly.
It should be S = 1/T (integral dq)
Does not make much difference with regard to the relationship between entropy and heat, my error being mathematical featuring a constant rather than the significant relationship between entropy and heat.
Clint has still to point out how entropy is in any way related to disorder.
I think Christos meant to say visible part of the spectrum. For instance, the ozone layer better be absorbing UV or we are in trouble.
But I think a more scientifically sound climate model is that the atmosphere ab.sorbs solar radiation, This warms the planet to some temperature well below 288K. Then gravity kicks in and atmospheric compression does the rest of the warming according to the Ideal Gas Law. This accounts for the lapse rate due to pressure difference and why the summit of Mauna Loa is warmer than the base. This all aligns with derivation of the lapse rate from pressure. Simple.
Roy Spencer explains why this is wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
Maybe you can read it this time..and learn something…but I doubt you will.
He says he believes it is wrong. It is the same energy in and energy out with both models. Adiabatic compression is the only thing that explains the lapse rate in my opinion.
Nate,
I have an explanation above. I think Dr. Spencer has the concept wrong. It is the conversion of thermal energy to work at lower pressures. That would explain the lapse rate. GHE does not explain it.
sorry, that is why summit is cooler than the base. Dr. Spencer is the only one with an edit function.
The Final Debunking of the Green Plate Effect
I assume most regulars are familiar with the Green Plate Effect.
Using the same logic, it’s easy to demolish it through reductio ad absurdum.
Have a blackbody cube, out in space, at some distance from the Sun, with one face always pointing at the Sun. So, it receives solar energy on one side only, whilst emitting from all six sides. It reaches a certain temperature, call it Temperature A.
Now, introduce a second cube, beside it, identical to the first, and at the exact same distance from the Sun, with a small gap between the cubes. According to the GPE logic, both cubes will warm as a result of the fact that they are each now receiving the same amount of solar energy on one side, plus the energy from the other cube on another side. They will supposedly warm until they both reach Temperature B.
This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that bringing two passive objects closer together, in sunlight, causes them to both spontaneously warm.
This all debunks the Green Plate Effect for the following reasons:
1) It is known that bringing passive objects closer together, in sunlight, does not cause them to spontaneously warm. Thus the GPE logic must be flawed. For instance, asking Google AI the question of whether or not this occurs returns the following: “No, if objects are at the same distance from the Sun, moving them closer together will not make them get warmer. The amount of solar radiation an object receives depends on its distance from the Sun and how much of the Sun’s energy it can absorb. If they are already at the same distance, their relative position to each other does not change how much solar energy they are exposed to.”
2) It destroys the narrative that blackbody surfaces can be radiative insulators in two ways:
a) You need one object to be the insulator and one object to be insulated. Here, both objects are simultaneously insulator, and insulated!
b) If you make one of the cubes, call it the Green Cube, a perfect reflector, then the other cube, call it the Blue Cube, still only reaches Temperature B at steady state. In other words, whether the Green Cube is a blackbody or a perfect reflector makes no difference to the steady state temperature of the Blue Cube!
So, the GPE logic is shown to be flawed. Impossible results mean it is incorrect.
As we have to expect from DREMT, handwaving, but no math, no physics, no understanding of heat transfer shown.
Arguments by assertion such as: “it is known that bringing passive objects closer together, in sunlight, does not cause them to spontaneously warm.”
Argument from incredulity. DREMT thinks if he is incredulous then everybody must be.
Wrong.
If I am incredulous then Google AI was equally incredulous.
However, you are completely ignoring the juiciest bits, as usual.
Respond properly to 1), 2)an and 2)b, if you can. Otherwise, readers will know it is just the usual Nate dishonesty display.
I’ve said all I need to say.
Yet you will no doubt end up being here for another month.
2)b, in particular, utterly annihilates the GPE.
Oh well.
This type of thought experiment has no real life value unless all of the parameters are defined and all of the physical properties are listed. By definition, heat transfer involves a temperature gradient. If the “box” is actually a space shuttle tile, that temperature gradient is huge. If it is a piece of metal, the gradient is small. In any case, it is a complex 3-dimensional gradient with the “side” having a profile at the surface, and the “back” being the coldest.
In this way, the dimensions are important. Heat transfer by conduction is a function of conductivity and distance. You also have to account for the surface condition affecting the radiant transfer on all sides. All of this affects the overall heat transfer coefficient which is the inverse of the sum of the various resistance values added together. Provide some real life data, and I will give you an answer. Otherwise, this is just nonsense.
It’s all as per the original Green Plate Effect, Tim S. You’ll have to look into it for yourself.
In a comment under the original article, Eli said the plates were “perfectly conducting”. So, “the cubes” are to be treated the same way.
I apologize for confusing you with a technical analysis. Try this. You are not clever or creative, you are just wrong if you think you can contradict published text books and research papers.
I am done. I spent too much time on this already. As a public service, people simply need to understand that you wrong.
Yes Tim, look it up for yourself. Simply search on “Green Plate Effect”. The incorrect solution is:
Blue plate at 262K
Green plate at 220K
See if you can get the CORRECT values.
Don’t make a big stink about dimensions, that’s just a distraction for people that don’t understand the physics. It is a given that there are no edges to the plates, ie, no losses.
For the record, Eli’s plates can have a slight conductive resistance and still demonstrate the principle. A series of conducting surfaces does improve radiant heat flow resistance (insulation). It is especially helpful in a vacuum. It works!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope_sunshield
Sorry Tim, but the JWST sunshield is a “cooling” device. The bogus green plate is supposed to be a warming device, trying to “prove” the GHE nonsense. So you’re just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
This is the issue:
https://postimg.cc/yWmHHVJZ
Now, again, can you come up with the CORRECT plate temperatures?
Astute readers will notice that neither Nate, nor Tim S, could even attempt a rebuttal. There is none. I expect some of the most intelligent will have already run the numbers and seen that every word I said was correct.
The Green Plate Effect is debunked.
So the fake moderator with the fake proof is now claiming victory because Clint R agrees with him. Damn the science, full speed ahead! C’mon Gordon, we need your fake analysis to make this a true trifecta!
More interesting is the fact that the analysis of the heat shield is rather interesting. Each new layer makes the sunny side hotter and the telescope side cooler. The biggest effect is between sunny side and the next layer because of the T^4 effect. They could have used 4 or 6 layers, but chose 5. Imagine all of the engineering effort that went into it, when all they had to do was go on the internet to find out it doesn’t work.
Oh wait a minute, it does work. The telescope works.
“The first layer blocks 90% of the heat, and each successive layer blocks more heat, which is reflected out the sides.”
Tim S, every comment you make where you are not quoting from, or responding to, my original post, is just another victory for me. Thank you.
Your quote about the sun shield just confirms that it functions via reflection, not absorp.tion/emission.
Yes DREMT, Tim seems unable to address the issue directly. Instead, he finds links to things he can’t understand. We see that all too often….
What the kids don’t understand is that your “cubes” example, combined with their false beliefs, would mean that one cube could warm the other cube. Then, that cube could warm the first one even more. The process would continue until both cube had infinite temperature!
And, they really believe in such nonsense. One of them even claimed Sun could heat Earth to 800,000K! (It turns out he got his “physics” degree from Hawvawd.)
Flat Earthers also don’t listen or learn and are basically bonkers. Thus some may try to reason with them for awhile, but ultimately must disengage.
I suspect they also interpret this as confirmation that their beliefs must be correct!
Was that Pierrehumbert, Clint?
Yes, you’d think that the fact their beliefs lead them to the conclusion that two passive objects, brought closer together in sunlight, both spontaneously warm…despite their awareness that this has never been known to occur in human history…might just cause a few tremors of doubt somewhere in the back of their minds. It’s like dealing with Flat Earthers, though. Eventually, you just have to disengage.
I suspect they also take this as confirmation that their beliefs are correct!
Correct DREMT. It was in one of his papers someone here linked to. He claimed Sun, emitting at 5800K, could warm Earth to 800,000K. He’s a big name in the GHE hoax, so it’s always good when we catch him in an obvious admission he doesn’t understand the relevant science.
So Nate believes that Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean to prove the Earth is round. Sorry Nate, but even the ancients knew the Earth was round.
DREMT
I have explained this to you in the past. Maybe you will be more open to it this day. Always hope with you.
The cubes warm not because they are heating each other but you have eliminated a path for radiant energy loss. The steady state temperature is based upon the amount of energy received will be in balance with the energy that is lost. In your case the arriving energy is not changing. However the energy lost is! This is significant. The sides facing each other exchange radiant energy and it has no path to the surroundings. Therefore you now have only 5 effective radiative sides instead of six. Receiving the same energy but reducing the amount that can leave causes the temperature of the cube to rise until the 5 sides are emitting what the 6 previously did.
Math would be 1200 watts reaching the solar facing side make it one square meter for ease of calculation. This 1200 watts is lost to 6 Square meter surface so each would be radiating at 200 watts. If you reduce the radiating surface to 5 Square meter surface would have to now emit 240 watts. The temperature of the surface will heat up until it can emit 240 watts from each surface.
Norman, as usual, your physics is very confused. But, you successfully debunked the GPE, which was DREMT’s goal.
You probably won’t understand, but apply your sentence: The sides facing each other exchange radiant energy and it has no path to the surroundings. to the GPE scenario. That’s what we’ve been trying to explain for years. The “back-radiation” from the green plate has no place to go. It can NOT raise blue plate temperature.
Good job. Now if only you can understand it….
Yes, I understand, Norman. Hence I wrote what I did in the first half of my original post. Now, it is time for you to respond to 1, 2)a and 2)b!
DREMT
My post included your subpoints. Your part a and b are both wrong. A blackbody is a total radiant barrier. No radiant energy goes through it. On b) the temperature with the green reflector cube near by would result in a warmer blue cube as i have explained. In both cases you are reducing the available emitting surface area which will result in a higher steady state temperature for the blue cube.
No, Norman, you have not addressed 1), 2)a or 2)b at all!
The point you are missing with 2)b is, the whole narrative you guys have put forward is that supposedly blackbody surfaces can radiatively insulate, it’s just reflective surfaces insulate more effectively. Yet, according to the GPE logic, the Green cube insulates the Blue cube producing the exact same amount of warming of the Blue cube whether the Green cube is a blackbody or a perfect reflector!
That alone totally nukes the Green Plate Effect out of existence, I’m afraid.
…and, just in case this was not clear – I agree the Blue cube would warm if the Green cube was a perfect reflector. I do not agree the Blue cube would warm if the Green cube was a blackbody.
The degree to which a surface can radiatively insulate another body is indicated by the reflectivity of the insulating surface.
Reflectivity = 0 = cannot radiatively insulate.
Reflectivity = 1 = maximum radiative insulation potential.
DREMT
a blackbody does not just absorb radiant energy, it also emits. In your cases a reflector would return all the energy the one side is emitting so there would be zero net energy loss from the one side reducing the effective radiating surface. Now likewise, the blackbody green cube side facing the blue cube is emitting the same energy to the blue cube side so the net energy loss on that side is still zero so the effective radiating surface is reduced the same as it was with the reflector.
Thank you for confirming that I’m correct about what conclusion the GPE logic and maths leads to, Norman.
The point I’m making is totally going over your head, but never mind.
DREMT
I guess i will try again as what i am saying is not effective. Try this line of thought. You have a radiant energy measuring device pointed in opposite direcions. One end measures the radiant energy emitted by a surface. The other measures radiant energy that is received by the surface (a blackbody so it absorbs all energy moving to it). It would make no difference in your receiving energy measurement if the energy was reflected or emitted from a blackbody surface at the same temperature as your surface. Yhe point is an emitting blackbody at the same temperature will have the same energy on the receiving end.
Norman, in the original Green Plate Effect, as successive blackbody green plates were added, the temperature of the blue plate got closer to the maximum possible 290 K. That 290 K for the blue plate could also have been achieved by having only one single perfect reflector beside the blue plate. It served the narrative that blackbody surfaces could radiatively insulate, but reflective surfaces did the job more efficiently.
However, the cubes blow that narrative apart, since the new scenario suggests that blackbody surfaces can radiatively insulate just as well as reflective surfaces. Which is obviously wrong.
DREMT
The blackbody acts by emitting energy toward the blue surface while the reflector acts to reflect the blue emitted energy back to it.
In your cube case the two surfaces (blue and green) in view of each other are at the same temperature so the emission from the green side to the blue is identical to what the return energy would be if the green side was a reflector. When considering the black body you need to take in the temperature. Reflected energy and emitted energy of the same quantity act in the same fashion.
GHE works (as Roy has explained) as an insulating property. It reduces how much energy emitted by surface is lost. The solar heated surface rises in temperature until the energy lost to space is equal to the energy it gains from the Sun. It works similar to any form of insulation. If you are heating something like a home, you can reach a higher temperature with the same heating if you have insulation to reduce the heat loss to the cold environment.
Norman, I already understood what you are saying before you said it the first time.
That’s why I wrote out my 2)b in the first place.
The point you keep refusing to understand is that a blackbody surface cannot possibly be as effective a radiative insulator as a perfect reflector! Else, they would not use reflective materials for radiative insulation!
The cubes debunk the GPE.
This is the comment that summarizes the entire point of this comment string:
[Tim S, every comment you make where you are not quoting from, or responding to, my original post, is just another victory for me. Thank you.]
This is a very sad abuse of the freedom of speech afforded by Dr. Spencer. The method is to post something that is outrageously wrong, and then claim “victory” when someone tries to clear it up.
But that is not enough. The final abuse arrives in the form of comments that seem to require a reply so that additional abuse can be delivered:
“You didn’t answer the question!!!!!”
My overall impression is sympathy for people who behave like this. There is obviously some kind of underlying issue which I will not speculate about, except maybe to suggest that you seek counseling.
Another comment which does not quote from, or respond to, my original post!
Thank you for another victory, Tim S.
In all seriousness, though, Tim S…it’s not much to ask that, if you post an argument in a forum such as this, respondents should actually address the argument that you’re making, rather than just stating that you’re wrong over and over again, with no explanation or justification. What do you dispute? The Green Plate Effect logic and maths leads to the conclusion that these two passive objects in sunlight, if far enough apart from each other, will be one temperature. Bring them closer together, they will supposedly both warm! I’m sorry, but that is what you have to defend. I appreciate that is a hard sell, so, naturally you want to just lash out at me, instead, but…do your job, Tim S. That’s why you’re here, right? Get defendin’.
Instead of pushing ahead being fundamentally dishonest and a pest, you should read the comments:
This type of thought experiment has no real life value unless all of the parameters are defined and all of the physical properties are listed. By definition, heat transfer involves a temperature gradient. If the “box” is actually a space shuttle tile, that temperature gradient is huge. If it is a piece of metal, the gradient is small. In any case, it is a complex 3-dimensional gradient with the “side” having a profile at the surface, and the “back” being the coldest.
In this way, the dimensions are important. Heat transfer by conduction is a function of conductivity and distance. You also have to account for the surface condition affecting the radiant transfer on all sides. All of this affects the overall heat transfer coefficient which is the inverse of the sum of the various resistance values added together. Provide some real life data, and I will give you an answer. Otherwise, this is just nonsense.
OK, Tim S,…I’m sure Eli will take all your criticisms of his thought experiment on board, but as I said in the first place, and you never responded, Eli specified that his plates were “perfectly conducting”, and so you can make the same simplifying assumption about the cubes.
Now, get defendin’.
Tim doesn’t appear to even understand the original situation:
https://postimg.cc/yWmHHVJZ
And an “understanding” means he can state that he agrees with the solution, or disagrees with it.
Once he understands the original problem, then he can move on to the cubes. It’s a learning process….
BACK AT THE RANCH
William Lunsford, a lawyer at Butler Snow’s office in Huntsville, is Alabama’s go-to guy for defending its prisons and their leaders.
The state has paid him $42 million for his expertise since 2020, according to state records, and is slated to pay him much more.
He’s an institution. Top dog, A-1, indispensable, they have said. Or, as one of the guys on Alabama’s Contract Review Committee put it a couple years ago, “Mr. Lunsford is basically a government agency at this point.”
So it was sort of a shock when lawyers for an injured inmate last week pointed out that Lunsford – and other lawyers representing former prison commissioner Jeff Dunn – had signed off on a legal motion citing sources that, well, weren’t really there.
“Defendant (that would be Dunn’s lawyers) appears to have wholly invented case citations in his Motion for Leave, possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence,” lawyer Jamilah Mensah wrote in a filing last week.
Mensah represents Frankie Johnson, who is suing Dunn after surviving repeated assaults in Alabama’s violent prisons.
Mensah brought the receipts, with some generative natural intelligence. She pointed out five citations in the filing by Dunn’s lawyers that did not exist or did not exist as claimed. For instance, a citation that claimed to bolster arguments about taking depositions of incarcerated people was really a 1939 case about a speeding ticket.
Whoops.
https://www.al.com/news/2025/05/did-alabamas-pricey-prison-lawyers-just-use-ai-to-file-motions-the-judge-wants-answers.html
Meanwhile, $300 million are at stake for Alabama food banks in Donald’s “big, beautiful bill” that is moving through Congress.
Win, win, win!
Testing
The recent discussion of Entropy has revealed a better way to explain the relation between heat and radiant energy. A change in Enthalpy (heat) requires a change in temperature for sensible heat or a change in state for latent heat.
Latent heat is similar to Entropy in the sense that heat is required to give the molecule more freedom to move (from solid to liquid to gas). Or, when freedom to move is removed going the other way, heat is released. The notion of “degrees of freedom” also affects specific heat and the radiant spectrum, but in different ways.
An increase in sensible heat requires an increase in temperature. The change in temperature is a change in the nature of the wave function of the electrons, so the change in heat to produce radiant energy is really just a change in the two different wave forms. Think about it!
Entropy, like latent heat involves a change in the possible arrangement of the molecules. Energy is consumed when the arrangement becomes more complex or simply more combinations are possible.
Many things in Thermodynamics can be explained as wave forms in some way or another.
This problem with both Gordon’s and Stephens explanations of temperature with altitude is that neither can explain the actual temperature profile.
This cools from the the surface to 10km, warms to 50km, cools to 80km then warms again.
Any explanation based on pressure of the ideal gas law alone fails this test.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
Correct :-))
It makes sense that the UHI effect is most pronounced early in urbanization. Replacing plant cover with something else removes transpirational (evaporative) cooling, so surfaces are bound to heat up more in the day and hence be warmer at night. Could also be studied empirically – 100mx100m plots with temperature sensors, and then replace 1/2 the plots with bear dirt, asphalt, concrete, shingled roof, etc.
Unfortunately for Gordon and Stephen the lapse rate is not enough to explain the temperature profile.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
You need also to explain why the atmosphere cools between the surface and 10km, warms to 50km, cools to 80km and then warms again.
A timer seems to be in operation. This is a good thing, as it reduces the flurry of text from the usual cranks.
Wait a bit. If that doesn’t work, get yourself a VPN.
No one needs a VPN. Simply download and use the TOR browser.
” A timer seems to be in operation. ”
Sure, Willard?
If this was the case, my reply to Jesse Parker’s post dated June 4, 2025 at 7:00 AM would have appeared before my first reply to you, dated June 4, 2025 at 1:29 PM.
It didn’t.
Thus, something else must ‘be in operation’.
*
By the way, after some successful posts using Firefox today using a refreshed dynamic IP, I suddenly have now to use TOR back again just after my comment to Jesse Parker didn’t appear. Interesting.
Post stamps don’t change, Binny.
” Post stamps don’t change, Binny. ”
No idea why you wrote this which doesn’t have anything to do with what I wrote.
Apparently, you didn’t understand something. Read the stuff again.
There’s something about language that escapes you, du con.
Crisse-moi patience.
Thanks for insulting with your adhoms, Robertsillard…
You confirm this way that you did not understand what I wrote.
Anyway, the reason why the reply I sent to Parker was missing is easy to explain; no one needs your stupid, arrogant and useless remarks, of course.
Have you ever seen Jesse comment on this blog, Binny? Mayhaps you forget how WP works, and are confusing all kinds of behavior together.
Besides, it doesn’t matter much how the “timer” is implemented for my comment to convey as much information as is needed.
One does not simply tell ordinary folks to install Tor. That’s just a recipe for trouble.
Ent,
I just came upon this line of thinking with my discussions with Nate and he made me think about Mauna Loa. Then I started thinking about the base and summit and the temperature difference. Then Ark talked about the lapse rate and my lack of education. So I looked it up and how it is derived and realized there is no radiative function so Greenhouse Gases do not affect the lapse rate. Then realized the only thing that does is pressure which is caused by gravity. Gravity is a constant. Pressure changes with altitude.
Ent,
I just did a quick google and AI says it is warming due to UV @bsorption by the ozone layer. We’re not talking about hydrostatic pressure or adiabatic lapse rate at that point. Let’s just focus on the troposphere for now.
Gordon Robertson is the main sinner here, trying to explain the temperature distribution in the atmosphere without GHGs like ozone.
I learned the Ideal Gas Law as PV=T then PV/T=k and finally as PV=nRT.
P is pressure.
V is volume.
T is temperature.
n is the quantity of gas, usually in moles or kilograms.
R is the gas constant, the amount of heat required to increase a standard quantity of gas by 1K.
I learned how the IGL worked when I learned about high altitude balloons like this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon#/media/File%3ABLAST_on_flightline_balloon_filling_kiruna_2005.jpeg
From right to left is the payload, the white and orange parachute, the white tube of folded balloon fabric and the blog of helium inflating the top end.
Fully inflated the balloon is about a 50 metre sphere, so on the ground the balloon is only about 5% full, just enough gas to make it bouyant.
The advantage is that the gas in the balloon is contained so you can see clearly what happens as it rises
After release the balloon gains altiude. As the pressure of the atmosphere around it drops the volume of gas increases and the temperature ddecreases, in step with the atmosphere outside, in accordance with the IGL and the adiabatic lapse rate.
The interesting bit is that n, the amount of gas, stays constant. So does the heat content. As the balloon rises through the troposphere, the heat content of the helium in the balloon stays the same as it was at sea level. No heat has been dissipated. Gordon’s idea that a convecting parcel of air dissipates heat due to the IGL is wrong.
The second interesting thing is what happens in the stratosphere, but I’ll leave that for now.
The
Strictly speaking, n should always be in moles or molecular number and not mass or weight. The Kinetic Theory of Gases demonstrates that the average kinetic energy of gases at the same temperature is independent of molecular weight. As such, sonic velocity is a function of molecular weight and the ratio of specific heats.
As far as I know, the inequality ΔS ≥ 0 (irreversible outflow of heat) is the only non-reversible physical equation. At an ideal 0° Kelvin, the entropy should have the value zero. Obviously, there is a correlation between heat and time. Because, as we all know, this is also irreversible. Just as an aside, this would be another topic.
Defund the institutional fake science
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/04/national-academies-face-extinction-because-trump/
ent…”Unfortunately for Gordon and Stephen the lapse rate is not enough to explain the temperature profile”.
***
Ent..we covered that a while back, with Christos. At lower altitudes, the air is heated by solar energy and by conduction from the surface to the 10^28 molecules/square metre at the surface. The air does cool. However, the stratosphere absorbs UV from the Sun and that causes it to warm in a relative sense.
Compare the 10^28 molecules per m^2 to CO2 at 0.04% and convince me that it makes an iota of a difference with temperature.
It’s important to get it that such stratospheric warming is in the -50C range in the lower stratosphere, so is that significant warming? The stratosphere warms with the absorption of UV mainly by oxygen molecules but the air is so thin there how much warming can take place?
I just can’t accept that enough O2 molecules exist in the stratosphere to block a significant amount of UV.
And how effective are thermometers with such thin air? At 30,000 feet, the pressure is 1/3 that of sea level. According to Britannica, by an altitude of 270 km, the air pressure is so low as to be comparable to a vacuum.
The atmosphere is estimated to extend to an altitude of 10,000 km, so, therefore the lower 270 km holds about 2.7% of the atmosphere.
Essentially, by the altitude of Everest at about 8.5km, there is not enough oxygen to support life more than a week or so, for a well acclimatized climber. Most climbers rely on supplemental oxygen. I would guess that is also close to the limit for heat in the atmosphere related to life support. You simply cannot survive on Everest even in summer, above 8000 metres. Above that altitude you can die of several causes from a lack of oxygen to freezing to death via exposure.
I just read that if Earth was a basketball, the atmosphere could be represented by a piece of plastic wrap around the ball.
ent…the Ideal Gas Law is a combination of several laws, such as Boyles’s Law, Charles’ Law, Gay-Lussac’s Law, and Avogradro’s Law. The law itself, PV = nRT, is a combination of those laws, created by Clapeyron circa 1840.
I have found there is little point in applying the law to the atmosphere if the user lacks an understanding of pressure, temperature, volume, and Avogadro’s number.
I got that from troubleshooting in electronics. You can learn all the theory you want but until you wade into a circuit and get your feet wet, so to speak, the theory is not all that helpful. The point is, you cannot see electrons and charges moving, or even what they are. You can sure feel them if you stupidly get yourself across a significant voltage potential.
Same with the Ideal Gas Law. There are times, say with the atmosphere, where you have to visualize what heat is, as well as pressure. Both are related to the number of molecules, n, in a volume of the atmosphere. Applying the IGL blindly as an equation is not very helpful if you cannot visualize the practical meaning re heat, pressure, volume, and the number of atoms/molecules.
If I think of heat (measured by T) as a form of energy that when added to a gas mixture in a container, causes the atoms/molecules to increase their kinetic energy and move faster, it makes visualization easier. Pressure I visualize as atoms/molecules smashing into the walls of a container and applying a force to the walls. The faster they move, the higher the KE hence the higher the sum of the forces of all gas atoms/molecules.
The n is about Avogadro’s number, which essentially tells us how many atoms/molecules to expect in a given volume.
Naturally, n is related to both temperature (heat) and pressure. V is a no brainer, since it is a measure of the space size in which the P, T, and n operate.