Home/Blog
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. For the uninitiated, while Politico is allegedly a news organization, it has a history of supporting Progressive and Leftist causes.
To be fair, the summary lead at the top of the article is pretty good: “A common refrain: Climate policy hurts the poor, and the continued use of fossil fuels is a boon for humanity.“ But, at best, today’s Politico article entitled, “Meet the 4 influencers shaping Chris Wright’s worldview” is a mix of truths, half-truths, and misleading innuendoes. The article is by Scott Waldman. The four alleged influencers of Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s views on climate science and energy policy are, in order, Bjorn Lomborg, me, Alex Epstein, and John Constable.
I will let the others speak for themselves. What follows is, verbatim, the article addressing my influence on Sec. Wright. I don’t need to comment on everything because some of it is true. I will only offer clarifications where appropriate. Why? Because there are a lot of untruths circulating about me and unless I address them from time to time, those things become part of a narrative that is difficult to dislodge.
Quotes from the article are in italics; my response & clarifications are in bold:
Spencer, whose work was cited as a resource in Wright’s report, is a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and is listed as an adviser to the Heartland Institute, which promotes climate misinformation. I used to give talks at Heartland conferences, but haven’t in recent years. I don’t have a formal relationship with them. I don’t speak for Heartland Institute, but I thoroughly disagree with the claim that they promote “climate misinformation”. That shoe fits Politico much better.
While some of Spencer’s work on atmospheric temperatures and other areas of study has been funded by NASA and the Energy Department, he has attacked federal climate researchers as being biased because they receive taxpayer money, and he has claimed that people alive today won’t experience global warming. On the first point… true. On the second point, I believe what I have said is that most people today will never notice global warming in their lifetimes because it is too weak (about 0.02 deg. C per year) compared to natural climate, seasonal, and day-to-day weather variability. In my book, people who believe they have witnessed human-caused global warming are about as delusional as flat-Earthers.
Spencer also served as a visiting fellow for the Heritage Foundation, which produced the Project 2025 policy proposal that has guided the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term.
The groups Spencer has been affiliated with have received millions of dollars in donations from foundations that oppose regulations, but he claims the American public has “been misled by the vested interests who financially benefit from convincing the citizens we are in a climate crisis.” That includes environmental groups and journalists, in his telling. And I stand by that claim. Look at the artwork at the top of this article, and see if you can figure out what it implies.
“Climate change is big business for a lot of players,” he wrote in a Heritage Foundation publication. “That includes a marching army of climate scientists whose careers now depend on a steady stream of funding from governments.” True. And I have said my career also depends upon that funding.
For years, Spencer has worked with organizations that have received funding from an interlinked network of fossil fuel companies — a multitrillion-dollar global industry — as well as wealthy foundations with billions of dollars in holdings that support groups opposing climate and energy regulations. What are you implying, Scott? That I’ve been paid off by this multitrillion dollar global industry? I know that’s what you are doing. But they have never funded me. At most, I have giving an occasional invited talk, which I receive honoraria for when offered (standard practice, and the same has applied to environmental organizations I have spoken to).
He states on his website that he has not been paid by oil companies, but a court filing in 2016 revealed that he received funding from Peabody Energy, the coal giant that for years spent millions of dollars on funding climate denial groups. That was one of my invited talks: As I recall, it was a Peabody board of directors meeting, and they wanted someone to provide a counterpoint to a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) talk given at the same meeting. Peabody never funded me to do work.
Spencer has appeared before Congress a number of times, typically as a Republican witness attacking climate policy and downplaying climate risks. He served as the climatologist for the late conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, who regularly promoted climate denialism on his show. Again with the “climate denialism” mantra? You really don’t have a second gear, do you, Scott? I don’t deny “climate”. I don’t even deny recent warming. I don’t even deny that recent warming is probably mostly due to humans.
Like Lomborg, Spencer claims climate policy will hurt the poor even as science has overwhelmingly shown the effects of global warming would disproportionately affect the world’s most vulnerable populations. “Science” has shown no such thing. Opportunistic researchers have indeed made such claims, though. But Lomborg, Epstein, and Roger Pielke Jr. are better at refuting those claims than I am.
He authored a book entitled: “Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.”
Spencer did not respond to a request for comment. True. I long ago learned which media outlets cannot be trusted to represent what I say fairly.
Dr. Spencer:
I applaud your retort to the “allegations” of yet another highly-biased press jackal.
Dr. Spencer,
As always, thank you for doing what you do.
Long since I came to simple conclusions about climate.
Human activity may, or may not, influence climate. I DON’T CARE
Warmer is better! We have improved the human condition due to the use of fossil fuels. If, concurrently, those actions cause a warmer climate, we are better off: farmers can’t grow crops in the frost. A longer growing season benefits us all and is, generally, less expensive than dealing with snow and ice.
Beyond that, I watch the monthly reports herein, and say thank you to Dr. Spencer.
Dr. Spencer excellently responded to Chris Wright’s allegations. Wright’s writing is a dangerous amalgam of truths, half-lies and nonsense. I recognize this way of writing all too well from main stream media in the Netherlands and know from experience that it is exhausting to have to respond again and again to allegations that often don’t make sense.
“I don’t speak for Heartland Institute, but I thoroughly disagree with the claim that they promote “climate misinformation”
They do spread what can only be described as propaganda:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120503233315/http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
I received a free book from them awhile back and it certainly seemed to have some highly misleading graphs and descriptions.
And it did quite poorly in a fact-check by a respected news organization:
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.339G4NM
And it was sent to numerous school teachers.
Nate:
Did you actually read what was in that link you sent, or did you just react to the billboard with Ted Kaczynski’s face? Their point was that the worldviews of environmentalists are often no different from those of mass murderers. Besides, AFP fact checkers are known to be Left-leaning. But in your world, that would be synonymous with “unbiased”.
> are often
Citation needed.
“Their point was that the worldviews of environmentalists are often no different from those of mass murderers.”
Do you really not get how you can’t really say crap like this and turn around and play the victim card?
If you’re going to paint with a broad brush, don’t be surprised when others play in kind.
Sorry Mark B, but Spencer has it right. You Leftists are terrorists and murderers.
Remember, they were shooting at UAH windows a couple of years ago.
Burned any Teslas lately?
Politico does a good job of reporting on Trump and Republicans, but a terrible job reporting on Democrats.
Vice versa for the conservative media
There are few if any neutral sources
I look for good articles on Politico when Trump is president, but never when Biden was president.
Be thankful you were not compared with Hitler.
I celebrate more CO2 & global warming
CO2 warming: Mainly in colder nations, in coldest months & at “night” (TMIN).
Very easy to notice in SE Michigan where I live
Much less snow and rare very cold days in winter vs.1970s and 1980s.
Nate is projecting.
The items listed in your “fact check” are misleading or just plain wrong.
Agriculture – the Heartland statement is correct. The response agrees with the statement, but implies future potential outcomes that may or may not happen. Misleading at best.
Snow – the comment gives details that are interesting, but they don’t disagree with the Heartland statement. Overall snowpack has remained the same since the 60’s, but decreased spring and summer snowpack as the comment says.
Coral reefs – the Heartland statement addresses warm water adaptation and range expansion. Both are true. The response statement goes into bleaching with the usual propaganda. Try reading Peter Ridd to get an accurate picture.
Sea levels – sea level increase depends on where it is measured. So pick your source to determine if the Heartland statement isn’t accurate. But remember, the Maldives are adding area.
Hurricanes – Heartland and the IPCC are correct. Read Pielke for more information.
US heatwaves – the response slips back to 1950, a common trick when trying to refute heatwave info. The Heartland statement is still correct. Jim Steele and other authors have shown that on a historical basis, the current period isn’t atypical. And the ‘30’s and 40’s were atypical.
Wildfires – again, the Heartland statement is accurate. Read Pielke for more information.
Polar bears – the response goes into the reliability of past data, but recent data indicate and increase increases. Also, predictions of ice going away have not borne out.
Typical fact checker stretching of the truth and occasional fear mongering.
Just you claiming stuff, Steve.
No sources, no credit.
Nate says:
”Just you claiming stuff, Steve.”
You are the last person around here that should be complaining about that.
The UN specializes in propaganda, as does the UK met office,and many news channels, but you appear to believe what you want to believe, as do many subscribers to Roys blog,some of it as near to flat earthers as you can get, the chances of todays warming killing you is almost nil,silly comments like,warming 20 times faster than in the past ,and we are walking over a waterfall are only two i have read in the past week,yet the climate continues to improve.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds… Ralph Waldo Emerson.
I fell for the AFP attack on Heartland until I looked at AFPs funding. Follow the money. $$$. Always.
AFP is Agence France-Presse, the equivalent of AP News for France.
They run a fact-check service.
Why is that a problem?
The Heartland booklet is accurate
The fact chokers are not
The only logical conclusion based on your comment, Nate, is that you know little about climate science
Heartland does not go far enough
The first 50 years of global warming have been good news and should be celebrated.
There was not even a small problem
More CO2 is good news
Global warming is good news.
People love warm weather
Plants love more CO2
Net Zero: A leftist political power strategy, not a real engineering project. Atmospheric CO2 will increase unless all economic activity stops in all nations.
Note that Politico never examined the UAH data
Just a long winded generic character attack.
You are over the target when the flak comes at you
I had received the earlier book sent to educators in 2017 by Heartland. That was the one I read and found to be full of misleading or wrong information.
It was fact-checked by scientists and given a score of F.
https://science.feedback.org/report-heartland-institute-sent-to-influence-us-teachers-on-climate-change-earns-an-f-from-scientists/
Nate, if you are just going to use IPCC scientists as fact-checkers of their own claims, why are you even commenting here? For example, it is now well known most IPCC models have climate sensitivities that are too high compared to observations (one of the “facts” you listed). Seriously… why are you still here? We already know what the IPCC claims… we don’t need you to remind us.
I think the issue with Heartland is that they have particular political point of view that they are promoting.
It makes no sense to get science facts from them, since their goal is not to do science.
Just as it makes no sense to get science from Greenpeace.
The UN has a particular political point of view that they are promoting. IPCC-INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change
The IPCC science reports are reviews written by scientists of the science found in the scientific literature.
Roy,
Instead of complaining about “IPCC scientists”, I suggest you explain why you believe their criticism is incorrect. The actual points addressed, one by one, at https://science.feedback.org/report-heartland-institute-sent-to-influence-us-teachers-on-climate-change-earns-an-f-from-scientists/ are clear enough, so just explain why you disagree with them. From a scientific viwewpoint, not based on some “what do scientists know anyway?” stance.
Nate,
You’re saying good science is only found in literature that you approve?
The World’s most prominent think-tank supporting skepticism about man-made climate change……The Economist
“it is now well known most IPCC models have climate sensitivities that are too high compared to observations”
What on Earth is an “IPCC model”? Please explain. Do you even know what IPCC is and what they do?
And the Heartland claim was that “climate models systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide”. This is clearly incorrect. See https://science.feedback.org/review/heartland-institute-reports-claim-climate-models-sensitive-co2-not-reflect-evidence/
And if you disagree, explain what’s wrong about the debunking.
So you’re ok if I get science facts from Greenpeace? Who, like Heartland, have political goals, which ain’t to do science.
And the IPCC science reviews are supposed to look at the full spectrum of views found in the science literature.
OK with using Greenpeace? Of course if Greenpeace has credentialed scientists on staff. Is it OK if we disagree with their opinions as long as we don’t lie about their position or slander them?
Nate, IPCC lead authors are notoriously promoting own work. Pielke Jr experienced this when his top cited paper on hurricane damage was not even mentioned.
“IPCC promoting own work”
They don’t do any of their own scientific research.
You are confused.
Stop gaslighting me nate
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/ipcc-at-the-crossroads
Well their statements on what has been observed such as sea-level-rise or coral reefs are easy to verify.
Those are a just a couple of items that failed the fact-check.
But feel free to weigh in.
The factoid that seems to get little coverage until recently was how utterly pointless the climate agenda has been. There is a belief that if western economies can curtail CO2 emissions, the climate will get better. But the emissions made in the west just get transferred to Asia and the goods made in Asia with extensive use of fossil fuels simply get exported to the countries who have reduced their emission through de-industrialization. It’s nothing more than squeezing a balloon.
It’s stretch to think the climate can be controlled through reduced CO2 emissions. It turns out it’s even a stretch to think CO2 emissions are being controlled at all.
You cannot be serious. You are making satire. Your claim is that the suggestion promoted in the media, that weather variability is climate change, should now be taken seriously because the uneducated public is buying it.
Weather variability is not something new, even though college students can be convinced that it is. It is the very nature of weather to be variable throughout the seasons and from year to year, as it is influenced by the random movement of large air masses in the atmosphere.
There is not a delete feature on this blog, but this comment rather obviously belongs below and not here.
Sorry about that. I am not sure what happened.
While a person may not consciously notice a global average increase of 0.02°C per year, they can often experience the effects of climate change through changes in frequency and intensity of extreme events.
Statistical studies and perception surveys have documented growing public awareness of climate impacts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change?utm_source=chatgpt.com).
You cannot be serious. You are making satire. Your claim is that the suggestion promoted in the media, that weather variability is climate change, should now be taken seriously because the uneducated public is buying it.
Weather variability is not something new, even though college students can be convinced that it is. It is the very nature of weather to be variable throughout the seasons and from year to year, as it is influenced by the random movement of large air masses in the atmosphere.
This must be a bot since human English speakers typically don’t say “ making satire.” The verb “make” is not typically collocated with the noun “satire” because “make” is generally used with tangible or creative products, but “satire” refers to a genre or approach.
But I digress.
I am happy to explain the relationship between a shifting mean and the resulting probability of extreme events, but you must read my post again and respond to what I wrote rather than the opposite of what I wrote.
Saying that the Heartland Institute promotes climate misinformation is probably being generous to them since much of their work can actually be categorized as straight up disinformation.
Anyway, the book Merchants of Doubt discusses the Heartland Institute (and other contrarian think tanks like it) and the strategies they use to peddle unwarranted doubt and undermine the consilience of evidence approach to scientific understanding and established facts.
And it’s not just climate disinformation that the Heartland Institute peddles. Their propaganda includes challenges to the link between smoking and cancer, the link between pesticides and toxicity to humans, the link between CFCs and ozone depletion, the link between pollution and acid rain, etc. The strategies they use to gaslight and deceive the public are generally the same across all of their contrarian stances.
This is a good example of why climate change claims cannot be taken seriously. The liberal media like to weave vague and exaggerated science claims with wild political statements.
The story seems like a typical news organizations smear campaign. Highly speculative claims about climate change are pushed out as “the science” endorsed by “the scientists”. Then they claim that any opposition, whether rational or not, is the work of deniers.
It is not surprising that the resident politician, Nate, has arrived with his standard act which is to argue for the sake of argument, whether it makes sense or not.
You are not addressing anything I posted, just generic bitching. Are you a bot?
Nate, I am responding to EVERYTHING you post. This one is just particularly offensive. Dr Spencer is making a very good case that he has been smeared by innuendo in the media. Most people can see that. Your response is to bring in new allegations that are bizarre at best. He does not represent ANY of these organizations were he has given speeches or given supported for that matter. He is not responsible for any action they take on their own. How difficult is that to understand?
The IPCC is not an objective source. Everyone knows that — especially people who like their work.
Nate, if you could behave yourself, you would get a different response from people. You reap what you sow!
Why is it ‘particularly offensive’ to expose some facts about how Heartland operates?
What specifically is ‘bizarre’ about that?
Why is it not particularly offensive to you to try to associate environmentalists with serial killers, as Heartland did?
This is the problem with Nate. The first 3 comments in the topic — in less than an hour — are an attempt to make the case that the smear is valid because Dr Spencer might somehow be connected to something that Nate does not approve. It goes way beyond just rude to insult the host of this site.
Nate claims to be interested is science, but time and time again, his real interest is revealed to be politics. In politics, facts are not important. Politicians don’t have to make sense. All they have to do is argue and oppose the other “side”. Facts get in the way of a good argument.
Here is a fact. Nate would have long ago been banned from many other sites if he dared to act the way he acts here. It is a credit to Dr Spencer that he does not ban people because he supports free speech.
It is easy to just ignore Nate as a pest, and that is the easiest thing to do. It this case, I think Nate has gone over the line of respectable behavior to insult the host, not just once, but repeatedly and disgracefully.
“case that the smear is valid because Dr Spencer might somehow be connected to something that Nate does not approve. It goes way beyond just rude to insult the host of this site.”
Wrong. That is your hyperbolic take on what I wrote, which was a specific criticism of Heartland, whose propaganda efforts I am personally familiar with.
And one can see the posts of others who agree.
Indeed Roy Spencer supports free speech here, and as a scientist, is used to having his views critiqued.
Roy, thank you for doing real science.
People get confused between “global warming” and the CO2 nonsense.
We are seeing about a 40-60 year warming trend, well documented by UAH. But there is no REAL science that can link that warming to CO2. In REAL science, a “consensus” means NOTHING.
The belief that 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface is easily debunked with very basic physics. But cultists don’t want science.
“The belief that 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface is easily debunked with very basic physics.”
Nope. What are you talking about? The warming (i.e. increased temperature of Earth’s surface due to increased concentration of CO2) is basic physics. Learn about the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It was discovered in the 1800’s.
Gadden, the fact that you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface means you don’t have a clue about the basic physics. Can you pass an easy test?
“Warm” means “raise the temperature”. So what is required to warm a surface?
8:22 am A: An increase in its measured avg. thermodynamic internal energy from, for example, absorbed 15μ photons.
To warm a surface, you need net positive energy to it.
Increased CO2 makes the lower atmosphere absorb more upwelling infrared radiation. This leads to a warmer lower atmosphere, assuming all other independent conditions unchanged. The atmosphere consequently radiates more, including downwards. So, increased back radiation. (See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg)
Result? A warmer surface.
Incorrect Gadden!
To increase the temperature of a surface the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the surface MUST be increased. That kinetic energy is related to the vibrational frequency of the molecules. CO2’s 15&mu photons have lower frequency (longer wavelength) than the WDL photon being emitted by a 288K surface. So even if you deny the absorp.tion properties of photons, a “somehow absorbed” 15μ photon would COOL a 288K surface.
Incidentally, that’s why you can’t radiatively warm a glass of water with ice cubes.
You’ve been misled. Let’s see if you can learn, or just keep throwing crap at the wall.
“a “somehow absorbed” 15μ photon would COOL a 288K surface.”
Clint keeps claiming this is real physics, but he never ever shows us a real physics source that agrees with this absurd nonsense.
Do these photons add negative energy!?
“….the fact that you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface means you don’t have a clue about the basic physics,”
Stupid boy.
A 15μ photon can warm a 288K surface if it was emitted by a 300K surface.
Simple.
Well pp, are you that ignorant of radiative physics, or are you just slinging crap against the wall?
Doubly stupid boy.
You still cling to the notion that photons carry information about the temperature of the body that emitted them.
Such blind ignorance.
“you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface”
The real reason that CO2 emitted photons do not warm the surface is much more subtle than you think. Because the photons are relatively weak energy carriers they cannot penetrate the surface skin, however they do get absorbed by the surface. However, the surface skin is always exchanging energy with the atmosphere through conduction. It is always attempting to create energy equilibrium.
Since the photon emission occurs very low in the turbulent boundary layer, the process of CO2 emission cools this part of the atmosphere. It is precisely this atmospheric layer which exchanges energy with the surface skin. The increase in energy by the surface skin and decrease in the lower atmosphere will alter the conduction energy transport according to the 2nd Law.
The bottom line is the energy gets conducted right back into the lower atmosphere to restore equilibrium. It can’t work any other way without violating the 2nd Law.
“you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface”
The real reason that CO2 emitted photons do not warm the surface is much more subtle than you think. Because the photons are relatively weak energy carriers they cannot penetrate the surface skin, however they do temporarily warm the surface. However, the surface skin is always exchanging energy with the atmosphere through conduction. It is always attempting to create energy equilibrium.
Since the photon emission occurs very low in the turbulent boundary layer, the process of CO2 emission cools this part of the atmosphere. It is precisely this atmospheric layer which exchanges energy with the surface skin. The increase in energy by the surface skin and decrease in the lower atmosphere will alter the conduction energy transport according to the 2nd Law.
The bottom line is the energy gets conducted right back into the lower atmosphere to restore equilibrium. It can’t work any other way without violating the 2nd Law.
“you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface”
The real reason that CO2 emitted photons do not warm the surface is much more complex than you think. Because the photons are relatively weak energy carriers they cannot penetrate the surface skin, however they do temporarily warm the surface. The surface skin is always exchanging energy with the atmosphere through kinetic transfers. It is always attempting to create energy equilibrium.
Since the photon emission occurs very low in the turbulent boundary layer, the process of CO2 emission cools this part of the atmosphere. It is precisely this atmospheric layer which exchanges energy with the surface skin via kinetic transfers. The increase in energy by the surface skin and decrease in the lower atmosphere will alter kinetic energy transport according to the 2nd Law.
The bottom line is the energy gets moved right back into the lower atmosphere to restore equilibrium. It can’t work any other way without violating the 2nd Law.
pp, you’re making crap up, again.
Where did I ever state that “photons carry information about the temperature of the body that emitted them.”
Don’t you cult kids have any new tricks?
Gadden
Please don’t waste your time trying to convince ignorant and utter deniers like Clint R, Robertson, or some others on this blog of anything.
Such people go so far as to deny Einstein’s work (they even doubt that GPS needs relativistic corrections) or that our Moon (like all major satellites of the solar system) rotates on its polar axis.
That’s beyound the imaginable.
Once again Bindi rushes in with his insults and false accusations.
Just what we would expect from cult children.
So does GPS require realistic corrections for N/S as well as E/W?
Why do GPS satellites tick precisely 38 microseconds faster than clocks on Earth?
richard…GPS is nothing more than an advanced form of Loran-C. During WW II they used a similar tracking system to Loran-C call GEE. Your uncle would likely have been interested in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gee_(navigation)
The only real difference between these systems and GPS is that GPS uses moving sats. Also, someone on the ground, independent of GPS surface stations, using a hand receiver, can receive signals from the sats and using that info, they can locate their position and altitude relative to the moving sats.
Why some insist that time dilation is a factor is beyond me.
“Why do GPS satellites tick precisely 38 microseconds faster than clocks on Earth?”
Regardless of if they are travelling N/S or W/E?
CR:
“The belief that 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface is easily debunked with very basic physics.”
Really?
Tell us why a 15μ photon cannot be absorbed by a 288K surface?
What sort of discrimination do you think takes place?
Is the 288K surface racist?
Or is the 15μ photon so disgusted by the 288K surface that it stops in its tracks and goes the other way?
In either case, where does the 15μ photon go?
I recall this question stumping the legendary “cotton sox” many years ago.
pp, the issue is about “raising the temperature”, NOT absorp.tion.
Obviously, like the rest of your cult, you have no background in even the basics. If you’re seriously wanting to learn, start with understanding what “temperature” is. Even wikipedia gets it right:
Once you learn about temperature, you can move on to learn what is required to “raise the temperature”. Then, you will see that 15μ photons from the sky can’t raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
But, as you know, cultists aren’t interested in learning….
Clint R simply ignores 1LOT and 2LOT in comments since absorbed 15μ photons from the sky must act to raise the avg. kinetic energy “of the vibrating and colliding atoms making up a substance” per 1LOT and 2LOT thus raise the temperature of a 288K surface per Clint’s wiki clip. Similarly, emitted 15μ photons from the surface to the sky act to lower the surface temperature per 1LOT and 2LOT.
Clint R is just lacking interest in learning…
Ball4, when you start off with a false accusation, there’s no need to waste any more time with you.
I mentioned up-thread what is required to raise temperature:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/politicos-hit-piece-on-me-and-energy-secretary-wright/#comment-1704197
Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
CR. I repeat:
“In either case, where does the 15μ photon go?”
PP, photons are either absorbed, reflected, or transmitted. What happens depends on wavelength compatibility. For example, very long wave photons like LW radio signals are even reflected by the sky (Ionosphere). Very short wave photons, like x-rays, can penetrate the human body. Extremely short wave photons, like gamma rays, can penetrate several inches of concrete. That’s why walls of containment domes at nuclear power plants must be several feet thick.
Clint R writes “photons are either absorbed, reflected, or transmitted” except for “photons from the sky can’t raise the temperature of a 288K surface” which just disappear to nowhere when incident on the earthen surface according to Clint R violating both 1LOT (energy not conserved) and 2LOT (no entropy produced in Clint’s process).
Incredibly amusing ignoring both laws but that is all Clint R almost always contributes.
I get the impression Politico would claim Dr. Spenser was bought and paid for by Columbia if someone gave him a free cup of coffee. And the Dairy Association if he took cream in his coffee.
The entire evidence deficient “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE has been accurately described as “The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time.”
It is pseudoscience wrapped in politics.
It has no resemblance to actual science or scientific method.
john…Will Happer described it as a fraud. He claimed he’d accept hoax but fraud represents it better.
One day when you people grow up you will figure out that total majority of government funded science is overvhelmingly fake driven by politix and funding money grab, climate science being the worst example of it
Ofcourse I’m not talking to those who already know it.
HI Dr. Spencer. Once I was a liberal and now I am not. My usual response to people like Politico is to completely ignore them, because as a famous comedian has said ‘You can’t fix stupid.’ Keep up the good work and ignore the critics. And if you get a chance go over to the IT department and ask them whether climate models can be programmed in such a way as to get any result that the programmer wants. As an ex-programmer in corporate IT, I know the answer to that question.
jim…of course, computers are prone to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). It’s worse than that with climate models, however. A programmer need to understand the algorithm in use between the science and the program and state it correctly. Leading programmers of models such as Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS have demonstrated an unbelievable ignorance of a basic fundamental in the models, positive feedback.
Schmidt actually published a theory describing positive feedback as being an amplifying agent. Anyone who as worked with PF, like myself, are very aware that feedback is only a branch within an amplifying system. It affects the amplification of an amplifier, it cannot produce amplification on its own.
Another issue is the degree of warming CO2 can produce in the atmosphere. Alarmists have stated the factor as 9% to 25%, depending on the amount of water vapour present. How does one expect a warming factor of 9%, never mind 25%, from a gas whose concentration is 1 molecule per 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen?
The warming factor is closer to 0.06%, the mass percent of CO2 in the atmosphere. That amount is supported by the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation.
Dear Roy, I can assure you that you have many admirers across the world, thanks to your well balanced posts over decades. We all know that you are a very competent and honest scientist. Do not take the smear seriously.
Ah, yes…the old misinformation propaganda. I am currently reading an article by a local university outfit claiming to be exposing misinformation, the new term, like homophobia and Islamophobia, geared to shaming those who dare to oppose the status quo.
In the article, the only evidence they offer to support the anthropogenic meme is that authority figures claim it is true that 95% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. No reference to the studies claiming that, just an authority figure pronouncement.
I know of three sources of the 95% propaganda which ranges up to 98%. Two of them were statistical studies based on simple questions and another can be traced back to the cartoonist who runs skeptical science.
One of the studies was done by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who believes that consensus is a valid form of science. She wrote a book in which she attacked three skeptics who were deceased. Her survey comprised about 1000 papers where she applied a filter “climate change” to find agreement.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/
Heck, even I would have had to agree even though I have repeatedly stated the amount of warming to be in the order of 0.06C for every 1C warming of the atmosphere.
The miscreants who attack Roy and John Christy are not worthy of responses. They are not only malcontents they have major problems with basic intelligence. That’s because they are such cow-towers to authority that their fetish interferes with their abilities to reason.
Some people are wired that way. I have encountered them over and over in life. It’s as if they gain some sense of belonging by blindly following authority figures.
“She wrote a book in which she attacked three skeptics who were deceased.”
Yes and she revealed their efforts to protect their employers Big Tobacco and Big Fossil Fuels, using the very same tactics to tarnish the science.
Science demonstrated that second hand smoke is harmful, and a friend was a non-smoking musician, who played gigs in many many nightclubs, died of throat cancer.
Nate,
You are a propagandist. That’s all. You don’t debate the merit of the skeptic’s argument but resort to attacking the skeptic. If your science is correct then it can stand on its own. It doesn’t and that’s why your ilk attacks the skeptic. For instance, like Berry or Salby you resorted to attacking them, not the merits of their skepticism. If you were truly the scientist you claim to be then you should be spending all your time trying to falsify Green House Theory, not attacking the skeptic. Berry has falsified the notion that human and natural CO2 are treated differently by nature. He did it with mathematics. This, in itself, destroys the IPCC climate model.
Totally false. I discussed the flaws in Berry’s science many times with you. Unfortunately you would not read the papers I gave you. Science ain’t your thing.
No, you didn’t. Berry tried to explain to you but then you resorted to insults.
That was comical. Nate, he was kind to you and Ent. He let you down easy.
Nate,
Here is one of your favorite reference sites, Wiki, talking about e folding time. IPCC calls it turnover time. Turnover time or e folding time takes into account your Suess effect or any other effect. Berry tried to teach you but you proved a poor student.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-folding
“No, you didn’t. Berry tried to explain to you but then you resorted to insults.”
Not at all. I simply disagreed with his science and tried to inform him about the Revelle Factor, which he was oddly unfamiliar with, and he banned me.
Stephen, the reality was that Berry’s theory failed to explain CO2 rise.
Berry’s theory falsified the theory that the rise was due to fossil fuels and mathematically showed that most of the rise was natural. If you understand e folding time then you understand that the Revelle Factor is already taken into account.
Not going to re-argue what has been argued with you a dozen times. You don’t understand the science and you don’t listen.
But this:
“You don’t debate the merit of the skeptic’s argument but resort to attacking the skeptics”
is proven wrong.
What science? Your science is “man did it.” Berry falsified that statement. His model shows mathematically that it is due to nature. He doesn’t explain the mechanism. He doesn’t have to. That’s not how science works. He also showed the Keeling Curve is false. Murray Salby was correct.
If one only reads only blogs by Berry and Salby, and refuses to read anyone else’s papers, like the ones I gave you by Revelle and sevetal others, then you will naturally be convinced by Berry and Salby, whose views of the carbon cycle are extreme outliers.
Each time I have shown you and explained to you the papers that demonstrate that that anthropogenic emissions are the cause of atmospheric CO2 rise, which was accurately predicted 60 y ago, you simply ignore them, and run away.
However Nate, your explanation has been here the entire time. Salby destroys the three major tenets of anthropogenic climate change, Kohler et. al, the Bern Model, and the randomness of temperature. Watch the entire video, Nate. You might learn something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtIgMftbUuw
Sorry, he mathematically supports the idea that temperature is random.
You have not read or comprehended the paper I showed you before, which was first to explain and predict the rise in CO2 over the next 60 y.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
And Berry was not familiar with it. Nor did he predict or explain the CO2 rise which has continued.
So why should we believe a guy who is not even familiar with the pioneering work in the field he is trying to work in?
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/
Nate,
You purport to be pro-science and you tag that Quant Paleo site? That was pretty lame, even for you.
So you’re attacking the writer, not his scientific arguments?
Got it.
Salby’s deception in this instance is plainly obvious from the graphs shown.
What is wrong with the author, other than the fact that he is a climate scientist?
Nate,
I do understand the carbonate cycle and alkalinity, P,M and O alkalinity and alkalinity’s buffering effect in nature. I’ve used it and tested and even given lectures on it for most of my career. It is idiotic to somehow believe and a gross conceptual error that alkalinity’s buffering effect affects Berry’s Model or Salby’s work. Also, the link you presented to marginalize Salby has nothing to do with the presentation at HSU or answers Salby’s position against Anthropogenic Climate Change. Watch it, if you dare.
Well, then you should be able to understandc the pioneering paper in this field, which I linked to.
But no evidence you have bothered to looked at it.
“It is idiotic to somehow believe and a gross conceptual error that alkalinity’s buffering effect affects Berry’s Model or Salby’s work.”
And yet it does, as all the people who have contributed to the science of the carbon cycle in the last 65 years understand.
But you are calling them idiotic…
If you’ll watch Salby’s presentation he addresses the Revelle Factor as well as other arguments and mathematically explains why they are idiotic. Also, Nate, can you give me an example of one country that has a lot of solar and wind and has cheap power? I’m glad Trump dumped Biden’s green boondoggles.
Salby’s talk is full of obfuscation. He is a proven fraudster.
Around 41-45 minutes he discusses why the decay time must be very short to fit the observed CO2 rise, and cannot be ~ 50 y as claimed by IPCC.
Roy Spencer’s model proves him quite wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/
Roy shows that a decay time of 50 y woks extremely well to fit the observed rise in CO2 to anthropogenic emissions, with ENSO contribution included.
“And yet it does, as all the people who have contributed to the science of the carbon cycle in the last 65 years understand.
But you are calling them idiotic…”
Now I guess you’ll be including Roy Spencer among that large group of ‘idiotic’ scientists.
So you really didn’t watch the video. He mathematically showed the Bern Model CAN’T be correct. Dr. Spencer posted the model but then Chic Bowdrie posted Dr. Berry’s model that fits the evidence also. Also, the model Dr. Spencer posted doesn’t include Natural CO2 as Chic Bowdrie pointed out. How can you have a conservation of mass solution without including all the mass? Keep flapping Nate.
Salby cheats in his talks, as you ignore, and in his jobs, so no one should believe his crap.
Roy does include the natural contribution of ENSO, and it explains well the short term variations that are added to the long term rise.
And Salby’s claim that a 50 y e-time fails to work with anthropogenic emissions was proven totally wrong by Roy Spencer.
But you will continue believing anyway.
And still no problems found with the paper that established that the Revelle Factor matters and explains why anthropogenic CO2 isn’t just immediately sucked up by the ocean?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/politicos-hit-piece-on-me-and-energy-secretary-wright/#comment-1704421
Perhaps it is beyond your comprehension?
You’re flailing. Salby addresses the Revelle Factor and shows that it isn’t a factor. Dr. Spencer’s model is the Bern Model. Again, again, again, Chic Bowdrie posted Berry’s model as a reply and it includes human and NATURAL CO2. Conservation of mass must include all the mass that flows into and out of the atmosphere. If you have a 20K gallon tank of water with a 1, 2, and 3 inch drain, is the outflow going to be faster than the fastest drain’s outflow or as slow as the slowest drain’s outflow? The Bern Model would have you believe the latter. The Bern Model partitions the atmosphere. There are no partitions in the atmosphere. I respect Dr. Spencer but don’t always agree with his views. However, you’re being completely disingenuous-you attack Dr. Spencer in the same thread that you use one of his posts. Your true colors.
Salby cheats on his talks…..LOL.
Watch it if you dare. If you have any mathematical ability at all Nate, which I suspect you do, then you’ll have difficulty explaining yourself and your beliefs. Where is your utopia? Where has it ever been?
Nate,
Have you read Revelle’s paper? The Residence times that he is estimating are pretty much in line with what Berry conservatively calculates in his third paper. Like Berry stated, there is no conflict there.
Stephen, I showed you the original paper that proved mathematically that Revelle Factor does matter. And in fact it predicted the rise in atmosphere CO2 that we indeed observed over the next 6 decades.
But you refuse to look at it, nor explain whats wrong with it.
Instead you defer to the authority of Salby, a know fraudster.
But you don’t have the mathematically ability to judge who us right, do you?
I have looked at Salbys claims before and found them flawed.
So if you look at the paper I gave you, and tell me what they did wrong, then I will look at Salby’s work and tell you what he did wrong.
I looked at the paper and you’re making wild claims that aren’t there. He did studies on the buffering effect of carbonate chemistry in seawater. He did determinations of residence times and they were in line with Berry. Didn’t see any predictions. I did see where he believed anthropogenic carbon can add to the Greenhouse effect. Also, there is nothing flawed in Salby’s math. Salby authored the seminal textbook on Atmospheric Physics. Same math.
Again you managed to evade reading the right paper, again. That takes real talent..
This one.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
Oh, a paper by someone other than Roger Revelle who makes claims on Revelle’s paper. Got it.
Actually, some of that paper isn’t too bad but the researcher assumes human carbon and natural carbon have different e times and he assumes the Bern Model is correct. Salby showed mathematically and physically that the Bern model can’t be correct. Berry showed that human CO2 and natural CO2 have the same e times because if not it would violate the Principle of Equivalence. Think of the Principle of Equivalence as you do any of the laws of nature.
“Oh, a paper by someone other than Roger Revelle who makes claims on Revelle’s paper. Got it.”
Yeah take a discovery and go further with it.
Are you unaware that is how science advances?
‘He assumes the Bern model is correct’
Don’t be absurd, the Bern model came much later!
“Salby showed mathematically” nothing related to Revelle or this paper.
“the researcher assumes human carbon and natural carbon have different e times”
No he doesn’t.
Look the key point to understand is equation 9, which comes direct from Revelle, and its explanation:
“This tells us that 1 percent change in the total CO2 concentration in the sea would require 12.5 percent change in the atmospheric CO2 to maintain equilibrium. If we consider only the “mixed layer” of the oceans, i.e. the surface layer which contains about as much CO2 as the atmosphere, less than 10 percent of the excess fossil CO2‚‚ in the atmosphere should have been taken up by the mixed layer. It is therefore obvious that the mixed layer acts as a bottleneck in the transport of fossil CO, into the deep sea.”
Given that you understand the buffering chemistry you should be able to follow the derivation of equation 9.
Nate,
His first statement was fossil fuel combustion has added a considerable amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the last 100 years. This is an absurd statement and the Bern Model before the Bern Model. During that 100 years human CO2 wasn’t more than 1 or 2 percent of total emissions. Also, just after equation (9), “10 percent of the excess fossil fuel CO2.” There is no excess fossil fuel CO2. More Bern Model. But, his following statement that “the mixed layer acts as a bottleneck for the transport of CO2 from the mixed layer to the Deep Ocean,” Berry agrees. Did you read Berry’s third paper? Of course not. Berry absolutely agrees and his carbon cycle model reflects those e times in Bolin’s paper and used by the IPCC and Berry showed how absurd the IPCC Carbon Cycle model is based on these e times. NOTHING in this paper falsifies Berry’s model or Salby’s work. Nate, why does the IPCC carbon cycle model show no carbon in the mixed layer? Then how did it get to the deep ocean if there is none in the mixed layer?
No he doesn’t.
Yes he does. He doesn’t state it but he implies it by assuming there is an excess of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. That could only happen if human and natural CO2 have different e times.
In reply to Gadden…”What are you talking about? The warming (i.e. increased temperature of Earth’s surface due to increased concentration of CO2) is basic physics. Learn about the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It was discovered in the 1800’s”.
***
Not any physics I have studied. I learned that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. It’s called the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is nothing in the atmosphere that can replicate a real greenhouse and that’s why greenhouses were invented, to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
In the 1800s, scientists believed heat moved through the atmosphere (actually, an aether) via undefined heat rays. Bohr straightened that myth out in 1913, after the atomic nucleus and electrons were discovered. Turns out heat needs to be converted to electromagnetic energy by electrons in atoms before it can be transferred through the atmosphere by radiation.
It appears that some modern climate scientists are still living in the 19th century and have never heard of Bohr and quantum theory.
—————–
binny…”Such people go so far as to deny Einstein’s work (they even doubt that GPS needs relativistic corrections) or that our Moon (like all major satellites of the solar system) rotates on its polar axis”.
***
No need to deny Einstein’s work when it is so easy to prove it wrong. In the days of E., they apparently believed time is a real entity whereas it exists only in the minds of humans. The second is fixed to the rate of rotation of the Earth and cannot dilate. E. redefined it to make his theory work and that’s a no-no in science. You need to prove it can be redefined, simply being Einstein is not enough.
His mistake re EM having momentum but no mass is understandable since it was unknown at the time that electrons are affected by the EM fields in EM and not momentum related to EM. It will likely take another century before certain physicists wake up and gain insight into what laymen apparently know now.
Proving Newton wrong is an entirely different matter. No need, he got it right. And let’s get it right, Newton is still the man.
Same with GPS, any relativity is related to the satellite orbital motion, the rotation of the Earth, and the time taken for an EM signal to go between the GPS sat and the surface station. Elementary my dear Watson. No time dilation, and even if there could be, we have no instruments to measure it because there is nothing there to measure. Perhaps a brain surgeon could delve into a human brain and measure it.
ps. clocks don’t measure time, they generate it while synced to the Earth’s rotational period.
Anyone with basic physics can prove the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. The idea that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit is not only ingenuous, it’s plain dumb.
“Anyone with basic physics can prove the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth”
Eh? Because the moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth, it MUST rotate on its polar axis (in addition to rotating around the Earth, obviously.)
Whoops! According to Nate, anyone that thinks the moon is rotating around the Earth is “absolutely bonkers”.
Gadden wants to reveal his ignorance of basic physics. He’s already demonstrated he doesn’t know anything about photons or temperature. Now, he’s showing he has zero knowledge of orbital motion.
Whether it’s Nate, gordon, barry, bdgwx, Ent, Bindi, Ark, or RLH, I don’t understand why these people are so proud of their ignorance.
Oh dear.
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tidal-locking/
“Earth’s Moon rotates, but it takes precisely as long for the Moon to spin on its axis as it does to complete its monthly orbit around Earth. As a result, the Moon never turns its back to us, like a dancer circling ― but always facing ― its partner.”
Sorry Gadden but this is about science.
You should have taken physics instead of dance….
Read it for yourself.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2025/05/07/theres-a-new-anti-climate-action-playbook-in-town-00333635
quote from the article…
“Nobody on the clean energy side is trying to say that we should stop using energy and go back to 1750 and have horses and buggies and chamber pots,” Scott Denning, a climate scientist at Colorado State University, told Scott.
“Rather, we’re trying to say that we can still have that sense of growing human flourishing, we just have to do it without setting carbon on fire.”
***
No one on the alarmist side is willing, or capable of explaining how we convert from fossil fuels to alternative fuels by 2035 when zero carbon emissions is proposed. It’s simply not doable yet the alarmists, with their heads buried in the sand, don’t want to hear protests.
A more reliable deadline would be turn of the next century, at 2100.
Meantime, we have to endure their propaganda about doomsday.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2025/05/07/theres-a-new-anti-climate-action-playbook-in-town-00333635
Read for yourself.
What does Trump think of it?
He’s too busy braying about his deal with the UK. Why, oh, why, would a UK government, especially a labour government, cow-tow to him?
Testing
Dr Spencer,
Thank you for conducting valuable, progressive science using established principles of integrity.
It is sad that some concepts that allow science to advance are being challenged or diluted by alternatives that are not good science. The climate change topic has been the breeding ground of much of what is dangerously wrong now with modern science education and conduct.
You have support from other hard scientists who have lived the actual nature of proper science.
Geoff S
With Trump’s convincing election and the dominance of the US in the world economy climate alarmism is deceased, passed on, departed, expired, gone, no more, late, lost and unlamented.
The Politico author and his hapless defenders here remind me of those stranded Japanese ‘holdouts’ who continued to fight after the absolute unconditional surrender.
Or maybe Stan Laurel in Block-Heads (1938).
Republicans might finally be losing interest in election denialism. Stop the squeal!
“Republicans might finally be losing interest in election denialism.”
You wish.
Yeah the first step, is admitting, then it’s one day at a time.
The unaddressed question is how EXXON et al are concealing the warming that is actually occurring? To what extent is AI holographically increasing polar ice, the number of polar bears or otherwise persuading observers that there is no significant change occurring when we know that a major crisis is unfolding?
When the tidal surge from almost monthly CAT 7 hurricanes dump polar bear carcasses in the Huntsville suburbs will Spencer still keep faking that satellite data?
One day when you people grow up you will figure out that total majority of government funded science is overvhelmingly fake driven by politix and funding money grab, climate science being the worst example of it.
The “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” is not only false, it is cmpletely backwards , the higher Co2 and warner temperature is ovewhelmingly beneficial to the life on Earth
Ofcourse I’m not talking to those who already know it.
Good point. However, the chicanery is not only in climate science funding, it is corruption of science right across the board. The entire covid hysteria was driven by innuendo and misinformation. Those scientists opposing the chicanery were ostracized.
eg. When Robert Malone, an expert in mRNA, pointed out that the mRNA-based vaccine would not prevent people getting infected, he was banned by Google and other news outlets for allegedly spreading misinformation.
gadden…”Oh dear.
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tidal-locking/
“Earth’s Moon rotates, but it takes precisely as long for the Moon to spin on its axis as it does to complete its monthly orbit around Earth. As a result, the Moon never turns its back to us, like a dancer circling ― but always facing ― its partner.””
***
Speaking of dances, you are a bit late to this one. We have already established that the Moon is moving with curvilinear motion, a la Newton, and that it does not need to rotate exactly once to keep the same face pointed at Earth.
Re NASA, I contacted them and they agreed with my analogy as stated above, however, they insisted they were viewing the Moon from the perspective of the stars, claiming it is rotating from that view.
When I replied, pointing out that a body not rotating in one frame of reference cannot start rotating in another frame of reference, there was no reply.
NASA are talking about re-orientation of the Moon wrt the stars and not a rotation about a local axis. To see that, consider a car running around an oval track. For someone inside the track, he/she always see the same side of the car. However, for someone sitting in the stands, he/she sees all sides of the car. The view from the stands is equivalent to the view from the stars and the viewer gets to see all sides of the car.
At no time is the car rotating about an internal axis, its COM. If it did rotate as such, it would go out of control. To firm that up, replace the car with a locomotive running around an oval rail track. It is impossible for that loco to rotate about its COM since it is confined to the rails. To rotate it on its COM, a turntable would be required or a crane to lift it and allow it to be rotated.
The mistake being made by spinners is regarding a 360 degree change in orientation, like a car/loco running on an oval track, with a rotation about the centre of mass. The Moon in its orbit has the same motion as a car or loco running around an oval track. It does not need to rotate about its COM once per orbit.
Speaking of loco, Clint could not contain himself and felt an impulse to insult most people on the blog. However, had me and Dremt not bailed him out on the Moon, by supplying the physics, he’d still be wallowing in his ignorance. Clint’s thanks is backstabbing those who help him understand physics, a futile effort since he can’t understand anything.
There is no doubt that DREMT has been the major factor in debunking the Moon spin nonsense. But poor gordon has been unable to contribute anything. Typically, he just clogs the blog.
His comments all have the same format. He refers to Einstein, Bohr, and other famous scientists, trying to fake a knowledge of the issues. He used to fake being an engineer, but he couldn’t even fool Bindi. He doesn’t understand the thermodynamic definition of “heat”, meaning he’s NEVER studied thermodynamics. He believes “flux” is “energy”. Even a sanitation engineer (janitor) would know that “miles per hour” is not the same as “miles”. Rate is NOT distance. Flux is NOT energy.
But, gordon is obsessed with me. So I get to enjoy the show….
Gee the cranks are fighting over territory. Who owns this corner of the internet?
Meanwhile Clint thinks photons can carry negative energy.
Nobody is buying his unsupported nonsense.
Now link to where I ever said that, child Nate.
See why you’re such a child? You just make up nonsense because you have NOTHING.
Grow up.
“a “somehow absorbed” 15μ photon would COOL a 288K surface.”
Bwa ha ha ha!
Sorry child Nate, but there’s NOTHING about “negative energy” there.
Do you know any adults that can help you?
-photons are quanta of energy
-photon abs.orption is an input of the photon energy.
-cooling is a lowering of internal energy
We know you have trouble with basic logic, but do try your best.
Child Nate, you tried twice to cover up for your false accusation that I ever stated photons have “negative energy”.
But, the fact remains, you threw out another false accusation you can’t support. You make crap up, just like an immature child.
“We know you have trouble with basic logic, but do try your best.”
Nope. You have no logical ability.
So we will hold your hand.
You claim a photon being abs.orbed results in cooling.
Cooling requires a reduction in internal energy.
But a photon abs.orption is addition of its energy.
Therefore the photon’s energy must be negative, according to you.
Child Nate, your comment begins with a false accusation and continues with another demonstration of your ignorance of science. So, the following is only for responsible adults:
I NEVER stated that a generic photon would result in cooling. I mentioned the specific case that, IF a 15μ photon were somehow absorbed by a 288K surface it would result in a lessening of the kinetic energy of the molecules in the surface, which would then result in a lowering of the surface temperature. But of course that small decrease, from one photon, would not be detectable.
The point is, adding energy does NOT always result in increased temperature. Entropy is involved. The energy must be the “right kind” of energy. That’s why photons from ice can NOT raise the temperature of a glass of water.
Shorter Puffman: not ALL photons.
American exceptionalism applied to physics.
“IF a 15μ photon were somehow absorbed by a 288K surface it would result in a lessening of the kinetic energy of the molecules in the surface”
Yep, then it adds negative kinetic energy.
However you try to spin it, it ain’t physics, and it is absurd.
But if you really want to convince people, then show us legitimate physics source that supports this!
Nate, when you add an ice cube to a cup of hot coffee, are you adding “negative energy”.
I’ll answer that for you, since you don’t understand science:
NO! Adding ice to hot coffee merely reduces the kinetic energy of the molecules, thus lowering the temperature.
See if you can find a responsible adult to explain it to you.
roy…”But Lomborg, Epstein, and Roger Pielke Jr. are better at refuting those claims than I am.
He authored a book entitled: “Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.”
***
Roy is being modest here, he has done well explaining issues in climate science as has John Christy.
Some other authors have taken on the IPCC, like Ross McKitrick. The following page is full of hypertext links to various papers he has produced which reveal the IPCC as the amateurs they are. McKitrick is a scholar not a conspiracy theorist, and his critiques are measured, not based in ad homs.
McKitrick and Steve McIntyre are famous for dismantling Mann’s hockey stick,revealing it as an exercise in bad math.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/ipcc-reviews-and-critiques.html
Also, Richard Lindzen has provided many essays and good evidence re the IPCC while providing good skeptical evidence to refute alarmism in climate science. He has provided a more realistic account of the GHE.
Lindzen is good with explanations of the history of current climate science. He humourously explains how recently, circa 1980, no one called himself a climate scientist and these days everyone is a climate scientist.
In this excellent paper, Lindzen explains the GHE and what is wrong with it. It is worth reading the paper just to read his explanation of the role of convection and an explanation of the global average.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221006180511/https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf
nate…[GR] ““She wrote a book in which she attacked three skeptics who were deceased.”
[Nate}Yes and she revealed their efforts to protect their employers Big Tobacco and Big Fossil Fuels, using the very same tactics to tarnish the science”.
***
Here’s one of the deceased scientists, Frederick Seitz…
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/us/06seitz.html
Strikes me as being a pretty brilliant guy, whose only alleged downside was helping a tobacco magnate spend money on science.
The ban on smoking in public places here in Vancouver has taken place mainly in the past 20 years. Prior to that, anyone complaining of 2nd hand smoke would have been run out of town. In the day of Seitz, no one complained about tobacco companies.
It chagrins me today to see whiners running around blaming the tobacco companies for making them smoke through not informing them as to the dangers. Same with drugs like fentanyl being blamed for the deaths of so many young people. Who the heck forced them to take the drug? I can see it if the kids were duped into taking it but many know what it is they are taking, and like heroin, they don’t care.
I have never smoked, failing to understand what benefit tobacco products would have on my system. In fact, I saw the potential for damage and disease without being told about it. I also took notice of the extent to which my body went to reject the smoke whenever I got stoopid and occasionally inhaled a drag. I would never take a shot at anyone from the past, as did Oreskes and other alarmists, in lieu of a valid rebuttal to their skepticism.
Another brilliant scientist ad hommed by Oreskes re tobacco was Fred Singer…
https://heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/s-fred-singer/
Oreskes lacked the ability to debate scientists like Singer head on and took shots at them from afar based on red herring arguments and plain ignorance. Sadly, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stooped to the same chicanery. They invited Singer to talk on a CBC program, presumably to talk about his skeptical views, then interrogated him on his relationship with tobacco companies in the 1960s.
Climate alarmists are not known for ingenuity or original thinking, getting by on pseudo-science and a poor man’s consensus.
Oreskes also tried to assassinate Bill Nierenberg, another highly accomplished and intelligent scientist. She was obviously out of her league and understanding of science and had to resort to ad homs and red herring arguments to fulfill her spiteful needs.
Reminds me a lot of Clint [tee hee].
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11172/chapter/13
She represents climate alarmists in general who cannot debate climate science on its merits but must resort to ad hominem attacks, red-herring argument, and outright character assassination.
“In my book, people who believe they have witnessed human-caused global warming are about as delusional as flat-Earthers.”
What a silly statement.
I suspect you would find very few farmers or others who have been involved for a couple decades in agriculture who don’t believe they’ve witnessed global warming.
“Human-caused” as a qualifier seems to carry a lot of water here, but global temperature long term trend has tracked remarkably close to Hansen’s late-80s model.
Humans who think they have detected an increase of 0.2 C per decade probably are delusional. There are so many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade that human perception of that net increase is impossible. On the other hand, it is possible that people who have been told that the earth is warming are likely think they are experiencing something to that effect.
It takes very sensitive satellite measurement or highly manipulated and normalized surface data to measure a world-wide effect of that kind. Even if just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer is not able to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change.
Tim, whether you and Dr Spencer like it or not, planting dates have shifted earlier and no one who’s livelihood depends on it believes otherwise.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213600629/-it-feels-like-im-not-crazy-gardeners-arent-surprised-as-usda-updates-key-map
Humans who think they have detected an increase of 0.2 C per decade probably are delusional. There are so many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade that human perception of that net increase is impossible. On the other hand, it is possible that people who have been told that the earth is warming are likely think they are experiencing something to that effect.
It takes very sensitive satellite measurement or highly manipulated and normalized surface data to measure a world-wide effect of that kind. Even if just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer is not able to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change. Claims that humans are detecting climate change is really just evidence of the hype involved in climate claims.
“We have now sunk to a depth in which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
George Orwell.
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” ~ George Orwell
– George Orwell
The fact is that an increase of 0.2 C per decade is very small. The many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade make human perception of that net increase nearly impossible. On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect.
The satellite measurements and surface data do measure the effect, but that is different than human perception. If just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years likely will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer who is out in the field every day will have a hard time trying to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change. Claims that humans are detecting climate change is really just evidence of the hype involved in climate claims.
“On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect.”
Yes. But people with memory of past decades notice it. In New England the lack of persistent snow cover, compared to 20-30 y ago is noticeable.
My neighbor used to create outdoor ice hockey rinks every year, finds it doesnt really work anymore.
You add more proof that climate change is more about hype than fact. The fact is that an increase of 0.2 C per decade is very small. The many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade make human perception of that net increase nearly impossible. On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect.
The satellite measurements and surface data do measure the effect, but that is different than human perception. If just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years likely will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer who is out in the field every day will have a hard time trying to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change. Claims that humans are detecting climate change is really just evidence of the hype involved in climate claims.
mark b…”“Human-caused” as a qualifier seems to carry a lot of water here, but global temperature long term trend has tracked remarkably close to Hansen’s late-80s model”.
***
Does that include the 15 year ‘hiatus’ announced by the IPCC in 2013?
That would be the model from which Hansen distanced himself 10 years later, blaming his computer for making a mistake.
Hansen was the father of modern climate alarm, basing his theories on Carl Sagan’s misguided observations that the climate of Venus was due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That’s where Hansen got the notion of ‘tipping point’, a reference to a non-existent positive feedback.
Hansen persisted with that pseudo-science even though the Pioneer probes circa 1978 revealed a surface temperature on Venus of 450 C, conditions in which a greenhouse effect would contradict the 2nd law.
Whatever is going on in the Venus atmosphere it had nothing to do with a greenhouse effect, fictitious or otherwise.
This adds more proof that climate change is more about hype than fact. The fact is that an increase of 0.2 C per decade is very small. The many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade make human perception of that net increase nearly impossible. On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect.
The satellite measurements and surface data do measure the effect, but that is different than human perception. If just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years likely will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer who is out in the field every day will have a hard time trying to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change. Claims that humans are detecting climate change is really just evidence of the hype involved in climate claims.
> an increase of 0.2 C per decade is very small.
As compared to what, and when?
As usual, TS is not even trying.
They all posted — days later. Imagine that!
Dr. Spencer is a true scientist, as he reports data obtained from actual observations and strictly adheres to the numbers contained therein.
Moreover, he is correct that seasonal and even daily temperature changes can exceed global changes many times over. The meridional circulation currently observed means very strong temperature drops in spring, when the jetstream descends from the north (in the northern hemisphere). Changes in the jetstream circulation cannot be related to human activity, since they begin in the tropopause and have repeatedly caused the collapse of great civilizations.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
“Dr. Spencer is a true scientist, as he reports data obtained from actual observations and strictly adheres to the numbers contained therein.
Moreover, he is correct that seasonal and even daily temperature changes can exceed global changes many times over.”
What Dr Spencer said was, “In my book, people who believe they have witnessed human-caused global warming are about as delusional as flat-Earthers.”
That’s simply wrong for anyone involved in agriculture which is sensitive to relatively small shifts in climate.
Propaganda is often more about what one doesn’t say than the truth about what one does say.
I think of it as arguing like a lawyer, where one must adhere to the facts, but emphasizes those facts that are favorable to one’s case and ignores or de-emphasizes those that are not. If one does that with science communication it comes at a cost to one’s scientific credibility.
The greatest sin in science is not to be wrong, it’s failing to address facts contrary to one’s hypothesis.
Mark B, you are confusing “global warming” with the “CO2 nonsense”.
Dr. Spencer’s UAH work clearly shows Earth is in a warming cycle. But, believing that warming is caused by CO2 is just a false belief. There is no science to support such nonsense.
The near surface atm. warming is caused by the sun shining through added atm. CO2 (et. al. added IR active gases) which is evidently and amusingly beyond Clint R’s learning on the subject.
Clint R: “believing that warming is caused by CO2 is just a false belief.”
Are you suggesting Dr Spencer needs to backpedal on the bit of this blog post where he states “I don’t even deny recent warming. I don’t even deny that recent warming is probably mostly due to humans.”
As an aside, land surface temperature rise over the past 50 years has been at a rate of about 0.035 C/year, the 0.02 C/year cited in the blog post is apparently global land+ocean. Most people, of course, live on land and have experienced the former, not the latter rate of change over recent decades.
Mark B, I never mentioned Dr. Spencer. So are you just grasping at straws because you don’t have any science?
Spencer has clearly called himself a “Lukewarmer”. His area of expertise is not physics, so he prefers to challenge the alarmism from his area of expertise — climate. I don’t need to defend him, he does that quite well for himself….
Unforgettable and unrelenting seeker of truth; a mind that never stopped asking, “Why?” https://youtu.be/uY-u1qyRM5w
ark…I have watched Feynman’s lecture on QED at a Kiwi University. In fact, I have read one of his books, an autobio type.
Like anyone else, I hero worshiped Feynman and Einstein without understanding why. You are obviously still hero-worshiping him but I have stopped.
Like Einstein, Feynman lived in the domain of thought-experiment from which his rich imagination enabled him to assert truths without proving them. In fact, he readily admits he has no idea what is actually going on…
“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school-and you think I’m going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you’re not going to be able to understand it. Why, then, am I going to bother you with all this? Why are you going to sit here all this time, when you won’t be able to understand what I am going to say? It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does. I’d like to talk a little bit about understanding”.
then…
“The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won’t understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can’t explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way.
Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can’t believe it. You can’t accept it. You don’t like it. A little screen comes down and you don’t listen anymore. I’m going to describe to you how Nature is-and if you don’t like it, that’s going to get in the way of your understanding it.
It’s a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They’ve learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don’t like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.”
****
I disagree with his last sentence that QED agrees fully with experiment. That’s because the experiments are so abstract and fully removed from reality as to have any significance.
Feynman thought one number was significant because it approached the number offered by Dirac in the 1920s. However, Dirac had no more of an understanding of the electron than anyone else, which is the basis of QED. All Feynman et al did was confirm a theory that has never been proved.
I no longer hero-worship the likes of Feynman and Einstein and it has given me a more objective view of their claims. That does not make me right but it does raise questions about their theories that need to be answered. For example, why did Einstein claim the second is a variable when it is clearly a static value determined by the Earth’s rotation? And, why does Feynman blindly support the relativity theory of Einstein while putting down the science of Newton?
I was surprised when Feynman explained that Newton used a prism to divide white light into colours. There are no colours in light, only many different frequencies of EM. He claimed the colour red could not be further broken down but he did not explain what is meant by red. There are many hues of red, all with different frequencies, however, it the the human eye that adds the colour when stimulated by each frequency. Why was Feynman not aware of that?
He likely was aware of it but it was more important to Feynman to be the master showman. It stroked his ego to be in control and to deprive listeners of essential information. He could have quickly pointed out that the frequency representing the defined colour red is between 400 and 480 Thz and can be broken down further into separate hues of red. However, a prism, being a crude instrument for such purposes would not have made that apparent to viewers.
It bothers me deeply that modern observers often fail to give Newton the immense credit he deserves for doing such amazing pioneering science considering the times in which he lived and the crudeness of his instruments. I seriously doubt that either Einstein or Feynman could have discovered what Newton discovered while at the same time inventing the required calculus to do his work.
It is not that Newton is wrong about motion at the atomic level it’s that the theories we offer are crude and not suitable for the application of Newton. The sole problem is the lack of instruments to measure at that level even 400 years after the times of Newton. Quantum theory is a serious obfuscation that will need to be scrapped, according to Bohm, and they can take Feynman’s QED with them.
As clever as he was, Feynman simply could not separate himself from his heroes. He admitted he was no genius but genius has nothing to do with it. It’s about awareness and how our thoughts relate to the real physical reality that surrounds our brains, including our own bodies. Feynman had no awareness of atomic structure, relying on models of atoms put into his mind by others.
Quantum electrodynamics is yet another pathetic attempt to explain atomic theory. A major weakness of Feynman was his monstrous ego. Although he deflects it using humour, as many intellectual bullies do, his ego is prominent. Why else would he claim that QED explains atomic structure even though he fully admits he has no idea what is going on?
Compare Feynman with David Bohm, a scientist of equal stature who had a great deal of humility. Bohm was the type who would sit with a novice patiently explaining something to him. As demonstrated in a lecture to a university class in New Zealand, Feynman talked down his nose to them, advising that if they did not agree with his obfuscated lecture, they were wrong.
As long as we carry on this hero-worship, castigating those who question the heroes rather than listening, we will be lost in science.
Of course, hero-worshipers will vehemently disagree with me, not as much because what I am saying is wrong but due to the simple fact that I have contradicted their heroes.
Your 1116 word comment can be summarized as follows:
Misrepresentation of Feynman’s statements. False claim that QED lacks empirical support. Confusion between philosophical dissatisfaction and scientific falsity. Incorrect assertion about the definition of the second. Strawman attack on Feynman’s explanation of color. Speculative personal attacks. Oversimplification of historical scientific progress. Misuse of Bohm’s critique. Failure to distinguish models from reality. No constructive alternative offered.
And, you have no idea why I posted a Feynman video on May 11th.
Art of the Deal.
The descent of northern air masses into Europe and the formation of blocked highs is causing nighttime temperatures to drop below 0 C and heavy horticultural losses. For example, grapevine plantations have frozen in western Poland. There will be up to 50 percent drops in soft fruit harvests.
https://i.ibb.co/hxrXJRZn/hgt300.webp
tim s…”The many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade make human perception of that net increase nearly impossible. On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect”.
***
Good point. Our life experiences, especially in the past few years, are hardly an example of the overall weather/climate picture. Even during the time I have spent on Roy’s blog, maybe 10 years, if that, are hardly representative of long term weather/climate.
***Roy…sorry for imposing on you that long and thanks for putting up with me [smiley]***
I began researching global warming about 20 years ago based on the IPCC claim that it was 90% certain that humans are causing global warming. Since, it has changed to 95% with no further evidence, only statistical evaluations peculiar to the IPCC. Having studied engineering probability and statistics, I wanted to know why such a confidence level was being applied to an unknown.
Today, I watched an interview with a woman talking about Trump slashing world aid. Whereas I think his move is a bad idea, and all in aid of enabling tax breaks for the extremely wealthy, her reasons for not slashing the aid made little sense. Besides referencing the non-existent AIDS issue globally, she leaned on covid and recent forest fires in my native province of British Columbia, Canada as evidence of climate change.
The forest fire issue here parallels the notion that a trace gas is causing catastrophic climate change. Nothing that has happened recently in BC with fires outstrips another record breaking year of 1939. What was the excuse back then? That year, 1939, was part of a record decade for heat waves in North America as well as record temperatures that are similar to today.
The problem is clear, we simply have not been around long enough to judge changing climates. Not only that, the technology for detecting changing temperatures is light years ahead today of eras nearly a century back. So is the global coverage. It has been claimed that the 1930s heat waves were local to North America only but we lacked the temperature coverage globally back then compared to what we have today. Even today, with the exception of the satellite record, the coverage is uncertain.
Prior to the advent of the public access to the Internet in the 1990s, there was little in the way of a global community. Since then, global communications has exploded. I recall the 1990s Internet, not so much an internet as a group of bulletin board services (BBS) accessed with treacle-slow modems running at the heady speed of 1200 baud. It took forever to download an app, or info, that would download instantly today. Much to my chagrin, using Xmodem, or Zmodem, the download would reach 95%, after hours of download time, then fail.
We’ve had some weird weather events the past few years and to someone born post-2000, it must appear as a Doomsday reckoning. One of them Greta Thunberg is 22 years old meaning she was likely born around 2003. The sad part is that she lectures adults from her seriously limited experiences and they applaud her. She predicted the end of the planet by 2022. That’s how stoopid her thinking is yet she has adults hanging on to her every word.
China and US are negotiating a trade “deal”. So the tariffs were a negotiating tactic and not a “trade war” after all. The official statement on the discussions from China mentions “equal footed dialogue”. An announcement is expect on Monday. What will the media say now?
Oh, by the way, stock futures are up already after some good progress last week. I predict it is safe to invest in the USA again.
Roy,
I sympathize with how disheartening it must be to see hit pieces misrepresent your work. Given your long history as a public figure, perhaps you’ve come to terms with this, but it’s still worth reflecting on why people resort to such tactics in the first place.
Some convince themselves they’re fighting for a greater cause and justify rhetorical combat as necessary. Others may be wrestling with inner turmoil and project that outward. Either way, these behaviors tend to harm the people who engage in them more than their intended targets.
Personally, I find comfort in knowing that those who twist the truth end up poisoning their own sense of peace. Eventually, they are left alone with the weight of it all: the time wasted, the joy forfeited, and the knowledge that none of it was worth it.
Empathy is a powerful shield. Viewing your critics through this lens can help protect your inner peace and makes it much easier to detach from the madness.
I hope this perspective is of some help.
> they are left alone with the weight of it all
That might explain why sometimes they create sock puppets.
That may be true. Psychology is complex, and everyone seems to develop their own way of coping with things.
I agree with your analysis as it applies to most people who are trying to do good in the world and contribute something useful. Most honest scientists would agree with you. But lawyers, politicians, and politically minded people think differently. For them, being truthful or accurate has nothing to do with it. It is all about the argument. Lawyers are trained to be able to take either side of the case and win it. They get to choose their clients, but then they are all-in. That is how you plan against and beat the other side. What is the other side thinking? What is the counter argument?
The only thing this guy is worried about in the short term is how many gullible people he convinced. Hopefully, as time goes on, he will reflect on the fact that Dr Spencer is an honest person who is primarily interested in doing accurate science. The irony is that Roy has validated much of the basic science that is correct, while shining a bright light on some of the weak areas that need more research such as the heat island effect.
From what I can tell, Dr. Spencer is a solid scientist. I really like his articles on extreme weather and the complex statistics behind those events.
I hope he is able to rise above the flame wars that often surround the climate debate, though I’m not implying he has not already. I don’t know what’s going on in his mind or how he processes all the negativity, but I believe finding peace of mind would only enhance his work and credibility.
The whole climate blogosphere and its debates really are a philosophical spectacle. It is easy to get caught up in the toxicity, but when you take a step back and reflect, it helps you get more in touch with your own emotions and human nature.
I truly hope Dr. Spencer has that perspective, as it would enrich his life. And the same goes for everyone on this forum, no matter what “side” they are on.
clint’s nose got seriously out of joint re my comment that me and Dremt got him through lunar theory. A sure sign that I hit a nerve.
“His comments all have the same format. He refers to Einstein, Bohr, and other famous scientists, trying to fake a knowledge of the issues”.
***
Clint fails to grasp it is kosher to give credit where credit is due, unlike Clint who reads textbooks, misunderstands them, then claims the errors as his own. All I have pointed out is obvious errors in the work of Einstein but I have acknowledged Bohr’s great work in modernizing physics in 1913. Unfortunately, Clint is still stuck in the 1800s, failing to grasp that the electron was discovered in 1898 and its discovery redefined much of the understanding in physics.
===========
“He doesn’t understand the thermodynamic definition of “heat”, meaning he’s NEVER studied thermodynamics”.
****
Strange comment since I have quoted Clausius on heat, the 2nd law, and entropy. After all, Clausius is regarded an authority on each, inventing the latter two. Clint reads modern authors who have no idea that Clausius wrote the 2nd law and entropy theories.
There are far too many scientists these days who fail to grasp a theory and offer their misunderstanding of it. Of course, there are also the gullible who grasp these incorrect renditions and claim them as their own perpetuating the pseudo-science.
Heat was first studied formally by Count Rumford circa 1800 AD who noticed it when cannon barrels were bored. He associated heat with friction. Obviously the friction of drilled tears atoms out of bonds, releasing bonding energy as heat.
Neither Rumford nor anyone in that era regarded heat as a transfer of energy, they called it what it is, a form of energy. It is thermal energy, aka heat, that is transferred but Clint thinks some other energy is transferred and that the transfer process is heat. Since it is heat being transferred, according to Clint, heat is a transfer of heat.
Same with entropy. Although Clausius defined it as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat in a transfer, Clint has latched onto a later theory that entropy is about disorder. In chemistry, heat is the the portion of heat released in a reaction and unavailable to do further work. No mention of disorder, even though disorder does result from such processes.
I wonder if Clint could supply the units for disorder since entropy is measured in joules/degree K. I have never seen disorder measured in such units. I’m sure Clint must know what they are.
———-
“He believes “flux” is “energy”.
***
Not a belief, it’s a fact. Flux represents the rate of change of an energy field. There is nothing else it could be since its units are w/m^2. The watt is an energy measure.
———
“But, gordon is obsessed with me.”
***
Gordon is not attracted to men but Clint seems to have a fantasy about men being obsessed with him. Weird laddie, wonder if he has a membership at the YMCA.
gordon’s obsession with me is impressive.
But his immature insults and false accusations are easily ignored.
Svante Arrhenius first identified the long-term impact of increased carbon dioxide on the Earth’s heat balance in 1896. Since then, thousands of peer-reviewed studies, satellite observations, ice core analyses, and five IPCC assessment reports have reinforced and expanded upon this understanding. We have long possessed the essential knowledge about climate change; it is not a lack of information that hinders us.
Science exists to help us perceive the world as it truly is, not as we assume it to be, not as we wish it to be, and not as it is comforting to believe it is.
A good scientist does not repeat the same experiment expecting a different result simply because they desire a different outcome.
And yet, as Roger Revelle observed, by releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, humanity has unwittingly embarked on a “great geophysical experiment,” one whose outcome we can no longer claim to be unaware of.
The great geophysical experiment,that has done more good than harm and as fossil fuels are finite and the C02 effect on temperature is linear, its effects will be less and less over time,it was Arrhenius i believe who said increasing temperature by releasing C02 may be beneficial and open up large areas of the frozen for human expansion, not the doom and gloom so many appear to reval in.
“…one whose outcome we can no longer claim to be unaware of…”
LOL
Ark, do ANY of those “thousands of peer-reviewed studies” indicate how 15μ photons can raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature?
NO? Not one? Then, it ain’t science is it?
Because as someone once said: “Science exists to help us perceive the world as it truly is, not as we assume it to be, not as we wish it to be, and not as it is comforting to believe it is.”
Clint R
You would not find “Ark, do ANY of those “thousands of peer-reviewed studies” indicate how 15μ photons can raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature?” in any peer reviewed article. This is not what the GHE is at all. I have tried to explain it to you but you are exceedingly stubborn and set upon your opinions.
It works as a radiant insulation. Atmosphere allows in most visible light (that energy) but reduces the outgoing IR.
Just as insulation will not heat up a non-heated object (say a hot cup of coffee). It will not heat it up but it will slow down the rate of heat loss and it will stay warmer than without the insulation. If the object is heated than insulation will allow it to reach a higher temperature.
At night the Earth’s surface does cool so NO the atmospheric generated downwelling IR does not warm the surface. It will however act like an insulating medium and allow the solar heated surface to reach a higher temperature.
You can get an understanding by looking at a previous post by Dr. Roy Spencer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/
Norman, what you are trying to describe is called the “atmospheric effect’. That effect relies on nitrogen and oxygen to form a “blanket” around Earth. CO2, and other radiative gases, act as holes in the blanket.
Clint R
Oxygen and Nitrogen are nearly transparent to the entire band of IR. They do very little in reducing IR emission from surface from directly reaching space.
Insulation does not stop energy flow, it just slows it down. Heat still moves across fiberglass insulation. If the furnace goes off in your home in Winter it will still get cold.
Your idea of CO2 emitting to space rendering it unable to act like a radiant barrier is flawed. It also emits downward.
I would strongly encourage you to read Roy’s post on the subject and really think about what he is saying. Maybe the light-bulb will go off in your mind and you will understand the concept.
Sorry Norman, but that’s all irrelevant, or wrong.
You’re STILL believing CO2 contributes warming. You’re STILL believing 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface. That’s just wrong.
You can’t get beyond your cult beliefs. You don’t understand the science, and you can’t learn.
Clint R
No I do not still believe colder atmosphere warms the surface. I have never thought this to be correct.
You still do not understand the insulating effect. The GH gases reduce the rate of surface heat loss. The solar energy is what warms the surface. GH gases act as a radiant insulator slowing the rate of heat loss so the solar heating can establish a higher surface area. That is what I am saying. A blanket does not heat your body in cold room does it. It slows the heat loss rate of your body to the cold room allowing your skin to remain at a warmer temperature. If you read the Roy link he does explain this.
Norman, you’re just saying the same things over and over. It’s the same as with the Moon issue. You can’t accept reality. You can’t accept that the ball-on-a-string is not spinning and you can’t accept that 15μ photons can not raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
You can’t get beyond your cult beliefs. You don’t understand the science, and you can’t learn.
Plus, you suffer from TDS….
Art of the Deal.
Charles Gasparino – FOX Biz Senior Correspondent.
China is at the negotiating table with a high level delegation including a Vice Premiere (whatever that is). Trump won. The liberal media lost. President Xi lost.
President Xi had no intention to negotiate with Biden or anyone else. He is negotiating with Trump. Xi tried everything including visiting his neighbors to form a coalition. None were interested.
The media spin is just sour grapes. China is just as dependent on selling to the US as we are to buying from them. It is time to talk.
All major US stock indexes are up on a record day, but most importantly, all indexes ended trading at the high of the day. Tesla is way up. Money talks and media crap is just that.
Trump won. There are many negative things to blame on Trump, or criticize him. This is not one of them.
China won. They gave up nothing. The USA lost. Simple.
RLH, we know you know nothing about tariffs, or science. But let’s see if you understand basic arithmetic:
Which is larger, 130 or 10?
Point out what China lost. Should be easy.
You’re “Trumped” by the simple arithmetic, huh RLH?
You are Trumped by lies.
And once again RLH proves he has nothing to offer.
What will he try next?
The Great Trump Tariff Rollback. The President started a trade war with Adam Smith. He lost.
The Wall Street Journal. May 13, 2025.
Welcome to climate change, where the biggest signal is in the margins: https://ibb.co/Z1WLFxY3
ERCOT is forecasting an 84.6 gigawatt peak on Wednesday. The May peak demand record is 77 gigawatts; all-time record is 85.5 GW. There are 20,000 megawatts of thermal plants offline. Solar & storage is perfectly suited to heat waves, no energy emergencies expected.
News from the kakistocracy.
It’s not just that RFK Jr. took his unfortunate grandchildren swimming in raw sewage Sunday because he doesn’t “believe” in the Germ Theory of Disease… it’s that he intends for ALL your children to swim unvaccinated in sewage forever.