Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2025 was +0.48 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the May, 2025 anomaly of +0.50 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through June 2025) now stands at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 18 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.20 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.60 | +0.63 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.41 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.52 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.06 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.04 | +2.10 | +0.87 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.74 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.77 | +0.46 | +0.37 | +0.82 | +0.85 | +1.21 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.99 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.81 | +0.05 | +0.39 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
Not a scientist here, just a weather enthusiast with a very dated education in weather and climate. A year or two ago, I marked up a copy of this chart noting major El Niño and La Niña events. For me, it explained the cyclical nature of the temperature graph. Last time I looked we were ENSO neutral, but since that phenomenon has a cyclical nature to it, it would not surprise me if we weren’t hading for a La Niña and slower increases.
As an aside, related to UHI, our NWS office – Wilmington, Ohio – noted several temperature records for June in Dayton, Ohio. Every one of them was a record LOW. I know it is anecdotal, but it seems to fit with the idea/theory that UHI is a very important factor in recent warming trends.
I am praying for you, Roy. With God’s grace you will get through this time. I really appreciate your work and how you are trying to make your contribution to a better world.
Yes, it’s well-known that the short term (think a few years) fluctuations in Earth’s temperature are correlated with El Nino and La Nina. The long term trend (think averages over 10 or 30 years) is an entirely different matter, see https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/ .
And no, UHI has next to nothing to do with this LONG term trend (which is around ten times faster than the most rapid known global warming in Earth’s preindustrial past).
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/can-you-explain-the-urban-heat-island-effect/
See HADCRUT 1690 to 1730. Faster warming than now. 2C in 40 years.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/ts_meantemp_cet.png
Some dude named Ken commentes here that HADCRUT shows a faster warming in 1690 -1730 (HADCRUT only goes back to 1850, duh) and posts a graph showing LOCAL (Central England temperatures), apparently not understanding that the adults are talking about GLOBAL average temperature. Oh dear.
“which is around ten times faster than the most rapid known global warming in Earth’s preindustrial past”
Please provide a source.
Hey, krokodile!
I wrote “ten times faster than the most rapid known global warming”. The most rapid known global warming is the deglacializations and the PETM. Look them up and compare the warming rates with today’s. They were around twenty times slower than today’s warming. And remember, we’re talking CLIMATE-relevant timescales, so forget about any temporary changes over a few years.
(There is actually ONE known event in the prehistorical past that MIGHT have caused a CLIMATE-relevant global warming with a rate comparable to today’s. Can you guess which event that was?)
‘Red krokodile’ asks me to provide a source for my statement that Earth is now warming (at least) ten times faster than the most rapid KNOWN global warming in Earth’s past. And ‘Ken’ asks me to ‘prove’ my statement, as if science could ever be PROVEN. See for example https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/19/science-doesnt-prove-anything-and-thats-a-good-thing/
The ‘source’ Mr Krokodile is asking for is the entire collection of paleoclimate studies. NONE of these studies indicates a higher warming rate than today’s. We’re not even aware of any realistic natural mechanism that COULD ever have produced a global warming like what we’re currently experiencing, with the POSSIBLE exception of ONE specific type of event. Guess which one?
“The most rapid known global warming is the deglacializations and the PETM. Look them up and compare the warming rates with today’s. They were around twenty times slower than today’s warming.”
Why compare rates of change from low resolution proxy data to high resolution, year to year thermometer records?
“And remember, we’re talking CLIMATE-relevant timescales, so forget about any temporary changes over a few years.”
You don’t need to tell me that.
How can short term fluctuations over just a few years even be accurately compared to proxy data that averages over much longer timescales?
Gadden says:
”I wrote ”ten times faster than the most rapid known global warming”.”
I would challenge that premise.
One can see warming cycles in the ice core records of both polar regions that defy that.
Additionally the claim that these permanent ice sheet regions where sampling occurs can warm faster on the ice caps isn’t supported in science.
We know rapid warming occurs in the transition of ice to water but that’s not applicable to the permanent ice sheets and ice core records on these permanent ice sheets.
But our institutions are corrupt. They know the correct comparison to ice cores would be rates of current warming occurring only over the ice caps excluding areas where the ice sheets have melted. I think a 5th grader should be capable of understanding that.
Yet when one averages the northern hemisphere polar regions including the areas of ice loss the warming per UAH is approximate the same as the mean global warming number.
Yet even though we use bulk areas that would clearly overstate the warming on the ice sheets we don’t do anything about this lack of data parsing and allow people to come up with some really stupid ideas about how fast things can warm and cool as a global average.
That is evidence of the corruption.
The science is there but its heavily suppressed. Station data exists on the ice sheets sometimes right on top of the ice core area. Milankovic’s work is also suppressed but enough bits and pieces exist to see why its being suppressed.
The ice core records for both polar regions show 3.5C warming events occurring over a few hundred years about once every 3,500 years in times with a circumnavigation of Uranus Neptune conjunction effects from the cold side of the solar system to the warm side of it wrt to the direction of perihelion of earth’s orbit.
Then considering the facts above it seems likely that if anything the ice core records most likely warm less than the global mean average changes.(as it should per radiation laws)
Gadden, I appreciate your reply, but I am having a problem with the logic. Sure, I understand that the 10 year average is going to smooth out the shorter term fluctuations caused by ENSO. But it seems whenever we are in El Niño, the media and those concerned about global warming use those relatively short term spikes in temperature to warn (alarm?) everyone about global warming. They talk about “the warmest YEAR on record”, “the hottest summer ever recorded”. I am simply pointing out that those shrill cries are largely over ENSO, a recurring phenomenon, that is probably not related to greenhouse gases.
As for UHI, Logic tells me that the same phenomenon that burned my feet when I walked on hot sand or blacktop could be causing temperature rises over time at weather stations located in areas that have experienced urbanization/population growth/surface changes. Can’t send you a link or citation but I have read work that showed very little temperature increases over time at rural stations that are not subject to these factors. Then there is the terrible (laughable, in some case) siting of many weather stations, which would produce higher temperatures, not representative of the ambient temperatures in the surrounding area. I know that there is an attempt to adjust for UHI, but I am skeptical of their accuracy. Finally, I always hear relative terms (hotter, hottest, etc) describing warming, but rarely are the magnitudes discussed. I have looked at normal temperature increases a bit. Hope to do more. The actual magnitudes of increase are almost not noticeable to most human beings. I have described it as similar to moving 100 miles south from wherever you live in (where normals are higher). I live in Cincinnati Ohio. I am quite sure that I could survive in London Kentucky. I am told that many members of my species do in fact thrive there. And so do many species of plants and animals.
CET is the oldest record that we have. If you’ve got something better to prove your rather specious claims … go for it.
Oh dear. CET stands for Central England! Everyone knows temperature can change faster locally than globally. To warm the EARTH as a whole in climate-relevant timescales (think global temperature average over a couple of decades), you need to change the energy balance to/from Earth. For local changes, however, all you need is a change of how weather moves around between different parts of Earth.
Why not address the points I made in my answer to you instead? Again, you said HADCRUT and showed HadCET. And again, HadCET is LOCAL, as I just pointed out.
For GLOBAL average temperature thousands and millions of years back, you need to look at paleoclimate data. You didn’t know that?
I wrote “ten times faster than the most rapid known global warming”. The most rapid known global warming is the deglacializations and the PETM. Look them up. They were around twenty times slower than today’s warming. And remember, we’re talking CLIMATE-relevant timescales, so forget about any temporary changes over a few years.
CET is the only record that I am aware of for 1650 – 1750. Since there is no other record, we have to consider it is indicative of global trends.
Too, there are records going back to circa 1800 at major cities across Europe, all showing similar trends that compare well with ice core and other paleoclimate data.
CET is likely a valid indicator of global trends.
Ken,
You state “CET is likely a valid indicator of global trends”. Educate yourself.
The earliest years of the series, from 1659 to October 1722 inclusive, for the most part only have monthly means given to the nearest degree or half a degree, though there is a small ‘window’ of 0.1 degree precision from 1699 to 1706 inclusive. This reflects the number, accuracy, reliability and geographical spread of the temperature records that were available for the years in question.
(Besides, if you really believe Earth got two degrees C warmer in 1690-1730, you must also believe a climate forcing of around +2.5 W/m^2 happened over that time period. That’s HUGE! What on Earth(or elsewhere) would have caused that?)
Here is the CET and the Global Mean temperature both for 1850-2025, with a 2 year smoothing.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut5_global_24month_low-pass_loess1_a.png
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet_1850:2026_24month_low-pass_loess1_a.png
First off the CET has ~ 2 degree decadal variations plus a vague long term trend.
The Global mean has ~0.3 degree variation plus a long term nonlinear trend with plateu regions 1850-1920 plus 1940-1980, that are not present in the CET.
Not much correlation between the two.
Notes on the state of Virginia Thomas Jefferson written 1781 indicates significant warming during his lifetime. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/gdc/lhbcb/04902/04902.pdf
Just eyeballing globaland CET compared, there isn’t much correlation bar a very long upward trend. Otherwise – see the temperature tend 1900 to 1950. Global rises, CET appears flat.
In any case, it is well known that local temps are a poor proxy for global, even ones that closely correlate with global (not the case with CET anyway). Short and long term weather pattern changes have far more effect locally than globally.
“with plateu regions 1850-1920”
Global coverage was very sparse back then, Nate:
https://postimg.cc/w7WshvKD
‘Very sparse’
Not in comparison to just central England!
Anectotal. And what does Virginia in mid to late 1700s have to do with Central England 1690-1730? Or either one with Global Mean temperature?
“And what does Virginia in mid to late 1700s have to do with Central England 1690-1730?”
Try reading what is written.
Basically the anecdote corroborates CET because change in climate was observed in Virginia in roughly same time period … and gives credence to CET as being representative of global trends.
Not at all the same time period…
Playing fast and loose with facts ain’t science.
Second warmest June, beaten only by last year’s.
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.69
2 2025 0.48
3 1998 0.44
4 2019 0.34
5 2023 0.30
6 2020 0.29
7 2016 0.21
8 1991 0.18
9 2010 0.18
10 2015 0.18
My projection for the year increases slightly to 0.50 +/- 0.12C, with it looking increasingly likely that 2025 will be warmer than 2023. But we will see.
Recent changes at the poles have had a major effect on CFSR data. It will be interesting to see where this goes. It could throw off your “projection” by a significant amount.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-07-02.gif
That’s why I said “We will see”.
I was going to mention the big drop in land temperatures as seen here
https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu/
It certainly looks that much of South America has turned very cold. But I don’t know how much significance to put on 1 day.
Where is that data from?
And absolutely zero evidence of any human causation.
Bellman” I don’t know how much significance to put on 1 day.”
The CFSR data shows cooling over the last 6 months which has now reached 0.9 C. Much of that has occurred in the last week, so it could be a fluke. However, it’s unprecedented without volcanic or ENSO forcing.
“The CFSR data shows cooling over the last 6 months which has now reached 0.9 C.”
No, you need to compare at least whole months to the same months in previous year. Then you will see that compared to last year (the peak year for El Nino warming) the months have been ~ 0.1 C cooler.
Pretty normal.
Nate says: “you need to compare at least whole months”
Wasn’t it last summer the media was comparing day by day anomalies to the past and claiming record warming? Hottest evah!?! What goes around comes around ….
I didn’t say this was a long term trend, but I didn’t see any previous cooling period quite like it. Personally, I’m thinking this could be the end of the Hunga-Tonga warming period and we will level off to values seen prior to 2022. That will take several more months to determine.
We are 30 years into the latest +AMO phase so even more cooling will be coming soon.
Or …. we could see some major cooling.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-07-02.gif
Just weather. Antarctica has large variations this time of year.
” Recent changes at the poles have had a major effect on CFSR data. ”
Really?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KdsNhZb-8-lFt112o80zXrCPZL77FqS4/view
I based my comment on this graph.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d2-gfs-grta-daily-2025-07-02.gif
Think this may be the first time UAH has hit a rate of +0.16C per decade warming for any period exceeding 360 months (30-years).
It’s been +0.16C/dec before a couple of times previously; once in the late 1990s and again in the early 2000s; but never before over a period spanning 30-years or more. (30-years being the standard period of reference in climatology, as far as I’m aware?)
Right, and by 2014 the trend had dropped to +0.11 C/decade. The trend line rises and falls.
“The trend line rises and falls.”
_________________
Indeed, but where periods of 30-years (360 months) and more are concerned, this is the first time the UAH_TLT warming trend has surpassed +0.16 C per decade.
Also, taking only 30-year periods, of which there are now 200 in the UAH_TLT data (i.e. overlapping consecutive periods of 360 months each), the average trend is +0.13C/dec with a standard deviation of (+/-) 0.015C.
The 30-year periods ending over this past 3 months, (Apr-Jun 2025) have all had warming rates of +0.17C/dec; that is to say, more than 2 standard deviations above the long term average for 30-year periods.
These facts may not indicate a long-term acceleration in the UAH warming trend, but they are new high water marks in terms of the UAH warming rate for periods of, and exceeding, 30-years.
Nope, red krokodile. The 30-year average trend line doesn’t ever fall. The 10-year average trend line occasionally falls slightly but there is no question that the long term trend is upwards. See https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/
This is obviously not surprising since this was predicted in the 1800s when the atmospheric greenhouse effect was discovered. It’s been known since the 1800s that CO2 emissions make Earth warmer in the long term.
The use of 10 and 30-year averages assumes stationary variability throughout the time series. The anomalous warming observed over the last 2 years challenges that assumption.
“Nope, red krokodile. The 30-year average trend line doesn’t ever fall.”
You talking about trends or averages? The 30-year trends definitely rise and fall.
1979-2008 trend = 0.126 C/decade
1980-2009 trend = 0.121 C/decade
1981-2010 trend = 0.141 C/decade
As all 30-year trend comparisons are within each others’ uncertainty range, this is not saying much at all.
Barry,
You obviously don’t know what a TREND is. Your point differences like from 1979 to 2008 (which is a change over 29 years) aren’t trends. When I said “30-year average trend” I obviously meant the trend of the 30 year average. Why else do you think I explicitly linked to https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/ in my post?
Just click on the link and study the graphs, particularly the one showing the 30 year average. Sheesh.
And that is the 46 year trend, and a significant increase in it over the last several years.
The short term trends, 30 year, 46 year, etc are a curiousity only.
What of the 2,000 year trend? Something more in concert with geologic timescale, not human life span timescale.
Leweis Guignard, here’s the 2,000 year data. Any takeaways?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature
You think a one degree C warming of the EARTH’s decadal average over 50 years is a “curiosity only”? Are you mad? Which NATURAL mechanisms are realistically capable of EVER having warmed Earth at such a rapid rate?
This is the link I meant, sorry: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg
And if you’re unhappy with that one, there are plenty of others here: https://gist.github.com/priscian/5a10f13dbf727048aee17e5d3849041a
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2025-07-02.gif
Looks like CFSR is trending lower.
Where exactly is this data
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
The 1877 spike continues to serve as a template. This is NOAA data through April. The next six months should be interesting.
https://localartist.org/media/HTvAkjsaENSO2504.png
Correction: NOAA data included May. I’ve added the UAH data through June.
https://localartist.org/media/HTvAkjsaENSO2506.png
Cool
In a previous thread, Wal~ter R. Hog~le (who now nicknames as ‘red krokodile) posted the following:
” Bindi is quick to generate inverse hockey sticks for Arctic sea ice and Rutgers’ Northern Hemisphere snow cover, ignoring key context, like the non stationary shifts that challenge IPCC assumptions in the former, and the seasonal divergence in the latter (with Northern Hemisphere autumn and winter snow cover increasing).
Yet when confronted with the fact that these kinds of shifts impact the signal to noise ratio, as in the case of the anomalous drop in cloud cover during 2023-24, he brushes it aside. When the signal is buried in noise, as it is here, it is simply not credible to claim detection of climate trends with the kind of precision he asserts.
This selective treatment of evidence mirrors climate denial. It is well established that climate deniers view science through the lens of their ideology rather than through objective inquiry. ”
*
This is really brazen. I never posted any ‘inverse hockey sticks about anything: this is a sheer lie. Hog~le polemically discredits what I do instead of technically contradicting it with charts proving he is right; he simpl,y is unable to do that.
*
1. Arctic sea ice
I reproduce either exactly the original G02135 data in absolute form containing the annual cycle:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u8Hd4Hpskx9mlKan8CloUHa4JEZk3v4L/view
or in anomaly form with annual cycle removal in the same manner as teached by Roy Spencer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rRqY7uYkHEHYISJgMTt7lue-C8-JI2RI/view
**
2. Rutgers’ Northern Hemisphere snow cover
Same as above.
Original weekly data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ABBiug5c5lQ-rgL7Ijd8KjiTcNfGx9rR/view
Data with annual cycle removal
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1843ycyIsaTPuSjQRIIn88Zzo1es_zAmJ/view
*
If you show the data with a 52 week averaging, the decrease becomes even more apparent in both absolute and anomaly-based series.
**
3. Now let’s move to a carefully organized seasonal split of the weekly snow cover data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11UUojgTWCvomT5m_DKNp0dFU7APJhwfz/view
As we all can see, Hog~le’s claim (most likely carelessly copied without any verification from a pseudo-skeptical blog)
” … with Northern Hemisphere autumn and winter snow cover increasing ”
isn’t correct.
What is rather visible is that recently,
– winter time isn’t decreasing at all, and that
– autumn increases at the same rate as spring decreases.
*
Conversely, all his claims about the “key context,” especially about the “signal-to-noise ratio,” etc., as usual, lack any proven scientific basis.
I asked Hog~le for such a source; he could only provide me with three links to articles that didn’t even mention the points highlighted in bold above.
*
Germans would call Hog~le ‘dummdreister Schnösel’, i.e. a brazen snoop.
Bindi, did red krokodile correct you again? Is that why you’re so mad?
Have you noticed that you’re ALWAYS mad?
Maybe you’re just mad at reality….
Clint,
We tend to follow different corners of discussion on here, but I have noticed our impressions seem to overlap in a certain direction about you know who. Can’t help but think that says something. Curious if you see it the same way.
Yes red, Bindi is one of a group of about 8-10 that are only here to disrupt and pervert. I call them the “cult kids”. They have two things in common — they have no interest in science (reality), and they hate anyone that doesn’t hold their false beliefs.
Classic case of projection – seen most clearly in the current president.
“Accuse your enemy of what you are doing…”
This quote (often attributed to Karl Marx, Joseph Goebbels, or Saul Alinsky) describes a common strategy of propaganda referred to as projection.
The tradition has been that the first day of a new post by Dr. Spencer should be restricted to rational comments without arguments and insults. You should show more respect.
“I never posted any ‘inverse hockey sticks about anything: this is a sheer lie.”
Yes, you did. Here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700872
“(most likely carelessly copied without any verification from a pseudo-skeptical blog)”
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=4
Rutgers University: a ‘pseudo skeptical blog,’ really, Bindidon? That is quite a dismissal for an institution known for rigorous work. One might expect at least a shred of evidence before such a sweeping judgment.
“winter time isn’t decreasing at all, and that
– autumn increases at the same rate as spring decreases.”
No, winter snow cover is increasing as shown above.
And why exactly do you think the autumn increase is “offset” by spring decreases?
That is such nonsense. More autumn snow cover over Siberia strengthens the Siberian High, which in turn enhances polar air advection into Eurasia later in the winter.
These are not abstract numbers you can cancel out on a spreadsheet. They are physically meaningful and seasonally asymmetric.
“he could only provide me with three links to articles that didn’t even mention the points highlighted in bold above.”
Yes, none of the papers explicitly claim the global signal to noise ratio changed two years ago. So what? The purpose of reading scientific research is not to find every conclusion spelled out. It is to understand the content, apply the insights, and draw logical extensions beyond what was directly studied.
Your entire comment is vacuous. You cannot respond to the evidence, so you resort to lazy speculation about who you think I am.
Hog~le
” Bindi is quick to generate inverse hockey sticks for Arctic sea ice … ”
*
A reply showing how incredibly dishonest you behave.
*
Here is, made extra for you, your personal ‘inverse hockey stick’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QlG-YLKpZSWSK3Q5_67fc_TvhMj7WYu4/view
*
Feel free to compare it to what I posted on March 18, 2025 at 6:23 PM:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
*
By insinuating that my comparison of NOAA’s G02135 data to HadISST1 Ice would have anything in common to your dumb idea of inverse hockey sticks, you not only show pure dishonesty but also profound technical incompetence.
*
Not any person who, unlike you so boastfully describe yourself, would ‘understand the content, apply the insights, and draw logical extensions beyond what was directly studied‘ would ever identify my graph to any kind of hockey stick, Hog~le.
*
Simple because s/he would have immediately seen that if I had ever intended to ‘hockey stick’ the data as you woefully insinuate, I of course would have stopped the two time series in 2020 – before they started looking like the contrary of what you overlooked: namely an increase of sea ice shown by both NOAA’s and Met Office’s data.
*
” … so you resort to lazy speculation about who you think I am. ”
I don’t need to speculate about who I think you are, Hog~le.
It is sufficient to look at how you behave.
*
Just a detail, finally.
You proudly showed fall and winter NH snow cover data fitting your personal narrative, but – typical for Pseudoskeptics – intentionally dissimulated the spring data (Rutgers’ summer data isn’t shown anyway at their site):
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
*
Extra for you, I post a graph containing linear trends for the four seasons, to be compared to the much more accurate polynomials:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k7evmkZao_oYuT_kuVcF15OzBeeb-vdb/view
*
Trends in Mkm^2/year
Winter: 0.06 +- 0.02
Spring: -0.20 +- 0.02
Summer: -0.34 +- 0.02
Fall: 0.17 +- 0.03
*
Weren’t you a Pseudoskeptic like Blindsley H00d aka RLH, he would of course have discredited your post with a hint on how useless and wrong linear trends are :–)
How do you expect the linear trend is going to alter?
Arctic down to 0.05. Is that exceptional in recent years? Will a ”cold” Arctic affect the global temperature progress in any way? How and why?
Not exceptional. In the summer T is dominated by ice-water temperature ~ 0C.
Nate,
Joachim is referring to the Arctic temperature anomaly.
June’s anomaly for the North Pole is the coldest since February 2023.
Walter,
Joachim is referring to what would be exceptional.
You are referring to a positive anomaly as cold.
Referring to February 2023 is silly.
Joachim was asking whether it stood out compared to recent years, which, as we all know, have already been exceptionally warm.
Willard, isn’t it curious that Bindi didn’t step in to correct Nate, especially given his usual role as the blog’s self appointed temperature data watchdog?
My point was that the anomaly in summer is always very small compared with winter, for the simple reason that the vast open water with melting sea ice is close to 0C.
It is the reason ice-water is used to calibrate thermometers.
You can see that demonstrated here for the polar region.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Pick any year, and you will see hardly any deviation from the blue line (mean of long past decades, in june-august, but large deviations in the rest of the year.
And the June anomaly for UAH Arctic is often negative. Last time in 2017.
The new Monckton Pause extends to 25 months starting in 2023/05. The average of this pause is 0.66 C. The previous Monckton Pause started in 2014/06 and lasted 107 months and had an average of 0.21 C. That makes this pause 0.45 C higher than the previous one.
+0.155 +- 0.041 C.decade-1 k=2 is the trend from 1979/01.
+0.027 +- 0.010 C.decade-2 is the acceleration of the trend.
Rounding this to 1 significant figure means the trend has ticked up to +0.16 +- 0.04 C.decade-1 k=2.
A new record for the highest lower bound of the trend at +0.12 C.decade-1 k=2 occurred on this update.
My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/03 update was 0.43 +- 0.16 C k=2.
My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/04 update was 0.47 +- 0.14 C k=2.
My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/05 update was 0.46 +- 0.11 C k=2.
My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/06 update is now 0.47 +- 0.09 C k=2.
Happy Fourth of July. What a great country our Founders made!
And look who ‘they’ made the President!
I’ll take my leader over your leader any day.
Says you (and no-one else).
We have a King. Do you?
We have the same King. I’d rather the President (this one, not the last one).
” What a great country our Founders made! ”
Oh yes. Based on
– the emigration of some of Europe’s most evil populations to North America (not including people persecuted for political or religious reasons, of course);
– the subsequent extermination of indigenous peoples, which – admittedly – began with the Spanish invasion of North and South America;
– the disgusting enrichment of many ‘Americans’ through the enslavement of Black people brutally torn from their African world and their roots;
– the very silent denazification of an incredibly large number of Nazis who fled the German Reich, which collapsed in 1945, including, among many others, a certain Wernher von Braun and all his closest collaborators, who saved the USA from the shame of its absolute failure in rocket construction in the 1950/60s.
*
Yes. Anderson, who so enjoys insulting others as Nazis and Fascists, can indeed be proud of all that.
Bindi, your extreme Leftism is showing, again.
See a therapist about all your hatred. It might be based on your jealousy….
Hello Mr 360-degree-ball-on-a-string-brain
Thanks for your reply, perfectly fitting your daily attitude.
I love the slave bit.slaves sold by their own country men and tribal leaders,carrying on the long tradition of slavery, did you know that thanks to the Roman empire, The population of Italy was 30% slaves, and Zanzibar was a thriving slave route to the Arab countries , long before Europeans had ships, slavery was not a western invention. But Great Britain ended it , although thanks to China it has re emerged in parts of Africa today.
Germany has a history of both direct involvement in the transatlantic slave trade and the use of forced labor. While not a major colonial power like some other European nations, Germany did participate in the transatlantic slave trade through colonial projects in Africa and through the use of forced labor during World War II.
The concept of “CO2 warming the planet” still has its followers, regardless of the fact that it can’t be supported from First Principles of physics. The reason appears to be that very few people understand radiative physics and thermodynamics, both topics are rather obscure to those with little science background.
For example, the thermodynamic definition of “heat” is “the energy that moves from a hot object to a cold object”. Many cannot understand that simple definition. As another example, radiative fluxes can not be simply added. Yet the vast majority of “CO2 Warmists” believe fluxes from the atmosphere simply add to solar.
A recent discussion involved a surface emitting 500 W/m². A flux of 400 W/m² arrives the same surface. Could the 400 W/m² flux raise the temperature of the surface that is emitting 500 W/m²?
Of course not! To raise the temperature of the surface, the incoming flux must be greater than the flux emitted from the surface.
Continued stupidity.
You still haven’t explained where the 400 W/m² goes.
Or doesn’t conservation of energy apply in your fantasy world.
Are you sure your name is not D..g Co….n ?
In the science of radiative physics, it’s called “reflection”, child.
Get a responsible adult to explain why you can see things in your playpen.
Clint R
Sorry to give you real physics and not your made up opinion, if a surface has an emissivity of one it means it emits as a blackbody. This also means it absorbs like blackbody! I notice you will provide nothing to support your made up physics. No links. No experimental evidence just your arrogant belief in your own made up opinions. S what is your evidence? Textbook physics says you are wrong! Ball is in your court, what is your valid science source that the 400 W/m^2 would be reflecte???
Again Norman, I did not use the phrase “black body”. I said the plates have unity emissivity. Your “black body” does not exist. It is imaginary. There is NOTHING natural that defies 2LoT.
The fact that your cult beliefs rely on something that does not exist should tell you something….
Clint R
You don’t even know your own posts? Your post was not if a 400 W/m^2 would raise the temperature of a surface emitting 500 W/m^2.
Your post was if you had 1000 W/m^2 reaching a black-body surface with two sides so that each side would emit 500 W/m^2 at Steady State conditions. Then you add a 400 W/m^2 source and yes the temperature will go up with both these sources of input. This is textbook physics, I have linked you to both textbook material and a video explaining it to you. You reject science (real science) in favor of your own made up opinions and beliefs on how you think reality works. That is not science. You reject science and endlessly insult and denigrate any who try to correct your false made up beliefs. This has been going on for some time now.
Wrong again, Norman.
You have NEVER provided a credible source to explain how a surface can be warmed by a flux less that the flux emitted by the surface.
You just BELIEVE ice cubes can boil water.
Beliefs ain’t science….
Clint R
You are stuck in a dumb zone there. Neither I nor the source said a flux that is less than what is emitted will warm the surface. You are neglecting the surface is receiving 1000 watts from another source.
You are correct in stating a lower flux received by a surface will not warm one with greater emission. That is not what your initial post was about and it is not what I am saying.
To clarify, What the textbook states (for a black-body as you used in your original post). This is textbook physics on radiant heat exchange: From my initial post to you on the other thread: “I gave you a textbook example of real physics. Heat lost by a surface is the energy it loses by emission MINUS the energy it gains from the surroundings! This is established physics. The side receiving 400 Watts/m^2 but emitting 500 W/m^2 would have a net heat loss of 100 W/m^2 rather than the previous 500 W/m^2.”
You’re STILL wrong, Norman. Only more so, the more you spew.
Your answer to the problem was “333.3K”. That is wrong, as previously explained. You’re caught in your own web of deceit. That wrong answer has 400 W/m² warming a surface that is emitting 500 W/m²! That violates both radiative physics and thermodynamics.
Now, if you want to admit you are wrong, that’s perfectly acceptable. But if you believe you can pervert reality with long-winded comments, insults, and false accusations, that’s NOT acceptable.
Also, you need to learn what “credible source” means.
Clint R
Since you lack reasoning ability and do not accept textbook physics that clearly explains it to you. You go off on some tangent that I am caught in a “web of deceit” because I can understand physics. It is not my fault you cannot understand it.
For others (not you since your brain is not working).
You have the 1000 W/m^2 received by one side. This warms the plate till it emits 500 W/m^2 on each side. Add the 400 W/m^2 flux on the other side now that side surface is emitting 500 W/m^2 but absorbing 400 W/m^2 at the SAME TIME! This means that that surface is only losing 100 W/m^2 (note it is still losing energy). Since it can only lose 100 W/m^2 of heat on that side, the plate now will warm up more with the 1000 W/m^2 received on the other side. If you do the math and use correct textbook physics the plate will heat up so that it will lose the 1000 W/m^2 it is receiving from the other source. It has to reach a temperature where it will emit 700 W/m^2 from both sides to reach a steady state. The side with the 400 W/m^2 source will emit 700 W/m^2 from its surface but only lose a net of 300. It is emitting 700 but absorbing 400, the net heat loss is 300 W/m^2 on that side and 700 on the other for a total loss of 1000 Watts which is what it is receiving from the other source. Unfortunately you can’t comprehend what is going.
Poor Norman tries again. Notice his comments get longer and longer, as he tries to work his way out of his web of deceit.
From my first comment above:
Norman and studentb strive to prove me right. Neither has a clue about the issues. They both believe that all infrared is always absorbed. Norman says “…that side surface is emitting 500 W/m^2 but absorbing 400 W/m^2 at the SAME TIME!” He actually believes the surface emitting 500 will also absorb 400, at the SAME TIME!
They don’t understand “reflection”. When photons strike an object, there are 3 primary results:
1. The photons can be reflected.
2. The photons can be absorbed.
3. The photons can penetrate the surface.
What will happen will depend on wavelength compatibility. And that wavelength compatibility is greatly affected by temperature. Just as photon emission is greatly affected by temperature (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law), absorp.tion is also greatly affected by temperature.
Penetration of a surface means the photon continues on, leaving the surface. Visible light can penetrate glass, for example, but little else. X-rays can penetrate the human body. Gamma rays can penetrate a couple of feet of concrete.
Back to “reflection”. It turns out that reflection is the most common occurrence for most photons. That’s why we are able to see things. Our eyes absorb reflected visible light. A table in your room is not emitting visible light. It is reflecting visible light that originated elsewhere. Ever heard of the CMBR? The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is composed of photons that are so low in frequency (long in wavelength) that they cannot be absorbed by anything. The entire Universe is too “hot” for the CMBR photons, even though deep space is as low as 3-4K. That’s still too “hot” for CMBR absorp.tion.
So that’s one issue the cult kids can not grasp — not all photons are always absorbed. Not all infrared is always absorbed. 400 W/m² would not be absorbed by a surface emitting 500 W/m².
Clint R
In your original post you made the surface a black-body. That means it emits as a blackbody but it also absorbs all radiant energy that reaches it. It reflects zero energy (that is why it is a black-body). We all understand reflection. You can’t understand a hot body can still absorb energy from a colder one. This is beyond your ability to comprehend so you defend your ignorance with points no one is debating (like reflection). This is called the “Strawman” argument.
Request from you (which you will not honor).
Your falsely claim: “So that’s one issue the cult kids can not grasp — not all photons are always absorbed. Not all infrared is always absorbed. 400 W/m² would not be absorbed by a surface emitting 500 W/m².”
Give a source of valid science that supports your invalid opinion or give and experiment to prove it. This is NOT textbook physics. I have linked you to real science but you ignore it and keep going on with your opinions and false unscientific beliefs. All wrong and with no foundation.
Textbook physics (at least for black-body). The amount of radiant heat lost by a surface is the amount of energy it is emitting MINUS the amount it is receiving. You are just making up stupid physics with zero evidence. Than you call me deceitful.
Wrong again Norman.
I said the plate has unity emissivity. I NEVER used the phrase “black body”.
And yes, when you use false accusations you’re being deceitful.
What will you try next?
Clint R
If a surface has an emissivity of one in the IR band it is also a blackbody in the IR band. It will absorb all radiant energy reaching it. You are on the defensive and desperate. You know you have NO VALID source to confirm your ignorant opinions of how you think physics works. I gave you textbook material. You have absolutely nothing but desperation.
Norman, the problem did not involve an imaginary black body. The problem involved plates with unity emissivity. You keep trying to change the problem, trying to make your bogus beliefs somehow work.
And you never provided any “credible source”. You linked to an online book about radiative heat transfer. But you provided no reference in the book to support ice cubes can boil water, which is what your beliefs would mean.
But you continue with your insults and false accusations, proving me right.
What will you try next?
Clint R
The credible real science clearly states that a hotter body can receive radiant energy from a colder one! This is what the link shows and you just deny and pretend your made up physics is correct. The difference between you and real science is what is in textbooks comes about as the result of experimental evidence.
You could never understand how radiant heat exchange works and for some absurd reason that only exists in your strange reasoning, do you conclude that if radiant energy is absorbed from a colder body to a hotter surface it means ice can boil water. Most absurd and ridiculous and illogical thought process.
I will explain it (you will not comprehend it). If you have ice emitting 300 Watts/m^2 and you have water at 5 C (41 F or 278.15 K) emissivity is around 0.97 for water so it will emit 329.2 W/m^2.
If you surround 5 C water in a sphere of ice emitting 300 W/m^2 the water can only receive a maximum of 300 Watts from the ice if it has an area of one square meter. So the water can receive 300 Watts from the ice but it is emitting 329.2 Watts. It is losing energy even with the ice so you can see water can absorb all the energy from the ice and it still does not logically mean ice can boil water. Not sure why you keep peddling this idiot point!! Only your irrational mind justifies such lunacy.
As all physics textbooks on radiant heat transfer demonstrate.
Norman, thanks for proving me right, again.
Yes, your 300 Watts/m^2 can not raise the temperature of your water, emitting 329.2 W/m^2.
Just like 400 W/m² arriving the plate cannot raise the temperature of the plate that is emitting 500 W/m².
Keep proving me right, I can take it.
Clint R
I have already agreed with you that a colder body cannot heat a warmer one. Not the point you are making at all. You are making the totally unscientific (goes against experimental textbook physics) that 400 Watts will not be absorbed by a surface with a unity of one emissivity (meaning it will also absorb all frequencies of IR radiant energy) that is emitting 500 Watts. You think, for some unknown reason, that in this case it will be reflected. I gave you solid science that says it will NOT be. You have yet to link to any valid source that supports your opinion. You still have not done this in numerous posts. We all know why you can’t do it because you get this from crackpot nonscience blogs where they are free to make up any idea with zero evidence to support the claims.
Maybe others on this blog would like to see support of your ideas, but we all know you will not provide it, including yourself.
Your claim is that a surface receiving 1000 W/m^2 will not increase in temperature when you add an additional 400 W/m^2 to the mix. Really stupid and very unscientific. Your claim is the 400 watts will just be reflected and have no effect. So wrong and based upon nothing but your stating it. No experiment, no science link. Just blab and more blab from the poster who thinks he is a genius.
Norman the proof you need is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2025-0-48-deg-c/#comment-1707776
Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
For those who are not aware, Clint R mixes reasonably accurate statements with completely false claims. It seems like rather curious behavior. I will leave it to each reader to decide on their own what he is up to. It could be that he is just looking for attention and will settle for any type of response if it gives him a chance to reply.
3…2…1
Tim, you’ve already demonstrated what a phony you are. Now the fact that you cannot link to any “completely false claims” I’ve ever made just adds to your phoniness.
“What will happen will depend on wavelength compatibility. And that wavelength compatibility is greatly affected by temperature. Just as photon emission is greatly affected by temperature (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law), absorp.tion is also greatly affected by temperature.”
This is completely made-up ‘physics’. There is no such thing as wavelength compatibility.
In general, absorp.tion is not greatly affected by temperature like emission is.
Emission is sigma*emissivity*T^4.
Absorp.tion is proportional to absorp.tivity, which = emissivity, by Kirchoff’s Law.
Notice the T^4 is not present in absorp.tion.
You won’t offer any evidence, source, or link to support your ‘wavelength compatibility’ BS.
So it can be safely ignored.
Children can be so funny: “There is no such thing as wavelength compatibility.”
Child Nate must be color-blind….
And as for “proof”, Norman did that for us:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2025-0-48-deg-c/#comment-1707776
So, as usual, you have no physics source that explains your ‘wavelength compatibility’ nonsense.
If you had a source, this would be the time to reveal it.
If not, you will confirm that it is completely made-up.
Thanks.
Child Nate, you have no interest in learning. You’re here to disrupt and pervert. The fact that you don’t even understand how we see different colors reveals how clueless you are.
See if you can go 60 days without commenting here. See if you can control your childish addiction to stalking. Show you have some level of maturity and I’ll be glad to spend time explaining the basics to you.
CR keeps digging with his latest ludicrous concepts of “wavelength compatibility” and the idea that all the photons in the 400 W/m^2 are “reflected”.
His problem being that for any arbitrary photon there is no information about the temperature of its source. All 15 micron photons are therefore equal (in the eyes of God). The same goes for all 1.5 micron and 150 micron photons etc. Therefore an arbitrary 15 (or whatever) micron photon could come from the sun or from Pluto – there is no way of telling. Therefore there is no reason why it cannot be absorbed – whatever the temperature of the receiving surface.
If CR could get this through his thick skull he would realize how naive he has been.
Thanks for confirming that you can find no physics source to confirm your claim.
We can now be certain that it is completely made-up fake physics.
Studentb, are you one of child Nate’s students? You sound just like him. You’ve certainly got his bad habits of insulting and making false accusations.
Where did I ever say a photon carried information about its source temperature?
Where did I ever say that “all the photons in the 400 W/m^2 are ‘reflected’?
If you’re ignorant about “wavelength compatibility”, why do you instantly refer to it as a “ludicrous concept”?
Students should be open to learning. You appear as a closed-minded child of the cult, vehemently opposed to learning.
Bindidon
Your 7:19 PM comment contains only rhetoric, personal attacks, and continued speculation about who I am.
You’re fixating on my use of the term ‘inverse hockey stick’ while largely sidestepping the rest of my points. All while presenting yourself as a voice of honesty. The irony could not be more obvious.
I also have not forgotten the misleading move you pulled last month with your trend estimates. That time series was used to downplay the intensity of the warming that began two years ago. This is why you are a climate denier: you only acknowledge warming when it fits your narrative.
Either the anomalous drop in albedo that warmed the planet two years ago will reverse, allowing the climate to cool back toward previous levels, or it will persist, triggering feedbacks and further degrading the signal to noise ratio.
If the latter occurs, accurately estimating long term climate trends will likely require several additional decades of data.
But to respond directly: I was not suggesting that you are using the actual methodology behind the hockey stick. You took that too literally. What I meant is that you are showcasing a sharp decline in sea ice without accounting for the necessary context.
It is well established that Arctic sea ice underwent a regime shift in 2007.
This is not just a talking point from skeptic blogs anymore. Even the National Snow and Ice Data Center recognizes it. Just last month they published a blog post titled ‘Yes, Arctic sea ice took a turn in 2007’.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/analyses/may-sea-icealways-grace-our-planets-poles
Hold on to your ankles when Bindidog is around
I love the slave bit Bindidon. slaves sold by their own country men and tribal leaders,carrying on the long tradition of slavery, did you know that thanks to the Roman empire, The population of Italy was 30% slaves, and Zanzibar was a thriving slave route to the Arab countries , long before Europeans had ships, slavery was not a western invention. But Great Britain ended it , although thanks to China it has re emerged in parts of Africa today.
Rising death toll: At least 27 people, including nine children, are dead after torrential rain triggered flash flooding in parts of central Texas early Friday, according to officials.
• Urgent search for campers: Authorities say more than 25 girls are unaccounted for at Camp Mystic in Kerr County, which is located along a river that rose more than 20 feet in less than two hours. As a desperate search continues, the mother of a 9-year-old camper told CNN she learned her daughter has died.
• All-night rescue effort: First responders worked through the night to save victims of the flooding. More than 850 people have been rescued or evacuated as of this morning, many by helicopter, according to authorities.
• One-in-100-years intensity: Parts of central Texas saw a month’s worth of rain in just a few hours, prompting multiple flash flood emergencies. Hunt, a town near Kerrville, received about 6.5 inches in just three hours early Friday, which is considered a one-in-100-years rainfall event for the area.
It was a rapidly developing mesoscale convective vortex that is unusual and difficult to predict. It was not climate change and it was not “missed” because of DOGE cuts at NOAA, as claimed by some very unprofessional fake news organizations.. It is once again an unusual weather event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesovortex#Mesoscale_convective_vortex
With a core only 30 to 60 mi (48 to 97 km) wide and 1 to 3 mi (1.6 to 4.8 km) deep, an MCV is often overlooked in standard surface observations.[7] They have most often been detected on radar and satellite, particularly with the higher resolution and sensitivity of WSR-88D, but with the advent of mesonets, these mesoscale features can also be detected in surface analysis.
Nothing unusual there,it has a history of intense down pours and flooding,in 1983 Steve Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble recorded their first album called Texas Flood,
The deaths are due to DOGE and Trump. How can they sleep at night?
It is “Nurse Ratched” not ratchet
Stop hallucinating and repeat after me:
PHOTONS CONVEY NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE OF THEIR SOURCE
and again:
PHOTONS CONVEY NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE OF THEIR SOURCE
and one more time:
PHOTONS CONVEY NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE OF THEIR SOURCE
studentb is stuck on stupid
Yes. It is the only way to communicate with the brain dead.
A hurricane in the Atlantic will hit the Carolinas.
High convection in Texas.
https://i.ibb.co/s9RCXgDM/goes19-ir-meso2.gif
norman…”In your original post you made the surface a black-body. That means it emits as a blackbody but it also absorbs all radiant energy that reaches it. It reflects zero energy (that is why it is a black-body). We all understand reflection. You can’t understand a hot body can still absorb energy from a colder one. This is beyond your ability to comprehend so you defend your ignorance with points no one is debating (like reflection). This is called the “Strawman” argument”.
***
Norman, old chap, you need to bring yourself up to date on such theories. Kircheoff proposed the blackbody theory circa 1850 but only for bodies in thermal equilibrium. What you describe above re a heat exchange between bodies can only occur at thermal equilibrium and it is tiny.
The current nonsense, based on theory and consensus, has no support in real science. You are suggesting that the Sun, with a surface temperature close to 6000K, can absorb heat from the Earth. Surely you don’t really believe that.
I have suggested that blackbody theory should be scrapped since it serves no purpose. It has been superseded by Bohr’s theories in 1913 that revealed the real relationship between bodies of different temperatures and why heat cannot possibly be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
Kircheoff knew nothing about atomic structure, especially electrons, which were not discovered till 50 years after his BB theory was presented. Ergo, his theory was nothing more than a thought experiment. I studied Kircheoff’s current/voltage theories and they are sound, even though he knew nothing about what constituted a current. He does not have to feel badly since Clint still knows nothing about it nearly 2 centuries later.
Tee hee. Just kidding Clint, old buddy, old pal.
Bohr revealed that electrons can only be excited by a certain frequency of EM and if they absorb it, they gain KE and jump to a higher, discrete orbital energy level. No frequency outside that specific frequency will affect them especially frequencies of EM generated by colder masses, which emit frequencies lower than the resonant frequency required by electrons in a hotter mass.
Cripey, even Einstein knew nothing about it, so Clint should not feel too badly. Einstein thought EM transferred momentum to a surface and that the momentum was transferred to electrons in the surface, forcing them to eject. That’s what e = mc^2 is based on, that EM can be converted to mass and back.
Serious silliness.
“You are suggesting that the Sun, with a surface temperature close to 6000K, can absorb heat from the Earth. Surely you don’t really believe that.“
Yep, they do, Gordon. In fact, in line with Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse” abomination, they’re forced to believe that if you surrounded the Sun with a passive blackbody shell, with a gap so it’s not touching the Sun itself and thus all energy transfer is via radiation, that the Sun would warm up by over 1,000 K! I’m not exaggerating, they actually defended this nonsense in a recent discussion.
So this is either the fake moderator using his initials, or the fake-fake moderator impersonating the fake moderator which will make the original fake really upset.
The T^4 relationship is not as mysterious as some make it to be. First here is some background. If you have a 2-stage centrifugal pump with different diameter impellers on the same shaft, the shutoff pressure (deadhead) is related to the sum of the squares of the diameters. The output of the 2 impellers add to each other.
It is similar for kinetic energy in a collision where the energy is the difference of the squares and not the square of the difference. An object at 100 (choose any units) that loses 10 to become 90 has lost 1,900 (10,000 -8,100) units not 100.
So if you have 2 identical opposing surfaces of different temperature, the heat transfer from the hot surface to the cooler surface is related to T^4 of the hot surface minus T^4 of the cooler surface. Yes, the temp of the cooler surface matters. The heat transfer is not 100% of the hot surface. The cooler surface sends radiant heat back to the hot surface as described above. It is the difference of the T^4 and not T^4 of the difference. Those temps must come from an absolute temp scale.
No, I am not going to respond to any silly questions or fake models from people seeking attention.
Tim S, there is no error in the calculation, if that’s what you’re trying to imply. According to Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse” maths, and logic, the sphere, once placed in the shell, must warm until it emits twice what it did originally. For the Sun, originally emitting roughly 64,000,000 W/m^2 from its surface, that increase relates back to a temperature increase of over 1,000 K. In other words, an object emitting around 128,000,000 W/m^2 has a temperature over 1,000 K warmer than an object emitting 64,000,000 W/m^2. So, the supposed increase in the temperature of the Sun would be over 1,000 K!
That is what you have to defend, if you believe in the “Steel Greenhouse”. And, various people from your “team” have already been defending it!
dremt….if you could surround the Sun with a metal sphere the Sun would warm, but not because the metal shield is returning energy to it. The Sun’s surface is at it’s near-6000K temperature because it is free to radiate energy and the 6000K is a resultant temperature with those conditions. If you prevent it cooling by blocking it’s radiation, it’s temperature is bound to rise. That does not involved radiation per se.
I was trying to convince a friend that a fan will cool a person even in hot weather. I proved that tonight by taking my temperature orally with the fan turned off and it was 36.5C. After turning the fan on and sitting in the breeze for a bit, my body temperature dropped to 35 C.
Besides, a metal shield would eventually warm to the solar surface temperature, setting up a thermal equilibrium condition where little or no heat would be transferred.
In reality, the Sun emits EM and actual protons and electrons as the solar wind. The metal shield would prevent them escaping and the space between the solar surface and the shield would turn into a boiling cauldron of plasma.
That’s one problem with thought experiments, they seldom cover the actuality.
I don’t see what Tim S is getting at.
“So if you have 2 identical opposing surfaces of different temperature, the heat transfer from the hot surface to the cooler surface is related to T^4 of the hot surface minus T^4 of the cooler surface. Yes, the temp of the cooler surface matters. The heat transfer is not 100% of the hot surface. The cooler surface sends radiant heat back to the hot surface as described above. It is the difference of the T^4 and not T^4 of the difference”.
***
Tim…you are describing Newton’s Law of Cooling, which was presented 200+ years before the T^4 nonsense. Newton declared that the heat dissipation (cooling) of a surface is proportional to the difference in temperature between it and another surface.
I have questioned how that works via radiation, since Newton was not aware of EM or its relationship to electrons in the atoms of a surface. However, Bohr addressed that in 1913 when he discovered the reason why hydrogen emits and absorbs only at discrete frequencies. The reason is based on the properties of electrons in orbits and the relationship between the electron orbital angular frequency and the frequency of the related absorbed/emitted EM.
Tim, the cooler surface sends no heat toward the hotter surface, only EM radiation. The hotter surface can absorb no EM from the cooler surface and I regard that as a case closed. Any heat transfer involves heat created in the receiving body, not heat sent through space. EM from the cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons in the hotter body. It’s simply not possible. Ergo, there is no way to heat a hotter surface with radiation from a cooler surface.
“If you prevent it cooling by blocking its radiation, it’s temperature is bound to rise“.
The shell does not stop the Sun from emitting, and it is already emitting at the maximum temperature it can be, given its internal reactions.
“Besides, a metal shield would eventually warm to the solar surface temperature, setting up a thermal equilibrium condition where little or no heat would be transferred.”
Yes, although the shell temperature would actually be a bit lower than the (unchanged) Sun’s surface temperature, because the surface area of the shell is larger than the Sun’s surface area, and the shell would simply emit to space the same total number of watts as the Sun emits, just divided over that larger surface area to get a lower W/m^2 figure, and thus lower temperature, than the Sun.
Gordon Robertson
You make a bold statement: “The hotter surface can absorb no EM from the cooler surface and I regard that as a case closed. Any heat transfer involves heat created in the receiving body, not heat sent through space. EM from the cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons in the hotter body. It’s simply not possible. Ergo, there is no way to heat a hotter surface with radiation from a cooler surface.”
This statement goes directly against established physics. They say quite different. Science is based upon observational or experimental evidence. So the case is far from closed. Other than giving your opinion on this matter will you be a Clint R and never give supporting evidence for your claims that go against established science or will you be providing some? If you make a claim current science is wrong in their understanding of heat transfer then you will need to come up with strong evidence to support your claims. Science is not based upon how strongly you think you are correct. You need evidence. So far we have your and Clint R’s opinion. Now some evidence please.
Quantum fizzix fly high over Norman’s head
Norman, the fact that you continue making false accusations about me shows how angry you are.
As I’ve said before, you need to be angry at those that have misled you. I told you that you can’t boil water with ice cubes, but you had to finally work out the issue to learn. I told you all the time ice can’t boil water. So get mad at those that claimed fluxes simply add, and 15μ photons can raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
Eben
Maybe this will help you. First Gordon Robertson does not accept established physics of IR Spectroscopy. They have large data base on different molecular vibrations and the associated IR emission from those vibrational states and it is good enough to use to help identify unknown compounds.
Molecular vibrations that result in IR emission are from a dipole motion. There is a positive and negative dipole in some molecules (Gordon does not accept the positive dipole, on his own conclusion with zero evidence, he holds the notion it is just less negative, no valid information you give him will alter that state). The vibrational frequency of the dipole is the frequency a molecule will absorb or emit and IR photon. Well established physics that no one but Gordon disputes.
So that is the basic. The vibrational frequency of the dipole must match an incoming photon to reach an excited energy state. When the molecule returns to ground state it will emit a photon with the same vibrational frequency of the dipole.
Now the point that Gordon can’t accept is that in a room temperature surface, most the surface molecules are already in a ground state. You have a very low percentage of molecules at higher energy states that would be unable to absorb incoming energy. But as Tim Folkerts pointed out, each molecule does not just have one state that can absorb incoming energy. The vibrational state has amplitude as well as frequency so one molecule is capable of absorbing multiple photons, each will increase to an even higher energy state.
Since most the surface molecules are in a ground state on a surface at room temperature, the probability of a photon being absorbed (if possible based upon the nature of the surface molecules) is very high for photons that match the right frequency. Since the Earth surface can emit photons at the 15 micron wavelength, it will also absorb any photons reaching it with that wavelength. The Earth Surface is close to a black-body in the IR band some estimate the emissivity at 0.95 meaning it can absorb 95% of the entire IR spectrum.
There is no valid physics that states that the radiant IR from a colder source will not be absorbed by a hotter surface. It is a made up concept with zero experimental evidence and contrary to established physics. If one wants to overturn established physics they will need a good valid experiment to do so. Just making claims with no evidence is a belief not science. Many so called skeptics on this blog peddle their own beliefs and refuse to support them with any valid science.
Gordon states: “Tim…you are describing Newton’s Law of Cooling …”
No. [Other Tim here].
“In heat conduction, Newton’s law is generally followed as a consequence of Fourier’s law. The thermal conductivity of most materials is only weakly dependent on temperature, so the constant heat transfer coefficient condition is generally met. In convective heat transfer, Newton’s Law is followed for forced air or pumped fluid cooling, where the properties of the fluid do not vary strongly with temperature, but it is only approximately true for buoyancy-driven convection, where the velocity of the flow increases with temperature difference. In the case of heat transfer by thermal radiation, Newton’s law of cooling holds only for very small temperature differences.” — Wikipedia.
This is an EMPIRICAL observation that only holds in limit circumstances, not some universal law for all cooling.
“If you prevent it cooling by blocking it’s radiation …that does not involved radiation per se.”
I am sure everyone else sees the self-contradiction here.
“a metal shield would eventually warm to the solar surface temperature, setting up a thermal equilibrium condition where little or no heat would be transferred.”
Not quite. If there was ‘little or no’ heat transfer from the sun’s surface to the surroundings, but still nuclear reactions generating heat the the core, the result would be a continued increase in the sun’s temperature, including at the surface. For a steady state situation, the surface would have to be warmer than the shell, so that the heat from the interior of the sun to the surface matched the heat from the surface to the shell.
See, Tim S…they actually defend it!
Why are you surprised that people defend correct science? Every physics prof at every college or university in every country would give this answer.
Why do you think they are all wrong? What can you offer other than your [faulty] intuition? Which line of physics or math in Willis’ “steel greenhouse” do you disagree with?
“Every physics prof at every college or university in every country would give this answer“
You really presume to speak for every physics professor at every college or university in every country? Are you sure you’re not just a professional sophist that has devoted his entire life to lying on blogs about the GHE?
Very heavy rainfall in North Carolina.
No rain here at all. Even as it is a cloudy day.
Had time to play around with AI this weekend, specifically ChatGPT.
I tested to see how much science it could process. I asked if 15μ photons could raise temperature of a surface at 288K. The AI was smart enough to know the question was related to the GHE, so it tried to work its answer to a yes. But, when I explained the violations to laws of physics, it got interesting.
First, it complimented me on having the correct science. It agreed that I was correct. Then, it started off again saying “Let me explain it this way.” Then it went right back to violating the laws of physics!
It was not unlike talking to some of the children here, with the exception of AI left out all the insults and false accusations. But it could not get away from its programming. That’s called “hallucinating”, and is a big problem in these early versions of AI.
How pathetic.
Scrabbling to find support for a weird delusion…and failing.
(Everybody knows the answer is yes. Even my dog – who is a clever border collie.)
Maybe on Bizarro World where you live and learn fizzix from your dogs the answer could be yes, on this planet it is definitely no
Here’s wiki’s brief discussion of the problem:
Bold is my emphasis. It trains itself on the Internet, but can’t put things together. That’s why it could recognize the issue involved GHE, and recognize I was correct with the physics, but couldn’t put it all together.
Nice try but, nobody is buying.
Stop digging is my advice.
I see I have a new stalker.
And, like the rest, he has NOTHING to offer and hates reality.
Kids these days….
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
As early as Wednesday, Texas officials were marshalling the state’s emergency response resources to prepare for the coming storm.
A man looks out at flooding caused by a flash flood at the Guadalupe River in Kerrville, Texas, on Saturday.
By Thursday afternoon, the National Weather Service’s Austin/San Antonio office had issued a flood watch for multiple counties, warning of “pockets of heavy rain” and the potential for flooding.
Some critics have questioned whether the storm’s deadly impact was made worse by Donald’s ongoing effort to shrink the federal workforce, including job cuts at the NWS and its parent organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The NWS lost nearly 600 workers earlier this year, but last month the agency said it was beginning to hire over 100 employees to “stabilize operations” following a backlash to the staffing shortfall.
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/06/nx-s1-5458512/texas-flash-flood-weather-forecast
Today, Donald told the press that it wasn’t a good day to talk about his intention to phase out of FEMA.
Another BIG win!
I was the victim of a natural disaster, actually more than once. FEMA was non-existent and provided zero help on either occasion.
You are not a victim, you are a participant, prep yourself and get an insurance – or suffer the consequences
Troglodyte is as trustworthy as Pam:
[PAM IN FEBRUARY] The Epstein client list is sitting on my desk right now to review.
[PAM TODAY] There is no Epstein client list and no further disclosure of Epstein-related material would be appropriate or warranted.
stephen p anderson says:
”I was the victim of a natural disaster, actually more than once. FEMA was non-existent and provided zero help on either occasion.”
Myself or my folks have lived through at least a dozen disasters since the 1950’s. Since the 1970’s I have volunteered to help in those disasters affecting my extended family. Personally, I have been lucky since the 1970’s and my home hasn’t been affected significantly by any disaster.
I think the problem is typical of problems where responsibility is so divided up. Everybody stands around pointing fingers at each other. Either that or there is a sense of competition among agencies and those with budget responsibility are incentivized to try to get as much out of it as they can.
Primary response is always the local community from fire and police services. Volunteers help with communications, evacuations, and delivering essentials to victims. Communities stand up and organize victim shelters and information sharing.
Outside other communities provide fire suppression assets and manpower. State and local law enforcement are primary in providing security. FEMA? The local communities talk a lot about FEMA in post fire victim meetings. Occasionally FEMA employees would make themselves available at a post fire event to sign up people for assistance but there were alternative ways of getting a filling out a FEMA assistance application. I never saw or met a FEMA employee walking the neighborhood, much less avoiding certain residences.
There is a poor mindset that once a federal employee gets a job or an agency is created it represents the best approach to getting the job done. On that I call BS.
We have several disasters a year, what does FEMA do between disasters? I like the approach that Gov DeSantis is taking in Florida. They have been building an inventory of assets to deploy to impacted areas (primarily from hurricanes). Florida has access to everything including locations to store the assets until needed. And now they are using the assets between disasters to other matters like ensuring due process for deportees.
this is far far more efficient. No price gouging by the state vs the federal government for storage and deployment locations. Intercooperation between the states are scratch my back and I will scratch yours. Its not a one way deal where naturally the inclination is to get as much as you can gouge out of the federal government. that’s not a generally healthy relationship.
Like the issue in Los Angeles and other places. Only deploy federal troops when there is a federal interest to do so like in protecting federal properties and personnel engaged in Federal business or in the case of an insurrection.
Its like any other form of organization. In DC it is often a good idea to combine agencies than have overlaps in their mission or use of assets.
Employing common sense makes a lot more sense that supporting senseless policies simply because it might lead to opportunities to seize more power or more reimbursement.
The most helpful people were the Christian organizations that brought around food and water. No one helped to clean up the downed trees or salvage my home. I had to do that all myself. I did have insurance that reimbursed me for most. I had to have my home rebuilt. FEMA came around about 6 months later to ask if I needed anything. I told him I had bought a chainsaw and generator and asked if I could be reimbursed, and he told me I had to have applied for reimbursement within 30 days. I told him I was too busy cleaning up the mess, and he said, sorry. I asked him then why he was coming around six months later. He said just to check on things. I told him thanks.
So, Eben, if someone murders you, are you a victim or a participant?
Insurance is not always available. This is primarily due to a failing of excessive environmental policies.
Yes lands need protection but that doesn’t mean they don’t need intelligent management. Failures in managing fire and flood risks are the primary government failures leading to more frequent and costly disasters and a lack of insurance to cover those risks.
Fire risks are more easily managed than flood risks but both can be greatly mitigated by projects too often ignored due to hysterical environmental concerns. Also most often its the local population that resists fire and flood mitigation projects preferring to live in a more natural beautiful environment than in a place where risk is much less. Hysterical yes because lakes formed by dams and fires abated by vegetation management can still be beautiful if done intelligently. Some environmental concerns simply go too far, like desires for ever increasing natural habitats for flora and fauna. What is needed is wiser approaches to these issues and less hysteria. And that has to start at the local level.
This is precisely the problem with posting science content you do not understand from a dishonest media source that also does not understand science. From the link:
[Michael Morgan, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said precipitation forecasting remains “one of the most vexing problems” of his field.
But he said he believed the National Weather Service did its job by giving a general sense of the Texas storm and then providing more specific local forecasts as additional information became available to highlight the most serious potential threats.
“I think the [National] Weather Service forecasts were on point,” Morgan said. “Specifically targeting in locations that are going to receive the maximum rainfall is an incredibly challenging forecast problem.”]
This event was caused by a rapidly developing mesoscale convective vortex that is unusual and difficult to predict. It is a random weather event. The forecast window is small and forecast accuracy is very rough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesovortex#Mesoscale_convective_vortex
[With a core only 30 to 60 mi (48 to 97 km) wide and 1 to 3 mi (1.6 to 4.8 km) deep, an MCV is often overlooked in standard surface observations.[7] They have most often been detected on radar and satellite, particularly with the higher resolution and sensitivity of WSR-88D, but with the advent of mesonets, these mesoscale features can also be detected in surface analysis.]
This is what happens when you face a bunch of pretentious contrarians.
They will wave their arms furiously instead of facing the facts that Texas officials ignored warnings, that they blamed meteorologists while lying about them, and that Donald indeed floated the idea of shutting down FEMA. He did not stop with killing millions of children by dismantling USAID. He won’t stop with his ugly bill and Alligator Auschwitz.
Next, our most pompous one will brag about how creating debt is good for markets, as it he was oblivious to how they react to more liquidity.
Willard believes government is the solution, contrary to thousands of years of history.
If you ever want to get an education about socialism, watch Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon Prime. This is the British culture. They have a regulation for everything. You can’t move or breathe without some agency or council’s approval. This is Willard.
Troglodyte believes in mind reading, He believes that acting like a schoolyard goon will give him the same magical powers as Donald, But most of all he believes that if the best country in the world becomes the planet’s mafioso, he will be able to save face from losing its hegemony. Even throwing in Christian theocracy into the mix for style points, for it had such a great conversion rate around the world since colonial times.
Meanwhile, Cynthia Olivera, who has lived in Murica since she’s 10, has been grabbed at her green card interview, nobody knows where she is, except Troglodyte’s favorite jackboots, and they won’t let her flee to Canada at her own expenses.
BIG WIN!
After reading about Cynthia Olivera, the current Willard sad sack story, she entered the country illegally on more than one occasion. She’s had 35 years to correct her situation. She had no right to be here even after dropping three anchor babies. I suppose it was her surreptitious behavior and deceptive actions, sneaking across the border from Canada, and then Mexico that earned her unwanted attention from ICE. I hope she can make it back through legal channels for her kids’ sake, but she has no right to be here. She has to earn that right.
Trgolodyte forgot to mention that her husband Francisco is a U.S. citizen and self-identified Donald voter.
He wants his vote back.
As for Cynthia, the US of A is where Cynthia met her husband, where she went to high school, junior high, elementary. That’s where she had her kids, worked and, perhaps contrary to Troglodyte, paid taxes.
Very BIG BIG win for our anti-gubmint guy who’s willing to fork 1K for people to self-deport!
The purest description of the scientific method.
MAGA response to flooding tragedy in Texas: Greene to introduce ‘weather modification’ bill.
MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said Saturday she plans to introduce a bill aimed at tackling “weather modification.”
“I am introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity. It will be a felony offense,” she wrote in a Saturday post on X.
Greene made headlines last year when she suggested Democrats were able to “control the weather” in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, prompting then-President Biden to condemn what he called “irresponsible” and “beyond ridiculous” falsehoods.
Similar to Climate Change, Chem Trails are a ‘Chicken Little’ conspiracy.
Stupid Chicken gets hit in the head with an acorn and thinks the sky is falling.
A plethora of other creatures, all of whom are apparently unable to think critically, accept stupid’s story verbatim.
All of the critters become fox food.
Al Gore is worth a billion more as when he left office, all on the back of the climate scam.
Who is the fox in the ‘chem trail’ scam? one is Greene, who just got the opportunity to introduce a bill. ‘Vote for me, I do the plebs bidding’.
with any luck that will curb the nut jobs who think geo engineering is a good idea.
” I am introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity. It will be a felony offense… ”
MAGAmaniac Dumbie MTG apparently didn’t consider that burning just one liter of kerosene in an airplane’s engine exactly results in ‘substances being released into the atmosphere whose explicit purpose is to alter weather, temperature, climate, or solar radiation’:
– 2.53 kg CO2
– 0.98 kg H2O
Sure, it’s explicit: anything in that area that isn’t explicitly avoided was actually explicitly done, right?
How was I studying Christianity by mentioning the Christian Organizations that responded during the crisis? Not sure about that one. Are there any other religions you hate besides Christianity?
Here’s another simple problem that kids like Ark, Bindi, studentb, Willard, Nate, gordon, and TimS will be unable to solve.
“A source on one side provides 1000 W/m² to the sphere.”
This is a bit ambiguous. I assume you mean there is a parallel beam of light with an intensity of 1000 W/m^2 (like a star shooting 1000 W/m^2 at a planet). The actual power provided ‘to the surface of the sphere’ would range from 1000 W/m^2 directly facing the beam, down to 0 W^2 at the ‘edge’ 90 degrees away.
This beam provides a total power = (intensity)*(cross-sectional area) = (1000 W/m^2)*(pi)r^2.
The other 3 also provide P = (1000 W/m^2)*(pi)r^2, or a total of 4*(1000 W/m^2)*(pi)r^2.
The total surface area = 4(pi)r^2, so the average flux = 1000 W/m^2.
The value varies from up to 1414 W/m^2 along the equator, down to 0 W/m^2 at the poles. But since you specified a perfect conductor, all parts of the surface will be the same temperature, so we only need the average flux, which is 1000 W/m^2.
The sphere thus must emit 1000 W/m^2 at steady state. This works out to ~364 K.
None of this is difficult or controversial.
As stated Tim, this is a simple problem. So there’s no need for all the irrelevant rambling.
But you got the correct answer. I believe Norman could also get the correct answer. The controversy is that NONE of the ones named (Ark, Bindi, studentb, Willard, Nate, gordon, and TimS) even understand the basics. This has been demonstrated over and over with such simple problems.
Now, let’s bump it up a notch:
Total flux from the tops of the “cube” enclosing the sphere:
6000 W/m^2
Average flux absorbed at the surface of the sphere
6000/4 =1500 W/m^2
Temperature = 364 * (1500/1000)**.25 = 402 K
So what?
Professor P say “So what?”
Exactly. These are easy problems that anyone with a basic understanding of physics would get right. Clint’s ‘bump it up a notch’ question is *exactly* the same physics as the previous question, just plugging in different numbers.
At the same time, he bungles a related question:
“A recent discussion involved a surface emitting 500 W/m². A flux of 400 W/m² arrives the same surface. Could the 400 W/m² flux raise the temperature of the surface that is emitting 500 W/m²?
Of course not! To raise the temperature of the surface, the incoming flux must be greater than the flux emitted from the surface.”
Use Clint’s scenario here – the surface will be a perfectly conducting blackbody sphere. Shine two 1000 W/m^2 fluxes on opposite hemispheres. In stead-state, we will have “a surface emitting 500 W/m²”.
Now shine an additional 400 W/m^2 from some direction. As Clint has already noted, adding more flux in this scenario WILL raise the temperature, contradicting his own previous claim.
Thank you PP. You’re one of the few here that understands the basics, along with Norman and Folkerts. Most of the commenters here aren’t even able to grasp the basics. They just BELIEVE. But, the next step is needed to get the correct answer.
For the sphere and 4 each 1000 W/m² sources, it looks like this:
One source, sphere at 258K emitting 250 W/m²
Two sources, sphere at 306K, emitting 500 W/m²
Three sources, sphere at 339K, emitting 750 W/m²
Four sources, sphere at 364K, emitting 1000 W/m²
The problem arises when the two additional 1000 W/m² sources are added. The sphere is emitting 1000 W/m², and the two additional sources are only providing 1000 W/m² each. So “climate science” is trying to heat a source that is emitting the same as what is being provided! If the sphere is already emitting 1000 W/m², a source MUST provide a flux GREATER than 1000 W/m², to raise the temperature.
BUT, the same, or lesser flux, could NOT raise the temperature. Comparing to conductive heat transfer, if you put two 100° bricks together, you would not expect the combination to result in 200°. You would not even expect any increase in temperature.
If two glasses of water at 40° are poured together, the temperature does not increase.
And, as Norman inadvertently proved above, you can NOT raise the temperature of water with the flux from ice. Yet, “climate science” believes ice can raise the temperature of water. With that belief, they could boil water with ice! (And some have admitted that!)
“Climate science” gets it wrong, every time. The confusion comes from not understanding radiative physics and thermodynamics.
But, you’re already way, way ahead of most of the cult children here. Keep learning.
Folkerts is back to his usual deceptions. That’s why he earned to name “Fraudkerts”.
Notice Fraudkerts changed to a blackbody sphere. But in the REAL world, supplying 400 W/m² to an object emitting 500 W/m² will have NO effect. Fraudkerts is still trying to boil water with ice.
And, I NEVER contradicted any “previous claim” of mine.
Fraudkerts knows a smattering of physics, but he mostly excels at perverting and distorting reality.
Devastating flooding in Chapel Hill/Durham, NC due to Chantal residue.
https://i.ibb.co/n8kFHXYv/516435459-1317940310332889-7132706486218990847-n.jpg
the Earth’s energy budget – a made thing
https://youtu.be/tI0qmV2Bbc8
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-418/
Today, for once, I’m going to ask the Eben dachshund – who’s been constantly biting my ankles since 2022 – how he can believe that the three Heartland grantees, Willie Soon and his buddies, the Connolly brothers, could tell us anything meaningful about the Earth’s energy balance.
*
That’s a bit like asking Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Marjorie Taylor Greene what they think about the possibility that the Trumping boy, whose scrotum has been in Putin’s hands for decades, could ever have been a good US president.
The earth energy budget the warmistas cane up with is one of the most idiotic laws of fizzix breaking theory ever.
and maroons like Bindidong still believe the warmer ground absorbs
333w of heat from colder air , twice as much as from the Sun itself.
Beeing stuck on stoopid as he is He cannot be educated by anyone about anything.
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/media/images/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
Eben
Actually it is not stoopid nor idiotic. It is basically measured reality. You can deny this if you feel it wrong, better for you would be to point out what is wrong with the data and why you are so confident this information is wrong and you are right.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_686ddb0da4a67.png
This link will take you to a plot I made of Nevada measuring station.
It shows the downwelling IR from instrumentation. There is information of what each colored line represents.
If you take the entire 24 hour period, the downwelling IR energy (in joules/meter squared) will exceed the absorbed solar (this would be the line for Solar net, the total downwelling solar minus what is reflected by the surface and not absorbed).
The logic you need to understand it is that the Downwelling IR is greater than the solar but when you look at the total of downwelling and upwelling it is minus. The atmosphere is not warming the surface but it is greatly slowing the cooling rate (insulation concept wish DREMT could understand it). The solar does not have a negative net, so all this energy is what heats the surface. The downwelling IR can exceed the solar in total energy but the surface is emitting more than that. The NET IR is what is important here. Adding more GHG will decrease the NET surface loss. With a cloudy night, the loss of IR is very little and the temperature states almost steady with no solar input. Nothing magic or unscientific, just insulating property. If you add more layers of insulation to your home it will stay cool longer in summer and remain warm longer in winter. Just a slowing of the cooling rate so the solar input will lead to a higher surface temperature.
Eben
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_686ddf97a2c17.png
More measured values. This one is for a cloudy area of US. The surface continues to radiate at a good rate being fairly warm but at night, with no energy input, you can see the temperature is kind of flat line for hours with no input energy. How is this possible? The surface is warm and radiating away lots of energy. There is no solar input, why is the temperature not rapidly falling to match the loss of energy from upwelling IR? Maybe the idea you think is bad science really is NOT. The Downwelling IR is nearly the same as the upwelling IR so there is very little heat loss and the temperature does not drop rapidly. If you do not believe in a large amount of downwelling IR then give your understanding of what is keeping the temperature from not rapidly falling?
Eben
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_686de182d631d.png
In this one of Summer Desert under clear skies, the temperature drop from high to low was 21.6 F. The downwelling IR was about 200 W/m^2 less than the upwelling so it cooled much faster than the cloudy one.
The evidence is very strong for large amounts of downwelling IR and non existent for alternate explanations for real world observations. Remember a good theory needs to be able to match observation.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Donald has hired three prominent researchers who over the course of their careers have questioned and even rejected the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Each were given positions in the Energy Department, which is led by Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil and gas fracking executive.
The researchers are John Christy and Roy Spencer, both of whom are research scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and Steven E. Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/08/climate/doe-climate-contrarians-trump
Another WIN!
Finally, Willard gets something right. Awesome. Big, big win. Congratulations to Dr. Spencer and Christy.
theY REprEseNt A tINy MinOritY View RepreSEnTiNG perHAPs 1% OR less OF CliMate scIeNTisTS
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Donald has hired three prominent researchers who over the course of their careers have questioned and even rejected the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Each were given positions in the Energy Department, which is led by Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil and gas fracking executive.
The researchers are John Christy and Roy Spencer, both of whom are research scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and Steven E. Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/08/climate/doe-climate-contrarians-trump
Another BIG WIN!
In mMmoriam (for the beautiful 2020 seals from the EXECUTIVE OFFICE of the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES):
https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
*
From now until January 2029, such highly interesting reports will no longer have to be hidden in the web archive :–)
Hooray for Dr. Spencer!
Congrats! I hope you excell in this role.
clint clown brays…”Here’s another simple problem that kids like Ark, Bindi, studentb, Willard, Nate, gordon, and TimS will be unable to solve”.
***
Don’t know about the others listed but I have no time for obfuscated thought-experiments that cannot be verified. Clint Clown specializes in them since he lacks the ability to do real science and revels in the obscurity of thought experiments that serve no purpose.
For example, Clint preaches that flux is not energy yet flux is a direct measure of the amount of energy passing through an area. He insists on arguing that point with me even though I have spent decades applying fluxes in electronics and communications systems. I have actually applied electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fluxes in the electronics and electrical fields, in transformers, motors, waveguides and antenna, yet Clint buries his head in the sand, refusing to engage in a debate about those fields.
Clint preaches that entropy is a measure of disorder while, Clausius, who defined entropy as a mathematical adjunct to the 2nd law, defined entropy as sum of heat transfers in a system. Clausius invented the concept to rebut the claim of Carnot that no losses occurred in a heat engine. The entropy defined by Clausius demonstrated that heat is lost in any irreversible process and is no longer available to do work.
Clint also takes me on regularly about the direction of electrical current in a circuit. He cannot support his views with scientific evidence and resorts to insults and add homs in lieu of his ignorance. Conventional current dogma, which claims electrical current flows positive to negative was invented by Ben Franklin in the 18th century. Unfortunately, ignoramuses in universities and textbooks, still justify this egregious error by inventing theories that holes have mass that can be measured.
The hole is based on the empty space left in a copper atom when an electric field drives an electron from one atoms to another. The uninformed regard this empty electron space as a positive charge, which it is not. Holes cannot carry charge and if they did it would be a positive charge, not the negative charge carried by an electron. The only positive charges in a copper atom are in the protons that are fixed in the nucleus and unable to move.
A relative positive charge is not a positive charge. If you have two containers with an equal number of electrons and you remove an electron from one container it then has a relative positive charge wrt the other container. However, both containers still hold the negative charges of electrons only and are both negative charges. Nary a positive charge (proton) in sight.
Same in the valence bands of copper atoms, if one electron vacates a position leaning the entire atom as a positive ion, that has nothing to do with the hole left. In fact, the term positive ion has no meaning in the covalent bonds binding copper atoms together. An ion has meaning only in a liquid or gas where the actual ions are free to move.
Shockley, who transferred the idea of holes to semiconductors, admits in his book that he intended the idea of the hole in a semiconductor as a model to enable clarity. Electronics is filled with these models, aimed at people who have difficulty understanding basic atomic theory. I never had such a problem, always feeling comfortable with the electron as the only current carrier in a cooper conductor or a semiconductor.
I even offered Clint a simple analogy that he fails to grasp. If I dig a hole in a garden and place the soil aside, I have a hole in the ground. If I dig another hole, filling the first with soil from the second, the hole has moved. Duh!!! The more holes I dig, replacing the open hole with soil from the new hole, the more the hole moves. Double duh!!!
Does that hole have mass? Does it have a momentum as a new hole is dug, or a velocity? The air filling the hole, or perhaps water, has mass, but not the hole itself which is nothingness.
That’s exactly what a hole means in a copper conductor or in a semiconductor. The electron is real, has a negative charge and a mass, and it can move with its motion being significant. There is absolutely no significance in the hole left behind moving in the opposite direction as a series of electrons fill that hole, leaving a new hole behind which moves in the opposite direction.
No sir, electric current is based on the flow of negative charges with the amp being measured by so many negative charges (coulombs) passing a point in a second. When Franklin defined positive current flow, the electron had not been invented nor did anyone know anything about atomic structure.
However, all I’ll receive from Clint in reply are more insults and ad homs. Clint seems to think this others me but all it serves is a deepened conviction that Clint is off the deep end.
Thanks for confirming your ignorance of the science again, gordon.
Radiative flux (W/m²) is NOT energy. Energy has SI base units of (kg)(m^2)/(s^2). While radiative flux has SI base units of (kg)/(s^3). Energy is a conserved quantity, while radiative flux is not. Your “decades” of making up crap ain’t science.
Entropy, as related to disorder comes from “Information Theory” which is studied in advanced Electrical Engineering, which you obviously never studied.
You likely flunked out of engineering because you couldn’t understand current flow is a convention. The convention is only to avoid confusion. It’s the same for “charge”. We could say an electron has a positive charge and a “hole” has a negative charge, as long as everyone used that convention, it wouldn’t change anything.
You have no knowledge of the science discussed here. That’s why you couldn’t solve the simple problems, which adds to your frustration and insecurity.
You have serious personal issues. If you received the proper therapy you would learn that constantly clogging the blog just makes you look pathetically immature and incompetent.
clint sticks his foot in it again as he paints himself into a corner.
“Radiative flux (W/m²) is NOT energy…Energy is a conserved quantity, while radiative flux is not”.
***
According to Clint Clown, the radiative flux from the Sun, measured at TOA, is not energy but some sort of mysterious phenomenon only Clint understands. The radiative flux at TOA is measured in w/m^2 just as Clint claims but to him it is not energy but some sort of apparition.
Radiative flux represents electromechanical energy in transit through an area. It is a measure of EM in this case and does not have to be conserved since the EM is conserved much of the time but not always. If a star radiates into space and the EM is not intercepted by a mass, it simply keeps going, dissipating along the way.
from wiki…
“The watt (symbol: W) is the unit of power or radiant flux in the International System of Units (SI), equal to 1 joule per second or 1 kg⋅m2⋅s−3.[1][2][3] It is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer”.
In the electrical field, the watt is a measure of the rate of transfer of ‘electrical energy’. I have argued that the watt should not be used to measure radiation since it is a measure of mechanical energy and electrical energy.
———
“Entropy, as related to disorder comes from “Information Theory”
***
The word entropy was stolen from Clausius who defined the word entropy. If people dealing with disorder want a term to define disorder they should invent their own word.
He used the word entropy to mean ‘transformation’, a reference to the transformation of heat from a higher temperature to a lower temperature or a transformation of heat into work.
However, in Roy’s blog we use entropy in relation to heat, another word that confuses Clint. He does not think heat is energy either, but another one of his obfuscated misdirections. Ergo, we should stick to the Clausius definition based on heat and ignore the imposters who insist it is a measure of disorder.
Clausius defined entropy as a mathematical expression of the 2nd law. He was trying to convey the message that in a reversible process, the sum of heat transfers (transformations) cancel out at zero. However, in an irreversible process, the sum of the infinitesimal heat transfers constitutes an energy sum he named entropy. Entropy was clearly defined as heat lost during an irreversible process and unavailable to the system to do work.
By definition then, entropy is a sum of infinitesimal heat transfers. Another Klown, possibly related to Klint Klown, by the name of Boltzmann, could not do real science either, like Clausius, and developed a system where atoms were replaced by statistics and probabilities. He tried to work out a statistical representation for entropy and the 2nd law and failed miserably. However, for some reason his failed definition of entropy stuck, likely because many scientists operate through appeals to authority, just like Clint, and cannot think for themselves.
Beware mathematician bearing gifts.
Clausius is likely to blame for some of this by philosophizing that the entropy of the universe tends toward a maximum. He was referencing irreversible processes and added that such processes lead to disorder. At no time did he claim that entropy is related to disorder, however, smaller minds misconstrued his words as such.
He did not realize that his musing would be construed as entropy being taken as a measure of disorder rather than a measure of the heat given off by irreversible processes. Clausius clearly misunderstood the stoopid factor in people who cannot read his simple word re his definition of entropy.
Thanks for again confirming your ignorance of the science, gordon.
Now you’re confusing Watts with W/m²! You have no knowledge of the science discussed here. You can’t even understand what you find on wikipedia. That’s why you couldn’t solve the simple problems, which adds to your frustration and insecurity.
You have serious mental issues. If you received the proper therapy you would learn that constantly clogging the blog just makes you look pathetically immature and incompetent.
Gordon,
Don’t mean to derail this current conversation.
Just wanted to make aware to you a comment I just posted in the other thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2025-0-50-deg-c/#comment-1707999
This is a test of the internet BS filtration system. No adjustment of your download speed is require.
Okay Gordon, here is a chance for you to show your knowledge (tongue in cheek). In order for mechanical, radiant, and electric energy to use the same units, the measurement of the ampere must be carefully defined. How is that done? More importantly, how are amp measuring devices calibrated? The power company measures my amps (and simultaneously my voltage I assume) to determine my power draw and how much energy I have purchased over time measured as kilowatt-hours. How are those devices calibrated? Can I trust them (dumb question)?
This one is for Nate. Plug your nose if you need to, but you will not get cooties. In anticipation of the response, they are innocent until proven guilty and will get their day in court if formally charged. There’s a new sheriff in town, and he is digging up things the previous people wanted to keep secret. Chris Wray could have and should have been the one to do this.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-brennan-james-comey-under-criminal-investigation-doj-sources
Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump–Russia probe, including allegedly making false statements to Congress, Justice Department sources told Fox News Digital.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital.
The sources said that the referral was received and told Fox News Digital that a criminal investigation into Brennan was opened and is underway. DOJ sources declined to provide further details. It is unclear, at this point, if the investigation spans beyond his alleged false statements to Congress.
…
The review added: “Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that ‘my bottomline is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.’”
But Brennan testified the opposite in front of Congress in May 2023.
“The CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment,” Brennan testified before the House committee, according to the transcript of his deposition reviewed by Fox News Digital. “And so they sent over a copy of the dossier to say that this was going to be separate from the rest of that assessment.”
The DOJ has transformed into the Dept of Political Retribution.
This one is an attempt to distract MAGAts from the Epstein fiasco.
BACK AT THE RANCH
During his time in Congress, Ratcliffe was regarded as one of the most conservative members. President Donald Trump announced on July 28, 2019, that he intended to nominate Ratcliffe to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence. Ratcliffe withdrew after Republican senators raised concerns about him, former intelligence officials said he might politicize intelligence, and media revealed Ratcliffe’s embellishments regarding his prosecutorial experience in terrorism and immigration cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe
Meanwhile, word is that Steve Bannon is also in the Epstein file.
Wiiiiiin!
You should at least read your links, even you if have no idea what it means. From the link:
The Senate Intelligence Committee approved his nomination and the Senate confirmed him on January 23, 2025 by a vote of 74–25, making him the second member to be confirmed in the Second cabinet of Donald Trump.[97]
That means more that 20 Democrats or “Independents” who caucus with Democrats voted for the most conservative Representative in the entire history of the House of Representatives.
I will let you take some time to figure this out.
Severe thunderstorms in Texas.
https://i.ibb.co/Ps74RTTC/archive-2-image.png