Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2026 was +0.35 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up a little from the December, 2025 value of +0.30 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through January 2026) remains 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 25 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.57 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.94 | +0.81 | +1.16 | +1.31 | +0.85 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.25 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.77 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.04 | +0.20 | +0.52 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.36 | +0.63 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.73 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.96 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.75 | +0.81 | +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 | +1.89 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.40 | +0.53 | +1.11 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.61 | +0.75 | +0.47 | +0.52 | +1.41 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.07 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.03 | +2.10 | +0.87 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.73 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.76 | +0.46 | +0.36 | +0.81 | +0.85 | +1.21 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.98 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.80 | +0.05 | +0.39 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.82 | +0.11 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.30 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 |
| 2025 | Nov | +0.43 | +0.59 | +0.27 | +0.24 | +1.32 | +0.78 | +0.36 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.37 |
| 2026 | Jan | +0.35 | +0.52 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for January, 2026 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:
Thank you, Dr. Spencer. A quick statistic from the table you provided: the NoPol series recorded its third warmest January on record. Below are the top 10 warmest NoPol Januaries (including ties), listed in ascending order:
Jan. 2016: +2.12C
Jan. 1981: +1.42C
Jan. 2026: +1.4C
Jan. 2018: +1.05C
Jan. 2011: +0.89C
Jan. 2010: +0.81C
Jan. 2022: +0.75C
Jan. 2025: +0.74C
Jan. 2005: +0.66C
Jan. 2017: +0.66C
Jan. 2014: +0.62C
’81 stands out as an early outlier.
And the rate of warming for NoPol January is 2.8C/century.
Kynqora: Dumb question, but what is NoPol?
Arctic region.
Does anyone have a graph of temps 1926-2026 (last hundred years) that overlays temps from UAH data set with temps from other sources over the satellite era for those regions where temp data going back to 1926 exists? What would that look like? All these people focused on 30 years (because THAT is climate?) are missing the bigger picture.
Why stop at 100 years?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2511370123
For a discussion:
https://bsky.app/profile/hausfath.bsky.social/post/3mdvjbmqjm42l
Dirk McCoy
Sorry, I didn’t see your comment asking days ago for a comparison of UAH to hsitorical data.
There are lots of sources which don’t differ by a lot; all differ from UAH in the sat era, however.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mWgc2_NY4chXBcHeSD3-bttA7gBPJq0n/view
*
Source
NOAA Climate at a Glance
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/tavg/1/0/1900-2025/data.csv
Caution: NOAA’s global data anomalies are computed wrt the reference period 1901-2000; they differ from UAH’s by ~ 0.63 °C and were thus displaced by this offset to move them wrt UAH’s reference period 1991-2020.
UAH 6.1 LT
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
(Data column 1)
My prediction was wrong, but I was right about a plummeting US48, but Arctic back up.
I had been expecting it to be a bit colder based on ERA5 graphs.
This is the 6th warmest January in the UAH data set. Though apart from 2024, there isn’t much to choose between the warmest months.
1 2024 0.80
2 2025 0.45
3 2016 0.42
4 2020 0.41
5 2010 0.36
6 2026 0.35
7 1998 0.34
8 2013 0.31
9 2007 0.29
10 2017 0.26
Could say it’s in a three way tie for 5th warmest.
Surprising that the USA is still above the 1991-2020 average, despite the very cold weather reported there. The ERA5 data suggests that there was a strong contrast between the east and west. Still, I expect there will be plenty of “whatever happened to global warming?” jokes.
https://sites.ecmwf.int/data/climatepulse/maps/download/monthly/2t/anomaly/climpulse_map_era5_download_monthly_2t_anomaly_202601.png
Still, I expect there will be plenty of “whatever happened to global warming?” jokes.
That’s because Global Warming Theory is consistent with anything and everything that happens.
So, I think you might be missing where the joke actually is.
One thing that stands out when looking at John Christy’s older UAH LT anomaly maps is how cold the late 1970s and 1980s now appear when referenced to the current 1991–2020 baseline.
For example:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/Maps_1991_2020_base/FEBRUARY_1979_LT_6.png
As expected, much of the globe shows negative anomalies relative to the baseline. What’s more striking, though, is that some regional anomalies are so cold that they reach the extreme end of the color scale (pink/purple).
When the baseline is eventually updated again (to 2001–2030), the visual contrast will become even more pronounced, especially since that baseline will incorporate the sharp warming associated with 2023–24.
It is going to look almost glacial by comparison.
Kynqora, interesting observation.
What is your take on the reason to those large regional anomalies? Land vs. sea surface?
Best Regards
David
The anomalies reflect both the circulation patterns in Feb 1979 and the substantial upward shift in the mean climate since then.
Over land, especially continental interiors, colder winter anomalies are expected to be more amplified than over oceans because land cools more rapidly and snow and ice albedo (which were stronger in the 1970s) enhance winter cooling.
Ok, so the regional distribution of anomalies are as expected and can be attributed to albedo and surface properties, thank you.
Some of my family lives in Boise, Idaho in the Pacific Northwest of USA, I live in the s//w corner of Ohio in the eastern half of US. Quite often, especially in winter, our weather regimes are opposite one another due to a movement of the polar (?) jet north in the west, bringing them warmer weather (they are complaining about the lack of snow at ski resorts), and us colder weather back east because the jet takes a turn to the south.
In January a lot of the eastern and even southeastern U.S. has had record breaking cold and snow – kids in the South are improvising anything they can find to use as sleds – beaches are covered in snow. I have lived in this area for 75 of my 77 years and this brings back memories of the late 70s, which were the end of the 30+ year hiatus of warming (and even slight cooling from the 40s thru late 70s.)
Pardon me for being picky, but you have been inserting an extra “/” over at least the last 3 monthly reports
“……remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade…..”
If one uses the *original* 20-year baseline average–derived from the end of 1978 through the end of 1997–there haven’t been *any* negative temperature anomalies since March of 2012. Not a single one. In almost 14 years.
Only by using a floating ‘baseline’ (now ~ .025C warmer than the original baseline) makes it look like we still have below-average anomalies. It’s misleading.
Yes, it’s misleading. For anyone who wishes to clearly see the underlying trend without the short term ‘noise’, I recommend the graphs over at https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/
The 30 year centered average graph there is particularly revealing.
Gadden
” The 30 year centered average graph there is particularly revealing. ”
*
1. I apologize a priori to say this: you are victim of an optical illusion, dur to the choice of window size and data scaling.
Look at the same info (13 month a la Spencer, 60 month a la Bin, 360 month a la Stephan):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PCn9TmNZwerWbsLzPCb6juYqF_GRi1oG/view
*
2. While the source and the 13 month mean are quite simlar (0.155 °C / decade), the 60 month mean is with 0.158 a bit higher.
And yes: the 360 month mean which looks so tremendously steep on the datagraver’s page, is with 0.152 the lowest of all.
Eh oui: l’habit ne fait pas le moine…
*
3. But the main question remains: what is the practical sense of this 30 year aka 360 month running average aka mean?
It telly you by lacking detail about as much as the linear trend.
Bindiddon, you think I’m the “victim of an optical illusion”. Why do you assume I can’t read graphs? It’s not the optical steepness of the graph that matters, OBVIOUSLY. The axes can be scaled to make the curve more or less steep, OBVIOUSLY. The point is the STRAIGHTNESS of the graph. The word “relentless” comes to mind.
(And OBVIOUSLY its rate of change per year is less than that of the 13-month, 5-year and 10-year average graphs since the centerpoints of the first and last 30-year period are only 16 years apart, from 1994 to 2010), so the recent acceleration of the warming is partly hidden. So what?)
MFA
” It’s misleading. ”
Why?
Why do the anomaly values matter so much in your mind? Is a series goes down from a peak into a huge drop: does it matter whether the lowest point is positive or negative? For me, solely the difference between peak top and drop bottom matters.
Is the trend among them (which keeps the same regardless the reference period chosen, by the way) not what even matters much more?
What rather disturbs me is that all institutions and private people publishing e.g. temperature, precipitation of snow data do this in pretty anomaly form, but crazily based on different reference periods!
– RSS: 1979-1998 (UAH’s first period)
– UAH, JMA, (in between) moyhu etc: 1991-2020
– MetOffice, CRU: 1961-1990
– OzCaster: 1971-2000
– GISS, Berk Earth: 1951-1980
– NOAA: 1901-2000 / 1991-2020
For me it’s not a problem, as I have all that data and can easily compute the anomaly averages wrt 1991-2020 for all these series and just displace them be their respective value when comparing them in a chart.
But what do other people who don’t know how to handle the problem?
That’s imho the real mess.
*
And, as said already, the transition from rev 5.6 to rev 6.0 in 2015 affected not only the anomalies, but above all the absolute temperatures the former are derived from.
The trends became lower, and that was really a much heavier change than moving the reference period.
It’s misleading because a basline shouldn’t change, or it’s not a *baseline*. The baseline was established over two decades. If you ‘float’ the baseline when the numbers are all continuing to go up, you’re just comparing to the average over the history. A baseline is meant to be a reference to prior conditions. Instead, UAH/Spencer reports a floating average.
Anomalies are departures from normal. If normal is ‘adjusted’ or floated over time, it hides the extend of the change from the initial two decades of measurements.
In fact, the gap between the baseline and the current floating average is part of the understanding of how relentless the change is. To bury that change is to minimize it. All of it should be visible in the graphic representation, which is how most folks interpret/perceive the patterns in the data presented here.
Anyway, that’s why it matters.
” Instead, UAH/Spencer reports a floating average. ”
MFA, you are as stubborn as the pseudoskeptics permanently denying GHE of the lunar spin (curiously, the very same people).
Why do you restrict your critique to UAH?
Apparently, you did not even read my comment above showing that some people move while others don’t.
*
What do you want, MFA?
That everybody comes back to 1979-1998 just because that’s what you prefer? This is nonsense.
Adjusting the 30 year baseline allows a better visualization of the data to recent climate levels. We are comparing current temps to a current 30 year range of temps. We could use the Earth average over 4 billion years and the anomolies would approximately be negative 8 degrees celcius below that baseline. Trends will be the similar regardless.
The trend is still identifiable, sure; but the extent is minimized.
The more recent the levels are, the more we’re looking at weather; within in the satellite record, the original baseline is the climate to which we should compare today. Not something arbitrarily halfway in between.
Thanks BillyBob for the comment, way more insightful than the Hunter boy’s post below.
MFA – The extents will have the same range if you use a linear scale. Using a baseline of 15-20 degrees C (Paleocene-Eocene) for average earth temperature, or 10 degree C (current 30 year average) or 5 degree C (Huronian Ice Age). It does not matter if my scale goes from -1000 to -990 or -10 to 0 or -5 to 5. They all have a 10 degree extent.
MFA
Apologies for insisting, knocking at the door again.
But… which extent, do you mean, is ‘minimized’?
Here is a graph comparing UAH’s absolute data (reconstructed out of anomalies and climatology) to anomalies constructed wrt 1979-1998 resp. 1991-2020:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QnYxAAyJykY4rqYKuDB6Dqo5JpC9y_FY/view
*
Please have a short look at the two following graphs I quickly generated out of WFT:
1. GISS wrt 1951-1980 vs. UAH wrt 1991-2020
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12
2. GISS vs. UAH both wrt 1991-2020
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.613/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12
( The 0.613 value is the mean, within the period 1991-2020, of all GISS anomalies wrt 1951-1980.)
Which one do you prefer, MFA?
— Version 1 a la Robertson, who never understood that anomalies not only
– ‘show warming when being above the baseline and conversely cooling when below’
but also
– can only be compared when computed out of the same reference period
or
— Version 2 ?
*
What’s the sense of generating anomalies if you can’t directly, hence accurately compare them to other anomalies?
MFA says:
”In fact, the gap between the baseline and the current floating average is part of the understanding of how relentless the change is. To bury that change is to minimize it. ”
—————–
Don’t pay any attention to Bindidon. He is just our local defender of the scientific establishment.
He is essentially a science historian but seldom has any insight of what the science is all about.
I hear your concerns. But I am not too concerned about them because if you choose to its quite simple to produce any anomaly you want.
The extended databases listed at links below Roy’s chart has the overall trend calculated at the bottom of the database.
Converting that trend to an anomaly is as easy as multiplying the trend by the number of decades. The chart shows the overall trend as a graphic. The Anomalies tell you how much it has warmed recently.
So everything is provided by Roy for whatever purpose you want information about.
So why is it presented the way it is? IMO, anomaly was designed to signify continuing warming over a period of time that could not be explained by solar cycles or ENSO, about the only two significant climate events recognized by the original IPCC.
Folks argued about how long natural cycles exist and there needed to be an anomaly that shows warming due to the climate crisis over the shortest period they could argue for being a reliable measure of warming from CO2.
Around about the turn of the century science settled on at least 2 decades with shorter cycles being defined as some kind of subclimate that could be caused by the officially recognized natural cycles.
The last time that longer term cooling happened was about 1940 to 1980. And that was explained away as no longer possible because warming from CO2 is now overriding whatever effects that caused that.
The problem with that thinking is they hadn’t recognized what caused that cooling and since have operated on the assumption that it can not repeat itself without knowing what caused it. Thats embarrassingly shoddy science.
If you don’t know what caused it how can you know anything about it?
That uncertainty is largely what supports the skeptic viewpoint. Not many smart people bought into Al Gore’s Inconvenient truth (lies).
The cooling of the 1940’s to 1980 has been something a number of skeptics have tried to seize upon to predict cooling. But without a quantified mechanism for that cooling it isn’t possible to predict. My own opinion is that science supports a planet perturbation model as explaining the unexplained. It at one time was the favorite of NASA and supported by scientific papers. No papers have discredited these theories as near as I can tell and I doubt if our resident climate historian can come up with any either.
Bill Hunter – excellent point about lack of explanation for the 40s to late 70s cooling. Could we add to that the explanation for the hiatus on warming from ‘98 to about 2015 (approximate)?
Berkeley Earth claims the recent warming spike (during an El Niño) marks an acceleration in warming. They claim that the extent of the CO2 warming was being obscured by aerosols emitted during marine propulsion. The reduction of aerosols brought about by a move to cleaner fuels for marine propulsion has revealed, they claim, the true influence of CO2. But we have been reducing aerosols a lot since the early 50s, when much of the developed world began the move from coal to natural gas. Auto, truck, and other emission controls must have reduced aerosols a lot since the 70s. That has got to be a huge factor on temperatures, unless the increase of burning of coal by China, India, and others as a result of globalization of trade has negated the benefits from all those emission controls.
The cooling from the 40s to late 70s led most atmospheric scientists, the emerging environmental movement (and the media) to warn about “the coming ice age”, brought on by increases in albedo from aerosols. BTW, anyone who claims that was not the dominant view then is just plain wrong. A lot of apocalyptic language was used. I was engaged in atmospheric science study and research at the time. I met once with Dr. Reed Bryson from the University of Wisconsin, the leading proponent of the cooling thesis. We all (students, professors, attendees at conferences) believed in that thesis. I have seen some crazy stuff on the internet challenging that. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Thomas, the global dimming is still going on but to a lesser extent. There were documentaries, articles in the New Scientist on this going back to 2001.
On September 12th when all the air flights were grounded many people noticed how bright the sky was. There were warnings how global dimming was slowing down the excessive climate change.
My thoughts is that when you include orbital changes, atmospheric pollution reduction, urban heat islands and albedo changes then the rest of the climate change is very mild.
The Wikipedia entry for Bryson is laughable, totally taking a quote out of context, but that kind of distortion and rewriting of history is what I have come to expect from the left.
Virtually anyone can edit Wikipedia entries with the condition that edits are supportable with appropriate references. If you think the article is unfair and can make a coherent argument for improving it, then fix it rather than bitching about it.
Thomas Hagedorn says:
”Could we add to that the explanation for the hiatus on warming from ‘98 to about 2015 (approximate)?”
Yes but maybe not entirely. The orbit perturbation/change in mean annual global insolation would have peaks near but before 2000 and after 2020. Both Uranus and Neptune have been recently combined into a 42 year residence time in what is likely the warmest sector of the sky that only recently concluded for Uranus. Jupiter and Saturn had conjunctions in this time period first in 2000 and again in 2020. So Jupiter and Saturn negative influence would have peaked somewhere around 2010 when they are on opposite sides of the sun. However, in that period of time we also saw a weakening of insolation from the sun. Unfortunately careful calibrated measurements of that change in insolation wasn’t monitored over a 20 year or greater period of time. So the ”pause” may well have been exacerbated by solar changes.
Post 2020 Saturn and Jupiter continued to catch up with Neptune and Uranus and probably hit a maximum alignment with them in 2023.
In 2000 when Jupiter and Saturn conjuncted they had already passed neptune and Uranus who were only a few degrees apart. Jupiter passed them in 1997 and Saturn did in 1988 and 89. So Jupiter and Saturn in 1990 were having fighting each other.
So you can see a good portion of that entire event was likely orbit perturbation with an assist in 2008 of a very quiet sun. I can vouch that the more you dig into this the more interesting it gets. Since we really have no idea what climate sensitivity is without having much of an idea of what the primary forcing is its hard to do much other than match up the climate anomalies in the instrument and proxy records to those motions. And they match up outstandingly.
Do you have a link to the actual Berkeley Earth work on this or is it a media article?
Thomas Hagedorn
Your post seems to lack correct information on aerosols. Primarily SO2 for reducing surface temperature.
https://visualizingenergy.org/global-anthropogenic-sulfur-dioxide-emissions-1750-2022/
This article will help you update your current files on emissions. They did not drop globally until 2005. As US and Europe were reducing SO2 emissions, India was spiking. The graph in the article strongly shows that SO2 emissions were not decreasing in the 1950’s but actually going up in the US until they peaked in the 1970’s then started to slowly go down until the 2000 frame, then they went down rapidly as Coal Fired plants put in environmental systems to reduce SO2 after the big “Acid Rain” scare.
Bill Hunter – Here is link to latest Berkeley Earth annual report in answer to your question:
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2025/
I don’t know if they have published research on this.
Thomas,
“The cooling from the 40s to late 70s led most atmospheric scientists, the emerging environmental movement (and the media) to warn about “the coming ice age.”
That’s not correct. The majority of peer-reviewed articles in the 70s considered warming from CO2 to be the likeliest global temperature change in the near future (IE, not geological time scales).
https://cnslibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/Myth-of-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus.pdf
There were some media stories in the 70s on imminent global cooling from popular sources that give some the impression that this was the scientific consensus.
Norman. Useful aerosol data.
The rapid post WW2 rise in CO2 emissions are matched by the rapid rise in SO2 aerosol emissions, perhaps explaining the flat T in this period.
Then with the reduction in global SO2 aerosol emissions post 1970, GW takes off.
The country SO2 emissions by year show a huge spike in early 2000s by China.
This could account for the hiatus in GW at that time.
Nate
Thanks for the correction. I misread the graph and thought India had the peak but it was China.
Mark B, you are wrong about Wikipedia. Sign up and try if you think it is easy to make edits. I am a Wikipedia editor. On minor low interest topics, there is a chance to make edits if they align with an outside reference. If it is a topic that has a strong edit-in-charge, you can forget it. The senior editors rule the day. In theory, if you find a reference that supports your edit, it should be allowed, but that is not how the game works. They decide which references are allowed. Game over.
That is how the ingrained system of bias works. They find a crappy reference that is pure biased BS and use as fact. There are discussions among editors about not wanting to appear biased and the head editor just shuts them down. It is a power structure of anonymous people who have full authority.
Where do these people come from? Who appoints them? Jimmy?
Mark B – There are not enough hours in the day to try to correct all the propaganda out there about global warming. Whistleblowers, including one of Wikipedia’s founders, have called it out for bias. I have better uses of my time – like educating the public about climate change. I know what I remember from those days. I participated in numerous conferences, we collaborated closely with the Air Pollution section of the EPA (and its predecessor), which happened to be located in my city at the time, I testified before a congressional committee. I lived and breathed this stuff (at the time, weather effects on particulate pollution, climate change, etc). Not gonna waste my time chasing down propaganda, even if it was published, that rewrites history. That seems to be one of the left’s specialty. They control the journals, publication process, etc.
Bill Hunter – I am not a scientist. Can you explain to me how your theory of planet perturbation works, using some numbers? My question is both about timing and scale. Don’t we measure solar insolation near the top of the atmosphere with satellites? I also assume that we can measure the change in AU pretty accurately. Are you saying the gravitational pull of the other planets is pulling us closer to the sun, at times, and further away at other times enough to affect global mean temps?
Thomas Hagedorn says:
”Bill Hunter – I am not a scientist. Can you explain to me how your theory of planet perturbation works, using some numbers? My question is both about timing and scale. Don’t we measure solar insolation near the top of the atmosphere with satellites?”
Sure great questions.
This link includes some important reading on the matter. Particularly the part about Velocity Changes, Altitude and Orbital Shift, and physical distance of displacement wrt Neptune affecting Uranus when Uranus was almost as far from Neptune as Neptune was from the sun.
https://tinyurl.com/56yeba2b
That has the physical basis of the effects of planets on the orbits of other planets.
As far as quantifying the various planets on earth when they all start working together when they are all located in a particular sector of the sky would require a significant modeling effort.
Also poorly documented is how the ice ages occur. It is believed by science to be related to frequency of planet positioning and there are just so many alignments in which the Jovian planets, recognized to be the most influential, max out once about every 3,600 years in time with the orbit ratios of Uranus and Neptune circumnavigation the celestial compass. Another recognized one is the ~900 year cycle (863 years from JPL) of Jupiter and Saturn (the most influential planets) that recognizes the filling of a transit of the compass to not leave any gaps larger than about 9 degrees.
How those two cycles line up in any given 900 year period leaves additional higher peaks in longer term cycles due to the ratio between the 2 groups not being a perfect 4:1 ratio so there alignment varies slowly stretching from zero years to + or – ~450 year misalignment over a longer termed cycle.
That’s the physical basis claimed for Milankovic.
Since it is estimated by Hays et al 1977 that orbit eccentricity variations which is 50 to 55% of total variation over the ~100,000 year pace of interglacials and is not likely a linear effect as proposed by some it makes sense that the paces and ratios of orbit periods have a high level of replication over about 3600 years for the most influential planets.
That’s interesting because eccentricity variations not only estimated as the strongest will affect the equator wrt to insolation a lot more than it does high latitudes potentially calling into question, without a model, the claims that global warming is a lot less than seen in the polar regions in ice cores extracted hundreds of miles from any coastline.
The prevailing theory, disputed by Hays et al, 1977, is that eccentricity variation occurs in small increments of orbital variation that ebb and flow over the course of a 100,000 years.
The timing of variations of natural change seen in the temperature records support Hays et al and anybody that wants to eliminate the LIA, and the MWP and the Roman Optimums is just full of BS.
Measuring the peaks in ice core data seen here:
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
Suggests that major diverting sustained peaks (without significant changes of say more than .5 degrees) last somewhere around 400-900 years. The 900 hundred is consistent with a relatively linear Jupiter/Saturn influence and shorter ones might be affected by the Neptune/Uranus which has a strong 85-86 year cycle as the conjunct once every 171 years and go to opposition half way inbetween. And that their major beat covers the entire compass ~3,600 years leaving no gaps larger than ~18degrees.
Finally we know there is an effect from the US Naval Observatory dominated by lunar variations which has strong 28 day and an orbit precessions of 8.85 years and 18.6 years. JPL claims that planet variations are negligible and does so with a handwave with zero other explanations much less calculations and quantification.
It doesn’t though dispute the accumulation and/or frequency of positive variations over long periods of time as proposed by warmist scientists struggling to explain the glacial periods.
Very clearly an major discrepancy in climate science foisted on us by folks who think they know better than anybody else that we must stop the western nations from burning fossil fuels, which is undoubtedly a political and not an adequately researched science conclusion.
I think I covered everything there but if you have any questions I will be happy to point you toward more stuff that helps.
Thomas Hagedorn says:
”Bill Hunter – Here is link to latest Berkeley Earth annual report in answer to your question:
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2025/
I don’t know if they have published research on this.”
Thanks for that.
Criminey, they paid the consultant over $280,000. Of course that includes 2 annual updates and the spike analysis. I assume there was a 2024 update as well.
darn good pay for the work done here.
Anyway it appears he used the same approach as the annual update to do the spike analysis. A search of the literature. An extraction of estimates for each component. He doesn’t appear to list the sources.
Using his midline estimates he managed to explain less than 1/2 the spike (as estimated with my ruler) in 2015 the anomaly was about .1C and the 13mo running average on the spike was then about .8C, giving a spike .7C
He claims .17C comes from manmade; .13c from El Nino; .03 from solar; -.05 from Hunga tonga; and .05 from marine transportation cleanup. That totals .33 out of .7 at the time of the peak of the spike.
Taking it to the present his figures are: 21C comes from manmade; -.05c from La Nina; .023 from solar; +.05 from Hunga tonga; and .06 from marine transportation cleanup. That totals .29 out of .35 above 10 years ago thru 2025.
The present appears well accounted for but I would mention that Jupiter has rotated to the cool side of the orbit and is working against the other planets. Uranus is somewhere around the cusp of switching cold. Jupiter carries over 1/2 the gravitational effects of the Jovian planets for the purpose of a date specific temperature estimate. (the other jovians get a boost from slowness over time in a flatter longer term spike). And the warming expressed in the instrument records follows those 20/60 variations of Jupiter and Saturn and described as the 20 year step effect where a spike occurs and a significant portion of it is retained until the next spike I haven’t heard a explanation for how men create that effect.
So he has no explanation for the unprecedented spike and as such he seems to be making a fairly good mathematical case for orbit variations to replace the non-phase changing GHGs over the entire industrial age in accordance with the traditional isothermal atmosphere hypothesis and the temporary spike level.
One additional explanation would be needed as in 1820 when Uranus and Neptune conjuncted only 18 degrees away from the current conjunction and closer to the equinox with a lesser ideal combination with the Jupiter Saturn pair. you need for those effects to account for about 1.5C or more worth of warming over the past 205 years.
If you go back some before that you would need more warming coming off the Maunder Minimum and the warming that occurred between 1700 and 1820.
I have thought about that and have noted that there has been a lot of additional ice insulation lifted off the arctic ocean since then. The current ice retreat was considerably smaller than the one in the last half of the 19th century. That allows for an acceleration of ocean cooling over the past 205 years along with some affects of that melting ice releasing one heckuva a lot of heat as is seen in the arctic every summer resulting in an accelerated warming trend locally. The fact the ocean is warming according to BE at less than half the rate of the land, could be accounted for by the additional cooling resulting from a huge loss of ice cap area on top of the polar seas.
Before folks minds explode. . .I am just pointing out the dire need for a much better quantification of these effects done so as to be transparent to the public. They should do that rather than just wave their arms saying its inconsequential. Prove it.
Bill Hunter re: “Criminey, they paid the consultant over $280,000. Of course that includes 2 annual updates and the spike analysis.”
I’m not clear what the point of this statement might be, but I’m curious where this is coming from. Who is “they”, “the consultant”, and where did the dollar figure and alleged work scope come from?
“The fact the ocean is warming according to BE at less than half the rate of the land…”
You mean globally? This is accounted for by comparative heat capacity. It takes 3000 times more energy to warm to 1C an equivalent volume of ocean than air. The top 3 metres of the oceans holds the same amount of heat energy as the entire atmosphere.
Mark B says:
”I’m not clear what the point of this statement might be, but I’m curious where this is coming from.”
The point of the statement was that it seemed like a lot of money to spend on a project purporting to explain global warming and miss about 1/2 of it without a significant acknowledgement that there is a lot more to know.
As to who it is, its apparently the fact that Dr. Robert Rohde appears to have transitioned from employee to contractor.
So no big deal.
Much more interesting is how the close alignment where the sun earth and 4 jovian planets align in the shape of a right triangle with tangency of the strongest line of pull tangent to earths orbit as described in the tinyurl link to Thomas where orbit perturbation is at its greatest.
this was an unprecedented alignment wrt to the instrument temperature records. The last closest such alignment during the industrial age occurred in the 1940’s with the 3 largest of the 4 jovian planets.
So the report shares the same issue with the 1940’s, namely unexplained likely natural warming.
barry says:
”You mean globally? This is accounted for by comparative heat capacity. It takes 3000 times more energy to warm to 1C an equivalent volume of ocean than air. The top 3 metres of the oceans holds the same amount of heat energy as the entire atmosphere.”
while that’s true its not nearly as meaningful as it sounds. An equivalent volume of the atmosphere compressed evenly to sea level pressure would be 8.5 kilometers thick.
But the mean mixing zone applicable to a mean year of insolation is about 20 meters. And since during periods of about 1/2 a year you get a steep thermocline even in the 20 meters.
Bottom line is ice retreat causes the ocean to actually cool faster by adding millions of square kilometers of convective mixing areas.
The difference between land warming and ocean warming has doubled as a result between 1979-2006 vs 2007 to present and that is now seen as La Nina (upwellings driven by polar convective mixing) have become more common so ocean surface warming has slowed down even while land surface warming has accelerated from more mean annual global insolation due to variations of earth’s orbit. These variations may also offset some of the ocean cooling and increase some of the land warming due to the acceleration of CO2 emissions but the evidence of that is much weaker.
bill,
“These variations may also offset some of the ocean cooling and increase some of the land warming due to the acceleration of CO2 emissions but the evidence of that is much weaker.”
Well now you are arguing about CO2. That isn’t the point. Surface warming could be from any cause and the point remains the same.
The point is that the heat capacity of the oceans is orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. This is the primary cause of the difference in temperature trends.
barry says:
”Well now you are arguing about CO2. That isn’t the point. Surface warming could be from any cause and the point remains the same.
The point is that the heat capacity of the oceans is orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. This is the primary cause of the difference in temperature trends.”
I don’t think you actually followed what I had to say Barry.
I agree with your point completely.
What I asked is why the spike and the doubling of the difference between the two trends. It looks exactly like a 1940’s spike that remains unexplained with CO2 models unable to identify how it happened. It looks like trends seen in the ice cores. All are in time with planetary movement saying very loudly IMO, that planet movement makes up a substantial amount of the warming we have seen in the past 40 some odd years.
Berkeley earth offered an explanation of changes that only explain about half the spike even when including the general warming trend of CO2. Thats leaves half the warming peak of 2023/24 unexplained. Its as much as all the elements BE considered combined CO2, CH4, Other ghe effects, Solar, ENSO, Hunga Tonga, and Marine shipping. And what was left over was about the size of all those combined.
The spike over the past 10 years is about .7C. The effects from the above list add up to about .33C. That leaves .37C unaccounted for. I realize that many warmists are satisfied that CO2 finally found a way to express itself but thats unexplained also on top of what remains unexplained about co2 warming in the first place.
IMO you cannot deny the basics laid out for orbit perturbations in the effort to find Neptune in the mid 19th century. And all the bumps in both ice cores and the instrument record line up with those basics. All that’s left is to build up an adequate model to express those effects over time using Milankovic principles about why Jupiter and Saturn are primarily responsible for earth falling into glacial periods that last 10’s of thousands of years.
“What I asked is why the spike and the doubling of the difference between the two trends.”
CO2 is not responsible for the departures from the trend line. Other causes are primary at interannual levels, the most well-known being ENSO.
CO2 has nothing to do with the fact of spikes. the only wat CO2 could be involved is as a background warming cause, that means when those spikes do occur, they will be higher and higher. Not because CO2 causes the spikes, but because CO2 raises the background temperature within which they occur.
So goes the theory.
barry you are playing word games.
if we take co2 driving more ghe effects out of berkeley earth’s explanation of the warming over the past ten years, then BE only explained .13c of the rise of .70c. or about 19% of the warming rather than just a bit less than half of it.
The 10 y rise was 0.3 C according to BE.
I don’t see anywhere he says that the spike was only .3C so where do you get that from?
Mostly he talks about annual averages. I used UAH 13 month running average to get the .7c spike.
Further its the only spike in his graph that shows the 2 standard deviation shaded area.
The recent warming spike blasted through that and is the only spike in the entire record (he only shows since 1970) to do so.
Rohde only comments that there was less than 1 chance in a 100 to see such a spike. But using a rule on his graph the spike appears to have a likelihood of only .1065% or odds of 1 chance in 936 at 3.27 standard deviations.
bottom line it makes no difference how Berkeley Earth wants to characterize it. . .the math tells the story. And if he extended his analysis back to 1900 it would be telling of 2 spikes that can’t be explained.
He certainly can’t explain this with the work he has done here. Even get to .3 c for example you have to used CO2 as spike material. Without it he has only calculated a spike of .13.
Second figure shows T 2025 and 2015. 0.3 difference.
Nate those figures include CO2.
My ruler estimates that .37C is unaccounted for. Obviously not the items BE has included in his graphs.
.33C is what Berkeley earth accounted for, including estimates of warming from CO2. . .but it doesn’t come close to matching the change of .7 in UAH’s 13 month running average.
You can pretend you don’t see the spike on BE’s CO2 warming slope
that includes a 2 std deviation shaded area. But be aware you are just pretending.
On that slope the biggest deviation was 2016 with 2.05 standard deviations. But that is a once in 50 year odds.
The approx 3.27 standard deviation of the recent spike still unwinding is a once in 936 year event. A MWP, Roman Optimum, or Minoan Warming type event.
There is nothing unique about moderate to weak El Ninos or Solar Maximums, or the CO2 increases, except their uncertainty, already accounted for.
Hunga Tonga actually is thought to have caused cooling during the highest part of the spike but may now be slowing the retreat from April 2024 with a warming influence.
The recent spike was like a once in a thousand year event. It obviously needs consideration of what is causing it.
And the reference I provided gives as far as I am aware the best prospect for an answer scientifically: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL089954
If you can come up with an explanation you think has better scientific merit, by all means post it.
“if we take co2 driving more ghe effects out of berkeley earth’s explanation of the warming over the past ten years, then BE only explained .13c of the rise of .70c”
So this appears to be you talking about the warming over the last 10 y as measured by Berkeley Earth.
But no.
“I don’t see anywhere he says that the spike was only .3C so where do you get that from?”
You were actually talking about the height of the 2024 spike as measured from some prior minimum.
“I used UAH 13 month running average”
And you meant UAH, NOT Berkeley Earth at all.
It seems you are an unreliable narrator of your thoughts.
BtW, the height of ENSO-driven spikes are often larger in the troposphere (UAH) than at the Earth’s surface (BE).
In any case the actual rise in temperature between 2015 and 2025, the last 10 y, in BE, was 0.3 C.
Nate says:
”You were actually talking about the height of the 2024 spike as measured from some prior minimum.”
No I am not.
Sticking to the BE charts we are still left with an unprecedented 3.27 standard deviation departure from the longterm trend line expected by climate modelers. That is about a 1 in 1000 year event.
This is my central point and you running around talking about everything else I might have said have completely resulting in you missing the main point.
The trendline has already covered changes in GHG effects so that leaves only .13C explained by BE that provides the sum of their estimates of the effects of solar brightness changes, ENSO, Hunga Tunga volcanic eruption, and Marine transportation.
The .37C spike of the above the trend line (not the previous drop below the trend line but directly under the high point of the spike down to the trend line.
BE failed to explain nearly 2/3rds of the spike.
the only other climate variable that climate science is aware of are the perturbations of earth’s orbit by other planets. they have known these perturbations can have a major climate effect since Milankovics work was done in the middle of the last century. BE spent zero time evaluating that issue and has been ignoring that variable since they started doing annual reports.
All those figures were derived from BE’s graphics.
“The trendline has already covered changes in GHG effects so that leaves only .13C explained by BE that provides the sum of their estimates of the effects of solar brightness changes, ENSO, Hunga Tunga volcanic eruption, and Marine transportation.”
Not sure where you get that 0.13 from?
Their plot showing all the proposed mechanisms has just the El Nino peak at 0.13 C above 0, and 0.23 above just-prior La Nina.
The other ones mentioned, solar, shipping, HT sum to 0.15, with generous error bars.
“BE failed to explain nearly 2/3rds of the spike”
Not at all true.
Nate says:
Not sure where you get that 0.13 from?
Their plot showing all the proposed mechanisms has just the El Nino peak at 0.13 C above 0, and 0.23 above just-prior La Nina.
The other ones mentioned, solar, shipping, HT sum to 0.15, with generous error bars.
“BE failed to explain nearly 2/3rds of the spike”
Not at all true.
——————–
I believe I said CO2 accounted for .2C. but that was for the entire decade. Since the peak for BE came in Dec23 you have to back up two years which gives .16C going 2 years down the linear trend.
The rest of the variables are .13 for ENSO, .02 for solar, -.02 for hunga tonga and .05 for Marine (about the middle of his multiple uncertain estimates).
That totals .34c of the .54c anomaly being reported here by BE acknowledging it might have been a mistake to use the UAH anomaly. But that still leaves .2C unaccounted for which mean there is a missed variable that should be the largest variable of the bunch.
Nate says:
”The other ones mentioned, solar, shipping, HT sum to 0.15, with generous error bars.”
Generously they add up to half that. You can’t take the peaks occurring in Dec2025 as an explanation for a peak that occurred in Dec2023. If you do then you have to take -.04 as the value for ENSO.
Over the 10 y period, all 3 are above .05 as they near the end.
No matter, the error bars are large.
Nate says:
”Over the 10 y period, all 3 are above .05 as they near the end.
No matter, the error bars are large.”
At the end Nate ENSO has decreased by about .17 and CO2 increased by .04. The net difference at the end of 2025 should be -.03 but the chart shows -.16.
You can’t claim error bars as being more likely than anything else, especially in the absence of any comprehensive evaluation of the climate effects of orbital perturbations. What we can be certain of is orbit perturbation is not zero and the error bars could be zero.
“What we can be certain of is orbit perturbation is not zero and the error bars could be zero.”
We can be certain that this pure speculation won’t be checked against the readily available data for Earth-Sun distance.
Cant risk falsifying your speculations!
“The net difference at the end of 2025 should be -.03 but the chart shows -.16.”
Huh?? Thought we were talking about the height of spike?
Now youve moved on to after the spike?
BTW, super El Nino’s effects take longer to decay than rise.
Nate says:
” ”What we can be certain of is orbit perturbation is not zero and the error bars could be zero.”
We can be certain that this pure speculation won’t be checked against the readily available data for Earth-Sun distance.
Cant risk falsifying your speculations!
————–
To check it against JPL takes a bit of work. JPL gives you a distance at a point in time. But since the distance varies during the year due to the Kepler orbit I am not seeing that being output by the JPL model. And not knowing what the unperturbed Kepler orbit distance is on any given moment in time its not possible to see how much deviation there is. What I have done so far is identify that the jovian planetary movement is in time with the largest deviations in temperature in the instrument and ice core records.
So you might have already looked at this judging from your conclusions. If you have I would appreciate if you shared your methods.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
“The net difference at the end of 2025 should be -.03 but the chart shows -.16.”
Huh?? Thought we were talking about the height of spike?
Now you’ve moved on to after the spike?
——————-
Thats because you moved on when you posted above on February 12, 2026 at 5:56 PM: ”Over the 10 y period, all 3 are above .05 as they near the end.” It seemed like you thought that had something to the 3.27z departure. It doesn’t. Its irrelevant.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”BTW, super El Nino’s effects take longer to decay than rise.”
So what? All we are looking is the global temperature results of that rise and decay and not the rate that the the ENSO index rose and fell.
“At the end Nate ENSO has decreased by about .17 and CO2 increased by .04. The net difference at the end of 2025 should be -.03 but the chart shows -.16.”
This is YOU talking about ENSO being over and deciding that its influence on global temp must be over.
No that is not the case. As I noted the effect of a strong El Nino has a slow decay.
In the end what point do you think you have made here?
The reason to keep the baseline at the original 20-year average is for consistency. “Oh, last month is only 0.35 warmer than average? That’s not much. It was below average just a couple of years ago.” vs. “Oh, last month is more than half a degree warmer–and you know, we haven’t had even one colder than average in 13 years.” They are two very different perceptions.
While I agree it’s better for consistency – in terms of public understanding – researchers have little trouble navigating shifting baselines, and updating the baseline every 10 years to the most recent 30-year period is a recommendation from the WMO.
https://wmo.int/media/news/updated-30-year-reference-period-reflects-changing-climate
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has updated the U.S. Climate Normals to the 1991-2020 baseline period to provide a most recent baseline for climate information and services to climate-sensitive sectors and a standard reference to compare variations in temperature, precipitation etc to the 30-year average.
The move is in line with a World Meteorological Organization recommendation that the 30-year standard reference periods should be updated every decade in order to better reflect the the changing climate and its influence on our day-to-day weather experience.
Some climate datasets keep the original baseline (eg, NASA GISS Global Temperature Time Series, RSS), and some institutions use both updated and original baselines with different datasets (NOAA).
Within the range of normal monthly variation, January is clear evidence that the atmosphere continues to cool from the peak in 2024. It says absolutely nothing about future trends. Stay tuned.
It now seems very obvious that the peak in 2024 was not due to acceleration of warming from CO2 as some people claim. That is just more evidence of meaningless climate hype. In the same way, the very obvious decline over the last 15 months has no real explanation except the very obvious fact that it is occurring while atmospheric CO2 continues to rise.
Claims that variation in ENSO can explain this effect seem rather far fetched as well. It all seems rather mysterious, but it is consistent with a possible effect from the Hunga Tonga event. The question is why there was a delay and then a sudden surge in 2023. Were there different gases or different effects with different rates of dispersion?
Once again, we have very strong data to show that CO2 is not the “thermostat” that controls the temperature of earth. Nonsense about “the underlying trend” is equally meaningless as there are other possibilities to explain the current trend. The more important fact is that the effect of increasing CO2 is not accurately calibrated by speculative computer simulations.
The “delay” with the effect from Hunga Tonga was due to getting all the water vapor spread throughout the stratosphere. Now, the water vapor is leaving the stratosphere, so the effect is leaving.
https://postimg.cc/rKz8dxT4
Not only do Skeptics have “very strong data to show that CO2 is not the ‘thermostat’ that controls the temperature of earth”, but we also have the science.
Nonsense about “the underlying trend” is equally meaningless as there are other possibilities to explain the current trend.
How wooly can one sentence be?
Other possibilities have been poured over again and again and found rather wanting.
Specifically, solar, aerosol, cloud cover, black carbon on snow,PDO, AMO, GCR/cloud hypothesis, volcanism, orbital forcing etc have been explored.
None of these causes fit well or time well with the warming trend over the last century, or the last 50 years.
You and Nate remain very boring and irrelevant with your drive-by quotes. Are you that narrow-minded, or do you think others are the ones with the short attention span? Try this:
Once again, we have very strong data to show that CO2 is not the “thermostat” that controls the temperature of earth. Nonsense about “the underlying trend” is equally meaningless as there are other possibilities to explain the current trend. The more important fact is that the effect of increasing CO2 is not accurately calibrated by speculative computer simulations.
The AMO is still in the warm phase, and it aligns very well with the last century. I will wait, but I also have a prediction. It will help to define the accuracy of the computer simulations if and when it shifts to the cool phase. The future warming rate or cooling rate for that matter over the next 20 years will help to define things. Stock up on the popcorn! By the way, Michael Mann says there is no such thing as AMO. Imagine that!
Beyond that, calibration of climate models remains as circular logic. As someone who has actually worked with thermal radiation, I am very confident of that. Do you understand the concept? Look it up.
“we have very strong data”
Where?
The usual monthly airing of Tim’s grievances.
He also confuses long term and short term warming mechanisms.
”
It now seems very obvious that the peak in 2024 was not due to acceleration of warming from CO2 as some people claim. That is just more evidence of meaningless climate hype”
Again, no climate scientists is saying that the 2024 peak was due to just CO2.
As has been explained here many times, the 2024 peak was caused mostly by well understood short-term warming mechanisms. A strong El Nino. A solar maximum.
This was riding on top of a long term warming trend produced by increasing GHG.
In addition, since the early 2000s, we have had a decreasing trend in pollution: sulfur aerosol emissions, mainly due to China policies, as Norman showed us:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1732927
This would reduce clouds and increase solar insolation, mostly over the N. hemisphere mid-latitude Pacific ocean.
This may explain the frequent recent appearances of the N. Pacific warm summer blob , which was prominent in 2024, and an accelerated long-term warming effect.
Nate says:
”Again, no climate scientists is saying that the 2024 peak was due to just CO2.
As has been explained here many times, the 2024 peak was caused mostly by well understood short-term warming mechanisms. A strong El Nino. A solar maximum.”
Yet again Nate squeaks off without really understanding anything about what he is talking about.
He is probably relying upon a quick scan read of Berkeley Earth’s annual report that only explains about 1/2 of the 2023/24 warming spike per Berkeley Earth’s own analysis. They just didn’t say so but that’s what the components of their analysis adds up to.
As usual, no science, just insults from Bill.
some folks consider facts to be insults.
i merely pointed out that in your reply you hadn’t even bothered to math check the science before believing the narrative. one cannot begin to talk science without first checking if the math adds up to the claim.
Still waiting for your planetary speculation math.
Nate says:
”Still waiting for your planetary math.”
Good that you want that. Unfortunately I am not being paid to predict climate in the future, nor explain it in the past.
what I have done is found a statistical connection to the spikes see in the instrument record and in ice core records.
the ~900 year cycles of saturn and Jupiter line with with the peaks seen in the ice core records presented by the CO2 coalition. 10 spikes in 9,000 years that line up with the Saturn Jupiter cycle where their conjunctions fill the entire solar system 360 degree compass give or take 4 degrees. Then the 2 of the 3 high spikes correspond to the approximate 4:1 full compass navigation ratio of Uranus and Neptune conjunction cycles lining up with Jupiter and Saturn’s 900 year cycle. The one highest peak exception is believed to be related to the rebound of 8.2ky event of the draining of glacial Lake Agassiz and Lake Ojibway in North America on top of a Jupiter Saturn 900 year cycle.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
the switching to the instrument record we find correlation of the jovian planet positions consistent with events that well exceeded 2 standard deviation temperature excursions. As we see in Berkeley Earths >3 standard deviation excursion in 2023/24
Pretty good correlation there. And there is more correlation than that. You can find the 20 year cycle of Jupiter and Saturn alone in the temperature record and explains the step pattern seen in warming since the temperature record reliability has gone up.
So join me in calling for the math. It’s important. Its certainly worthy of a grant that produces a climate modeling effort at a minimum. I am confident that it will more than pay for itself.
Here is a source I just found 5 minutes ago calling for an examination of this phenomena in climate science. It has 82 references to various phenomena that supports the idea that planetary perturbation events have an effect on climate.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL089954
Well, you have been informed that correlation is not causation. That you need to show a mechanism.
You respond: “The mechanism is called the inverse square law that affects how much energy the planet receives.”
And we respond that yes, we know about that, but that isnt sufficient.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1727728
You have to show how MUCH it has affected the insolation received by the Earth from the Sun, and whether it is significant, and correlated to temperature on Earth.
The calculations have been done. The key one is the Earth-Sun distance over time. I showed you how to get them for the last century or so, now a couple of times.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1727816
and here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729043
and Mark B also found a source for that
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729627
They do not show any significant events in E-S distance in the last century.
But you show no interest, or dismiss the data.
You seem content to leave it as an ‘unsolved mystery’.
Nate says:
”Well, you have been informed that correlation is not causation.”
While you are right correlation cannot be automatically considered to be causation, there are legitimate statistical practices that achieve true levels of certainty.
The number one requirement is that the variable suspected of causation moves with significant and repeated changes in the direction of changes in outcomes.
CO2 correlation is very weak. Warming suspected to be from CO2 has been nearly linear. You don’t have the ability to show, especially with the uncertainties about sensitivity, that the industrial age warming is a response to increased CO2. Thus you lack the repetitive change in direction necessary to establish a scientific-based correlation. Net Zero is in effect an experiment on the entire human race to change the direction of the variable and even then a single change in direction provides a very low level of statistical certainty. So you would need to repeat the experiment several times, going to full on drill baby drill, then back again to Net Zero. Problem is the first Net Zero has not accomplished anything yet.
The same is not true with planetary motion. Here it has effectively repeated itself several times, but only two times now in the modern instrument record with full cycle changes. CO2 only has a half cycle. Rep count comparison two to one half.
add in ice core correlations and other noted variability like in the link below more stuff can be attributed to the correlation rate.
And there are scores of scientists already aware of that. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL089954
Nate says:
You respond: “The mechanism is called the inverse square law that affects how much energy the planet receives.”
And we respond that yes, we know about that, but that isnt sufficient.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1727728
You have to show how MUCH it has affected the insolation received by the Earth from the Sun, and whether it is significant, and correlated to temperature on Earth.
The calculations have been done. The key one is the Earth-Sun distance over time. I showed you how to get them for the last century or so, now a couple of times.
——————–
Distance is only one of two factors Nate. It may well be the weakest one. Obviously a model is needed where these factors can be properly evaluated. You sitting there waving your arms does nothing at all. Further distance at perihelion and aphelion tells you very little. Also I haven’t yet found an alignment of the jovian planets at either semimajor axis yet. If there is one it only occurs no more than once every ~3,600 years + or -.
I deem that false. I am talking about mean annual global insolation. I haven’t seen a single study on that. I see short term calibrated studies studying the effect of the 2008 cooling nadir but there wasn’t any notable planetary position during the duration of that study to get a handle on planetary motion. e.g. it lacked an alignment of at least 3 jovian planets both tangent to earth’s orbit and forming a right triangle between the jovian planets involved, the earth, and the sun. Nor does it compare such positions over time as to where the alignment occurs.
Further showing only single instance model outputs doesn’t allow for an efficient audit of that model. Auditors audit models through the computer and need access to the model so as to program in custom runs. Mean annual global insolation is a slow process and must be monitored over years.
For instance Neptune effects can occur in an accelerating fashion for over 80 years. The tiny annual pulls this creates are never unwound for 80 years when Neptune rotated to the other side of its orbit.
Uranus does it the same way over 42 years before it rotated to the other side.
Saturn unwinds its tiny pulls in 15 years and Jupiter does it in 6 years.
Remaining is a residual from the various imbalance that is thought to rotate between periods of glaciation and interglaciation. On top of that the orbital permutations of the various imperfect rations causes very long term imbalances.
As to your links:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1727816
”All calculations are by Fred Espenak” who is Fred and where is his work?
and here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729043
”This tool provides educational accuracy suitable for getting started with most applications. It’s not suitable for navigation or precise scientific research.” Nuff said. Caveat it states its using Kepler orbit mechanics and mention of perturbing effects.
and Mark B also found a source for that
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729627
this appears to be a decent database built on certain parameters. But it doesn’t actually estimate actual perturbations automatically and it will require a sizeable effort to do that. I would get on it and will after I get the documentation for the database. As it is it doesn’t help your case at all.
“Distance is only one of two factors Nate.”
Whwn you have talked about planetary gravitational perturbations, the point you are making is that they affect the Earths orbit, in such a way that the amount of solar insolation is changed.
That can only happen by changing the E-S distance as a function of time.
That’s right Nate. A function of both time and distance.
A planetary alignment near the equinoxes will have zero direct gravitational effect on mean solar distance.
But it will have a byproduct effect on distance as that alignment will slow the speed of earth through half the orbit and speed it up through the other half.
The half orbits are divided by a line through the equinoxes and the semimajor axes will bisect those half orbits.
If on the ”warm side” warming will occur because one spent more time near perihelion and it will also warm near aphelion because of spending less time cooling.
Of course a speed change itself will cause a change in E-S distance and that distance becomes a factor in the equation for how long the earth remains in each half orbit but its a time calculation applied to the combined pull of sun and earth on each other. The gravitational pull from the jovian alignment only affects forward momentum of earth.
Fact is most of the time both effects are occurring simultaneously either in unison or countering effects.
Followers of Milankovic theory traditionally has only considered Jupiter and Saturn tiny pulls adding up to an interglacial period.
But Jupiter and Saturn’s effects vary over multiple cycles.
Their alignment with each other is very regular at 20 years.
Each conjunction moves ~242degrees around the compass creating both a 60 year pattern and an ~900 year pattern. where 2 conjunctions will be on one side and the 3rd one would be on a different side of the major axis.
The amplitude of these effects change overtime due to ideal positioning. The apparent amplitude in temperature record can vary for a variety of reasons including:
the effects of Uranus and Neptune where the duration of maximum and effects last 8.5 times longer each cycle than the Jupiter and Saturn cycle. Jupiter and Saturn effects have a 20year cycle and Uranus and Neptune has a 171year cycle. U & N doesn’t have an equivalent to the 60 year cycle as the planet conjunctions move about 378 degrees with each cycle so they advance slowly around the compass without an intervening cycle. That longer cycle is it takes about 20 conjunctions to get around the compass or about 3,600 years. Where as Saturn and Jupiter 60 year cycle moves about 242.7 degrees and repeats each 3rd conjunction about 8 degrees advanced from the last one near that location and takes ~900 years for the entire system to rotate about 121 degrees.
As far as actual gravity affecting the E-S distance goes, either these outerplanets are pulling the earth and sun further apart or they are pulling on each equally. That means each happens (a maximum separation or no separation) occurs twice a year. When aligned at the perihelion the distance effect is less than when aligned at aphelion and the maximum mean annual global insolation maximizes at one equinox and minimizes at the other.
So the big mistake is to calculate the distance effect using a gravity model without calculating the gravitational speed effect on the forward momentum of the earth.
thank you for your attention to this matter.
Mansplaining Bill.
The precision NASA JPL ephemeris calculations incorporate all the necessary physics.
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/
Thyy produce the data for the position of the Earth and Sun over time. These are the data that can be found at the various links provided to you.
It seems you prefer that this information is not known, and stay a great mystery that you can endlessly speculate about.
Nate says:
Mansplaining Bill.
The precision NASA JPL ephemeris calculations incorporate all the necessary physics.
———————
So how much more sunlight has earth gotten in the last 45 years then?
I am not disputing anything about JPL I just don’t see the figures for daily sunlight. How do you know what it is? How do you know as you have claimed its not worth considering as a factor?
Nate says:
”It seems you prefer that this information is not known, and stay a great mystery that you can endlessly speculate about.”
You mean like you have been doing in this thread talking about error bars perhaps making up ~.2C warming that Berkeley Earth did not explain in their 2025 report? People in glass houses should not throw stones at other people.
What we supposedly do know about this is that Jupiter and Saturn are considered primarily responsible for 3 to 13.5c degrees cooling and then warming again by changing daily insolation.
I am considering the full range of known polar warming in the ice cores on the basis that UAH record of the mean trends in temperature of the poles closely equals that of the global mean.
If thats wrong lets you bring forth the papers that establish both how the warming and cooling proceeds and the evidence that it differs. No whining I laid out one rationale.
Jupiter and Saturn makes up more than the majority or orbit perturbance by the planets in the solar system. That’s common sense but where are the quantitative proofs?
Uranus and Neptune have the advantage of actually staying in one area of the sky to create a trend longer than a couple of decades
without considering feedbacks. Jupiter and Saturn trends are ten years and substantial. But ignored because the primary trends are too short supposedly consider to be climate. But we know that science believes they do cause climate changes sufficient to create more than 75 thousand years of glaciation and interglacials of 25 thousand years. We also know that the interglacials can have multiple peaks. But where is the math that supports what we claim to know?
Planet gravitational pull on earth by J&S is substantial but the primary orbit periods of 12 and 30 years respectively means that i creates primary perturbations at 6 and 12 years. And 20 years is there combined cycle, 60 years is their conjunction compass rotation period, and ~900 years is where the 121 degree gaps in its conjunction cycle fill in.
we saw 1980 bring a nadir in the temperature record and that was because currently that is the only conjunction on the cooling side of the ledger. J&S next conjunction will be in that same sector so much warming in the future looks bleak.
J&S orbit periods are quite short compared to Uranus and Neptune.
J&S flip their 2:1 warm vs cold activity once every ~450 years. If cooling ended in 1700 as some believe then we should be in a warming cycle for another 125 years. But the last cooling cycle had 3 Maunder Minimum type events and its uncertain where the turn actually came. If you look at Alley, 2004 it doesn’t stand out a lot and if 1700 it would call for the end of the MWP to have occurred around 1250.
Uranus and Neptune’s primary conjunction cycle will hit out of time with Jupiters 900 year cycle 3 out of 4 times which explains the Minoan Warming period about 3,600 years ago being taller than the other 900 year cycles and also explains the other tall (non-8.2ky event) event about 7,000 years ago.
thus it seems the preponderance of evidence suggest the current warming might be a once in 3,600 year planetary maximally timed perturbation event.
And we know by visually verifying how much Neptune moves uranus when the positions of 2 planets and the sun form near a right triangle. It is substantial.
It is also a fact that the earth passes through the base of that triangle on the line drawn from the sun to Uranus at the maximum perturbation rate. Earth being closer to the sun and the right angle will get a bit more than pull than uranus gets in that configuration. It will take some work to figure the duration of that additional influence. Best would be to model the whole thing with a program using JPL as the database.
I doubt such a run has been constructed as you effectively think what has already happened. But that’s because you are stuck on raw distance to sun data and haven’t modeled the two concepts separately because apparently you can’t get the above through your skull and determine the outcomes of the effects on speed through various sectors of the orbit that doesn’t change solar brightness but like getting a sunburn under a constant sun the primary variable is minutes in the sun. So it is a case of time and distance. I see enough data in JPL or any decent ephemeris for that matter to calculate all this stuff. But its millions of calculations and when one uses the app attached to JPL you need at least n+1 runs of the database to make each calculation to get the speed effects of the planets on the earth not to speak of the fact each inquiry leads to subcalculations to convert change of position to a distance traveled by earth while it speeds through space.
But since you claim it has been done you need to show where this is documented. I am dying to see you if your sources can rise the level of your mouth.
“How do you know what it is?”
Solar irradiance obeys inverse square law. Wasnt that in your theory?
“So how much more sunlight has earth gotten in the last 45 years then?”
That is YOUR homework assignment. Get on it. Until you have results, it remains speculation.
“What we supposedly do know about this is that Jupiter and Saturn are considered primarily responsible for 3 to 13.5c degrees cooling and then warming again by changing daily insolation”
Yep, over 20 thousand year or longer cycles.
Not over 2023-2025. Or on any time period in the last century. For those periods the data is available.
Real scientists want to test their theories against available observations.
Indeed Nate, ideal alignments don’t even appear to occur within the range and ephemeris I have seen.
But we know all the objects in the solar system apply forces including some measurable ones we haven’t yet found the source of.
What we do know is that there is a sub-optimum combination of the jovian planets at ~3600 years that may be sub optimum by a large amount. But we don’t know even the frequency of these so called tiny pulls are or their frequency or their temperature results.
We know there is a 20 year one that varies over a 60 year cycle, which in turn varies over an ~900 year cycle. As all these pulls are a net of a positive and negative pull and how much of those pulls get retained is important to know because they are definitely modified by feedbacks which I doubt you can shed any light on as everybody is struggling over feedback.
And with respect to your comment at February 13, 2026 at 3:06 PM yes I know how to calculate insolation, the problem as I outlined above is a base number in that calculation is how does the distance reported from JPL differ from either otherwise measured values by other means than calculations by JPL and how much do they depart from an expected Kepler orbit position at the same moment in time along with a database of what the solar brightness is at the surface of the sun at any given point in time. Using mean numbers could result in large errors.
Any input you can share from your analysis that concluded it is zero would be appreciated.
“We know there is a 20 year one that varies over a 60 year cycle, which in turn varies over an ~900 year cycle”
Do you not realize that you are posting gobbledegook?
“nd with respect to your comment at February 13, 2026 at 3:06 PM yes I know how to calculate insolation, the problem as I outlined above is a base number in that calculation is how does the distance reported from JPL differ from either otherwise measured values by other means than calculations by JPL and how much do they depart from an expected Kepler orbit position at the same moment in time along with a database of what the solar brightness is at the surface of the sun at any given point in time. Using mean numbers could result in large errors.”
Good outline of whst YOU need to do test your claims.
Nate says:
Good outline of whst YOU need to do test your claims.
—————–
Which claim are you talking about Nate.
I merely claimed it isn’t zero. Therefore we should know what it is because of the proliferation of 1 to 3C spikes in the ice core records with unknown causes.
You even agree in the rare moments that you are consistent that the planets warm and cool the climate to take us from glacial period to interglacial period by ”tiny” pulls. Tiny pulls are not zero.
Its also the case similar to the effects of CO2 the quantitative effects have not been accurately described and has been incorrectly characterized by political actors as being the only unknown. We know that’s a lie and how far Al Gore took that in his movie. . .the guy with his hands on the science funding steering wheel.
CO2 IR capture up in the atmosphere is subject to massive negative convective feedback before it warms the surface as evidenced by climate model failures despite the unrecognized warming effect of planetary movement that we both agree is not zero.
After considering the negative feedbacks of convective transfer, which should differ between internal transfers of IR vs solar transfers where with the exception of clouds remains virtually transparent and not subject to negative convective transfers of energy before reaching the surface. After that perhaps both would be subject to positive feedbacks of surface warming if the effect isn’t saturated internally. We know its not saturated externally but a natural exterior forcing might well desaturate the GHE (that makes sense as the atmosphere should absorb more incoming heat if it doesn’t mitigate it by reducing/burning off more cloud cover)
We both also know now that Berkeley Earth failed to itemize the entire warming influence of the recent warming spike. So we have large unknowns now both for 2023 and 2024 and in the 1940’s.
And the ice cores represent additional unknowns. The tiny pulls may well be a net retention of heat after large pulls are at least partially mitigated after a planetary king tides on both ends of the major axis of earth’s orbit, and after the speed effects which have a maximum climate effect near the equinoxes via the mechanism described in the details of the discovery of Neptune and the rules of gravity and the rules of a non-circular Kepler orbit with an eccentricity variable greater than zero.
While I agree the quantity of the claims needs to be tested thats why I am talking about it here rather than keeping it quiet while I do the work on it. I am an auditor not a scientist. I document things and test them using the resources provided by audit clients. But generally people don’t want to be audited, but many are required to be.
Some young non-naysayer curious real scientist should take an interest in it. Obviously you don’t fit that description.
You have managed to ignore every reference I have given you supporting this viewpoint and you produced absolutely nothing to refute it. Yet you refute it. In fact you know its not zero but yet you pretend that I claimed something other than its not zero and you still try to refute my claim.
I suppose that either makes you a typical political actor who believes he knows stuff he knows virtually nothing about; and, or if you do know something then I guess that makes you a typical lying political actor. My money is on both.
As I noted, Bill, your claims about solar insolation changing due to changes in Earth-sun distance, on short time scales, not Milankocitch time scales, can be easily tested, and falsified.
We can all see that you wont do that because falsifying your claims means the end of you speculating and pontificating about it.
And that is not in your interest.
Nate says:
”As I noted, Bill, your claims about solar insolation changing due to changes in Earth-sun distance, on short time scales, not Milankocitch time scales, can be easily tested, and falsified.
We can all see that you wont do that because falsifying your claims means the end of you speculating and pontificating about it.
And that is not in your interest.”
Thats a pretty shabby excuse carefully constructed and designed to cover up what you don’t know. You are bluffing and the evidence of your bluffing is that the only penalty you would actually suffer in admitting you are bluffing would be a special interest in lying which is made obvious by the bluff going on forever as it has.
Fine if that’s they way you want to play your hand. I call you but I doubt you will lay your hand on the table even if called.
Am I worried about my interests? LOL! My self interest is in health and truth whatever that entails. As Marco Rubio so elegantly pointed out, there are certain things you have to do as history has shown us to be prepared for anything. Bluffing is a strategy best employed as sparingly as possible and only when you caught by surprise or chance when you aren’t prepared and some penalty is sure to come if you don’t bluff.
” The mid-20th century cooling (approx. 1940–1975) was a slight global temperature decrease (~0.1°C) driven primarily by
increased industrial aerosol pollution, which reflected sunlight and caused cooling, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. ”
That’s all about it.
You see that even when just looking at yearly averages of monthly data for UK+Eire:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TvGdx5awonQGDvZ-E-qTIAO2z_NiFpol/view
or at those for HadISST1 SST sea surface data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13X64P9WzSnQS27tkqbqhavVvpg840o_m/view
*
No idea why people endlessly debate about this stuff.
Thomas Hagedorn says:
“Could we add to that the explanation for the hiatus on warming from ‘98 to about 2015 (approximate)?”
Since 17 yr windows are apparently decisive, Jan 2008 – Dec 2025 yields 3.7C/century. Project that forward and -surprise- we have completed the “interglacial”.
TODAY’S CLIMATE SCIENCE DOUBLE SPEAK
Google AI:
Low-level clouds (e.g., stratocumulus, stratus) do not create a net greenhouse effect because their high reflectivity (albedo) for incoming solar radiation outweighs their capacity to trap outgoing longwave (infrared) radiation. These thick, dense clouds act as a shield, reflecting sunlight back to space and cooling the planet, rather than warming it.
————
OK, if we take the mean solar insolation as measured by solar brightness at a ‘mean’ distance from the sun we get 342w/m2.
1) If we take that as the basis of the GHE we get a 9.3C greenhouse effect that is in part caused by clouds and GHG combined because the mean surface temperature would be 278.7k if it received 342w/m2.
since the mean global surface temperature is 288k that gives a 9.3c ghe.
If on the other hand we subtract the effect of reflection know the radiation absorbed is 240w/m2 and the mean temperature is 255k.
so with a 288k surface we get a 255k temperature and a 33c ghe if we assume the surface to be a blackbody.
But if we adjust the emissivity parameter of the spectral calculator to .7 which is the emissivity of earth with a .3 albedo. 240w/m2 absorbed requires a temperature 278.7k as in 1) above.
So it seems the total GHE is 9.3c once you cut through the double speak. . .or about 3.5 times less than claimed.
Also the reflectivity of a surface has no radiative effect on a surface exposed only to radiation as heat loss.
Anyway you slice all that up it appears that clouds do enhance the net GHE since reflected sunlight does not reduce the GHE and if poorly treated scientifically may exaggerate it as the GHE is calculated either with or without the reflection which is NOT an element of GHE.
The double speak is clear in the Google AI output. Increasing clouds at all times of the day increase the GHE.
And we know that clouds are more prevalent during the night because the sun partially or wholly evaporates them during the day.
Finally, they assume it is ”thick, dense clouds”. but that certainly doesn’t in any way describe ”ship tracks” where you need a special instrument in space to even see them.
Bill Hunter
YOU: “so with a 288k surface we get a 255k temperature and a 33c ghe if we assume the surface to be a blackbody.
But if we adjust the emissivity parameter of the spectral calculator to .7 which is the emissivity of earth with a .3 albedo. 240w/m2 absorbed requires a temperature 278.7k as in 1) above.”
You are using two concepts and trying to use them interchangeably which leads you to an incorrect conclusion. Albedo refers to the amount of visible solar energy that is reflected so it does not reach the surface. Emissivity is in the IR band and related to the surface temperature. The emissivity of the Earth is over 0.9 and some suggest maybe 0.95
https://climatepuzzles.org/technical/surface-emissivity/
You would need to use at least 0.9 in the emissivity sector or higher.
Norman, first of all you apparently don’t understand the double speak.
Its not me that is creating the double speak its the explanation that low clouds do not create a net greenhouse effect because they reflect more light than the GHE they create.
When mainstream science tells us the GHE is 33C they are assuming a blackbody so the difference between the 33C and the 9.3C you have with the existing albedo means that the clouds are deemed to be contributing 23.7C NET to the GHE because when you use the albedo as a subtrahend to arrive at NET GHE by subtracting the albedo you are treating albedo as part of the GHE.
So in fact under the mainstream science claim where albedo is not subtracted from the calculation you arrive at 33C with 23.7C of it supplied by low clouds where low clouds are a huge part of the GHE as measured by Roy here years ago with his backyard experiment of monitoring the night sky and the large increase in downwelling IR when low clouds passed through.
When you do subtract the albedo you arrive at a GHE of 9.3C.
I suppose when they started divvying up the GHE by chemical specie they didn’t feel comfortable recognizing all the downwelling cloud IR and having that shrink the primary effect of CO2. We could be arguing that CO2 produces feedback of 8.1:1 as the keystone GHE specie and that 1.4C warming over the industrial age is .17c due to CO2 and 1.23C due to water feedback.
All you are arguing for a modest change in that ratio by admitting that the earth isn’t a blackbody and that its emissivity is actually 5 to 10% lower than the real (sic) NET 33C.
“But if we adjust the emissivity parameter of the spectral calculator to .7 which is the emissivity of earth with a .3 albedo. 240w/m2 absorbed requires a temperature 278.7k as in 1) above.”
Norman is absolutely correct, that you were absolutely wrong, when you made this statement, Bill.
thats fine nate but you haven’t addressed the double speak embedded in the narrative that is the topic of this subthread.
the fact is that if you want to ignore the physics of accelerated energy releases by clouds seen in radiation budgets; to arrive at a balanced budget then you have to acknowledge that cloud bottoms radiate enough downwelling ir to account for a super majority of the greenhouse effect as i stated. one minute your masters claim clouds don’t have a greenhouse effect and the next minute they want to count it as part of the greenhouse effect.
its the same kind of double speak when you try to deny that rotations on an external axis is a rotation. all for the sake of believing you know the deeper meaning of some offhand comment of some long dead famous scientist. and such the moon must spin on its internal axis and that the orbit is a translation and not a rotation. your masters, to their amusement simply have you dancing to whatever tune they want to play.
“the double speak embedded in the narrative that is the topic of this subthread”
It’s rather the thesis.
Here’s a reminder of how language actually works:
Topic => the narrative.
Thesis => there’s double speak alleged.
LOL!
Even Tony Heller is alarmed by the snow drought in the Western US:
https://tinyurl.com/3ez2mx95
Tony should come to the UK,it has never stopped raining since the middle of January,only four dry days since December,not unusual just depressing,all down to a jet stream that has moved south of the UK, not only is it damp, but cold with daytime temperatures barely making 4c by day.the drought in the South is now a distant memory.
Jet stream path could be to blame. East coast ski resorts – West Va and New England – reporting adequate to robust snow pack and conditions. Weather, not climate.
Snow pack and skiing conditions are quite robust and good currently in the European Alps.
As I look out my window, we are receiving a heavy snowfall, although it is predicted to be a brief event. They used to call these “Alberta Clippers”, as they roar out of Canada and head south to torment us in the U.S. This January/February in southwest Ohio (Cincinnati area) has been a semi-historic period for cold temps and snowfall. It has been almost 50 years (1977-1978) since we have experienced weather like this. Smaller rivers are freezing over and lots of ice flows in the Ohio River. When I was a kid (60s) I remember a period of about 6 weeks of snow on the ground one year. In 1977-1978 and 1917 or 1918 the Ohio River froze over. This period seems a lot like those other periods.
So, global warming enthusiasts have to convince the general public, people who pay attention only to daily and monthly weather, that winters like this somehow fit into the CO2 warming thesis. That is a hard sell, even given their almost total control over k-PhD education and classic media. The sacrifices that the general public are being asked to make are huge and they just don’t see the threat. Is what I have described above weather, not climate? Yes. People don’t experience or feel a 1 degree increase in temps over decades. They experience what I am seeing out my window right now.
In addition to what Bindidon wrote, I also think there is merit to the idea that global warming has a role to play in the record warmth observed across the western US this winter.
While the western CONUS has almost certainly experienced winter synoptic patterns similar to this one during the 131 years of official record keeping, nine states still set records for their warmest December on record.
From:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/national/202512
Click on ‘December 2025 Statewide Temperature Ranks Map’
Eldrosion
It’s hard to believe how stubborn some people can behave.
On January 30, 2026 at 7:34 PM (i.e. about one week ago), I posted a graph showing that current temperatures measured in this January 2026 around Cincinnatti are by NO MEANS comaprable to those which prevailed in the years 1977/78, 1989, 1918 or even 2015:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ieJLGmAc698x-sOhl6V85zp-2d2UXJWc/view
But… this is 100% discarded, and the Hagedorn boy endlessly repeats his lies about 2026 winter being the same as earlier! Incredible.
The top 20 of a sort of the coldest temperature anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010, measured around Cincinnatti:
1977 1 -10.37 (°C)
1978 2 -8.88
1918 1 -8.57
1989 12 -8.57
2015 2 -7.78
1917 12 -7.36
1979 2 -7.18
1940 1 -6.99
2007 2 -6.61
1960 3 -6.27
2000 12 -6.01
1914 2 -5.93
1978 1 -5.84
2014 1 -5.84
1963 12 -5.59
1912 1 -5.56
1976 11 -5.41
1912 2 -5.11
1976 12 -5.07
1903 12 -5.06
Jan 2026 arrives at position 44:
2026 1 -3.95
*
What the heck does this weather have to do with CO2?
NOTHING.
Fact is: it gets WARMER around Cincinnatti, point final.
OMG oh Noes: I forgot to sort Dec and Feb off the list – after all, aren’t we talking about January?
1977 1 -10.37 (°C)
1918 1 -8.57
1940 1 -6.99
1978 1 -5.84
2014 1 -5.84
1912 1 -5.56
1963 1 -4.85
1982 1 -4.75
1979 1 -4.35
1994 1 -4.29
2026 1 -3.95
1970 1 -3.77
1948 1 -3.74
2025 1 -3.67
1904 1 -3.49
1984 1 -3.23
1985 1 -3.22
2003 1 -3.15
1905 1 -3.03
1936 1 -2.98
*
Wow! 2026 now moves up from palce 44 to place… 11! Wow!
Next time I’ll bring some info about snowfall around Cinci :–)
Bindi – I didn’t think you were speaking to me. Anyway, I await your next post with bated breath. Perhaps it will contain smaller error than the last one…from 44th to 11th. Really?
BTW, if you look at the incidence of those cold January’s by decade (20 in total) two have been in the last two years. 4 were in the 70s, near the end of the 4 decade cooling episode. 3 were in the 80s, as the recent warming was just beginning. Only 3 other decades had 2 cold January’s (1900s, 1910s, 1940s). The 2020s have two, with three more chances to go! The 1920s and 1950s had 0 cold January’s.
Global warming advocates like to talk a lot about extreme weather (hint: it scares people and you can motivate with fear). So why doesn’t warming seem to show up in Cincinnati January extremes? Local/regional variation? Some other mechanism?
Thanks for the research. The snowfall stuff will be interesting. Precipitation, especially snowfall amount, is about as variable and unpredictable as you can get.
Hagedorn
1. My comment was no more than a reply to your wording:
” I have lived in this area for 75 of my 77 years and this brings back memories of the late 70s… ”
which is very, very certainly far from reality.
In Feb 1956, Germany, France and Belgium experienced temperatures with also over 10 °C below the 1981-2010 norm.
This was incredibly different from the weak winters we have since about two decades.
*
2. The first list was by no means an error, as it more exactly described when it really was very cold in your corner.
I changed the list by restricting it to Januaries only for convenience.
Your January 2026 average is and remains at position 44, no doubt!
Dr Spencer,
Like many other scientists, I have high regard for your temperature work. However, I have long been puzzled by your reporting in anomaly form, when most of us would prefer actual temperatures. Yes,this would require calibration against another method of measurements but given an adequate estimate of the error involved the result would be acceptable and much easier to use.
I have spent very many hours since 1992 with Australian historic temperature data. It would be easier to contrast with satellite based methods in estimated temperature, not anomaly form. Any chance? Geoff S
Since the UAH values (call them “U”) are departures from a baseline (“B”), then the actual temperatures would be = U + B. Right?
So why not just prepare a basic spreadsheet to add UAH values to the corresponding baseline?
Clint is correct about this. UAH provides a monthly gridded baseline absolute temperature data file. One can then take the monthly gridded anomaly data and add it to the corresponding monthly baseline to get gridded absolute temperature data.
The baseline file is in the same directory as the anomaly file Dr Spencer links at the end of these monthly updates. e.g. the TLT file is here:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/tltmonacg_6.1
I have a plot I generated a while back of the monthly baseline here:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/uahTltMonthlyBaseline.png
It, unfortunately, doesn’t have a temperature scale, but the range is something like 200 to 290 Kelvin for the TLT data.
Mark B
” Clint is correct about this. ”
*
What a shame you replied to the world-renowned climate data specialist Clint R so early!
Since I’ve been familiar with his highly scientific approach to the phenomenon of lunar rotation for years (“Got a viable model for Orbiting Motion Without Spin?”), I’d really have loved his reply to my answer about how his ‘U+B’ computation exactly looks like.
Now that you explained how to do, it’s alas too late to read his reply (if he would ever have answered, of course).
*
By the way, I thought there might be an easier way than processing the raw grid data to help people like Geoff Sherrington when they need absolute UAH data from one of the 27 zonal/regional anomaly time series published here:
https://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
or out of any of the other three, similar files containing MT, TP or LS data.
*
The explanation is a bit long, and it’s getting late at GMT+1; I’ll leave a comment at the end of the thread tomorrow.
CU…
Geoff Sherrington
” However, I have long been puzzled by your reporting in anomaly form, when most of us would prefer actual temperatures. ”
*
Who are you thinking of? The few who think like you?
I estimate that at least 90% of scientists working on this topic can’t do anything with absolute time series data, as they usually need to correlate multiple climate datasets whose value ranges and seasonal dependencies are often different, which inevitably leads to biased comparisons.
*
No: this is not my private opinion: Roy Spencer explained it in detail 10 years ago in a dedicated thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
The main point is the removal of the seasonal dependencies (what Roy Spencer names ‘the annual cycle) by constructing a 12 month baseline whose values are subtracted from the corresponding months in the absolute series.
*
Here is a graph comparing, for Australia, UAH’s absolute lower troposphere data with the daily absolute station measurements from GHCN Daily (imported by NOAA from BoM’s raw station data):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sV31jzNnNUJ0Qv3-pklaRXmbuL3v1hah/view
(Of course: this is not a comparison of the original absolute values, as these are distant by about 24 K; both series were displaced by their respective mean for 1991-2020.)
UAH’s absolute data is not available online; you have to reconstruct it out of a composition of the 2.5 degree grid cell anomalies with the corresponding cells in their grid climatology.
*
Here is the same data source in anomaly form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bJTv5uspre9wgtzG3FGGC1RxDvCidp-Y/view
*
You decide what suits your needs… or tastes.
*
If you are interested in the absolute UAH-LT data for Australia:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vQeDArf_DyWcqLi-4Vd2qXxd7y0DOKw1/view
geoff…the response from Roy from Binny’s post…
“The answer, of course, is that the seasonal cycle is so large that it obscures the departures from normal. So, we (and other climate researchers) do departures from the seasonal norms. (If someone in Minneapolis exclaims, “Can you believe that 50 deg. temperature we had?”, it makes a big difference whether it occurred in January or July).”
***
Roy’s response makes no sense to me. Who cares about seasonal cycles, instrumental data is all we need? The instruments don’t measure in anomalies simply because they know nothing about baselines and departures from norms. They simply measure in real time and tell us the actual temperature they experience in a certain limited area.
Anomalies are a peculiarity of the human brain, which is never happy unless it is distorting reality. In other words, the human mind insists on imposing its thoughts and ideas on actuality. When you limit temperature to a narrow range of temperature changes, the changes become magnified immensely out of proportion, and alarmists begin raving about a 1C change in the average temperature over 175 years as more than significant. Based on such an insignificant change, alarmists are now raving about the end of life as we know it.
They don’t ask why the temperatures were what they were in 1850, or question that a mini ice age had just ended, the Little Ice Age, they presume temperatures were normal and began magically increasing due to human CO2 emissions.
If you plot the anomaly series on an absolute scale, it resembles more a straight line than a significant trend.
The basic problem arises when the human mind tries to arrive at an average global temperature using a small number of data points. For example, the surface temperature record relies on 1 thermometer to cover, on average, some 100,000 km^2. That includes the oceans, making up 70% of the planet’s surface and which are technically immeasurable.
One thermometer over such a wide area cannot possibly measure all extremes, therefore the human mind, trying to be inventive, invents theories that have little to do with the reality. Hence the anomaly.
Anomalies are good for number crunchers and statisticians but little good for anything else.
I was thinking the other day, what baselines was applied in 1979 when the UAH temperature series was born? No baseline existed, so someone had to invent one.
Another point is that temperature series these days have moved on from weather data prediction, the series are now used more to impose climates. That means, according to the current definition of climate, imposing a 30 year average on the data.
If you want to know the departure from ‘normal’, you use anomalies. If you want to know today’s weather, use absolute values.
Using anomalies removes the problem of variation in altitude and latitude for regional analyses of change over time. Anomalies reduce uncertainty and simplify the conglomeration of readings that have intrinsically different averages based on geographical and topographical differences. It’s an elegant solution to this problem.
You use the methodology that best suits the purpose. Anomalising off common baselines well suits the purpose of detecting change over time from observation sets that have uncommon baselines.
Barry…I get your point but what is the meaning of normal? I prefer a much longer definition of normal that takes in the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. If you try to find a norm (not Norman…tee hee) between today, the LIA, and the MWP, our current warming has a better explanation than a trace gas causing havoc.
Any way you look at it, normal becomes a human definition based on the math we invented. I think it would be very difficult to pin down nature as to the meaning of normal.
It becomes clear, as Syun Akasofu tried to insinuate, that we have erred by not including re-warming from the LIA. He worked it out to be about 0.5C/century.
Why do we want to remove variations in altitude and latitude? That is actuality and we are kidding ourselves by thinking we need to remove such variations to get a more convenient picture. After all, who really needs a global average, which is meaningful only to number crunchers and statisticians.
All in all, I don’t consider a 1C ‘average’ warming since 1850 anything to write home about.
Gordon, the late professor David Bellamy summed up the establishments take on global warming i one word, Poppycock has said , his argument was that atmospheric C02 a natural airborn plant fertilizer was not the main driver of todays modest warming , he pointed out that historic levels much higher than today had not driven any such warming in the past, and as make up C02 has not changed, what has? If 5000 ppm had not caused runaway warming, how could a trifling 400ppm ,the only thing that changed during that period of high levels of C02 was the explosion of flora world wide, huge plants and trees that would dwarf any that exist today,and that one word Poppycock ,saw him banned from the BBC and other media ,nothing much has changed today,so who is driving the narrative on such matters?
“I get your point but what is the meaning of normal?”
An average over a set time period, in this case.
“I prefer a much longer definition of normal that takes in the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age”
Fine. Your baseline will have a wider uncertainty envelope than the instrumental record.
“Any way you look at it, normal becomes a human definition based on the math we invented”
You make choices depending on what you want to understand. The baselines we use to compare temperatures in the instrumental record also happen to lie within the period of interest regarding anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
If you want to understand global temperature change due to orbital variation in the Quaternary period, then perhaps a better ‘normal’ would be the long period of slow-changing temperatures prior to deglaciations. The prime choice is periods of little to no change – a stable baseline. But not every area of interest will include periods of no change.
Depends on what you want to test.
“It becomes clear, as Syun Akasofu tried to insinuate, that we have erred by not including re-warming from the LIA”
This is not a baseline question. This is an attribution question.
“Why do we want to remove variations in altitude and latitude?”
Because we want to identify global or regional change, not weather variation in distinct locations.
Adding or removing a population of mountain absolute temp readings from a larger data set skews the results.
Working with absolute temps with a changing spatial population of data sets skews the data towards the change in spatiality over time (one station has date from 1910 to 1980, another from 1950 to 2025).
Anomalisation greatly reduces these problems that can skew results if what you want to measure is an average change over time.
It’s an elegant solution that does much to reduce skew from many different kinds of bias, whether spatial, temporal, geographical or seasonal.
The trend resulting from using absolute temps that include all these potential skews can be quite different from a trend that reduces the biases in these elements.
You use the method that best suits your purpose.
If you want to look at weather patterns, anomalising is much less useful.
Ian,
Name the time period when atmos CO2 was 5000ppm.
What was the global temperature? How different was the rest of the Earth (continental configuration, for example).
And was the sun sending the same amount of radiation Earthwards, or more. Or less?
You’re not comparing like with like. So get specific.
barry
Thank you very much for your insightful reply to Robertson’s eternally incompetent stuff.
Please allow me though to add technical considerations when you write:
” Using anomalies removes the problem of variation in altitude and latitude for regional analyses of change over time. ”
This is of course 100% correct!
*
But you should also mention the original reason for this: namely, that, contrary to popular belief, anomalies are calculated locally for each weather station, buoy, or even grid cell in observed atmospheric layers.
Many people mistakenly believe that time series are first calculated by averaging numerous absolute values, which are then converted into differences relative to a common, e.g., 30-year average.
*
The opposite is true: anomaly-based time series construction initially consists of averaging locally calculated anomalies with respect to the same reference period.
These anomalies are then averaged, if necessary, in grid cells to neutralize biasing bulk data, and finally subjected to a latitude correction to account for the Earth’s spherical shape.
This is the real reason why, for example, anomalies from a weather station located on a coast in California, in the middle of a city in Nevada, high on a mountain in New Mexico or in Alaska landscapes can be combined, since a separate baseline is calculated for each station.
However, anomalies not only make time series independent of latitude, longitude, and altitude; they also abstract from the local environment (vegetation, buildings).
*
The fact that vegetation or buildings in the vicinity of weather stations can change is a separate issue, one that is orthogonal to the time series format used and must be addressed separately, regardless of whether the sources are absolute or relative.
Eli Rabett’s “Green Plate Effect” is debunked here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1732629
To assist in understanding points 1) – 5), we can consider there to be a switch which can turn on or off the “back-radiation” transfer.
The GP (Green Plate) is already in place behind the BP (Blue Plate). The switch is off, so there is no “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP – but the GP is there, receiving 200 W/m^2 from the BP, and emitting 200 W/m^2 to space. Both plates are 244 K. Then, you turn on the switch, and the GP begins radiating from the side facing the BP. If the transfer is allowed to proceed to completion, the plates end up at 262 K…220 K, and that is all due to the “back-radiation” transfer. It is quite literally the only change that was made.
So, we know that the “back-radiation” transfer increased the temperature of the BP, and decreased the temperature of the GP.
So, we know that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
You can spread this manure wherever you want, it will still stink.
This was the linked comment, in case anyone can’t be bothered to click on the link:
1) If the “back-radiation” transfer (transfer from GP to BP) is not permitted to occur, the plate temperatures will be 244 K…244 K at equilibrium.
2) If the “back-radiation” transfer is permitted to occur, the plate temperatures will be 262 K…220 K.
3) The above two points demonstrate that the “back-radiation” transfer is solely responsible for the difference between the plates being 244 K…244 K and the plates being 262 K…220 K.
4) That means the “back-radiation” transfer is effectively increasing the temperature of the BP by 18 K, and reducing the temperature of the GP by 24 K. This could be clearly seen if the GP were introduced at 244 K.
5) Which in turn means that the “back-radiation” is transferring internal energy from the GP to the BP, where it builds up at the expense of the GP. Energy cannot just “organise” itself in this way. It’s a 2LoT violation.
6) Since 2LoT cannot be violated, but “back-radiation” exists, the “back-radiation” transfer must be returned from the BP back to the GP. See the diagram that Clint linked to: https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
7) Everything then balances at 244 K…244 K. Hence, that is the correct solution.
And it stinks, because, for the 47th time, you neglect the heat source, the Sun.
Which is the source of heat that flowed into the BP, at the same time the BP lost its ability to lose heat to space, when the GP is place behind it.
It is the Sun which loses internal energy, which is transferred to the BP, and it builds up internal energy in it.
The cold body, lacking sufficient heat input from the BP, but still radiating heat to space, cools..
. to space.
“And it stinks, because, for the 47th time, you neglect the heat source, the Sun…”
…obviously not, as the Sun is present throughout the described process with the “switch”.
“It is the Sun which loses internal energy, which is transferred to the BP, and it builds up internal energy in it.”
I asked you this before, and you dodged the question the last time. If you really believe that the build up of internal energy in the BP comes from the Sun…what exactly do you think the GP is transferring to the BP!?
“I asked you this before, and you dodged the question the last time. If you really believe that the build up of internal energy in the BP comes from the Sun…what exactly do you think the GP is transferring to the BP!?”
This has all been explained to you countless times. You dont listen.
Its nothing to do with belief. It has everythong to do with basic math.
When your switch is turned on, or equivalently, when the GP is brought in, the NET energy transfer BP to GP is 0. Because their enitted fluxes are EQUAL.
This is an undisputed mathematical fact.
Therefore, any gain in internal energy of the BP MUST HAVE come from elsewhere. We know where: it came from the SUN, which was continually feeding it 400 J/s.
Any gradeschooler can understand this. Why cant you?
And as the BP warms, while the GP cools, the NET transfer (heat) is always from the warmer BP to the cooler GP.
It never ever reverses and flows from cooler object to warmer object. It has no need to.
To claim that it must have done so, as you do, can only be explained by you ignoring the obvious truth, that the heat source (Sun) provided the energy that increased the internal energy of the BP.
It can do that because with the GP in place, the BPs HEAT LOSS to space has been REDUCED.
Reduced heat loss is not = reversed heat flow.
Yes, Nate, we know you can focus on only one half of the picture, the warming of the BP, whilst ignoring that the GP cools. My question was, what exactly do you think the GP is transferring to the BP!?
By the way – nothing needs to be explained to me. I understand your arguments just as well as you do.
“My question was, what exactly do you think the GP is transferring to the BP!?”
Answered.
“the NET energy transfer BP to GP is 0. Because their emitted fluxes are EQUAL”
Now you, my question was:
“Any gradeschooler can understand this. Why cant you?”
There should be no mention of “NET” in your answer, Nate. We’re isolating the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer, remember?
Now, try again.
Your claims were a Net transfer of internal energy from the GP to the BP.
We can only test that idea by looking at the NET energy exchanged between the plates.
No evidence of net energy flow from GP to BP is found.
As far as why the GP cools, its been explained 47 times. You don’t listen.
Again. The GP cools because it is losing heat ( emitting 200 W/m2) to space, and receiving 0 from the BP to replace it.
It has no choice but to cool.
No, there is no need for it to cool by sending NET energy (heat) to the BP.
Again no evidence that happens.
Im sorry that your narrative doesnt work and makes no sense.
“Your claims were a Net transfer of internal energy from the GP to the BP…”
Erm…no, Nate. I never said anything about “Net”.
Please listen very carefully to what I’m saying, this time:
The “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
The plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from BP to GP, and from GP to space, are already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer.
It’s really not so hard to understand.
Your claims were a Net transfer of internal energy from the GP to the BP…”
Yep. If you cant figure out that you’ve been talking about NET transfer, then you are deeply confused.
“Please listen very carefully to what I’m saying, this time:”
This is hilarious.
These are the talking points that have just been thoroughly debunked. You had no sound rebuttal.
Clearly you are just here to troll, not learn, not determine the truth.
Thus you just dont listen to what anyone else says.
Nate’s projecting again.
“DREMT says: . . . This thread really is a masterpiece of prolonged attempted character assassination.”
Give yourself some credit for what you’ve wrought. It’s prolonged credibility suicide.
Well, at least I can comment in the right place. Usually.
Your starting position is non-physical. Your argumentation fails because of that. And also because you are defining heat flow incorrectly.
Heat flows from hotter to colder.
That’s the simplest definition of 2LoT.
Heat flow is not determined by an object changing temperature, only by its temperature compared to a thermally connected other object.
A blackbody emitting more energy to another blackbody is hotter than the other blackbody. The direction of heat flow is determined by subtracting the two.
Any other definition is a rationale begging its conclusion.
Back to the novel idea: If you “turn off’ GP emission to BP, then BP receives no energy. Turn it on and BP receives energy, slowing its rate of heat loss. It warms up (with a steady sun powering the other side).
Is this a violation of 2LoT? Nope. 2LoT would be violated if BP emits LESS energy than GP but winds up warmer than GP.
You’re redefining 2LoT, as well as arguing from non-physical behaviour, to try and make your view stick. Yes, talking about objects getting warmer is how you attempt to redefine 2LoT. The temperature change of an object is IMMATERIAL to 2LoT. If you stuck to the classic definition, you’d have no argument.
It’s not that your argument isn’t understood. It’s that it doesn’t work. You’re asking people to accept propositions that are flawed in order to accept a conclusion that is wrong.
Here is another flawed proposition of yours:
You ask us to accept (re MLI) that emitted radiation has some different property to reflected radiation that makes it non-absorbable by a (warmer) blackbody surface.
Here you redefine blackbodies and radiation. It’s completely unphysical, and you argue for this non-physical proposition by asserting your conclusion makes it so.
Non-physical propositions aren’t supported by circular reasoning.
You offer no sources, physics texts or anything else substantive to cause us to accept this proposition which goes against what physics tells us – blackbodies absorb ALL incident radiation.
“Your starting position is non-physical…”
It’s a thought experiment, so if I want to propose, for the sake of argument, that one side of the GP doesn’t emit, and then does emit, at the flick of a switch – I will do so. How else can we isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer?
“Back to the novel idea: If you “turn off’ GP emission to BP, then BP receives no energy. Turn it on and BP receives energy, slowing its rate of heat loss. It warms up (with a steady sun powering the other side). Is this a violation of 2LoT? Nope. 2LoT would be violated if BP emits LESS energy than GP but winds up warmer than GP.”
barry, you’re missing the bigger picture. You are only looking at the warming of the BP…but, the GP also cools. It’s as I explained: the initiation of the “back-radiation” transfer is the only change made, and the plate temperatures shift from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K. So, the “back-radiation” transfer warmed the BP, and cooled the GP. That means the “back-radiation” transfer built up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
“You ask us to accept (re MLI) that emitted radiation has some different property to reflected radiation that makes it non-absorbable by a (warmer) blackbody surface“
No, barry. This is what I have explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729893
“No, barry. This is what I have explained”
Your explanation requires that that emitted radiation from cooler blackbody cannot be absorbed by a warmer blackbody.
“Insulation does not involve internal energy from the cooler object being transferred to the warmer object…”
No, it is reflected energy that the warmer object absorbs. You accept this, but…
“Back-radiation warming/insulation” does involve that [the warmer blackbody warming]. Which is why it’s physically impossible”
So, according to you, it is physically impossible for a warmer blackbody to absorn energy emitted by a cooler object.
This is what is the complete opposite to what blackbodies do – absorb ALL incident radiation.
You cannot wave away this fundamental property of blackbody behaviour with circular arguments.
The BP IS a blackbody. It MUST absorb the radiation from GP.
You cannot argue otherwise, or you reject a basic physics concept.
So now you have to explain the physics whereby the blackbody BP absorbs MORE energy than it emits, and yet does not get warmer as a result, until it reaches equilibrium with all incoming energy.
Your explanation so far has the BP behave like both a perfect reflector and a perfect blackbody on the side facing the GP.
This is completely non-physical.
Because you think the GPE breaks 2LoT, you come up with non-physical ‘arguments’.
“It’s as I explained: the initiation of the “back-radiation” transfer is the only change made, and the plate temperatures shift from 244… 244 K to 262 K… 220 K
The starting position is unphysical, it is impossible. *
But let’s go with it – GP now loses energy at twice the rate it did before “switching on” the non-emitting face. Of course it will cool.
( * GP is transmitting the full energy received from BP away from the system. GP would have no temperature in this setup. It is perfectly transparent. But we pretend that it absorbs BP radiation as if it is a blackbody, which for some unphysical reason does not obey Kirchhoff’s law in the slightest)
Here’s what I actually said in the linked comment:
“The key problem is that “back-radiation warming/insulation” is not actually insulation, nor does it function like insulation. Insulation is like your “dam in the river” – a physical barrier to the flow of heat. Reflection provides that, for radiative insulation. Insulation does not involve internal energy from the cooler object being transferred to the warmer object where it supposedly builds up at the expense of the cooler object. “Back-radiation warming/insulation” does involve that. Which is why it’s physically impossible.“
Readers can decide for themselves what to think about barry’s manipulations of my meaning. I will also add:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1733009
“GP now loses energy at twice the rate it did before “switching on” the non-emitting face. Of course it will cool.”
barry, you’re missing the bigger picture. You are only looking at the cooling of the GP…but, the BP also warms. It’s as I explained: the initiation of the “back-radiation” transfer is the only change made, and the plate temperatures shift from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K. So, the “back-radiation” transfer warmed the BP, and cooled the GP. That means the “back-radiation” transfer built up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
“barry, you’re missing the bigger picture. You are only looking at the cooling of the GP… but, the BP also warms”
I am looking at the bigger picture. I see both energy vectors: BP –> GP and GP –> BP. I see the temperature changes. Crucially, they do not define heat flow.
Heat flow in a radiative environment is determined this way ONLY.
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
BP always transfers more energy to GP than the other way around. Therefore, the direction of heat flow is always BP –> GP.
The fact that energy redistributes differently within the system during intermediate states does not change the fundamental definition of heat flow. Heat is a process, not a property stored in an object. Treating it as something “contained” that can be transferred from GP to BP is a fundamental misconception.
To accept your argument — that ‘GP cools while BP warms because of back radiation’ — would require rejecting the proper definition of heat flow, ignoring net energy transfer. Why should I do that and take on your novel definition? Just because YOU believe it is compelling enough to reject the standard definition?
Energy is indeed exchanged both ways, and the internal energy of each plate can change depending on system configuration. But these reconfigurations of energy distribution do not redefine heat flow. Heat flow is strictly determined by net energy flux. Not some other propositions of yours.
Eli’s setup is fine. GP slows the energy loss of BP. It MUST, because BP is a blackbody and MUST absorb GP energy.
The fact GP cools is fine when YOU switch on a new vector of energy loss from it. That’s what MUST happen.
No one misunderstands your argument. It’s just non-physical. We don’t ACCEPT it based on physics. Not on recalcitrance or misunderstanding. that’s YOUR problem.
Now, tell me why a blackbody can absorb reflected radiation from an object cooler than itself, but not emitted radiation from an object cooler that itself. Deal with this.
barry, like most of his cult, relies on false beliefs and long, rambling comments. False beliefs like the bogus RHTE and the bogus “black body”.
When you prove him wrong, he then resorts to insults and false accusations.
If he really knew anything about radiative physics, he could solve the simple problems:
Problem 1: A perfectly conducting sphere (emissivity = 1) receives flux from four sources equally spaced around its equator. Each source supplies 1000 W/m² to the sphere’s “disk”.
What is the sphere’s temperature?
Problem 2: Two additional sources are added, above and below the sphere, each supplying 1000 W/m² to the sphere’s “disk”.
What is the sphere’s temperature?
Both problems are basic, with no advanced math. But barry can’t solve them.
“Heat is a process, not a property stored in an object. Treating it as something “contained” that can be transferred from GP to BP is a fundamental misconception…”
…and, not one that I’m making, barry. I keep using the term “internal energy”.
Look, we spent some considerable time in long back-and-forths with me trying to prove to you and Nate that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. That key phrase “at the expense of” caused some considerable controversy. The thing is, I’ve now proven my case, logically. It’s a fact that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
Do you accept that? I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733390
Do you feel a little satisfaction in having trolled Team Science so much that Sky Dragon cranks only have abuse left to counter their response?
You can call that a decade well spent!
If putting words in other people’s mouths counts as an “abuse” then barry has been very abusive so far. And, Nate has been abusive in the traditional sense, of course. But, let’s not distract from all the questions barry has to answer.
“The thing is, I’ve now proven my case, logically.”
Bwa ha ha!
Shameless manure spreading. You are having a fully falacious February.
Nate, I was talking to barry. Maybe he, like Ball4, will agree with me that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object.
“It’s a fact that the ‘back-radiation’ transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
Do you accept that?”
No, because you are trying to redefine ‘heat’ using rhetoric.
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
In order to accept your rhetorical proposition I must reject the above.
Your solution is in opposition to the classic definition of heat flow. For you:
Q = the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
Why should I accept that when it contradicts what we all know is the correct definition of the flow in a radiative environment?
You are also omitting that the sun is also constantly providing energy to the warmer object. The sun is responsible for all the energy in the system. All you’re doing is reconfiguring energy flows within a system. This will result in changes in temperature of objects in the system.
I turn the GP internal face into a reflector. Hey presto, you suddenly have no problem with GP cooling and BP warming.
But you can’t explain why there should be any difference in the emitted energy being absorbed by BP, except to repeat:
“the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
In the belief that this rhetoric trumps:
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
“I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else.”
Done. Now your turn. Please confirm or deny whether you think
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
defines heat flow between two plates.
I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else.
Clint,
Problem 1
Power in = 4 X 1000 X πR²
Power out = 4πR²σT⁴
Equilibrium = 4 X 1000 X πR² = 4πR²σT⁴
Equilibrium = 1000 X σT⁴
Solving via S/B law = 394K
Problem 2
Power in = 6 X 1000 X πR²
Power out = 4πR²σT⁴
Equilibrium = 6 X 1000 X πR² = 4πR²σT⁴
Equilibrium = (6000 / 4) X σT⁴ = 1500 X σT⁴
Solving via S/B law = 436K
——————————————-
I believe you are about to argue that no more heat can be added in problem 2. But the fundamental property of a blackbody is that it absorb ALL incident radiation. Until you provide a reputable physics source corroborating your view that the temperature of the blackbody provides a hard limit to absorp.tion, then there is nothing to discuss.
Source please. No more chaff.
Correcting errors in formatting:
Equilibrium = 1000 X σT⁴
Should be;
Equilibrium = 1000 = σT⁴
and;
Equilibrium = (6000 / 4) X σT⁴ = 1500 X σT⁴
Should be;
Equilibrium = (6000 / 4) = σT⁴ = 1500 = σT⁴
The Tk results are the same.
“No, because you are trying to redefine ‘heat’ using rhetoric.”
I’m not talking about “heat”, at this stage, and I’m not using rhetoric. I asked you about “internal energy”.
As I said to Nate – the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from BP to GP, and from GP to space, are already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
In answer to your query about the “RHTE” (Radiative Heat Transfer Equation) – when the plates are at the same temperature, there is no “heat flow” between them. Which is what the equation shows. That is “equilibrium”.
Now, you will likely continue to talk about “heat” as an excuse for refusing to talk about the irrefutable chain of logic leading to the conclusion that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
Sorry barry, but both answers are wrong.
“Nate, I was talking to barry. Maybe he, like Ball4, will agree with me that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object”
Proof that you just dont pay attention to what people say.
You are stuck in your own head, with your own delusions.
Nate’s projecting again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1730356
You make claims about the net gain in internal energy in one body, being caused by a transfer of it from another body.
When challenged about the NET transfer of internal energy, you say you’re not talking about NET!
2LOT violations specifically are about HEAT flow from cold to warm.
When challenged about heat flow: you say
“I’m not talking about ‘heat’, at this stage”
Then you are not actually not talking about 2LOT either.
Clearly you don’t know what you are actually talking about.
Just keep on looking foolish.
All I’m trying to get across, at the moment, is that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. That’s what I meant. barry’s eternal confusion about “heat”, and even whether or not it’s a 2LoT violation, can wait until that’s been conceded by both of you. We don’t have to argue about everything all at once. One thing at a time. First thing for you to concede: the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733600
“All I’m trying to get across, at the moment, is that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
Yes, by ignoring the many contradictory facts youve been shown, that prove this is not happening.
‘At the expense of’, does not mean what you claim: that there was a net transfer of energy from the GP to the BP. For all the reasons explained that you ignore.
I put a coat on in winter. My skin gets warmer. The air outside my body and the coat got colder.
Thus my skin got warmer ‘at the expense of’ the air outside my body which cooled.
In your perverse thinking that means energy was transferred from the cold air to my warm body to make it warmer!
Obviously not. My skin got warmer due to the heat source in my body.
Its a mistake to neglect the heat source.
DREMT,
Please confirm or deny whether you think
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
defines the direction of heat flow between two blackbody plates.
I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else. Saying that there is no heat flow between plates of the same temperature does NOT answer this question.
False accusations and misrepresentations won’t work, Nate. Again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733600
barry seems to think I want him to continue talking at me. Like Nate, he’s not listening to what I’m saying, and is just endlessly putting words in my mouth. Here’s a classic from Nate:
‘“At the expense of’, does not mean what you claim: that there was a net transfer of energy from the GP to the BP”
That is not what I claim. Obviously. The GP starts at the same temperature as the BP, and ends up (according to Eli) cooler than the BP! So, of course I’m not saying that something cooler or at the same temperature as another object emits more than that object!
And here’s one from barry:
“Here is another flawed proposition of yours: You ask us to accept (re MLI) that emitted radiation has some different property to reflected radiation that makes it non-absorbable by a (warmer) blackbody surface”
Perhaps he could quote where I ever said such a thing!? He won’t be able to, but he presents it like it’s something I’ve specifically “proposed”.
Why would I want more of this? I don’t. So, if barry is “threatening” that the discussion goes no further, great! Let him carry out that threat.
I’ll just continue to point out the following, not for their benefit, but for the benefit of anyone reading:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
and
“What we’re trying to do is analyse a system, change one part of it, and observe what happens as a result. Obviously (you would think it would be obvious) the part that has been changed is responsible for what we observe to happen. But, for some reason, Nate believes that what has been observed to happen is not caused by the part we changed – instead he believes it is caused by a part of the system that remains constant throughout (the output from the Sun)! That is where he’s going wrong.”
Should they choose to stop waffling on about “net” and “heat” and actually deal with the logic I’ve set out at any point, they’re welcome to do so. Until then, I’m quite happy to let the discussion end. So, cheers barry!
“Obviously. The GP starts at the same temperature as the BP, and ends up (according to Eli) cooler than the BP!”
The Eli Rabbett post about the Green Plate effect makes no assumption about the initial temperature of either plate.
For the two plate system he sets up a set of equations describing the equilibrium state of the system with the plate temperatures as unknown and solves the set equations to determine the equilibrium temperature of the two plates.
Blog post is here: https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
I know, Mark. You haven’t been following the discussion, again. Thanks, anyway.
‘At the expense of’, does not mean what you claim: that there was a net transfer of energy from the GP to the BP”
“That is not what I claim. Obviously. The GP starts at the same temperature as the BP, and ends up (according to Eli) cooler than the BP! So, of course I’m not saying that something cooler or at the same temperature as another object emits more than that object!”.
Fantastic! Then you finally understand the point I have been making for weeks. And Barry has been making.
That there is NO mathematical evidence of a transfer of NET energy (heat) from the cold body to the warm.
Thus NO 2LOT violation whatsoever.
Thank the lord.
“So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
Oops. Just as long as you understand that ‘at the expense of’ and ‘responsible for’ do not equate to a 2LOT violation.
Lets compare.
So putting on my winter coat is responsible for my skin temperature increasing, which means the coat ‘is resposible for building up internal energy in my skin’ ‘at the exppense of’ the cold air outside.
No, this is not a 2LOT violation either. Because any grade-schooler can understand that the internal energy build up came from my body heat.
Just as they can understand that the internal energy build up in the BP came from the Sun.
Why cant you? What is resposible for your mental block?
“For the two plate system he sets up a set of equations describing the equilibrium state of the system with the plate temperatures as unknown and solves the set equations to determine the equilibrium temperature of the two plates.”
Exactly Mark. Whereas DREMT uses no math or physics to solve anything, but bizzarely declares Eli has done it wrong.
Of couse his claims are not credible.
“Then you finally understand the point I have been making for weeks. And Barry has been making…”
Nate, I have understood you from the very, very beginning. Years ago. You still do not understand me. Or at least, that’s the game you’re playing.
“So putting on my winter coat is responsible for my skin temperature increasing, which means the coat ‘is resposible for building up internal energy in my skin’ ‘at the exppense of’ the cold air outside.“
Wrong. The coat presents a physical barrier to the flow of heat. Analogous only to a reflective layer in radiative insulation. Insulation does not involve an actual transfer of internal energy from “cold to hot”. That’s the problem with your “back-radiation warming/insulation” concept! It does involve that.
Do you finally understand!?
DREMT,
Please confirm or deny whether you think
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
defines the direction of heat flow between two blackbody plates.
I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else. Saying that there is no heat flow between plates of the same temperature does NOT answer this question.
“So, if barry is “threatening” that the discussion goes no further, great! Let him carry out that threat.”
I made exactly the same “threat” you did. In fact, I copy pasted your words into my comment. Seems you can’t handle what you yourself dish out.
I am perfectly happy to leave you floundering in your misconceived rhetoric. Thanks for the conversation. I understand you don’t want to keep chatting to me. Great! Bye.
OK, bye barry. Shame you didn’t listen.
I’ll just continue to point out the following, not for their benefit, but for the benefit of anyone reading:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
and
“What we’re trying to do is analyse a system, change one part of it, and observe what happens as a result. Obviously (you would think it would be obvious) the part that has been changed is responsible for what we observe to happen. But, for some reason, Nate believes that what has been observed to happen is not caused by the part we changed – instead he believes it is caused by a part of the system that remains constant throughout (the output from the Sun)! That is where he’s going wrong.”
Should they choose to stop waffling on about “net” and “heat” and actually deal with the logic I’ve set out at any point, they’re welcome to do so. Until then, I’m quite happy to let the discussion end.
“So putting on my winter coat is responsible for my skin temperature increasing, which means the coat ‘is resposible for building up internal energy in my skin’ ‘at the exppense of’ the cold air outside.“
Wrong.”
Oh, so wearing a coat is not “responsible for” me being comfortably warm in the cold of winter, ‘at the expense of’ the air around me?
Weird!
“The coat presents a physical barrier to the flow of heat.”
And the GP is a physical barrier to the flow of heat!
“Analogous only to a reflective layer in radiative insulation”
Indeed, as Barry ppinted out, that is also ‘responsible for’ the BP warming ‘at the expense of’ GP cooling, but is clearly not a 2LOT violation!
“Insulation does not involve an actual transfer of internal energy from “cold to hot”.”
Nor does the GP, a passive object, as you admit:
“So, of course I’m not saying that something cooler or at the same temperature as another object emits MORE than that object!”
So here you show that you SHOULD understand that the GP does not transfer its internal energy to build up on the BP!
Your arguments for a 2LOT violation in Elis solution are a house of cards that easily collapse into a morass of contradictions.
Because the terms ‘at the expense of’ and ‘resposible for’ are vague terms, and therefore useless to science, which requires logical and mathematical reasoning.
“DREMT says: I know, Mark. You haven’t been following the discussion, again. Thanks, anyway.”
Sure I have.
You’ve taken a scenario that can be solved using straightforward static thermodynamics, reframed it as a dynamic problem so you can incorrectly claim a 2nd law of thermodynamics to get a nonsensical result that clearly violates thermal radiation principles (the asymmetrical radiation bit), all for the purpose of arguing in circles because you apparently derive some gratification from messing with people who are sincerely interested in the science of global warming.
To paraphrase an old adage from Willard, what you’re doing is strangely interesting, what you’re saying is not.
I’ll ignore Mark’s false accusations, and Nate’s butchering of my perfectly clear explanation.
I’ll just continue to point out the following, not for their benefit, but for the benefit of anyone reading:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
and
“What we’re trying to do is analyse a system, change one part of it, and observe what happens as a result. Obviously (you would think it would be obvious) the part that has been changed is responsible for what we observe to happen. But, for some reason, Nate believes that what has been observed to happen is not caused by the part we changed – instead he believes it is caused by a part of the system that remains constant throughout (the output from the Sun)! That is where he’s going wrong.”
and
“The key problem is that “back-radiation warming/insulation” is not actually insulation, nor does it function like insulation. Insulation is like your “dam in the river” – a physical barrier to the flow of heat. Reflection provides that, for radiative insulation. Insulation does not involve internal energy from the cooler object being transferred to the warmer object where it supposedly builds up at the expense of the cooler object. “Back-radiation warming/insulation” does involve that. Which is why it’s physically impossible.“
Should they choose to stop waffling on about “net” and “heat” and actually deal with the logic I’ve set out at any point, they’re welcome to do so. Until then, I’m quite happy to let the discussion end.
“what you’re doing is strangely interesting, what you’re saying is not”
Good comment.
Trying to reengineer physics via rhetoric is indeed interesting. Watching people trying to rationalise their beliefs is interesting when they are sophisticated enough to make plausible arguments.
But rejecting the 2nd Law while doing so makes what is being said uninteresting.
I’ll quote DREMT again in a moment – in case he hasn’t decided to drop the conversation after his own words were returned to him.
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
defines the direction of heat flow between two blackbody plates.
“Do you accept that? I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else.” [DREMT’s OWN WORDS]
This is a yes or no answer. When you asked the same of me I replied ‘no’ and then explained why. I answered the question.
But when you are given the same ultimatum you a) don’t give yes/no answer to a yes/no question, and b) complain about it being a ‘threat’.
So, are you going to step up like I did, or are you going to continue whining, DREMT?
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
defines the direction of heat flow between two blackbody plates.
“Do you accept that? I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else.”
Come on, lad. Show your true mettle.
“When you asked the same of me I replied ‘no’ and then explained why“
Wrong, barry. You haven’t explained why. There’s not a single one of you who can tell me what’s wrong with the logic I have presented. Take my last comment. I clearly set it all out for anyone to read. You’re all avoiding it, because you can’t refute it.
I did indeed say, “do you accept that? I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else”. And, when you say it back to me, my honest answer is – I’m not bothered if you discuss anything else with me. You’re not listening to what I’m saying. I thought you’d understood that, because you’d left the discussion. Now, you’re back again!
My answer is – OK, let’s not discuss anything else.
“OK, bye barry. Shame you didn’t listen.”
Nope, it’s a shame you issued an ultimatum and I fulfilled it, but didn’t return the courtesy on exactly the same ultimatum youi issued, once again avoiding answering a difficult question and at the same proving you are incapable of equable discussion.
Be well.
Readers will notice that barry still can’t fault any of the logic I presented.
To continue (for the benefit of any readers) – “back radiation warming” is either a transfer of heat from cold to hot, or it’s some form of insulation. I would say that’s a fair assessment of the situation. Now, in days of yore, people would openly say that the “back radiation” directly warmed the surface, or they would even say it heated the surface. Until the question of a 2LoT violation reared its ugly head.
Since then, it has switched to being likened to insulation. But, this is my point – no other form of insulation involves a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer object, meaning there is a buildup of internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. Yet that is what happens with the “back-radiation” transfer.
So, if it’s not insulation, then…
So DREMT, still havent gotten enough humiliation? Still promoting thoroughly debuked idiotic notions. What is the point other than to troll?
Your ‘logic’ has not aged well. Simply repeating does nothing to address its failures and contradictions.
You simply avoid showing math or numbers consistent with your narrative, and not addressing the simple math and numbers that shown to you, that prove you are wrong.
That aint science. And it aint honest debate.
“no other form of insulation involves a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer object, meaning there is a buildup of internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object”
Nor is the GP doing that.
As shown to you 47 times, we can mathematically determine the source of the buildup of internal energy in the BP. It is from the sun.
To try to argue that it came from cooler object fails mathematically.
Whatever amount transferred from the GP to the BP, is immediaty returned to it. Thus the energy transferred cannot be the source of the net gain by the BP.
This is an undeniable mathematical fact.
You cannot beat math with your vague ‘talking points’.
As shown to you ‘at the expense of’ can describe other situations (my coat put on) where you agree that net transfer of internal energy from cold to hot is not a consequence.
So stop using vague meaningless phrases useless to science, and start showing us math that supports your narrative.
My logic has “aged” just fine, considering nobody has even addressed it, let alone attempted to refute it.
“As shown to you 47 times, we can mathematically determine the source of the buildup of internal energy in the BP. It is from the sun.”
OK, I’ll repeat it again, and see if you’ll actually address it or attempt to refute it this time:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to space, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are all already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
and
“What we’re trying to do is analyse a system, change one part of it, and observe what happens as a result. Obviously (you would think it would be obvious) the part that has been changed is responsible for what we observe to happen. But, for some reason, Nate believes that what has been observed to happen is not caused by the part we changed – instead he believes it is caused by a part of the system that remains constant throughout (the output from the Sun)! That is where he’s going wrong.”
When logic remains unchallenged, it stands. That’s how this works, Nate.
“OK, I’ll repeat it again,”
Understood, these are your beliefs.
You offer no actual rebuttal. No math, nor numbers, nor sound logic to support your narrative.
With you refusing to defend your claims, we can only conclude the argument it is over. And you lost.
Now, tell us something new and interesting for a change.
It’s great that I can now debunk the Green Plate Effect in just a couple of paragraphs, leaving Nate ‘n’ the gang completely unable to respond.
“leaving Nate ‘n’ the gang completely unable to respond.”
Crap like this is why you get no respect around here anymore.
Nate – when you cannot refute the logic, it stands.
You are hereby awarded an honorary doctorate in Flat Eartherism.
We all know that loads of refutation happened here, that you could not explain away.
So now you are stuck in an alternate reality. Just embarrassing yourself.
Get a job.
Abuse won’t refute my logic, Nate. We can go through it, step by step, if you like:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to space, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are all already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off.”
I assume you understand and agree with all that?
“When logic remains unchallenged, it stands. That’s how this works, Nate.”
Not relevant here.
Your logic has been successfully challenged many times. We all can be certain they were successful by the fact that you had NO answers, NO rebuttals, and certainly no math.
All you have to offer is repetition of the absurd claims.
This issue was easily adddressed with math. Yet you fail to provide any.
Because, unlike math, pet phrases like ‘at the expense of’ and ‘responsible for’ are vague and therefore useful to someone intent on vagueness and obfuscation.
That is you.
Here is another challenge, that will most certainly go unanswered.
Replace GP with a mirror. All the things you claim are evidence of a 2LOT violation by the GP are applicable to the mirror.
You will need to say the relected radiation is ‘resposible for’ the ‘build-up of internal energy’ in the BP. You will need to say this is ‘at the expense of’ the mirror cooling.
Yet the mirror, you claim, is NOT violating 2LOT. You will say it is because the mirror is a ‘physical barrier’ to the radiation.
But this is just a label that doesnt actually explain why it is NOT a 2LOT violation.
And the label ‘physical barrier’ can equally be attached to the GP. It is opaque to radiation.
Answer these questions. Else the discussion is over.
“DREMT says: . . . when you cannot refute the logic, it stands.”
Your alleged solution to the green plate scenario, that the green plate is the same temperature as the blue plate, is equivalent to saying that shade doesn’t work in space in this scenario. That is, the green plate is shaded from the energy source by the blue plate, but ultimately is heated just the same.
Intuitively, this doesn’t make sense, which suggests there is a flaw in your logic.
The flaw, as repeatedly pointed out, is that you have the back radiation from the green plate not being absorbed by the blue plate and re-radiated out both sides equally.
When you say “the logic has not been refuted” you mean to say that you haven’t accepted that the logic has been refuted which is something else entirely.
Astute readers will note that I asked Nate a question, and he responded with more false accusations, failed to answer the question, then demanded that I answer his questions or else, “the discussion is over”. Oh no! Please don’t let the discussion be over! I was so enjoying receiving endless insults and false accusations…
“The flaw, as repeatedly pointed out, is that you have the back radiation from the green plate not being absorbed by the blue plate and re-radiated out both sides equally”
That’s wrong, Mark…but irrelevant. I know that none of you accept the energy being returned from the BP back to the GP, but that doesn’t change the fact that your solution violates 2LoT. Why does it violate 2LoT? That’s fully explained by the logic I keep repeating, that you cannot even address, let alone refute. You can criticise the 244 K…244 K solution until the end of time, it will not get the 262 K…220 K solution out of 2LoT jail.
And, shade is typically provided by objects that are not perfectly conducting. The plates are perfect conductors.
As with all the other refutations, you have no answer, no response, no rebuttal. No math.
So we can add it to the list of successful refutation of your ill-logic.
This is how the discussion has gone the entire time.
You will no doubt shamelessly lie and say your ‘logic’ has never been refuted.
Go ahead. The discussion is over.
There is no 2nd law of thermodynamics violation. The green plate is receiving energy solely from the blue plate and “back radiation” is only half of what is received so the net energy flow is clearly from the hotter blue plate to the cooler green plate.
Moreover, in your alleged solution, you have net energy flow from one object to a second object of equal temperature, which is not consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Now, this is just for the benefit of any readers. I’m not responding to Nate, here, so there’s no need for him to reply to this and use it as an excuse to avoid answering the question I asked him…
If the GP were perfectly reflective only on the side facing the BP, and introduced at 244 K, it would cool due to reflecting away the energy from the BP. It would be like the GP wasn’t receiving that energy from the BP at all, yet was still emitting on its other side, to space.
The BP would warm, due to its own emitted energy being reflected back to it, whilst still continuously receiving the energy from the Sun on its other side. It would be like it never even emitted the energy on the side facing the GP.
The distinction is that here, the GP is not transferring its own internal energy to the BP where it builds up at the expense of the GP. No form of insulation works that way. Instead, the flow of energy from the Sun to the BP to the GP is being “interrupted” and reflected back to the BP.
The reflected energy from GP to BP is not “at the expense of” the GP because it doesn’t originate from the GP. It originates from the BP.
“There is no 2nd law of thermodynamics violation…”
Sure there is, Mark. Here, I’ll explain it again:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to space, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are all already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli’s solution, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
and
“What we’re trying to do is analyse a system, change one part of it, and observe what happens as a result. Obviously (you would think it would be obvious) the part that has been changed is responsible for what we observe to happen. But, for some reason, Nate believes that what has been observed to happen is not caused by the part we changed – instead he believes it is caused by a part of the system that remains constant throughout (the output from the Sun)! That is where he’s going wrong.”
When logic remains unchallenged, it stands. That’s how this works, Mark.
Good description of whats going on with the mirror. Indeed no 2LOT violation there, even though your phrases ‘is responsible for’ and ‘at the expense of’ apply perfectly to it.
Which is proof that those phrases are not equivalent to a 2LOT violation
QED
Then you return to your alternate reality:
“The distinction is that here, the GP is not transferring its own internal energy to the BP where it builds up at the expense of the GP”
Again, lets make this perfectly clear: for the regular GP, since the BP returns an EQUAL or GREATER amount of energy to the GP, than it receives from the GP, as you agree,
then it is IMPOSSIBLE for the GP
to “transfer its own internal energy to the BP where it builds up” in the BP.
Again, whatever the GP sends to the BP is returned to it, and thensome.
Mathematically that is 0 or negative transfer of energy. Thus it cannot ‘build up’ in the BP.
Sorry.
That is a refutation of your claims. And you will have no sound rebuttal.
“…even though your phrases ‘is responsible for’ and ‘at the expense of’ apply perfectly to it.“
Absolutely not, as explained (and not refuted).
“Which is proof that those phrases are not equivalent to a 2LOT violation“
God, you’re confused. Phrases are just phrases, Nate.
Look, why are you responding to me? I clearly said:
“I’m not responding to Nate, here, so there’s no need for him to reply to this and use it as an excuse to avoid answering the question I asked him…“
But, that’s exactly what you’ve done! I asked you my question first. You ignore it, then demand I answer your question, which I do (for reader’s benefit only) – and then you reply and still don’t answer my question! Again:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to space, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are all already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off.”
I assume you understand and agree with all that?
Answer it, this time.
DR EMT,
The switching on of the GP back radiation is not the only change that happens as the system moves from 244 244 to the final steady state solution.
Every energy transfer changes except Sun to BP.
Yet, still no heat transfer from colder GP to warmer BP, so no 2nd law violation.
You are still younger than all of us retired reprobates, so you could find a college that could still teach you physics or chemistry.
I hear you are closer to Oxford than I am.
“The switching on of the GP back radiation is not the only change that happens as the system moves from 244 244 to the final steady state solution.
Every energy transfer changes except Sun to BP.”
Of course, but only because the plate temperatures supposedly change. The point is that the switching on of the “back-radiation” transfer is the only change you make to the system that triggers the move from 244 K…244 K to the supposed 262 K…220 K.
That’s how we know the “back-radiation” transfer is solely responsible for the BP supposedly warming, and the GP supposedly cooling. Which is how we know the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP.
Nice try though, bob.
“God, you’re confused. Phrases are just phrases, Nate.”
Thats exactly my point. They are phrases that do not mean a 2LOT voolation.
Yet in your repeated absurd claims that there is a 2LOT violation, those phrases are used as the basis of your ‘logic’.
Again only mathematical relationships can demonstrate a 2LOT violation.
None are provided.
Meanwhile we provide them. They clearly refute your claims.
“Again, lets make this perfectly clear: for the regular GP, since the BP returns an EQUAL or GREATER amount of energy to the GP, than it receives from the GP, as you agree,
then it is IMPOSSIBLE for the GP
to “transfer its own internal energy to the BP where it builds up” in the BP.
Again, whatever the GP sends to the BP is returned to it, and thensome.
Mathematically that is 0 or negative transfer of energy. Thus it cannot ‘build up’ in the BP.
Sorry.
That is a refutation of your claims. And you will have no sound rebuttal.”
Then, as we just observed, you had no answer, no rebuttal.
Then you shamelessly lie again and blurt that your argument has never been refuted.
It has been. Many times.
“The point is that the switching on of the “back-radiation” transfer is the only change you make to the system that triggers”
I see, ‘triggers’ has replaced ‘is responsible for’.
As shown above these are just phrases, that are not equivalent to ‘heat flows from cold to warm’ as would be required of an actual 2LOT violation.
The actual triggering event in Eli’s actual example was bringing in the blackbody GP. Which is opaque to radiation and obeys the SB law.
This event simply reduces the heat loss of tbe BP to space, and together with the steady heat input from the sun, causes the BP to warm.
No evidence whatsover that a body simply obeying the ordinary laws of radiative heat transfer, as it MUST do, results in a 2LOT violation.
That notion has been thoroughly debunked.
“…those phrases are used as the basis of your ‘logic’.”
False. They’re just phrases.
“That is a refutation of your claims. And you will have no sound rebuttal…”
False. As I’ve told you time and time again, you only look at one half of the system at a time. Here, you’re focusing only on the build up of energy in the BP. You need to look at the whole system, the “bigger picture”.
If you would just answer my question, we could begin to go through my logic. Why won’t you answer the question?
Again, you dont deal honestly with the absolutely fatal flaws that your opponents point out, but expect us to pay very close attention to a 100th repeat of your ‘brilliant logic’ containing vague phrases that dont mean what you claim, and no math.
No your premise, of a magical GP that absorbs all, but has no SB emissions makes no more sense than your earlier magical BP that is a blackbody but reflects all from the GP.
Either way, you are just evading the laws of physics. Back radiation is a fact that you have to live with. It’s mere presence cannot violate 2LOT.
“False. As I’ve told you time and time again, you only look at one half of the system at a time. Here, you’re focusing only on the build up of energy in the BP. You need to look at the whole system, the “bigger picture”.”
Absurd. I have explained why the GP cools dozens of times.
Here Im showing you that the build-up of energy cannot have come from the GP, as you claim
That, all by itself, falsifies your argument.
You’re evading talking through my logic because you know you cannot refute it, Nate.
Having a switch to turn on and off the “back-radiation” transfer is necessary to analyse the impact of that transfer. You having a problem with that idea because it’s unphysical is pretty desperate stuff considering we’re talking about a thought experiment with infinitely large (yet somehow also usually measured at 1 m^2 a side), perfectly conducting, blackbody plates! I don’t have a problem with any of those assumptions for the sake of the problem so I think you can all accept a switch that turns a specific transfer on and off.
Now, answer my question!
To answer your question:
No i dont agree with your premise, of a magical GP that absorbs all, has a temperature, but has no SB emissions. It makes no more sense than your earlier magical BP that is a blackbody but reflects all from the GP.
If your so-called logic cannot explain the actual Eli setup, with the GP not there, then brought in, then whats the point?
I understand that you desire to isolate the back-radiation, and pretend that it does not exist, but that aint reality.
The reality is that the back radiation is a property of the GP. If you want to turn-off that property, then you have to remove the GP, as Eli does.
Why is that a problwm for you?
Now answer my question, which deals with the second half of your ‘logic’:
Wherein you claim that the GP is transferring its own internal energy to the BP where it builds up at the expense of the GP’
You agrred that whatever the GP sends to the BP is returned to it, and thensome.
Mathematically that is 0 or negative transfer of energy from GP to BP.
How can a 0 or negative transfer of energy to the BP ever cause energy to ‘build up’ in the BP?
I predict you will evade directly answering.
I deal with Nate’s problem with having a “switch” turning on or off the “back-radiation” transfer, then Nate (without addressing anything I said) simply repeats that he has a problem with the “switch” whilst claiming that this is his response to my question!
OK, so Nate can’t be reasoned with.
No point talking to him further.
I answered your question.
“To answer your question:
No i dont agree with your premise”
That you dont agree with my answer is your issue.
You have no excuse then to evade answering my question.
But you need to evade answering. Because you have no answer.
Another fatal challenge to your narrative, and you have no answer, no rebuttal, no math.
Hmm, what possible answer could you have? You know very well that there is no way to have a 0 or negative transfer of energy result in a ‘build up in energy’.
You know that, else you are a moron.
Thus you have to evade answering.
So your argument is refuted and over.
Find something new to troll about.
So, Nate has left the discussion for the second time. We all just witnessed him storm off and slam the door on his way out…again!
That means he should definitely not be returning, this time.
This response is thus not for Nate. There is no need for him to respond to this comment, and it is only for the benefit of any curious readers.
I was asked:
“You agrred that whatever the GP sends to the BP is returned to it, and thensome. Mathematically that is 0 or negative transfer of energy from GP to BP. How can a 0 or negative transfer of energy to the BP ever cause energy to ‘build up’ in the BP?”
My answer is that this is looking at the problem in the wrong way. You cannot isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer by just looking at only two parts of the system and the transfers between those parts. To isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer you need to look at the entire system without the transfer, and then the entire system with the transfer, then compare and contrast the differences. That’s the “big picture” I keep referring to.
Hope that clears everything up for any readers (Nate has left, so should not be responding).
DR EMT,
The green plate is still not solely responsible for the rise in temperature of the blue plate, as the blue plate is also heated by the Sun.
Not a nice try, more like a butchery.
Your switch is just another demonstration of your lack of understanding of a simple thermo problem.
Good old bob. The Sun was constant throughout, so is not the change responsible for the shift in temperatures. Oh well.
This response is not for DREMT. There is no need for him to respond to this comment, and it is only for the benefit of any curious readers.
My questipn was
‘How can a 0 or negative transfer of energy to the BP ever cause energy to ‘build up’ in the BP?’
DREMT’s ‘answer’ is to pontificate on the need to both ‘isolate’ one variable, while also not isolating it by looking at the ‘entire system’
“To isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer you need to look at the entire system without the transfer, and then the entire system with the transfer, then compare and contrast the differences. That’s the “big picture” I keep referring to”
So does he do any of that? Look at the ‘entire system’ to answer the question?
No.
Where is the answer for how a 0 or negative transfer of energy to the BP can cause a ‘build up’ of internal energy in the BP?
Perversely, it is precisely because he fails to look at the ‘entire system’ that he misses the key fact. That it is the heat source, the Sun, that transfers its internal energy to the BP, that causes the ‘build up’ of internal energy in the BP.
It is also precisely because he fails to look at the ‘entire system’ that he misses the key fact that thr GP, now receiving LESS heat input from the BP, but still emitting the same heat to the cold of space, must lose internal energy, TO SPACE, not to the BP, and must therefore cool.
It is really quite an astonishing act of self-inflicted blindness to what is actually happening in the entire system
Nate pokes his head back in through the door, never quite able to make the final exit he promises. Of course, there’s the usual false accusations…then he repeats his self-defeating trick of looking at only one part of the picture, the warming of the BP, then he switches to looking at another part of the picture, the cooling of the GP. He’s unable to put 2 and 2 together, so will remain eternally confused, and (of course) completely unable to address the irrefutable logic I’ve presented that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I’m correct.
DREMT’s logic was thoroughly refuted last month and he has presented nothing new this month. Both GPE plates warm continuously thus no violation of 2LOT.
It was utterly predictable that they’d roll out Ball4 at the end of the discussion.
I see that DREMT missed this part
“There is no need for him to respond to this comment, and it is only for the benefit of any curious readers.”
And I will simply point out to astute readers that regardless of how much DREMT drones on and on, he never ever actually answers the question:
How can a 0 or negative transfer of energy to the BP from the GP ever build up energy in tbe BP?
He just has no answer.
For a normal, sane person, that would tell them that this aint happening. That they need to revise their thinking.
No dear readers, we cannot blame you for concluding that DREMT is not a normal, sane person.
OK, Nate.
“How can a 0 or negative transfer of energy to the BP from the GP ever build up energy in tbe BP?”
I could explain that the key word Nate has intentionally left out of this sentence is “NET”. He is talking about a 0 or negative NET energy transfer between the green and blue plates. I could explain that I’m talking about isolating the effect of a single transfer, from the GP to the BP – but, I already have explained that to him. Many times. So, in the end, you just have to say, “OK, Nate”.
It gets boring just receiving constant abuse. I’m not whining and saying, “oh, poor me, it hurts my feelings”, I’m just saying it literally gets boring. Mentally draining. So, I’ll just say:
OK, Nate.
No need to repeat that nobody has refuted or even addressed the logic I’ve presented (beyond complaining that they don’t like the “switch” idea), that’s already a given. Just:
OK, Nate.
And, to save him the bother:
OK, Ball4.
And, even:
OK, bob.
I could think of at least four ways to make a 0 transfer of energy from two plates build energy, Nate:
(1) Assume that a plate, because its size is undefined, is infinite.
(2) Infer that because its thickness is immaterial for the problem at hand, the plate has only one side.
(3) Introduce view factors and the concept of “point source”, because that’s just how you (t)roll.
(4) After adding an extra plate, pull a Galileo and stick it to the first.
And that’s before breakfast.
OK, Willard.
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to space, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are all already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli’s solution, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
and
“What we’re trying to do is analyse a system, change one part of it, and observe what happens as a result. Obviously (you would think it would be obvious) the part that has been changed is responsible for what we observe to happen. But, for some reason, Nate believes that what has been observed to happen is not caused by the part we changed – instead he believes it is caused by a part of the system that remains constant throughout (the output from the Sun)! That is where he’s going wrong.”
and
“The key problem is that “back-radiation warming/insulation” is not actually insulation, nor does it function like insulation. Insulation is like your “dam in the river” – a physical barrier to the flow of heat. Reflection provides that, for radiative insulation. Insulation does not involve internal energy from the cooler object being transferred to the warmer object where it supposedly builds up at the expense of the cooler object. “Back-radiation warming/insulation” does involve that. Which is why it’s physically impossible.“
When logic remains unchallenged, it stands. That’s how this works.
“OK Nate”
He could have left it there. A little humiluation after 8 y.
But no.
Four more “Ok Nate”s needed to be added, with four more lost oppprtunities to provide an answer.
If it wasnt absolutely clear before, it is now: he has NO ANSWER.
But he insists on declaring that his ‘logic’ is untarnished.
Yes, Dear Readers, you are not wrong to conclude that this man is neither normal nor sane.
Here’s a song that sums it all up.
https://youtu.be/PKGKbOgQsLI?si=WOUjgWmWagxKCDzd
All DREMT’s words were challenged last month and DREMT lost. Both GPE plates warm up continuously to Eli’s equilibrium for no 2LOT violation as DREMT erroneously claims.
I’ve actually given Nate two answers, now – he just doesn’t want to listen.
And, that’s OK.
“I could explain that the key word Nate has intentionally left out of this sentence is “NET”. He is talking about a 0 or negative NET energy transfer between the green and blue plates. I could explain that I’m talking about isolating the effect of a single transfer, from the GP to the BP – but, I already have explained that to him. Many times.”
It seems clear that DREMT can’t explain away the simple arithmetic that falsifies his claim.
But MUST KEEP ZOMBIE ARGUMENT GONG, by any means, as Willard noted, DREMT will try anything.
So he tries try to attach pejorative label to the straightforward math, like ‘NET’.
Then LIE and say HE wasnt talking about ‘NET’!
Oh? His main point was about how the internal energy of tbe BP increased.
That increase in the BP energy was not a NET gain? And not ‘at the expense of’ a NET loss by the GP?
How idiotic.
What load of crap will he try to dump on us next?
(5) What if the plate was one molecule thick?
Nate still doesn’t get that I’m looking at the effect of a single transfer of IR energy.
A while ago, he asked:
“The reality is that the back radiation is a property of the GP. If you want to turn-off that property, then you have to remove the GP, as Eli does.
Why is that a problwm for you?”
Actually, it’s not. If you introduce the GP at 244 K, you can observe the same thing. The BP supposedly increases in temperature, the GP supposedly decreases in temperature, and the only change you really made is the addition of that “back-radiation” transfer. The Sun, on the other hand, is of course a constant throughout.
It’s just a lot clearer with the “switch”. A lot less ways for Nate to obfuscate.
(6) But the Sun goes down!
DR EMT,
Sun plus GP > Sun only
If there was no Sun, both the BP and GP would be cooling, baby I’m not foolin.
Yes bob, objects tend to cool without the Sun.
Indeed if one acknowledges, as DREMT seems to be doing, that there is no NET transfer of energy from cold to warm, from the GP to the BP, then NO NET energy has been removed from the GP and moved to the BP, as he repeatedly claimed.
And of course no NET energy transfer means no HEAT transfer from a cold body to a warm body.
Thus, anyone still claiming there is 2LOT violation has no evidence to support that claim.
QED
I see DREMT also acknowledges that back radiation does not just appear in isolation. It comes only along with an opaque black plate, that does not allow radiation to pass through it.
Its opaqueness means it is a physical barrier that reduces the heat transfer (heat loss) from the BP to space.
Just as the BP is a barrier to heat transfer from the Sun to the GP.
As explained completely by the RHTE.
This ordinary heat-loss REDUCTION, together with the steady input of heat from the heat source, is the CAUSE of the BP warming.
The lesson here is that if we heat a system on one side, it should be no surprise that parts of the system on the heated side will be warmer than the parts on the unheated side.
This is quite ordinary, even in vacuum. Any spacecraft is hot on the sunny side and cold on the shaded side. This is not a violation of any physics.
Anyone telling you otherwise is likely taking too many hallucinogenic drugs.
They can be safely ignored.
Nate writes another long essay where he again focuses on only one part of the picture, the warming of the BP. Again “forgetting” about the cooling of the GP. Now he will miss the point by saying, “I’ve explained the cooling of the GP 47 times”. Yes, but when he focuses on the cooling of the GP, he “forgets” about the warming of the BP!
It’s amusing that after eight years, he can be so close to understanding, yet so far. He still doesn’t get it.
You make a change to a system, and observe the results. The thing you changed is responsible for the results you observe. Not a part of the system (the Sun) that is constant throughout! Surely even Nate can’t argue with that.
(7) What if we added a second sun instead of the green plate?
OK, Willard.
Maybe to help him understand the whole system, DREMT should isolate the Sun’s influence by turning it off.
What happens?
With the 2 plates initially at 244K, the sun is turned off (eg by blocking it with a mirror.
Then the both plates radiate to space, and cool off, eventually reaching the temperature of space.
The BP neither warms nor gains any internal energy.
Because back radiation is not a heat source!
In fact it the BP has a NET loss in internal energy. As does the GP.
Turn the sun back on, both plates warm, but the BP warms MORE because it is on the sunny side, receiving 400 W/m^2.
The GP, being on the shady side always receives < than 400 W/m^2.
So it cannot possibly warm up as much as the BP.
Clearly, then, the SUN is responsible for the NET gain in internal energy of the BP.
And for it being warmer than the GP at equilibrium.
Unless one has been taking too many hallucinogenic drugs!
DR EMT,
Then you agree there are two energy transfers causing the BP to warm.
Cause that logically follows.
“Nate writes another long essay where he again focuses on only one part of the picture”
at a time, yes.
Whereas our leading hypocrite focuses on only one thing, the back radiation, while ignoring all else going on in the system.
Both the BP is warming, and the GP is cooling, simultaneously.
For ease of understanding why, we explain one at a time, while never ignoring what else is going on in the system, as DREMT does.
For example, as the BP is warming, and the GP is cooling, the BP is always emitting MORE to the GP than the GP is emitting to the BP.
Thus the GP is NEVER transferring its internal energy to the BP without receiving MORE back from the BP.
Yet the GP cools, because the heat input it receives from the BP is smaller than its heat output to the very cold of space.
DREMT blinds himself to the heat loss of the GP to space, and instead bizarrely ASSUMES that its heat loss MUST have been to the BP, somehow, via its back-radiation.
But that aint actually logical, since we know its heat loss is ALL to space.
And we know that at no time did it transfer MORE energy to the BP than it received in return.
So it seems DREMT bases his ‘logic’ on blinding himself to other aspects of the system:
1. the heat loss of the GP to space
2. the heat gain of the BP from the Sun,
3. the NET transfer of energy (heat) is always from BP to GP.
Thus his ‘logic’ is not at all logical.
Nate has had his last words. That should satisfy him, despite the fact he ignored this:
“You make a change to a system, and observe the results. The thing you changed is responsible for the results you observe. Not a part of the system (the Sun) that is constant throughout! Surely even Nate can’t argue with that.”
So we should hear no more from him. Great!
bob chirrups:
“Then you agree there are two energy transfers causing the BP to warm.“
No, because the Sun is a constant. And, you’re ignoring the cooling of the GP.
They just make the same mistakes continuously, unable to learn anything.
““You make a change to a system, and observe the results. The thing you changed is responsible for the results you observe. Not a part of the system (the Sun) that is constant throughout!”
I did make a change and observed the results. I turned the sun off. Then turned it back on. They showed the Sun is responsible for all the warming.
Nate, you already tried this trick.
“Shade” is something that is provided by objects that are not perfectly conducting. The plates are perfect conductors.
But, you didn’t deny that the logic works. So, you must accept that when the only change made to the system is the “back-radiation” transfer, then that is responsible for the plates supposedly changing from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K.
So, I’ll take that as your concession.
(10) What would happen if you completely enclosed an energy source within a whole box of mirrors?
DR EMT,
The Sun is a constant heat source, heating the BP, keeping it at a constant temperature, flipping your switch adds another heat source for the BP.
I see you have an incorrect response for every debunking of your GPE debunking.
bob just openly says the GP is a “heat source”. Funny.
(11) What does equilibrium mean anyway?
““Shade” is something that is provided by objects that are not perfectly conducting. The plates are perfect conductors.”
Oh now you believe perfect conductors can’t block sunlight?
Clearly you will try literally anything, no matter how stoopid, to keep Zombie Argument going.
If you say so, Nate.
DR EMT,
Exactly, you need to sum up all the heat sources in order to determine which way the heat flows.
I used energy transfer in my previous post, but you did not understand.
You are just being obtuse.
You still haven’t found a heat transfer from cold to hot.
So bob thinks the GP is a heat source, but claims that it doesn’t transfer heat!
OK, bob.
For those slow in catching up in a thread, nate explains what “it” is in his post above mine.
(12) What if we instead assume that the right hand side of the blue plate can emit in an infinite number of directions?
Sure thing, Willard.
DR EMPT
Heater and heat transfer are different things.
And there is heat transfer from the GP to the BP, only it’s negative!
Hope that will help to clear up your misunderstanding.
Another thing is, that all matter is insulation.
Try and learn something from your betters, you know, people who are much smarter than you.
You get to believe whatever you want to, bob.
DR EMT,
Yes, we are both free to believe anything we want.
The transfer of internal energy from the GP to the BP via b lackbody radiation does not violate any physical laws.
Please explain how that energy is returned to the GP.
OK, bob.
DR EMPT,
I asked you a question about your stand on the GPE.
No answer means you don’t know what you are talking about.
If you say so, bob.
Our Sky Dragon cranks’ have three talking points.
They all have been refuted.
Here’s the simplest refutation of the one they’re trying to peddle again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1732935
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1732860
Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner has PSTered the thread more than 60 times. So far. He’s known to continue a few days after the month is past.
I do not understand why DREMT told Bindidon to stop trolling in this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729414
I think Bindidon made a valid point that you would not expect news like this to be prominently covered by right wing outlets. It is not controversial to acknowledge that partisanship exists within mainstream media coverage.
DREMT also stated that he does not care for politics, which makes the response even more puzzling.
We don’t need political comments at a science blog, and I made my protest my way. You’re all welcome to discuss politics ad nauseam, and I’m welcome to ask the last person commenting on the political thread to please stop trolling.
Now…please stop trolling.
Thanks for noticing the fake moderator’s preferred response to comments he didn’t like or simply didn’t understand.
Unfortunately, all comments older than three or four years have been deleted from the blog. Otherwise, you would have simply looked at all older ones to see how often he used this completely absurd phrase:
“Xyz, please stop trolling.”
*
This is typical of someone who denies scientific findings such as the greenhouse effect or the fact, scientifically proven for centuries, that our Moon, although it always shows us the same side, still rotates around its polar axis.
*
He is on this blog not the only one who denies such facts!
Strangely enough, several others (Clint R., Robertson, the Hunter boy, or earlier Swen*son aka Mike Flynn) always denied both phenomena simultaneously, and years ago (back to 2019 or so) even went so far as to twist Isaac Newton’s formulations in his Principia Scientifica about the rotation of the Moon in such a way that blog readers must have gotten the impression that Newton meant exactly the same thing back then as they do today.
*
All their nonsense is still available by entering links to Roy Spencer’s threads into the Web archive.
Eldrosion,
Roy has castigated Sky Dragon cranks a long while ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1674767
Once upon a time, Roy got fed up with Graham D. Warner’s PSTering, and banned the T-word. Then Graham used an HTML code to bypass the ban. Then Roy’s website broke down, and when it got back online the blacklist was gone.
Graham stopped PSTering for a while. He even changed his nickname to “DREMT”, which stands for Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team. For some reason he believed this concession allowed him to regularly inject one of his three silly talking points without being called by his real name, points that have been refuted a thousand times, a name he himself revealed by posting a video about his belief that the Moon did not spin, which is the silliest of his three talking points. Or that he could continue to abuse people like he does every day.
None of his interventions have to do with science. He’s just here to abuse people. Abusing people is Graham’s way to look for love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm4kwyydmeM&t=2s
As if the troglodytes who keep ranting never politicized anything.
It’s best to ignore Graham. Saves time. If you exchange with him, you can expect that Graham will end up behind one such silly troll bridge. Like Mark B said the other day:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729831
In that case, please confer to this classic (h/t Kennui):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7v_TdLviUE
Best of luck!
Eldrosion,
Roy has castigated Sky Dragon cranks a long while ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1674767
Once upon a time, Roy got fed up with Graham D. Warner’s PSTering, and banned the T-word. Then Graham used an HTML code to bypass the ban. Then Roy’s website broke down, and when it got back online the blacklist was gone.
Graham stopped PSTering for a while. He even changed his nickname to “DREMT”, which stands for Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team. For some reason he believed this concession allowed him to regularly inject one of his three silly talking points without being called by his real name, points that have been refuted a thousand times, a name he himself revealed by posting a video about his belief that the Moon did not spin, which is the silliest of his three talking points. Or that he could continue to abuse people like he does every day.
None of his interventions have to do with science. He’s just here to abuse people. Abusing people is Graham’s way to look for love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm4kwyydmeM&t=2s
As if the troglodytes who keep ranting never politicized anything.
It’s best to ignore Graham. Saves time. If you exchange with him, you can expect that Graham will end up behind one such silly troll bridge. Like Mark B said the other day:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729831
In that case, please confer to this classic (h/t Kennui):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7v_TdLviUE
Best of luck!
When you cult kids are finished with your childish rants, you’re welcome to address some of the science.
1) Solve the simple problems presented here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733399
2) Come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
I won’t hold my breath….
More hopelessly biased blah-blah for the rational to ignore.
As you can see, Eldrosion, our two Sky dragon cranks are setting up their troll bridge in their own way. Graham produces pins theses upon theses and thought experiments over thought experiments, whereas Puffman plays riddles.
There’s no need to cross any of those silly troll bridges.
Agreed, Willard.
DREMT needs to get a girlfriend and some friends. Life off the internet exists too.
“When you cult kids are finished with your childish rants, you’re welcome to address some of the science.”
Thanks for trying to get these people back on topic. Of course, personalities are more interesting to them than talking about science, but it’s worth a try.
Indeed, Eldrosion.
Here comes the part where Graham tries to “last word” another thread,
This time, he’s endorsing Puffman’s appeal to a cult.
Another projection, as there’s a little more people on the side of Team Science and on Team Sky Dragon.
They’re cranks!
So anyway, back to the science…
Up-thread, Nate believes he has refuted my logic, but actually hasn’t even addressed it. He just keeps repeating his same talking points which are all understood, but fail to rebut what I’m saying. Perhaps I can get him to see sense this way…
What we’re trying to do is analyse a system, change one part of it, and observe what happens as a result. Obviously (you would think it would be obvious) the part that has been changed is responsible for what we observe to happen. But, for some reason, Nate believes that what has been observed to happen is not caused by the part we changed – instead he believes it is caused by a part of the system that remains constant throughout (the output from the Sun)!
That is where he’s going wrong.
Notice how Graham pretends that Puffman dictates what we should be discussing in *my* thread, Elrosion.
Willard continues to just make stuff up…and, it’s never about the science.
Your original comment was of two halves: one, your fraudulent attempt to pretend our plates argument was debunked, involving linking to comments that just displayed ignorance of the arguments made. The second half showed off your usual obsession with me as a person. We’ve done the obsessing over personalities, now it’s time to discuss the science.
You needn’t comment any further as you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the science involved in the plates discussion.
> Elrosion
Eldrosion. Sorry.
As you can see, Graham D. Warner has now switched to gaslighting.
It’s quite clear who started that thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733288
Expect him to reply with the same nonsense for which he Puffman have been disinvited by Roy.
Cheers.
Yes, Willard. You started this thread. As I said, “your original comment was of two halves…”
Thanks.
I read DREMT’s comments occasionally, and along with the usual ‘please stop trolling,’ I see things like ‘Nate won’t debate Ball4,’ which makes it seem like he just wants a food fight.
And Clint R insults me by calling me a cultist.
It’s best to just let them be.
Perhaps it’s best if you two just get a room somewhere, and discuss personalities and politics until the break of dawn. Then you don’t need to waste space at this science blog.
Exactly, Eldrosion.
Ask you can see, Graham always tries to make himself relevant.
Isn’t he cute when he tries to portray his cargo cult science as something Very Serious?
Yes, Willard.
DREMT argues that people here waste space, but should also explain why debating the warming effect of back radiation is not itself a waste of space, given Roy’s clear disdain for positions that deny its existence.
Back to personalities, again, I see.
Notice these two little dirty tricks, Eldrosion:
First, “back to” tries to redirect the exchange where *he* wants it, which is: anywhere but what the topic of this subthread.
That allows him to ignore your point, which isn’t about personalities, and *is* about the topic of this subthread.
Second, notice how he portrays Sky Dragon crap as “scientific”, thus somehow more deserving of attention.
As if he and his fellow cranks haven’t monopolized attention for years!
Graham D. Warner always uses little dirty tricks like that.
“DREMT argues that people here waste space, but should also explain why debating the warming effect of back radiation is not itself a waste of space, given Roy’s clear disdain for positions that deny its existence.”
I don’t deny the existence of back-radiation, so shouldn’t be the target of Dr Spencer’s disdain.
Willard continues with the false accusations. When I wrote, “back to personalities…” only Willard’s comment was visible to me at the time. Eldrosion’s comment that I have just responded to, was not even visible.
“I don’t deny the existence of back-radiation, so shouldn’t be the target of Dr Spencer’s disdain.”
DREMT plays dumb.
Also, why does he complain about making things about personality when he makes this?:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Say you had a hobby making videos on YouTube about the personalities of various celebrities. You also have a hobby posting strictly about science on a science blog. If I dug up one of your celebrity videos and posted it on the science blog, how on Earth would that prove that you “make things about personality” on the science blog?
Your point is illogical. You’re clutching at straws, desperate to paint me as the villain in your little pantomime. But, I’m just some random guy that you know absolutely nothing about other than that I disagree with you on science issues. You don’t even know my political leanings, but you already tried to assume those in your very first comment to me.
You sure do jump to a lot of conclusions.
You were the one who introduced that video here, Graham.
Not as far as I remember, no.
I think it was Willard that first linked to that video on here.
The one I introduced was about the moon’s rotation. Because it was a science-related video on a science blog.
Notice how Graham is lying by omission, Eldrosion –
First, he doesn’t deny backradiation, but believes it’s insignificant.
Second, he holds the weird belief that non-radiative gasses are the true source of radiation in the atmosphere.
Poor Graham. So very deep. So very misunderstood.
Here’s where Graham introduced his very disturbing song, Eldrosion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597538
Imagine you were so twisted that you fantasized about people trying to kill you.
Graham is more than playing dumb – he’s getting a thrill out of victim playing.
Ah, Willard briefly mentions some science before confirming that it was indeed him that first posted the video Eldrosion (John W?) randomly brought up out of nowhere:
“First, he doesn’t deny backradiation, but believes it’s insignificant.”
Not quite. I don’t deny the existence of back-radiation, but argue it doesn’t lead to warming. Just like most of the many thousands (millions?) of people who question the GHE.
“Second, he holds the weird belief that non-radiative gasses are the true source of radiation in the atmosphere.”
That would be a complete fabrication from Willard. Like a lot of what he’s saying about me in this thread which he has specifically designed to be one giant ad hominem after the thread in which I debunked the Green Plate Effect.
“the video Eldrosion (John W?) randomly brought up out of nowhere:”
??? That’s not my name. DREMT is confusing me with someone else.
Second, if he genuinely wants to discuss science, then perhaps we should move beyond the plates argument and address why modern temperatures are rising anomalously compared to the past 11,300 years. What could explain that, if not an enhanced greenhouse effect?
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/
Notice how Graham still confuses his dirty tricks with science, Eldrosion. Also notice the gaslighting that makes me work to push his deflection!
If Graham D. Warner wishes to put forward his own Sky Dragon crank flavor, he can do so. Elsewhere than in the thread kicked off by this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733288
which was not addressed to him.
I addressed that silly Machiavellian for too long.
Saying “what else could it be?” is not a logical argument in support of the existence of an enhanced GHE. In fact, it’s a logical fallacy.
Notice how Graham pretends that inference to the best explanation is not logical, Eldrosion.
They don’t teach anything to undergraduates anymore.
Willard, I also note that DREMT mischaracterizes your link by implying that you introduced the video, when in fact he did – evidenced by his own comment: “Be sure to check out the new EP. Particularly ‘Breakneck.'”
DREMT should also keep in mind that science distinguishes between a hypothesis and a theory. AGW falls into the latter category because it has withstood repeated falsification tests and is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence. If DREMT intends to challenge AGW seriously, he would need to address the full body of evidence, not just isolated components.
Willard first linked to the video. I introduced the song, because Willard was stalking my band’s FB page, and posting it at random on the blog. If you want to defend a stalker, please continue.
No “back-radiation warming”, no GHE. Good luck with promoting your “AGW theory” without a GHE.
Notice how Graham is now more confident in his memories, Eldrosion, and how he kinda forgets to connect his invitation with the video.
How he projects homicidal ideation onto his opponents is a thing of beauty. His victim playing is all about humor, right?
You might like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/#comment-1682431
It would be the perfect time for Graham to try to suggest that the fact he still went for P doesn’t mean he believes P!
How did Eldrosion know about the video he linked to? Why did he suddenly link to it, out of the blue?
This is all a bit creepy.
They can’t directly intimidate you (they might get banned), so instead they sort of subtly suggest that somehow they know all this stuff about you. I don’t know how to explain it. It’s just very unsettling.
Nothing about the unprecedented 150 year warming (which also coincides with the timing of the Industrial Revolution) compared to the last 11,300 years, DREMT?
Willard, please stop inviting your peculiar friends from the “online stalking community” to try and intimidate me.
Eldrosion, I told you – “what else could it be?” is a logical fallacy. Repeating it doesn’t help. And, “inference to the best explanation” won’t suddenly make “back-radiation warming” not violate 2LoT. Perhaps you should start listening to all the people who have been putting forward their theories for how to account for the modern warming? Even in the comments under this article alone there is at least one person trying to explain it. Or, just call them “cranks” and start stalking them. Maybe dig up some obscure video from two years ago which you should know nothing about, being new to the blog. Whatever floats your boat.
Eldrosion,
Please ask Graham D. Warner the following questions:
(1) Why did he connect all his social to personal information if he didn’t want to made them public (and perhaps still does) if he feared for his life?
(2) Why did he project his homicidal fantasies, if not as a way to bypass threatening behavior and to indulge into more victim playing?
(3) Why did he try to gaslight you by suggesting he never said he believed that “the bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere”?
(4) Why does he still try to pretend he’s PSTering people as a way to preempt the observation that the trolls here are our Sky Dragon cranks?
2LOT is not violated because the atmosphere is not using its own internal energy to warm the surface. Instead, carbon dioxide molecules absorb and re emit infrared radiation back toward the surface, SLOWING the loss of energy from the planet. It’s like insulation: why do Arctic animals stay warm in winter, and what would happen if they grew even more fur?
Please don’t respond with something like, “Ball4 disagrees with you, and you should debate him”.
Willard, this comment is a gem:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210613080201/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/#comment-418077
“Back-radiation warming” is not like insulation, as I’ve already explained up-thread, Eldrosion. You’d have to refute the logic I’ve already presented re the plates…and if you could do that, you’d have said so already.
Keep on stalkin’.
“Back-radiation warming” is not like insulation, as I’ve already explained up-thread, Eldrosion. You’d have to refute the logic I’ve already presented re the plates…and if you could do that, you’d have said so already.
Keep on stalkin’.
“(1) Why did he connect all his social to personal information if he didn’t want to made them public (and perhaps still does) if he feared for his life?”
It’s not a question of fearing for my life. I just find you guys extremely creepy. And, I think you’re intentionally trying to intimidate. You’re not actually going to kill me, though. Right? I mean, you bring up the “feared for his life”, not me.
“(2) Why did he project his homicidal fantasies, if not as a way to bypass threatening behavior and to indulge into more victim playing?”
I don’t have homicidal fantasies. It’s a song.
“(3) Why did he try to gaslight you by suggesting he never said he believed that “the bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere”?”
You know there’s no similarity between that sentence and what you told Eldrosion I believed, right?
“(4) Why does he still try to pretend he’s PSTering people as a way to preempt the observation that the trolls here are our Sky Dragon cranks?”
If there’s anybody reading, or commenting, who doesn’t think Willard is a troll, then I don’t know what they’re smoking…but could I have some?
Oh, Eldrosion, almost forgot –
Don’t expect much more than a variation on:
(a) No.
(b) No U.
(c) Yes, but look over there!
(d) Wut?
To get to (d), however, you’ll have to work very hard.
Good luck!
In all seriousness, though, I’ve indicated a couple of times that I find your behaviour to be threatening. So, if you continue, that will be harassment.
In Willard’s case, he crossed that line a long time ago, and if he wasn’t anonymous I would be pressing charges.
Thank you.
As you can see, Eldrosion, Graham is only joking.
Can’t we just all take a joke?
“Intimidating” is a better word. Eldrosion only recently started commenting here, yet somehow knew about a video posted two years ago, and even just “happened” to have a link to a comment from eight years ago “lying around” waiting to be brought up. It’s all a bit too weird, and creepy. When people start trying to dig up what they hope will be perceived as “dirt” from your past, all for a thread which is entirely meant as one big ad hominem, you start to wonder what these people are capable of. How long has he been lurking around following my every comment? It’s all a subtle attempt to intimidate.
Sorry, I’m not familiar with Eli Rabett’s plate experiment, so I can’t really engage with the points you’ve made about it upthread.
Also, I’m not trying to threaten or intimidate you. My point is simply that you’ve objected to bringing personalities into the discussion, while there are examples in your own comment history that do exactly that.
It’s easy to find comments like the ones I linked here in past threads. Just press Ctrl + F, type in a swear word, and see where it takes you. It’s almost guaranteed to lead to some drama.
See, Eldrosion?
Graham is humoring you once again.
When he’s PSTering people, it’s abuse. When he’s playing victim, it’s abuse. When he’s pretending that Puffman isn’t trolling, it’s gaslighting, which is abuse. When he’s “just joking”, it’s abuse.
When he’s writing songs about people breaking his neck, it’s more than abuse: it’s twisted, deranged, manipulative behavior.
It’s just not a joke.
Besides, here’s a good summary of why he’s absolutely not here for science:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734053
Eldrosion, I don’t care what you claim. I told you that I found your behaviour intimidating, and explained why. I would like to know how you knew about that song. Because it’s really, really creepy that you did. I also don’t understand why you’re scouring through the threads from eight years ago on the Wayback machine trying to dredge stuff up. You appear to be another stalker. I don’t want another stalker, and if I have to escalate this, I will.
“When he’s writing songs about people breaking his neck, it’s more than abuse: it’s twisted, deranged, manipulative behavior.”
No, it’s a song. There is only one line in it that was inspired by Willard, and that’s the line about the IP address. Before I made my YouTube channel known on this blog, Willard wrote some post on here saying roughly where I lived. Obviously, it really creeped me out. It was an act of pure intimidation. The only way he could have known it, was from when I posted at AndThenThere’sPhysics, where Willard was a moderator and contributor. He must have worked it out from my IP address when I posted at the site!
It’s not identifying information, but it’s really messed up. And on top of that, the guy constantly personally attacks me, posts my YT videos, uses my actual name, and follows me around from thread to thread. He’s absolutely a stalker, and his hatred and obsession with me seems to have become all-consuming. I don’t know what his problem is but I’d appreciate not having another weirdo following me about.
You heard the man, Eldrosion –
Graham is not here to listen to you.
He’s here to deflect, disrupt, and denigrate.
All under theater of an eternal victim.
Poor Graham. Forever the victim.
You say you don’t care what I claim and then follow up by asking me how I got your video. Those two things contradict each other and, in my view, undermine the sincerity in your comment.
Stalking involves accessing private information. Everything linked here was already publicly posted in this thread in the past.
“Also, I’m not trying to threaten or intimidate you.“
That is the claim I was referring to when I said, “I don’t care what you claim”.
As in…I don’t believe you.
Tell me how you knew about that video, stalker.
“When he’s PSTering people, it’s abuse.”
Is the troll upset by being politely asked to stop? Poor Willard. Always the victim.
“When he’s playing victim, it’s abuse.”
Who’s playing? I am the victim, of your sustained and relentless verbal assault.
“When he’s pretending that Puffman isn’t trolling, it’s gaslighting, which is abuse.”
What on Earth are you even talking about? Now it’s a problem if I don’t PST people!
“When he’s “just joking”, it’s abuse.”
Or, maybe you really can’t take a joke.
“He’s here to deflect, disrupt, and denigrate”
What exactly is the purpose of this thread you started, Willard? You mentioned me by name, so I can only assume you wanted me to participate?
“Those two things contradict each other”
Double-Bind is Graham’s middle name, Eldrosion.
If Kiddo doesn’t accept my explanation, then Kiddo should explain how Kiddo thinks I obtained the video.
You haven’t given an explanation! You’ve repeatedly avoided the question, which makes me doubt your sincerity.
I think you knew about the video because you’re a friend of Willard’s, and he’s told you all about it. Either that or you really are some creep who’s been following my every move on here for the last few years.
I think the former option is more likely, because nobody impartial who had witnessed Willard’s behaviour towards me over the last few years would side with Willard. So it seems more logical that you’re his friend.
Either way, you’re here in this thread right now to try and antagonise me. So you can “have some fun”, right?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1733357
“My point is simply that you’ve objected to bringing personalities into the discussion, while there are examples in your own comment history that do exactly that.”
In an eight-year comment history containing thousands upon thousands of comments you’re bound to be able to dredge up something, Eldrosion. For instance, we’re talking personalities right now. But, who instigated this discussion? Oh, that’s right – it was you and your buddy Willard. Just like it was Willard who instigated the discussion where the video was first introduced.
I come here to discuss science and spread the message that there’s no GHE – but the science discussion is going to be limited to a few subjects because when you know there’s no GHE, what is the point of discussing…well, most of climate science!? It becomes irrelevant without the GHE. That was one of Willard’s criticisms in his original post in this thread, right? That “sky dragon cranks” have only a few “talking points”. Well, what exactly do you expect!? There’s no GHE, so what is the point of discussing temperature trends and statistics and everything else?
Eldrosion,
Let’s read my first comment again:
Is this about personalities?
Expect some but but but but but but but!
1:48 am: “There’s no GHE…”
Sadly, lots of farmers economically growing crops in colder climates show DREMT is wrong since those farmers know a greenhouse effect (GHE) does exist.
More sadly, DREMT’s position on the long ago GPE was thoroughly refuted here last month (as noted above) when Eli’s solution was proven to be correct so there really is a point in discussing global temperature trends as shown in top post.
Willard asks:
“Is this about personalities?”
Let’s see:
“Our Sky Dragon cranks…”
“Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner has PSTered the thread more than 60 times…”
So, the answer is: Yes.
The only places I’ve interacted with Willard are here and on WUWT. I have no idea who he is outside of online climate forums.
“Either way, you’re here in this thread right now to try and antagonise me. So you can “have some fun”, right?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1733357”
That link is to my exchange with Willard about a recent WUWT thread we were a part of. Andy May was drawing poor conclusions from proxy data, and Willard and I were the ones calling him out on it.
There is something fun and deeply satisfying about fact checking someone a whole community treats as authoritative. If you are drawing a parallel between that discussion and this one, then I guess yes: I am enjoying fact checking you too, especially when your own past comments expose your inconsistencies.
Wouldn’t you say your behavior is antagonistic?
Finally, you are simply reluctant to accept the greenhouse effect. Even fossil fuel advocates have publicly distanced themselves from outright anti GHE positions. That alone should give you pause.
Explain why cloudy nights are warmer if not for downwelling longwave radiation. And while you’re at it, explain why nights with low, liquid water clouds (which are more efficient at absorbing and re emitting infrared radiation than ice crystal clouds) are especially warm.
Not a friend of Willard’s? Then the question remains – how on Earth did you know about that video? I’ve asked you about four times now.
Clouds and the GHE? We did that last month, already. I refuted the central premise of your argument, then you fled the scene:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1729654
“…especially when your own past comments expose your inconsistencies.”
I think I do a pretty good job of sticking to the science, when people let me. Better than most, including you.
Perhaps you should remind Graham that a crank is a person who has strange and unusual ideas and beliefs, Eldrosion. And that the comment was about the fact that they have three talking points they have repeated for years (for Puffman, it’s more than a decade) to entertain us with very strange and unusual beliefs.
By contrast, let’s note that there are 32 “cult”, 24 “kid”, 10 “child”, and 4 “alarmist”.
Is there any depth to Graham’s victim playing?
“Belief” doesn’t enter into it. I just go where the logic takes me. “Crank” is obviously a pejorative word and you use it to continuously undermine those that you’re bigoted against. You’ve adopted the “sky dragon” term and attempt to repurpose it to suit your own agenda. And, you’re desperate for me to be responsible for Clint’s use of language, but I’m simply not. There are more than three “talking points”, but I’ve already explained why there’s not going to be a lot of them.
As with any thread you start where you mention me by name, it all eventually becomes an excuse for you to throw as much shade at me as you can. Ably abetted by your new stalking partner, Eldrosion.
Here’s personality, Eldrosion:
[GRAHAM GOES MISTER SPOCK] “Belief” doesn’t enter into it. I just go where the logic takes me.
More personality:
[GRAHAM GOES MADAM FREUD] You’re all avoiding it, because you can’t refute it.
Again, personality:
[GRAHAM GOES ERIC BERNE] Sorry guys…as much as I enjoy your feeble attempts … I decided to share this with more people
Victim playing, tone policing, the usual manipulative crap from our Graham D. Warner.
Nothing to do with science.
Like I said:
“As with any thread you start where you mention me by name, it all eventually becomes an excuse for you to throw as much shade at me as you can.“
Willard proves me right, again.
P.S: Your first quote is from this discussion, which you’ve initiated, and have intended from the start to make it about me. The second quote exists because some commenters on here refuse to concede arguments when they’ve lost. The third quote should be “Sorry guys…as much as I enjoy your feeble attempts at cyber-bullying, I decided to share this with more people”, but you left that highlighted part out deliberately to try to make me look bad. Just more of your “manipulative crap”.
Eldrosion,
I forgot to ask –
Have you ever seen a scientist act the way Graham has been acting so far in this thread?
How about what he wrote under various sock puppets over the years at Roy’s?
To help you out with your evaluation, cf.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Graham has no idea how to conduct a scientific discussion.
“[DREMT] has no idea how to conduct a scientific discussion.”
This thread, that you started, Willard, is not that kind of thread. There’s nothing scientific about it. It’s just a prolonged ad hominem attack against me.
I’m behaving like a human being responding to my stalker. A stalker who is trying to encourage another commenter to follow in his footsteps.
This:
“You were the one who introduced that video here, Graham.“
Was creepy as hell. A new commenter here should know nothing about that video and its history. I’ve repeatedly asked him to explain how he knew about it. Nothing. I told him that I found it intimidating, and if he repeated such behaviour I’d consider it harassment. Then, we get this:
“If Kiddo doesn’t accept my explanation, then Kiddo should explain how Kiddo thinks I obtained the video.”
Just as creepy. “Kiddo” is what Willard used to call me when he first started commenting here. Again, how would a new commenter know about that? It’s weird, and equally intimidating. Now we’re at “harassment”, I’m afraid.
Willard
I have noticed that DREMT says he is not responsible for Clint R’s comments and doesn’t speak on his behalf. Yet when he thinks Nate and Ball4 are inconsistent, he tries to push them into debating each other. That seems inconsistent to me: if he is not accountable for Clint R’s statements and does not represent him, then it follows that Ball4 shouldn’t be expected to speak for Nate either.
DREMT, from your link:
“The surface doesn’t only radiate, you know. In fact, radiation is the least efficient way for the surface to cool.”
Radiation is not the least efficient way for the surface to cool. It is an effective mechanism, and it is the only way energy ultimately escapes the planet at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Radiation cools the surface along with latent and sensible heat fluxes, but those two primarily transfer energy from the surface into the atmosphere rather than allowing it to leave the planet.
“I’ve repeatedly asked him to explain how he knew about it. Nothing.”
Also, wrong I repeat:
“Just press Ctrl + F, type in a swear word, and see where it takes you. It’s almost guaranteed to lead to some drama.”
Willard
Sock puppets? That is interesting. Who I wonder?
I am also beginning to see what you mean about DREMT playing the victim card. How does he know I am calling him ‘Kiddo’ for any particular reason? For all he knows, it could just be because he is acting like one.
“That seems inconsistent to me: if he is not accountable for Clint R’s statements and does not represent him, then it follows that Ball4 shouldn’t be expected to speak for Nate either.”
I’m not expecting Ball4 to speak for Nate, I’m expecting them to debate each other when they disagree, or at least acknowledge that they disagree. Like I did the other day, when I disagreed with Clint about the RHTE. You’re trying so hard to look for any “inconsistencies”, but you keep coming up empty-handed.
“Radiation is not the least efficient way for the surface to cool.”
Put your hand over a hot stove, without touching it. Now touch the stove. Which heat transfer mechanism was more efficient?
“Just press Ctrl + F, type in a swear word, and see where it takes you. It’s almost guaranteed to lead to some drama.”
As we can all see from Willard’s earlier link, the F-bomb in my lyrics is censored. So, how would you find it from a search of swear words? Sorry, but your explanation doesn’t work. Also, it seems unlikely you would just happen to be searching for swear words under that particular article. How many articles did you go through to find it, exactly!? I think you’re lying, sorry.
“How does he know I am calling him ‘Kiddo’ for any particular reason? For all he knows, it could just be because he is acting like one.”
Again, your explanations are just not believable. For one thing, you would not capitalise that word if you were just using it at random. You’re not being honest, and that means you’re hiding something.
You’re a stalker.
Eldrosion,
Yes, I noticed that double standard too. Graham likes to pretend that Puffman isn’t trolling, when he obviously has been for more than a decade.
You might like the quality of this earlier scientific output:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181111184530/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311862
Roy wasn’t the first guy he abused by borrowing the name.
But let’s not forget: Graham is the true victim here.
“Put your hand over a hot stove, without touching it. Now touch the stove. Which heat transfer mechanism was more efficient?”
Apples and oranges comparison.
And your song has more than one swear word. Where you’re from, does the S-bomb not count as profanity, Kiddo?
Eldrosion, I don’t believe you. You didn’t find that video by just randomly pulling up a specific article from two years ago and searching for the “S-word”.
You guys can keep on “amusing yourselves” at my expense, but I’ll call it for what it is – harassment.
Eldrosion,
Don’t forget that when Graham says things like “I don’t believe you”, he means that’s just logic. The logic of the asshat that he is. He and Puffman might have different styles, but they’re complementary ones.
The wedge between belief and logic is untenable, if only because there’s a thing called doxastic logic.
“…the asshat that he is”.
Straightforward personal abuse. The harassment continues.
Poor Halp-less,
no, Dr Roys Moderation Team,
sorry, Graham “Shut your face you stupid piece of shit” Warner –
forever the victim.
If only scientists all over the world could listen to what Sky Dragon cranks had to say!
The harassment continues.
This entire thread is just one prolonged attempt to “shoot the messenger”. Seems they realise just how important the message is, if they’re prepared to go to these lengths.
“You didn’t find that video by just randomly pulling up a specific article from two years ago and searching for the “S-word”.”
Kiddo, you are conveniently leaving out that I cited those quotes specifically to highlight what I see as inconsistencies in your position. I didn’t bring them up at random.
Willard
What is interesting about that sock puppet, J-Halpless, is that it was active at the same time Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team was being deployed. The comment you linked is from July 2018, while Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team was already participating in this forum as early as June 2018:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210420032101/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308168
That means they were active at the same time which, ironically, fits Kiddo’s own definition of sock puppetry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488567
Lastly, in response to:
“Seems they realise just how important the message is, if they’re prepared to go to these lengths.”
Kiddo was just drawing analogies between conductive heat transfer (touching a hot stove example) and the planetary energy budget, as if they are comparable situations.
The level of stalking has reached new heights of obsessiveness. Genuinely disturbing. Thanks for continuing to prove my point!
And, I’m sorry you didn’t understand what I said about the stove. We weren’t talking about “Earth’s energy budget”, but you seem to be losing focus generally.
You still can’t explain how you came across the video, in any sort of believable way.
I indeed noticed Graham’s silent introduction of his most trollish character, Eldrosion. I suppose you noticed this too:
[GRAHAM] Shut your face you stupid piece of shit.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Ill speak whenever the hell I want to. How about that?
https://web.archive.org/web/20181111184530/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312083
Do you think he’ll continue to try to pretend that his cranky beliefs are “just logic”?
P.S: the comment Eldrosion linked to (and how did he know about this one?) said the following:
“Pretty clear, yeah. As An.ton.in said:
““Sock puppetry” refers to the practice of supporting the opinions of one account by posting under another. To make it seem as though there is more support for an opinion than there really is. It is not about merely using a second name. I have never gamed my names. And I’m not claiming that the others have either.“
If, as I suspect, Tyson has posted as Tyson, Arkady, and Andrea, then that is sock puppetry…because I have witnessed Tyson interact with Andrea…”
Was the intention to draw attention to Arkady’s sock-puppetry? Not a good look for “Team Seance”.
Perhaps you missed the following exchange, Eldrosion:
[BARRY] What other monickers have you posted under, DREMT?
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] None of your business, barry.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488940
Even if we accepted, for the sake of argument, that they were right about J Halp-less, it still wouldn’t be “sock puppetry” according to An.to.nin’s definition.
They just can’t catch a break. It’s almost as if I’ve not really done anything wrong.
Eldrosion,
You can add sock puppetry to the things Graham doesn’t properly grasp. Suppose that, based on your cursory reading of Roy’s over the years, a Man of Mystery said:
[MAN OF MYSTERY] In E-Lie Rabetts silly green plate thought experiment the two plates are infinite in size, so should be treated as infinite parallel planes. Given that, it doesnt matter how far away the plates are from each other, they should come to the same temperature at equilibrium (same as when they are pressed together).
https://web.archive.org/web/20181111184530/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311798
Who, amongst our Sky Dragon cranks, has ever tripped over plate sizes?
In any event, one has to marvel at Graham trying to get away with such disingenuous “even if”, don’t you agree?
According to Google:
“Sockpuppetry is the deceptive use of multiple online identities (sock puppets) by one person to manipulate discussions, create false consensus, or evade restrictions“.
It’s Willard that wants to repurpose the meaning of the word.
Eldrosion,
We can add the concept of Google to what Graham fails to understand. Deception is the operative word. It might also be his middle name.
I suppose you noticed that the commenter Graham pretends not being had a “last word” hangup, and just keeps repeating himself?
Having failed to find any evidence of “inconsistencies” in my position, and having failed to find any evidence of “sock-puppetry”, you’d think they’d just give up. Well, it looks like Eldrosion has. But, Willard “soldiers on”.
I wonder if it ever occurs to Willard that maybe the reason the dirt he tries to dig up doesn’t stick to me is not because I’m “Machiavellian” but simply because I haven’t actually done anything wrong?
Eldrosion,
You can add the concept of failure to what Graham doesn’t fully master. That explains a lot.
Perhaps you already know that Eli already responded:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009003314/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268873
Now, who was Eli responding to, and who is still blathering about view factors, distance, etc?
The refutation of the Green Plate Effect I have provided up-thread does not involve view factors or distance at all.
Eldrosion,
You can add refutation to what Graham D. Warner doesn’t really get.
Eli was replying to some dude named GW, who made 37 comments in a span of two days, 2017-10-14 and 2017-10-15.
Incidentally, GW seems to have tried to get some help from Joe a little earlier:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190223224441/https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31028
Funny how that works, innit?
DREMT has never successfully refuted Eli’s GPE & DREMT’s comments upthread were challenged & shown to be faulty last month. DREMT has provided nothing new this month; the GPE plates warm continuously to Eli’s 1LOT equilibrium so no violation of 2LOT as DREMT erroneously claims.
“Funny how that works, innit?”
You’ve yet to show any evidence of “the deceptive use of multiple online identities (sock puppets) by one person to manipulate discussions, create false consensus, or evade restrictions”.
Funny how that works.
Eldrosion,
You can add the concept of evidence to the list of Graham’s knowledge gaps.
As you may have noticed, GW kinda took his leave early: search for “if you still don’t understand, go back. I won’t respond further here”. Appeared a few days later this “other” dude:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009003314/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269212
He appeared earlier, but these two comments are eerily similar, don’t you think?
Oh, and that dude posted 24 comments, mostly on October 18 and 19.
When I first started commenting at Dr Spencer’s, I naively thought that the arguments made were more important than the name used to make them. I can’t remember what names I used now, it was eight years or so ago. I think I used my real name at one point. But, there was no “sock-puppetry” involved. No “deceptive use of multiple online identities (sock puppets) by one person to manipulate discussions, create false consensus, or evade restrictions”. And, once I settled on DREMT, I stuck with it. It’s interesting to look back at arguments people were having on the plates subject eight years ago, and it’s particularly nice to see it now I’m enjoying my “big win”, so thanks for that.
Was there a point to all this?
“Once upon a time, Roy got fed up with Graham D. Warner’s PSTering, and banned the T-word.”
While we’re here, pointlessly raking up the past, I may as well set the story straight on this ridiculous bit of spin from Willard. What actually happened was, as far as I could tell…
…Ant.on.in contacted Dr Spencer to whine about some of the language being used, and I think it may even have been Ant.on.in’s idea to “ban” certain words, “troll” being one of them, but there were many others. Of course, Ant.on.in himself was a highly abusive troll so this was all a bit rich coming from him, but Dr Spencer agreed and the word bans were put in place. I suppose Dr Spencer was probably aware of my PSTing but never asked me to stop, specifically. He did write a comment once criticising my “impersonating a member of his moderation team” but I assume that was more about my name than the act of PSTing. In any case, I PST’d last month to protest the political mayhem in the comments but since that has calmed down significantly this month, I shouldn’t need to bother again.
Anyway, I digress. Ant.on.in kept on being an abusive troll so much (and even to Dr Spencer himself) that he ended up being banned. That’s why I can’t write his name without the dots. Soon after, the word ban was lifted (maybe not a coincidence?) and the delays and difficulties with commenting were implemented. Which has by far worked out for the best for this blog. The fact that it’s now impossible to have quick back-and-forths between people has eliminated so much of the nonsense we used to see. Now people have to think more before they post. A masterstroke, really.
And, that’s all the news and weather.
Eldrosion, you can add deception to the list of concepts about which Graham plays dumb.
You might like Owl’s last comment:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009003314/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270299
Note the date.
You’ll never guess when Mr. Halp-less appears.
Willard’s shovelling a lot of dirt. So much so, he’s getting filthy!
By which I mean he’s making himself look like a desperately obsessed stalker. Counting comments? Recording dates? Spending hours of his time poring through old discussions? And Eldrosion told me that “life off the internet exists too!”
Kiddo
“But, there was no “sock-puppetry” involved.”
Yes, there was something here in this thread:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181111184530/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311862
You were publicly arguing against the plate experiment at the same time as J-Halpless, creating the impression that there was broader opposition than actually existed. That aligns directly with the definition of sockpuppeting.
Willard
We know this stalking allegation is baseless. I came across another conversation about “stalking” from two years ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1620662
Kiddo was making the same claims back then that he is making now: that people are stalking him, lol. If he genuinely felt threatened, he likely would have shut down his YouTube and other social media accounts. Instead, he remains public.
The reality is that DREMT doesn’t seem to like accountability.
As for Midas, I think he was misunderstood. He had little patience for deniers, and I can understand that perspective.
“And, I’m sorry you didn’t understand what I said about the stove. We weren’t talking about “Earth’s energy budget”, but you seem to be losing focus generally.”
Then what was the context?
“You were publicly arguing against the plate experiment at the same time as J-Halpless…”
Now now, that’s a fib. J Halp-less’ last comment on that thread was time-stamped 13th July. My first comment on that thread was time-stamped 23rd July.
“Kiddo was making the same claims back then that he is making now: that people are stalking him, lol. If he genuinely felt threatened, he likely would have shut down his YouTube and other social media accounts. Instead, he remains public.”
I see, so I don’t feel intimidated by someone’s actions unless I shut down my YT and social media accounts to “prove” it? So I have to take the coward’s way out…well, no! What Willard did really creeped me out, but I’m not going to let him bully me off the internet.
“Then what was the context?”
The context was your claim that radiation wasn’t the least efficient way for the Earth’s surface to cool. At no point had we actually been discussing the Earth’s energy budget, though. Radiation is the least efficient way for any surface to cool, besides a surface in a vacuum.
“As for Midas…”
Erm…who mentioned Midas? I didn’t. I mentioned Ant.on.in. Midas was another of his names that he had used in the past.
But, being a new commenter, you wouldn’t know about that. Right?
Unless…
Eldrosion,
You can add time to what Graham likes to lie about.
Perhaps you wonder what happened who else appeared in the thread before Mr. Halp-less:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009003314/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269397
The very next comment shows that Graham understands sock puppetry just fine when it suits him.
I’ve always understood what “sock puppetry” is. That’s how I know I haven’t done it. Like I said:
“When I first started commenting at Dr Spencer’s, I naively thought that the arguments made were more important than the name used to make them. I can’t remember what names I used now, it was eight years or so ago. I think I used my real name at one point…”
Eldrosion,
As you can see, Graham’s understanding is like Archimedes’ lever, or perhaps more like Baron Munschausen’s pigtail.
Here’s how we dispel deception:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009003314/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269398
Compare and contrast what he told Barry later on:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734338
What 6 years and a half can do to a silly Sky Dragon crank.
In any event, that should put Graham’s recent “even if” in perspective.
…obviously since I freely volunteered the information that I was posting as Owl, it only confirms what I said. I cared more about the arguments I was making, and really wasn’t bothered about what name I used. No “sock puppetry” found.
Eldrosion,
Add volunteering to the number of concepts that escape Graham’s pragmatic sense.
Since it doesn’t seem to have a good grasp of your ninja skills (CTRL-F), you could remind him that Halp emerged less than a week after he disappeared under his real name. My favorite bit is this one:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009003314/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269398
Perhaps Puffman could help him with that puzzle?
Eldrosion needs to explain why he said “Midas” instead of “Ant.on.in”, Willard.
Wouldn’t it be funny if Eldrosion was Ant.on.in bypassing a ban to return to the blog using a sock puppet? Then he’d be trying to falsely accuse me of sock puppetry whilst genuinely being guilty of it himself!
Then you would have to admonish your own stalking partner!
Eldrosion,
You might be tempted to respond to Graham the following way:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181111184530/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311854
Alternatively, you could tell him that it’s none of his business.
In any event, compare and contrast:
[JEKYLL, TO HIS BROTHER TROLL] Thanks for trying to get these people back on topic.
[HYDE, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A SCIENTIFIC PUZZLE] Paid sophist, begone.
Eldrosion can respond any way that he pleases. He’s going to need to explain himself, though. It will need to be more convincing than his explanation that he found out about that video by deciding to look through the comments under random articles throughout the entire history of this blog, and just happened to hit upon that one specific article from two years ago where our discussion about the song lay, whereupon he searched for the “S-word” and came across it. Then still chose to act like he had never seen that discussion before when you linked to it.
Nobody in their right mind would buy that explanation.
Eldrosion,
You can add commitment to the list of concepts that escape Graham. He’s obviously in no position to act as if he was owed any kind of room service. The only thing he earned is the door:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733288
Yeah, I reckon Eldrosion is Ant.on.in. That would explain a lot.
Too funny!
Eldrosion,
You can add reckoning to the number of tasks Graham D. Warner consistently fails.
“Now now, that’s a fib. J Halp-less’ last comment on that thread was time-stamped 13th July. My first comment on that thread was time-stamped 23rd July.”
Still the same thread, Kiddo.
“I see, so I don’t feel intimidated by someone’s actions unless I shut down my YT and social media accounts to “prove” it? So I have to take the coward’s way out…well, no! What Willard did really creeped me out, but I’m not going to let him bully me off the internet.”
You felt creeped out by Willard over content you had originally shared here?
“The context was your claim that radiation wasn’t the least efficient way for the Earth’s surface to cool. At no point had we actually been discussing the Earth’s energy budget, though. Radiation is the least efficient way for any surface to cool, besides a surface in a vacuum.”
That is not correct. I wanted to see whether you’d respond honestly. The original discussion was about the greenhouse effect in action. Nate pointed out that humid nights tend to be warmer than dry ones, and you argued that it was due to moist air having a higher heat capacity, rather than infrared back radiation.
And no. I’m not Midas.
Willard,
It’s interesting how Kiddo frequently accuses others of abusive behavior, yet doesn’t seem to hold himself to the same standard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1448733
“You felt creeped out by Willard over content you had originally shared here?”
No. Try reading what I wrote.
“That is not correct. I wanted to see whether you’d respond honestly.”
I did respond honestly.
“The original discussion was about the greenhouse effect in action. Nate pointed out that humid nights tend to be warmer than dry ones, and you argued that it was due to moist air having a higher heat capacity, rather than infrared back radiation.”
So, not the Earth’s energy budget.
“And no. I’m not Midas.”
Then you need to explain why you said Midas instead of Ant.on.in.
Eldrosion,
Add honesty to the concepts Graham reinterprets creatively.
Thank you for making me discover this gem:
[MIKER] I also note that you did not comment referring to the 2 plates back in 2017, unless you were using a previous persona.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] I wasn’t commenting back in 2013, either, but it’s easy to go back and read.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210613080201/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/#comment-418887
Is there a creative way by which Graham will reinterpret this “either”?
“It’s interesting how Kiddo frequently accuses others of abusive behavior, yet doesn’t seem to hold himself to the same standard:”
That sentence might carry some more weight if you weren’t undermining yourself by calling me “Kiddo”, Eldrosion.
I receive a constant stream of abuse, some subtle, some not so subtle, some where people have told me to kill myself. Sure, I give some back on occasion, and you will make sure that the “on occasion” is documented here as if it was the norm. OK, it’s a bit hypocritical, but that doesn’t change the fact that I receive a constant stream of abuse. I could write a post with every insult or condescending remark I’ve received in the last couple of months to provide some balance, but it would probably be one of the longest comments ever posted at Dr Spencer’s blog. So, I shan’t bother.
Eldrosion,
Add standard to the concepts Graham D. Warner distorts for more victim playing.
Don’t forget that you’re supposed to be an Aussie who doesn’t exactly like me, and who seldom talked about geological times.
That should give you an idea of the kind of reckoning machine you’re dealing with!
“You felt creeped out by Willard over content you had originally shared here?”
Here, I’ll show you to the comment, Eldrosion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734065
Now:
1) How did you know about the video?
2) How did you know about “Kiddo”?
3) Why did you say Midas and not Ant.on.in?
4) What is the purpose of this thread?
Exactly, Willard.
I don’t know if Midas ever posted at WUWT, but if he did, he certainly didn’t stay around to work through entire threads the way you and I do:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/05/holocene-warming/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/02/re-evaluating-the-concern-of-climate-change/
He was more like the type to drop in early with a comment and then disappear for the rest of the month.
Rajinderweb
“No. Try reading what I wrote.”
I did. You said:
“I see, so I don’t feel intimidated by someone’s actions unless I shut down my YT and social media accounts to “prove” it? So I have to take the coward’s way out…well, no! What Willard did really creeped me out, but I’m not going to let him bully me off the internet.”
I am pushing back on the idea that you were intimidated. You probably were not. After all, who would feel intimidated by someone reposting links they had already shared here themselves?
“The context was your claim that radiation wasn’t the least efficient way for the Earth’s surface to cool. At no point had we actually been discussing the Earth’s energy budget, though. Radiation is the least efficient way for any surface to cool, besides a surface in a vacuum.”
Rajinderweb is lying, Willard.
Eldrosion…sure, I can see differences between your style and Midas’. For one thing, Midas had more physics knowledge. I can buy that you’re not him.
But, you do seem to be running away from the rather obvious problem that I didn’t mention Midas, I mentioned Ant.on.in. So…you obviously already knew these two were the same person. I don’t understand how you would know that, given that you’re new to the blog, and not even many people who aren’t new to this blog know about his many names.
All the evidence so far seems to suggest you’ve been lurking on this blog for a long time, and are already familiar with many things that even some of the regulars here aren’t. I originally thought you were either Willard’s friend or some obsessive stalker type. Seems it might be the latter.
Maybe you should disappear again for a couple of days, leave Willard to do all the trolling, then return again hoping that your failure to answer the questions will go unnoticed?
Eldrosion,
Add style to what Graham D. Warner fumbles.
Please beware that he’s trying to act as if his whole line of defense hasn’t been blown out already:
[GRAHAM, TO MIKER ASKING HIM IF HE HAD ANOTHER PERSONA IN 2017] I wasn’t commenting back in 2013, either, but it’s easy to go back and read.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER, IN 2017] P.S: Owl and I are the same person.
Besides, have you noticed how reading back Roy’s is easy for him, but almost impossible for you?
Don’t expect him to pick on the cues you’re leaving him.
“After all, who would feel intimidated by someone reposting links they had already shared here themselves?”
Deary me, you really don’t listen. Once again, here is the comment I would like you to re-read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734065
The incident occurred before I ever shared my YT channel or anything like that.
“Rajinderweb is lying, Willard.”
No, I’m not lying. I’ll see your false accusations, and raise you the middle finger.
Eldrosion,
You can add lying to the list of concepts that Graham D. Warner massacres. Watch him squirm after being caught blatantly lying.
Poor Graham. Always misunderstood. Forever victim. Yet even Puffman is more honest than him, in a way.
Perhaps we should compare the insults he received compared to the amount I did. If that happens, expect special pleading from his part.
Exactly, Willard:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210805204752/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-408677
Notice DREMT’s selective concern about David App-ell posting under a different name, but not about ‘Eh?’ (Mike) doing the same.
Also note:
KIDDO: “I’ll see your false accusations”
Also KIDDO: “As in…I don’t believe you. Tell me how you knew about that video, stalker.”
Kiddo
You mean these questions:
“1) How did you know about the video?
2) How did you know about “Kiddo”?
3) Why did you say Midas and not Ant.on.in?
4) What is the purpose of this thread?”
1)How do you know I like apples?
2)”Kiddo” is just a nickname: nothing more. Why do you ask?
3)Why does that matter?
4)Isn’t that a self defeating question? If this is purposeless, why keep commenting?
Eldrosion…how can you claim that my calling you a stalker is a false accusation when for the last eleven days you’ve done nothing but demonstrate to anyone reading this thread that a stalker is exactly what you are? You realise that the behaviour you and Willard exhibit is not normal, right? It’s not normal for two people to be this obsessed with the words of another random person. You’ve both put an extraordinarily unhealthy amount of energy into trying to discredit me in any way that you can…and you’ve failed miserably.
You’ve shovelled no end of dirt and just made yourselves filthy. While I walk away spotless, since I’ve done nothing wrong. Quite funny, really.
OK, I’ll answer those questions for you, since you can’t be honest.
1) How did you know about the video? Because you’ve been following me on this blog for years.
2) How did you know about “Kiddo”? Because you’ve been following me on this blog for years.
3) Why did you say Midas and not Ant.on.in? You know they’re the same person, because you’ve been following me on this blog for years.
4) What is the purpose of this thread? One long, extended ad hominem attack. A smear campaign, basically.
Eldrosion,
You can add accusation to the list of concepts Graham D. Warner abuses.
Perhaps one day he’ll tell Puffman:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210805204752/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-409115
To remind him of his “either” in his response to MikeR ought to suffice for now, and perhaps forever.
Don’t forget to remind everyone that Mike R was an extraordinarily obnoxious, utterly relentless troll. Oh, you’ve done that already, via linking to articles under which he commented.
Will there be any more harassment today?
Eldrosion,
Add trolling to the concepts Graham D. Warner butchers.
Res ipsa loquitur.
I suggest you remain anonymous if you wish to avoid charges of online harassment, Willard.
Kiddo has really grown into those big words, hasn’t he?
Willard
I mean, seriously – what kind of clown pens lines like this:
“You’ve shovelled no end of dirt and just made yourselves filthy. While I walk away spotless, since I’ve done nothing wrong. Quite funny, really.”
…right after we have unearthed gems from his past, like:
“Dear Dr Spencer: please be aware that your blog, among many others, is under relentless manipulation by some of the most inhuman, sociopathic, soulless and utterly incomprehensibly depraved ‘people’ that have ever existed, or ever will.
Fucking wake up. There is no ‘greenhouse effect’. There is simply a relentless, malevolent force acting against humanity in every way that it can. You are letting it happen.”
Come on. Would any impartial reader (or even a genuine skeptic) look at that and think Kiddo still ‘walks away spotless’?
Never mind the fact that you have been pulling new quotes from the archived threads I have been linking here showing how easy it is to find new comments AKA “stalking”.
And Graham D. Warner wonders why he is called “Kiddo”. He still thinks that is a nickname with stalking context.
Eldrosion,
Add suggestion to the number of concepts Graham has to distort for his threatening behavior to land.
You might appreciate:
[MARK B] You’ve taken a scenario that can be solved using straightforward static thermodynamics, reframed it as a dynamic problem
[GRAHAM] I’ll ignore Mark’s false accusations …
[ALSO GRAHAM] It’s about “dynamics.
Every. Single. Time.
Which of Graham’s “personas” do you think stand a better chance at an harassment complaint: Mr. Halp-less, Dr Roys Moderation Team or *Breakneck*’s narrator?
“There is simply a relentless, malevolent force acting against humanity in every way that it can…”
…and you two are the proof of that.
P.S: “Come on. Would any impartial reader (or even a genuine skeptic) look at that and think Kiddo still ‘walks away spotless’?”
Nice of you to openly admit that your task here was to try and smear me. That might be your first honest comment on the thread.
I doubt anyone really cares, to be honest. But, if they were the type to be swayed by “personalities” instead of “arguments”, they were never going to get it, anyway. You need to be able to think critically to see through the GHE nonsense.
Willards and Eldrosions need not apply.
Eldrosion,
Add malevolence to the concepts Graham has to twist to get his way.
Do you think he realizes that issuing legal threats might not help him out of being caught lying about his past “personas”?
What will it be when he’ll realize that the whole Sky Dragon cranks’ playbook can be countered by the concepts of isometry, energy balance, and static system!
“[MARK B] You’ve taken a scenario that can be solved using straightforward static thermodynamics, reframed it as a dynamic problem
[GRAHAM] I’ll ignore Mark’s false accusations …
[ALSO GRAHAM] It’s about “dynamics”.
It’s almost as if by “false accusations” I was referring to something other than the GPE being framed as a dynamic problem! Willard, you simply aren’t capable of understanding anything about the plates discussion. Like Eldrosion, down-thread, you just embarrass yourself trying.
Eldrosion,
You can add reference to the number of concepts Graham destroys to push his way through.
Mark B’s point was quite clear: Graham interprets a static system as a dynamic one, and that leads him astray. Mine was that textual evidence that confirms his dynamical interpretation.
The “insults and false accusation” sidestep he borrows from Puffman work precisely by concealing their referent?
In any event, I would welcome Graham’s differential equations!
Kiddo
“…and you two are the proof of that.” Why? I support mainstream science.
“Nice of you to openly admit that your task here was to try and smear me. That might be your first honest comment on the thread.”
“You need to be able to think critically to see through the GHE nonsense.”
These two points seem to contradict each other. The second sentence comes across as a bit of a smear against Roy Spencer. Perhaps reconsider your approach here?
You’re not good at hiding your double standards.
“Mark B’s point was quite clear: Graham interprets a static system as a dynamic one, and that leads him astray. Mine was that textual evidence that confirms his dynamical interpretation.”
Exactly. Enough said.
The “false accusation” from Mark I was referring to was:
“But, again, I believe his objective is to extend the “debate”…”
So, Willard got it wrong again. And, Mark’s point that I’ve been led astray by making the GPE a dynamical problem rather than a static one is also wrong. Making it a dynamical problem is necessary to show where the 2LoT violation occurs.
“These two points seem to contradict each other.”
You often say things “seem to” contradict each other when they don’t.
“The second sentence comes across as a bit of a smear against Roy Spencer.”
That’s a bit of a stretch, to say the least. I’m not sure why he thinks there’s a GHE but it won’t be for lack of critical thinking ability.
…and here are the false accusations from the specific comment you were quoting from:
“…get a nonsensical result that clearly violates thermal radiation principles (the asymmetrical radiation bit), all for the purpose of arguing in circles because you apparently derive some gratification from messing with people who are sincerely interested in the science of global warming.”
OK? So, you got it wrong, Willard. As usual.
Eldrosion,
Watch Graham twists the concept of accusation like he’s twisting himself in a pretzel right now:
[G1] I’ll ignore Mark’s false accusations
[G2] The “false accusation” from Mark I was referring to
[G3] here are the false accusations from the specific comment
First it’s singular. Then it’s plural. And it gets specific…to the comment I was quoting!
Imagine spending nine years saying the same trivial stuff ten times a day (sometimes more) and pretending you’re still misunderstood. Even better, taking any misunderstanding as a win!
If “your solution breaks thermo” can be interpreted as an accusation, then Graham would be accusing mainstream science. That would explain why he never produces any scientific argument. In this case, that’d be an equation. Like Puffman, but without the silly riddles.
The main thing Sky Dragon cranks share is some kind of oracular mode. They just keep saying stuff. The same trivial stuff. Over and over again. Which they pretend is science!
A better interpretation is what Mark B said: they break every single pragmatic rule to keep the exchange going.
Yes, Willard.
It would be helpful if I was familiar with the plate situation, but based on his comments, I really don’t think what he’s presenting in these threads accurately reflects how the GHE works. He wrongly claimed that back radiation warming isn’t like insulation, even though insulation is often used as an analogy to explain how it warms the planet.
“Imagine spending nine years saying the same trivial stuff ten times a day (sometimes more) and pretending you’re still misunderstood. Even better, taking any misunderstanding as a win!”
I honestly think it’s really sad. That’s a lot of time wasted. I hope it was worth it for him though.
” Eldrosion says: . . .He wrongly claimed that back radiation warming isn’t like insulation, even though insulation is often used as an analogy to explain how it warms the planet. . .”
Analogies are inherently imperfect which is why one eventually has to do the math even if it’s done on a idealized model with presumed ideal black bodies, perfect thermal conduction, perfect reflectors or whatever.
What DREMT does in his “not like insulation” argument construct is use the properties of conductive and/or convective insulation which mostly don’t rely on re-radiation for their thermal properties rather than radiative insulation which most certainly do. This rhetorical technique allows him to rationalize not accepting the “insulation” analogy without really addressing that the GHE behaves as radiative insulation.
One of the key characteristics of good faith discussion is that the player skeptical of another’s position can accurately reflect back the claim being disputed without twisting it into something else, that is, the rebuttal is against the position and not some straw man bastardization of the original claim.
Willard can’t ever admit being wrong.
Eldrosion remains clueless.
Mark B joins in for some more “false accusation” fun.
Eldrosion,
Add admission to the concepts Graham completely distorts.
Eli’s green plate thought experiment reduces to this:
A = B + B = 2B
B = 2/A
See https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html for more.
Graham now claims that this ought to break down at some point. He absolutely needs dYNaMicS to show how it’s false. Yet equalities are equalities: physically, they obtain at all time, and algebraically they obtain eternally!
But then as we already saw Graham can’t even recognize being caught lying. So of course he’ll fabricate “what he really was referring to”, whence our point was exactly that his “false accusation” sidestep lacked any explicit referent. Yet he can’t even keep his story straight post hoc!
After all these years, it still amazes how much effort Graham puts in making sure absolutely no communication is possible. Alas, even that he can’t succeed.
Anyway, hope this helps.
At least Eldrosion can admit he doesn’t understand the Green Plate Effect, as he hasn’t studied it. Whereas Willard feigns understanding after having followed the discussions for years.
Mark B,
Graham exploits the “reflect back the claim being disputed” all the time, like when he:
– sidesteps a claim without addressing it, say by saying “I won’t discuss Mark B’s false accusations”;
– keeps whining that everyone misrepresent his position, a position that he kept repeating more than ten times per day (sometime s more) for almost nine years now;
– absolutely refuses to show any kind of homework that would contain a formal apparatus
– falls back to a silly motte-and-bailey that isn’t really connected to whatever was under dispute at first, which often takes the form of a troll bridge, cf. his (1)-(7) on this page.
– pretends he’s here for the science while never acting or thinking or showing anything remotely scientific
With Graham, it’s transactional all the way down. That’s how he gets affection. At least when he does it here, he’s not doing it with his spouse. Imagine how hard it must be for people around him to negotiate anything without getting his way.
At least he can channel his furious creativity somewhere else than in murder ideation.
This thread really is a masterpiece of prolonged attempted character assassination. The lengths they’ll go to for what any critical thinker reading would understand is all just simply a logical fallacy – ad hominem! If they want to waste their time, and produce a document that only reflects badly on them, ultimately, please do continue…but, my arguments still exist, anyway, and they will be judged on their merits by any critical thinker regardless of all this nonsense about “personalities”.
Eldrosion,
Add masterpiece to the concepts on which Graham elucubrates without producing anything worth our while.
Perhaps you’ll like:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Don’t miss Mark B’s comment over there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735155
Oh, and do you think Graham has solved how you could ignore Eli’s plates while according to his brilliant deductions you are supposed to know him?
Received in this one sub-thread alone, so far:
“Our Sky Dragon cranks…”
“…Sky Dragon cranks…”
“DREMT needs to get a girlfriend and some friends. Life off the internet exists too.”
“They’re cranks!“
“…his cargo cult science…”
“…always uses little dirty tricks like that.”
“…is lying by omission…”
“…so twisted…”
“…is more than playing dumb – he’s getting a thrill out of victim playing.“
“…still confuses his dirty tricks with science…”
“…his own Sky Dragon crank flavor…”
“…that silly Machiavellian…”
“They don’t teach anything to undergraduates anymore…”
“…he projects homicidal ideation onto his opponents…”
“…project his homicidal fantasies…”
“…indulge into more victim playing…”
“…the trolls here are our Sky Dragon cranks…”
“…twisted, deranged, manipulative behavior…”
“He’s here to deflect, disrupt, and denigrate.”
“…undermine the sincerity in your comment.”
“Double-Bind is Graham’s middle name…”
“…Kiddo…Kiddo…Kiddo…”
“Is there any depth to Graham’s victim playing?”
“…the usual manipulative crap…”
“Graham has no idea how to conduct a scientific discussion.”
“How does he know I am calling him ‘Kiddo’ for any particular reason? For all he knows, it could just be because he is acting like one.”
“…Kiddo…”
“The logic of the asshat that he is.”
“…Sky Dragon cranks…”
“Kiddo…Kiddo’s…Kiddo…”
“…his most trollish character…”
“…his cranky beliefs…”
“…the things Graham doesn’t properly grasp.”
“…our Sky Dragon cranks…”
“…disingenuous…”
“Deception is the operative word. It might also be his middle name.”
“…what Graham doesn’t fully master.”
“…what Graham D. Warner doesn’t really get.”
“…the list of Graham’s knowledge gaps.”
“…the list of concepts about which Graham plays dumb.”
“Kiddo…Kiddo…the reality is that DREMT doesn’t seem to like accountability.”
“…to what Graham likes to lie about.”
“As you can see, Graham’s understanding is like Archimedes’ lever, or perhaps more like Baron Munschausen’s pigtail.”
“Here’s how we dispel deception…”
“…a silly Sky Dragon crank.” “…the number of concepts that escape Graham’s pragmatic sense.”
“…the list of concepts that escape Graham.”
“The only thing he earned is the door…”
“…the number of tasks Graham D. Warner consistently fails.”
“…Kiddo…Kiddo…”
“Add honesty to the concepts Graham reinterprets creatively.”
“…the concepts Graham D. Warner distorts for more victim playing.”
“Rajinderweb is lying, Willard.”
“Add style to what Graham D. Warner fumbles.”
“You can add lying to the list of concepts that Graham D. Warner massacres.”
“…even Puffman is more honest than him, in a way.” “…the list of concepts Graham D. Warner abuses.”
“…the concepts Graham D. Warner butchers.”
“Kiddo has really grown into those big words, hasn’t he?”
“I mean, seriously – what kind of clown pens lines like this…”
“And Graham D. Warner wonders why he is called “Kiddo”.”
“…the number of concepts Graham has to distort…”
“…the concepts Graham has to twist to get his way.”
“…the whole Sky Dragon cranks’ playbook… “
“…the number of concepts Graham destroys to push his way through.”
“Kiddo…You’re not good at hiding your double standards.”
Thanks, Mark B and Willard.
Kiddo
“If they want to waste their time, and produce a document that only reflects badly on them, ultimately, please do continue…but, my arguments still exist, anyway, and they will be judged on their merits by any critical thinker regardless of all this nonsense about “personalities”.”
Any critical thinker will also keep in mind that Dr. Roy Spencer has adamantly defended the greenhouse effect from the Sky Dragons for the last 17 years:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
No matter what we say or do here, that fact is inescapable. Good luck trying to work around that.
Eldrosion,
Add reception to the concepts Graham misapplies.
Here are his latest scientific contributions:
– takes all his frustrations out on me
– is frustrated and angry because he still cannot understand
– feigns understanding after having followed the discussions for years
– thinks the GP is a heat source, but claims that it doesn’t transfer heat
– can’t ever admit being wrong
– remains clueless
– joins in for some more “false accusation” fun.
Much critical. So very thinking.
Do you think he’ll download Bob’s model to toy with it?
I’m sure a critical thinker won’t have any problem dismissing your appeal to authority, Eldrosion.
As for Mark’s comment that he wasn’t able to post in the right place – as a person, I’ve never had any credibility here. I’ve been treated like sh*t from day one. My arguments, on the other hand, seem to be taken very seriously indeed. That’s why the discussion goes on for such a long time. All I do is respond when people respond to me. People just cannot stop responding to me! That’s why I specifically highlighted that false accusation from Mark earlier – the claim that I want to keep the argument going. I’d actually love to just have my say and it be left at that…but people here just won’t allow it. They keep on responding. Their actions indicate they take my arguments seriously even though sometimes they might claim otherwise.
If I was posting something and nobody bothered to even respond to it, like often happens with Willard and others, I’d know that nobody takes my arguments seriously. Just like nobody here but Eldrosion takes anything Willard says seriously.
But, it seems that’s not the case. Unfortunately, it seems my arguments have credibility even if I don’t. I guess that’s the way it should be, really.
Sorry that you’ve all wasted twelve days of your time. Doesn’t bother me, doesn’t take me long to swat away your nonsense. But I can tell you’ve all put a lot of effort into your stalking and smearing. I feel bad for you, in a way.
Thanks for your failure, though.
Eldrosion,
Add critical thinking to the list of concepts Graham fetishizes for altercasting effect.
Let’s review this bidding:
[GRAHAM, TO MIKER ASKING HIM IF HE HAD ANOTHER PERSONA IN 2017] I wasn’t commenting back in 2013, either, but it’s easy to go back and read.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER, IN 2017] P.S: Owl and I are the same person.
Here’s one possible response to being caught lying:
[A VERY CRITICAL THINKER] Don’t forget to remind everyone that Mike R was an extraordinarily obnoxious, utterly relentless troll.
Does our very critical thinker recognize the fallacy he’s committing?
Don’t forget to count the number of comments he’ll produce while ignoring the dynamic model I just offered him. Because, science, it should go without saying.
Kiddo, I agree with you on one thing: you are taken seriously, which is why these discussions tend to go on for so long.
There are some really dedicated people on this board who make it their mission to fight misinformation, and that effort extends to debating you as well. It is a noble cause, and I have a lot of respect for them.
That said, I don’t think you should necessarily be included in that group, especially given that Roy Spencer has set certain standards for what counts as reasonable.
Also, it is clear that you’re not really challenging the greenhouse effect itself, but something else entirely.
Lastly, anyone who takes the time to read more peer reviewed literature and explore different aspects of climate science, they’ll begin to see just how interconnected the greenhouse effect really is. That’s why it’s considered a scientific theory rather than just a hypothesis.
Willard
I can’t quite understand Kiddo’s purpose here.
Is he trying to undermine Roy Spencer and make his threads harder to follow? If that’s the goal, then he’s succeeded, as Svante mentioned:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220411032510/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-538843
… but if anything, that actually harms Roy and, by extension, skeptics more than it does alarmists, the latter being his primary target.
The most likely scenario is that DREMT genuinely believes some of the skeptic Sky Dragon content from people like Joe Postma and Claes Johnson, but is frustrated that hardly anyone takes it seriously. As a result, he lashes out by trolling.
He’s even said that lukewarmers are a problem:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220418215846/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-407881
If this is truly the case, then the state of climate science must have a strong hold on his emotional state for him to obsessively troll the alarmists on this board for nearly 9 years. And yet, he talks about us wasting 12 days.
Sure, fighting misinformation is a noble cause. That’s partly why I comment.
Mostly it’s just to explain the science behind the absence of that ol’ GHE. I notice that, for example, Eldrosion is certain I must be wrong…but seems to know next to nothing about the science of the GHE. When Clint tested him recently he didn’t even seem to know anything about “the 33 K” other than it had something to do with the GHE! Eldrosion seems unclear that there are multiple different versions of the GHE that have been proposed over time, but they all have one thing in common – at some point they all rely on “back-radiation warming/insulation” to work. That’s the linchpin, as it were. And, that linchpin is most easily described and analysed by something called, “the Green Plate Effect”.
You see, even if the GPE were correct, there are still plenty of arguments to be made against the GHE. But, if it’s wrong, there’s definitely no GHE. So, anyone with an interest in science really ought to be making it their mission to falsify the GPE. That’s why it’s so strange that so many commenters on here try to defend it. The only thing people should ever defend against is misrepresentation, IMO. However, since I’m not misrepresenting the GPE, but only challenging it based on the science involved, I don’t get why I receive so much pushback, and not more cooperation.
Eldrosion,
You’re right that Graham is muddying Roy’s well. But that’s Roy’s well. Not our farm. not our pig. His last comment to you illustrates the kick he is getting out of trolling people here. Take his claim that he’s only responding to people. This is obviously false. Witness his first comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733263
He’s also equivocating when he suggests that responding to him increases the value of his argument. That’s also false: nobody really takes Sky Dragon cranks’ arguments seriously, perhaps including Sky Dragon cranks themselves.
Many commenters are or were teachers, some of them of physics. They value the human predicament enough to never lose hope. Over the years, Graham must have had something like 100K of professional tutoring. And he indeed learned a few things, though he won’t ever really admit it, or when he does it’s very subtle.
I don’t share that avocation. What Sky Dragon cranks say is too silly to merit much consideration. What they *do*, however, is more interesting. Take how Graham don’t correct Norman’s belief that Graham studied physics: as far as I know, Graham was more vague than that. Or take how he ignores the dynamic model of Eli’s plates I just offered him. Or take how he almost succeeded in diverting you from the lie he told Mike R. That takes some predisposition not everyone has.
*That* is noteworthy. At least to me. So if there’s time lost, it’s mostly on the side of the crank who was already tilting 9 years ago.
“You’re right that Graham is muddying Roy’s well.”
No, he’s not.
“Take his claim that he’s only responding to people. This is obviously false.”
My claim is:
“I’d actually love to just have my say and it be left at that…but people here just won’t allow it. They keep on responding.”
As shown by your link. I had my say (started a thread) and would have been happy to have left it at that…but people won’t stop responding to me.
“That’s also false: nobody really takes Sky Dragon cranks’ arguments seriously, perhaps including Sky Dragon cranks themselves.”
Of course they do. They demonstrate that they do. Want to not take them seriously? Don’t respond.
“What Sky Dragon cranks say is too silly to merit much consideration”
You’re not capable of understanding what we say.
“What they *do*, however, is more interesting.”
Yes, you’re more interested in “personalities” than “arguments”. We know. Because you have nothing to offer the blog, because you have no understanding of the relevant science.
“ So if there’s time lost, it’s mostly on the side of the crank who was already tilting 9 years ago.”
No, it’s on the side of the various people focusing on “personalities” instead of “arguments” over the years. I’ve been refining and improving my arguments over that time, whilst others have been sharpening their ad hom skills – which convince nobody rational at the end of the day.
Eldrosion,
Add claim to the list of concepts Graham can identify properly.
Here’s the claim he’s playing dumb about:
[GRAHAM] All I do is respond when people respond to me.
That has been falsified right from the start of this month.
As for Graham’s true intentions, who knows. He’s a known liar, and could very well be lying to himself too:
[GRAHAM, TO MIKER ASKING HIM IF HE HAD ANOTHER PERSONA IN 2017] I wasn’t commenting back in 2013, either, but it’s easy to go back and read.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER, IN 2017] P.S: Owl and I are the same person.
***
When do you think he’s gonna come back with his own dynamic model of Eli’s plates?
As usual, Willard simply can’t accept when he’s wrong.
Eldrosion,
Add usualness to the concepts Graham tortures.
According to Graham, this:
is supposed to refer to “I’d actually love to just have my say and it be left at that…but people here just won’t allow it. They keep on responding.” Yet here’s what he elides:
That claim is false. Witness his first comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733263
So Graham is lying by omission once again. Why? Three very simple reasons. He just can’t accept that he has been caught lying, and that this will remain a stain on him forever:
[GRAHAM, TO MIKER ASKING HIM IF HE HAD ANOTHER PERSONA IN 2017] I wasn’t commenting back in 2013, either, but it’s easy to go back and read.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER, IN 2017] P.S: Owl and I are the same person.
Also, he still pretends that he’s HErE fOR THe sCiENcE when he diligently ignores the dynamic model of Eli’s plates I posted:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Third, he’s playing You Made Me Do It and Poor Me. Graham is blaming Mike R for having lied to him. Graham is blaming people for always replying to them. They’re very mean, you know. As if his “thanks for your failure” directed to you wasn’t abusive.
All of this confirms that Graham hates accountability.
See what I mean? He absolutely cannot bear it.
Willard
Yes, Kiddo does not hide his bait very well. In addition to what his comment you linked to, his first comments in last month’s thread were also PSTs that he initiated himself.
I also share your view that his behavior is more interesting to observe than to engage with directly. There are other ways to interact with him besides diving back into the thick of a 9 year “debate.” Though maybe once in a while it could be entertaining.
And yes, it is hard to know what his true intensions are but the targeting of specific groups repeatedly does give strong clues.
“When do you think he’s gonna come back with his own dynamic model of Eli’s plates?”
Never. He still has to answer to this challenge:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
That is really the crux of the issue. Sure, you can point out perceived inconsistencies, highlight areas where the greenhouse effect model is not perfect, or argue over terminology. Every scientific model has open questions. What is ultimately achieved if your critique fails to contribute constructively or produce clearer understanding?
Kiddo needs to explain why Roy Spencer adamantly defends the GHE.
He doesn’t present science in a convincing way.
Eldrosion joins Willard in being wrong. I clarified what my claim was, and you keep attacking the straw man!
Funny.
“All of this confirms that Graham hates accountability.“
This made me chuckle. Pure projection – I’ve never seen Willard admit to anything. I explained his act of online harassment here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734065
He won’t ever address it. He just doesn’t take it seriously! Online harassment is a crime, but he seems to think it’s some sort of joke.
As does Eldrosion. I made it clear I found his behaviour intimidating, explained why, and he just continued “dropping hints” that he somehow knew all about me already, despite being new to the blog. The video, “Kiddo”, Midas instead of Ant.on.in, Rajinderweb…none of it he should have known about! Creepy stuff.
It’s probably all my fault, according to them…
Rajinderweb lies.
Eldrosion trolls.
Eldrosion,
Add intimidation to the concepts Graham “you-appear-to-be-an-offensive-sack-of-human-waste-that-is-dribbling-his-repellently obnoxious-horseshit-all-over-the-feet-of-his-genetic-superiors-you-will-be-forever-silent-as-befits-a-lesser-human-being-in-the-face-of-his-eternal-glorious-betters-shut-up-you-do-not-have-the-right-to-speak-you-are-a-hated-abomination-of-human-filth-and-God-himself-wishes-you-to-be-eternally-silent” Warner expresses Very Deep concerns about.
You’re right – you guys would know much more about intimidation than I do.
And, that comment you reference is hilarious! A satire of the relentless condescension I receive. I know, you have no sense of humour. That’s OK.
Eldrosion,
Add hilarity to the concepts Graham distorts.
Another of his jokes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1448744
Even more amusing:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597550
That’s “just a song”, right?
Graham will need to confront the fact that victim playing is a classic form of intimidation.
Talk about a relentless, malevolent force. They just do not stop!
Most amusing to be proven right over and over again.
Eldrosion,
Add malevolence to the concepts Graham disfigures.
Here he is, once more playing the victim card. Just like his song Breakneck, which he clearly said was inspired by some of the people here. For months his sock was “Halp-less”, a name based on Eli’s real name, for years it was Roy’s moderator. Now it has been shown that he’s a serial liar. About his behavior (“All I do is respond when people respond to me.”), about his identity (“I wasn’t commenting back in 2013, either“), and most of all about his interests. Graham D. Warner isn’t here for the science. The main things he does is to provoke and quarrel.
At least he cherry-picked a quote from Bob’s presentation, so things are improving.
Willard,
Another one of Kiddo’s jokes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190610113439/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323463
I noticed that Kiddo commented below saying he wants Ball4 and Nate to start fighting again. Why would you want that, if not to prolong the “debate,” as Mark B pointed out?
Hilarious! I clarified what my claim was, then they kept attacking the straw man anyway, and now I’m being told I lied about my own claim!
Astute readers will note that there is more dishonesty and underhand tactics on display from these two in this one sub-thread than they’ve been able to dig up from eight years of my comment history…
This is Kiddo.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Not really a “joke”, Eldrosion – I plain don’t like David App.ell – but there is a certain humour to it, yes. There’s all these old rivalries on this blog and so many people seem to hate each other, but they keep it hidden away under snarky comments and other passive-aggressive posts. I think it’s quite funny to come along and juxtapose all that with a simple, honest, straight to the point comment. It’s not my favourite example of it, though. The best and funniest example was when David said something about, “I’ll be blunt…” to someone and then I came along and said, “I’ll be blunt: you’re a thick, fat, [rhyming expletive deleted]”.
Anyway, you could search for that, if you like. I think it was under that same article that Midas (or one of his namesakes) told me that I should kill myself. I’ve tried to find that “kill yourself, DREMT” comment for some time. It would be good to have a link to that so I can prove how deeply inhuman some of the commenters on this blog really were/are. You’ll find many examples of extreme abuse vented my way including a few comments with “C-bombs” from bobdroege. That’s if you were interested in presenting a more balanced picture – which you’re not, of course.
As for your non-sequitur about Mark’s comment, I’m going to keep asking Nate to debate Ball4 and barry, and it’s most definitely not because I want to prolong the debate. It’s actually quite the opposite – it gets to the point where they stop listening to what you’re saying, and just keep repeating themselves. Nate’s been there for some time. I think that if he actually debated Ball4 or barry, they might be able to get through to him (I think he’s more likely to listen to them than me) and that would help bring the discussion to a close. After all, it’s Nate that keeps these things going for so, so long.
Eldrosion,
Add clarification to the list of concepts Graham obscures.
When was the last time did he volunteer any new scientific information to the community? In fact, has he ever? Everything said has become a reason for him to peddle chestnuts Roy explicitly stated he did not want to hear anymore. And that was more than a decade ago. Cranky stuff lost so many times their ghostly skeletons have been turned to ghostly dust.
His best joke will always remain:
[MIKER] I also note that you did not comment referring to the 2 plates back in 2017, unless you were using a previous persona.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] I wasn’t commenting back in 2013, either, but it’s easy to go back and read.
What a funny guy!
Willard
Kiddo really needs to cut those people some slack since he’s always poking the bear.
Cue the ‘poor me’ routine… you know, the one where he plays the victim every single time, rarely owning up to his part. Like, does he seriously not see how transparent his whole victim act is? Such a loser.
Obviously I am the victim, of this extended ad hominem attack.
Hard to be a loser when I’ve won so many arguments, including this one. Oh well.
Eldrosion,
Add ad hominem to the concepts Graham overburdens:
[MIGHTY TIM] Let’s see if you can work your way through a simple homework problem.
[GRAHAM] Paid sophist, begone.
Timing! Slapstick!
…his is Kiddo.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
…is is Kiddo.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Perhaps we should add Wilde’s caveat:
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1573259
Received in this one sub-thread alone, so far:
“Our Sky Dragon cranks…”
“…Sky Dragon cranks…”
“DREMT needs to get a girlfriend and some friends. Life off the internet exists too.”
“They’re cranks!“
“…his cargo cult science…”
“…always uses little dirty tricks like that.”
“…is lying by omission…”
“…so twisted…”
“…is more than playing dumb – he’s getting a thrill out of victim playing.“
“…still confuses his dirty tricks with science…”
“…his own Sky Dragon crank flavor…”
“…that silly Machiavellian…”
“They don’t teach anything to undergraduates anymore…”
“…he projects homicidal ideation onto his opponents…”
“…project his homicidal fantasies…”
“…indulge into more victim playing…”
“…the trolls here are our Sky Dragon cranks…”
“…twisted, deranged, manipulative behavior…”
“He’s here to deflect, disrupt, and denigrate.”
“…undermine the sincerity in your comment.”
“Double-Bind is Graham’s middle name…”
“…Kiddo…Kiddo…Kiddo…”
“Is there any depth to Graham’s victim playing?”
“…the usual manipulative crap…”
“Graham has no idea how to conduct a scientific discussion.”
“How does he know I am calling him ‘Kiddo’ for any particular reason? For all he knows, it could just be because he is acting like one.”
“…Kiddo…”
“The logic of the asshat that he is.”
“…Sky Dragon cranks…”
“Kiddo…Kiddo’s…Kiddo…”
“…his most trollish character…”
“…his cranky beliefs…”
“…the things Graham doesn’t properly grasp.”
“…our Sky Dragon cranks…”
“…disingenuous…”
“Deception is the operative word. It might also be his middle name.”
“…what Graham doesn’t fully master.”
“…what Graham D. Warner doesn’t really get.”
“…the list of Graham’s knowledge gaps.”
“…the list of concepts about which Graham plays dumb.”
“Kiddo…Kiddo…the reality is that DREMT doesn’t seem to like accountability.”
“…to what Graham likes to lie about.”
“As you can see, Graham’s understanding is like Archimedes’ lever, or perhaps more like Baron Munschausen’s pigtail.”
“Here’s how we dispel deception…”
“…a silly Sky Dragon crank.”
“…the number of concepts that escape Graham’s pragmatic sense.”
“…the list of concepts that escape Graham.”
“The only thing he earned is the door…”
“…the number of tasks Graham D. Warner consistently fails.”
“…Kiddo…Kiddo…”
“Add honesty to the concepts Graham reinterprets creatively.”
“…the concepts Graham D. Warner distorts for more victim playing.”
“Rajinderweb is lying, Willard.”
“Add style to what Graham D. Warner fumbles.”
“You can add lying to the list of concepts that Graham D. Warner massacres.”
“…even Puffman is more honest than him, in a way.”
“…the list of concepts Graham D. Warner abuses.”
“…the concepts Graham D. Warner butchers.”
“Kiddo has really grown into those big words, hasn’t he?”
“I mean, seriously – what kind of clown pens lines like this…”
“And Graham D. Warner wonders why he is called “Kiddo”.”
“…the number of concepts Graham has to distort…”
“…the concepts Graham has to twist to get his way.”
“…the whole Sky Dragon cranks’ playbook… “
“…the number of concepts Graham destroys to push his way through.”
“Kiddo…You’re not good at hiding your double standards.”
“…the list of concepts Graham fetishizes for altercasting effect.”
“…Kiddo…Kiddo’s…”
“…the kick he is getting out of trolling people here.”
“…nobody really takes Sky Dragon cranks’ arguments seriously, perhaps including Sky Dragon cranks themselves.”
“…the crank who was already tilting 9 years ago.”
“He’s a known liar…”
“…the concepts Graham tortures.”
“Graham is lying by omission once again.”
“Graham hates accountability.”
“Kiddo does not hide his bait very well…Kiddo…”
“Rajinderweb lies.”
“…the concepts Graham distorts.”
“…victim playing…”
“…the concepts Graham disfigures.”
“…once more playing the victim card.”
“…he’s a serial liar.”
“Graham D. Warner isn’t here for the science. The main things he does is to provoke and quarrel.”
“…Kiddo’s…Kiddo…”
“This is Kiddo…”
“…the list of concepts Graham obscures.”
“Cranky stuff lost so many times their ghostly skeletons have been turned to ghostly dust.”
“Kiddo…Cue the ‘poor me’ routine…his whole victim act…Such a loser.”
“…the concepts Graham overburdens…”
Eldrosion,
Add “overburden” to the list of words Graham tries to exploit.
Perhaps you missed the follow-up to an earlier comment “F***king wake up. There is no greenhouse effect” you quoted:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210613080201/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/#comment-418400
So add that to Graham’s list of lies.
PS: As a matter of Climateball lore, you might need to know that me and MikeR don’t see eye to eye on many things.
We’ll add this latest false accusation of lying to Willard’s list of lies.
…s is Kiddo.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.
Chartmaster Infusion, please stop trolling.
I butchered your YT channel name but still:
please stop trolling.
Eldrosion, please stop trolling.
P.S: I’m married. Sorry you have no sense of humour.
Please, Eldrosion.
It’s Graham D. Warner.
More so when he tries to PSTer you where he has no business doing so.
If you say so, Willard.
Trump won’t apologize for sharing since-deleted racist video depicting Obamas as apes on Truth Social
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/06/politics/donald-trump-obamas-apes-truth-social
Evolutionists believe we evolved from apes.
So is Trump making fun of Evolutionists?
No they don’t, because we are apes.
Just another science subject you don’t understand.
The Democrats are missing the important talking-point on this. Trump has lost his mind and he is getting worse with age. He continues to post memes and videos that appeal to the maturity level of preteens. Chris Christi claims that Republicans tell him in private that they are shocked by his behavior, but they are torn between his poor character and his good policies. They are afraid to speak out until now. This is the first time that large numbers have made comments. He, Christi, wants them to speak out more for the sake of the future of the party. The problem is that Trump still has tremendous support with working class conservatives.
The midterms are already gone, and one of the first things on Speaker Jeffries agenda will be impeachment. Do they need a reason? No, they never did before and did it anyway. Fasten your seat belts and get the popcorn ready.
Agreed. There are plenty of good reasons. Corruption. Abuses of power.
Trying to put a wedge between Donald’s character and his “good policies” reveals both political weakness and lack of judgment.
I’m not de facto the big fan of what is understood under AI, but however, I must admit that Google’s support has recently become much more effective when searching for either historical matter or hidden, complex technical details concerning the Linux variant I have on desk.
*
Thus, yes: what Google’s use of recent progress in deep machine learning for enhancing its search for things you want to know seems valuable to me.
*
Thus, I got once more a big laugh when asking Google whether the Tim S genius {you sure all remember, the all-time-better knowing guy who told us a while ago in a ‘Big Reveal’ that he came out of one of the worldwide most prestigious Universities} was right with his condescending claiming that
” The problem is that Trump still has tremendous support with working class conservatives. ”
*
Anwser from the deep machine learning corner:
” As of early 2026, Donald Trump retains a strong, foundational base among working-class white conservatives, but polling indicates this support has shown signs of erosion and “softness” due to economic concerns.
While these voters were instrumental in his 2024 victory, recent, early 2026 surveys suggest their approval has dipped, with some polls showing approval among non-college white voters falling below 50%.
Current State of Support (Early 2026)
– Declining Approval: Data from early 2026 suggests Trump’s approval among white working-class voters (non-college adults) is no longer as impregnable as in previous years. A Fox News poll showed approval in this group at 49% with 51% disapproving, marking a notable shift.
– Economic Disillusionment: The erosion of support is primarily driven by economic issues, including inflation and the cost of living, which has led some working-class voters to feel his policies have not delivered the promised “Golden Age”.
– Policy Friction: Some of Trump’s policies, such as tariffs, are unpopular with a significant portion of the electorate, including within his base, who believe they have increased the cost of living.
Factors Contributing to Support and Erosion
– The “Core” Remains: Despite the decline, white working-class conservatives remain the “load-bearing pillar” of the MAGA movement. Ideological alignment—rather than just economic dissatisfaction—drives this support.
– Ideology Over Economy: Studies of 2024 voters showed that conservative ideology (views on immigration, abortion, and cultural issues) was a stronger predictor of support for Trump among working-class whites than personal financial anxiety.
– Erosion in Other Groups: While white working-class support is softening, the sharpest declines in support for Trump in early 2026 were observed among the lowest-income voters. ”
*
I am far from wealthy; it is evident to me that people like Tim S and many other MAGAmaniacal Trumpistas watching this blog are conversely far too wealthy to care about the economic and social well-being of the working class.
**
Regarding the impeachment proceedings, the good Tim S Trumpista should rather refrain from his egomaniacal thoughts, and better think of fastening his own seat belts first.
He might very well be in for a big surprise in a few months.
Bindy,
You really haven’t got a clue what LLM are. They don’t reason, they don’t know, they don’t have any intelligence.
As usual, the QAnon boy posts his superficial, discrediting and denigrating trash without being able to provide for any valuable source backing his stupid allegations.
The best thing in theory would be to simply to ignore such trash; but then, people as dumb as QAnon would think I agree to it.
Above, barry tried to solve the easy problems.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733542
At least he tried. That puts him ahead of the other cult kids like Bindidon, Nate, Willard, Ball4, gordon, Eldro, and several others. I suspect barry just made a math error or typo, In his answer to Problem 1. His basic work seemed to be in the right direction. Previously, Norman was able to correctly answer Problem 1. Any responsible adult should be able to answer Problem 1. You shouldn’t even be commenting here is you can’t answer Problem 1. That’s why we know these named are truly “cult kids”. They have no interest in science or reality. Yet, like irresponsible brats, they all believe they’re “cute”.
I won’t go into the correct solutions yet. Maybe barry will be able to correct his answer. But, let’s cover some basic science that he’s still confused about:
barry says: I believe you are about to argue that no more heat can be added in problem 2.
barry believes that “heat” can be added. He’s still confusing “thermal energy” with “heat”. Again, “heat” is the transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”. It is NOT an object, like a rock. “Heat” is two things — a “transfer of energy”, and from “hot to cold”.
barry says: But the fundamental property of a blackbody is that it absorb ALL incident radiation.
barry continues to believe in black bodies. He apparently believes they are real and can defy the laws of thermodynamics. barry has a lot to learn….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
– At least he tried.
– That puts him ahead of the other cult kids
– I suspect barry
– Any responsible adult
– You shouldn’t even be commenting here if
– “cult kids” who have no interest
– like irresponsible brats, they all believe they’re “cute”.
– I won’t go into the correct solutions yet
– barry believes
– barry continues to believe
– He apparently believes
Is this…science?
That’s so “cute”, Willard. Thanks for proving me right, again.
An understanding of both “heat” and “temperature” are needed to understand basic thermodynamics. So, for responsible adults, here’s an easy-to-understand explanation of “temperature”:
A bucket of water has a temperature. Humans invented a way to measure that temperature. A simple mercury thermometer is placed in the water. The molecules in the water have kinetic energy — they are moving. As the molecules strike the glass tube of the thermometer, their energy gets transferred to the glass and then to the mercury. If the water is hot, the water molecules cause the mercury molecules to become more active, causing the mercury to expand, causing its level in the tube to rise. We calibrate the tube for whatever temperature scale we prefer — Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin (Absolute), Rankine, or other.
Simple.
Hey, Puffman, more “science” from you:
– That’s so “cute”,
– Thanks for proving me right
– So, for responsible adults
As Mark B observed last month:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1732960
Why the same riddle you made a hundred times already?
Once we have a basic understanding of “temperature” and “heat”, we can consider what is required to raise temperature. You guessed it — HEAT.
For example, a liter of water at 70 °F can have its temperature raised if poured together with another liter of water at 150 °F. The hotter water can raise the temperature of the colder water.
Notice that two glasses 70 °F water poured together would remain at 70 °F. More energy was added, but the temperature did not rise. Believing that more energy always increases temperature is one of the many flaws in the CO2 nonsense.
Easy to spot unscientific commentary, Puffman –
– Once we have a basic understanding
– You guessed it
– For example
– Notice
– Believing that
– is one of the many flaws in the CO2 nonsense.
Riddle me this: have you ever tried equations?
Clint R
How many times has your water example been explained to you. Are you really so dense and unthinking you cannot grasp the simplest of concepts??? Your water glasses remain at the same temperature because although you increased the overall energy you also increased the mass. You are aware that K.E.=(1/2)(mass)(velocity^2)??
If you double your Kinetic energy but double also your mass the velocity does not change. Hence the temperature will not rise. However in the reality of EMR, it is massless so adding this form of energy will not increase the mass but only the kinetic energy resulting in a higher temperature.
You and DREMT both peddle this totally false invalid “physics” that neither one of you can support that a colder body will reflect and not absorb incoming IR. It is a false notion. I know you have zero physics background Clint R. DREMT makes a claim he has studied physics but he can never support his ignorant and incorrect assumptions on how Radiant energy transfer actually works. There are multitudes of sources no the Internet that clearly explain it.
Clint R I do not expect you to be able to understand real physics. I do not grasp why DREMT pretend he studied physics when he posts made up foolish ideas and will not accept how wrong his conclusions are no matter how logical people attempt to reason with him.
More words being put in my mouth, I see.
Norman, I know you are obsessed with stalking me, but I have no interest in wasting time with you. If you can behave like an adult, and refrain from all the false accusations and insults, I’m willing to help you.
Your choice, be just another cult kid, or try to learn something.
Hey Puffman:
– I know you are obsessed
– I have no interest
– If you can behave like an adult
– and refrain from all the false accusations and insults
– I’m willing to help you.
– be just another cult kid, or try to learn something.
Where’s the science?
Clint, you are waffling. Being snide is no substitute for clear exposition.
You are using blackbodies in your scenarios, so don’t complain if others insist they obey the physical laws associated with them.
Blackbodies are constructs that, by design, 100% efficiently absorb and emit radiation.
The maths I did above, therefore, is correct. All the radiation is absorbed per area, yielding the emission per area, and thus the temperature via S/B law.
You definitely did something wrong, barry, as I know what the answer is to Problem 1. As in, the answer all those on your side of the debate would agree is correct. And, your answer wasn’t it.
All wrong, barry. You can’t learn. And your false accusations merely reinforce the fact that you’re a cult kid.
Thanks for proving me right.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Have you ever considered starting your own blog to share with the world your revolutionary ideas about science, truth, and belief instead of relitigating the same irrelevant talking points?
Ok,
Problem 1:
364 K
Problem 2
403 K
But Clint, your issue isn’t with the numbers.
Your issue is that Problem 2 should not have a different result to Problem 1.
Am I right or wrong about that?
You found your mistake, barry. Well done. But, you solution to Problem 2 is still wrong.
So of all the cult kids here, only Norman and barry were able to solve Problem 1. Why is that? Problem 1 is basic physics. It’s so basic even the cult goes with it. So when the cult kids can’t solve it, we know they haven’t done any homework. They’re just kids. Bindidon, Willard, gordon, Eldro, Nate, Ball4, and Mark B., just to name a few.
I’ll explain the correct solution to Problem 2 when I have more time.
Mark B
Yesterday I wrote to you about an idea to make generation of absolute data out of UAH anomalies much easier, i.e. without the need to access the 2.5 degree grid data.
I still can’t understand why people need absolute data (except those who don’t understand hence discredit the concept of anomalies), but if they want them, why not making their job simpler?
*
Each time I generate absolute data out of some rectangle within one of the four UAH layer grids, I also generate the 12 month baseline out of the same rectangle within the 12 month grid climatology.
And the first thing you see is that… they all differ:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1993FCvkjsinyfpmUIN04dQO_ocvL68D4/view
This is perfectly understandable, as baselines are nothing more than kinda concentrated summary of the absolute original data, e.g.
UAH zonal climatology for the Southern Hemisphere
Reference period: 1991 -2020
Mon: Kelvin | Celsius
Jan: 265.542 | -7.61
Feb: 265.585 | -7.57
Mar: 264.949 | -8.20
Apr: 263.821 | -9.33
May: 262.628 | -10.52
Jun: 261.693 | -11.46
Jul: 261.080 | -12.07
Aug: 261.018 | -12.13
Sep: 261.435 | -11.71
Oct: 262.273 | -10.88
Nov: 263.488 | -9.66
Dec: 264.752 | -8.40
Therefore, I think that if people absolutely need absolute UAH data, they should combine the zonal or regional anomalies not with the global baseline, but with the baselines specifically calculated for the same respective parts of the Globe.
Is that correct in your view?
Anomalies are essentially a metric of “deviation from normal” where “normal” is different for every location on earth due to seasonality, altitude, heat capacity, and so forth. Thus when one takes an average of a broad region it matters little what “normal” is for the individual components.
The absolute value has a less obvious physical meaning as the area of the region covered becomes larger, so I’d be hesitant to over interpret anything but the smallest region available for a particular dataset.
In statistical terminology absolute temperatures are a less homogeneous data set than than are anomalies.
mark…as I see it, absolutes measure ‘actual’ temperatures, while anomalies depend on a human defined baseline that varies significantly between satellite and surface temperature measurements.
That makes temperature measurements artificial in that humans are trying to define ‘normal’ using scientifically inadequate coverage in the case of surface measurements.
The argument on behalf of anomalies, from what I understand, is that they remove biases relative to altitude and latitude. Why the heck do we want to do that? Temperatures taken at various altitudes and latitudes are an intricate part of the actual physical planet.
Anomalies are actually at the root of the idea of catastrophic warming. When you reduce the claimed 15C global average to a scale of 1C, it exaggerates wildly the effect of that 1C. We have only had a 1C warming since 1850 and that is insignificant, considering it represents mainly a re-warming from the Little Ice Age. The contribution of CO2, a trace gas, is scientifically insignificant.
Seems to me that certain scientists are frustrated with the lack of significant thermometer coverage and wish to impose their own imaginative ideas on reality. It’s similar to alarmists redefining the 2nd law to make the AGW theory work.
The 2nd law forbids a heat transfer from cold to hot by its own means, and that presents a major problem to the GHE and AGW theories. So, they have redefined heat transfer as a two way flow of heat, form hot to cold and cold to hot, incorrectly referring to heat transfer as a net flow of heat.
“it exaggerates wildly the effect of that 1C.”
Not at all. In science or economics or finance, graphs are used to see CHANGE.
In all these cases, the range on graphs is selected to most clearly see the changes. That is not exaggeration.
How do you know that the ~ 1.5 C change since 1880 is insignificant?
Given that the change from glacial maximum to 1880 was globally only about 5-6 C, Id have to conclude that 1.5 C is getting significant.
It may mean the ultimate loss of W Antarctica ice sheets.
nate…turn up your room temperature by 1C and see how significant that is.
The actual graph should be in absolute degrees C and represent the full 15C of the global average, which itself is a bit of a scam. On that scale, the 1C would be fairly insignificant and not overdone as in anomaly scales.
It has taken glaciers some 170 years to get back to their present lengths after becoming enlarged during the LIA. That has nothing to do with the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Mark B
Thanks for the reply, even if you seemed to elude my question above.
Anyway, I’m quite confident in the correctness of the zonal baseline approach.
*
I see in Robertson’s trash for the umpteenth time:
” Anomalies are actually at the root of the idea of catastrophic warming. ”
*
Robertson has been shown so often this graph
Fig 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view
which clearly explains that anomaly trends don’t differ from absolutes, and that the vertical range of anomalies is of course smaller than that of the absolutes they were obtained from when plotted with the same scale.
But he will ignore that as he always ignores any contradiction and endlessly will repeat from scratch the same tremendously long posts whose technical and scientific content is inversely proportional to their size.
*
That absolute values are of fewest interest is evident: one just needs to compare the data for two or more UAH atmospheric layers in absolute form:
Fig 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B6Quqt7s0eBtxswudhtAZ8NnYCM6-exa/view
and immediately understands how useless this data is not only in the visula sense but above all for valuable comparisons: anyone who gained experience in comparing different data sets knows s/he will rather need their difference with regard to a common mean, e.g. in
Fig 3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19uKDjc7H3SvlMGUcuF3gCTPWpG_ceryC/view
*
Let alone would Robertson understand why these absolute values, even when transformed to relatives to a common reference, still cause bias problems when analyzed and compared, due to different annual cycles and spatial discrepancies.
This the reason why meteo and clim scientists compute in their time series departures such that the annual cycle is removed:
Fig 4
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kBkDZhSsVCHn7GOPp1SYl9tuyY4TsKec/view
*
Agreed: when looking at the running means in chart (3) resp. (4), one could justifiably ask: why do they remove then annual cycle?
The answer is that not the similar running means are the source of their analysis, but… the running means’ quite different sources.
I will explain this in more detail in a following comment, as the maximum number of links per post is limited.
*
People like Robertson clearly never had at any time to do with this context: they lack education, technical skills and experience.
However, this does not prevent them from constantly spouting their superficial, egotistical nonsense.
“The actual graph should be in absolute degrees C and represent the full 15C of the global average, which itself is a bit of a scam. On that scale, the 1C would be fairly insignificant and not overdone as in anomaly scales.”
Then the graphs would just show a bunch of wild noise.
No respectable scientist or economist or finance reporter would make graphs with the changes of interest intentionally obscured by noise!
Dum.
Gordon Robertson
Why can’t contrarians like yourself understand that when the average of a dataset shifts, the entire distribution shifts with it: making warmer extremes more frequent? This is not comparable to simply turning up your room temperature.
Atmosphere is very thin. Atmosphere doesn’t play a role of a warming blanket. The CO2 content (~0,042% or 1 CO2 molecule vs 2500 air molecules) is an infinitesimally small amount in an already thin atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Problem 1: A perfectly conducting sphere (emissivity = 1) receives flux from four sources equally spaced around its equator. Each source supplies 1000 W/m² to the sphere’s “disk”.
What is the sphere’s temperature?
Solution to Problem 1:
Consider one source at a time. Since the incoming flux impacts the sphere’s “disk”, the eventual emitted flux from the sphere will be 1/4 of the incoming, since the disk’s area is 1/4 of the sphere’s area. So using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, the temperature of the sphere can be calculated.
S = σT⁴
S = 1000/4 = 250
σ = 5.67/100000000
T⁴ = 250(100000000)/5.67
T = (4409171075)^0.25
T = 258K
Now add the second source of 1000 W/m². The emitted flux is now 500 W/m².
S = 500, T = 306K
For 3 sources, 750 W/m² emitted:
S = 750, T = 339K
For all 4 sources, 1000 W/m² emitted:
S = 1000, T = 364K
This is only at a high school level of physics. It’s not that complicated. That’s why it’s so instructive that very few of the cult kids could even answer Problem 1. The cult kids have no knowledge of the relevant physics, and can’t learn.
Problem 2: Two additional sources are added, above and below the sphere, each supplying 1000 W/m² to the sphere’s “disk”.
What is the sphere’s temperature?
Solution to Problem 2:
Now, it gets more interesting. Two additional sources are each providing 1000 W/m² to the sphere’s disk. But, the sphere is already emitting 1000 W/m². So the extra 1000 W/m² sources would have no effect. This is not intuitive, because without an understanding of thermodynamics it is easy to believe that the new flux would just continue to add. Without an understanding of photon absorp.tion and thermodynamics, the easiest way to understand is with the example of two glasses of water, both at the same temperature. Pouring the glasses together does not increase the temperature.
An arriving flux cannot warm a surface that is already emitting a greater flux. That’s why ice cubes cannot boil water.
“Now, it gets more interesting. Two additional sources are each providing 1000 W/m2 to the sphere’s disk. But, the sphere is already emitting 1000 W/m2. So the extra 1000 W/m2 sources would have no effect.”
So here you are saying that a blackbody does NOT absorb all incident radiation.
And this is the exact point at which physics and you part company. A blackbody is a construct that is DESIGNED to absorb all incident radiation. No physics textbook in the world supports your notion.
Years have passed and you have Not. Once. provided a reputable physics text to support this rejection of the standard blackbody definition. Even when asked a hundred times.
Not once.
Because you can’t do it. What you are proposing isn’t physics. It’s nonsense.
Sure, blackbodies aren’t real. But their properties are strictly defined. Your views reject their basic function. They are useful to you until they ruin your theory, then you arbitrarily redefine them as objects that only absorb all incident radiation under certain conditions (that coincidentally intersect with your beliefs).
DREMT does the same thing. He thinks blackbodies behave as mirrors as well as blackbodies.
‘Skeptics’ don’t accept standard physics. This is old news.
I see more words are being put in my mouth.
barry says: “Sure, blackbodies aren’t real.”
All the rest of his comment is just rambling nonsense. All of the CO2 nonsense is based on an imaginary object, or perversions of physics.
Skeptics need to see what is going here. Open your eyes. Try to understand the basic science. This nonsense has gone on way too long, and many Skeptics just keep debating nonsense. Hit the cult kids with REALITY. Don’t get distracted by their “red herrings”. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
” ‘Skeptics’ don’t accept standard physics. This is old news. ”
Exactly, barry.
And it is actually pure coincidence that the vast majority of pseudo-skeptics who constantly flood this blog with their nonsense in the climate context are also those who deny centuries-old scientific evidence for the moon’s rotation around its polar axis, all without being technically, let alone scientifically, able to refute the evidence.
Bindi, as usual you can’t support any of your beliefs.
1) You couldn’t answer either of the two simple problems.
2) You don’t have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
You’ve got NOTHING, except your childish nonsense.
‘Cultists’ don’t accept reality. This is old news.
Physics is full of ideal constructs – perfect vacuums, frictionless surfaces, perfectly rigid bodies, point masses – that aid understanding. And they are all strictly defined.
The ideal gas law doesn’t become PV=nRT+1 just because it suits your world view.
Blackbodies don’t stop absorbing radiation just to satisfy your beliefs.
Blackbodies absorb ALL incident radiation.
Emissivity = 1 doesn’t have a temperature limit.
If your view is at odds with standard physics, it aint physics.
barry, here you go again.
There’s nothing wrong with using the concept of unity emissivity. That makes solving problems easier. But, you can NOT use a concept to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
But you keep trying, because your cult needs to pervert science. And you’re a devoted child of the cult.
So, just keep proving me right. I like being right….
The GPE doesn’t violate 2LoT.
Summing radiation doesn’t violate 2LoT.
Neither of these things violate the tenet that blackbodies absorb ALL incident radiation.
But your view DOES violate the basic tenet of a blackbody.
Because your view is wrong.
You never deal with the fact that blackbodies absorb al incident radiation. You side-step this function every time you post when called on it. You don’t talk about it. You just say stuff.
You do not ever reply directly to the criticism that you cannot provide a reputable physics source that corroborates your view that blackbodies stop absorbing under the condition you have laid out.
You keep not dealing with this stuff. AT ALL. You avoid it.
You just keep asserting stuff and avoid dealing with stuff.
I’m not sure if you know this, or if you manage to fool yourself so well that you don’t realise this is what is happening.
But this IS what is happening, and other people reading these conversations are not fooled into missing what you miss.
Right now, you could either
a) provide a physics source that corroborates your view
b) explain why you do not provide such a source
Come on then.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
“you can NOT use a concept to violate the laws of thermodynamics”
Why do you think this does NOT apply to EVERY physical concept, and do you have a concept of a plan to finally say how the usual application of the concept of blackbody violated the laws of physics?
barry, you got ONE thing right: “Sure, blackbodies aren’t real.”
Black bodies are imaginary. So all of the rest of your comment is nonsense. You can’t pervert reality to save you cult.
Having child Willard support your nonsense is like throwing an anchor to a drowning person.
You cult kids need to grow up.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
(OK) There’s nothing wrong with using the concept of unity emissivity.
(NOT OK) Black bodies are imaginary. So all of the rest of your comment is nonsense.
Which one is it?
Okay barry, since you believe two additional 1000 W/m² can raise the temperature of the sphere that is already emitting 1000 W/m², then you must also believe that 10 more such sources would raise the temperature even more. And, you must then also believe that an infinite number of such sources could raise the sphere to an infinite temperature!
(Can you figure out what’s coming next? Are you starting to fell silly yet?)
“Black bodies are imaginary.”
Then why do you use them in your problem?
And why do you then stop using them when they no longer help your beliefs?
Why do you morph them into equally imaginary perfect mirrors?
None of it makes sense.
The point is bodies with emissivity 0.99 do exist. You could use them in your problem, get nearly the same results for the first few cases.
Then they would continue to have emissivity 0.99 for all the cases. They would not ever transform into mirrors.
And the results would prove your narrative wrong.
Hence, your flimsy ‘blackbodies are imaginary’ excuse would not allow you to escape physics jail.
Child Nate, as usual that’s all wrong.
But if you believe black bodies are real, you get to argue with barry. He knows they are not real. He at least has that much correct.
You’ve got NOTHING.
You also have poor reading comprehension.
I never said black bodies are real. I did say bodies with emissivity 0.99 exist, which nullifies your silly excuse.
Your physics is, as always, fraudulent. As Barry pointed out, you never offer a source to back it up.
Luckily, as a troll, you dont need to make sense.
Child Nate, I know you can’t solve any physics problems, but see if you can answer a simple physics question:
Are black bodies real or imaginary?
“you must also believe that 10 more such sources would raise the temperature even more”
Yes, a blackbody absorbs all energy irradiating it.
“you must then also believe that an infinite number of such sources could raise the sphere to an infinite temperature”
Nope. View factor prevents an infinite number of sources that have a finite area.
But it’s not the number of objects that matters for this. A single point source emitting infinite energy would give the sphere an infinite temperature.
Mathematically this works. However, it breaks 1LoT. Energy can’t be destroyed or created. It also is physically impossible, as you can’t have photons within photons in an infinite energy density.
An infinite number of dimensionless point sources each yielding 1000 W/m2 to a sphere causes the same 1LoT violation and physical limit violation. There is a real physical limit to how much energy can be packed into a volume and thus, how much can arrive on the surface of the sphere, and it’s not set by the temperature of the sphere.
If you have a problem with blackbodies being conceptual rather than real, don’t use them. Your own answer for the sphere temp is therefore incorrect, as there is no such thing as a blackbody sphere. The temperature has to be lower than you think, as emissivity < 1.
I can tell you’re getting nervous, barry. You’re feeling the pressure of being trapped in your own nonsense. That’s why you’re meandering off topic, trying to provide cover for yourself. You’re making a big deal about “infinite”, and trying to change the sphere to an imaginary black body. Just more cult tricks.
So, to get back on topic, you believe 10 more sources would raise the temperature to the corresponding S/B value. That would be 6 + 10 = 16 sources, or an incoming flux of 16000 W/m², resulting in a sphere temperature of 515K. And it follows that you would believe a total of 100 such sources would provide a temperature of 815K.
We don’t even have to add any more sources to show how silly that is. Just change the 100 individual incoming fluxes to 300 W/m² each. In your mind that means the sphere is absorbing 30000 W/m², resulting in 603K.
Now the effective temperature for 300 W/m² is about the same as an ice cube. So in your perverted physics 100 ice cubes could bring the sphere to about 603K, 626°F, 330°C!!!
Thanks for being such a gullible cultist. It’s very educational for others.
[For responsible adults, 100 ice cubes equally spaced around the sphere would raise the sphere to about the freezing point, 273K, 32°F, 0°C. Radiative incoming fluxes don’t simply add.]
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
“I can tell you’re getting nervous”
Is this science, and why would you think anyone would worry about you falling back on your silly ice cubes?
“You’re making a big deal about ‘infinite’ ”
It was your idea. I challenged it, and you’ve just conceded the point by trying to ridicule your own notion instead of defending it. So – infinite energy is a dumb suggestion.
“trying to change the sphere to an imaginary black body”
The temperature solution you say is correct for your problem works only for a blackbody. Emissivity = 1, or the temperature must be lower. You made it a blackbody, not me.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
“Now the effective temperature for 300 W/m² is about the same as an ice cube. So in your perverted physics 100 ice cubes could bring the sphere to about 603K”
Uh-oh! You’ve confused the emitted flux of the source with the arriving flux on the surface. Again!
It’s not possible for an ice cube to irradiate a surface with 300 W/m2.
Unless the field of view of that surface is completely filled by the ice cube; F=1.
But if the field of view is completely filled by the ice cube…. you can’t add any more ice cubes to irradiate the object. The radiative geometry forbids it.
You don’t understand any of this.
Solar irradiation on Mars is approx 308 W/m2, accounting for angle of incidence. About an ice cube’s worth of energy arriving at the surface. Do you think the sun is an ice cube? And do you think adding further suns around Mars wouldn’t increase its temperature?
Clint,
Are bodies with emissivity 0.99 real or imaginary?
If real, then do you understand that means they ab.sorb 99 % of EM radiation they receive?
If so, do you understand that such bodies cannot reject 100 % of radiation they recieve from slightly warmer warmer bodies?
If not, explain how emissivity = 0.99 bodies can morph into emissivity =0 bodies, when near slightly warmer bodies?
That means child Nate can’t even answer a simple question about physics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734076
Too many distortions and twists to correct there, barry. So I’ll just pick out my favorites.
* The problem specified the sphere’s disk. So no
“view factors” are involved. A source can provide 1000 W/m² to the disk, or 300 W/m², or any other value.
* If you actually understood science you would know that a sphere can be irritated by an infinite number of sources in a thought experiment. In actuality, the number could easily exceed millions.
* I specifically used a phrase like “unity emissivity” so you cult kids couldn’t pervert the laws of thermodynamics. But of course, you try anyway.
* Your value for Mars solar irradiation is wrong, but since it’s just another of your red herrings, I’ll won’t comment further.
What will you try next?
“I know you can’t solve any physics problems, but see if you can answer a simple physics question:
Are black bodies real or imaginary?”
Already answered.
But you seem mentally incapable of answering my simple questions:
You say: “Black bodies are imaginary.”
Then why do you use them in your problem?
And why do you then stop using them when they no longer help your beliefs?
Why do you morph them into equally imaginary perfect mirrors?
Poor child Nate still can’t answer the simple question.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734076
“I specifically used a phrase like ‘unity emissivity’…
Which is a blackbody, Clint. Emissivity = 1.
YOU made the sphere a blackbody, not me.
“If you actually understood science you would know that a sphere can be irritated by an infinite number of sources”
Sure, in a failed thought experiment. The result would be impossible – it breaks 1LoT with the result of infinite energy. If YOU actually understood science you would know that.
“The problem specified the sphere’s disk. So no ‘view factors’ are involved.”
What??? View factor is not eradicated by specifying a 2-dimensional asset.
You can’t have an infinite number of sources because that breaks 1LoT. So the sources must have dimension and a finite number of them.
An ice cube can only irradiate a sphere per the distance from the sphere and the relative area being irradiated.
Now let’s test you, Clint.
One 1 centimetre cubed ice cube irradiates a 1 metre squared sphere at a distance of 1 centimetre.
What is the received flux?
Now figure out how many ice cubes it would take to irradiate the sphere to the temperature of an ice cube.
Finally, work out how many 1 cm cubed ice cubes could fit around the 1 metre square cube at 1 cm distance.
Compare that answer with your intuition.
Barry says “Uh-oh! You’ve confused the emitted flux of the source with the arriving flux on the surface. Again!”
Yep, Clint has been doing this for a few years now. :-/
Let’s quote Clint:
“Problem 1: A perfectly conducting sphere (emissivity = 1) receives flux from four sources equally spaced around its equator. Each source supplies 1000 W/m² to the sphere’s “disk”.
What is the sphere’s temperature?
Problem 2: Two additional sources are added, above and below the sphere, each supplying 1000 W/m² to the sphere’s “disk”.
What is the sphere’s temperature?”
Since he doesn’t make any provisions about the nature of the sources, then it should be true for any sort of sources.
So — here is a pre-problem to study and understand.
Problem 0: A perfectly conducting sphere (emissivity = 1) is surrounded by a large spherical shell (also emissivity = 1) The shell is at 1152 K, emitting 100,000 W/m^2.
What is the sphere’s temperature?
Well, I think we are all in agreement that the sphere inside would also be 1152 K. The sphere receives 100,000 W/m^2 and emits 100,000 W/m^2
On to Problem 1! I now cut away 99.75% of the shell, and I have a single small hot source — a small, bright heat lamp. That small patch provides [an average of] 0.25%*100,000W/m^2 = 250 W/m^2 to the sphere. T(sphere) = 258 K
Add back 2 or 3 or 4 of these small, hot 1152 K patches from the original shell. The [average] flux arriving at the surface goes up to 500, 750, 1000 W/m^2, and the temperature goes up to 306, 339, 364 K. EXACTLY AS CLITN CALCULATED.
But we don’t need to stop there!
* 6 patches –> 1500 W/m^2 and 403 K
* 10 patches –> 2500 W/m^2 and 648 K.
* 100 patches –> 25,000 W/m^2 and 815 K
We *do* have an upper limit. Once we hit 400 patches, the sphere is 100% surrounded, receiving 100,000 W/m^2 –> 1152 K. We cannot
‘more than 100% surround’ the sphere with hot patches.
***********************************
Back to Barry’s original comment, Clint does indeed seem to assume that if the sphere is RECEIVING a beam of 1000 W/m^2 (250 W/m^2 averaged over the whole sphere), then the source must be EMITTING 1000 W/m^2.
Of course, if the source WERE at 364 K and EMITTING 1000 W/m^2, then the limit is 364 K. Four sources would 100% surround the sphere and you can’t ‘more than 100% surround’ the sphere to add yet more flux.
But there is nothing in the problem that requires the sources to be 364 K.
In fairness to Clint, he often does stipulate such that he recognizes the difference between emitted and received flux, but he sometimes forgets, as above.
Good example, Tim.
The argument Clint is trying to make is the same old ‘fluxes don’t add’. The reason he makes mistakes and ties himself up so often is because his belief is faulty, and he keeps trying to reengineer science to prove it.
Comically and typically, he tries to dismiss counter argument by pointing to the theoretical nature of blackbodies, seemingly unaware that all his own examples rely on them. The current ‘problem’ he is testing has a blackbody at the centre of it, but he is unfathomably ignorant of this fact in his own thought experiment. Does he not know that emissivity = 1 is a blackbody?
He surely does not know that E = 1 means that ALL incident radiation is absorbed.
He seems to think that a blackbody in equilibrium cannot absorb more radiation than it is emitting, if the new source of radiation provides equal or less flux than the blackbody. A proposition found in no physics text in the world.
But you can find such a proposition in a tiny number of very specific locations – blogs that are in opposition to the mainstream science of global warming. Fancy that.
“The GPE doesn’t violate 2LoT.”
barry’s in denial.
DREMT, I encourage you to do your civic duty and visit the nearest university to explain to them how they have been teaching thermodynamics incorrectly all these years!
Tim’s in denial.
It’s strange how we are part of a ‘cult’, in denial, slaves to groupthink or whatever.
Because so must be Roy Spencer, John Christy, Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen and all the AGW ‘skeptics’ who have degrees in relevant Earth sciences.
They all acknowledge that the GHE works by slowing the escape of energy from the surface.
What is the name of the cult that these people belong to? What are they in denial about regarding the GHE?
barry’s denial continues.
Folkerts joins In with the other cult kids trying to totally distort reality. Like barry, and the others, he can clog the blog with nonsense, but can’t answer a simple physics problem, or even a simple question.
That just shows how effective DREMT and I are….
barry says:
”It’s strange how we are part of a ‘cult’, in denial, slaves to groupthink or whatever.”
Don’t be so sensitive. Mainstream science is constantly being overturned.
There are fundamental and logical issues to consider when you engage with DREMT’s arguments. I think I am in agreement with DREMT on his point of view but notice he doesn’t explicitly argue the alternative so it can be difficult to glean where he is coming from.
Consider this and Roy agrees with this as I have seen him flat out state it.
We have an earth system. Surface and atmosphere and one role nobody can argue with is that GHG’s cool the upper atmosphere.
Then you employ some logic. Where do they start warming the atmosphere? and why is that. Out of that emerges the image of the high troposphere hot spot to which I am still awaiting the paper that makes the case that co2 above the hotspot is the point where the lower atmosphere gets hotter. In the traditional theory I am going to outline for passive solar energy, yes the upper atmosphere will cool faster than the lower atmosphere but that falls short as a heating source and we need to explain heating near the surface.
There is a 2,000 year old technology that was used commonly up until the time that cheap fossil fuels became available and then it took a century for people to largely forget the technology.
Its called passive solar heating. I got interested in it during the 1973 arab oil embargo. People started installing active solar water heating solutions by pumping water with an electric pump through roof top collectors down into an insulated water container on the first floor or in the basement.
But a small group of folks were aware that this could be done without an electric pump simply by putting the water tank above the collectors and allowing a natural diurnal circulation of the water through the collectors with the warmest water in the top of the storage tank.
An engineer who lived off the grid in Oregon gave me a tour of his house and his systems that provided hotwater even in the coastal, socked in, and rainy areas of Oregon maybe 15-18 miles as the crow flies to the coast.
I was amazed and studied the physics around it and started designing a number of passive solar systems and gleaning new ideas from the few books available for architects and off gridders describing an array of these types of systems both active and passive. They not only included water heating but space heating as well.
I haven’t seen anything anywhere in mainstream science that rules this out as identical to the greenhouse system of the earth.
We know to increase the GHE you have to increase the temperature of the view of the atmosphere by the surface.
That means the atmosphere has to warm first and in the parlance of passive solar technology ”sequester” that heat. How would it do that? Well one way is by having a lot of the heat sequestered in molecules that don’t radiate IR like nitrogen and oxygen that makes up 99% of the atmosphere or more.
During the day the surface warms from sunlight up to 56C and floats them into the atmosphere. Additionally water vapor adds latent heat from evaporation in vast quantities. But water vapor emits IR so thats offset by radiation to space. But what offsets to space or anywhere else heat in 99% of the molecules that can’t radiate IR? If the atmosphere can’t cool from a lack of IR emission capability what cools the upper atmosphere. Desert heat in the atmosphere will dominate because that oregon coast heat is cooler and can’t rise its trapped not by GHGs, but from the lack of GHGs.
Add GHGs and those molecules will cool the atmosphere to space and to the surface anywhere the surface is cooler than the hot gases from the desert heat trapped there. Heating ceases when the view of the atmosphere by the surface equals the temperature of the atmosphere.
To warm the surface further you need to warm the atmosphere or warm the surface. Either way you do it both will get warmer. Add more GHGs and either you need to narrow the window to space or higher in the atmosphere. When you can’t do that any longer that’s the concept of saturation that scientists argue over and nobody probably told you much of anything about due to its capability of opening a can worms and the elite scientists making careers on this do not want to inform the mushroom farm.
So try opening your mind to this yourself and abandon the clinging to authority.
bill,
“It’s strange how we are part of a ‘cult’, in denial, slaves to groupthink or whatever.”
“Don’t be so sensitive”
Sensitive? I’m pointing out the strangeness of these epithets – not their emotional content – in light of the view that these criticisms must equally fall on the well-credentialed ‘skeptic’ scientists who patently agree with the GHE and specifically do NOT agree with DREMT, Clint et al.
If people are ‘cultists’, or in denial because their understanding of the GHE is in line with the IPCC, then that criticism must equally fall on the shoulders of Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Anthony Watts etc, who all agree that the GHE does not violate the 2nd Law, and that is a real phenomenon as explained by mainstream science.
I’m not hurt by the epithets, I’m exposing the mindlessness and the myopia behind them. And if you’re in doubt about Roy’s view on GHE/2nd Law, I’ll quote him for you:
“The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation, including cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow, the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still, as evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
And
“But the atmosphere DOES absorb IR energy. The IR absorption coefficients at various wavelengths, temperature, and pressures have been measured for water vapor, CO2, etc., in laboratories and published for decades.
This absorption means the atmosphere also EMITS IR energy, both upward and downward. And it is that DOWNWARD flow of IR energy (sometimes called ‘back radiation’) which is necessary for net warming of the surface from the greenhouse effect.
(Technical diversion: This is where the Sky Dragon Slayers get tripped up. They claim the colder atmosphere cannot emit IR downward toward a warmer surface below, when in fact all the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require is that the NET flow of energy in all forms be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is still true in my discussion.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
These are only two of many Roy Spencer posts on the matter.
Roy completely agrees with what I and others have said here, and is in complete disagreement with what Clint and DREMT and others have argued regarding the GHE and the 2nd Law. He even criticises the Sky Dragon Slayers whose views are promoted here by DREMT and Clint (Sky Dragons argue that the GHE violates the 2nd Law).
But my point is not that his expertise should be deferred to, it’s that he would not be cast as a ‘cult’ member, or in denial, even though he holds the same view I do.
The tacit hypocrisy from some of the regulars here is worth noting.
“So try opening your mind to this yourself”
Do you not see that this advice is far more fitting for those who dismiss opposing arguments as ‘cultism’ and ‘denial’?
What stops you giving that advice to Clint, I wonder?
barry, you guys just have to try and make everything about Dr Spencer.
I was responding to your comment about the GPE not violating 2LoT, in your view. I’ve demonstrated that it does, and I think you’re in denial. You can’t refute the logic I presented. In fact, you won’t even address it.
Not Dr Spencer.
You.
(8) What if the plate and the energy source were external to the system?
Above, Folkerts perverts the simple physics problem I provided.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734392
But, beyond his usual perversions, he made a major mistake in physics. Let’s see if any of the cult kids can find the mistake: barry, Nate, Willard, can one of you correct Folkerts?
I won’t hold my breath….
There’s really no need to yet again repeatedly refute DREMT’s GPE logic after that logic was thoroughly refuted last month especially when DREMT has presented nothing new this month. Both GPE plates warm to Eli’s 1LOT equilibrium temperatures for no violation of 2LOT.
Poor Ball4, I always forget to include you. You’re just so ignorable.
But, since you showed up, help the other cult kids to find the mistake in Folkerts’ nonsense.
[Even a combined effort from the kids won’t work. They’re clueless about the relevant physics.]
Yes Clint, you’ve correctly spotted a spelling mistake in Tim’s comment. However, Clint R 9:45 am is just imagining a physics mistake in the linked comment which is typical for the often humorously wrong Clint. Others have also shown Clint’s physics answers to be wrong, no need to repeatedly show Clint’s physics errors when others have accurately done so; I’ll just quietly laugh at Clint’s failed attempts at correct physics.
“barry says: It’s strange how we are part of a ‘cult’, in denial, slaves to groupthink or whatever.”
The troll playbook prioritizes emotional engagement over authentic discourse. In this framework, the speaker’s actual convictions are secondary to the reaction they elicit.
It’s only if one expects authentic discourse that the statements and behaviors seem strange, but that’s clearly not what’s going on.
Mark, do you want to try some science:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734531
Or just stick with your psychobabble?
Yes, Mark…so the constant, relentless stream of abuse I’ve received proves that you’re all a bunch of trolls. Thank you.
DREMTL: “I was responding to your comment about the GPE not violating 2LoT, in your view. I’ve demonstrated that it does”
If you have indeed demonstrated such a thing, then publish a paper. Convince physics and engineering professors of your remarkable discovery. Your brilliance is being squandered here!
The GPE wasn’t published in a paper, Tim. Just a blog post.
Now it’s been refuted at another blog. “The circle is complete”.
(9) What if we could interpret Eli’s setup as a dynamic system while still using algebra instead of calculus?
The cult kids can’t find Folkerts’ obvious physics mistake, as predicted. That’s because they don’t have any knowledge of the relevant science. That’s why they can’t understand the violation of 2LoT in the plates nonsense.
Most adults could understand there can’t be multiple solutions for the same problem:
“W/m²” omitted for clarity
“Tb” = Temperature of blue plate
“Tg” = Temperature of green plate
“Fb” = Flux from blue plate
“Fg” = Flux from green plate
Correct (only one solution)
In——-Tb———-Tg———-Fb—–—Fg
400—-244K——244K——200———200
Incorrect (multiple solutions)
In——-Tb———-Tg———-Fb——–Fg
400—-262K——220K——267———133
400—-264K——217K——275———125
400—-267K——210K——290———110
400—-270K——205K——300———100
Note that the bogus “RHTE” gives all the multiple incorrect solutions. (How many do you want?) That’s one of the reasons it’s bogus.
DREMT,
If you want to discuss anything with me I need an answer from you, as I said.
Does the following equation determine the direction of heat flow between two parallel blackbody plates?
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
I will need you to confirm or deny that before we discuss anything else. Saying that there is no heat flow between plates of the same temperature does NOT answer my question. Let T₁ and T₂ be different temperatures.
A proper answer will begin with a Yes or a No. Thanks.
“In——-Tb———-Tg———-Fb—–—Fg
400—-244K——244K——200———200”
And here is the obvious mistake in your analysis.
Heat flows from warmer regions to cooler regions. There must me a temperature difference to drive a heat flow. You have a heat flow from Tb to Tg with no temperature difference.
Clint,
In—Tb———-Tg———-Fb—–—Fg
400—-244K——244K——200———200
Blue plate receives 400 and emits 200.
Green plate receives 200 and emits… 200?
Nope you’ve created energy in the GP that is not available to it from BP.
There is no possibility that a blackbody plate receiving half the energy of its twin can be the same temperature as its twin. This is the fundamental error in your (and DREMT’s) solution.
In——-Tb———-Tg———-Fb——–Fg
400—-262K——220K——267———133
This is the correct solution. The others you noted are incorrect. The 2-plate system is emitting a total of 400 W/m2 to space, same as input. Also, and importantly, the GP is emitting half the energy of BP, which it MUST DO, because it only receives half the total energy emitted by BP.
The cult kids can’t wait to prove me right, again.
Folkerts clearly doesn’t understand the correct solution. There is NO “heat flow” — only flux. He can’t understand that flux is NOT heat.
And barry STILL can’t understand the simple diagram!
Science is not for kids….
“If you want to discuss anything with me…”
…I don’t. There’s no point discussing anything with somebody who is in denial. You cannot refute the logic I presented up-thread.
You <a href=https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734527keep trying to talk to me DREMT, so don’t pretend you’re not interested.
I’ve laid down exactly the same condition to continue talking as you gave me, which I promptly fulfilled. If you can’t return the courtesy, then that’s on you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734632
Yeah DREMT, barry is just trying to bait you. He has no interest in science, or reality. He can’t even get the bogus equation right: Q = σ(T1⁴ – T2⁴).
In thermodynamics, “Q” is energy, as in Joules. “Qdot” is heat, as in Joules/second or Watts. And barry left out the “area” on the left side of the equation. So he ends up with equating “energy” with “Watts/m²”! And, it should be Th and Tc, rather than T1 and T2. The poor child can’t get anything right.
Even if he knew how to write the correct equation, it would be wrong. Fluxes do not simply subtract. And there is the “area” problem, which is probably why he left it out. He’s made a mess out of a mess.
Kids these days….
Q = heat transfer between two bodies at different temperature. This is standard notation.
Q =/= “energy”.
We have always held that the plates are plane parallel, blackbodies, and of infinite size, same as in the GPE we’ve always discussed. We’ve ALWAYS assumed the plates are irradiated by the same energy flux emitted by the other plate. Area and emissivity are thus not required in the equation.
To quibble about this now is the height of dodginess.
My question as stated includes such details:
“Does the following equation determine the direction of heat flow between two parallel blackbody plates?
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)”
The question has been avoided, quibbled about, hand-waved, but not answered. DREMT helpfully pointed out that heat does not flow between bodies of the same temperature, avoiding the question while pretending to have answered it.
let the plates be a different temperature. The answer should start with a Yes or a No.
Every time the question is not answered affirms that it is threatening to your position, DREMT.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qdot
is this why Sky Dragon cranks are acting like Nigerian princes, and why would you need more than one lamp in every room of your house?
If, for the sake of argument, I answer “yes”, barry just argues that the BP is at all times either the same temperature or warmer than the GP, and so the equation shows heat flows always from the BP to the GP, not the other way. This ignores the question of how the BP gets to be warmer than the GP in the first place. It completely ignores the entire argument I laid out up-thread, which he cannot refute, and which settles the issue.
So, I do not bother arguing with those in denial.
8:28 am: the entire argument DREMT laid out up-thread was thoroughly refuted last month which quite obviously settles the issue in barry’s favor since DREMT has presented nothing new. Both GPE plates warm to equilibrium as shown by Eli long ago so no violation of 2LOT.
The kids are quick to prove me right, again. They don’t know anything about science, and they can’t learn.
“Q” is used in thermodynamics as the symbol for energy, usually specifically thermal energy. Q(dot) is used for “heat”. Q is a quality–energy. Q(dot) Is a rate–energy/time. So 1LoT can be written for either rates or quantities.
The bogus equation is easily debunked just by showing the number of possible solutions for the same situation–infinite! That ain’t science.
Also, notice the inanity of barry’s statement: “There is no possibility that a blackbody plate receiving half the energy of its twin can be the same temperature as its twin.” All barry has to do to prove that wrong is put the two plates together!
Kids these days….
Entertainer Clint R 9:09 am is humorously wrong yet again. Q is equal a rate of change of internal energy, say in Eli’s plates (dU/dt) in thermodynamics so Qdot would be an acceleration. Clausius’ U is a quantity.
Correctly, Eli’s GPE has only one solution at steady state temperature equilibrium as shown long ago but an infinite number of transient solutions some of which Clint R & DREMT show above.
Clint R these days…still good, laughable entertainment.
The GHEDT (GreenHouse Effect Defence Team) always deploy Ball4 late in the day. He never comments early on in the month. I think it’s because he’s such an obvious troll that they worry Dr Spencer might ban him…so they figure, “we’ll roll him out later on in the month when it’s less likely Dr Spencer will see his comments”.
“BP is at all times either the same temperature or warmer than the GP, and so the equation shows heat flows always from the BP to the GP, not the other way.”
Hooray! Argument is over.
“This ignores the question of how the BP gets to be warmer than the GP in the first place. It completely ignores the entire argument I laid out up-thread, which he cannot refute, and which settles the issue.”
Ooops. Logic missed again.
This settles the question of how the BP does NOT get warmer: by energy transferred from the GP.
Any argument claiming it does, and that such is a 2LOT violation, can be safely dismissed as impossible.
Nate – I understand all your arguments. You don’t understand mine.
“If, for the sake of argument, I answer “yes”…”
How about answering for the sake of a clear exchange with no evasion? The equation, as you well know, properly determines heat flow in a radiative environment based on the classic definition.
“barry just argues that the BP is at all times either the same temperature or warmer than the GP, and so the equation shows heat flows always from the BP to the GP, not the other way.”
Close enough. At the same temperature there is no heat flow, of course. Amd yes, the equation shows heat always going from BP to GP when there is a temperature difference. This is, after all, the definition of heat flow. As you well know.
“This ignores the question of how the BP gets to be warmer than the GP in the first place.”
It does, but I have not ignored your “irrefutable logic,” on the contrary I have commented on it many times, as i’m about to repeat.
“It completely ignores the entire argument I laid out up-thread, which he cannot refute, and which settles the issue.”
The argument you lay out is not based on the classic definition of heat flow. You are simply trying to crowbar in your interpretation by pure assertion. And by pure assertion, I mean you assert your explanation as determining the direction of heat flow when it is not.
I’ve in numerous ways laid out why this is the case, including the scenario of sealing a room with a door that cools in contact with the cold outside, while making the room warmer by impeding heat loss.
Your response is that you can point to a specific energy flow from the cooling to the warming object in your radiative scenario, and that this vector of energy flow represents “heat” transferring from the cooling to the warming object.
And I always reply that a vector of energy is not heat, which is quite true, and that heat is not a quantity contained in an object that is ferried to another. A temperature change does not determine heat flow. Only the temperature difference.
Heat is one thing only – a transfer of energy from one object to another due to a temperature difference.
That’s it. That’s the only definition there is. Your explanation flouts the classic definition, and therefore it is wrong.
It’s as simple as that.
You have played with the 2-plate setup and come up with other examples to try and justify your foregone conclusion, that a cooler object can’t make another one warmer.
I’m still not sure how you hold this position when blankets and sweaters work. I can’t remember if you think that radiative transfer is somehow a special case that can’t operate the same way convection can, where a cooler object can be configured within a system to make another object warmer.
But there is no special condition for radiative transfer that allows you to ignore the NET transfer of energy that governs the direction of heat flow, in favour of your explanation which treats ‘heat’ as determined by the change in temperature of two objects due to a change in energy distribution.
So yes, the equation that is the actual determinant of heat flow – the equation you are so reluctant to deal with – nixes your self-styled “irrefutable logic.”
It’s not irrefutable logic, it’s simply a belief in a definition of heat flow that is wrong and contradicted by the actual definition of heat flow.
Now, you can keep asserting that your framing remains untouched by these comments, or you can deal with these remarks.
Specifically, your definition of heat flow is based on a change in temperature rather than a difference in temperature, and that this is NOT how heat is defined in classic thermodynamics.
barry “There is no possibility that a blackbody plate receiving half the energy of its twin can be the same temperature as its twin.”
Clint “All barry has to do to prove that wrong is put the two plates together!”
Well done, Clint, you’ve made a salient point. I assumed that both plates would be radiating from both sides. If they are pressed together, the shade-side plate now only loses heat from one side instead of two, and thus equilibrates to its perfectly conducting twin.
When they are separated and radiating from both sides, it is simply not possible for GP to get half the energy of BP and be at the same temperature.
Here you go, barry:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to space, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are all already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli’s solution, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
and
“What we’re trying to do is analyse a system, change one part of it, and observe what happens as a result. Obviously (you would think it would be obvious) the part that has been changed is responsible for what we observe to happen. But, for some reason, Nate believes that what has been observed to happen is not caused by the part we changed – instead he believes it is caused by a part of the system that remains constant throughout (the output from the Sun)! That is where he’s going wrong.”
and
“The key problem is that “back-radiation warming/insulation” is not actually insulation, nor does it function like insulation. Insulation is like your “dam in the river” – a physical barrier to the flow of heat. Reflection provides that, for radiative insulation. Insulation does not involve internal energy from the cooler object being transferred to the warmer object where it supposedly builds up at the expense of the cooler object. “Back-radiation warming/insulation” does involve that. Which is why it’s physically impossible.“
When logic remains unchallenged, it stands. That’s how this works.
Did you find another equation you can’t understand, barry? Does this one match units? Because your last one had energy = energy/time/area. The units don’t even match. That ain’t science.
If you’re going to try to fake a knowledge of physics, at least get your units right.
Kids these days….
On the subject of “trying to fake a knowledge of physics”, have any of you cult kids found the classic error in Folkerts’ nonsense?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734392
Further reading for barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733960
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734228
(12) What if we instead assume that the right hand side of the blue plate can emit in an infinite number of directions?
“Nate – I understand all your arguments.”
Sure because they are actually logical and fact based. Your problem, is you cant point out any flaws in the logic or facts.
That is when a debate ends for normal sane people.
“You don’t understand mine.”
I cant accept arguments of yours that ignore contradictory facts, as yours do.
I understand the flaws in your reasoning, and point them out.
Just restating the argument, without dealing with its flaws and contradictions will never convince anyone.
“After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
Unphysical starting point.
But I think your main problem is you are mixing up ’cause’ and ‘mechanism’
Just because you can say something caused something doesnt mean your claimed mechanism is correct.
The mechanism that you want, is that te GP transferred its internal energy to the BP, which warmed it, and cooled the GP.
But that contradicts the available facts. It is impossible for the reasons pointed out many times.
You thus need to consider an alternate mechanism, involving the transference of internal energy from the Sun to the BP, and from the GP to space.
Let’s review your diagram, DREMT.
You have 400 W/m2 from point source sun to BP, 200 W/m2 from BP to space in the direction of the point source sun, and 400 W/m2 going from BP to GP.
That 400 W/m2 (2 X 200 W/m2) leaving BP and heading to GP is where the problem lies.
BP is a blackbody. It must radiate energy equally from both sides. But you have one side sending 200 W/m2, and the other sending 400 W/m2.
Where does the extra 200 W/m2 come from?
Apparently, it is the energy from GP being reflected by BP.
Can’t happen. BP is a blackbody. Emissivity cannot be 1 and 0 simultaneously. E is a fixed sliding scale from 0 to 1. If BP is a mirror on the GP side, then it is emitting no energy to GP. If it is a blackbody, it can’t reflect GP energy, only absorb it.
This is where your diagram fails, and you have no physical explanation for it, only that it MUST be this way (because of your belief that 2LoT is violated by the GPE).
Which is argument from conclusion, or begging the question.
Your diagram is non-physical. I wonder if you will address this criticism and try to explain the mechanics of how one face of BP is both a perfect emitter and perfect reflector at the same time.
Or any physical explanation that doesn’t make the conclusion the justification would be welcome.
DREMT, I hit the wrong reply button, so the conversation continue here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734864
OK, Nate.
(No point trying to reason with him)
“The mechanism that you want, is that te GP transferred its internal energy to the BP, which warmed it, and cooled the GP.
But that contradicts the available facts. It is impossible for the reasons pointed out many times.”
Nate,
In all our scenarios, including DREMT’s, including plates at equilibrium, internal energy is constantly being transferred between them. That’s because both are blackbodies emitting and absorbing the other’s energy.
In typical descriptions of heat flow with temperature change involved, the hotter object permanently yields some of its internal energy to the cooler object, cooling while the latter warms until they equilibrate.
This, I believe, is the basis of DREMT’s attempts to claim a 2LoT violation.
But those typical descriptions of heat flow involving temperature change do NOT have a heat source powering the energy distribution (and redistribution) between the two objects.
You correctly point this out, as well as the NET transfer, while DREMT relegates to irrelevance all but the new vector of radiation (plus temperature change) in determining heat flow.
It is no problem that GP permanently yields some of its internal energy to BP uon energy redistribution (let’s go with the conductive model to avoid the physical impossibility of the starting point of DREMT’s recent construct), because BP is ALSO gaining energy from another source that GP does not get energy from. The redistribution of energy explains the temperature changes, but it does not violate 2LoT, because Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) determines heat flow, not DREMT’s selected events in the energy redistribution.
I believe DREMT relies on the example of closed system thermal dynamics to argue what should/should not happen in a system where energy crosses the boundary.
In a powered system, temperatures of objects internal to the system can change in all directions depending on how the system is reconfigured.
I can pick up a rectangular piece of wood lying by a fireplace and use it to seal a window leading to the freezing cold outside. The wood cools, the room warms. Has the wood given up its internal energy to the room?
Obviously 2LoT isn’t broken. All that has happened is that the system has been reconfigured to change the way the energy flows through it. And this would not be possible without a heat source.
The bidirectionality of radiative transfer is being mistaken for heat distribution. That’s all that’s happening here. A single vector of radiation does not contain heat, nor does a change of temperature, nor even does both occurring at the same time determine heat flow in a closed system. Only the net exchange of radiation determines heat flow in a radiative environment.
“Which is argument from conclusion, or begging the question.”
False. The 244 K…244 K solution involves no circular logic whatsoever. The chain of logic to get to a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution is one thing. Once that’s understood, then you realise that the “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP must be returned to the GP. That’s another thing. The two “things” are separate.
“The chain of logic to get to a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution is one thing”
2LoT violation? That’s about heat, isn’t it?
In Eli’s solution there is always more energy going from the warmer to the cooler object. Heat flow is in that direction, per 2LoT.
Your chain of logic perforce rejects this definition of heat flow.
You think that the process by which the objects change temperature determines heat flow. You rely on a temperature change rather than temperature difference to determine the direction of heat flow.
If you think I’m wrong about this, would you kindly speak specifically to what I just said instead of just repeating your thesis?
barry, the question you should be asking is, “how does the BP get to be warmer than the GP?”
Stop worrying about the direction of heat flow at Eli’s “equilibrium”.
You keep thinking I’m denying that if the BP is warmer than the GP then heat is flowing in that direction. I’m not denying that, but it’s besides the point.
It’s about “dynamics”.
“barry says: Which is argument from conclusion, or begging the question.”
If we’re nitpicking, DREMT is misapplying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to a single term in the system description rather than looking at the net entropy of the system. So his failure is arguing from a false premise which leads to the physical problems in his solution. That is, his “logic” may be ok, but his application of physics is wrong.
But, again, I believe his objective is to extend the “debate” (which he’s apparently done for about 9 years), not to provide any useful insight.
“It’s about “dynamics”.
So you assert. But heat flow is not determined by your ideas about dynamics.
“You keep thinking I’m denying that if the BP is warmer than the GP then heat is flowing in that direction. I’m not denying that, but it’s besides the point.”
No, that IS the point.
If you agree that heat flow is determined by the temperature difference, not the process that causes temperature change, then the GPE does not violate 2LoT.
“barry, the question you should be asking is, ‘how does the BP get to be warmer than the GP?’ ”
I’ve described in numerous ways, including the accurate way.
None of the processes defies the classic definition of heat flow.
If you’re not denying the classic definition of heat flow then you can’t say the GPE breaks the 2LoT, because the 2LoT is not concerned with the process by which temperature change occurred, only that there is a temperature difference.
So what ARE you talking about if not direction of heat flow or 2LoT violation?
“OK, Nate.
(No point trying to reason with him)”
Yeah there is no point when you have no answers.
Just in these last few comments by Barry and me, your argument has not just been challenged, its been demolished!
What can you do?
Lie. Repeat your false claims. And pretend your ‘logic’ has not been refuted.
Pathetic.
Barry,
All good points. DREMT simply has no sound rebuttal. So he just keeps repeating his illogic.
No one is buying it.
“It is no problem that GP permanently yields some of its internal energy to BP uon energy redistribution”
What I have been saying is that whatever energy is transferred from the GP to BP is immediately returned. So there is no NET movement of internal energy from cold to warm.
I dont believe we should think of it as blue energy and green energy. Its all just energy.
The Net loss of internal energy from the GP is due to its transfer to space, without replacement, due to reduced heat flow from BP, before equilibrium is reached.
“But, again, I believe his objective is to extend the “debate” (which he’s apparently done for about 9 years), not to provide any useful insight.”
Yep.
The goal to take down the GHE as violating 2LOT is no longer attainable. Most likely they realize that.
The goal has morphed into ‘Keep Zombie Argumrnt going’ regardless of cost.
Veracity, credibility, and respect are all sacrificable to that cause.
Trolling to annoy people is now the primary goal.
barry’s stopped listening, and Nate and Mark ramp up the false accusations and insults. Nate must be especially annoyed now barry has gone and made the biggest concession this “debate” has seen in years:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734877
Oh well.
barry says:
”bill,
“It’s strange how we are part of a ‘cult’, in denial, slaves to groupthink or whatever.”
“Don’t be so sensitive”
Sensitive? I’m pointing out the strangeness of these epithets – not their emotional content – in light of the view that these criticisms must equally fall on the well-credentialed ‘skeptic’ scientists who patently agree with the GHE and specifically do NOT agree with DREMT, Clint et al.
If people are ‘cultists’, or in denial because their understanding of the GHE is in line with the IPCC, then that criticism must equally fall on the shoulders of Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Anthony Watts etc, who all agree that the GHE does not violate the 2nd Law, and that is a real phenomenon as explained by mainstream science.”
———————————-
Seems to me your problem is you don’t know who a cultist is. Heaven’s Gate cult wasn’t a cult only because they killed themselves. They were a cult because they believed the world was coming to an end.
None of the names you mention above are cultists. Flat not.
To be a cultist you have to believe something that isn’t true or highly unlikely to be true.
I think its OK to think CO2 could cause some warming. But non-cultist scientists like the ones you named don’t pretend to know by how much. They understand that feedback is a pretty universal idea of unknown quantity. Further science obviously calls anything feedback that causes either the sky to get warmer or the surface to get warmer after that one additional IR absor-p-tion in the sky, whether by a feedback transfer of energy by collision or by radiation. Then they make this big leap that they know the answer to what happens after say an additional watt of energy is being absorbed per meter squared. Now we are into cultism because not even half the excess energy even gets radiated. A lot more is lost by collision than radiation. To which they simply keep the same assumption half will be radiated up and half down. Convected heat though, particularly water vapor is going to be going up not down and if you make the local sky slightly warmer that means its going to slow condensation. Oops. Ah the conveyor belt of convection that speeds radiation to space from higher altitudes by not allowing anything to cool up there under a steady insolation because its going hold tight to the massive packet of latent heat until conditions are right to release it. . . a process that effectively goes extinct at the top of the tropopause and works like an classic four deep line of British Highlander riflemen making for much more intense fire than a single line. Perhaps even to the extent it blocks downward radiation because the line behind is the same temperature as the front line.
Can anything break through this? Sure if its got more firepower, machine guns, and tanks. But as you go up you get less firepower when you get less water vapor.
So if you ignore this you shouldn’t be preaching dangerous warming from CO2. You should be asking questions and trying to find answers for them. If you aren’t doing that you are a cultist, unless of course you aren’t saying anything at all. One trait of cultist is his jaws keep flapping and avoiding the hard questions.
When you encounter a skeptic here you will hear a lot of doubt about that jaw flapping. DREMT spends a lot of time trying to get the cultists in here to answer his questions. I don’t doubt that CO2 has contributed to the GHE. But I don’t its got any juice left with actually science assuming the radiating hard surface is the same temperature as the air above it before it has a chance to materially cool with altitude.
Myself I think we are going to get an answer to some of those questions going forward and depending upon if CO2 emissions increase substantial or solar activity does we are very likely to see a slowing in the warming trend over the next 30 years, perhaps longer.
Except there’s no 2LOT concession at all in DREMT’s 11:29 am link, DREMT is just erroneously dreaming again.
MarkB had it right all along:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733708
Graham will nevertheless soldier on, because that’s what he does. Because that’s what he did under various “personas”, some more deceptive than others.
Because that’s all he can do.
I didn’t say it was a “2LoT concession”, Ball4.
We’re getting there, though.
Mark B, Willard
“You’ve taken a scenario that can be solved using straightforward static thermodynamics, reframed it as a dynamic problem”
That might explain why Kiddo said earlier:
““Back-radiation warming” is not like insulation, as I’ve already explained up-thread, Eldrosion. You’d have to refute the logic I’ve already presented re the plates”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734002
We’re getting there, though.
“None of the names you mention above are cultists. Flat not.”
Neither am I, but I get called a cultist for having the same view on the GHE as those ‘skeptics’.
Oh, barry. We get called every name under the Sun!
And DREMT shows us that he’s continuing to live in a fantasy world where if he just ignores the fatal flaws in his arguments, they will be forgotten, and his absurd debunked notions will eventually be accepted…
And one question. How is the ‘equilibrium temperature’ of a body defined and determined?
Lacking that, it seems to be just another vague term that can be tossed out, declaring that they know it cant be what we say it is.
The “equilibrium temperature” is the temperature the plate comes to at that distance from the Sun, at equilibrium. All agree the equilibrium temperature of the BP is 244 K, for instance. That’s the temperature that the Sun alone can heat the BP to, without insulation. Add a perfectly reflecting plate to the right of the BP, and you could get the BP up to 290 K. But, the 244 K is the equilibrium temperature.
Nate likes to pretend that the basis of the arguments are “vague phrases”, but the phrases themselves are irrelevant. Semantics is irrelevant. What is important is what is actually meant, and that has been clearly explained throughout. Just a bit of irrefutable logic and “absolute rational clarity”, that’s what has been brought to the table. No biggie, just the refutation of a very silly thought experiment from a very silly man. An easy win for Team JITH (Justice, Integrity, Truth and Honesty).
“Add a pefect reflwcting plate to the right of the BP, and you could get the BP up to 200 K”
OK. Very good. So you understand that With 2 sides radiating to space at 0 K, you get 244 K , but with only one side radiating to space, at 0K, you get a higher equilibrium temperature, 290 K.
Because equlibrium is reached when the heat input = heat output— energy balance. And that can only be determined by a mathematical solution as Eli does.
With the GP in place, you have only one side of the BP radiating directly to space and the other side radiating to a GP at 220 K (Eli) or 244 K, so you SHOULD be able to understand why you cannot possibly get 244 K for equilibrium anymore.
Take it down-thread, Nate.
“Back-radiation warming” is not insulation, though. As explained, and not refuted.
Nate says:
”With the GP in place, you have only one side of the BP radiating directly to space and the other side radiating to a GP at 220 K (Eli) or 244 K, so you SHOULD be able to understand why you cannot possibly get 244 K for equilibrium anymore.”
Your problem is exposed with the sphere model.
If the GP is not insulated it provides no resistance to energy traveling through it.
But you are begging the question by guessing at a forcing that causes the BP to warm which you have set arbitrarily defining a resistance of R-2.0 like everybody wants to do with the sphere model.
It virtually impossible to find any science supporting the GPE including its most fundamental premise of insulation value of R-2.0
Why wouldn’t with zero insulation the emitting blue plate at 244k and 200w/m2 out of both sides of the BP plate simply flow in two directions with zero resistance offered by the GP?
You also must consider that radiant emissions are the weakest form of energy transfer so as energy engineers understand some low levels of insulating resistance can still be considered to be conductive provided the path isn’t too long. Obviously a thin plate has a short path.
As I see it you have identify a resistance first in order to define a forcing in this type of situation. And you just guess at it.
So your answer is begging the question with opinion rather than science.
Myself I am going to keep figuring it in the same way as the less complex sphere model where there is no other path available using the principles actually taught to energy engineers in building construction.
As I see it the R-2.0 assumption arises out 2 cooling processes occurring in the atmosphere, both radiation and convection. This provides the basis for the cooler GP and the convection effect is mistaken as a radiation effect that is then used to violate 2LOT by having a cooler object flow heat to a warmer object. Simple error for a random guy in a bunny suit to make.
If you consider how well you are doing in criticizing current science understanding on the matter exemplified by your non-specific criticisms of https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf all I can say is Good Luck.
“If the GP is not insulated it provides no resistance to energy traveling through it.”
Oh? You think radiant energy can pass right through an opaque object?
Try again.
Any thin opaque material, like the plates being discussed, can block radiant energy–provide shade.
I think you might be aware that it is warmer in the shade than in the sun.
Shade that cools is not provided by perfectly conducting objects.
Oh? Again with the conductive plates can’t be opaque?
You will literally try any nonsense!
Correction:
“I think you might be aware that it is cooler in the shade than in the sun.”
And BTW, vacuum has 0 thermal conductivity!
Shade that cools is not provided by perfectly conducting blackbody objects.
Unsupported nonsense assertions. In vacuum warming and cooling is entirely by radiation. Not conduction.
Example, the BP is warmed by the sun’s radiation, and is cooled by its radiation to space.
If that radiation is blocked by an opaque plate, then warming or cooling is reduced.
You never listen to what people are saying, Nate. It really is a waste of time talking to you.
Awww, nobody listens to your unsupported nonsense assertions..
How bout posting facts and logic thinking instead?
bill originally wrote:
“If the GP is not insulated it provides no resistance to energy traveling through it.”
Which you immediately misrepresented with:
“Oh? You think radiant energy can pass right through an opaque object?”
Which is, quite obviously, not what bill was saying. I tried to explain to you the same thing he was saying, with a simple sentence that would require you to actually think for yourself about the issue…but of course you also twisted that up into a pretzel.
Now you act like I’m “complaining”. I’m not. I’m just acknowledging there’s no point talking to you.
Nate says:
“If the GP is not insulated it provides no resistance to energy traveling through it.”
Oh? You think radiant energy can pass right through an opaque object?
——————- –
good catch nate improper wording. it should read relatively less resistance than emissions.
But do you think that matters? if so explain.
Nate says:
March 1, 2026 at 2:29 PM
Awww, nobody listens to your unsupported nonsense assertions..
How bout posting facts and logic thinking instead?
————————-
Nate having no rebuttal based in science resorts to ad hominems.
Debate over Nate loses.
Bill takes issue with ad homs?
Im STILL waiting for you to provide answers to the basic science challenge that I gave you. How do you justify creating energy from nothing in your spherical shell? Where does its emirtted energy come from?
Dont expect me to ever answer your questions, if you refuse to answer mine.
I’ll bookmark this discussion to remind you.
Nate still hasn’t responded to my point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735841
and he most likely never will.
FALSE
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1736171
Nate is not listening, once again.
Nobody is buying your crap.
If you say so, Nate.
[GILL] N having no rebuttal based in science resorts to ad hominems. Debate over N loses.
[ALSO GILL] LOL, N believes in science coming from an anonymous blog owner disguising his identity with a full body bunny suit. Thats funny enough but it gets more hilarious.
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
OK, Willard.
Well, these 7 points are fact-based and answer your questions about how and why the BP warms via the sun’s heat, with no need for heat transfer from the GP, or a 2LOT violation.
So if you will not refute these 7 points, then we will have to assume that you cannot.
And that signals the end of the debate about a 2LOT violation.
Down-thread you go, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1736218
DREMT,
“Only the ‘back-radiation’ transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli’s solution, the plates progress to 262 K… 220 K…and, that is all and only because of the ‘back-radiation’ transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the ‘back-radiation’ transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
Yes, this is exactly how I described your mistaken definition of heat flow.
A change in energy distribution results in a change in temperature of two objects.
You believe that the flow of heat is determined by the change in temperature of the two objects + a single vector of energy, instead of applying the correct definition of heat flow, which is the NET transfer of energy from a warmer to colder object.
Your train of thought is logical, it all makes sense, and is a partial description of what is happening. You assert that the other energy vectors (sun to BP, BP to GP) are unimportant because they were already present before the new vector of energy emerged.
But this train of events is absolutely NOT a replacement for the true definition of heat flow in classic thermodynamics.
You believe it is, even to the point of rejecting the classic definition of heat flow, which immediately counters your proposition.
Sometimes your next move is to demand an example of a violation of 2LoT re the 2 plates, if your example is not it.
So here that is in simple math:
T₁ > T₂
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
Q < 0
In simple terms, 2LoT is violated when the temperature of BP is greater than GP, but the NET energy transfer is from GP to BP.
This all falls within the classic definition of heat.
Your "irrefutable logic" does not.
In reply to me above all you've done is repeat yourself. but you haven't addressed my remarks. Shall we give you another chance?
You define heat flow as the change in temperature between two objects due to an energy redistribution. But the definition of heat regards only the difference in temperature between two objects.
Do you agree that your description rejects the temperature difference being the defining factor of heat flow?
Yes, barry, you always want everything done your way. Your way or the highway, right?
But, your 3:32 PM essay contained numerous misunderstandings about my arguments so I thought it best to first repeat what my arguments actually are.
“Yes, this is exactly how I described your mistaken definition of heat flow.”
I don’t mention “heat” at all, I mention internal energy and its build up in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. We can get on to discussing “heat” and 2LoT later. What I would like is for you to concede that the logic I’ve presented finally settles the issue that the “back-radiation” transfer does indeed build up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
Because I’ve tried for years to get that through to you guys and you’ve simply refused to accept it.
“You define heat flow as the change in temperature between two objects due to an energy redistribution”
We’ll get into this later, but I can’t help but laugh at the way you’re always telling me what I think.
“What I would like is for you to concede that the logic I’ve presented finally settles the issue that the “back-radiation” transfer does indeed build up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
I thought I covered that when I said:
“Your train of thought is logical, it all makes sense, and is a partial description of what is happening. You assert that the other energy vectors (sun to BP, BP to GP) are unimportant because they were already present before the new vector of energy emerged.”
But I’ll be more explicit.
The “back radiation” of the now-cooling object adds to the energy being supplied to the warmer warming object by the sun, resulting in an increase in its internal energy, while the cooling object now loses a portion of its its internal energy to the warmer object.
Do I need to copy your exact phrasing or will that do?
“I don’t mention “heat” at all”
It is the point of the conversation. You want me to relegate all other energy flows to irrelevance and pretend we’re not talking about the direction of the flow of heat. And you say it’s my way or the highway?
Okay, I hope I’ve phrased your argument correctly. What is your next point?
I’ll keep reminding you of my last question as we go – no ultimatums yet – and trust that you will answer it soon without equivocating.
Do you agree that your description rejects the temperature difference being the defining factor of heat flow?
Finally, barry concedes that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
It’s been like getting blood out of a stone.
I could almost cry tears of relief.
“Do you agree that your description rejects the temperature difference being the defining factor of heat flow?”
No. I’m dealing with how the supposed temperature difference establishes itself in the first place.
“What is your next point?”
My next point is that insulation does not work by internal energy from the cooler object being transferred to the warmer object, where it builds up at the expense of the cooler object.
barry: “Do you agree that your description rejects the temperature difference being the defining factor of heat flow?”
DREMT: “No.”
Then you are blind. If temperature difference determines the flow of heat, then heat flows from BP to GP. But you reject that, so you reject the classic definition of heat flow.
“I’m dealing with how the supposed temperature difference establishes itself in the first place.”
GP is getting half the energy of BP. The ONLY source of energy for GP is BP, and when they are separate, GP emits in two directions the half of the energy BP gives it.
This should be intuitively obvious. BP gets the full blast of energy from the sun. Half that energy doesn’t make it to the GP. How is the result not patently obvious to you?
“My next point is that insulation does not work by internal energy from the cooler object being transferred to the warmer object, where it builds up at the expense of the cooler object.”
Internal energy is transferred via radiation between two blackbodies regardless of their respective temperatures. At equilibrium both blackbodies absorb each other’s energy, which is emitted by them both.
It doesn’t matter if a blackbody receives emitted energy from another backbody, from a cooler perfect mirror, or from a hotter sun. The energy is always absorbed. It’s not rejected or reflected. That is how blackbodies – which are fundamental to the laws and equations of physics we are dealing with – function.
So yes, heat loss from a warmer body can be ‘insulated’ against by placing a mirror, or another blackbody in view of the emitting body. There is absolutely nothing about the incoming radiation that can cause it to be rejected by the warmer blackbody. And no physics text has ever supported such a notion. It is an invented idea, DREMT.
Your assertion lacks any foundational physics.
Or will you supply some from a reputable source? I’ve asked you many times.
barry, you’re not listening.
You just agreed that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
I’m saying, insulation does not work that way.
If you disagree, find an example of insulation working that way. Does your sweater example work that way? No. Does your door example work that way? No.
Since insulation does not work that way, we can conclude that “back-radiation” warming is not insulation. If it’s not insulation, then it only leaves “heat transfer from cold to hot”.
That’s one way to argue my point. There is also another way.
“You just agreed that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
I’m saying, insulation does not work that way.”
Insulation can work that way, but works MORE EFFICIENTLY by using reflectors – in MLI technology, for example. Reflectors return more of the energy emitted to them than blackbodies do. So reflectors are obviously preferred.
I won’t find an example of dark surface being used in MLI when reflectors are more efficient.
And you will not find a physics textbook ANYWHERE saying blackbodies don’t absorb radiation if the source is of a lower temp than the blackbody.
You never deal with this point. You wave it away – if ever you respond to it, which is almost never. But it is crucial to your thesis. Blackbodies cannot reject absorbing incident radiation. This function DEFINES what they are. But you reject this definition, too – that blackbodies absorb ALL incident radiation.
How can you possibly deny this basic, standard, fundamental tenet of radiative physics? I don’t know what you tell yourself to slide this fact away. You won’t say.
barry must believe science is based on debate, like his cult. His cult believes all you have to do is shout down your opponent with insults and false accusations, call them “lying dog”, and you win.
But, science is based on REALITY. So barry comes here to deny reality. He has no science background, as evidenced by his allegiance to an imaginary object and an equation where the units don’t even match!
And, he can’t learn. When I mentioned putting the plates together, to understand the situation, he was unable to understand. He just continues his nonsense with:
“BP gets the full blast of energy from the sun. Half that energy doesn’t make it to the GP. How is the result not patently obvious to you?”
How is it not patently obvious to barry that pulling the plates slightly apart, in the ideal conditions specified, that the result would be the same as when they are in full contact?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
When will you correct your pupil on this obvious mistake, and do you think that Zeno of Elea was right all along?
I’ll just leave these down here as I think barry might have missed them up-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733960
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734228
I think they’re more pertinent down here, anyway.
But, I don’t want to get in the way of the discussion between barry and Clint.
Clint 9:13 am, it sure is not patently obvious to barry that pulling the GPE plates slightly apart, in the ideal conditions specified, that the result would be the same as when they are in full contact since 1 plate vs. introducing a 2nd separated plate in shade of first plate obviously have two different steady state equilibrium solutions consistent with 1LOT, 2LOT.
Barry,
“The “back radiation” of the now-cooling object adds to the energy being supplied to the warmer warming object by the sun, resulting in an increase in its internal energy, while the cooling object now loses a portion of its its internal energy to the warmer object.”
But whatever it adds to the BP is immediately returned to it by the BP.
So there can be no net movement of energy from GP to BP.
The loss of internal energy of the GP is all to space.
“How is it not patently obvious to barry that pulling the plates slightly apart, in the ideal conditions specified, that the result would be the same as when they are in full contact?”
How us not patently obvious to Clint that touching hot pans burns your finger, but NOT touching hot pans does not?
Even DREMT seems to know that one.
” ‘back radiation warming’ is either a transfer of heat from cold to hot, or it’s some form of insulation.”
It’s a transfer of energy. It is definitely NOT a transfer of heat.
It results in slowing heat loss of the warmer object. This can be called an insulating effect.
“there is a buildup of internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object”
At equilibrium this is not the case. When you change the energy distribution of a powered system all sorts of temperature changes can ocue that do not break 2LoT.
including if you seal a heated room from the cold with something from inside the room. that object cools while the rom warms.
“It yields up its internal energy to the warmer object” doesn’t describe a flow of heat, as much as you want that to be the case.
The definition of heat flow for our parallel blackbody plates is Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
And in order for your thesis to be true, this equation must then be false.
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
Ball4 simply argues by repeated assertion, as usual, convincing absolutely nobody.
“If the GP were perfectly reflective only on the side facing the BP… The BP would warm, due to its own emitted energy being reflected back to it… The distinction is that here, the GP is not transferring its own internal energy to the BP where it builds up at the expense of the GP. No form of insulation works that way. Instead, the flow of energy from the Sun to the BP to the GP is being “interrupted” and reflected back to the BP.”
And here it is in plain English.
You are saying that warmer blackbody BP cannot absorb energy from cooler blackbody GP because GP would be transferring its internal energy to BP via radiation.
You are asserting that this is forbidden. You are not proving why this is so. Both blackbodies at any temperature, even the same temperature, are sending their internal energy to the other, which is absorbed.
You are also saying that BP stops acting like a blackbody in this scenario. “Interrupted” gives a word to a magic force that is not described anywhere in physics.
Unless BP’s surface facing GP is a mirror. That’s the only way GP radiation gets returned to it without being absorbed.
You won’t deal with the fact that your solution is a standing contradiction where a surface has two polar opposite emissivities – 0 and 1.
Why do you not just own up to the fact that this surface of BP must be a blackbody and a mirror at the same time for your thesis to work?
Please illuminate this issue in your solution. You must realise that what you have here is something patently non-physical?
barry, your last comment to me is all over the place.
“It’s a transfer of energy. It is definitely NOT a transfer of heat. It results in slowing heat loss of the warmer object. This can be called an insulating effect…”
…but it can’t, barry. That’s the whole point. It’s not an insulating effect because insulation does not involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer object! Thus, it must be a transfer of heat from cold to hot. If it’s not insulation, then that’s what is left.
No DREMT 6:48 pm, everyday experience shows insulation does involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to warmer object (2 ways) & that’s in accord with Clausius’ eqn. 64. Only EMR transfers energy in GPE so there must NOT be any transfer of heat from cold to hot in Eli’s GPE.
Consequently DREMT remains wrong & seriously confused about missing this “whole point” (DREMT term) in basic physics now for 8 years and counting.
“…everyday experience shows insulation does involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to warmer object…”
…wow. They will literally just say anything.
And, barry is not going to respond to Clint, or even Nate, apparently. Just me.
“You are saying that warmer blackbody BP cannot absorb energy from cooler blackbody GP because GP would be transferring its internal energy to BP via radiation. You are asserting that this is forbidden. You are not proving why this is so.”
I’m saying that insulation does not involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer object, where the internal energy builds up in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. If you seal a heated room from the cold with something from inside the room, that object cools while the room warms…but the room is not warming because the object is sending its internal energy to the room! It’s because the object is blocking convection from the room to outside.
Internal energy does not just spontaneously “organise” itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects. Any “built up” energy would flow down the thermal gradient until equilibrium was restored.
“I’m saying that insulation does not involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer object, where the internal energy builds up in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object”
Nor does this happen in the GPE, if one were able to be honest. Since any transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer is immediately returned to it by the emission of the warmer.
As a result of these TWO cancelling energy flows, there is a sharp interuption of the previous heat flow from the warmer body to space.
Thus the HEAT SOURCE input is no longer being fully removed. So it builds up internal energy in the warm body.
This is absolutely identical in effect to the one insulation has on a heated body.
…wow. Educated writers that understand 2LOT will literally just say anything that is consistent with Clausius’ eqn. 64 as is Eli’s GPE solution. DREMT 12:49 am will literally just write anything NOT consistent with Clausius’ eqn. 64 just to gain laughable attention.
Clausius 2LOT eqn. 64 shows that added insulation (as in the GPE vacuum) must involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer object, where the internal energy builds up in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object via EMR.
However, DREMT does write this correctly: “Any “built up” energy would flow down the thermal gradient until equilibrium was restored.” as shown in Eli’s thermal energy equilibrium solution to the GPE. DREMT errs in NOT showing this occur in DREMT’s GPE transient solution.
“Nor does this happen in the GPE, if one were able to be honest.“
It does happen, Nate, as both barry and Ball4 agree. This discussion is a bit silly when you disagree amongst yourselves but still all only argue with me!
So no answer then, other than Barry and Ball4 say so?
You have no answer as to how a build-up in BP energy can happen with 0 Net energy transfer to it from the GP.
Clearly because it cannot happen.
Let me ask you this. Since you always leave the heat source out of your talking points, what specific role do you think it plays in the buold up of energy in the BP?
Nate says:
”You have no answer as to how a build-up in BP energy can happen with 0 Net energy transfer to it from the GP.
Clearly because it cannot happen.”
LOL! Nate has forgotten what the basic requirement is for a GHE expressed here upthread by his hero TimF. ”Heat flows from warmer regions to cooler regions.”
So now you have Nate disagreeing with everybody? ROTFLMAO!
Nate is obviously uneducated on this topic yet he researches the heck out of it but apparently can’t understand what he is reading.
Like a sometime ago when he produced his evidence of CO2’s ability to continue to create any significant additional GHE that has two killer caveats in the conclusion with zero science to dismiss them. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
The backradiation argument is completely bogus. Heat flows from warmer regions to cooler regions only.
Nate is frustrated and angry because he still cannot understand what two other members of the GHEDT can understand. Despite having it explained to him in blisteringly intense detail for months on end. And, like so many members of the GHEDT on this blog, he takes all his frustrations out on me.
And again, predictably, no answers. Just ‘you guys fight’.
Proving the point that your goal here is to troll, nothing more.
“Heat flows from warmer regions to cooler regions only.”
See, even Bill gets it. No 2LOT violation here.
And, like so many members of the GHEDT on this blog, he takes all his frustrations out on me.
Nate says:
” ”Heat flows from warmer regions to cooler regions only.”
See, even Bill gets it. No 2LOT violation here.
——————-
Correct but that’s not an argument being made by DREMT its an argument being made by others.
If you are going to stick with that rather than flipflop back and forth fine.
Then:
DREMT gets it.
I get it.
Tim Folkerts gets it.
You get it.
So why are you arguing with DREMT?
Seems the only reason you are arguing with him is he is arguing with somebody who doesn’t believe that. Why would you want to do that?
DREMT, your patience is amazing. You deal with these cult kids seemingly effortlessly. That’s a benefit to mankind.
How do we explain physics to people that can’t understand physics? I try to make things simple, so even a child could understand. But, you can’t make it easy enough for someone like barry.
I mentioned putting the plates together, hoping he would realize the folly of his beliefs. But, he couldn’t understand that putting the plates together would result in exactly the same flux diagram as this:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
So pulling them slightly apart would result in the same flux diagram. With the conditions given, and no losses, the both diagrams would be the same. But barry is convinced the “back radiation” would raise the temperature of the blue plate. So why doesn’t the “back radiation” increase BP temperature when together?
It gets worse for poor barry. He continues to use his perverted version of the bogus “RHTE”. He can’t learn that in an equation, the units must match.
Kids these days….
“it…it…it…it”
Gill forgets to specify that “it”.
Is Mercury retrograde?
ROFL!
“Correct but that’s not an argument being made by DREMT its an argument being made by others.”
Sorry Bill, it is the argument being made by DREMT, for several years.
Thanks, Clint. I guess I’ve got quite a lot of experience dealing with them!
Yes, I wanted to see more of your discussion with barry, but currently they all seem to want to argue with me, despite the fact they all disagree amongst themselves.
barry and Ball4 have both agreed that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. Ball4 says that “everyday experience” shows that insulation involves that (he’s obviously wrong about that), whereas Nate and barry disagree – they know that insulation does not involve that.
Nate is stuck still not even understanding that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object! He’s behind the others, and you get the impression he would be forced to concede there was a 2LoT violation if he ever finally accepted the point that barry and Ball4 have already agreed to.
So, you have two people (barry and Nate) who are dangerously close to finally grasping the 2LoT violation, and Ball4 who is off in a world of his own muttering “equation 64” over and over again, under his breath as he stares vacantly off into the middle distance.
For Sky Dragon whiteknights with temporary amnesia, the problematic claim is:
“The backradiation argument is completely bogus.”
Perhaps our Sky Dragon whiteknight should find back the argument to which he’s paying lip service.
LOL
Barry says: ”You (DREMT) are saying that warmer blackbody BP cannot absorb energy from cooler blackbody GP because GP would be transferring its internal energy to BP via radiation.
You are asserting that this is forbidden. You are not proving why this is so. Both blackbodies at any temperature, even the same temperature, are sending their internal energy to the other, which is absorbed.”
Ball4 says:
February 20, 2026 at 7:58 PM
”No DREMT 6:48 pm, everyday experience shows insulation does involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to warmer object (2 ways)”
Nate says:
February 21, 2026 at 1:38 PM
” “Heat flows from warmer regions to cooler regions only.”
See, even Bill gets it. No 2LOT violation here.”
Nate then comes to the wrong conclusion and claims DREMT is the one who is believing a cooler object can warm a warmer object by sacrificing some of its heat.
So besides Nate’s obvious confusion Barry and Ball4 both don’t believe what i believe, dremt believes, tim f believes and what nate says he believes.
so why are you arguing with DREMT rather than Barry and Ball4?
Do you suffer from DDS?
No concession is necessary 7:50 pm since radiative transfer in a vacuum building up internal energy in the warmer BP object at the expense of the cooler GP object is required by Clausius’ 2LOT eqn. 64 of which under-educated DREMT 7:50 pm remains blissfully unaware. Sad, but humorously true since it’s freely available.
Eli’s long ago GPE thermal equilibrium solution remains correct with no 2LOT violation. DREMT would have less educated readers believe in DREMT’s transient solution with its obvious 2LOT violation; that is all that DREMT can accomplish with his limited education in these matters. Thus, there is no hope for DREMT to be correct on the GPE.
Does anyone fall for Ball4’s nonsense, I wonder?
Ball4 says:
”Eli’s long ago GPE thermal equilibrium solution remains correct with no 2LOT violation.”
Obviously eli’s theory is a thought experiment. how can you argue its correct when you obviously don’t know how it works because your method violates 2lot.
of course folks try to patch up obvious major system leaks in eli’s diagram by saying lets pretend that the plates are of infinite size. . . which of course is not something a sun could heat evenly because most of the plate would be an infinite distance from the sun.
the whole thing is a ridiculous exercise in illogic and we are supposed to believe its outcome. sheese! you guys are a real mess and can’t even agree with one another.
how about creating a real experiment? then you can’t make the logic errors you are making.
With emphasis on the relevant claims:
[GRAHAM] The ‘back-radiation’ transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
[BARRY] Yes, this is exactly how I described your mistaken definition of heat flow. A change in energy distribution results in a change in temperature of two objects. You believe that the flow of heat is determined by the change in temperature of the two objects + a single vector of energy, instead of applying the correct definition of heat flow, which is the NET transfer of energy from a warmer to colder object.
[GRAHAM] I don’t mention “heat” at all, I mention internal energy and its build up in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. We can get on to discussing “heat” and 2LoT later.
[BARRY] The “back radiation” of the now-cooling object adds to the energy being supplied to the warmer warming object by the sun, resulting in an increase in its internal energy, while the cooling object now loses a portion of its its internal energy to the warmer object. Okay, I hope I’ve phrased your argument correctly. What is your next point?
[GRAHAM] Finally, barry concedes that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
[BARRY] Do you agree that your description rejects the temperature difference being the defining factor of heat flow?”
[GRAHAM] No.
[BARRY] Then you are blind. If temperature difference determines the flow of heat, then heat flows from BP to GP. But you reject that, so you reject the classic definition of heat flow.
[GRAHAM] You’re not listening. You just agreed that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. I’m saying, insulation does not work that way.
[BARRY] Insulation can work that way, but works MORE EFFICIENTLY by using reflectors – in MLI technology, for example. Reflectors return more of the energy emitted to them than blackbodies do. So reflectors are obviously preferred. And you will not find a physics textbook ANYWHERE saying blackbodies don’t absorb radiation if the source is of a lower temp than the blackbody. You never deal with this point. You wave it away – if ever you respond to it, which is almost never.
[PUFFMAN, CHANNELING GALILEO] pulling the plates slightly apart, in the ideal conditions specified, that the result would be the same as when they are in full contact?
[ME] “It’s about “dynamics”. When will you correct your pupil on this obvious mistake, and do you think that Zeno of Elea was right all along?
[GRAHAM, HANDWAVING] I’ll just leave these down here But, I don’t want to get in the way of the discussion between barry and Clint.
[B4] it sure is not patently obvious to barry that pulling the GPE plates slightly apart, in the ideal conditions specified, that the result would be the same
[NATE] “The “back radiation” of the now-cooling object adds to the energy being supplied to the warmer warming object by the sun, resulting in an increase in its internal energy, while the cooling object now loses a portion of its its internal energy to the warmer object.”
[BARRY] ” ‘back radiation warming’ is either a transfer of heat from cold to hot, or it’s some form of insulation.” It’s a transfer of energy. It is definitely NOT a transfer of heat. It results in slowing heat loss of the warmer object. This can be called an insulating effect.
[GRAHAM] there is a buildup of internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object
[BARRY] At equilibrium this is not the case. When you change the energy distribution of a powered system all sorts of temperature changes can ocue that do not break 2LoT.
[GRAHAM, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SELF-AWARENESS WHATSOEVER] B4 simply argues by repeated assertion, as usual, convincing absolutely nobody.
[BARRY] You are saying that warmer blackbody BP cannot absorb energy from cooler blackbody GP because GP would be transferring its internal energy to BP via radiation. You are asserting that this is forbidden. You are not proving why this is so. Both blackbodies at any temperature, even the same temperature, are sending their internal energy to the other, which is absorbed. You won’t deal with the fact that your solution is a standing contradiction where a surface has two polar opposite emissivities – 0 and 1. Why do you not just own up to the fact that this surface of BP must be a blackbody and a mirror at the same time for your thesis to work?
[GRAHAM, CONTINUING TO IGNORE BARRY’S POINT] barry, your last comment to me is all over the place.
[BARRY] You are saying that warmer blackbody BP cannot absorb energy from cooler blackbody GP because GP would be transferring its internal energy to BP via radiation. You are asserting that this is forbidden. You are not proving why this is so.
[GRAHAM] I’m saying that insulation does not involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer object, where the internal energy builds up in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
[NATE] Nor does this happen in the GPE, if one were able to be honest. Since any transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer is immediately returned to it by the emission of the warmer.
[GRAHAM] It does happen, Nate, as both barry and Ball4 agree.
[NATE] You have no answer as to how a build-up in BP energy can happen with 0 Net energy transfer to it from the GP. Clearly because it cannot happen.
[GRAHAM] Nate is frustrated and angry
[SKY DRAGON WHITEKNIGHT] LOL! Heat flows from warmer regions to cooler regions only.
[NATE] See, even Gill gets it. No 2LOT violation here.
[GILL] that’s not an argument being made by Graham. He gets it. You get it. Mighty Tim Folkerts gets it. You get it.
[ME] Gill forgets to specify that “it”. Is Mercury retrograde? ROFL!
[NATE] Sorry Gill, it is the argument being made by Graham, for several years.
Like I said:
“barry and Ball4 have both agreed that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. Ball4 says that “everyday experience” shows that insulation involves that (he’s obviously wrong about that), whereas Nate and barry disagree – they know that insulation does not involve that.
Nate is stuck still not even understanding that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object! He’s behind the others, and you get the impression he would be forced to concede there was a 2LoT violation if he ever finally accepted the point that barry and Ball4 have already agreed to.
So, you have two people (barry and Nate) who are dangerously close to finally grasping the 2LoT violation, and Ball4 who is off in a world of his own muttering “equation 64” over and over again, under his breath as he stares vacantly off into the middle distance.”
“Nate is stuck still not even understanding that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object!”
And DREMT still can’t explain how that works, given that that the simple math shows he is mistaken.
He has no answer for how a transfer of 0, zero, ZERO!, can build up anything?
But he is gleeful at getting so much attention. Obviously that is the goal here.
The oven is on, set to 350 F. But with the door open, the temperature inside cannot reach the set point. But with all that heat flowing out into the kitchen, it is warm.
Now lets close the door (compare to bringing in the GP) What happens?
The temperature inside the oven warms (compare to the BP warming). And the kitchen cools off (compare to GP and space beyond cooling).
We can literally say the same words as DREMT does about the GPE:
Closing the oven door “builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object!”
And yet no one thinks this is a 2LOT violation.
It is just ordinary heat transfer at work.
In the case of the oven, the door blocks heat loss from oven to the kitchen.
In the case of the GPE, the GP blocks heat loss from BP to space.
In one case the heat transfer relies on conduction via the Fourier equation, in the other radiation, via the SB equation or RHTE, and view factors!
But the effect is the same.
And yes, the side of the system exposed to the sun ends up warmer than the side in the shade!
As common sense tells us.
Clearly some here have a severe common sense deficiency.
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
“Closing the oven door “builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object!””
No, Nate, it does not. The kitchen is not transferring its internal energy to the oven!
This argument is just getting so silly…
Graham simply argues by repeated assertion, as usual, convincing absolutely nobody.
This argument is just getting so silly…
:The kitchen is not transferring its internal energy to the oven!”
Exactly my point. Yet your patent phrases describe it, just like they describe the GPE.
“Closing the oven door ‘builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object!'”
Nothing else changed except the door closed. It is the cause of the warming, right?
BUT, we all know the heat source is what actually builds up the internal energy’ in the oven.
And everyone but you understands that the heat source is actually what builds up the internal energy in the BP!
“Yet your patent phrases describe it…”
No, Nate. They don’t. It’s not “at the expense of” the kitchen because the internal energy is not coming from the kitchen.
With the GPE, the internal energy is coming from the GP. As has been established and agreed by seemingly everyone but you.
Nate says:
”Closing the oven door “builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object!”
And yet no one thinks this is a 2LOT violation.”
Good lord! Nate just switched the GPE into the BPE inserting an insulated blueplate between the power source and the GP (kitchen).
To get away from that insulated door, you have to go back to the days of the castiron combination cooking stoves and space heaters that were uninsulated.
Talking about Nate serving up soup sandwiches while trying to do backflips in support of the idea he keeps denying.
Bottom line is with the 244k GP its not going to sacrifice any heat at all unless you get rid of the source of heat that made it 244k in the first place. Same deal for the BP.
Just saying ”at the expense of” is a huge oversimplification of what otherwise it is a reasonably easy to fathom process.
Nate says:
”And yes, the side of the system exposed to the sun ends up warmer than the side in the shade!”
Only in insulated systems Nate. An uninsulated BP or GP will both have the same temperature on both sides.
Thats an easy experiment Nate. All you need is an IR meter and more than a measurable difference between the inside and outside.
I did it a long time ago at my house in Oregon where there was a large difference between inside temperature and outdoor temperature.
Single pane window glass was the same temperature on both sides showing no difference in temperature. Thats because glass, ceramic, and metallic plates have no insulating value. You need insulation to produce a difference in temperature between the two sides.
That’s why I don’t condone the misinformation you spread around here.
Its beyond me why you are so screwed up on that. Maybe you can tell us where you got that idea from.
Nate says:
”Clearly some here have a severe common sense deficiency.”
Indeed! Start by looking in a mirror.
“With the GPE, the internal energy is coming from the GP.”
Again, only if you can explain how a Net 0 energy transfer from the GP, can accomplish that.
But you refuse to explain.
You cannot explain.
Thus we all know it does not happen that way.
DREMT,
“insulation does not involve a transfer of internal energy from the cooler object to the warmer object!”
In a radiative environment insulating a warmed object is done purely by reducing its rate of heat loss, which is what reflected or emitted energy can do, by making the gain/loss ratio greater.
There is no physical reason why the blackbody BP cannot absorb GP’s emitted photons, and standard physics tells us that it must. So you turn to your unproven assertion about that the transfer of internal energy from GP to BP is a 2LoT violation in this closed system set-up.
In the split-plate scenario the GP cools because its emitting surface doubles, and the BP warms because it is now gaining more energy than it was shedding: it’s gain/loss ratio changed.
This is the result of deliberately redistributing the constantly supplied energy within the system, not an upward flow of heat.
Engineering classes in construction energy design teaches this stuff.
To start with the experiment in my previous post that shows the glass separator has the same temperature on both sides is a tested fact.
Insulating plates do have different temperatures on the two sides.
But a single pane of glass will have the same temperature on both sides because it is not an insulator and does so in all conditions in accordance with the u-value of the insulation.
The atmosphere of course unlike the GPE does have a change in temperature, but its not due to insulation it is due to gas pressure laws and geopotential temperatures.
So this entire system works exactly like all you believe that if TOA is not emitting enough radiation to offset the solar input the entire system will warm.
For a non-insulating plate the temperature the glass will be the mean temperature of the inside temperature and the outside temperature. That’s what I measured with an IR detector.
Certainly if it were insulating you could double the insulation and cause the inside to warm. But that doesn’t work with a non-insulating solid plate as the GPE is designed. And is questionably wrong with atmospheres.
what is happening in the GPE?
You have radiation losses to the outside being the difference between the plate temperature and the outside environment.
You have radiation from the stabilized temperature of a room separated by single pane window glass from the exterior.
These flows will be equal when you get to the unaffected heat sink of deep space.
And you have convection on the exterior of the glass pane that roughly equals the radiation losses. university engineering classes and the engineering toolbox tag that with a coefficient of .5 which cools the glass by half the difference and that drags along the radiant loss as well. But you will have in this non-insulating system where input equals output by two means of cooling and zero change in environmental temperatures.
If the two combined outputs don’t equal the portion of the input into the room that contacts the window pane, the room will warm until it does and the glass pane will warm by half that amount.
The outdoors will not change as it’s an endless heat sink.
I have largely stayed out of the discussion of heat loss in a vacuum simply because it has no application to the GHE.
But I do think DREMT is right there. Here is why. 1) the plates are not insulators as shown above.
2) That means that in a vacuum where convective heat loss is missing, the plates will need to warm until the heat loss becomes equal to the insolation input with just one means of output and the inside does not warm because the glass temperature is always the same as the heated interior or cooler Simple stuff here guys. You all believe that. You have just fooled yourself by unnecessary complications into believing something different.
Sure you can complicate all this stuff a thousand different ways but there is no other means of heat loss unless you design one into the system by making a more complicated design. Still the principles outlined above will need to hold throughout all the combined complications.
If you have no environmental changes then the plate temperature will be controlled by the heat flows until input equals output.
Climate science simply tries to turn that basic principle on its head by assuming that the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere has an insulating value to it. In that assumption, show me the proof. . .an experiment that demonstrates that.
3) In summary, that means non-insulation does not turn into insulation based upon changes in heat flows. Non-insulation only turns into insulation by inserting insulating materials around or inside the plates. But it is the temperatures of the separation plate (insulated or non-insulated) that changes as heat flows change.
And it is only DREMT who I have seen hold tight to that idea. And all everybody else seems to do is run around creating more complicated scenarios that still fundamentally operate that way but you get different outcomes by only changing heat flows to portions of the experiment instead of keeping it simple so that the dynamics are easily understood.
“But you refuse to explain…”
Nate, I’ve explained it all to you 100 times. And, your own gold standard of “you need to convince others for your arguments to be correct” has been achieved – barry and Ball4 agree. But, you won’t argue with them. You only argue with me! Most amusing.
barry, again:
“Internal energy does not just spontaneously “organise” itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects. Any “built up” energy would flow down the thermal gradient until equilibrium was restored.”
“barry, again:
‘Internal energy does not just spontaneously ‘organise’ itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects.”
That is absolutely correct. But when you split the plates, or ‘switch on’ the ‘backradiation’ from GP to BP, that is a deliberate – not spontaneous – redistribution of energy in the system.
“Any ‘built up’ energy would flow down the thermal gradient until equilibrium was restored.”
The internal energy of the BP does indeed get passed to the GP via radiation from one to the other. And equilibrium will not occur in this set up, just as there is no equilibrium between the surface and the atmosphere. These components are in a steady-state thermal relationship, with a constant gradient (averaged for the Earth). The action you think should happen is for an isolated system. With a powered system we can redistribute the energy to change the temperature of individual objects in the system. As you keep doing.
BP sends MORE of its internal energy to GP, and is also warmer than GP, and that alone determines the flow of heat.
The flow of heat is not determined by a single vector of radiation, or the fact that it causes the cooler object to get cooler and the warmer object to get warmer. You just ASSERT it does. Because why? Because it’s not “how insulation works” Is that it? Fine. Don’t call it insulation. It makes no difference how we’ve analogised the effect.
The GP has an insulating effect. You wouldn’t use the same material for MLI, but it could perform the same function, just less efficiently than reflectors.
You still haven’t dealt with your solution requiring “interruption” of the GP emissions, so that some magic force makes the EMR boomerang back to GP. What on Earth is happening at the BP blackbody surface that no physics book explains?
You still haven’t dealt with the fact that your solution perforce REJECTS the standard definition of heat flow. I beg your pardon – you dealt with it by announcing that the proper definition of heat flow is “beside the point.” Somehow you didn’t realise that this comment means you have dismissed the real definition without explaining why it doesn’t apply (hint: repeating your ‘logic’ is not an explanation – that is just another assertion).
Nothing of the GPE breaks 2LoT. But your solution breaks several fundamental tenets of radiative physics, starting with a surface that has emissivity 1 and 0 at the same time.
When your solution doesn’t reject blackbody behaviour and the definition of heat flow you may have something.
You’re nearly there, barry. You just have to put a couple more things together and you’ll fully understand. Firstly, you need to realise that the “plate separation” and “switch” scenarios are just to help you understand that the GP transfers its internal energy to the BP where it builds up at the expense of the GP in Eli’s solution. Now that you’ve got that, the next step is to realise it’s still the case no matter what temperature you introduce the GP and no matter how you “run” the problem.
Then, you need to realise that this is not about semantics – “back-radiation warming” ain’t insulation, period. That only leaves “heat transfer from cold to hot”.
Here’s semantics:
– “plate separation”
– “switch”
– “run”
– “back-radiation warming”
– “heat transfer from cold to hot”
Here’s how Bob runs Eli’s problem:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
So astute readers might wish to take Graham’s “no matter how you “run” the problem” with a grain of salt.
No you cannot, as all agree, have 0 or negative energy transfer from GP to BP, then produce a build-up of energy in the BP.
Math is the ultimate decider here.
But DREMT knows the math doesnt fit his narrative, so he simply ignores it.
He thinks that words, patent phrases, and hand-waving can magically make math irrelevant.
But of course no one here buys that crap.
In both the GPE, and the oven, we can try to attribute ’cause’ of temperature changes, to a singular EVENT:
1. In the GPE, it is bringing in the GP with its back-radiation.
2. In the oven case, it is closing the oven door.
In both cases one can say, the EVENT is the only change made to the system. Therefore, DREMTs ‘logic’ goes, the EVENT causes the warm body to ‘build up internal energy’ ‘at the expense of’ the cold body’ which loses internal energy.
Therefore, we ‘know’ by DREMTs ‘logic’ that we can attribute the ‘build-up of internal energy’ to the transfer of the cold body’s internal energy to the warm body. thus a 2LOT violation.
By this same ‘logic’ we can ‘know’ that we can attribute the ‘build-up of internal energy’ in the oven, to the transfer of the cooler kitchen’s internal energy to the oven, thus again, a 2LOT violation.
Of course, we can all agree that for at least for the oven case, that ‘logic’ FAILS TOTALLY. Because there is no evidence that heat flowed from the cold kitchen to the warm oven.
And we have an obvious source of heat in the oven to produce the ‘build-up of internal energy’ as a result of the REDUCTION of heat loss caused by the closing of the door.
And of course, we can all agree, except DREMT, that in the GPE case, that this same ‘logic’ FAILS TOTALLY. Because there is no evidence that heat (net energy) flowed from the cold GP to the warm oven.
The only difference is the presence of back radiation from the GP to the BP.
But this should not confuse anyone, because it is NEVER larger than the energy emitted by the BP to the GP.
Thus there can be no doubt that the back radiation cannot produce a NET transfer of energy from the cold body to the warm.
The mere presence of back radiation is insufficient to account for the build-up in energy in the BP.
And we all understand, except DREMT, that there is an obvious source of heat from the sun, to produce the ‘build-up of internal energy’ as a result of the REDUCTION of radiative heat loss to space, caused by bringing in the GP (which changes the View Factor between the BP and space).
To summarize, an EVENT can be the cause of subsequent events. But knowing that does not tell us the mechanism.
In the GPE, the mechanism for warming the BP is obviously not a transfer of heat from cold to warm nor a 2LOT violation.
“As the Green Plate warms and its back-radiation increases, the extra input to the Blue Plate causes the Blue Plate to go through a second warming phase.“
Willard’s link also proves me right. They’re quite clearly saying it’s the “back-radiation” transfer that supposedly leads to the warming of the BP above 244 K. Not the Sun.
Thanks, Willard.
Nate goes to extraordinary lengths to miss the point. The oven door is not analogous to an actual transfer of energy! The transfer of energy means that the GP is quite literally giving up its internal energy to the BP.
If the “back-radiation” transfer didn’t happen at all, we know plate temperatures would be 244 K…244 K. If it happens, and is permitted to proceed to completion, then the plate temperatures are supposedly 262 K…220 K. That says it all.
The “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.
And, Nate needs to stop pretending that nobody agrees with me on that, because barry and Ball4 both do!
Graham must have missed:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
To confirm Eli’s static setup might not be the best way to help Graham show how the greenhouse effect fails. So be it.
“Nate goes to extraordinary lengths to miss the point. The oven door is not analogous to an actual transfer of energy! The transfer of energy means that the GP is quite literally giving up its internal energy to the BP.”
We can describe both with the same vague phrases that you use.
I thought you understood the RHTE view factors? If you do, then you understand that the GP has sharply reduced the radiative VF of the BP to space.
Therefore the GP is analogous to the oven door. Both reduce heat loss.
The back radiation is NOT transferring the GPs internal energy to the BP, according to the math, which you shamelessly, dishonestly ignore, again.
The basic math shows that anything transferred GP to BP is RETURNED to the GP. Its NET transfer is 0 or negative.
How do you beat that fact??
HOW?
With countless opportunities to explain this, you offer nothing.
That means you can’t explain that.
Then, QED you are WRONG. Sorry.
Any continuing assertions by you that contradict simple math, are understood to be not credible, and disingenuous.
“And, Nate needs to stop pretending that nobody agrees with me on that, because barry and Ball4 both do!”
Nobody agrees that there is heat (Net energy) transferred from the GP to the BP or that there is a 2LOT violation.
That delusion is yours alone.
“The transfer of energy means that the GP is quite literally giving up its internal energy to the BP.”
Why do you always shamelessly omit what the BP does?
As Barry notes:
“BP sends MORE of its internal energy to GP, and is also warmer than GP, and that alone determines the flow of heat.”
Willard again posts the text that proves me right.
Thanks, Willard.
“BP sends MORE of its internal energy to GP, and is also warmer than GP, and that alone determines the flow of heat.”
Yet, it ignores how the BP supposedly comes to be warmer than its equilibrium temperature with the Sun of 244 K.
It is that which involves heat flowing from cold to hot. But, it’s harder to understand. So, they get frustrated. Then they take their frustrations out on me.
DREMT 12:46 pm again forgets EMR is NOT heat. BP comes to be warmer absorbing added EMR after the GP is introduced to steady state as required by 2LOT eqn. 64 shown by Eli’s GPE solution long ago.
Hard to understand why you think contradicting the simple math is a sound argument.
I’m finding it increasingly hard to believe that you can possibly still not get it, Nate.
Is this a “tactic” from you? Keep pretending not to be able to understand until it eventually wears down my patience?
You’ll find I’m pretty patient. I’ve been putting up with your “misunderstandings” for quite some time, now.
Maybe thermodynamics is just not for you.
Why not take the Ball4 route? Accept that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object, but then mumble something about “equation 64” and then never explain or substantiate any of it. Works for him!
Nate says:
”I thought you understood the RHTE view factors? If you do, then you understand that the GP has sharply reduced the radiative VF of the BP to space.
Therefore the GP is analogous to the oven door. Both reduce heat loss.”
the Eli GPE is illustrated by deception and irrelevant over complicated design.
It isn’t a relevant model wrt to the GHE.
Lets look at a more relevant and more basic example of a GSE green shell experiment.
We have a blackbody sphere around which are two blackbody shells. we give a powersource to the sphere that produces without shells a surface temperature of 244K.
While consecutive shells would each be larger in diameter to produce an empty space between the shells lets ignore that difference by making the sphere large enough and the spacing of the shells small enough any difference is lost by eliminating decimal points of watt/m2.
What will be the temperatures of the outfacing surfaces of the sphere and the two shells with vacuums between the layers and outside the outer shell?
My answer is 244k each. What is your answer?
There is no hope for Bill 4:10 pm to be correct since his answer violates 2LOT eqn. 64.
“I’m finding it increasingly hard to believe that you can possibly still not get it, Nate.”
Then you must be very stoopid, as I have explained what your problem is many times.
You claimed earlier to ‘underderstand’ my argument, then out of the other side of your mouth, you claim not to understand.
Which is it?
You can’t beat math. Thus you keep ignoring the math, since you have no answer for it.
I also thought you understood the RHTE view factors? If you do, then you should understand that the GP has sharply reduced the radiative VF of the BP to space.
That reduces its heat loss. Just as closing the oven door does for the oven.
It is hard to believe you don’t get this.
“They’re quite clearly saying it’s the “back-radiation” transfer that supposedly leads to the warming of the BP above 244 K. Not the Sun.”
It is both. Without the sun, the BP WILL NOT get warmer. The process is impossible without energy constantly entering the system.
You have been told that the ‘process’ you describe does not determine heat flow. The new vector of energy + the temp changes caused by it is not a flow chart for heat, as much as you continue to ASSERT that is is.
1. You STILL ignore the thesis-breaking problem that your BP has a surface of emissivity 1 and 0 at the same time.
2. You STILL have not accepted, much less explained, why your solution rejects the determinant of heat being a temperature DIFFERENCE, and how your alternative definition could possibly be acceptable in light of this.
You are repeating your ‘logic’ and refusing to directly and fully answer the same 2 challenges to the ‘logic’ that keep coming to you.
Even if you don’t want to deal with this here on the board, you should run over it with diligence in your mind These items are fatal to your thesis.
Bill, “irrelevant over complicated design.”
Its very relevant and very simple.
The very same principles are involved in both. More simply in the GPE.
One of the principles is you cannot have heat transfer without a temperature difference.
Nate is having some sort of nervous breakdown, to the extent he apparently cannot even read my comments properly any more. I did not say I didn’t understand him, I said I was finding it increasingly hard to believe that he still doesn’t get what I’m saying!
And, barry does his usual trick of ignoring my last comment to him, then latching on to some remark to somebody else and using that to jump off with his regular talking points.
Look, I get that barry is never going to accept the “back-radiation” transfer being returned from the BP back to the GP (I didn’t use the term “interrupted” to apply to this process, by the way, that is barry misreading my comment), but it really doesn’t matter. It simply doesn’t matter if you accept the 244 K…244 K solution. The 262 K…220 K solution still violates 2LoT. I don’t care if barry concludes that both solutions are wrong and that the GPE is simply unsolvable. He can think what he likes about that. I am trying to keep the focus on them understanding the 2LoT violation, and diverting to the “return” issue is simply irrelevant and only gets in the way of them “getting it”.
Are neither of them going to respond to Bill?
No DREMT 7:04 pm, you still haven’t shown how 262…220 violates 2LOT eqn. 64 because Eli’s original GPE solution really is fully in accord with 2LOT.
DREMT, your reply to me was once again just repeating your thesis instead of dealing with my challenges to it.
Your thesis results in rejecting the traditional definition of heat flow, otherwise you would agree that heat is flowing from BP to GP when they are not at the same temperature.
You have not explained why you reject this definition in favour of your ‘logic’ flow chart, nor why anyone else should accept your ‘logic’ when it is contradicted by Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
You also have not addressed how in your solution to the GPE model, your BP has one face that has two polar opposite emissivities, 1 ad 0.
It doesn’t matter whether you say the GP is an insulator, insulates the BP, has an effect similar to insulation, or is not an insulator at all. The bottom line is that BP MUST absorb GP radiation as it is a blackbody, and this changes the energy balance on BP.
But your BP doesn’t absorb GP radiation. You have a surface that is non-physical, and you cannot explain it without simply reasserting your “irrefutable logic” flow chart for heat.
Your flow chart is no substitute for the standard definition of heat – which it rejects.
Your solution is no substitute for the standard definition of a blackbody – which it rejects.
These challenges to your thesis remain unanswered. Obviously, repeating the thesis doesn’t respond to these challenges. That would be just asserting your belief instead of defending it.
“I get that barry is never going to accept the “back-radiation” transfer being returned from the BP back to the GP”
You want me to accept a blackbody surface with emissivity 0 and 1 at the same time. In order to do so, I need to accept that you have correctly identified a 2LoT violation in the GPE.
“Insulation doesn’t work that way” doesn’t explain this rejection of blackbody function.
“Backradiation” – a vector of radiation causing the GP to lose internal energy to BP while the former cools and the latter heats, doesn’t describe a flow of heat from GP to BP, as much as you believe it does. And as much as you believe it does, it doesn’t explain how blackbody BP can have a surface emissivity of 0.
Nor have you ever furnished your arguments with any references from standard physics.
I get that you will never deal with these things in any real sense.
Ball4 says:
”There is no hope for Bill 4:10 pm to be correct since his answer violates 2LOT eqn. 64.”
BS. There is no violation of any part of 2LOT. And you haven’t provided your answer to what the 3 temperatures would be. So what’s up with that? Too difficult for you to calculate?
Nate says:
”One of the principles is you cannot have heat transfer without a temperature difference.”
My solution has no heat transfers occurring except out of the system into a vacuum that has no temperature.
Thus only there is where a temperature difference exists. You can calculate that temperature as 0K.
So you are missing your answer for what the temperatures are of the surfaces.
bill,
“We have a blackbody sphere around which are two blackbody shells. we give a powersource to the sphere that produces without shells a surface temperature of 244K.
While consecutive shells would each be larger in diameter to produce an empty space between the shells lets ignore that difference by making the sphere large enough and the spacing of the shells small enough any difference is lost by eliminating decimal points of watt/m2.
What will be the temperatures of the outfacing surfaces of the sphere and the two shells with vacuums between the layers and outside the outer shell?”
In making the shells very close you are trying to remove the problem of area difference.
Let’s just suspend the physics of matter then. Let the shells surrounding the sphere of eqe but not touching.
First shell splits the input (256 W/m2) over two surfaces, so now emits 128 to space and 128 back to the blackbody sphere. Its surface area has doubled, though it has the same radius as the sphere.
This can’t stand, because the outer sphere has to shed the same flux it receives. Area is ‘the same’ so no division for th
Sure, barry. If you never listen to what I say, you can claim I don’t rebut your points.
In my earlier response that you ignored, I dealt with your “not spontaneous” claim. That should have changed your understanding of the 2LoT violation. However, you continue to pretend nothing new was said, even when you link to the comment!
bill,
“We have a blackbody sphere around which are two blackbody shells. we give a powersource to the sphere that produces without shells a surface temperature of 244K.
While consecutive shells would each be larger in diameter to produce an empty space between the shells lets ignore that difference by making the sphere large enough and the spacing of the shells small enough any difference is lost by eliminating decimal points of watt/m2.
What will be the temperatures of the outfacing surfaces of the sphere and the two shells with vacuums between the layers and outside the outer shell?”
In making the shells very close you are trying to remove the problem of area difference.
Let’s just suspend the physics of matter then. Let the shells surrounding the sphere of equal radius but not touching.
First shell splits the input (200 W/m2) over two surfaces, so now emits 100 W/m2 to space and 100 W/m2 back to the blackbody sphere. Its surface area has doubled, though it has the same radius as the sphere. The sphere only emits from one surface.
This can’t stand, because the outer sphere has to shed the same flux it receives (as area is ‘the same’ as the sphere, there is no need to account for it).
So now the outer sphere has to emit 2 X 200 W/m2, one vector from each face. That means the sphere must yield double the energy it was to the shell, so it heats to give off a total 400 W/m2.
This works out nicely, as the power it is receiving is now exactly double what it was, which makes complete sense. Half its energy comes from the internal power source, and the other half from the outer shell.
So now we add a 3rd shell.
It, too, must radiate 200 W/m2 to space for the system to be in equilibrium.
So the inner shell has to yield 400 W/m2 to it, as this energy will be split by the 3rd shell over its inner and outer surface. The inner shell must radiate 2 X 400 W/m2 in total, and so must receive 800 W/m2 from the sphere.
With 2 shells radiating two directions surrounding the sphere we started with, the final temps are:
Sphere surface 345 K
Inner shell 290 K
Outer shell 244 K
Which makes sense. Each shell reduces the rate of heat loss of the sphere, because the sphere is at first radiating to a 0 K environment, and so there is no impediment to the rate of energy loss. But once it radiates into a warmer environment, its heat loss is slowed due to the change in radiation balance on the surface.
bill, it appears you think the blackbody sphere cannot absorb the radiation from the shell, otherwise you would see that there is a change in the amount of energy powering the sphere when the shell is introduced.
DREMT,
Nope, your reply did not answer the challenge that nothing is happening spontaneously. In every iteration of the GPE, whether you introduce a 2nd plate, split 2 plates, or switch on a radiative vector from a plate, not one of these scenarios has a spontaneous change occurring in GP. The change is brought about a deliberate manipulation of the system resulting in a change of energy distribution.
You have been very consistent in not dealing with the problems of;
1. your argument of 2LoT violation being contradicted by the actual definition of heat flow: Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
2. your solution requiring a blackbody surface to also be a perfect reflector, in defiance of the function of blackbodies
The ongoing silence to these criticisms strongly suggests you are at a loss to answer them.
Barry says:
With 2 shells radiating two directions surrounding the sphere we started with, the final temps are:
Sphere surface 345 K
Inner shell 290 K
Outer shell 244 K
bill, it appears you think the blackbody sphere cannot absorb the radiation from the shell, otherwise you would see that there is a change in the amount of energy powering the sphere when the shell is introduced.
————–
Thats not correct!
You have to properly use Stefan Boltzmann equations to establish the various rates of heat loss.
The whole system is at 0k until the power to the sphere is turned on. That first causes the surface to warm to 244k then it will warm each shell in turn until all 3 are 244k.
And the outermost shell will balance the equations with 201w/m2 being emitted into deep space.
Here let me help you with the proper equations.
Here are the Stefan Boltzman equations to use.
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah (3)
where
σ = 5.6703×10-8 (W/m2K4) this is the solar constant
Th= hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc= cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ah = area of the hot object (m2)
You can ignore the area of the hot object and just do this for 1 square meter.
You can check your equations are correct by putting the 244k in for the hot object T and zero for the cold object T. That should produce 2.01e2 or 201w/m2
Then you can substitute 244k for the zero cold object to see that the heat loss has reduced to zero.
then you can repeat that for the outershell.
Here is a link to the Engineering toolbox that provides these Stefan Boltzmann equations.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
If you try to have a shell that is cooler emitting toward a warmer shell the equation will produce a negative heat loss the equivalent of the positive heat loss for heat loss from a warmer shell to a cooler shell.
You can also read the following post of mine for the logical argument for why this occurs.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735286
Finally Eli Rabbet’s GPE has no supporting science behind it.
“The change is brought about [by] a deliberate manipulation of the system resulting in a change of energy distribution”
The debate just gets sillier and sillier. Now barry is redefining what is meant by “spontaneous”!
At least barry is able to concede points, and communicate without insults. That puts him ahead of the rest, and does make him preferable to talk to. Well done for that, barry.
From Mr Google:
“A spontaneous process in physics occurs naturally without continuous external intervention…”
I’ve highlighted the key word. Sure, introducing the GP can be considered an “external intervention”, but it’s a one-off to initiate the process. It does not constitute “continuous external intervention”.
DREMT has no answers for the quite simple and consistent challenges to his narrative from Barry, myself, and others.
The challenges are about simple arithmetic and straightforward facts that contradict his claims.
His non-answers are always vague words and phrases repeating his debunked claims, while ignoring simple math.
No answers means he has stopped debating.
His posts no longer can be taken seriously.
What to do?
Pretend that his opponents are the ones who have lost their minds.
Pretend that his opponents are the ones who refuse to listen.
Pretend that his case has only gotten stronger.
All while failing to answer the simple challenges.
We all can recognize pure gaslighting when we see it.
DREMT has decided that credibility suicide works for him, as long as he can keep trolling along.
“That first causes the surface to warm to 244k then it will warm each shell in turn until all 3 are 244k.”
Bill, not you too?
You seem determined to make some of the same basic mistakes as DREMT
Lets just apply your quoted SB law between the two outer shells:
We get q = 0. ZERO HEAT FLOW.
How can you expect heat to escape the system, as it must do, with 0 heat flow between the shells?
Heat Flowus Interuptus.
It makes no sense, and violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
To be explicit: the outer shell is continually losing heat to space while receiving 0 heat from the inside.
Obviously that is unsustainable.
Nate, please stop gaslighting.
I don’t need to re-explain why you’re wrong when two of your fellows have already conceded the point you’re struggling with. Either catch up to speed with them or drop out of the discussion.
Bill 10:43, your solution is transient not steady state equilibrium as is Eli’s solution for the GPE.
DREMT 6:32, the GP is continuously in place warming to steady state equilibrium as Eli showed for the GPE system long ago.
“The transfer of energy means that the GP is quite literally giving up its internal energy to the BP.”
Here is what Barry says about that point:
“BP sends MORE of its internal energy to GP, and is also warmer than GP, and that alone determines the flow of heat.”
Gee, you consider that ‘conceding the point’?
At least you are consistent in your delusions.
[G] I’m finding it increasingly hard to believe that you can possibly still not get it
[N] Then you must be very stoopid, as I have explained what your problem is many times.
[G] N is having some sort of nervous breakdown, to the extent he apparently cannot even read my comments properly any more. I did not say I didn’t understand him, I said I was finding it increasingly hard to believe that he still doesn’t get what I’m saying!
*Time passes by.*
[G] N, please stop gaslighting.
barry conceded the point here, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734877
As you know.
As always, you cherry pick parts thst seem to agree with you, while ignoring the parts that dont, and that part:
“BP sends MORE of its internal energy to GP, and is also warmer than GP, and that alone determines the flow of heat.”
Is both undeniable, and demolishes your narrative.
Again, you shamelesly ignore what the BP does here, pretending that only the GP emits.
The math that even you agree with, is inconsistent with your narrative.
But ignore it, because ‘Keep Absurd Zombie Argument going Endlessly’ is the goal here.
Nate, I can assure you my “narrative” remains quite intact.
I’m cherry-picking nothing. barry simply and straightforwardly conceded that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. This is because he is both:
1) capable of following the logic I presented, and
2) capable of conceding points.
Both qualities that you lack.
And, it is actually you that is 100% responsible for these overly lengthy discussions. Once initiated, I simply respond until people stop responding to me. You just can’t help yourself.
You’ll probably respond to this!
DREMT,
“In physics, a spontaneous event is a process that occurs without external intervention once the system is prepared in a given state.”
Is that I got. But we don’t have to duel with google definitions. When you split the plate, add a plate, ‘switch on’ a vector of radiation, you are clearly changing the system’s energy distribution. All of this is deliberate, and each action is BOUND to cause a change. There is nothing spontaneous about a deliberate redistribution of energy.
When you split a plate you double its emitting surface. You create a new vector of energy, similar to your most recent model of ‘switching on’ a vector from GP to BP. Adding a plate redirects energy back to BP, changing the balance of energy at its surface.
Now:
1. Your argument of 2LoT violation being contradicted by the actual definition of heat flow needs explaining. Why should anyone abandon the traditional definition in favour of your flow chart that tacitly rejects it?
2. Your solution requiring a blackbody surface to also be a perfect reflector, in defiance of the function of blackbodies, needs explaining. How do you justify a blackbody having a surface emissivity of 0, able to both emit and reflect EMR at the same angle and wavelength?
Nate says:
”Bill, not you too?
You seem determined to make some of the same basic mistakes as DREMT
To be explicit: the outer shell is continually losing heat to space while receiving 0 heat from the inside.
Obviously that is unsustainable.”
That is not necessarily true, the equations amount to a description of a flow rate from the warmer object to the benefit of a cooler object.
And it is derived from the actual warming rate of the cooler object. I haven’t yet seen the details of that experiment and nobody has provided me that. It takes a really bad teacher to not realize when he is preaching dogma versus giving demonstrable evidence to a student to reach his own conclusions correctly.
I don’t even know if the experiment that did this relied on an object cooling out its backside thus losing more heat as it warms until the cool object is the same temperature as the cool object or if that experiment had the cooler object insulated and the warming rate is limited to some kind growing wind/pressure within the object.
And apparently all the teachers buzzing around here and on warmist climate blogs don’t know either.
I have long said there is uncertainty here and that an experiment was needed. In fact just today you adamantly agreed with that:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735461
Where you say:
”Because as I said, its is about the experimental evidence.”
You see Nate, auditing is a craft. You keep asking questions, reminding people of their responses while keeping track of essentially everything said and then first asking for receipts/evidence such that those receipts can then be verified. Its a process, a profession, where you don’t skip any material steps. Skipping a step can discredit you and break you. Cause you to lose your license or be named in a lawsuit for the demise of billions of dollars in investments.
We are in agreement even if you don’t want to admit it. But you lie to yourself and the others around you because you have no such discipline.
What you have done is construct a photon model and in the same moment endorsed an uncertainty principle you believe it about photons, like going so far as disappear and pop up again some long distance away.
My opinion is with Einstein that you have to demonstrate the consistency of such a wide reaching principle through extensive experimentation and that you have done so little experimental work on it you can’t even say much of anything about it.
You agree with that but when asked you couldn’t produce the experiment that locked in the answer. And the weirder the things you do find. . .well that just adds more uncertainty to your vision of the photon model. But you have this strange notion you can ignore the uncertainties of the EM transmission stuff because its locked in stone but just for you favorite theories. That kind of makes you about as much of a scientist as a democrat is a believer in democracy and rule of law. OH yeah all we need to do is play with the words no evidence is needed it already said what we want it to say and gradually turn dogma into the color of science without a single available experiment that establishes carbon molecules as operating as insulated bodies such that photons from colder bodies warming warmer bodies.
So consistently follow the principles you claim to stand by and either produce the experiments or at be honest and admit it is uncertain.
Bill presents another example to “nuke” the cult kids.
barry can’t wait to “solve” it (demonstrate his ignorance of physics):
barry’s “solution”:
Sphere surface 345 K
Inner shell 290 K
Outer shell 244 K
Bill’s solution:
All 3 have the same 244K temperature.
Bill is of course correct, and barry is off in lala-land, building a power plant that creates energy out of nothing. In barry’s uneducated “solution”, just keep adding shells. You can then achieve any temperature you want, even hotter than Sun! Just like they can boil water with ice cubes.
The poor children have no knowledge of thermodynamics, or reality.
barry…I’ve given you responses on your 1) and 2) already. Just scroll up. You simply haven’t listened, and that’s not my problem.
Re “spontaneous”. I asked Mr Google what an example of “continuous external intervention” would be in thermodynamics. Here’s what I received:
“A key example of continuous external intervention in thermodynamics is running a refrigerator or heat pump, where electrical energy is continuously supplied to force heat to flow from a colder region to a warmer region. This intervention is required to reverse the natural, spontaneous flow of heat, which only moves from hot to cold.
Other examples of continuous external intervention include:
A Car Engine: Fuel is continuously added and ignited to maintain combustion, providing energy to perform work.
Active Transport in Cells: Cells continuously consume energy (ATP) to maintain specific chemical concentrations, fighting against equilibrium.
Stirring a Fluid: Using a paddle wheel (as in Joule’s experiment) to continuously do mechanical work on a liquid, increasing its internal energy and temperature.
A Heating Element: Electricity is constantly passed through a wire to supply heat to a system.
These actions represent non-spontaneous processes because they require a continuous, purposeful, and ongoing input of energy to keep the system in a specific state or to drive it against its natural tendency.”
Please stop trying to redefine the meanings of words to support your arguments, barry.
You should, by rights, concede that there is a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution, since your point about “spontaneous” was the only thing standing in your way from accepting that the following criticism applied to it:
‘Internal energy does not just spontaneously ‘organise’ itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects.”
Nate says:
”But ignore it, because ‘Keep Absurd Zombie Argument going Endlessly’ is the goal here.”
What keeps the vitriol alive when Nate knows the principles of heat transfer he espouses can only be found in blog science claims.
Is he afraid this means the end of the world? Or does he simply have a dogged attitude that the world needs to prove him and his buddies wrong?
Another example of continuous external intervention:
A GP is added and illuminated to maintain EMR, providing energy incident on the BP.
Adding the GP represents non-spontaneous process because it requires a continuous, purposeful, and ongoing input of energy from the sun to keep the GPE system driving against its natural tendency to cool.
So no need to concede there is a 2LOT violation in Eli’s GPE solution since its internal energy does not just spontaneously organize itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects.
Those are just words, the real proof Eli’s GPE steady state equilibrium solution complies with the 2LOT is it complies with well known (except to DREMT) Clausius’ eqn. 64.
Clint R 5:17 pm, there is no sun in bill’s shell game.
bill’s solution is only transient where barry’s is steady state equilibrium. And, yes a thermodynamic internal energy increase can boil water.
Ball4 says:
Bill 10:43, your solution is transient not steady state equilibrium as is Eli’s solution for the GPE.
DREMT 6:32, the GP is continuously in place warming to steady state equilibrium as Eli showed for the GPE system long ago.
——————-
The energy is transient as in energy continuously passes through each shell. and how much doesn’t is solely used to increase the internal heat of the shells to bring it/them up to a steady state.
No separation between myself and DREMT here as I can see.
the 201w/m2 is fully accounted for with no loss of heat back to the source to warm it above equilibrium.
The above all relates to a GPE in the vacuum of space.
That said there are possibilities for insulation in the atmosphere because it is gas filled. Dual and triple pane windows obtain insulation values via trapped air pockets and reflective coatings. It gets virtually nothing from the glass.
Further these systems that do have insulation values will in a gas environment, with 2 heat loss flows, will cool and the system itself will adopt a mean temperature halfway between the indoors and outdoors. If it slows heat there will be differences in temperature between the two sides.
I have done limited measurements on these systems, but found the mean temperature of the entire system to be half way between the inside and outside environments with less heat going into the system and less heat coming out of the system.
as I have been saying here for sometime. Water vapor may provide for an increase in atmosphere temperature as it does change the lapse rate, is clearly is not saturated, is far more abundant in the atmosphere, and is a more potent GHG. There is a lot of uncertainty about its mean concentration as it is not evenly distributed.
AFA the use of the undocumented heat loss equation by SkS goes (linked by Willard) there seems to be no credible source for it.
AFA as I am concerned when the word surroundings are used it means one thing much different than the proponents of SkS uses. SkS deems the surroundings of a shell to be only the one sheet of glass absorbing radiation from the inside source.
My knowledge as to its meaning is it includes all the windows, walls, layers etc of a building and the exterior environment when that exterior environment is not closed to the great outdoors other wise the utility closet where the heater is located isn’t yet the exterior environment but instead just another layer of the insulating system in getting there.
It is this way because thats the system. When its deemed the outdoor or indoor space is adequate in size to not be affected materially by the heat source they may just tell how much air volume the room will need to safely place the heating device but for sure their engineers probably looked a bit beyond that. They used to allow vented doors but now that is frowned on because users might hang towels or something else in front of the vents.
In other words no surrounding is complete until you get to a space where its deemed to not warm materially. Then for outdoors they will use climate regions to handle daily and seasonal variations.
I have never seen a restriction to use only in the country side because of maybe 2C UHI in the developed area. they just deem that immaterial.
If you apply that word consistently today it supports DREMTs and my point of view on it.
If this is a new science standard invented for climate science there must be a paper somewhere that documents that.
So as you can see that’s the basis of me favoring DREMTs outcome over yours. Unless convinced otherwise by empirical data I am going to hold to that.
The ball is literally in your court.
Ball4 offers up one last desperate and silly attempt to save Eli’s solution. It’s quite clear what the “continuous external intervention” needs to be, and adding the GP ain’t it.
One more time shorter for those who don’t want to read the long version above.
Engineering Tool Box:
Net Radiation Loss Rate:
”If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as:”
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah
Hot object means: the heated globe.
Cooler surroundings: “the system being affected by the hot object”
So as the final heat loss of the system is to the space surroundings in the shelled globe system GPE. If you don’t have that you can’t know what your heat flows are going to look like.
SkS solution has a glass plate with a u-value of .5. Its the equivalent of a panel of something like polypropylene foam a 1/2″ thick where hardly any of the insulation value comes from the polypropylene material but instead it comes from a massive number of small trapped air pockets in the foam.
DREMT,
“These actions represent non-spontaneous processes because they require a continuous, purposeful, and ongoing input of energy to keep the system in a specific state or to drive it against its natural tendency.”
I wonder if there might be a continuous input of energy into our 2-plate system?
“Other examples of continuous external intervention include:
A Car Engine: Fuel is continuously added and ignited to maintain combustion, providing energy to perform work…
A Heating Element: Electricity is constantly passed through a wire to supply heat to a system.”
Would the sun prevent the BP’s natural tendency to cool absent an “ongoing input of energy”? Is our atmosphere and surface one single temperature, or does the temperature go from warmer to cooler to warmer and to cooler again with altitude? That is a steady state regime that does not work without an external source of energy.
As you’ve been told many times the GPE (and the GHE) does not work without an energy source.
A sweater does not make a body warmer if the body is not providing energy.
A blanket will not warm a corpse.
MLI reflectors won’t work as insulators unless the spacecraft they surround is powered.
And in our GPE solution there is no reversal of heat flow, just a distribution of energy among blackbodies. When you deliberately change the distribution of energy, there is no ‘spontaneous’ flow of anything other than the natural emission of EMR. The radiative balance changes at the surfaces of the plates and the temperatures of the plates change accordingly.
You accept that heat loss can be slowed by jumpers and blankets and doors, but you seem to have a problem when the cause of the slowing heat loss is the addition of energy to an emitting surface.
You treat the single vector of radiation as a pathway of ‘heat’ because you see a cooler cooling object sending its radiation to a warming warmer object, and this “transfer of internal energy” is somehow forbidden by 2LoT.
Sorry, but the flow of heat is not from GP to BP – that is determined by Q = σ(Tbp⁴ – Tgp⁴), and the math contradicts your claim.
Your irrefutable logic is pinned on an assertion. X + Y + C = a flow of heat from GP to BP.
But your ‘logic’ can never be accepted if it tacitly rejects the standard definition of heat flow. And it does.
“I’ve given you responses on your 1) and 2) already”
No you haven’t. You’ve never taken the trouble to explain them. You’ve either waved them off or reasserted your mistaken flowchart of heat, pointing back to the conclusion that my challenges contest. When will you step out of that loop and properly address these 2 criticisms?
1. Your argument of 2LoT violation being contradicted by the actual definition of heat flow needs explaining. Why should anyone abandon the traditional definition in favour of your flow chart that tacitly rejects it?
2. Your solution requiring a blackbody surface to also be a perfect reflector, in defiance of the function of blackbodies, needs explaining. How do you justify a blackbody having a surface emissivity of 0, able to both emit and reflect EMR at the same angle and wavelength?
No, barry – the “continuous external intervention” is not the Sun.
It might be “adding a second heat source”.
But it’s not the heat source that’s already there!
Nice try. You should concede there is a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution.
bill,
You are holding that the blackbody sphere does not absorb the radiation from the nearest shell.
How do you get around this problem of a blackbody failing to act like a blackbody?
No one seems to be able to answer this issue except to assert that their explanation requires a blackbody to stop acting like a blackbody.
Clint,
As long as you add more shells the temp of the sphere will rise.
But the returns on temp rise diminish according to the S/B law. It’s not a linear relationship.
The returns also diminish in real world physics, because the surface area of the shells actually does increase.
In reality you would not be doubling energy to the sphere with each shell added, and the temp rise on the sphere per shell added would be less.
You can break a multitude of physics problems by making matter or energy infinite, but it’s not an example that disproves the rule, I’m afraid, as you break other laws in doing so (eg, conservation of energy/matter). Physical laws assume finite quantities.
Bill that is your gish gallop totally fails to address the issue.
Which is that you plainly are violating the First Law of Thermodynamics.
No, you are not allowed to create energy from nothing that came from nowhere, in the outer shell.
It is required to come from the inner shell. Which means q between the shells cannot be 0.
And that requires a temperature difference according to your SB law (RHTE)
Sorry.
The very same issue demolishes DREMTs narrative for the GPE.
Now we dont need another DREMT here, who simply ignores facts that contradict his narrative.
Dont become that guy.
If the “continuous external intervention” were the Sun, then everyone on Earth under the Sun would be able to witness heat flowing from cold to hot at any moment and without any external work being performed on the system. We don’t witness that.
bill,
This from your Engineering Toolbox page:
“A black body is a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all wavelengths of thermal radiation incident on it. Such bodies do not reflect light”
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
The blackbody sphere absorbs the energy from the first shell.
What do you suppose happens then to the energy balance on the sphere, if the power source is constant and not a thermostat?
Here’s an analogy. A pump pushes the same volume of water through a pipe. It’s a never-fail pump that always pushes the same volume at the same rate.
Halfway along the pipe, we suddenly halve the diameter. What happens? The pressure increases throughout the pipe, even the larger half. Constrict the pipe again further along and pressure through the entire pipe increases yet again, including in the large pipe.
In my shell model, the flow of energy is backed up by the return from each concentric shell added. Like the pressure is built up by narrowing the pipes. We are restricting the escape of energy/fluid in both cases.
In your solution, the pressure remains the same with ever narrowing pipes added.
You just don’t believe that a blackbody sphere can absorb energy from the shells. If you did, you’d accept the cange in energy balance, and my solution.
DREMT,
“If the “continuous external intervention” were the Sun, then everyone on Earth under the Sun would be able to witness heat flowing from cold to hot at any moment and without any external work being performed on the system. We don’t witness that.”
Great! Let’s look at Earth.
There is an atmosphere between the incoming energy and the surface. It should be hottest at the top of the atmosphere and coldest at the surface.
But wait! 2LoT is broken! Heat is flowing upward toward the hot sun! The surface is warmer than the tropopause.
But wait! The stratopause is warmer than the tropopause – the temperature gradient has reversed! How is this possible??
But oh no, the mesopause is colder than the stratopause. Another inverted temperature gradient. Another inversion happens through the final layer.
2LoT is broken throughout the atmosphere. There is one source of energy – the sun – and we can’t be having these temperature inversions! It’s completely non-intuitive, and has to breaking 2LoT.
Imagine we start our planet without an atmosphere. We have just one temperature to deal with. A simple flux balance on one surface.
Now, we put the atmosphere in place and we have “heat” flowing in four different directions as we rise through the atmosphere!
Are we witnessing spontaneous flows of heat uphill? The sun was always there. Adding components to our planet system don’t count as things that could cause these ‘spontaneous’ events, right?
Or do we have a constant source of energy supplying a system which distributes that energy according to its structure, resulting in a steady-state series of gradients rather than a uniform temperature?
I’m glad you brought up the Earth system to remind us what we are talking about.
barry:
You should, by rights, concede that there is a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution, since your point about “spontaneous” was the only thing standing in your way from accepting that the following criticism applied to it:
‘Internal energy does not just spontaneously ‘organise’ itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects.”
The “continuous external intervention“ is not the Sun, and it is not “adding the GP” or “splitting the plates” or “turning on the “back-radiation” transfer”.
There is no “continuous external intervention” in the GPE.
“A key example of continuous external intervention in thermodynamics is running a refrigerator or heat pump, where electrical energy is continuously supplied to force heat to flow from a colder region to a warmer region. This intervention is required to reverse the natural, spontaneous flow of heat, which only moves from hot to cold.”
So, if the Sun was a “continuous external intervention” then everybody on Earth under the Sun could witness heat flowing from cold to hot, at any moment. We do not witness that.
(13) Are g*, who is standing in the sun, and h*ff, who is standing in the shade, at the same temperature?
Another good example of the ignorance of the cult kids, from barry: “As long as you add more shells the temp of the sphere will rise.”
barry believes all you have to do is add shells to a system and the temperature will rise. He has no knowledge of thermodynamics, and can’t learn.
Maybe the Easter bunny will bring him a mythical black body….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734009
Does that mean you’re the Easter Bunny?
Clint R 10:17 am shows more ineptness in thermodynamics since adding insulation shells to one’s house in winter does cause the inside temperature to increase with the unchanged “powersource” of bill in the house just like bill’s 4:10 added shells so bill and Clint are wrong.
Maybe the Easter bunny will bring Clint some physical blackbody radiation…in which he can actually measure the brightness temperature inside bill’s opaque shells increasing with each added shell.
—–
Willard 8:57 am: A: Only transiently to those like DREMT, bill’s shell game, Clint R who are most times befuddled by thermodynamics & especially 2LOT eqn. 64.
“…since adding insulation shells…”
It ain’t insulation. That’s been established.
“) capable of following the logic I presented, and
2) capable of conceding points.
Both qualities that you lack.”
Look in the mirror friend.
Both Barry and I have pointed out the fatal flaws in your logic, multiple times.
You have not even attempted to address those issues.
You simply ignore them, and instead repeat the failed ‘logic’. Claiming that somehow addresses its flaws.
Of course, it does not. That is circular illogic.
By never addressing the basic flaws, you have committed credibility suicide.
But that is your choice.
Like Clint, you value getting attention above being taken seriously.
12:33 pm: Added house insulation isn’t added insulation now according to DREMT as a whole industry laughs then weeps at DREMT. DREMT has already conceded current house insulation IS insulation right on this blog. Perhaps Clint’s imaginary Easter bunny should remove the now unneeded winter modern insulation from DREMT’s and Clint’s houses to teach them a lesson in thermodynamics.
No, Nate. barry understands the logic that leads to the conclusion the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. That’s why he conceded that point. You don’t understand that logic, and are incapable of conceding points anyway.
Obvious troll Ball4 says:
“Added house insulation isn’t added insulation now according to DREMT…”
No, Ball4. Added house insulation is added insulation. Added perfectly conducting blackbody shells, on the other hand, is not added insulation.
I see. So you think science is decided by a vote of people on this blog, rather than by facts or sound logic.
Well then, the overwhelming majority vote here is for ‘there is no 2LOT violation in the GPE.’
You lose.
Now kindly move on to a real controversy.
DREMT 12:33 pm: “(adding insulation) ain’t insulation”
DREMT 2:07 pm to correct himself: “insulation is added insulation” both in the context of house insulation.
Good correction. Of course bill’s BB shells are not home insulation as BBs don’t exist. Change bill’s shells to actual house insulation emissivity 0.95 (ask Google AI) and the real life answer to the shell game becomes barry’s answer showing bill’s imaginary answer is very physically wrong. The home insulation industry agrees with barry.
DREMT,
You are now trying to defend semantics.
When you change the energy the energy balance of objects in a system you will get temperature change. There’s nothing spontaneous about that.
As for your point about external energy, I just quoted your quote:
“Other examples of continuous external intervention include:
A Car Engine: Fuel is continuously added and ignited to maintain combustion, providing energy to perform work…
A Heating Element: Electricity is constantly passed through a wire to supply heat to a system.”
What are you not getting? Heat –> constantly supplied –> system. Your own quote lays it out.
So no, you haven’t succeeded in arguing for a 2LoT violation. Your examples all redistribute energy, and then you try to claim nothing has changed and reactions are ‘spontaneous’. It’s getting silly.
It’s also very tedious that you keep not answering the same 2 criticisms I repeated so that you would not ignore them, wave them away, or just repeat your assertions.
I guess you’ll always dodge these thesis-breakers on the board here, so there’s no point continuing.
“I see. So you think science is decided by a vote of people on this blog, rather than by facts or sound logic”.
No, Nate. I don’t think that. I was just correcting your last erroneous and hate-filled comment.
barry should concede there is a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution. I doubt that he will, but he ought to. I’ll just wait and see, I guess.
If not, I’m still glad he conceded the important point that he did.
I’ll just ignore Ball4’s trolling.
Sorry, barry, but you don’t get to change the meaning of physics terms to whatever suits your argument.
There is no “continuous external intervention” in the GPE. If the Sun were an example of “continuous external intervention”, then when I went outside in the summertime and had a nice cool drink with an ice cube in it, the ice cube would be able to warm the drink!
Therefore whatever supposedly happens in the GPE is indeed “spontaneous”.
Which means you should agree that in the GPE, supposedly:
‘Internal energy just spontaneously “organises” itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects.”
And, as you have agreed, this is impossible.
That should be the end of it.
I have given you responses to your 1) and 2). You just don’t accept them. For 1), I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t reject the standard definition of heat flow. I’ve explained that although heat is flowing from the BP to the GP at Eli’s equilibrium, the question is how does that get to be the case? How does the BP get to be above its 244 K equilibrium temperature with the Sun? How does internal energy just spontaneously “organise” itself by building up in the BP at the expense of the GP? It relates back to what we’re currently talking about, barry!
For 2), I’ve told you in a recent comment that it’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if you can’t accept the return of the “back-radiation” transfer. It doesn’t change the fact that Eli’s solution violates 2LoT. I’ve also said that blackbodies cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT. You don’t accept that answer either! What do you want me to do? I give you answers, and you just tell me that I haven’t given you answers because you don’t like what you hear! But, that’s not my problem.
“You are now trying to defend semantics”
Counterpoint: it has never been anything else.
By rights, barry should concede there is a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution.
barry says:
Halfway along the pipe, we suddenly halve the diameter. What happens? .
You just don’t believe that a blackbody sphere can absorb energy from the shells. If you did, you’d accept the cange in energy balance, and my solution.
————————————
Thanks for the question. And to your claim. . .sure they can if the shells are hotter than the sphere. Of course in my example they are not.
I think the problem here might be that you are relying on a speculative area of the photon model some what akin to the puzzlement of science over issues of when and where a photon can be detected that they are still trying to solve with quantum mechanics.
Barry, I am going to believe in a model that is much closer to what I understand about insulation and conductivity.
I have also determined that even insulation can’t cause the effect claimed by the bunny imposter. But what insulation can do is slow cooling. And in an environment like earth where the sun comes up and goes down every day in most places on the globe the insolation varies between 0 watts/m2 and more than about 680watts/m2, less than half the rate perpendicular to the sun.
Thus slower cooling can change a ”mean” temperature. But it can’t warm the hot object to above its equilibrium value. Quite simply despite 680w/m2 being a high latitude common level of insolation even at high latitudes, the world record surface temperature of 56.7c requires only about 670w/m2. That of course makes your favorite bunny’s GPE completely unphysical as that such an effect has never been recorded on earth despite encompassing probably well more than 90% of the world’s population. The bunny’s model is a clear fraud.
I see that Bill has no rebuttal to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735563
Because, there is never a sound rationale to create energy out of nothing.
Nor has DREMT dealt with the very same fatal flaw in his GPE solution.
No 1LoT violation here, Nate:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
Everything balances…and, you know that.
Why are you pretending otherwise? Trying to repeat already debunked points in the hope your opponent won’t be bothered enough to respond again?
yes nate it is notable that in all your years here you have never brought forth a legitimate piece of work that even suggests your point of view that the plates in the gpe are insulators.
even worse for the case you try to make for the rabbit suit science is you won’t find any legitimate peer reviewed papers making a case that an internally heated sphere surrounded by any number of glass shells and a steady flow of 201w/m2 input could get any hotter than 244k.
and in fact you couldn’t make that happen without violating 1lot and conjuring up energy out of nothing.
and of course instead of rising to the challenge we can expect you to continue to spew rabbit suit nonsense.
any scientist with the discipline necessary to legitimately call himself a scientist would never offer up the gpe as a model for earth’s greenhouse effect. and as you know many legitimate scientists have tried and failed and the ones with integrity were willing to admit it.
Bill,
So just ad-homs and distractors?
No answer as to how the last shell can be losing heat to space, without it being replenished, by heat transfer from the inner shell.
Sorry, that simply is not possible, since it plainly violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Which is also known as Conservation of Energy.
It basically means energy cannot be created from nothing. It has to come from somewhere.
I thought you knew that.
You need a source for this basic law of physics?
“No 1LoT violation here, Nate:”
Sure, with magical non-existent plates you can do anything.
As you already know:
NO, there are no such plates that are both perfect abs.orbers (e = 1) AND perfect mirrors (e = 0).
This is a science forum, not a Magic and Wizardry fan club.
“you have never brought forth a legitimate piece of work”
Gill once more is asking for a sammich without having done the reading:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
LOLLOLOLOLOLO
“Sure, with magical non-existent plates you can do anything.”
Yes, Nate, perfectly conducting blackbody plates could indeed be described as “magical” and “non-existent” but they can’t just do anything – they can’t be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT, for example.
Nate says:
So just ad-homs and distractors?
No answer as to how the last shell can be losing heat to space, without it being replenished, by heat transfer from the inner shell.
Sorry, that simply is not possible, since it plainly violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Which is also known as Conservation of Energy.
———————-
Nate no ad homs just facts. Rabbit suit science for the guy disguising his real identity with a full body rabbit suit isn’t science.
I am just relating to you what I was taught about insulation and conduction during the years I was a builder.
I have said there is a possibility I don’t know something about outer space but that doesn’t seem likely and nobody has brought forth any science to dispute what I am saying.
What you are seeing in my model is 201w/m2 being emitted from a power source in the center of the sphere, warming the sphere and warming the 2 shells as the energy radiates and conducts from the sphere to the shells and on to the outer space surroundings, using the heat loss formula given by the engineering toolbox as the sphere radiates its heat to the surroundings. Each subsequent sphere does the same, there is no other possible outcome even if the shells are insulative.
As I said if and only if the shells have insulation value and you have a fluctuating power supply that spends half its time inputting 0watts/m2 and the other half inputting 402w/m2 you still can’t heat the sphere’s surface to output 402w/m2 unless the insulation is perfect but there is no such thing because the value of insulation changes logarithmically and perfect insulation doesn’t exist.
Yet you keep claiming without evidence that a sheet of glass has a u-value of .5 when the u-value at best would be about 4.0-6.0 in accordance with Google AI.
Your mistake is in the application of the heat loss equations. Builders are taught to sum up the insulation value of a wall and apply that to the cool side surroundings. Yet you try to apply it to every piece of the insulation and over state its u-value and ignore how energy moves in the direction of the least resistance.
I recognize that insulation and building technology could have overlooked something. But to be convinced of that you need some actual evidence of that fact. If you were consistent in here with your arguments with respect to photon behaviors, particularly when you declared Einstein wrong, you would see the need of more than a guy in a rabbit suit implying how they work. The bottom line implying that you can create a 402w/m2 radiant forcing out of a steady 201w/m2 input violates 1LOT.
If you want to keep beating that drum demonstrate it.
Obviously I have done everything possible to suggest to you that
is what you need to do, right down to providing you with a bunch of failed attempts by scientists to do it. And your response is to just say there must be something wrong with the experiment that you can’t name. Myself being a man of action doing stuff, tinkering with stuff, and building stuff am perfectly aware that if you knew the rabbit suit experiment worked and weren’t lying about that. . . you would also know why it worked which means you would also know why any experiment falls short. But you fail on every count.
Your input is simply not credible. Thats not an ad hom that is just a fact.
DREMT,
“…“Internal energy just spontaneously “organises” itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects.”
And, as you have agreed, this is impossible.”
I agree that this is impossible in an isolated system with no external energy being supplied. That’s not what is happening in our models, which all have external energy constantly supplied – just as the quotes you provided describe.
EG: “A Heating Element: Electricity is constantly passed through a wire to supply heat to a system.”
If you can’t see that this is a direct analogy for our scenarios then you are blind. This is a quote you provided. This was one of the descriptions of continuous external intervention, and we know this because it was under the title:
“Other examples of continuous external intervention include”
How do you not get that this is a perfect fit for external energy supplying heat to our 2-plate system? I don’t believe anyone could honestly deny it.
“I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t reject the standard definition of heat flow. I’ve explained that although heat is flowing from the BP to the GP at Eli’s equilibrium, the question is how does that get to be the case? How does the BP get to be above its 244 K equilibrium temperature with the Sun?”
You’ve said you accept the standard definition, but your result flatly rejects it. I don’t know if you are aware of this at this stage. You keep saying, “but the question is how does that get to be the case,” instead of admitting your result rejects the standard definition. You’re just not dealing with that. At all.
How might you deal with that? Well, you could start like this:
“In coming to the conclusion that heat is flowing in the wrong direction, I DO have to forego the standard definition of heat flow in favour of my determination of heat flow, and this is because….” (and then explain why this is legitimate without simply reasserting your flow chart, which no one accepts)
But rather than admit the truth of the matter, you say you agree with the SD of heat flow and then immediately reject it in your solution. There is a glitz in the matrix here.
“For 2), I’ve told you in a recent comment that it’s irrelevant.”
And you think this is an explanation, do you? Thank you for confirming that you waved away the challenge instead of dealing with it.
“It doesn’t matter if you can’t accept the return of the “back-radiation” transfer. It doesn’t change the fact that Eli’s solution violates 2LoT”
And once again you assert your conclusion to argue a point. Right here, this is what you are doing. Circular reasoning.
‘Because my conclusion is correct, everything else must bend to its veracity, including making mirrors out of blackbodies.’
Your solution fails because blackbodies can never be perfect mirrors at the same time. Rather than accept standard physics, you have to reject it to keep your view.
I feel for you. You are convinced that ‘a warmer object getting warmer still at the expense of a colder object losing internal energy to it via a newly introduced vector of “back-radiation” ‘ represents a violation of 2LoT, and that if we would just admit the language – ‘at the expense of’ ‘internal energy’ – ‘spontaneous’ – faithfully describes the full processes going on we would be forced to accept a 2LoT violation, and all this side-stepping we’re doing would end and you could finally be satisfied that we were at last honest and accessible to the truth of the matter.
The only problem with that is that you are wrong. The GPE does not violate 2LoT. It only violates your mistaken belief that back-radiation cannot reduce heat loss in a warmer object.
Deal with this, barry:
“There is no “continuous external intervention” in the GPE. If the Sun were an example of “continuous external intervention”, then when I went outside in the summertime and had a nice cool drink with an ice cube in it, the ice cube would be able to warm the drink!”
DREMT,
To demonstrate that my views on this are aligned with expert skeptics, here are some quotes. Not an appeal to authority, just a sanity check.
“First of all, the 2nd Law applies to the behavior of whole systems, not to every part within a system…
…we should not confuse a reduced rate of cooling with heating…
The climate system is like the hot jar having an internal heating mechanism (the sun warming the surface), but its ability to cool is reduced by its surroundings (the atmosphere), which tends to insulate it…”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
“I must preface the following discussion with this: The temperature of any object represents a balance between energy gained and energy lost by that object. Temperature is an energy balance issue. Unless phase changes are involved (e.g. melting ice), if more energy is gained than lost, temperature goes up. If more energy is lost than gained, temperature goes down. Understanding this is fundamental to understanding weather and climate, as well as the following discussion….
Technical diversion: This is where the Sky Dragon Slayers get tripped up. They claim the colder atmosphere cannot emit IR downward toward a warmer surface below, when in fact all the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require is that the NET flow of energy in all forms be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is still true in my discussion.”
Analogous to insulation in a heated home, greenhouse gases reduce the net rate of infrared energy transfer from the surface and lower atmosphere to outer space, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to be warmer, and the upper atmosphere to be colder, than if greenhouse gases did not exist.
The last bolded part is something we’ve repeated her constantly, while you say, yes, but 2LoT also requires that (insert your flow chart) can’t happen. Roy has it right “all the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require is… the NET flow of energy…” Not some other interpretation.
“Analogous to insulation in a heated home, greenhouse gases reduce the net rate of infrared energy transfer from the surface and lower atmosphere to outer space, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to be warmer, and the upper atmosphere to be colder, than if greenhouse gases did not exist.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
“3) The greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Just because the greenhouse effect (passively) makes the surface of the Earth warmer than if only (active) solar heating was operating does not violate the 2nd Law, any more than insulating your house more can raise its interior temperature in the winter, given the same energy input for heating. Very high temperatures in a system can be created with relatively small energy fluxes into that system if the rate of energy loss can be reduced…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
Here Roy explains why bill’s inner sphere can get to much hotter temperatures with the same energy input, as its rate of energy loss is further and further impeded by added shells.
Finally, Roy has actually explained this using two plates, though he doesn’t include the sun.
“Imagine two plates at two different temperatures facing one another. Let’s say one plate is at 100 deg. C and the other is at 0 deg. C. It doesn’t really matter whether this is in a vacuum, or with air around the plates, the concept still applies.
It’s pretty clear that the hotter plate will lose IR energy to the colder plate at a certain rate (which will decrease over time as the plates gradually equilibrate to the same temperature).
But now imagine that the cooler plate is nearly the same temperature (99 deg. C) as the hotter plate (100 deg. C). It will be obvious to most people that the net flow of IR energy from the 100 deg. C plate to the slightly cooler plate will be at a slower rate than it was before.
But why should that be? In both cases the 100 deg. C plate is emitting IR at the same rate, yet the NET flow of IR is reduced if the cooler plate is not as cold.
The reason is that there is also “back radiation” from the colder plate to the warmer plate, which changes the energy budget (energy gain versus energy loss) of the hotter plate. If you STILL don’t like the idea of back radiation (“back” is admittedly superfluous), then just think in terms of the reduced rate of flow from the warmer plate to the cooler plate when their temperature difference is reduced.
Either way, when you reduce the rate of net energy loss from an object, the object will have a higher temperature than if you didn’t reduce the rate of energy loss.”
Also from the same article:
“The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earth’s Surface”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
I’m not appealing to authority – though it is perfectly legitimate to appeal to expertise. But I will point out that my (and others’) views on the GHE ad the GPE are precisely in line with the views of an atmospheric scientist whose work deals specifically with radiation through the atmosphere to the surface, and who is well-known known as an anti-IPCC, anti-government intervention global warming ‘skeptic’.
I don’t disagree with you because of some ideological position. I truly believe I have the physics right. Just as you must believe Roy Spencer has it wrong.
“EG: “A Heating Element: Electricity is constantly passed through a wire to supply heat to a system.””
barry…it’s an “intervention”, yes? So this example is included as something you would add to the system, i.e. they’re talking about adding an extra heat source.
You’re not thinking clearly. Obviously they don’t mean that any system with a heat source cannot undergo a spontaneous process!
And, please stop saying my logic is circular when I have explained to you numerous times exactly why it isn’t.
bill,
“And to your claim… sure they can [absorb] if the shells are hotter than the sphere.”
Sorry bill, but if you’re going to reject the standard function of a blackbody – as described by the Engineering Toolbox webpage you yourself referenced – then your solution positively rejects standard physics.
“A black body is a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all wavelengths of thermal radiation incident on it. Such bodies do not reflect light.”
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Your solution is contradicted by fundamentals of radiative physics. No physics textbook in the world conditions blackbody absorp.tion on the blackbody being cooler than the source blackbody. That is a fantasy cooked up by people who deny the GHE. Blackbodies MUST absorb all incident radiation, or a bunch of laws of physics don’t work, including Kirchhoff’s Law and Planck’s Law.
Let me try to understand your view at odds with blackbodies here. Let’s get some specifics.
In your view, if two blackbody objects at the same temperature radiate towards each other, do they absorb each others’ radiation or not?
If not, does the ‘switch’ turning on absorp.tive properties (in the cooler object) only happen when there is a temperature difference?
If so, does the warmer body suddenly stop absorbing radiation from the cooler body as soon as its temperature is lower?
OK, barry. So, let’s ask Mr Google, again:
Can a system with a heat source undergo a spontaneous process?
“Yes, a system with a heat source can undergo a spontaneous process. In thermodynamics, a process is considered spontaneous if it occurs on its own without continuous external intervention, typically characterized by an increase in the total entropy of the system and its surroundings. The presence of a heat source does not prevent spontaneity; rather, it often drives it.”
Right. So, the plates, with a heat source, can undergo a spontaneous process. Since there is no “continuous external intervention” present (no additional heat source, no external work being performed on the system), we know that what supposedly happens in the GPE must be a spontaneous process!
So, you should concede that there is a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution.
DREMT,
“If the Sun were an example of “continuous external intervention”, then when I went outside in the summertime and had a nice cool drink with an ice cube in it, the ice cube would be able to warm the drink!”
Seriously?
You’re putting both plates side by side here. The ice cube and drink get the same flux input and will reach the equilibrium temperature determined by the sun.
In the GPE one plate is powered by the sun, one by the other plate. In the shade, the GP gets exactly half the energy of BP, because half of BP energy is headed the opposite direction to GP.
There will be a temperature gradient. That is blindingly, intuitively obvious.
DREMT,
EG: “A Heating Element: Electricity is constantly passed through a wire to supply heat to a system.”
“barry… it’s an “intervention”, yes? So this example is included as something you would add to the system, i.e. they’re talking about adding an extra heat source.”
There is nothing “extra” here. The words are simple and clear.
“A Heating Element: Electricity is constantly passed through a wire to supply heat to a system”
A system is supplied with heat by a source.
That’s the case with the 2-plate system.
You can happily watch your ice cool your drink, but don’t wait to long or the sun will bring the liquid to daytime ambient temperature.
As I said before, the GPE and the GHE cannot work without an external source constantly supplying the heat for the system.
barry, please slow down. Take a breath. Digest what is being said to you. Stop furiously typing away! You’re missing the point of everything that I’m saying to you.
1) We’ve established that a system with a heat source, just like in the GPE, can undergo a spontaneous process.
2) As there is no “continuous external intervention” in the GPE (no additional heat source, no external work being performed on the system) then what supposedly happens in the GPE must be a spontaneous process.
3) You agreed that the following is correct: “Internal energy does not just spontaneously ‘organise’ itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects”, but disputed that the process involved in the GPE was spontaneous.
4) You thus should now concede that Eli’s solution violates 2LoT.
DREMT,
Ok, let’s ask an AI.
‘In thermodynamics, is an external heat source considered to be an continuous external intervention?’
“Yes – in thermodynamics, an external heat source is considered a form of continuous external intervention, but it’s important to clarify exactly what that means.
In thermodynamics, a “continuous external intervention” refers to anything that:
Injects energy into a system over time, without being part of the system itself,
Alters the system’s energy balance, and
Maintains a non-equilibrium condition or drives a steady state.
Heat Source as Intervention
An external heat source (like a heater, the Sun, or a furnace) fits this perfectly:
It provides energy continuously.
It changes the temperature distribution in the system.
The system’s evolution is driven, not purely spontaneous from its own initial energy.
So yes, it is a continuous external intervention in the thermodynamic sense.
Why This Matters
In a closed, isolated system with no heat sources, processes are spontaneous only due to internal energy redistribution — e.g., heat flow from hot to cold.
In a system with an external heat source, some processes (like maintaining a temperature gradient) would not happen spontaneously without the source – the external intervention drives them.”
Is my AI is bigger than yours? Are we going to duel with ChatGPT and GoogleAI now?
DREMT, if you heat one end of an iron bar it will spontaneously become hotter at one end than the other. If you apply no heat, it will spontaneously equilibrate temperature along its length.
If you start with the plates at different temps in an isolated enclosure, they will spontaneously equilibrate. They will not spontaneously reorganise their energy to create a temperature gradient. You need a continual external energy source to intervene and create the temperature gradient. The plates will respond to a change from initial conditions.
Whatever language you use, you are, whether you know it or not, tacitly rejecting the standard definition of heat flow in favour of your flow chart, and then asserting your flow chart makes blackbodies perfect mirrors because your flow chart is the truth.
Not much new is being said, but you are now exclusively relying on semantics to win the argument.
DREMT,
“3) You agreed that the following is correct: “Internal energy does not just spontaneously ‘organise’ itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects”, but disputed that the process involved in the GPE was spontaneous.”
A temperature gradient in a rod happens ‘spontaneously’. In the same way, the temperature gradient in the GPE happens spontaneously, when you shine a sun on two plates parallel to it and each other.
Let’s correct your words so they match my view:
“Internal energy does not just spontaneously ‘organise’ itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects… in an isolated system.”
But we’re arguing semantics again. Let’s cut through this.
The two plates cannot possibly be at the same temperature when separated, because one plate gets fully half the energy og the other. This is blindingly obviously intuitive. One gets the full force of the sun’s energy, one gets much less. Have we forgotten how shade works?
The BP is a blackbody – it MUST absorb GP’s energy and not deflect it. It cannot possibly reflect GP’s energy AND emit the same amount of energy from the same surface.
You flow chart of what you believe is the flow of heat in the split-plate scenario is utterly contradicted by the standard determinant of heat flow.
We’re going round and round. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, even that I haven’t replied to your arguments. I’m done.
As I said, barry, an additional heat source can be considered a “continuous external intervention”. That’s why the example was there…but, a single heat source cannot be considered a “continuous external intervention”.
In thermodynamics, is a single external heat source considered to be a continuous external intervention?
“In thermodynamics, a single external heat source—specifically a thermal reservoir or heat bath—is generally considered a continuous external boundary condition rather than an active, ongoing "intervention" (in the sense of active work input).
Continuous Boundary Condition: A heat source is usually treated as a thermal reservoir that remains at a constant temperature (regardless of how much heat is transferred). This is considered a continuous boundary condition imposed on the system, defining its interactions with the surroundings.
External Intervention vs. Spontaneity: While the heat source is "external" to the system, it does not necessarily constitute an "active intervention" (like a pump or motor doing work) to drive a process against its natural direction. A spontaneous process can involve heat transfer from a hot reservoir to a cold system (e.g., heating water on a stove) without active, ongoing intervention, because the overall entropy of the universe increases.
Contrasting Active Intervention: "External intervention" typically refers to an active, often time-dependent or work-driven, process that manipulates the system’s state, such as using a heat pump to move heat from a cold body to a hotter one (violating the natural, spontaneous direction).
Interaction Type: A heat source interacts with the system through thermal conduction or radiation at the boundary. It is a source of energy that causes a system to change until it reaches a new, often non-equilibrium, steady state.
In summary, a single heat source is considered a constant, external environmental factor that allows for spontaneous heat flow, and is not defined as an active, "continuous intervention" in the same way that external work is.”
Barry, which wall gets the hottest?
Planck’s Blackbody Function
No real materials are perfect blackbodies. However, the radiation inside a cavity (whose walls are opaque to all radiation) is the radiation that would be emitted by a hypothetical blackbody at the same temperature. The cavity walls emit, absorb, and
reflect radiation until equilibrium is reached.
If Planck has been overturned who did it? The Bunny man?
When a sphere radiates 200w/m2 at a shell that incompasses it, what happens is the shell warms toward 244k until it is emitting 200w/m2 to deep space. And you can check the direction of heat flow at any temperature you want, using the heat loss equations, and it is always from hot to cold until equilibrium is reached when it becomes zero.
Like I said you will need to provide some evidence for your claim to have any validity.
“Seriously? You’re putting both plates side by side here. The ice cube and drink get the same flux input and will reach the equilibrium temperature determined by the sun.”
barry completely missed the point I was making with the drink and ice cube, but let’s look at what he’s saying here.
He seems to have forgotten the entire discussion we had about the “blackbody cubes”, side by side, equidistant from the Sun. There, he believes the cubes would warm each other up beyond their “equilibrium temperature determined by the Sun”!
“In the same way, the temperature gradient in the GPE happens spontaneously, when you shine a sun on two plates parallel to it and each other.“
barry forgets he is supposed to be arguing that the process of “internal energy “organising” itself by building up in warmer objects at the expense of cooler objects” is not spontaneous! He’s arguing with himself, wrapping himself in knots because he can’t bring himself to accept there is a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution.
“black bodies described as “magical” and “non-existent” but they can’t just do anything”
Exactly my point!
They can only be perfect absorbers.
They cannot also be perfect reflectors, as you need them to be.
So you have no excuse for your violation of 1LOT.
The point I made was over Nate’s head, again.
Bill,
Another word salad, gish gallop talking about all sorts of things of no relevance to your problem of spherical shells in space, creating energy from nothing.
“Yet you keep claiming without evidence that a sheet of glass has a u-value of .5 when the u-value at best would be about 4.0-6.0 in accordance with Google AI.”
Huhh? Not at all whats being discussed here.
You just seem to be rambling on about whatever pops into your head.
Your mistake is very simple:
No, you cannot create energy from nothing.
Everybody understand this. To claim you beed a source for this is an extremely poor excuse!
Yet that is what your solution of equal temperature sphere and shells is doing.
Again the outer shell is emitting energy to space. That energy needs to come from somewhere. Yes/No?
The only place it can come from is the shell inside it
Yet your solution has q = 0 between the shells. That meeds no heat is transferred between the shells.
That means no energy is provided from the inner shell to the outer shell.
That means your outer shell is emitting energy without replacement.
Yet you have it at a steady temperature.
It should be clear, that cannot happen.
It should be obvious that your solution is incorrect. Because heat transfer requires temperature differences.
Just as it should be obvious that DREMTs solution to the GPE, which makes the very same error, is incorrect.
Now you can be a man, and acknowledge your basic error. Or you can be like DREMT, endlessly ignoring contradictory facts, and losing all credibility,
Your call.
Nate ignores the contradictory fact that the 244 K…244 K solution does not violate 1LoT:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
He also ignores the fact that no matter how hard they try to trash the 244 K…244 K solution, it doesn’t remove the obvious 2LoT violation from the 262 K…220 K solution.
They really struggle with that. They seem to think trashing one solution would make the other correct, “by default”. It wouldn’t. Nothing can ever save the 262 K…220 K solution.
Nope. I dont why you think repeating an argument that was JUST shown to be pure fantasy, would work?
What are you thinking?
You consistently overrate the quality and veracity of your arguments.
And for the billionth time. Since you offer no mathematical evidence for heat transfer from cold to hot happening in Elis solution, you have not demonstrated a 2LOT violation.
Youve already lost all credibility, so what is the point? Other than pure trolling.
Now it’s, “show it mathematically or it doesn’t count”!
The beauty of it is that I don’t have to show anything mathematically…anybody can understand it conceptually by thinking about the energy flows. That makes it easier for anyone and everyone to “get it”.
Nate says:
”Bill,
Another word salad, gish gallop talking about all sorts of things of no relevance to your problem of spherical shells in space, creating energy from nothing.
“Yet you keep claiming without evidence that a sheet of glass has a u-value of .5 when the u-value at best would be about 4.0-6.0 in accordance with Google AI.”
Huhh? Not at all whats being discussed here.”
Thats exactly what is being discussed here Nate.
LOL, Nate believes in science coming from an anonymous blog owner disguising his identity with a full body bunny suit. Thats funny enough but it gets more hilarious.
Its ridiculously funny. Nate ignores the science of the Planck function and the whole concept of radiative equilibrium.
Apparently Nate and others believe a sphere heated with a steady stream of incoming wattage will heat a zero insulative resistance shell only half way and then dispense that energy equally back out of the shell in two directions toward space and back to the sphere warming it.
That must mean that a shell that is 100% insulated will return all the heat it receives back to the sphere and that there is no such thing as equilibrium.
Thats some really wild bunny stuff Nate. ROTFLMAO!
Seriously, so since you provided no evidence otherwise are you still sticking with the bunny?
“The beauty of it is that I don’t have to show anything mathematically”
Sorry, yez you do, because your words and phrases dont add up to a 2LOT violation.
“anybody can understand it conceptually by thinking about the energy flows.”
Everybody but you understand that ALL energy flows must be counted. This us where math comes into it.
You consider only the GP transfers, and erroneously claim that builds up energy in the BP.
But everyone here understands that when you ALSO look at what the BP transfers to the GP, we see that it is = or > than what the GP transfers to it.
Thus your claim is falsified. By the math.
The math makes it easy for all to see it adds up to no heat (net energy) transfer from cold body to hot body.
And thus no 2LOT violation.
Now tell us more about your religious beliefs unsupported by math or science.
All wrong, Nate. All the transfers are taken into account, e.g:
“…the plates start at 244 K…244 K. The transfer from the Sun to the BP, from the BP to space, from the BP to the GP, and from the GP to space, are all already in place. They’re already happening. Only the “back-radiation” transfer is switched off. That gets switched on, and, according to Eli’s solution, the plates progress to 262 K…220 K…and, that is all and only because of the “back-radiation” transfer. After all, that was the only thing that changed. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature, which means it is responsible for building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
And, you are the only person still responding to me who doesn’t get that!
I see Bill is not going to man up and acknowledge his error. Instead, like DREMT does, he is simply going ignore the key issue, and talk about anything but that.
Sorry Bill, you are still creating energy from nothing. And that means your solution is wrong.
Now tell us more about the R factor of window glass or your favorite Taylor Swift song.
It will not fix your problem.
“Nate believes in science coming from an anonymous blog owner disguising his identity with a full body bunny suit.”
Perhaps Gill should ask Graham about who Eli is, and how he feels about chemistry. Besides, Bob’s got him covered:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
ROFLCOPTER
DREMT 10:01 am affirms being unaware of Clausius’ 2LOT mathematical eqn. 4 that shows DRENT’s 2LOT words are incorrect relative to the GPE. Eli’s GPE solution complies with Clausius’ 2LOT mathematics so DREMT’s solution is only transient on the way to temperatures settling at Eli’s correct GPE steady state solution.
Everyone understands that since the BP is warmer than the GP at Eli’s “equilibrium”, heat is flowing from the BP to the GP. Nate keeps on about the mathematics of that, as if it is not already understood! The point they continually miss is: how does the BP get to be warmer than its equilibrium temperature with the Sun? Nate thinks the answer is: the Sun! Hilarious. And, how does the GP get to be cooler than its equilibrium temperature with the Sun? The answer to both is, obviously: due to the “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP.
Nate simply doesn’t have what it takes to understand what Ball4 already understood a month ago, and what barry conceded this month! So he just sits there, repeating himself endlessly and hurling abuse.
DREMT 1:35 pm, you are getting close, just substitute SI base unit luminous intensity of the added GP incident on the BP in place of the non-physical “back-radiation” term and you can understand Eli’s GPE solution complies with 2LOT eqn. 64 at his computed steady state temperatures.
As expected DREMT tells us again all about his religious belief. But offering 0 math. Just the same patent phrases than cannot ever defeat math.
Nowhere do you dispute the key point, that the BP always send = or > what the GP sends to the BP. At all times as it approaches equilibrium.
So it is impossible for the GP’s energy transferred to the BP to build up the BPs internal energy.
That is mathematically impossible!
Indeed that build was due to transfer of internal energy from the sun to the BP. Indeed it was already present.
Naturally you avoid talking about math.
The CHANGE, bringing in the GP, CAUSED the direct heat transfer from BP to space, to be reduced. VF!
Then we have the problem that you and Bill share. That energy cannot be created from 0 heat transfer to the GP. Which is what your solution does.
So this is religion, magic, wizardry that you are pushing, not science.
“Indeed that build was due to transfer of internal energy from the sun to the BP”
So Nate can hear the question:
“How does the BP get to be warmer than its equilibrium temperature with the Sun?”
and still answer: “due to the Sun”!
And, he doesn’t see the problem. Funny.
bill,
“When a sphere radiates 200w/m2 at a shell that incompasses it, what happens is the shell warms toward 244k until it is emitting 200w/m2 to deep space.”
What happens to the 200 W/m2 it is emitting towards the blackbody sphere?
Does the blackbody sphere turn into a mirror? Because then it can’t emit, and we lose the power source and the shell cools to zero K.
Does it remain a blackbody and absorb the radiation from the shell, as it must? So now what happens to the sphere when it absorbs radiant energy as well as receiving constant, steady power that heats it? The energy balance in the sphere has now changed.
The idea that the sun can warm something to warmer than it’s equilibrium value is inexorably connected to the idea that 15um vibrations can’t warm the the sky. Nate rejects that notion and then illogically turns around and argues the opposite that frequency counts above watts
Nate says:
February 27, 2026 at 4:58 PM
”Nowhere do you dispute the key point, that the BP always send = or > what the GP sends to the BP. At all times as it approaches equilibrium.”
According to Nate and his GPE theory equilibrium cannot be reached.
To do so would require perfect insulation and by then the BP will be spewing infinite watts/m2.
Why is it these guys never mathematically test their theories for reasonableness? Then untested they go straight off full on extrapolating from a mind experiment of a guy in a bunny suit?
Imagine for a moment that the shell is insulated about 11.5 inches of foam insulation providing about R-80.5
77. And the shell was created for a refrigeration warehouse, which is an insulation at the high end of the scale for a refrigeration warehouse. Then the refrigeration breaks down and a crew is sent in to do some repair work.
The emission from their bodies would cause the unit to warm to 450c (or 842F) if they didn’t die and stop radiating first, which they surely would.
the reason for this follows directly from their own logic as the room would warm until the mean emission temperature of 37C or 96.8F of 517w/m2 of the workers was escaping from the room with zero K outside the shell.
That environment would cause instantaneous, catastrophic damage to a human body, resulting in fatal third-degree burns within seconds and total incineration or combustion within minutes. The intense heat would immediately denature proteins and vaporize bodily fluids.
that just gives you an idea of what they are projecting as the output of an experiment using the GPE logic of backradiation increasing the temperature of the GP until the input heat flow equaled the output heat flow.
We are talking here about bat shit crazy ideas.
It should not be surprising at all to these guys that Seim and Olsen found no such effect. https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
What happens with a non-insulating shell or an insulated shell is the shell above with the men inside will rise to 37C, assuming of course the sun isn’t also shining into the shell with a higher wattage than the men.
And of course Nate will chime in with a lot of gibberish, zero experiments and will continue to spew that bat shit crazy stuff.
It’s probably a lot to expect barry to admit publicly that there’s a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution. It’s been an eight-year argument, after all. I just hope that in private he uses the knowledge that there is one to overcome his problem with “blackbodies”. Once you’ve accepted the 2LoT violation, it won’t be long until you accept that the “back-radiation” transfer must be returned to the GP. As to how that happens, if it still bothers him, he just needs to keep an open mind and listen to what has been explained on this blog, and others, for years. It doesn’t bother me, so personally I don’t worry about it.
“shell is insulated about 11.5 inches of foam insulation providing about R-80.5
77. And the shell was created for a refrigeration warehouse, which is an insulation at the high end of the scale for a refrigeration warehouse. Then the refrigeration breaks down and a crew is sent in to do some repair work.”
Bill just keeps reporting his stream of conciousness thoughts to us, while completely ignoring the fatal flaw in his theory.
I’ll try one more time to focus attention with the key questions:
Your outer shell is emitting energy to space. That energy needs to come from somewhere.
Yes/No?
The only place it can come from is the shell inside it.
Yes/No?
Yet your solution has q = 0 between the shells. That means no heat is transferred between the shells.
YES/NO?
That means your outer shell is emitting heat without replacement.
Yet you have it at a steady temperature.
It should be clear, that cannot happen. YES/No?
No answers means we will all understand that you have no answers, and that your theory is indefensible.
And DREMT shows us that he’s continuing to live in a fantasy world where if he just ignores the fatal flaws in his arguments, they will be forgotten, and his absurd debunked notions will eventually be accepted…
And both DREMT and Bill try to distract us more with, look a squirrel’:
“BP warmer than its equilibrium temperature”
Which raises the question. How is the ‘equilibrium temperature’ of a body defined and determined, according to you guys?
Lacking that, it seems to be just another vague term that can be tossed out, declaring that they know it cannot be what we say it is.
Responded up-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735885
but, we can continue discussing it down here.
Me too.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735893
So, now that Nate knows what is meant by “equilibrium temperature”, he can finally respond to my earlier comment:
“Indeed that build was due to transfer of internal energy from the sun to the BP”
So Nate can hear the question:
“How does the BP get to be warmer than its equilibrium temperature with the Sun?”
and still answer: “due to the Sun”!
And, he doesn’t see the problem. Funny.
Yeah years ago Nate was on that fuzzy equilibrium argument claiming that the equilbrium temperature with the sun was aboutr 6000k which demonstrated his lack of knowledge about how that is distributed through out space with view factors, inverse square law etc.
Put a non-insulated shell around the sun and it will change nothing.
“The idea that the sun can warm something to warmer than its equilibrium value…”
I don’t know if that’s a reply to me, bill, but if fusion output stays constant, a sun surrounded by more and morde blackbody shells must warm until radiation to space again equals that output.
What happens to the 200 W/m2 the first shell is emitting towards the blackbody sphere?
Does the blackbody sphere turn into a mirror? Because then it can’t emit, and we lose the power source and the shell cools to zero K.
Does it remain a blackbody and absorb the radiation from the shell, as it must? So now what happens to the sphere when it absorbs radiant energy as well as receiving constant, steady power that heats it? The energy balance in the sphere has now changed.
Where does the inward-bound 200 W/m2 go? It has to go somewhere or 1LoT is quite clearly broken.
bill,
It’s interesting that you chose to make the shells-around-sphere experiment with shells the same diameter as the sphere, but obviously not touching so that there is a radiative transport between them.
This is entirely non-physical, but we went with it because we know that if you increase the area getting the same amount of energy the temperature drops. You wanted to be able to say al the spheres are the same temp, as an analogy to the 2-plate setup.
This clarifies a few things from previous discussions.
When the plates are split, the emitting surface area of GP doubles, so its flux must halve. It is getting, initially, a total of 200 W/m2 from BP. On splitting this should result in GP emitting 100 W/m2 from each surface, just as BP emits 200 W/m2 from each surface while receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun.
If we peel off a blackbody shell from the blackbody sphere, then that shell needs to emit in both directions, and needs to be emitting (imagining the same diameter as sphere) 200 W/m2 to space, as the sphere did. So 200 W/m2 must also be heading back towards the sphere.
If the sphere is a blackbody at 244K emitting 200 W/m2, then it must absorb the 200 W/m2 being sent to it by the shell.
What do you think happens if the energy source powering the sphere is constant? What does the added 200 W/m2 cause re the sphere?
Barry says:
bill, but if fusion output stays constant, a sun surrounded by more and more blackbody shells must warm until radiation to space again equals that output.
What must occur is the inside surface of the shell surrounding the sun must warm and become as warm as the sun surface. Whether or not the outside of the shell must be as warm is determined by whether the shell has insulation value or not.
Obviously if the shell is cooling that means there will be a continuing non-netted stream of energy exactly at the rate of cooling.
1. 200w/m2 stream comes from sphere.
2. Shell starts to warm.
3. You stop the warming at a temperature to emit 100w/m2 in each direction.
4. The 100w/m2 backradiation nets 100w/m2 of the spheres radiation.
5. 100w/m2 remains to heat the shell
6. Shell heats
7. Shell nets another 50w/m2
8. Sphere still has 50w/m2 to warm the inside surface of the shell.
9. Shell heats.
10. When the shell reaches 243k it is emitting about 195 w/m2 and still has 5 w/m2 incoming from the sphere to warm it that last degree.
11. Your problem is you want to allocate the end heat loss of 200w/m2 to emissions out the backside BEFORE it heats the inside surface of the shell when in fact the heat loss only comes after the inside of the shell has been heated.
12. The inside of the shell is in a wonky stabilized condition with the sphere, each emission from the back side of the shell provides that fraction of a watt to not be netted coming from the shell and whamo bamo that now unnetted radiant power from the sphere in a micro second rewarms the inside of the shell. When you have a flow through an object its still considered to be in equilibrium but in a different way small flows at the rate of conduction through the shell then quickly the spheres radiant power is unleashed to rewarm the shell.
DREMT. You answered your own question by giving an example of how one can increase the equilibrium temperature of the BP: by reducing its View Factor to its cold surroundings, space @ 0 K.
And thereby reducing its ability to lose heat directly to those surroundings.
Then, to again emit as much heat as it gains from the sun, it must warm.
The GP obviously also reduces the VF of the BP to space, because it is opaque, and replaces it with a VF to a much warmer surroundings 244 K.
The RHTE makes it absolutely clear, the temperature of the cold surroundings matters. It changes the rate of heat transfer.
Changing the surroundings from 0 K to 244 K, will dramaticallt reduce the heat loss from BP. It must warm.
You will get no credit for unsupported assertions that GP is not an insulator.
You need to address these facts and logic that clearly show that it can reduce heat loss.
Nate, insulation does not work by a direct transfer of internal energy from the cooler body to the warmer body, where the internal energy builds up in the warmer body at the expense of the cooler body. I don’t know how many times I need to explain the same thing.
Which does not address any of the points in my post.
It does address what you wrote, Nate. You see, you’re desperately trying to frame this problem as, “the GP reduces heat loss from the BP”. As I’ve told you I don’t know how many times, you are only looking at one half of the picture. You are ignoring the cooling of the GP. Now, you will probably miss the point again, and say that you’ve talked about the cooling of the GP 47 times. But, when you talk about the cooling of the GP, you forget about the warming of the BP!
We go round and round in circles…and, that’s your fault. Everybody blames me, but it’s actually your fault, Nate. You don’t “get it”, can’t learn, and then never stop repeating your mistakes. Then you project that onto me.
What I posted was straightforward facts and logic.
You seem unable to tell me which specific parts of my post you dispute, and why?
I thought you understood View factors and the RHTE.
If you do, then you should ve able to understand that:
The GP reduces the VF of the BP to space, because it is opaque, and replaces it with a VF to a much warmer surroundings 244 K.
The RHTE makes it absolutely clear, the temperature of the cold surroundings MATTERS. It changes the rate of heat transfer.
Changing the surroundings from 0 K to 244 K, will dramaticallt reduce the heat loss from BP.
It must warm.
If you believe that temperature of the surroundings doesnt change the heat loss in just this way, EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING.
No points for just repeating standard talking points.
I cannot make myself any clearer than I already have, Nate.
” As I’ve told you I don’t know how many times, you are only looking at one half of the picture. You are ignoring the cooling of the GP.”
Nope. Ive not ignored the cooling of the GP. So this comment never made any sense to me.
The cooling is because of your chosen scenario where you have the GP moved from being in sunshine, where it was receiving 400 W/m2 and settled at 244 K, to the SHADE, where it receives 200 W/m2 and therefore it must COOL,..to 220 K.
To argue that it should NOT cool asks people to abandon their common sense.
Making it clear that you cannot refute these points.
And we all understand that you must not speak of heat loss.
Nate immediately proves me correct by then thinking about the cooling of the GP and forgetting about the warming of the BP!
He simply cannot put two and two together.
The GP supposedly cools and the BP supposedly warms because of the “back-radiation” transfer…because that transfer is building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object!
Nate is the only person still responding to me that doesn’t get that. barry got it this month, and Ball4 the month before.
The stupid thing is – I bet if Nate accepted what the other two already conceded, he would conclude there was a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution. That’s why he fights the obvious with every breath in his body…
bill,
“What must occur is the inside surface of the shell surrounding the sun must warm and become as warm as the sun surface. Whether or not the outside of the shell must be as warm is determined by whether the shell has insulation value or not.”
If the shell gets as warm as the sphere surface, it must radiate 200 W/m2 to the sphere. It also radiates 200 W/m2 to space. But because the shell has twice the surface area of the sphere, it must now be emitting twice the power. There’s no way around this.
2 X 200 W/m2 = 400 W/m2.
As you’ll remember from the 2-plate experiment, the sun pprovides 400 W/m2 to the first plate, which is split over its two surfaces to radiate 200 W/m2. We all agree on this.
Same happens with the first shell. It must split the incoming radiation over twice the surface area. So if it is emitting 200 W/m2 from each side, it must be getting 400 W/m2 from the sphere.
Shell can’t emit 200 W/m2 from each side without equivalent energy being fed it. It’s simply impossible. As in 1LoT violation impossible. Sphere has to be yielding a total of 400 W/m2 to the shell.
Remember, energy is conserved, temperature is not.
bill,
“4. The 100w/m2 backradiation nets 100w/m2 of the spheres radiation.
5. 100w/m2 remains to heat the shell”
The sphere is a blackbody. That 100 W/m2 energy must be absorbed by the sphere.
So now the sphere outputs a bit more energy than 200 W/m2, in order to balance the energy coming in.
Both sphere and shell warm until the shell outputs the same power as the sphere.
1LoT forbids the shell emitting more energy than received.
The shell can’t output 2 X 200 W/m2 when only receiving 1 X 200 W/m2.
Nate still hasn’t responded to my point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735841
and he most likely never will.
DREMT shamelessly pretends I never answered his question:
“How does the BP get to be warmer than its equilibrium temperature with the Sun?”
which I answered thoroughly here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1736000
The absurdity is revealed by you providing the answer yourself! By showing that reducing the view factor of the BP to the cold of space reduces its heat loss to space.
Given the steady heat input from the sun, and the reduced heat loss to space, the BP must warm.
Any change in the system that reduces the VF of the BP to the cold of space will have the same effect.
The GP, being opaque, and much warmer than space, must have the same effect to reduce heat loss.
Apparently it burns your ears to hear about heat loss reduction. Who knows why.
Nonetheless this explains why the BP temperature must warm with the GP in place.
And you have not refuted these facts.
“He simply cannot put two and two together.
The GP supposedly cools and the BP supposedly warms because of the “back-radiation” transfer…because that transfer is building up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object!”
Ugggh. Am I supposed to blindly apply correlation = causation here?
Again, now pay attention this time to the MATH.
The back radiation transfer of energy from GP to BP is NEVER LARGER than the transfer of energy from BP to back to the GP.
Therefore the notion, that the ‘back radiation transfer builds up internal energy’ in the BP has been TOTALLY DEBUNKED.
It is mathematically impossible.
In addition, you ignore the fact that the GP, having just moved from the SUNLIGHT into SHADE behind the BP, MUST COOL, to SPACE.
As anybody with common sense and a Watt of brainpower can understand.
To claim that the GP is cooling to the warmer BP is totally absurd and unsupported by the math and common sense.
That you continue to make claims that contradict this simple math and logic is why you have lost all credibility.
Shameless DREMT, just doesnt bother to read what his opponents post.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1736000
Far from losing credibility, Nate…
…both Ball4 and barry have agreed with my claim!
And, you still haven’t responded to my point. It’s not the question that needs answering, it’s the point made that needs responding to:
“Indeed that build was due to transfer of internal energy from the sun to the BP”
So Nate can hear the question:
“How does the BP get to be warmer than its equilibrium temperature with the Sun?”
and still answer: “due to the Sun”!
And, he doesn’t see the problem. Funny.
Eldrosion,
As you can see, Graham is not only using Barry and B4 as human shield, but he’s gaslighting Nate.
When shown to be straight up lying, what can a loser do?
Repeat the lie.
No lie, Nate. Deal with the point, or not. Up to you.
“The stupid thing is – I bet if Nate accepted what the other two already conceded, he would conclude there was a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution. That’s why he fights the obvious with every breath in his body…”
Yes your thinking that is quite stupid. Since neither one of them think there is any heat transfer from cold to warm, nor agree that there is a 2LOT violation.
And Barry has explained to you multiple times that any transfer from from GP to BP is returned by the BP.
You just dont listen and drone on and on with your throughly debunked nonsense.
Why?
Nate just gets more and more abusive.
“Indeed that build was due to transfer of internal energy from the sun to the BP”
Yep, do you deny that the sun is transferring internal energy to the BP?
“So Nate can hear the question:
“How does the BP get to be warmer than its equilibrium temperature with the Sun?”
and still answer: “due to the Sun”!”
Yep.
Which would also be YOUR answer when the mirror is placed behind the BP.
1. Because clearly no energy was supplied by the mirror!
2. All that the mirror does, as I explained, is to reduce the VF of the BP to space. And thus reduce its heat loss to space. It can now only lose heat to space from one side.
That should not be controversial.
3. And as I explained, the GP also reduces the VF to space, because it is opaque.
Neither of those facts should be controversial.
4. It replaces the VF to 0 K space with an equal VF to a 244 K surface.
5. That also reduces heat loss to space according to the RHTE. Also should not be controversial.
6. Therefore with steady heat input from the sun and reduced heat loss to space the BP warms, but less than the mirror case.
7. We also know that NO heat (net energy) comes from the GP. Thus the net transfer of energy came from the sun.
I’ve numbered these points so that you can tell me which point you dispute, and with what rationale, if you want to regain credibility.
Ive numbered
Nate still doesn’t get my point.
Since the BP at 244 K is at its equilibrium temperature with the Sun, then the Sun cannot possibly be responsible for any supposed temperature increase of the BP!
The responsibility could only lie with the insulation.
But, “back-radiation warming” is not insulation.
Insulation does not function by internal energy being transferred from the cooler object to the warmer object, where it builds up at the expense of the cooler object.
Ball4 and barry accept that in Eli’s solution to the GPE, internal energy is transferred from the cooler object to the warmer object, where it builds up at the expense of the cooler object.
If you accepted that, Nate, then you would most likely be forced to conclude there was a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution!
And so, this absurd debacle continues…
Dispute the points 1-7, that you disagree with, and give a sound rationale for doing so.
Otherwise we must assume that you can’t.
DREMT 1:17 pm, again, added insulation like adding the GP in vacuum does function by internal energy being transferred from the cooler object (GP) to the warmer object (BP) by radiation (in SI luminous intensity units), where BP internal energy builds up at the expense of the cooler object’s internal energy both continuously warming to steady state equilibrium as required by the 2LOT eqn. 64 as shown in Eli’s long ago correct GPE solution.
DREMT’s modified GPE solution does not comply with 2LOT eqn. 64 as it should so there is no hope for DREMT to be correct.
You can assume what you want, Nate.
The whole thing’s wrong because you are focusing on only one half of the picture, as I’ve explained about a dozen times already. You are ignoring the cooling of the GP.
Then, when explaining the cooling of the GP, you “forget” about the warming of the BP!
The “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, in Eli’s solution. And, you and I both know that is a 2LoT violation. Regardless of what Ball4 tries to pretend.
Well, the cooling of the GP has been clearly explained.
These 7 points are fact-based and answer your questions about how and why the BP warms via the sun’s heat, with no need for heat transfer from the GP, or a 2LOT violation.
So if you will not refute these 7 points, then we will have to assume that you cannot.
And that signals the end of the debate about a 2LOT violation.
Equilibrium temperature is the temperature at which energy input equals energy output under the given physical conditions.
Change the conditions and the equilibrium temperature may change.
Put a mirror on the other side of BP from the sun and now the BP immediately receives 400 W/m2 + 200 W/m2 = 600 W/m2, heating up until the plate emits 400 W/m2 from each side, as it must to equilibrate with the 400 W/m2 incoming. The sun-side of the plate is losing 400 W/m2 to space, and while the shade side of the plate is losing no energy to space.
It is a mistake to think that BP’s equilibrium temp with the sun must hold under changes in the radiative environment.
We make this point easily enough with a mirror – the BP equilibrium temperature with the sun is not the only temp it can be, even with only passive elements added to the mix.
It’s when the mirror is instead a blackbody sending thermal radiation to warmer blackbodies that we get some nonsense physics from critics of the GPE. Beginning with the tacit, anti-physics result that blackbodies are selective about which radiation they absorb.
An object in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun would be the same temperature as the sun. An object in radiative equilibrium with the sun can be any temperature depending on its distance to the sun, its emissivity, its geometry etc. But once it is in radiative equilibrium it then has an equilibrium temperature.
Change any of the conditions above, or others, and the radiative equilibrium can change, along with the resulting equilibrium temperature.
On or above Earth, using a giant magnifying glass, the theoretical maximum temperature you could reach is the same as the surface of the sun. That is also the maximum theoretical temperature of the BP, after placing many other plates behind it.
Different kettle of fish for the sphere and shells, as the sphere energy source is internal to the system rather than external (eg, a pinpoint sun).
barry displays his confusion about the GPE.
In the GPE, according to Eli’s maths, if you add more and more Green Plates the temperature of the BP approaches 290 K. Not the temperature of the surface of the Sun!
With the sphere and shells, the maths works out that if you add infinite shells you get infinite temperature!
I’ve written already about reflection:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733960
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734228
barry should have conceded there is a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution by now. I assume he has done, privately. Nate is only holding on because he still hasn’t agreed that in Eli’s solution, internal energy is transferred to the BP, where it builds up at the expense of the GP. barry, perhaps you could help Nate understand why that’s the case. He’s not listening to me. Maybe you can convince him.
Good points Barry.
We are led by logic and the laws of physics to the solution of a heat transfer problem. Thus we are able to find a different solution when the problem changes.
DREMTs approach has been to guess a solution, based on ideological thinking (the GHE must be wrong).
Then disregard any facts or logic that contradict that guess.
He stopped trying to refute our challenges, because he has no sound answers.
He will keep repeating what his beliefs are. But that aint debate. Hes done with debate.
“In the GPE, according to Eli’s maths, if you add more and more Green Plates the temperature of the BP approaches 290 K. Not the temperature of the surface of the Sun!”
Yes, that’s correct, and I was wrong. I was confusing two different ideas.
“With the sphere and shells, the maths works out that if you add infinite shells you get infinite temperature!”
Sure, that’s the algebra, but in the real physical world that will never happen, because the materials would melt, explode and/or form a black hole before reaching infinite mass/energy.
You can ‘beak’ all sorts of laws of physics by stipulating infinite elements.
I don’t usually ‘talk’ to Google AI, but I put this question to it. It might be the third question I’ve ever asked it.
“Physics problem. We have a blackbody sphere powered internally and constantly giving off a steady 200 W/m2 to space. Temperature is 244K. Power source is constant.
To set aside accounting for area, we’re going to surround the sphere with a blackbody shell of the same diameter (same surface area), but not touching, so the only transfer of energy is radiatively. (Yes, it’s physically impossible, but let’s let that go for now.
If the shell is a two-sided blackbody, what must it radiate from each side (inside/outside), once it is in radiative equilibrium with the sphere?”
I’ve edited to avoid formatting a bunch of symbols in equations, and omitted some section titles to keep this post shorter.
When we surround the sphere with the shell, the entire assembly (sphere + shell) must still radiate the same 200 W/m2 to space to maintain a steady state. Since the outer surface of the shell is the only part of the system that “sees” space, it must be the source of this radiation…
When we surround the sphere with the shell, the entire assembly (sphere + shell) must still radiate the same 200 W/m2 to space to maintain a steady state. Since the outer surface of the shell is the only part of the system that “sees” space, it must be the source of this radiation…
By definition, a blackbody shell at a uniform temperature Tshell radiates σT⁴shell from every part of its surface. Because it has two sides (inner and outer) and they share the same temperature…
Since we established flux out must be 200 W/m2 to balance the internal power source, the inner surface must also radiate the same amount…
For the sphere to be in equilibrium, it must radiate away both the power it receives from the shell (200 W/m2) and its own internal generation (200 W/m2).
Total radiation from sphere = 200 W/m2 (internal) + 200 W/m2 back-radiation) = 400 W/m2.
Once in radiative equilibrium, the shell must radiate:
From the inside: 200 W/m2
From the outside: 200 W/m2
(Note: In this configuration, the shell’s temperature remains approximately 244 K, while the sphere’s temperature will rise to approximately 290 K to satisfy its new equilibrium flux of 400 W/m2).
I didn’t ask Google AI anything about what the sphere ended up emitting, or its temperature with the shell around it. That result was arrived at independently of any witness-leading from me.
So…you’re not going to try to help Nate then, barry?
Such a strange situation. If barry convinced Nate of what barry had already agreed to, Nate would agree there’s a 2LoT violation in Eli’s solution.
Bizarrely, instead of talking amongst themselves, they both try to argue against me!
That’s OK. I’m used to it.
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2026/02/11/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-jan-2026/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2026/02/11/uah-mean-and-median-tropics-for-jan-2026/
UAH Global 12 month Median low pass: still wrong
UAH Global 5 year Median low pass: still missing
Still not willing to validate and verify your software, by relying on a software used by millions people since over 40 years.
Why?
*
Google Docs is ‘Excel for free’
12 month
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=1551212378#gid=1551212378
5 year
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=447018934#gid=447018934
“UAH Global 12 month Median low pass: still wrong
UAH Global 5 year Median low pass: still missing”
Well fill them in then. You have the source code/
No I won’t, Blindlsey H00d: your source code is one of the most striking examples of worst software development I have seen in the last 50 years.
And above all: it’s YOUR job, but… once more you show you lack the skills to do.
“once more you show you lack the skills to do.”
I have no idea what Blindsley H00d was trying to say with his typical retort.
In any case, I explained to him a long time ago, using an Excel file he himself published on WUWT in 2014, how he can compare means and medians in cascades.
There is a link to his original spreadsheet in the guest post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/16/crowdsourcing-a-full-kernel-cascaded-triple-running-mean-low-pass-filter-no-seriously/
” Here is a spreadsheet containing UAH and a Annual CTRM and R code for a simple RSS graph. ”
The spreadsheet link points to
https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/uah-with-annual-ctrm.xlsx
but suprisingly, the Excel file with UAH data is no longer accessible since a while; however, I saved it years ago:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kw1cBmVdNp76dW2DJHX76UCKuVnfHp0J/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=106872573356506193903&rtpof=true&sd=true
*
Last year I extended his file by duplicating his cascade and replacing, in the copy, all Excel function calls to ‘average’ by calls to ‘median’:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13O7bV3s4HUG06aZnPiQzeuux2qI8cgaT/edit?gid=285376177#gid=285376177
*
Apparently he was unable to accept that this was one more proof that his software is wrong.
And like Robertson, Clint R and a few other ignoramuses, he will never change his opinion, and continue ad aeternam et nauseam to present his wrong chart…
So what!
“I have no idea” ‘nuf said.
“I have no idea”. ‘nuf said.
Barry
A black body by definition doesn’t reflect any radiation, does mean it can’t emit.
What is black-body radiation, Anon for Q-related reasons?
Dullard,
Obviously it was a typo on my rushed post. But only a person like yourself, the village mascot, struggles with it. No wonder you believe all the fake news that CNC broadcast.
Dearest Anon for Q-related reasons,
It’s obvious why you prefer to bite Barry’s ankles instead of Puffman’s. Reading the page on black-body radiation suffices to defeat whatever point you might wish to underhandedly convey. No need to spite me.
What’s CNC, BTW?
Cult child Willard found a link he can’t understand. Buried deep in the text, which he couldn’t get through, was this: The concept of the black body is an idealization, as perfect black bodies do not exist in nature.
Poor child, he believes being “cute” is more important than being educated.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How did you miss the very first sentence of that page?
This knee-jerk whining about blackbodies is just incredibly ignorant and childish.
The theoretical blackbody has been instrumental in the derivation of many of the laws we apply to the math in our discussions. The S/B Law is BASED on blackbody emissivity.
But so are other laws about thermal radiation: Wein’s Law, Planck’s Law, Kirchhoff’s Law. These were developed using blackbody behaviour.
The dopes trying to dismiss the fact or function of blackbodies are unwittingly rejecting much of the basic science behind thermal radiation.
No surprise!
“This knee-jerk whining about blackbodies is just incredibly ignorant and childish…”
…and that is in no way abuse.
“This knee-jerk whining about blackbodies”
Yep, especially given that Clint uses them in his example, but refuses to explain why it is ok for him to do, but not others.
Just dishonest.
A week later, Nate tries to resurrect a dead thread.
Graham had a week to find the abuses contained in Anon and Puffman’s comments. Some moderator we got there.
We all know about Willard’s incredibly biased “moderation” at ATTP…
We all know Graham only pretends to moderate as a trolling bit and that his whining in this subthread is as silly as his current “No U”.
Willard actually attempts to “moderate” at ATTP. I just “extract the Michael” out of those that do.
Graham once more creates a fantasy for himself and all the other cranks he protects by foreshadowing accurate observations.
I’ve read Willard’s last comment several times…it appears to be gibberish. But, he never could communicate his ideas very well. Just not a very good writer.
‘a week later…’
moans our Hypocrite-in-Chief.
The guy who, after almost nine years with the same schtick, always complains about how he’s misunderstood, as opinions about clarity.
His PSTering is mere projection.
Nate, PSTs are not attempts to resurrect dead threads.
The fact they’re so, so bothered by PSTs just indicates their effectiveness.
Of course, as a narcissist, you cannot possibly have done anything wrong.
Thus you have never been dishonest, never contradicted yourself, and never ignored facts and logic of your opponents, never trolled, and never have done the very things that you whine about others doing.
Thus you have lost the respect of everyone here.
Nate’s projecting again.
norman…not taking a shot here, just commenting. Obviously, you can take it for what it’s worth. This is not about being right and wrong to me, it is about investigating in a scientific manner.
“If you double your Kinetic energy but double also your mass the velocity does not change. Hence the temperature will not rise. However in the reality of EMR, it is massless so adding this form of energy will not increase the mass but only the kinetic energy resulting in a higher temperature.
You and DREMT both peddle this totally false invalid “physics” that neither one of you can support that a colder body will reflect and not absorb incoming IR”.
***
You make an astute observation in part one then you undo it by not backing up your comment in part two. However, you could have been more explicit by taking it to the atomic/molecular level. If you have molecules with a specific KE and you mix them with molecules of the same KE, there is no reason why the KE should rise, hence the temperature.
Clint insists on claiming heat is not energy and trips himself up by claiming the addition of heat is required to raise temperature. However, he states it in such a manner that it is energy causing the temperature rise, which is correct, while claiming at the same time that heat is not energy but simply a transfer of energy.
The form of energy required to raise temperature is of course heat. The form required to move a car is both chemical, electrical, thermal and mechanical, chemical from the gasoline and mechanical from the resulting explosion of compressed gasoline vapour. Electrical energy is required to produce the spark to ignite the gas and of course electrical energy is required in the battery to start the car and keep it running. Heat is a byproduct of all that and is also used to warm the car interior.
To claim that a car operates on generic energy is technically correct but it does not explain the different forms of the energy. It is plain to see that the various forms of energy have markedly different properties. When it comes to variations in temperature we are obviously concerned with heat as the form of energy.
Something has to absorb the EM in a mass and you have never adequately explained how that works. I have offered my input and thus far no one has scientifically debunked my input. At least, not using any known science. If you have a valid rebuttal, I will listen.
It is no accident that the EM has a frequency in the order of the orbital frequencies of electrons in atoms. That is because EM is generated by electrons with those high angular frequencies in the first place. It is also a fact that no other particle in an atom has the ability and means to react to the EM frequencies. A one to one relation between electron angular frequencies and the frequency of EM can be demonstarrated.
I don’t expect you to understand that electrons in orbit react to resonant frequencies. Te theory involved comes from well into a course in basic electronics. The resonance is not only in the interaction of the EM frequency and the electron angular frequency, it is in the very make up of both. Electrons have an electrical field and a magnetic field when they move. It is no accident that they generate EM of a specific frequency when they descend to lower electron energy orbitals.
In the hydrogen atom, the frequencies of EM generated by electrons descending to lower energy orbitals is in the order of 1 hertz precision. Here are the spectral lines for the visibly Balmer series according to Google AI…
Hydrogen Spectral Series (Visible/Balmer) and Wavelengths
Red : 656.2 nm
Blue-green: 486.1 nm
Blue-violet: 434.0 nm
Violet: 410.1 nm
Note the precision in wavelength in nm, which converts directly to the same precision in frequency.
The same is true in the infrared region (see Paschen series) although you have argued that electrons cannot generate IR frequencies. I have responded to you asking what else in an atom can generate IR frequencies other than electrons. After all, IR is an electromagnetic field and the electron is the only particle in an atom that can generate EM of any frequency.
A beam of protons can generate an EM field but the field is opposite in polarity to that of an electron due to the difference in charge. In an atom, the protons in the nucleus are stationary relative to the electron and could not possibly produce EM frequencies equivalent to that of the electron, orbiting at very high frequencies.
Chemistry texts are in error when they claim it is the vibration in bonds that produce EM. It is the actual electrons making up the bonds that are emitting and absorbing EM. Ergo, it is variations in the bonding electron orbitals that produce the vibration. Bonds by themselves have no particular properties, it is the electron creating the bonds that has the properties that produce EM.
Chemistry texts suggest the generation of EM comes from the bonds connecting atom but they fail to point out the obvious, that all bonds are formed by orbiting electrons.
The main reason Dremt is correct here is that electrons are seriously finicky about the frequencies they will absorb, due to the resonance requirement. If you have an electron orbiting at a specific frequency, and it encounters a vibrating EM field, the only way they can interact is if the field frequency is exactly the frequency of the electron. It becomes a phase issue.
Any other frequency of EM other than their resonant frequency is ignored. It’s not that they are snooty, or racist, electrons cannot help but react to frequencies that match their angular frequency.
Think of a communications antenna. Only certain length in the order of a 1/4 wavelength of the EM signal can be absorbed. Although antennas are not as precise as electrons orbiting at very high angular frequencies, it is the electrons in the atoms of the metal used for the antenna that react to EM signals. They simply ignore EM outside the length of the specified EM wavelength.
That’s why the 2nd law holds for radiation. EM from colder masses simply cannot be absorbed by electron in the atoms of hotter masses.
This is another example of how the cult kids work.
Norman misrepresents my words, then gordon reinforces the misrepresentation. Neither will quote my EXACT words. They just make up crap.
gordon has a long history of clogging the blog with such nonsense.
Gordon Robertson
No Chemistry texts are not wrong! The dipole with a positive and negative end will vibrate at higher amplitude when the correct frequency EMR is there. The EMR energy becomes increased ampltude of a particular molecular vibration
When the amplitude drops to a ground state vibration it emits a frequency matching the frequency of the particular molecular vibration! It is not hypothetical Chemistry but established with verifiable evidence. Read up on spectroscopy and work to understand what they claim.
Gordon,
The nucleus of an atom can emit photons also.
Electrons do not orbit, especially ones involved with covalent bonding as in those in CO2 molecules.
BACK AT THE RANCH
“CO2 was never a pollutant. When we breathe, we emit CO2. Plants need CO2 to survive and grow. They thrive with more CO2. So the whole endangerment thing opens up an opportunity for the revival of clean, beautiful, American coal.” — Doug Burgum, who forgot how breathing works
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3melotbaogb26
Coal is so economical that Dirty Donald has to pay for it at a premium to keep deprecated plants afloat!
Willard: Try to live in a world without CO2 and plants. Your link contain lots of comments from cuckoos, aka people who are out of touch with reality.
Alarmists’ coal is carbon negative world, meaning killing all plants.
Wiki: Carbon negative – a definition
Carbon negative refers to a state in which a company, organization, or country removes more carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere than it emits through its activities. To achieve carbon negativity, entities not only need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but also actively remove additional carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using strategies such as reforestation, carbon capture and storage, and other carbon removal technologies.
Walter,
Try to be relevant.
To dump CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow has never been good for life. Witness the last 5 or 6 mass extinctions.
Also, perhaps you should sit down and calculate:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2025/12/17/direct-air-capture/
Direct air capture may not be able to suck up all we’d need to.
I doulbt Willard has studied the biogenic cycle,
I doubt Ian studied anything.
Perhaps he should start by clicking on the link?
The very best however we can find in a comment posted by
Jeanne Brennan @jeanneenabottle.bsky.social
Nice link…
https://tinyurl.com/Doug-Burgum-clean-energy
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum Recognizes Clean Energy Week 2024
” BISMARCK, N.D. – For the sixth year in a row, Governor Doug Burgum (R-N.D.) has officially proclaimed September 23-27, 2024, as Clean Energy Week in North Dakota. This proclamation was issued in conjunction with the 8th Annual National Clean Energy Week (NCEW).
“I commend Governor Burgum for recognizing Clean Energy Week in North Dakota,” said Heather Reams, chair of NCEW. “Advancing clean energy projects across the country is not only good environmental stewardship, but it is also economically prudent as it spurs the creation of jobs in local communities and strengthens state economies all while providing affordable, reliable clean energy to residents. Governor Burgum understands this, and I am encouraged by North Dakota’s potential to lead the rest of the nation in clean energy innovation and investment.”
“North Dakota boasts an all-inclusive energy portfolio,” Governor Burgum stated in the proclamation. “We must harness the power of entrepreneurs and small businesses in North Dakota, along with government collaboration, to assert American energy leadership in the global marketplace and assure low-cost, reliable energy here at home, including both carbon and renewable energy sources.”
As Governor Burgum’s proclamation highlights, one-third of North Dakota’s net electricity generation in 2022 was from wind power. In addition, the clean energy sector employs more than 9,000 North Dakotans. “
In Germany, such Burgum boys are named ‘Wendehals’. Same as ‘turncoat’ I guess.
Willard, in what dream do you think humans could ever achieve the level of destruction the natural world has achieved in the past,almost all the past extintintions occured after one catasclamic event, its a clown show,
Ian, what are you rambling about, did you lose your footing in the thread, this is about the cleanest coal, one that got Dozing Donald a medal. Or is it a trophy?
” If you plot the anomaly series on an absolute scale, it resembles more a straight line than a significant trend. ”
” The actual graph should be in absolute degrees C and represent the full 15C of the global average, which itself is a bit of a scam. On that scale, the 1C would be fairly insignificant and not overdone as in anomaly scales. ”
More of these nonsensical claims by genius Robertson…
*
Let’s generate, for the whole Globe, absolute and anomaly data out of exactly the same source, in order to compare them, even if, as I said often enough, generating averages of absolute data is sheer nonsense – except for ignoramuses who never have to use them, of course.
To get absolute and anomaly plots on an equal footing, the absolute data is here too displayed relative (otherwise, it would be distant from the anomalies by over 10 °C):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DgqpBAmQAfOrqqEY3brRRDkEIvsjD99U/view
{ The comparison starts in 1960: before that year, the global absolute temperature mix looks, as oppposed to anomalies, like pure garbage. }
*
What is immediately visible is that anomalies indeed look ‘insignificant’ when compared to the absolute data they were derived out. No wonder: they do no longer contain the summer peaks and winter drops, hence their smaller extent in the y-direction, right?
Anf conversely, anomalies are usually represented at a higher scale than here – not in order to scare the reader but because one wants to see more detail in the plots as visible in the picture above.
Why should I not observe anomaly plots with the same 10 cm y-extent on my 24″ monitor as when looking at absolute data?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i2w3ZPpWZZdIlr9h4_oJEX7Pu3gCND2n/view
*
Oh Noes, how is it possible to be as stubborn and ignorant as genius Robertson?
you might not like Gordon,but he is right about the climate, and all the hype that surrounds it , all driven by greed and ignorance, the greed of powerful people who rely on the ignorance of others.
Neither do I like Robertson nor do I dislike him.
The same holds for all people who think or even believe he would post anything valuable just because he posts what they want to read – regardless whether or not it is correct and meaningful.
You probably did not understand anything I wrote above, let alone why I wrote it.
” FTC warns Apple over alleged lack of conservative news ”
Have the Trumping Boy and his hench(wo)men ever missed the persistent lack of progressive news at FOX News, the Washington Times, or the New York Post, to name just three of hundreds of examples?
Of course not.
*
And this news item is just one of thousands like it since January 2025.
When the Trumping Boy promised the “return of free speech” during his 2024 campaign, anyone with a perfectly decent and functioning brain understood exactly what he meant.
MAGAmaniac Trumpistas won’t for sure.
For all wonderfully weathy US MAGAmaniac Trumpistas
*
Many of you hoped highest tax cuts when voting for the Trumping boy.
Think of how much your tax cuts will be threatened by the following numbers…
*
Based on late 2025 and early 2026 reports, the total cost of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has risen to unprecedented levels due to expanded detention and deportation operations, surpassing $14 billion annually for detention alone in 2025.
Following the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” ICE received a $75 billion supplemental funding boost to be used over four years, effectively tripling its annual budget to over $28 billion for 2025.
ICE Budget and Operating Costs (2025-2026)
– Total Budget Boost: Following July 2025 legislation, ICE’s budget increased from roughly $10 billion to $75 billion over four years ($18.7 billion per year), plus base funding, enabling a “wartime recruitment” campaign to hire 10,000 new officers.
– Detention Costs: Over $14 billion was appropriated for ICE detention in 2025.
– Per-Day Cost: Detention costs roughly $152 per day per person.
– Detention Capacity: The number of detainees in ICE custody rose to a record 66,000 in November 2025, with projections of up to 107,000 by January 2026.
– Record Revenue for Contractors: For-profit detention centers, which hold nearly 90% of ICE detainees, are experiencing record revenue, with $45 billion allocated for new detention centers.
Estimated Costs of Mass Deportation
– Annual Cost of Mass Deportation: Removing one million people per year is estimated to cost at least $88 billion annually.
– Total Project Cost: A one-time, comprehensive operation to deport 11 million to 13 million undocumented immigrants is estimated to cost between $315 billion and over $967 billion over a decade.
– Breakdown of Costs (per 1M deportations/year):
— Detention: ~$66 billion per year (building and operating camps).
— Arrests: ~$7 billion per year.
— Legal Processing: ~$12.6 billion per year.
— Removal/Transportation: ~$2.1 billion per year.
– Military Involvement: Proposals to use the military for deportations would add significant, currently uncalculated costs, including the use of military bases for detention.
Economic and Social Impact Costs
– GDP Loss: Mass deportation could reduce the U.S. GDP by 4.2% to 6.8% ($1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion).
– Tax Revenue Loss: Undocumented households pay roughly $46.8 billion in federal taxes and $29.3 billion in state/local taxes annually.
– Labor Market Impact: Mass deportation would cause severe labor shortages in agriculture, construction, and hospitality.
– Fiscal Burden: Increased detention, deportation, and administrative processing could cost the federal government over $1 trillion in total, according to some projections.
“Immigrant Threatening” and Enforcement Actions
– State/Local Coordination: $13.5 billion has been allocated to reimburse state and local law enforcement for immigration functions, with over 1,300 agreements in place by Feb 2026.
– Impact of Rhetoric: The rhetoric surrounding mass deportation has been described as a way to “spread fear” and a “punitive” measure targeting “left-leaning and Democratic cities”.
– Public Safety Focus Shift: The focus has shifted from criminals to non-criminal immigrants, with 68,440 people in detention as of Dec 2025, nearly 40,000 of whom had no criminal record.
*
Yeah, people. You voted for him.
The only thing that can save (not only!!!) your tax cuts is if the Trumping boy and his hench(wo)men manage to manipulate the midterm elections in such a way that the Republicans in Congress can survive the megalomaniacal, paranoid antics in the White House.
WARNING: Not for cult kids with TDS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d6NUw8Bc64
Blinny,
Most illegals are paid in cash or on 1099’s and they don’t file taxes. So how are they paying taxes?
stephen p anderson
Here is an article that explains how illegals pay taxes and gives an estimate of the amount.
https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
Planet Nine, a hypothetical Neptune-sized world roughly 10 times Earth’s mass in the far outer solar system, likely causes the observed 6-degree tilt of the major planets’ orbital plane relative to the Sun. It shapes the orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects, clustering them and forcing some into perpendicular paths.
Key Effects on the Solar System
Solar System Tilt/Wobble: Planet Nine’s gravitational pull, acting on a tilted plane (roughly 30 degrees off the main plane), is believed to have caused the entire solar system to wobble, creating a ~6-degree tilt of the eight known planets’ orbits relative to the Sun’s equator.
Influencing Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs): It is hypothesized to cause the, previously inexplicable, clustering of distant, detached, or high-inclination Kuiper Belt Objects (like Sedna), keeping them in specific orbital alignments.
Long-term Dynamics: Over billions of years, its gravitational influence likely keeps these distant objects from being ejected from the solar system by other planets, acting as a “stabilizer” for their highly elliptical orbits.
Minimal Immediate Danger: While it may cause long-term gravitational influence, it is not considered an immediate threat to the inner planets or Earth.
The existence of Planet Nine is inferred from these, and other, orbital peculiarities, even though it has not yet been directly observed.
Bill, why not just say, it does not exist.
” Planet Nine, a hypothetical Neptune-sized world roughly 10 times Earth’s mass in the far outer solar system, likely causes the observed 6-degree tilt of the major planets’ orbital plane relative to the Sun. ”
*
As usual, the Hunter boy posts blah blah without giving us any source he pasted his ‘information’ from.
It’s easy to find:
https://tinyurl.com/Hunter-boy-blah-blah
which easily brings us to
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/curious-tilt-sun-traced-undiscovered-planet-52710
*
If that strange ‘Planet Nine’ would exist it would have long been detected.
Just think about which primitive observation tools were used by astronomers (Clint R’s insulting choice of words: astrologers) to discover Uranus, Neptune and Pluto:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel#Uranus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Tombaugh#Pluto
*
Anyone who reads this blog regularly will immediately understand that the Hunter boy has been “redefining” terrestrial warming for quite some time now by linking its cause to vague, diffuse planetary matters about which there is no shortage of theories, but rather of… concrete observations, for which we certainly lack neither equipment nor observation data processing!
*
As far as I remember, he never was able or willing to post any scientific source backing his allegations.
I help him with one of many links I collected until recently:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/astronomy-and-space-sciences/articles/10.3389/fspas.2022.839794/full
Bindi offers another example of his cultism. He attacks Bill for no good reason. Bill is just practicing the scientific method. He doesn’t claim “Planet Nine” is absolute fact. Look at the terminology:
“…a hypothetical Neptune-sized world…likely causes…is believed to…It is hypothesized…its gravitational influence likely keeps…While it may…is inferred from…even though it has not yet been directly observed”
That’s being scientific. It’s all just a guess, somewhat supported by observations, but not claimed to be fact. Compare that with the CO2 nonsense, which is also a guess, but violates many laws of science. Or the Moon nonsense, which also violates known science of orbital motion.
BIndi practices dictatorial censorship over any ideas that don’t match his cult beliefs.
Bindidon says look here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/astronomy-and-space-sciences/articles/10.3389/fspas.2022.839794/full
———————–
yes i have acknowledged as this paper does that all the objects in the solar system exercises gravitational forcings on the earth and sun that results in forcings that changes the earth sun distance.
but i have also mentioned i have done zero work at estimating what that effect is as it isn’t the issue i have been examining.
the process i have been looking at is opportune changes in earth’s forward velocity in orbit as it travels closest to the sun which will have a change in mean annual global insolation while assuming no change in distance to the sun or change in emitted radiation from the sun. though we do know it will also have a distance effect and possibly an effect on the sun making any analysis of tsi changes incomplete.
pretty stupid of to claim if such an influential planet existed it would have been found without even doing a basic search on the net. if you had done that you would have found numerous references to this based on articles in reputable journals. but i am not surprised as we have learned around here how often you go off half cocked.
neptune was hard to find because its albedo is about 4% so they had to find it by observing the large effects it had on uranus orbit.
planet 9 is estimated by its effects on objects in the solar system per Harvard:
”This speculative “Planet 9,” according to estimates, would be about 5-10 Earth-masses in size and orbit about 400-800 au from the Sun. (more than a order of magnitude more distant than neptune) A planet at this distance would be extremely difficult to spot in normal optical sky searches because of its faintness, even to telescopes like PanSTARRS and LSST.Nov 3, 2022” parens mine.
https://tinyurl.com/3cwmtky4
lets see if you can figure out how to that with an assist.
Ah, finally the Hunter boy mkanages to post his sources.
Ah, finally the Hunter boy is citing his sources.
Maybe he’ll also learn to avoid the stoopid reaction ‘appeal to authority’ whenever I do the same.
Bindidon says:
”Maybe he’ll also learn to avoid the stoopid reaction ‘appeal to authority’ whenever I do the same.”
Who are you talking to Bindidon? Your alter ego?
Saying that science has a hypothesis of a 9th planet isn’t an appeal to authority. Its just a fact Bindidon.
If you just said that science has a ”hypothesis” that if CO2 is doubled the surface will warm by 3C that is also a fact.
But that’s completely different than saying that the surface will warm by 3c if we double co2.
Some scientists may have said that but it still would be an appeal to authority and or an opinion of your own that has nothing to do with scientific facts.
Now that the blog is cluttered with fake science and other rantings, it is time for off-topic news that is real. I saw this last year, and here it is. Does this change the battlefield? Will Trump allow the sale to proceed?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-air-force-tests-rapidly-214209817.html
The Extended Range Attack Munition, or ERAM, is an air-launched cruise missile that is designed to allow the Air Force to strike high-value fixed targets from standoff range with precision guidance, at an affordable cost.
The U.S. government has authorized the sale of ERAMs to Ukraine to strengthen its arsenal. In August 2025, the State Department announced up to 3,350 ERAMs, as well as embedded GPS and navigation systems, had been approved for sale to Ukraine for about $825 million.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/69408
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency has also informed Congress that the missiles can be launched from both US-made F-16 fighters and Soviet-era MiG-29 aircraft. [planes in use by Ukraine]
The US Air Force Armaments Working Group reported that production of ERAM missiles for Ukraine began in spring 2025, with the first batch of 840 units scheduled for delivery in October 2026.
The ERAM – an air-launched “mini cruise missile” with a reported range of up to 400 kilometers – is intended to give Ukraine a low-cost, high-volume long-range strike capability, allowing Ukrainian forces to hit military assets and infrastructure deep behind enemy lines.
Interesting. Given that Trump has proudly hung a large photograph of himself walking with Putin in the White House, it seems likely he will not allow the sale to proceed.
tim….”The US Air Force Armaments Working Group reported that production of ERAM missiles for Ukraine began in spring 2025, with the first batch of 840 units scheduled for delivery in October 2026″.
***
Seriously bad mistake, we are now seeing the results as Russia counter=attacks with bazzilions of drones, not just in the Donbass region but in major cities. They had refrained from such attacks until the Ukrainians began firing those long range missiles into Russia.
The US and the EU helped start this war by interfering in Ukraine’s internal politics. See anything by Professor John Mearsheimer on the subject.
Be patient while another person introducing him drones through an all too long intro. For those looking for verifiable facts, this is the man to follow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qciVozNtCDM
He has laid out in detail how the West has instigated the war by ignoring Russia’s pleas not to get the Ukraine into NATO. They have made it clear for some 20 years that they will not tolerate Western interference in the Ukraine and now we are seeing the result of us meddling.
It’s worth noting that most of he damage occurred under Biden.
The US has gotten away with such interference in banana republics and recently in Venezuela. Russia is another target altogether since they have a vast stockpile of nuclear weapons. They also have a vast amount of knowledge wrt to how wars should be fought. Remember, they fought the Nazis to a standstill, thanks to the weather, then kicked their butts back to Germany.
Like it or not, we could not have won WWII without them. The same goes for the Chinese in Asia, who played a major role in stopping the Japanese, albeit under the guidance of Joe Stilwell, a Yank general. The US also supplied them with major munitions but the Chinese supplied the manpower.
The Brits played a major role under General Bill Slim, mentored by General Auchinleck. If Churchill had not been so stupid he would have kept Auchinleck to face Rommel then used him on D-Day rather than the idiot Montgomery. It was the Brits who eventually steam-rollered the Japanese right out of Burma, starting in India.
Gordon, you are right about the absolute importance of Russia in winning the eastern front. But the Pacific and Japan? C’mon. That whole campaign was about the US Navy stopping Japan at Midway Island (BTW, look at a globe/map to see how close Midway is to Hawaii), and then the long, absolutely brutal, deadly march from island to island until the Japanese homeland was threatened. They still would not surrender, until we dropped the 2nd bomb.
Fossil fuels played a big part in the war. Definitely a factor in Japan’s decision to attack the U.S. (oil embargo). And then the allied campaign to cut off Axis fuel supplies was successful and crucial to victory.
Science, engineering, and production played a huge part and that was mostly the U.S. Manhattan project, warship and airplane design and incredible production. Of course, sure helps when you have oceans on both sides keeping you safe.
True. Good points, Thomas.
“Fossil fuels played a big part in the war. Definitely a factor in Japan’s decision to attack the U.S. (oil embargo).”
And the geopolitics of fossil fuels explains why Europe has sought for many years to ween itself off of fossil fuels that must be mostly imported from Russia and the Middle East, and now, from a hostile US.
Thomas Hagedorn says:
”Gordon, you are right about the absolute importance of Russia in winning the eastern front. But the Pacific and Japan? C’mon. That whole campaign was about the US Navy stopping Japan at Midway Island”
Thats about half right. We would have beaten Japan no matter what. Japan made the mistake that the could go wild for 6 to 12 months and then they would have to make a peace deal.
A lot of people make that mistake about a peace deal.
But that aside Midway was a major milestone in what brought about a quicker defeat of Japan.
The most important element in the quick Midway turn around was in US intelligence breaking Japan’s naval code and after that all the updates and most of the other codes used by Japan with no significant blackouts when code books were updated. Without that Japan’s plan at Midway would have likely succeeded and created a huge threat to Hawaii.
In modern warfare and often also seen in wars that go all the way back in history. Wars are not won by numbers of soldiers but by the equipment they carry. That’s not in anyway to belittle human sacrifice in delaying defeat nor in eventually winning battles, that is an essential element.
On a production score the US is estimated to have produced 2/3rds of allied wartime military production with most of that being state of the art weaponry. It’s a huge mistake to underestimate the importance of that particularly against a sophisticated Axis.
It’s even more important today as small wars are likely to dominate out of the dread of using what is thought to be mutual suicide pact options. Not being prepared to fight any kind of war that might arise in the future simply isn’t acceptable and is especially true at the level of industrial capability.
I am seeing the Trump doctrine in this moving across the entire allied landscape especially in Europe Marco Rubio’s speech the other day at the Munich Security Conference earned a standing ovation and was culturally on target. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. . .shades of FDR’s 1933 inaugural address extended to the western world.
Sometimes the world needs to be reminded of the actual facts of life and freedom. With both comes responsibility.
Nate, we all know that Europe has prioritized CO2 reduction over geopolitics. With very concerning results. Their dependence on Russian gas gave Putin a huge weapon to weaken European resolve when he attacked Ukraine. Europe (Germany, France, England) sits on huge, undeveloped deposits of shale gas and oil, estimated to be 3/4 the size of U.S. shale, which has helped us become energy independent (OPEC can’t hold us over a barrel – pun intended). And, we didn’t have to turn down our thermostats and shiver during this brutal winter. North Sea fields still have a lot more potential just sitting there. Yet, there Europe sits, weak and begging. Help yourself, first. But meanwhile we will be glad to sell you as much LNG as you want. Oh, yeah, we’ll have lots of leverage over you.
Thomas Hagedorn says:
”Yet, there Europe sits, weak and begging. Help yourself, first. But meanwhile we will be glad to sell you as much LNG as you want. Oh, yeah, we’ll have lots of leverage over you.”
I think its pretty clear that Europe has lots of fossil fuel options.
that includes their own production. Europe has large coal reserves. And before the stonedum chimes in they should look closely at China.
China has been the most aggressive expander of coal burning this century and continues to expand.
Pollution began leveling out around 2006 when China began employing scrubbing technologies into their coal burning. But we see big headlines that China’s coal use went down for the first time in 52 years by all of 1.6% in 2025.
China declared war on air pollution in 2013 and while coal plant construction has continue to increase apace including projected new plants. What they have achieved is a 20% increase in efficiency using supercritical technologies and dramatically reduced air pollution by better and better scrubber technologies, which anyone who has been involved in wood burning fireplace technologies which have been around for centuries knows one can accomplish via more complete burning of the pollutants and reductions in waste heat going out of chimneys.
Bottom line is China has reduced pollution to levels now meeting world standards and overall pollution reduction of 80% in just 12 years. Further clean coal plant technologies are producing pollution at one seventh the rate of that standard and below the EPA and World dream standard (excluding of course zero being the dream standard of the stonedum that appears to dominate the politics of Europe currently)
China meanwhile since 2013 achieved the world standard (7 times higher than the dream standard of the EPA and WHO) by retrofitting old plants and producing new plants which on average were about 20% below current world standard.
Abundant fossil fuels is a necessity for health. Everything in life is a trade off. The stonedum that don’t see that are simply stupid or uneducated or poorly educated. Of course the really really stonedum try to measure air pollution by CO2 emissions. Thats really really really dum. thats its because it overlooks huge opportunities to save lives looking at it just a little bit differently. We have much more severe problems like people afraid to have babies because they don’t want their kids to go through the hell of the future. China went through that hell and now has no restrictions on family sizes first changing the 1980 one baby policy in 2016 to a 2 child policy and then casting off all restrictions 5 years later.
Before 1980 China relied on executions to keep the population down. but after Chairman Mao died in 1976 that brought an end to the horrors of the early communist party and to replace it China adopted a more fascist type government.
Bill Hunter – Thanks for the detail on China’s “clean coal” (cleaner). It makes me wonder about the recent warming (a couple years ago, during El Niño and Hunga Tonga). Probably just mostly some form of natural variation, but I wonder about the reduction of aerosols allowing more insolation to hit the surface. Berkeley Earth noted the cleaning up of marine combustion, but I questioned at the time I read it, whether the scale of that could be significant, but the reduction of aerosols from China coal? Now maybe that could do it.
Since 2013 when China declared war on coal pollution the effect world wide was china cleaned up approximately half the world’s coal energy production. Lagging is the US, EU, and India. Per Google AI.
Coal burning is 35 to 40 times greater than the use of marine transportation fuels.
Further the transition away from marine high sulphur emissions started earlier than 2020.
The US became restricting entry of ships burning the heavy sulphur oil starting around 2009. EU started 2010. Canada 2012.
In 2020 a worldwide restriction got underway. Sales of bunker oil collapsed in 2020 with prices plummeting almost 2/3rds also driven by covid19. Since then there has been a recovery in price.
Sales high sulphur oils are now supported by ships that have installed scrubber technology which kicked of in 2009 and 10.
Singapore the worlds largest bunkering port went to sales of low sulfur oils being 1% in 2018 to 63% by 2020.
2022-2023: A “scrubber boom” led to a rebound in high sulphur fuel oil demand as ships fitted with cleaning systems (scrubbers) could still legally burn the cheaper, high-sulfur fuel. So sales of bunker oil is again increasing.
end of Google AI
———————–
So it appears Berkeley Earth botched it yet again as an explanation. Overall its likely longer more linear trend.
coal clean up may underlie a longer term linear trend in warming. But Berkeley Earth probably recognizes that subtracting from what they want to provide CO2. And they have longing to find the missing warming. BE botched their UHI study as well. I think that may have prompted Roy to accelerate his efforts on that issue.
UAH long time .13c/decade warming trend began accelerating (visually) around 2013 so all this likely does not explain the 2023-2024 bump but may well be a significant part of the 2013-2025 trend.
US and EU lagging on coal plant upgrades is almost undoubtedly linked to stonedum politics that has categorized coal plant upgrades as throwing in good money into a doomed business.
If you google it they say few plants have met the EPA dream standards.
Pretty much the same thing that California has been doing with combustion engine automobiles to drive them out of business to meet their net zero standards.
The US and EU and Canada operate on a standard effectively 700% more strict than the rest of the world recently under the cover of net zero. and its doing more harm than good. When an industry becomes impoverished due to regulation nothing gets upgraded and that industry will plod along like a 3rd world industry or go out of business entirely.
norman…”The dipole with a positive and negative end will vibrate at higher amplitude when the correct frequency EMR is there. The EMR energy becomes increased ampltude of a particular molecular vibration
When the amplitude drops to a ground state vibration it emits a frequency matching the frequency of the particular molecular vibration!
***
Norman…let’s drop this back to basics to see where we agree/disagree.
1)an atom is a central nucleus made up of neutrons and protons surrounded by orbiting electrons. The protons have a positive charge and the electrons a negative charge.
The basic atom, hydrogen, has one proton with one electron. As we move up the table of elements (atoms) they are ordered by increasing atomic mass, each subsequent atom having one more proton and electron than the previous atom/element. There is an increase in neutrons as well but they have a neutral charge affecting mass and are not of interest in this discussion.
2)each atom has orbital shells that become filled in a specific manner. Basically, the first shell holds two electrons and when filled the atom is declared inert. The first shell is full when it has two electrons and two protons (helium) and it is an inert gas.
The next shell has 8 atoms, beginning with Lithium (3 electrons) and ending with Neon (an inert gas) with 10 electrons. The next shell has 8 electrons as well and the next has 18 electrons, and so on.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/periodic-table/
This is highly over-simplified because we are omitting sub-shells and the more complex picture. However, it serves for this post.
3)I am trying to make a point that atoms have no other particles than electrons, protons and neutrons.
4)the molecule is two or more atoms joined by electron orbital bonds. The bonding electrons are in the outer shells, called valence orbitals. Again, the actuality is more complex.
The point is this, there are no other particles involved in molecular bonding than electrons. In molecular bonds like this, the term used is covalent bond, where the valence orbital electrons are said to be shared between two atoms.
5)the point re molecules is that no molecule has any other structure than those presented by each atom making up the molecule. That is, molecules as well as atoms are various configurations of electrons, protons and neutrons. There is nothing else in a molecule than can produce independent vibrations, only electron bonds and the electron/proton interaction. Only electrons can absorb and emit EM, hence affecting their KE hence the KE in the vibrations.
Anyone claiming additional properties of molecules outside of the properties introduced by the constituent atoms is misrepresenting the truth. All properties of molecules can be explained by the interactions of the atoms making up the molecules. The word molecules is simply a name given to various atom-based structures.
The various arrangements of atoms within a molecule is crucial to the properties of the molecule and that arrangement is due to electron bonds producing various angles. It’s all about electrostatic charges, especially the negative charge on the electrons.
6)any vibrations in molecules are due to the electron bonds holding the constituent atoms together as a molecule plus the natural vibrations produced by the electrostatic positive/negative relationship between electrons and protons in the nucleus.
Since the orbiting valence electrons can absorb heat or EM, the subsequent increase in KE affects the electron/proton vibration by adding to it. If the bonding electron gives up KE by emitting EM, it loses KE and that changes the vibration. The vibrations are frequency related to the angular frequency of each valence electron.
7)polarity related to dipoles…Linus Pauling developed a scale of electronegativity that measures the relative level of negative charge in an atom. Consider the CO2 molecules….
O=====C=====O
On the atomic table mentioned earlier, carbon (C) has 6 electrons and oxygen (O) has 8. According to Pauling, O is more electronegative than C and with orbiting electrons orbiting both O and C, the O is said to have more affinity for electrons than C. That means, if an electron is orbiting both atoms, it tends to spend more time in the O end of the bond than the C end.
That makes the O-end more negative than the C-end. However, both ends are made up of negative electron charges, with the positive charges of the nucleus not involved. Therefore the more negative O-end of the bond, now called a dipole bond, is relatively more negative than the C-end. In electrostatics, if one end is more negative than the other, the other end is said to be positive wrt to the more negative end.
The key is that both ends are negative since they are made up of negative electron charges. However, if one end is slightly less negative, it is classified as relatively more positive.
Gordon Robertson
Your point 5) is not correct. Electrons are not the only thing affected by EMR. Any charged particle will be affected by EMR. Absorb just means the energy of the EMR has become a different form of energy. In electron transitions (which are all you are able to understand) the energy of the EMR moves the electron to a higher orbital. In a molecule it increases the vibrational energy.
The bonding of the molecule is not significant as being what absorbs EMR, It is what creates the spring tension that allows a molecule to vibrate. It holds the two atoms together so that as they try to move apart, the bond pulls them together creating the vibrational system that is effected by EMR. The positive and negative component s of EMR are able to interact with the positive and negative charges of a dipolar molecule transferring the energy of the EMR to a higher vibrational amplitude.
Gordon Robertson
You need to brush up on your Chemistry before posting about it!
YOU: “That makes the O-end more negative than the C-end. However, both ends are made up of negative electron charges, with the positive charges of the nucleus not involved. Therefore the more negative O-end of the bond, now called a dipole bond, is relatively more negative than the C-end. In electrostatics, if one end is more negative than the other, the other end is said to be positive wrt to the more negative end.
The key is that both ends are negative since they are made up of negative electron charges. However, if one end is slightly less negative, it is classified as relatively more positive.”
Seems like you are just making up stuff and really don’t know what your are talking about! Both ends are not negative and the positive charge of the nucleus is most certainly involved. The electrons moving about the nucleus tend to cancel our the positive charge of the nucleus. You remove one electron and you have an actual positive charge ion that will be repelled by a positive field and likewise deflect as a positive charge in a magnetic field. All what I tell you is very well established and experimentally established science. You just make up things you believe are true but are not willing to see the evidence that shows your belief is most wrong!
Also in NMR, EM waves interact with only the nucleus of atoms. Hence why it is called nuclear magnetic resonance. It is the basis for all MRI imaging.
In MRI, it is the nuclei of atoms being imaged!
BACK AT THE RANCH
Bone-chilling cold and Arctic winds gripped the northeastern US last month. Data shows that the 2 operating utility-scale offshore wind farms on the East Coast—South Fork Wind & Vineyard Wind—performed as well as gas-fired power plants and better than coal-fired facilities during the severe storms.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/offshore-wind/offshore-wind-showed-up-big-east-coast
Euer Trumping boy kann uns mal kreuzweise…
With his utterly stupid ‘clean, beautiful coal’ and his dictatorial, lawless obstruction of companies in the renewable energy sector, he achieves nothing but chaos, as everywhere he casts his shadow.
Here are the Germany data for the primary energy sources for electricity generation in 2025:
https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=2025&source=total
and in 2024:
https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=2024&source=total
*
Unfortunately, Europe – and Germany in particular – is currently shifting from energy dependence on Russian gas to energy dependence on US gas.
What utter nonsense!
*
Unfortunately too, neither the German conservatives nor the social democrats want to abandon the damned lignite mining: the former don’t want the power generation industry to give up a lucrative sector, and the latter don’t want to watch 100,000 jobs disappear.
What a mess!
Bindi, gasoline is almost $8.50/gal in Germany. I got a fill up yesterday at $2.77/gal. A friend in Texas gets it even cheaper, about $2.45/gal.
Your TDS isn’t working for you.
https://gasprices.aaa.com/todays-state-averages/
By the time you reach the nearest city from your shack, Puffman, Binny has crossed seven countries. Your shack is also 40-50% more expensive than Binny’s Alpenhaus.
You might also like:
https://www.tker.co/p/us-stocks-underperform-rest-of-world-in-2025
Please, do continue to turn politics into WWF.
There is a cure for TDS, but first you have to grow up.
Here’s one that didn’t–
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6rkFsO2BrBI
Hey Puffman, speaking of wrestling –
https://www.advocate.com/sports/aew-anti-ice-chant
Do you think Dirty Donald will be able to abolish the mid-terms?
Here’s a better one, same theme — cult child that never grew up — but adults celebrate his downfall.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/C2hm2TvHAks
LMAO!
Bindidon is completely stuck on his daddy’s characterization of conservatives and social democrats.
It’s more than obvious that the typical German conservative just isn’t some rich guy invested in coal mining, nor any longer is the main interest of the typical social democrat the welfare of the working man. If it were the working man they would not be lauding the illegal importation of millions of immigrants to compete with the working man and drive his wages down.
Interestingly I was listening to a speech the other day from the Belgian prime minister. I was marveling at how much in sync he was with Trump’s energy policies. But toward the end of his speech it took another turn when he stated he wasn’t interested in favoring ”national” production but instead his interest was in the ability of Belgium entrepreneurs to take advantage of the cheapest labor possible that could be found on the international stage. One has to wonder if the working man in Belgium can register to vote or if there are any skilled production workers left in Belgium and the entire middle class has disappeared into low skill low paying tourist, gardening, cleaning, transportation, and retail jobs. One thing clear this has very little in common with traditional social democracy.
Obviously AOC isn’t at all concerned about jobs having kicked Amazon out of her district. Even Bernie isn’t a big labor guy any more concerned about good paying jobs having sold out millions of jobs to globalist causes and the wealthy elite that control the most politically powerful and production ineffective environmental corporations.
Bindi is also all wet about obstruction of private enterprise in the renewable energy sector.
Trump isn’t doing anything at all there.
His concern is corrupt government subsidies that gin up with phony prospecti that rely on fearful predictions vs manifested problems
actually being felt by the voting public. We have Michelle Obama’s primary concern that she was pressured by whites to conform to white standards of beauty causing here untold expenses and loss of personal time to get ahead. Talking about having to reach deep to support the narratives her husband was preaching. LOL!
This narrative of fear and prejudice is doing nothing but harming those least able to afford it.
One cannot call it private enterprise when its profit margin is wholly dependent on sucking off the public teat via non-competitive monopolistic practices in the home energy sector that is expected to grow into a state controlled trillion dollar industry in the next 10 years.
There is one republican candidate for governor in California whose main gripe is how he got ripped off by the state after spending 10’s of thousands of dollars installing an array of solar panels on his roof at his cost with the promise he could sell the electricity he didn’t use back to the state at the same cost as the utilities charged specifically for the electricity. Utilities separate out the cost of the energy from what the utility actually does is deliver it to your home. Now he gets less than 25% of that to a point it doesn’t even cover his own energy costs while trying to make out as an energy miser.
I just got this past week of a notice of new California law that mandates the replacement of natural gas with electricity for home energy use on some kind of rolling schedule. Its getting really bad here for no reason at all. It isn’t right just because communist dictators do that.
AFA Trump is concerned fixing those problems and stopping the bleeding isn’t illegal it’s his job to stop these corrupt practices that the majority of American voters voted for him to do.
Coal works 24/7 end of, it also has a multitude of uses,
TEST
“The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Climate Prediction Center (CPC) informs the public of the shift to a Relative Oceanic Niño Index for the official monitoring and prediction of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, effective February 1, 2026.”
https://www.weather.gov/media/notification/pdf_2026/pns26-05_Relative_ONI.pdf
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso/roni/
A centre for guess work, nothing more. Money for nothing.
bill hunter….”Planet Nine, a hypothetical Neptune-sized world roughly 10 times Earth’s mass in the far outer solar system…”.
***
Bill…not knocking your post just trying to add to it with some skepticism. Please don’t take any skepticism offered by me as a shot at you, I am aiming it at astrophysicists who should know better.
We already have a Planet 9, it’s called Pluto. It meets all the requirements of a planet but the ijits running the astronomy scene these days have disqualified it since it is located in a debris field.
The nitwits have disqualified it based on an inane theory that the debris field ‘should’ have condensed and formed a ‘real’ planet.
Duh!!! and double Duh!!! There is not a shred of evidence that current planets were formed in that manner. Ergo, no one, but these nimrods have such proof and their proof is based on some kind of sick thought experiment. Besides, the inner 4 planets are composed of solids whereas the next 4 are composed of solidified gases.
The decision to exclude Pluto comes from the same mindset that claims the entire mass of the universe came from a sudden explosion from nothingness, they call the Big Bang. We need to ignore these ijits and get on with real science, that has been severely set back by quantum theory and and Einstein’s thought experiment, aka relativity theory.
In other words, we need to get back to good, old, reliable Newtonian theory, wherein science is done by observation and conclusion. If we cannot see the actual atom at the atomic level then we need to develop instruments that will allow us to observe it directly.
Ergo, thought experiments verboten.
There is nothing wrong with basic quantum theory based on Bohr’s theory of 1913, since modern electronics and chemistry theory is still based on it. He hypothesized that the basic hydrogen atom consists of a single proton with a single electron orbiting it at variable discrete orbital distances from the proton nucleus. He later contradicted his own theory when he began giving properties to the electron it does not have, like the ability to communicate with other electrons at a distance (entanglement nonsense).
Quantum theory is now so seriously out of control that no one can possibly understand it directly. It is so immersed in mathematics and obfuscation that no one can possibly visualize what is going on physically.
Some claim the theory works but on closer examination one can see that it works based on a fluke. The basis of modern quantum theory in hard sciences like physics and chemistry is still the Schrodinger wave equation. It was based on de Broglie’s theory that electrons exhibited both a particle and wave behavior, which is nonsense. The wave behavior as applied by Schrodinger came from the electron’s orbital angular frequency, not from the electron behaving like a wave.
The overall wave equation is based in Newtonian mechanics and simple harmonic motion. If you have a mass at the end of a string and you draw the mass back and let it go, it will swing to and fro, exhibiting a pseudo-wave motion, similar to a wave on the ocean. That does not mean the mass/string combination is both a mass and a wave.
Thought experiments by Einstein then the likes of de Broglie in the 1920s have set us back a century in physics. They hypothesized events via thought experiments that cannot possible be true yet proved to have some value, hence my reference to flukes. That is hardly the way to do science yet we persist with such nonsense even today.
The same is true for astrophysics. The only instrument available for probing these nether planets is a radio-telescope. Optical scopes, even Hubble and the likes, cannot cut it. Here’s a photo of Jupiter from Hubble.
https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/hubble-takes-close-up-portrait-of-jupiter/
The distance from the Sun to Jupiter is 5.2 AU, with 1 AU being the distance from Earth to the Sun. Therefore, Earth is roughly 4.2 AU from Jupiter when the planets are aligned. Saturn is roughly 10 AU from the Sun and about 9 AU from Earth during alignment. So if a photo of Jupiter from Hubble is that lacking in detail then a photo of Saturn at twice that distance would be further reduced.
Pluto’s average distance from the Sun is nearly 40 AU. Here’s a photo taken from Hubble of the surface of Pluto.
https://esahubble.org/images/opo9609a1/
Zero detail from an optical telescope. This inferred planet you referenced would likely be well beyond Pluto and essentially invisible to an optical telescope unless it was radiating a significant portion in the visible spectrum.
While studying engineering at university I took an elective course in astrophysics. Don’t know what I was thinking, possibly having been influenced by Star Trek and Dr. Who. It was nothing more than mathematics and wild claims based on radio-telescopes gas spectra. Some of the theories are sound, like locating and measuring basic properties of stars, like luminosity.
That is doable because stars are made up largely of two elements, hydrogen and helium, which are burning at very high temperatures. Their spectra is well known, having been researched well before Bohr discovered the basic form of the atom. The same cannot be said about proto-planets claimed using the same spectra. That is simply because these imaginary planets do not give off sufficient radiation to be detectable, even by a radio-telescope.
Therefore, the proto-planets are hypothesized using the methods you mentioned. They are based on nothing more than wild guesses based on the perturbations of known bodies. All claimed proto-planets are based on perturbations in their associated stars orbit.
All that is fine, but when these nitwits begin making rash claims about the properties of such a proto-planet, that’s where I draw the line. No one has the slightest idea how our solar system was formed and I find the current explanations to be more laughable than fact.
Neptune is the only planet that was hypothesized based on its gravitational effect on the next planet. We have to understand, however, that the gravitational effects are tiny. Newton worked that out based on the distance of the Earth to the Moon which he calculated based on a distance ratio of 60.
The 60 comes from the Earth radius to the distance Earth to Moon. This is roughly 384,400km/6378km = 60.3. Earth’s gravitational field, is subject to the inverse square law, where the basis of the law is distance.
Newton was one heck of a smart dude, much smarter than Einstein, who relied almost solely on thought experiments. Yet, typically, we have discarded the brilliant work of Newton and replaced it with the thought-experiment natterings of Einstein. Well, some have fallen for the propaganda but not me, a stubborn Scotsman.
If we keep the distance ratio at 60 and square that distance, which is 3600, then we get the reduction in gravitational effect of Earth’s gravitational FORCE on the Moon. Since the acceleration due to gravity at Earth’s surface is 9.8 m/s^2, then the acceleration on the Moon would be (9.8 m/s^2)/3600 = 0.003 m/s^2.
That pithy amount is still enough to keep the Moon in orbit but not enough to accelerate it toward Earth, thankfully. It is the lunar linear momentum that keeps the Moon moving in an instantaneous straight (tangential) line, but the combination of the two changes that straight linear motion to a curvilinear motion.
The force producing such a meagre acceleration is insignificant as far as moving the Moon vertically goes. Same with the Moon’s gravitational effect on Earth. It can move water in our oceans by 3 metres on average but it cannot move the Earth’s centre of mass. Therefore, the current propaganda in astronomy, that the Earth and Moon are orbiting a centre of gravity (barycentre) is sheer nonsense.
The Moon is very close to Earth wrt to other planets and the effects of those planets on Earth’s orbit is essentially insignificant. Even when all planets are aligned, the effect is miniscule. Given such facts, how could this theorized proto-planet possible have a significant effect on the solar system?
Gordon, I grew up when astronomers considered that we had 9 planets and Pluto was the ninth one. Now they classify it a dwarf planet with of course is an arbitrary designation.
I don’t mind arbitrary if it really doesn’t then become a foundation for bullshiit.
I really don’t care what they call it. Sometimes it has been referred to as Planet X, which might be calling it planet 10 in a subtle way so as to not confound it with the issue of Pluto.
What I find fascinating about it is its orbit period is variously estimated to be 20 to 25 thousand years which is what Nate believes the cycles of Jupiter and saturn can result in 3 to 13.5C changes in temperature over ”20 thousand years or longer”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734124.
Seems worth discussing. . .as it would only be the fifth largest planet behind the 4 jovian planets but averages about 12-20 times further from the sun than Neptune in a highly elliptical orbit. . .which puts the kabosh on Nate’s scienceless dismissal of the influence of the jovian planets because how far they are.
but all that stuff from Nate is just useless noise. The reason why it is you can only judge orbit perturbations by their relative effects and to do that you need to document them.
We also really have no idea of what feedbacks are because our focus is on a very short period of time in earth’s climatic cycles which exposes yet another bogus argument from the left.
They also astoundingly actually believe that CO2 makes up all the warming influences-plus without documenting and supplementing Milankovic which they also acknowledge as the most powerful natural climate forcing.
One would have to say without question that this is part of the managed decline in western civilization plotted by the communists and other authoritarians that Marco Rubio spoke of this week. . .not because CO2 has no climate effects. But by virtue of the concerted effort to claim it has the only longterm warming effect. Something only the corrupt or stonedum believe.
Once an actual range of estimations of the perturbations are calculated it becomes a relatively easy task to statistically either establish or disestablish that claim. Either there is quantifiable correlation or there isn’t and it wont be due to the lack of data or longterm climatic events in both the instrument and proxy records as outlined by the CO2 coalition.
So what are they waiting for? They should be eager to do that if their motivations were pure. But you bring it in here with the select group of the stonedum we have in here and they want to put the kabosh on it.
Airless bodies provide a useful baseline for understanding this process. Mercury and the Moon exhibit large diurnal temperature excursions, rapidly re-emitting much of the incident energy
before it can be stored as heat.
Faster rotation and higher surface heat capacity increase the ability of a surface to retain energy between illumination cycles, raising the mean temperature
without invoking atmospheric trapping.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
how many bodies spin at 1000 mph?
Ah, there you are. I was asking a while back what had happened to you. Thought maybe a gila monster had got you while out trekking in the desert of SoCal.
What have you been up to?
I was having computer problems, got mini computer, I like it, it boots up fairly quickly.
norman and nate…”Seems like you are just making up stuff and really don’t know what your are talking about! Both ends are not negative and the positive charge of the nucleus is most certainly involved. The electrons moving about the nucleus tend to cancel our the positive charge of the nucleus. You remove one electron and you have an actual positive charge ion that will be repelled by a positive field and likewise deflect as a positive charge in a magnetic field. All what I tell you is very well established and experimentally established science. You just make up things you believe are true but are not willing to see the evidence that shows your belief is most wrong!”
Nate says: “Also in NMR, EM waves interact with only the nucleus of atoms. Hence why it is called nuclear magnetic resonance. It is the basis for all MRI imaging”.
***
Nate…not what we are talking about here. NMR is a complex interaction between electrons, EM, and the protons in the nucleus of hydrogen and carbon 13 isotope. The electrons tend to shield the nucleus in a way that affects the orientation of the nucleus.
In most atoms, only the electrons are affected by EM. Also, the EM is generated mainly by electrons hence the EM field orientation matters.
Norman refuses to grasp that only electrons are affected by incoming EM, since the protons in the nucleus have no angular frequency while the electrons are orbiting at a very high rate of speed. It is that very high angular frequency that allows them to interact with the very high frequencies in the EM field, that was created by the same very high electron orbital frequencies in the first place.
However, each affected electron in the bonds can react to only a very discrete EM frequency. EM from electrons in colder atoms cannot radiate the exact frequency of EM required to resonate with more excited electrons at higher angular frequencies in hotter mass atoms.
***
Norman…you are arguing with someone who has devoted his life to electronics. I had to know this stuff to pass many exams in electronics over the years and to apply it. Very early on in the theory we learned about charging capacitors and how electrons affect that charging.
If you have a capacitor plate with a billion electrons on it it has a negative charge. If you manage to remove even one electron, it has a charge of one electron charge less than before. That does not make it positive, it means only that the lesser charge is one electron charge less negative than before. In electronics circles, we can claim the new state with one electron less, is positive WITH RESPECT TO the previous state.
The charge on the plate is still negative, even if you remove a million electrons. However, you can claim, if you like, that the plate with a million fewer electrons is positive wrt the previous state. There is a major difference between being relatively positive and actually positive as in a real positive charge. Although protons can emit EM, the spatial quality of the EM wave is 180 degrees different than EM from a negative charge on an electron.
When a net negative charge becomes less negative, hence relatively more positive wrt to before, that is a figure of speech relative to the human mind, not an actual fact. Electrons are always negative and can never be positive.
You brought in the positive charge in the nucleus and that is a red-herring argument wrt what we are talking about. Sure, it contributes to vibration as I acknowledged in my reply, but protons do not respond to incoming EM in the high frequency range of the incoming EM. Only electrons can react to the high frequency EM since they are orbiting at similar frequencies and can resonate with the incoming EM.
The vibration we are referencing is added to and subtracted from the vibration caused by the electron-proton interaction. That is the electron-proton interaction is fairly stable whereas the addition and subtraction due to incoming/departing EM is what is being referenced by molecular vibration. The latter reacts to external influences like EM and heat, both incoming and departing, and that action is on top of the relatively stable electron0proton electrostatic field vibration.
Think about it. The electron-proton electrostatic attraction can only change when the electron changes orbital excitation levels. That means the electron absorbs external energy or loses it to external sinks. The proton in the nucleus is relatively immune to such changes.
Also, your definition of an ion is not kosher. An ion is formed in a solution not in a solid. Calling an atom in a solid an ion because a valence electron has vacated an outer orbital position, is incorrect in my understanding.
Table salt, NaCl is formed because the sodium atom, Na, has an extra electron in its out orbit while Chlorine, Cl, is missing an electron to make its outer orbit a complete, stable 8 electron shell. In this type of ionic bond, it is claimed the Na atom donates an electron to the Cl, making the NA = Na+ while the chlorine atom is Cl-.
Sodium, Na, normally has 9 electrons whereas Cl normally has 17. If Na gives up its 9th electron it drops back to 8 electrons which is more stable and if Cl gains an electron it gets 18 electrons, making it more stable. It is the differential in charge between the positive proton nucleus and the negative electron field that gives credence to the + and – designations of ions.
I think the theory is hoaky based on the question as to why sodium would give up an electron in the first place and why chlorine would accept one. I seriously doubt that the electrons in sodium, 9 of them, and the electrons in chlorine, 17 of them, would have any interest in combining, They’d be far more interested in repelling each other. So, what really gives?
If the salt is dissolved in water, the bond breaks and it is claimed ions are formed as Na+ and Cl-. I have always doubted this theory since it is far too cute. Why would Na not take back its electron?
Within a solid, it cannot be claimed those same ions exists since the unit NaCl is now a complementary bonding system that is stable due to both elements cooperating to make it each atoms outer shell have its complete allotment of electrons.
I am sure in subsequent years we will learn that ionic and covalent bonding theory are both fairy tales. just as we are learning that Einstein’s relativity theory and evolution theory, among others, as equally fairy tales.
When it is claimed in copper, that one electron vacating the stable copper atomic bonds, maybe due to an electric potential being applied, one cannot claim the vacating electron leaves a positive ion behind. That is plain silly, but it’s what you’ll read in first year text books. If all the electrons leave due to an electric field being applied to the copper, why doesn’t the copper disintegrate? Obviously because the instant one electron leaves the valence band it is immediately replaced by one from an external source. The ion has no chance to form.
Nate’s point is well-taken but it too is a red-herring argument since NMR is a special situation that is not encountered in the context we are discussing.
Gordon Robertson
Your ignorance of actual science is staggering. You post questions but do zero research on your own to find the answers. Why?
You blab about metals and you are clueless of the bonding holding them together. Admit please, that you are lying about taking electrical engineering at a higher level. You would have learned all this and not have ignorant questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n87TRRhFH54
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “However, each affected electron in the bonds can react to only a very discrete EM frequency. EM from electrons in colder atoms cannot radiate the exact frequency of EM required to resonate with more excited electrons at higher angular frequencies in hotter mass atoms.”
Complete nonsense!! Where do you come up with this garbage? You sound like a little kid telling science to adults. Please stop you are making a fool of yourself. Read some real science and then post!!
You seem clueless of the role the positive nucleus plays in emission and absorb of EMR.
Read this please!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html
The energy of EMR emitted by an atom is based upon the electrostatic potential energy of an electron and positive nucleus. An electron absorbs EMR and gains potential energy of an electrostatic attraction to the nucleus. It moves farther away in a higher orbital and now has potential energy that it will lose as an emission when it drops to a lower orbital. I have no idea where you get your ideas from. They are real bad and not based upon any rational or scientific experiments!!
Gordon Robertson
You are clueless about ions!!
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Saint_Francis_University/CHEM_113%3A_Human_Chemistry_I_(Muino)/03%3A_Ionic_Compounds/3.01%3A_Ions
Salt is formed by ionic bonds between positive sodium and negative chloride. The electrostatic charge holds the atoms together in a crystal structure. The ionic bond is quite strong, no electrons are shared. Just held tightly by electrostatic attraction.
You know very little of real Chemistry. I keep suggesting you read some real science material and read the experimental evidence of how they reached the conclusions they do. Real science does a vast amount of experiments to try to determine what is going on. Your ignorance is staggering. It amazes me that you actually know you know nothing but act like you do. You are a perfect case of Kruger-Dunning. You have this belief you are a genius and that state of mind exists because you have no real knowledge of the subject material. Chemistry is a very well established science backed by generations of valid experiments done many times by many labs over many years. Your wild speculations based upon your ignorance will not change anything but it does make you appear to be a foolish person.
Ignoramuses always need to invent what they ignore and above all need to write endlessly long, boring posts whose content is inversely proportional to their size.
*
I read above:
” … only electrons are affected by incoming EM, since the protons in the nucleus have no angular frequency… ”
and since all people here use Google AI to search for info (but discard it when it doesn’t match their narrative), I do the same.
*
Google’s answer to the text:
Protons and the entire nucleus interact with EM radiation, particularly in the radiofrequency range, and they do possess angular momentum.
Here is a breakdown of how EM radiation affects both:
1. Electron Interaction with EM Radiation (Optical/UV)
Energy Match: Electrons in atoms are held in specific energy levels. Incoming EM radiation (like visible light) that matches the energy difference between these levels can be absorbed, causing electrons to jump to higher energy states (excitation) or be ejected (photoelectric effect).
Mass Factor: Electrons are much lighter than protons (1/1836th of the mass), making them highly responsive to the oscillating electric fields of incoming light.
2. Proton Interaction with EM Radiation (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance)
Spin and Angular Frequency: Protons in the nucleus possess an intrinsic property called spin. A spinning proton behaves like a tiny magnet with a magnetic dipole moment.
Precession: When placed in a magnetic field, these protons precess (rotate) at a specific frequency, known as the Larmor frequency. This is an angular frequency directly related to the strength of the magnetic field.
Resonance: If radiofrequency (RF) radiation is applied at the same frequency as the proton’s precession, the nucleus can absorb that energy and “flip” its spin orientation.
Applications: This interaction is the basis of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).
Summary
Electrons respond to high-frequency EM radiation (optical/UV) via electric field interaction.
Protons respond to lower-frequency (radio) EM radiation via magnetic field interaction, specifically through their spin angular momentum and magnetic moments.
Therefore, both electrons and protons are affected by EM radiation, just at different energy scales and through different mechanisms.
*
Heil freedom of speech!
The grift is strong, but truth will out this morning. (Which may really mess things up.)
https://www.engadget.com/science/space/spacex-is-pivoting-to-focus-on-a-moon-base-before-mars-141851264.html?src=rss
In a major shift Elon Musk now says SpaceX will build what he called a “self-growing city on the Moon” rather than a “self-sustaining city on Mars.”
In his mid-life crisis, Musk smells an opportunity to relieve the American taxpayer of some of his money in the form of government grants and contracts.
P.s.: Why nobody is going to Mars: https://youtu.be/QTTQmhvDqJI
Thanks, good catch.
Ark, are you adding MDS to your TDS? This might help….
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/07/elon-musk-wants-to-be-a-trillionaire-how-spacex-xai-tesla-can-get-him-there.html
You don’t “go to Mars” without a gas station in LEO. You don’t really go to the Moon without a gas station in orbit. You might go to the Moon by launching couple rockets and docking them in LEO, but doing that or just using one rocket [Saturn V] to go to the Moon, means you a having a race to the Moon. So USA beat Soviets to the Moon, it was a race. We stopped because we won the race.
But to use the Moon, you will need a gas station in LEO and a gas station in lunar orbit. Having a gas station in lunar orbit makes having a reusable lunar rocket, which would be much easier than making a Earth reusable rocket. And same applies to Mars, gas stations in Mars orbit, and Mars reusable rockets.
Also mass drivers work well for the Moon and are pretty good to use on Mars.
Solar energy panels don’t work on Earth- they were developed for the space environment. Solar energy works a lot better on the Moon, as compared to on Earth. An argument that solar power doesn’t work well on the Moon, is related to the Moon’s long duration of night.
But solar panels would work a lot better on Earth, if the distance between time zones was shorter, Mars has 1/2 of Earth’s time zone distance and as you go closer to the poles it is shorten a lot more.
And distance between time zone is a lot shorter on Moon as compared to Earth, and shorter than Mars.
On the Moon [also on planet, Mercury] you want to operate near the poles.
Also putting solar panels on higher elevation and being in polar region, increase amount solar energy hours you get a location, on Moon there are spots in polar region where one get solar energy more than 80% of time- so can get 1360 watt per square meter for 80% of a year. In space, it’s closer to 100% of time, though with ISS they get about 60% of time with sunlight [1360 watts per square meter].
With Mars, you also want to live and operate nearer to the pole, I like a location near Mars southern pole, and Musk likes location near northern polar region.
That’s pretty amazing that Musk got that done so fast.
So beyond the fact that Google AI considers the Feynman lecture on this topic to be an AI fake. . .https://tinyurl.com/3fdt7e3w
Further Congress eliminated any budgeting for the return of samples collected by the Mars rover to earth in early January.
This is a critical first step in any long term vision of potentially colonizing Mars as it will tell us much more about what is there and the geological nature of the planet and its development. This mission has been ardently supported by the science community. But for the immediate future it appears the focus will be on improving the US economy after 4 disastrous Biden years that has led to the unaffordability crisis, a problem that will be difficult to work out of with continued democrat interference.
This isn’t anything new. We have known for decades that the fuel issue was a primary challenge. To address that there is the necessity of either a moon base or some orbital construction/refueling capabilities.
For example the manned moon landing missions expended between 90 and 95% of the missions fuel in just achieving initial earth orbit. Then 5% to 10% to fly to the moon, orbit the moon, land on the moon, take off from the moon, and return safely to earth.
Certainly a mission to retrieve the samples collected by the Mars rover would help frame the logistics. Several unmanned missions to mars would seem to be necessary and a moon base might be better than an in orbit build and refuel plan.
I realize that there is a large element of folks around here suffering from TDS to the extent they now speak a high percentage of nonsense. But what we do know is private enterprise will do this a lot cheaper than the government. The government often needs years just to fund a typical major infrastructure project on the ground here. Especially in California where the state uses those projects to green their grass roots get the democrat vote out campaigns. . .like with the High Speed rail project which kicked off in 1996 with the High Speed Rail Authority to oversee the project.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/abandoning-mars-could-be-elon-musks-biggest-mistake/
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”The grift is strong, but truth will out this morning. (Which may really mess things up.)
In a major shift Elon Musk now says SpaceX will build what he called a ”self-growing city on the Moon” rather than a “self-sustaining city on Mars.” ”
Yep a big competition between grifters is developing. Academia is more and more being perceived as being destructive to human advancement as they concentrate perhaps more and more on infinitesimal worries of the elite classes like climate change.
Thus there is has been for decades now a slow sea change toward envisioning the expansion of human civilization in positive ways. What better way than the ”race to the moon”. My dad an engineer working in that enterprise as a testing engineer loved recite the advances in electronics and propulsion that arose out of that national effort. OTOH, academia has focused on enterprises that slow progress. Obviously none of the above means that academia in total is negative it just doesn’t seem focused on as Trump says their responsibility in first and foremost providing for the well being of US citizens across all walks of life. Advancements in these areas primarily driven by private enterprise with companies like all the aerospace manufacturers, chip makers, electronic companies moved the needle forward big time arising out of the practical technology that arose out of that program.
Private enterprise tends to run circles around academia in efficiency of achieving objectives. Academia is a lot like herding cats. I think both are important but there needs to be more transparency to the public in deciding what to spend public funds on. And I even appreciate you bringing attention to this matter publicly.
Surface-Rotation Control of Mean Planetary Temperature
https://impro.usercontent.one/appid/oneComWsb/domain/cristos-vournas.com/media/cristos-vournas.com/onewebmedia/Figure1_SurfaceRotation_TsatTe.png?etag=W%2F%225961-19c6d2e93d8%22&sourceContentType=image%2Fpng&ignoreAspectRatio&resize=588%2B390
For some ignorant people who believe that the artificial intelligence discipline that emerged around 1975 is nothing more than a minor addition to the Google search engine, here is a wonderful demonstration of its capabilities, which have been emerging for quite some time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUmlv814aJo
Anyone who saw an artificial dog coming down a flight of stairs ten years ago – somewhat clumsily at the time – will understand the enormous progress that has been made in this field when watching this video.
binny gets taken in my computer animation.
Bindy
You still struggling with the concept of AI. Such a simplistic mindset you have.
norman…”Your ignorance of actual science is staggering. You post questions but do zero research on your own to find the answers. Why?”
***
Why do you respond with insults and ad hom attacks while posting only links to text books that contradict you?
I have already explained in depth that I have studied atomic theory as part of my electronics training, both prior to returning to university to study electrical engineering and after returning. Of course, you claim via ad homs that I have not studied at university.
I also studied atomic theory in chemistry and thermodynamics classes I was required to take in first year engineering. Anyone with a lick of sense can easily verify what I have written on the subject.
——-
YOU[GR]: “However, each affected electron in the bonds can react to only a very discrete EM frequency. EM from electrons in colder atoms cannot radiate the exact frequency of EM required to resonate with more excited electrons at higher angular frequencies in hotter mass atoms.”
[Norman]Complete nonsense!! Where do you come up with this garbage? You sound like a little kid telling science to adults. Please stop you are making a fool of yourself. Read some real science and then post!!”
***
This garbage, as you call it, comes straight from Bohr’s quantum theory of 1913. Again, anyone with a lick of sense can easily verify this by simply reading Bohr’s theory.
Bohr’s 1913 theory is based on a sole electron orbiting the sole proton in the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Nothing much is said about the proton because his entire theory is based on absorption and emission of EM by the electron as it moves between sub-orbitals.
Of course, you insist on calling Bohr’s theory ‘garbage’
Bohr’s insight came via a friend who suggested he investigate the already known theory of hydrogen emission and absorption spectra. Hydrogen absorbs and emits only at highly discrete frequencies and that gave Bohr the clue he needed to gain insight. He reasoned that the electron itself must move between discrete sub-orbitals, rising to a higher KE orbital after absorbing EM or heat then descending to a lower orbital while emitting the gained KE as EM.
It doesn’t take a lot of insight, which you obviously lack, to equate the very high frequency of the emitted EM to the very high orbitals velocity of the electron, which has both an E-field and an M-field. EM is not conjured from thin air, as you seem to believe, it is generated by the E-field and M-field of the electron.
Come on, Norrie, this is not rocket-science, I understood the theory well by the time I graduated high school. I could have gotten it in elementary school had it been presented to me.
If you look up the basic equation governing the electron interactions, it is E = hf. Here, E is the energy difference between electron sub-orbitals. It can be broken down into Eh – El where Eh is the higher orbital energy and El is the lower one. The difference is the energy emitted as a photon and f is its frequency.
Where do you suppose an EM quantum got such a high frequency, Norrie? HINT: The electron has an EM field and its angular frequency is very high, in the same order as the emitted photon.
Also, the faster the electron orbits, as in a hotter object, the higher the frequency. Same vice versa, the colder the object, the lower the frequency it emits. If the colder frequency does not precisely match the hotter frequency, it cannot be absorbed.
Dead simple, and furthermore, it is backed by the 2nd law.
“This garbage, as you call it, comes straight from Bohr’s quantum theory of 1913. Again, anyone with a lick of sense can easily verify this by simply reading Bohr’s theory.”
I dont know why you keep deferring to theory that was proven to be wrong 10 or so y after it came out. And after another 10 y we understood very well how molecules and chemical bonds worked, and again, not with the Bohr theory.
I suspect the Bohr model appeals to you due to its simplicity and similarity to our experience of the macroscopic world.
But neither are measures of correctness of a theory.
Gordon Robertson
If you were being honest you could admit you never have studied real Chemistry. You just make up false notions. What i call garbage is your false idea that electrons orbit faster in hotter objects. Bad science!! The atoms as a whole move faster in hotter objects!! The electrons lose some kinetic energy when going to higher orbitals, read up on this. They gain potential energy moving farther from the proton. The frequency of the emitted EMR is based upon the energy level change as the electon moves closer to the proton. The energy of the EMR matches the energy lost going from a higher orbital to a lower one.
binny insists on joining Norman re getting drubbed by Gordon by checking in with Google AI.
“Electrons in atoms are held in specific energy levels. Incoming EM radiation (like visible light) that matches the energy difference between these levels can be absorbed, causing electrons to jump to higher energy states (excitation) or be ejected (photoelectric effect)”.
***
Exactly what I have been saying but too restrictive. Heat added to a mass can produce the same effect on the electron, and when it returns to a lower orbital energy level. it discards KE by emitting a quantum of EM. The emitted EM just happens to match the electron’s orbital frequency.
Coincidence, or wot?
—-
“Mass Factor: Electrons are much lighter than protons (1/1836th of the mass), making them highly responsive to the oscillating electric fields of incoming light”.
***
Mass has nothing to do with it. Incoming EM was generated by electrons elsewhere and the EM field is similar to the electrical and magnetic fields produced by the orbiting electron. Those EM fields interact electrostatically but only if their frequencies match exactly.
***
I claimed that NMR is a red-herring argument because its only practical application is via sophisticated external equipment. Although it is claimed to act naturally at times, there is little in the way of proof for that statement.
I read an article a while back by a female physicists who took nuclear theory (quarks, boson, etc.,) apart step by step and essentially exposed it as fraudulent.
We have to understand that most nuclear theory is just that, an uncorroborated theory that is done mainly via thought-experiment.
Gordon claims: “The emitted EM just happens to match the electron’s orbital frequency.”
No. An electron in a given orbit can emit various frequencies of light. For example, and electron in the 5th energy level can emit photons with wavelengths:
4050 nm (5->4)
1281 nm (5->3)
434 nm (5->2)
95 nm (5->1)
It is the ENERGY DIFFERENCE between the levels that determines the properties of the emitted photon, not the orbital frequency of the electron within any one level.
Tim Folkerts
Thank you for adding your valuable input. I was trying to get Gordon Robertson to understand that it is the electrostatic potential energy between proton and electron that determines the energy of the emitted EMR. You show Gordon that the orbital frequency is not the determining factor. I looked into the Bohr Theory and it also shows clearly that it is the potential energy difference between orbitals that determine the energy of the emitted EMR. Gordon will not listen to me or the links I send him. Perhaps your expert knowledge will help him.
Yes Norman, there are a lot of people here that try to fake a knowledge of physics. Up thread, one such faker presented this nonsense:
I asked the participating cult kids (Nate, Willard, barry, Ball4, and the author) if they could find the error. Of course they couldn’t.
Can you help them find the physics mistake?
Norman hasn’t responded yet. Maybe I need to dumb it down some:
All that blah-blah in the blocked quote ends up trying to raise the temperature of the sphere to 258K with 250 W/m²!
What’s wrong with that?
“trying to raise the temperature of the sphere to 258K with 250 W/m²!
What’s wrong with that?”
Nothing, Clint. Nothing is wrong with that.
An object (emissivity 1) at 258 K emits 250 W/m^2 of thermal IR. To maintain that temperature, it must also receive 250 W/m^2. If it is cooler than 258K, it will warm up with 250 W/m^2 coming in. If it is warmer than 258 K, it will cool off with 250 W/m^2 coming.
Sorry Folkerts, you’re wrong again.
One arriving flux of 250 W/² would only raise the sphere to 182K. It would take 4 separate fluxes of 250 W/² to get to 258K.
“One arriving flux of 250 W/² would only raise the sphere to 182K. It would take 4 separate fluxes of 250 W/² to get to 258K.”
Nope! I was discussing an arriving flux 250 W/m^2 averaged over the whole sphere. This could be, for example,
a) a uniform arriving flux of 250 W/m^2 over the entire surface.
b) a uniform arriving flux of 500 W/m^2 over one hemisphere.
c) a uniform arriving 1000 W/m^2 over 1/4 of the sphere.
d) a unidirectional flux of 1000 W/m^2, resulting in an arriving flux between 0 – 1000 W/m^2 on the surface of the sphere.
The fact that I was looking at the average is spelled out explicitly: “That small patch provides [an average of] 0.25%*100,000W/m^2 = 250 W/m^2 to the sphere. T(sphere) = 258 K”
The flux from that small patch is actually VERY close to Case (d). Very close to “1000 W/m² to the sphere’s “disk”” using your somewhat awkward wording. But that is still an average arriving of 250 W/m^2. And that is what is needed to match the average emitted flux of 250 W/m^2 from the 258 K sphere.
And let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. My single “0.25% patch” does provide “1000 W/m^2 to the sphere’s disk”. And it is clear that 400 of these would raise the temperature to 1152 K, well above the 364 K limit Clint seems to think exists.
Sorry again Folkerts, but a single source of 250 W/m² cannot provide 250 W/m² over the entire sphere. You’re confusing areas. The sphere’s surface is 4 times the disk’s surface.
You’re even making a larger mistake than your cult makes when trying to boil water with ice cubes!
“Sorry again Folkerts, but a single source of 250 W/m2 cannot provide 250 W/m2 over the entire sphere.”
You can’t read, DREMT. The 250 W/m2 is total average ARRIVING flux on the surfa, not source flux. It’s not the planar (disk) flux arriving, either (that is 1000 W/m2, as Tim refers to). Tim even spells it out so there can be no missing that he is not talking about SOURCE flux, or even suggesting it could be 250 W/m2.
First child barry, DREMT lives rent free in your head.
Next, you obviously don’t understand the mistake. Want a hint?
* What’s 0.25% of 100,000 W/m²?
* What’s the emitted flux from a surface at 1152K (emissivity = 1)?
Your inability to understand proves me right, again. So please continue. I never get tired of being right….
Clint says:
“Next, you obviously don’t understand the mistake. Want a hint?
* What’s 0.25% of 100,000 W/m²?
* What’s the emitted flux from a surface at 1152K (emissivity = 1)?”
I don’t know what mistake you think is here.
*The flux emitted from the entire interior of the spherical shell at 1152K is 100,000 W/m^2.
* If you want 0.25% of that FLUX, that would be a FLUX of 250 W/m^2 emitted from the entire interior of the spherical shell. In other words, the shell must now be 258 K to emit 250 W/m^2 instead of 100,000 W/m^2.
This provides a flux of 250 W/m^2 to the entire surface of the sphere in the middle. This means the sphere in the middle is emitting 250 W/m^2 at steady-state, which is 258 K.
Exactly as I (and everyone else) has been telling you. Whether you have the emitted flux 0.25% as strong (ie 250W/m^2 from the entire shell @ 258K), or you have the emitted flux at full strength (100,000 W/m^2) but from only 0.25% of the area of the shell, the result is the same: 258 K for the sphere.
Folkerts STILL has it wrong:
“Whether you have the emitted flux 0.25% as strong (ie 250W/m^2 from the entire shell @ 258K), or you have the emitted flux at full strength (100,000 W/m^2) but from only 0.25% of the area of the shell, the result is the same: 258 K for the sphere.”
Let’s simplify Folkerts’ claim (“W/m²” is the incoming flux at the “disk”):
[Hope the columns align somewhat?]
W/m²……Sources…..Source T….Sphere T
250……100,000…….258K…….258K
100,000……1……..1152K…….258K
WRONG!
Here is the correction:
W/m²……Sources…..Source T…..Sphere T
250……100,000…….258K……..258K
100,000……1……..1152K……..815K
Folkerts forgot to take into account the area of the sphere versus the area of the disk.
But, Folkerts’ mistakes have major ramifications, which will be discussed this weekend when I have more time.
Some Western US drought statistics:
Denver, Colorado has recorded 13.4″ of total seasonal snowfall so far in 2025-26. By Jan. 31st, the city typically averages a total of 30.5″ of snow. The standard deviation for Sept. 1 – Jan. 31 total snowfall is +/-11.9″ (18.6″ – 42.4″).
Salt Lake City, Utah has recorded 2.4″ of total seasonal snowfall so far in 2025–26. By Jan. 31st, the city typically averages a total of 36.5″ of snow. The standard deviation for Sept. 1 – Jan. 31 total snowfall is +/-16.7″ (19.8″ – 53.2″).
Flagstaff, Arizona has recorded 22″ of total seasonal snowfall so far in 2025-26. By Jan. 31st, the city typically averages a total of 52.4″ of snow. The standard deviation for Sept. 1 – Jan. 31 snowfall is +/- 24.2″ (28.2″ – 76.6″).
Cheyenne, Wyoming has recorded 10.9″ of total seasonal snowfall so far in 2025-26. By Jan. 31st, the city typically averages 28.5″ from Sept. 1 – Jan. 31st. The standard deviation for Sept. 1 – Jan. 31 total snowfall is +/- 14.6″ (13.9″ – 43.1″).
Source: https://www.weather.gov/wrh/climate
Eldro, if you’re interested, report also the record snowfall in the rest of CONUS. One area is getting no snow, while the other areas are getting record amounts.
It’s all due to the interaction of the Polar Vortex with the Polar Jet. Interesting weather patterns.
The Northeast is the region in CONUS that has seen the most winter like conditions so far.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/mapping/-1/tavg/202601/2/anomaly
Don’t read too much into the numbers. My sample size for both regions is likely too small for a very precise estimate.
Don’t forget the recent storm deep into the South, including snow in Florida!
Interesting weather patterns.
Washington D.C. has recorded 8.5″ of total seasonal snowfall as of January 31, 2026. By this date, the city typically averages 8.2 inches. The standard deviation for total snowfall from September 1 to January 31 is ±6.6 inches (1.3″ to 15.0″).
New York City has recorded 21.1″ of total seasonal snowfall as of January 31, 2026. By this date, the city averages 9.8 inches. The standard deviation for total snowfall from September 1 to January 31 is ±8.3 inches (1.5″ to 18.1″)
Buffalo, New York has recorded 71.3″ of total seasonal snowfall as of January 31, 2026. By this date, the city averages 61.1 inches. The standard deviation for total snowfall from September 1 to January 31 is ±30.4 inches (30.7″ to 91.5″).
Boston, Massachusetts has recorded 34.1″ of total seasonal snowfall as of January 31, 2026. By this date, the city averages 21.2 inches. The standard deviation for total snowfall from September 1 to January 31 is ±14.8 inches (6.3″ to 36.0″)
Caribou, Maine has recorded 59.5″ of total seasonal snowfall as of January 31, 2026. By this date, the city averages 64.6 inches. The standard deviation for total snowfall from September 1 to January 31 is ±17.4 inches (47.2″ to 82.0″).
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has recorded a total of 15.7″ of snowfall for the 2025-2026 season. By this date, the city typically averages 9.8 inches. The standard deviation for total snowfall from September 1 to January 31 is ±8.6 inches (1.1″ to 18.4″).
Source: Cercignani, Carlo. Ludwig Boltzmann: The Man Who Trusted Atoms. With a foreword by Roger Penrose. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Dang Ark, you managed to make a comment without attacking Trump!
The medications must be working….
tim f…”Gordon claims: “The emitted EM just happens to match the electron’s orbital frequency.”
No. An electron in a given orbit can emit various frequencies of light. For example, and electron in the 5th energy level can emit photons with wavelengths:
4050 nm (5->4)
1281 nm (5->3)
434 nm (5->2)
95 nm (5->1)
It is the ENERGY DIFFERENCE between the levels that determines the properties of the emitted photon, not the orbital frequency of the electron within any one level”.
***
Tim…you tend to negate a post with a ‘no’, then supply a logic which does not match the negative.
The energy difference between electron orbitals is usually stated in electron-volts and is a static value. How does a static value generate EM in a frequency range similar to that of the angular frequency of the orbiting electron?
Also, what is there in a static value of eV that can generate such a high photon frequency?
It is clearly the electron itself, which carries an electrical (E) field and creates a magnetic (M) field when it orbits that is the source of the generated EM quantum. The fact that the generated EM has a frequency similar to the electron angular frequency strongly suggests that as well.
Conversely, when an EM quantum is absorbed, it’s EM field interacts precisely by frequency with the EM fields in the electron. It’s a form of resonance. Only those frequencies of incoming EM that match the electron angular frequency can affect the electron.
You claim an electron in the 5th energy level can generate 4 different wavelengths but you qualify that by indicating the frequencies are generated during transitions from 5->4, etc., in descending orbital order. Therefore, the electron does not generate EM frequencies while in a certain orbital but during transitions to lower orbitals.
BTW…perhaps you can explain to Norman that an IR wavelength can be generated during the upper transitions. In hydrogen. the upper transitions produce 3 different spectral sets, all in the IR band. Example, the Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund series are all IR wavelengths.
This is calculated using the Rydberg formula…
1/lambda = R.Z^2(1/n1^2 – 1/n2^2)
Where lambda = wavelength
n1, n2….nx = orbital energy level where n2 > n1
R = Rydberg constant
Z = atomic number, which is 1 for hydrogen.
Note that the formula in this form is for wavenumber and needs to be inverted to get wavelength. That is…
Lambda = RZ^2 [equation portion above]^-1
I am for abolishing wavenumbers as an unnecessary complications. Do I hear a second?
Further complications…since the PE spectrum is stated inversely, the closer to the nucleus, the more negative the energy level. For hydrogen, the PE in ground state is -13 odd eV.
As I see it, n2 should precede n1 in the equation since it has a larger PE value. However, since both are negative, I presume that works out in the equation.
It is clear that physics has been in the domain of mad mathematicians.
Here is a broader and better explanation, even though I have gained a decent understanding of the issues over the years. By no means an expert but getting acclimatized, If only I could interest Norman in delving deeper into physics and chemistry. Alas, one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make him drink.
https://tinyurl.com/2ync2j45
Bonkers
norman…”I was trying to get Gordon Robertson to understand that it is the electrostatic potential energy between proton and electron that determines the energy of the emitted EMR. You show Gordon that the orbital frequency is not the determining factor. I looked into the Bohr Theory and it also shows clearly that it is the potential energy difference between orbitals that determine the energy of the emitted EMR. Gordon will not listen to me or the links I send him”.
***
I explained my views in a recent reply to Tim Folkerts. Your claim re proton-electron electrostatic interaction fails to explain the immensely high frequencies of emitted EM. My theory does.
How does the ‘E’ in E = hf explain the inordinately high EM frequency? If you look at the proton-electron electrostatic interaction, which leads to vibration, then why is any vibration in molecules related to changes in electron orbital energy levels?
The E = hf equation does not measure the proton-electron vibrational frequency, it measures only electron transition properties due to transitions between orbital energy levels. The equation, originally offered by Planck, well before Bohr produced his theory, tries to equation the radiation energy per unit frequency.
The f in E = hf is not derived from the equation, rather the equation is derived from it. The frequency was there to begin with, it was not derived from the electron transitioning to a lower energy level via Eh – El.
If you write it as f = E/h. the frequency in hertz on the LHS comes from Planck’s definition of h and tells us nothing about the source of frequency.
Planck derived the constant ‘h’ to equate E to f. One of its units is joules/hertz. That does not explain where the frequency in hertz was derived. If you consider the entire electromagnetic spectrum to which Planck tried to apply that relationship, you must ask the question, where did the EM come from? And how did it get the frequencies indicated?
A major source of that EM is from stars burning at very high temperatures and comprised of protons and electrons of hydrogen and helium in a plasma soup. However, it is electrons that provide the primary source of visible light from stars.
At much lower temperatures, most EM comes from electron transitions, and that explains the f in E = hf. The equation tells us that between E-levels, Eh – El, the electron gives up kinetic energy as it slows to reach a lower energy orbital. To give up that KE, it must give up angular velocity (hence frequency), to reduce KE = 1/2 mv^2. That reduction in angular velocity is obviously related to the frequency of emitted EM.
BTW, the KE also represents heat in the overall mass.
How that works, I don’t know, and I doubt that anyone does. It was great for Bohr to make such a discovery but he never explained it, nor did anyone who followed him.
Looking at it another way, consider EM emission from a communications antenna. The frequency of the emitted EM is directly proportional to the alternating current frequency of the electrons going to and fro in the antenna. Granted, Bohr did not go into this at depth as to how a transitioning electron in an atom could generate EM, then again, not much was known in his day about propagation of EM from electrons in an antenna.
The same is true for microwave frequencies emitted from magnetrons in microwave ovens. It is electrons forced to orbit within cavities that produces the microwave frequency EM to cook food.
“My theory does.”
We don’t need a new theory, Gordon. There is an immensely accurate, powerful theory already for EM waves and interactions with matter of all sorts. Spectroscopy agrees spectacularly with predictions.
Gordon,
The light from stars is not produced by electrons.
The fusion in the core of the Sun releases gamma rays, which through the processes of absorption, re-emmision, pair production, and Compton scattering eventually producing the UV, Visible, and IR wavelengths observed.
Looks like this month will be higher.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
“Large banners of President Trump now hang from multiple federal buildings in Washington, including the nation’s top law enforcement branch, in a bold statement of power and influence over the government.
A long blue banner with Mr. Trump’s visage was draped on the exterior of the Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, making it the latest federal building to have a banner with the president’s face. The banner’s lower border says “Make America Safe Again” in capital letters.
The signage is a strikingly prominent indication of how Mr. Trump has eroded the separation that has long existed between the Justice Department and the White House to protect the department from political influence.”
I did a Google search asking which world leaders have posted large banners of themselves on public buildings; here’s the response.
Kim Jong-un (North Korea) – Features extensive propaganda banners and portraits throughout the country.
Vladimir Putin (Russia) – Often has large images and banners during public events and celebrations.
Hugo Chávez (Venezuela) – Promoted his image through large murals and banners during his presidency.
Bashar al-Assad (Syria) – Displayed his image prominently in public spaces and during state events.
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) – Known for large portraits and banners celebrating his leadership.
Xi Jinping (China) – Features prominently in state-sponsored events and propaganda displays.
Great company for a wannabe dictator.
Nate at 6:13 AM.
Your list should also include Muammar Gaddafi – His image was omnipresent throughout Libya for over 40 years as a primary tool of his personality cult.
The cult of Muammar Gaddafi – in pictures: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2011/oct/20/muammar-gaddafi-cult-libya-pictures
The Trumping boy is truly 100% going insane…
Here are news published by French newspapers (left wing & right wing all together)
” US President Donald Trump announced on Saturday, February 21, that he was sending a hospital ship to Greenland, the Danish autonomous territory he covets, just hours after the Danish military evacuated a crew member from a US submarine off the coast of Nuuk, who “needed emergency medical treatment,” to a hospital in the capital.
Without mentioning the evacuation – and without thanking his Danish ally for the rescue operation, the US president justified sending this “great hospital ship to Greenland” by the need to “take care of the many people who are sick and not being treated there.” “It’s on its way!!!” he wrote in a message on his platform, Truth Social. ”
*
But of course: Many people who suffer greatly from the Trump addiction sydrome will applaud their idol unconditionally because they are sure he has once more ‘made America great again’.
**
Speaking of which: Where are the tens of thousands of ballots that the FBI stole in Fulton County in an unannounced operation that reminds Germans of the Gestapo and Stasi era?
Will the Tulsi doll and the Kash boy miraculously manage to track down the votes that were missing for the Trump boy when he asked Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “recalculate” the vote count in Georgia because “I only want to find 11,780 votes”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBIG5Tv0fZk
WARNING: Not for cult children suffering from TDS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf5Dj2D1F7I
Just as with all the other authoritarians mentioned above, his devoted followers, like Clint, think their Dear Leader can do no wrong.
Eldrosion wrote on February 20, 2026 at 4:46 PM
” The Northeast is the region in CONUS that has seen the most winter like conditions so far.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/mapping/-1/tavg/202601/2/anomaly
Don’t read too much into the numbers. My sample size for both regions is likely too small for a very precise estimate. ”
*
Eldrosion is of course right. That’s the reason why the quick snowfall evaluation I made a while ago to contradict Hagedorn’s claim posted upthread also is useless when looking at the global CONUS scale.
Hagedorn wrote:
” This January/February in southwest Ohio (Cincinnati area) has been a semi-historic period for cold temps and snowfall. It has been almost 50 years (1977-1978) since we have experienced weather like this. ”
I couldn’t believe that this 2026 winter episode – though being tough enough – could surpass the level of 1978.
I found four GHCN daily stations
USC00334681 39.8972 -83.5097 346.9 OH LONDON STATE FISH HATCHERY
USC00339361 39.6042 -83.9072 303.9 OH XENIA 6 SSE
USW00014821 39.9914 -82.8808 246.9 OH COLUMBUS PORT COLUMBUS INTL AP
USW00093815 39.9061 -84.2186 304.8 OH DAYTON INTL AP
having snow data from 1975 till now and – especially – full data for both 1978 and 2026.
Despite the very small amount of data, it was a first step:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tir7RKXhorQ5v0Jie3oyzDxzBr3UGd65/view
Nota bene: as many stations lack data here and there, so we can’t rely on snowfall amounts: we have to use the snowfall/measurements ratio instead.
*
Anyone can see that January 2026 was far away from 1978 and was even surpassed for example by 1996 and 2014.
*
This little result called for a global CONUS approach:
– 2,248 stations having snow data between 1975 and 2026, located from year to year in between 160 and 170 2.5 degree grid cells (between 80 and 90% of CONUS’ surface);
– 36,310,382 daily reports whose monthly sums were stored into 95,436 monthly cell values.
*
A time series (restricted on the Januaries as well) was first generated for the whole station set; then, the set was splitted into 4 quarter areas defined by latitude 40N and longitude 90W.
And so does the result look like:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b9o9LjDtAAvOBMVAoT-xW-RJD8UEcBW2/view
*
We see that Northeast of course is the winner, but also that January 1978 was, compared to 2026, something like a winter on another planet.
*
Yes, yes: someone like the all time ‘ball-on-a-string’-ing specialist could come around and look at the graph and say:
” Northeast might be an excessive averaging; for sure there are corners where 2026 was top! ”
Let’s then look at the top 5 of a sort of the monthly grid cell snowfall per day:
1978 1 53-41 43.75 -76.25 6.55711864
1977 1 53-41 43.75 -76.25 4.78576214
2004 1 53-41 43.75 -76.25 4.54434307
1994 1 53-41 43.75 -76.25 4.45384615
1985 1 53-41 43.75 -76.25 4.41547619
The top grid cell centred at 43.75 -76.25 (Lake Ontario’s beach) encompasses parts of NY with bits of PA, VT, NH.
2026 is at position 80, strong but not enough:
2026 1 52-43 41.25 -71.25 2.24711730
*
Thus it seems that despite the really harsh winter from Colorado to Maine, January 2026’s snowfall in CONUS was widely overestimated when compared to 1978.
Thanks for the data. Very helpful.
It seems that this year’s cold and snowy winter in the East can be explained as an above average year: natural variability superimposed on a longer term warming trend.
It is easy to overhype cold and snow in one’s own location, but I won’t be especially impressed unless the Northern Hemisphere begins experiencing cold outbreaks comparable to those seen during the so-called “Ice Age scare” of the 1970s or even further back in time.
Just in case anyone needs this:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.pdf
eldrosion…you should be careful as to the sources of the papers you site. At your link, a co-author is William f. Connolley, a known toady at the uber-alarmist site realclimate.
Connolley is essentially a computer programmer who has dabbled in unvalidated climate models. He was also an editor at Wikipedia where he specialized in editing the posts of skeptics. amending them to his alarmist version.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/
In the article they cited Roger Revelle as producing a paper favouring global warming in 1965. It was Revelle who drove Al Gore into an apoplectic fit when he sided with Fred Singer in advising people not to read too much into global warming propaganda. Till then, Revelle had been a mentor and an authority figure for Gore (Gore’s prof at Harvard), and when he made his statement, Gore claimed he was suffering from senility and that Singer had conned him into it. Subsequently, Singer sued and won in court.
Must read on Roger Revelle…
https://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/1999/Oct2.html
But, hey, Connolley and the realclimate propaganda cult don’t let truth get in the way of their propaganda.
In a July 18, 1988, letter to then-Senator Tim Wirth, Revelle cautions that “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer. It is not yet obvious that this summer’s hot weather and drought are the result of a global climatic change or simply an example of the uncertainties of climate variability. My own feeling is that we had better wait another ten years before making confident predictions.”
“Revelle had made an even stronger statement just a few days earlier, in a July 14, 1988, letter to Congressman Jim Bates: “Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of ‘greenhouse warming.’ As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another ten or twenty years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.”
A note on Fred Singer:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
Willard that old article by Eli is just Eli being Eli and spreading lies like his intentional omissions in illustrating the GPE.
Roger Revelle was well known for saying the science wasn’t ready for understanding the GHE. There are taped lectures of him saying that decades before AI videos. I knew the man to be an honest and dedicated scientist.
Its a myth that the science is ready even today. You ignore the columns here from Roy saying as much, especially recently now 34 years after Revelle’s death.
Running up to the production of the IPCC AR3 in 1999 and 2000 8 and 9 years after his death they were desperate for ready science to spur political action on this half baked science. Revelle would say the same thing today. He would still be in the camp of hundreds of scientists who are skeptical because Revelle was a great scientist not just a scientist.
He talked a lot about it being a ”potential problem” and even backed up in lectures to correct himself to include the word potential when he inadvertently left it out. He said so in the study in question. He said so in lectures. Just some think that its an inconvenient truth that a person labeled the Grandfather of Global Warming thought it needed more work to be ready for prime time. We are seeing a lot of these kind of lies and nonsense coming from the left these days.
Tell me you haven’t clicked on the link without telling me you haven’t clicked on the link:
“that old article by Eli is just Eli”
Thank you.
LOL!
tim f…”We don’t need a new theory, Gordon. There is an immensely accurate, powerful theory already for EM waves and interactions with matter of all sorts. Spectroscopy agrees spectacularly with predictions”.
***
Yes, Tim…and my theory coincides with those theories while yours, as an ad hoc theory, misses the point entirely.
I took considerable time to explain my theories yet you reply with one paragraph beginning with he superlative “…immensely accurate. powerful theory…”. Whenever I see rhetoric like that I know immediately it is not about science, rather it is an emotional reaction.
All science is there to be questioned, there is no such thing as an all-encompassing science, especially at the atomic level. Even Newton’s famous 2nd law can be questioned under certain circumstances and Newton left the door open for such questioning.
He stated in Principia…”***IF*** a force can move a mass, then f = ma”. That leads to the question, what happens near the limit if a force can barely move a mass? At university level, the ‘IF’ is omitted and I think that is wrong. I am questioning the omission at that level of a crucial part of Newton’s 2nd law, which leads to the impression that all forces produce acceleration of a mass.
In first year engineering we had two textbooks in one physics course. The first was named ‘Static’ and the 2nd ‘Dynamics’. The first was obviously aimed at static structures like bridges where there is no acceleration of masses (hopefully) and the forces are balanced. The second is about Newton 2nd law and the application of forces to masses. Each course is a semester long.
From those courses it became clear that forces in balance do not move masses. Then we were taught that a force applied to a mass causes it to accelerate. That is not at all clear in Newton’s 2nd law unless you read the fine print he offered. In every textbook offered to me at that level on physics, not once was the “IF’ word used. I guess they thought we were too stupid to grasp the meaning but more likely the profs did not even know about Newton’s actual definition.
These are introductory courses to help engineering students decide which branch of engineering to follow. Obviously, statics leads to engineering like civil engineering, which is about building stable structures like buildings, dams, bridges, etc. Dynamics leads us into mechanical, electrical, engineering, etc.
In the one years we were taken deeply into the theory of both statics and dynamics. And I mean deeply. Although we depended on time in equations it was never discussed with us the meaning of time. I recall looking it up in textbooks because I was curious. They explained most phenomena like mass and force, but the silence was deafening on the meaning of time and why in electrical engineering theory they stick to an ancient definition of current flow, called conventional current flow (positive to negative), while maintaining at the same time that current flowing in conductors is via electrons and their charges, which must be negative to positive.
Even today, we are blithely lead to accept Einstein’s theory of relativity, simply because he is regarded as a legend. Those prone to authority figures and legends, and I was one of them, would not dare to question Einstein. However, his redefinition of time to suit his theory was an egregious error since we had already defined time as a relative constant based on the Earth’s period of rotation.
At the time, I had no time to question such inconsistencies since I literally had no time. In the last sentence I used the word three times, all with a different meaning for time. Yet I am sure you accepted that as kosher without questioning any of the usages. The point is, time has no existence other than as a human definition contained in stored thoughts in the human mind.
If you cannot grasp that, Tim, forget about understanding electrons and EM.
I have spent decades studying and applying far-field EM theory in communications systems as a branch of electronics. I have also studied near-field EM vis-a-vis electrical transformer, inductors, and motors. I have gone into depth with microwave and radar theory and application.
Furthermore, we must understand EM theory exactly in order to shield electronics components from it. Faraday shielding and grounding techniques are essential in high frequency work and in high voltage/current work. In electrical codes, high voltage is regarded as voltages in excess of 750 volts, which most of us don’t get near, yet EM shielding and eddy currents issues are prevalent in conductors driven by much lower voltages with high currents.
Even the older television high voltage circuits ranging from 10 Kv to 40 Kv require extensive shielding to prevent not only lower frequency EM radiation but x-ray radiation as well. When electrons are forced to circulate in HV coils at high voltage, they can generate xrays.
I am trying to share this information with you, I am not trying to lord it over you as some kind of authority figure. If you disagree, please reply in kind so we can discuss it.
There is a reason why I said ‘my theory’. Bohr did not elaborate on certain matters like the relationship of EM emission and heat. However, we all know that heat is associated atomic motion, both within the atom and external to it. We learn that in electronics/electrical theory and I have taken the liberty of making the association.
It is not helpful or accurate to take shots at my theories without explaining why using scientific reasoning. You claimed…
“There is an immensely accurate, powerful theory already for EM waves and interactions with matter of all sorts. Spectroscopy agrees spectacularly with predictions”.
Let’s hear your rendition of such theories without the ad homs and insults. I challenged your last interpretation and explained why in detail. All I got was a terse reply, as If I had aroused a defense mechanism in you.
“Let’s hear your rendition of such theories …”
There is no reason to give ‘my rendition’. The theory is perfectly well developed. You can learn about it in 100’s of textbooks and 1000’s of physics and chemistry and engineering courses. It’s not the job of anyone on a climate blog to teach you years of E&M and relativity and quantum mechanics and spectroscopy.
If you want interactive learning and discussions, take a class. Or go to a blog/website devoted to the specific topic you want to understand.
“as If I had aroused a defense mechanism in you.”
Yep! I’m defending science. Science it not something you can just change based on your own whims or misunderstandings.
“day, we are blithely lead to accept Einstein’s theory of relativity, simply because he is regarded as a legend”
Not at all. It is soley due to his theory agreeing with all experiments so far.
Its about the evidence, not the person.
Nate says:
”Not at all. It is soley due to his theory agreeing with all experiments so far.”
Last time you used that exact argument Nate was in response to me quoting Einstein making fun of a quantum mechanics theory. You said that Einstein had been proven wrong and all experiments so far proved he was wrong.
Not to mention the fact that you weren’t able to produce any such experiment nor have you been able to on any other topics I have asked you provide the proof on. You just routinely use this claim when you have nothing else to use.
Cry wolf too often and you lose credibility.
then you have Tim in his usual role of arm waving without engaging in an indepth debate to argue his point. Its the number one way to cover up ignorance of the area. Nate I know does it constantly. Right now he is in the middle of a long argument with DREMT where his argument appears supported as well as a guy who is trying to keep his two feet in two different boats to support the ignorance of his fellow warmists.
Bill says: “then you have Tim in his usual role of arm waving without engaging in an indepth debate to argue his point. ”
You clearly don’t pay attention. I engage deeply on many points.
I *don’t* feel the need to engage deeply here to teach graduate-level relativity and quantum mechanics to someone who is clearly happy with his 60 year old sophomore physics knowledge.
***********************************
Bill to Nate: “Not to mention the fact that you weren’t able to produce any such experiment”
You could take a course on relativity. You could read articles on relativity. Heck, you could simply ask AI …
“1. The Eddington Eclipse Expedition (1919)
General Relativity predicts that gravity isn’t just a force, but a warping of spacetime. Massive objects (like the Sun) should bend the path of light passing near them.
The Experiment: Sir Arthur Eddington traveled to the island of Príncipe during a total solar eclipse. He photographed stars near the darkened Sun.
The Result: The stars appeared in slightly different positions than they should have been, proving the Sun’s gravity had “bent” their light. This was the moment Einstein became a global celebrity.
2. The Hafele-Keating Experiment (1971)
This experiment tested Time Dilation—the idea that time actually moves slower the faster you go (Special Relativity) and the closer you are to a gravity source (General Relativity).
The Experiment: Physicists took four cesium atomic clocks. They left one on the ground and flew the others around the world on commercial airliners.
The Result: When the planes landed, the flying clocks were out of sync with the ground clock by exactly the amount Einstein’s equations predicted (nanoseconds). You literally “age” differently depending on your altitude and speed.
3. The Pound-Rebka Experiment (1959)
This confirmed Gravitational Redshift, a key prediction of General Relativity.
The Experiment: Researchers at Harvard University sent gamma rays up and down a 74-foot tower.
The Result: They found that as light moves “up” away from Earth’s gravity, it loses energy and its frequency shifts toward the red end of the spectrum. Gravity effectively “stretches” the light.
4. The Perihelion of Mercury
Before Einstein, astronomers noticed Mercury’s orbit wasn’t quite behaving according to Newton’s laws. It was “precessing” (shifting) slightly more than expected.
The Confirmation: Newton’s math couldn’t explain the extra 43 arcseconds of shift per century. Einstein applied General Relativity, accounting for the way the Sun warps the space Mercury travels through.
The Result: The math matched the observation perfectly. It was the first “retroactive” proof of his theory.
5. LIGO and Gravitational Waves (2015)
Einstein predicted that when massive objects (like black holes) collide, they send “ripples” through the fabric of spacetime itself.
The Experiment: The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) used massive L-shaped tunnels and lasers to detect tiny distortions in space.
The Result: A century after the prediction, LIGO detected the “chirp” of two black holes merging 1.3 billion light-years away. This confirmed the final major piece of the General Relativity puzzle.”
”Not at all. It is soley due to his theory agreeing with all experiments so far.”
Last time you used that exact argument Nate was in response to me quoting Einstein making fun of a quantum mechanics theory. You said that Einstein had been proven wrong and all experiments so far proved he was wrong”
Bill, so ignorant.
Scientists can be right about some things (relativity, the photon) and wrong about other things (opposing the uncertainty principle).
Because as I said, its is about the experimental evidence.
Nate says:
”Bill, so ignorant.
Scientists can be right about some things (relativity, the photon) and wrong about other things (opposing the uncertainty principle).”
————————-
Google AI says: ”Yes, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to photons, as they are quantum particles subject to the same fundamental limits as matter”
Do you see the cloud of BS you are spewing?
Nate says:
”Because as I said, its is about the experimental evidence.”
Still waiting on the experimental evidence links that prove Einstein wrong about the uncertainty principal. Spew does not equal truth or empirical evidence.
Tim Folkerts says:
The Result: When the planes landed, the flying clocks were out of sync with the ground clock by exactly the amount Einstein’s equations predicted (nanoseconds). You literally “age” differently depending on your altitude and speed.
————————-
But where is the evidence that it was your age that was affected instead of the cesium clocks? Keeping in mind that the human body is capable of self correction. Before you apply the ”literally” adverb. It does though make for better science fiction stories. Not so much for the clocks though.
“But where is the evidence that it was your age that was affected”
There is never a 100% guarantee you are correct in science. We are looking for the best, most consistent explanation.
Your explanation is “well, these four clocks (as well as 1000’s of follow up experiments), just HAPPENED to be off by some small amount for no specific reason.”
Science’s explanation is “these four clocks (as well as 1000’s of follow up experiments), shift by amounts exactly predicted by Relativity.”
The EVIDENCE is that relativity repeated and accurately predicts time dilation in many different settings.
Thanks Tim. That seemed to be logical as cesium clocks is a primary physics process and the human body is much lesser so. But hey the story is much more interesting if you make it human.
eldrosion…”It seems that this year’s cold and snowy winter in the East can be explained as an above average year: natural variability superimposed on a longer term warming trend”.
***
Statistic cannot explain anything, all it can do is impose the human mind on reality vis-a-vis human observation and conclusion. It is what it is, and what it is is a response to the Earth’s annual orbit and axial inclination.
The snow was due to frigid Arctic air mixing with warmer air from the Gulf region. Each year, it mixes in a different manner and this year the mixing produced record snow.
How, exactly, can a trace gas like CO2 possibly affect that process, which easily overwhelms it? As long as we maintain our current orbit and axial inclination, the Arctic and Antarctic will freeze over in their respective winters despite any amount of CO2. Freezing air will descend on us from the Arctic annually and there is nothing a pithy amount of CO2 can do about it.
How we were scammed into accepting this pseudo-science re CO2 warming is the question. The only explanation is that science has become corrupted by fringe groups, who have managed to install themselves as authority figures, who advise equally corrupt governments, who are either too stupid or too lazy to seek the truth.
That is what we are facing today in science. No one is interested in thinking scientifically, they are far more interested in repeating trash from authority ijits like the IPCC.
So, when you get a year like this year in middle and eastern Canada, put it down to variability in weather. There has not been enough warming since 1850, to cause significant climate change let alone this kind of alleged climate change. Besides, we should be getting less snow, not more. And we have simply not accurately recorded weather data since 1850, especially globally, to have much to say about climate change.
Gordon
“The snow was due to frigid Arctic air mixing with warmer air from the Gulf region. Each year, it mixes in a different manner and this year the mixing produced record snow.
How, exactly, can a trace gas like CO2 possibly affect that process, which easily overwhelms it? As long as we maintain our current orbit and axial inclination, the Arctic and Antarctic will freeze over in their respective winters despite any amount of CO2. Freezing air will descend on us from the Arctic annually and there is nothing a pithy amount of CO2 can do about it.”
By absorbing and re emitting IR back toward the surface. This increases sea surface temperatures, which then enhances evaporation, convection, and overall precipitation.
When surface air temperatures remain below 0C, that additional moisture can translate into increased snowfall. If the reduction in radiative heat loss raises average land temperatures enough that winter conditions frequently exceed 0C, precipitation that would have fallen as snow instead falls as rain.
Which scenario occurs depends on the region in question.
By the way, are you aware that the Arctic has warmed dramatically since just 2000 (period of improved surface coverage)?
The annual average temperature anomaly for the Arctic was –0.42 C in 2000 and +1.6C in 2025 — a rise of roughly 2C in just 25 years.
https://arctic.noaa.gov/arctic-indicators/
Absolutely terrifying. I am deeply worried about the Arctic, its wildlife, and the indigenous communities that live up there.
“Absolutely terrifying. I am deeply worried about the Arctic, its wildlife, and the indigenous communities that live up there.”
Eldrosion,
Sure. And you battle for their survival by posting meaningless comments on a blog.
You Warmers need to find real hobbies or something. You have too much time on your hands and your mind wanders into fairyland.
“By absorbing and re emitting IR back toward the surface.”
Eldro, you’re just regurgitating cult nonsense. That ain’t science.
You need to show how CO2’s 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface. You can’t do that. You weren’t even able to answer where the “33K” nonsense comes from.
So, you’re just here to clog the blog with your false beliefs like “Absolutely terrifying. I am deeply worried about the Arctic, its wildlife, and the indigenous communities that live up there.”
Why not grow up and learn some science?
Bad Andrew
“Sure. And you battle for their survival by posting meaningless comments on a blog.
You Warmers need to find real hobbies or something. You have too much time on your hands and your mind wanders into fairyland.”
Look at it this way: the more time I spend at home on my computer, the smaller my carbon footprint becomes. Even if the impact is tiny, it is still a way of supporting their survival.
Clint R
“Why not grow up and learn some science?”
You first.
Clint R 8:05 am hasn’t yet learned Dr. Spencer already experimentally showed how 15 micron photons radiated from ice can raise the temperature of earth’s surface water over surface water not in view of those photons – as required by 2LOT eqn.
Eldrosion says:
”Look at it this way: the more time I spend at home on my computer, the smaller my carbon footprint becomes. Even if the impact is tiny, it is still a way of supporting their survival.”
LOL! Keep hoping. I will admit it’s probably more useful than some jetsetter rambling around the world like Sir Galahad in search of the Holy Grail which in turn is far far more useful that some pagan sorcerer or witch doctor throwing handfuls of gunpowder into the fire at the community marshmallow roast before launching into mouthing dire predictions of the future.
Even if the impact is tiny, it is still a way of supporting their survival.”
Oh, don’t worry. It’s completely irrelevant.
No go get a job.
Sorry Eldro but I didn’t ask for another example of your childishness. I was asking when you’re going to stop it.
But regardless, are you ready to learn some science? Let’s start with the basic S/B equation. If a surface (emissivity = 1) is emitting 240 W/m², what is its temperature?
Here’s the S-B formula, CR:
E =σT^4
From there, you rearrange the equation to solve for T.
You can do it!
Can your calculator provide roots? Do you know how to use it?
Try to give responsible answers. We already know you’re a cult kid. This is about educating you.
Now, what’s the temperature?
To help Clint 1:46 pm solve the S-B law eqn.: brightness T = 4th root (E/sigma)
“We already know you’re a cult kid. This is about educating you.”
If I am to pursue my physics education further, I think I would benefit more from a different instructor.
If you don’t know how to use a calculator, you don’t meet the required prerequisites to take a physics course.
As if everyone doesn’t know how to use a calculator.
Just answer the question, Eldro. Give us the temperature.
We already know you’re a cult child.
I’ve already shown Clint R the brightness T; pity Clint R can’t understand and has to keep humorously asking for T.
Clint R
If I am a cult child, then why bother to educate me? Your own logic escapes you.
I have no hope in educating you, Eldro. My effort is a public service, so people that drop in can see what is going on here. The Left has no interest in science or reality. Just look at the recent comments from Bindi, Ball4, Willard, Folkerts, and barry.
You’re not far behind your leaders….
Ball4 and I just showed you the formula for solving the physics problem.
If the student has shown they understand the core idea, it is a bit much for the teacher to hold up the class or be overly strict about it.
I wouldn’t have to tell you this if your claims of being so well versed in public education were actually true.
Sorry child but blah-blah doesn’t work with me.
What is the temperature?
^^^
*rawr*
The planet is dying and there is nothing you can do about it.
Eldrosion,
Get a job yet?
Eldro, your ignorance goes well with your immaturity.
You remind me of Greta.
Why don’t you direct that question to Puffman, Bad, and how’s your frugal retirement going?
Willard,
It’s going great, thank you for asking. We did have an extended period of abnormally cold weather, but as I was digging my automobile out of the snow, I thought, “At least Global Warming Theory will always be consistent with whatever happens.” That thought gave me a secure feeling and warm fuzzy glow in my gut, and things didn’t seem so frigid after that.
So I thank you and Eldro for keeping up the good work. Couldna made it through without you guys.
I’m sure that if 2025 UK hasn’t been the warmest and sunniest year on record you’d have something else to mock, Andrew:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2026/2025-is-double-record-breaker-uks-warmest-and-sunniest-year-on-record
Beware that more driving means less drinking, and so is bad for your health.
I read above without any surprise:
” The sphere’s surface is 4 times the disk’s surface. ”
That is old, endlessly replicated pseudoscientific language, in exactly the same vein as the ‘ball-on-a-string’ allegedly describing our satellite’s complex motions.
*
The surface of a hemsiphere is 2 * pi * R^2. Indeed.
But the sum of all incoming radiation is obtained by integrating, from 0 to pi/2, infinitesimal spherical surfaces doubly weighted by the cosine of the angle built by the hitting beams and the line perpendicular to the surface at the hitting point.
As expected by anyone having a working brain instead of stubbornly doubting everything, the result of this integration using spherical trigonometry will be exactly the same as when computing full solar input hitting a disk having the same radius as the hemisphere lit by the rays.
*
Furthermore, the sun only emits its shortwave radiation to one hemisphere at a time, leaving the opposite side in darkness, while our Earth continuously emits longwave radiation in return.
Two complementary examples, similarly shown by many surface radiation stations all around the Globe:
Feb 22, Desert Rock, NV, US
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/dr_699ccb99c3bc6.pdf
vs.
Aug 22, Barrow, AK, US
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/dr_699ccac7ca3c5.pdf
They explain pretty good how solar SW and terrestrial LW behave during the day, and also how necessary it is to consider factors like latitude, location context, hourly and seasonal cycles when comparing them.
I continue to point out that these cult kids have no knowledge of the science, and can’t learn. Bindi comes in to prove me right.
Bindi has been told numerous times that the ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbiting without spin”. It is NOT a model of Moon. Bindi cannot learn.
Now Bindi makes the claim: “…the result of this integration using spherical trigonometry will be exactly the same as when computing full solar input hitting a disk having the same radius as the hemisphere lit by the rays.”
That is completely wrong. The “result” won’t be “exactly the same”. It will be half incoming solar, after albedo. For Earth, incoming solar = 960 W/m², and effective flux over hemisphere = 480 W/m² (240 W/m² over entire surface).
Plus il écrit, plus il se trompe.
As usual, Clint R never admits being wrong, like a ten year old kid.
I only replied to
” The sphere’s surface is 4 times the disk’s surface. ”
a phrasing used by all pseudoskeptic ignoramuses to discredit the formula calculating the effective solar radiation hitting Eath’s hemisphere facing the Sun, by claiming
” Earth’s surface is not a disk! ”
And I was 100% right in debunking this pseudoskeptic blah blah.
*
Firstly, I did not talk about Earth’s entire surface but only about the sunlit hemisphere.
Secondly, the albedo has nothing to do in the calculation of the value of the solar radiation hitting the surface.
Clint R still doesn’t grasp the math.
The incoming solar radiation is and remains equal to pi * R^2 * S.
(S is the Solar Constant, set 1361 W/m^2 by the International Astronomical Union).
*
Who cares about pseudoskeptic ignoramuses a la Clint R, Robertson and a few other similar boys, who all deny the lunar spin observed and computed for centuries?
These are not good times for Bindi. All his cult beliefs are being trashed, right before his eyes.
We can expect long, rambling, disoriented, babbling comments, exhibiting his frustrations.
Poor Bindi….
Bindy,
So you claim that the earth receives a constant amount of sunlight because you misunderstand simple physics. What hope have you got in understanding anything like orbits aren’t circular.
You are ficker than Dullard on a bad day. No offense Willard, I know how to cherish being the village mascot, but you do have competition from Bindion.
“The incoming solar radiation is and remains equal to pi * R^2 * S.
(S is the Solar Constant, set 1361 W/m^2 by the International Astronomical Union).”
Correct. Unclear what the trolls are moaning about.
“Data centers in space” is probably the dumbest idea of 2025, and there were many to choose from. It simply will not work!
https://youtu.be/-w6G7VEwNq0
eldrosion…”By absorbing and re emitting IR back toward the surface. This increases sea surface temperatures, which then enhances evaporation, convection, and overall precipitation.
When surface air temperatures remain below 0C, that additional moisture can translate into increased snowfall. If the reduction in radiative heat loss raises average land temperatures enough that winter conditions frequently exceed 0C, precipitation that would have fallen as snow instead falls as rain.
***
Back-radiated IR from CO2 in a cooler atmosphere, or even one in thermal equilibrium, cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface. I have supplied proof of that ad nauseum, based on the 2nd law and Bohr’s 1913 basis for quantum theory.
Ergo, the surface is always warmer than or in thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere therefore it is not possible for heat to be transferred atmosphere to surface. 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Besides, colder air from the Arctic is required and that is caused by the Earth’s position in its orbit and its axial tilt. In essence, CO2 has little or no effect on global warming, which is all the result of a re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
No, the planet is not just warming as part of some natural recovery from the LIA. The current rate of warming is much faster and more extreme than anything seen in the past.
Here is an ice core study:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
The temperature trend throughout the Holocene had been cooling until the Industrial Revolution, and the rate of warming we are seeing now is highly unusual and far faster than what’s been observed historically.
This provides obvious support that infrared trapping caused by anthropogenic GHGs are the main driver. Refer to Fig. 3, Panel C, to see how dramatically the current rate of warming deviates from past warm periods. And this data only goes up to 2009. The Arctic has warmed a significant amount since then.
“The current rate of warming is much faster and more extreme than anything seen in the past.”
That’s right! Now, that there is much less sea-ice to melt in the yearly spring-summer seasons, the sensitive / latent ratio of absorbed heat shifts towards the sensitive side, so temperature rises much faster. Because oceans – resemblance with drinks on ice-cubes – the warming is faster at the party’s end!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
not sure where your coming from with this, we have no definitive records of past warmings and coolings, why would it not warm after the last decline? it did after every other cooling,cooling throughout the Holocene you say, but you conveniently ignore the climate optimum before 12000bc, the roman warm period, and the medieval warm period, to claim the planet is warming faster than anything seen in the past is not true,we do not not have the data other than proxies, proxies that are prone to contamination,nothing unusual about todays warm period, looking at my own records , short as they are, you state the current rate of warming deviates from past warm periods, yet there are no global temperature records much before the sat era,a very miniscule time frame. The problem with your theory is the fact that ever since the industrial revolution temperatures have not increased at the same rate as atmospheric C02 has increased, but rather have fluctuated as they always have throughout recorded history, records from proxies show the British isles and Europe experienced a 5c temperature drop in five decades around 8000bc, climate changes whether we like it or not.today is not warm.
Christos Vournas
I don’t think that explanation is sufficient on its own. In Figure 3, Panel C, warming rates during the early Holocene (despite being the warmest period in the record and characterized by significantly reduced sea ice extent) are not higher than those observed during cooler parts of the Holocene.
https://tinyurl.com/5d92p88n
Christos Vournas
I don’t think that explanation is sufficient on its own. In Figure 3, Panel C, warming rates during the early Holocene (despite being the warmest period in the record and characterized by significantly reduced sea ice extent) are not higher than those observed during cooler parts of the Holocene.
https://tinyurl.com/5d92p88nv
(Apologies for the duplicate post in moderation, Dr. Spencer.)
Ian Brown
“we have no definitive records of past warmings and coolings, why would it not warm after the last decline?”
The entire purpose of this paper is to produce a quantitative temperature record spanning roughly 12,000 years using oxygen isotope ratios preserved in ice layers from the Agassiz Ice Cap.
“but you conveniently ignore the climate optimum before 12000bc, the roman warm period, and the medieval warm period”
I am not ignoring those periods. They are included in the record, but they were not as warm as today. In the High Arctic, temperatures are now at their warmest level in roughly the past ~7,000 years.
“we do not not have the data other than proxies, proxies that are prone to contamination”
Deniers also interpret these proxies as a physically robust signal:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/08/greenland-is-way-cool/
“No global records before satellites”
Climate science does not rely solely on instrumental thermometers. But you should know that the record in this paper extends to 2009 CE, overlapping with instrumental data for validation.
“records from proxies show the British isles and Europe experienced a 5c temperature drop in five decades around 8000bc, climate changes whether we like it or not.today is not warm.”
That is an apples to oranges comparison. This is a High Arctic site, whereas the locations you mentioned are strongly influenced by North Atlantic circulation patterns. Regional data from different dynamical regimes can not be used to invalidate a pattern observed in another region.
Eldrosion
Thank you, for answering. Because I would like to note, that the higher CO2 content in ice core samples relate to colder periods, not to warmer, as it is mistakenly thought! CO2 is a solidised gas in some local extremely low temperatures that may occur in Earth’s cold periods.
That is why I consider the time of the Holocene optimum as the coldest, and the following natural orbitally forced warming pattern followed, and that warming pattern resching its culmination phase in our times.
That is why we are witnessing a rapid warming in our epoch!
_
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Back-radiated IR from CO2 in a cooler atmosphere, or even one in thermal equilibrium, cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface. I have supplied proof of that ad nauseum, based on the 2nd law and Bohr’s 1913 basis for quantum theory.”
You have, in reality supplied absolutely zero proof of your incorrect interpretation of valid science. All correct and valid science claims a warm surface can and will absorb IR from a colder surface (notable exceptions would be highly polished metals which are very poor at absorbing any incident EMR).
You and Clint R both falsely believe that IR from a colder surface will not be absorbed by a warmer surface. At this time neither of you (nor will you ever) provide experimental proof of your false, misleading and made up versions of science. Roy Spencer has already done real world experiments proving your assertions are false. You can now do some experiments with real material and verify you false claims are really valid. Until you show experimental results that confirm what you state, you are blowing hot air and wasting time with foolish notions.
Norman, there you go again, falsely accusing me. You’ve been doing a lot better after being cured of your anal fetishes, but now you revert to your childish antics.
Where did I ever state: IR from a colder surface will not be absorbed by a warmer surface?
I didn’t!
I’ve explained several times how photon absorp.tion works. It is NOT the temperature of the surface that emitted the photon. It is the compatibility of the photon and impacted molecule that determines absorp.tion. A surface emits a spectrum. Some photons may be absorbed and some may be reflected.
I think you’re somehow confused about 2LoT and flux/photons. I remember you also got confused believing a surface emitting 400 W/m² could be warmed by an arriving flux of 300 W/m². You’re confused by such situations because you’ve never studied thermodynamics, or radiative physics.
And being childish will only keep you from learning. If you want to learn, you need to avoid making insults and false accusations.
Clint R
I actually have studied heat transfer at much greater depth than you are ablr to. I have asked you specifically does a warmer surface absorb IR from a cooler surface. I could try and search for older posts by you. I hsve gone down that rabbit hole already and all you do is divert
Ice surrounding a heated object will keep the temperature at a higher reading than the same heated surface would be if surrounded by dry ice. The energy emitted by a colder surface acts to reduce the cooling rate of a heared surface. CO2 in atmosphere reduces the rate the Earth surface cools so it will reach a higher temperatue unde solar heating than it would with no GHG present.
CLINT says: “Where did I ever state: IR from a colder surface will not be absorbed by a warmer surface?
I didn’t!”
So yes, the photon and its energy gets absorbed. This extra energy causes the surface to
a) warm up
b) cool down
c) stay the same
Norman can’t show where I ever said what he claimed. As usual, he’s got NOTHING.
But, in true cult child behavior, he proves me right by admitting that CO2 (dry ice) can’t support Earth temperatures like water (ice) can.
Folkerts just spews more of his fraud.
Kids these days….
Off topic. Move on if you would rather debate fake science with Gordon.
The liberal media was breathless with the “news” on Monday that Trump had crashed the stock markets with his tariff threats. It was as usual, fake news.
The sharp drop was due to rational concerns about a “report” that the effects of AI could be severe. As of today’s close, the markets are all back or higher. That one analysis is not the final word. Life goes on. The US economy is strong. Investing in the stock market for long term growth is still a very good strategy. Short term traders often get hurt as they should because they are the ones who cause problems.
Such prognosis after the NVDA lackluster earnings call is bought to be risky.
The most authoritative of all authoritative people, Jim Cramer, says you are wrong. He still likes the stock. After all, he is not just there to make friends and be informative — he is there to help you make some money! (sarcasm for people who are slow). Yes, there are whole websites dedicated to criticizing Cramer!
Their current result would be the envy of any other company. The concern is future growth. Others have a simple explanation: “The debate has shifted away from near-term results and toward the sustainability of AI capex spending, amid concerns around its quantum, monetization and potential cashflow degradation”
“The most authoritative of all authoritative people, Jim Cramer”
Good one.
Here’s a graph showing the historical S&P performance before and after mid-terms election:
https://duncangrp.com/what-the-mid-terms-might-do-to-the-stock-market/
The SCOTUS recent decision might have saved it all. We’ll see if Donald succeeds in subverting votes. In any event, printing money is never bad for markets. Not sure it’s great for the Muricans themselves, who are getting fleeced once again.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Here’s the breakdown of Alito’s fossil fuel investments:
$15,001 to $50,000 in Phillips 66, a major oil refining and midstream company and named defendant in several state climate liability lawsuits.
$15,000 or less in ConocoPhillips, a major U.S. oil and gas exploration and production company and named defendant in several state climate liability lawsuits.
$15,001 to $50,000 in OGE Energy, a holding company for Oklahoma Gas & Electric, which generates electricity largely from natural gas and other fossil fuels.
$15,000 or less in Woodside Energy Group, one of Australia’s largest oil and liquefied natural gas producers.
$15,000 or less in AES Corporation, a power generation company that operates natural gas and coal-fired plants.
$15,001 to $50,000 in Black Hills Corporation, utility that distributes natural gas, with a significant portion of its power supply coming from fossil fuels.
$15,001 to $50,000 in Fortis Inc, a utility holding company that owns electric and gas utilities.
$15,001 to $50,000 in BHP Biliton PLC ADR, a global mining giant that produces metallurgical coal used in steelmaking.
I will also note that I did not include any of Alito’s investments in major petrochemical manufacturers on this list, even though those companies rely heavily on petroleum and natural gas to make plastics, chemicals, and agricultural products.
Alito also has investments in Dupont, Dow, and Corteva.
https://heated.world/p/sam-alito-has-an-oil-money-problem
Willard: Those are investments in abiogenic fuels, not fossil fuels. The presence of methane on other planets, meteors, moons and comets proves that theory of fossil fuels is BS. Most, if not all, of Earth’s petroleum and natural gas deposits were formed inorganically out of hydrocarbons deep in the Earth’s mantle. Only a small fraction (10%) of climate warming is due to increased CO2 levels.
Walter,
Those are conflicts of interest.
More importantly, you’re just saying stuff once again:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
Could you tell me why contrarians always keep forgetting about the offset part?
Thirty two years ago: Is Science for Sale?
https://youtu.be/HM9SNjRXIxs
and that extra C02 has damaged no one, but it has benefited agriculture and the flora of the planet, the silly attack on fossil fuels has done much more harm than good,for all the trillions wasted not one person other than the a tiny minority of rich billionaires and hypocritical politicians, i did a graph and spread sheet,which showed quite clearly that no matter how much was spent, nothing changed in the real world, C 02 and temperature continued on their merry as if we were never here. I remember that old quote,there is no tyranny worse than a tyranny imposed for the good of the people,what i cant understand is how long the great and the good have managed to keep this nonsense going for so long.
Here’s a written summary for those unwilling to watch the entire video…
https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/1994-nightline-special-science-for-sale/
What I noted was the essential absence of any scientific argument from alarmists and modellers. All the science came from skeptics.
Koppell’s piece began as a conversation with Al Gore and Koppell agreed to do the piece provided Gore supply him with facts. Gore had no facts and resorted to the alarmist practice of trying to associate good scientists to the fuel companies, suggesting that any funding from them was being used to promote their industries.
Later, when that proved fruitless, the alarmists began associating people like Fred Singer with the tobacco industry. Fuel and tobacco associations are the main thrusts of alarmists who cannot debate the science directly. Here in Canada, the CBC news outlet invited Singer to Canada to talk about his skepticism then ambushed him with allegations that he was in the grip of tobacco companies.
What is missing from Koppell’s coverage is an expose on the character of Gore. This creep spent his entire tenure as Vice President on such important projects as looking for satanic expressions in rock albums. He and his wife Tipper became missionaries in the rock arena, trying to associate rock albums with satanic cults.
Prior to his Koppell talk, he had already had his butt booted by Singer indirectly. Gore does not seem to have the guts to confront skeptics directly so he does his dirty work indirectly. When Singer and Roger Revelle co-wrote a paper circa 1990 that suggested the public should not read too much into global warming rhetoric, Gore went ballistic. You see, Gore had been a student of Revelle at Harvard and presumed Revelle to be an alarmist.
Through a third party, he suggested that Revelle was senile and that Singer had taken advantage of that so-called senility to take advantage of Revelle, coercing him into co-authoring the paper. Revelle’s daughter claimed Revelle had his full faculties up to his death and that he and Singer happily collaborated. Singer sued the third party and won in court. In essence, he sued Gore and won.
That is likely why Gore approached Koppell, largely to get back at Singer, who had embarrassed him in court.
That’s the character of Gore that Ark is presenting here as a just man. What it reveals is that Ark cannot grasp the difference between an out and out shyster and a real scientist like Fred Singer or Richard Lindzen.
We simply cannot under-estimate the eminence of Singer as a scientist. He had a degree in electrical engineering and pioneered the US satellite program. Later, he got a Ph. D. in physics. Singer pioneered the current NOAA satellite system used by UAH. I would venture that he knew a lot about the atmosphere.
To suggest such an eminent scientist fell prey to outside influences, hence abandoning his scientific background and integrity, is sheer nonsense dremt up by ingrate alarmists to discredit him. Same with Lindzen and others.
The irony is ,they were right, there has been no damage other than the total waste of tax payers money for no return, your great grand parents would think they had died and gone to heaven were they to come back today
Christos Vournas
My reply to you is in moderation. Stay tuned.
I would repost, moderated posts don’t always get through.
It’s payback time for Trump’s tariff fiasco.
https://archive.ph/xiy6D#selection-1549.0-1549.43
Arkady: The 1974 Trade Act section 122 allows the president to impose tariffs for 150 days without congressional approval. Trump have already signed an executive order of temporary 10% import tariffs, which will soon be raised to 15%. And after 150 days he will do it again, legally. It will take at least 5 years for courts to decide if refunds needs to be payed.
max…this act was designed to counter unfair trade practices. Trump is using it to save face after the Supreme Court kicked his butt.
Are you suggesting that trade practices between the US and Canada have been unfair? It has been the US who had failed to live up to agreements they have signed. Canada has continually needed to take the US to court in an attempt to get them to live up to documents they signed in good faith.
Tariffs have been used by nearly every U.S. president throughout history, ranging from foundational revenue measures under George Washington to protectionist policies under William McKinley and Herbert Hoover. Recent presidents, including Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Richard Nixon, have all applied tariffs to protect specific domestic industries.
Just when Trump gives a lesson on how to improve the economy does it become the end of the world. And isn’t the destruction of the middle class enough of an emergency for the elite?
norman…”You have, in reality supplied absolutely zero proof of your incorrect interpretation of valid science. All correct and valid science claims a warm surface can and will absorb IR from a colder surface (notable exceptions would be highly polished metals which are very poor at absorbing any incident EMR).
You and Clint R both falsely believe that IR from a colder surface will not be absorbed by a warmer surface”.
***
You have failed to refute my explanation of why a warmer surface cannot absorb EM from a colder surface. In fact, you have not even tried, rather, you carry on with the same tired meme that I am making it up.
BTW…your argument that ice surrounding an object will keep it from cooling faster is not based in science. The ice will make it cool even faster since it widens the gradient between the hot body temperature and the ice itself.
Proof. Take a hot cup of coffee and leave it on the kitchen table in a room at 25C. Take another cup and take it outside when the ambient temperature is below 0C and see how long it takes to cool in comparison.
My proof comes straight from the theory of Neils Bohr circa 1913. That theory explained how electrons can absorb only discrete EM frequencies that correspond to the particular orbital energy level of the electron.
Example, in the hydrogen atom, the sole electron can absorb and emit only at various very discrete frequencies (i.e. no spectrum only line spectra). I have gone on to explain how electrons react only to very specific frequencies that are related to their orbital frequency. With absorption, the hydrogen atom will absorb only a few discrete frequencies and will ignore the majority of EM affecting the atom.
Planck had previously theorized that each frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum has a progressively more intense energy and he devised the constant ‘h’ to express that increase in joules/hertz. It relates EM intensity to frequency as in E = hf. That same formula was applied within the atom by Bohr to equate electron energy orbitals to frequency.
Naturally, in Planck’s formula, higher temperature bodies emit higher frequency radiation. It stands to reason that any cooler body emits a lower frequency EM than a hotter body. During absorption, that is crucial since en electron in an atom in a hotter body can absorb only a discrete frequency that corresponds to its higher energy orbital frequency.
If you study the hydrogen emission/absorption line spectra, then compare it to all elements, you will find each element absorbs and emits in the same discrete frequency line spectrum manner. Ergo, all elements will reject any EM frequency that does not match its particular line spectra.
Electrons are tiny particles that carry a negative electric charge and that charge forms an electric (E) field about it. When it moves, it produces an associated magnetic field (M) orthogonal to the electric field. The combo is EM. If the electron is moving back and forth in a conductor at an appreciable frequency it emits an EM field with a frequency proportional to its conductor frequency.
You obviously don’t understand any of this because you have never studied electronics/electrical theory. However, you are willing to expound on some unknown theory you think you have derived from textbooks.
Gordon,
Bohr’s theory only applies to one electron atoms and ions.
So it has little relevance to the discussion.
Clint R
YOU: “Norman, there you go again, falsely accusing me. You’ve been doing a lot better after being cured of your anal fetishes, but now you revert to your childish antics.
Where did I ever state: IR from a colder surface will not be absorbed by a warmer surface?
I didn’t!”
I did not want to waste time showing you can’t remember ideas you have posted but since you are adamant about it, it did not take much time to find a post where you indeed said what you claim you didn’t.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711299
YOU: “As I taught you earlier, a surface will not absorb a lesser flux than it is emitting. So the surface will NOT increase in temperature with two 500 W/m² fluxes, but will increase in temperature with one 1000 W/m² flux.”
You are clearly saying that the IR from a cooler surface will not be absorbed by a warmer one. You also claim two 500 W/m^2 fluxes will not increase surface temperature over just one such flux.
Yes you do make up fake misleading physics. Your worst one is your inability to comprehend how the Moon has to rotate at the same rate it orbits to keep the same side facing Earth. No logic will ever change your limited logic ability. People hundreds of years ago could understand this reality, you can’t. I have given you equations showing you how tidal locking works but you are not able to process them or how they work. Carry on with your Trump loving posts and your false misleading physics.
Thanks for finding that, Norman. That’s the advantage of producing the exact quote. Now, I can understand why you’re so confused.
When I used the phrase “…a surface will not absorb a lesser flux than it is emitting”, I was referring to the ENTIRE flux. I expected you to understand, but I sometimes forget you have no experience with radiative physics.
A flux from an object has a spectrum of photons. Depending on the surface impacted, some of the photons may be absorbed and some of the photons may be reflected. When the surface is emitting a greater flux than the incoming flux, it is a certainty that many photons will be reflected. And even the photons absorbed would not be able to make up for the photons being emitted. That’s why you can’t boil water with flux from ice cubes. Your cult believes the world is a black body, and every surface will always absorb ALL photons. And, being a good cult child, you also believe that.
That’s why you also believe Moon is spinning, as it orbits. You have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet you reject the simple ball-on-a-string. You have NOTHING, yet you reject reality.
You can’t think for yourself, so this is only for any responsible adults interested:
A person is in a spacecraft flying 500 miles above Earth’s North Pole. The spacecraft is traveling at the same speed and direction as Earth, along the orbit. The Earth is spinning, so as when the person looks down, he will see the spinning.
Now, a spacecraft is above a pole of Moon and also traveling with the same speed and direction as its orbit. But looking down, a person would NOT see any spinning.
Again, you and the other cult kids will not understand. Prove me wrong.
Clint R
You made an assertion that two heat lamps would have no more effect on the temperature of a receiving object. I asked you to provide experimental evidece for your conjecture. To date you have provided none! What form of science is that you offer?? Your ignorant opinions of how you think reality behaves with zero evidence? Your cultish mind sees eveyone in cults except for yourself. Your thinking is cult. Opinions without evidence. Why are you afraid to provide evidence??
Wrong Norman, I never asserted any such thing. You’re doing the same thing as before. You’re trying to twist, distort, pervert my words.
Provide the link and exact quote.
Clint R
You most certainly did assert this!
ME: “You made an assertion that two heat lamps would have no more effect on the temperature of a receiving object.”
YOU: “So the surface will NOT increase in temperature with two 500 W/m² fluxes, but will increase in temperature with one 1000 W/m² flux.”
Not sure you are even a rational human. You seem confused by your own posts. You deny exactly what you had posted and claim you never said this. You are a true Disciple of your Master and Lord Trump. You follow his pattern of saying something than denying he said it.
So Norman, you’re unable to provide the link and exact quote?
Once again, you prove yourself an incompetent cult child.
Perhaps the therapist that helped you with your anal fetish can help you with your TDS.
It’s worth a try….
norman to clint …”Yes you do make up fake misleading physics. Your worst one is your inability to comprehend how the Moon has to rotate at the same rate it orbits to keep the same side facing Earth”.
***
This is an example of your lack of understanding of physics.
From Newton in Principia…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion.
2)that linear motion is transformed into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity.
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the elliptical focus where the earth is located.
That explains why the Moon does not rotate at all. It is always following an instantaneous straight-line path and that linear path is gradually bent into an ellipse by Earth’s gravitational field.
There is no need for it to rotate about a local axis, like a car following an elliptical track, it is always moving straight at any one instant, which is a hallmark of curvilinear motion. At any instant in curvilinear motion, an object following that path is moving along a tangent line, which is always a straight line.
That explains why the Moon keeps the same face pointed at one focal point and that can be demonstrated using a line from each focal point of an ellipse to the moving body and bisecting the angle formed. Using a tangent line with the bisector explains everything.
The bisector always points toward one focus, where the Earth is located, but not exactly at it. The angle formed with the focus explains he changing degree of surface available, with orbital position, for Earth viewers around the edge of the Moon.
Even if your theory was correct, exactly one rotation per orbit, what are the odds after billions of years that the Moon would settle for such an exact number? If it had been rotating and had slowed down, why would it suddenly stop slowing at one rotation per orbit?
No need for such a far out theory when basic physics a la Newton solves it exactly.
Gordon Roberstson
YOU: “Even if your theory was correct, exactly one rotation per orbit, what are the odds after billions of years that the Moon would settle for such an exact number? If it had been rotating and had slowed down, why would it suddenly stop slowing at one rotation per orbit?”
It is called tidal torque. The Earth is currently slowing down its rotational rate because of tidal friction.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/33449/derivation-of-a-formula-for-the-mass-of-a-tidal-bulge-and-tidal-torque?newreg=ab151b6d67bf4e9e8e8a107b0e20cb32
Norman, you have to remember astronomy got its start from astrology. It’s filled with many false beliefs. Just to name a few:
* Tidal locking
* Moon is spinning
* Earth can transfer angular momentum to Moon
So finding crap on the Internet you don’t understand, ain’t science. You need to start with very simple concepts that are based in reality, and build from there.
For example, either find a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, or admit you don’t know crap about orbital motion. Once you clear you mind of false beliefs, the learning can begin.
Clint R
Your ignorant opinions are noted. You display ignorant arrogance. You cannot understand how forces work so you reject valid science in favor of your made up beliefs. You are an odd fellow.
Sorry Norman, but that’s all wrong.
I display science and reality. You display insults and false accusations.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
New research finds a negative climate-chemistry feedback in N2O’s contribution to AGW.
Research reported in this new paper, https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2524123123, indicates that AGW-driven changes in the stratosphere are shortening the atmospheric lifetime of nitrous oxide (N2O).
Because a shorter lifetime means N2O is removed from the atmosphere more quickly than earlier estimates assumed, this change reduces projected N2O concentration and its contribution to AGW relative to a constant-lifetime assumption. Hence a negative feedback.
bob d…”Bohr’s theory only applies to one electron atoms and ions.
So it has little relevance to the discussion”.
***
Where have you been, Bob? Not much commenting from you.
It’s true that Bohr’s theory only applies to hydrogen, and partly to helium, but it is still vital to the understanding of quantum theory. The current basis for quantum theory is Schrodinger’s Wave Equation, which is based on the wrong assumption but giving the proper results.
There is not much point in discussing the math of Schrodinger since it is so obfuscated as to be hardly legible. Bohr present a much simpler image that can be understood intuitively. That’s especially true here where we are discussing a one electron problem related to EM emission and absorption.
Still, Schrodinger only gives a probability distribution of where electrons are likely to be found about an atomic nucleus. That is not at all helpful when it comes to understanding and visualizing the actuality. Essentially, quantum theory is a useless art since it fails to address the reality of atoms and their structure. We need the theory initially when studying electronics and basic chemistry, but it can soon be discarded as a learning tool.
Even though Bohr and Schrodinger are essentially obsolete, both have served us well in electronics and chemistry theory, so long as we stick to basics and don’t get dragged off into sci-fi. We sorely need to scrap quantum theory and find out exactly what is going on at the atomic level.
No one would ever have understood covalent or ionic bonds in the 1930s had it not been for Linus Pauling and his vast chemistry experience, coupled with x-ray crystallography. Pauling went to Europe in the 1920s to study quantum theory and became the first scientist in the world to apply it to chemistry. He had to amend the theory of the day to make it work and it was his vast knowledge of molecular structure, gained through x-ray crystallography, that made the difference.
The theory taught by Pauling in his college level textbook is based directly on Bohr’s theory of the hydrogen atom. He begins with hydrogen in the periodic table then explains how subsequent elements/atoms in the Periodic Table relate to the element preceding and following through electron interactions. Pauling wrote the book on covalent bonds, earning him a Nobel.
All you need in basic chemistry and electronics theory is a clear understanding of the interaction between electrons and protons in the nucleus of an atom. The theory is based on Schrodinger’s incorrect assumption (from de Borglie’s theory) that an electron is both a particle and a wave, but it is not necessary to get into Schrodinger’s math to understand what makes one element different or similar to other elements.
Pauling explains it all using the Periodic Table and demonstrated how elements can be similar and different, based simply on the number of electrons and protons they have. Molecules are formed based on those difference and similarities.
It is the bond angles formed by electron/proton interactions that determine the properties of molecules. There are vibrations in those bonds that are affected by heat, pressure, and EM that determine the frequency of EM emitted by electrons in the atoms.
It all comes down to how electrons in the valence bands of atoms interact with the electrons in valence bands of other elements. Ergo, electrons are not only the basis of electronics theory they are also the basis of chemistry theory, and that’s why Bohr’s initial theory is still pertinent.
Bohr’s theory is actually about the electrostatic interaction between electrons and protons in atoms and molecules as well as the ability of electrons to change orbital energy levels. That is all it is about.
Electrons are even the basis of dipole bonds in molecules even though it appears Norman will never understand why.
So, even though Bohr’s theory is simplistic and reserved for the study of hydrogen and helium, in the end, the same principles involving the electron-nucleus relationship applies to all atoms and molecules.
Gordon,
Bohr’s model cannot predict the spectrum of molecules.
Also, if it is only electrons involved in the spectra, consider the spectra of HCl with different isotopes of Chlorine, such as Cl35 or Cl37.
The spectra are different and Bohr’s theory offer no clue as to why.
Also consider what happens to an electron accelerating in the presence of an electric field.
Name dropping famous chemists without any understanding of their works well for you.
“The theory taught by Pauling in his college level textbook is based directly on Bohr’s theory of the hydrogen atom. He begins with hydrogen in the periodic table then explains how subsequent element”
False. His theory of chemical bonding was based entirely on use of the Shrodinger equation. Which provided us with the shapes orbitals s, p, d, and hybrid orbitals sp, sp2 etc.
norman…”It is called tidal torque. The Earth is currently slowing down its rotational rate because of tidal friction”.
***
If that’s the case, why has it stopped slowing down at one rotation per orbit? Why does it not continue to slow its rate of rotation till it is completely stopped, as it is now?
Besides, your article is about a binary star system, a far different scenario. In such a star system, two stars are revolving around each other and the larger star is sucking hydrogen off the smaller one. So the theory goes at any rate.
The Earth and Moon are not revolving around a common COG as many claim. The Moon lacks the gravitational force to move the Earth as a mass and vice-versa. All it can do is raise the ocean level by 3 metres or so and stress the solid surface somewhat.
Neither can Earth’s gravitational force accelerate the Moon toward it, all it can do is slightly divert the Moon from its instantaneous linear motion and bend its linear path into a slight elliptical orbit.
As far as tidal torques are concerned I regard that as something Mr. Spock would mention in Star Trek. It’s right up there with time travel and evolution theory.
On the off chance that you pose the question seeking an actual explanation of tidal locking, there’s a simple overview at this link:
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tidal-locking/
Yes Mark, you can find crap like that all over the Internet. And people like Norman and Bindi swallow it readily. That’s because they’ve never had a valid physics course. Notice that in all the “proofs” of the bogus “tidal locking”, a vector diagram of how gravity can produce a torque on Moon is never shown.
That’s because it can’t….
Have you ever had a valid physics course?
Tidal locking is of course utterly, utterly irrelevant to the moon issue. It’s all disgustingly simple.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The “Moon On The Left” (MOTL) in the above GIF can be thought of as one version of “orbit without spin”. The “Moon On The Right” (MOTR) can be thought of as the other version of “orbit without spin”. If “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, then the MOTR is “orbiting” and “spinning”, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion. Whereas, if the MOTR is “orbit without spin”, then the MOTL is “orbiting” and “spinning”, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion.
“Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
“Non-Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
That’s why “Spinners” think the moon spins, and “Non-Spinners” think it doesn’t.
Now, please over-complicate this perfectly simple concept with endless obfuscation…
Two troll bridges out of three in the same thread is not enough.
When will Graham and Puffman present their third one?
“Now, please over-complicate this perfectly simple concept with endless obfuscation…”
Upthread, DREMT insisted:
“I’d actually love to just have my say and it be left at that…but people here just won’t allow it. They keep on responding.”
Yet, here he is, actively baiting the Spinners by pushing them to clarify their stance and defend against accusations of obfuscation.
Silly, silly Kiddo.
Nonsense, Eldrosion. I’ve had my say, and would be happy to leave it at that. However, two trolls that obsess over my every word have already jumped in, uninvited and unwelcome.
Will they troll me further?
Eldrosion,
Looks like you’re going to have a taste of why our lovely Michael extractor has been called “Gaslighting Graham” back in the days.
Cheers.
So, back to the science (ignoring the two trolls’ preoccupation with personalities)…
Let’s talk about the “ball on a string” as a model for “orbit without spin”…a ball on a string moves as per the MOTL. Presumably, all “Spinners” would agree that if no torque is applied about the CoM of the ball on a string, then it is not rotating about its CoM axis. So, I present to the “Spinners” the “perfect tetherball”:
The “perfect tetherball” is taken out into deep space, far from the gravitational influence of any nearby body. Let’s have it set up on the side of a spaceship, just for fun. A robot holds the ball between its thumb and forefinger, with a “massless string” between the ball and the pole kept taut, perpendicular to the pole. With its other hand it holds a small “gun” or “cannon” type device which can “shoot” a small platform out onto the side of the ball to impart the “sideways force” (in the direction of motion). The robot aligns the device “perfectly”, so that the force will be applied through the CoM of the ball, in the right direction. As the device is triggered, the robot lets go of the ball at the perfect moment to allow the motion to begin.
The string thus always acts through the CoM of the ball. There is never any torque about the CoM of the ball, the torque is instead applied about the external axis (located at the pole), imparted by the “gun”/“cannon”.
The “perfect tetherball” is therefore not rotating about an axis going through the ball itself, and moves as per the MOTL.
“Let’s talk about the “ball on a string” as a model for “orbit without spin”…a ball on a string moves as per the MOTL.”
Lol.
DREMT
Here is a video for you. Please do something like this person. You will find the Moon has to rotate once per orbit for people of the Earth to always see the same side. If you actually do this you it might make sense to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kjeWJRg2Q
On your little video link. You are fooled by an optical illusion. If you ignore the orbit component of your link and just look at the Moon image in each of the cartoons. Look at the white part of the Moon in each. The one on the left rotates and the one on the right does not. Some illusion makes you think the right Moon is rotating on its axis backwards but if you just observe the white part you can clearly see it does not rotate at all!
Obviously a ball on a string does move as per the MOTL, always keeping the same face pointed towards the inside of the orbit. Not sure why Eldrosion finds that fact funny.
Norman missed the point I was making with the GIF completely.
Not much worth responding to so far.
Norman found another link he can’t understand! But wants DREMT to “Please do something like this person.”
Do something like that? Make some cutouts and talk real fast like a used car salesman?
Obviously that clown never had a valid physics course because he actually claimed Earth could put a torque on Moon.
But the funniest line was “We know Moon was rotating much faster in the past.”
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Is this science for kids?
norman…the guy in your video is utterly confused. He is fumbling for an explanation and in the end he offers nothing.
At one point he place a circle representing the near face of the Moon to the right of Earth. Then he acknowledges that the orientation is wrong, pulls the Moon off and flips it 90 degrees to show the actual orientation.
Then he demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of linear motion bent into curvilinear motion. If he had continued the motion around a circle after re-orienting the Moon, he would have gotten it right. Instead he started flip-flopping, without precision, demonstrating only that he is confused about the actual explanation.
This video is a perfect example of how the human mind can screw up the observation of reality by trying to impose a thought-experiment on reality. The actual explanation is amazing clear when observed from the freebody diagram of an engineer.
The orbiting “perfect tetherball” is not rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself, because at no point in the entire process was any torque whatsoever applied about the CoM of the ball itself. The “massless string” always acts through the CoM of the ball, it never torques the ball.
So, the ball itself is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis. You cannot even argue that it is rotating on its own internal axis “wrt an inertial reference frame” since reference frames cannot change the physical fact that no torque was ever applied about the CoM of the ball itself. That puts the “reference frames” argument to bed.
Here’s some more nonsense from Norman:
Norman says to DREMT: “If you ignore the orbit component of your link…”
Norman inadvertently admits that the orbit causes Moon to appear to be spinning IF VIEWED FROM OUTSIDE THE ORBIT. And he’s so dense he can’t understand that.
Eldrosion,
You might appreciate this bit:
It’s as if Bordo notices that there is the word “linear” in “curvilinear”.
He should soon write a post that will extract the Michael out of Puffman. Graham usually ignores it even if it’ll disagree with both. Because, double standards are for cranks, whether it’s about plates, the Moon or energy balance models.
What in the false accusation is Willard talking about now!?
Back to the science…
…astute readers might remember the “points 1) – 4)”…I’ll update it slightly:
1) The “perfect tetherball” is not rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (that’s not to say that reference frames are unimportant or not useful/necessary).
4) “Orbit” and “spin” are two separate and independent motions for both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners”.
Hopefully all should understand that the first three are demonstrated by the “perfect tetherball” example. Most “Spinners” already agreed with point 4), anyway.
Now, there’s point 5) as well:
5) “Orbit without spin” is motion like the MOTL.
I think that’s also demonstrated by the “perfect tetherball” example, although it probably needs some more explanation.
Mark B,
You might also like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evection
Science can be cool, pity our cranks never really discuss it.
I see it’s random irrelevant link time.
Mark B gives a lint to Bordo on the off chance that you pose the question seeking an actual explanation of tidal locking.
Graham offers his my toll bridge that doesn’t mention tidal locking at all.
And the Graham offers about relevance!
Willard whines about something or other.
Graham tries to ignore Mark’s point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1736181
Cranks ought to follow Bordo’s way, not Puffman and Graham’s tag team.
Mark was wrong, as usual. Very little of the post from Gordon that Mark was responding to there was actually about tidal locking.
Graham tries to gaslight Mark as usual.
Tidal locking is the scientific phenomenon to be explained.
Graham’s troll bridge doesn’t cover it.
No gaslighting at all, Willard. This post of Gordon’s:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735936
contains only two short paragraphs about tidal locking, beginning “the explanation of tidal locking…” and ending “…to a radial line from the Earth.”
All the rest of that lengthy comment is Gordon arguing that the moon does not rotate on its own internal axis. You and Mark might not recognise that fact because you’re unfamiliar with the science involved in the moon discussion.
My points 1) – 5) don’t need to cover tidal locking because as I explained, tidal locking makes no difference to the moon issue. You can think the tidal locking mechanism is nonsense, and be a “Non-Spinner”, like Gordon and Clint, and you can think the tidal locking mechanism is absolutely fine, and still be a “Non-Spinner”, like bill and myself.
DREMT, bill, Clint R, and Gordon are non-spinners viewing the lunar motion from a non-inertial frame such as from Earth surface. Spinners are viewing lunar motion from the physical inertial frame. View differences are really simply answered in the field of dynamics.
That’s wrong, Ball4.
If you’d care to just scroll up, and read, you’ll see that the “reference frames” argument has been put to bed.
DREMT 4:43 pm, nothing found by any “scroll up” mattered; these particular view differences are really simply answered in the field of dynamics.
Eldrosion,
As you can see, Graham kinda skipped over what Bordo is supposed to be addressing here:
Pure gaslighting.
You’re wrong, Ball4. The “reference frames” argument has been put to bed. Sorry for your loss.
Eldrosion,
Also note that Graham is responding to Mark’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735878
Ugghh the same old tired DREMT contradictions on display:
Certainty is expressed that
” “Orbit without spin” is motion like the MOTL”
But no observations can confirm this.
“Whether the moon is considered to rotate on its own internal axis or not makes absolutely no difference to how it’s observed to move.”
Nonetheless he will argue endlesssly about it anyway.
Put to bed in the sense that spinners are observing in the inertial frame and non-spinners observing in a non-inertial frame. As I wrote, very simple in the field of dynamics.
No contradiction, Nate.
Sorry, Ball4. Scroll up. Read it and weep. You lost, again.
DREMT 8:15 am, I did scroll up and found nothing contradicting my 7:45 am that non-spinners are observing from a non-inertial frame. Very simple conclusion in the field of dynamics.
Look harder, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735907
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735959
mark b…”On the off chance that you pose the question seeking an actual explanation of tidal locking, there’s a simple overview at this link:
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tidal-locking/ ”
***
Mark…it’s amazing what pseudo-science people will accept if it has an authoritative name like NASA attached to it. I sent the explanation I posted to NASA a while back and they agreed with me in principle with the caveat that they were observing from the POV of the stars. In other words, they agreed the Moon was not rotating unless you viewed it from the stars.
What they fail to grasp is that the view from the stars is not lunar rotation but merely a re-orientation of a tangent line representing the instantaneous linear velocity of the Moon.
***As Newton stated in Principia, the Moon moves with a linear motion that is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field***
Ergo, there is no need for it to rotate on a local axis to keep the same face pointed at Earth. Curvilinear motion explains it all without local rotation.
The explanation of tidal locking on the page to which you link is utter nonsense. The idea that the Moon was ejected from the Earth is rubbish. There is no way a body the size of the Moon could be ejected, be molten, be spinning, then have the exact linear momentum required to go into orbit at its current altitude.
All that is allegedly taking place against Earth’s gravitational field and such a collision would send the Earth veering off a la Velikovsky. To get into orbit, the Moon would have to approach Earth at an exact angle with a fairly exact linear momentum. NASA fails to explain how the ejected blob got that required and precise linear momentum, essentially in a tangential direction to a radial line from the Earth.
I thought about the problem last night and realized that I’d need to state it in a basic mathematical relationship between a rotating Moon with a period exactly that of the 28 day orbital period. To do that, we need to begin with a mechanical model.
My model has a rigid lever that can rotate about an axis at Earth’s centre. The rotating lever extends from Earth’s centre to the lunar centre. At the Moon’s centre is a much smaller rotating observation platform that can be either locked in place or released so it can rotate as well.
In that smaller rotatable platform is an observer. If we start the contraption along the x-axis, with the lever axis at 0,0 and the rotatable object centred at 0,5, we can start with it locked in place so it cannot rotate. The observer is then sitting in the object looking down the x-axis toward 0,0.
If we start the entire contraption rotating CCW, the observer will always be facing the Earth at 0,0 Earth).
Now we need to test the other proposition with the observer capsule is able to rotate freely so it rotates exactly once per full orbit of the entire contraption, rotating around 0,0. In other words the smaller unit with the observer must rotate exactly once through 360 degrees while the entire contraption rotates through 360 degrees about 0,0.
It is blatantly obvious that the rotating observation platform must rotate in such a manner that the observer is pointed directly away from the Earth at 0,0 at the halfway point. There is no other way such a one to one rotation can be realized without the observer looking away from Earth for much of the rotation.
Those who believe the Moon rotates exactly once per lunar orbit are imagining a solution and can never demonstrate how it works because it is illogical. It’s akin to quantum theory, or time, where the thinker thinks he/she understands the theory, but cannot explain it in words. The only way to explain quantum theory intuitively is via Newtonian theory involving real electrons and protons.
I have just explained how it actually works and even NASA cannot get it right.
Ergo, it is physically impossible for the Moon to rotate once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
As for the math, consider that the smaller observation platform must rotate exactly once while the overall unit, with the long rigid arm, must rotate once in exactly the same time. Therefore the angular speed of rotation of the smaller platform is exactly the same as the angular speed of the larger contraption. It is simply not possible for the smaller platform to rotate while always facing the Earth.
As I have demonstrated, the only way the plaform, hence the Moon can rotate, is if the observer is pointed away from Earth much of the time.
In order for the observer to see only the Earth, the observational platform must be locked in place so it cannot rotate.
I can foresee the spinner argument that my model is not the actual Earth-Moon system. However, I have explained in detail how that system works and its action agrees totally with my model. Furthermore, it agrees with the actual explanation of Newton, whose explanation was inaccurately modified in translation to agree with the views of Cassini. The translator did not have Newton to verify the translation hence resorted to poetic license.
Thank you for you detailed response.
Please keep us updated with your progress in mathematically reconciling it with the body of satellite observational data and ultimately get it published somewhere.
Whether the moon is considered to rotate on its own internal axis or not makes absolutely no difference to how it’s observed to move. So, mentioning “observational data” is usually a good indication that you don’t understand the moon issue.
I’m not concerned about the food fight you’re trying to re-start over whether or not the moon is rotating.
Rather, I’m not clear how one explains how the orbits of the moons in the solar system came to be what they are and how they will evolve in the future without the concept of tidal locking.
When I provided a link to tidal locking above.
1) Clint dismissed it without evidence, dissed Norman and Bindion who weren’t involved in the sub-thread, and questioned my understanding of physics which a textbook troll tactic.
2) You tried (successfully with several posters) to change the topic to the well worn rotation food fight as you are doing again here. Also classic trolling tactics.
3) Gordon, on the other hand, provided a long winded treatise which, while dismissive of conventional science, is far more interesting than what you and Clint offer. Sure, he’s a crank, but he’s a creative crank.
More false accusations from Mark, to be ignored.
I have no problem with the tidal locking mechanism.
Mark B
Here you see three of the four lunar spin denying ignoramuses in full action (the fourth one being the Hunter boy).
They all know it better than one of the greatest physicists of the last centuries: Isaac Newton.
*
In Book III of his Principia Scientifica (written in New Latin, which at that time was the only international language of communication for scientists and which they all, of course, mastered fluently), Newton explained:
PROPOSITIO XVII. THEOREMA XV.
” Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, et librationem Lunæ ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Patet per motûs legem 1. et Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56', Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56', Sol diebus 25 et Luna diebus 27. 7. hor. 43'.
Hæc ita se habere, ex phænomenis manifestum est.
Maculæ in corpore Solis ad eundem situm in disco Solis redeunt diebus 27 1/2 circiter, respectu Terræ ; ideóque respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter.
Quoniam verò Lunæ circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est, hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ejus semper respiciet quamproximè, et propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviabit hinc inde a Terra.
Hæc est libratio Lunæ in longitudinem: Nam libratio in latitudinem orta est ex latitudine Lunæ et inclinatione axis ejus ad planum eclipticæ. Hanc librationis lunaris theoriam D. N. Mercator in Astronomiâ Suâ, initio anni 1676 editâ, ex literis meis plenius exposuit.
Simili motu extimus Saturni satelles circa axem suum revolvi videtur, eâdem sui facie Saturnum perpetuò respiciens. Nam circum Saturnum revolvendo, quoties ad orbis sui partem orientalem accedit, ægerrimè videtur, et plerumque videri cessat : id quod evenire potest per maculas quasdam in eâ corporis parte quæ Terræ tunc obvertitur, ut Cassinus notavit.
Simili etiam motu satelles extimus Jovialis circa axem suum revolvi videtur, propterea quod in parte corporis Jovi aversâ maculam habeat quæ tanquam in corpore Jovis cernitur ubicumque satelles inter Jovem et oculos nostros transit. ”
*
One of the latest translations from the original Latin text into English was made by Ian Bruce (here of the first half of Book III):
https://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
On page 23 we read:
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
” The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion.
It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.
It is evident that these are found from the phenomena.
Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 27 1/2, with respect to the earth; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2 days.
Truly because there is the monthly revolution of the moon about its axis : the same face of this will always look at the more distant focus of its orbit, as nearly as possible, and therefore according to the situation of that focus will hence deviate thence from the earth.
This is the libration of the moon in longitude: For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
N. Mercator has explained this theory of the libration of the moon more fully in letters from me, published in his Astronomy at the start of the year 1676.
The outer satellite of Saturn may be seen to be revolving in a similar manner about its axis, with its same face always looking towards Saturn. For by revolving around Saturn, as often as it arrives at the eastern part of its orbit, it appears most decayed [in brightness] and the fullness seen to cease: as which can arise through certain spots on that part of the body which then is turned towards the earth, as Cassini noted.
Also, the outer satellite of Jupiter may be seen to be to be revolving about its axis in a like motion, therefore so that it may have a spot on the part of its body turned away from Jupiter as in the body of Jupiter is discerned whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter and our eyes. ”
*
Thus, Newton had already understood in 1675 – 18 years before Cassini made his theory public – that the Moon rotates about its axis, and does this in a monthly period.
***
The four guys did their very best since many years to distort what Newton unequivocally wrote, e.g. by claiming that ‘the Moon might very well rotate with respect to the fixed stars but not necessarily with respect to Earth’, of course intentionally dismissing the fact that Newton did not use this ‘with respect to’ phrasing in relation to celestial body motions, but only to their motion’s period, what however was visible in the ‘Sun spot’ paragraph above.
*
What remains is the fact that in 1750, after a year of observations of the Moon using a small telescope, a self-made micrometer with 1 arcminute precision and a primitive metronome, the German astronomer Tobias Mayer computed for the lunar spin, using spherical trigonometry, the same period as nowadays’ evaluations based on differential equations, and using as data the lunar laser ranging of retroreflectors left on the Moon by Lunokhod and Apollo missions.
His great work was discredited and denigrated by the four guys, of course.
*
Yeah, that will never end!
The hallmark of all pseudoskeptic ignoramuses is that they never admit being wrong, let alone would they be able to scientifically prove their assertions; all they are able to do is endlessly posting their egotistic ‘curvilinear’, ‘ball-on-a-string’ or ‘MOTL/MOTR’ blah blah.
Bindi, clogging the blog ain’t science.
You need to have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. Which you don’t.
And, since you believe in the bogus “tidal locking”, you need a vector diagram showing how Earth can produce a torque on Moon. You can’t do that.
Your ignorance of science is showing, so please continue.
Take a hammer, drop it off a 3 story building, and tell me which end hits first, the head or the handle.
Experimental physics.
[Moon’s Orbit Direction]
^
|
——-.
‘ (B1) `. <– Nearside Tidal Bulge (closer to Earth)
/ / \ \
| /Force\ |
| / (F1) \ |
| | | |
(M)—(CoM)—(M) <– Moon
| | | |
| \ (F2) / |
\ \Force/ /
`. (B2) ' <– Farside Tidal Bulge (farther from Earth)
`——-'
|
v
Earth (Center of Gravity)
Really Clint, you can tell by the font how old this diagram is.
Poor child bob shows up to reveal his ignorance of the relevant science.
A hammer falling in the atmosphere experiences a torque, unlike if it were falling in a vacuum. This was demonstrated by the astronauts on Moon, and by many experiments including this one:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fjFlrLUvgpE
Kids these days….
Poor Clint,
According to Newton’s force equation, the force on the feather is less than the force on heavy ball, if both are connected by a bar, the unequal forces put a torque on the bar
It’s always hard to figure out what is confusing the cult kids. Maybe, in this case, it’s the word “vacuum”? Whatever it is, bob is terribly confused.
And, he can’t learn….
Vacuum has nothing to do with it.
The forces are the same, vacuum or not.
Bobdroege
I think Clint R is correct on the hammer. The firce is dirrent with feather and bar and a torque would pull the heavy side down if you had a balance point in middle (just like a scale). But in freefall they have the same acceleration so no twist would occur when dropped in vacuum. However the Moon is different. I have given Clint R many links on it but he just can’t “get it”. The tidal bulges crated by Earth gravity do have different forces and accelerations. The reason is distance. The pull on the near buldge is greater than on the far buldge because of inverse square. The difference creates the torque.
That was ignoramus Nr 1 with his stubborn ‘viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yeah’.
Well done, Bindi.
See, you don’t have to clog the blog to show your immaturity and ignorance. You can do it in one sentence!
The “Board of Peace” launches its first war.
Trump warned me that if I didn’t vote for him we’d have higher prices and a government-run economy at home, and new wars abroad, and I didn’t vote for him and that’s exactly what we got.
“The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties” Trump said Saturday 2/28/2026; and he should know, given his extensive military experience. Anyway, it’s a sacrifice he’s willing to make.
USCENTCOM Update March 1, 2026.
Clearly, they are bored of peace.
Here’s some of his his previous thoughts:
“In order to get elected Barack Obama will start a war with Iran” – Trump, Nov 29, 2011
“Barack Obama will attack Iran to get re-elected.” – Trump, Jan 17, 2012
“Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate.” – Trump, Oct 9, 2012
“I predict that President Obama will at some point start a war with Iran in order to save face!” – Trump, Sept 16, 2013
“Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly – not skilled!” – Trump, Nov 11, 2013
Interesting info, thanks.
Yeah, Trump sure enjoyed baiting Obama.
Trump ends up showing how it’s done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYLdzeQkDRs
It was absolutely evident to me that
– the little crazy, MAGAmaniac Trumpista Clint R did not understand what Nate unequivocally wrote;
– and moreover is ignorant of the 100 % predictable consequences of the megalomaniacal, the entire Middle East endangering, belligerent actions of the Trumping boy, who himself never had to experience what war really means (as a reminder: in the fall of 1968, he was diagnosed with a heel spur, which – incredible, but true – led to his medical exemption from military service in the Vietnam War).
“Trump ends up showing how it’s done:”
Indeed he showed us
how to attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly – not skilled.
And he showed us
that his poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike on Iran. He is desperate.
And he showed us how to
start a war with Iran in order to save face.
When he projects his own thinking onto others, believe him!
There was a large march in NYC supporting the attack on Iran. I had to chuckle when I saw one of the signs someone had made–“Make Iran Great Again”! MIGA!
Leftist won’t like that….
“Only one in four Americans approves of U.S. strikes on Iran that have plunged the Middle East into chaos, while about half — including one in four Republicans — believe President Donald Trump is too willing to use military force, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/just-one-four-americans-support-us-strikes-iran-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2026-03-01/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-strike-kuwait-officials-question-fortifications/
The first American service members to die in the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran were killed in an apparent Iranian drone attack on a makeshift office space in Kuwait, three U.S. military officials with direct knowledge of Iran’s attack told CBS News.
At least six Americans were killed in a strike on a tactical operations center at the Shuaiba port in Kuwait, one of several U.S.-allied countries in the Persian Gulf region that have faced intense Iranian missile and drone attacks since the U.S. and Israel began striking Iran early Saturday. U.S. Central Command has publicly confirmed the deaths.
…
“You have air defenses, and a lot’s coming in, and you hit most of it,” Hegseth said during a news conference at the Pentagon. “Every once in a while, you might have one, unfortunately, we call it a squirter, that makes its way through. And in that particular case, it happened to hit a tactical operations center that was fortified, but these are powerful weapons.”
…
The trailer’s only fortifications were T-walls, which are 12-foot-tall, steel-reinforced concrete barriers used to protect military personnel from explosions, rocket attacks and shrapnel, the military officials said.
But T-walls could not protect the facility from an overhead strike. Two officials told CBS News that the strike appeared to hit dead-center on top of the building.
Lack of snow in CONUS’ West, too much snow in its East:
https://i.postimg.cc/mZ8Y9JWQ/Snowfall-CONUS-Sep-2025-to-Feb-2026-wrt-mean-of-2008-2025.png
End still no end on CONUS’ Northeast
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Farc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost%252Es3%252Eamazonaws%252Ecom%2Fpublic%2F47HPD4WDE5GUHBJF72GMA5T4LM%252Egif&w=992&h=662
In comparison to that, the whole winter in Germoney’s Northeast where I live was very weak!
Will Iranians Rise Up? Here Are the Odds.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/03/01/iran-uprising-trump-khamenei-regime-change-00806179
Since the war began two days ago, the administration has sent mixed signals regarding its objectives in Iran.
On one hand, President Trump has openly spoken about regime change. On the other, Secretary Rubio has stated that regime change is not the primary objective of the operation.
Since meaningful political change in Iran ultimately depends on a unified and organized domestic opposition alongside external pressure, then clarity of intent matters.
Mixed messaging just increases uncertainty for Iranian actors trying to gauge whether conditions are truly shifting in their favor and whether the risks of calling to arms are justified.
The incompetence of Donald Trump cannot be overstated here.
February results will likely be out tomorrow. The Polar Vortex was mostly disorganized during February and ENSO went up about 0.5C in the same period.
So I’m expecting Feb Global to be possibly as high as 0.40C.
binny refuses to read what Newton said…
“PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
” The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion.
It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes”.
—-
What is it about ***with respect to the fixed stars*** that Binny fails to understand. Newton is not talking here about rotation about a local axis he is talking about REVOLVING about the Sun, and in the case of the Moon, revolving about the Earth as its axis. This does not matter, however, since he is referencing lunar motion to the fixed stars.
Ergo, wrt the fixed stars, the Moon is revolving about the Earth and it’s motions is curvilinear, as Newton clearly stated in another proposition.
***
PROPOSITION IV. THEOREM IV.
That the moon gravitates towards the earth, and by the force of gravity is continually drawn off from a rectilinear motion, and retained in its orbit”.
What is it about rectilinear motion that Binny fails to grasp?
Newton states clearly in Principia that the Moon moves with a rectilinear motion and that the linear motion is converted to curvilinear motion, forming an orbit, by Earth’s gravity.
That rectilinear motion converted to curvilinear motion explains why the Moon changes its orientation wrt the stars by 360 degrees per orbit. There is no need to talk about rotation about a lunar axis and Newton obliges by rarely mentioning the subject.
***
The following is a link to an article that explains in brief how Newton’s Principia got messed up, at times, in translation. The original translator, Motte, did his work after Newton’s death and did not have Newton there to consult as to the actual meaning.
https://tinyurl.com/3cz7z4fz
I have some quotes from Cohen and Whitman, mentioned in the article, who did extensive work verifying the translation.
“Motte introduced phrases that are not in Newton’s text at all. Some of these intrusive phrases consist of explanatory insertions to help the reader through an otherwise difficult passage”.
“Not only do many of Motte’s technical mathematical terms seem unintelligible today, but his language abounds in archaic phrases that seem awkward and difficult to understand. Motte’s style of punctuation adds yet an additional hurdle for the would-be reader”.
“Cajori’s expressed goal was to eliminate “certain mathematical expressions [and notations] which are no longer used in mathematics and are therefore not immediately understood by a reader familiar only with modern phraseology.”
“The Motte-Cajori version introduced other changes in Motte’s translation. Some of these were intended to make Motte’s prose easier to read for a twentieth-century student, that is, to remove archaic or unfamiliar modes of expression. But others were introduced with the goal of improving Newton’s own text, to make it become more like a work of the twentieth than of the seventeenth century.
In the modernizations of Motte’s prose, some real errors were introduced. These arose from the way in which the alterations were made: largely by considering Motte’s version as if it were an author’s original manuscript that needed revision, rephrasing, and rewriting. In this process of editorial recasting of Motte’s prose, little if any attention was paid to Newton’s original Latin text on which Motte’s translation was based. In some cases, there was a failure to consult not only the original Latin of 1726, but even the original Motte version of 1729”.
—–
It is abundantly clear to me that the inference drawn by the likes of Motte, that the Moon rotates on a local axis, did not come from Newton, but from a flowering up of the translated Latin to jive with modern incorrect ideas on the subject.
I base my conclusion on the clarity of Newton’s own words that the Moon moves with a rectilinear motion that is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity. Nowhere in Principia does he state or infer that the Moon rotates at all, the only word he used was ‘revolves’. Since he is talking about revolving about another body, clearly he means the Moon is revolving about the Earth.
But, that revolving appears to an observer viewing from the stars as a rotation, not about a local axis, but it is the rotation of a tangential surface wrt the stars. Big difference!!!