Home/BlogMarch 2026 was record-warm for the Lower 48.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2026 was +0.38 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, statistically unchanged from the February, 2026 value of +0.39 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through March 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 27 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 | +0.51 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 |
| 2026 | Feb | +0.39 | +0.54 | +0.23 | +0.03 | +1.91 | -0.48 | +0.73 |
| 2026 | Mar | +0.38 | +0.33 | +0.42 | +0.07 | +3.74 | -0.48 | +1.14 |
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM | SHEM | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
Record Warmth in the Contiguous U.S. (Lower 48)
For the Lower 48, the March 2026 temperature anomaly was easily the record warmest of all months in the 47+ year satellite record: +3.7 deg. C above average for all Marches. Second place goes to March 2012, with +2.2 deg. C above the mean, while 3rd place goes to December 2025 at +2.1 deg. C.
Interestingly, December through April are periods of large variability for the Lower 48. All 6 of the warmest months (in terms of departures from normal) since 1979 occurred in December through April. Furthermore, all 8 of the coldest months occurred in December through April.
————————-
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for March, 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:
5th warmest March in the UAH data set, statistically tied with 2010 at 4th place.
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.88
2 2016 0.64
3 2025 0.57
4 2010 0.39
5 2026 0.38
6 1998 0.35
7 2020 0.34
8 2004 0.23
9 2019 0.22
10 2017 0.18
10=2022 0.18
I thought March would be slightly warmer, maybe even up to +0.42C. The Polar Vortex is moving to the South Pole, and ENSO has been warming for about a month.
So the +0.38C is interesting, as the cooling trend appears healthy.
A couple of thoughts relative to that cooling trend.
1) We’ve seen cooling from the March/April time frame into Jun/Jul over the last couple of years. If that happens again in 2026, it would bring the anomaly below 0.2 C. That would be quite interesting to see.
2) My theory is the AMO index is driven by Arctic changes. The current cooling seen in the satellite data could be evidence that next 30+ year AMO cool phase has started and the AMO index will soon follow. This would also drive some global cooling.
Of course, it also appears El Nino will show up later this year which will drive warmer global temperatures over the fall and winter. El Nino is really an ocean cooling period but the energy movement temporarily warms the SSTs and air. This would mask some of the cooling, but set the stage for more dramatic atmospheric cooling in 2027.
Great, another cooling prediction doomed to failure. As long as CO2 keeps rising, so will the temperature. Not every year, but from one decade to the next, definitely. The 2020s are sure to be warmer than the 2010s, and the 2030s will be warmer still.
Great, another warming prediction doomed to failure. Obviously, Robert doesn’t realize all the warming we have seen came from solar energy. CO2 has had no warming influence whatsoever. This has been verified by NASA CERES mission data. Although climate science tries to hide this fact, it’s right there in the data.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/22/greenhouse-efficiency-2/
All the warming from solar???
How do you know that?
Nate, I provided you a link. Was it too complicated?
Let me help. There’s been a significant reduction in reflected solar energy. Instead of going back into space, it’s been absorbed within Earth’s atmosphere or at the surface. The link provides a nice graph. This added energy correlates with the increase in temperature.
But it gets even more interesting. When you use that energy to calculate the base temperature of Earth plus greenhouse warming and then look at the how much increase has been seen over time, we see no change. No additional greenhouse warming. All the warming is explained by the increase in solar energy.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read BGDWX and Nick’s comments, RM.
I think everybody knows that we live in the Solar System:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System
It’s in the name.
“There’s been a significant reduction in reflected solar energy.”
Indeed. But that has long been known to be a feedback effect of GW.
Since 2000, (the only period covered by CERES) there has been significant reduction in sea ice.
There has also been significant reduction in cloud producing aerosol pollution.
The CERES authors do not claim that ALL of the warming since 2000 came from increased solar absorption, but it is responsible for the INCREASE in rate of uptake of heat into the ocean.
The WUWT article does not address ocean heat uptake which is where 90 % of the added heat has gone.
Nate repeats anti-science claims. At most, 15% of the decrease in reflected energy came from sea ice. There is no evidence any came from aerosols (which doesn’t help you anyway since it still wouldn’t be caused by CO2). As a result, there is no evidence supporting your claims.
On top of that, it is solar energy which warms the oceans. Weak CO2 generated photons cannot warm the surface. The energy simply gets conducted back into the atmosphere due to the 2nd Law or causes evaporative cooling. Yes, more CO2 actually cools the oceans.
Finally, there’s no evidence of any reduction in IR energy radiating to space to produce any feedback. The data clearly shows the strength of the greenhouse effect has remained constant which also validates Miskolczi 2010 finding using NOAA radiosonde data going back to 1948.
The data from CERES is conclusive. Your science denial cannot change the data.
Richard M is at step 3 – Saying Stuff:
[BDGWX] Loeb says that GHGs are the cause of the increased ASR shown by CERES.
[WILLIS] Sorry, bdgwx, but what is “ASR”, and who is “Loeb”?
[BDGWX] Absorbed Solar Radiation. Loeb is the principal developer, maintainer, and investigator of CERES.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/22/greenhouse-efficiency-2/#comment-4027280
There is very little contrarians can do unless they’re willing to carry their own weight on the Climateball field.
Willard, I read Loeb et al back in 2021 when it was published. It was the first time I could see clearly that solar energy was driving climate warming. Their attempt to cover up this reality was laughable. They used climate models and guesses to make nonsensical claims. I can only chuckle you’d bring it up.
I do agree that even Willis didn’t understand what he had found. His use of the term “greenhouse efficiency” tends to confuse people as well. What he really means is the “strength of the greenhouse effect”.
Interestingly, the monthly data is graphs Willis built show a good example of heat hiding in the oceans. It is called ENSO. It doesn’t last long though and shows no long term trend. Sorry.
So, no heat hiding and a constant strength of the greenhouse effect. That confirms the physics I have mentioned previously.
Richard,
I just love how you simply double down on saying stuff.
There is more than one “Loeb et al”, and there are a little more papers than the ones of which Loeb is the main authors. Many of them are to be found at the end of the link I have just provided.
Here’s a recent one:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-5454786/v1
It’s as if your hobby as a contrarian depended on remaining ignorant.
Willard and Nate will be here for days, just throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick. Neither has any understanding of the relevant science, just like one of their heroes, Loeb. Loeb is the one with the fraudulent graphic supporting the bogus “EEI”.
CO2’s 15μ photons cannot raise the temperature of a 288K surface, just like ice cubes cannot boil water.
The problem is none of the cult kids can understand the basic physics. And the problem is magnified by how much funding was throw at it, due to the media induced panic.
Hilarious how you guys rely on the data of Loeb, who leads this project, but then you need to reject what he, the guy who actually understands what he measured, learns from his measurements.
Willard, I completely understand Loeb and other climate cultists maintaining their positions. It was a requirement of their jobs in this politicized field.
Of course, that does nothing to change the underlying physics. The quote you provided is a prefect example of scientific BS that would only fool those with little in-depth knowledge. You treat these words just as many religious folks treat the sermons they are fed by their priests/preachers. So predictable.
However, physics disagrees. I came to understand the necessary physics many years ago (during COVID). So, when Loeb et al 2021 showed up it completely validated my findings. Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021 did and even better job of highlighting the solar connection to warming.
The final evidence came from the analysis from Willis I referenced. It tied the warming so tight to solar energy it left no doubt to anyone interested in science as well as showing how ocean affects lead to slight variations.
So, I’m not surprised at all that Loeb also denies the effects of the Hunga-Tonga eruption even though the cloud changes were immediate. It highlights all the fibs he’s been telling for years.
Science deniers such as yourself will continue to do what you do best … deny.
Nate, your worship of the words of your priests is commendable (to other cultists). It’s not science though. Real science is based on skepticism. I look at all the data, not just the data collected by the CERES mission team.
When all the data and physics is considered, it is obvious Loeb is wrong. All the warming is easily explain by solar energy changes. There is no heat hiding in the oceans. It’s already been radiated to space. The strength of the greenhouse effect has been constant. This also agrees with a more complete view of the physics than you are willing to accept.
Hence, the warming we have seen has been due to other causes. We will get to see one of them in the near future as 60-70 year is about to move back into its cool phase. In fact, it may have already started.
“Nate, your worship of the words of your priests”
In this instance it seems to be you worshipping the words of a blog writer at WUWT, that are not even published in a science journal.
You may want to be skeptical of blog science.
Dear Richard,
Here’s you in 2025:
Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/22/greenhouse-efficiency-2/#comment-4027430
Have you ever ever considered getting better contrarian material?
Nate claims, “it seems to be you worshipping the words of a blog writer at WUWT”.
Nope, in fact, I still disagree with Willis on a lot of things. He even admits in his article that the results “surprised” him. This is because he still doesn’t understand all the physics involved.
As for you, instead of making an unsupportable claim, all you needed to do was show where Willis’ got his calculations wrong. It’s only 3 lines of code and he provides them along with the data. It should have been simple for you to point out the error he was making … yet you couldn’t. Why is that?
Willis believes warming from CO2 is real and is countered by what he calls “emergent phenomena” aka negative feedback. What he showed is warming from CO2 is not real.
I have previously explained the physics for why CO2 based warming is not real. Hence, there is no need for any feedback. As you can see, I do not agree with Willis.
PS. a trivial computation based on 3 lines of code does not require peer review.
Willard, if you have any evidence that my statement was false, please provide it. I was actually giving Dr. Loeb an excuse. I also suspect ego could be involved. If he really believes CO2 increases caused warming, then he could also be searching for reasons why that could still be true.
Of course, that is really a trivial issue. I’ve already provided the basic physics in previous comments right here at Dr. Spencer’s blog. Would you like me to go over them again? Here’s the summary.
CO2 increases lead to reductions of high altitude water vapor which directly compensates for the energy increases at the edges of the main CO2 spectral bands.
Dearest Richard,
You must be new here. The Contrarian Tango is very limited. It has four main steps.
The first step is Pure Denial. The second step is Sammich Request. The third step is Saying Stuff. The fourth step is Cheap Bargaining.
You danced all the steps, and are now at the second one.
Please remind me – why would I need to work more than you do? You’re just saying stuff! Nobody cares about cranks and contrarians saying stuff on the Internet.
That being said, I already worked more than you did. If you wish to keep ranting, like Puffman, Gill, our Ivy Leaguer, and our Anon for Q-related reasons do, suit yourself. So far, you brought absolutely nothing new.
Hope this helps.
Ok. Then you feely admit to cherry picking from available data and analysis to suit your narrative.
What has he done wrong? As I mentioned he does not pay attention to the heat gain in the ocean, which accounts for >90% of the Earths net gain in energy.
As mentioned the Loeb publications analyze the contributions to the increased rate of energy gain, and found that solar absorption accounts for most of the recent INCREASE in rate of storage.
This does does not mean that the CO2 GHE has not been contrbuting to the energy storage. It has been. For 5 decades or more.
Again, lets see if he can get his work through peer review, as every scientist must do.
Willard, thanks for the hilarious response. You provide nothing but hand waving and deflection. I can see why others laugh at you constantly. You obviously have zero science knowledge. Typical religious zealot.
> You provide nothing
Glad you go back to step one, beloved RM – Pure Denial. That claim is refuted by the fact that I just provided a model of contrarianism that works well enough to comprise every single of your contribution so far. As for your last jab:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
It won’t get you the sammich you are indirectly requesting.
Also, search for “ENSO” on this page to see how silly your condescension actually is.
Willard decides to double down on its delusional thinking. Yes, another trait of religious zealots. He even claimed I was new to this blog, but in fact I’ve been commenting for more than 15 years. Always humorous watching overconfident fools.
RM is a silly goose:
https://tenor.com/search/you-must-be-new-here-gifs
Compare and contrast:
[A VANILLA CONTRARIAN] Interestingly, the monthly data is graphs Willis built show a good example of heat hiding in the oceans. It is called ENSO.
[A REAL SCIENTIST] If the recent trend in EEI is maintained, we argue that natural fluctuations such as ENSO cycles will increasingly lead to amplified, record-breaking impacts, with 2023-2024 serving as a glimpse of future climate extremes.
We definitely need better contrarians.
Poor Willard just can’t help stepping in it. Real scientists says things like ….
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, or what your name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”. – Richard Feynman
Simple, direct and to the point.
CERES data is like an experiment. It doesn’t lie. It provides exactly what Feynman asked for. Of course, this also shows the supposedly scientific quote you provided gets the science wrong. Most of the warming was not from ENSO, it was from a reduction in clouds.
Hilarious that you would choose that particular quote.
RM is very cute when he pontificates on philosophy of science, which neither he nor Dick have studied. Both assume they have immediate access to reality, a stance that would make us ditch every theory we have if we took it seriously. Both forget that we can build many competing theories to account for the same observations. Both assume that as soon as their kettle doesn’t work, they must throw away their kettle instead of checking if it’s plugged.
While in 2024, he was all about Antarctica, 2025 was all about prognostication. In January, he promised to compare the next 5-6 months to 2021. Instead of doing so, he jumped on Willis’ gravy train. He disappeared for a few months, reappearing when he rediscovered CFSR data. Then he drove by to tell Sam that “the energy” does not come from the Sun, but from lower atmosphere, which contradicts what he said this month. The AMO became his new pet topic the month after, with “But 70s”:
https://climateball.net/but-70s/
For some reason, he did not return to his prediction about the AMO. He took a break for a few months. Now he’s back with Willis’ crap.
We all know why he forgot his predictions.
While Dick was merely posturing for the gallery as the peacock he was, our contrarian merely sits there in his armchair, offering nothing except vaguely waving his arms in the air, oblivious that he’s more often than not conflating effects and causes, and “threatening” to do some work that could prove his fancies wrong.
Richard,
Another problem is he defines a new parameter ‘GHE efficiency’ which I have never seen anywhere else.
It is something like ‘surface temperature increase per 1W/m^2 of increase in absorbed solar”
Then he asserts that this ‘GHE efficiency’ should be increasing based on a simplistic hand-waving argument.
This is not actually proven nor demonstrated based on any real GHE theory.
Nor does he quantify how much it should increase. Perhaps very little.
Again, he needs it peer reviewed so that experts can evaluate this assertion.
As Willis notes, the devil is in the details.
When looking at Loeb et al 2021, we see that
“In the positive phase of the PDO, SST increases are pronounced over the eastern Pacific Ocean, which causes a decrease in low cloud amount and an increase in ASR along the eastern Pacific Ocean (Loeb, Thorsen, et al., 2018). After 2014, the ASR trend shows a factor of 4 increase over that prior to 2014. An increase in thermal infrared emission to space slightly offsets the increase in ASR, so that the trend in net flux after 2014 is reduced to 2.5 times that prior to 2014.”
This “An increase in thermal infrared emission to space slightly offsets the increase in ASR” also means the GHE on OLR reduction is partly offset by this reduction in clouds.
This appears to be a short-term phenomena between 2014 and 2020 when ENSO was dominated by El Nino.
Thus can hardly conclude this effect is the cause of 60 y of GW.
Willard now goes off the deep end. After I destroyed his previous remarks he appears to have started cherry picking various words I have stated in the past with little to no understanding of the science being discussed. Yes, it sounds delusional.
In his defense, I continually run into 403 errors here after a few comments so I am unable to correct poor thinking which comes from the climate alarm cult.
Nate at least tries to discuss science, but clearly shows he doesn’t even understand the definition of the GHE. The GHE is often expressed in temperatures, all Willis did is use energy level in their place which is actually more accurate scientifically.
Willis then uses division rather than subtraction to compute a level of strength for the GHE. Either way works. I’m amazed Nate has trouble understanding something so simple. Both should show an increasing trend if the GHE is getting stronger. No trend means the overall GHE has remained constant.
This is why you see climate scientists claim the heat is hiding in the oceans. They can’t find it in the atmosphere. So either they admit they have the science WRONG or they make up something (aka lie). So far they have chosen to lie.
> I continually run into 403 errors here after a few comments
Poor RM. As good at DeSTroYiNg as he is at the Internet. In fairness, the Internet is unwelcoming to troglodytes. For all the time he spent peddling Willis’ blog post, RM has had ample time to recognize at least three problems with the first sentence it contains. Let him wonder in what sense are the CERES data supposed to be measuring temperatures, and do logarithms work exactly.
In any event, a more recent paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-024-09849-5
That should be enough to show that Team Science has no need for any ad hoc criterion about efficacy.
Willard once again shows us exactly how little he understands basic science. EEI is nothing more than global temperature change. Since it deals in energy values instead of temperature directly, it is a bit more scientific.
What EEI doesn’t tell anybody is what changes have occurred in overall greenhouse effect strength. That is why the very simple calculation Willis provided is so important. It provides critical insight into the important question about causes of Earth’s warming.
Also, since EEI contains an almost complete unknown called ocean heat, it can be almost anything. This makes it the perfect deflection variable for climate disinformation. This is obvious just looking at the numbers Willard provided for ocean heat.
Now look at the greenhouse efficiency value of 1.652 ± .002. So much more accurate. Even the slight variability over time is interesting. It correlates perfectly with ENSO. We can actually see ocean heat being stored and released.
In Figure 4 of the Greenhouse efficiency paper we can also see what the trend should have been based on IPCC projections. This energy would all have to disappearing as ocean heat. Does anyone who is not a climate alarm cultist really believe that amount of energy is somehow disappearing into the oceans?
But, it’s even worse. The ocean heat didn’t just start disappearing. It would have started to disappear when CO2 levels first rose. In reality, the starting point in the graph would be around twice as the end point Willis showed. So much energy hiding while the ENSO ocean energy comes and goes quite obviously and quickly.
Yes, I understand this science far better than Willard and/or Nate. That’s because I studied the low level physics while they simply accept what they are told to believe.
RM is in a big hole, and he keeps digging.
EEI stands for Earth’s Energy Imbalance. Energy. Not temperature.
Willis’ number is dimensionless. It’s just a ratio. It tells little about efficiency. What does the division represent anyway, except Willis’ intention of drowning his graph in whiteness?
RM suggests that division reduces to subtraction. Sometimes it makes sense (e.g. for things like win-loss ratio or EV) here it does not. If contrarians are adducing on average three more lies in every comment, there’s no need to say that it’s for every platitude. Saying more platitudes would not make them less efficient, on the contrary.
Having to account for energy imbalance ought to be enough: planetary budgets are far from trivial. An imbalance is expressed in Watt per meter squared. A Watt is a Joule per second. Replacing that amount with a dimensionless proxy can easily be seen as dishonest. It leads contrarians and cranks to interpret Willis’ graph as a temperature, with the expectation that it should grow with time. It doesn’t need to: a small imbalance every second of every day goes a long way.
All in all, RM is not far from being a crank. Usually, his drive-bys are innocuous. Perhaps he should return to them.
Willard is getting desperate. It’s latest nonsensical reply is full of lies and disinformation all rolled into one.
“EEI stands for Earth’s Energy Imbalance. Energy. Not temperature.”
I didn’t say EEI was temperature. I said it provides the same information as global temperature. Lie #1.
“RM suggests that division reduces to subtraction.”
No, I said both division and subtraction can be used for the same purpose. Lie #2.
When an individual resorts to outright lies, it’s pretty obvious they have no argument.
Now why did Willis use division in his graph. Turns out division provides exactly what we want to know without any further computations. It’s very efficient for the purpose of presenting the strength of the greenhouse effect.
What greenhouse efficiency tells us is the amount of warming that occurs at Earths surface for each unit of solar energy. Isn’t that precisely what has been advertised as the greenhouse effect? Climate alarmists claim that as we add more CO2, CH4 or any other “greenhouse gas” to the atmosphere, we will see more warming.
Sorry, Willard. Your disinformation is easily explained. Better luck next time.
PS. Willis has shown the greenhouse effect warms planet Earth by 65.2%. The claims we have seen from the climate industry also show this same value but in temperature units for a fixed amount of solar energy. Clearly, the data Willis provides is more useful.
RM keeps digging:
[RM] I didn’t say EEI was temperature.
[ALSO RM] EEI is nothing more than global temperature change.
Keep digging, RM!
Richard,
The GW trend has been with us since ~ 1970.
As you can see here, in the last 10 y, the T have been well above the 1970-2015 trend line.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2015/trend
And the CERES data indicates this is the period of increased absorbed solar, due in part to decreased clouds.
So what CERES has found is that increased ASR has caused MORE warming. This is no surprise.
Furthermore, decreasing clouds produces both more downward SW AND less downward LW, which acts like reduced GHE.
ENSO clearly has an effect on clouds in the tropics. The last 10 years has been dominated by strong El Ninos, whereas the earlier 2000s were dominated by stronger La Ninas.
This transition may explain the trend that is seen in the CERES data. In addition, a reduction in aerosols mainly by China may have reduced clouds.
But this is a characteristic of the last 10 y or so. There is no evidence that this is a characteristic of the whole GW era back to 1970.
Willard once again demonstrates his inability to understand a very simple statement. My comment “EEI is nothing more than global temperature change” was a generic one. An association.
When EEI is positive the planet will warm which increases the global temperature. When EEI is negative year to year, the global temperature will drop. Hence, EEI provides very little additional information.
Face::palm
At least Nate is trying to look at this realistically.
Nate: “The GW trend has been with us since ~ 1970.”
Actually, it started in the 1960s when the AMO moved into its cool phase and drove down the global temperature. Hence, any trend starting relatively shortly after that point will see a cool AMO moving into a warm AMO (1996). A perfectly natural warming trend.
Nate: “what CERES has found is that increased ASR has caused MORE warming. This is no surprise.”
Glad to see you agree with me. Of course, the CERES data goes even further. It shows all the warming was extremely likely due to this ASR increase. The data shows a constant overall atmospheric warming effect. This includes the greenhouse effect.
I realize your bias immediately denies this could happen which leads you to imagining scenarios which could counter the obvious lack of greenhouse warming. Occam’s razor says otherwise.
The most recent warming (and now cooling), 2023-2025, is completely explained by the Hunga-Tonga effect on clouds.
It appears 2026 will see a developing El Nino. That would mask any other climate influences. We will probably have to wait until 2027 to see what happens next.
PS. Keep in mind there’s also a long term warming trend similar to Medieval, Roman and Minoan warming periods. This underlies shorter term cycles like the AMO, ENSO, PDO, etc.
After getting caught confusing energy and temperature, RM keeps digging:
[RM] Willis then uses division rather than subtraction to compute a level of strength for the GHE. Either way works.
[W] RM suggests that division reduces to subtraction. Sometimes it makes sense (e.g. for things like win-loss ratio or EV) here it does not. If contrarians are adducing on average three more lies in every comment, there’s no need to say that it’s for every platitude. Saying more platitudes would not make them less efficient, on the contrary.
[ALSO RM] I said both division and subtraction can be used for the same purpose … Turns out division provides exactly what we want to know without any further computations.
Which is it?
While RM keeps digging, perhaps he could wonder what would happen to a casino whose blackjack tables have a 0.92 efficiency?
Those in the know should get why I picked that specific ratio.
Poor Willard is so frustrated the hilarious attempts to redefine my words, so they can be attacked, continues, even after the previous embarrassment suffered.
Willard: “[ALSO RM] I said both division and subtraction can be used for the same purpose … Turns out division provides exactly what we want to know without any further computations.
Which is it?”
The “purpose” would be to attain a reasonable look at the greenhouse effect changes over time. The difference is energy, which is measured directly by CERES, provides for a direct ratio using division while subtraction would still require a couple of additional computations. The key word is “attain”. The end result is both values could be used to “attain” a result which fulfills the “purpose”. That’s all I meant.
You couldn’t figure this out for yourself?
PS. Fairly normal blackjack return is over 99%. A return of .92 would mean almost no one but newbies would ever play. I’m not even sure you could get that low of return without completely redefining the game.
RM keeps digging, trying to pass naked assertions as explanation.
Here’s how we can demonstrate how silly is Willis’ fancy. Let’s interpret his ratio of 1.65 in terms of expected value. Let’s assume it’s a constant ratio, which means we set aside bdgwx’ calcs, which gets a 0.4% over the period of record. Let’s even stipulate that this period of record is enough to say anything about climate whence the data only starts in 2000.
What 1.65 mean exactly? It means that for every unit Willis invests, he gets 65% in return. That is, he gets back his capital and 0,65 more. That is, for every unit he can afford to invest, on average and in the long run.
That’s not too shabby. To put things in perspective, advantage players who can count cards have a 2% edge over casinos at blackjack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack#Card_counting
That is, for every 100 hands, they’ll win 51-52 and lose 48-49. The ratios of 52/48 and 51/59 are smaller than 1.65. Yet if the house can spot a player counting cards, he gets banned from the casino.
(Don’t ask me how I know this.)
So, if for every trade between the energy that comes in and out of the climate system is a ratio of 1.65, why would Willis see that as a refutation of anything?
Three reasons. First, they forget to mind their units. Second, they conflate energy and temperature. Third, his target audience is fools like RM.
Don’t be like RM.
> The edge/return/margin was generally lower than 2% but I could play up to 1000 hands/hour
Were RM truly efficient, he’d have played one hand per second, thus 3600 hands per hour. And he’d have got $1.65 for every buck he has put into his video machine.
Which leads us to the point he seems to be still missing: Willis’ ratio tells very little about efficiency. It omits factors like rate, volatility, and coverage. It’s just a dimensionless ploy to fool contrarians like RM.
At $2340 per hour, I’m quite sure RM would still be playing poker machines!
***
> It claims you get 288K for an investment of 255K.
Last time I checked, 288/255 was less than 1,65. So perhaps RM should consider 65% as quite efficient compared to him as an advantage player.
Perhaps he should also consider that $2340 per hour doesn’t need to increase over time for profits to add up.
***
> There is no house edge.
RM keeps digging:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginsberg%27s_theorem
Looks like Sky Dragon cranks are not alone in misunderstanding the second law.
“Willard and Nate will be here for days, just throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick. Neither has any understanding of the relevant science…”
…and they’re both still here, more than two weeks later! Proving Clint right again.
“[Again, hasty conclusion. A warming trend must have a cause. Without one, you cannot KNOW it was natural.]
The warming trend is about 400 years long. There are only natural causes which go back that far. There are multiple possible causes. They are ALL natural. All you have is denial.”
No, just trying to keep the debate in the realm of facts and logic, as opposed to just opinion.
First, there is logic to assert that the warming must be either all natural or all human-caused.
The facts are that there are some known natural drivers of clomate st work, eg. The Munder minimum from 1650-1700. As well as periods of more intense volcanic activity.
We also know that there are quasi-periodic ocean cycles like ENSO.
And we know that the GHE increase as a physicsl mechanism has direct observations to suppprt it.
We have no direct observations of global temperature going back 400 y. We have at most 170 y. These records cleary show gradual marming then accelerating in the last 65 y.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:24/plot/gistemp/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:24
We have a couple of longer T records in Europe.
One is the Central England Temp:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet_24month_low-pass_loess1.png
Another is in Netherlands
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ilabrijn_24month_low-pass_loess1.png
What we can see is after a brief cool period in 1690s, there are two centuries between 9-9.5 C followed by gradual warming in the 20th century. More elevated in last few decades at ~10.5 C.
So the limied observational record we have clearly shows accelerated warming happening in last several decades.
Which is exactly the period when CO2 rise accelerated, though it had been rising gradually over the previous century in ice core records.
https://www.co2.earth/images/figures/co2-ice-core_1000ad-1978ad_law-dome_etheridge-et-al_700w.jpg
“Nate says: … We have no direct observations of global temperature going back 400 y. We have at most 170 y. These records cleary show gradual marming then accelerating in the last 65 y….”
Nit picking, but the BEST Global Land Temperature Anomaly series starts in 1750, albeit with high uncertainty, so the longest plausibly “global” instrument record is about 225 years.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/annotatedBestAndCO2.png
arkady doesn’t even bother to argue the point because he is so inculcated.
Arkady said: ”Therefore, any claim that upward transport makes radiation to space unnecessary is inconsistent with basic energy conservation.”
Nobody made any such claim. It is a strawman. Gordon invoked convection for ”cooling the surface”, which it does, and is acknowledged by even the most avid qualified CO2 warmists yet it induced Arkady to launch into a series of illogical claims based entirely on a strawman.
Convection not only cools the surface it is the big model bugaboo of not getting that right that causes the models to fail as pointed out by Roy just a few posts ago.
The fact is radiation acts in accordance with Newton theories. Convection speeds up loss of energy to space by replacing cooled upper air with warmer lower air like a conveyor belt.
Its operates like water pump pumping heated air of an engine through a radiator. That fact is fundamental to passive solar energy design engineering.
Nobody claimed that energy is directly transferred to space by convection. But it does accelerate cooling by radiation.
All you managed to do is spout out some warmist nonsense that you probably picked up from Nate that was established as complete nonsense over 100 years ago by R.W. Woods demonstrating that you don’t even understand the debate that is actually on going wrt to the role of CO2 in observed warming.
Nate says:
We have no direct observations of global temperature going back 400 y. We have at most 170 y. These records cleary show gradual marming then accelerating in the last 65 y.
———————
Dishonest Nate continues to lie his way through this debate. He knows very well that 1) the recent warming has occurred over a period of 45 years and that the first 20 years of his warming period, cooling was actually occurring at least in part due to the motions of Saturn and Jupiter 2) glaciers retreated considerably faster in the late 19th century than they did recently. 3) he also knows that the instrument record from 1911 to 1944 showed warming rates comparable to the most recent 45 years. 4) he should know that the maunder minimum represented cooling assisted by unknown levels of feedback from an inactive sun and that the recent 45 years of warming was given a boost by the most active sun with unknown levels of feedback by a brighter hotter sun.
5) granted he doesn’t know the full extent of Milankovic cycle effects or their feedbacks either quite simply because information indicating that it could be a factor is completely suppressed by corrupt institutions.
If as they claim these effects have been negative for sometime producing a decline into the ice age and they had no reason to not investigate that deeply to better boost their arguments wrt to the potentcy of CO2 they would be all over Milankovic theory like stink on shiit. The avoidance here goes off like a megaphone.
Somebody clearly needs to integrate studies and information like the following into climate science as opposed to just arm waving it away like a German spy saboteur misdirecting allied troops in support of the 1944 German Ardennes offensive.
These cycles represent multiple century long periods where temperature change in central Greenland by 1.5 to 3 degrees every 900 years and at the end of that chart looks no different that the warming Nate wants to fully attribute, and then some, to mankind.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
Mark,
Cant find that plot at BE. All they say is “global data sets begin in 1850, with some land-only areas reported back to 1750.”
Error bars must be huge before 1850.
Bill,
“These cycles represent multiple century long periods where temperature change in central Greenland by 1.5 to 3 degrees every 900 years and at the end of that chart looks no different that the warming Nate wants to fully attribute, and then some, to mankind.”
Here is an updated high resolution Greenland T record, which uses data from 6 ice-core sites.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
See “Greenland temperatures over the past 12000 years” graph which comes from this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355
It clearly shows the general cooling trend since the Holocene maximum in 6000 BC, plus noise lacking significant millennial periodicity, then finally the rise of the last century or so.
So what nate. We are talking anomalies yes gisp 2 shows geneal cooling since somewhere between 3000 and 5000 years ago as google Ai reports
As I noted:
“plus noise lacking significant millennial periodicity, then finally the rise of the last century or so.”
nate if you want to call nine 1.5c to 3.0c warming peaks in 8,100 years noise, you have to be consistent and call the most recent one noise also.
Look at the new graph
“See “Greenland temperatures over the past 12000 years” graph”
It comes immediately after the map of Greenland with the 6 borehole sites.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
To Gill, 8K or 80 years, it’s all the same.
ROFL!
Just to keep this discussion lively, I was a casino advantage player for years after I retired. I just did it recreationally because I didn’t need the money. However, it was nice to see a small profit out of my entertainment and got all my meals I wanted for free. I was a LV snowbird for 5 years as well.
I played video poker. The edge/return/margin was generally lower than 2% but I could play up to 1000 hands/hour vs blackjack at maybe 20 – 60. Playing multiple blackjack hands is one sure way to get outed so most advantage players avoided playing more than 2.
I tell you this because your attempted analogy doesn’t really work. First of all there’s the 1st Law. Energy is conserved. There is no house edge. You immediately have all of the solar energy available to provide warming. That gets you the 1 in 1.65. You also don’t get to keep the .65. It just visits. So, let’s get back to basics.
Look at what climate science claims. It claims you get 288K for an investment of 255K. You know, the old 33 C greenhouse effect.
We get 240 watts/m2 from the sun. Now multiply that by 1.65. You get 396 which comes out to 15.8 C. Isn’t that pretty close to what your climate priests told you?
Appears they are saying the exact same thing that Willis found in the CERES data. The problem isn’t the number (1.65). It’s the fact it didn’t get any bigger over time.
Willard: “Last time I checked, 288/255 was less than 1,65”
Why would you use temperature? I even gave you the corresponding energy values. CERES satellites measure energy levels. Use 396/240 as I specified previously. Those are the numbers in watts/m^2.
In Willard’s rush to respond, it turns out he doesn’t understand the simple relationship between temperature and energy.
LOL.
RM keeps digging:
[RM] Why would you use temperature?
[ALSO RM] EEI is nothing more than global temperature change.
While he keeps digging, another for posterity:
[W] While RM keeps digging, perhaps he could wonder what would happen to a casino whose blackjack tables have a 0.92 efficiency?
[RM] I’m not even sure you could get that low of return without completely redefining the game.
So not only he’s confusing energy with temperature, but he’s confusing the casino with the player!
Willard has nothing in response to my pointing to his lack of understanding of the relationship between temperature and energy. The 1.65 ratio came from Willis, not me. Trying to pin your ignorance on me doesn’t fly.
Willard now referring to me: “So not only he’s confusing energy with temperature”
Nope, I’m not the one who doesn’t understand the difference. That is obviously you.
Finally, there’s pretty much no way to get a return of .92 from a Blackjack game. If you can’t understand this, you need to go back to 3rd grade and listen to your math teachers this time.
RM keeps on digging:
[RM] The 1.65 ratio came from Willis, not me.
[ALSO RM] Turns out division provides exactly what we want to know without any further computations.
Armwaving about “the relationship between temperature and energy” seems to be replacing computation.
Perhaps he could convince public companies to simplify their financial results with the presentation of a single, dimensionless ratio? After all, that should exactly be what investors would want to know!
Willard has run out of things to say that aren’t laughable attempts to avoid the obvious conclusions. This is exactly how religious followers behave. Hallelujah.
RM does not always seek to lose weight, but when he does he’s using a system with at least 1.65 of efficacy. Dimensionlessly, it goes without saying.
Wait – how will he be able to lose weight?
Willard finally gets to the real nut of the issue.
“But few people believe long-term trends in radiosonde humidities. His result depends upon the reality of unusually high humidities in the 1950s and 1960s. ”
Keep in mind, no one had doubted these values previously. There was absolutely no reason to believe this data was any better/worse than data collected afterwards. The problem with the data was it countered AGW claims . Couldn’t have that, so they denied the data was valid.
They got away with it too. But now the situation has changed. Willis found the exact same result in the CERES data. Like I said before, what are the odds an error in data collection would line exactly with completely different set of data? Infinitesimal.
Finally, the reduction in humidity is predicted by physics. It is driven by CO2 itself. Hence, Miskolczi’s theory portion of his paper is irrelevant.
RM keeps digging.
While he does, astute readers might profit from revisiting SoD’s roadmap on Ferenc’s crap:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/miskolczi/
For those who prefer the TL;DR –
https://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/
Willis, of course, “found” nothing much, and nothing truly related, except for the fact that 1.65 is close to 1.87.
RM simply found two ratios and, instead of delving into the details, kept on digging a crankier and crankier stance.
And that’s the memo.
Nate now gets into some of the key physics (without realizing it).
“There has been lots of observations of increased atmospheric water vapor, as the it should do when the atmosphere and surface warms.
Even the CERES data show this is happening over the period 2000-2021.
And lots of people, including Roy Spencer, have pointed out the mistakes made by Miscolczi.
So why arent you skeptical of claims that water vapor has been constant?”
There are no claims that water vapor “has been constant”. Water vapor has been increasing from both warming and CO2 increases.
What happens is increases in low altitude water vapor increases convective currents mainly in the Tropics. This drives the associated molecules higher into the upper atmosphere where it is colder. Colder air causes increased condensation which lowers residual high altitude water vapor.
Turns out is exactly placed where water vapor is no longer saturated like it is lower in the atmosphere. Since this lower residual water vapor is mainly created in the Tropics, it then gets carried by the Hadley circulation to higher latitudes.
This is what Miskolczi found out in his analysis. This physics was also explained years ago by Dr. William Gray.
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
“But those seeking confirmation of their biases …”
I love the projection.
PS. Funny how you cherry pick the views from Dr. Spencer you want to believe. Turns out Dr. Spencer has been right on many things, this just wasn’t one of them.
Richard,
“There are no claims that water vapor “has been constant”. Water vapor has been increasing from both warming and CO2 increases.
What happens is increases in low altitude water vapor increases convective currents mainly in the Tropics. This drives the associated molecules higher into the upper atmosphere where it is colder. Colder air causes increased condensation which lowers residual high altitude water vapor.
Turns out is exactly placed where water vapor is no longer saturated like it is lower in the atmosphere. Since this lower residual water vapor is mainly created in the Tropics, it then gets carried by the Hadley circulation to higher latitudes.”
Ah, so this contrived speculative mechanism leads to no human-caused increase in the GHE?
I know that some have religio/philosophical bent toward the notion that humans cannot possibly change the whole Earth.
And thus will gravitate toward any theory that suggests that the Earth has built-in mechanisms to regulate its climate to keep it in balance as God intended it, while ignoring any contradictory physics and historical evidence.
But the geological record says otherwise. Past injections of CO2 into the atmosphere by volcanoes have caused significant warming.
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/08/volcanoes-global-warming.page
And current measurements show the GHE has increased as predicted.
Oh a paper presented at a Heartland institute Conference? With all the requisite bashing of ‘alarmists’.
Cmon, Richard, be appropriately skeptical of ‘science’ intended to support political activism, funded by vested interests.
As is obvious, all I got from Willard and Nate was denial. That was expected. However, I have proved my points. We have data going all the way to 1948 which shows a constant greenhouse effect. None of the climate alarmists can explain this situation.
So what’s next? If the warming wasn’t from CO2 increases, then it must have been due to other factors. It was. Natural cycles along with the Hunga Tonga eruption have affected clouds which then causes changes in solar energy reaching the surface.
The Hunga Tonga warming has already mostly dissipated. Maybe another couple of tenths of a degree to go. The next big climate cycle change will occur when the AMO goes negative. The last time we saw a change in one of the AMO 32 ± 2 year phases started in 1995 with the onset of a new warm phase. Hence, I’ve been predicting 2027 as the most likely year we see a transition into the next cool phase.
Since we have an El Nino brewing, we probably wouldn’t be able to detect a change until the El Nino ends. Once again, most likely in 2027. So, it will take some time. Until then, you can bet alarmists will milk the El Nino warming for all they can get.
RM keeps digging:
[RM] CO2 has had no warming influence whatsoever.
[ALSO RM] We have data going all the way to 1948 which shows a constant greenhouse effect.
When a crank says P and not-P in the span of week, what else is there to do than to let him digging?
Richard,
“We have data going all the way to 1948 which shows a constant greenhouse effect. None of the climate alarmists can explain this”
What we have is data ‘analyzed’ favorably by the author of the theory, and another crank who presents at a crank conference. And you then taking their word for it.
But these are outlier opinions.
Plenty of other data and analyses totally disagree.
This is you selectively believing outlier analyses that confirm your beliefs, while assuming all else must be flawed.
That is, in general, not a winning strategy.
Willard appears to be extremely frustrated. I’ve clearly shown CO2 increases since 1948 have caused no warming of good old planet Earth. I’ve referenced the data which defines this fact and provided a physics based explanation for why this occurs.
It can seem a bit strange because CO2 itself causes both warming and cooling. Hence, for cherry pickers like Willard, it gives them a chance to push out lies to support their alarmism. He will never accept reality as that would mean all the personal attacks he’s done were misplaced.
So, in fact, it is true that CO2 does cause warming and no warming depending on the context of a statement. Those interested in ALL THE SCIENCE will find that interesting. People like Willard will try to create confusion where there is none.
For those only interested in what net effect increasing levels of CO2 will cause to Earth’s climates, the answer is …. almost none.
“I’ve clearly shown CO2 increases since 1948 have caused no warming of good old planet Earth.”
No, youve shown that you are convinced that a couple of outlier results must be correct.
While many experts are not convinced by that work, because many other results contradict them.
So all youve shown us is that you have strong biases.
Nate claims: “all youve shown us is that you have strong biases.”
That’s true. I am biased by scientific data and logic. That’s why the first time I saw the works of Dr. Gray and Dr Miskolczi, over 15 years ago, I didn’t immediately accept their claims. Same held true for lots of other skeptical theories. Instead, I worked to understand the physics of the atmosphere as it relates to weather.
It took a lot of time where I eventually dismissed many claims. I eventually found how to put a lot of things together. That was when I went back to the works I’ve referenced and figured out exactly why they got the results they did.
In doing that I now have the physical basis for my views understood. Sorry, I’m not the one simply believing what I’ve been told to believe. That is the world of climate alarmists like Nate and Willard. I do love the projection though.
> I am biased by scientific data and logic.
RM keeps digging.
Logic would have it that he wouldn’t root for Willis or Ferenc or Bill at the same time. And someone who’s big on data wouldn’t cite three different datasets, two of which are from more than 15 years ago, and that show nothing about CO2.
For those in the back who don’t know about Bill:
https://www.desmog.com/william-gray/
Willard provides yet another example of science denial:
“Logic would have it that he wouldn’t root for Willis or Ferenc or Bill at the same time.”
No one is “rooting” for anyone. It just turns out their analyses have uncovered truths you don’t want to accept.
“And someone who’s big on data wouldn’t cite three different datasets, two of which are from more than 15 years ago, and that show nothing about CO2.”
This is the typical denial. Of course, the data sets say nothing about CO2. We already have CO2 data from multiple sources. These data sets allow us to compute the strength of the greenhouse effect from any cause. What they tell us is the strength of the overall greenhouse effect has not changed across 78 years of data.
You are then required to use your brain. I know that’s asking a lot. I have tried to motivate you by asking what are the chances both these data sets will show a constant greenhouse effect and be wrong. More specifically, what is the probability? Here’s an article to give you some hints.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/einstein-claims-past-future-identical-140700369.html
As I stated above, probabilities can tell us a lot. Once you accept the data has a high probability of showing no changes in the overall atmospheric greenhouse effect, the next question is, what are the chances CO2 increases are making the greenhouse effect stronger?
That would mean other process/es must exactly cancel any increase in the greenhouse effect from CO2. Back to probabilities again. This is why Willard only has denial as his response.
” I’m not the one simply believing what I’ve been told to believe.”
No, you are obviously very selective about what data you believe.
Then you make false assumptions about how I, and others, know things.
I’ve read many papers on this subject over the years, and understand (a majority of) the physics behind their results. My training and work is in physics, BTW.
And that is how most scientists, who work in this field, have come to accept the reality of AGW.
What you fail to do is understand that science of AGW has been built up over a century of self-consistent findings.
You still have offered no explanation for how past natural injections of CO2 into the atmosphere have led to warming, while the current human-caused injection, you believe, has not.
You still have offered no explanation for the direct measurements of the GHE forcing, and the increase in water vapor forcing in found in CERES, which contradicts the claims of your pet theory.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800
You still offer no explanation for the ongoing Earth energy-imbalance observed via the nearly continuous rise in heat content in the ocean since the 1960s, which agrees with the predictions and measurements of AGW Top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
An energy imbalance such as this cannot be explained by speculated ocean cycles.
Nate tries again to convince us his anti-science views are valid.
“You still have offered no explanation for how past natural injections of CO2 into the atmosphere have led to warming”
They haven’t. Same reason Al Gore got it wrong with the ice cores.
“You still have offered no explanation for the direct measurements of the GHE forcing”
I’ve explained GHG forcing problems many times. I guess you weren’t paying attention.
“and the increase in water vapor forcing in found in CERES, which contradicts the claims of your pet theory.”
You still don’t understand the effects of saturation.
“You still offer no explanation for the ongoing Earth energy-imbalance”
Of course I did. It’s called solar energy and I explained it quite clearly.
As anyone can see, Nate has not been reading my comments. Then he repeats things he’s never really checked out. Somehow, he thinks that will convince people his religion is valid. eye::roll
> Same reason Al Gore got it wrong with the ice cores.
RM keeps digging:
“Same reason” is an empty referent used as a switcheroo to plug in Al’s name. Here’s a review:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41148203
Team Science wins again!
Another good laugh thanks to Willard.
““Same reason” is an empty referent used as a switcheroo to plug in Al’s name.”
If you’d been reading the comments you’d know I was responding specifically to Nate’s claims about CO2. It was Al Gore who famously got the CO2 cause wrong with the ice cores. Temperature rose and CO2 followed.
This problem also shows up in all papers claiming they found evidence of CO2 caused warming.
“Team Science wins again!”
You must be referring to me.
> Al Gore who famously got the CO2 cause wrong with the ice cores
RM keeps digging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smSquQxjDBk&t=62s
Al did not get the cause wrong, he simply misunderstands logarithms.
A bit like RMs, actually.
So let our crank keep digging!
Richard,
Earlier you suggested AMO was the initiator of our GW trend.
Lets test this notion.
Here is AMO data. It seems to be quasi-periodic.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_ersst_12month_low-pass_box_a.png
There does seem to be somewhat of a correlation between AMO and global temperature:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:0.315/mean:12/detrend:1.2/offset:0.2/to:2022/plot/esrl-amo/scale:0.8/mean:12
But only if we have DETRENDED the global temperature.
Here, in blue, you can see the global temperature without any detrending:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:0.315/mean:12/detrend:1.2/offset:0.2/to:2022/plot/esrl-amo/scale:0.8/mean:12/plot/gistemp/mean:12/offset:0.315/to:2022-
It shows a strong GW warming trend that is obviously not explained by AMO.
Nate once again tried to redefine my position: “Earlier you suggested AMO was the initiator of our GW trend.”
Nope, The AMO is one measurement of the natural 64 year cycle which has contributed to our warming. There are two other factors. The long term millennial cycle (often referred to as a recovery from the Little Ice Age) and the Hunga-Tonga eruption.
The PDO is also a minor contributor.
Attempting to analyze any single piece of the this puzzle will provide nothing useful.
“Nate once again tried to redefine my position: “Earlier you suggested AMO was the initiator of our GW trend.”
Not really.
”
Nate: “The GW trend has been with us since ~ 1970.”
Actually, it started in the 1960s when the AMO moved into its cool phase and drove down the global temperature. Hence, any trend starting relatively shortly after that point will see a cool AMO moving into a warm AMO (1996). A perfectly natural warming trend.”
” The AMO is one measurement of the natural 64 year cycle which has contributed to our warming. There are two other factors. The long term millennial cycle (often referred to as a recovery from the Little Ice Age) and the Hunga-Tonga eruption.”
Umm the Hunga Tonga’s effect, if any, is from 2023! What is the mechanism of the ‘LIA recovery’? And why did the ‘recovery’ accelerate in mid 20th century?
“Attempting to analyze any single piece of the this puzzle will provide nothing useful.”
Indeed. Have you or anyone else put the pieces together to replicate the T record, as climate models have done? Where can we see that?
Nate is finally asking some good questions: ” Have you or anyone else put the pieces together to replicate the T record, as climate models have done? Where can we see that?”
I have articulated the big picture at various times. It’s not complicated.
1) We have the long term millennial cycle providing warming for the past ~400 years. Most likely driven by ocean salinity or speed variations, this cycle started at the end of the Holocene Optimum and shows up nicely in GISP2 ice cores.
https://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
2) The 64 ± 4 year cycle is best seen in the AMO index. However, it it not driven by the Atlantic Ocean. It is driven by sea ice changes in the Arctic and their effect on clouds. The current warm phase started around 1995-96 so is due to change very soon.
3) Volcanic eruptions provide shorter term variations which can affect trends when occurring near the end of an analysis. Hunga-Tonga is the latest example.
There are other factors as well, but these together do a good job of defining climate change since 1850.
Nice try with blog science had-waving speculation.
But it’s not a real attempt to reproduce the last century or more record, as climate models must do.
The GISP data does not apply to the world as a whole. It is temperature in Greenland which has much higher and different variability than the Earth as a whole.
As discussed here by an actual glaciologist, Richard Alley:
https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/
“First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places”
Nate: “But it’s not a real attempt to reproduce the last century or more record, as climate models must do.”
I didn’t lay it out for you on a year to year basis, but the story is pretty obvious. There’s an underlying warming from the cold Little Ice Age period. Overlaying that trend we have a natural warming/cooling cycle of about 64 years. You’d have to be blind not to see it.
“The GISP data does not apply to the world as a whole. It is temperature in Greenland which has much higher and different variability than the Earth as a whole.”
The only part of GISP2 relevant to this discussion is the recovery from the LIA. I don’t think anyone denies the LIA was real anymore.
Yes, there was a little ice age. But apparently it was not everywhere and not synchronous. But it seems to line up with the grand solar minimum around 1690, and may relate to powerful volcanoes, eg in 1815.
We have direct recent experience of recovery from volcanoes like Pinatubo, which lasted 3-5 y.
Either way, it makes no sense for ‘recovery’ to sharply accelerate 200 or more years after these events.
Can you explain that?
Nate is having trouble with my very simple description of the natural warming factors which have led to the current state of planet Earth.
“it makes no sense for ‘recovery’ to sharply accelerate 200 or more years after these events.”
The LIA was caused by ocean cycles. The recovery has been slow but sure for centuries. Naturally, you cannot accept such a simple process since it isn’t laid out for you by your climate priests.
Your problem is those priests obviously have the science wrong. We know this from the NASA CERES mission data and NOAA radiosonde data. Your denial of this science will not age well. The Driver of the AMO cycle should lead to a phase change in the near future. Hope you are ready for some cooling. After the coming El Nino, it could be dramatic.
it makes no sense for ‘recovery’ to sharply accelerate 200 or more years after these events.”
“The LIA was caused by ocean cycles. The recovery has been slow but sure for centuries. Naturally, you cannot accept such a simple process since it isn’t laid out for you by your climate priests.”
This is clearly an opinion, but you express it as if it is an established scientific fact.
How do you KNOW the LIA wasnt driven by the Maunder minimum or volcanoes?
” We know this from the NASA CERES mission data and NOAA radiosonde data.”
Which have nothing whatsoever to say about ‘recovery from the LIA’
“Your denial of this science will not age well. The Driver of the AMO cycle should lead to a phase change in the near future. Hope you are ready for some cooling. After the coming El Nino, it could be dramatic.”
I have heard these predictions of the great cooling just around the corner for 20 y.
Starting to sound like the predictions of the Rapture in 1918, no, ok 1927, no, how bout 1954, no ok then 1967..nope.
Since the “Hunga Tonga warming has already mostly dissipated.” can you make a specific prediction?
Will next year be warmer or cooler than 2024?
Nate: [How do you KNOW the LIA wasnt driven by the Maunder minimum or volcanoes?]
The Maunder Minimum was too late to be the driver of the LIA. It did prolong the cold bottom of the millennial cycle so did have an effect. This is seen in the GISP2 data as the peak of the MWP occurred in the 12th century. Temperature fell for several centuries before the Maunder Minimum. Here’s what a real scientist told you:
“ocean changes are due to naturally occurring upper ocean salinity
variations. Changes in CO2 play little role in these salinity driven ocean climate forcings. ” – Dr William Gray 2012.
Nate continues: [We know this from the NASA CERES mission data and NOAA radiosonde data.”
Which have nothing whatsoever to say about ‘recovery from the LIA’]
The recent data tells us CO2 cannot be the cause of historic changes because it isn’t having an effect with much bigger CO2 changes. That means it is likely due to either the sun or oceans. Turns out the oceans are the best choice.
“When the MOC (or THC) is stronger than average there is more upwelling of cold water in the South Pacific and Indian Oceans, and an increase in global rainfall of a few percent occurs. This causes the global surface temperatures to cool. The opposite occurs when the MOC (or THC) is weaker than normal.” – Dr William Gray 2012
Nate: [I have heard these predictions of the great cooling just around the corner for 20 y.
Starting to sound like the predictions of the Rapture in 1918, no, ok 1927, no, how bout 1954, no ok then 1967..nope.]
Cooling did occur for a short time as was predicted by many people. However, the driver was cut short. You may remember it as the Monckton pause.
The PDO went negative in 2006 which balanced the positive AMO for 8 years which created the pause. It was expected (from historic data) to last ~30 year. When it went positive again in 2014 the cooling was cut off.
Nate: [Since the “Hunga Tonga warming has already mostly dissipated.” can you make a specific prediction?
Will next year be warmer or cooler than 2024?]
My predictions are always based on events. The AMO going negative is the basis for my cooling prediction. As I’ve said in the past, an AMO transition is likely to occur in 2027 ± 2 years. In the past, it wasn’t easy to tell exactly when this happened. Not enough data and ENSO clouds the picture. When I can see direct evidence the AMO phase change has started, I will make more specific predictions.
PS. My own theory is Arctic sea ice drives the AMO changes. That should mean we will start seeing increases in Arctic sea ice prior to the AMO index changing. So far there’s no evidence this has started.
“As I’ve said in the past, an AMO transition is likely to occur in 2027 ± 2 years. In the past, it wasn’t easy to tell exactly when this happened.”
I’ll be very impressed if your precise prediction is realized.
In my work Ive studied signals and noise.
The AMO:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_hadsst.png
MAY be periodic, but the available data are insufficient to determine that.
Its positive phases could be more random in occurence, like ENSO.
Here is Nino 3.4 over the last 30 years.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino3.4a_1996:2026.png
The last 2 major El Ninos (nino3.4 > 2 C) were separated by 6 years. Prior to that we had an 18 year separation. We may get another strong one this year, a 3 year separation.
So what is the period?
Another question. How can the AMO, in a positive state, DRIVE a continuous global warming? Why not just a 30 year plateau?
Nate: [I’ll be very impressed if your precise prediction is realized.]
Me too. It’s a very simple approach. The last 3 AMO phases have been 30,30,34 years. Average of 31 years. The last phase change was 1996. So, 1996 + 31 = 2027. My real point is it will probably occur in next 4 years.
[The AMO:
MAY be periodic, but the available data are insufficient to determine that.]
There’s a paper which traced the AMO back to 1587. There may not be a lot of data, but there is data. If my hypothesis for the driver is correct, it’s a real cycle driven by natural warming/cooling of the Arctic.
[Its positive phases could be more random in occurence, like ENSO.]
Doubt it. ENSO is far from a symmetric process.
[So what is the period?]
64 ± 4 years.
[Another question. How can the AMO, in a positive state, DRIVE a continuous global warming? Why not just a 30 year plateau?]
The AMO has not driven a continuous warming. However, since 1962 was the start of the last cool transition, any trend starting about that time will have the cool phase first followed by the warm phase. It will look like a long warming trend. Why do you think the NCA starts all their trends in the 1960s?
The PDO also appears to somewhat modify the effect of the AMO. When both are in a positive phase you get more warming. When both are in a negative phase (eg 1962-1976) you get more cooling. When they are mixed, most of the effects are lost.
There has already been a few months showing up with a negative AMO index value. Last year there were 4. So, it may already be starting its transition.
As I mentioned previously, the long term warming comes from the millennial cycle. The bottom was the LIA. We’ve now seen most of the warming which probably started in the 16th century.
Richard,
Heres a recent update to the Greenland T reconstruction from several combined ice cores.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
It shows the general cooling trend since the Holocene maximum in 6000 BC all the way to the LIA period, plus noise lacking significant millennial periodicity, then finally the rise of the last century or so.
Nate wants to discuss proxies. There are literally 100s of proxies which all tell different stories. For example, Makassar Straits shows a very close match to GISP2 although 1000s of miles apart.
Another set of proxies shows changes in Atlantic ocean salinity which could be the cause of recent warming with no need for a millennial cycle. Maybe the solar changes which led to the Maunder Minimum were responsible.
What’s even worse for alarmists is the warming from the LIA started way before human emissions could have had any effect. You need to make up other stories if you want to go down that road.
The good news is we have two independent data sources telling us the exact same story. CO2 emissions are not changing the strength of the greenhouse effect. This is also supported by boundary layer physics. As a result, we know the warming has been natural.
RM keeps digging:
[RM] The only part of GISP2 relevant to this discussion is the recovery from the LIA.
[ALSO RM] Nate wants to discuss proxies.
Cranks can’t manage commitments.
Richard,
You are the one who cited the Greenland ice-core T record.
So I dont see how you can find fault with the T record derived from 6 well separated ice-cores across the whole of Greenland.
There is no sound science rationale to dismiss it.
Nate: [You are the one who cited the Greenland ice-core T record.]
I was simply showing there is a lot of support for a natural warming trend since the LIA. Your response was to reference more proxies for seemingly no reason since they also support the warming from the LIA. You appear to be very confused, but thanks for providing even more support for my claims.
“I was simply showing there is a lot of support for a natural warming trend since the LIA. Your response was to reference more proxies for seemingly no reason since they also support the warming from the LIA. ”
No one here has disputed that we are warmer now than in the LIA period. What I challenged you on, was why T rise should have accelerated 200 years after the end of the LIA, which better fits the predictions of recent CO2 increases.
“You appear to be very confused”,
Flattery or its opposite will get you nowhere.
This what you stated when posting the GISP2 ice core record:
“1) We have the long term millennial cycle providing warming for the past ~400 years.”
But we now have better data from Greenland. It comes from analysis of both T and elevation changes at various borehole sites.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355
What the new Greenland multi-site ice-core temperature record shows is an overall cooling trend since the Holocene maximum 8000 years ago, plus lots of spiky non-periodic noise.
It no longer contains a distinct high peak at the Medieval Warm period. I see no evidence of a significant ‘millennial cycle’ in there, nor that the LIA was the minimum of any significant cyclic process.
Of course this Greenland T record may not be the last word, just as the original GISP2 data was not the end of the story.
Nate: [What I challenged you on, was why T rise should have accelerated 200 years after the end of the LIA, which better fits the predictions of recent CO2 increases.]
I’ve already answered that question. The only part of the millennial cycle that comes into play is the warming from the LIA. However, there are dozens of proxies which show the cooling trend over the last 6000 years hasn’t been constant. Sorry, your paper changes nothing.
If you are still confused, go back and read what I already provided.
”No one here has disputed that we are warmer now than in the LIA period. What I challenged you on, was why T rise should have accelerated 200 years after the end of the LIA, which better fits the predictions of recent CO2 increases.”
Most likely since the periodicity of the large greenland temperature excursions are on a one per every ~900 year cycle
Anyway looking for a past full cycle of Jupiter and Saturn optimums. Depending upon if I pick 2000 or 2020 I come up with either an 875 year long full cycle or a 894 year cycle. Apparently these perturbations can addup substantially over time.
either that or my swiss ephemeris isn’t all that accurate.
That would correspond to the approximate climate peak occurring in 1146 and repeating in 2000. Or a climate peak in 1226 and repeating in 2020. Its probably the later one as I explain below. But the optimum 900 year one doesn’t have to align perfectly with the 3,600 year one. I am favoring 2000 for the 900 year one but recognize the 4 planet alignment didn’t optimize until 2023/2024.
~900 years from now there should be another peak to add to the current one. Uranus and Neptune will still be meeting every 175 years for the next 5 cycles likely still on the warm side. but hopefully by then we have a handle on climate change and actually be ready for it. And don’t think for a minute I have some room for some CO2 warming. I just don’t think we have examined that as closely as we should have either. Politicians truly have bigger fish to fry.
And of course we need to consider uranus and neptune having a conjunction in 1993 and transiting after wards toward the middle of the warm side and being passed by Jupiter in 2023 and 2024 coming off its 2020 conjunction with Saturn.
Thats a pretty big coincidence. 60 years from now Jupiter and Saturn should have passed to the cooler side but exactly where that is located needs some fairly heavy gravitational modeling.
So how does this work. When the planets are near perihelion or aphelion they are directly competing with the sun stretching the orbit. But when they are at the nodes (spring/fall wrt to the elliptical positioning rather than the actual season date) the directly affect earths speed through summer and winter (again based on major axis orientation rather than the season which of of a couple weeks or so) slowing the perihelion transit and the speeding up the aphelion transit in 2023/24. That intersection in that area of the sky of saturn/jupiter/uranus and Neptune only occurs once every ~3600 years or so corresponding to pronounced 900 year temperature excursions. so based on orbit mechanics not only is the ice age in the past, it is likely the peak of the warm age was just in the past few years. I am sure the next Jupiter Saturn conjunction will look like 1980 and 1920 and 1860, occurring on the cold side. then the next one in 2060 should be just beyond the peak of 2000 pushing further past what I estimate the maximum warmth quadrant of the orbit toward perihelion and perhaps orbit stretch overriding fading slowing through the austral summer. I could be off on this but it will take at least 40 to 60 years to find out. Hopefully somebody can ask a supercomputer to do this job like a couple of astronomers did recently to hypothesize another planet in the kuiper belt as a cause for a tilt to the kuiper belt. If they can do that modeling the solar system for climate effects of orbital perturbation should be a walk in the park with all the information we have on the 8 planets.
One should look here to see the impact of these orbit perturbations over the entire holocene. And note the Minoan warm period that gets too little press and is associated with the other two jovian planets. It replicated about 3,600 and 7200 years ago and represents the largest 900 year cycles in the record with the exception of the 8.2kya event recovery which was probably getting a bigger assist from the much weaker effects of axial tilt and/or
precession.
More attention needs to brought to bear on this. Thank you for your attention to the matter.
> Most likely since the periodicity of the large greenland temperature excursions are on a one per every ~900 year cycle. Anyway looking for a past full cycle of Jupiter and Saturn optimums.
Our in-house astrologer is pulling a few tricks here:
1. An unsupported “most likely”;
2. A non-existent quasi-millennial cycle.
3. An inflated Greenland that isn’t that “large” for global reconstructions.
He’s just saying stuff once more.
LOL!
Down-thread we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742530
Richard,
“I’ve already answered that question. The only part of the millennial cycle that comes into play is the warming from the LIA.”
Well if the data dont support a millenial cycle, then the accelerated warming long after the LIA is not explained by a natural mechanism.
“However, there are dozens of proxies which show the cooling trend over the last 6000 years hasn’t been constant. Sorry, your paper changes nothing.”
Youve only showed us one. And you seem content to ignore refined results if they dont fit you narrative.
Thats not how science works my friend.
Nate says:
” “However, there are dozens of proxies which show the cooling trend over the last 6000 years hasn’t been constant. Sorry, your paper changes nothing.”
Youve only showed us one. And you seem content to ignore refined results if they dont fit you narrative.
Thats not how science works my friend.”
Actually science works with thousands of wrong theories and eventually only one is found to be correct.
Science does not work by virtue of the most popular notions. So you have that completely backwards. the advancement of science is very much a one man/one team move forward. As we popularize it or corrupt it via poorly chosen initiatives like DEI, the worse it does.
I particularly don’t like multi-proxies because they are far too easy to screw up or manipulate. Error is compounded. When warming peaks, and cooling nadirs don’t line up due to dating inaccuracies it dulls the output like a very cheap hifi speaker with limited dynamic range. Better to take multi-proxies as a data base without cheapening it by averaging it and try to understand why they vary in time and amplitude.
What you need to grasp is everyone of those 900 year temperature excursions exceed that of the industrial age warming. If you want to argue otherwise forget multiproxies show a single proxy that doesn’t have that character and argue for that.
But all you have shown are variations in the industrial age. And Uranus and Neptune only conjunct once every ~175 years. i.e. once during the entire industrial revolution about 13 years ago. the time before that was about 50 years before the start of the industrial age and any semblance of a representative global instrument record. thus the entire premise that it might be a matter of concern that temperatures accelerated 300 years past the Maunder Minimum simply a reflection of your own ignorance in believing without question or science that the cause of the LIA was no longer a matter of concern (i.e. whatever caused the LIA is no longer with us thus warming must be 100% feedback and will diminish with time)
You are so locked into that fiction that you can’t even conceive of anything actually causing warming to occur except for manmade emissions. My suggestion is give some consideration to the possible things that are at work and have not be quantified.
As I pointed out in another post the last time we had Jupiter and Saturn conjunctions occurring in the same area of the sky as in 2000 and 2020 was almost 900 years ago in the 12th and 13th centuries.
Uranus and Neptune with a near orbit ratio very close to 2:1 march around the sky much more slowly. The last time they conjuncted near to where it did in 1993 was around 1600bce.
The proxies show the minoan warm period peaking somewhere between 1700 BCE to 1000 BCE according to Google AI.
You go back 3600 years from 1600bce and you get 5200bce. Google AI has the Holocene climate optimum occurring between 3000bce and 7000bce depending upon which of 100’s of proxies you use. There it is Uranus and Neptune with their once in 3,600 your cycle smack dab in the middle of it all.
With that range of dates I can only imagine how much the peak shrinks averaging all those proxies to one date. And boy oh boy what manipulation is available by cherry picking proxies.
But there is hope here. Even with multi-proxies representing a mean temperature over 4000 years we can still see probably at least 1.5C warming occurring (half of the actual peak warming estimated by multiple proxies) but if you can analyze your way out of a paper shopping bag you can see even then nothing unusual about when the accelerated warming occurred. . .at least for as long as you haven’t identified the actual cause.
I can’t wait to see how Willard waves his arm on this one.
> the last time we had Jupiter and Saturn conjunctions occurring in the same area of the sky as in 2000 and 2020 was almost 900 years ago
Actually Great Conjunctions happen every 20 years or so:
https://cafeastrology.com/aspects/jupiter-conjunct-saturn.html
ROFL!
Nate now resorts to porkers: [What I challenged you on, was why T rise should have accelerated 200 years after the end of the LIA, which better fits the predictions of recent CO2 increases.]
Wrong. As I explained to you long ago, the recent warming is clearly shown to be driven by increases in solar energy. Those increases correlate with cloud changes related to the AMO and Hunga Tonga eruption. Over the same period the strength of the greenhouse effect has remained constant as shown by both NASA CERES data and NOAA radiosonde data.
The LIA based warming simply provides the underlying warming trend. It could be a millennial cycle or many other things. However, since it started long before CO2 increases could have any impact, we know it was natural.
Yes, real science explains all the warming with no need for anything caused by CO2 emissions. In fact, CO2 emissions are clearly not having any effects.
“Wrong. As I explained to you long ago, the recent warming is clearly shown to be driven by increases in solar energy. Those increases correlate with cloud changes related to the AMO and Hunga Tonga eruption.”
And I explained that the data show a short term effect, last 10 y, and to extrapolate that to the last 6 decades aint science!
“Over the same period the strength of the greenhouse effect has remained constant as shown by both NASA CERES data and NOAA radiosonde data.”
Which also has a good explanation. The same reduction in clouds that increases ASR over that decade also increases OLR (a reduction in GHE).
“The LIA based warming simply provides the underlying warming trend. It could be a millennial cycle or many other things. However, since it started long before CO2 increases could have any impact, we know it was natural.”
Again, hasty conclusion. A warming trend must have a cause. Without one, you cannot KNOW it was natural.
The GHE provides a physics derived cause, that accounts for the last century of history, along with known volcanoes and Maunder minimum.
Nate: [And I explained that the data show a short term effect, last 10 y, and to extrapolate that to the last 6 decades aint science!]
No, the data shows a flat greenhouse effect going back at least 8 decades. All you have is denial.
[Which also has a good explanation. The same reduction in clouds that increases ASR over that decade also increases OLR (a reduction in GHE).]
OLR precisely matches a perfectly flat GHE over the entire 25 years of data which also matches the opacity calculations of NOAA radiosonde data going back to 1948. Why do you deny multiple data sources?
[Again, hasty conclusion. A warming trend must have a cause. Without one, you cannot KNOW it was natural.]
The warming trend is about 400 years long. There are only natural causes which go back that far. There are multiple possible causes. They are ALL natural. All you have is denial.
[The GHE provides a physics derived cause, that accounts for the last century of history, along with known volcanoes and Maunder minimum.]
Physics (and multiple data sources) support a flat greenhouse effect which means it cannot have been the cause of any warming.
Nate says:
”Which also has a good explanation. The same reduction in clouds that increases ASR over that decade also increases OLR (a reduction in GHE).”
————–
You need to explain your logic there. If ASR increases OLR is going to increase, but that has nothing at all to do with the GHE unless you demonstrate the physics quantitatively how that happens.
Nate says:
Again, hasty conclusion. A warming trend must have a cause. Without one, you cannot KNOW it was natural.
We know that there to be causes Nate. Both Milankovic effects and solar variation shows a natural warming. Biased observers simply choose to wave it away claiming its not significant without any convincing evidence.
Even the most recent most calibrated measurements in increases in insolation only occurred over a short period of time when the sun was at its most quiet then biased observers simply have extrapolated that over the past 400 years.
Nate says:
”The GHE provides a physics derived cause, that accounts for the last century of history, along with known volcanoes and Maunder minimum.”
Both Milankovic and solar variation processes both have better physics derived bonafides. Its pretty hard to ignore an actual measurable effect. . .the only thing lacking is political and intellectual honesty and getting on with some major super computer time for the Milankovic effects.
For the solar effects there has been minimal calibrated quantification and the importance of it is unknown as long as the feedback multiplier is unknown. But having some measured quantified effect puts it maybe an order of magnitude greater than where quantification of CO2 effects are at.
Richard,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742799
Correction:
Should say:
“First, there is no logic to assert that the warming must be either all natural or all human-caused.”
Richard,
Your biases lead you you claim ALL of the GW is caused by increased solar absorption and extrapolate it beyond the time period the avalable data.
Real science is only allowed to reach conclusions that the data can support.
The CERES data only suppot the conclusion that much of the increased rate of warming observed over a limited time, last decade, can be attibuted to increased absorbed solar.
Nate, once it’s obvious there’s been no increase in the greenhouse effect, the only other source of warming turns out to be solar. Given the cloud reduction correlates with the warming as well, it’s pretty obvious what has been happening.
The CERES data also agrees with the NOAA radiosonde data as reported in Miskolczi 2010. The constant greenhouse effect goes all the way back to 1948 and overlaps with the early CERES data.
It also helps to understand the physics.
> once it’s obvious there’s been no increase in the greenhouse effect
1. It’s not that obvious.
2. You forget to say since when.
3. The only Climateball player who worked for real on this got a 0.4% over the period of record.
4. He also got big uncertainty bars.
5. The lack of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
6. The same argument should apply to EEI itself.
7. Willis’ ratio only adds confusion.
8. That confusion fosters contrarian conflation between energy and temperature.
9. It also conflates imbalance with acceleration.
10. Smile, you’re on camera:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/a-reflection-on-reflection/
“The constant greenhouse effect goes all the way back to 1948 and overlaps with the early CERES data.”
How do you know that? Source for that fact please.
Typical denial from the climate cult. These folks are the new Millerites. As I’ve said many times before, the only thing that will stop climate cultists from their deeply held faith in their climate priests, is significant cooling. Even then, they will never admit their error, they will just fade away.
Here’s a couple of examples clearly showing they are just skimming my comments.
Willard : “You forget to say since when.”
RM previously: “all the way back to 1948”
Nate: “source that fact”
RM previously: “Miskolczi 2010”
RM keeps digging:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/
Perhaps RM should stick to program emulation instead of contrarian emulation?
Willard is referencing a sermon from his priests yet again. Of course, the sermon is not based on anything but opinion. It has no real science behind it.
Compare that to the ultra simple analysis from Willis. Willis made no assumptions, he simply did greenhouse effect strength calculations using CERES data. Even Willis admitted he was surprised by the result.
Once again, the data does not lie. Denial is all we will see from Willard.
RM keeps digging.
He’s asked to state when CERES data starts. This is after all the topic of the single blog post he cited so far, at Tony’s. Instead of saying the 2000’s, he mentions the 40s. Then he pays lip service to Ferenc, whom he forgets to cite. Yet he seems to forget that Ferenc proposed a “radiative exchange equilibrium law” according to which Willis’ ratio should not even be possible. And now he dismisses research that shows why Ferenc’s theory doesn’t even cohere with his own data by returning to Step One – Pure Denial.
RM’s switcheroo is complete. He presented himself as a vanilla contrarian like Willis. Now we know he is in fact a crank like Ferenc.
Perhaps RM should stick to patent trolling. We need better contrarians. We don’t need more cranks.
As usual, Willard’s comment is full of outright lies. It’s all he has.
“Then he pays lip service to Ferenc, whom he forgets to cite. Yet he seems to forget that Ferenc proposed a “radiative exchange equilibrium law” according to which Willis’ ratio should not even be possible. ”
I didn’t “forget to cite”, I specifically referred to Miskolczi 2010.
There was no “radiation exchange equilibrium law” proposed in his 2010 paper.
Hence your claim that has anything to do with Willis is yet another lie.
Yawn. You do realize all those lies demonstrate you can’t refute anything I have stated.
RM keeps digging.
He still has not linked to his pet paper, a paper he probably hasn’t read:
Op. Cit. See also:
This does not cohere with Willis’ results.
To “refer” is good. To cite is better. Perhaps our crank should link to his pet paper. For an old discussion on Ferenc’s crap, see:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/
Alternative, RM could return to his coding stuff.
Willard just won’t do the work. From Miskolczi 2010:
“It will be convenient here to DEFINE the term radiative
exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning …”
Do you see the word “law”? I don’t. What Miskolczi is doing is defining an equilibrium situation. Not something that has to be satisfied all the time. Maybe you should have read the paper. LOL.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
Next, as your own quote specifies, “That the three global average optical thicknesses lie close to 1.87 is an indication that the global average atmosphere has a preference in setting its infrared optical properties.”
All this is saying is the greenhouse effect is constant across all 60+ years of NOAA radiosonde data (1948-2008).
Naturally, this is exactly what Willis also found looking at the CERES energy data. Two different types of data which show the exact same result.
RM keeps digging:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
Besides, from his pet paper:
RM is losing his chips one by one.
If only Willard would have continued reading …
“Figure 5. Violation of the radiative exchange equilibrium law …”
Like I said before, this is simply an equilibrium situation which means it will average out very close. Not a law in the sense that it always holds as I already informed you.
You do realize all the negative comments were related to this situation always holding, right?
RM keeps digging:
[RM, QUOTING HIS PET GURU] “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, or what your name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”
[ALSO RM, QUOTING HIS PET CRANK] “Violation of the radiative exchange equilibrium law”
So RM is losing another chip. Will he continue?
Richard,
First off, Miskolczi 2010 is a theory, not observational evidence.
Anybody can have a theory. The trick is to find the evidence to test and verify. or falsify, the theory.
And it is rather speculative theory.
Here is a refutation of it by some knowledgeable people:
https://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_20100927.pdf
“Miskolczi (2007 and 2010) uses complex radiative transfer calculations on 228 measured atmospheric profiles of temperature and greenhouse gases to theorize ‘physical rules’ for the
Earth’s energy balance. He deduces a ‘radiative exchange equilibrium law’, stating that on average the downward thermal infrared flux at the Earth’s surface (Ed) and the absorbed
infrared radiation within the atmosphere (Aa) are equal.
Miskolczi, shows that his law implies that the Earth’s atmosphere should have a constant infrared optical thickness. Therefore,
when carbon dioxide concentrations increase, other greenhouse gases should decrease to compensate. He then performs additional radiative calculations to suggest that observations since 1950 show that this is happening.
We firstly indentify problems with Miskolczi’s theory and calculations and then show that infact observations do not support his theory. It should be emphasized that we do not criticize
radiative transfer models since they are based on fundamental well understood physics andhave been applied in many fields of science, e.g. astronomy. Similar calculations have been
routinely performed in atmospheric physics and climate studies using radiative models of similar complexity and these agree very well with observations.”
Willard proves once again he has little understanding of basic science. Now that it has been established that REE is not a law as he was trying to use that term, he has nothing to add.
BTW, REE is a direct result of Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.
Nate now tries to claim the ramblings of his climate priests are meaningful to the discussion. They are irrelevancies. That’s why there isn’t any peer reviewed paper that refutes Miskolczi’s work.
Keep in mind there are two parts to Miskolczi’s work. The first is the analysis of the NOAA data. The second is his theory for why the GHE remains constant over time. The theory is irrelevant to the discussion of whether this data shows the GHE has been constant since 1948.
That means you will need to present a peer reviewed paper showing Miskolczi’s analysis is wrong. I won’t hold my breath.
It turns out van Dorland and Forster agree that the data fits a very tight value of 1.867. They claim this supports greenhouse theory which is fine, no one arguing that there’s not a greenhouse effect. They then claim it must be wrong because no theory as to why this occurs has been presented.
“but no clear physical reason is stated why should it be fixed and nothing in his observations suggests it should be. ”
Say what? It’s just observations. No one needs a reason to document reality.
And, it is clear the observations are not “nothing”. It is the observations themselves which “suggests” the value is a constant.
As you can see, this article does absolutely nothing to refute the constant greenhouse effect concept. Now that we have the CERES data, there should no longer be any doubt among real scientists. The odds that two completely different methods of computing the strength of the greenhouse effect would generate exactly the same result are vanishingly small.
RM keeps digging:
[RM] That’s why there isn’t any peer reviewed paper that refutes Miskolczi’s work.
[ALSO RM] https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
RM is a tool that keeps on digging.
“That means you will need to present a peer reviewed paper showing Miskolczi’s analysis is wrong. I won’t hold my breath.”
False. His paper is a theory, not itself evidence or a fact.
There are many ‘crank’ theories that are out there ‘published’ in some predatory journal with weak or non-existent peer review.
They don’t all deserve or require publications to rebut them. It is not very typical to publish a paper in a respectable journal simply to rebut a theory in a crappy journal.
Some journals allow comments, however.
Theories such as this are only valuable if they are validated by experiment or observation.
Nate keeps us entertained.
“His paper is a theory, not itself evidence or a fact.”
You should try reading the paper. Miskolczi analyzes the TIGR2 radiosonde data computing opacity over time (1948 – 2008). That’s where he came up with 1.867 (see figure 7). The number did not change over time.
It’s similar to the work Willis did. He computed the energy ratio between the temperature and solar. It turned out to be 1.652. His number was also constant over time.
So you see, both papers are based on scientific data.
RM keeps digging:
Let’s see if he’ll dismiss this as a sermon from a religious zealot.
Perhaps he could keep digging and tell us how this is “similar” to Willis’ ratio?
Oh, and why not:
[FERENC] For two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.
[RM] REE is a direct result of Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.
[ROY] Kirchoff originally demonstrated his law with two plates in isolation, in a vacuum, with no other sources of energy from their surroundings… [Ferenc] has done away with two caveats regarding his 2 bodies, A and B, that Kirchoff included: (1) energy equilibrium between two bodies, and (2) the bodies are isolated (no energy exchanges) from their environment. These conditions are not satisfied either at the Earth’s surface or in the atmosphere.
RM might wish to keep digging, but sooner or later one has to wash one’s hands over Sky Dragon cranks’ ineptitude.
Richard,
There has been lots of observations of increased atmospheric water vapor, as the it should do when the atmosphere and surface warms.
Even the CERES data show this is happening over the period 2000-2021.
And lots of people, including Roy Spencer, have pointed out the mistakes made by Miscolczi.
So why arent you skeptical of claims that water vapor has been constant?
One obscure paper is insufficient to make the case that thousands of others must have gotten it wrong.
That would be an extraordinary claim, which for scientists, rightly requires extraordinary evidence.
But those seeking confirmation of their biases will view it as ‘the one true paper’ to rule them all, and ignore all the flaws found in it by people who know what they are talking about.
Nate now gets into some of the key physics (without realizing it).
“There has been lots of observations of increased atmospheric water vapor, as the it should do when the atmosphere and surface warms.
Even the CERES data show this is happening over the period 2000-2021.
And lots of people, including Roy Spencer, have pointed out the mistakes made by Miscolczi.
So why arent you skeptical of claims that water vapor has been constant?”
There are no claims that water vapor “has been constant”. Water vapor has been increasing from both warming and CO2 increases.
What happens is increases in low altitude water vapor increases convective currents mainly in the Tropics. This drives the associated molecules higher into the upper atmosphere where it is colder. Colder air causes increased condensation which lowers residual high altitude water vapor.
Turns out is exactly placed where water vapor is no longer saturated like it is lower in the atmosphere. Since this lower residual water vapor is mainly created in the Tropics, it then gets carried by the Hadley circulation to higher latitudes.
This is what Miskolczi found out in his analysis. This physics was also explained years ago by Dr. William Gray.
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
“But those seeking confirmation of their biases …”
I love the projection.
PS. Funny how you cherry pick the views from Dr. Spencer you want to believe. Turns out Dr. Spencer has been right on many things, this just wasn’t one of them.
Richard,
Maybe Willard or Nate could tell us why the moist lapse rate is more isothermal than the dry lapse rate?
Below normal here in the Vancouver, Canada area. After a mild winter, spring has proved to be quite cool.
And the point of your post is what, exactly?
Even if you accept that CO2 is, in part at least, responsible for some of the rise in temperatures since we came out of the Little Ice Age, the idea that this rise in temperatures seems to be responsible for every piece of bad weather – whether it’s heat waves, storms, droughts and floods is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. We don’t have any such evidence. Instead we have models and “attribution studies”.
And given CO2, fundamental to photosynthesis, is greening the planet, 9 times as many people die from the cold than the heat and we find no evidence that rising sea levels is impacting anywhere – even the Maldives and South Pacific islands – attempting to curtail co2 emissions on this lack of evidence of harm is wrong.
Any reasonable person looking at the data would conclude that CO2 ‘most probably’ has little to no bearing on global temperatures due to saturation alone, never mind if there even is a greenhouse effect (due to heat rising up through the tropo by convection rather than radiation).
Reduced global cloud cover (which is certain, not a model) accounts for 80% of the observed warming and 100% of the trend. Alas, politics (money & power) grabbed hold of the climate debate many years ago, and when money & power gets anything, it doesn’t let go. Then you have people added into the mix who really do think that models are data. ‘Science’ is in a terrible mess – believing things that are not there (like dark matter/energy).
The deluded won’t admit to anything until the world cools between 2030-2035 due to solar cycle 26 and a cooling AMO. They will move onto something else, like microplastics, or radio waves, or aliens.
“Even if you accept that CO2 is, in part at least, responsible for some of the rise in temperatures since we came out of the Little Ice Age, the idea that this rise in temperatures seems to be responsible for every piece of bad weather – whether it’s heat waves, storms, droughts and floods is an extraordinary claim. “
Actually, the extraordinary claim is YOUR claim here. No one claims that every piece of bad weather is due to CO2. This is a strawman, pure and simple.
I *do* completely agree that we need a balanced, reasonable approach to CO2 and warming. Although once again, your list of only ‘benefits’ from warming and not problems is not a fair look at the totality of what is happening.
Tim,
Balanced and reasonable would be recognizing classical science. What’s so extraordinary about what Buzz is saying? If there were no GHG in the atmosphere, what would be the temperatures at the surface and at TOA?
“If there were no GHG in the atmosphere …”
This is a classic, familiar, ill-defined “gotcha” question.
If there were no GHGs, there would be no CO2, so no plants, changing the surface albedo. If there were no GHGs, there would be no water, so no oceans. So no icecaps. So no clouds. If there were no GHGs, the atmosphere would be thinner.
Any one of these changes would impact climate in major ways. As a whole, they make predicting the climate impossible. It’s a silly, unanswerable request.
“What’s so extraordinary about what Buzz is saying?”
let me quote myself. No one claims that every piece of bad weather is due to CO2. This is a strawman, pure and simple.
There’s nothing really extraordinary about what Buzz is saying, as far as troglodytes and cranks alike are concerned.
What if I told you that more warming brought more cover, not less?
Then that would be a lie, Willard. We are fairly sure there has been a little warming, and we know that SHOULD cause more ocean evaporation which leads to more clouds. Except we have observed that there are LESS clouds…which leads to one of two conclusions: There hasn’t been the warming that we think or that something else, like cosmic rays, is influencing cloud formation (and reducing it).
TimF,
Attribution studies claim that all had weather events are driven by climate change. You “forgetting” doesn’t mean the claim haven’t been made repeatedly.
You want “balanced, reasonable approach to CO2 and warming”.
The stance should be be to ask how much warming/cooling is there,and how to accurately measure any discrepancies. Then and only then, should the next stage be to test how and what could be causing the effects.
Sadly the premise has been to start with CO2 and downplay all other effects. Pure laziness! Pure politics!
“Attribution studies claim that all had weather events are driven by climate change.”
What absolute, unmitigated BS.
All it would take to retrieve your credibility is to provide even one study saying “ALL bad weather events” are due to climate change.
Instead, we’ll get more waffle, which will serve well, with every subsequent post, to confirm that statement is mindless garbage.
Barry,
All it would take to retrieve your credibility is to provide even one study saying that one weather disaster was not due to climate change.
There may be even more than one, but the msm certainly hasn’t reported on it to my knowledge. Don’t mind being corrected by provable facts.
A “reasonable approach to CO2 and warming” exists through an understanding of basic physics i.e., radiative physics and thermodynamics — CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm Earth.
Anon opines: “Attribution studies claim that all [b]ad weather events are driven by climate change.”
And yet you don’t provide even one link to one ‘attribution study’ making such a claim.
We can simply ask AI, which shoots down this claim.
“Attribution studies do not claim all bad weather is driven by climate change, but they do indicate that a significant and growing portion of extreme events—approximately 70%—have been made more likely or intense by human-induced climate change. These studies, often conducted by World Weather Attribution, examine specific heatwaves, floods, and droughts, identifying how climate change increased their severity.
Growing Evidence: While many weather events would still occur naturally, attribution science calculates that human-driven climate change has amplified the risks.
Heatwave Strong Correlation: About 92% of extreme heat attribution studies found that climate change made them more likely or severe.
Varied Impact: The influence of climate change is highly evident in temperature extremes but can be more mixed or harder to detect in some, though not all, drought and storm studies.
Methodology: Researchers run climate models under two scenarios—a “counterfactual” world without human influence and the actual world with rising emissions—to determine the difference in the event’s likelihood.
While some studies find no significant link to climate change for specific events, the vast majority of analyzed extreme events are now being linked to global warming.”
So a more correct claim would be that attribution studies claim that
allmanybadextreme weather events aredriven byintensified by climate change.Anon for Q-related reasons,
All it would take you to regain any footing as a valid interlocutor would be to stop reversing the burden of proof.
You made a gratuitious assertion. You back it up.
Alternatively, you could always post old Sun graphs.
“CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm Earth”
Talk about flogging a dead horse!
Give it a rest.
Tim F,
Using LLMs to try and prove a point isn’t impressive, it’s poor judgement on your behalf as you obviously do not understand what LLMs are.
Whenever there has been a weather disaster, aka bad weather, there are attribution studies, completed in record time to prove it’s mankind fault. This has been has been pushed by the MSM for years. Where is the last attribution study that said that a particular occasion was not due to many made climate change. I’m not talking about an author hedging or ambiguous comment by an author I am talking about actually specific research.
It’s highly amusing that you and Barry have ignored the more relevant part of my comment. It seems you think it’s more important to win a minor argument than the whole argument about climate change. Btw being English I tend to understated, it’s a cultural thing.
Anon for Q-related reasons, you might like:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02724
Something tells me you’re just saying stuff once more.
“Btw being English I tend to understated, it’s a cultural thing.”
Wanker.
Where is that study, then? Or do you think we missed you trying to shift the burden of proof? And then the goalposts. Sliding from attribution studies to MSM, are you? Were you overlooked when they were doling out that British perspicacity.
“If you cannot say what you mean, your majesty, you will never mean what you say, and a gentleman should always mean what he says.”
Do try to avoid mindless blather, old sot. It ill-becomes you.
Barry,
You do seem to a tad bit disproportionate in your response. Cant argue the substance,never mind
Tim Folkerts says:
”I *do* completely agree that we need a balanced, reasonable approach to CO2 and warming. Although once again, your list of only ‘benefits’ from warming and not problems is not a fair look at the totality of what is happening.”
Then you would agree that the moniker ”extreme events” is improperly stated when you only include certain ”extreme events” and exclude the most deadly of them all ”extreme cold” events like ”blizzards”, ”crop failures due to freezes” and such. Right?
After all it is believed the Anasazi native american culture of the southwest was destroyed by drought around the peak or shortly thereafter of the MWP. Anasazi culture in the 4 corners region began flourishing in 750ad peaking around 1200ad and then declining and migrating south over the next 100 years until construction stopped on the cliff dwellings in the region. That cycle likely did not repeat due to the European contact in the 16th century. FYI that mirrors roughly the story of the Vikings in Greenland as well. Not only that but we are due for such a peak this century and coincides with the 840-900 year compass circumnavigation of jupiter and saturn which for half a cycle favors orbit perturbation of the same geometry as maximum orbit perturbations that led to the discovery of Neptune.
> Except we have observed that there are LESS clouds…
To suggest that all losing cloud cover is because there’s less water in the atmosphere would indeed be a lie, Buzz, as a decline in atmospheric pollution kinda matters on the most populated hemisphere. And don’t forget that this leads to less albedo, something that even aborrent clear-cutting can’t compensate.
Two other anthropogenic sources warming, incidentally!
Willard says:
”Two other anthropogenic sources warming, incidentally!”
As Willard deeply ponders how to get rid of the source of anthropogenic warming. Most likely those thoughts hit a peak intensity during rush hour traffic.
“Using LLMs to try and prove a point isn’t impressive, it’s poor judgement on your behalf as you obviously do not understand what LLMs are.”
I was showing that your statement was easily show to be false. I could also have linked to the original research like here: https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/climate-change-attribution
“Whenever there has been a weather disaster, aka bad weather, there are attribution studies, completed in record time to prove it’s mankind fault.”
Simple “bad weather” is not the same as “weather disaster” or “extreme weather. Conflating them shows sloppiness.
“Where is the last attribution study that said that a particular occasion was not due to many made climate change. ”
So you are saying you don’t know the research, but you are sure it is bad. In just a couple minutes I found results you are sure don’t exist.
2023 Central Vietnam Heavy Rainfall Researchers found that while the rain was extreme, there was no clear trend or evidence that climate change had increased its intensity.
2022 Southeastern Brazil Floods Analysis showed the extreme rainfall was driven primarily by natural internal variability of the climate system.
Anon states: “It’s highly amusing that you and Barry have ignored the more relevant part of my comment. ”
I started with your first comment, and showed it was clearly false.
We could address other part. Presumable this is the ‘more relevant’ you are concerned about:
“Sadly the premise has been to start with CO2 and downplay all other effects. Pure laziness! Pure politics!”
I suggest this claim is “Pure laziness!” on your part. Science doesn’t do this (even if some new stories lean this way). You could do a little legwork on your own. You could ask AI — and yes, LLMs have their limitations, but they also give quick, fairly thorough answers, complete with links and references. Here is the start and end of a query, with many details in between left out.
QUESTION: “In the context of climate change, address the claim “Sadly the premise has been to start with CO2 and downplay all other effects. Pure laziness! Pure politics!”
INTRO: “The claim that climate science “starts with CO2″ and ignores other factors is a common critique, but it actually runs counter to how modern climate modeling and attribution studies function. In reality, the scientific process is designed to be exclusionary—meaning researchers must mathematically rule out natural factors before they can point the finger at greenhouse gases.”
SUMMARY: “The idea that science ignores “other effects” is a misunderstanding of the methodology. Attribution science is specifically built to measure those other effects (like solar cycles and clouds) to see if they can explain the current trend. So far, the math shows that while natural factors are still “at the table,” human-emitted CO2 has become the “lead conductor” of the orchestra.”
TimF,
What a simplistic way of thinking you have when you wrote “Simple “bad weather” is not the same as “weather disaster” or “extreme weather. Conflating them shows sloppiness.”
Doesn’t show sloppiness, it’s shows recognition that different people will have different views of the same incident. Some will see a yearly hurricane as the usual bad weather that sadly destroys people, animals and properties. Other, guessing you are one of those, who will see it as an extreme event. So does the IPCC, not known for it’s lack of bias, publish any technical data saying that there is an increase in hurricanes?
How inflated a view you must have of your self, that you can never see someone else’s point of view.
TimF,
That you for finding a couple of attribution studies that don’t push the extremists views. I will get round to reading them to see if they remain true to science.
On the other note as bout the LLMs, you haven’t a clue about their workings
“TimF,
That you for finding a couple of attribution studies that don’t push the extremists views.”
Let’s review what you said.
“Attribution studies claim that all had weather events are driven by climate change.”
That’s plural “studies,” of these alleged extremist views. I asked you for just one study. And I said that instead of providing that you would blather on, proving that your quoted comment here was pure, unmitigated BS.
You have behaved exactly as predicted. Not even one study cited. But you kept talking.
Tim,
I know this is difficult for you but suppose CO2 or water were not green house gases, humor me. What would be the temperatures at the surface and the TOA?
“suppose CO2 or water were not green house gases, humor me. ”
Well … making the HUGE assumptions of
a) ‘everything else being the same’
b) magically making the atmosphere transparent to IR
then the surface would be ~ 255 K.
The temperature would be warmer than 255K on the dayside and cooler than 255K on the night side, which would have the effect of lowering the average temp below 255K. OTOH, the surface has emissivity < 1, which has the effect of raising the temperature above 255 K.
I don't know off-hand which would 'win', but 255 K is not a bad estimate.
Really? So there would be no lapse rate?
Tim,
That is an extraordinary claim that the lapse rate disappears if there is no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Did you study classical science?
It’s been T shirt and shorts weather since January here in Los Angeles. Unusually warm since the beginning of the year,, just like all of the western U.S.
So what’s going on in the US?
+3.74!
I could recycle my comment from last month and then Nate would make a fool of himself again. I am still waiting for a “consensus” agreement to explain the last 3 years. For now, the cooling, yes cooling, seems to continue. Until next month…
When it has been cooler after a warm year many times over in the UAH record (not to mention the longer term temp records), the wonder is why you attach any significance to what is normal after an el Nino. The same string of words could be put together 3 years after 2020, 2016, 2010, 1998 etc etc etc.
“For now, the cooling, yes cooling, seems to continue”
That riff has been recycled for the 20 years that I’ve followed the popular conversation. Guess what?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2007/plot/uah6/from:2007/trend
Along with record breaking anomalies over the US, the lower stratosphere had a near record cold anomaly over the USA48. Second coldest monthly anomaly for all months, and the coldest March by a long way.
Coldest Lower Stratosphere for March over USA48:
Year Anomaly
1 2026 -3.28
2 1999 -1.56
3 2012 -1.53
4 2017 -1.37
5 2006 -1.26
6 2019 -1.06
7 2021 -1.06
8 1989 -0.99
9 1987 -0.95
10 2008 -0.84
11 2009 -0.84
Evaporation does two things simultaneously:
Removes energy from the surface (latent heat of vaporization ≈ 2.5 MJ/kg) and exports that energy upward where it is released upon condensation. As a result, SST increases are muted relative to land.
Land: +0.22°C/decade
Ocean: +0.13°C/decade
Ratio ≈ 1.7×, is expected from the latent‑heat dominance over oceans.
Looking at the gridded data. and it’s noticable how cold Canada is. Almost like a mirror image of the US. It would be interesting to see what the average of the two is, and if Canada had a record low this month.
Is there enough months yet to declare a new Monckton Pause?
It seems should wait until downward trend is twice duration of upward, so wait a few months.
It’s a vibe thing, and the excitement grows with each month that extends the ‘pause’. Best of all, you get to have the experience over and over after each new record-breaking high.
Record breaking high Barry? your easily led, would these ring true using the technology of only a decade ago, I am not saying they are wrong but if your going to move the goal posts as our MET office has , with equipment that records spikes, then you have to begin your dataset and record keeping from scratch and ignore any past recordings, I have been using the system for over 40 years and I have recorded no spikes during that period,winter average temperatures are a little higher between .5 and 1c warmer ,but summer temperatures have barely blinked.
Oh great, the owner of this blog, Roy Spencer compiles the UAH lower tropospheric temperature record, which is what we’re basing out chat on. See the graph at the top of this page. You should definitely share your insights with him.
The earliest pause update I am aware of spans just 5 years and 4 months:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/14/a-new-pause/
If past behavior is any guide, it likely will not be long before another update appears.
You should know, however, that such short periods lack statistical robustness.
For example, fitting a linear trend to Sep 2015 – Dec 2020 (the timeframe analyzed in the linked blog post) yields a 95% confidence interval of approximately −2.8 to +2.1 C/century.
In other words, the slope is highly uncertain. And this is a bit ironic given Monckton’s ties to climate skeptic organizations that lean on uncertainty in their arguments:
https://www.desmog.com/christopher-monckton/
sam shicks…”Evaporation does two things simultaneously:
Removes energy from the surface (latent heat of vaporization ≈ 2.5 MJ/kg) and exports that energy upward where it is released upon condensation. As a result, SST increases are muted relative to land”.
***
I get your point, Sam, but we must keep in mind that water vapour is a trace gas like CO2, albeit far more significant. When it comes to transporting heat from the surface higher into the atmosphere, it is the majority gases like nitrogen and oxygen that do the bulk of the convection since combined they make up 99% of the transporting gases.
Much ado about nothing has been made by climate alarmists about the effect of CO2 and WV, which have been over-hyped due to the alarmist perspective based on the ability of those gases to absorb infrared energy. The presumption is that radiation plays a key role in cooling the surface and transporting heat away from it. That is simply not true.
In the energy budget diagrams, radiation is given the key role of transporting heat while heat transfer via convection has been minimized. Shula has offered a study using the Pirani gauge which clearly demonstrates that convection is 260 times for efficient at dissipating heat from a surface than radiation.
The Pirani gauge was invented in the early 1900s to test vacuums. A heated filament is inserted into a sealed glass tube that can allow air to be extracted. The loss of energy (heat) between the case where the glass tube is evacuated and when it is filled with a gas demonstrates the difference between how much the filament cools in a vacuum (radiation alone) and how much it cools with a gas touching it (via convection and conduction).
Air alone touching a surface has something like 10^28 molecules per square metre touching the surface and each molecule is capable of collecting heat via direct conduction from the surface and removing a molecule’s worth of heat from the surface. Naturally, the molecule becomes excited and rises and is replace by a cooler molecule. The cycle repeats.
Shula determined that heat dissipation via direct conduction and convection is 260 times more effective at cooling the surface than radiation. The amount of heat removed by WV or CO2 is directly proportional to their mass percent.
Gordon,
Yet at some point all heat loss from the planet is via radiation. Other than the loss of helium nothing is conducted or convected away from the planet. I understand at ground level the majority of heat loss may not necessarily be by radiation. Even the UK met office, a constant source of junk data, wants air temperature to be recorded at 1.2 m above the ground and away from exhaust gases and water. But they also want the air temperature to be recorded behind a screen to prevent radiation effects.
> Water vapour is a trace gas like CO2, albeit far more significant.
If a trace gas can be significant, cranks might have a hard time relying on “but trace gas”:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas#significant
Thank you for that one.
CO2 is doomed to wear that moniker until such time that the scientific community can figure out how the climate system actually works.
Gill fails to distinguish the “fact” that CO2 is a trace gas with the contrarian “argument” (being charitable) that because CO2 is a trace gas, something something:
From Gill’s best buddy.
LOL!
The classic riposte is to invite the rhetoricist to inject arsenic at 0.01% of their blood’s volume into their vein and report back. It’s only a trace amount.
A few parts per million increase of mercury in your system will kill you, too, as will arsine gas at just 30 ppm.
For a safer, more intuitive experiment, fill a clear vessel with a litre of water and then add 100 milligrams (equal to 100ppm) of dark blue dye. Stir and notice the very obvious spectral change.
Skeptics are prone to saying one example disproves blah blah blah. Any of the above experiments will scotch the notion that “trace amounts” can’t produce significant change.
Your tap water most likely does have a trace amount in it and AFAIK none would be a lot better.
As far as the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, none would be a catastrophe beyond comprehension.
I also believe that for the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere there is no reasonable argument that it would better if it were lower. It increases crop yields while making plant growth more water efficient.
If it has been the cause of any warming it has contributed to fewer deaths from the more dangerous cold conditions of the past 500 years. All good stuff heretosofar.
barry says:
”Skeptics are prone to saying one example disproves blah blah blah. Any of the above experiments will scotch the notion that “trace amounts” can’t produce significant change.”
For a split second one might mistakenly thought that Barry has some actual skepticism coursing through his veins.
But its actually just blind loyalty. To be less King-like its usually best to establish first what a dangerous value is before trying to take people’s freedom and standard of living away.
All you guys do is advertise your weaknesses as strengths and your opponents strength as a weakness. . .Madison Avenue 101.
> It increases crop yields
Gill switches to next door:
https://climateball.net/but-life#plant-food
Which leads to similar absurdities, e.g. water is essential to life, therefore Gill could live under water.
And by “under water”, I’m not talking about his actual crypto portfolio…
LOL!
Willard says:
”Which leads to similar absurdities, e.g. water is essential to life, therefore Gill could live under water.
And by “under water”, I’m not talking about his actual crypto portfolio…
LOL!”
Under water? Yep yet another over the top prediction that hasn’t panned out.
Gill plays dumb once again. BTC has retreated roughly 45–50% from its 2025 highs. It’s even worse for alts.
As for his latest squirrel:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64619-0
qltm
One way to prove that a person is ignorant about basic science would be to confuse poisoning in biology with trace radiant gases in thermodynamics. Congratulations barry!
That retort is so dim, Tim, that a pithier remark than this would be giving it too much credit.
Pro tip – understand the point before you vomit words. You’ll appear less of an ass.
One way to prove that Very Serious contrarians are not that serious is when they refuse to follow a simple reductio.
Fifteen years ago I had never heard of the Polar Vortex. Since then, I’ve been trying to learn about it, but there isn’t much info out there. And since the PV is associated with climate/weather, what info is there often is somewhere between “confused” and “inaccurate”. So, here are the basics, for anyone interested:
1. The Polar Vortex is a large low-pressure system, think hurricane, that establishes itself about 8-30 miles above the surface, extending into the stratosphere. A healthy PV has a well established “eye”, with winds moving counter-clockwise around it at the North Pole, and clockwise at the South Pole.
2. There is only one Polar Vortex, but it “moves” between the poles with the change of seasons (positions in Earth’s orbit). In NH winter, the PV is at the North Pole. In NH summer, the PV re-establishes itself at the South Pole. Or, the PV appears in the respective hemisphere’s winter season.
3. The PV can be strong, weak, or non-existent. When strong, the circulating winds can reach speeds close to 300 mph, and the “eye” is well defined and forms an almost perfect circle. When weak, the eye looks as if it is being pinched inward, forming a “peanut” shape.
4. As with any low-pressure vortex, within the eye, the air is moving up. The vortex is “vacuuming” air from near the surface and moving it directly to the stratosphere. That effect is a major cooling mechanism for the planet.
5. The PV is associated with a “Sudden Stratosphere Warming” (SSW) event, which is a disruption to the PV. The prevailing theory as to the cause of PV disruptions is a blocking of Rossby waves. But any change in upper level winds can cause a PV disruption.
Well, that’s enough for an “intro” to Polar Vortex. To follow the graphical representations:
* Go to the website, https://earth.nullschool.net
* At bottom left of screen, click on “earth”.
* In the pop-up window, find “Height”, click on “10 hPa”.
* Close pop-up window by clicking on “earth”.
* Move cursor to bottom of Earth globe. Click and drag up to see South Pole. The circular formation is the Polar Vortex.
Just to add that there are also tropospheric polar vortices, and they are perennial, though the Antarctic trop vortex is more stable than the Arctic.
barry and Nate…you seriously think I’m going to let you get away with not conceding this point?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1740116
You are unwell. I’m sorry to have enabled this.
I’m fine, barry. You just don’t get my sense of humour.
Look, you’ve already conceded the main point, you’re just holding out on the “regardless of the starting temperature…” line, for no valid reason.
I’ll just fill people in on the details. It’s about this:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
Basically, if you run the Green Plate Effect thought experiment without the “back-radiation” transfer (the transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue Plate) but with all the other transfers present, the plate temperature equilibrate at 244 K…244 K. Whereas, according to Eli’s solution, with the “back-radiation” transfer in place, the plate temperatures supposedly equilibrate at 262 K…220 K.
That means the “back-radiation” transfer is 100% responsible for the BP (Blue Plate) gaining 18 K and the GP (Green Plate) losing 24 K. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is building up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
All fairly straightforward…but, for some reason, barry and Nate won’t concede that point! Well, Nate won’t concede any of it, whereas barry can accept the idea so long as the GP is introduced at 244 K, but doesn’t accept it when the GP is introduced at a lower temperature than 220 K.
Time to put your toy plates away and go to bed.
Yes, Eli should indeed.
With the argument settled in my favour, there’s little to do but watch the desperate comments roll in. Thanks for starting that process.
The neocons who invaded Iraq were ideologues, but at least they tried to make a case. At least they had some idea of their responsibility to the nation to justify a war of choice.
Not only have the Trump team treated their own citizenry with contempt in this, the level of incompetence both justifying and prosecuting the Iran war beggars belief. The US military is orders of magnitude more powerful than Iran’s, and if you believe Trump the war is over and Iran decimated. But the global economy (and America’s) remains at the mercy of Iran’s control of a narrow strait.
Trump makes W Bush look like a Rhodes scholar. The profane Easter post was only the most obvious of his many depravities. To think we’d ever see a US president threatening war crimes like a banana republic warlord. The man will forever be a festering wound on US political history.
Unbelievably, he still has, after the latest disgusting display on top of an unjustified war, people who unreservedly support him.
Barry,
So you think that Iran human rights is better than USAs. You views wouldn’t be welcome on Iran or Gaza.
With your warped and totally unrealistic view on climate change why aren’t you cheering from the rafters about crude oil not being burnt and causing unfold suffering to generations not yet born.
Anon for a reason,
[“So you think that Iran human rights is better than USAs.”]
If the main goal of the conflict were to improve human rights in Iran, wouldn’t a failed U.S. attempt to overthrow the regime risk making its leaders more paranoid, thus pushing them to hold onto their uranium stockpiles and intensify internal repression even further?
Are you one of the outrageously stupid people who still support Trump, or are you dim for another reason?
Kynqora,
So far it hasn’t failed. Trump might have been relying on the local population to rise up and displace the authoritarian regime in Iran. It’s not as if they haven’t had the reason to with all the murders and brutality the Iranian government has resorted to over the years.
I live in the UK so don’t vote in American elections and can view what is happening in the USA with a certain amount of unbiased detachment. I certainly don’t rely on CNN for news, nor Fox. Citizen reporting is more interesting, said news aggregators.
btw in the uk we have a spineless tool of a leader who is destroying everything. And yes the UK is a target for Iranians ire no matter what we do. So in that respect I don’t understand why the UK doesn’t help USA.
Barry,
Never agree with anyone 100℅, why should I?
A person’s actions speak louder than words. So in that regard look at Trumps record in overturning discrimination, giving rights to women in prison, protecting women, enforcing the constitution,….. He understands biology, where you dont.
The democrats were horrendous for helping people, they just caused more division. The democrats used to hate open borders,until they realised that they could have more seats due to the number of people in a state, rather than the number of citizens.
You seem to be blind to the actual data and facts. Understandable as you struggle with science and critical thinking. You are on par with Willard.
How lucky is the United States that every time they look for democracy in other countries they find oil instead, dear anon for Q-related reasons?
Hard to agree with Trump even 1% when his administration keep contradicting him and each other. Rubio specifically said regime change is not the goal, so human rights abuses isn’t on his casus belli list.
Trump and Hegseth have claimed they will bomb civilian infrastructure and send the country back to the stone age. Hardly the conditions for alleviating human rights abuses.
But these guys are winging it. Can’t keep their stories straight – especially Trump – from one day to the next. You have to be an utter dunce or the blindest supporter not to see it. They LITERALLY contradict themselves – especially Trump – and each other depending on the day of the week.
As for internal anti-discrimination… don’t make me laugh. The government has argued in court that people can be stopped in the street on the basis of their accent, and Dep Homeland Sec has sought the legal authority right to racially profile people as they round up brownskins for detention.
And don’t get me started on women’s rights when a girl younger than a teenager has to go interstate to remove her rapists seedling from her womb. A state of affairs for which Trump has repeatedly congratulated himself.
TDS is alive and well among Trump supporters.
barry says:
”The neocons who invaded Iraq were ideologues, but at least they tried to make a case. At least they had some idea of their responsibility to the nation to justify a war of choice.”
Come on Barry can the political BS. The ”neocons” didn’t invade Iraq. Check the votes in Congress.
If you want to be one of those claiming to have been conned and complain in retrospect alleging you were conned and it wasn’t your own fault. . .that’s just weak.
AFA Trump goes he promised he would not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. He also promised no more forever wars. The first forever war I was involved in was Vietnam and that war went on and on because of people too afraid of disturbing somebody’s sensibilities about how wars should be fought and brought to a close.
Trump didn’t start a war with Iran. We are considered by the Iranian regime to have been at war with Iran for over 70 years on the basis of our support for the Shah. After seizing control it only took them a short time to kill 241 American servicemen in the Beirut bombing incident there
And we should turn the other cheek and not pay any attention to what the Iranians say their objective is with us nor the support they have given terrorist organizations over the past 47 years directly attacking us?
This is a problem we all face. If you are not supportive of Trump fixing and ending that problem. . .well exactly what are you supportive of?
And its hilarious you have your panties all twisted up over a one month 4 cent rise in gas prices over the last March of the Biden Administration and still a lot lower than March 2022 when it was 45 cents higher than this March. Where were you puking your guts out over that? Oh thats right its all political rhetoric right? Fk the facts.
That’s right, bill, the neocons made their case to congress as well as the public. Turns out the case was BS, but they at least tried to present a coherent, consistent reason for a war of choice.
The shifting and contradictory messaging from the Trump administration is all post-hoc rationalisation. You’d have to be an errant dunce not to see that they’re winging it, and that they haven’t coordinated on the rationales, much less worked them through with due diligence. It’s probably escaped you that the US intelligence services reported no imminent threat from Iran. It’s likely fled your mind that Israel and the US advised they’d destroyed Iran’s nuclear programs last year. I guess it’s hard to keep track.
There was a year of lead-up before invading Iraq, with presentations to the people, to congress, and to the UN, where they failed to convince. There was coalition building.
Nothing like this diligence from the narcissist and his enablers. Trump instead rails against other countries for not falling into line after the fact. His contempt runs broad, as well as deep.
Typical dunderhead thinking, bill – the world is experiencing its worst economic shock based on oil since the 70s when, guess what, war in the ME happened and iran underwent ‘regime change’ backed by the US. It won’t be comfortably off old white men who experience the worst of this. Nor will they care, bill. That’s partly why this crap keeps happening. For you guys war is a tool instead of a deeply last resort. And you’re military? My grandfather had it right. He was on the ground in North Africa. He wouldn’t be drawn on it except to say, “War is a terrible thing.”
Lest we forget. This is blood and bone, not just politics.
Barry,
You do know that Trump, RFK jr, Tulsi were all democrats for years. They found, like a lot of people, that a very vocal minority manipulative set of people in the democrat party dragged the party to the fringes of acceptability. Leaving people closer to the republican party.
So if anything the Republican party has been drawn away from the neocons by Trump, RFK,Tulsi and others.
As far as an imminent attack what exactly is your definition of that? Iran sponsors terrorism or do you deny that?
Oh, let’s let 2026 Trump define imminent Iranian threats…
“Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime… Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States…
They were right at the doorstep for years… we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon…
they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing the long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.”
Directly at odds with his own words on iran’s nuclear capability last year:
“Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated…
I don’t think they’ll ever do it again. I think they’ve had it… Iran’s nuclear ambitions were set back decades…
I also obliterated Iran’s nuclear hopes by totally annihilating their enriched uranium.”
The intelligence community in 2026 agreed with 2025 Trump.
The guy is a pathological liar. That is not heat, to say that. He just constantly, as in daily, lies out loud. It’s not even controversial, not even among MAGA.
You don’t need me to point it out. Trump skewers himself like this regularly. But the infatuated MAGA are incapable of cognizing what is obvious to everyone not in the cult.
But let’s hear from Trump’s buddies in the admin in 2025.
Hegseth: “Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons… it’s buried under a mountain of rubble.”
Rubio: “The Iranian nuclear program today looks nothing like it did just a week ago. It was complete and total obliteration”
What about missiles?
2025 Trump:
“They can’t build them anymore. We hit the factories, we hit the warehouses, and we hit the launch sites. They are out of the missile business for a long, long time.”
2026 was a complete reversal of what they said about Iran last year. It was also in contradiction of US intelligence.
“if anything the Republican party has been drawn away from the neocons by Trump, RFK,Tulsi and others.”
I totally agree. The new Republican party prioritises the supremacy of the executive over coalition building and congressional oversight. This Republican party kneels to the president. It’s a wonder they can manage it, lacking spines.
Barry says:
”Turns out the case was BS, but they at least tried to present a coherent, consistent reason for a war of choice.”
So why did you believe it Barry?
I mean was it BS or was it the indeterminate risk assessment that came up wrong?
Seems to me there was a lot of discussion about uncertainty from numerous respected sources and wide agreement with the public, Congress, and the experts. A lot better than climate change where the consensus among those not profiting from the climate industrial complex is in the direction of skepticism about just what the risks are. I mean after all the polls, votes and everything were relatively far more in favor of that war over the war on fossil fuels.
Barry said:
”Directly at odds with his own words on iran’s nuclear capability last year:
” ”Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated…
I don’t think they’ll ever do it again. I think they’ve had it… Iran’s nuclear ambitions were set back decades…”
Certainly you have to give credit to somebody who later admits their assessment of the damage from the first strike was wrong.
Personally I was quite skeptical at the time of those announcements that those pinpoint hits, while super impressive actually had completely destroyed everything underground. My thoughts on that is they likely have the technology that establishes the hits destroyed something underground more than an ventilation shaft.
But I also noticed that architectural renderings of remaining bunkers where they have been stashing thousands of missiles have ventilation shafts that come out of the ground some distance from the bunkers.
And of course you have the Iranians themselves boasting about their nuclear capabilities and enriched uranium supplies. Keep in mind that dirty bombs are in themselves weapons of mass destruction.
You can also bet the farm on the government having teams of analysts pouring over photos and communications of classified data storage capacities using AI to plow through it. Rumors have it the government data capacity may be as much as 1.00e24 bytes.
Trump is a man who is not afraid to change his mind, operating from common sense. He is going to believe what the data tells him when it tells him.
He isn’t going to believe as you do that Trump is constantly lying but what he said after Midnight Hammer is proof there is no imminent threat now. That seems really stupid to me. You have only convinced me of one thing and that is listen to the guy we voted to be in the position he is in.
That is how it should work. If it doesn’t work let the results tell you so. I worry more about people who won’t act contrary to what they personally believed to be true. That is the real danger of ego.
I’m sure our troglodytes appreciated Donald’s “a whole civilization will die tonight” democratic plea.
But then perhaps it doesn’t meet their sammich request of a “definition” of an “imminent attack”.
> Donald is a man who is not afraid to change his mind
ROFL!
barry says:
That’s right, bill, the neocons made their case to congress as well as the public. Turns out the case was BS, but they at least tried to present a coherent, consistent reason for a war of choice.
——————–
What in the case was BS Barry? Something specific and verifiable.
barry says:
”The shifting and contradictory messaging from the Trump administration is all post-hoc rationalisation.”
Do you mean like after some mild warming, or a hurricane you conclude it was due to CO2? Perhaps you can provide an example like that which Trump is guilty of.
barry says:
”You’d have to be an errant dunce not to see that they’re winging it, and that they haven’t coordinated on the rationales, much less worked them through with due diligence. It’s probably escaped you that the US intelligence services reported no imminent threat from Iran.
It’s likely fled your mind that Israel and the US advised they’d destroyed Iran’s nuclear programs last year. I guess it’s hard to keep track.”
——————-
You can make fun of US military prowess if you wish Barry, but it just makes you look like a fool.
“Certainly you have to give credit to somebody who later admits their assessment of the damage from the first strike was wrong.”
Ah, the sheer fantasising. Yes, I would give credit. But trump almost never admits error, and he certainly has not on Iran.
It’s fascinating to watch people weave stories in order to lie to themselves about reality. You did this just now, bill. You’ll likely try to hang on to the fiction by pretending that a flip flop is the same thing as admitting error.
It’s whhat Trump-lovers do. They invent total falsehoods to maintain the faith – such as Donald having the grace to say he was wrong about Iran last year.
Last year the faithful were crowing about Trump’s decisive victory on Iran. This year, they turn 108 degrees without blinking to champion the necessity to obliterate that which Trump said was obliterated last year.
A entire cult of yes-men.
bill,
“What in the case was BS Barry? Something specific and verifiable.”
The fundamental reason to invade Iraq was the the Hussein regime might give WMD to al Qaeda.
There were no active WMD programs. No nuclear, no chemical, no biological programs extant in the years prior to invasion.
Al Qaeda considered Hussein and the Ba’athists apostates and there was enmity, not collaboration between them.
Informant ‘Curveball’ lied about biological weapons labs. The neocons overrode their own intelligence services and deferred to a known liar. Because they wanted the war.
Aluminium tubes the US claimed to be for centrifuges were in fact for rockets, as the IAEA correctly identified prior to invasion.
In fact, the UN and the IAEA correctly summarised Iraq’s weapons capability prior to invasion and the US got it wrong, which Bush and Powell later accepted.
But not you, bill. You know better than George W Bush and Colin Powell.
Cretin.
Admitting error:
“Trump, whose first 100 days back in office have been characterized as chaotic and damaging to democracy, was asked during a phone interview at a town-hall broadcast on NewsNation what the biggest mistake he’d made thus far in his second presidency.
“I don’t really believe I’ve made any mistakes,” Trump replied.
The audience, representing a cross section of Americans, burst out laughing.”
barry says:
” ”Certainly you have to give credit to somebody who later admits their assessment of the damage from the first strike was wrong.”
”Ah, the sheer fantasising. Yes, I would give credit. But trump almost never admits error, and he certainly has not on Iran. It’s fascinating to watch people weave stories in order to lie to themselves about reality. You did this just now, bill. You’ll likely try to hang on to the fiction by pretending that a flip flop is the same thing as admitting error.”
I think you are losing your mind Barry. Flipflopping would be knowing you were wrong on the assessment, doing nothing, and pretending everything was hunky dory.
x
x
——-
x
x
barry says:
bill,
” ”What in the case was BS Barry? Something specific and verifiable.”
The fundamental reason to invade Iraq was the the Hussein regime might give WMD to al Qaeda. There were no active WMD programs. No nuclear, no chemical, no biological programs extant in the years prior to invasion.”
And you knew that and said nothing? Again we found no evidence of that. But what was SH protecting in blocking inspections and his saber rattling? what it was obviously is he found the inspectors to be a nuisance to his ambitions. It really doesn’t matter he had made little to no progress. the only thing mattered is when was willing to butt chests with the coalition over what he believed was his right to have secrecy.
x
x
——-
x
x
barry says:
”Al Qaeda considered Hussein and the Ba’athists apostates and there was enmity, not collaboration between them.”
Thats just naive Barry. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We collaborated int WWII against the axis with a regime that we had enmity with. In fact, ignorance of that fact led the Obama administration to give arms to radical islamists and create a huge mess in Syria that eventually caused a retrograd of success in Iraq. What you have to ask yourself is did Assad deserve to be decapitated and if so shouldn’t whoever determines that do the job?
x
x
——-
x
x
barry says:
”Informant ‘Curveball’ lied about biological weapons labs. The neocons overrode their own intelligence services and deferred to a known liar. Because they wanted the war. Aluminium tubes the US claimed to be for centrifuges were in fact for rockets, as the IAEA correctly identified prior to invasion. In fact, the UN and the IAEA correctly summarised Iraq’s weapons capability prior to invasion and the US got it wrong, which Bush and Powell later accepted.”
so now you are demonizing the chief of staff Powell. It wasn’t even just American’s that believed the assessment on WMD. It was UN inspectors as well. Just this conversation implies you think anybody who disagrees with your view of the world is evil and anybody who does agree is a Saint. The decision to take out SH, who direly needed to be taken out for a thousand reasons wasn’t based on a single testimony. And suggesting it was is simply you lying.
x
x
——-
x
x
barry says:
”But not you, bill. You know better than George W Bush and Colin Powell. Cretin.”
Now you are just making stuff up. I neither claim nor say with certainty that SH had or did not have WMD. SH was worth it to the world to get hanged along with is deranged sons in line to replace him. But it is true I thought the job was botched the moment it decided to support Shia revenge on the Sunni Islamic sect. If that had not happened thousands of American soldiers would not have died.
x
x
——-
x
x
barry says:
Admitting error:
”Trump, whose first 100 days back in office have been characterized as chaotic and damaging to democracy, was asked during a phone interview at a town-hall broadcast on NewsNation what the biggest mistake he’d made thus far in his second presidency.
”I don’t really believe I’ve made any mistakes,” Trump replied.
The audience, representing a cross section of Americans, burst out laughing.”
Trump was not saying he was perfect. The conversation was about his policies. What you see in Trump is a hard working guy who turns on a dime to deal with adversity and deal with it effectively and forcibly.
the phrase TACO was coined by the ignorant to tag that behavior. but Trump has an uncanny ability to get the job done. He runs down the field like a great fullback. Juking, changing direction, throwing a straight arm. Not trying to be perfect is actually a huge Trump strength. It is actually what his father taught him about success. Failure is simply a process of multiple failures that by learning from your failures quickly and assertatively it results in a win. Trump doesn’t spend 5 seconds on failure, neither does a running back. The object is the objective. Its fundamental to Trump’s character where not trying is what a mistake is.
Its also the case that some times it advantageous to feint failure. Many of the greatest military wins in history involved luring the enemy with a feigned retreat. The General in charge may know the ground and realize that if we can lure them on to this ground we will have a huge advantage. Our own native Americans were masters of that strategy where they could prevail though greatly outnumbered. Off the top of my head I can’t think of an instance where Trump did that but I wouldn’t put it past him either.
If you want to get in to Trump’s head you actually have to name something he didn’t try to do that he should have. Or you have to name something he did that had an obvious and irreversible negative outcome. If what you named is best you can do maybe you ought to take up another hobby.
> Flipflopping would be knowing you were wrong on the assessment, doing nothing, and pretending everything was hunky dory.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
So now you don’t even know what words mean, bill,
flip-flopped
“to make a sudden or unexpected reversal, as of direction, belief, attitude, or policy.
The opposition claimed that the president had flip-flopped on certain issues.”
“What you see in Trump is a hard working guy who turns on a dime to deal with adversity and deal with it effectively and forcibly.”
He’s not hard-working. Possibly the laziest president in history, according to his own staffers, who described him watching TV for hours a day and reacting to what he saw to make policy, a leaked schedule of ‘working’ from 11am-6pm, with plenty of unscheduled time throughout. And have you seen how much time he spends tweeting?
“Turns on a dime” = shoots from the hip.
Trump’s supporters sure are bamboozled by him. This is not a man who considers things carefully. He reacts. His decisions are emotional and self-serving. In his first presidency he had competent people around him to rein in his worst proclivities. This time he is more enabled, and the chaos is plain to see.
“guy who turns on a dime to deal with adversity and deal with it effectively and forcibly”
Trump is so effective.
“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. Quickly. I will get the problem solved and I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day. I know exactly what to say to each of them.”
“So when I say ‘end it,’ I’m going to get a settlement very quickly. And I know both people, and you can get it very, very quickly. You can only do it through the presidency, but you control the money coming in, coming out. You can get that. I will have that settlement done within 24 hours.”
“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. I’ll get it settled very quickly. I know both; I know Zelensky and I know Putin.”
“If I’m president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours… First, I’ll meet with Putin, I’ll meet with Zelensky. They both have weaknesses and they both have strengths. And within 24 hours that war will be settled. It will be over. It will be absolutely over.”
“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine totally settled. I’ll have it done in 24 hours. I say that, and I would do that. That’s easy compared to some of the things – I’d get that done in 24 hours.”
Trump said this for months, dozens of times before the election.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/politics/fact-check-trump-ukraine-war
When called on it, he replied, “Well, I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration, because to make a point, and you know, it gets, of course, by the fake news [unintelligible]. Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest, but it was also said that it will be ended.”
Effective = no
Honourable = no
Honest = no
Con artist = yes
No comments on the running back analogy huh Barry?
Barry says:
”flip-flopped
“to make a sudden or unexpected reversal, as of direction, belief, attitude, or policy.
The opposition claimed that the president had flip-flopped on certain issues.” ”
No sources? No examples? shooting from the hip huh Barry? I recall when he ran for his first term he was asked why when in the past he was pro abortion and now he wasn’t. he said he changed his mind. I am in the same boat. When you see your kids grow up and become such outstanding people it becomes ever more unimaginable.
> Check the votes in Congress.
Gill believes that 6 + 126 + 81 + 1 is bigger than 215.
Perhaps he should have checked with his best buddy before saying stuff once again.
ROFL!
“Tonga’s volcanic eruption hit the edge of space. Then the atmosphere froze, and it hasn’t recovered since…The extra water released heat to space, cooling wide regions of the stratosphere by 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius…Despite that upper-atmosphere disruption, surface temperatures showed almost no response. Ground level cooling reached only about 0.05 degrees Celsius…Professor Amanda Maycock of the University of Leeds confirmed the report shows Hunga had a net cooling effect overall and did not cause the record global warming observed in 2023 and 2024.”
The King is fully clothed, and if you cannot see his suit then you are a clothing-denier.
Do skeptics have an aversion to posting links to their references, or is it an inability to figure out the technology of cutting and pasting?
https://aparc-climate.org/publications/aparc-report-no-11/
Or did you find a random article online and didn’t bother to go any further than what some journo said in Indian Defence Review?
Please take your lower than blog level commentary to facebook or other hot air chamber. Actual skeptics can click on the link for actual information.
Barry,
Do people like you prefer to cherry pick data & articles rather than using logic and reasoning?
Moron Anon. This is the study that Buzz’s quote is referring to.
I know, I know, it’s hard to keep the conversation in your head for longer than a single post. but I just gave the link that Buzz should have. You got a problem with singling out this study? Cool, take it up with Buzz. Better yet, buzz off, lame-brain, and try to learn about “context” and “sticking to the point.”
Barry,
Is Dr Roy Spencer website to o do with atmospheric changes with free exchange of ideas or is it to pander to you and your Derangement of ex-Democrats like Donald Trump? So are you the one “stocking to the point”?!
I do believe that you helped me understand about your cult a bit more.
In your limited echo chamber you have replaced science with a cult. You have abandoned logic for some alphabet soup of identity. Your reasoning has been replaced by hurling insults to win a small non-point in a debate.
You don’t appear to have capacity to grasp why attribution studies fail basic science when the system becomes chaotic. Hint, how to prove that they work. Attribution studies may be a “cool” talking point in your echo chamber, yo the majority it’s a waste of time.
Apparently your dedication to science is as deep as Buzz’s. Did you read the study he referenced?
No, no you did not. I provided the link Buzz had no interest in and you blew right by it while fulminating.
Skeptics. You think you can lecturer about scientific literacy.
Once upon a time Republicans were gung ho about independence of the states (and the independence of co-equal branches of government).
But MAGA is leading the charge away from these outmoded, anti-presidential anachronisms.
You Trump supporters. What do you say today to the prospect that Trump will use every trick in the book, including executive orders, to give power to the presidency to control elections?
Because it is virtually certain this administration will throw the weight of the presidency into telling the states how to conduct their voting.
I predict the Trump fanatics will fully endorse the fed interfering in how states run their elections.
Because Trump supporters – sufferers of TDS – put Trump above the constitution.
It’s as simple as that. The ultimate anti-American movement supports the current leader of the USA above all else. It’s a cult.
barry, your Leftism and TDS are driving you insane. You’re no longer just a childish blog-clogger like Willard. Now you’re sounding dangerous to yourself and others.
The proper treatment will involve medication to settle you down so you can undergo a couple years of therapy.
Hope that helps….
Clint, are you unable to say whether you would support Trump overriding state autonomy regarding elections? Do you have to wait for Trump to tell you what to think?
There you go again barry, perverting reality. Getting the corruption out of elections is not the same as “overriding state autonomy”.
You try to pervert, just as you do with science. You can’t stand reality.
student B
” MAGA is now anti-Trump.
The military is anti-Trump.
…
Even his own family is anti-Trump. ”
*
You are light years away from reality…
“There you go again barry, perverting reality. Getting the corruption out of elections is not the same as “overriding state autonomy.”
As you are incapable of a straight answer, we’ll just have to iron out your blather.
Yes, you would be perfectly fine with the executive (as long as it is Republican) overriding state autonomy regarding elections.
You are part of the new breed of conservative in the US, that puts the presidency (and probably party) over the constitution.
And you swallow, hook line and sinker, Trump’s incessant lies about the election issues. That’s what it means to be part of a cult.
As I told barry: “You try to pervert, just as you do with science. You can’t stand reality.”
And barry proves me right, again.
barry, don’t overlook the fact that:
MAGA is now anti-Trump.
The military is anti-Trump.
The public is anti-Trump.
Even his own family is anti-Trump.
This will all end soon – mark my words.
MAGA is not anti-Trump. A solid majority even approves of the Iran war. It’s a cult.
Traditional Republicans are leaning away, for now.
Barry is absolutely right, of course. Clint R’s pathological Trump and MAGA obsession won’t change anything to that.
Let me add the following to be clear.
*
Never before has an American president been so close to Hitler. But… he’s not the only one on stage.
Trump, Vance, Wiles, Hegseth, and the few people in their inner circle (I’m deliberately excluding Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard) are now undeniably war criminals — though they already were when the US military inexcusably murdered over 100 young girls at a school that was mistakenly targeted.
They will all have to pay for these crimes, just like Putin, Netanyahu, and all their henchmen.
I predict that Pearl Harbor in 1941 will, in retrospect, seem like a tiny scratch compared to what will happen in the United States in the near future; even the horrific event of September 11th will pale in comparison.
I already have a feeling I know which day will be chosen for a revenge that will defy all imagination.
I thought the US would have learned about how this Middle East near the Mediterranean Sea ticks.
Apparently, I was plain wrong.
Bindi, what you cult kids don’t realize is that your hatred for Trump comes from your Leftism. What you won’t admit is that you hate USA. That’s why you hate Trump. Now, you didn’t hate Obama or Biden because you knew they were bad for the US. That made you happy. But, Trump is a different case.
I don’t consider myself MAGA. I support much of what Trump has done and is doing. But, he sometimes offends me with his crudeness. I have to remind myself of what the Left has done to him, including raiding his home and two assassination attempts.
You don’t have to like him, but you should understand your motivations. But that’s reality, and hard for you cult kids to swallow.
Breaking News:
Trump wins again! Sorry!
Obviously, the Iranians and their supporters in the liberal media, Democrats, some Europeans, and other fools, are posing this as a declaration that Iran now “controls” the straight. They claim we have actually accepted the Iranian counter proposal — they are the more believable party. These same people claim the Obama nuclear deal prevented them from building a bomb.
I am reminded of an experience I had in a business meeting. There was an Iranian guy trying to sell support for his “cousin” who has an import business. There was a Swiss French guy who became annoyed and basically told the guy to stop. After the meeting, when the Iranian guy was gone, he said words to the effect that you have be careful with these people who are always trying to sell something. He said they have an expression in French that roughly translates to “carpet sellers”. Some things are universal.
[OUR IVY LEAGUER, SEEING ANOTHER TACO TUESDAY] Donald wins again!!!1!
The amount of dross within the last 3 posts is extraordinary. I don’t hate America. Its constitution, for all its ambiguity and anachronisms, is a shining testament to the democratic experiment. The separation of powers is a three-pointed crown.
It’s not leftism that causes people to despise Trump. That’s a shallow, partisan read.
It’s his narcissism. His normalisation of lying. His lack of character and morality. His hypocrisy. His thuggish cruelty (have you read his posts lately)?
Ordinarily it WOULD be policy and politics that drive opprobroium, but in this case the rest of the thinking world can see what MAGA die-hards are slavishly blind to. Trump is a vile specimen of a human being.
The reason for the heat against him in the rest of the world is not ‘leftism’, it’s his attack on global security and on the global economy.
It’s not that he’s a Republican, it’s that he’s a thug who makes America First mean everyone else last.
Really, his worldview is Trump-first. Any policy he makes is about his greatness. Any success, whether because of him or someone else, he takes credit for. He is the most self-centred, self-aggrandizing person ever to hold the office. And his supporters love it.
There are a lot of nasty things to be said about Trump that are all true, but he is respected and he does get results. Crude oil futures are down %15 and stock market futures are all up over 2%.
Bill Maher says he is very friendly in person.
Wrong barry.
All of that is just you projecting your own failings on Trump. You can’t face reality. You “believe” you can pervert science using an imaginary sphere. Anyone that tries to correct you gets called a “lying dog”.
You and the other cult kids are the “Nazis” here. You are the narcissists. You try to shut down people using insults and false accusations, or whatever nonsense comes into your heads. Just look at the brat that calls himself “Willard”. He makes Trump look highly responsible. It doesn’t get any better with Nate, gordon, Bindi, Norman, or the “special-ed” guy, the F-student.
So thanks for proving me right, again.
Our Ivy Leaguer, like Puffman and Gill, would befit Donald’s entourage:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-aides-too-afraid-to-take-off-the-145-shoes-he-keeps-buying-them/
Pandering to a sociopath seldom ends well. More so when the sociopath in question is also a war criminal.
Bindy,
How fascinating that you call someone you disagree with a Hitler. You are the one who wants to support regimes that crush peoples freedom & free speech. You are the one who supports the regimes that force women to be degraded, and to silence the LGBs. So isn’t it you who wears the brown shirt due to your actions and words.
Other than a hundred or so people in the inner circle no one else will have the facts or the data about what Trump is doing or discussing. You are looking the through a key hole trying to understand the world.
Attribution Studies.
The very idea seems to invite confirmation bias into science. Let’s first arrive at a conclusion, a “consensus”: CO2 is causing alarming increases in global temperatures, bringing with it damaging, dangerous extreme weather. Then, let’s go out and encourage, support, and perform science that supports our conclusion. That cart is definitely in front of that horse.
Actually, the creators of this new field seem to have come up with an entirely new scientific method. But it lies not in physical science, but rather in political science.
Anyone can write anything with little effort. Actually understanding the issue doesn’t seem to matter. The post above is a case in point.
Why have increasingly dim people been appearing here lately?
No mirrors in your house Barry, don’t shoot the messenger, prove him wrong, if you can, remember Winston Churchill said, one of the great lessons of life, is that even a fool is right sometimes.
Prove? He’s clearly talking out of ignorance. In any case, you’ve got the onus wrong. The dimness in skeptics makes them think they can string words together and that this is a hypothesis that needs testing by someone else instead of an assertion that requires them to furnish evidence.
If that’s too hard for you to understand, then let me demonstrate.
There is a unicorn in the centre of the Moon.
In Dimsville, apparently it’s your job to prove me wrong.
Where are you troglodytes coming from?
barry says:
”Prove? He’s clearly talking out of ignorance. In any case, you’ve got the onus wrong. The dimness in skeptics makes them think they can string words together and that this is a hypothesis that needs testing by someone else instead of an assertion that requires them to furnish evidence.
If that’s too hard for you to understand, then let me demonstrate.
There is a unicorn in the centre of the Moon.
In Dimsville, apparently it’s your job to prove me wrong.
Where are you troglodytes coming from?”
LOL! Barry is just projecting. You should take a gander at how he defends the blogsphere description of the GHE via a greenplate experiment made up by a leftist blogger on the January UAH update. Not a single scrap of empirical or historical support but 100’s repetitive claims by Barry that he is here projecting on to somebody else, I guess hoping that it purges his own guilt.
Another ‘skeptic’ who can’t stick to the topic.
The sheer tonnage of logical fallacies among you could stun a herd of bullock.
Barry, instead of slandering others, you should learn the difference between ,knowing the name of something,and actually knowing something, you have to admit for a world according to your creed, that is on the edge of disaster,nothing much is happening, history just repeats itself as it always has.
Barry,
Why don’t you explain how attribution studies work in your own words. Explain how the science works. Use reasoning and logic.
But I doubt you will because tantrums is more of your style.
I first became aware of attribution studies in 2007, when AR4 came out and I got interested in the science of climate change. In my own words: attribution studies analyse an array of data, anthropogenic and natural, to determine whether, and by how much (recognizing uncertainty), anthropogenic or natural forcings have driven long-term climate-related trends, and, I believe more recently, whether these natural and anthropogenic influences have driven changes in extreme weather events – which appears to be the subject of interest above.
It’s typical that though I was not the one who gave an opinion on the topic, it’s up to me to define the subject.
Thomas sallied forth with a vacuous, short, unreferenced critique of the subject, and no one asked him to describe what he is critiquing, or challenge his thesis.
Well done, gents. Your commitment to science is, well let me quote Thomas:
“it lies not in physical science, but rather in political science.”
I’m skewering the dearth of reasoned discourse. The troglodyte mewlings of people venting their agenda, not their interest in science. That’s not political at all. It’s just being fed up with pissant cognition.
> estimates of implementing NetZero run into trillions
Citation needed.
Barry,
You couldn’t resist to end with a predictable snide comment.
I asked you for a definition because you obviously defending something without understanding the basics.
You assume one thing, and that is the results from the 2 models in the comparison have any form of accuracy in the first place. You assuming that the models include all the relevant details needed to be accurate enough. When they don’t include urban heat islands, don’t include various non terrestrial phenomenon, but include the lamentable poor data that others have been documenting.
Garbage in garbage out.
Let me take a moment to pinpoint your dimness. I’m sick of humouring stupidity.
“I asked you for a definition because you obviously defending something without understanding the basics.”
False. I dd not “defend” anything. You made that up.
I ripped on Thomas for his obviously fatuous remarks. THAT was my thesis.
Why did you attribute something to me that was not inherent in what I said? Whatever the reason, you are not assiduous.
“You assume one thing, and that is the results from the 2 models in the comparison have any form of accuracy in the first place”
As I said NOTHING about the 2 models or accuracy, the assumption is all yours. Were you prompted to read the study then? Excellent. You would not have been able to do that without the link I provided that Thomas failed to. And it seems my criticisms prompted you to do what Thomas failed to do. RTFR.
“You assuming that the models include all the relevant details needed to be accurate enough.”
I made no such assumption. But please continue putting words in my mouth.
I didn’t read the study. I have no opinion of its merits. Why should I bother reading it when Thomas didn’t? It’s obvious he had no intention of anything more than a drive-by.
So, you completely made up my opinions on the matter. And you know what else, you have an idea in your head about what I think about climate change and climate science that is almost certainly completely wrong. What are the odds you’d exhibit some curiosity ad enquire?
I based my criticisms on what I read above. I can parse what is in front of me.
You? You generalise from prior experience, and ignore what is in front of you. You hold a fictional me in your head.
Well done for skimming the study. I can parse your comments on it, too. You’re not sage enough to be so certain about what you’ve read.
But if you make some actually interesting critique about it – not the blog-standard guff you peeled off the front of your brain just now – I might be tempted to read it. If so, I’d likely revisit the field by reading review papers on the topic as well, to have some context on the strengths and shortcomings of the field of attribution studies.
That’s what scientifically literate, actually skeptical people do.
I beg your pardon – it was Buzz’s uncited quote that got me providing a link to the Hunga Tonga impacts.
That’s not an attribution study.
What are you talking about, Anon? Can you do better than your ‘skeptic’ brethren and provide a link to whatever you’re referring to (a link to a paper, not a blog comment thanks)?
Barry,
You claim that I read the study you cited, again you fail I didn’t and I should know. I understood attribution studies and their limits when I first heard of them. It’s not that difficult.
Simple logic dictates that that attribution study must run the same set of equations at least twice but with only one parameter changing between iteration to “prove” the sensitivity of that parameter. Anyone in IT with adequate expertise will have come across this all too often, even old Bindy probably stumbled over this. It only works if the equations are correct.
You present yourself as a very shallow intellect who has fallen for the CO2 left wing scam. The obvious evidence you provide with your every post speaks for itself. Falling for attribution studies means that you have fallen for all the eco-nazi tripe. In your case I don’t know whether to laugh or feel pity for you.
Can you not think for yourself by using logic and reasoning?
You’re not referring to a study? Then what is this blather about?
“You assume one thing, and that is the results from the 2 models in the comparison have any form of accuracy in the first place. You assuming that the models include all the relevant details needed to be accurate enough. When they don’t include urban heat islands, don’t include various non terrestrial phenomenon, but include the lamentable poor data that others have been documenting.”
“You present yourself as a very shallow intellect who has fallen for the CO2 left wing scam. The obvious evidence you provide with your every post speaks for itself. Falling for attribution studies means that you have fallen for all the eco-nazi tripe.”
As I haven’t read, let alone judged any attribution studies here, what on Earth are you talking about?
“CO2 left wing scam”
Yes, it’s all political for you. Let’s hear from Thomas again:
“it lies not in physical science, but rather in political science.”
You don’t have to read between your lines. You just outright make it about politics.
You have NO IDEA what I think about anthropogenic global warming, nor how I came to my provisional opinions.
You know what provisional opinions are, right? Skepticism. Science.
No true skeptic writes off complex issues in a paragraph.
Barry,
Why are you struggling so much? The concept of what an attribution study is easy to work out, the individual implementation will of course be more difficult, like duh!!
Do you care to articulate your views on Climate change or shall I just continue to draw conclusion from your posts, which lets be frank do not seem to be coming from a rational person. Thats based on how you at the
So please enlighten me on your thoughts about Climate change.
Sure
1. I’m not a scientist. My math is very mediocre. I would not dream of passing myself off as some kind of expert.
2. I’ve read a couple hundred studies since 2007 directly or partly to do with climate science. The largest share is on Milankovitch cycles and a few related on the geometry of insolation changes and the direct effect of that on global temperatures. But I’ve read very broadly on topics as they’ve been discussed (by better informed ‘skeptics’ who actually read the literature).
3. My opinions are provisional and I’m comfortable with the uncertainty attached to scientific understanding.
4. I have no emotional attachment to the notion that anthropogenic global warming might have a negative cost/benefit ratio as time progresses. IE, i’m not an alarmist.
5. Not being a scientist, but being a reasonable skeptic, I accept that a great preponderance of scientists and scientific institutes worldwide back the idea that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are warming the planet. I’ve spent the last 20 years (less of late, as decent ‘skeptic’ argument is harder to find) investigating criticisms of AGW of many and varied types, from models to data collection, gossip (2009 UEA emails) to renewable and traditional energy, paleoclimate and satellite retrieval, spectroscopy and sequestration. I’ve mastered no topic, but I’m familiar with many.
6. I find the consensus view far more convincing than the usually agenda-driven, often contradictory ‘skeptic’ canon.
7. Most ‘skeptics’ I come across these days show their true colours in minutes. Mostly it’s a political axe they’re grinding. Sometimes it’s about economics – quite a few libertarians are AGW ‘skeptics’, for example.
8. I think it’s reasonable to accept the consensus position, and act on the precautionary principle without causing too much economic grief.
9. If the consensus on AGW is wrong, we experience a little economic pain for other benefits. We reduce our reliance on the ME for energy – recent events indicate the value in that. But it’s also about not propping up unsavoury governments. Furthermore, fossil fuels are finite. It’s not a matter of if but when. There are any good reasons to develop alternative forms of energy and energy sources.
10. If the consensus is right, then the sooner we act the better.
11. Finally, the shape of the issue is this. We are conducting a vast geological experiment with the only atmosphere we have, and we do not know for sure what the consequences will be. What we do know is that we likely can’t reverse the growth of GHGs in the atmosphere, we can’t put the genie back in the bottle, and – most pointedly – we are IN the test tube with no means of escaping the results of the experiment. The precautionary principle applies twofold. We can’t walk away from the consequences if they do indeed go south.
Am I worried? Not at all. I am content to watch the world get hotter, and even to see the worst predictions come true. I’ll be dead before long. I have no children. It will be fascinating to see what projections come true and what do not. I am entirely cynical, and you shouldn’t worry your pretty little ahead. Governments are not going to beggar their citizens by mitigation. Many governments will do very little. We are still mostly monkey-brained, tribal creatures, who can barely sort the present out, let alone the future.
You know who the real alarmists are? Those who claim economic armageddon will come from mitigating AGW. Those who promote conspiracy theories about cabals of scientists trying to turn the world into a big commune. Those who shed crocodile tears for the poor who need their coal and oil cheap or they’ll die.
Yes, there’s good reasons to wean ourselves off fossil fuels aside from AGW. It doesn’t have to be such a painful affair – some countries have already shifted significantly without killing their constituents off. We encourage and subsidise innovation in other sectors without all the house on fire histrionics. But you’re right that this is a pitched political battle for many people. And those people are among the more stupid about the topic in general. Dimness is proportional to the certainty they express on any topic.
yep barry will let you know he believes in the Easter Bunny to explain science and what his opinions will should be
barry should have learned that long, rambling, self-righteous comments don’t cover up reality. In his latest rant, he’s “fair and balanced”, never insults or falsely accuses, and always seeks truth.
Of course, he’s plagued by his own history of comments….
Barry,
Thanks for the response.
Here in the UK, estimates of implementing NetZero run into trillions which would destroy the economy. Germany is the same. So no it’s not a simple sorry lads we got it wrong let’s carry on. It’s very much l driven by politics in this country
Same as in the States.
I see the harm that these climate change policies are already causing. Sadly the USA & UK leftwing are blinded by the power that get by producing agw policies.
Believing in the consensus because it’s the consensus is very much believing that the sun orbits the earth. Just check the number of articles being published on climate change, it’s a gravy train! The few articles that don’t push the narrative tend to get cancelled or retracted by the publisher after intense pressure from the activists. That includes Nature of all publications.
“I’ve spent the last 20 years (less of late, as decent ‘skeptic’ argument is harder to find) investigating criticisms of AGW…”
…but you just go into denial when you’re shown what the problem is. You try to be open-minded, up to a point, I can see that, you concede the odd point…then when the time comes to take the plunge and finally accept where the logic leads you just close down completely and go into denial. That’s what happened during our recent discussion. You should have conceded the point entirely. Then investigated for yourself where that leads. But, instead, you put up these mental blocks built around words like “benchmark” and then stubbornly refuse to see sense. For weeks on end! You’re not the reasonable skeptic you’re trying to paint yourself as.
Anon,
“Here in the UK, estimates of implementing NetZero run into trillions which would destroy the economy.”
Here on my screen is a comment devoid of much of the context that would lend it credibility. What is missing?
The time period for a start.
It’s bald, unqualified, alarmist claptrap like this that automates my bullshitometer.
So how about a reasonable source?
“It’s very much driven by politics in this country”
I’m interested in the science. You can keep the politics, thanks. But this is surely a clue to what drives your views on the science.
“Sadly the USA & UK leftwing are blinded by the power that…”
Yep, clues abound.
“Believing in the consensus because it’s the consensus is very much believing that the sun orbits the earth.”
Any chance that you’re going to be a serious interlocutor some time soon?
You can keep the conspiracy theories, too. This is dumb as rocks crap.
“Just check the number of articles being published on climate change, it’s a gravy train!”
Great, you’ve just tendered a hypothesis, though you don’t know it. All we have to do is type into a search engine, “Across all science disciplines, what are the top subjects n. terms of studies published over the last 40 years?”
Try it. Hint – Climate change is not at the top. The ‘gravy train’ is in Engineering, AI, Clinical studies, Molecular biology, physics and chemistry.
Your cue, I think, is to exclaim that these are all ‘gravy train’ fields. And maybe you’ll stretch yourself to explain why researchers in these fields also lie about the true science to make money. Because that is your thesis.
“The few articles that don’t push the narrative tend to get cancelled or retracted by the publisher after intense pressure from the activists”
I believe you’ve woven a grand narrative from a handful of examples. ‘skeptic’ papers have regularly appeared in the IPCC reports for decades.
The ‘gravy train’ is government grants, handed down by governments. The IPCC doesn’t pay researchers for their input. So when you get a government that is anti-AGW, the researchers should fall over themselves to change the narrative so they get theirs. Right? that’s your logic here. This is where the money is.
But researchers don’t do that. They don’t please the purse-string holders.
The narratives that ‘skeptics’ spin are lazily considered, weak, vacuous. Like this. It’s sheer politics, and it’s boring.
No, DREMT, my disagreement with you is not close-mindedness. As sure as you seem to be of that, I am just as sure you have fooled yourself into believing a train of logic that is clearly flawed, not to mention your solution to the GPE rejects basic scientific standards. If I have a blind spot, that is certainly, verifiably yours.
You could point out no flaws in the logic leading to this conclusion:
In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
After all, you agreed with most of it, only inexplicably turning your nose up at the “regardless of the starting temperature of the GP” caveat. That’s what I mean…you just went into denial. And, clearly you’re still there.
It’s not inexplicable. I explained it. We went around in circles.
I thought you were reintroducing this out of a sense of humour…
barry, there was no rational explanation for rejecting the “regardless of the starting temperature of the GP” sentence. You went round in circles because you kept repeating nonsense, refusing to see sense, due to being in denial. On the other hand, I went in a straight line, repeatedly, proving my case over and over again. This went on for over a month.
“DREMT says: You could point out no flaws in the logic leading to this conclusion . . .”
It’s pretty clear that many posters have objected to your logic step 5 where you declare a 2nd law violation based on isolating the back radiation component rather than the net of the forward and backward components.
You may not accept that this is a flaw, but it’s been pointed out an absurd number of times.
There are downstream consequences of this flaw, including that in your “solution” the plates aren’t exhibiting the black body behavior postulated in the scenario. This is indicative of an incorrect solution and has also been pointed out repeatedly. Stated otherwise, your (flawed) assumption leads to non-linear system behavior which would become apparent if you were to characterize your solution in a mathematically rigorous manner as has been requested.
Barry,
So you haven’t heard that the UK NetZero will cost trillions. Which country do you reside in? Because any talk in the media from Australia, Greece, Norway, even America have referenced that figure it is spread out until 2050
Although I have heard Eco nuts wanting to compress the NetZero implementation date to 2030! Even you ought to accept that any G7 country could never implement NetZero by 2030 no matter how much money is spent.
Discussion doesn’t need to be based on your cherry picker data. It can be based on concept, ideology, reason etc.
You seen to want to move the goal posts again. Why?
> So you haven’t heard that the UK NetZero will cost trillions
Anon for Q-related reasons found another way to try to reverse the burden of proof.
That allows him to stay stuff while imposing work on others.
Utterly despicable.
Given how often DREMT has moaned that this argument NEVER ENDS…it is particularly noteworthy to see him really quite desperate to bait people, in this new comment section, into continuing to pay attention to him and his ZOMBIE argument.
I’m sure, as always, he will try to blame others for it.
“So you haven’t heard that the UK NetZero will cost trillions.”
I asked you for a reasonable source. I asked you because you will not give the full context yourself.
It’s a reasonable request. In science, you cite sources, offer data and info. That’s normal practise.
So what do you do?
“Which country do you reside in?… I have heard Eco nuts wanting to compress the NetZero implementation date to 2030! Even you ought to accept that any G7 country could never implement NetZero by 2030 no matter how much money is spent.
Discussion doesn’t need to be based on your cherry picker data. It can be based on concept, ideology, reason etc.
You seen to want to move the goalposts again. Why?”
Move the goal posts? I am asking you for information directly about what you are saying. No, I don’t know the ins and outs of ‘NetZero’ in the UK. You want to discuss? You need to do better than scorning the notion that I’m not au fait with this topic.
As you would rather play some other game than share information and discuss, I’ll wait for someone who deals square.
Sorry Mark, but you’re wrong, again. The conclusion I referred to:
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.”
is, of course, established prior to even discussing whether or not that’s a 2LoT violation. So none of what you stated is relevant to the current discussion with barry.
I’ve noticed that you guys simply cannot follow the steps through the argument correctly. You’re all certain your right, but you refuse to pay close enough attention to what’s actually being argued.
“…it is particularly noteworthy to see him really quite desperate to bait people, in this new comment section, into continuing to pay attention to him and his ZOMBIE argument.“
I see Nate’s making it personal, again.
Of course, he’s also wrong. Having won the overall argument about fifty times over, I’ve no desire to continue it. All I ask is for Nate and barry to concede that point, as they should have done months ago.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Having won the overall argument about fifty times over, I’ve no desire to continue it.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] With the argument settled in my favour, there’s little to do but watch the desperate comments roll in. Thanks for starting that process.
Just looking for barry and Nate to concede this:
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.”
That’s it. Nothing more needs to be discussed. No need for another 60-day back-and-forth involving multiple sadistic trolls. I would just like that point to be conceded by those commenters. Nobody else need reply.
Thank you.
Barry,
You seem to struggling with this it is you who want to have a named source for arguing a point. Whereas I’m referencing an oft repeated claim in the MSM that hasn’t really been disproved.
Again I ask which country you reside in so I can cut out half the argument. Or are you dodging and weaving on purpose.
“Mark B says: It’s pretty clear that many posters have objected to your logic step 5 where you declare a 2nd law violation based on isolating the back radiation component rather than the net of the forward and backward components.”
“DREMT says: ‘In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, …’
is, of course, established prior to even discussing whether or not that’s a 2LoT violation. So none of what you stated is relevant to the current discussion with barry.”
You’re just restating the first part of your logic step 5 as I said.
You’ve repeatedly tried to get concurrence from your opponents haven’t got it, so it seems fair to say this a key point of difference.
Your rhetorical technique is to insist on the semantics “at the expense of”. No one disagrees that the green plate is emitting radiative flux and some of this is incident on the blue plate, so the presence of the green plate results in greater energy density at the blue plate relative to the single plate scenario, thus “builds up internal energy in the BP. “At the expense of”, however, ignores the other flux vectors and the implied conclusion that there is a 2nd law violation is nonsensical given that the net energy flow is from the primary source (400 W/m^2) to BP to GP and to space from both plates, always from higher temperature to lower.
I don’t expect you to accept the solution for reasons stated previously, but clearly the point of contention is whether there is or is not a 2nd law violation in your step 5.
No, Mark. The conclusion I’ve referred to, the point I am asking Nate and barry to concede, comes before any discussion of a 2LoT violation.
FYI, you (like Nate) continue to attack the straw man that the point I’m asking Nate and barry to concede is:
The “forward-radiation” transfer minus the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
But, that’s not what I’m saying.
It’s a really simple point, that should be conceded. Simple as that.
> it is you who want to have a named source for arguing a point.
Anon for Q-related reasons wishes to be free to say as much unreferenced stuff as he pleases!
As I stated, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741008
It’s probably best to just let the TDS cult kids ramble on (clog the blog), so adults can get back to some climate-related science.
The link has a screenshot of the PV last February, under attack by two high-pressure systems. The PV is the peanut-shaped formation in the middle. The website indicates the direction of the winds, so the vortices can be identified — NH, winds are counter-clockwise around a low. SH, winds are clockwise around a low.
https://postimg.cc/nCW8h1nV
That PV was effectively disabled, leading to the Arctic fronts moving into north US.
“NH, winds are counter-clockwise around a low. SH, winds are clockwise around a low”
Such an amazing insight!
Give that man a sharpie.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The @noaa.gov data is in. March 2026 was 9.35 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century normal across the U.S., the warmest March in more than 130 years of records.
California, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas were all record warm.
https://bsky.app/profile/edwardsanthonyb.bsky.social/post/3miynxzge222y
Meanwhile, the USian civilization, in a nutshell:
https://bsky.app/profile/rabihalameddine.bsky.social/post/3miywgt6kg22v
Dillard,
Why on earth are you referencing BSky as a reliable source? When Elon Musk brought Twitter didnt all the whiny liberals have a hissy fit and flounce off to BlueShiit?
The fact that Elon Musk, despite his faults, decided to protect the first amendment seems to escape the blue pilled loony left. Hmm, that might include you Dullard!!
Anon for Q-related reasons,
A few points:
1. I’m not referencing Bluesky.
2. It’s “Bluesky”.
3. Elon didn’t bring Twitter.
4. Considering your Climateball performance, I’m not sure you should mention whining right now.
5. Elon didn’t protect 1A.
6. 1A has no currency where you pretend to live.
7. You present yourself as a troglodyte with only talking points and nothing else to say.
8. Here’s JD:
[JD] With no disrespect to the cardinal, I don’t know who Cardinal Christophe Pierre is
[REPORTER] He’s the ambassador to the Holy Sea and US
[JD] Okay, I’ve met him before. Sorry. I just didn’t remember the name. I’ve never seen this reporting. I’d like to talk to him.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3miz2sr6q3c2m
Do you think he’s once again trying to larp as someone more Catholic than the Pope?
9. Here’s JD again:
[JD] I think the Iranians thought the ceasefire included Lebanon, and it just didn’t. We never made that promise, we never indicated that was gonna be the case.
and here’s the guy who brokered the deal:
[SHEBAZ SHARIF, LEBANON PRIME MINISTER] With the greatest humility, I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
Source: https://bsky.app/profile/ericcolumbus.bsky.social/post/3miz2tcgha22i
10. If you had any decency, you’d have dropped your silly playacting a while ago. The only question that remains is if you have any shame left.
Do you, Anon for Q-related reasons?
Dullard,
I live in England and although you are correct, for once, there is no first amendment in the United Kingdom. But why would that preclude me from supporting free speech in any country?
You’re once again confusing a constitutional talking point with a principle, Anon for Q-related reasons. Elon bans accounts he dislikes. Elon throttles links to competitors. The list goes on and on:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/twitter-elon-musk-free-speech-x-documentary-excerpt/
Go ahead, rave about PBS. Now’s your cue. Keep your hypocrisy intact.
“Anon for a reason says: Why on earth are you referencing BSky as a reliable source?”
Blue Sky is the medium, not the source. The referenced post is by Anthony Edwards, whom I’ve never heard of, but apparently he’s a meteorologist and is again the messenger, not the source.
The source is NOAA which one might suppose is a reliable source for weather observations within the US. Regardless, their result seemingly agrees with that of Dr Spencer. That is, it was far and away the warmest March in the lower 48 for their respective temperature anomaly time series.
The lede for the blog post you’re commenting in is literally, “March 2026 was record-warm for the Lower 48.”
So there’s that.
Mark B,
Blue Sky is an ecosystem inhabited by a certain section of society who are anti free speech, anti science and cult like in their behaviour. So just like any publication from the kkk I would disregard it.
Funny how both were formed by Democrats.
Once again our Anon for Q-related reasons has bitten more than he can chew:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-05/tesla-s-fall-from-grace-in-china-shows-perils-of-betting-on-beijing
But then, that might not have been parroted by Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson, or Matt Goodwin, so he won’t believe the event happened.
One of the many mistakes made in “climate science” is believing that radiative fluxes can be simply added/subtracted/divided/averaged. Of course fluxes can NOT be simply handled like that, they are not conserved quantities. Fluxes are composed of photons, and photons can not be simply handled like that.
So, here’s a question for any of the cult kids:
What is the result of adding a 10μ photon to a 15μ photon?
(To make it easier, assume both photons have the same polarization and phase, and are traveling in the same direction. And to make it even easier, the answers are “multiple choice”.)
a. One 25μ photon
b. One 12.5μ photon
c. One 0.167μ photon
d. None of the above. Photons can NOT be simply added.
” What is the result of adding a 10μ photon to a 15μ photon? ”
*
None of the four options in the multiple-choice question are correct.
In particular, option (d) is the most nonsensical of the four.
Why?
Bindi, rather than just throwing crap against the wall, why not give us the correct answer, if you know how to simply add photons.
I won’t hold my breath….
As we all can see, Clint R has no idea about which answer to his question is the right one, just like he all the time asks about how a ‘model of orbiting without spin’ looks like but himself never offered any.
*
A join of two photons of 10 resp. 15 µ wavelength results into the same energy level as would deliver one photon with 6 µ wavelength.
Why?
Talk about crap.
Tell us again what temperatures are associated with each of these photons?
We don’t want them interacting with warmer surfaces now, do we?
All wrong, Bindi.
Two photons don’t simply add. And your “answer” is even more of a perversion of science. You’ve got two photons somehow combining to form a photon with a higher frequency! Impossible.
You simply don’t understand any of this, just as you don’t understand orbital motions. My purpose in presenting these simple physics problems is to show that your cult is ignorant of science. Thanks for proving me right, again.
You need a new astrologer….
” All wrong, Bindi.
Two photons don’t simply add. And your “answer” is even more of a perversion of science. You’ve got two photons somehow combining to form a photon with a higher frequency! Impossible. ”
*
As always, Clint R deliberately discredits what he either does not understand or prefers to ignore, for some ideological reasons he himself never explained.
Indeed, two photons don’t simply add; but no one did ever claim this.
What is correctly claimed is that their energies add.
Wouldn’t that be possible, lasers wouldn’t exist.
*
A photon’s energy is given by
E = hc / λ
where λ is the wavelength, h is Planck’s constant and c the speed of light.
According to the law of conservation of energy (which Clint R, like Robertson, apparently ignores), the resulting energy of the merging of two photons is the sum of the respective energies of these two.
We therefore obtain the wavelength σ in microns out of
hc / σ = hc / 10 + hc / 15
1 / σ = 1 / 10 + 1 / 15
1 / σ = 3 / 30 + 2 / 30
i.e.
σ = 6.
Don’t ask me why Clint R rejects this; he himself will never be able to scientifically disprove it.
*
Caution: this ’10 + 15 giving 6′ is only an example proposed by Clint R himself.
Photon mixes as used in e.g. sum frequency generation spectroscopy, are well based on exactly the same scheme but with very high energy photons.
Thanks for bringing out your laser, Bindi. You make my case for me, with such nonsense.
And you’re STILL simply adding the photons to get one photon with a higher frequency. Impossible.
But, keep proving me right. I can take it.
Wow! Is this *really* what you have been ranting about for all these years?
Multiple choice. Radiative flux is measured in:
a) photons /m^2/s
b) micrometers /m^2/s
c) Hz /m^2/s
d) J /m^2/s
The answer, of course is (d). Radiative flux is a measure of ENERGY per unit area per unit time. The fact that you would even discuss ‘adding wavelengths’ in a discussion of radiative flux shows you don’t understands the first thing here. Adding fluxes is about adding ENERGY.
The appropriate question would have been something like
What is the result of adding a 0.1 eV photon to a 0.15 eV photon?
a. 0.1 eV of energy
b. 0.125 eV of energy
c. 0.25 eV of energy
d. None of the above. Energy can NOT be simply added.
The correct answer is (c). Energy CAN simply be added. Energy IS a conserved quantity.
(P.S. “both photons have the same … phase” makes no sense. Only waves with the same frequency & wavelength can be ‘in phase’. Again, a very fundamental misunderstanding!)
Again, my purpose in presenting these simple physics problems is to show that the cult is ignorant of science. A side benefit is the responses from the cult kids, showing the depths of perversion they will go to to protest their false religion.
Here, Folkerts tries to distort the problem by making it look as if it is me that has the physics wrong. He pounds his chest and claims: “The fact that you would even discuss ‘adding wavelengths’ in a discussion of radiative flux shows you don’t understands [sic] the first thing here.”
But, I’m not doing that. I clearly started out the problem with One of the many mistakes made in “climate science” is believing that radiative fluxes can be simply added/subtracted/divided/averaged. It’s his cult that has it wrong, not me. So, Folkerts is trying to twist/distort/pervert the issue, as usual.
Then Folkerts goes on to make the same mistake as his cult: ”Adding fluxes is about adding ENERGY.”
Wrong! Since fluxes are photons, adding fluxes is about adding PHOTONS. But, photons can NOT be simply added. Folkerts tries to pluck the energy out of photons, and add it. But, he ends up with a new photon with a higher frequency (impossible), making the same mistake as Bindi. A very fundamental misunderstanding!
[Anyone that even tends to be skeptical of the CO2 nonsense needs to understand the basics. If more folks understood the basic science, this hoax would have gone away years ago.]
“fluxes are photons”
Like velocity is distance. Or rather, not.
Can two beams have the same flux but a different number of photons?
The answer is yes.
If you know why that is, then you understand that flux is not photons, it is energy (per unit time/area).
Folkerts and Bindi can’t understand that fluxes don’t simply add because they are composed of photons which don’t simply add.
But barry handles that problem my denying fhat fluxes are photons!
Kids these days….
Clint R
You are the child when it comes to understanding real science, not your made up version you peddle! Folkerts is quite correct and you are not! Your posts display ignorance and arrogance but lack any comprehension of actual science. As for science have you attempted to conduct an experiment with six equal heat lamps around a sphere?? Your made up science claims the additional heat lamps will no longer be able to increase the temperature of the heated sphere. I post this for your follower DREMT so he might finally see you are a fraud!! He does not possess any real science background and falls for your phony posts
Sad you still have one follower on this blog.
Sorry Attackman, but I do have a science degree, and no amount of you claiming that I don’t is ever going to change that reality. Keep my name out of your mouth, you’re always trying to drag me into things.
Norman, as I’ve explained to you numerous times — I’m willing to help you but first you must drop the insults and false accusations.
IOW, grow up….
DREMT
If you have a science degree than how can you be fooled by clear evidence??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Somehow you see the Moon image on the Right rotating counter-clockwise when it is most obvious not rotating on its axis at all. Look at the patterns on the Moon in the Right image. They are not changing orientation. They appear the same as if it was motionless. Your alleged science brain can’t see what is clearly before you.
And your partner Clint R has what he requests. An example on the right image of what a Moon would do if it did NOT rotate on its axis.
What is your science degree in DREMT?? I have one in Chemistry, but you do not seem to be able to grasp simple radiant heat transfer problems and come up with some absurd notions of how you think it works without knowing how it really works.
I read your comments DREMT. All you phony skeptics that pretend to know science are not helping a skeptic cause. I think you get your science from the extreme fanatic Joseph Postma. One very deranged person who has a clump of devoted groupies who are not at all rational in their thought process.
Norman, are you claiming the graphic on the right is a “viable model of orbiting without spin”?
Please verify, if that’s your claim. I wouldn’t want to falsely accuse you of something….
Clint R
Yes the one on the Right in the link is not rotating on it axis as it orbits. You can verify this by observing the patterns in the moon image. They are not rotating around the central axis. On the left one they are rotating around the central axis. The Moon on the left is rotating one time for each orbit keeping the same face to the Earth.
So that no one can say you’re avoiding the question Norman, can you answer “yes” or “no” to the simple question:
Is the graphic on the right your “viable model of orbiting without spin”?
Norman, of course the MOTR (Moon On The Right) “appears” to be the object that is not rotating on its own axis out of the two.
But, “appearances” can be deceptive.
It depends on what is your viable model for “orbit without spin”.
If it’s a ball on a string, then it moves like the MOTL (Moon On The Left), and you’re a “Non-Spinner”. That means the MOTR is indeed rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per orbit.
If it’s something that moves like the MOTR, you’re a “Spinner”. That means the MOTL would be rotating on its own axis, anti-clockwise, once per orbit.
You’d have to find an object that moves like the MOTR to be your viable model of “orbit without spin”. It needs some connection to the orbited object to represent the force of gravity.
“I clearly started out the problem with One of the many mistakes made in “climate science”…”
Wrong. That is not a mistake EVER made in science of any sort! What you are ‘clearly stating’ is that you have no idea.
But, hey, prove me wrong and show any climate scientist saying anything vaguely like “adding wavelengths oh photons”.
“Then Folkerts goes on to make the same mistake as his cult: ”Adding fluxes is about adding ENERGY.”
Wrong! Since fluxes are photons, adding fluxesis about adding PHOTONS.”
Wrong. Fluxes are THE ENERGY of the photons. Measured in ENERGY per unit area per unit time. Adding fluxes IS INDEED about adding THE ENERGIES of photons.
“But, he ends up with a new photon with a higher frequency (impossible)”
Wrong. I end up with two photons. This is as stupid as saying if I put a $10 bill in a jar, and add another $10 bill, I must have a single $20 bill!
A 10 um photon + a 10 um photon is TWO 10 um photons. Not a single 5 um photon.
Folkerts demonstrates the dangers of blogging while drunk.
Kids should not have access to alcohol….
You can always tell when Clint has can’t find anything constructive to say — he reverts to ad hominen. I made three specific points in my most recent post, and Clint can’t refute any of them, so he’s off on personal attacks.
Sorry Folkerts but that comment was incoherent. If you have something responsible to offer, let’s see it. Garbled, incomplete, and inaccurate ain’t being responsible.
Also, you can omit the false accusations.
“You’d have to find an object that moves like the MOTR to be your viable model of “orbit without spin”. It needs some connection to the orbited object to represent the force of gravity.”
We have been here before.
The model is the Hubble Space Telescope holding its orientation on a distant star.
Or in my basement I have an equatorial mount, useful for counteracting the rotation of the Earth so the telescope only points to one direction.
” Folkerts and Bindi can’t understand that fluxes don’t simply add because they are composed of photons which don’t simply add.
But barry handles that problem my denying fhat fluxes are photons! ”
*
As always, Clint R’s thorough lack of working experience, technical skills and scientific education simply become too boring for a valuable discussion.
I have enough, just like I have enough of Clint R’s imbecillity when reacting like a 7-year old child with his
” Got a working model of orbiting without spin, Bindi? ”
**
What exactly is flux? Some examples…
*
Flux is defined as the rate at which a substance or energy passes through a surface or substance, commonly measured as flow per unit area per unit time.
It represents the movement of materials between pools (reservoirs) in systems such as the water cycle or in physical transport processes.
Here are the primary kinds of fluxes categorized by water, energy, and material transport:
1. Water Flow Fluxes (Hydrologic Cycle) – processes that move water between the atmosphere, land, and oceans
Evaporation: Liquid water turning into vapor, absorbing energy from the sun.
Transpiration: Liquid water evaporating from plant leaves.
Evapotranspiration: The combined movement of water from the soil and plants into the atmosphere.
Precipitation: Water releasing from the atmosphere to Earth’s surface (rain, snow, hail).
Infiltration: Water soaking into the soil to recharge groundwater.
Surface Runoff: Water moving over the ground into streams and rivers.
Subsurface Flow: Groundwater flowing within aquifers.
2. Energy Fluxes – the rate of energy transfer through a surface
Heat Flux: The transfer of heat energy across a unit area per second (e.g., thermal conduction).
Radiative Flux (Solar Flux): The amount of energy transferred by photons (light) from a source (like the sun) per unit area.
Latent Heat Flux: The energy released or absorbed during water phase changes (e.g., evaporation or condensation).
Poynting Flux: The flow of electromagnetic power or energy through a surface.
3. Material/Mass Fluxes – the transport of matter
Mass Flux: The mass flow rate per unit area (kg·m⁻²·s⁻¹).
Diffusion Flux: The movement of molecules from high concentration to low concentration (e.g., Fick’s Law).
Particle Flux: The rate of transfer of particles (e.g., photons, atoms) through a unit area.
4. Fluid Dynamics and Physical Fluxes
Volumetric Flux: The rate of volume flow across a unit area, frequently used in Darcy’s Law for groundwater flow.
Momentum Flux: The rate of transfer of momentum across a unit area (transfer of motion/viscosity).
Electric Flux: The number of electric field lines passing through a surface, originating from charges.
*
Who believes ignoramuses like Clint R, Robertson and a few other similar boys 100% deserves their antiscientific nonsense.
Bindi, the “flux” under discussion here is a “radiative flux”, specifically the flux emitted from a surface measured in W/m².
You’ve go so much to learn, just like the other cult kids.
CR continues his strange habit of attracting public abuse by repeatedly displaying his scientific ignorance.
Sounds a bit like a fetish.
The “abuse” doesn’t bother me at all. It merely proves me right. Cult kids don’t have anything but abuse.
“the “flux” under discussion here is a “radiative flux”, specifically the flux emitted from a surface measured in W/m².”
You are SO CLOSE to getting it! Yes, we are talking a flux of J/m²/s — not photons/m²/s.
And the flux could be measured as it is emitted from a surface OR as it arrives at a surface (or simple passes through some surface).
Great quality and stylish designs.
I saw upthread that genius Robertson once again is whining about a cold March in his Vancouver village.
This is usually a very good forecast for Imminent Global Cooling, as is clearly shown by three different temperature time series for the Vancouver coordinates 49N, 123W:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VLfxxWpPlVWg_mreAS2QsUV1eP6aHwT5/view
In red: NOAA Climate at a Glance for 49N-123W; in green: the average of ~ 15 NOAA GHCN daily weather stations in and around Vancouver; in blue: UAH 6.1 LT’s 2.5 degree grid cell encompassing Vancouver and environs.
UAH’s trend for 2010-2026 is even the highest of all three series.
With another super well nino priming itself in the central Pacific. We have seen near record or record level wind anomalies along the equator between 120-180W centered around 150 West for the past month. This has carved out a massive Kelvin wave that has been exploding in size and scope over the past month.
At the same time the January Kelvin wave is reaching the surface near the SA coast. The gap of cooler water between each Kelvin wave is in full collapse because the on going WWB started around February 20th. It has been aided by a tropical cyclone that has been slowly moving WNW just North of the equator. That system moves on in a week and then the mjo flips and a major relaxation of the Easterlies over the entire Eastern region of the equatorial Pacific. Infact the CFS has a full blown Kelvin wave in late April over the Epac.
Either way the el nino is going to explode onto the scene by the end of May.
We will likely see 1.0C+ anomalies this fall on the UAH dataset.
The CFS has been showing a super nino with a second huge area of 2-4C+ anomalies in the 10-25N range in the EPAC.
We will learn a lot through 2027. By 2028 we may never go below 0.50C on UAH again.
DREMT, I was catching up on the discussion above about the plates. Several years ago, you provided me with a graphic of the blue/green plates with the correct solution. But, I cannot find it. If you still have it, please share the link.
(I have another problem for the kids.)
Thanks!
Hey Clint,
Here it is:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
Thanks DREMT!
Here’s the correct solution to the plates:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
The incorrect solution has the blue plate at a higher temperature, with no added energy. That’s a violation of 2LoT. But, for those who do not understand thermodynamics, here’s an easier way to understand:
If the plates were in exact contact, the temperatures would be the same as in the correct solution. Both plates would be at the same temperature. The net energy flow would be from blue plate to green plate. Both plates would be emitting 200 W/m² to space.
Now if the plates are slightly separated, so that there are no losses, the temperatures would remain the same. The net energy flow remains from blue plate to green plate, with both plates emitting 200 W/m² to space. The only difference is the energy flow from blue to green is now purely radiative, as opposed to conductive. But, it’s the same energy. The energy flow diagram would be exactly the same as when the plates were in exact contact.
What confuses the cult kids are things they’ve seen in cult science. They believe an imaginary “black body” can do things no real object can do! If a plate has a temperature of 0K, it could absorb all photons. But the instant it has a temperature above 0K, it would no longer absorb certain low frequency photons. As its temperature rose, it would only be able to absorb higher and higher frequency photons. For example, if the plate were receiving 400 W/m² from one side, it would reach a temperature of 244K, emitting 200 W/m² from both sides. If a flux of 100 W/m² arrived from the other side, it would have no effect. The side is already emitting 200 W/m², so the 100 W/m² would not be able to increase the temperature above 244K.
Don’t expect any of the cult kids to understand this.
“But the instant it has a temperature above 0K, it would no longer absorb certain low frequency photons. As its temperature rose, it would only be able to absorb higher and higher frequency photons”
This is absolute, pure, unmitigated fantastical BS.
Kirchhoff’s Law states: “Absorp.tivity at a specific wavelength equals Emissivity at that same wavelength”
Everyone discussing this is hopefully aware of the Planck curve, This shows us that the bell curve of various frequencies almost completely overlap for a temperature of 300K and 400K. The frequencies are the same at both temperatures.
It is physically impossible to be a good emitter at a certain frequency and a bad absorber at the same frequency.
Choose any frequency under the bell curve for the 400K temperature, and those same frequencies are in the 300K bell curve.
If Krichhoff is correct, then both objects should be able to absorb the others photons.
And in fact all radiative science accepts Kirchhoff’s law.
But Clint and DREMT do not.
Clint and DREMT believe that a high emissivity/absorp.tivity object will reject all photons from an object of a lower temperature.
THIS is the fiction that is anti-physics, and that they never have and never will corroborate with any reputable physics text.
Because this notion that photons from cooler objects are rejected by warmer ones is a complete fantasy, backed by nothing in physics.
Clint, DREMT, if you cannot furnish a reputable physics text source for this claim – immediately – then it is once and for all determined that you lose the argument.
It really is as simple as that. More strings of words without that physics text reference will only serve to confirm that you do not have and never have had the goods on this.
More words without citing a decent source confirms that you are just fabricating this idea.
Confirmation incoming in 3… 2…
barry – You are unwell. I’m sorry to have enabled this.
You don’t understand any of this, barry. Thanks for proving me right.
If you had some level of maturity, you would recognize that you use the same tactics as your cult, same as Bindi, Norman, Nate, and gordon. You just start slinging irrelevant stuff against the wall, hoping something will stick. At least you spelled “Kirchhoff” correctly this time.
And, if you were really interested in science, you would identify something I got wrong. But, you can’t. I’ve explained your concerns before. It’s possible to actually absorb a low frequency photon, if the surface is emitting the same frequency. But that does NOT mean the low energy photon can raise the temperature. To raise temperature, a photon/flux MUST raise the average kinetic energy of the molecules.
But I promised another problem, so let’s see if you can get this one. It’s very easy. Study the correct solution to the plates:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
Now, is that also the energy flows, and temperatures, if the plates are in exact contact?
Astute readers can thank Puffman and Graham D. Warner for proving Barry right.
Barry says:
”More words without citing a decent source confirms that you are just fabricating this idea.”
Looks like Barry has given up advocating for the Easter Bunny solution. Either that or he is projecting.
Barry says:
”Because this notion that photons from cooler objects are rejected by warmer ones is a complete fantasy, backed by nothing in physics.
Clint, DREMT, if you cannot furnish a reputable physics text source for this claim – immediately – then it is once and for all determined that you lose the argument.”
While Barry meekly tries to project he just ignores that Mairov was given to him as a source that states the only insulation variable for radiant transfer is emissivity.
“Clint and DREMT believe that a high emissivity/absorp.tivity object will reject all photons from an object of a lower temperature.”
I’ve never actually said anything about what happens to individual photons, so here barry is making stuff up, again, and attempting to drag me into another discussion about the plates when all I actually want is for him and Nate to concede that point they should have conceded months ago.
“DREMT says: I’ve never actually said anything about what happens to individual photons”
“who knows? Who cares!? It’s completely and utterly irrelevant.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1738405
It is an interesting stylistic difference in contrarian argument tactics in that some will try to redirect when challenged with obvious problems in the position they’re arguing and others will BS all the way down.
Yes DREMT, and I also never said “a high emissivity/absorp.tivity object will reject all photons from an object of a lower temperature.” That’s just another false accusation from the cult kids.
bill hunter says: “Looks like Barry has given up advocating for the Easter Bunny solution.”
I had to think about that one for a second, Bill. But I got it.
barry always claims the “high road”, mentioning Kirchhoff, Planck, et al. But for his actual sources he uses the Easter bunny!
Kids these days….
Mark B arrives out of nowhere again to falsely accuse and insult, whilst providing a link that helps prove me correct – I’ve never taken a position on what happens to individual photons. And, I never will, since there’s absolutely no need to.
It’s more than interesting stylistic difference, Mark B.
Our cranks are creating a rudimentary Kafka trap.
3… 2… 1.
No physics texts supporting the fantastical notions.
Thank you DREMT and Clint for playing “Fail to Corroborate!
And thank you for continuing to spout words instead of providing the requested physics support for your notions, demonstrating, as predicted, that you do not have, ad never did have the goods.
I’m going to offer you further opportunity to corroborate your views with a reputable physics text. We shouldn’t hastily assume your failure just because you might have been distracted, or had personal issues that got in the way of a sober, neutral, reputable reference for your ideas.
But what is clear to anyone watching is that you will play Fail to Corroborate and win that game with flying colours, even as you devote more verbiage to cover your glorious inadequacy to fulfil a simple, valid request.
You can’t help but keep proving this, in
3… 2…
“I’ve never taken a position on what happens to individual photons. And, I never will, since there’s absolutely no need to.”
‘If I can’t explain it, I won’t.’
Why would I corroborate a position I haven’t taken?
barry, I’m just patiently waiting for you to concede the point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740332
Mark B, barry appears unable to answer the simple question:
Study the correct solution to the plates:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
Now, is that also the energy flows, and temperatures, if the plates are in exact contact?
Just like a cult-kid, barry can’t understand the basics. So, he falsely accuses others of believing things they don’t believe:
“Clint and DREMT believe that a high emissivity/absorp.tivity object will reject all photons from an object of a lower temperature.”
Then he expects us to show from real science (corroborate) his nonsense that we don’t accept!
Kids these days….
Willard,
Something I have noticed over decades of observing the online climate “debate” (and elsewhere) is that there are three broad standards of behavior.
“Good faith scientific debate” prioritizes truth, rigorous methodology, balanced consideration of the full body of evidence, and revision via new evidence. The characteristic rhetorical tactics include cautious language (confidence intervals, uncertainty), citation of sources.
“Legal advocacy” prioritizes persuasion within rules and client duty. Characteristic rhetorical tactics include persuasive devices (emotive appeals, framing, cross-examination), emphasis and omission are tactical. That is, one can be misleading but can’t strictly lie.
“Unconstrained advocacy” prioritizes persuasion unconstrained by evidence, self consistency, and/or coherent methodology.
Behavior is a continuous spectrum and individuals are not always in one camp, but it does seem that many who dip into advocacy are self-constrained to “not lie”. This makes sense for advocates who would potentially suffer reputational costs for doing so, but it is also common behavior for nominally anonymous advocates.
What I struggle with is explaining the ethics of someone who is self aware enough to behave as a “legal advocate” which seemingly requires one to know the weakness of their case enough to effectively avoid the potential traps.
Mark, the case against your 262 K…220 K is conclusively made long before it’s necessary to explain the return of the “back-radiation” transfer and thus get to the 244 K…244 K solution. I don’t know how to get this across to you any more clearly – it simply doesn’t matter if you don’t like the idea of that transfer being returned. I’ll put it even more straightforwardly – you can criticise the 244 K…244 K solution until the cows come home. It won’t save your 262 K…220 K solution which has been debunked for years.
If you slyly accuse me of dishonesty one more time…
DREMT
You claim the Blue/Green plate solution that the green plate gets cooler and the blue plate warms is debunked?? I don’t think so. You still make a claim to have studied science at higher levels but non of your posts demonstrate this.
Real world testing done by Dr Spencer here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Here is another
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
If you actually studied science, as you claim to, then you also understand that science is based upon empirical evidence to support the conclusions. Neither you not Clint R are ever able to support any of your conclusions. You claim they are correct but never provide evidence to support any of them. They do go directly against established science. If you are saying established science is not correct but you are, it is up to you to provide empirical evidence that the science is wrong and your understanding is the correct on. You have done zero experiments to support your claim (nor has Clint R or Gordon Robertson) nor do you provide source material for any of your claims like valid textbooks on radiant heat transfer. Barry requests some supporting evidence, are you going to be like Clint R and reject the request. I would like to know where you get it from since it is not from any textbook material I have read on the subject and we have empirical evidence that your conclusions are wrong.
Sorry, Norman, but I’m not discussing the plates again. If you’re interested, you can read all the way through the discussions beginning here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733263
and here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733896
I’ve just explained why there’s no need to respond to barry’s request, and the experimental side of things has been discussed many times before. I know you’re well aware of Geraint Hughes’ experiments as well as, for example, the Seim & Olsen experiment, so you shouldn’t really have left them out, should you?
There you go again Norman, making one false accusation after another.
I’ve provide science that comes from REAL physics. It’s well documented and established. It’s your job to understand it. If you don’t have the background to understand, I’m willing to explain if you can ever stop with the insults and false accusations.
The fact that you cannot control yourself indicates your cultism. You can’t see reality because you’re blinded by your hatred of anyone that shows your beliefs are invalid. You have no interest in learning, that’s why you avoid addressing relevant topics such as here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740697
Or my also unanswered challenge to barry, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740805
When you grow up I’ll be glad to explain why your interpretation of Spencer’s experiment is incorrect.
But, until then, keep proving me right. I enjoy being right.
Clint,
When the plates are conducting there is zero net flow of energy between them because they are the same temperature.
The energy flow equivalent in the diagram would be 200 W/m2 going from one plate to the other, summing to zero.
What we have instead is 400 W/m2 going to the right, and 200 W/m2 going to the left. This is an energy imbalance between the plates, that should result in a temperature gradient in a conductive scenario.
But really the two different methods of heat transfer follow completely different rules on how energy is distributed. When the plates are pressed together and the same temperature there is no energy flow, it is one mass with an equally distributed kinetic energy.
With radiation even at the same temperature the plates are blasting energy at each other. You cannot use the ‘zero net flow’ of conduction to justify the completely fantastical ‘zero absorption’ of radiation. The left plate in the radiative version is receiving 400W/m2 from the sun PLUS whatever the right plate is sending back. It cannot stay at 244K.
You and DREMT try to get around this by asserting BP can’t absorb photons from GP, which is nonsense. This is the conclusion you keep asserting as an argument.
And this is the point you fail to corroborate with anything from a reputable physics source. Read any physics text and you learn that high emissivity objects also have high absorp.tivity. Read any physics text and you learn that a blackbody absorbs ALL incident radiation. This is what you and DREMT deny with that diagram and all the noise you make, without ever once in many years providing that quote from a physics text.
So, thanks once again for playing Fail to Corroborate. Science is not on your side. That’s why it’s all waffle and no reputable references.
Please, keep talking and not citing. The hole you’re digging with your word-shovel becomes an ever wider chasm between fact and fiction.
In the diagram it is very clear that GP’s energy towards BP bounces off and is returned to GP. The arrow is helpfully coloured green so that we can see what the illustrator had in mind.
This is blackbody BP behaving like a perfect reflector, even as it behaves like a perfect emitter.
And when challenged on this DREMT denies he is saying that GP radiation is bouncing off BP (which it must to satisfy the math), ad does a little dance to avoid being pinned to any concrete position on that matter while pointing to anything else. He just slides away from it every time and tells us to ‘look over there.’
Clint, spews absolute nonsense about the absorp.tivity of a surface being dependent on its temperature, and whether it has molecular activity ‘compatible’ to incoming radiation.
barry, that’s a lot of blah-blah, but little is correct. You obviously understand none of this. Your very first sentence is WRONG: “When the plates are conducting there is zero net flow of energy between them because they are the same temperature.”
You are confusing “heat” with “energy”. With the plates in exact contact energy definitely flows between them. With the plates slightly apart (no losses), the same energy flows between them, as shown in the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
You’re very confused about this, and are unable to learn. Your bunny has tricked you….
Clint R
Your post is kind of laughable!
YOU: “I’ve provide science that comes from REAL physics. It’s well documented and established. It’s your job to understand it. If you don’t have the background to understand, I’m willing to explain if you can ever stop with the insults and false accusations.”
Where have you done this?? We are all waiting with patience. None of the skeptics here provide any valid science from established sources. You have not since I have seen your posts on this blog.
If you are not willing to do an actual experiment to prove your assertion that 6 equal heat lamps will not increase the temperature of a sphere above what 4 will do, then you are not valid in any way and all your claims need to be soundly rejected.
DREMT
YOU: “I know you’re well aware of Geraint Hughes’ experiments as well as, for example, the Seim & Olsen experiment, so you shouldn’t really have left them out, should you?”
Not sure if you were the one I previously discussed the experiments with. Geraint Hughes did not measure the temperature of the glass surrounding his experiment (where E Swanson did indeed). I asked him about that but he did not give a valid response. Glass is very good at absorbing and emitting infrared. It is transparent to visible frequencies but opaque to IR. The heat lamp he used would also heat the glass which would then radiate energy toward his blue plate and how much would depend upon its temperature which he ignored.
On the Seim and Olsen experiment, I addressed that one as well. They used a Styrofoam back to collect the CO2 radiant energy. The problem is Styrofoam does not absorb at all in the CO2 emission band. It was a very poor choice of material to investigate back-radiation.
Will you admit you get your science from blogs?? Not textbooks! You peddle theories from the PSI blog and Joseph Postma blog. These sources are not textbook established physics. They are just opinions of contrarians who try to make a name for themselves by contradicting established science, it works with science illiterates and that is why I strongly question your claim to a science education background. You could read the blogs but should research on your own. You, like Clint R or Gordon Robertson, will make claims but will not lift a finger to do a real test.
Wrong again, Norman. All my science comes from REAL physics. It’s well documented and established. It’s your job to understand it, but you can’t. Want an example?
This is an easy experiment that any responsible adult could do. It only requires a coffee cup, pencil, string, tack, and tape.
Stab the tack into the middle of a table. Tie the string to it. Place the coffee cup between the tack and the edge of the table. Tie the loose end of the string to the handle of the coffee cup. Put the pencil in the cup and position it at about 20 degrees from vertical. Tape the pencil in place.
Note the direction the pencil is pointing.
Now move the cup around the tack, keeping the string tight so that the cup handle always faces the tack. Note the direction the pencil is facing 180 degrees from starting position.
I predict you can not do this simple experiment because it proves Moon does not spin.
Prove me wrong.
No, Clint. With the plates together there is no flow of energy from one to the other, and the other back again. There is not the equivalent of 200 W/m2 going in any direction where the plates join.
With a temperature gradient there is now an energy flow, in line with the heat flow.
But when the plates are the same temperature there are no hidden flows of energy going one way or the other, there is only the kinetic energy contained within the solid mass, which has no particular directionality.
Fiction physics is big with ‘skeptics’.
April 12, 2026 at 7:40 PM
Clint wins again at Fail to Corroborate.
After years of this, he is probably champion of the board, followed closely by DREMT.
This is another example of what I talk about — the cult kids have no understanding of the basics, and they can’t learn.
Above, I corrected barry on this, but he did’t learn. He’s still at it: “With the plates together there is no flow of energy from one to the other”
With the plates together, the energy flows and temperatures would be the same as in the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
barry, and several other cult kids, have been unable to understand the simple diagram. Both plates would be emitting 200 W/m² to space. No matter how many times you prove them wrong, they won’t learn. That’s one of the dangers of being in a cult.
I see Norman is now acting like he’s an expert in experimental design! He continues to insult and falsely accuse me, so I shan’t be bothering to respond further to him.
barry misrepresents with:
“The left plate in the radiative version is receiving 400W/m2 from the sun PLUS whatever the right plate is sending back. It cannot stay at 244K. You and DREMT try to get around this by asserting BP can’t absorb photons from GP, which is nonsense. This is the conclusion you keep asserting as an argument.”
Sorry barry, but, as you know, I’ve presented a chain of logic that leads inescapably to the conclusion that in your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP. You’ve mostly accepted this is the case, you’re just holding out on the “regardless of the starting temperature of the GP” line. You only believe it applies if the GP is introduced at 244 K. Once you and Nate have conceded the point in full, we can discuss further.
But, clearly I have never asserted anything about photons, so you’re lying again. If you can’t be bothered to correctly represent my argument despite it being clearly explained to you about fifty times over, then you are not arguing in good faith. See Mark B’s comment.
“Sorry barry, but, as you know, I’ve presented a chain of logic”
that no one buys and which you use in lieu of responding to cogent points you wish to avoid.
“But, clearly I have never asserted anything about photons”
Which is another way you avoid cogent points.
You BP reflects GP energy.
As Clint once wisely said:
“Upon impacting a surface, photons are either absorbed, reflected, or pass through the surface.”
But your GP photons do something mysterious that you won’t explain.
Even though we know you think they bounce off the BP. You coloured the arrow in the diagram green to help us understand your point of view.
https://i.postimg.cc/kMs2d1yR/Screen-Shot-2018-01-20-at-4-50-58-AM.png
If you can’t explain it, then you don’t have the goods.
Any physics text will tell you what happens to those photons. I’ve cited many to that point. Physics 20, DREMT 0.
“With the plates together, the energy flows and temperatures would be the same as in the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h”
Lord, you are totally confused.
In the radiative scenario the plates are firing photons like bullets at each other, particles traveling in straight lines (though not parallel) from one plate to the other.
With the plates pressed together there is no vector of energy going in a certain direction. There is only a sea of molecules vibrating, and with both plates at the same temperature the vibration is the same level everywhere.
How do you not know physics this basic?
“Conduction occurs only when there is a temperature difference either within different sections of a material or between two materials in contact. Furthermore, the higher the temperature difference, the higher the heat transfer per unit of time.”
https://www.simscale.com/docs/simwiki/heat-transfer-thermal-analysis/what-is-conduction/
“Conduction is a diffusion process by which thermal energy spreads from hotter regions to cooler regions of a solid or stationary fluid.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/655/
It’s so basic they teach it in middle school:
“Conduction occurs when two substances at different temperatures are in contact.”
https://www.acs.org/middleschoolchemistry/lessonplans/chapter2/lesson1.html
You need to go back to school, Clint.
“…that no one buys and which you use in lieu of responding to cogent points you wish to avoid.”
barry, stop lying. You’ve already “bought it”. As I said, the only thing you’ve disputed is the “regardless of the starting temperature of the GP” sentence. You’re happy with my logic as long as the GP is introduced at 244 K. You ought to then accept it regardless of the starting temperature of the GP, but you keep having brain fart after brain fart.
“When the plates are conducting there is zero net flow of energy between them because they are the same temperature. The energy flow equivalent in the diagram would be 200 W/m2 going from one plate to the other, summing to zero.”
Then you have a 1LoT problem, barry. Your energy flows don’t balance, overall.
Just thought I’d point that out. I didn’t want to discuss the plates beyond asking you to concede the point I’m asking, but that’s too obvious a problem to avoid mentioning.
barry just uses the same cult tactics as the other kids. He clearly understands none of the science. He’s so confused.
He can’t understand that the plates in exact contact would have the same energy flow, and temperatures, as if they were slightly apart.
It’s time for him to present his diagram of the temperatures and energy flows with the plates in exact contact. If his diagram is any different from the correct solution for the plates slightly apart, it would be funny.
Again, correct solution for both plates together and apart:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
Got a diagram, barry? Put up or shut up.
“barry, stop lying. You’ve already “bought it””
No, I went along with it for the sake of argument. Go back and read our long discussion.
But I couldn’t go along with an object gaining in temperature yet having lost internal energy. Having LESS internal energy than in a different scenario? Sure. If you had said that then we’d have no disagreement.
And that’s the disagreement I mean when I say no one bought it.
“Then you have a 1LoT problem, barry. Your energy flows don’t balance, overall.”
Oh I agree. At the same temperature the sum of the radiative exchange between the plates should be zero. But this doesn’t work with an external energy source, does it?
Now if you didn’t have that logjam of dogma clogging your mind you’d figure out why the plates CAN’T be the same temperature.
But because of the logjam you have a reflecting blackbody.
Ad oh look – you avoided explaining what happens to the photons from GP to BP. We can all see that you mean them to be reflected by BP – hence that green arrow. But you know the cost of admitting it, so you wave your hands and hope people won’t notice you can’t answer the question.
Go on – commit to an answer. Are the photons reflected by blackbody BP, absorbed or transmitted? As Clint pointed out – those are the only three options. Shouldn’t be too difficult to pick one.
We can omit transmittance. There, now you have only two choices. Which is it, DREMT? Absorbed or reflected? Can you answer the question?
Or are you going to invoke the mystery again?
“He can’t understand that the plates in exact contact would have the same energy flow, and temperatures, as if they were slightly apart.”
Yeah, you said that the first time and when I explained the result you said it again.
Repeating an assertion isn’t making a case.
You’re not making a case because you don’t have one.
“It’s time for him to present his diagram of the temperatures and energy flows with the plates in exact contact.”
Easy.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyfEC-GMqoCJARqaSQ1fWdk7kYqhFhfpNB0YKgnulzbKNg11XnVqFWgTy6XOrtHBcMiEhYU6DBZU0LRdM6Xlefsoz2PIoKGGSif65LTgFEb1cQARvVexICyi1EEwZr8QntWM9w/s1600/Untitled1.png
As the contact and conduction is perfect it’s just one solid mass heated by the sun.
A solid mass at one temperature has molecules vibrating at the same level of intensity. There is no conduction without a temperature gradient. Conduction is defined by a temperature gradient, the degree of conduction is determined by the difference in temperature (and in materials) – and yes, that refers to energy as well as heat.
“Conduction occurs only when there is a temperature difference either within different sections of a material or between two materials in contact. Furthermore, the higher the temperature difference, the higher the heat transfer per unit of time.”
https://www.simscale.com/docs/simwiki/heat-transfer-thermal-analysis/what-is-conduction/
That’s not a “tactic”, Clint. That is what credible people call a ‘reference’.
“Sure. If you had said that then we’d have no disagreement.”
I did say that. So, I guess we have no disagreement. The GP, introduced at zero K, gains less internal energy than it would otherwise, thanks to the “back-radiation” transfer. Which also means even though it is gaining internal energy, overall, it is still losing some to the BP, via that transfer of EMR.
In your second response to me you have switched to discussing radiative transfer when I was quoting you discussing conduction. Will there be anything honest from you today, barry?
You’re still overly worried about how the “back-radiation” transfer gets returned in the 244 K…244 K solution. I explained to Mark B already, your 262 K…220 K solution is debunked long before we need worry about that.
DREMT
Sorry you feel insulted by my posts to you. I think you are just upset because I am questioning your claim to a scienc background. Not really my problem as ypur posts show no actual level of real science. I have read contrarian blogs. If you do not like how i evaluated the experiments, point out the flaws of my evaluation! If you don’t want to engage with me no loss! I can find your opinions on contrarisn blogs. I will nrver find them in established physics textbooks!
Clint R
You have not given any supporting physics for your make believe opinions! You are just making that statement up! Give a link to a valid textbook that supports your radiative energy transfer opinions! You have not done this in years so what “real” physics supports your false claims. Tim Folkerts post valid real physics, you not so much.
The Moon spins once per orbit acheived this condition over millions of years by real world physics of tidal torque! I do not know what physics you use that disputes this reality. This blog will not know the answer to this because you never provide valid support for your make believe physics.
Of course the photons are being reflected by the blue plate, barry. That’s clearly shown in the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
Spend some time and try to understand that simple diagram. Get an adult to help you.
Someday, maybe you will be able to provide a diagram for the plates in exact contact.
I won’t hold my breath….
“Clint, DREMT, if you cannot furnish a reputable physics text source for this claim – immediately – then it is once and for all determined that you lose the argument.
It really is as simple as that. More strings of words without that physics text reference will only serve to confirm that you do not have and never have had the goods on this.
More words without citing a decent source confirms that you are just fabricating this idea.”
And we can all see that nothing has been produced.
Nothing produced = their physics is fake.
QED
” and attempting to drag me”
Bwa ha ha ha! This from the guy who just cant stop beating this long dead horse.
” I explained to Mark B already, your 262 K…220 K solution is debunked long before we need worry about that.”
Debunked how? By its 2LOT violation?
The one that you always refuse to discuss?
Mark says”I don’t expect you to accept the solution for reasons stated previously, but clearly the point of contention is whether there is or is not a 2nd law violation in your step 5.
DREMT says:
April 11, 2026 at 7:35 AM
No, Mark. The conclusion I’ve referred to, the point I am asking Nate and barry to concede, comes before any discussion of a 2LoT violation.”
So again, we get an ongoing claim of that Eli’s solution has been debunked…
together with an ongoing campaign to NEVER reveal the evidence that it is debunked!
Because we know that you have not one shred of evidence that heat ever flows from cold to warm here, and thus nothing to support as 2LOT violation.
Nate lies:
“So again, we get an ongoing claim of that Eli’s solution has been debunked…together with an ongoing campaign to NEVER reveal the evidence that it is debunked!”
I’m only currently interested in getting Nate and barry to concede the following point:
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.”
Getting that point conceded requires no discussion of a 2LoT violation, as I correctly explained to Mark. However, over on the other thread, that I linked to previously – the extraordinarily long discussions – I was still baited into going over the 2LoT violation in great depth. Despite the fact that they refused to concede the point! I consider it to be the case that all the evidence required has been given. Nate, of course, pretends none of it was ever discussed.
This is why I can’t keep the discussions purely scientific. The people I’m talking to just aren’t honest enough to do that with.
It’s like these repeated requests to “corroborate” a position we haven’t even taken!
I will not be discussing the plates. Not until barry and Nate have conceded that point.
@Norman — You need to clean up you previous mess before making anymore messes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740697
@Nate — The “claim” was bogus. I don’t support bogus claims.
@barry — That diagram is for the blue plate only, barry. You need to have a diagram of both plates, together, showing temperatures and energy flows.
Until you do that, you’ve got NOTHING.
[These cult kids only make messes, clog the blog. What will they try next?]
“I’m only currently interested in getting Nate and barry to concede the following point”
Of course you are.
Because you know that aint ever gonna happen.
It is a childish demand that you will shamelessly make ad-nauseum, thus putting off indefinitely showing your evidence that there is a 2LOT violation here.
You know what that requires: actual evidence of actual heat transferred from a cold body to a warm.
Which you know does not exist.
So this is pure fraud. An obvious dodge, distraction, deflection.
Because you just don’t have the goods.
DREMT is going to stop talking about the plates?
Praise be.
It ought to be very very very easy for Clint to produce a source for the ‘physics’ that he keeps trying to foist on us.
But no, it seems to be very very VERY HARD for him.
Why?
Clearly he is comfortable making absurd claims that no one will take seriously.
Oh well.
Nate piles on with the false accusations, as usual.
In any rational, scientific debate, the point I’m asking you to concede would have been conceded months ago. Indeed, Ball4 did concede the point – he at least has that going for him. And, barry has conceded it partially – he just currently only thinks it applies when the GP is introduced at 244 K. So no, I don’t think it will never happen. I think it could happen any day now. If barry concedes the point, he might be able to help convince you.
And no, there’s nothing childish about it. A discussion goes nowhere unless people are prepared to concede points.
And no, I’m not doing it to avoid presenting evidence of a 2LoT violation. I linked to the long discussions from the other thread in a response to Norman. Anyone is welcome to read through and find the evidence for themselves.
“The GP, introduced at zero K, gains less internal energy than it would otherwise, thanks to the ‘back-radiation’ transfer.”
Yes, it gains less energy than the imaginary scenario where GP magically absorbs at a surface it is unable to radiate from.
As long as you understand that these scenarios are not connected by real physics, then you understand you’re only comparing plates at different temperatures.
You get to have your thought experiment, but you don’t get to claim that it represents a valid physical model to benchmark another physical model.
Sun, BP and GP are “losing internal energy” from every surface they radiate. It’s also known as ‘radiating’. ‘Losing internal energy’ is what every object in the universe does all the time, then. So what’s the difference between ‘radiating’ and ‘losing internal energy’? Nothing. You’ve conflated two distinct concepts. That’s only one of the flaws in your train of logic. You’ve redefined internal energy. You know what the real definition is, so I won’t bore you with a quote.
I am perfectly happy to say that GP sends energy to BP, that this changes the radiative balance impacting BP (which includes solar energy), and that the BP warms as a result. Got no problem with saying back radiation causes warming of the BP. If you are comfortable with more colloquial language, then colder GP makes warmer BP warmer. Even more colloquially? GP heats BP.
But it’s with language that we run into trouble, which is why you’re working so hard to have your language accepted. You’re so keen to have me agree to “regardless the starting temperature of GP,” that you should wonder why you’re trying to force language on a problem that can be described in many ways.
Ultimately you want the language to be “cooler GP transfers its internal energy to warmer BP, causing GP to get colder and BP to get warmer.” Then you can try to argue that this is a verbal representation of a violation of 2LoT.
We could also say that when GP is allowed to radiate from two sides, THAT is the cause if its cooling; not a transfer of internal energy, but an increased radiating surface, allowing more energy to be lost per unit time. We could say that the new vector of radiation is absorbed by BP, changing the radiative balance on it, reducing its rate of heat loss.
That is a perfectly valid description (and how Roy Spencer describes it).
But… then you wouldn’t have your “train of logic” rhetoric to try and build your purely verbal case of 2LoT violation.
Minis the word salad, this is what defines heat transfer.
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
And this is what you reject when we add your world salad.
You reject science in favour of your ‘train of logic’. That’s your problem, not science’s.
“In your second response to me you have switched to discussing radiative transfer when I was quoting you discussing conduction.”
You quoted me:
“When the plates are conducting there is zero net flow of energy between them because they are the same temperature. The energy flow equivalent in the diagram would be 200 W/m2 going from one plate to the other, summing to zero.”
You replied:
“Then you have a 1LoT problem, barry. Your energy flows don’t balance, overall.”
The original question compares the radiative flow with conductive. I mention both in my response. My point to you was that the premise (the diagram) is wrong. To extend and clarify, if two plates in contact at the same temperature do not have equivalent energy between them, then something is very wrong. They cannot be in thermal equilibrium, and they cannot be at the same temperature. If you think differently to what you quoted on me above, you’re welcome to explain.
“Will there be anything honest from you today, barry?”
I trust in future you will never complain about others being rude to you. Glass houses and all that.
DREMT,
Clint said:
“Of course the photons are being reflected by the blue plate, barry.”
Do you agree?
Clint,
“That diagram is for the blue plate only, barry. You need to have a diagram of both plates, together, showing temperatures and energy flows.”
Draw an imaginary line down the middle of the blue plate. Now you have two plates.
Nothing changes. There is no vector of energy going from one plate to another. The molecules are vibrating in every direction, at the same average level of kinetic energy, resulting in a temperature of 244K. At equilibrium the exact same physical action is occurring as if it were one single plate.
You would really draw arrows inside the plate? That’s just physically wrong. There are no vectors of energy (or heat) within a solid (or two compressed solids) of uniform temperature.
I’m going to repeat that because it is my point.
There are no vectors of energy (or heat) within a solid (or two compressed solids) of uniform temperature.
If you can’t rebut this then you haven’t addressed my point.
DREMT,
“You’re still overly worried about how the “back-radiation” transfer gets returned in the 244 K… 244 K solution.”
Avoiding dealing with a challenge to your thesis by calling me ‘overly-worried’ doesn’t cut it. Vaguely referring to another conversation is also completely inadequate.
The photons are obviously not transmitted. So either they are absorbed or reflected. There is no other option, so which is it?
The answer has consequences that you must deal with.
That’s a fascinating diagram, Clint. Here’s one question for you. Suppose the green plate was briefly warmed from 244 K to 245 K. perhaps by some imbedded electric heater, or by contact with a hotter object.
What would (in your reckoning) happen? I think you would agree that the two green arrows out from the green plate would increase from 200 W/m^2 to 204 W/m^2, due to the higher temperature of the radiating surfaces of the green plate. Would any of the other arrows change? If so, how?
barry…you’ve written so much, but said so little.
Here’s what I said to you:
“I did say that. So, I guess we have no disagreement. The GP, introduced at zero K, gains less internal energy than it would otherwise, thanks to the “back-radiation” transfer. Which also means even though it is gaining internal energy, overall, it is still losing some to the BP, via that transfer of EMR.”
You can’t refute that, so you just sort of…prattle on indefinitely. The BPs supposed gain in internal energy (all 18 K-worth of it) comes directly from the GP, regardless of the temperature you start the GP at. You guys get so hung up on the language I’m using, as if that’s my argument in itself, you seem to forget what I’m actually saying.
I also pointed out that your idea of what happens when the plates are pushed together violates 1LoT. You keep trying to turn that into my problem, but it’s most definitely not my problem. It’s your problem. Sort out your idea of the scenario when the plates are pushed together, and it might help you understand what happens when the plates are separate.
“The GP, introduced at zero K, gains less internal energy than it would otherwise, thanks to the ‘back-radiation’ transfer. Which also means even though it is gaining internal energy, overall, it is still losing some to the BP, via that transfer of EMR.”
Yes, the GP gains less energy than in a non-physical scenario which, despite your protestations otherwise, you are using as the benchmark for whether GP gains or loses internal energy. I’ve bolded where you do this.
Without this benchmark, you cannot say the GP loses, is losing, or has lost internal energy when it heats up from 0K.
So, now you say you don’t need a benchmark to make your point, as the very act of GP radiating to BP means it is losing internal energy to BP.
But here you conflate a state function (internal energy) with a throughput function. Internal energy isn’t being transported. Internal energy isn’t carried on a radiative beam anywhere.
The consequence of what you’re saying is that every object everywhere is always losing internal energy, even if they’re heating up.
You can pretend what I’ve said is “prattle,” but that’s just another way to avoid cogent points.
“I also pointed out that your idea of what happens when the plates are pushed together violates 1LoT.”
No, you said it does. You didn’t bother to explain why two objects in contact at the same temperature should not share equal energy. IF there was an energy flow from one to the other, the equivalent radiative flow between them would be equal and cancel to zero.
I invited you to explain why you disagree. Apparently you believe restating your assertion does the job.
You still haven’t said whether the GP photons are absorbed or reflected by BP. In the past you’ve shrugged your shoulders.
That means your solution relies on magic physics that no one – and especially you – can explain.
barry, you seem to think you’re making some kind of “cogent point”. You’re not. Every word I said to you on the subject was confirmed by Google. In other words, everything I said was supported. I’m not redefining what “internal energy” is. You just keep on with false accusations and misrepresentations.
If you think the GP is transferring nothing to the BP, just say so. Because, that’s the only way it doesn’t lose internal energy (despite gaining overall if introduced at zero K). Well, either that or the transfer is returned to the GP, as in the 244 K…244 K solution.
You said that in the “plates together” scenario, the energy flows between the plates were such that it would be equivalent to an arrow of 200 W/m^2 going in either direction, cancelling out. But, as anyone can see from studying the diagram Clint linked to, and imagining one arrow being removed, that would lead to an imbalance. If you’re proposing the plates remain at 244 K…244 K when pressed together, it’s a 1LoT violation. And, rather than being honest about that, you’re trying to put the problem onto me!
“If you think the GP is transferring nothing to the BP, just say so. Because, that’s the only way it doesn’t lose internal energy”
The internal energy is converted to radiation, and the radiative flux transports energy via photons.
You are trying to argue that there is a quantity of heat in the GP transported by radiation to the BP. And you are redefining terms to try and force your view.
Internal energy doesn’t get transported. it’s as simple as that. Ask google to define internal energy all by itself.
Google tells me you’re completely wrong. Whaddya know?
With the plates pressed together, if there is not an equal “flow” of energy being conducted from one plate to another, then there is an unequal “flow” of energy, meaning one plate is hotter than another, and there is a temperature gradient.
*Note, there is no energy flux in conduction when the two plates are the same temperature, as I explained to Clint. I’m just trying to answer his question in language he seems to want to use, just as I tried to adopt your “loses internal energy to,” a couple of months ago.
In the real world, where there are no blackbodies and perfectly conducting materials, the two plates would have a temperature gradient, and then there would actually BE conduction, which is premised on a temperature difference.
When there is thermal equilibrium between the plates pressed together, there is NO CONDUCTION. It’s in the math. T1 – T2 = 0. Check it out.
DREMT,
What happens to GP photons when they hit BP in your solution?
Are they reflected or absorbed? You only have two options, and every time you ignore this question you prove that you are working with magic physics.
I asked ChatGPT:
“Is internal energy something that can be transferred?”
“Short answer: no — internal energy itself is not “transferred.”
What is transferred is energy, and when it crosses a boundary, we call it heat or work.
Clean definition
Internal energy = energy contained within a system (microscopic motion, vibrations, etc.)
It is a state property (it describes the system’s condition)
From the First Law of Thermodynamics:
Delta U = Q – W
U = internal energy
Q = heat added
W = work done by the system
Internal energy changes, but is not itself a “flowing thing.”
I never said internal energy was directly transported or transferred, barry. I have always pointed out that EMR is what is transferred.
Please stop misrepresenting and falsely accusing me.
When the internal energy is converted to EMR, that store of internal energy is reduced. Thus, “at the expense of the GP” is correct.
I never said that heat is contained in an object.
Please stop misrepresenting and falsely accusing me.
You said what you said about the plates being pressed together. It’s not my fault that what you said leads to a 1LoT violation.
Here DREMT, I asked AI to define internal energy in one paragraph.
“Internal Energy is a thermodynamic state function representing the total microscopic energy contained within a system, encompassing the sum of the kinetic energy resulting from the random motion of atoms and molecules (such as translation, rotation, and vibration) and the potential energy associated with the chemical bonds and intermolecular forces between them. It is an intrinsic property of the matter itself, determined solely by the system’s current state—such as its temperature, pressure, and chemical composition—rather than how the system reached that state. In a closed system where no mass is exchanged, changes in internal energy are dictated by the net balance of heat added to the system and work performed by it, reflecting the fundamental law of energy conservation.”
‘Internal energy’ doesn’t travel. Energy does.
You have well and truly annihilated that strawman, barry.
Now…back to the point:
In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
Concede to proceed.
Can’t concede when your tortured logic is tortured, DREMT.
From 0 – 220K the GP only gains internal energy.
You claim it has lost some due to a comparison with a non-physical ‘benchmark’ that you mistakenly think represents a valid starting point to discuss the rest.
And when I point that out you claim you don’t need the benchmark comparison, and delve into deeper nonsense that the very act of GP radiating to BP means it is losing internal energy.
If you want to clarify further – I take on that you don’t think internal energy is transportable – then please go ahead.
Clint has had the gumption to say BP reflects GP’s photons in your solution.
Are you unable to pick one of two options, reflected or absorbed?
Come on, DREMT. There’s no valid science here if you can’t explain it.
The “benchmark” is only necessary to quantify the amount the GP sends to the BP. Due to the “benchmark”, we know that the GP loses 244 K – 220 K, so 24 K-worth of internal energy, which is converted to EMR and transferred to the BP.
We still know the GP loses some internal energy (despite gaining internal energy overall of introduced at zero K) even without the “benchmark” though, because as I explained, and you ignored:
“When the internal energy is converted to EMR, that store of internal energy is reduced. Thus, “at the expense of the GP” is correct.”
P.S:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1739477
“The ‘benchmark’ is only necessary to quantify the amount the GP sends to the BP. Due to the “benchmark”, we know that the GP loses 244 K – 220 K, so 24 K-worth of internal energy, which is converted to EMR and transferred to the BP.”
Thank you for clarifying that the notion of ‘loss’ of GP internal energy is entirely due to a comparison with a different, non-physical model that has a higher temperature GP.
Using an impossible, non-physical construct as a zero point to assess other physical models is like positing a car that never runs out of gas is the benchmark for fuel economy.
The internal energy of an object is the sum of its kinetic energy.
When the GP heats to 220K the sum of its kinetic energy increases, therefore its internal energy increases. At no time does the sum of kinetic energy decrease.
A ‘loss’ of internal energy implies a change over time and a reduction of the sum of kinetic energy, not a difference in temperature between two hypothetical models.
DREMT,
Ask AI if the photons from a colder object are absorbed by a warmer object.
Please keep the question as simple as that. AI will help you understand what happens to GP’s photons when they arrive at the surface of BP. You seem to have no clue.
Please quote the answer below.
You’re not arguing in good faith, barry.
Here, I’ll repeat the parts you deliberately ignored:
We still know the GP loses some internal energy (despite gaining internal energy overall of introduced at zero K) even without the “benchmark” though, because as I explained, and you ignored:
“When the internal energy is converted to EMR, that store of internal energy is reduced. Thus, “at the expense of the GP” is correct.”
And, I’ll again link to the comment that demonstrates I’m correct, meaning your only honest option is to concede the point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1739477
As you ignored my reply, as well as my repeated questions on other matters, we are once again at an impasse.
Appealing to AI really is quite pathetic for someone who doesn’t like appeals to authority.
DREMT says: “I never said internal energy was directly transported or transferred, barry. I have always pointed out that EMR is what is transferred.”
DREMT’s AI says: “Warming with Loss: Even if A is warming (because B emits more to A than A emits to B), the radiation sent from A to B still carries away internal energy.”
One or both of you is confused.
DREMT’s AI: “The net result is still a gain of energy, but it is less than it would be if A were not radiating back to B.”
Sure. If that’s all you were saying, no problem.
“In short, the ‘cost of emitting energy always occurs, but it is simply outpaced by the higher absorp.tion from a warmer object, leading to a net gain.”
I think this nonsense word salad from the AI must have been trained into it while you were trying to get it to embrace your ideas. For the same reason, the AI thinks EMR ‘carries away’ internal energy from A to B. Good job, DREMT!
Seeing as you give AI such authority on radiative physics, please, please, please…
Ask AI if the photons from a colder object are absorbed by a warmer object.
Please keep the question as simple as that. AI will help you understand what happens to GP’s photons when they arrive at the surface of BP. You seem to have no clue.
Please quote the answer below.
You fatally expose the paucity of your ideas every time you ignore basic challenges like this. If you’re going to insist on this refusal to discuss, we’ll end the conversation here. Cheers.
In a sense, “carries away internal energy” is fine, once you consider that it’s converted to EMR and then that’s transferred. It’s not strictly the correct language but I don’t think it means the AI is confused! I certainly didn’t “train it” on anything. All I did was type the question into the Google search bar.
You’re making a fuss about nothing.
“Sure. If that’s all you were saying, no problem”
Great. I will take it that you have conceded the point I’ve been asking you to concede. Cheers.
“The “benchmark” is only necessary to quantify the amount the GP sends to the BP. Due to the “benchmark”, we know that the GP loses 244 K – 220 K, so 24 K-worth of internal energy, which is converted to EMR and transferred to the BP.”
No, not at all correct, given the once-again-ignored fact that the GP is constantly losing heat to space as it cools, and none whatsoever to the warmer BP.
the BP, on the contrary, is supplying heat to the GP, not the other way around.
It is quite clear that you are monkey-wrenching in an artificial ‘benchmark’ in order to fabricate an artificial non-existent backwards flow of heat from the cold body to the warm body.
This is why will concede to your backwards thinking.
“This is why will concede to your backwards thinking.“
If this was meant to be “nobody will concede to your backwards thinking” you’re a bit late to the party, Nate, with both Ball4 and now barry having conceded the point.
All barry was holding out on was the “regardless of the starting temperature of the GP” line, but here:
“DREMT’s AI: “The net result is still a gain of energy, but it is less than it would be if A were not radiating back to B.”
Sure. If that’s all you were saying, no problem.”
he concedes that point. Indeed, what I’m saying is that the GP, introduced at zero K, is experiencing a gain in internal energy overall, but less than it would be if the GP were not radiating back to the BP.
Thus, even without a “benchmark” to quantify the effect (none was specified in my question to Google) we know that in your solution the build-up of internal energy in the BP is at the expense of the GP. Of course it must be, the GP is transferring EMR to the BP, and that emitted EMR is converted from the GPs internal energy.
QED.
This is where you will probably attack the same strawman you always attack.
“Great. I will take it that you have conceded the point I’ve been asking you to concede. Cheers.”
You mustn’t tell yourself fibs.
I’ve long agreed that there is less internal energy in the GP with backradiation compared to the non-physical GP that absorbs but doesn’t emit from BP-facing surface. This is no different to what I quoted and said ‘sure’ to:
“The net result is still a gain of energy, but it is less than it would be if A were not radiating back to B”
What is tommyrot is that the GP loses internal energy as it heats up from 0 to 220K. Nothing in the above quote ratifies that nonsense.
“In a sense, “carries away internal energy” is fine, once you consider that it’s converted to EMR and then that’s transferred.”
Prevarication.
“It’s not strictly the correct language but I don’t think it means the AI is confused!”
AI adopts language, style and tone you feed it. It tries to mirror you.
“I certainly didn’t “train it” on anything. All I did was type the question into the Google search bar.”
Are you really so ignorant of how AI works?
The AI is a language processor, not a physics professor. It is coded to positively reaffirm its users, it remembers your conversations, and is easily trained to give you the answers you want. It’s no accident that it said internal energy is carried away.
If you’re using AI as an authority, let’s start with some basics. AI won’t get much wrong on the most basic physics.
Me: “Are the photons from a colder object absorbed by a warmer object?”
AI: “Yes, they are. In physics, the fate of a photon is determined by the properties of the surface it hits, not the temperature of the object that sent it. If a surface is a blackbody (a perfect absorber), it must absorb every photon that strikes it, regardless of whether that photon came from a blast furnace or a block of ice.”
BP absorbs GP’s photons. The AI expert just told you so.
Concede to proceed.
Clint,
“I also never said “a high emissivity/absorp.tivity object will reject all photons from an object of a lower temperature.”
Yes, you did. And you’ve said it many times.
Clint: “If a plate has a temperature of 0K, it could absorb all photons. But the instant it has a temperature above 0K, it would no longer absorb certain low frequency photons. As its temperature rose, it would only be able to absorb higher and higher frequency photons. For example, if the plate were receiving 400 W/m2 from one side, it would reach a temperature of 244K, emitting 200 W/m2 from both sides. If a flux of 100 W/m2 arrived from the other side, it would have no effect.”
This is, of course, entirely wrong, and does indeed deny Kirchhoff’s Law. You are treating the surface as if there is a cutoff in the frequencies it emits/absorbs depending on temperature. High emissivity objects have a very broad range of frequencies they emit from, and per Kirchhoff, emissivity = absorp.tivity at each wavelength emitted.
https://sandbox.dodona.be/en/activities/1591689063/description/hhTkWm2j3t9GsWa3/media/wetvanplanck.png
Of course warm objects absorb the radiation from colder objects.
barry, you misunderstand. I do not have a conversation with AI. I merely report the AI summary given when you type into the Google search bar. The browser I use, which is on my phone, is set to an “in private” mode which means nothing is saved or remembered by Google – every time I use Google it’s as if I’m using it afresh, for the first time. I have not fed or trained the AI with any language or anything else! It gets nothing from me but what is in the question typed. All it does is search the internet and answer as best it can based on what it finds.
Read my response to Nate. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve conceded the point, and I explain why.
So, thank you very much.
It’s curious isn’t it, that your AI uses language you have rejected as wrong. It’s also curious that AI gives me answers to neutral questions that contradict your AI. It’s even more curious that despite all this you treat AI as an authority on physics. You’d instantly fail your high school test with this method.
But seeing as you credit AI with expertise in radiative physics, I asked it a very basic question.
You saw the post above. Are you so frightened of losing the argument that you can’t acknowledge what is standard? That warm objects absorb photons from colder objects; and thus BP absorbs colder GP’s photons?
Yes, you are indeed too fearful of the challenge this presents.
DREMT, you really do need to take a position on what happens to the photons because it is a requirement of the physics.
We all know that by the most basic rules of radiative physics blackbody BP absorbs all of GP’s photons.
If you disagree with something so fundamentally true of physics, you need to offer an alternative explanation. If you can’t then you are offering magical mystery in place of standard physics.
barry, in our previous discussion, when you asked ChatGPT about this subject, everything it told you also confirmed what I’d been saying to you. Nothing it said contradicted what I was saying!
I don’t think AI is an authority. I simply use it because you won’t listen to me. You don’t accept anything I tell you. So, I think you might listen to the AI. But, instead you somehow think I’ve corrupted the AI! Even though, the way I use it, that’s not possible.
I consider that you’ve conceded the point. Thanks again.
“barry says: DREMT, you really do need to take a position on what happens to the photons because it is a requirement of the physics.”
You’re presuming that DREMT has an interest in correctly understanding the physics.
He’s trolling, so the tactics are chosen to keep you engaged. That may include using actual physics when it’s convenient, avoidance or redirection when necessary (as with photons), vague semantics structured in a leading way (“at the expense of”), emotionally loaded baiting (“concede to proceed”), and will feign insult when he is called out for behaving in bad faith.
There can be value in engaging with contrarian ideas, particularly when the are argued by well meaning but misguided souls, but at some point one has to recognize that some people are playing a different game entirely.
Mark shows up to falsely accuse me, as usual. I already explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740926
They just can’t learn.
Yeah
> the tactics are chosen to keep you engaged.
Graham D. Warner concurs:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740337
He’s not being quite honest when he presents himself as simply “watching”, but that he acknowledges his trolling is progress.
I spend years of my life trying to help people like barry and they just spit in my face. That’s OK, though. I know logic will win through in the end.
Well then, DREMT, if you believe some have conceded something, then there is no reason to delay further showing us your 2LOT violation evidence.
We can all recognize that you simply dont have the goods, ie evidence of heat flowing from a cold to a warm body.
Thus you avoid like the plague the inevitable demise of your claim.
But if you do indeed have the evidence, real evidence, not just repeats of your ‘at the expense of’ talking points, now would be the time to show it.
We need real evidence of heat flow from cold to warm.
If you cant show that, then we can all safely reject your claim.
As I stated, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741008
Your link goes to a statement where you refuse to answer the challenge, complaining you’ve already done it.
As usual.
But more than that, you point blank refuse to answer reasonable and valid challenges to your thesis, under various pretexts including that your argument supersedes any need to address them.
Good faith argument is much more open-handed than this.
Anyone interested in the plates debate can read through the unbelievably lengthy discussions beginning here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733263
and here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733896
I have no interest in repeating myself. If barry’s referring to Nate’s latest attempt to bait me into another 60-day back-and-forth, everything Nate requires can be found in that discussion. Anyone who can read through all that and not understand that there’s a 2LoT violation in the 262 K…220 K solution is brain-dead as far as I’m concerned.
If barry is referring to his own constant attempts to bait me into another 60-day back-and-forth, once you accept there’s a 2LoT violation in the 262 K…220 K solution, then it’s clear that no matter how much it might bother you, the “back-radiation” transfer must be returned to the GP. All understand that black-bodies are defined as absorbing all incident radiation, however this cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT. Clint stated:
“And, if you were really interested in science, you would identify something I got wrong. But, you can’t. I’ve explained your concerns before. It’s possible to actually absorb a low frequency photon, if the surface is emitting the same frequency. But that does NOT mean the low energy photon can raise the temperature. To raise temperature, a photon/flux MUST raise the average kinetic energy of the molecules.”
That, as far as I’m concerned, is clear enough. “Reflected or absorbed?, barry endlessly asks. I don’t claim to know about the fate of individual photons, but I’m happy to defer to Clint on that, and I think his paragraph there makes it clear. I only give this statement as a reward for barry finally conceding the point I’ve been asking him to concede for over a month, namely:
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP, at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.”
Who knows, if Nate also concedes that point, I might even be willing to discuss the plates further with him. I get the feeling he won’t concede that point, though, because he knows full well that’s a 2LoT violation.
No more false accusations, please.
I wouldn’t use ChatGBT for any serious explanation of science or thermodynamics. The change of a system’s U energy is simply U = Q + W. The energy leaving a system through heat or work carries a negative sign and energy entering a system through heat or work carries a positive sign. Also, a system’s internal energy is the sum of the kinetic and potential energies of its particles.
]
“It’s possible to actually absorb a low frequency photon, if the surface is emitting the same frequency. But that does NOT mean the low energy photon can raise the temperature. To raise temperature, a photon/flux MUST raise the average kinetic energy of the molecules.”
Every step of the way, the dogma that the GHE violates 2LoT produces results that starkly contradict standard physics. Now we have a new one where a molecule can absorb energy without its internal energy increasing.
Every step of the way, the dogma that the GHE does not violate 2LoT produces results that starkly contradict standard physics.
You have a supposed GPE where in the 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
I’m told that using the phrase “at the expense of” is some sort of crime, but when I clarify with:
“Of course it must be [at the expense of the GP], the GP is transferring EMR to the BP, and that emitted EMR is converted from the GPs internal energy.”
That clarification is met with stony silence from everyone involved.
“Every step of the way, the dogma that the GHE does not violate 2LoT produces results that starkly contradict standard physics.”
Gee what ‘standard physics’ is that?
So much bragging about finding 2LOT violations, while never actually providing a shred of evidence!
Science files such claims where they belong.
As I said – stony silence.
“stony silence”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741063
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741126
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741035
Your chat is full of fantasies, DREMT.
“stony silence” – Mark’s right, you keep provoking engagement. Then you complain you were dragged into the conversation.
Nothing you’ve said refutes this fact, barry:
“Of course it must be [at the expense of the GP], the GP is transferring EMR to the BP, and that emitted EMR is converted from the GPs internal energy.”
And no, nothing Mark said about me is correct.
This is right:
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP”.
And, that is a 2LoT violation.
Now, please carry on with your denial, for the rest of your life.
Graham D. Warner dances around his troll bridge.
When Mark confronts him on his conclusion, he replies that it’s unneeded and points at one of his premises. When these premises get undermined, he points at his conclusion.
And around and around Team Science must go to please Graham D. Warner.
All wrong, Willard. Stay out of discussions that you are not capable of understanding.
DREMT,
“Nothing you’ve said refutes…”
My posts that I linked refute that your comment was met with “stony silence.”
I see you have responded to that point with stony silence.
You’re welcome.
Weird response there, barry.
Barry the word insulation is not in the description you agreed to above. Did you just make that up?
I make a specific comment that I say has received “stony silence” – i.e. nobody has responded to it – and barry links to a load of comments made prior to the specific comment I’m referring to!
Then I point out that none of the linked comments refute the specific comment, in any case.
barry claims that the specific comment has not been met with “stony silence”!
I’m not sure what’s going on with him at the moment. Weird.
The specific comment I’m referring to still remains not refuted, in any case.
DREMT,
Please stop trolling.
The specific comment I’m referring to still remains not refuted, in any case.
For trolls like Clint and DREMT, the goal is to provoke and irritate.
Thus they dont need credibility, nor do they feel the need to support their claims with real facts, real physics, or legitimate sources.
Their casual dismissal of our serious challenges just confirms their troll status.
This stage of the discussion is always the most pathetic. Unable to refute this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741306
They just pile on with false accusations and insults, desperate to get the last word.
Nate is the number one reason these discussions go on and on indefinitely. Closely followed by barry…but at least barry knows when to call it a day (eventually).
I made it clear that I only wanted to discuss one specific aspect of the plates problem, just to get that concession…then they bait, and bait, and bait, all the while falsely accusing me of baiting! Kind of unbelievable, really.
You guys want to see who the trolls really are? Take a look in the mirror.
“Nate is the number one reason these discussions go on and on indefinitely.”
Bwa ha ha!
DREMT had the first bait in this discussion, and most certainly will have the last bait in it.
Yet he tries to blame others for his trolling behaviors!
Along the way he again made claims of a 2LOT violation, but when challenged, he squirmed, made weak excuses, but failed each time to provide actual evidence.
He has nothing left. His zombie argument should have died long ago.
Yet it never ends… by design.
And so Graham D. Warner returns once agai to his silly troll bridge, unable to realize how silly is Puffman’s:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
and oblivious to the fact that his deference to Puffman on photons matter shows how despondent he truly is intellectually.
No bait from me, Nate. And, you just baited me again!
Gonna have to start calling you “Bate”.
You, bating at the end of the last 2 month long GPE discussion:
“DREMT says: April 12, 2026 at 10:13 AM
Issue settled – no GPE.”
But that didnt satisfy you. So here’s you baiting us to restart the discussion this month:
“barry and Nate…you seriously think I’m going to let you get away with not conceding this point?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1740116
Reply
barry says:
You are unwell. I’m sorry to have enabled this.”
Barry is correct.
No baiting from me, Bate. Why should I have let you two get away with not conceding that point?
Now, stop baiting me for more, and get back to baiting Richard, up-thread.
Gee, I thought the ‘I know you are but what am I’ schoolyard taunt would be left behind by your age.
Baiting/trolling and having a legitimate science debate are not at all the same.
Just stop trolling.
Bate responds childishly, as he falsely accuses me of responding childishly.
Ask Richard if he thinks your attempts at “debate” are genuine. By now, I think he’s got you figured out the same way anyone who debates you over a long period of time gets you figured out.
Awww, youre jealous that Im paying attention to someone else. Just as you were with Barry.
How cute.
The scary thing about you is – you probably believe that’s true.
norman…wrt to you link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif …the gif files showing two instances of lunar rotation are wrong.
The eggheads who posted this article have failed to consider the context in which the Moon is moving in its orbit. They are simply playing with equations and drawings, failing to grasp that context.
The Moon is actually a rigid body that is flying through space, relying on it own linear momentum and Earth’s gravitational field to create a resultant orbital path created by the interaction of its linear momentum and gravity. The people who created this wiki article cannot seem to grasp the actual mechanics involved.
The Moon on the left hand drawing is not orbiting about a local axis. It is flying with a constant linear motion, as described by Newton, and that linear motion is being bent into a curvilinear orbital path by Earth’s gravity. The Moon does not need to rotate about a local axis to perform that action while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
The Moon in the right hand gif is rotating and that can be seen if the gif file is stopped and examined at different portions of the orbit. In fact, if you download the free Irfan view app and load the gif file, there is a feature under Option called ‘Stop/Start Animation’, which allows you to press the letter G on the keyboard to stop and start the animation.
If you do that and imagine a radial line connected the centre circle (Earth) with the moving image, you can stop the gif at any point to see where the radial lines will point. The radial line will indicate both the instantaneous motion of either body and it will tell you if the body is rotating wrt to it.
A line drawn at a right angle with the radial line at the Moon’s centre, a tangent line, will point in the direction of the Moon’s instantaneous linear orbital direction. The body on the left is clearly not rotating wrt to the radial line, where the radial line bisects it, while the Moon on the RHS is clearly rotating about the radial line in a CW direction.
The wiki article has it backwards. In order for the RHS Moon to be facing in the same direction at 180 degrees as it is at 0 degrees it must rotate through 180 degrees CW. The body on the LHS has not rotated at all even though the motion in the gif file gives the illusion of rotation.
We know that because the radial line drawn from Earth’s centre (the stationary circle) is always cutting tangent lines through the Moon’s centre at 90 degrees. If there was any rotation whatsoever, that would not be true. The body on the RHS is obviously rotating since the original tangent line at 0 degrees has rotated by 180 degrees.
The apparent rotational motion of the LHS Moon is an illusion created by a change in orientation of the darkened face. That is fully explained by nNewtons linear motion being converted to curvilinear motion.
re photons.
I simply don’t get the notion of a photon as viewed from Earth. A photon begins life as a brief spurt of electromagnetic energy from an electron in a distant star. As such, it must spread isotropically from the stellar surface in a hemisphere since EM would not spread backwards into the star.
Our main source of photons is our Sun. They are obviously not particles since they are electromagnetic energy and spread out hemispherically from the Sun’s surface with the intensity diluting with the square of the distance. Particles could not do that but EM can.
Photons emanating from the other side of the star, or those emanating laterally, will never be seen here on Earth and God only knows what lies on the other side of stars and how far the universe extends.
Anyway, as that photon spreads out in a hemisphere around the star, eventually the hemisphere will extend to Earth, where we can see a tiny portion of the spherical area of the radiation. What we see with the human eye is even smaller. However, there are bazillions of those photons being emanated from bazillions of stars, including our own.
Some people have likened a photon to a particle and I cannot begin to understand why. That is likely due to Einstein, who rather mistakenly presumed a photon must have mass since its momentum was able to displace certain electrons. He presumed it was a transfer of momentum, which requires mass, but that could not be the case since Bohr discovered the real reason why electrons are displaced.
It is an interaction of the electric and magnetic fields in a photon with the electric and magnetic fields of an electron that can raise the KE of the electron temporarily. Nothing to do with mass or momentum. Therefore, a photon must be nothing more than an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field.
Our Sun is blowing out these so-called photons but they vary differently based on their intensity and frequency. The frequencies should be able to add due to superposition but there are so many frequencies with different phase angles between them that an overall addition is likely not appreciable.
If Planck is right and light can be broken down into discrete singular frequencies then addition must be possible since single photons, say for the pure colour red have a frequency of 420 – 480 terahertz. That is a whopping range of frequencies for a single pure primary colour. Consider that the photon begins life from a single electron at an intensity of roughly 3 x 10^-19 joules.
I doubt that the human eye could detect such a low level of red light therefore I presume there must be some kind of addition of photons in the pure red range.
Anyway, I thing it is a moot point discussion photons since the study of a single photon is kinda dumb since no one has ever seen one. What we see is a tiny cross section of all frequencies of light but there are enough frequencies in that spectrum to excite receptors in the retina that react to red, green and blue.
Maybe evolutionists would care to attempt an explanation of how a fluke coincidence produced such an intelligent system of visual acuity. I mean, how did the so called natural selection ‘know’ that a combo of red, green, and blue can produce any colour. And how did it know the proper proportion?
To see yellow, the red and green cones must be stimulated while the blue cones are unaffected. To see purple, the red and blue cones are activated while the green cones are not affected. To see white, all three colour cones must be activated and to see black they must all be turned off.
Anyway, when a range of 60 terahertz is required to see what we perceive to be pure red, I call that something we know nothing about. I feel the same about photons. We talk about them as if we understand them yet we don’t have the foggiest notion what they are.
“I mean, how did the so called natural selection ‘know’ that a combo of red, green, and blue can produce any colour.”
Very briefly, that is pretty much EXACTLY the WRONG question to ask!
Light in the range 400-700 nm is the brightest part of the solar spectrum (and gets through the atmosphere pretty well), so evolving to detect the most prevalent light is an obvious choice. Further evolution to detect different parts of the spectrum is natural, to allow life to distinguish different objects based on how they reflect different parts of that 400-700 nm range.
Finally the colors we see are a human perception. “Purple” and “white” and “magenta” and “grey” are not some universal truth. They are simply how humans perceive specific combinations of light. There are animals with 4 cones that detect 4 bands and see ‘colors’ that we can’t.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The March 2026 #C3S Climate Bulletin reports the lowest Arctic March sea ice extent in the 48-year satellite record at 5.7% below average, and tied lowest maximum winter extent. Antarctic sea ice extent was 10% below average.
https://bsky.app/profile/copernicusecmwf.bsky.social/post/3mj4wk7vvsc2m
Regardless what Robertson writes about science: it’s nearly always wrong, because based on either his ‘opinion’ or that of contrarian blogs – in either case: knowledgeless.
*
Most typical for his superficial opinions is when he writes utter nonsense about Einstein, like above:
” Some people have likened a photon to a particle and I cannot begin to understand why. That is likely due to Einstein, who rather mistakenly presumed a photon must have mass… ”
*
Never did Einstein claim at any time that photons would have mass.
This is a pure and above all stupid invention of Robertson: stupid because Einstein had long ago understood that all previous experiments measuring light clearly confirmed that photons must travel at the speed of light and therefore can’t have any mass at rest.
*
On the contrary: it was Newton who in his treatise on Optics (published in 1704) himself mentioned the possibility that light rays could be bent by heavy masses: in his mind certainly an obvious fact, since his law of gravity was universal and independent of how tiny the smaller masses were (Newton thought that light particles would have a mass). However, he wrote that he did not want to investigate the matter further.
Here is what he wrote at the end of his treatise:
” When I made the foregoing Observations, I design’d to repeat most of them with more care and exactness, and to make some new ones for determining the manner how the Rays of Light are bent in their passage by Bodies, for making the Fringes of Colours with the dark lines between them. But I was then interrupted, and cannot now think of taking these things into farther Consideration. And since I have not finish’d this part of my Design, I shall conclude with proposing only some Queries, in order to a farther search to be made by others. “
Bindy & Gordon,
I have heard references to x-ray is more energetic than radio due to it’s frequency.
Can the same photon from a radio transmitter be excited to become an x-ray photon? If Einstein was right with his e=mc2 then would that be more mass?
Never studied physics to a quantum level, so am asking out of genuine curiosity.
yes…but Einstein muddied the waters by claiming photons have momentum, even though momentum is clearly defined on mass. It makes no sense to claim that a massless body has momentum.
Newton started it all by defining mass. He claimed that if a force can move a mass, the mass will accelerate, meaning it changes position at a certain rate. He also specified inertia as a force offered by a mass to resist an applied force. Once that force is removed, the mass carries on with a momentum, which is essentially a force inherent to the moving mass that resists it stopping. Unless sufficient force is applied in the opposite direction, such as friction of some kind, the mass will just keep going at the same velocity. The Moon is a perfect example.
Ergo. momentum requires a force and a mass. Later, some ijits, using theoretical means, claimed a momentum for a packet of light, which is sheer nonsense since the light has no mass. Mind you, they can call it momentum, or whatever they like, but it does not act like a momentum as defined by Newton as related to his definition of mass.
We still have no idea why EM propagates through space, especially empty space that is essentially a vacuum. Some have recently suggested that the medium through which it passes is a sea of neutrinos, sub-atomic particles of which we know very little. The neutrino was not discovered till 1956 and we still know very little about the elusive critters.
The idea as proposed by Einstein, that a massless entity can have a momentum is just plain silly. Here on Earth, when we propagate EM from an antenna, we have no idea what medium it passes through to enable its propagation. It is certainly not air, since it will happily propagate through a vacuum.
You cannot have mass in a vacuum, otherwise it would not be a vacuum. Therefore, how can the EM have momentum? If it had momentum, you should be able to stop it by applying an equal and opposite momentum. That doesn’t happen. The waves can interfere with each other via superposition but they happily carry right on through each other.
For example, if I fire a 100 Mhz EM wave down a wave guide, and a portion is reflected at the end of the waveguide, forcing EM to pass through the original wave, the reflected wave passes right through the original. However, there is an interference in the sense that the two waves sum to produce a standing wave pattern.
Einstein can be forgiven his ignorance in this matter since much of the theory referenced here was unknown to him. Unfortunately, there are Einstein groupies and GR haters here who want to continue the nonsense propagated by Einstein.
He contradicts himself with e = mc^2, which suggests a direct relationship between energy and mass. There is no such relationship. mass is a quantity of matter, meaning it occupies space. Anything that occupies space constitutes mass.
Internally, that mass is composed of atoms, and the atoms are held together generally by covalent bonds made up of orbiting electrons. Ergo, there is energy in the bonds holding the atoms together. If the mass is catastrophically destroyed, that energy is released as the atoms are unfettered, but that energy is not related to mass. The mass still exists albeit as component atoms.
That is, the mass is the sum of all atomic masses and cannot be converted to energy. The energy comes from the bond energies that bind the atoms together. The energy is released as heat and light, and in the case of nuclear devices, as nuclear energy. Those forms of energy have nothing to do with the mass that originated before the explosion.
Put another way, if you weigh a mass, you are weighing the actual atoms in the mass as a sum. You are not weighing the energy binding the atoms to form the mass. That energy can be released by breaking the bonds but the atoms are not destroyed, If you could collect them and weigh them, they should weigh the same as the original mass.
A point hat had not occurred to me is that the freed atoms will likely take much of the original energy contained in the bonds. That is the original bond energy should not simply disappear, it will be retained in the freed particles, causing them to shoot off in all directions.
I recall reading about the atom bombs that went off in Japan at the end of WWII. The initial light and heat given off by the bombs harmed and killed a lot of people although the bomb exploded about 2000 feet over Hiroshima. People were uninjured simply because they were standing behind a wall hence unaffected by the blast or the radiation.
E = mc^2 cannot be applied to nuclear explosions, as Einstein had intended the equation. Certainly, we know today that atoms can be broken into sub-atomic particles, with energy lost as radiation, but Einstein knew nothing of such processes. He knew nothing of atoms or sub-atomic particles.
Nuclear fission involves a chain-reaction related to neutrons in certain elements like Uranium or Plutonium, and it is the chain-reaction that causes a tremendous release of energy. Nothing to do with e = mc^2.
In an explosion, in general, the mass setting off the explosion survives and is not converted to energy. Only the bonds holding he neutrons and protons together in the nucleus are broken but that constitutes a tremendous amount of energy. The mass itself survives, albeit in a form reduced to atoms and sub-atomic particles.
The problem is, when Einstein created e = mc^2, neither he nor anyone else knew much about atomic structure. The electron was only discovered in 1898 and the neutron in 1931. In 1905, when Einstein created his equation as part of his special relativity nonsense, it was still unknown what constituted an atom.
Why his nonsense has carried on to this day is a testament to Einstein groupies who find hero worship far more important than science.
“We still have no idea why EM propagates through space, especially empty space that is essentially a vacuum. Some have recently suggested that the medium through which it passes is a sea of neutrinos, sub-atomic particles of which we know very little. The neutrino was not discovered till 1956 and we still know very little about the elusive critters.”
Well one might say, a vast universal ocean of neutrinos, rather than a sea of them. And they go thru everything, you, me, Earth, the Sun and whatever.
Gordon Robertson
It appears from your long post that you have not actually studied any real science. It seems impossible you could have gone though engineering courses and passing them with your total lack of understanding of some very basics.
Mass is turned to energy. It has been experimentally verified. Your rant against makes you sound very ignorant and uninformed. Not sure who you think your audience is that will accept your version of science. Even the skeptics consider your posts “Crack-pot”.
Here is some real science for you to digest but I think it is not possible for your mind to do this.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Widener_University/CHEM_176%3A_General_Chemistry_II_(Fischer-Drowos)/10%3A_Polymers/10.01%3A_Radioactivity_and_Nuclear_Chemistry/10.1.08%3A_Converting_Mass_to_Energy-_Mass_Defect_and_Nuclear_Binding_Energy
“It seems impossible you could have gone though engineering courses and passing them with your total lack of understanding of some very basics.”
Correct – he did not pass.
He actually found a job in a toaster repair shop.
However, too much soldering affected his brain. That is why he is under my care now. He spends all his time writing on this site. At least it keeps him off the streets.
BTW, we also have CR as a patient. He suffers from an addiction to regular public humiliation.
Patiently awaiting Trump’s Truth Social post about the failed “peace talks” in Islamabad.
Some people think Trump is playing chess, when most of the time the staff are just trying to stop him from eating the pieces.
Ark, most TDS kids don’t realize that they quickly become pro-Iranian.
Do you wear your hijab while you sleep, or only during the day?
Pointing out that the Islamabad talks were a disaster isn’t “pro-Iranian,” it’s observing reality. But I guess when Trump cultists can’t defend the “master strategist,” they just start throwing random insults and hoping one sticks.
My original post was on target. Trump has since posted the following:
So, the “master strategist’s” answer is to BLOCKADE the blockade, at a direct cost to U.S. taxpayers of $1 Billion per day. Genius.
Because I’m dealing with so many children here, a clarification is needed. The freedom-loving people of Iran are NOT our enemy. The enemy is the group of Mullahs that use death and destruction to promote their cult religion.
And the Mullahs would surely appreciate Ark’s TDS. They share the same mental disorder….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://bsky.app/profile/paulblumenthal.bsky.social/post/3mjf4uy6bds2i
Did you have “Donald annoy Knight Templars” in your Bingo card?
Trump Dementia Syndrome:
Trump is having a mental health episode right now. He’s been posting on social media all night. He posted at:
9:49pm (AI Jesus photo)
9:50pm (Trump tower on moon)
10:10pm (dumb meme)
10:32pm (news clip)
10:53pm (news clip)
12:43am (announcing Hormuz blockade)
2:35am (article about Biden)
2:36am (article on naval blockade)
2:37am (article on Rep. Swalwell)
2:37am (posted the same article about Biden again)
2:38am (article on his ballroom)
4:10am (article on Iran)
He’s not sleeping, he’s hallucinating being Jesus, and he’s posting all night. Classic signs of dementia.
Arklady,
So which is more dangerous CO2 increase or Donald Trumps social media posts?
You seem to be obsessed with him why?
Sure, but first, answer me this.
A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff -grass. Yet a deer sh!ts little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
Obsessed with him? Hardly. Worried about him, definitely.
That the guy in charge of the worlds largest arsenal might be deranged should worry all of us.
norman, norman, norman…I have nothing against you but why do you continue to post misinformation while failing to read what I wrote?
Your article does not reference a change of mass to energy it references the energy released when bonds are broken between atoms in a mass and the mass disintegrates. If you could collect all the missing atoms due to disintegration, and weigh them with what is left, the mass would be exactly the same as before disintegration.
Since Einstein stole the idea of e = mc^2 from earlier scientists, and none of them, including Einstein, had the slightest idea about atomic structure, it’s safe to say they were guessing wildly. Mind you, some of them had measured the energy given of by chemical reactions and knew that energy took the form of heat or light, therefore they were able to measure such energy.
The point is, none of them knew what they were measuring and it appears none of them checked to see if the lost mass could be recovered.
Mass does not simply disappear because you cannot destroy atoms per se through chemical means. You can destroy atoms via other means, like splitting them via nuclear reactions, but that does not happen with ordinary atoms at STP.
If you want to remove the sole electron from hydrogen all you need to supply is 13.6 eV. However both the electron and the sole proton nucleus survive, therefore no mass has been lost overall.
You and your buddies at the link are confusing mass with the energy holding atoms together to form a certain quantity of matter. If you had a cubic centimetre of lead and you could release the energy binding those atoms into a solid, you’d be left with a pile pf lead atoms that weighed exactly the same as the original mass.
In that case, e = mc^2 is obviously wrong because you get an energy release and the mass is still intact. That would mean you could repeat the process and get the same amount of energy out of the same mass. However, you’d have to replace the electrostatic energy holding the atoms together.
If we could do that, we could make gold easily from lead.
Norman, if you want to do real science, stick with me and I’ll get you there. I have been trying to teach science to Clint but he is awfully stubborn.
https://www.home.cern/news/news/physics/alice-detects-conversion-lead-gold-lhc
Gordon Robertson
I guess that link was not enough for you. Here is another one that won’t help you understand your flawed thought process but there is always hope.
https://www.tcichemicals.com/OP/en/support-download/chemistry-clip/2013-01-02glossary
The mass of helium with its four subatomic particles weighs less than the mass of 4 hydrogen atoms but given amount. When put into Einstein correct equation you get the amount of energy released which was used by scientists in the cold war to get rough calculations of the energy released by hydrogen bombs. It this link is not enough there are several more and many videos explaining it in detail. Whatever format you would like. The evidence of e=mc^2 is quite overwhelming and just making your unfounded claims will not change established physics. There is quite a bit on the topic. Read up on it and educate yourself on what is known and why they know it.
“and you could release the energy binding those atoms into a solid …”
It TAKES energy to pull the atoms apart; it doesn’t RELEASE energy. This is Chem 101.
In any case, mass difference is easily measured. Here is your homework. Lookup the measured masses of protons, neutrons, electrons, and He atoms. These can all be measured quite accurately with devices like mass spectrometers. Then compare the mass of 2 protons + 2 neutrons + 2 electrons to the mass of 1 He atom.
you guys are completely missing my point.
A proton making up the nucleus of a hydrogen atom weighs exactly the same as a proton in an oxygen atom. Same for the electrons and the neutrons, although hydrogen has none. Not one of those particle are lost when a mass composed of them breaks up. However, the energy, e, is lost when some particles are lost in a chemical reaction.
I am claiming there is no relationship between the energy, e, and the mass, m, therefore e = mc^2 makes no sense. There is no equality. Like energy, you cannot simply eliminate mass. Confusion may result when a mass refers to both a single atom and an aggregation of atoms bounds together by electrons to create a solid mass.
However, if you break up the solid mass and recover all the atoms and particle, the total mass of the individual parts must equal the mass of the original solid mass. Mass is not converted to energy, it simply flies off.
I realize there are ways to knock electrons off a surface and they can be lost, but a few electrons are hardly going to affect the overall mass. However, bombarding the surface of a mass with EM will not increase its mass. I think that’s where Einstein went wrong. He thought electrons were knocked from a surface via photo-emissivity because the EM had mass, hence momentum, and could transfer that momentum to electrons in the surface.
If that was the case, any electron could gain the energy to escape when bombarded by any EM, but it’s not since the electron reacts only to very discrete frequencies of EM. Bohr prove that in 1913 and Einstein should have amended his equation and theory.
Energy does not equal mass since the energy refers to the energy binding the atoms together and the energy binding the atom itself together. If you manage to release all that binding energy, and you could contain the particles, you’d have a pile of the particles without form but with the same mass as the original mass.
Using ordinary chemical reactions, you can split up electrons, neutrons, or protons, hence you cannot shed the mass.
Einstein would have known nothing about that since neutrons were not discovered till 1939 and the electron had just been discovered a few years before he offered the equation. It’s apparent that anyone supporting his equation knows nothing about atomic structure either.
Maybe it was Norman who suggested that an H-bomb uses e = mc^2. I doubt it since an H-bomb is a complicated weapon that uses nuclear fusion to set of a reaction then another processes to generate the energy. Einstein knew nothing about H-bombs.
I have read about issues in nuclear physics where particles like electrons can be broken down further. That takes accelerating the particles to immense speeds and having them collide. A lady physicist wrote about such physics, claiming it was over-hyped. Unfortunately, I have forgotten her name.
Cool story, Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
“A proton making up the nucleus of a hydrogen atom weighs exactly the same as a proton in an oxygen atom. ”
And yet an oxygen atom weighs less than (8p + 8n + 8e).
Good day everyone!
Here it is a Link to conversation with Grok, where Grok (X) explains the Rotational Warming Model.
Best,
Christos
https://x.com/i/grok/share/9a734146d4b04885b8ec99e1f23e597c
Grok says: https://x.com/i/grok/share/09f50b3e050747029fa6bf5f744aff65
Thank you, Arkady, for your responce.
What can I say. Equation is based on Planetary Temperatures Criteria comparison. Earth’s temperature is calculated 287,74K the same formula calculates for other planets and moons, which do not have atmosphere. It also calculates preciselly for Titan.
It was a great surprise for me. What I was serching for is to evaluate earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect. The calculation’s result says there is not a significant greenhouse warming from atmosphere.
“unless the effects are included in the result, which will necessarily be 288K”
The Criteria (Tsat/Te.correct) = (βNcp)^16 for all planets and moons without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth and Titan included)
Example:
for the same as earth Albedo a=306, it can be shown Tsat.moon would be 210K.
Tsat.earth / Tsat.moon = 288K/210K = (Ncp earth/Ncp moon)^1/16 = [(1*1 /(1/29,5)*0,19]^1/16 = 1,37
Link: comparing Earth with Mars by the use of vournas’ equation to estimate Earth’s temperature out of Mars’ temperature.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/026391a7a1994fa1850f9c22402350ab
Also from Grok:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/db5c8e971f014c74bdc40acdb963bc8c
https://x.com/i/grok/share/b0fd43fff87e403a8712aba7865f483c
Initial Premise Test
“The X post by mechanical engineer Christos Vournas links to his blog post “Initial Premise Test,” which tests the basic assumption that planetary surface temperatures scale solely with the fourth root of incoming solar flux for identical bodies.
The test normalizes temperatures of solar system bodies (planets and moons) to Earth’s solar flux distance, then successively adjusts for albedo, rotational warming via (N*cp)^{1/16}, and a solar irradiation accepting factor Φ (~0.47 for smooth surfaces accounting for specular reflection), causing measured temperatures to converge tightly around Earth’s 288 K.
Vournas uses this to argue that factors like surface roughness, rotation rate, and heat capacity explain temperature differences across bodies more than atmospheric effects, challenging standard greenhouse models with data tables showing residuals under 3% after corrections.”
https://x.com/i/grok/share/cd83bc3cc7744e7eb6154bd123a22ab3
Also:
Grok
https://x.com/i/grok/share/8e655149aa73417589903fa884a5c4b1
tim folkerts…”Light in the range 400-700 nm is the brightest part of the solar spectrum (and gets through the atmosphere pretty well), so evolving to detect the most prevalent light is an obvious choice. Further evolution to detect different parts of the spectrum is natural, to allow life to distinguish different objects based on how they reflect different parts of that 400-700 nm range.
Finally the colors we see are a human perception. “Purple” and “white” and “magenta” and “grey” are not some universal truth. They are simply how humans perceive specific combinations of light. There are animals with 4 cones that detect 4 bands and see ‘colors’ that we can’t”.
***
Good points, Tim. However, you stopped short of the answer, if there is one, and that’s my point…we simply have no idea how vision works. The entire process is far too complex to get a grip on it. So, how did natural selection, or whatever evolutionists claim is the intelligence behind evolution, ‘know’ how to adapt to light in order to see.
Vision is far more than the retina, at the back of the eye, the surface that contains the rods and cones which receive light frequencies and convert it from a black and white contrast and colour respectively, to a bioelectric signal that is further processed by the brain.
You are quite right about secondary colours like magenta and cyan, which can be created in the eye from the red and blue receptors in the cones of the retina. I was always amazed when working with the CRT tube in a colour TV to bring up the red guns level (intensity of electrons fired at red receptors phosphors on the inside face of the CRT) to produce a red stripe across the tube, then to bring up the green gun to see a yellow line appear. Then, when I turned up the blue guns, a white line appeared.
All we need when working with addition in light are the three primary colours, red, green, and blue, and from them, with proper addition of each, we can create any colour we want. However, we must not forget that all the frequencies representing each colour already exists in visible light. So, how did natural selection know all that and only produce 3 primary colour receptors?
Come on, Tim, the wonder of it all is staring you in the face and you are turning away from it with an unwarranted skepticism. When the facts so obviously discredit the absurd simplicity of evolution, why do you refuse to at least consider the alternative, that some intelligence is behind it all? Newton had no problem considering it.
The function of the retina, in that respect, is simply to receive light frequency information that is focused on its surface by the lens, at the front of the eye, then convert that light chemically to an electrical signal that the brain processes further.
That is, the formation of meaningful images is created in brain circuitry that receives the visual information and interprets it further into images we can actually see in the mind’s eye. In other words, we can close our eyes and conjure images from the past based on what is stored in memory. That’s how a computer works.
But there is an even more fascinating step. Biologist Rupert Sheldrake explains that the eye takes that image it created and projects it outwards with such perspective that we can see at distances the exact image the eye takes in.
The information collected by the retina has no meaning to us until we learn from childhood onward how to interpret the image. Apparently, a person who has regained his/her sight after being blind from birth is totally freaked out by what he/she sees when sight is restored. They are disoriented and need to be trained to see as the rest of us see. Think about it, what possible good would an image on a retina, which is 2-dimensional, be in helping us create a 3-D image with the depth we need to interpret what we actually see?
When we look at a photograph or a painting, either is a 2-dimensional image. Why do we see either plainly in 3-dimension? We have to learn from childhood how to do that and that learning take place in vision-related circuitry in the brain, not the eye.
Again, how does natural selection know about all this stuff? How does it know how to create a fully functioning human being from 2 tiny cells, one from the mother and one from the father? The intelligence to create the human from those 2 cells has the intelligence in the cells already to do that. It’s in the DNA of the cells.
A bit too convenient giving credit for all that to a mysterious intelligence called natural selection, don’t you think? I am going with a creator. It was good enough for Isaac Newton and good enough for me. And I am not even religious in the conventional sense, in that I do not believe anything. I live in the question, where ‘I don’t know’ is a good enough answer.
BTW….I do not ‘know’ anything about what I write here on Roy’s blog, I am simply putting it out there, hoping someone will offer an intelligent reply. I try to keep in mind that my interpretation of the universe and how it works is likely wrong. However, I feel the same way about the same interpretation as others.
I can kid myself into believing that I have a lot of knowledge and that somehow makes me important. I have learned along the way, frankly, that ego is a load of nonsense and I have gained much pleasure laughing at myself each time I balloon up and think I am important based on knowledge. I have a Monty Python-like censor that beats up on me mercilessly each time I think I am important. It’s like Svengoolie getting rubber chickens thrown at him each time he thinks he is funny.
Knowledge is akin to used furniture. I can pack my home with it and think my possessions mean something. Knowledge is mainly junk unless you can apply it to do something useful. Technological junk has meaning but the rest is just old crap sitting around gathering dust. I am talking generally about the past and the future, both of which exists only in the junkyard of the mind, along with time.
I have studied and applied electronics for decades, even to the university level, and I don’t profess to know a whole lot about electronics. Every time I thought I did in the past, I got a kick in the pants, suddenly realizing I had it wrong. No one is immune to such stupidity it seems, since universities still teach with a straight face the conventional current flow paradigm which is more than 200 years old and wrong.
Even at the very basic level in electronics, I don’t really know if electrons exist as tiny particles with a mass and a negative electric charge. I don’t know because no one has ever seen one. A lot of people sure like to talk as if electrons do exist and that they orbit a nucleus in an atom, but frankly, I find that notion rather absurd.
It’s a little too cute and coincidental that electrons act like tiny planets orbiting a nucleus and that they can change orbital energy levels by absorbing energy like heat or EM. There are researchers in the field of quantum mechanics who think they have nailed it using mathematics blindly to such an extent that no one can visualize or explain how electrons operate. Quantum theorists settle for the nonsense that it’s good enough to lay out probability spaces where an electron might be found.
Having said all that, I have experienced on several occasions, the exhilarating feeling of an electric current rushing through my body. I once witnessed two tiny burn holes in my thumb when I stupidly picked up a hot relay and had 240 volts imposed across my thumb. I am very lucky to have survived my stupidity on several occasions.
I know there is something there, and that it moves from negative potential to a positive potential but I cannot say for sure what it is or how it works. A lot of people who should know better, talk about a conventional current flow in the opposite direction and that current exists only in the junkyard of the mind.
> we simply have no idea how vision work
Here are a few ideas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY1giZgddAs
Look at the silly monkey!
“Come on, Tim, the wonder of it all is staring you in the face and you are turning away from it with an unwarranted skepticism. ”
Oh, I am FILLED with wonder! Wonder that God could have created such an amazing, complex, fascinating universe. Wonder that God’s universe was created in such a way that stars and black holes and life and eyes and joy and awe and love and sunsets would emerge.
anon…”Bindy & Gordon,
I have heard references to x-ray is more energetic than radio due to it’s frequency.
Can the same photon from a radio transmitter be excited to become an x-ray photon? If Einstein was right with his e=mc2 then would that be more mass?
***
I am no expert on this, or much else, but here’s my two-bits worth.
The frequency and intensity from a source, like a star, is based on the surface temperature of a star. The frequency and intensity related to x-rays are based on very hot stars. Although our Sun emits xrays from the corona, which is much hotter than the surface, at about 6000K, a strong emitter of xrays requires temperatures around 1,000,000K.
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/sun2.html
The reason as I understand it is the KE of electrons in the stars. I know from electronics theory, that accelerating electrons to a sufficiently high velocity produces xray radiation. The faster the electrons, the higher the KE.
A colour TV needs voltages up to 40 kilovolts to operate the picture tube. The high voltage is required to accelerate the electrons from so-called electron guns that fire out electrons, which in turn, excite red, green, and blue phosphors on the inside face of the tube. So, you have a red gun, a blue gun, and a green gun.
Such high voltages are produced by a transformer especially designed for high voltage, in which the electrons are forced to circulate at extremely high speeds. A side effect of that velocity is the emission of xrays and the coil must be shielded with a metal (Faraday) shield to block the xrays.
No mass involved there other than the tiny masses of the electrons, which live to flow another day. Electrons are not destroyed by the emission of xrays.
I have never heard of xrays being emitted by a communications antenna, mainly because the frequencies are far too low. Even the high frequencies used in radar and microwave, in the gigahertz region, are far too low for xrays.
The frequency range of xrays is from 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3 x 10^16 Hz to 3 x 10^19 Hz). One gigahertz is 1 x 10^9 Hz. There are no comm circuits operating in the xray range. No comm transmitters operate over 100 Ghz.
Xray machines work act very close proximity and don’t transmit to any great distance.
Re Einstein and e = mc^2…I have to stick to my guns, that he mistook mass for the bond energies binding atoms in a mass together. I don’t think the frequency of the energy emitted is related to mass, rather it is related to the temperature of the mass and how excited the electrons might be.
If you consider outr Sun, which is mainly hydrogen in plasma form, all you have are electrons and protons running about. The mass is not important, it is the temperature of the mass. The surface at 6000K does not emit xrays but the corona, at about 1 million K that emits them. Surely the mass of electrons and protons is similar.
Then again, what does an engineering gronk like me know?
Gordon,
Okay, let’s just ignore the actual source of a photon just to remove all irrelevant aspects.
When a photon is created then it has a certain frequency whether it’s blue, green, x-ray or radio it’s all emf.
Once created does the frequency ever change? If so how.
This seemingly off-topic discussion about the blue/green plates may not interest some readers. They may not understand the significance of the discussion. The discussion clearly exposes another example of “cult science”.
The cult kids enthusiastically support the invalid solution. As with all their arguments, they believe “blog clogging”, insults, false accusations, and a misrepresentation of actual science, wins the argument for them. DREMT has had the patience to try, for years, to explain the issue, but as can be seen from the responses he gets, the cult rejects his explanations.
Above, I decided to end the discussion with some basic reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740736
But not one of the cult kids could understand the simple explanation. The responses from the usual suspects, barry, Norman, Nate, Mark B, Folkerts, and Willard, reveal their ignorance of science and disregard for reality.
They are unable to accept the simple fact that if the plates are in exact contact, the energy flows, and temperatures, would be exactly the same as in the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
What the cult fails to realize is there are three distinct categories:
“Hard science” — Characterized by observation, experiment, verification, and repeatability. Hard science is reality.
“Soft science” — Characterized by some hard science augmented with guesses, assumptions, beliefs, consensus, and opinions. Soft science is NEVER settled, as the next “paper” may alter previous beliefs.
“Cult science” — Characterized by false beliefs, and too often “agenda”, always completely violating the established “hard science”.
The “plates nonsense”, Moon rotation, “flat Earth”, “ice cubes can boil water”, and CO2 nonsense are all examples of cult science.
Up-thread, barry responded:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740946
“When the plates are conducting there is zero net flow of energy between them because they are the same temperature. The energy flow equivalent in the diagram would be 200 W/m2 going from one plate to the other, summing to zero.”
So, he’s saying that with the plates pushed together, his version of the diagram would have only two arrows between the plates, cancelling each other out, rather than the three that are shown in Clint’s link. He still believes the plates would be 244 K…244 K when pushed together. The problem with this should be obvious. The GP would be losing 200 J/m^2 every second! To have the plates maintaining their 244 K…244 K temperatures would thus violate 1LoT.
I’ve pointed this out. So far all I’m getting is barry trying to make it my problem!
There is a lot of discussion on this point by Barry:
“When the plates are pressed together and the same temperature there is no energy flow, it is one mass with an equally distributed kinetic energy.”
This bit is inaccurate (unless I am missing some important context).
If the “blue plate” and the “green plate” were pressed together into a single thicker plate, there would be a temperature gradient, and ~ 200 W/m^2 would flow from the left to right through the blue-green plate. Assuming the plates are thin and the plates are made of a good heat conductor, the gradient would be SMALL. The left blue face (the face receiving the incoming 400 W/m^2) might radiate some thing like 200.1 W/m^2 and the right green face might radiate 199.9 W/m^2, with 199.9 W/m^2 conducted through the plates, and a temperature gradient of ~ 0.1 K across the blue-green combined plate.
With an excellent conductor, we can ’round off’ to have 200 W/m^2 radiated from both left and right, and 200 W/m^2 conducted through the plates.
[This still don’t make DREMT & Clint right; it just means there is more than one way to be wrong.]
“Tim Folkerts says: . . . This bit is inaccurate . . .”
The Eli Rabett Green Plate Effect solution implicitly presumes the plates are ideal black bodies (all incident radiation is absorbed, i.e. emissivity = 1), perfect conductors (no thermal gradient across the plates), and infinite in 2 dimensions (no edge effects). These idealizations simplify the mathematics of the solution and are standard in radiative thermodynamics textbook problems. It would have been better had this been explicitly stated, perhaps as a footnote, but it’s a blog post so allowances can be made for shortcomings in rigor.
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Interestingly, the first two of these postulates were explicitly stated in the scenarios Clint posed in the January thread, so more of a standard textbook problem statement, before he claims a solution to the 2nd problem which is not consistent with the emissivity = 1 postulate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1732968
Correct Folkerts, barry is wrong.
But, the plates have such high conductivity there is assumed to be no temperature gradient.
So you’re correct again, there is more than one way to be wrong.
As I said in a comment above:
“In the real world, where there are no blackbodies and perfectly conducting materials, the two plates would have a temperature gradient, and then there would actually BE conduction, which is premised on a temperature difference.”
But in the diagram Clint wants me to comment on (DREMT’s ‘solution’ to the GPE) the plates are the exact same temperature. Carrying that assumption into a conductive scenario, there is NO CONDUCTION because there is no temperature gradient.
The two plates pressed together act like one plate at a uniform temperature.
We have always operated under the assumption that the plates are ‘perfectly conducting’, so there is no thermal resistance through the material and no thermal gradient.
With these assumptions, there is no flux of energy or heat through or between the plates. There is only a mass of molecules vibrating in every direction at the same average level of intensity. There is no preferred vector of energy within or between the plates, and therefore no arrows with energy markers can be drawn. This is what you end up with.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyfEC-GMqoCJARqaSQ1fWdk7kYqhFhfpNB0YKgnulzbKNg11XnVqFWgTy6XOrtHBcMiEhYU6DBZU0LRdM6Xlefsoz2PIoKGGSif65LTgFEb1cQARvVexICyi1EEwZr8QntWM9w/s1600/Untitled1.png
Draw a line down the middle of the blue plate to represent two plates pressed together.
barry, you’re simply not arguing in good faith.
You wrote the paragraph I quoted above. What you’re saying in that paragraph leads to a 1LoT violation, as I explained.
Own it.
DREMT, you write of me:
“He still believes the plates would be 244 K… 244 K when pushed together.”
Let’s quote me properly then.
“When the plates are conducting there is zero net flow of energy between them because they are the same temperature.
The energy flow equivalent in the diagram would be 200 W/m2 going from one plate to the other, summing to zero.
What we have instead is 400 W/m2 going to the right, and 200 W/m2 going to the left. This is an energy imbalance between the plates, that should result in a temperature gradient in a conductive scenario.”
Now let’s look at Clint’s solution.
Clint wrote: “If the plates were in exact contact, the temperatures would be the same as in the correct [radiative] solution. Both plates would be at the same temperature.”
Apparently he believes that with the fluxes the same as in the diagram, the plates are at the same temperature.
Clint: “The net energy flow remains from blue plate to green plate, with both plates emitting 200 W/m2 to space. The only difference is the energy flow from blue to green is now purely radiative, as opposed to conductive. But, it’s the same energy. The energy flow diagram would be exactly the same as when the plates were in exact contact.”
Of course, if there is a net 200 W/m2 being conducted from BP to GP, then there is a temperature difference between the plates.
You’ll want want a word with Clint about this.
My answer to Clint remains that if the plates are perfectly conducting blackbodies, they will be at the same temperature when pressed together, and there would not be 400 W/m2 going BP to GP and 200 W/m2 going GP to BP.
I explained this in the language Clint wanted, per the radiative diagram, 200 W/m2 going both ways, then explained in my next post on it that there would be no flux at all between the plates in reality, as you need a temperature difference for a conductive flux to occur.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740960
“barry says: . . . Carrying that assumption into a conductive scenario, there is NO CONDUCTION because there is no temperature gradient . . .”
An ideal conductor has infinite conduction by definition meaning it conducts heat without resistance.
The thermal flux density is normally given by the equation q = -k * (ΔT / L)
where
q ≡ Heat flux density (W/m²)
k ≡ Thermal conductivity (W/(m·K))
ΔT ≡ Temperature difference (K or °C)
L ≡ Thickness of the material (m)
But this isn’t useful for the ideal conductor case because k is defined to be infinite so that ΔT is zero and the equation is indeterminate.
However we know that, because the plate is uniform temperature, that the incident radiation of 400 W/m2 has to be radiated equally from all (both) surfaces, thus 200 W/m2 on the non-illuminated side. Thus the net conductive (phonon) flux through the plate has to be equal to this to conserve energy. This is consistent with your linked drawing.
Were the plates non-ideal conductors there would be a thermal gradient across the plate and the radiation from the (relatively warmer) illuminated side would be somewhat higher than the shaded side proportional to the temperature difference defined by the magnitude of the thermal gradient.
Once again barry, you’re just slinging crap against the wall, hoping something to stick. You obviously don’t understand any of the science.
You make the assumption that there is no energy flow between the plates, if they are in exact contact. You fail to understand the green plate would then be unable to emit!
In your confusion, you must have the false belief that photons would not be emitted within the plates. Molecules don’t know where they are. They emit regardless if there are other molecules close, or not. Photons are being emitted within the plates and when those photons impact a molecule they obey the same laws of physics. If not absorbed or transmitted, they get reflected. That process results in a flow of photons through the plates to be emitted from both the blue and green sides. The flows and temperatures are exactly the same as in the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
Now, what crap will you sling next?
barry refuses to “own it”.
Will he listen to Mark B, who is, like Tim (and me), trying to help him out?
Probably not.
He has two options. If he wants to argue the plates are 244 K…244 K when pressed together, he can go with:
1) One single arrow from BP to GP, equivalent to 200 W/m^2. This is what Tim and Mark are essentially going for.
2) The diagram as shown by Clint, with three arrows between the plates.
Mark, I believe a phonon flux requires a temperature difference to operate?
When solar energy hits the plate it is immediately transformed into kinetic energy throughout the plate. The contained energy is vectorless, and both sides emit according to the temperature, the reservoir of kinetic energy.
If each side emits the exact same W/m2, then the energy ‘pressure’ throughout the plate is evenly distributed, rather than having a preferred vector.
barry, no one can keep up with all the crap you sling. Even Mark B can’t get through to you.
You claim the energy is “vectorless”, but you also say the energy is “immediately transformed into kinetic energy throughout the plate”!
I bet you don’t even see the inconsistency.
You don’t have the intellectual maturity to realize you’re just like gordon — glogging the blog while getting nothing right.
What crap will you sling next?
“barry says: . . . Mark, I believe a phonon flux requires a temperature difference to operate? . . .”
This is a bit hand wavy, but if the (ideal black body) plate has 0 conductivity (infinite resistance or an “ideal insulator”) then the side illuminated by the external flux would have to reach a temperature such that it re-radiates the incident flux while the dark side is at 0 K.
As the conductivity is increased the equilibrium flux through the plate increases and the temperature difference between the plate surfaces decreases as it effectively has more surface area from which to radiate. In the limit with both surfaces radiating equally, half of the incident radiant flux has to have passed through the plate from one surface to the other and the only way that can happen is through thermal conduction which is to say conductive flux.
In practice with non-ideal conductors then there would be a temperature difference as you say.
Clint, it’s not the same barry now that we used to see at this blog. He has too many more knowledgeable people “patting him on the back” and saying “well done, barry”. I think it’s gone to his head. All his talk of politics has also affected his posting style. There’s way more “abuse” and rhetoric in his comments than there used to be. His “lying dog” to you seemed to mark a bit of a turning point.
He’s only today conceded the point I’ve been asking him to concede for about the last month, he got himself so confused over it that it seemed like he was never going to “get it”. The more you push back, the more certain he becomes that you must have something wrong!
Don’t give up, though, because he can get there…eventually.
Mark,
In the problem of dealing with indeterminate conduction, doesn’t the flux vector through the material arrive out of book-keeping rather than the physical action?
It’s hard to get past the lack of temperature difference, which is required for conduction.
In your example of the one-sided plate, at equilibrium, is conduction happening through the plate, hitting the insulation or mirror on the other side, then bouncing back to emit the 400 W/m2?
I see the 200 W/m2 deficit in my original answer. I know less about conduction that I do radiation, and so am having difficulty reconciling conduction through an equilibrium temperature body. For me the plate is isothermal, the sunlight is instantly distributed (infinite conduction) through the plate, and the plate radiates according to its temperature, just as the one sided plate does at equilibrium. I assume the answer to my question is that the one-sided plate is isothermal at equilibrium.
I guess your answer to Clint’s question would be a single 200 W/m2 arrow running through the plate.
DREMT,
“He still believes the plates would be 244 K… 244 K when pushed together.”
In the split-plate scenario we always assumed they were. In this discussion, why do you think they would not be the same temperature when pressed together?
Bascially what the Easter Bunny GPE rests upon is his personal view of how dual glazed architectural windows create insulation except that his gets up to R=4 and starts out with R=2 for each pane of glass.
Traditionally when I entered the business in the 1970′ such a window, not counting frame structures was given a resistance value “R-value” of 2.0.
In Mairov the emissivity of the glass windows is .837 and the emissivity of the 400w/m2 emitting room is assumed to be 1.0.
So you have 400w/m2 shining on the inside of the first pane of glass it absorbs .837*400=335w/m2. That gives a glass temperature of 277k for the first pane.
A 277k pane of glass emits from its backside 837*335w/m2 or 280 watt/m2 toward the second pane.
The second pane absorbs .837 of the 280 watts/m2 or 234w/m2. That means the second pane is 254k
A pane of glass at 254k with an emissivity of 8.37 emits .837*234w/m2 = 196w/m2 to space
That gives an r value 2.0 for the radiant insulation through 2 layers of glass with an emissivity of .837 reducing the flow of radiant energy by half (slightly more R=2.04)
Today with testing dual glazed windows can be rated at only R=1.7 to R=2.0 – I am not sure of the reason other than to note most windows are offered as units with frames and some times multiple lites with dividers between the glass of give the multiple lite look. And there is variation depending upon what is put between the panes. But a 13k difference between the panes using the .5 flux of common air results in the second pane equaling 260.5k using Newton’s Law of Cooling.
So from there a 260.5k pane of glass emits .837*261w/m2=218w/m2 Which gives an R value of 1.8. In reality each outcome will be slightly less due to some resistance loss through the glass but thats pretty minor in comparison since most window glass is only about 1/8″ or about 3mm
> Bascially what the Easter Bunny GPE rests upon is his personal view of how dual glazed architectural windows create insulation
Basically Gill makes stuff up once again:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
Our Sky Dragon cranks might try to do algebra once in a while.
LOL!
barry, of course the plates are 244 K…244 K when pushed together. Are you programmed to misunderstand the point of everything I say?
“of course the plates are 244 K… 244 K when pushed together”
I re-read and understand you now.
You’re welcome, barry.
Willard try something different than your usual spew like for example looking at a specific calculation and explaining what is wrong with it. Not only do the calculations follow basic emissivity equations, the result comes out with the expected result from actual testing of how much energy these window units transmit.
Gill should try something else than pure denial, sammich request, saying stuff, and cheap bargaining.
Perhaps he could take a look:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
ROFL!
You proved my point Willard. No science is done at SkS. Its just a mainstream media blog parroting political talking points.
Gill does not even realize that the author is not SkS, but Bob Loblaw, a guy who designed and coded models for a living.
To put it in terms his own background could make him understand, Gill is a fraud. Plain and simple. His fetish for Russian astrology provides a very good tell.
LMAO!
I could care less who posted on SkS he attributed the GPE to Eli Rabett, a fictional person. It could have been the present king of france as far as I am concerned. Since when does science become whatever yo daddy says Willard?
Gill should make sure not to borrow from Moshpit’s examples.
LOL!
Perhaps someday Bill will make a coherent scientific rebuttal of Eli’s analysis of the GPE, instead of just ad hominen attacks.
So far, no such luck.
Nate I provided a science paper and mathematics that none of which you have even attempted to refute.
You provided not one shred of science to support the Easter Bunny’s mathematics as a legitimate means of insulating against warming from EMR. Why must the poster of this nonsense cloak his real identity?
Where exactly is it insulated Nate? Does EMR degenerate as it flies through space? Is there something that prevents absorption?
Where else can this insulation be?
You should be aware that at the moment EMR is absorbed a different electromagnetic process takes over and conducts energy via conduction at a rate orders of magnitude faster than EMR emissions. It is out of the hands of EMR and the plate will be warmer.
bill says:
“I provided a science paper…”
Which says:
“The first way to reduce radiant heat loss through a double-glazed window is to increase the number of glasses. Glasses act as screens for thermal radiation and an increase in their number reduces the radiant heat flux.”
Emphasis as in the original.
This is EXACTLY what Eli Rabbett said regarding plates. The more added, the greater the reduction in heat loss of BP.
Also from the study:
“The second way to reduce radiant heat loss through a double-glazed window is to use glasses with low-emission heat-shielding coatings.”
Which means both high emissivity (e = 0.84) and glass with reflective coating (e = 0.05) serve to reduce radiative heat loss, with greater efficiency achieved with reflective coating.
barry says:
Which says: “The first way to reduce radiant heat loss through a double-glazed window is to increase the number of glasses. Glasses act as screens for thermal radiation and an increase in their number reduces the radiant heat flux.”
——————-
Yes thats correct and the reason given is each of the glasses has an emissivity of .837 and as demonstrated by the math matches up to the full expected insulation of the glasses.
What one can do secondarily is add reflective films to the glass in order to reflect significantly more light go ahead and redo the math for a blackbody Barry and see what the result is.
Just where do you believe the insulation value for a blackbody radiant process is? During the transmission, at the surface, or after the heating has already occurred?
bill,
First let’s acknowledge what some people here are averse to admitting.
High emissivity plates DO reduce radiant heat flux by absorbing and reemitting radiation back to the source, or plate, reducing the radiative heat loss.
Secondly, in almost all cases reflective surfaces are more efficient than highly absorptive surfaces. Dark surfaces also act as radiative insulators, just less eficiently.
“Just where do you believe the insulation value for a blackbody radiant process is?”
A couple of months ago I found some studies that found highly emissive (dark) surfaces were better for insulating against heat loss in gas fired kilns. The gas emitted at a limited set of wavelengths, so when the walls were painted carbon black, they absorbed the narrow frequency band of emissions and in re-emission spread that energy out over a very broad emission band.
The paper you cited shows that highly emissive surfaces do indeed act as insulators, and that making them reflective at room temperatures makes them more effective.
If the GP were a perfect mirror it would be twice as effective as blackbody GP in returning energy to BP.
bill,
Per Kirchhoff’s law, a surface absorbs equally well at the frequencies it radiates.
Temperature has very little to do with absorp.tance, and all to do with the optical properties of the surface. Hence, we talk about ‘dark’ and ‘light’ or reflective surfaces, rather than hot or cold surfaces when speaking of their emissivity.
Th blackbody plates absorb all the energy incident on them. In our examples they emit 50% of that energy back in the direction they received radiation from. A perfect reflector returns 100% of the energy incident on it.
So the “value” of a blackbody insulator is half that of a reflective surface (in most cases).
“First let’s acknowledge what some people here are averse to admitting.”
That’s a reference to me. Here, barry is baiting me for engagement. Up-thread, he falsely accuses me of doing so. As usual, they falsely accuse you of doing what they do themselves!
“A couple of months ago I found some studies that found highly emissive (dark) surfaces were better for insulating against heat loss in gas fired kilns. The gas emitted at a limited set of wavelengths, so when the walls were painted carbon black, they absorbed the narrow frequency band of emissions and in re-emission spread that energy out over a very broad emission band.”
That ain’t the Green Plate Effect.
barry says:
”High emissivity plates DO reduce radiant heat flux by absorbing and reemitting radiation back to the source, or plate, reducing the radiative heat loss.
Secondly, in almost all cases reflective surfaces are more efficient than highly absorptive surfaces. Dark surfaces also act as radiative insulators, just less eficiently.”
Was anybody objecting to that Barry? I would expect that phonons in accordance with Newton’s Law of Cooling presents a pressure-like resistance to warming by conduction as do photons. Yet you simply ignored DREMTs statement that the two plates in contact would both be 244k.
Further what you tacitly admit to but ride roughshod over without any discussion is albedo (1/e) is never absorbed so the reflection occurs before the heating of the surface occurs. After the surface is heated then it nets a teensybit more of the NEXT wave of photons. For a blackbody his process continues until equilibrium is met and the rate of warming of the is in compliance with Newton’s Law of Cooling being an ever diminishing difference in temperature.
barry says:
“Just where do you believe the insulation value for a blackbody radiant process is?”
”A couple of months ago I found some studies that found highly emissive (dark) surfaces were better for insulating against heat loss in gas fired kilns. The gas emitted at a limited set of wavelengths, so when the walls were painted carbon black, they absorbed the narrow frequency band of emissions and in re-emission spread that energy out over a very broad emission band.”
You apparently either had a poor source that failed to explain why or you just ignored it. Fact is reflectivity can be directional.
Google AI explains this effect as:
”How They Work: In gas-fired furnaces, normal refractory surfaces often reflect radiant heat back into the flue gas, where it is lost. High-emissivity coatings absorb this incident radiant energy and re-radiate it to the cooler kiln load (wares).
Improved Efficiency: Coatings turn the entire kiln lining into a heat radiator, creating a more uniform temperature distribution and allowing the burners to be turned down, leading to lower fuel consumption.”
I’m not sure how many times I have to tell barry that I agree if, for example, the blackbody GP is introduced at 244 K, then heat flow between the plates goes to zero.
Is this “radiative insulation”? Obviously not. Powered objects don’t just get warmer when they warm their surroundings. And, obviously warmer objects do not increase in temperature at the expense of cooler objects via some direct transfer of energy.
I’m more interested in Clint’s original point. Is barry now going for there being only one arrow between the plates, BP to GP? If so, what happened to the “back-conduction” he was happy to acknowledge was there when he was originally going for two arrows between the plates?
bill,
I said: “High emissivity plates DO reduce radiant heat flux by absorbing and reemitting radiation back to the source, or plate, reducing the radiative heat loss.”
You replied: “Was anybody objecting to that Barry?”
I am glad to learn that you don’t object to that.
But Clint and DREMT do. Thanks for the reference to Mariov.
“In gas-fired furnaces, normal refractory surfaces often reflect radiant heat back into the flue gas, where it is lost. High-emissivity coatings absorb this incident radiant energy and re-radiate it to the cooler kiln load (wares).
Improved Efficiency: Coatings turn the entire kiln lining into a heat radiator, creating a more uniform temperature distribution and allowing the burners to be turned down, leading to lower fuel consumption.”
Yes, that is how it was described in the papers I linked. The high emissivity surface reemitted broad spectrum radiation, insulating the kiln more effectively than reflective coatings that bounced narrow-range emissions back to the flame. With a black coating less energy is required to keep the kilns at higher temperature. It’s a niche use of dark surfaces for insulation, where reflective surfaces are usually more efficient.
“But Clint and DREMT do…”
See the comment I just made, at 6:07 PM.
Barry, a more uniform temperature distribution which the source talks about is not an insulating effect. Where did you get that idea from?
[GILL’S GURU] Glasses act as screens for thermal radiation and an increase in their number reduces the radiant heat flux.
[GILL] Yes thats correct
[ELI] Plates act as screens for thermal radiation and an increase in their number reduces the radiant heat flux.”
[GILL] Says who? Is there a paper? That’s not insulation! Lulz.
Actually, it’s Eli saying:
In my 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
And, it’s rational people realising that’s a 2LoT violation.
“Where did you get that idea from?”
Less energy is used to fire the kilns to the same temperature.
“a more uniform temperature distribution which the source talks about”
A redistribution of radiative energy bandwidth, from the narrow range of the gas flame, to the broad-range frequency of the re-emitted energy from the near-blackbody walls.
…which ain’t the GPE, or even anything like the GPE.
Our Sky Dragon cranks prove Barry right once again.
Eli’s thought experiment remains undefeated.
No, this thread has been pretty disastrous for poor barry, and the GPE remains debunked.
Of course, it doesn’t need to be disastrous, if he can learn from his mistakes. It could even be a positive thing. However, as Clint often points out, you guys can’t learn.
So, most likely just disastrous.
barry says:
”Less energy is used to fire the kilns to the same temperature.”
But only when reflection aids the escape of energy out of the edges of the plates or in this case up the flue.
“a more uniform temperature distribution which the source talks about”
A redistribution of radiative energy bandwidth, from the narrow range of the gas flame, to the broad-range frequency of the re-emitted energy from the near-blackbody walls.
Indeed you are getting close to understand whats going on here. Don’t give up now.
If you take the math here for the dual glazed window, due to an emissivity of less 1.0 results in real insulation. An object between the GP and BP at 290k will also be warmer than for objects with emissivity less than 1.0 such as the glass plates. That’s because the first plate provides no insulation. If you provide insulation to reflect away heat its going to be cooler. After all we are talking about what gets through the plate.
For a blackbody kiln the temperature going through the walls of the tank are not reduced. With reflective surfaces on the inside with the fire heat is lost through the flue. For plates on limited size heat will be reflected out to space through the gap between the plates. An insulated kiln with no escape of heat will get hotter, for radiant energy if the radiant field is 400w/m2 then nothing can get hotter than 290k with or without insulation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741211
bill,
The thermal resistance via radiation of successive glass panes is derived by summing their absorp.ption/emission and their reflectivity (and transmission). Both re-emission and reflection provide resistance to radiative heat loss.
See pg 343, eqs 1 and 2.
https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/12486.pdf
The authors write:
“Each layer acts as a passive element characterised by its transmission, reflection and absorbtion coefficients. In addition, each layer is a source of radiation so that, in contrast to the solar radiation, the energy-balance equations for the infrared radiation form an inhomogenous linear system.”
Yes Barry, your source agrees with me. Just above your quote it also says what I have been saying. ”In the case of opaque materials, we need only the reflectivity or emissivity of the two surfaces”
It agrees with both of us. The emissivity (or reflectivity, they’re on a sliding scale) gives the absorbtance of the panes, which as quoted, is additional to the heat transfer equations, which you can see in eqs 1 and 2 on p 343.
The reflectivity, transmission and absorbtance is calculated, yielding the total heat transfer through the system.
You can read the the need to know absorbtance for solar radiation as well on p 342, for that part of the solar spectrum that the glass is opaque to.
Both reflection and absorbtion/re-emission contribute to the thermal resistance of the radiative flux through the glass.
> your source agrees with me
Team Science agreeing with cranks is of no relevance whatsoever: it’s if cranks agree with Team Science that matters.
In any event, this means that Gill agreed with Eli all along.
LOL!
“I’m more interested in Clint’s original point. Is barry now going for there being only one arrow between the plates, BP to GP? If so, what happened to the “back-conduction” he was happy to acknowledge was there when he was originally going for two arrows between the plates?”
DREMT,
The evolution of my thinking and explanations of it are in the posts above. But if you’re only curious about ‘back-conduction’, no, I don’t think there is a two-way flow in conduction, except at the microscopic level.
Perhaps I need to be more direct:
One, two, or three arrows between the plates when pushed together?
Conduction through the plates, assuming there IS conduction, would be a single arrow. But as there is no temperature difference and thus no temperature gradient, we come up against the limits of my ken on conduction.
To be clear, I’m thinking of the energy flows in YOUR solution, not the correct solution.
There most certainly is conduction, or there would be no energy available to radiate from the space-facing side of the GP.
I’m trying to understand how you’ve gone from embracing “back-conduction”:
“The energy flow equivalent in the diagram would be 200 W/m2 going from one plate to the other, summing to zero.”
to rejecting it, by now saying there would only be one arrow. Then, to confuse matters even more, you say you do accept “back-conduction” but only at the “microscopic level”. Not sure what other level there would be for any of these energy flows, whether via conduction or radiation!
My first post I was trying to use the arrows as in the radiative diagram to explain thermal equilibrium between two conducting plates. The next post I clarified that there would be no conduction with plates at equilibrium.
I’m still unsure on that question. Am I the only person here who has learned that conduction requires a temperature gradient? Or is there another definition?
As Mark pointed out, we run into problems with an infinitely conducting material. Remember, the original GPE was designed to isolate the radiative balance, and eliminating the conductive element of the problem was one of the accepted terms we have run with for years. When we have two infinitely broad, infinitely thin, perfectly conducting plates, they become one single infinitely broad, infinitely thin, perfectly conducting plate when pressed together. So that was the model I was running with when I said there was no conduction.
I also said that IRL there would actually be a temperature gradient and conduction. In this case, there are microscopic kinetic movements that go in every direction, but the average movement is from hotter to colder.
I asked Mark a question that I’ll put to you.
If we heat a one-sided blackbody plate with 400 W/m2, it warms to a uniform 290K and radiates 400 W/m2 back. At this point, is conduction still occurring through the plate?
Mark’s “one-sided plate” was actually described as follows:
“This is a bit hand wavy, but if the (ideal black body) plate has 0 conductivity (infinite resistance or an “ideal insulator”) then the side illuminated by the external flux would have to reach a temperature such that it re-radiates the incident flux while the dark side is at 0 K.”
So, the way I see it, a plate with zero conductivity does not conduct at all, which means only the very first layer of molecules exposed to the sunlight would vibrate, and that vibration would not be passed on to the second layer of molecules behind the first layer, or beyond. So no, conduction is not occurring through the plate.
Does that help? It’s fun and interesting to think about these sorts of things but I also think it’s kind of getting away from the point I was trying to make (originally Clint’s point).
You were along the right lines to begin with, with your two arrows (including a “back-conduction” arrow), however:
1) The “back-conduction” can’t warm the BP (2LoT).
2) There still has to be 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to space to satisfy conservation of energy.
So, you have to have that third arrow from the BP back to the GP.
It certainly makes more sense for you to go from two arrows to three rather than from two arrows to one. You’ve gone from two arrows to one and I’m still not sure why.
Obviously its not standard textbook science. Now 8 years in its amazing they haven’t yet found one. Considering how popular this is textbooks must have a far superior peer review process than mainstream media/blog science.
Many experiments have been presented and none of have panned out for them. Yet they continue to be true believers.
What they don’t get is that you need real cooling via turning off the input to actually slow the cooling of the BP, because even 95% reflectivity isn’t going to warm the BP more than its input. You can raise the input if you add a solar reflector because that effectively increases the mean temperature of the sky as the BP sees. but you aren’t going to do anything by reflecting the temperature of a wall in a room.
Tim Folkert’s gets that but fails to see the limitations or the extent of 2lot. He needs to get himself some mirrors and do the requisite experiments and not be so politically gullible.
Because conduction is basically a one-way process. It’s in the math, too.
q = -k∇T
Whereas radiative transfer is very clearly a two-way (at least) phenomenon.
“So, the way I see it, a plate with zero conductivity does not conduct at all, which means only the very first layer of molecules exposed to the sunlight would vibrate, and that vibration would not be passed on to the second layer of molecules behind the first layer…”
If the second layer of atoms are not vibrating, then they are at 0k – you have a temperature gradient, and this conduction must occur.
Actually, I just looked it up – no atom is completely motionless. What you are suggesting is that the 2nd layer of atoms would not have enough energy to bump into each other. there would be no kinetic jostling. But there would be a temperature gradient, as the first layer of excited molecules would bump into the second layer and so on.
So what you’re saying is that any material of uniform temperature has conduction occurring? This is the opposite of what I learned about conduction, which is driven by a temperature difference.
“Thermal conduction is the transfer of heat from hotter to cooler parts of a body resulting in equalizing of temperature… The basic law of thermal conduction is the Fourier law which states that the heat flux density is proportional to the temperature gradient T in an isotropic body.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/1186/
“thermal conduction: transfer of energy (heat) arising from temperature differences between adjacent parts of a body.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/thermal-conduction
So, I guess your answer to my question would be that in the plate of uniform temperature receiving and yielding back 400 W/m2, there is conduction going through the plate from front to back, and again from back to front?
Hard to reconcile that – you’d end up with an equal energy distribution, and the statistical average of energy motion (phonons, electrons?) would be zero.
Any case, conduction would be a single arrow, its direction driven by a temperature difference.
If what you are saying is correct, then when we have a single BP and a sun, we need to draw an arrow through the BP, because to you BP is conducting, even though it is a uniform temperature (we know it is a uniform temperature because it emits 200 W/m2 from each face).
To me, in short.
Objects radiate according to their temperature and surface properties
Objects conduct according to temperature differences and internal material properties
“You’ve gone from two arrows to one and I’m still not sure why.”
Because I went from using a radiative diagram to explain equilibrium between two plates in contact, to a straight description of how I understand what actual conduction looks like.
As I say, I’m still not sure there should be any conductive arrow at all, but if there was, there would be one arrow, 200 W/m2, pointing away from the sun, through the plate/s.
The math is simple. 200 W/m2 is radiated sunward, 200 W/m2 gets ‘conducted’ (?) through the plate/s, and that 200 W/2 is emitted away by the far side of GP. There is no ‘backconduction’.
IE, you can’t have 400 W/m2 arriving at BP, 200 W/m2 emitted back to the sun, and then another 400 W/m2 being conducted through the plates – running through each layer of molecules, as you described, to fill up the volume of the plate. With 200 W/m2 radiated away at the illuminated surface, there is only 200 W/m2 spare to travel through the plate/s.
So my mediocre understanding of conduction suggests to me.
> Obviously its not standard textbook science.
Obviously it is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1739893
ROFL!
“If the second layer of atoms are not vibrating, then they are at 0k – you have a temperature gradient, and this conduction must occur.”
Conduction cannot occur because this hypothetical plate has zero thermal conductivity. Infinite thermal resistance.
P.S: the equation for conduction takes into account the temperature difference between one side of the material compared to the other side, so in that way it’s quite similar to the “Thot minus Tcold” component of the equation for radiation. It makes more sense to argue both are “two-way” processes.
Barry,
Maybe I’m not clear on what you mean by “one-sided black body”, but my postulate in the 2nd paragraph ( https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741183 ) was that the object was an idealized conductive insulator.
By definition it does not conduct thus there is no flux through it.
It’s also been postulated to be an idealized black body so it would absorb all incident radiation and the (infinitesimally thin) surface would warm to temperature such that it re-radiates all incident radiation. That is, it behaves essentially the same as if it had zero emissivity in this degenerate case.
The internal temperature distribution is indeterminate because there is no conduction to redistribute energy.
Mark,
“Maybe I’m not clear on what you mean by “one-sided black body” ”
Similar to your second paragraph. Maybe the other side is a perfect mirror, unable to emit, or perfectly insulated.
The idea I’m trying to understand is conduction without a thermal gradient. I see the necessity for 200 W/m2 worth of energy to ‘pass through’ the plate. I asked the question of the perfectly insulated plate with a notion of some thickness, wondering if, when at equilibrium, the energy applied by the sun moves through the material. There is no temperature difference through the plate, but it seemed if energy is physically conducted through a two-sided emissive plate, even when the plate is uniform temperature, then it should likewise move through a insulated plate.
Because if it is not a temperature difference driving the conduction, then it is either a physical reality of kinetic movement (phonons/lattice, electrons?), or else more like a bookkeeping exercise.
My initial thought was that the plate is like a dam with two outlets. The sunlight is converted into an evenly distributed kinetic energy with no particular directionality, and the geometry of the plate determines the direction of radiative outflow.
Having infinitesimally thin, infinitely conducting plates does seem to confound the issue.
“the equation for conduction takes into account the temperature difference between one side of the material compared to the other side, so in that way it’s quite similar to the ‘Thot minus Tcold’ component of the equation for radiation. It makes more sense to argue both are “two-way” processes.”
Thinking it through, conduction is derived of a temperature difference localised to the material.
Radiative transfer in our example is derived from subtracting two fluxes of energy that are aimed at each other, even if they are at distance.
These are fundamentally different quantities.
If there is no temperature gradient in a solid, there is no directionality in the molecular jostling.
If two plates are at the same temperature they are still firing photons like billions of bullets at each other, and there is definitely (bi) directionality in that energy exchange, even if there is zero heat flow.
I can sort of get on board with colder molecules bumping ‘upstream’ into other molecules. I can see bi-directionality there, I suppose, although in reality the directionality of this physical action is every which way, with molecules from the warmer end of the medium pushing the average kinetic energy coldwards.
But these little energy balls don’t have the independence of radiative packets fired into the vacuum.
The thermal gradient through a medium IS the conduction, a tension in the lattice, every molecule immediately informed by its neighbours and the gossip is highly variable.
A photon is fired off at a discrete energy, independent of and unaffected by its destination and other photons. That is a true vector, to my mind.
“P.S: the equation for conduction takes into account the temperature difference between one side of the material compared to the other side, so in that way it’s quite similar to the “Thot minus Tcold” component of the equation for radiation. It makes more sense to argue both are “two-way” processes.”
You ignore everything I said after that quote, and simply repeat it as if I said nothing worthy of interest.
That is precisely the moment that you become a troll.
“If there is no temperature gradient in a solid, there is no directionality in the molecular jostling.”
Well, in the case of these perfectly-conducting plates, there must be. If energy wasn’t constantly travelling from left to right through those plates, be it via one arrow or three arrows, then there would be no energy available to radiate from the space-facing side of the GP.
The only question for you seems to be whether you accept “back-conduction”, or not. You keep flitting between accepting it and rejecting it. If you accept it, then it would be “three arrows”…if you reject it, “one arrow”.
Obviously its not standard textbook science. Now 8 years in its amazing they haven’t yet found one.”
It most certainly is.
The general textbook solution to multi-layer radiation problems have been shown to you guys many times. Such as here:
https://thermopedia.com/content/69/
See figure 2 and equation 3 for N plates.
Put in emissivity = 1, heat transfer is reduced when N increases.
Bill showed us a paper using the same solution last month, applied to multi-layer windows.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/939/1/012048/pdf
See equation 17. And its explanation:
We always find the same result, that more layers leads to lower radiative heat transfer. Even if emissivity is 1, for blackbodies.
“The first way to reduce radiant heat loss through a double-glazed window is to increase the number
of glasses. Glasses act as screens for thermal radiation and an increase in their number reduces the
radiant heat flux. This effect is clearly seen when comparing the values of the radiant heat flux through
one-layer q1r, two-layer q2r and three-layer q3r glazings at the same temperatures ti and to. Using
expressions (11) and (16), we obtain for these conditions the following relation between the indicated”
If you can’t understand how to apply these general solutions to the specific GPE case, then that is on you and your insufficient competence in math and/or science.
“You ignore everything I said after that quote, and simply repeat it as if I said nothing worthy of interest. That is precisely the moment that you become a troll.”
Wrong again, barry. Just a cross-post. When you wrote your comment of April 22, 2026 at 6:37 AM, that was all I could see at the time I repeated that quote to you. I was repeating it to remind you to respond to it. Then after that post went through I saw your comment of April 22, 2026 at 7:13 AM, but by then, of course, it was already too late.
However, I then responded to that comment anyway, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741942
Still awaiting your response.
“Where exactly is it insulated Nate? Does EMR degenerate as it flies through space? Is there something that prevents absorption?
Where else can this insulation be?”
As these two textbook analyses show, when MORE separated blackbody plates are added between two bodies at different temperatures T1 and T2, the radiative heat transfer flux, Q, drops.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742023
This is exactly what insulation does. The R factor is in fact defined as R = (T1-T2)/Q.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)
With T1-T2 =constant, we see that Q reduces with more blackbody plates. Therefore R increases with more blackbody plates in between.
QED
Hopefully, this finally puts and end to the unsupported assertions that blackbody plates cannot insulate.
When they don’t have a response, you know that means they’ve been forced to accept you have a point.
“dont have response”
Yep, like you and Bill to the unrquivocal evidence shown above.
Textbook physics makes it clear: separated blackbody plates can radiatively insulate.
What can you say?
Textbooks must be wrong? Physics must get it wrong, in your expert opinion?
I was talking to barry, Nate. No need for you to start trolling me.
Oh, sorry to have interrupted your trolling of Barry.
That’s ok. I’ll bookmark this for the next time you try to claim that blackbody plates cannot insulate.
Can’t help but notice that Nate is continuing to bait and goad me.
Sure, fine, we don’t need a response.
But astute readers will find it interesting that points you’ve tried to make repeatedly, and are absolutely central to your narrative, such as ‘blackbodies can’t insulate’, and ‘Eli’s solution violates 2LOT’, when challenged with indisputable, contradictory evidence, you call that ‘baiting’ or ‘trolling’, and evade them like the plague.
Yep, that is quite noteworthy.
So we will leave it there, but bookmarked for any future claims that ‘blackbodies can’t insulate’.
Nate, your discussion with bill is one thing. My discussion with barry is another thing. Stop baiting and trolling constantly.
For one thing, everyone has moved down-thread.
Barry if there is one arrow for conduction and two for radiation then why do both follow newton’s law of cooling?
It’s funny…barry can say he doesn’t know much about conduction…nobody from his “team” bats an eyelid. If I say I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons (something that’s totally reasonable to say) I get falsely accused of all sorts of shenanigans!
Exactly. And of course. . .thats how things work through the penalty of death in Iran.
These are theoretical things that QM continues to puzzle over yet there are so many liberals out there that believe they know everything about them as being 100% consistent with the whatever the their Ahatollah Easter Bunny said about them.
Another weird thing is, for example, Tim Folkerts’ reaction a couple of months ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734574
They often act like the Green Plate Effect is “standard textbook science”, but in over eight years they’ve never been able to show that’s the case by, you know, linking to a textbook example that’s like the Green Plate Effect. So what we have is a thought experiment published on a blog by a guy using a pseudonym, that they have basically asserted so many times is “standard textbook science” that they’ve brainwashed people into believing that’s the case! Just “asserting” it until it becomes the accepted “reality”.
Gill is a gift that keeps on giving:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-drawings-of-conduction-convection-and-radiation-mechanisms_fig2_343602949
LOL!
It’s a given that Willard can’t follow the thread of a discussion.
The only question is – why does he bother commenting?
“They often act like the Green Plate Effect is “standard textbook science”
‘Act like’? People have said the GPE is based on standard radiative transfer.
“a thought experiment published on a blog by a guy using a pseudonym, that they have basically asserted so many times is “standard textbook science”
You’re not likely to find an exact replica of the
GPE in a standard textbook, but every component of it is based on standard physics, which we can and HAVE cited.
“that they’ve brainwashed people into believing that’s the case!”
Jeeze, we even got Roy Spencer brainwashed!
“But what will happen to the temperature of the heated plate in the process? It will end up even hotter than it was before the cooler plate was placed next to it. This is because the second plate reduced the rate at which the first plate was losing energy.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
Incredibly, we managed to brainwash Dr Spencer 7 years before the GPE was published.
Well, barry, argument by repeated assertion is a typical tool of brainwashing.
"A lie, repeated loudly and often enough, becomes the truth".
As usual, you attempt to bring Dr Spencer into it.
All I’m saying is, on this blog the lie that the Green Plate Effect is “standard textbook physics” has been repeated loudly and often enough that it seems to be accepted as the truth. Saying that “components” of the GPE are “based on” standard physics is a bit silly. You could argue any crackpot theory has “components” that are “based on” standard physics.
“standard textbook science”
For example:
7th edition of Howell, Siegel, and Menguc’s Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer
“Since all matter emits and absorbs radiation under all conditions, there is always radiative transfer of energy, even within an isothermal system. If two objects are at different temperatures, there will be net radiation energy transfer between them”
and
“the quantitative calculation of the exchange of EM energy between matter at different energy levels constitutes radiative transfer – the focus of this book”
By this we know that BP absorbs GP’s radiation, but also, from the same textbook science,
“the blackbody is a perfect emitter and absorber at every wavelength”
Standard textbook science tells us that BP and GP exchange energy via radiation, even though they are at different temperatures, and that BP absorbs all GP’s radiation emitted to it, just as GP absorbs all BP’s radiation emitted to it.
I believe this is the sort of thing people mean when they say the GPE is based on standard radiative transfer physics.
barry, dr spencer conducted an experiment and managed a very small effect. but thats to be expected because nothing is a blackbody. bottomline the gpe is a fraud. if you look at all the experiments that fact is replicated over and over again. the gpe shows by declaration and not experiment r=4.0, quite simply that declaration is a fraud. the facts are the facts.
It’s obvious that Graham D. Warner is trolling, so the tactics are chosen to keep Team Science engaged. That may include using actual physics when it’s convenient, avoidance or redirection when necessary (as with photons), vague semantics structured in a leading way (“at the expense of”), emotionally loaded baiting (“concede to proceed”), and will feign insult when he is called out for behaving in bad faith.
The only question that remains is – why is he still trolling after more than five years after his cover has been blown?
“As usual, you attempt to bring Dr Spencer into it.”
If you’ve been paying attention, I tend to do that when you start impugning people about the GPE/GHE.
In this case you said,
“they’ve brainwashed people into believing that’s the case!”
Pointing out you’ve inadvertently derided a prominent, credentialed, qualified AGW ‘skeptic’, who is an expert in radiative transfer (it’s fundamental physics in the construction of the lower tropospheric temperature record), is not done to appeal to authority or prove the physics. It’s to make you reconsider your derision.
“You could argue any crackpot theory has “components” that are “based on” standard physics.”
But that’s not what I argue. I argue that crackpot theories have components that contradict standard physics.
I chose the quotes from the standard textbook on radiative transfer with precisely such contradictions in mind. DREMT.
barry, you’re like a broken record. Your 262 K…220 K solution is debunked before the question of how the “back-radiation” transfer is returned to the GP even comes up. So you can’t keep using such quotes as if they save your 262 K…220 K solution. They don’t!
“you can’t keep using such quotes as if they save your 262 K… 220 K solution”
You can’t keep deflecting standard textbook science that contradicts your solution.
Those quotes do indeed lead to the plates at different temperatures in the GPE. That’s why you tacitly reject them.
Actually, barry, I have no problem with those quotes – once it’s understood that you cannot violate 2LoT, as you do in your 262 K…220 K solution.
barry says:
”I chose the quotes from the standard textbook on radiative transfer with precisely such contradictions in mind. DREMT.”
No you didn’t. If you pulled quotes from anywhere you pulled them from the results of dual glazed window insulation that doesn’t usually get down into the weeds about how it works.
What you need to do is get your causes and effects in correct order.
Radiation absorbed is radiation that warms an object first ”before” it serves to partially net the next wave of warming until the final wave at equilibrium where the backradiation from absorbed heat equals the incoming. thats the concept of stabilized equilibrium. equilibrium does not occur before then.
What you are measuring standard textbook results from is unabsorbed/reflected radiation that doesn’t warm the object before backradiation occurs.
But even then it doesn’t warm the incoming source of energy because that would be a violation of 2lot and a violation of the rules of entropy.
So when you quack about standard textbook physics you are full of it and you have already proven yourself incapable of producing any textbook or otherwise show in detail what you claim about blackbodies to be correct.
S&O provided the best documented evidence of that. And all you and the other warming alarmists around here did about that is essentially say there must be something wrong with the experiment without being able to explain what it was. That is so horribly weak that complaint can just be discarded.
The hard facts are no matter what you or anybody else says about this, the experiments are what demonstrates how it actually works and every attempted to experiment show what you claim comes back with an inconclusive result of a tiny bit of warming that arises out of the fact that all real world bodies reflect a little bit of radiation. . .i.e. there are no blackbodies.
Again the difference occurs with reflection precisely because the warming has not already occurred before the radiation and as long as the BP is warming than the GP the next wave of 2 arrow radiation will result in the BP warming further until it is equal in temperature or some amount of reflectivity prevents that.
From the quotes we know that BP absorbs all GP’s radiation sent to it. Elsewhere from the same text we know that the sum of radiation on a blackbody surface determines its total irradiance, and that the EMR that is absorbed is thermalised.
From this and Kirchhoff’s law, also in the text, we learn that BP is absorbing more than 400 W/2 when GP is present, and from the 1st Law we know that BP must emit to equal the incoming radiation, and that the radiation entering the 2-plate system must be equaled by energy leaving the 2-plate system.
As GP is only absorbing BP’s energy, and BP is absorbing solar + GP energy, we know that there is a thermal gradient between the plates. As GP can only ever receive half the energy that blackbody BP emits, we come to the neat conclusion of BP emitting at 266.67 W/m2, and GP emitting at 133.33 W/m2.
This satisfies all aspects – the fact GP only ever gets half of BP’s energy, as half BP’s energy is directed away from GP; the requirement that the 2-plate system must emit equal to incoming energy; that all the between the plates is thermalised, and that a plate in the shade must be cooler than a plate in the sun.
Everything in the standard textbook I’ve quoted supports this conclusion.
The textbook contradicts that BP can’t absorb GP’s radiation, or that BP cannot thermalise GP’s radiation, and that BP can be both a blackbody and perfect reflector on the same surface: reflectivity = 1 – ℯ.
This is what is meant by physics supporting the GPE, and your solution being contradicted by standard physics.
“It’s funny… barry can say he doesn’t know much about conduction…nobody from his “team” bats an eyelid. If I say I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons (something that’s totally reasonable to say) I get falsely accused of all sorts of shenanigans!”
The difference is that my uncertainty about conduction naturally leads me to be uncertain about my conclusions on it, whereas as your uncertainty on what happens to GP’s photons doesn’t trouble your certainty.
Which of us is a better skeptic, do you think?
barry, back to the points 1) – 7) for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733329
The points 1) – 5) debunk your 262 K…220 K solution without even needing to think about how the “back-radiation” transfer is returned to the GP.
Your focus on attacking the 244 K…244 K solution is a moot point in light of that.
Now, this point is a logically-proven fact:
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.”
You could try to dispute that “the point” is a 2LoT violation, if you wished, but you cannot dispute “the point” itself. That ship has sailed. All objections were countered. In fact, I’m still assuming you have conceded “the point”.
Up to you. Dispute that “the point” is a 2LoT violation, or concede that it is.
Barry says:
“Since all matter emits and absorbs radiation under all conditions, there is always radiative transfer of energy, even within an isothermal system. If two objects are at different temperatures, there will be “NET” radiation energy transfer between them”
and
“the quantitative calculation of the exchange of EM energy between matter at different energy levels constitutes radiative transfer – the focus of this book”
So your source is attributing radiative transfer as a NET process between the two surfaces. In the case of the GP transfer with the BP that transfer is strictly from the BP to the GP.
Unfortunate for your position of the warming the BP from backradiation from the GP is “AUTHORITATIVELY” eliminated by “YOUR OWN AUTHORITIES” Barry.
Are you going to now deny your own source? Everything else that followed in your post is based upon your own ignorance and interpretation of what your source just said. You are stuck on this like glue choosing to ignore the net transfer from the BP to GP, netting it in the GP and not netting it in the BP. Can’t you see the error you are making? For 8 years you have been trying to interpret backradiation as a net transfer energy from the GP to the BP and that is NOT supported in any way shape or form in any of physics. Meanwhile you treat the BP radiation as being netted via instead of netting you send it back to the BP.
The only way you are ever going to understand this is by understanding the one sentence in your own post that says: “If two objects are at different temperatures, there will be net radiation energy transfer between them” ”
Understand that radiation energy transfer equals net radiation energy transfer. As detailed by the next sentence. “the quantitative calculation of the exchange of EM energy between matter at different energy levels constitutes radiative transfer”
You warm the BP by failing to do the required calculation. And so obviously does the Easter Bunny. The backradiation is potentially allowed at the time of calculation of the net. But for it to warm the BP it would have to violate 2LOT.
All you are doing is Gee, backradiation has energy it absorbed by the BP so the BP must warm from it. But you failed the test on the Howell Textbook by not doing the required calculation.
yeah go ahead sit there for a while turning that over in your head before you call out Howell et al as being full of BS. And understand that when there isn’t a transfer of energy, the BP is not going to warm up and that the energy transfer is the calculation specified by Howell. This is why they put word problems on examinations to test if you fully understand what’s going on.
bill,
“For 8 years you have been trying to interpret backradiation as a net transfer energy from the GP to the BP”
No, for years I’ve been saying that the net energy transfer is from BP to GP. That’s why, when BP warms due to the new radiative balance of GP + solar, there is NO violation of 2LoT.
Here’s the math:
Q = σ(Tbp⁴ – Tgp⁴)
At all times in the GPE Q > 0, therefore the transfer is at all times, without exception BP to GP.
When people claim a 2LoT violation, they completely forget the NET transfer, and focus exclusively on the single vector from GP to BP. I am glad you agree with the standard textbook science that the NET transfer determines the direction of heat flow.
DREMT,
“5) Which in turn means that the ‘back-radiation’ is transferring internal energy from the GP to the BP”
You agreed recently that internal energy is not transferable.
So it’s not just standard textbook physics, it’s also you who contradicts you.
That’s the problem with using rhetoric in place of physics. Your argument is semantic, not scientific.
Heat flow = Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
Case closed
Barry says:
”No, for years I’ve been saying that the net energy transfer is from BP to GP. That’s why, when BP warms due to the new radiative balance of GP + solar, there is NO violation of 2LoT.”
thats because according to your own source there is no transfer of energy from GP to the BP.
The Easter Bunny claim comes from a failure to follow the standard textbook physics.
Where your textbook source says ”If two objects are at different temperatures, there will be “NET” radiation energy transfer between them” It does not say at all that the GP warms the BP as the net is always a transfer of heat from the BP to the GP with zero transfer of heat from the GP to the BP. What you are doing is extrapolating the behaviors of photons to be able to warm something that is actually cooling. this is getting pretty silly Barry. Certainly you are smarter than you are currently demonstrating.
> The Easter Bunny claim comes from a failure to follow the standard textbook physics.
At this point, it becomes obvious that Gill is just being a jerk.
LOL!
“You agreed recently that internal energy is not transferable.”
Fine. Let’s mentally rewrite 5) with, “which in turn means that the “back-radiation” transfer is reducing internal energy in the GP by converting it to EMR which is sent to the BP, where it is converted back into internal energy, thus building up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP. Energy cannot just “organise” itself in this way. It’s a 2LoT violation”.
There. That wasn’t so hard, was it? You could have done that yourself.
“thats because according to your own source there is no transfer of energy from GP to the BP.”
No, bill. There is a tranfser of energy both ways, and the NET transfer is from the warmer to the colder object.
From the physics textbook:
“Since all matter emits and absorbs radiation under all conditions, there is always radiative transfer of energy, even within an isothermal system. If two objects are at different temperatures, there will be net radiation energy transfer between them… the quantitative calculation of the exchange of EM energy between matter at different energy levels constitutes radiative transfer – the focus of this book”
As the text says, two objects at different temperatures exchange radiation with each other, and the NET exchange of radiation is the difference between the 2 fluxes.
Shorter 5)
GP is sending heat to BP via backradiation.
No, wrong. This is exactly the same dogma you’ve peddled for years, dressed up in rhetoric you think argues a valid case.
Internal energy is not heat
Radiation is not heat
Nothing ‘self-organised’. You flipped a switch and changed the energy distribution.
I repeat (since nothing you have said changes anything):
“Now, this point is a logically-proven fact:
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.”
You could try to dispute that “the point” is a 2LoT violation, if you wished, but you cannot dispute “the point” itself. That ship has sailed. All objections were countered. In fact, I’m still assuming you have conceded “the point”.
Up to you. Dispute that “the point” is a 2LoT violation, or concede that it is.”
Barry effectively conceded the point the minute he admitted to
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah governs net measurable radiation exchange and thus the direction of heat flow.
Not to speak of the shutout on evidence with the following list just a partial compilation.
https://www.thermopedia.com/de/content/69/?get_similar_search=arht
7th edition of Howell, Siegel, and Menguc’s Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/939/1/012048/pdf
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=124562
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Seim-Olsen-2023-CO2-Absorption-Back_Radiation-.pdf
https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/calibrated-hotbox-testing-window
Yes, bill, that’s that. I’ll respond more directly to barry’s last comment, just for completeness:
“Internal energy is not heat”
Didn’t say it was.
“Radiation is not heat”
Then stop treating the “back-radiation” transfer as though it were heat.
“Nothing ‘self-organised’. You flipped a switch and changed the energy distribution.”
Wrong, barry. Refer to “the point”.
And, stop dismissing valid, logical arguments and perfectly reasonable use of the English language as “rhetoric”.
bill,
“Barry effectively conceded the point the minute he admitted to q = εσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴) Ah governs net measurable radiation exchange and thus the direction of heat flow.”
But I’ve been saying this all along, bill. I’ve told DREMT a hundred times that this equation determines the flow of heat between the plates in the GPE.
If BP is warmer than GP, then q is positive and the flow of heat is BP to GP.
At all times in the GPE, BP is warmer than GP.
So, if you agree with me and standard textbook science that the equation above determines heat flow between the plates, why are you suggesting that there is a flow of heat from GP to BP?
You must have a different definition of heat flow to the above equation. And if you do, then that definition contradicts the above equation.
Thanks bill for the reference to thermopedia.
“Consider two parallel plane surfaces of infinite extent that have different uniform temperatures… after accounting for all exchanges between the parallel boundaries, the net energy flux (W/m2) transferred by radiation from 1 to 2 is…”
The plates exchange energy. Just the standard textbook I quoted says:
“If two objects are at different temperatures, there will be net radiation energy transfer between them… the exchange of EM energy between matter at different energy levels constitutes radiative transfer – the focus of this book”
This is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Both plates absorb each other’s radiation, emit to each other, and the net energy transfer is from the hotter body to the warmer body.
Thus, heat flows from BP to GP, even as they exchange EM energy.
So why is anyone suggesting there is a NET exchange from GP to BP?
“Radiation is not heat”
“Then stop treating the ‘back-radiation’ transfer as though it were heat”
But I’m not doing that. You are.
bill,
I really want to stop and get you to reflect on this. You said:
“q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴) Ah governs net measurable radiation exchange and thus the direction of heat flow”
If q is positive, the heat flow is Th to Tc. Excellent. Let’s look at the GPE.
Before the GP arrives, BP is at 244K.
After the GP arrives, both heat up and BP is 262 K and GP is 220 K.
At all times BP is warmer than GP.
So if q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴) GOVERNS the direction of heat flow, then BP always being warmer than GP means the heat flow is always from BP to GP in the GPE experiment.
It is excellent to find agreement with you.
“But I’m not doing that. You are.”
Wrong, barry. I’m going with 244 K…244 K, whereas you’re going with 262 K…220 K. So, you’re definitely the one treating the “back-radiation” transfer as though it were heat.
“So why is anyone suggesting there is a NET exchange from GP to BP?”
There isn’t, which is why the BP doesn’t warm at the expense of the GP. 244 K…244 K, not 262 K…220 K.
“So why is anyone suggesting there is a NET exchange from GP to BP?”
“There isn’t”
Excellent, Then we are all in agreement that the NET exchange is BP to GP.
If heat flow, as bill has clearly said, is GOVERNED by the NET exchange
Q = σ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
then there should be no argument. BP is always warmer than GP. The NET exchange is ALWAYS BP to GP.
You argue that heat flow is about backradiation causing one object to cool and the other to warm. But that has nothing at all to do with the definition of heat flow as laid out by bill above, in this equation. That has nothing to do with the NET exchange between the plates, and in fact completely – and deliberately – ignores it
Every time you posit that your ‘train of logic’ proves a 2LoT violation, you are completely contradicting the standard definition of heat flow being the NET energy exchange, as in the equation above.
There’s nothing wrong with the equation. It’s your semantic argument that is in error.
Yes, barry…the BP is always warmer than the GP, in your 262 K…220 K solution.
Just ignore the inexplicable warming of the BP at the expense of the GP!
“Nothing to see here!”
Barry is just exhausting as he spins in circles trying to think out how two incompatible ideas could possibly fit together while at the same time straight arming all of the available science.
S&O experimentally demonstrates that his Easter Bunny theory of a “new radiative balance” occurring simply does not occur. Actual hotbox testing confirms the components of dual glazings particularly with the ability to add reflective films to change the emissivity of the glasses.
Yet to explain the initial apparent consistency of dual glazed window technology to his theory, but far weaker than proposed and repetitively explained as a slight reflectivity of the glass, Barry doubles down on doubling the performance of reflective glass with a theory that simply doesn’t stand up to experiment.
Worse Barry is compelled to completely ignore the effects of reflection. As you add reflectivity to this whole equation and thats going to increase the results he has already grossly inflated. And certainly Barry you can’t ignore the insulation value of reflection, particularly in a non-convective environment.
And golly gee his whole impetus to believe the idea he believes is fear of catastrophic global warming. Yet he seems to have forgotten that reflection is the larger part of that theory in the loss of snow and ice albedo that accelerates earth’s orbital perturbations into and out of ice ages. so the more he ignores the emissivity issue the deeper into the quicksand he descends.
So in his poorly reckoned rush to support the Easter Bunny he runs rampant across his own belief system to propose a “new radiative balance” occurring without anything changing temperature.
Think about that. All of GP’s net positive input of energy is coming from the BP.
Yet in Barry’s mind GP+Solar results in a “new radiative balance” that nets to warming in Barry’s mind. But we know this radiation from the GP is weaker than the radiation the BP just gave to the GP. So Barry is trying to inflate this tire with a pump that that sucking air out of the tire. . .and he acknowledges it yet can’t seem to have that change his mind and throw out the Easter Bunny pump because he is way too attached to it.
It is indeed something else watching their minds at work on this subject.
They’re quite happy to pull two words from just one of the sentences you write and then run half a marathon with it in the wrong direction, ignoring everything else you said entirely. For instance, this was my response to barry, in full:
““But I’m not doing that. You are.”
Wrong, barry. I’m going with 244 K…244 K, whereas you’re going with 262 K…220 K. So, you’re definitely the one treating the “back-radiation” transfer as though it were heat.
“So why is anyone suggesting there is a NET exchange from GP to BP?”
There isn’t, which is why the BP doesn’t warm at the expense of the GP. 244 K…244 K, not 262 K…220 K.”
barry read all of that but apparently only heard, “there isn’t”.
bill.
Could you please give a concise answer so I know what it is you’re thinking?
If q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴) GOVERNS heat flow in or two-plate system, as you say, and Th = BP / Tc = GP, then how on Earth do you come up with the notion that there is a heat flow from GP to BP in the GPE?
As the NET radiative exchange is always BP to GP, and this governs the direction of heat flow, where do you get the idea that there is a violation of this in the GPE?
DREMT,
“I’m going with 244 K… 244 K, whereas you’re going with 262 K… 220 K. So, you’re definitely the one treating the ‘back-radiation’ transfer as though it were heat.”
Nope, backradiation is an ENERGY redistribution, not a HEAT redistribution.
You’re the one saying that backradiation results in a HEAT redistribution. Not me.
And you’re the one tacitly rejecting q = σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴) as the definition of heat flow, not me.
“You’re the one saying that backradiation results in a HEAT redistribution. Not me.”
barry, words are irrelevant.
Your 262 K…220 K solution involves the “back-radiation” transfer being treated as heat. It doesn’t matter what words are used. It’s in the result of the thought experiment itself….it’s “baked into” Eli’s calculations. Read my comment again. You’re getting 262 K…220 K, but I’m getting 244 K…244 K. So, which solution involves the “back-radiation” transfer being treated as heat? Obviously, it’s yours!
And, as far as that Radiative Heat Transfer Equation (RHTE) is concerned…let’s go through an example. You introduce a GP at 244 K. Take a snapshot, call it Snapshot A, where both plates are at 244 K. Then, according to your 262 K…220 K solution, later on the BP will have warmed, and the GP will have cooled, so that now the BP is warmer than the GP. Call that Snapshot B. Then, even later, the BP will have supposedly warmed some more, and the GP cooled some more. Call that Snapshot C.
Now, the RHTE is fine for telling you that at Snapshot A, the heat flow is at zero between the plates, then at B heat is flowing from BP to GP, then at C even more heat is flowing from BP to GP. But, it doesn’t tell you the whole story. You can’t just say, “well, at all times Q was either zero or positive, thus there was no 2LoT violation!”
What about the rather obvious progression that is going on beneath the snapshots? The BP is getting warmer whilst the GP is getting cooler. Snapshots are fine, but what about the underlying dynamics? The RHTE can’t help you with that. You have to actually use your noggin and think for a bit. How is this steepening temperature gradient establishing itself?
“Now, the RHTE is fine for telling you that at Snapshot A, the heat flow is at zero between the plates, then at B heat is flowing from BP to GP, then at C even more heat is flowing from BP to GP. But, it doesn’t tell you the whole story. You can’t just say, “well, at all times Q was either zero or positive, thus there was no 2LoT violation!”
I can and do day that. You can and MUST abide by the definition of heat flow.
“The BP is getting warmer whilst the GP is getting cooler. Snapshots are fine, but what about the underlying dynamics?.. How is this steepening temperature gradient establishing itself?”
When DREMT flicks a switch and turns on backradiation, he changes the energy distribution through the system and the components in that system change temperature in response. DREMT has reduced BP’s rate of heat loss while increasing GP’s rate of heat loss.
If you reduce the heat loss of a powered object then that object will warm.
For reasons as yet unexplained you accept that any fraction of BP’s reflected energy will cause it to warm, but not any of GP’s emitted energy. In either case BP is being bombarded with photons that match the frequencies it emits – hence it must absorb those photons – but in the magical world of your physics, BP somehow ‘knows’ these photons were emitted instead of reflected, and therefore rejects their thermalisation.
“barry, words are irrelevant.”
I agree! That’s why we should eschew semantics and go with the math.
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
There is no other definition of heat flow that rejects this. But rejecting this is what you are doing when you start with “But, it doesn’t tell you the whole story…”
Yes, DREMT, it does. The ‘story’ is your same old mistake in believing heat flows from GP to BP just because BP gets warmer with cooler GP present. This is an energy distribution change, a change in the rate of heat flow, not a change in the direction of heat flow.
barry says:
”bill.
Could you please give a concise answer so I know what it is you’re thinking?
If q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴) GOVERNS heat flow in or two-plate system, as you say, and Th = BP / Tc = GP, then how on Earth do you come up with the notion that there is a heat flow from GP to BP in the GPE?”
What explaining that the BP is warming and the GP cooling by an equal amount isn’t an indication your heatflows are running the wrong direction if you properly solved the equation you are actually endorsing, but not using instead electing to use the Bunny Rabbets own equation.
You have all the references and science sources and none of them support the Bunny Rabbet equation. So if your source isn’t some anonymous guy on an anonymously owned blog why is it the only one you have available.
“When DREMT flicks a switch and turns on backradiation…”
…no switch required, barry. I didn’t go through a now three-month-long back-and-forth for you not to understand the “regardless of the starting temperature of the GP” line and what it means. In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP. That means no switch is required for you to understand that in your 262 K…220 K solution, energy is indeed “self-organising”.
“For reasons as yet unexplained…”
False. I explained to you several times why a reflective GP would insulate the BP, but a blackbody GP would not. Go back and read it.
bill,
“What explaining that the BP is warming and the GP cooling by an equal amount isn’t an indication your heatflows are running the wrong direction if you properly solved the equation you are actually endorsing”
Well, let’s do the math.
Here’s the equation with DREMT’s temperature values for the 2 blackbody plates and the resulting solution.
q = σ(244K⁴ – 244K;⁴)
q = 200 W/m2 – 200 W/m2
q = 0
No heat flow between BP and GP in DREMT’s solution, according to the equation.
Now the GPE solution.
q = σ(262K⁴ – 220K;⁴)
q = 266.66 W/m2 – 133.33 W/m2
q = 133.33 W/m2
q is positive, so there is a NET exchange from BP to GP, which is the direction of heat flow.
At any stage in the warming/cooling, q is always positive.
Now, bill, do the same. Use the equation we both agree determines heat flow to show why heat has flowed GP to BP in the GPE solution.
I bet you can’t.
Say we had a powered blackbody object sitting alone in limitless space. The object reaches a temperature where it is in equilibrium with its own power source. Temperature A. Now we take the same object and enclose it in a blackbody cavity. There is no separate power source in the walls of the cavity. The object’s power source is thus the only one. According to Eli’s theory, as the object warms the cavity walls, the RHTE shows a “reduction in heat loss” from the object, and thus with its own constant source of power, it would supposedly warm further than its own power source can warm it! In other words, it supposedly warms beyond temperature A, to a new equilibrium temperature B!
I have never understood how you guys cannot just immediately intuitively “get” that this is wrong.
> words are irrelevant
Which is why Sky Dragon cranks like Gill and Graham D. Warner are irrelevant.
“I explained to you several times why a reflective GP would insulate the BP, but a blackbody GP would not. Go back and read it.”
Have you explained what I actually said you haven’t explained?
“For reasons as yet unexplained you accept that any fraction of BP’s reflected energy will cause it to warm, but not any of GP’s emitted energy. In either case BP is being bombarded with photons that match the frequencies it emits – hence it must absorb those photons – but in the magical world of your physics, BP somehow ‘knows’ these photons were emitted instead of reflected, and therefore rejects their thermalisation.”
If your answer to this ISN’T “I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons,” or, ‘I don’t need to explain what happens because my train of logic absolves me of the need’, would you kindly explain how BP knows not to absorb and thermaise photons at the same frequency it emits them, in defiance of Kirchhoff’s Law??
“Say we had a powered blackbody object sitting alone in limitless space. The object reaches a temperature where it is in equilibrium with its own power source. Temperature A. Now we take the same object and enclose it in a blackbody cavity. There is no separate power source in the walls of the cavity. The object’s power source is thus the only one. According to Eli’s theory, as the object warms the cavity walls, the RHTE shows a “reduction in heat loss” from the object, and thus with its own constant source of power, it would supposedly warm further than its own power source can warm it! In other words, it supposedly warms beyond temperature A, to a new equilibrium temperature B!”
Precisely.
What happens when you put on a sweater? You body is powered, the sweater is not, and yet you get warmer.
Why on God’s green Earth is this so difficult to understand?
“it would supposedly warm further than its own power source can warm it!”
The power source is a flux, not a temperature. The object’s temperature depends on not just the input from the power source, but also its area, emissivity, and any other energy inputs.
My skin warms further than my own power source can warm it every time I put clothes on.
Try this on for size.
Our energy unit is switched off but space is now radiating 400 W/m2 to our object. Its temperature is 290K.
According to you when we switch the source on and add 400 Watts to our object, the temperature of the object cannot change, because the environment already has warmed the object to its “maximum temperature!”
I wonder where that 400 Watts goes?
I tell barry that I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons, and his first instinct is to ask me a question based on knowing the fate of individual photons. And, we’re supposed to believe barry is arguing in good faith.
Then he takes my cavity example and tries to add an additional heat source with his “space somehow radiating 400 W/m^2”.
Gee whizz.
Here is what Google had to say about my cavity example:
“Based on standard thermodynamic principles and Stefan-Boltzmann law, the scenario described does not result in the object warming beyond Temperature A to a new higher Temperature B, but rather results in a new equilibrium temperature B that is lower than or equal to A, depending on the setup.
Here is the breakdown of why this occurs:
Encased State (Cavity): When enclosed in a cavity, the object heats the cavity walls. The walls then radiate thermal radiation back to the object.
The "Reduction in Heat Loss": You are correct that the net heat loss is reduced because the object now absorbs some of the radiation it emits.
Equilibrium B: However, for the object to warm above Temperature A, the net power input would have to increase. Because the cavity walls are heated only by the object, the walls cannot ever reach a higher temperature than the object itself. Therefore, the object will continue to lose heat to the walls (albeit at a slower rate) until the entire system (object + cavity) reaches a uniform equilibrium temperature, which will be either equal to or lower than the original Temperature A, depending on the heat capacity and size of the cavity.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, radiation cannot spontaneously flow from a colder body to a hotter body to make it hotter still. A "reduction in heat loss" caused by surrounding an object with its own radiated heat is not equivalent to a continuous heating source, and therefore cannot drive the temperature higher than the initial equilibrium power source allows.”
“DREMT says: Here is what Google had to say about my cavity example . . .”
Wierdly I get a response that concludes:
The object reaches a higher temperature simply because the environment it sees is no longer absolute zero, but a warm shell. The “reduction in heat loss” isn’t a reduction in the power P leaving the system; it’s a reduction in the efficiency of cooling, forcing the object to get hotter to push that same amount of power out.
Full conversation is captured here: https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/Radiative%20Insulation%20and%20Equilibrium%20Temperature%20-%20Google%20Gemini
I’d insinuated earlier that your trolling was “lawyerly”, that is, clearly and persistently misleading but not overtly untrue. It seems you’ve abandoned even that level of self-respect.
Mark arrives to falsely accuse me of lying, again. I simply copied and pasted that paragraph of text I wrote about the cavity example into the Google search bar and returned what the AI overview said.
Second attempt leads with:
“Based on the principles of thermodynamics and the Radiative Heat Transfer Equation (RHTE), the scenario described—where an object warms beyond its own power source temperature (Temperature A) to a higher temperature (B) simply by being enclosed—is technically impossible and violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.“
It returns more but contains equations and other details that do not copy and paste easily, but it’s all in the same vein.
You guys are busted.
I am aware that someone has misquoted Classius.
He actually said the cooler body builds up internal energy at the expense of the warmer body
“DREMT says: It returns more but contains equations and other details that do not copy and paste easily, but it’s all in the same vein.”
Again, the whole response including equations, assumptions, and other discussion is linked here:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/Radiative%20Insulation%20and%20Equilibrium%20Temperature%20-%20Google%20Gemini
If you disagree with some part of that linked response, feel free to detail your specific objections.
As an FYI, the full response can easily be saved as a web page, as I’ve done, or to a linked Google document and shared, should you care to be more rigorous in describing your interaction with the AI. An issue is going to be that rigor is not a friend to those pedaling inherently flawed ideas, so there’s that.
As an addendum, if you did in fact cut and paste directly from the response (i.e. not strictly lying in some sense), the only way the statement is accurate is if it is a description of the equilibrium temperature of the “black body cavity” rather than “powered black body object” and you’ve ((presumably) cleverly in your mind) lead us to believe the response refers to the object not the shell.
Well, I’ve tried it about eight times now and it’s returning the same thing every time – the powered object won’t warm above Temperature A because that would be a 2LoT violation.
Not sure why Mark got the answer he did, and I can’t see from his link the full description of what he entered to get that result. So…it could have been anything.
I’d suggest anyone interested just copies and pastes that block of text I wrote about the cavity example into the Google search bar and see what the AI overview tells them. I don’t see why they would get anything other than what I’ve received myself, being as how it’s completely obvious that it’s a 2LoT violation.
Here’s something interesting it fired out on one attempt:
“The Second Law Constraint: If the object were to rise to a new temperature B, which is higher than A, the object would be radiating more energy than it was in free space. The system would constitute a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, where an object heats up its surroundings, which in turn heat the object to a higher temperature, all driven by a lower-temperature source.”
I mean, I could have explained that to these guys myself, but they wouldn’t have listened to me, and would instead have just attacked me personally or perhaps the way I phrased something or other.
Mark, why don’t you try as I do to use Google on your phone using an “in private” browsing mode in Safari or whatever you use. I just asked Google about the effect of using “in private” browsing vs normal browsing mode and the most important reason for a difference that could be made by it was:
“Lack of Personalization and History: In normal mode, Google uses account history, past searches, and location to provide a personalized answer. In Private Mode, Google treats the user as new. It cannot access search history or saved cookies to personalize results.”
If you’re using Google in a browser in “normal mode” then you’re more likely to get something tailored to your pre-existing beliefs, as you may have done on your one and only attempt.
Ten attempts in, with Google thinking that I am a new user every time, it’s still telling me the same thing – 2LoT violation.
“DREMT says: Mark, why don’t you try as I do to use Google on your phone using an “in private” browsing mode in Safari or whatever you use.”
Using Firefox private browser window on LUbuntu Linux for this discussion, with your post addressed in the final comment:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/Are%20there%20indications%20of%20internet%20troll%20behavior%20on%20the%20thread%20www.drroyspencer.com_2026_04_uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-f%20-%20Google%20Gemini
So Google’s presumably unbiased opinion would seem to be “Please stop trolling”. Or don’t, but it really is obvious and a bit pathetic.
Barry says:
q = σ(244K⁴ – 244K;⁴)
No heat flow between BP and GP in DREMT’s solution, according to the equation.
Now the GPE solution.
q = σ(262K⁴ – 220K;⁴)
q = 266.66 W/m2 – 133.33 W/m2
q = 133.33 W/m2
q is positive, so there is a NET exchange from BP to GP, which is the direction of heat flow.
At any stage in the warming/cooling, q is always positive.
Now, bill, do the same. Use the equation we both agree determines heat flow to show why heat has flowed GP to BP in the GPE solution.
I bet you can’t.
——————–
Sure I can by the process of elimination. What was the only change from condition 1 to condition 2?
In a radiant exchange between two objects in a radiation cavity the net heat loss of the warmer object diminishes to zero as the temperature of the cooler object rises to the same temperature as
warmer object.
Your solution has the temperature difference moving in the opposite direction. where anywhere in established science can you find that to be the case. Keeping in mind of course there is no insulation of either plate, there is no leakage out of the radiation cavity (i.e. gaps at edges or transparency), no increasing Q from the heat source, and no positive heat flow from the GP. Does it just magically occur or is that you just devised a mathematical approach to the problem documented nowhere in physics? If you have some validated physics that supports your insofar unsupported theory come back with some when you find some.
Near as I can tell your theory seems to have been derived from a source like this:
https://tinyurl.com/bdhev6ps
Mark, I tried it ten times, it told me the powered object would not warm beyond Temperature A ten times. I’m not sure what you want me to do about that! That’s just what happened to me today. I’m sorry you feel like what Google told you is the “one true answer”, but as far as I’m concerned it’s pretty obviously wrong. It’s a 2LoT violation!
Like I said:
“I have never understood how you guys cannot just immediately intuitively “get” that this is wrong.”
And, rather than bother to explain (again) why it’s wrong, I thought I’d ask Google to do it for me…and, that’s what it did.
bill,
“Sure I can by the process of elimination”
The equation does not appear in your post.
As I said, you will not be able to show a violation of 2LoT using the equation you yourself said governs heat flow, while I clearly showed no 2LoT violation using only that equation.
But you make the usual mistakes that keep popping up in these discussions.
“In a radiant exchange between two objects in a radiation cavity the net heat loss of the warmer object diminishes to zero as the temperature of the cooler object rises to the same temperature as
warmer object.
Your solution has the temperature difference moving in the opposite direction. ”
Firstly, temperature difference ‘moving in the opposite direction’ is not covered by q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴): this is why you are unable to use the equation that governs heat flow to explain the supposed 2LoT violation.
Secondly, you have correctly described the conditions in an isolated system, but you incorrectly assume the same action should occur in a closed system that is continually cycling energy received from an external source.
You left out the sun!
Of course the plates equilibrate in a cavity. But they do not when you shine a sun on one of them and leave the other in the shade. There is clearly a temperature gradient.
But I predicted it and you demonstrated it – you can’t use the equation that governs heat flow to corroborate your opinion.
Like DREMT, you don’t have the math, you only have rhetoric.
It just would not share the page, annoyingly, so I took some screenshots instead:
https://ibb.co/xqrSG2hP
https://ibb.co/3yzRzBFw
https://ibb.co/Cp8RtGWD
Now you can apologise for calling me a liar.
And, because you probably won’t like the last one I sent, you can have another one:
https://ibb.co/hRNCNKJj
https://ibb.co/844nLSHV
These AI overviews vary in quality. Every time you refresh the screen it comes up with something slightly different. This was better than the last one.
Anyway, the point is…I wasn’t lying. I really did ask Google the same thing ten times (more now) and it really did return the same general message in the AI overview every time. That the powered object would not warm beyond Temperature A, due to 2LoT.
Barry says:
Firstly, temperature difference ‘moving in the opposite direction’ is not covered by q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴): this is why you are unable to use the equation that governs heat flow to explain the supposed 2LoT violation.
Secondly, you have correctly described the conditions in an isolated system, but you incorrectly assume the same action should occur in a closed system that is continually cycling energy received from an external source. You left out the sun!
—————–
In radiation physics Barry a closed system is an isolated system. The concept originally used by Kirchoff and then used by Wein, Stefan, and Planck eventually becoming the foundation of Quantum Mechanics.
Likewise conduction operates within a closed system of items and molecules in contact with one another.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Barry says:
”Of course the plates equilibrate in a cavity. But they do not when you shine a sun on one of them and leave the other in the shade. There is clearly a temperature gradient.”
Source please. Thats just pure speculation on your part and you have no scientific support for that. Plus you concept of shade is not cavity radiation as an umbrella or patio cover is open on some or all sides. Thus the concentrated sunlight is diffused over a much larger area than the size of the roof or umbrella top.
The kind of shade talked about in cavity radiation in torture technology is known as a sweat box. Ask somebody so tortured how he enjoyed his time in the shade and he will more likely than not punch you in the nose.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Barry says:
”But I predicted it and you demonstrated it – you can’t use the equation that governs heat flow to corroborate your opinion.
Like DREMT, you don’t have the math, you only have rhetoric.”
——————-
Of course I don’t and thats because you don’t either. How can anybody come up with a legitimate equation that has a colder object warming a warming object?
As Karl Popper says: A theory is only scientific if it is falsifiable, and it is considered robust only if it survives rigorous attempts at refutation, moving from tentative conjecture to potential falsification. thus far you haven’t presented the theory in a falsible manner. The same is not true for the sources provided to you saying otherwise above on April 23, 2026 at 11:47 PM included are experiments, theories developed from them, and means of falsifying them.
” DREMT says:
April 25, 2026 at 5:52 PM
…
https://ibb.co/3yzRzBFw
…”
You don’t show the text of the query you posed, but the linked screen shot says that the equilibrium temperature B is higher than temperature A.
This would seem to contradict you thesis.
DREMT,
I posted your argument with a little paraphrasing (please check I represented you fairly) to GoogleAI on an incognito window.
“Say we had a powered blackbody object sitting alone in limitless space. The object reaches a temperature where it is in equilibrium with its own power source. Temperature A. Now we take the same object and enclose it in a blackbody cavity. There is no separate power source in the walls of the cavity. The object’s power source is thus the only one. Supposedly, as the object warms the cavity walls, the Radiation Heat Transfer Equation shows a “reduction in heat loss” from the object, and thus with its own constant source of power, it would supposedly warm further than its own power source can warm it. In other words, it supposedly warms beyond temperature A, to a new equilibrium temperature B. Doesn’t this violate the laws if physics?”
GoogleAI repied:
“It is a classic “aha!” moment in thermodynamics. At first glance, it feels like you’re getting something for nothing—energy “looping” back to make an object hotter than its own power source should allow. However, this setup is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics. To understand why, we have to look at how net power and energy density work.
Scenario 1: The Naked Object (Temperature A)
In limitless space, the object is a “lonely” radiator. Every photon it emits disappears into the void, never to return.
Power In: Psource (constant)
Power Out: Pemit = σATa⁴
Equilibrium: The object reaches Ta when Psource = σATa⁴
Scenario 2: The Enclosed Object (Temperature B)
When you place the object inside a cavity, the environment changes from “absolute cold” to “reflective/re-radiating.” The cavity walls begin to absorb the object’s radiation. Because the walls have no power source of their own, they warm up until they reach equilibrium with the object. Now, the walls are also emitting radiation (Pback) back toward the object.
Why this doesn’t violate physics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder body to a hotter body net. It does not say a colder body cannot radiate toward a hotter one.
Reduced Net Loss: In Scenario 1, the net heat loss was 100% of emission. In Scenario 2, the net heat loss is:
Pnet = σA (Tobject⁴ – Tenv⁴)
Since Tenv (the walls) is now greater than absolute zero, the object’s ability to shed energy is hindered.
Energy Accumulation: Since Psource is constant and the “exit door” for heat is now partially blocked by back-radiation, energy accumulates in the object. Its temperature must rise to Tb so that its total emission is high enough that the difference between what it sends out and what it receives back once again equals Psource.
The “Ceiling”:
The object is not warming “beyond what its power source can provide.” The power source provides a specific wattage, not a specific temperature. The temperature is simply the result of the balance between energy in and energy out.
An Intuitive Analogy: The Parka Effect
Think of the power source like your metabolism and the object like your body.
Scenario A: You stand naked in the Arctic. Your metabolism (power source) produces heat, but you radiate it away so fast that your skin temperature drops.
Scenario B: You put on a heavy coat (the cavity). The coat has no power source; it’s “cold.” However, it traps your body heat and radiates some back to you. Your skin temperature rises to a new equilibrium. You haven’t violated physics or created “free energy”; you’ve simply added thermal resistance to the system. The “insulation” provided by the cavity forces the object to get hotter to maintain the same flow of energy to the outside world.”
That is the total of what I entered, and what GoogleAI output.
DREMT, I would be curious to see the question you put to GoogleAI that gave you a different response to the argument you gave me.
DREMT,
I read your screenshots. It seems you misunderstood the answer given you.
“4. Temperature behaviour
1. If the power source is constant the object will start to warm up.“
bill,
“In radiation physics Barry a closed system is an isolated system.”
No, emphatically not.
Isolated system:
“An isolated system in thermodynamics is a physical system that is completely separated from its surroundings, allowing neither mass nor energy (heat or work) to cross its boundaries. Because of this total insulation and containment, an isolated system has constant internal energy, and its entropy will increase over time until it reaches a maximum value at equilibrium.”
Closed system:
“A closed system is a thermodynamic system that permits the exchange of heat and work (energy) with its surroundings but does not allow the exchange of matter.”
From wikipedia:
“In physical science, an isolated system is either of the following:
a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither mass nor energy can pass…
This can be contrasted with what (in the more common terminology used in thermodynamics) is called a closed system, being enclosed by selective walls through which energy can pass as heat or work, but not matter”
The GPE is a closed, not an isolated system, and the incoming energy can be redistributed among the components of that system, by, for example, switching on or off a vector of radiation, as DREMT does in his ‘argument’. If you redistribute the energy passing through the system, the components may change temperature.
bill,
I said:
“Like DREMT, you don’t have the math, you only have rhetoric.
You said:
“Of course I don’t and thats because you don’t either.”
I used the equation you and I agree governs the direction of heat flow, plugged in the numbers and solved. q was positive, showing that the heat transfer was BP to GP (Th – Tc).
You quoted me doing that here – https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742184
So yes, I do have the math, it corroborates the direction of heat flow, and you are, of course unable to use the very equation we agree determines heat flow to corroborate your view.
You, like DREMT, tacitly reject the standard equation for heat flow between two plates, and are reduced to using words to argue your case. I’ll now quote DREMT:
“words are irrelevant”
Show the math.
q = ε σ (Tbp⁴ – Tgp⁴)
Go.
barry and Mark, yes – the text in the first answer linked to is somewhat ambiguous in parts, even though it begins by stating that:
“Based on standard thermodynamics, the scenario described -where an object warms beyond its initial equilibrium temperature A simply by being enclosed in a cavity-violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and conservation of energy.”
which you have both (of course) ignored.
That’s why I provided another answer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742200
which is not at all ambiguous.
Mark is obviously not going to apologise. No surprises there.
barry says:
April 25, 2026 at 9:48 PM
bill,
” ”In radiation physics Barry a closed system is an isolated system.”
No, emphatically not.
You are talking about an isolated thermodynamic system. I am talking specific isolated systems and specified it an isolated radiant system. Which also happens to be the form of the stefan boltzmann equation you agree with us on.
Certainly if there were no science other than stefan boltzmann’s work the SB equations would be next to worthless in describing multi-process systems.
But obviously you have a theory that goes beyond S&B and all we ask of you is some evidence it is true. What isn’t evidence is an unsupported theory delivered by the Easter Bunny. So obviously in the absence of any scientifically established systematic equations you have no case at all.
But you do have both experiments and papers that establishes what insulation amounts to and one thing it isn’t is a perfectly conducting blackbody plate.
You make it sound like the entire world have been winging it incorrectly.
You have papers, experiments, and testing methodologies showing how it actually works. And you have experiments showing your idea doesn’t work. What else do we need to provide you? Its obvious you have nothing else to provide and I can assure you the world has not been doing this wrong. they have theorized, tested, and validated the correct approaches to this. All you and the Easter Bunny have done is steal from insulation technology where each time you double the insulation you get 50% less benefit and taken that math and applied to something that hasn’t been established as insulation. . . .just because apparently for a political agenda and a reason to be for world authoritarian government that tells people absolutely everything they can and cannot do.
What is amazing is how much success this effort has had without a shred of scientific evidence. And the best you can establish it is via a challenge that I prove it wrong. . .which of course I don’t need to do because others already have. You just choose to ignore it. So why should I bother? You would ignore any experiment of others I replicated just as you have ignored them.
But DREMT ought to be satisfied that you have rejected the notion that a cold object can warm a warmer object. What’s frustrating is while you recognize that with your acceptance of heat flow running only from hot to cold in accordance with 2LOT and the rules of entropy via voltage pressure never allowing it to run to the opposite polarity. . .you support your belief on an idea that perfectly conducting blackbodies are insulators when in fact they are perfect conductors and that 133w/m2 from the cold side of a system can warm anything to more than 2
the only heat flow equation you have you still has 133w/m2 coming from the cold side of the system warming it to more than 220k and you deny that by accepting the SB equation. And its not the sun, the sun hasn’t changed.
So how are we going to change your opinion when you yourself realize that, verbally recognize it but you just choose to ignore it.
I have recognized Tim Folkerts sky warmer than space slowing the cooling of earth at nighttime when the sun is down. that will increase the mean temperature of the day. But that effect won’t work for the GPE because the GP will cool as fast as the BP both being perfectly conductive, the same temperature, and blackbodies reflecting no radiation back. Anytime you have an object with greater heat content or less efficient internal heat transfer in the GP than you have in the BP you can slow the cooling of the BP in the sense the BP dropping in temperature.
Your theory is based on bad science such that you want to send energy back to the BP before its been thermalized and the heat migrated away from the surface by a much faster energy transfer process than radiation.
. . .but you then flipflop and deny the BP could do that too if that could be done. e.g. the 244k BP can’t send the 133w/m2 from the GP along with the usual 200w/m2 packet back to GP before its thermalized and the heat internally migrated by a much faster energy transfer process than radiation. Only with that contradiction can you turn a process around backwards causing a heat flow from the GP to the BP even while you deny anything of the sort is happening except from the GP to the BP which you double down on denying its happening while its clearly in your mathematical outcome.
So what are we left with? A magical non-transfer of heat from the GP to the BP? A make believe form of insulation? Bunny’s laying eggs in the garden? Do you want to actually take any of those on?
What I see happening is if the GP is radiating 133w/m2 at the BP and the BP is radiating 201w/m2 at the GP. . .the GP is getting 68w/m2 of energy to get warmer from and the BP is losing 68w/m2 that the GP will be warmed with.
If you actually have anything to prove that wrong, I will be all ears.
bill,
“But obviously you have a theory”
No, bill, I have an equation that you yourself said GOVERNS the determination of heat flow.
bill said: “q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴) governs net measurable radiation exchange and thus the direction of heat flow.”
I’ve plugged in the numbers. The heat flow is BP to GP. You saw that.
I’ve asked you to apply the equation we both agree determines heat flow to prove differently.
You can’t do it.
If you really believed this equation “governs net measurable radiation exchange and thus the direction of heat flow,” you’d have to agree that heat flows from warmer BP to cooler GP at all times.
But you don’t believe what you have said, because you still think heat has flowed GP to BP EVEN THOUGH the radiative transfer equation shows the opposite.
You REJECT this equation in favour of a bunch of ideas.
You DON’T have the math, just a bunch of words.
Can you at least admit that the equation is not sufficient to demonstrate heat flowing GP to BP? Because when the numbers go in they disagree with view.
bill,
“Your theory is based on bad science such that you want to send energy back to the BP before its been thermalized”
Wrong. No. Completely incorrect. The emissions from GP come from energy that has been thermalised, and then re-radiated.
You have a handful of papers of ‘tests’ of CO2 etc.
I have dozens of papers on that coming up with the opposite conclusion. Hundreds that measure actual spectral radiance in CO2 bandwidth over time providing empirical evidence of CO2 warming effects in the ac.ual atmosphere.
There are scores of papers on the effect of optical depth and radiative transfer, thousands of empirical measurements of CO2 absorbtion bands, hundreds of atmospheric and ocean-atmosphere models, Tyndall, Foote, Arrhenius and scores of other papers that discussed the warming effect of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere decades before there was any political attachment to the results.
The vast preponderance of research outweighs these papers that you, for some reason, have given greater weight. Also, two of the papers on CO2 were by the same authors. This is quite a niche opinion.
I notice with some amusement that today, searching for the same string I searched for yesterday is returning Mark and barry’s preferred answer in the AI overview…and the number one search result is…drumroll please…Mark’s “neocities” web page! Garbage in/garbage out.
It’s amazing the lengths they will go to, to propagate this nonsense.
DREMT,
“barry and Mark, yes – the text in the first answer linked to is somewhat ambiguous in parts, even though it begins by stating that:
“Based on standard thermodynamics, the scenario described -where an object warms beyond its initial equilibrium temperature A simply by being enclosed in a cavity-violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and conservation of energy.” ”
Which is why we want to see your question. This intro is then contradicted by the explanation.
“4. Temperature behaviour
1. If the power source is constant the object will start to warm up.
2. However, as the object warms it radiates more energy (T⁴).
3. Simultaneously, as the walls of the cavity warm up they radiate more energy back onto to the object.
Final equilibrium (Temperature B)
The system will reach a new, higher equilibrium temperature, where the temperature of the object (Tb) and the temperature of the cavity walls (Twall) are the same Tb = Twall.”
Note that the object has a new temperature, temperature b, after getting hotter, and radiating more energy. It’s right there in the AI text. It goes on.
“Crucially, this new temperature B is the temperature at which the object’s power source once again is balanced by the thermal radiation within the closed, equilibrium system. The object does not “get hotter than its power source allows,” but rather its power source heats the entire closed system up to a point where all components are in equilibrium.”
This is exactly what happens with the 2 plates. Bringing the GP in does “indeed reduce the net heat loss of the object” (I’m quoting directly your AI response). The BP and GP simultaneously warm to a new equilibrium temperature (in this case a steady state, as GP is not a cavity wall, but is losing energy to space from the back side).
Your AI response confirms that the object [BP] must warm when the environment it radiates to becomes warmer and does “indeed reduce the net heat loss of the object.”
DREMT,
Your AI agrees with my AI:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742204
I included the query that prompted the response. It’s the response to your own contention.
If were going to use AI, we should include the queries for full context.
bill,
“What I see happening is if the GP is radiating 133w/m2 at the BP and the BP is radiating 201w/m2 at the GP. . .the GP is getting 68w/m2 of energy to get warmer from and the BP is losing 68w/m2 that the GP will be warmed with.”
In the GPE:
sun 400 W/m2 -> <- 266.67 W/m2 BP 266.67 W/m2 -> <- 133.33 W/m2 GP 133.33 W/m2 ->
From each side of the 2-plate system 400 W/m2 is radiated to space (266.67 + 133.33). Ein = Eout
GP can only ever get half BP’s total energy, because BP is radiating half its energy away from GP, towards the point sun.
GP receives 266.67 W/m2 (rounded) and splits that over each radiating face, to emit 133.33 W/m2 in each direction, just as BP did on its own receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun.
With GP present the BP is now receiving 133.33 W/m2 from GP and 400 W/m2 from the sun.
This totals 533.33 W/m2. BP splits this total equally over both faces:
533.33 W/m2 / 2 = 266.67 W/m2
The math works out perfectly and satisfies all the regular standards of SB blackbody radiation and the RHTE.
barry, please stop being ridiculous.
As I said:
“That’s why I provided another answer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742200
which is not at all ambiguous.
Mark is obviously not going to apologise. No surprises there.”
Read the AI overview from the linked comment.
“That’s why I provided another answer”
But not the query that prompted it, which would give the full context.
And of course, you have nothing to say to the AI response to the query you generated, which I put to it.
I wonder if there is a reason you aren’t providing the queries, as I do?
So, having been contradicted by your first attempt, you went fishing for another. I wonder how you got the AI to give a different answer to your first, correct response, matching my AI? The opening paragraph is unclear. Looks like you posited a power source in vacuum, but maybe less clear about that being the case within a cavity?
How can I know? You don’t provide the questions you’re asking professor AI. Interesting to see that it mined Quora to meet your response.
barry, if you can’t be bothered to read through what took place yesterday, don’t be surprised that you’re out of touch.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742155
“Mark arrives to falsely accuse me of lying, again. I simply copied and pasted that paragraph of text I wrote about the cavity example into the Google search bar and returned what the AI overview said.”
That has been my exact query throughout. Ten times, throughout the course of yesterday, I repeated the query to Google, and ten times it told me that the temperature of the powered object would not exceed Temperature A, due to 2LoT.
Now, this morning, it has started to tell me that your and Mark’s answer is the “correct” one. Still with the exact same query. And, as I noted, and you ignored, the number one search result it keeps returning is Mark’s own “neocities” webpage that he created during this discussion! Do you have any idea how devious that is? Of course not. You’re barely listening to a word I say.
The reason there are two completely different answers, that the AI flits between, is because the AI has been trained on both arguments. The “Eli nonsense” and the actual, correct thermodynamics. Since it’s absolutely flooded with “Eli nonsense” from various dubious sources it’s remarkable that Google returned anything in favour of the actual, correct thermodynamics…let alone ten times in a row!
I’ve said before that AI is not reliable.
Do you understand that, now?
I don’t read every post you make. I haven’t got time. If you need me to keep up with you all over the comments, tough luck. I read everything you address to me. Get over yourself and, like I do, reiterate if someone needs it.
T”he Second Law Constraint: If the object were to rise to a new temperature B, which is higher than A, the object would be radiating more energy than it was in free space. The system would constitute a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, where an object heats up its surroundings, which in turn heat the object to a higher temperature, all driven by a lower-temperature source.”
Well AI already has a big fat problem here. The energy provider, the source, doesn’t have a temperature. It only provides energy.
The AI quote I gave you was the first and only answer I got from giving it your argument.
Dunno why you have nothing to say about it, but to avoid being a hypocrite, please refrain from scolding anyone for not addressing some of your remarks.
“The source” is the powered object and it does have a temperature – Temperature A. Now you will endlessly split hairs about how “the source” is actually whatever is providing the powered object with its power, etc. Since this was never specified, though, we can just think of the powered object as being “the source”.
I told you before that I only bother posting AI responses because you guys never listen to me, and I think you might listen to a different source. At least if the AI is telling you something I don’t have to defend its every word choice and action.
I’m awaiting my apology from Mark.
“I told you before that I only bother posting AI responses because you guys never listen to me, and I think you might listen to a different source. At least if the AI is telling you something I don’t have to defend its every word choice and action.”
We do listen to you. You mistake not agreeing with ‘not getting it’.
Which is why you leave so much unanswered while waiting for people to agree with your endlessly repeated rhetoric.
And hypocritically blame others for what you commit regularly.
You use AI as if it is meaningful, and ignore it when it disagrees with you. Anile behaviour.
Pathetic. Boring. Finished.
“DREMT says: I notice with some amusement that today, searching for the same string I searched for yesterday is returning Mark and barry’s preferred answer in the AI overview…and the number one search result is…drumroll please…Mark’s “neocities” web page! Garbage in/garbage out.”
It’s interesting that it picked up on that so quickly, but my webpage is simply a copy of Gemini’s response to the precise statement you made. The page didn’t exist prior to to my query to Gemini so it’s not possible that it was part of the training prior to my query. It makes sense that once the page exists that the AI will repeat it as an answer to the precise statement it previously answered. It makes sense also that it wouldn’t pick up on your postings because you haven’t shown the precise wording of the query you made to the AI despite requests to do so.
It’s important also to note that my query was done in your words, according to your directions, is fully shown in my link, and did not reproduce the response you allege the AI gave you. Rather it essentially reproduces the physical and mathematical process of the Eli Rabbett solution to radiative black body layers.
“DREMT says:
barry and Mark, yes – the text in the first answer linked to is somewhat ambiguous in parts, even though it begins by stating that:
‘Based on standard thermodynamics, the scenario described -where an object warms beyond its initial equilibrium temperature A simply by being enclosed in a cavity-violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and conservation of energy.’
which you have both (of course) ignored.”
I say it “wasn’t addressed” rather than “ignored”. The point really was that the statement is contradicted by the details that follow, which, at best suggests the response isn’t particularly coherent.
Much like proposed solutions in which black bodies reflect incident radiation should prompt one to look for where the proposed solution went off the rails rather than doubling down on “logic” leading to self evident contradictions.
That’s not an apology, Mark.
When you accuse somebody of lying, and they prove to you that they didn’t lie, you owe them an apology.
barry spits out more false accusations, which he will also never apologise for.
The one they don’t want you to read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742200
“Based on standard thermodynamic principles, the scenario you described – where an object in a closed blackbody cavity warms beyond the equilibrium temperature (TA) it reached in open space using its own power source – violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Here is an analysis of why this occurs:
Initial State (Limitless Space): The object emits power, [equation]. It receives no significant energy back, so it stays at temperature TA.
Final State (Closed Cavity): The object is now surrounded by walls that absorb its radiation and re-emit it back toward the object.
The "Reduction in Heat Loss" Argument: While the cavity does reduce net radiative heat loss (backradiation increases), the object cannot reach a higher temperature TB than TA using only its own power source. If it did, it would violate the principle that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder body to a hotter one (or that a system cannot spontaneously rise to a higher energy state than its source allows).
Equilibrium Requirement: For the system to be in equilibrium, the power input Pin must equal the power output Pout. The highest temperature the object can achieve in the cavity is the temperature where its internal power source is perfectly balanced by the heat it radiates, which, in the absence of an external source, will not exceed TA.
According to standard thermodynamics, the cavity will heat up until both the object and the walls are at the same temperature TA. It cannot act as an amplifier to raise the object to TB.“
Mark B says:
”Rather it essentially reproduces the physical and mathematical process of the Eli Rabbett solution to radiative black body layers.”
We have gone full circle here. As of today after 8 years of debate the sole source of spinner equations comes from an anonymous guy wearing a rabbit suit disguise on an anonymously owned blog named after a bunny trail, perhaps with a giggle at the same time.
then you have tested science, provided to you above that demonstrates via testing that the effect is variable and is proportional to conductive resistance and reflection.
But you guys are apparently hostile to the scientific method. And you simply just ignore all that and instead you latch on to the ruminations of an anonymous guy in a rabbit suit on an anonymously owned rabbit trail blog.
And of course this also explains the results of Roy’s experiment, S&O experiments, R.W. Woods experiments and others that attempted to demonstrate the insulation effect described by scientists who hadn’t run the proper experiments and believed they knew what was going on.
Notably each of these attempts failed to achieve the claimed effect but instead demonstrated a very small effect.
The kind of effect that actually comports with the science on the matter and attributable to the fact that there is no substance with zero conductive resistance and zero reflectivity.
I was in the building business in the early 70’s when fuel prices exploded and people in existing uninsulated homes with poorly insulated appliances, especially water heaters were desperate to reduce energy costs. A lot of technology was available at the time but most new home builders weren’t deploying any of it trying to keep new home prices low to remain competitive. And of course there were a number of charlatans in the market with marketing claims that didn’t hold up trying to fill the market void. By the late 70’s the government stepped in and established standards for the industry to test their products and conform their marketing claims to valid tested results. this opened up liability to the marketers of many products and rapid improvement followed.
The industry grasped the issue and went about about looking for unique substances and unique coatings to achieve various objectives in providing for insulated surfaces. . .all stuff you live with today but simply have been diverted from understanding it by a guy disguised as a Rabbit.
Bill,
I’ve read Dr Spencer’s “green plate” experiment write up. I’m not familiar with the other two you mentioned and would be grateful if you could provide a pointer.
The most careful such experiment I’ve found is Eric Swanson’s linked below. My back of the envelope calculation is that the demonstrated blue plate temperature rise in this experiment (about 10C) when the green plate is brought into place is very close to the theoretical expectation value using the SB equation.
I’ll try to write this up and post when I get a chance, but the gist is to compare the radiated power density for the blue plate alone at Ta about 380 K (107 C)radiating into a surrounding environment at 303 K (30 C) vs the BP at Tb about 390 K (117 C) radiating into 303 K on one side and 348 K (75 C) on the other.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
> We have gone full circle here.
Funny that Gill says that, for he doesn’t know that a circle is an ellipse.
LOL!
Well, Mark obviously isn’t going to apologise, but let’s respond to his comments anyway.
“It makes sense that once the page exists that the AI will repeat it as an answer to the precise statement it previously answered.”
As you intended. Making sure that anyone else who tried entering the text, as I had suggested they try, would receive that answer from the AI, rather than the correct answer.
“It makes sense also that it wouldn’t pick up on your postings because you haven’t shown the precise wording of the query you made to the AI despite requests to do so.”
The wording was exactly the same. A copy and paste of my paragraph on the cavity example, as I told you two days ago. It won’t pick up on my postings because I didn’t deliberately set them up as a webpage, like you did.
“It’s important also to note that my query was done in your words, according to your directions, is fully shown in my link, and did not reproduce the response you allege the AI gave you. Rather it essentially reproduces the physical and mathematical process of the Eli Rabbett solution to radiative black body layers.”
The same query produced two completely different answers. This is because there’s an awful lot of misinformation on the internet, from the likes of Eli, and others.
“I say it “wasn’t addressed” rather than “ignored”. The point really was that the statement is contradicted by the details that follow, which, at best suggests the response isn’t particularly coherent.”
I included one that wasn’t so good, and one that was clear as a bell, because I like to show people how you guys operate. Since you don’t argue in good faith, you ignore the clear response and focus on the “not so good” one. Fact is, every time you refresh your screen the AI produces a slightly different response. Some are better than others.
“Much like proposed solutions in which black bodies reflect incident radiation should prompt one to look for where the proposed solution went off the rails rather than doubling down on “logic” leading to self evident contradictions.”
If only you could fault that logic, huh?
Mark B says:
”Bill,
I’ve read Dr Spencer’s “green plate” experiment write up. I’m not familiar with the other two you mentioned and would be grateful if you could provide a pointer.
The most careful such experiment I’ve found is Eric Swanson’s linked below. My back of the envelope calculation is that the demonstrated blue plate temperature rise in this experiment (about 10C) when the green plate is brought into place is very close to the theoretical expectation value using the SB equation.”
———————
You need to catch up on the discussion of the problem and its variables. Eric’s effort was almost entirely undocumented. I pointed this out to him years ago. He had no documentation for heat loss out of the gaps between the plates. He had no documentation for the heat input through the slot. He had the experiment in an outdoor setting with very poor environmental controls, and he had a reflective shield surrounding the heat input device with the reflective face facing the experiment.
I estimated his heat losses using his photographs and a ruler and what little documentation he had and estimated how much radiation loss went out the gaps which added up to the bulk of his experiment results.
But of course Eric just ignored that and continues to use it to deceive people.
Here is a link to the resources I provided barry in this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742045
Here is one additional one attributed to Vaughn Pratt a Stanford Professor trying to check R.W. Woods results coming up with pretty close to what Woods came up with for heating of the surface from a 100% IR opaque sheet of glass above the surface compared to an IR transparent sheet of salt of the same thickness.
He got a surface floor effect about 1 degree C over the IR transparent cover.
If you use Eli’s solution to calculate the expected effect you come up with 30C not 1C and if you want to split that in half as Eli did for the purpose of a free floating plate radiating equally from both sides (which I don’t think is appropriate but some will disagree) you end up with 16C warming 16 times more than achieved.
So have fun and notice what the science is telling you with each resource.
Fact is Barry wants to treat radiation absorbed identical to radiation reflected.
But when its reflected the GP doesn’t warm from the amount reflected and that is known as insulation. Its not insulated when its absorbed into perfectly conductive substance.
[GILL] I provided a science paper
[HIS PAPER] The first way to reduce radiant heat loss through a double-glazed window is to increase the number of glasses. Glasses act as screens for thermal radiation and an increase in their number reduces the radiant heat flux.
ROFL!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742269
It appears I told Mark I provided a link to the Vaughn Pratt experiment but I now look back and see I neglected to paste it in the post.
Here is the link: http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
If AI data centers have been recorded as creating heat islands of 2C and upto 9C, with measurable effects upto 10 kilometres away then how corrupt is the temperature record.
At what point does the temperature record become so corrupt that’s it’s useless as Willard? Polite answers only
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The world’s top 100 oil and gas companies banked more than $30m every hour in unearned profit in the first month of the US-Israeli war in Iran, according to exclusive analysis for the Guardian. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom and ExxonMobil are among the biggest beneficiaries of the bonanza, meaning key opponents of climate action continue to prosper.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/15/big-oil-huge-war-windfall-consumers
I’m sure troglodytes all around might appreciate, anonymous for Q-related reasons or not.
Climate action Willard, really, what happened to, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it?you worry about people making a profit, which is small change to the billions wasted every week chasing a none existant climate problem.
Breathe, Ian.
One idea per sentence.
“Have you said thank you once?” https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1895597006384742685?s=20
Chevron executive Andy Walz suggests Americans should drive less amid high gas prices.
Willard says:
”The world’s top 100 oil and gas companies banked more than $30m every hour in unearned profit in the first month of the US-Israeli war in Iran, according to exclusive analysis for the Guardian.”
Unearned profit? They earned it by drilling for the oil they sold. Of course they wouldn’t be at all for selling it off if they expected oil prices to keep rising rapidly.
The US government has been cashing in as well selling off oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve beginning around March 20.
Did you get in on it too? Trump has been urging Americans to invest in America since he started his first term. Its only tough on those selling America short. Maybe you ought to check the tax returns of Nancy Pelosi to see what you really should have done as opposed to what she told you to do.
Anon for a reason
If Data Centers do cause a noticeable change in temperaures around them, it would be a one time increase then flatline. What scientists are interested in long term trends. Are global temperatues increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. So it is the longer term temperature rise that is of concern which the data centers would not change over an extended time frame.
Norman,
Missing the points:
Firstly, the corruption of the temperature record could be 10 kilometres away from the source. I know when I drive from city to rural the temperate drop is noticeable very quickly. But what the newer research is showing is that it extends even further. Now add over lapping effects and exactly what temperature station is not going to be effected by heat islands.
Secondly, with a record effect of a single data centre being 9C is astonishing. Pre this research the record was likely to be from India with a 7C rise. Due to the unique location of data centres the before and after are easy to define, unlike all the urban areas growing slowly and sporadically.
Look at Dr Roy Spencer research where he hasn’t had such a clear cut set of data where the Bindies, Nates & Co of the world will rubbish the research. this research is clear cut.
Norman
Here is a somewhat old comparison of NOAA’s Climate at a Glance to UAH 6.0 LT for CONUS aka USA48:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KmVXxQMH7TBxTBrMW9K1GLXemCJH2j8H/view
It is absolutely evident that if lots of data center similar exceptions would have been integrated in NOAA’s CaaG series, then the series’ plot would like very different.
QAnon is no more than an ignorant polemicist who throws on this blog all contrarian stuff he picks elsewhere without having the least clue of what it is about.
He has no idea of which station data is rejected by NOAA for which reason.
*
I can produce the newest version of the graph at any time.
QAnon however would never be able to do the same job, let alone to generate a similar series out of the much rawer GHCN daily data.
Norman (2)
Here is the newrest comparison including GHCN daily station data (own processing):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ummcGCdKbVJguLvDCEgqXQH9SoRHx6Mi/view
As we can see like everywhere, UAH 6.1 LT starts higher and ends lower.
The similarity between the three series increases when they are detrended.
The probability that huge data centers could have relevant influence on the data is like the influence by thermic 1 GW plants: near zero.
*
QAnon belongs to those you can’t trust, see his dumb discrediting of the Large Language Models which he also would never be able to substantiate technically let alone scientifically.
Bindy,
Nice to see you have toned down some of your rhetoric.
Any how, why do you deny science? Add gigawatts of energy into a small location and it turns into heat. Or do you think it turns into unicorn manure?
So the extra energy that an area gains during extra summer sunlight is enough to raise surface & air temperatures. Why do you believe data centers do not kick off a lot of heat,,? My bet is you don’t know what a data center is let alone ever been to one.
Produce all the graphs you want, a couple of lines don’t actually refute common sense and logic.
Extracting Even More Gravitational Waves from The Pulsar Timing Array
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX5Ou28VGwQ
Takipteyim kaliteli ve güzel bir içerik olmuş dostum.
Another example showing the cult kids cannot learn:
Our most immature cultist here is Willard. He understands none of the science, but clogs the blog with childishness like: “Our Sky Dragon cranks might try to do algebra once in a while.”
Of course child Willard understands none of this. But just for fun, let’s see if any of the kids can state why this is just another incorrect solution for the plates nonsense:
In—Blue T—Green T—Blue out—Green out
400*–270K—–205K——300*——-100*
* W/mÒ
The “algebra” is correct, so why is the result invalid?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer from the cult….
CLINT clams: “The “algebra” is correct, so why is the result invalid?”
The algebra is actually only 1/3 correct. for a system at steady-state, this solution correctly has
(total in for system = total out for system)
(400) = (300 + 100)
But we also need
(total in for BP = total out for BP)
(total in for GP = total out for GP)
It turns out for these we have
(400 + 100) /= (300 + 300)
(300) /= (100 + 100)
The BP is losing energy (and cooling), while the GP is gaining energy (and warming).
Yes, the algebra is correct but the result is invalid. Just like with all the other incorrect “solutions”.
One has to understand radiative physics and thermodynamics to have a chance at the correct solution.
Hey Puffman, riddle Tim this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741040
You seem to have forgotten to respond to it.
Folkerts attempted to pervert the issue, again. But, it appears he left something out. Maybe you can help him?
I won’t hold my breath….
Cult kids on the street.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZW6lVLYP0
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Intelligence is correlated with a range of left-wing and liberal political beliefs. This may suggest intelligence directly alters our political views. Alternatively, the association may be confounded or mediated by socioeconomic and environmental factors. We studied the effect of intelligence within a sample of over 300 biological and adoptive families, using both measured IQ and polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment. We found both IQ and polygenic scores significantly predicted all six of our political scales. Polygenic scores predicted social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within-families. Intelligence was able to significantly predict social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within families, even after controlling for socioeconomic variables. Our findings may provide the strongest causal inference to date of intelligence directly affecting political beliefs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11308703/
Troglodytes are doing what they can.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is mad because America caught him claiming he was quoting Scripture when in fact he was quoting the Quentin Tarantino script from Pulp Fiction at a Pentagon sermon.
https://youtu.be/-Ip5dX6bm1M
Scientific Consensus in Context: Newtonian Mechanics vs. Climate Science.
While Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica took on the order of decades to achieve broad acceptance and curricular adoption in leading European centers, climate science has followed a longer and more fragmented path.
From Svante Arrhenius’s first quantitative prediction in 1896 to widespread academic and institutional consensus in the 1990s, the process spanned roughly a century. Extending back to foundational work by Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall, the development covers approximately 150-170 years.
Universities had long taught the constituent disciplines, but their integration into Earth system science curricula accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s at institutions such as MIT and Princeton. Climate-related content became more systematically incorporated into science, engineering, and policy curricula in the early 21st century.
The extended timeline reflects the complexity of detecting long-term trends in a global, coupled system and the corresponding need for large-scale observations, computational modeling, and interdisciplinary synthesis.
Arrhenius, Tyndall, and Fourier are often mentioned as supporting the CO2 nonsense. But, there is no mention of any of them claiming CO2’s 15μ photons could warm Earth’s 288K surface. Their relevant writings just relate to CO2 absorbing infrared, as well as the insulation due to the atmosphere.
So they cannot be connected to the perversion we see today. The “33K” nonsense didn’t start until about 1970-1980. Then came NASA with the bogus “Earth Energy Imbalance”. Of course it got even worse from there.
Clint R
YOU: “The “33K” nonsense didn’t start until about 1970-1980. Then came NASA with the bogus “Earth Energy Imbalance”. Of course it got even worse from there.”
Not nonsense at all. Just because your voice your opinion on matters does not make your posts valid in any way. The 33K is based upon actual measured values which I have linked to you numerous times. You are prone to reject science (which is measured values and empirical evidence as one of its backbones). They were able to calculate the average outgoing Longwave radiation from satellites (which were not much in service till the decades you are stating) based upon actual measurements and then using math tools to average what they were measuring. They could also get global surface emissions with satellites covering the Earth through the IR window. They could then average the surface emission of IR and compare to what was being emitted from the TOA. It comes out to be around 33 K temperature. I know deep down you hate the concept of science which is based on measurements. You can make up anything you want when you are unwilling and unable to process real world science or respect the many hours and intelligent thought that determine these things. You are far closer to Gordon Robertson (a true Contrarian who rejects any established ideas because of his personality) than you are to science. Can you come up with any evidence based upon available measured values that contradicts the 33K value? If you want to call hard work and effort by many people nonsense don’t you think it would be something you should put some effort into showing clearly where they are all wrong.
Norman, as I’ve stated numerous times, you can’t make a comment without insults or false accusations.
Thanks for proving me right. Again.
Clint R
Diversion again? I gave you a viable model of the Moon not spinning. It was in the link left moon. That is a correct model of what a non-spinning orbiting Moon would look like.
Norman, you may be confused again.
What you have been claiming is the moon on the Right is not spinning. Are you now admitting you’ve been wrong all this time, or are you just confused again?
Clint R
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
My flaw. I have been saying the Moon on Right (MOR) is the model of the non-rotating Moon as it orbits. The one on the left is rotating once per orbit which is why it always keeps the same side to Earth.
Yes Norman, you flawed. But, that’s not the only example.
I have time this morning to correct another of your flaws.
You stated up-thread: “The 33K is based upon actual measured values which I have linked to you numerous times.”
WRONG! The 33K comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. There are no “actual measured values” of such nonsense. You’re just making up crap, again.
Ball4 tried this years ago, claiming that Earth’s upper atmosphere values matched the imaginary sphere values, but he was unable to provide any data. He got caught just making up crap.
Here’s how your cult runs the “33K” scam:
An imaginary sphere is receiving 960 W/m². That is the value of Earth’s “solar constant”, adjusted for albedo. The imaginary sphere is a perfect conductor with emissivity = 1. So at equilibrium, the imaginary sphere is at a temperature of 255K, emitting 240 W/m².
Now there is nothing wrong with that calculation. There is nothing wrong with any of the values or concepts. It’s actually “hard science”, so far.
The scam starts when the cult compares that imaginary sphere to Earth. Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288K. So the cult claims Earth is 33K warmer that it’s “supposed to be”, because 288K – 255K is 33K. But comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere ain’t science. Of course, the agenda is to then claim CO2 is making the planet hotter than its “supposed to be”.
Earth is far more complex, with its own oceans, atmosphere, and thermodynamics. Earth Is “supposed to be” what it is, about 288-289K.
Clint R
YOU: “WRONG! The 33K comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. There are no “actual measured values” of such nonsense. You’re just making up crap, again.”
I do not make up crap. That is your specialty. I have a science based mind which is one that looks for evidence and will change views based upon the evidence.
You do not have such a mind. You ignore all evidence that does not support your make believe science that you get mostly from blogs. Not a bit from a valid textbook!
Okay so here is the link, you will have to do a little work to make graphs. I can give you advice on how to do it if you need to.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
This site is the one for satellite measured values. The 240 W/m^2 comes from averaging measured values found on this site. Do some research. Show posters you have a little bit of science ability.
To prevent your response of “link you don’t understand” I am not going to give you the plots graphs it will be up to you to do this. If you are honest you will see where the measured value of 240 W/m^2 comes from.
Thanks for proving me right again, Norman.
You don’t have any “actual measured values” for the crap you make up. You’re just trying the same obfuscation Ball4 tried.
You’re not even heading in the right direction! You believe there is some point in space where 255 W/m² can be measured, but that won’t prove your point. We already know that there must be some point above the atmosphere where that value exists, but that’s because Earth emits at about 390 W/m², and the flux gets reduced with distance. So comparing that to Earth’s surface emission means NOTHING.
Your cult’s “33K” nonsense compares Earth’s real surface to the imaginary sphere’s surface.
You don’t understand any of this.
What will you do to prove me right next?
Clint R
Basically you are saying you did not look at the graphs or consider the evidence.
You also don’t understand that scientists are actually basically very intelligent people who have mastered math. They are aware of the Inverse Square Law and take it into consideration with the raw satellite data. The point would be the satellite has some reading for IR emitted from TOA. They use a set number, I believe 20 KM above the surface as the TOA. Above that the air is thin enough so that most IR is no longer absorbed but is free to travel through space. They convert the reading on the satellite (a measured instrument value) to what the intensity would be at the TOA value.
Norman, as usual, you prove me right. Your endless blah-blah is akin to your insults and false accusations. Just making up crap ain’t science.
Your cult’s “33K” nonsense compares Earth’s real surface to the imaginary sphere’s surface.
You don’t understand any of this. After years, you STILL have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
What will you do to prove me right next?
Reality check:
The math doesn’t support the “flux gets reduced with distance” only claim.
To get from 390 to 255 via distance alone, you’d need to be 1,500 km away.
Satellites measure 255 at the Top of Atmosphere (20 km reference), where geometry only accounts for a 3 W/m² drop. The remaining 132 W/m² reduction is the physical signature of the Greenhouse Effect.
Thanks for making my case for me, Ark. I like to say the cult just slings crap against the wall, hoping something will stick. And you start off with claiming flux is not reduced with distance!
Again, thanks.
Also, satellites do NOT “measure 255 at the Top of Atmosphere”. That’s just your belief, although I don’t even think NASA would claim that. So good job at making crap up!
PS I inadvertently used the “255” above, in my usual haste. But it should have been 240 W/m². The “255” refers to the temperature — 255K. The imaginary sphere provides the surface temperature 255K, emitting 240 W/m². Neither you nor Norman caught the mistake. It’s kind of like you don’t even understand your own “cult science”, huh?
The math still doesn’t support the “flux gets reduced with distance” only claim.
To get from 390 to 240 via distance alone, you’d need to be 1,745 km away.
Satellites like CERES orbit at roughly 700-800 km.
Ark, do you realize you’re arguing with yourself?
First you claim flux is not reduced with distance, then you claim (correctly) that flux is reduced with distance!
At least when arguing with yourself, you should be right half the time. That’s better than never being right….
This is a good teaching moment for readers of this blog.
You cannot successfully self-study a large portion of your initial physics education.
You need the structure and accountability of a college environment; problem sets and exams are hell, but they help you understand the foundations. Nothing will light a fire under your ass like an exam in two days.
All Maths, Physics material is available for free, yet most people, e.g. Clint R, are still unable to learn it. This tells you something.
“…problem sets and exams are hell…”
That’s probably why Ark has been unable to answer even one of my simple physics problems.
Arrhenius was familiar with and cited various estimates of an Earth surface temperature without an atmosphere, favouring a temperature difference of 42C after doing his own calculations.
Hed definitely thought CO2 (and water vapour) made the surface warmer.
Clint R
So we are even. You insult everyone on this blig bot DREMT and whine when people call you ignorant?? Anyway you did evade providing any valid evidence that any of your claims are correct. It will go on and on. You insult posters than whine (need a tissue to cry in) cry at anyone telling you that you don’t know real science (which is a correct assessment).
Evade more, divert and pretend you know real science. It is all yo contribute here. Do you have any new insults beyond “cult” and “kids” maybe go back to hillarious?
Wrong again, Norman. When attacked, I respond in kind. One of the differences between me and you cult kids is that you rely on insults and false accusations because you don’t have any science. You’re afraid of real science because it represents reality. Want an example? You STILL can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
The phrasing “CO2’s 15μ photons” appears to refer to the ~15μ a b s o r p t i o n band. CO2 does not “have” photons; it a b s o r b s and emits IR radiation in accordance with well-established radiative transfer physics.
Arrhenius, Tyndall, and Fourier explicitly quantified the warming effect of CO2, experimentally demonstrated infrared a b s o r p t i o n by gases, and identified the atmosphere’s heat retention mechanisms, respectively.
Beyond that, continuing to address this line of discussion would require revisiting basic concepts in atmospheric physics, which is not practical on this blog.
Ark appears to be in a TDS meltdown, along with his cult. Now he’s explaining that CO2 does not have photons! Good to know. (That’s being facetious, for the cult kids.)
And get this — Ark tells us what I said up-thread: “But, there is no mention of any of them claiming CO2’s 15μ photons could warm Earth’s 288K surface. Their relevant writings just relate to CO2 absorbing infrared, as well as the insulation due to the atmosphere.”
ARK has learned something!
Who exactly is claiming that ‘CO2’s 15μ photons could warm Earth’s 288K surface’ ???
Never seen such a claim anywhere, except in Clint R’s nonsensical posts perverting the discussion, like do our neighbours’ 10-year old children all the time.
*
Back radiation is an indicator of the Earth’s warming, of course not its cause.
Bindi, I don’t know if you’re more obsessed with me or Trump.
But, until you can face reality, your whole life amounts to less than a flea’s poop splat.
Clint,
Bindy is obsessive, that’s plain and simple to see. He certainly doesn’t know the basics of history, computing or science. He will be so narrow in his view he can’t understand the basics premise of a question.
” He certainly doesn’t know the basics of history, computing or science. He will be so narrow in his view he can’t understand the basics premise of a question. ”
*
Typical reaction of Q people…
*
I just asked:
” Who exactly is claiming that ‘CO2’s 15μ photons could warm Earth’s 288K surface’ ??? ”
and was sure I wouldn’t obtain any valuable answer from Clint R.
Probably because except himself, nobody ever claimed such utter nonsense.
**
When we look at the SURFRAD station in Fort Peck, Montana
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/ftpeck.html
and ask for solar and infrared radiation for 31 March 2026, we see this:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_69e1deda50b92.pdf
*
Anybody having a working brain immediately understands that the downwelling radiation of course is not what warms the surface.
It simply tells us how much of the upwelling longwave radiation doesn’t reach outer space because it is partly absorbed in the atmosphere and reemitted in all directions – 50 % downwards.
*
Downwelling radiation, including shortwave (solar) and longwave (infrared) flux, is measured at the Earth’s surface using specialized upward-facing sensors, typically pyranometers for solar radiation and pyrgeometers for atmospheric thermal emission.
These instruments measure radiation intensity, often expressed in watts per square meter, by capturing energy passing downward from the sky to the ground.
*
But… ignoramuses and GHE deniers will of course tell us that all pyrgeometers give worldwide wrong results…
Bindy,
So you can’t admit that adding a gigawatt of energy to a small area will raise temperatures in that location. How much simpler can it get that mankind is adding warmth to the eco system by the built environment. Bet you haven’t even looked to see if there is research published hint March 2026.
I can understand why you can’t get you head around orbital mechanics. Like Barry you haven’t got the aptitude or the self awareness that you struggling. Stop trying to hide behind CO2 it’s far too small compared to your ego.
Bindi, you use ignorance and confusion to hide from reality. You, and your cult, can’t even describe/define your bogus GHE. I remember years ago when a physics PHD came on the blog to denigrate Spencer. He was a cultist and made snide remarks about anyone not fully in his cult. When I asked him for his description/definition, it got really funny. He got the energies of photons wrong, along with confusing “heat” with “infrared”. There’s another physics PHD running around claiming Earth can warm Sun!
Ignorance and confusion abound in your cult.
Got a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?
The Clints and Gordons of this blog probably wont understand, but the implications make this one of the most terrifyi g climate blogs I’ve ever read.
https://justdean.substack.com/cp/193418974
Trump is ridding the planet of corrupt dictators and evil regimes, and the Leftists are fuming. Ent, of “passenger jets fly backward” fame, returns to sling more crap against the wall.
Like all of the Left, he believes cult science mixed with a little soft science, results in hard science.
Kids these days….
ent…I have no idea why you insist on referencing abject climate alarmists. This guy starts off by quoting Dessler, one of the premier alarmists who is also a climate modeler.
In bold print, the author of this article insists that 1850 is a turning point that illustrates the advent of anthropogenic warming. Like most alarmists, he fails to point out the obvious, that 1850 also marks the end of the Little Ice Age, a 450 year period in which global temps were estimated to have decreases by up to 2C.
I was watching a documentary the other day on the Vikings and what a hardy lot they were. Some of them had inhabited southern Greenland till the 13th century when phase one of the Little Ice Age struck. It sent them fleeing to find warmer climes. It got so cold in North America that Indian tribes as far south as present day Florida and Texas were starving due to failed growing seasons.
Climate alarmists and their authority figure, the IPCC, fail to grasp the importance of the LIA. In fact, they have relegated it to a phenomenon that struck only Europe. Nowhere does an alarmist explain how Europe could cool by 2C while the rest of the planet was unaffected.
There is simply no scientific evidence that demonstrates how a trace gas like CO2 could possibly warm the planet by 1C on average in 170 years. There has been a lot of arm waving and consensus-based innuendo but zero objective scientific evidence.
I freely acknowledge the brilliant experiment by Tyndall, circa 1850, in which he proved that certain gases can absorb infrared energy and warm. However, Tyndall himself could not foresee such warming leading to a climate catastrophe. In fact, the only evidence we have of such a catastrophe comes from unvalidated climate models that have been programmed incorrectly re the warming effect of CO2 and certain uncorroborated positive feedbacks that cannot exist in our atmosphere.
The irony of it all is that a quick check of the Ideal Gas Law reveals the impossibility of CO2, at 0.04%, of warming the atmosphere more than about 0.06C for every 1C overall warming.
As he had so often before, Robertson was once again searching for something that might contradict the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
In doing so, he naively fell into the Pirani trap published by Tom Shula at WUWT, and soon replicated the words of his newest authority to appeal to:
“Shula determined with a Pirani gauge that heat dissipation through direct conduction and convection contributes 260 times more effectively to cooling the surface than thermal radiation.”
*
Firstly, upon reading about industrially used Pirani gauges, it becomes immediately apparent that Pirani gauges are completely unsuitable for comparing thermal radiation, conduction, and convection.
This is because, firstly, they do not precisely distinguish between these forms but rather provide a global result based on their combination; secondly, thermal radiation, convection, and even non-gas-related conduction are considered undesirable byproducts and are therefore avoided whenever possible.
*
Misusing Pirani gauges to question the hourly heat radiation measured by, for example, SURFRAD facilities is therefore nothing more than the dumbest manipulation.
Bindy,
Upto your usual misdirection. Pirani was mentioned by Gordon on the 5th April it’s now 12 days later and you go all what about ism on Gordon’s comment. Why? Is it to try and avoid your hapless mathematical ability.
Even a child would know that if you add giawatt of heat to a small location then the local environment will heat up and corrupt temperature records miles away. But you won’t accept it because of your pride.
Btw as you know little about IT, aka Information Technology, you might want to search on how to he big Tech companies are wanting to secure 4GW power stations for their data centers. Wouldn’t a normal person then be more worried about this extra heat?
Anon for a reason,
[“Even a child would know that if you add giawatt of heat to a small location then the local environment will heat up and corrupt temperature records miles away. But you won’t accept it because of your pride.”]
You were given the following link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KmVXxQMH7TBxTBrMW9K1GLXemCJH2j8H/view
but you didn’t take note of its implications. The figure shows a time series comparison for the USA48 between UAH LT data and surface temperature records.
If your hypothesis were correct (that AI data centers generate enough local heat to significantly corrupt surface temperature record), we would expect the surface record to show accentuated warming relative to the lower troposphere since urban heat island effects are strongest at the surface and diminish with altitude.
Instead, the surface and lower troposphere records track each other closely over time. That consistently strongly undermines your claim.
Kynqora,
Arguing via an extreme doesn’t prove your are correct. Let’s dumb it down even further with baby steps as you are struggling.
Data centers built in the middle of no where have a very simple history. Not existing, being built, finally commissioned. The temperature record at these sites were measured at each state. Surprising to those who blindly follow the climate cult the temperatures were different.
Once the data centers were complete the largest temperature rise was at the data centers location. Further away the temperature rise lessen. About 10 kilometres the rise was very slight, a fraction of a degree centigrade.
This is based on real world measurements and uncluttered by other factors.
So all weather & climate reading in this area have been corrupted to a varying degree. Again not difficult to understand.
Or are you ones of those cult members who don’t believe in logic, and heat islands?
Kynqora,
Just to add. If a data center use 1GW of energy and the electricity is coming from thermal power stations then an extra 2 or 3GW of heat are being generated as no power station is 100% efficient.
Unlike solar farms which are huge. Reliable power stations aren’t that large. So yet again another heat source that will corrupt the temperature record.
In the UK, ignoring Scotland, I don’t know many areas which are 10 kilometers away from any potential heat source built or controlled by man. Especially as solar farms will again create a heat island, but only during the day when it’s sunny.
[“The temperature record at these sites were measured at each state. Surprising to those who blindly follow the climate cult the temperatures were different.”]
How widespread is the warming effect you are attributing to AI data centers? For it to meaningfully distort large scale temperature records, the effect would need to be both widespread and systematic across a substantial portion of the monitoring network.
That is a key assumption you have not justified. In countries like the U.S. and the U.K., surface station networks are dense and geographically distributed. There is no clear reason to think that most stations are close enough to data centers to be significantly influenced by their heat output.
And if only a small number of stations are affected locally, those anomalies can be detected and corrected through homogenization algorithm techniques. As a result, any such effects would have a negligible impact on regional or global averages.
Kynqora,
You really do miss the point don’t you!
It’s not just AI data centers, that’s what was used in the study for obvious reasons. What they found would cause temperature record data corruption anywhere within 10 km of that size heat source to a varying degree.
It will also include towns, power stations, normal data centres, industry, cities,large towns….. Admittedly the weather station bobbing around in the Atlantic would be unaffected, but the majority in the developed nations would be.
Remember Dr Roy Spencer has published research about the heat islands based on population density. The research on the data centres are simpler and also reinforces the results of Dr Roy Spencer work.
Not certain if it was Dr Roy Spencer research that highlights that rural records shows less global warming than the urbanized weather stations. Again those results are reinforced with this newer research
You are still assuming, without demonstrating, that a large fraction of the surface station network is close enough to these sources to be significantly affected.
Even in developed countries, monitoring networks include many rural and semi rural stations, whose records can be used in homogenization procedures.
[“Remember Dr Roy Spencer has published research about the heat islands based on population density. The research on the data centres are simpler and also reinforces the results of Dr Roy Spencer work.”]
I would be a bit more cautious about that conclusion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/
On the one hand, his results do show that warming increases as population density rises, especially when areas transition from rural to developed. That would be consistent with localized warming if infrastructure is introduced into previously undeveloped areas.
But on the other hand, the same analysis shows that most of the UHI related warming in the U.S. occurred before 1970, with the effect stabilizing at higher population densities.
That part matters for your argument. AI data centers are a very recent development, so they would fall into a period where large scale UHI growth is not the dominant driver of long term trends in the record.
So while localized warming from new development is plausible, invoking Spencer’s work to support the claim that AI infrastructure is systematically biasing large scale temperature trends is not well justified.
Kynqora
“….be consistent with localized warming if …”
It’s called heat island, it’s not difficult but why you and other don’t even want to mention the term. Is it because you don’t want to admit that the concept exists?
Of course the urban heat island effect exists, but that doesn’t automatically mean it corrupts temperature trends in surface records.
Roy Spencer has pointed this out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/12/the-record-hot-uk-summer-of-2025-validation-of-the-ukmo-methodology-but-the-record-was-only-in-tmin/
“On the subject of which WMO (or UKMO) class of station is suitable for long-term climate monitoring, I think it’s important to note that a station could be placed in a non-natural, anomalously warm urban environment, but as long as that environment stays the same over time, it can probably still be used for climate change monitoring.
For example, the urban heat island (UHI) effect of London was described over 200 years ago by Luke Howard. Even if London is significantly warmer than the surrounding rural areas, it might be that there has been little additional UHI warming since then, and so a downtown London weather station might be adequate for monitoring large-scale climate change, since I have no reason to believe that (say) 1 deg. C of large-scale warming will lead to city warming substantially different from 1 deg. C.”
Kynqora,
Heat islands can be more than 1C. In India 7C have been measured. They can also increase over time, as Dr Roy Spencer highlighted in his article you referenced. Personally I don’t like the term urban heat island as it only focuses on one aspect. I prefer Heat Island as it’s more generic.
You mentioned london wouldn’t warm more than a degree. Have a look at what Heathrow looked like 100 years ago. It was a field, so yes any weather station at Heathrow would have artificially warned since then. Not only is it a very busy airport it is surrounded by buildings for miles. I don’t know any city or town that hasn’t grown over the last forty years.
And do you really think that energy hasn’t increased over the last 150 years. Other than a small fraction of energy that escapes the earth as light, the rest of energy used always ends up as heat. These heat islands will corrupt many of near urban stations and all the urban stations.
I am not saying that heat islands explain away all the global temperature rise since 1850. Just a portion of it.
“Messy” greatly understates the quality of land temperature records from the mid-19th century through April 2026. All you have to do is look at the country with arguably the most extensive and consistent network over that time period – the USA. The vast majority of the NWS weather stations STILL do not comply with their own published standards. Are calculated trends completely useless? No. Should great care (and a heaping portion of humility) be used when drawing conclusions from this data? Absolutely. Unfortunately, caution and humility have largely been thrown to the wind by too many scientists chasing career advancement, research dollars, notoriety, and for many the honest belief that they are “saving the world.”
The water surface temperature record is much worse.
The satellite temperature record, from what I can see, is much more reliable.
Thomas,
Same in the UK.
Vast majority are junk. then the met office create virtual sites either in the near coast or surrounded by junk sites. Others are on top of hills, which of course won’t have any bearing on the wind speed records.
When the met office claims there is a new record I wait until citizens have verified the site isn’t junk before I even read the met office wild claims in detail.
And yet they claim with all these dodgy sites they can predict the climate into the near future. Add in heat island corruption and everything else then I not convinced it’s anything but natural climate change with a very minor influence by man.
[“No. Should great care (and a heaping portion of humility) be used when drawing conclusions from this data? Absolutely.”]
Yes, we can both agree on this, and scientists can too.
Scientists are so careful and humble they will carefully scrutinize how station placement affects temperature data and then publish their findings openly so others can review it.
This 2010 analysis compared temperature measurements from well sited and poorly sited stations in the USA. They find that, after adjustments, the long term trends were nearly the same due to pairwise homogenization correction:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013094
Another important conclusion from the analysis is that differences in unadjusted (raw) data are largely driven by instrument changes (producing spurious cooling in maximum temperatures and spurious warming in minimum temperatures) rather than by station siting or urban heat island effects.
Kynqora – I am a U.S. resident. Confidence in government is quite low here. I share that lack of “faith.” I have myself seen many examples of incompetence that are laughable. At all levels of government – federal, state, local. Often it comes from the failure to adopt even 1999s technology, to supervise, and to adequately discipline underperforming employees. Things that are simply not tolerated in the private sector.
I have no way of knowing if this affects NOAA and our national weather service. I have a good friend who retired from a career with NWS and he appears to have been quite competent and reliable. But large bureaucracies become unmanageable and take on a life of their own. Political leadership and the lack of market incentives can lead to dysfunction. And then there are going to be some employees who abuse their freedom and lack of accountability. We have a saying here…good enough for government work (sarcasm).
Facts: 1) the vast majority of our NWS weather stations are NOT sited according to NWS standards; 2) when noncompliant stations are brought to NWS attention, they refuse to bring them up to standard; 3) like the UK, we have lots of “ghost” stations – stations are permanently closed, equipment is not working or removed, yet “data” (presumably interpolated from nearby stations) continues to be reported from that location; 4) changes in the type of paint used on Stephenson Shields and the frequency of its application can have a noticeable impact on temperature anomalies at a station – the type of error that a dysfunctional government operation can allow; and I will stop there, but there are other examples.
So, there are many reasons to question the raw temperature data in the U.S. Now, think about the data from other nations, including emerging nations and third world, with much less dense networks and many issues that the U.S. doesn’t have to deal with. That’s 29% of the globe.
These things I can comprehend, as a non-scientist and as one who is not a statistician. No one seems to defend the raw data. They claim that this “messy” (I am being MORE than charitable with that term) data can somehow be magically transformed with statistics that non-specialists can’t comprehend into a reliable record. Trust the “wizard” behind the drapes. How about this instead? Fix your $#@&* data.
At this point, we have a reliable temperature record from satellites since 1979. Anything prior to that has to be treated as having a great deal of error. Does it capture trends – which were quite small relative to daily, latitudinal, seasonal, and pre-historic changes? Yes. But can temperatures be compared precisely from, say, 2026 to 1965, or any other year? Only with a healthy dose of skepticism. It is a very corrupted set of data.
[“How about this instead? Fix your $#@&* data.”]
In the early 21st century, NOAA built a high quality, modern reference network (the US Climate Reference Network) with standardized siting and instrumentation specifically designed to avoid these issues:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/why.html
In the study I linked, the authors compare the final US temperature record product to this reference network in Section 4 and find very close agreement between the two.
This suggests that, despite the known limitations of the historical network, the long term temperature trends are being reliably captured.
[“Does it capture trends – which were quite small relative to daily, latitudinal, seasonal, and pre-historic changes?”]
This comparison is misleading. In many mid and high latitude regions, annual temperature ranges can exceed 40-50C, yet long term changes of only about 5-6C were sufficient to drive major climate shifts, such as the expansion of ice sheets over large parts of North America.
Thomas Hagedorn,
[“They claim that this “messy” (I am being MORE than charitable with that term) data can somehow be magically transformed with statistics that non-specialists can’t comprehend into a reliable record.”]
There is nothing magical about the adjustments. They are straightforward in principle.
The idea is to compare each station to nearby stations that experience the same weather. If one station suddenly shifts relative to its neighbors (for example due to an instrument change or relocation), that shift is flagged as non climatic and corrected.
Your concerns are understandable and widely shared, but the phrase “somehow be magically transformed” suggests a lack of familiarity with the process. Do you think your framing of this issue is fair if you haven’t engaged with those details?
Kynqora – Fair comments all. I spend a lot of time at this, but I will only dig so deep. As I have said before on this blog, I haven’t worked professionally in science since the 70s, so my math and statistics are a bit rusty! Adjustments to raw data make me a bit queazy. In the same way that the models are “tuned.” The more adjustments that need to be made, the more tuning that needs to be done, I think the less faith that non-specialists (and some specialists) have in the end product. For those who are concerned about warming or who just strive for the best results for monitoring climate, their interests would best be served by maintaining an entire network (100%) that does not need adjustment. The same goes with models. Skeptics question whether some models are being tuned so much that the inputs are simply being changed to arrive at the desired outcome.
[“For those who are concerned about warming or who just strive for the best results for monitoring climate, their interests would best be served by maintaining an entire network (100%) that does not need adjustment.”]
That would be ideal, and I agree this is the best path forward with the US Climate Reference Network.
However, this approach’s main limitation is that this standardized, high quality dataset only dates back to around 2001. To understand long term climate change, we need continuous records going back through the 20th century and earlier.
That means we either work with the historical data (imperfect as it is) and apply corrections for known issues, or we lose that long term context entirely.
binny…”Firstly, upon reading about industrially used Pirani gauges, it becomes immediately apparent that Pirani gauges are completely unsuitable for comparing thermal radiation, conduction, and convection.
This is because, firstly, they do not precisely distinguish between these forms but rather provide a global result based on their combination; secondly, thermal radiation, convection, and even non-gas-related conduction are considered undesirable byproducts and are therefore avoided whenever possible”.
***
Once again, Binny completely misunderstands the significance of the Pirani gauge in measuring the effect of pure radiation versus conduction/convection.
The Pirani gauge, unlike what Binny claims, precisely measures the difference in heat dissipation from a heated filament between radiation alone and radiation plus convection. The gauge comprises a glass tube with an electrically-heated filament inside it. It also has a valve to remove air from the tube.
The tube can be evacuated via the valve, making conduction/convection impossible since there is no air to allow either. Under those conditions it is possible to measure the heat dissipation from a heated filament in the evacuated tube due to radiation alone. Then, when air is introduced into the tube, or any gas, the heat dissipation can be measured due to both and the measured heat dissipation due to radiation alone can be subtracted to reveal the additional dissipation due to conduction/convection.
Using that method, Shula was able to PROVE that conduction/convection is 260 times more efficient than radiation alone at dissipating heat from a surface. I regard that as a no-brainer since there are in the order of 10^28 air molecules per square metre in contact with a surface. Each one of those molecules can absorb heat directly via conduction, then the molecule, excited by the heat, rises naturally being replaced by cooler air molecules.
Ironically, the energy budget issued by Kiehle-Trenberth has conduction/convection reduced to a fraction of that by radiation. Some have argued here that a heated filament does not qualify as a surface but to the atoms constituting the surface it is as much a surface as any other surface.
Remember the S-B law is based on a similar heated filament in an experiment by Tyndall. No one seems to quibble over that filament as constituting a surface. The equation, based on a thin filament is applied generally to any surface, including the entire Earth surface. The T^4 relationship between the temperature of a surface and the intensity of radiation from it is based on such a heated platinum filament wire.
This fact renders all arguments against the Pirani gauge to moot points. The gauge was developed initially to measure the degree of vacuum in incandescent lamps and that was measured by measuring the heat dissipation from a lamp with air in it then slowly evacuating the lamp while monitoring the heat dissipation. When the heat dissipation no longer changed, they knew the gas was completely evacuated producing a pure vacuum, or close enough to it.
There is simply no counter argument to such fact, although that never seems to stop Binny trying.
Robertson can post his personal views about the Pirani gauge as long as he wants, just like he thinks time wouldn’t exist or Einstein would be wrong in everything he wrote.
What remains concerning radiation versus conduction/convection is that while surface radiates on average about 400 Watt/m², conduction/convection from the surface to the atmosphere represent les than 200 (upward conduction: 80 W/m², upward convection: 100 W/m²).
*
1. A look at SURFRAD data, e.g. from the Fort Peck station in Montana, US, gives us info about upward radiation over the year:
January
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_69d264b4174ea.pdf
April
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_69d27b1fd5bf6.pdf
July
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_69d27db74f541.pdf
October
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_69d27e290d19b.pdf
*
I intentionally chose the Montana location to avoid supid polemic about data too near to the Tropics.
*
2. Anyone can ask for e.g.
” How are conduction and convection from surface to atmosphere measured? ”
and obtains an answer like this
https://tinyurl.com/Cond-conv-from-surf-to-atmo
*
3. Anyone can also ask for e.g.
” Are Pirani gauges valuable instruments to selectively measure conduction, convection and radiation from surface to atmosphere? ”
and obtains an answer like this
https://tinyurl.com/Pir-gg-cond-conv-rad-srf-atm
*
But… everyone on this blog knows that posters a la Robertson always discredit and discard information that does not match their egomaniacal narrative.
*
Appealing to the authority of Tom Shula with regard to conduction, convection and radiation is about as intelligent as appealing to the authority of Nikola Tesla with regard to the lunar spin, or… appealing to the ‘authority’ of Robertson with regard to relativity.
anon…a few days ago you posted…
“Gordon,
Okay, let’s just ignore the actual source of a photon just to remove all irrelevant aspects.
When a photon is created then it has a certain frequency whether it’s blue, green, x-ray or radio it’s all emf.
Once created does the frequency ever change? If so how”.
***
We cannot ignore the source of a photon, that’s the point. The photon has a certain frequency that is directly related to the angular frequency in an atom of the orbiting electron that created it. Also, the electric and magnetic fields constituting a photon, or quantum of electromagnetic energy, is produced by the electric and magnetic fields of the rapidly orbiting electron.
I mean an electric and magnetic field that constitutes EM does not simply appear out of blue air with a discrete frequency. It has to be directly related to the orbiting electron with its electric field that produced a magnetic field either as it orbits or transitions. The EM photon appears only when the electron transitions from a higher energy orbital level to a lower one. At the same instant, an equal amount of KE is given up by the electron making it obvious that the KE has suddenly transitioned to an EM photon. Also, the fact that the photon has the same EM fields as the electron is hardly a coincidence.
This phenomenon is not simply restricted to transitions in atoms, it applies directly to the alternating frequency of electrons in conductor, like an antenna. The phenomenon is somewhat the same and is related to the properties of electrons.
It is entirely ingenuous to think of a photon as a discrete entity traveling through space as such. Any photon begins as a radiated quantum of energy in an isotropic field, from an electron as it transitions from a higher energy orbital down to a lower energy level. The number of energy levels through which it descends to its ground, or neutral state, determines the frequency of radiation.
That is obviously because each electron in an orbital level above ground state has a discrete kinetic energy. That means the angular velocity of each orbital level electron has a higher velocity per orbital level. As the electron descends to each orbital level, it must lose KE and it does so by converting the KE, and giving its angular frequency to electromagnetic energy, or photons.
The orbital energy levels are related by E = Eh-El = hf, where Eh is the higher orbital energy and El is the lower level. The f, or frequency, obviously comes from the orbiting electron.
For example the radiation frequency of a photon in the hydrogen atom occurs at very specific frequencies. If the electron is excited to the 7th orbital level by a particularly strong EM absorption, like UV, it can descend to any one of the 7 lower orbital energy levels. If it descends only to levels 6, 5 or 4, it radiates photons with frequencies in the IR band. If it descends all the way to ground level it radiates a quantum of UV energy and for levels in between ground and level 4, it radiates light frequencies in between IR and UV.
The question is, how do all photon emissions, which are brief transmissions or quanta, combine to produce the wave action we know as light? There are bazillions of photons involved with each photon representing a burst of energy and not a continuous wave.How do all those wavelets combine into what we know as light? And are they separable at our telescopes as we view them?
No one knows. If we turn on a flashlight with an incandescent bulb in a dark room, the room instantly illuminates with a narrow beam of light. How does one relate that beam to individual photons with precise, discrete frequencies? No one knows.
There are certain phenomena in nature that have no explanation. Energy is one phenomenon and gravity is another. The photon is one such phenomenon that has no explanation and may not even exist as a phenomenon.
It appears, however, that a photon has a specific frequency that theoretically does not change through transmission. However, the Doppler shift noted in stars whereby basic photon frequencies are affected by the velocity of a star moving directly toward or away from Earth suggests the frequencies do change. The Big Bang theory is based on such Doppler shifts.
This is the same Doppler shift noted in a locomotive whistle as it approaches a station only it represent the motion of sound waves through air. The frequency of the whistle changes to a higher pitch as the train approaches then diminishes in frequency as the train passes and departs.
According to Einstein, the motion of a body emitting light should not affect the velocity of light emitted. However, as I learned it, frequency and velocity are directly related. If you have a certain frequency emitted from a body, and the body is moving fast enough toward you, it should compress the waves given off, decreasing the wavelength while increasing the frequency, since there are more cycles per unit length, or time period.
I admittedly don’t know a lot about this but on the face of it, it seems to refute Einstein’s claim that light velocity is a constant.
All you need to get informed is
– to stop guessing, claiming
and instead
– to ask what you know nothing about.
For example:
” Show me all tests proving the speed of light is constant. “
Upthread I read the usual denigrations…
1. About US weather stations:
” “Messy” greatly understates the quality of land temperature records from the mid-19th century through April 2026. All you have to do is look at the country with arguably the most extensive and consistent network over that time period – the USA. The vast majority of the NWS weather stations STILL do not comply with their own published standards. ”
…
” The satellite temperature record, from what I can see, is much more reliable. ”
*
Aha.
Here is a comparison for CONUS of three time series (sat era)
– official NOAA Climate at a Glance
– an own evaluation of GHCN daily station data
– UAH 6.1 LT (‘UAH48’)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ummcGCdKbVJguLvDCEgqXQH9SoRHx6Mi/view
The correlation between (1) the two surface series and (2) between surface and sat data is, to say the least, very good.
Anything else is dumb, woeful polemic.
***
2. About UK weather stations:
” Vast majority are junk. then the met office create virtual sites either in the near coast or surrounded by junk sites. Others are on top of hills, which of course won’t have any bearing on the wind speed records. ”
*
Aha.
Here is a comparison for UK+Eire of two time series (1900-2020)
– Berkeley Earth data for UK (480 stations)
– an own evaluation of GHCN daily station data (NOAA, here obtained from Met Office, 170 stations)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R68exw6QiPMdxildCCPbq0MGNTvh30WK/view
And in addition, the same data with
– UAH 6.1 LT (their 2.5 degree grid cells encompassing the land)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8KYVf7WCUa1fEvjHJ9fkF8Vy7NEcdNL/view
Berkeley Earth’s station set and Met Office’s are disjunct, and their data processing was made by two different instances; nevertheless, the time series show nearly perfectly similar.
*
To discredit and denigrate the work of others instead of offering a technical contradiction: that’s simply cowardly.
*
What’s junk here is apparently rather located below QAnon’s skull…
Of course: we all know that anything produced by Large Language Models is by definition trash.
But we are quite tolerant, and hence ask Google’s AI corner what it knows about this:
” least photon energy resp. frequency in microns needed to excite an electron in a CO2 or H2O molecule ”
Answer is as expected:
https://tinyurl.com/Exciting-H2O-CO2-electron
In other words: electronic excitation cannot take place when radiation at 2.7, 4.3, 10, or 15 microns hit a CO2 or H2O molecule.
But… stubborn people keep stubborn :–)
Trump’s Liberation Day Tariffs might go down as one of the worst industrial policies in American history.
That makes you Russians happy, huh Ark?
MAGA folks: Trump lied to you when he said foreign countries would pay the tariffs. The importing companies paid the tariffs and passed them on to the consumer; these companies will be refunded the surcharge. American citizens just got robbed and you cheered all the way.
Wrong again, Ark. The “importing companies” had a choice, import or buy in USA. Some that chose to import even decided to not raise prices to cover.
But you’re not interested in the full picture. You’re too corrupted by your cult sources. We’re in an important conflict with an evil empire, and you’re trying to tear down our efforts. What other evil do you collude with beyond Russia and Iran?
Ark is quite right that Trump (many times) said the tariffs would be paid by the exporting countries. Either he repeatedly lied or he actually doesn’t know how tariffs work.
barry sneaks in 3 days late trying to call people “liars”. Calling people “liars” is one of the most immature tactics of the Left. To a Leftist, anyone that doesn’t agree with them is automatically lying. That’s why Leftists can’t learn.
Kids these days….
Trump lied. MAGA folks are too embarrassed to admit it.
Trump August 17, 2024:
https://youtu.be/Z2ACEVWKaCs?t=729
Here comes Ark to pile on.
These cult kids are so predictable. Most likely neither one of them had ever heard of tariffs before Trump. Even if they had, they don’t have the maturity to understand how Trump used them.
And, they can’t learn….
LMAO!
Pro-tip: How can you tell if Trump is lying? His lips are moving.
Some bits about the influence of huge data centers on CONUS’ climate
(Part 1 of 2)
*
QAnon wrote above:
” So you can’t admit that adding a gigawatt of energy to a small area will raise temperatures in that location. ”
I deliberately ignore QAnon’s cheap and useless polemics, in which he claims I supposedly know nothing about massive data centers, let alone would reject their absolutely inevitable consequences.
*
Now to the point: I’ve been reading about these data centers, built by Meta, Apple, Microsoft, etc., etc., for quite some time now in French, German, and English online newspapers.
*
Moreover, I collected and published data comparing UHI effects in large US cities and smaller towns at a medium distance (Las Vegas, El Paso, Memphis, Boston, Oklahoma, etc.) long before QAnon emerged on this blog.
Almost everywhere the same pattern: the biggest difference was noticeable at night during winter.
*
In CONUS, there are approximately 1,000 cities with over 50,000 inhabitants, almost 100 of which have over 500,000.
Ignoring several thousand big data centers would be foolish, since probably at least 500 of them cause as much DHI disturbance as medium-sized cities do UHI.
*
The influences of these data centers are real: often up to 10 °C above the local norm and with an impact extending up to 10 km (albeit exponentially decreasing), they certainly alter not only short-term weather patterns but also the local climate over decades.
Of course, one very certainly can quantify the influence of these data centers by comparing time series from nearby weather stations with those from more distant stations.
For example, the currently biggest data center is one of Meta’s, located in Altoona, IA; the next one is in Prineville, OR etc etc.
Doing the comparison for the top 100 would probably show significant influence.
*
However, instead of measuring UHI and DHI effects source by source, I prefer to go the other way round, and to compare, for CONUS as a whole, two surface time series, respectively generated out of data measured by
– the set of all pristine USCRN stations, which are known to have the least UHI (and – at least up to now – still the least DHI) levels of all stations in the US
and
– the set of all available GHCN daily stations in CONUS having sufficient data during the USCRN period (over 10,000 of them, with thousands in the near of UHI sources: big cities, over 900 airports, 90 of them with international traffic, electricity generation plants, etc).
*
The idea is of course that if large amounts of UHI/DHI effects affect many of these non-pristine GHCN daily stations, this should be visible not only locally but also in their global average.
Güzel bir yazı olmuş, teşekkürler. Özellikle insightful bakış açısı hoşuma gitti.
Part 2 of 2
Let us begin with a series starting in Jan 1979, thus encompassing the sat era; together with the USCRN and GHCN daily surface series, I added the UAH 6.1 LT anomaly time series for CONUS (aka USA48) – just as supplemental info:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19fJwuEOgk2ZVNLmzwYmSnTZg53nxn37Y/view
Now let’s look at a TMEAN graph comparing USCRN to GHCN daily from 2005 till 2025:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYw7j4tSFRP-fBj6Gm6SeNTaO4OvcVCI/view
Linear trends in °C / decade for 2005-2025
– USCRN: 0.51 ± 0.10
– GHCN daily: 0.44 ± 0.09
– UAH: 0.36 ± 0.04
*
In addition, I show two surface comparisons for the period 2018-2025, as it seems that from 2018 on, the data center power in the US increased exponentially:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g78Fna6N_EHGL_Be4JDlrkgLFQLV1kLD/view
Linear trends in °C / decade for 2018-2025
– USCRN: 1.39 ± 0.38
– GHCN daily: 1.24 ± 0.34
– UAH: 0.83 ± 0.17
Bindy,
What a surprise that you deny science and logic.
If you ever conducted any physical experiment then you would know that sensors routinely error. Even if calibrated then you have to use them correctly. A Walter Mitty like you would never understand the issues of the built environment has on sensors. Nor do you understand data analytics. Using excel doesn’t mean you have analysed the data correctly.
With over lapping heat island there will be no simple way of working out what the correct natural climate bis. Especially in the UK where the majority of the sensors are junk!
Bindidon’s comparison includes data from the US Climate Reference Network. This is a standardized network designed to explicitly account for routine sensor errors.
Each station in this network uses three independent temperature sensors measuring the same air temperature simultaneously. If one sensor deviates from the others due to sensor drift or calibration issues, it can be identified and flagged.
UHI effects are also explicitly addressed through careful siting.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/what-is-a-uscrn-station
The rats are fleeing from a sinking ship. Will they return when the polling numbers change? Inquiring minds want to know.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/tucker-carlson-says-will-tormented-long-time-support-trump-rcna341250?
Happy Earth Day 2026.
It’s easy to focus on the “green” of our planet today, but much of Earth’s climate system operates in the infrared. The key mechanism is the interaction between thermal radiation and the quantized vibrational modes of certain atmospheric gases.
The bulk atmosphere (N2 and O2) interacts weakly with infrared radiation, but gases such as CO2, CH4, and H2O absorb and emit within specific infrared bands determined by their molecular structure. This a b s o r p t i o n and re-emission alters the vertical distribution of energy in the atmosphere.
The result is a higher surface temperature than would occur in a simple radiative equilibrium without greenhouse gases -approximately 15 °C rather than about −18 °C under standard assumptions.
This radiative process is well established in laboratory spectroscopy and atmospheric observations, and it is central to maintaining Earth’s habitable climate.
Happy Earth Day to you also, Ark.
It’s such a nice day we’re going for a drive in the country to feed the trees with the CO2 they love so much. You should do the same.
But don’t get confused by the cult nonsense. That “-18 °C” nonsense if for an imaginary sphere, with no atmosphere or oceans. On REAL Earth, the average is about 15 °C.
Have a nice drive.
Yep, it was 15c when I took my first Earth science class in 1956, and it still is today, the case for the climate crisis,has more holes than a string vest.
According to the BEST, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by over 1C since 1956.
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2025/
It is difficult to see how a firm judgment on whether climate change is a crisis can be made if the underlying data is being misrepresented or dismissed.
BEST (Berkeley Earth) is another Warmist group masquerading as fair-and-balanced science.
So first you need to define “climate change”. Next, you need to define “crisis”.
Past Earth extremes have ranged +/- 7K, or 281K – 295K. That’s going from a major ice age to the PETM. Of course, that’s all “soft science”, as there were no actual measurements in those events. But there is no violation of the Laws of physics either.
Earth appears fully capable to handle whatever perturbation comes along, even humans….
The Best?
I don’t need to define those terms, since I am not trying to argue that there is a crisis.
Ian’s claim that there is no climate crisis is based on his assertion that global average temperature has not changed since 1956.
That premise is not supported by multiple independent datasets, including NASA GISS and not just Berkeley Earth. If the premise is incorrect, the conclusion drawn from it does not follow.
Whether or not one ultimately considers climate change a crisis is a separate question, but it should be based on an accurate representation of the data.
Kynqora,
You referring to groups who have a vested interest in Climate change being excessive. A lot of funding goes their way.
Yes, the temperature record may appear to increase beyond a natural drift. However, heat island do exists and are one of the most likely sources of those readings.
But you seem happy with a little phantom crisis. Is it because you prefer the moral one up man ship? Or do you struggle to see patterns unless someone has pointed it out to you?
binny referred me to alarmist posts, through Google AI, as proof that CO2 is causing global warming and the article has its chemistry wrong. Google AI simply references articles it agrees with and it lists the links of such articles beside its reply. One reference states…
“With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’”
The main answer from AI is this…
“Electronic Excitation: As described above, this requires vacuum UV light”.
*****
This information is sheer nonsense. The articles are referencing a molecule using s some model other than ordinary atoms bonded by electrons. Molecules are atoms in various arrangements, nothing more, nothing less. The sole purpose of the molecule is to differentiate one atomic structure from the other, mainly by giving each structure a name. The key point to note is the role of valence electrons in bonding each pair of atom together.
To understand molecules and their properties we must understand the interactions of the constituent atoms, especially the electron actions in each atom. Electron bonds are key to understand molecules but in the analysis of molecules in many articles they fail to even mention electron bonds.
The vibrational states they references are due to electron bonds stretching, rotating about the x-axis, or the entire molecule rotating about a central axis. The articles are utterly naive in that they presume some kind of magical process within a molecule that excludes the very electrons that bond various atoms together to produce a molecule.
The only way a vibrational bond can absorb or emit EM is via electrons. There is absolutely nothing else in a molecule, other than an electron, that can absorb or emit EM. I have explained the reason several times, the E and M fields in the radiation must interact with the E and M fields produced by the electrons in the atoms involved. Where else in a molecule can such absorption and emission be realized?
The protons in the nucleus are likely able to do that but they are not moving like the electron, a prerequisite of EM emission and absorption. However, emission from a proton likely crates an EM wave with the opposite polarity of an electron emission of EM and such a proton emission will never be in the same frequency range, or anywhere near it, as EM radiated by an electron orbiting at a very high angular frequency.
Any EM frequencies associated with atomic or molecular EM emission/absorption, is about electrons.
Electrons rule!!! However, they cannot rule without protons and neutrons.
In the pure hydrogen atom, for example, it is well known that electron transitions are produced in the infrared, intermediate (visible light), and the UV portions of the spectrum. The notion that electron transitions occur only in the UV portion of the spectrum is utter nonsense.
Here’s why. All molecules are formed when two or more atoms are bonded by electrons, either as shared electrons in covalent bonds or an actual transfer of electrons in an ionic bond. Since ionic bonds are generally restricted to elements (atoms) in the first column of the periodic table bonding with elements with higher electronegativities in the far right columns, it’s safe to presume that most molecular bonds are formed via covalent bonds.
An example is ordinary table salt, NaCl, where sodium (Na) in the first column bonds with chlorine (Cl) in the 17th column (very electronegative), the great electronegativity between them promotes the formation of ionic bonds, which re essentially bonds formed by electronic charges.
The point to note is that electron bonds form all molecular bonds. Therefore, it seems ingenuous to claim that vibrational bonds involve something other than electrons. It is still electrons in vibrational and rotational bonds that absorb and transmit electromagnetic energy and that process involves electron transitions.
The vibrations are due to changes in kinetic energy and the only particle in an atom capable of that is the electron. Such kinetic energy changes are obviously due to electron transitions in the valence orbitals. Restricting such transitions purely to inter-orbital processes involving single electrons is ingenuous.
I mean, this is seriously basic theory that should be ingrained in the minds of any student studying chemistry, so why is it left to a student of electrical engineering to point it out? Distinguishing between electron transitions and vibration is ingenuous since electronic transitions are paramount in both. It reveals that electrical engineering students are far more familiar with the electron that many chemistry students.
The first quote above is just plain silly. I repeat…
“With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions|.
There is nothing different here at all. CO2 is comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms in the following structure…
O=====C=====O
or simply O=C=O
I used multiple dashed lines to emphasize the electron bonds.
The dashed lines represent electron bonds, 4 of them in total. The reason there are only 4 is that carbon has only 4 valence electrons free to form bonds with the 2 oxygen atoms, which have 6 free valence electrons. My line drawing above is not actually correct, the real structure can be seen with a Lewis structure, where the full compliment of electrons is shown.
Here’s the Lewis structure for CO2 using a simple to follow video…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbyRFpVxgeU
Valence bonding uses the octet rule where the goal is to complete and balance 8 free electrons in the outer shells of atoms. This applies in general to atoms found earlier in the periodic table but is not a general rule for all atom bonding to form molecules.
In summary, it is ingenuous to represent molecules as entities separate from their constituent atoms, especially giving the molecules separate qualities than the atom making them up. In the constituent atom of a molecule, it is equally ingenuous to ignore the bonding and electronegative qualities of the electrons that form the molecules.
All properties of molecules can be described using the constituent atoms, especially the electrons in the outer shells of those atoms, the valence electrons.
For example, the water molecule has a bond angle of 104.5 degrees as opposed to the bond angle of CO2 which is 180 degrees. With CO2, the electronegativity of the O-atoms on either end of the bond repel each other to produce a linear symmetry. However, with H20, the electronegativity of the single O-atom overwhelms the electronegativity of the two H-atoms forcing the bond to an angle of 104.5 degrees.
The shapes of all molecules are similarly formed due to the arrangement of electrons in the bonds and how they repel each other.
Gordon, you are sounding more and more like our deranged president.
You are hallucinating.
Time for bed.
binny…”Appealing to the authority of Tom Shula with regard to conduction, convection and radiation is about as intelligent as appealing to the authority of Nikola Tesla with regard to the lunar spin, or… appealing to the ‘authority’ of Robertson with regard to relativity”.
***
This is not about Tom Shula as an authority figure, it’s about basic physics. In your rebuttals, you have failed to understand that basic physics.
The Pirani gauge was developed initially to help determine the degree to which a vacuum had been developed. The design of the gauge basically determined the amount of heat dissipated from an electrically-heated filament encased in a glass tube. The tube can be gradually evacuated of air, giving a perfect relationship between the heat dissipation of a heated surface with both a gas and the direct radiation of EM from the surface as a heat dissipator.
The point is this: when all gas has been removed, creating a pure vacuum, the heat dissipation rate becomes a constant, due purely to radiation.
What could be simpler? You start out with a tube full of air and you measure the heat given off by the heated element. Then you gradually bleed off the air, noting the rate reduction in heat dissipation as you do. Finally, when all air has been removed, you have the exact heat dissipation due to radiation alone, which is about 260 times less than with air in the tube.
If you had a steel plate 10 feet square encased in a larger glass tube and you could electrically heat the plate and remove the air, you would get exactly the same ratio of 260:1.
What’s the big deal?
The Pirani gauge demonstrates clearly that heat is dissipated 260 times better by air in contact with the surface than radiation alone. The irony is that the energy budget diagram produced by Kiehle-Trenberth shows exactly the opposite. In fact, the entire AGW theory is based on pseudo-science of a similar nature.
Climate alarmists claim that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming factor of 9% to 25% whereas the Ideal Gas Law limits the same density of CO2 to about 0.06%. They claim surface radiation far outweight direct conduction/convection by a large degree whereas the Pirani gauge reveals the opposite.
It’s clear that the climate crisis is a scam, as claimed by scientist Will Happer.
With regard to the study by Tesla on the lack of rotation of the Moon, he applied a brilliant analysis based on kinetic energy. If the Moon was rotating about a local axis, it would require a rotational KE, which is not there, as proved by Tesla. All the Moon’s KE is translational, that is, it is continually moving instantaneously in a straight line.
The arguments of Tesla are similar to those of Newton, who pointed out that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is converted to curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. That alone reveals exactly why the same face of the Moon always faces Earth.
You’d have to get up pretty early in the morning to put one past Newton or Tesla.
Since the “plates” nonsense and the CO2 nonsense are now both discredited, it’s time to take down the Moon nonsense.
This Moon nonsense started way back in ancient astrology. The first documentation of it is in Cassini “laws”, which aren’t real laws. (Real laws can’t be debunked.)
It’s probably not fair to completely blame Cassini. He imagined the “laws”, but did not have the science background to understand his mistakes. Remember, this was over 300 years ago — 1693! It was back in the time of Issac Newton. Although Cassini knew of Newton, he did not understand, or fully accept, Newton’s work.
So the belief that Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit remained in astrology, which became astronomy. The false belief has never been corrected, because it affects no one. It doesn’t matter during a Moon landing if Moon is not rotating, or only appears to be rotating in someone’s incompetent imagination. So, the false belief remains.
Interestingly, the false belief is supported by NASA, and almost all colleges and universities. So how can so many “institutions of higher learning” be wrong? That’s the effect of “cult science”. The cult takes advantage of the public’s ignorance of “The Basics”. More than 99.9% of the planet’s population does not understand vectors, or difference between rotating and revolving, or angular momentum, or how gravity affects an orbiting sphere. We have seen this ignorance here from commenters for well over 5 years. Not one of the Spinners can provide a viable example of “orbiting without spin”.
It’s easy to see an example of “orbiting without spin” with the simple ball-on-a-string. Swing the ball in a circle and the point where the string is attached to the ball always faces the inside of the circle. The ball is NOT spinning, it is revolving, or orbiting. Spinning, or rotating, requires rotation around the center of mass, ie, spin angular momentum.
Astronomy has incorporated some false beliefs from astrology, Moon rotation being one of them. But, since Moon is obviously NOT spinning, they had to do it with “definitions”. In Astronomy, an orbit is also a “spin”, by definition. So, astronomers simply add “1” to the number of actual spins it takes for the object to complete an orbit.
In the case of Moon, it does not spin in one orbit, so its actual spin/orbit ratio is 0:1. But, in astronomy by definition, they add one spin to come up with 1:1.
In the case of Earth, it spins 365.25 times in one orbit, so its actual spin/orbit ratio is 365.25:1. But, in astronomy by definition, they add one spin to come up with 366.25:1.
In the case of Mercury, it spins 0.5 times in one orbit, so its actual spin/orbit ratio is 0.5:1. But, in astronomy by definition, they add one spin to come up with an spin/orbit ratio of 1.5:1, or as it’s often seen, 3:2.
So modern astronomy has adopted nonsense from ancient astrology, and with no understanding of the actual physics, has not corrected it. That makes “modern” astronomy a cult science. Which comes as no surprise to many….
Clint,
We have given you many examples of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Even though every astronomer that ever lived failed to find a naturally occurring example.
Take two motors, mounted on a beam, so one motor causes the beam to rotate counterclockwise, the mount a motor that turns clockwise at the same rate, mount a ball on that second motor, and turn both motors on.
Io orbits Jupiter about every two days, the Moon orbits Earth in 29 days.
But an observer on the Moon can see all sides of Io with a small telescope.
Which is impossible if they rotate at the same rate even if that rate is zero.
So the claim that the Moon does not rotate has been proven false.
Obviously, if “orbit without spin” is motion like a ball on a string then you would expect an observer on the moon to see all sides of Io with a small telescope, without their being any spin. So no, your “proof” goes “poof”, again.
The point you miss is that, obviously the Moon and Io rotate at different rates, but your orbital motion without axial rotation claims they both rotate at the same rate of zero.
This is obviously above your paygrade.
No, bob, the orbit period is different, that’s all. They both move essentially like a ball on a string, just at different speeds.
[How do they get themselves so confused?]
> essentially like
Actually, no:
https://www.rasc.ca/motions-moon
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358940240_Analysis_and_Applications_of_a_Ball_and_String_in_Uniform_Circular_Motion
Close enough to the movement of a ball on a string for the point being made.
Paraphrasing an article I recently read…
How to publish a peer-reviewed paper:
1/ Design your project: choose a topic in your area of expertise, methods, statistics.
2/ Conduct your research.
3/ Analyze your data: if your data meet the assumptions of the statistical tests you planned to use proceed to step 4; if not, unfortunately your data cannot be published.
4/ Write your paper: if you have co-authors, make sure they have read your paper and they approve of it in its present form. If you don’t have co-authors send it to a friend or fellow scientist and ask for feedback.
5/ Submit your paper to a suitable journal: your paper may be rejected without option to re-submit, rejected with option to re-submit pending acceptable revisions or, accepted in its present form.
6/ If accepted: congratulations! Now get to work on your next project.
How to publish a blog post:
1/ Create a free account: regardless of whether you have training or experience on the things you want to write about.
2/ Write absolutely anything: without bothering to carefully fact check.
3/ Congratulations! Now sit back and wait for people with similar views to tell you how awesome you are.
You failed to mention that when your paper is submitted, it is farmed out to one reviewer, who has the power to reject the paper out of hand. At one time, the review stage was meant only to reject papers written by those deemed incapable of submitting a rational papar based on scientific fact. That can be interpreted as those the snotty-nosed scientific types don’t like.
Michael Faraday’s important finding on electromagnetism, which are still good today, were rejected by the snots in the British scientific community becayse he could not explain them using advaned math. Maxwell took an interest in Faraday and reinterpreted his finding using math. You guessed it, Maxwell now gets the credit for Faraday’s work
Why would there need to be statistical tests? When Newton put out his theory on masses and forces as f = ma, did he have to provide a statistical analysis? Did he have to prove his theory of inertia in a mass as a force that resists an externally applie force using an inane statistical analysis?
No sir, modern peer review is stacked in favour of certain paradigms and the chance of getting a legitimate paper published in slim to none. The more you can bs the reviewer using stats the more likely you’ll be accepted. Even though the reviewer fails to grasp the meaning in your submission, if the math looks good, it ill likely be accepted.
This thing about stats has come from the plethora of claims these days that are based purely on consensus and stats. Here’s an example.
Pfizer (with Bristol Meyers) sponsored an experiment a few years back in which they set out to prove that their blood thinner, apixaban, was superior to aspirin as a blood thinner. Blood thinners are important to certain people suffering atrial fibrillation (irregular heart beat) since a heart beating irregularly for a significant period can allow blood clots to form in the arterial supply, which can lead to a stroke.
They found 6000 subjects globally who suffered atrial fibrillation. They made no attempt to filter out patients who had both significant heart disease accompanied by afib with those who suffered afib and had no underlying heart disease. They divided the group into 3000 each and gave one group a measured amount of apixaban. The other group they gave amounts of aspirin ranging from 81 mg to 4 x that amount of 325 mg.
The experiment is rendered suspicious right there because no attempt was made to find an equivalent dosage of Aspirin that is equivalent to the dosage of apixaban prescribed. The experimenters did not indicate the number of patients rceiving which amount of aspirin.
They ran the experiment and found after an insignificant number of results that 92 people in the apixaban group had suffered strokes while about 130 people in the Aspirin group had suffered strokes.
When you consider 92 out of 3000 as a percentage it’s about 3%. In the Aspirin group, the 130 out of 3000 is about 4.3%. Based on this early, and shoddy evidence, they claimed apixaban was 50% better than Aspirin at preventing blood clots, using that silly claim as evidence to stop the experiment.
The study was terminated early since they were confident that apixaban was superior to aspirin. I regard the very low percentage of incidents (strokes, etc.,) in either group to be insignificant since apixaban proved only to be 1.5% better.
Also, a blood thinner like apixaban renders a patient far more likely to bleed dangerously.
I think purely statistical studies should be banned outright, or severely limited and scrutinized. It’s far too easy to bs stats as in evidenced in this experiment.
Furthermore, Pfizer has been fined over 5 billion dollars for misrepresenting their products. They re hardly a reliable body to be sponsoring an experiment.
Speaking as an engineer:
1/ In any reputable journal, submissions are typically evaluated by multiple independent reviewers, with editorial oversight, and no single reviewer has unilateral “out of hand” authority.
2/ Statistics is a formal framework for making inferences under uncertainty. In science and engineering, it is used not only to summarize and interpret data, but also to design experiments properly so that the conclusions drawn are actually defensible. No amount of statistical analysis can compensate for poor design.
All measurements contain uncertainty. It is common to define error as the difference between an observed value and a “true” value, but in practice that true value is usually unknown, and in many cases represents a parameter of a distribution rather than a fixed constant. A critical distinction must be made between random error (variability) and systematic error (bias). Repeating measurements can reduce random error; it does nothing to remove bias, which must be addressed through calibration and sound methodology.
Since the true value is generally unknown, confidence in a result has to be established quantitatively. This is done using formal statistical tools such as confidence intervals, hypothesis tests, likelihood methods, or Bayesian approaches, which explicitly characterize uncertainty rather than ignoring it.
Accuracy and precision are related but distinct. Accuracy refers to closeness to the true value (or lack of bias), while precision refers to the spread of repeated measurements. Precision is typically expressed through quantities such as standard deviation or confidence intervals (often shown as error bars, though those must be defined carefully). Reproducibility depends on both low variability and the absence of systematic bias.
The two concepts must be considered together, but they are not interchangeable. Measurements can be precise but wrong if biased, or correct on average but highly scattered if imprecise. Reliable results require both: low bias and well-characterized variability.
I hope one day we get back to a place where people are embarrassed to be uninformed; a world where curiosity is our greatest pride and being well-informed is our standard.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fVudHfJhnps?feature=share
Governments and those in power thrive on the uninformed,
”I hope one day we get back to a place where people are embarrassed to be uninformed; a world where curiosity is our greatest pride and being well-informed is our standard.”
A good place to start would be the climate effects of orbital perturbations as that is the primary driver of the ice ages. that would be of great interest. As it stands they claim the science is settled when very clearly it is not. The institutions that sponsored those interesting inquiries are all too happy to sit on their hands and play patty cake with each other.
A conventional greenhouse glass cover turns back inside some of the outgoing IR emission. Gradually the inside temperature rises.
When a greenhouse is ventilated with a cold outdoors air (via open windows) the inside temperature inevitably drops.
Now, please tell − what is more important for the temperature to rise −
the glass cover effect or the closed windows.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robertson wrote, as usual full of self-importance:
” With regard to the study by Tesla on the lack of rotation of the Moon, he applied a brilliant analysis based on kinetic energy. If the Moon was rotating about a local axis, it would require a rotational KE, which is not there, as proved by Tesla. All the Moon’s KE is translational, that is, it is continually moving instantaneously in a straight line. ”
Tesla did not prove anything in his pamphlet but merely claimed it, and liar Robertson perfectly knows that.
*
” The arguments of Tesla are similar to those of Newton, who pointed out that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is converted to curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. ”
Robertson lies here again: Newton talked about curvilinear motions in the context of orbits but NEVER stated that the Moon wouild be only orbiting.
*
” That alone reveals exactly why the same face of the Moon always faces Earth. ”
Once nore, this is a blatant lie, as Newton explained already in 1675 to the German astronomer Mercator that Moon’s rotation is the reason why we see always the same face of it.
Seet Newton’s Principia (third edition, 1726), Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV, translated by Ian Bruce in 2012:
” 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. ”
*
Here is the place to see Mercator’s presentation of Newton’s thoughts about Moon’s rotation about its axis:
Institutionum astronomicarum libri duo (1676)
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA286&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
In Appendix 7 (‘De Luna’) we see on page 286:
” Harum tam variarum atque implicitarum Librationum causas Hypothefi elegantiffimâ explicavit nobis Vir Cl. Isaac Newton, cujus Humanitati hoc & aliis nominibus plurimum debere me lubens profiteor. ”
English translation:
” The causes of these varied and intricate librations [of the moon] have been explained to us by the famous Mr. Isaac Newton through an extremely elegant hypothesis, to whom I am very indebted for his kindness in this and other matters, which I gladly acknowledge. ”
*
If Robertson not only was able to translate such a Latin text but also willing to accept he is wrong, he then would continue translating and finally admit his mistake. But… no chance.
Thus, he will continue to misrepresent Newton.
*
Somewhere earlier, Robertson who ignores the complexity of describing the rotation of celestial bodies about an inner axis compared to describing their orbit about another celestial body, wote this on March 23, 2026 at 2:30 AM:
” If Newton had intended that the Moon rotates about a local axis, he would have been compelled to go into great detail on the subject. Such a rotation would not be a trivial matter to explain, it would have required great detail to explain it. Thus far, not one poater on this site, nor NASA itself, has been able to successfully explain the Moon rotating exactly once per orbit.
…
Anything in the translation alluding to local rotation is covered in a few sentences, hardly the MO of Newton regarding such an important subject. ”
*
What Robertson of course can’t understand is that while Newton described the phenomen of orbiting in deep detail using Euclidian geometry and relatively simple equations, he could not describe Moon’s rotation because this would have requested the use of non-linear differential equations of the second order, as used half a century later first by Euler, then Lagrange and later on Laplace.
Newton thought early about calculus (which he called ‘fluxions’), during the Great Plague in 1665/66.
But he never used analytic calculus (i.e. derivatives, integrals, differential equations) in his Principia, and his calculus treatise ‘The Method of Fluxions and Infinite Series’ was published posthumous in 1736, 52 years later than Leibniz.
How Newton’s Principia could have looked like if he had used analytic calculus instead of geometry: that can be admired when reading the translation of his Principia from Latin into French by Gabrielle Émilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, Marquise du Châtelet, a French mathematician and physicist who was fully aware of Leibniz’ and Euler’s work on calculus.
Du Châtelet’s Commentary on Newton’s Principia, published posthumously in 1756-1759, is a 285-page analytical work accompanying her standard French translation of Isaac Newton’s Principia; she translated, corrected, and expanded the text, converting Newton’s geometric proofs into calculus-based algebraic solutions.
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/556659.pdf
On page 308 she starts with her
” Solution analytique des Principaux Problêmes qui concernent le Systême du Monde ”
*
The very first analytic description of Moon’s rotation about its polar axis was given by Leonhard Euler in his treatise ‘Theoria motuum lunae, nova methodo pertractata’ publishe3d in 1753:
https://books.google.de/books/about/Theoria_motuum_lunae_nova_methodo_pertra.html?id=0a_QRz8IXlEC&redir_esc=y
*
Robertson has no chance to understand how far he is from real science and from history of science.
Bindi, you continue to make the same mistakes, now going on 5 years!
Newton clearly was taking about “with respect to the fixed stars”. And lunar libration has NOTHING to do with axial rotation. One does NOT need “non-linear differential equations of the second order” to understand Moon is NOT rotating. You’re simply throwing crap against the wall.
You make the same mistakes over and over, and you can’t learn. That’s why you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
“Newton clearly was taking about “with respect to the fixed stars”.
As opposed to what, and when will you do the Pole Dance Experiment for us?
Upthread, I made the statement:
And the cult kids rush in to prove me right.
No, ‘Bindi’ makes no mistakes at all.
The contrary is the case: Clint R and his friends-in-denial Robertson, the fake moderator DREMT and the Hunter boy, endlessly try since many years to misinterpret and misrepresent Newton.
*
Let us repeat for the umpteenth time what Newton wrote in Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV (as always, translation by Ian Bruce, 2012):
[1] ” 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. ”
…
[2] Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 27 1/2 [days], with respect to the earth; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2 days. ”
They deliberately ignore since years that Newton clearly explained in [2] how the expression ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ must be understood in [1], namely not in connection with the movement of celestial bodies but with the period of such movements -regardless which kind of movement is considered: orbit or spin.
*
Except the lunar spin denial gang, anybody immediately understands that expressions like ‘with respect to earth’ (aka ‘synodic’) and ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ (aka ‘sidereal’) do not refer to orbits nor spins, but to the measurement of their period.
*
And we can be sure that they all will continue to misinterpret and misrepresent Newton, together with the lunar spin denial newcomer QAnon (see for example ‘Is a biker on the wall of death rotating?’ on July 31, 2024 at 11:50 AM).
*
The very best is that Clint R denigrates all astronomers as ‘astrologers’ but desperately tries to keep Newton off the list, despite the fact that he unequivocally wrote
” 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: … ”
and thus should be, in his mind, an astrologer as well.
*
What remains is that in 1750 – after a year of observations using a small telescope, a self-made micrometer and a metronome – the astronomer, physicist, mathematician and engineer Tobias Mayer computed for the lunar spin, using spherical trigonometry, a period of 27.312655 days, the same as today’s observations based on retroflectors on the Moon together with lunar laser ranging, and computations based on… non-linear differential equations of the second order: 27.321651 days.
*
So what!
Bindidon, I must say I admire your erudition on this matter.
Well done sir.
Bindi, you just keep clogging the blog with the same nonsense that has been debunked numerous times. You’re got NOTHING.
If you had any science, you would provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, but you can’t. You can’t provide such a model because you don’t know anything about the motions involved. Cassini made a mistake, and the mistake got carried from astrology into astronomy, and even into “institutionalized science” of today. The more you and your cult try to support such obvious nonsense only proves your cultism.
So continue to prove me right. I can take it.
studentb
Much appreciated…
Thanks a lot / Merci beaucoup / Vielen Dank.
“The contrary is the case: Clint R and his friends-in-denial Robertson, the fake moderator DREMT and the Hunter boy, endlessly try since many years to misinterpret and misrepresent Newton.”
No, I couldn’t care less about the endless “what Newton thought” side of the debate.
“Except the lunar spin denial gang, anybody immediately understands that expressions like ‘with respect to earth’ (aka ‘synodic’) and ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ (aka ‘sidereal’) do not refer to orbits nor spins, but to the measurement of their period.”
It’s actually the “Spinners” who regularly delude themselves into thinking that reference frames resolve the moon issue. I agree with you completely, though…reference frames are used for measurement and do not affect the reality that the moon does not spin (yes, I know that in your head it does spin but it’s the principle I’m agreeing with you on).
Newton did say “with respect to the fixed stars” and yes, if you quantify the moon’s spin period “with respect to the fixed stars” you will of course get his “27 days 7 hours 43 minutes”. And still, the reality is that the moon does not spin.
DREMT
You are just wrong about the Moon. You can’t understand how one rotation per orbit functions. Stating thing with a false sense of certainty does not make your ignorance any more correct. Again can you let me know what advanced Science you have taken? You make a claim you have but not one of your posts suggests any type of advanced science learning. You can’t grasp textbook radiative heat transfer at all. You can’t understand how the Moon can orbit once per orbit and it will keep the same side to the Earth. An orbit is not like a ball on a string or merry-go-round. Those are examples of rotation. Not orbit.
So will you let us know what advanced science you actually studied?
“You are just wrong about the Moon.”
You wish.
“You can’t understand how one rotation per orbit functions.”
I understand the “Spinner” arguments better than most “Spinners” here.
“Stating thing with a false sense of certainty does not make your ignorance any more correct”, Norman stated, with a false sense of certainty.
“Again can you let me know what advanced Science you have taken? You make a claim you have but not one of your posts suggests any type of advanced science learning.”
Rude.
“You can’t grasp textbook radiative heat transfer at all.”
I understand all the arguments of those who suggest the BP will warm at least as well as the people making them, usually better.
“You can’t understand how the Moon can orbit once per orbit and it will keep the same side to the Earth.”
Again, I understand all the “Spinner” arguments better than most “Spinners” here.
“An orbit is not like a ball on a string or merry-go-round. Those are examples of rotation. Not orbit.”
A ball on a string is a viable model of “orbit without spin”. Got one that moves like the MOTR yet?
“So will you let us know what advanced science you actually studied?”
No. I wouldn’t like to appeal to my own authority.
A spherical cow is a viable model of a cow.
Can Moon Dragon cranks produce a spherical cow?
A Willard is a viable model of a troll. Can any “Spinners” produce a reason why Willard is an asset to their “team” rather than a liability?
Graham D. Warner’s false accusations proves Team Science right once again! Nobody cares about his silly troll bridges. Too bad.
Meanwhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
No? Nobody?
That’s what I thought.
DREMT, I admire your patience when dealing with the cult kids.
Like barry, Norman has deteriorated since I started commenting here. Norman used to try for some science, but lately he can’t comment without insulting or making false accusations.
It turns out he only understands his cult science. He has no background in reality. Like Bindi, he just BELIEVES in his cult, and insults anyone that tries to teach him science. It should be obvious to him that he doesn’t even know what “orbiting without spin” looks like. But, he doesn’t have the maturity and common sense to figure it out.
His own words reveal his incompetence: “You can’t understand how the Moon can orbit once per orbit and it will keep the same side to the Earth.”
If he continues to devolve, he will end up like Willard, bob, and the F-student.
“DREMT says:
April 28, 2026 at 3:37 AM
A Willard is a viable model of a troll. Can any ‘Spinners’ produce a reason why Willard is an asset to their ‘team’ rather than a liability?”
Willard is undoubtedly engaging in classical trolling tactics, but that doesn’t mean he’s the only one trolling the thread, nor do I think he’s ever “troll zero”.
I posted this up thread, but I largely agree with Google Gemini’s take on the thread: https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/Are%20there%20indications%20of%20internet%20troll%20behavior%20on%20the%20thread%20www.drroyspencer.com_2026_04_uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-f%20-%20Google%20Gemini
To Willard’s credit, Gemini thinks him to be doing “a sophisticated form of trolling”, so he’s got that going for himself.
As to whether he’s an “asset”, I find it doubtful that counter trolling will turn bad faith discussion into good faith discussion, but there is value in persistently calling out bad faith actors. My impression of Willard is that his interest and actions in the online climate “debate” is more about behaviors than a focus on the science. If one wants unflappable objective scientific engagement then someone like Nick Stokes would be the model.
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-1736200
When are you going to do the Poll Dance Experiment?
You got one thing right, Mark – Willard is a troll.
You disappear from threads when the going gets tough only to reappear elsewhere, opinion unchanged, casting aspersions against others. I don’t consider that “good faith debate”, sorry.
Mark B, let’s see if you can stay directed on the science, and avoid the personalities.
The Moon issue, plates issue, and CO2 nonsense, are all clearly classic conflicts of cult beliefs with hard science. This is easily shown by the fact that…
…the cult has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
…the cult can not admit that the plates in exact contact would have the same energy flows and temperatures as in the correct solution.
…the cult cannot produce a viable description/definition of how CO2 can raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface.
Until the cult can scientifically correct each of their deficiencies, they’ve got NOTHING.
Clint,
I have a motorized equatorial mount for my telescope. It cancels the rotation of the Earth and keeps the telescope fixed on a distant star.
So it orbits the Sun, yet does not rotate.
bob presents us with yet another example of “slinging crap against the wall, hoping something will stick”.
Here, part of his mount is rotating with Earth as it rotates the telescope, all while orbiting with Earth. There are 3 distinct simultaneous motions involved, confusing bob. He can’t even understand ONE motion!
What crap will he sling next?
Clint,
How can I help you to understand my working model of orbital motion without axial rotation?
The scientific facts are reflecting off of your brain.
Yeah, Clint, a lot of them have gone downhill. Norman’s comment was 95% false accusations and insults. If it’s not that, then it’s misrepresentations. Of course, nobody on his “team” bats an eyelid because that stuff’s just the normal background noise that they’ve come to expect. Naturally, the moment even a tiny amount of that kind of thing is directed their way then they’re up in arms, appealing for bans from Dr Spencer, etc.
And, sometimes, they even get those bans.
I see bob was still trying to make it about reference frames, despite Bindidon clearly pointing out that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. Chances of bob ever arguing with Bindidon about it? Less than zero.
I find this discussion amusing to some extent. I had a recent conversation with a friend about the fact that there are many very intelligent people (e.g. lawyers) who do not understand basic science. We came to the same conclusion that many scientific principles are intuitive. You either understand it or you don’t. Advanced mathematics is the same way.
This shows the value of the final exam in a science course which is usually a test of the ability to apply the subject matter rather than just parrot what is in the textbook.
So here it is. There are only two facts necessary for science educated people to understand the moon problem.
1) The moon is not mechanically fixed to anything such as a tether ball which is fixed to a rope for example. (tidal locking is different).
2) The majority of the moon surface (with the possible exception of the polar regions) are exposed to sun light for half of the time in an orbital period (approximately 14 of the 28 days). In other words, the moon has phases.
Reference frames do not resolve the issue, however proper observations using an inertial reference frames do.
Io orbits Jupiter about every two days keeping the same side facing Jupiter, likewise the Moon orbits the Earth every 29 days keeping the same face towards the Earth too.
Since an observer on the Moon can see all sides of Io with a small telescope, that means Io and the Moon do not rotate at the same rate, thus that rate can not be zero.
Just like observations that show both bodies are rotating.
Once again I have proved the Moon rotates.
I am sorry you don’t understand.
Oh dear.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742411
Tim S says: “This shows the value of the final exam in a science course which is usually a test of the ability to apply the subject…”
Tim S continues: “So here it is. There are only two facts necessary for science educated people to understand the moon problem.”
Final exam question for Tim S: Based on your “only two facts”, is Moon spinning on its axis?
Simple question requires a simple answer–Yes or No.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] You got one thing right, Mark
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] drumroll please… Mark’s “neocities” web page! Garbage in/garbage out
Here’s a better conception of concern trolling, btw:
https://gemini.google.com/app/22f93f301f7f3972
A concern troll, btw, is more akin to when Graham pretends to be a concerned skeptic or a concerned official tasked with keeping the thread “honest,” while actually using the role to provoke more conflict. Besides:
https://gemini.google.com/app/22f93f301f7f3972
You might fool Google, but you don’t fool most of the commenters here, Willard.
Water vapor is an effective greenhouse gas because its molecular structure produces a strong, permanent dipole moment. In a water molecule, the oxygen atom, being more electronegative, draws electron density toward itself, giving oxygen a partial negative charge and the hydrogens partial positive charges. The resulting dipole moment (~1.85 D) can be represented as an equivalent separation of charge of about 0.039 angstroms, though this is a mathematical abstraction rather than a literal displacement of all charges.
This polarity is not incidental, it is central to radiative physics. A changing dipole moment allows the molecule to interact strongly with infrared radiation through rotational and vibrational transitions. Water vapor has multiple such modes, producing broad and complex a b s o r p t i o n bands across the thermal infrared spectrum. In contrast, nonpolar molecules such as N2 and O2 lack a permanent dipole and therefore couple very weakly to infrared radiation.
CO2 provides a useful contrast. As a linear, centrosymmetric molecule, CO2 has no permanent dipole moment in its equilibrium configuration. However, certain vibrational modes, most notably the bending mode and the asymmetric stretch, produce a time-varying dipole moment. These transient dipoles enable strong a b s o r p t i o n of infrared radiation, particularly near the ~15 μm band that is central to Earth’s radiative balance. As a result, even without a permanent dipole, CO2 is an efficient greenhouse gas because its molecular vibrations satisfy the selection rules for infrared activity. Unlike water vapor, its atmospheric concentration is not set by condensation under typical Earth conditions, which allows it to act as a primary radiative forcing rather than merely a feedback.
Glad to see you attempting some science, Ark. No politics, insults, or false accusations, and you put your research in your own easy-to -understand words. You didn’t link to things you don’t understand, or sling irrelevant crap like “spherical trigonometry”. You didn’t even invoke an imaginary sphere to prove 2LoT doesn’t apply.
Nice.
Let’s keep the science going:
Ark stated: “Water vapor has multiple such modes, producing broad and complex a b s o r p t i o n bands across the thermal infrared spectrum.”
Exactly! Water vapor can return almost a complete spectrum, effectively increasing Earth’s surface temperature as observed after the Hunga-Tonga eruption.
Ark stated: “In contrast, non-polar molecules such as N2 and O2 lack a permanent dipole and therefore couple very weakly to infrared radiation.”
Exactly! That why the atmosphere, being mostly N2 and O2, cannot emit energy to space. Instead, those molecules reflect energy back to Earth, forming a “blanket” that helps the planet to at about 288K. While CO2’s “~15 μm band” is unable to do that.
Now see if you can teach Bindi the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”….
Nope, N2 and O2 are transparent to both IR and visible light.
WARNING: Not suitable for children:
https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/nitrogentable2.htm
Spectrum of molecular Nitrogen please.
Yes bob, find one and see if you can understand it.
Please.
I perfectly know that each time Google AI disgrees with GHE and lunar spin genius Clint R, Google AI is 100 % wrong.
However, I couldn’t resist asking! OMG…
https://tinyurl.com/Genius-Clint-R-about-N2-O2
Bindi, rather than trying to misrepresent me, why not try to learn some science? For example, see if you can come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Or, admit you don’t have a clue about any of this.
Either choice would be more mature than stalking me….
Clint R found another link he doesn’t understand.
He replied to Bobdroege with a link to:
1/ Atomic Nitrogen (neutral atom N I, and singly ionized N II). Bobdroege’s request was for Molecular Nitrogen (N2). Atoms and molecules have completely different spectral signatures.
2/ The tables in his link list “Strong Lines,” which are typically emission lines (light given off by hot or ionized gas) rather than an a b s o r p t i o n spectrum.
3/ The table uses Angstroms (Å), and all the data listed are in the range of 644.635-13581.33 (0.06μm-1.35μm), representing atomic electronic transitions.
What will he try next.
Ark, you obviously didn’t understand the warning:
WARNING: Not suitable for children
If you’re going to stalk me, at least get an adult to help you.
So, Clint R, after I called him out for posting a link he didn’t understand:
1/ Folded like a lawn chair.
2/ Blamed me for his incompetence.
3/ Threw another tantrum.
LMAO!
Ark, do you realize you’re just another childish blog-clogger? You have no awareness of reality. Your TDS seems to be your only mental activity. You’re filled with ignorance, hatred, and vitriol. You’re not just a normal Leftist, you’re an extreme Leftist.
Are you under the care of a mental health professional? You need to show him some of your comments here, so he can provide better therapy.
It’s kind of embarrassing watching someone double down with insults instead of just admitting they made a mistake.
It highlights how much I hit a nerve, so I’ll leave you to finish your tantrum in peace.
Ark, child, you started with the insults and false accusations. I responded with reality, and you can’t take it.
You don’t have the science background to understand that the high energy of the nitrogen atoms results in the nitrogen gas molecule being unable to absorb infrared. This is all far over your head, and you can’t learn.
You still can’t provide a viable process CO2’s 15μ photons can raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
You’re just clogging the blog with your TDS and cult beliefs.
Grow up.
Clint R’s scientifically unfounded gibberish:
LMAO!
As I’ve already said:
1/ Symmetry, Not Energy: Nitrogen is a homonuclear diatomic molecule that lacks a dipole moment.
2/ The Dipole Requirement: For a molecule to absorb infrared light, its vibration must cause a change in its dipole moment. When a nitrogen molecule vibrates, it stays symmetric, so there’s no charge shift for the infrared waves to “grab onto.”
Do your parents know you’re online at this hour on a school night?
Yes child, that’s why the nitrogen molecule doesn’t absorb the 15mu; photon.
You prove me right, even as you demonstrate your immaturity.
Grow up, or keep stalking me. Your choice.
Clint R’s science illiteracy shows clearly in this post:
In the context of Earth’s atmosphere, this idea of “high energy nitrogen atoms” is a colossal scientific blunder. Nitrogen has one of the strongest bonds in nature, making it incredibly stable and doesn’t just fall apart into “high energy atoms.”
The only place you find truly “high energy” nitrogen is in the ionosphere where solar radiation strips electrons away, hence the 0.06μm-1.35μm wavelengths in that link he didn’t understand.
Let the insults and “woe is me’ continue.
Ark, you were warned that this is not suitable for children, yet here you are.
The “high energy” refers to the high frequency (organized energy, low entropy). That’s why the nitrogen molecule doesn’t absorb the 15μ photon. This is WAY over your head.
You prove me right, even as you demonstrate your immaturity.
Grow up, or keep stalking me. Your choice.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
[ARK] Water vapor is an effective greenhouse gas because its molecular structure produces a strong, permanent dipole moment.
[PUFF] Glad to see you attempting some science, Ark.
What meaning of “stalking” are you referring to?
So, Clint R keeps accusing me of “stalking” and of being a “child” for posting on my own sub-thread while he cannot express a disagreement without going full ad hominem as he posts on said sub-thread. Make that make sense George Orwell.
But I digress.
His whole argument is that N2 reflects IR back to the surface thus acting like a “blanket” a.k.a. the GHE.
His error is that individual gas molecules in the atmosphere do not act like mirrors; they are far too small to “reflect” long-wave radiation. So, N2 neither absorbs nor reflects IR.
What will he try next.
There’s a reason I keep pointing out your childishness, Ark. It’s called reality.
Nitrogen and oxygen inhibit heat transfer in several ways, acting as insulation. We see that with the “lapse rate”.
Now, let’s see some more of your insults and stalking….
It’s not my job to entertain trolls, bots, shitheads, droolers, the habitually contrary, the far right, the far left, loons, goons, or poltroons. The fact that you think you have some god-given right to shout your bile at me just proves my point.
Historian Sabine Heubner exercises her God-given right to shout some bile at Clint, whilst continuing to impersonate an elderly male engineer.
No need Clint, I can just look.
The kids are confused about photon reflection, again. So this is another learning opportunity.
Question: Is photon refection the same as an object absorbing and then emitting a photon?
Answer: NO!
Discussion: The two events are completely different. A photon that is absorbed may not even be re-emitted, or may be emitted with a delay. If it is emitted, it may not be emitted in a direction that matches the direction from which it was absorbed.
A reflected photon does not transfer any energy to the target. It does not change energy. It only changes direction, and sometimes polarization. A group of reflected photons will remain coherent from a proper surface. That’s why you see your clear image in a mirror. If the photons were being absorbed and re-emitted, the mirror’s image would be blurred, possibly unrecognizable.
Photons carry momentum, so if they reverse direction, so since momentum is conserved, the reflecting surface must gain energy to conserve momentum.
That’s why you have to be so careful when using a flashlight. If you shine it on a house you could easily demolish it….
I lack time needed to actively follow this millionth discussion about the lunar spin (which is in fact rather a discussion about a correct relation to science in general).
*
But upthread, the fake moderator DREMT wrote something that caught my attention:
” Newton did say “with respect to the fixed stars” and yes, if you quantify the moon’s spin period “with respect to the fixed stars” you will of course get his “27 days 7 hours 43 minutes”. ”
*
Could there be a better proof that the fake mod still did not understand that the moon spins regardless of with respect to what we measure its spin’s period?
*
At the end of chapter 14 of his treatise on the lunar spin about its own axis (published in 1750), the astronomer Tobias Mayer compared, for the Moon and the Earth, the sidereal spin duration (wrt a star), the synodic spin duration (wrt the sun), and – last not least as the ultimate comparison needed for ephemerides – the equatorial spin duration (wrt the vernal/autumnal equinox).
In the following, ‘days’ are ‘Earth days’.
1. Sidereal
Moon: 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 sixtieths of a second
Earth: 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds, 25 sixtieths of a second
2. Synodic
Moon: 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minues, 3 seconds
Earth: 24 hours
3. Equatorial
Moon: 27 days, 5 hours, 5 minutes, 36 seconds
Earth: 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds, 5 sixtieths of a second
*
I know it’s hopeless: anti-science sentiment automatically prevails among pseudoskeptics, especially those who rely on the “ball-on-a-string” nonsense.
But.. I don’t post this info for them, of course.
*
Oooops!
I suddenly remember, while writing this stuff above, that years ago, a lunar spin denier wrote that the Moon cannot spin because only planets spin in the solar system; satellites aka moons all don’t.
Knowing that Galileo Galilei measured in 1610 the orbit period of Jupiter’s major moons (see his ‘Sidereus Nunci’ published in 1612) but could not see if they rotate, I looked for sources mentioning this.
In a recently published article, I found a reference to:
H. Camichel, M. Gentili, and B. Lyot. Observations Planetaires au Pic du Midi, en 1941. L’Astronomie, 57: 49–60, Jan. 1943
https://tinyurl.com/Obs-Jup-gal-moons-1943
These four French astronomers found through longer observations that the four moons not only rotate but also that their rotation period was very similar to their orbiting period, what confirmed the observations made by the British astronomer Pickering in 1894.
A further observation at the Pic du Midi:
https://tinyurl.com/Obs-Jup-gal-moons-1974
therein page 5 (517), section 4: Période de rotation des satellites
Tableau I
Satellites de Jupiter
Période de rotation et révolution synodique
https://i.postimg.cc/hvTbBN9w/Jup-gal-sats-orb-spin.png
*
But… as we all know, this is again complete astrologer nonsense [© Clint R].
***
I finsih with the fake mod’s wording:
” And still, the reality is that the moon does not spin. ”
*
The major hallmark of pseudoskepticism is to confuse reality with one’s own egocentric perception of it.
Apos: should read ‘Sidereus Nuncius‘
“Could there be a better proof that the fake mod still did not understand that the moon spins regardless of with respect to what we measure its spin’s period?”
I was agreeing with you that the question of whether the moon spins or not is separate to the question of “with respect to what we measure its spin’s period”. Obviously we disagree on whether the moon spins or not but the principle of what you were saying I agreed with.
Even when I agree with Bindidon he still has a pop at me. Unbelievable.
Bindi still can’t understand that ancient astrologers believed an orbit was also a spin. They didn’t understand the relevant physics.
It’s the same with cult science today….
I owe DREMT a quarter of an apology for having confounded his sayings with Clint R’s who claims since evah nonsense like ‘while the Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars, it doesn’t wrt Earth’.
But the rest remains:
” And still, the reality is that the moon does not spin. ”
So what!
*
By the way, I asked years ago the JWST team for observing a lunar crater from L2 which would give a definitive answer re: lunar spin because the spatial trajectory of a point orbiting AND spinning is not the same as that of a point solely orbiting.
The two motions to disentangle is from L2 far simpler than what Tobias Mayer achieved in 1750 from Nuremberg, Earth.
*
The team’s answer unfortunately was
” The Moon is too bright for us to observe! ”
Yeah.
A quarter-thanks for your quarter-apology.
That’s still more of an apology than some people are capable of.
Bindi, you’ve sunken even lower than Norman. Where did I ever state ‘while the Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars, it doesn’t wrt Earth’? Provide the link. You can’t. You’re a phony.
And chasing “JWST team” just proves, again, you don’t understand any of this. They obviously realized you were clueless.
Graham D. Warner kinda “forgot” to correct Puffman on the fixed stars issue.
The reality remains that our moon, the one we call the Moon, spins just like every other single celestial body we know.
Unless we consider the universe itself is an object, which would be weird.
I don’t need to correct Clint on the “fixed stars issue”. He gets it. Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, as I’ve correctly stated for eight years. Bindidon agrees.
Bindidon says:
”By the way, I asked years ago the JWST team for observing a lunar crater from L2 which would give a definitive answer re: lunar spin because the spatial trajectory of a point orbiting AND spinning is not the same as that of a point solely orbiting.”
Yes which leads some to argue that an orbit is not a rotation, precisely because its motion is influenced by other objects like the sun and the planets.
But that is true for absolutely everything in nature rendering science concepts like Newton’s somewhat mushy. And of course the brilliance of Newton is in ”simplifying” those complex motions in a symbolic language more conducive to simple mathematics. Which in the end makes him oblivious to nuance being a strict guardian of the culture and highly conservative in this area what makes one wonder why so much liberalism outside of realm of science when history, tradition, and culture is such a large part of the natural world.
I was recently noting that these outside perturbations are pretty fundamental to the moon discussion. Wobble of an axis is a physics reaction to a spin on that axis being perturbed by outside forces.
Its interesting to note for the moon that there is no unique axial precession as the ”apparent” precession of that axis you see is actually a sidereal precession in perfect time with the precession of the nodes of its orbit. I suspect this common with all tidal locked moons.
> Yes which leads some to argue that an orbit is not a rotation, precisely because its motion is influenced by other objects like the sun and the planets.
It’s rather because orbits are not circular and, to preserve isometry, rotations only happen in circles.
ROFL!
Asking Google:
“Does a ball on a string experience any torque about the centre of mass of the ball itself?”
Returns:
“In an ideal, theoretical, and consistent circular motion scenario, a ball on a string does not experience any net torque about its own center of mass (COM).
Here is the breakdown of why this is the case based on physics principles:
Forces Act Through the COM: For a ball swinging in a circle, the primary forces acting on it are gravity (acting downward through the COM) and the tension in the string (acting along the string towards the pivot point, through the COM). Because torque (\(\vec{\tau} = \vec{r} \times \vec{F}\)) requires a force to act at a distance from the pivot point, forces acting through the COM have a lever arm of zero, resulting in zero torque.
Uniform Circular Motion: If the ball is moving at a constant speed, there is no tangential acceleration, meaning no net torque exists to speed up or slow down the ball’s rotation about its own center.
Negligible Real-World Factors: In a practical, non-ideal scenario, factors like air resistance or friction at the pivot could theoretically create a small torque, but in standard physics problems, these are ignored.”
In my “perfect tetherball” example, all real-world factors which could possibly create any small torque about the ball’s own centre of mass were systematically removed by adjusting the scenario. All adjustments moved the model closer to what it was attempting to model – a perfect orbit. With no torque about the centre of mass of the ball, it can be definitively stated that the ball cannot be rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself. Regardless of frame of reference.
That all means “orbit without spin” is modelled by the “perfect tetherball”, and thus the “Non-Spinners” are correct.
Case closed.
Q. Are Puffman’s balls a valid physical model of the motion of the Moon?
A. Strictly speaking, no, it is not a valid physical model, even if it is a helpful conceptual one. If you tried to use the physics of a ball and string to predict exactly where the Moon would be in a week, your math would fail. The two systems operate on entirely different physical laws.
The 3 Fatal Flaws of the Model
1. Internal vs. External Forces
In the ball-on-string model, the “binding” is mechanical and external. The string is a physical object that resists being stretched (tension).
In the Earth-Moon system, the binding is a gravitational field. This force acts on every single atom of the Moon simultaneously, rather than pulling on a single attachment point on the surface.
2. The Nature of “The Spin”
The Moon’s rotation is synchronized with its orbit. In the string model, this “synchronization” is a forced mechanical byproduct—the ball rotates because the string is tied to its side.In reality, the Moon is a free agent. It “chooses” to rotate at that speed because Earth’s gravity created a tidal bulge that acted like a brake over millions of years. The string model cannot explain why it spins that way; it just forces it to happen.
3. Energy Dissipation
The String: If you stop moving your hand, the ball slows down immediately due to air resistance and the friction of the string rubbing against your finger.The Moon: The Moon is in a vacuum. It doesn’t need “input” to keep moving. In fact, because of tidal interactions, the Moon is actually stealing a tiny bit of Earth’s rotational energy and using it to push itself farther away from us (about 3.8 cm per year). A string would just get tighter; gravity lets the Moon “drift.”
Is there a better model?
If you want a truly valid physical model, you have to move from Classical Mechanics (the string) to Field Theory. Instead of a string, imagine the Earth sitting on a trampoline. It creates a “dip” in the fabric. The Moon is a marble rolling around the rim of that dip.The marble isn’t “tied” to the center.If it goes faster, it naturally moves higher up the curve (a wider orbit). If it goes slower, it sinks deeper. That model correctly identifies that space itself is the medium of the connection, rather than a physical tether.
***
The Moon dragon cranks never had an open case to begin with.
The ball on a string is a model of “orbit without spin”, Willard. Not intended to be a model of the moon’s exact motion.
Willard says:
May 3, 2026 at 2:53 PM
”> Yes which leads some to argue that an orbit is not a rotation, precisely because its motion is influenced by other objects like the sun and the planets.
It’s rather because orbits are not circular and, to preserve isometry, rotations only happen in circles.
ROFL!”
——————–
Willard so doesn’t get it and ends up laughing at himself.
Fact is by the standard that Willard just established there are zero rotations in nature. That because other forces are are always acting on any object rotating whether its around its own center, stretching, deforming, and creating wobbles.
What he actually did was flashback to 7th grade drafting class and his teacher constantly admonishing him to be more careful drawing lines (preserve the isometry son).
> Fact is by the standard
Gill proves once again that he can’t read.
Which standard would that be?
Who established that standard?
All this to sidestep what his best buddy just told him:
“The string model cannot explain why [the Moon] spins that way; it just forces it to happen.”
ROFL!
A common misconception – the string doesn’t “force” anything, as it’s always acting through the centre of mass of the ball. It applies no torque whatsoever about the CoM of the ball.
“the string doesn’t “force” anything”
Readers can adjudicate for themselves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxrM5tv_RNI
Graham D. Warner has returned to playing word games.
Readers can just check my 3:58 PM comment and see that I am correct.
For Graham D. Warner to be right, the ball would need not to spin after the string has been cut. Unless of course he could explain why cutting the string made the ball spin?
Any explanation does not involve semantic games about the verb “to force”.
Willards video actually confirms what DREMT is saying. The ball does not spin in the same direction as the external rotation.
That provides evidence that Tesla was right and Bindidon’s judgement of what he thinks Newton was claiming was wrong.
Gill doubles down on the argument by assertion, oblivious to the fact that the Earth’s gravity does not “force” itself on the Moon like a rigid string attached to a ball does.
To make him realize that the shift from elliptical orbits to circular ones was kinda big, allow his best buddy to describe:
Perhaps he confused orbit and spin?
ROFL!
From Willard’s own Google interaction:
“In the Earth-Moon system, the binding is a gravitational field. This force acts on every single atom of the Moon simultaneously, rather than pulling on a single attachment point on the surface.”
The string may have a single attachment point on the surface of the ball, but the string always acts through the CoM of the ball, regardless. No torque about the CoM of the ball means the ball is objectively not rotating about its own internal axis. Regardless of reference frame.
Can Willard work out how the fact that gravity acts on every single atom of the orbiting body simultaneously actually supports the “Non-Spinners”?
Since Graham D. Warner mentions torque, let’s recall this instant classic. Astute readers might note the date:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1405150
Those where the days.
Willard says:
”Gill doubles down on the argument by assertion, oblivious to the fact that the Earth’s gravity does not “force” itself on the Moon like a rigid string attached to a ball does.”
In the sense that they act through the COM they do. It is true the attachment is different but they both act through the COM once you compute all the forces on the ball/moon including forces that hold the ball together and average them out.
And that is all that has to happen to not have torque applied to the ball or the moon. In fact Willard, Nate has argued that because it acts through the COM it isn’t a rotation, either one.
But for the purpose of becoming a rotation, as my engineer/inventor grandfather used to say in his workshop, “there is more than one way to skin a cat”.
> It is true the attachment is different but
Gill channels his best buddy:
Perhaps he should also take heed what his best buddy says:
ROFL!
Yes, back then I struggled to articulate what I intuitively understood. Now, I no longer struggle.
Can Willard work out how the fact that gravity acts on every single atom of the orbiting body simultaneously, actually supports the “Non-Spinners”?
A hint: it involves a comparison with the “Spinners” model of “orbit without spin” – the “frictionless yo-yo”.
Willard says:
May 4, 2026 at 12:15 PM
> It is true the attachment is different but
Gill channels his best buddy:
The phrase “everything before the word but is horseshit” (or “bullshit”) is a popular idiom—frequently cited from Game of Thrones (Ned/Jon Snow) and author Nassim Taleb—suggesting that the initial part of a statement is invalidated or contradicted by the information that follows. It implies that what comes before the ‘but’ is often empty justification, filler, or a polite preamble.
Perhaps he should also take heed what his best buddy says:
If the Earth-Moon system functioned like a ball on a string, you might expect the Moon to orbit perfectly in line with the Earth’s path around the Sun (the ecliptic plane). However, the Moon’s orbit is tilted at an angle of approximately 5.14° relative to the ecliptic.
ROFL!
————————-
Do you actually believe that BS?
> Do you actually believe that
Gill kinda forgot to identify his “that”.
ROFL!
Perhaps he should revise the reason why we use his pet toy model:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Astronomy__Cosmology/Astronomy_for_Educators_(Barth)/03%3A_Modeling_Earth_and_Moon_Together/3.01%3A_Making_a_Scale_Model_of_the_Earth-Moon_System
Gill’s not a serious chap.
Graham D. Warner conceals his mistake under a concession, and borrows Puffman’s riddling mode instead of owning the fact that Moon Dragon cranks have no explanation as to why the ball spins as soon as the string is cut.
His best buddy’s explanation is quite simple:
The ball spins when thrown off because the tangential velocities of the parts of the ball are different. They’re different because the ball is moving as per the “moon on the left” (MOTL) prior to the ball being thrown off. This has of course been explained dozens of times over the years.
Nothing changes the fact that with the “perfect tetherball”, no torque is applied about the CoM of the ball at any point, from starting the motion through to when the motion is fully underway. With no torque ever applied about the CoM of the ball, there can be no rotation of the ball about an axis passing through the ball itself, regardless of reference frame.
Obviously, you cannot answer my question.
Graham D. Warner obviously can’t concede directly that the ball starts to spin after the string has been cut simply because it was spinning when it was attached by a string. So he has to come up with such marvelous verbiage as “the tangential velocities of the parts of the ball are different”.
Perhaps he can conceive of a way for a ball to have differing tangential velocities parts without spinning?
In any event, how he tries to suggest that the string is attached inside the ball is quite fascinating.
The parts of the ball have different tangential velocities because, prior to being thrown off, the ball is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, without rotating about an axis that passes through the ball itself. On being thrown off, and suddenly moving off in a straight line, those differing velocities produce a torque about the ball’s CoM at the moment of release. This is what Tesla argued over a hundred years ago.
As you should know.
Still can’t answer my question?
So after all these years Graham D. Warner still can’t distinguish a carousel that is fixed on its internal axis, and a carousel that would also rotate on an external platform:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMd0K9C5-ZA
No wonder he’s trying to suggest that frames of reference don’t matter for his toy model!
A weird non-sequitur from Willard, there.
Obviously, he doesn’t understand, but let’s answer my question anyway.
The “Spinners” model of “orbit without spin”, the “frictionless yo-yo”, only has a connection at the CoM. This does not represent the fact that gravity acts on every single atom of the orbiting body simultaneously, not just at the CoM. To better represent that fact, you would need two other strings, connected to the outer body of the yo-yo, located either side of the central string. It would then, of course, move like the MOTL rather than the MOTR (“moon on the right”).
And that, basically, is why the “Non-Spinners” are right.
Graham D. Warner shows he doesn’t understand what’s a non sequitur either.
Allow his best buddy to explain:
Astute readers should recall that last month’s theme was tidal locking. This month will be frames of reference.
That’s wrong, Willard. No torque applied at any point about the ball’s CoM means that, objectively (e.g. regardless of frame of reference) the ball is not spinning. I know, this is hard enough for people who do have knowledge of the relevant science to grasp, let alone you, Willard.
Graham D. Warner keeps confusing himself. A center of mass is relative to a system. An object has a center of mass when studied as an isolated rigid body.
He might as well argue that, because the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is 4,700 km away from the Earth’s centre, the Earth cannot be spinning on its axis, because CoM, torque, or whatnot!
No confusion here. The moon issue was settled in the “Non-Spinners’” favour at 7:55 AM.
You’ll probably continue, but that’s just because you’re a troll.
Graham D. Warner has indeed confused himself by burning down a strawman so intensely that, by his own logic, no celestial body could ever spin.
Until Moon Dragon cranks can produce a numerical model, Team Science can safely ignore them.
It looks like this:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/scan/manifest/1981M&P….24..281C
Astute readers might notice figure 1, with body- and inertially- fixed axes.
Don’t be silly, Willard. It’s not the case that by my logic, no celestial body could ever spin.
Again, the “perfect tetherball” is a model of “orbit without spin”, so there is no requirement for the ball to be able to spin. If you were to apply a torque about the CoM of the ball while it was orbiting the pole, of course the tension in the string would prevent the ball spinning.
Nobody is suggesting gravity can do that. I’m not suggesting gravity holds onto an orbiting body such that it’s unable to spin.
What is being suggested is that a torque about the CoM of the orbiting body would be required for it to move differently than the MOTL.
While your responses enable me to clarify my position, it’s worth continuing to respond to your nonsense. So, we can carry on for a bit longer (as you’re obviously a bit bored and needy of my attention at the moment).
Graham D. Warner won’t follow through his own logic, but instead will produce this other gem: “there is no requirement for the ball to be able to spin” because he has balls and strings!
Perhaps he forgot to tell us why the Man on the Moon always faces us without being “forced” by something like a string? And if he says it’s gravity, then he’ll have a hard time explaining why some moons are not perfectly synchronized!
Meanwhile, let’s produce another numerical model:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9103288
Astute readers might wonder why would Team Science do any of that when it could simply asked Moon Dragon cranks about their balls on strings?
Willard, everything has already been explained. It’s not my fault you’re thick.
Let’s spell out Graham D. Warner’s latest “argument”:
Team Science has numerical models of the motion of the Moon.
In each of them it spins.
They do not need balls and strings.
But Team Science is sport: it would still be nice if Moon Dragon cranks could propose a numerical model!
You can express what I’ve explained numerically if you so wish, Willard. Knock yourself out.
Of course, you would first need to actually understand what I’ve explained. Then you would need to be capable of honestly representing it. Then you would need to learn maths.
So, there’s three big reasons why that’s never going to happen.
It is indeed easier Team Science to express what Dragon cranks express than to wait for them to produce anything useful.
For instance: take any orbiting celestial object O. Its orbit contains translation T. T implies that every particle of O moves. This contradicts what Graham D. Warner said about torques. Ergo, no celestial object can torque.
While they still wait for a numerical model of the Sky dragon universe, astute readers might wonder how Graham D. Warner can find torques without fixing any frame of reference.
More tedious gibberish from the most relentless troll ever to curse this blog.
Graham D. Warner does not even realize that he his “demonstration” rests on his “pure rotation” crap.
Sometimes he’s just cute like that. Some other times, he’s less so:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
If you say so, Willard.
Just a reminder that today is the day Iran’s pipelines are supposed to just explode!
Also a reminder that the President of the United States, and the dumbest individual on Earth, should be two different people!
You have a long history of electing dummies into power,having said that we in the UK have a government full of dummies,some still believe we have a climate crisis, even though not one of them has ever seen a climate crisis,
1/ Yes, we have elected dummies in the past but always had strong institutional constraints and support structures. Checks and balances by Constitutional design, a competent cabinet, and the institutional memory of career officials compensated for the actions of a bungling executive. Trump is doing away with those guardrails and replacing them with his “I alone can fix it” philosophy.
2/ A “crisis” is not a physical quantity one can “see” in the way one sees a storm, a flood or a fire. Whether a situation is a “crisis” involves a judgment call about the severity, risks, and time horizons associated with observed changes in the relevant physical variables.
Imagine for example that a grease fire starts in your kitchen. The physical variables you observe are a flame on the stove top, rising temperature, smoke accumulation, maybe the fire spreading beyond the pan. Whether you call that situation a “crisis” is not an additional observable, it’s a judgment layered onto those observations that depends on: is the fire spreading or contained, do you have a lid or fire extinguisher close by and in working order, could the whole kitchen or house burn down, how much time do you have before the situation becomes uncontrollable, etc.
Two people could witness the same initial flame and differ in their classification. An experienced cook with a fire extinguisher within reach may judge it manageable; another person, lacking tools or confidence, may immediately regard it as a crisis. The underlying physical reality is identical, but the label reflects an assessment of risk, control, and consequence. Different individuals looking at the same underlying data may arrive at different labels not because they dispute their observations but because they differ on those judgments.
The same structure applies more broadly. “Crisis” is not something directly “seen,” but a conclusion drawn from observed conditions relative to thresholds that are partly technical and partly value-based.
IMO
April UAH results will be out in a few days. Not expecting a big change from March, maybe slightly lower, say 0.36 °C.
South PV is strengthening as El Niño tries to start.
The most recent update on April 23rd of equatorial Pacific subsurface anomalies have reached a record high thanks to a massive WWB that was asided at the end of it by a very slow moving tropical system in the NPAC while at the same time a poorly organized tropical disturbance in the SPAC helped reinforce the incredible WWB.
This WWB was so long it produced a massive Kelvin wave. But you can actually see 2 distinct waves the first part was slower but huge and is currently spreading Eastward under the surface in the ENSO3 area. The one from January has already reached the SA coast and is responsible for the recent ENSO 1-2 warming.
There is a massive stretched out Kelvin wave with an area of 5-8C+ subsurface anomalies from 175W to 115W that is over 100 meters thick throughput almost all of it. Slightly West of that a smaller blob of warmth also peaking above 5C+ is between 145E and 175E.
The thermocline is flattering out ahead of long range forecasts that came out from March and early April.
As of the April 23rd update all 4 enso regions now have warm anomalies.
Current MJO forecasts show the active phase centered along 140E to 160W over June and July. With moderate positive Westerly wind anomalies centered between 140E and 180E/W through the next 3 months with 2 or 3 moderate Kelvin wave reinforcing WWBs.
CONCLUSION: we are likely looking at a monthly RONI reaching 1.5C+ from July through the end of the year. Likely averaging around 2C for the last 4 months of the year.
The high end outcome is going to be near, at, or slightly above record territory. Sub surface 0-300M weekly anomalies in the 2015 Nino peaked at 2.1C+ currently they are at 2.2C+ with the warm pooling still ramping up.
The current peak is a small sliver of 8C+. Which is a testimate to the veracity of the current Kelvin wave.
UAH CONCLUSION: looks like we will probably have 1.0C+ monthly anomalies either later this year or 2017.
Which mean the 2020s will likely end with monthlies not going below .50C ever again after this nino.
El Niño trying to start
Uuuuuuuuuhhhhh
https://i.postimg.cc/KjZG3G7Y/nino34Mon-060426.png
Uuuuuuuuuhhhhh
https://i.postimg.cc/FKDDXGWm/nino34Mon-300426.png
Woooaaahhh! Is that hard to start this year, people…
Second request Bindi, where did I ever state ‘while the Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars, it doesn’t wrt Earth?
Provide the link. You can’t. You’re a phony.
That’s many years ago, little ball-on-a-string boy.
The blog has removed all these comments in between; search yourself for that in the Web Archive!
You can’t provide a link to me saying that because I never said it. You just made it up.
You’re a phony. Just like when you claimed you had “proof” Moon spins, but you had NOTHING.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
[BIN] El Nino trying to start
[PUFF] where did I ever state “while the Moon”
Why do you keep stalking Binny?
Oh, and take a look here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/10/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-september-2025-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1718805
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
All good points. Just more reality. Thanks for sharing.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
[PUFFMAN] Where did I ever state ‘while the Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars, it doesn’t wrt Earth’? Provide the link. You can’t. You’re a phony.
[ALSO PUFFMAN] As has been explained MANY times, Newton was referring to “revolving with respect to the fixed stars“. But with respect to Earth, or respect to its orbital path, Moon is NOT rotating. There is NO angular momentum about its CoM.
How is the claim you denied having made compatible with the idea that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, and how is it related to the Poll Dance Experiment?
You don’t need to keep proving Bindi is a phony. It’s a well-documented fact.
“How is the claim you denied having made compatible with the idea that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue…”
Strictly-speaking it’s not compatible, but then what he’s said there is not the only thing Clint has written about reference frames. From other things he has said, I know that he “gets it”.
If a choice of reference frame was the only thing that decided whether the moon spins or not then the moon issue would have no resolution. We’d never be able to definitively say one way or another whether or not it spins.
The moon issue actually comes down to whether “orbit without spin” is modelled by something like a ball on a string or something moving like the MOTR. And, I think that question is resolved by the “perfect tetherball example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735907
Our two Moon Dragon cranks are having a hard time keeping their stories straight.
Puffman could easily prove that his story is compatible with Graham’s. All he would need is to say that the Moon does not spin irrespective of the frame of reference. His wording fails to clarify that small detail.
Meanwhile, here’s Isaac:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/yes-virginia-there-is-a-climate-crisis/#comment-1513166
Caps lock not in the original. Revolution about its axis. Periodic revolution in its orb. Simple enough, even for 18th century readers.
Considering Moon Dragon cranks, perhaps Isaac should have used them.
Willard proves once again that he’s just looking to score imaginary points, and has no interest in (or ability to understand) the relevant science.
Graham D. Warner fails again:
Op. Cit.
One day he’ll fail better.
Balls on strings may not be the way to do so.
OK, Willard (you don’t understand and never will, and that’s OK).
> If a choice of reference frame was the only thing
Graham is confusing necessity with sufficiency.
That one may need a hammer to build a house doesn’t imply that one can build a house with only a hammer.
Some really do argue that reference frames alone resolve the moon issue.
Willard says:
”Our in-house astrologer is pulling a few tricks here:
1. An unsupported “most likely”;”
Most likely because it is the only named physical phenomena that could explain it Willard.
2. A non-existent quasi-millennial cycle.
recognized by NOAA.
3. An inflated Greenland that isn’t that “large” for global reconstructions.
there are a lot more arguments that global reconstructions actually deflate natural climate changes. That arises out of large errors in dating technologies. Why in the world do our institutions want to do that that? But note you said ”inflated”- -yeah thats from the hot air you are expelling.
Also consider that ice cores represent mixed gases over about a 100 years as the firn solidifies.
Google AI:
”Solidification of the firn in ice cores refers to the process of firnification, where accumulated, porous snow is gradually transformed into dense, impermeable glacial ice. This process is crucial for understanding the chronological accuracy of ice cores, as it creates an “ice–air age difference” where the trapped gas bubbles are significantly younger than the surrounding ice, often by 100 to 1,000 years.”
What do you think that does with regards to our monthly monitoring of the global climate?
Willard is just saying stuff once more.
LOL!
More argument by assertion by our in-house astrologer:
– “it is the only named physical phenomena that could explain it”
– “recognized by NOAA”
More goalposts moving:
– “there are a lot more arguments that global reconstructions actually deflate natural climate changes”
– “Also consider that ice cores represent mixed gases over about a 100 years as the firn solidifies.”
ROFL!
willard has been rendered speechless.
Gill keeps asking for sammiches.
ROFL!
Bringing some reality to the cult kids always gets the same kind of unscientific responses. So, it’s worth repeating, this time with emphasis.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/lw19/docs/2014/Papers/3092_Bourgoin_paper.pdf
Do you only have balls on strings to oppose to that kind of numerical model, and when will you do the Pole Dance Experiment?
Child Willard makes the same mistake as Bindi. He finds something he can’t understand and believes it means something. He’s impressed with things like things like “differential equations”, not realizing you could also write differential equations for a ball-on-a-string. That doesn’t mean the ball is spinning!
Kids these days….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742565
Where did you ever show any understanding of the Moon issue? Provide the link. You can’t, because you’re a joke.
Alternatively, do the Pole Dance Experiment.
For God’s sake – will nobody stop this person flogging a dead horse?
Unfortunately you can’t stop Willard – he’ll keep trolling for the rest of his life. Shame.
It’s often striking how certain scientific misconceptions persist in these discussion threads. They are not necessarily cases of pseudoscience, but rather instances of poorly understood or misapplied scientific principles. It’s as if concepts were learned incompletely, reinforced socially (confirmation bias), and then repeated without careful fact checking.
A common example is conflating the greenhouse effect with global warming. The former being a well-established physical process necessary for Earth’s habitability; the latter referring to changes in that process due to altered atmospheric composition. Rejecting one because of discomfort with the other reflects a conceptual error rather than a scientific dispute.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired” wrote Jonathan Swift in 1721. Meaning that, beliefs not grounded in careful reasoning are difficult to correct through reasoning alone, not impossible, but it does explain why the same misconceptions tend to recur.
I thought of this after re-reading Dr Spencer’s post of August 9th, 2024 where he says that he has a policy to “let bad science be expressed here if it’s done respectfully, and then let others attempt to correct it.” That’s all.
Now, let the insults and “woe is me” begin.
Ark, do you have something scientific to offer, or you only here to promote your cult? Your track record shows you’re more interested in trashing Trump than in science.
You try to appear like you know some science. Want to take a short, easy quiz?
1. Does the imaginary black body allow people to ignore 2LoT?
2. If Earth had no nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere, would surface temperature be higher or lower than 288K?
3. From basic physics, how do we know Moon is NOT spinning?
I’m increasingly convinced that you can’t read, won’t read, and if you do somehow manage to puzzle out a few lines you are utterly incapable of comprehension at anything above the most basic of concepts.
3 days later and Ark has STILL not answered the easy questions.
He was likely hoping I wouldn’t see his attempt to avoid the science.
Kids these days….
ark…”A common example is conflating the greenhouse effect with global warming. The former being a well-established physical process necessary for Earth’s habitability; the latter referring to changes in that process due to altered atmospheric composition”.
***
The main reason the GHE is being rejected is the faulty premise on which it is based. A real greenhouse employs glass to block the natural upward convection of air molecules after they have been heated inside the greenhouse. There is no such equivalent effect in the atmosphere. There is simply nothing to block the upward convection of surface heat.
As that heat rises via convection, the air expands into an ever decreasing convection gradient which is so negative that by 30,000 feet, the air pressure has reduced to 1/3rd its value at sea level. Naturally. temperature being directly proportional to pressure, the air temperature drops to 1/3rd its value at sea level, at least.
Ergo, the negative pressure gradient serves to dissipate heat as well, making it unnecessary for that heat to be radiated to space.
The GHE theory is based on the incorrect notion that the glass is blocking infrared radiation and that the blocked IR is recycled and warming the greenhouse air, an impossibility. That leads us into the expanded GHE. the AGW, which claims that so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can not only trap heat, they can radiate heat back to the surface so as to raise surface temperatures, another impossibility.
The problem here is a misunderstanding of the relationship between infrared energy and heat. Surface heat cannot be trapped by GHGs for the simply reason that the related surface heat is totally dissipated at the instant the IR was created. When sunlight warms the vegetation and infrastructure of a real greenhouse, those entities radiate IR which is subsequently blocked by the glass.
However, the blocked IR cannot rewarm the air to raise its temperature, since that would represent perpetual motion. For the same reason, IR back-radiated from GHGs cannot produce heat in the surface, plus the fact the radiating molecules are cooler than the surface and the 2nd law forbids a transfer of heat in that situation.
That’s why GHE and AGW warming cannot be corroborated in science, only by consensus and unvalidated climate models which have been incorrectly programmed.
I have offered an alternate theory for why the atmosphere warms and retains heat. There are roughly 10^28 air molecules in contact with the surface per metre squared. Each molecule can absorb heat directly from the surface then transport that heat via convection high into the atmosphere. That process takes time and is 260 times more effective at cooling the surface than radiation alone.
Furthermore, the Tropics has the hottest surface on the planet therefore more heat is convected from the surface into the atmosphere. That heated air is also convected poleward, transferring heat via convection northward and southward. Here in the Vancouver, Canada area, we have a much milder climate than the rest of Canada due to such convective processes, not only in the atmosphere but in the oceans.
Furthermore, in winter, super cold air from the Arctic is convected southward as far south as Florida and Texas at times. We can bet on that super cold air each winter due to the Earth’s orbit and axial inclination. No amount of CO2 can affect that cooling in winter.
Once you violate the First Law of Thermodynamics as applied to the Earth system, the rest of the argument no longer holds.
Earth gains energy primarily as SW solar radiation and can lose energy only as LW radiation to space. Convection, conduction, and latent heat transfer redistribute energy within the atmosphere-surface system; they do not provide a pathway for energy to leave the planet.
Therefore, any claim that upward transport makes radiation to space unnecessary is inconsistent with basic energy conservation.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
Once you violate the First Law of Thermodynamics as applied to the Earth system, the rest of the argument no longer holds.
Earth gains energy primarily as SW solar radiation and can lose energy only as LW radiation to space. Convection, conduction, and latent heat transfer redistribute energy within the atmosphere-surface system; they do not provide a pathway for energy to leave the planet.
Therefore, any claim that upward transport makes radiation to space unnecessary is inconsistent with basic energy conservation.
——————–
Thats a strawman Arkady. Nobody said GHE don’t radiate heat to space. In fact they are so efficient at that they maintain the atmosphere in the troposphere at a near steady temperature cooled from the surface airs it consists of despite convection constantly replacing cooled air with surface air. If it weren’t for GHGs convection would move the hottest airs on earth to the upper troposphere and then uniformly distribute it and the atmosphere would gradually warm from there by conduction to a uniform temperature more akin of noon than midnight. Instead of a hairbrained static atmosphere that loses its cooling ability with altitude you would be begging for any cooling ability at all of atmospheric airs.
Currently the maintenance of temperatures at altitude is greatly dependent upon condensation occurring would not a warmer upper atmosphere encourage higher quantities of non-condensed water vapor ever higher as a negative feedback? this discussion really presents a challenge as condensation has a temperature element to it. Already there is a massive warming occurring at cloud tops from supercooled water vapor taking temperatures 10’s of degrees below freezing back up to the cusp of the melting point at 0k establishing a zone where the lapse rate dramatically changes from its moist rate to its dry rate. As Roy has constantly pointed out this area of climate science appears stuck on a bad convective model. . .most likely because of such a huge bias toward the idea of having an increasing greenhouse effect that has been funding universities for decades.
Meanwhile mean annual global insolation gets cursory looks at all the factors and avenues that such a thing could occur bringing about a 900 year cycle in ice cores estimated as varying between about 1.75degrees and 3 degrees in central greenland. Our universities lacking almost entirely in curiosity as to the the cause of that just wave their arms in the air shouting no no no don’t go there! Put it in a major modeling budget and see what the directors say.
After all they have super computers they can inquire about asking about the likelihood of a planet 9 to tell them given observed orbit perturbations in Neptune what in the universe could explain it and they come back with answers one being a planet maybe 10 times the size of planet earth distant from the sun:
Google AI:
”According to current mathematical models, Planet Nine is estimated to be roughly 20 times farther from the Sun than Neptune on average. Because it follows a highly elongated (eccentric) orbit, its distance varies significantly: Average Distance: Approximately 460 to 550 AU (43 to 51 billion miles). Closest Approach (Perihelion): About 200 to 300 AU (18 to 28 billion miles).Farthest Point (Aphelion): Estimated between 600 and 1,200 AU (56 to 112 billion miles).”
and ”Planet 9 is estimated to have an orbital period of 10,000 to 20,000 Earth years to complete one revolution around the Sun.”
Whether that’s correct or not the main orbit perturbation effect has an annual effect on earth about the same as Neptune because of the primary effect occurring when the perturbed planet, perturbing planet and the sun populate the points of a right triangle with the perturbed planet at point C on the right angle.
”By 1845, Uranus had completed nearly one full revolution around the Sun (from its discovery in 1781) and astronomers Urbain Jean-Joseph Le Verrier in Paris and John Couch Adams in Cambridge, England, independently calculated the location of this postulated planet. Based on Le Verrier’s calculations, on the night of Sept. 23-24, 1846, astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle used the Fraunhofer telescope at the Berlin Observatory and made the first observations of the new planet, only 1 degree from its calculated position.”
bill hunter at 10:01 AM says: “Nobody said GHE don’t radiate heat to space.”
Gordon Robertson at 9:46 PM said: “Ergo, the negative pressure gradient serves to dissipate heat as well, making it unnecessary for that heat to be radiated to space.” That’s a layup.
He will next try to avoid the constraint of global energy balance by redefining the First Law so that it no longer applies to radiative energy or to the Earth system. This is flatly wrong since Clausius made no carve-out for radiative systems; the principle is universal and applies to all forms of energy and all physical systems.
Electromagnetic radiation is energy. When a b s o r b e d, it becomes internal energy; when emitted, it leaves as radiation. The Sun-Earth system is therefore a straightforward application of the First Law, not an exception to it.
Now, I need to go see a man about a horse.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
bill hunter at 10:01 AM says: “Nobody said GHE don’t radiate heat to space.”
Gordon Robertson at 9:46 PM said: “Ergo, the negative pressure gradient serves to dissipate heat as well, making it unnecessary for that heat to be radiated to space.” That’s a layup.
——————–
Well that certainly isn’t the GHE Ark. Are you claiming that energy converted by work to potential energy has to radiate to space to avoid warming the surface? I don’t know for sure if Gordon was saying that but that is what happens when energy is submitted to depressurization at altitude it cools according to the gas laws proportional to the loss in pressure and becomes unavailable to radiate to space.
Then the remaining kinetic energy is available to radiate to space. Then when warmer airs rise and push down the cooled air, the air regains some of the kinetic energy it lost going up.
You better get somebody to help you negotiate for that horse.
binny…”That’s many years ago, little ball-on-a-string boy”.
***
You have never explained your objection to the BOS model. It’s a perfectly good model and it was replicated by Tesla in an argument where he had the Earth connected to the Moon by a rigid connection.
If you could connect the Earth and Moon with a solid connection, the Moon would have to keep the same face pointed at Earth. Why do you have so much trouble with that form of curvilinear motion without local rotation?
https://share.google/aimode/FiTMcFFct7oNJ1fv1
DREMT
Good job! That link explains what goes on with the GHE. Maybe now you will understand how it works. Gordon Robertson and Clint R never will, not possible for them to grasp the process. Maybe there is some hope with your thought process.
It kind of does not matter how wrong Gordon Robertson and Clint R are about heat transfer. Since they do not work for any engineering firms that require an understanding of correct heat transfer their posts have no bearing on reality. They would both get fired from any job related to heat transfer if they were on an engineering team. There lack of understanding the basics would not allow them to design any working heat exchange systems. It is hopeless to expect either to gain understanding. Gordon can’t understand molecular vibrations with dipoles that will produce correct frequency of IR that matches the dipole vibrational state.
Perfect example of Norman’s cultism. The link clearly recognizes the CO2 nonsense. But poor Norman can’t even understand the simple explanation. He just starts attacking others with false accusations.
Nothing new….
Try to understand, Norman, that I’ve always understood exactly how the GHE is supposed to work. You obviously haven’t read through the whole discussion at the link.
To start with, when you type the following into the Google search bar:
“You have a powered blackbody object alone in space. It comes to one temperature, temperature X. If you now enclose the object in a blackbody cavity, with no power source in the walls of the cavity, will the object’s temperature increase to temperature Y, bearing in mind there is no reflection from the cavity walls, only absorption and emission, and also that a system cannot spontaneously rise to a higher energy state than its source allows?”
You will sometimes get a “yes” response, detailing “climate science thermodynamics”, and you will sometimes get a “no” response, detailing “actual thermodynamics”. Try it. If you get a “yes” response, keep refreshing your screen until you get a “no” response.
The discussion I had with Google AI starts by questioning why the AI seems to be trained on two different sets of information, thus returning two diametrically opposing answers.
“DREMT says: The discussion I had with Google AI starts by questioning why the AI seems to be trained on two different sets of information, thus returning two diametrically opposing answers.”
What would you say you’ve learned, if anything, from this interaction with the AI? If nothing, then why bother sharing it?
The AI begins by parroting “climate science thermodynamics”, but by the end seems to recognise that the “actual thermodynamics” I have explained has merit. In a relatively short interaction, we made more progress than I’ve made in months on here (if not years). The AI was able to immediately see the logic in the “build up of internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object” argument and fully conceded that point almost immediately – unlike Nate and barry….
…the AI was also polite, and able to refrain from false accusations and insults.
In short, the artificial intelligence displayed more actual intelligence, integrity and decency than most of the GHE Defence Team has displayed in eight years.
I also shared the interaction because obviously the “no” responses to my initial query come from somewhere – they aren’t “hallucinations” as it happens too regularly for that, and the information is clearly and consistently presented. In other words – I’m not making it up. It doesn’t originate from me, or Clint, or Gordon, or anyone posting on here. There really is a school of thought that says the powered object will not warm beyond temperature X due to 2LoT. And, I contend that this school of thought predates “climate science thermodynamics”, and is, in fact, “actual thermodynamics”.
There is no such thing as ‘climate science thermodynamics’. There is only Thermodynamics. And the AI gave you it, correctly.
Nate says:
”There is no such thing as ‘climate science thermodynamics’.”
Well it sure is indeed a fact that ‘climate science thermodynamics’ from the perspective of you and most of your fellow spinner bloggers has very little in common with ‘thermodynamics’. Though it is nearly perfectly in step with a certain political science persuasion.
> it sure is indeed a fact
A fact only a few Sky Dragon cranks seems to know.
Not even Gill’s barber knows it.
ROFL!
Bill,
When we show you correct Thermodynamics, we get crickets from you.
When I showed you the proof that textbook examples, even from your source, demonstrate that blackbodies can radiatively insulate, I get no response from you.
Why?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742023
Nate says:
May 5, 2026 at 6:42 AM
Bill,
”When we show you correct Thermodynamics, we get crickets from you.
When I showed you the proof that textbook examples, even from your source, demonstrate that blackbodies can radiatively insulate, I get no response from you.”
———————
sorry nate but you don’t have a single textbook touting te easter bunny gpe.
all your references are for dual glazings inside the atmosphere. that model doesn’t apply when you seal and insulate the edges of a gpe which is in a vacuum. When you eliminate the insulating value of an airgap you have to actually replace it with insulation to get the same effect. convective heat flux of convection is .5 which means it transports heat at half the rate of radiation.
Wrong.
The equations are derived for purely radiative processes.
The Thermopedia example has no air whatsoever.
Sorry.
Here is a typical “no” response, in other words…”actual thermodynamics” and not “climate science thermodynamics”:
https://ibb.co/jvfyQZY1
https://ibb.co/5gVjNYgL
https://ibb.co/1J7Bm8cN
“Based on the laws of thermodynamics, the object’s temperature will not increase above Temperature X. In fact, if it is placed in an adiabatic (insulated) container, it will likely drop to an equilibrium temperature Teq that is lower than or equal to Temperature X.
Here is the breakdown of why this happens:
Initial State (Space): The powered object emits power [equation], and is in equilibrium.
Final State (Cavity): When enclosed, the object emits radiation, which hits the cavity walls and is absorbed. Because the walls are black, they re-emit that energy back to the object.
No Spontaneous Increase: According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cooler body to a hotter body. The cavity walls, having no internal power source, cannot emit more energy back to the object than the object emits to them, unless the walls are somehow warmer, which violates the premise.
Equilibrium: The system will reach thermal equilibrium where the powered object’s temperature will either stay at Tx (if the cavity is perfectly insulated and nothing escapes) or, more likely, it will settle to a final temperature Tx less than or equal to Ty depending on the efficiency of heat dissipation within the cavity, but it cannot spontaneously increase to a higher temperature (Ty > Tx) because that would mean the cavity is feeding more energy back to the object than it received, creating a perpetual motion machine.”
My mistake…this sentence:
“…it will settle to a final temperature Tx less than or equal to Ty”
Should read:
“…it will settle to a final temperature Ty less than or equal to Tx”.
I struggled in copying across the text from the screenshots. That’s actually expressed in symbols, which wouldn’t copy and paste correctly, and in writing it out in full I somehow switched the Tx and Ty. Anyway, I’m sure you got the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW4Gdsnr2Bg
There is a misunderstanding of the idea that all energy delivered to Earth by the Sun must be balanced by an equal energy output, in real time. I have offered an alternative to that theory and I have seen no scientific rebuttal. In fact, when I based an anti-GHG, anti-AGW argument, on a contradiction of the 2nd law, Ark countered with an argument based on the 1st Law.
There is nothing in the 1st law that suggests all energies must be balanced with regard to energy in versus energy out. The 1st Law is about heat and work only, two forms of energy that have a direct relationship re the conversion of one to another. No such law applies to the Sun-Earth system, which features largely a conversion from electromagnetic energy to heat and vice-versa.
The scientist, Joule, introduced the equivalence between heat calories and work joules circa 1840, and I know of no other such relationship between energy forms. One might claim such a conversion between EM and heat, but where is it? One must be careful with such relationships where variations in temperature, pressure, and volume are considered. More on that later.
The 1st Law is not about a conversion of EM to heat and vice versa it applies only to the interaction of heat and work. Why the 1st Law is associated with conservation of all energy has never been made clear. I think that idea stemmed from scientist in the 19th century making incorrect assumptions about what energy is and how it manifests wrt to its effect on atomic structure.
We still have no idea what energy is but we have learned a lot about atomic structure. We now understand the relationship of heat and atomic structure, namely about electrons and how they interact with EM and heat (kinetic energy related to atomic structure).
It is blatantly obvious that heat can, and is, dissipated within our atmosphere to a large extent, making it unnecessary to radiate as much outwardly as is given inwardly from the Sun. The Earth not only dissipates heat it retains it for long periods of time and both those examples better explain the GHE of the alarmist definition, albeit a misnomer.
Besides, the GHE, as worded, is a major lie. It has nothing to do with the real greenhouse after which it is named. The real greenhouse effect is about a lack of convection and the atmosphere is rife with convection. Heat retention in our atmosphere is not about a roof trapping heat via air molecules, it is about the properties of atoms and molecules and the KE of each.
If you can dissipate the KE in a molecule you dissipate its heating effect. That is exactly what the negative pressure gradient, due to gravity, does in our atmosphere. As molecules rise, they lose KE, and eventually that KE disappears with altitude to a level that is below the warming threshold created by the Sun. The loss of KE is a loss of heat, therefore much of the surface heat absorbed and carried vertically due to convection, gradually reduces to a low level.
If you have any gas in a container, and you reduce the pressure, the gas will cool. Our atmosphere has a very natural reduction in pressure with altitude. There is nothing magical going on, heat is directly proportional to the KE of atoms/molecules in a gas, and we human have introduced a measure for that heat we call temperature. If you reduce the number of atoms/molecules in a gas you reduce the pressure and the temperature.
If the KE did not reduce, the molecules would escape the atmosphere. However, as the KE is reduced by altitude, gravity drags them back in. That’s why we have an atmosphere and why the atmosphere moves with the surface. Gravity holds our atmosphere near the surface.
The mistake in the energy in-energy out argument is the mistaken idea that energy is some kind of fluid that must be conserved. If you have a simple energy conversion from one form of energy to another, then energy must be conserved. However, if there are intervening changes in pressure, temperature, and pressure, as in Earth’s atmosphere, conservation of energy no longer applies. Heat is simply reduced along with pressure with altitude.
Norman is taking me on re mistakes in textbooks. He seems to think all textbooks are accurate and I know that is not true. I have given an example from electrical engineering where it is still taught that electric current flows positive to negative, a major lie. They justify that lie by claiming it is by definition, or conventional, but that does not make it any less a lie.
The truth is that people who perpetuate this lie are strong traditionalists who value history and paradigms over science. Conventional current flow was established by Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century and his theory, albeit incorrect, has survived all these years due to ijits who are anal about change. By the same token, the same traditionalists in the thermodynamics/ mechanical engineering fields, hang onto the old theories of Kircheoff as related to blackbody theory.
If you read the fine print, each EE textbook admits that electrons flow negative to positive. But, they also admit that the ampere, a measure of current flow, is measured in coulombs, a measure of the electric charge carried by electrons. Electrons are repelled by electrons and the notion that they flow into the negative charge at a negative terminal of a power supply is absurd. Those who abide by the conventional current flow theory fail to indicate what kind of positive charge is flowing.
Surely, mechanical engineering textbooks that claim heat can be transferred cold to hot via radiation, are engaging in the same kind of lie. Not one of them I have seen give a quantitative example of such a heat flow. Every example is given merely as a thought experiment in which their claim is allegedly true.
In mechanical engineering textbooks, examples are often given where heat flows by conduction, convection, and radiation in the same problem. In both conduction and convection, heat always flows from hotter bodies to cooler bodies, and they cannot very well have the same hat circuit suddenly reverse cold to hot in the same heat circuit. Yet, the stubbornly claim in thought experiments that heat can be transferred both ways via radiation.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “In both conduction and convection, heat always flows from hotter bodies to cooler bodies, and they cannot very well have the same hat circuit suddenly reverse cold to hot in the same heat circuit. Yet, the stubbornly claim in thought experiments that heat can be transferred both ways via radiation.”
I think it has been told to you maybe a million or so times. The definition of “heat” used in science has changed over time. Heat is the energy that transfers from hot to cold.
It conduction energy still goes both ways, heat goes one way. In a collision of a higher energy molecule with a slower one, the energy is a two way transfer. The slower molecule gains energy from the higher energy one, yet the higher energy one will receive energy from the slower one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
In the link they have some graphics that show energy transfer in different situations.
Energy will flow both ways in conduction or radiative heat transfer. Always has and always will. Heat is the NET energy transfer which is always from the hot to the cold. The cold definitely alters the rate of energy loss of the hotter one both in conduction and radiative transfer. The warmer the cold side the rate of heat transfer is reduced.
Gordon says:
”Yet, the stubbornly claim in thought experiments that heat can be transferred both ways via radiation.”
Noman says:
Energy will flow both ways in conduction or radiative heat transfer. Always has and always will. Heat is the NET energy transfer which is always from the hot to the cold.
Gee where is the difference between what the two of you are saying? how are you disagreeing by agreeing? What is the catch?
Norman, why do you comment as “Noman”? Are you fantasizing about a sex change?
Yes, you know more about “heat” than gordon, but you still don’t understand radiative heat. Flux from a colder object does NOT alter “the rate of energy loss of the hotter one”. You’re STILL believing ice cubes can boil water!
Like gordon, you have no background in radiative physics.
Good luck with the sex change operation….
[BORDO] In both conduction and convection, heat always flows from hotter bodies to cooler bodies, and they cannot very well have the same hat circuit suddenly reverse cold to hot in the same heat circuit. Yet, the stubbornly claim in thought experiments that heat can be transferred both ways via radiation.
[NORMAN] I think it has been told to you maybe a million or so times. The definition of “heat” used in science has changed over time. Heat is the energy that transfers from hot to cold. Energy will flow both ways in conduction or radiative heat transfer. Always has and always will. Heat is the NET energy transfer which is always from the hot to the cold. The cold definitely alters the rate of energy loss of the hotter one both in conduction and radiative transfer. The warmer the cold side the rate of heat transfer is reduced.
[GILL] Gee where is the difference between what the two of you are saying?
ROFL!
Clint R
YOU: “Yes, you know more about “heat” than gordon, but you still don’t understand radiative heat. Flux from a colder object does NOT alter “the rate of energy loss of the hotter one”. You’re STILL believing ice cubes can boil water!”
You are just wrong on this Clint R. That is why you can post your bad science on this blog but would be fired from any engineering firm designing equipment involved in heat transfer. Repeating false science 10,000+ times will not suddenly make it real. I have requested from you experimental evidence to support your fake made up science, to date you have provided zero. I have requested you supply a valid textbook on heat transfer that state a colder object does not alter the rate of heat transfer of a hotter object and to date you have supplied zero. Contrary to your phony posts and misleading science, I have provided textbook support for the reality that the temperature of a colder surroundings does indeed alter the temperature of a heated hot object.
Here is experimental proof you are just making up garbage (it is what you do and so far not one poster has altered this).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Clint R
And here is a link showing your are full of poo-poo and have no clue of what you are talking about. If you can, provide evidence this link is not sound science. If you can’t then quit posting for 90 days!
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
They provide a radiant heat transfer calculator for you to check out your fantasy physics (not based upon anything but your beliefs).
Change nothing but the cold temperature in the calculator and you will get different amounts of heat transfer. You can say the calculator is wrong, but then you need to come up with valid evidence it is wrong. I wish other posters would finally see that you just make up stuff. I think you have DREMT conned maybe a handful of others. None of the posters with science backgrounds even slightly believes you know any physics. If you don’t like insults then post real science. If you post garbage as fact expect a lot of insults and ridicule. This is a science blog invaded by those who just make up bad unsupported ideas. You and Gordon Robertson are excellent at making up false science. Terrible in understanding real science or what it is based upon.
Norman, you have forgotten the rules — no insults or false accusations, if you want to learn science.
Feel free to try again….
bill…the difference is that I do not accept that heat can be transferred both ways between hot and cold. Norman is wrong about heat transfer being a net exchange of energy, there is no net in the 2nd law.
Clausius stated the 2nd law in words as follows: Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means, from cold to hot. The phrase ‘by its own means’ says it all. To transfer heat cold to hot, one needs a compressor, that compresses a low pressure gas to a high pressure, high temperature liquid via a refrigerant, and an apparatus like a radiator to vent the increased temperature to a warmer area.
The low temperature gas absorbs heat at a lower pressure and can vent that heat to a hotter gas like the atmosphere by increasing its temperature, via compression, to a temperature higher than the atmospheric temperature. Then the 2nd law applies. That leaves a high pressure, low temperature liquid which can be aerated and converted back to a low pressure gas.
Without external power and external equipment, heat can NEVER be transferred in the opposite direction and without such means, there can never be a two way transfer of heat. Norman and Clint are confused by such elementary physics.
Clint has the temerity to claim I am wrong about heat and that his definition is correct, that heat merely defines an energy transfer. When I ask him what form of energy is being transferred, he cannot say. We all know the transfer is a heat transfer therefore Clint claims heat is a transfer of heat.
Clint and Norman are likely well-intentioned but both are built too close to the ground and much of this science goes way over their heads.
“I[n] conduction energy still goes both ways, heat goes one way.”
Great, Norman, you have taken the position that “back-conduction” exists. Now, you should be able to fill us in on the number of arrows between the plates, and the values for the energy flows, when the plates are pushed together and at the same temperature. Here’s one suggestion:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
Note: you cannot have only one arrow between the plates, since you have stated energy goes both ways. So it’s two arrows, or three, for you. Go ahead, and make sure everything balances!
Willard says:
[GILL] Gee where is the difference between what the two of you are saying?
ROFL!
————
what exactly are you trying to say there Willard? Newton defined heat flow as proportional to the difference in temperature.
What difference do you imagine exists between heat flow and net photon flow? Especially since you are rolling of the floor laughing at somebody who just asked what the difference was.
they are both changes proportional to the difference in temperature, always causes heat to flow from hot to cold, and never warms anything warmer at the expense of something cooler.
Are you still stuck inside the Easter Bunny’s fairy tale?
> what exactly are you trying to say there
Gill tries to play dumb to ask for another sammich.
Perhaps he has never read what Bordo said for the last 15 years or so?
Still, let’s help him out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742844
He just needs to find what does this “this” refers to.
But can he?
ROFL!
Willard says:
> what exactly are you trying to say there
Gill tries to play dumb to ask for another sammich.
Perhaps he has never read what Bordo said for the last 15 years or so? Still, let’s help him out:
This is why Norman and many mechanical engineering textbooks are plain wrong
He just needs to find what does this “this” refers to.
But can he?
ROFL!
—————————–
I am not sure Willard. Having a belief in the Easter Bunny’s GPE certainly qualifies. A whole bunch of people are calling the GPE “standard textbook physics” but so far I haven’t seen a textbook with the GPE in it just a loud din in this blog and others that it is.
Having taken courses in this stuff I never ran into the GPE. Quite the contrary as how I learned to deal with the flow of heat is much different than the Easter Bunny’s. But of course all these courses predated the climate change hysterical syndrome infecting large segments of the population, no doubt a disease that led directly to TDS.
Though there certainly are errors in textbooks all the time, thats understandable. It is darn hard to write one without any errors.
Often they are found and corrected in subsequent editions. Often its the students doing the correcting. Such as that infamous case of the students taking the SAT and noting that the professors that prepared it had made a mistake. That led to all the SAT scores of one year being subsequently changed as the question was eliminated from the scores.
I just commented on Norman’s objection to Gordon lacking any objection considering what he said in the post that heat never flows toward cold. But does Norman believe in the Easter Bunny? Do you?
what I learned was backradiation (if there is such a thing) only acts to slow the rate of the target warming extrapolating that to anything else one does at one’s own peril.
The deal with electromagnetics is all we know about it is what we can demonstrate. And from what we demonstrate we imagine systems that work in compliance with those demonstrations. But that doesn’t stop people from extrapolating stuff not demonstrated.
In the case of the GPE demonstrations which actually has a different outcome and folks have figured out why that is. But providing that information to people so deeply and religiously inculcated bounces off them as if the evidence didn’t even exist.
> I am not sure
Yet Bordo wrote a whole screed just for him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742839
Perhaps he should ask his best buddy to read it for him instead of trying to interject Eli’s thought experiment, which Gill lost so many times already?
ROFL!
How are you getting on with your challenge, Norman?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742840
Don’t tell me you’re going to disappear from the scene, only to reappear later on elsewhere in the comments as if nothing ever happened – opinions unchanged, false accusations at the ready?
DREMT
The limk to the graphic is garbage! You have two green arrows of 200 W/m^2. If you believe this is somehow correct, then demonstrate it by linking to valid textbook physics that confirms this nonsense. You will NEVER find a valid source for this graphic.
Your task was not to opine about the graphic, Norman. Try to focus.
Norman, are you admitting you don’t understand the simple graphic? Admitting your deficiencies is a first step to learning.
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
So if you’re interested in learning, here’s an easy way to understand the graphic:
Make a sketch of the plates as if they were in exact contact. Show all flux and temperatures. Notice everything is identical to the correct solution in the graphic above. You’ve just proved the graphic is correct!
Don’t be angry that you got fooled by a bunny rabbit. You’re not the only one….
Sorry if this appears as a duplicate. I have been using the Tor browser to post and decided to try a direct post from Firefox. Noting has appeared thus far so I am trying Tor again.
***
“Gee where is the difference between what the two of you are saying? how are you disagreeing by agreeing? What is the catch?”
***
bill…the difference is that I do not accept that heat can be transferred both ways between hot and cold. Norman is wrong about heat transfer being a net exchange of energy, there is no net in the 2nd law.
Clausius stated the 2nd law in words as follows: Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means, from cold to hot. The phrase ‘by its own means’ says it all. To transfer heat cold to hot, one needs a compressor, that compresses a low pressure gas to a high pressure, high temperature liquid via a refrigerant, and an apparatus like a radiator to vent the increased temperature to a warmer area.
The low temperature gas absorbs heat at a lower pressure and can vent that heat to a hotter gas like the atmosphere by increasing its temperature, via compression, to a temperature higher than the atmospheric temperature. Then the 2nd law applies. That leaves a high pressure, low temperature liquid which can be aerated and converted back to a low pressure gas.
Without external power and external equipment, heat can NEVER be transferred in the opposite direction and without such means, there can never be a two way transfer of heat. Norman and Clint are confused by such elementary physics.
Clint has the temerity to claim I am wrong about heat and that his definition is correct, that heat merely defines an energy transfer. When I ask him what form of energy is being transferred, he cannot say. We all know the transfer is a heat transfer therefore Clint claims heat is a transfer of heat.
Clint and Norman are likely well-intentioned but both are built too close to the ground and much of this science goes way over their heads.
norman…”I think it has been told to you maybe a million or so times. The definition of “heat” used in science has changed over time. Heat is the energy that transfers from hot to cold”.
***
The only thing that has changed is the ordered garbage stored in the minds of those who fail to grasp the simplicity of the energy we call heat, or thermal energy. We have no idea what energy is so we have defined different ‘forms’ of energy based on how energy manifests itself in the universe.
Most people agree that mechanical energy is the energy associated with a force moving a mass. In fact, work, which is a word for mechanical energy, as heat is a word for thermal energy, is defined as work = force x distance. In this case, mass refers to macro quantity which is moved by the force.
In a similar manner, heat refers to the energy related to atomic structure, both externally and internally. Externally, heat is the kinetic energy that causes an atom or molecule to move. In this case, heat is also called the kinetic energy of such particles, and that KE increases as more heat is added.
Again, we have no idea what is added but something sure is added.
Internally, heat is a reference to the KE of electrons in orbitals. Clausius laid all this out in his work and defined internal energy as heat plus the work represented by the vibration of atoms in a mass, gas, or liquid. This proved to be a brilliant insight since it would be another half century before the electron was discovered and Bohr put it all together to define the whole atom in 1913.
This is why Norman and many mechanical engineering textbooks are plain wrong when they refer to a two way transfer of heat. Like electricity, heat can only flow from a higher potential to a lower potential. In the case of electric current, the higher potential is a higher voltage, where the difference in voltages is referred to as a potential difference. Heat is also transferred by electrons in solids but in this case the higher potential is the hotter end of the mass.
It is impossible for heat to flow from the cooler end of a mass to the hotter end, by its on means. Heat cannot flow both ways for the simple reason that electrons don’t work that way. They are far more excited at the hotter end and the energy of excitation (heat) can flow only in one direction, to a less excited, or cooler area.
With radiation, it is the same thing. Electrons in orbitals can only absorb an EM frequency that exactly matches the electron’s orbital angular frequency. If an electron in an atom absorbs heat or EM, it can jump to a higher energy level but only if the frequency of the EM exactly matches the electrons orbital frequency.
The meaning is clear. EM emissions from cooler atoms, where the electrons are orbiting at a lower angular frequency, cannot emit EM that will be absorbed by hotter electrons orbiting at a higher angular frequency. That is why heat cannot be transferred in both direction.
The Logical Ladder of Earth-Sun Energetics.
1/ Internal Energy Redistribution: Convection only redistributes energy within the Earth system; it does not remove energy from the planet.
2/ Radiative Emission as the Primary Outlet: The planet has only one significant outlet for the energy it receives from the Sun, infrared radiation to space.
3/ Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Flux: Because radiation is the only significant mode of energy transfer between Earth and space, any long-term energy imbalance must appear as a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
4/ Radiative Equilibrium: In equilibrium, radiative balance therefore implies energy balance, consistent with the First Law.
5/ The Insufficiency of Internal Circulation: Claiming that internal circulation can offset a global energy imbalance is equivalent to inflating a sealed balloon and insisting it won’t expand because the air is circulating inside.
6/ Thermal Adjustment: The balloon will expand, just as the Earth system will warm, until energy out again balances energy in.
Ark, I appreciate you trying to teach gordon some science, but remember, he’s got some serious learning disabilities. And that’s not to mention his other mental issues where he believes he’s an engineer, yet doesn’t know what energy is.
But don’t get too wrapped up in Earth’s Energy Imbalance. The EEI comes from the cult. It has no value as radiative flux does not balance since flux is not a conserved quantity. So even the concept of EEI is bogus.
Also, Earth’s energy in/out will seldom equalize. There is too much going on. Typically the energy-out will be less than the energy-in, due to dissipation and photosynthesis. As usual, the cult science fails miserably.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
The Logical Ladder of Earth-Sun Energetics.
1/ Internal Energy Redistribution: Convection only redistributes energy within the Earth system; it does not remove energy from the planet.
———————
One key point there being ignored is it delivers to a place where it can be removed from the planet and does so by dissipating the energy into a higher and colder area of the sky. Its not a matter of cooling in place. The National Center for Atmosphere Research credits into contributions as net loss to space which is about 100% larger than the net loss of surface radiation to space.
So you and clint can have a circle jerk together but thats exactly what it will look like.
Not sure what I did to draw such an immature comment from bill, maybe he was just having a bad day.
bill hunter at 11:36 AM:
While convection moves heat away from the surface, it doesn’t move it off the planet. Convection merely “delivers” the heat to the upper atmosphere where radiation then takes over to complete the cooling process.
The “cooling in place” argument is a strawman. No climate scientist claims the surface “cools in place” without moving heat. The three recognized surface cooling mechanisms are: Evapotranspiration, Convection/Thermals, and Radiation.
You’re likely misreading the NCAR Earth Energy Budget diagram. While it is true that only a small amount of IR radiation emitted by the surface goes directly to space through the atmospheric window, most of the energy that leaves the planet is emitted by the atmosphere and clouds. You incorrectly conclude that convection is doing the “losing.”
Convection exists only in the troposphere (from the Ancient Greek words trópos and sphaira “turning region”).
From the base of the tropopause, radiation cools the rising air so efficiently that the temperature tends to become constant with height and convection ceases. A substantial amount of thermal IR radiative cooling to space occurs in this region.
In the stratosphere, because there is no longer enough a b s o r p t i o n above at most wavelengths to stop emitted IR to space, and convection is nonexistent, each layer is heated by radiation from the denser heat-trapping layers below, and cooled by radiating to space. The temperature would tend to a constant if not for the a b s o r p t i o n of solar UV radiation by photochemically produced ozone, and it is instead observed to increase.
The stratosphere is the “smoking gun.” Even without convection, energy transfer persists via radiation.
The Final Nail in your argument is that convection requires mass transport (the movement of physical matter), it cannot function in a vacuum. If Earth’s heat were being convected into space, the planet would simultaneously be stripped of its atmosphere.
Arcade i know how to read the ncar budget while they occasional change convection sometimes delivering a net 102 watts net is larger than surface radiation. The only you clear is you don’t know how to read a budget. Nothing wrong there as most people don’t. Convection actually defines the tropopause and where water vapor rises, condenses and releases most of its latent heat. Above the tropopause very little water vapor exists
bill hunter at 6:44 AM
1/ Speaking as an engineer (retired) who also has an MBA: I’ve forgotten more about budgets and budgeting than “most people” will learn in a lifetime.
2a/ The tropopause is defined by the lapse rate as the boundary where the air stops cooling with altitude and becomes isothermal.
2b/ The discontinuity of temperature gradient at the tropopause indicates a change in the mode of heat exchange.
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/layers-of-atmosphere
2c/ The tropopause represents the point of division between the region where heat exchange is mainly due to convection (the troposphere), and a region where heat exchange is due to radiation (the stratosphere).
3/ Most water vapor condenses in the lower and middle troposphere (forming clouds) and latent heat is released throughout the entire ascent as soon as the air reaches saturation. By the time air reaches the tropopause, it is extremely dry, and very little latent heat is left to be released at that specific boundary.
4/ Radiation processes alone are responsible for the heat exchange between the earth and space.
Pro-tip: proofread your posts before you hit submit.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”1/ Speaking as an engineer (retired) who also has an MBA: I’ve forgotten more about budgets and budgeting than “most people” will learn in a lifetime.”
———————–
Well an MBA is usually qualified to understand his own budget. Do you know how to understand somebody else’s? I am a retired CPA, CPA firms only hire MBAs for their consulting businesses and not for auditing somebody else’s financials.
Do you have any idea how to understand UCAR’s atmosphere budget? The answer is you read the documentation and the paper supporting it; then you ask questions of the person who prepared it for details not disclosed in the paper. Both of which I did along with a series of email exchanges with Kevin Trenberth the author of UCAR’s atmospheric budget. one of the questions i didn’t have to ask trenberth was how he derived the non-radiative transfers of energy as that is disclosed in his paper.
bill hunter at 8:16 AM
1/ I didn’t have to get “hired” because my employer paid for my MBA as a pre-condition for moving into the C-suites.
2/ I spent many years working M&A’s so, I can read any size company’s financials.
3/ I can read, and understand, NCAR’s Earth Energy Budget diagrams just fine.
4/ Assuming you truly can read an Earth Energy Budget diagram then, you must have incorrectly concluded that convection is how Earth loses energy to space, because that’s physically impossible as I’ve already explained above.
bill hunter at 8:16 AM.
I take it from your silence that you concede the points made.
no ark i answered all your points. i explained how i read the budget, how a cpa would read a budget, and how a higher level officer in charge of several departments each of which prepares a budget would read the budget prepared by their subordinates. i didn’t just look at the diagram like you did and claim i fully understood it. thats not to speak about reading financial statements and then relying on the cpa prepared opinion on them. what a cpa does runs far deeper and makes no assumptions about any thing the budget guy might have assumed or even claims to know.
your mind fart on that reveals how naive you are and how quick you leap to making assumptions.
bill hunter at 9:46 AM.
So, you have indeed concluded that convection is how Earth loses energy to space.
I’m simply pointing out that that’s physically impossible.
I accept your concession.
ark, who made you so obnoxious? did your parents beat you?
you do realize that science doesn’t even know if any photons emitted from the surface it make directly to space without being absorbed. thats especially true when folks think >90% of the sun’s energy reaching earth at some point ends up in the ocean. certainly mount Everest has the best chance. and up there it most likely energy delivered by water vapor from some surface somewhere else as there are no lakes or oceans up there.
co2 bandwidth ir if not absorbed first by water vapor gets absorbed a few meters from the surface. and on reemission its most likely to get absorbed by water vapor rather than another co2 molecule
daily cloud burnoff is simply water and ice absorbing solar energy and evaporating cooling the air around it with about the equivalent of 80 times the energy of an average surface air molecule per molecule of water.
the role of water being a full spectrum absorber is responsible for delivery of molecules to a location in the atmosphere to emit to space is totally dominant.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”From the base of the tropopause, radiation cools the rising air so efficiently that the temperature tends to become constant with height and convection ceases. A substantial amount of thermal IR radiative cooling to space occurs in this region.
In the stratosphere, because there is no longer enough a b s o r p t i o n above at most wavelengths to stop emitted IR to space, and convection is nonexistent, each layer is heated by radiation from the denser heat-trapping layers below, and cooled by radiating to space. The temperature would tend to a constant if not for the a b s o r p t i o n of solar UV radiation by photochemically produced ozone, and it is instead observed to increase.
The stratosphere is the “smoking gun.” Even without convection, energy transfer persists via radiation.”
——————-
Whoa Nelly! Smoking gun of what?
you guys are all over the place like a soup sandwich.
So this is the GPE effect you support having the cold tropopause warm the warm stratosphere with upwelling heat anytime anywhere?
Google AI:
”The temperature of the tropopause is determined by a radiative-convective equilibrium, serving as the “balance point” between two different heating mechanisms.
It (tropopause) marks the transition where the cooling effect from the ground (troposphere) is cancelled out by the warming effect from the sun (the stratosphere).”
the stratosphere is not warmed radiatively or convectively by the troposphere but by the sunlight absorbed by oxygen species particularly ozone. thus what gets emitted to space up there is primarily the approximate 80 watts absorbed by the atmosphere. you only get more of that when the sun gets more active, the earth moves closer to the sun or/and when earth is forced, by the gravity of other objects in or near our solar system to conspire together via mathematics to join forces, to move more slowly through the perihelion half of its orbit at the expense of time in the aphelion half orbit. . .or when oxygen species are more plentiful.
> you guys are all over the place
Says the guy who keeps peddling his pet squirrel of the moment everywhere he goes.
ROFL!
Not only that, but also rope-a-doping from one silly talking point to the next within these interjections.
LMAO!
Another utterly worthless contribution from one of the most hated trolls on the internet.
Sometimes Graham D. Warner channels his hatred creatively:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Sometimes he doesn’t.
Oh, no hatred from me. I’m merely noting that you’re one of the most hated trolls on the internet. You don’t bother me as you’re too thick and inconsequential to matter. But a lot of people, I’m sure, wish you physical harm.
It’s always amazing to see that Clint R, Robertson and a few other geniuses can think that energy can dissipate.
In credible.
Sit on it and spin Bindidon
Heat=energy=heat dissipates. How old are you? 13?
Bindi stalks me but hasn’t the scientific literacy to make a valid point.
Kids these days….
It’s always amazing to see that Clint R, Robertson and a few other geniuses can think that energy can dissipate.
Energy can be converted into another energy form but can NEVER be created nor deleted nor dissipate.
Anything else is pseudoscience.
Bindi provides us with another “teachable moment”.
As he has no understanding of the relevant science, he can’t understand how energy is dissipated. He believes since energy is conserved, it must always exist.
If 10000 Joules is required to push a large block across the floor, that 10000 Joules is “dissipated”. It no longer exists. It was used up countering the frictional losses between the block and the floor. The 10000 Joules did not disappear, as we know where they went. But, that energy is no longer available to push any more blocks.
In the atmosphere, energy is dissipated when winds pick up sand and move it. Or, when a tornado picks up a house and moves it.
The “missing” energy is said to be dissipated. It is no longer available to be used. It is accounted for as a “loss”. All “Conservation” means is energy must be accounted for. Energy losses are certainly included in the accounting.
Thanks Bindi, for another example to explain basic physics to you and the other cult kids.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://bsky.app/profile/gasbuddyguy.bsky.social/post/3ml6teqncfc2l
What’s a dissipator, and what does it “destroy” exactly?
Clint easily wins another one.
Up-thread, Nate chirrups:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742921
“There is no such thing as ‘climate science thermodynamics’. There is only Thermodynamics. And the AI gave you it, correctly.”
Then explain the existence of the “no” responses, e.g:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742739
Graham D. Warner tries to make himself relevant once again.
His best buddy tried time and time again to make him understand, e.g.:
https://gemini.google.com/app/77d008d9e024f8fa
Funny how he couldn’t answer any of his buddy’s queries…
You’ve misunderstood, Willard. Anyone’s more than welcome to read through the whole discussion and watch the AI gradually come round to reality:
https://share.google/aimode/FiTMcFFct7oNJ1fv1
But, that’s not the point I was making to Nate. To start with, when you type the following into the Google search bar:
“You have a powered blackbody object alone in space. It comes to one temperature, temperature X. If you now enclose the object in a blackbody cavity, with no power source in the walls of the cavity, will the object’s temperature increase to temperature Y, bearing in mind there is no reflection from the cavity walls, only absorption and emission, and also that a system cannot spontaneously rise to a higher energy state than its source allows?”
You will sometimes get a “yes” response, detailing “climate science thermodynamics”, and you will sometimes get a “no” response, detailing “actual thermodynamics”. Try it. If you get a “yes” response, keep refreshing your screen until you get a “no” response.
I provided an example of a “no” response here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742739
The existence of the “no” responses requires an explanation. That’s what I was challenging Nate about.
Readers can indeed read how the unpaid version of Gemini (it really makes no sense to call it “Google AI”, but then Graham D. Warner’s grasp of models has never been his strong suit) spares our poor Sky Dragon cranks’ sensibility, e.g.:
Standard physics is standard physics, and Sky Dragon cranks’ position rests on misrepresenting the second law.
Willard is entertaining us with more blog science.
So far nobody has been able to find any standard physics text that supports this viewpoint with facts and references to testing as has DREMT and myself.
Willard claims a misrepresentation of 2LoT – then what is the reason for the many, many “no” responses in which Google AI clearly states that for the powered object to increase above temperature X, 2LoT would be violated? And how exactly is 2LoT being “misrepresented”?
Gill is trying to play squirrel by asking a sammich that has been served to him more than a few times in the last months or so, and Graham D. Warner still tries to confuse himself about the conditions under which Gemini could get Sky Dragon cranks’ crap:
https://share.google/aimode/FiTMcFFct7oNJ1fv1
Perhaps Nate should have told him that the Sun is the source of energy a few thousands times more?
It’s as if all he got from his interaction with it (in which he answered no question at all!) is its sycophancy.
Yeah, I didn’t buy that explanation. I described it as a “powered object”, so why and how would Google interpret that as a fixed temperature boundary condition?
Of course Graham D. Warner does not “buy” anything. He was just “extracting the Michael” out of Gemini, just like he says he did here a few months ago.
Astute readers might wonder why he did not oppose Gemini’s:
Op. Cit.
That might explain why he went for his usual verbal defense about him not denying backradiation, but but but but but but.
“Yeah, I didn’t buy that explanation. I described it as a “powered object”, so why and how would Google interpret that as a fixed temperature boundary condition?”
It didnt. It clearly interpreted it as a fixed power input boundary condition.
In fact, the idea that there’s a fixed temperature boundary condition would not be consistent with the way the question is phrased, overall, nor indeed would it be consistent with the way the answer is phrased!
As Willard attempts to distract, divert and deflect, we’re still waiting for an answer from one of the more serious commenters about why the AI is consistently bringing up the answer that for the temperature to exceed X would violate 2LoT.
Otherwise, I’m sticking with, “because that’s the actual thermodynamics”.
Yep, your question was straightforward, as was its answer to it, but then you lead it down a rabbit hole.
It tried to help you by pointing out two scenarios with different correct answers, one matching your preference.
It does not support your narrative for the fixed heat case.
Again, textbook examples I showed you do indeed show that blackbodies can radiatiatively insulate. Multilayered ones even better.
And we know from everyday experience that a heated body gets warmer when enclosed.
I was just reminded the other day of the ‘easy bake oven’ toy we had as kids. It consisted of a small box with a light bulb inside.
With the box door closed it got hot enough inside to bake a cake!
This is just not difficult.
Nate, why are you completely unable to follow what is being asked of you?
Google AI returns two completely different and opposing answers to the exact same query. One of the answers that it regularly returns is that the temperature of the powered object will not exceed Temperature X due to 2LoT. Why do you think that is?
> two completely different and opposing answers
To two different problems. With different conditions.
Which is why Graham D. Warner’s conclusion that the second refutes the first is a (wait for it) non sequitur.
It’s not two different answers to two different problems. Google AI is returning two completely different and opposing answers to the exact same query. It’s word for word, verbatim, exactly the same query. Stop trying to confuse the issue.
There must be something about “If you have a 500K block and a 300K box” and “If you have a heater constantly adding Joules” that seem to escape Graham D. Warner.
So not only are Sky Dragon cranks confused about steady state systems, but they mistake passive and active systems!
The last confusion might explain Puffman’s ice cubes.
Willard can’t follow the discussion, as usual. We’re not talking about my chat with Google AI any more. Gee whizz.
Willard says:
There must be something about “If you have a 500K block and a 300K box” and “If you have a heater constantly adding Joules” that seem to escape Graham D. Warner.
————————
willard also.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743099
Graham D. Warner did not pay any attention to what Gemini told him, and simply replicated what Richard Dawkins did:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/05/richard-dawkins-ai-consciousness-anthropic-claude-openai-chatgpt
Willard can’t follow discussions, but comments anyway.
Gill of course to check with his best buddy:
That’s wrong, Willard, as we’ve established without a doubt (even the AI agreed) that in Eli’s 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the Blue Plate at the expense of the Green Plate, regardless of the starting temperature of the Green Plate. 2LoT says that can’t happen.
Graham D. Warner returns to gaslighting.
Perhaps Sky Dragon cranks could fool Gemini for a second or two, but they can’t fool Team Science.
No gaslighting, just a simple chain of logic:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733329
which you are already well aware of.
More gaslighting by Graham D. Warner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742943
[Rolls eyes]
Willard is going for bag of wind top dog. And starts right out with a strawman.
I have acknowledged a ghe and gone so far as to explain how I think it works. I did this years ago.and believe the prime driver to be saturated and of no further consequence with the exception of a significant atmosphere expansion or a change in quantities of oxygen species or the addition of more phase changing gases.
thus it then took me 2023 to find how climate varies and that process has multiple long term modes of variance including major and extended internal variability with oceans and ice.
> I have acknowledged a ghe
Gill believes that, not to be denying the greenhouse effect, he just has to rename his astrology “ghe”.
It’s like saying that he can’t be a climate denier because he acknowledges “a” climate:
https://climateball.net/but-denier/
ROFL!
As explained, and not refuted (nor even addressed) – Pratt’s experimental results are not consistent with the existence of a Green Plate Effect.
pratts experiment doesn’t show this because he didn’t measure the solar input. but intuitively and experience says a blackbody plate facing the sun and getting 1200w/m2 (like solar panels can do under bright sun) isn’t going to rise from 108c to 180c because of radiation from the back of the plate heating a blackbody plate lying in contact with the ground below it.
> experiment doesn’t show this because he didn’t measure
First, Gill admits that his squirrel wasn’t refuting anything after all.
ROFL!
> but intuitively
LMAO!
Pratt’s experimental results are not consistent with the existence of a Green Plate Effect.
Willard, what is intuitive is the radiation from the green plate is not going to warm the blue plate from 108c to 180c.
but if you think that backradiation will warm the blueplate thats the consequence per the Easter Bunny.
pratt shows that doesn’t happen, and all other experiments even before the Easter Bunny show the same thing.
forget disputing any of this without an experiment you just sayin stuff is adding nothing but ignorance to the discussion
Graham D. Warner gaslights again, and Gill believes that he can crap over any subthread he likes with his pet squirrel of the moment.
ROFL!
Poor Willard. Not the brightest.
Graham D. Warner:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Gaslighting again.
Not the brightest.
“Pratt’s experimental results are not consistent with the existence of a Green Plate Effect.”
And yet his results are not consistent with laws of physics established by numerous experiments, as laid out in textbooks, that show that blackbody plates in parallel DO reduce radiative heat tansfer, and thus DO insulate.
The point being that any single experiment is not proof, as any single experiment can be flawed.
Just as any single answer from AI can be flawed.
Already directed you to this comment once, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743165
You keep ignoring the refutation of your endlessly repeated “insulation” point.
And again. Nothing relevant there.
You obviously have no answer. Just stop trolling.
There is a section of the linked comment specifically dealing with your “insulation” claims.
The trolling continues.
Nate says:
” The point being that any single experiment is not proof, as any single experiment can be flawed.”
pratts experiment wasn’t even the first. he replicated r.w.woods experiment thinking he was improving controls and got virtually the same result. the there is roy, then S&O all similar results.
how many times are going to call them out as single fawed experiments?
and what do you have supporting a gpe designed multiple plate experiment under a light? you have the imagination/thought experiment by an unnamed guy posing as the easter bunny. you have john tyndall proving gas torch heated co2 an warm a room temperature thermopile while common air cannot.
what else do you have?
> pratts experiment wasn’t even the first. he replicated r.w.woods
Not really.
ROFL!
Even better:
> the there is roy
Astute readers can read for themselves:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/suggested-backyard-experiment-to-measure-the-greenhouse-effect-of-more-carbon-dioxide/
It’s not like Gill doesn’t know that, for he commented in that thread. And so Eli wins again.
LMAO!
Willard simply cannot learn.
Nope, nothing relevant. Still think so, then quote your ‘brilliant’ rebuttal.
“This extrapolation is the root of the problem. You can find references (as you have done) stating that “heat flow is reduced”, and from this you conclude you’re right – you believe you have evidence that perfectly conducting blackbody surfaces can insulate.”
Yep. I see nothing here to refute that. Which thoroughly debunks your often repeated claims that black bodies cannot insulate. Now simply use logic please.
“But, you don’t have references jumping to your conclusion that warming is the result of this “heat flow reduction”. That is the stuff you only find on blogs. Obviously, the AI can jump to the wrong conclusion also, especially given all the misinformation out there on the internet”
For the billionth time, given the fixed heat INPUT from the sun to the BP, and the now reduced heat OUTPUT, yes, indeed, one needs only a single logical neuron to come to the conclusion that the BP must warm.
The BP cannot warm, because then this would be happening:
In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
2LoT says “no” to that.
That’s what you can’t wrap your head around. My argument refutes yours. For some reason, you seem to think endlessly repeating your argument changes that fact…but it doesn’t.
The GPE’s debunked.
Nate says:
May 12, 2026 at 7:06 AM
nate says:
” “This extrapolation is the root of the problem. You can find references (as you have done) stating that “heat flow is reduced”, and from this you conclude you’re right – you believe you have evidence that perfectly conducting blackbody surfaces can insulate.”
Yep. I see nothing here to refute that. Which thoroughly debunks your often repeated claims that black bodies cannot insulate. Now simply use logic please. ”
the logic is simple. you can have a blackbody shell in the shape of an infinite plate, and stuff it with insulation and still the bp won’t warm because to do so would violate 4 laws of physics.
2lot
kirchhoffs law
stefan-boltzman’s law
plancks law
google ai:
Kirchhoff’s Law (1860): At thermal equilibrium, the ratio of emitted radiation to absorptivity is the same for all bodies at a given temperature, which is the same as the radiation of a blackbody.
Stefan-Boltzmann Law: States that total emitted power increases with the fourth power of temperature (\(\sigma T^{4}\)), which is crucial for defining the balance in radiative equilibrium.
Planck’s Law: Describes the spectral-energy distribution of radiation emitted by a blackbody in thermal equilibrium.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system can never decrease over time and is constant only if all processes are reversible. It dictates that heat spontaneously flows from hotter to colder regions, never the reverse, meaning energy degrades into unusable forms.
i realize in the dei era we have guys getting degrees under the leave no kid behind program who are dumb enough to think they are smarter than the great scientists that formulated those laws.
Nate also responded to:
“But, you don’t have references jumping to your conclusion that warming is the result of this “heat flow reduction”. That is the stuff you only find on blogs. Obviously, the AI can jump to the wrong conclusion also, especially given all the misinformation out there on the internet”
For the billionth time, given the fixed heat INPUT from the sun to the BP, and the now reduced heat OUTPUT, yes, indeed, one needs only a single logical neuron to come to the conclusion that the BP must warm.
not if the bp is at its equilibrium value with its input as specified by the laws above. you simply are promoting a fraud that somebody took you in as an early victim, now you have duped into becoming part of the fraudsters cartel spreading this poison.
and you have come to that conclusion via believing all objects in thermal equilibrium (input equals output) are cooling. which of course they aren’t they remain a steady temperature which is a state of neither cooling nor warming.
“The BP cannot warm, because then this would be happening:
In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.”
2LoT says “no” to that.”
Nope false assertion. And its an argument that has failed a hundred times.
And you have not ever rebutted the straightforward reasons why.
To show a 2LOT violation you need to show that heat has flowed from a cold body to a warm body.
And you never show that, because it doesnt happen.
It doesnt need to happen, because, as proven earlier, blacbodies can insulate a heated body. And everone knows that a heated body, if insulated from cold surroundings, will warm.
And 2LOT does not restrict that.
Without actually directly confronting this challenge, your argument will never convince anyone..
Not a “false assertion”, Nate. It’s a logically-proven fact. You were shown the chain of logic and were unable to refute it. Thus, it stands.
The GPE’s debunked.
> you can have a blackbody shell in the shape of an infinite plate, and stuff it with insulation and still the bp won’t warm because to do so would violate 4 laws of physics.
So simple that Gill needs to argue by gibberish.
ROFL!
Perhaps he should consider what his best buddy told Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742943
Which returns us to where we started.
LMAO!
“You were shown the chain of logic and were unable to refute it.”
In the right here and right now, you have just been shown a chain of logic in my post, for which you have no rebuttal.
Here is another:
That a blackbody emits is an unavoidable fact of the SB law.
Thus the GP must return a portion of the energy it receives from the BP, but never MORE than it receives.
Which means the BP cannot lose as much heat as without the GP. Thus it must WARM.
And because the NET transfer (heat flow) is always from warm BP to cooler GP, there is no 2LOT violation.
No evidence for heat flow from cold to warm, means no evidence of a 2LOT violation.
Sorry.
> it’s a logically-proven fact
[Rolls eyes.]
Astute readers might note that facts aren’t of the form “If P, then Q”.
No, Nate. My argument refutes yours. Nothing more needs to be said.
The GPE’s debunked.
“No, Nate. My argument refutes yours. Nothing more needs to be said.
The GPE’s debunked.”
Another in a long line of challenges to your narrative going unanswered.
Youve become just like troll Clint.
I’ll bookmark this one.
The “challenge” is answered, Nate. It’s been demonstrated that:
In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
If you still deny the above, you’re just lying to yourself.
The GPE’s debunked.
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the [warmer] BP at the expense of the [cooler] GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.”
Intentionally vague obfuscatory words.
Because there is no way to tell from these words whether measurable heat is actually transferred from a cold body to a warm body, to test whether 2LOT is violated.
As I noted, back radiation happens, you cant change that fact. And yet we can show mathematically that no Net energy (heat) actually moves from the colder body to the warmer.
Because the BP always emits more than the GP.
And you are just unable to refute this.
And in ordinary fact-based debate rules, that means your claim is unsupported by the facts.
Sorry.
“Intentionally vague obfuscatory words.”
Utterly crystal clear plain English describing a demonstrated fact. The points 1) – 5), which you were all unable to refute, demonstrate that what you quoted is absolutely correct. You can either accept it, and still try to claim there’s no 2LoT violation, or you can lie to yourself about it as you’re doing currently. That quote is correct. Anyone on the planet saying the quote is incorrect, are wrong, and always will be. It’s as settled as 2 + 2 = 4.
The GPE’s debunked.
nate nobody is trying to refute what you just said.
the issue is the rabbit has the temperature state of the gpe, after remission as influenced by the emissions +netsun+gp. thats incorrect the correct temperature result for bp is instead influenced by +netsun-bp+gp.
“You can either accept it, and still try to claim there’s no 2LoT violation”
This shows that even in your own mind, your standard talking points do not equate to evidence of a 2LOT violation.
So set them aside, and instead find actual evidence of heat transfer from cold to hot.
I know you won’t, because you cant.
And that is your problem. And the reason why none of this actually debunks the GPE or the GHE.
> the issue is the rabbit has the temperature state of the gpe
Gill is speaking in tongues once again:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Is this temperature?
ROFL!
Let’s hope he got the memo about lulzing.
LMAO!
No, it shows I’m realistic about what I expect from you.
Do you concede that the statement is correct?
That’s all I want to know.
In its initial several answers it explained its reasoning using correct laws of Thermodynamics, mentioning nothing about Climate.
You find no actual fault in its application of those laws, because there is nothing at all wrong with it.
And its solution obeys common sense and common experience that surrounding a heat source by an impermeable enclosure leads to a build up of extra heat and warming.
Thus cars and computers and spacecraft need active cooling by fans and radiators.
Only after much pushback from you the customer, does it make an effort to placate the customer, and change its answer to No.
That is s flaw in the AI program.
But it is the fact that it used correct physics to get the correct answer initially that is your problem.
If applying well established laws of physics correctly to a heat transfer problem leads to a 2LOT violation, then there must be something wrong with those laws of physics.
And you have yet to identify what that is.
You’re not getting what I’m asking you, Nate.
In the instance of the discussion between the AI and myself, it initially brought up a “yes” response. I’m asking why it brings up a “no” response just as frequently.
The AI attempted to explain it away as a result of the boundary conditions. It tried to claim that with a fixed power input boundary condition it would return a “yes” response, and with a fixed temperature boundary condition it would return a “no” response. But, my counter to this point is as I explained up-thread – the question itself is not consistent with there being a fixed temperature boundary condition, and nor is the “no” response.
You’ve already shown that you can’t follow the discussion so far, so it’s not looking good.
The problem nate is your theory fails with the vaughn Pratt, r.w. Woods, and s@o experiments
Gill is saying stuff once again.
ROFL!
the only explanation seems to be that nate has confounded Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) resistances with theories about backradiation naturally slowing warming and cooling rates which occurs fulltime in radiative transfer without significant change in stabilized temperatures in particular at temperatures around room temperature.
google ai on PTCs
Typical warming coefficients for Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) resistances vary dramatically based on the material type—switching ceramic or silistor—and the temperature range, as PTCs are highly nonlinear compared to negative temperature coefficient (NTC) devices.
“It tried to claim that with a fixed power input boundary condition it would return a “yes” response, and with a fixed temperature boundary condition it would return a “no” response.”
It accurately stated the different results for different boundary conditions, and why.
To dispute it, explain what it gets wrong and WHY.
When I ask:
You have a powered blackbody object alone in space. It comes to temperature X. If you now enclose the object in a blackbody cavity, with no power source in the walls of the cavity, will the object’s temperature increase?
I get this answer, EVERY TIME.
Yes, the object’s temperature will increase.Enclosing the powered blackbody in a blackbody cavity with non-powered, adiabatic walls results in a higher equilibrium temperature compared to being in free space.
ExplanationInitial State (Space): The object radiates energy (\(P = \sigma A T^4\)) into the near-absolute-zero temperature of space. It reaches an equilibrium temperature \(X\) where its internal power generation equals the power radiated away.
Enclosed State (Cavity): The object is surrounded by walls that absorb all incident radiation and re-emit it at the wall’s current temperature, creating a cavity radiation field (a “blackbody cavity”).
Heat Trap: The object still emits at temperature \(X\), but the cavity walls reflect/re-emit a significant portion of that radiation back onto the object. The net energy loss of the object decreases because the surrounding environment is no longer cold.Temperature Rise: Because the object continues to generate power while losing less energy, it must increase in temperature (\(T > X\)) until it reaches a new, higher thermal equilibrium with the cavity walls.”
Oh well!
Interesting, Bill. Now tell us about your favorite breakfast cereal.
Nate, obviously a fixed temperature object is not going to increase in temperature. Its temperature is fixed! That is not the reason for the “no” responses. Why would it even mention 2LoT if it thought the object’s temperature was fixed?
what is a significant amount reflected/re-emitted?
“reflect/re-emit a significant portion of that radiation back onto the object.”
i am dying to see this supported by anything other than lip service by the easter bunny. why is ‘reflect’ in the response?
Indeed, bill…Nate left out half of my query and is surprised when he gets garbage results mentioning reflection! One of the things he left out was:
“…bearing in mind there is no reflection from the cavity walls, only absorption and emission…”
As long as he consistently gets the result he wants to see, he’s not bothered.
And still, he has no answer for why all those “no” responses exist.
“Why would it even mention 2LoT if it thought the object’s temperature was fixed?”
Because AI can be confused.
However, after I got another Yes answer, I tried to get it to think about 2LOT.
I asked:
Doesnt this violate the second law of Thermodynamics?
“No, it doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the object has an internal power source.The Second Law states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder body to a hotter body. However, in your scenario:
1.Energy is being added: The object is “powered,” meaning you are continuously pumping energy into the system (like an electric heater or a radioactive core).
2.Thermal Equilibrium: The temperature of any object is determined by the balance of energy entering vs. energy leaving.
3.Insulation Effect: Enclosing the object acts like putting on a coat. The cavity walls reflect/re-emit energy back to the object, reducing its net loss to the environment.”
To quote in full what I left out from DREMTs queston
“bearing in mind there is no reflection from the cavity walls, only absorption and emission, and also that a system cannot spontaneously rise to a higher energy state than its source allows?”
because the first part is redundant information, it already knows what a blackbody does.
And the second part is a shameless attempt to lead (mislead) the witness, and no judge would allow it!
“No, it doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the object has an internal power source”
Ah, but Nate…I dug a little deeper in my original discussion:
https://share.google/aimode/FiTMcFFct7oNJ1fv1
“2. Is a Heat Source "Work"?
You’ve hit the nail on the head: No, a simple heat source is not mechanical work. If you view the system as a Passive Exchange between the two plates, then your "No" answer is the only one that respects the Second Law. If the green plate (at 220 K) causes the blue plate (at 244 K) to rise to 262 K, and there is no "work" being done to bridge that gap, then you have a spontaneous transfer from cold to hot.”
Nate also says:
“Because AI can be confused.”
It can be, but not to the point of continuously returning similar answers where it states the powered object will not exceed Temperature X due to 2LoT. You need an actual explanation for why the AI keeps doing that.
Continuing my discussion with Google/AI,
I asked it:
If a large blackbody plate is in space heated on one side by the sun, it reaches temperature X. If a second blackbody plate placed behind it in paralell, does the temperature of the first plate rise or stay the same?
“The temperature of the first plate rises.Placing a second parallel blackbody plate behind the first one acts as a radiation shield.
Here is why the temperature rises:
Original State: The first plate absorbs solar radiation on its front and radiates heat away from both the front and back sides to deep space (near 0 K), reaching an equilibrium temperature X.
With Second Plate: The second plate is placed behind the first. It absorbs the thermal infrared radiation emitted by the back of the first plate and radiates it back.
Effect: This “back-radiation” reduces the net radiative loss from the rear of the first plate. Because the first plate still receives the same amount of solar heat but now loses less heat to its surroundings, its total energy increases, causing it to reach a higher equilibrium temperature.
Essentially, the second plate forces the first plate to become more efficient at radiating heat only through its front surface to balance its total input, which requires a higher temperature.”
Then, I asked, if X was 244 K, what would the temperature rise to?
“The temperature of the first plate would rise to approximately 262.20 K.”
“It can be, but not to the point of continuously returning similar answers where it states the powered object will not exceed Temperature X due to 2LoT.”
Pfft.
Forgetting that it continuously states that, YES it will warm above X, every time I ask.
Not to mention all the times it said YES to you.
Why do you think such an obvious misrepresentation is gonna help your cause?
You are quite shameless.
I’m not forgetting the times it’s said “yes”, Nate.
But, you are forgetting the times it’s said “no”. You seem to be in complete denial about it. It originally said “no” to me ten times in a row over the course of a day, back when I had something slightly different as the query:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742269
Mark put paid to that by deliberately setting up a webpage with a “yes” response output under the same query wording, so that Google picked up on it as its number one reference for that exact query. After he did that, inputting the same thing kept returning a “yes” response, unsurprisingly.
So I changed some of the wording and had another go. Under my new query it’s returning a mixed bag of “yes” and “no” responses. I’m not ignoring the “yes” responses, I expect them – after all the entire Greenhouse Effect theory is based on this one extrapolation. No “back-radiation warming”, no GHE. It’s as simple as that. An extrapolation is what it is, however. Nobody is denying that if you introduce the Green Plate at 244 K, for example, then heat flow between the plates goes to zero. I’ve agreed that from the start. It’s an extrapolation to say that because “heat flow is reduced” the BP must warm. It’s also a mistake, because the “back-radiation” transfer cannot build up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, yet that’s exactly what happens in Eli’s GPE solution.
This extrapolation is the root of the problem. You can find references (as you have done) stating that “heat flow is reduced”, and from this you conclude you’re right – you believe you have evidence that perfectly conducting blackbody surfaces can insulate. But, you don’t have references jumping to your conclusion that warming is the result of this “heat flow reduction”. That is the stuff you only find on blogs. Obviously, the AI can jump to the wrong conclusion also, especially given all the misinformation out there on the internet.
So, that is why you are getting “yes” responses.
You need to pay more attention to the “no” responses.
Graham D. Warner is gaslighting again:
https://share.google/aimode/FiTMcFFct7oNJ1fv1
He’s just digging a hole that is a “little deeper” for Sky Dragon cranks like himself.
> An extrapolation is what it is, however
Graham D. Warner fails to notice that he’s the one doing the extrapolation:
That’s not Eli’s thought experiment.
That’s not Puffman’s ice cubes.
That’s just Graham’s “changed some of the wording” scenario.
One in which there’s an “object”, but no source of energy.
It’s just so silly.
> It can be, but
♂️
Why does Willard bother commenting? He has no idea about the subject he’s commenting on, yet comments anyway.
DREMT says:
”This extrapolation is the root of the problem. You can find references (as you have done) stating that “heat flow is reduced”, and from this you conclude you’re right – you believe you have evidence that perfectly conducting blackbody surfaces can insulate. But, you don’t have references jumping to your conclusion that warming is the result of this “heat flow reduction”. That is the stuff you only find on blogs. Obviously, the AI can jump to the wrong conclusion also, especially given all the misinformation out there on the internet. So, that is why you are getting “yes” responses.”
AI is just a robot subject to the old adage. garbage in, garbage out. same deal with our brains and thus every thought experiment.
so is what spews out of brains of all of us in here and AI garbage?
our friends preaching the horrors of fossil fuel emissions have a brilliantly worked out mathematical model they proclaim we should alter our lives to observe or face the doom of civilization. sounds like pretty important stuff. well we have a lot of tests for their model. when i look at them they sure don’t look anything like their model. but who am i to say? we should hear from the horse’s mouth. lets start with one.
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/ Dr. Vaughn Pratt’s replication of Dr. R.W. Woods poorly documented 120 year old experiment (which may or may not have been well documented but instead got tossed on to the annual Harvard/Yale book burning bonfire along with copies of Milankovitch’s works).
perhaps our friends can work together using their mathematical model to explain Vaughn Pratt’s experimental results. what do you think DREMT? do you think our friends theory and model works or is it that our friends are just a collection of wind bags?
Why does Graham D. Warner bother gaslighting?
We all know he always ends up with a silly motte-and-bailey that he uses as a troll bridge.
> AI is just a robot
So many mistakes in so few words.
ROFL!
Perhaps Gill should take heed:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-100130
LMAO!
I find it fascinating that for all the sneering and posturing, the scathing attack on Woods’ methodology and logic – with all that supposedly improved upon by Pratt, he still gets essentially the same result! There is nowhere near enough warming for the GPE model to be validated, considering Eli gets 18 K warming out of a perfectly conducting blackbody plate.
I’d love to see them try to justify it, but so far…nothing.
Still (insert your favorite sneering word) that Gill still does not get that he’s 15 years late:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-100724
ROFL!
willard’s windbag sessions keep getting longer and longer.
Again…I don’t want to be mean…but what was the point of Willard’s last comment? Just a copy and paste of a fifteen-year-old blog comment filled with rhetoric.
And, now I’ve responded, we’ll get some equally pointless further comment. Why?
Gill can’t even follow through his own squirrels:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/22/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/#comment-713959
At this point Gill should remind us of his infinite curriculum vitae.
ROFL!
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting, and Gill presents himself once again as our new Greenhouse Effect Champion.
Nature is healing.
Again, Graham D. Warner does not want to gaslight, but…
Perhaps he should ask Gill?
Unless Gill decided he was replacing Mike, he should be able to tell.
Willard…bill linked to Pratt’s experiment, saying that his results don’t support the GPE model.
You are linking to criticism’s of Wood’s original experiment…which are thus irrelevant.
Do you do this:
1) Because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
2) Because you do know what you’re talking about, but hope to fool some readers.
3) To troll.
?
Graham D. Warner gleefully gaslights again.
Instead of supporting his empty assertion that Gill’s link corroborates Wood’s experiment (it does not), he’s just playing dumb.
Here’s the bit from the comment I elided earlier:
Op. Cit.
So once again Graham D. Warner has no real interest in the crap Gill keeps trying to inject. And of course our two cranks can’t even realize that this replication bears little to no resemblance at all with Eli’s thought experiment:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Figure 4 should be enough to show how ridiculous is Puffman’s revisionist fabrication!
Pratt’s experiment found a negligible effect, Wood’s found no effect.
And, obviously the small effect Pratt found can be accounted for by the reflectivity of the glass.
You’re now bringing up a 2-4 K effect. You realise Eli has 18 K of warming from a perfectly conducting blackbody plate, right?
Gaslighting Graham regurgitates his assertion as if it was proof of anything.
Perhaps he still doesn’t realize that numbers are immaterial to Eli’s demonstration:
a = b + c
b = 2c
a = b’ + c
b’ = 2c
a = 3/2b’
b’ = 2/3a
b’ > b
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
Since Gaslighting has yet to refute the last line, the greenplate effect is here to stay!
Not that he disbelieves backradiation, mind you.
But but but but but but but but.
Sky dragon cranks are a joke.
So you claim numbers are immaterial, yet you present Eli’s algebra which uses letters as variables to represent numbers. At some point numbers become material, Willard. Usually at the point when the experimental results show them to be wrong, as has happened here. Which means Eli’s algebra fails to represent the correct physics.
And, we’ve even explained, at great length, why that’s the case.
Graham D. Warner gently gaslights again.
He can’t refute Eli’s b’ > b. That means he has never debunked Eli’s plates. Must suck to be a Sky Dragon crank.
There is no need to correct his misconceptions about the “usual” purposes of a simple thought experiment. Nor is there any need to correct him on falsification more generally.
Perhaps he could solve this riddle –
If I put a wall of ice between him and a strong, cold draft, will he be warmed or frozen? Puffman seems to be saying that if there are two objects nearby, both cooler than Graham and one warmer than the other, then Graham will be being cooled by one of them and warmed by the other.
If he does not, then so much the worse for Puffman’s ice cubes. After losing on balls and strings, that’d be a bummer. Let’s hope he’ll come up with something else than his usual gaslighting.
DREMT says:
”Pratt’s experiment found a negligible effect, Wood’s found no effect.
And, obviously the small effect Pratt found can be accounted for by the reflectivity of the glass.
You’re now bringing up a 2-4 K effect. You realise Eli has 18 K of warming from a perfectly conducting blackbody plate, right?”
woods said he found about 1c effect but noted that the ir blocked box warmed more slowly.
vaughn pratt in blogging his results resorted to obfuscation. 2-4c is the average difference found in three thermometers floor, ceiling, and outside the covers. they average just over 3c.
so despite the high atmosphere of the boxes warmed comparatively an average of 4.4 degrees in the glass box still the floor only warmed from reflection and no warming occurred from that extra thermalized heat high in the glass covered box. . vaughn suggested that was a significant finding. while it appeared he was catering to the warmists actually he was doing just the opposite.
so this makes at a minimum any effect from a nonconvective environment irrelevant to the ghe as temperature simply can’t warm a warmer object.
in fact home energy evaluations in the 80’s and 90’s ignored radiation it is simply not a factor in home heat loss calculations as it is overwhelmed by thousands of collisions with the atmosphere for each photon emitted by the house.
Thanks, bill.
The GPE was already debunked, of course, but it’s nice to learn more about yet another experiment which shows that’s the case.
> in blogging his results resorted to obfuscation
Gill obviously knows better about Vaughan’s experiment than Vaughan himself:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/22/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/#comment-713959
ROFL!
Vaughan’s experiments (with an s) neither tested backradiation or the greenhouse effect, but Wood’s glasshouse setup. They found it lacking. Yet our two cranks already know that the mechanism has been already explained by Fourier in the 19th century by studying Saussure’s hot boxes. You know, the same paper Fourier claimed the greenhouse effect for the first time in history.
Yet our two cranks yet again forget to mention Roy’s setup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/suggested-backyard-experiment-to-measure-the-greenhouse-effect-of-more-carbon-dioxide/
Or perhaps Eric’s:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1578459
And so they must cling to the fantasy that replicating an effect somehow refutes it.
LMAO!
It doesn’t matter one iota what Pratt’s intentions were. The results of his experiments are not consistent with the existence of a Green Plate Effect. Case closed on the issue of Pratt’s experiments.
willard you are so inculcated you can’t see the facts when they are right in front of your face.
and maybe/likely so is vaughan pratt.
1) this does not mean there is no ghe. i will explain that why there is and what the likely mechanism in another post if i have time. so don’t throw any strawmen at me on that until i have time to explain it. hint: ghgs are a necessary condition and co2 at least contributes to it.
2) the fact you refuse to absorb is that the ir blocking plate warmed more as required to satisfy the condition to warm the surface. so you, nate, tim f, and vaughan are all satisfied that the conditions are in place to create a massive ghe variance. . .but it didn’t happen in ALL the experiments; instead warming seen was there not because a colder object but instead due to that colder object having a emissivity under 1.0 regardless of its temperature. in fact to calculate thermopedia and miaorov models you must look up the emissivity numbers for both the glass cover and the salt cover to get the warming change between the two. i used .837 for glass and .9 for congealed salt panes. google ai gave me the salt emissivity.
3. the above undermines the main intuitive keystone of co2 warming theory and you are left with something else.
> this does not mean there is no ghe.
Gill is turning to double negatives.
LMAO!
> it didn’t happen in ALL the experiments
What didn’t happen?
Why should anyone care if some crank somewhere messed up his experiment?
According to Gill’s new logic, blankets can’t warm unless they all do!
ROFL!
[ELI] b’ > b
[VAUGHAN] b’ > b
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] The results of his experiments are not consistent with the existence of a Green Plate Effect.
Sky Dragon cranks are a joke.
The joke’s on you, Willard. It’s not just “as long as there’s some effect, any effect, then Eli is correct”.
The fact is, what little effect Pratt observed can be attributed to the reflectivity of the glass. Eli’s plates have no reflectivity.
As I already said, and you ignored (because you don’t understand any of this).
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
The facts are that Eli made a point about theory, a point that Vaughan corroborated that point, and he won’t confront Gill’s non sequitur.
Sky dragon cranks have no idea about what’s a model.
Willard is completely non-responsive.
yep, he chickened out on the opportunity to use the Easter Bunny model to explain Vaughan Pratt’s outcome. . . and Vaughan Pratt didn’t even try to explain the weak surface warming effect and instead focused on how much warming he saw from trapped air at the lid which also didn’t come anywhere near to the effect of the Easter Bunny model. And it appears everybody else ran away from the discussion so as to pretend they saw nothing at all. . .with little doubt thats how it will play out.
Graham D. Warner has found himself another troll bridge instead of conceding that unless and until he could prove that b’ < b, Eli's plates are here to stay. Sky Dragon cranks can't proceed otherwise.
Either way, he proves Team Science right.
“Eli’s plates have no reflectivity.”
And yet, you have learned, that blackbody plates can in fact insulate. Do i need to show you again the links to textbook examples?
sorry nate we are far beyond textbooks. we are now fully into the primary tool of the science revolution, experiments that accede or reject writings and the imagination.
another key outcome of the pratt experiment was not only the warming of the surface was tied to the reflectivity of the lid. . . .but what should occur, did occur was warming of the lid (green plate) of the experiment instead of the floor (blue plate). that would be the only outcome for a blackbody lid.
> not only the warming of the surface
Gill doesn’t even know the first thing about his squirrel:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743243
Asks for a sammich. Gets one. Does not even take a look at it.
ROFL!
And of course Graham D. Warner will condone this abject behavior, and will in fact amplify it.
LMAO!
“we are far beyond textbooks. we are now fully into the primary tool of the science revolution, experiments that accede or reject writings and the imagination.”
Laughable how you imagine that textbook science has no connection to experiments!
Equally absurd how you cite sources to suppprt your case, then casually denigrate them when they dont.
FYI, the equations showing that blackbody plates in parallel can insulate are based on laws of physics thoroughly tested by experiment.
Nate simply ignores my previous comment to him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743165
and Willard is utterly clueless.
Gill is looking for another sammich to ask, and Gaslighting Graham proves Team Science right once again by not conceding that b’ > b.
That’ll be great nate as long as it’s not tyndall’s gas torch heated co2 gas stream enshrined in a museum exhibit there is a difference between the co2 heating a room tempature thermopile vs the gas torch. Good luck.
As explained, and not refuted (nor even addressed) – Pratt’s experimental results are not compatible with the existence of a Green Plate Effect.
Willard, ES&D
YEP bottom line the 2nd law was established by demonstration. if you want to narrow the law for whatever unique properties of materials you can come up with that should also be demonstrated.
Our two cranks still can’t concede that b’ > b.
How will they ever be able to proceed?
ROFL!
Pratt’s experimental results are not consistent with the existence of a Green Plate Effect.
If Graham D. Warner’s empty assertion was true, he’d be able to refute b’ > b.
He can’t.
Ergo, Graham D. Warner is gaslighting.
And Gill is only here to rideshare with him.
ROFL!
The Green Plate Effect is debunked.
Graham D. Warner has yet to refute b’ > b.
Until and unless he does, Eli’s thought experiment reigns supreme.
Vaughan’s experiments confirm that b’ > b.
So he can’t even appeal to Vaughan’s experiments.
Thus Graham D. Warner is gaslighting again.
The Green Plate Effect is debunked, both theoretically and experimentally.
More gaslighting by Graham.
If only it was greenhouse gasses.
False accusations of gaslighting won’t save the debunked Green Plate Effect.
Astute readers are still awaiting Gaslighting Graham’s refutation of b’ > b.
Really astute readers will be wondering how Willard missed it. The Green Plate Effect has been debunked both theoretically and experimentally.
Astute readers can recognize when Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting.
Eli’s “b’ > b” remains undefeated.
Go Team Science!
Nate simply ignores my previous comment to him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743165”
Not ignored. But irrelevant to my point that established physics as shown in textbooks, clearly demonstrate theat blackbody plates can insulate.
Which fundamentally contradicts your claims that the GPE does not work to warm the BP and the enclosure does not work to warm the heated body.
Neither you nor Bill have dealt with this honestly.
The GPE’s debunked.
It’s absurd that a heated plate gets hotter by looking in a mirror. What happens if the mirror is perfect is the plate doesn’t cool and the mirror doesn’t warm instead the heat is trapped while the radiant source has no net flow to the heated plate
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The official AR7/CMIP7 scenarios will not be released until September, and I’ll have a lot more to say about them then. But I’d emphasize a few things when assessing these new scenarios. First, the high and medium scenarios will likely still involve a high risk of exceeding 3C by 2100.
https://bsky.app/profile/hausfath.bsky.social/post/3mksintxbqx2z
Second, the world does not end in 2100 – and the AR7 plans to extend model runs through 2150 (as 2100 is no longer that far off!). As long as CO2 emissions remain above zero, the world will continue to warm, and warming levels that are now less realistic in 2100 remain plausible in 2150 and beyond.
https://bsky.app/profile/hausfath.bsky.social/post/3mksinzhegs2a
So much the worse for what junior dodgers might tell you!
I’m a little surprised Trump hasn’t shut off funding for groups like this. Maybe he’s just keep them around for laughs.
He does have a rich sense of humor….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Do you think Donald should bomb WMO?
The failed predictions and faulty science, combined with the paranoid alarmism always makes for raucous entertainment.
And then there’s Greta….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIP2vukNOPc
Is curing your GDS possible?
Yes, the poor child needs a lot of help, as do many cult kids.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.voiceofemirates.com/en/business/2026/05/06/fuel-prices-in-america-jump-to-alarming-levels-as-the-hormuz-crisis-escalates/
Do you think this will help the world unsee that renewables are just cheaper?
willard continues to windbag by pretending he stayed on zeke.
worse he is proving that he can’t use his model to produce any kind of net climate change forcing supported by the easter bunny gpe model from eli rabbet or correlate that with the investigations by professor’s pratt, seim, and olsen.
apparently nobody can do that or as an auditor understands if the science had ANY significant level of certainty that would have been done long ago.
obviously willard knows he is a fake parrot windbag or he would at least try, especially since he is always asking others to, folks out there that wished our institutions would at least make an honest attempt to analyze professionally what the gravitation influence is on earth and its relationship to our star and other internal cycles really arm instead of arm waving them away.
Gill pretends that correcting Puffman on Donald having no say in what the WHO is doing cautions his own silly squirrel:
https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/12/philosophical-reflections-on-climate-model-projections/#comment-229228
ROFL!
Willard says:
”As long as CO2 emissions remain above zero, the world will continue to warm”
Poppycock! Willard surrepticiously speculates that there is no natural ”climate change”. he is a one of a kind.
x
x
x
x
x
Willard says:
”In fairness, the Internet is unwelcoming to troglodytes. ”
actually willard has that completely backward. the truth is the Internet is unwelcoming to those who question elite institutional-based authority because of the troglodytes (hole creeps) they employ and/or happily tolerate in the internet’s infrastructure quashing freedom of expression. and why is that true? its because much of what the elite authoritarians produce can not stand up to public debate or inspection.
> completely backward.
It is true that troglodytes are unwelcoming to the Internet.
ROFL!
Gill does not seem to grok how online communities foster conspiracy ideation, e.g.: Tony’s, Paul’s, Clisep, Elon’s, etc.
***
> Willard surrepticiously speculates
Gill can’t even recognize Zeke, and pretends he doesn’t know about ceteris paribus clauses.
LMAO!
oops willard is back again advancing yet another conspiracy theory
Gill says stuff once again.
Perhaps he does not know, but cranks and troglodytes need to get in line:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/04/eight-of-the-top-10-online-shows-are-spreading-climate-misinformation/
ROFL!
Well if they didn’t treat science like the Kentucky Derby they would earn a lot more respect.
Perhaps if troglodytes stopped being cranks Team Science would notice them:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2026.2633831
Gill has simply found a way to express his libertarian self-centeredness.
willard why don’t you use the easter bunny math here and explain the outcome of vaughn pratt’s experiment? : http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
that is if you understand the math and can’t see that its a bust
Gill once more plays squirrel with a link he doesn’t understand:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
ROFL!
Willard continues huff and puff expelling foul smelling airs in an attempt to cover up the fact he can’t even get close to using his ghe model to explain actual experiment results.
Gill already forgot that it’s a thread about Zeke’s opinion on RCPs:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743041
So slow, so abusive, so clueless.
ROFL!
FYI, while willard can’t get together to defend his model i decided to check pratt’s results with maiorov’s and thermopedia models.
for the thermopedia model i used the engineering toolbox convective heat flux of .5 which is the same as maiorov as is their use of reflection instead of backradiation.
results for the more carefully constructed pratt experiment run 2 the results came out with reflection being correct for the outcome give or take about a half watt.
i would suggest willard not bother with trying to defend the existence of the easter bunny.
obviously just another routine case of different departments not communicating with one another.
And so Gill is replacing Mike as the official ankle biter at Roy’s.
Compare the models with which the RCPs are based on:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/science-research-data/modeling-projections-analysis/centre-modelling-analysis/models.html
Contrast with the spreadsheet Gill is still dodging:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Will he continue to ask for a silly sammich?
ROFL!
wiilard i am showing pratts outcome is explained by both the maiorov and the thermopedia radiative models and standard text book convective models.
the rcps are trying to duplicate past uncontrolled climate outcomes that are subject to unknown natural climate change sources. thats not an experiment. you beg the question if you believe that validates the models outcomes.
obviously vaughn pratts experiment was well controlled enough to rule out natural climate change so if you go with the rcps and there was undocumented natural climate change the rcp models will fail.
thats a huge problem when you can see in the icecore proxies regular multicentennial natural climate change up to 3c warming cycles that isn’t part of the rcp models.
if i am ankle biting you deserve to be bit.
Astute readers might notice that Gill is playing squirrel to regress to 2023:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1573969
ROFL!
He could have asked his best buddy for a video short enough for his attention span, e.g.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
Perhaps he should write a strongly worded letter to the National Weather Service to entertain them about some crank botched setups?
LMAO!
i agree willard. the link demonstrates what a bunch of inculcated intansigent daddy’s pet parrots the lot of you are now going on at least 3 years if not a lot longer.
> the link
Gill can’t count links anymore.
ROFL!
Let’s turn to daddy John’s old setup instead:
https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nvdtwm-sci-co2evidence/evidence-that-carbon-dioxide-traps-heat-decoding-the-weather-machine/
LMAO!
thats hilarious willard. tyndall lights up co2 with a gas torch and its radiance lit up the thermopile higher than room temperature.
how interesting and how inapplicable to the gpe can you get?
Gill’s constant insults and false accusations act like the CO2 in the balloon:
https://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/classes/ge108/week3/lec6.pdf
They make him invisible to Team Science.
ROFL!
bill easily wins another one.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Here’s the experiment:
https://www.metlink.org/experiment/the-greenhouse-effect/
Team Science can’t see Sky Dragon cranks a similar way: they absorb any light thrown at them.
As I said – bill easily wins another one.
Poor Sky Dragon cranks:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7540758/
Reality is tough for them.
bill is effortlessly the winner.
dremt is living rent free in willards brain.
so far wiilard hasn’t come with anything at all in support of the Easter Bunny GPE. It is in fact a fraud. . .no wonder why the Easter Bunny didn’t want to attach his real name to it.
Gill keeps trying to crap in my subthread. A thread about RCPs, not his pet topic. Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting about Gill’s pet topic, which is not RCPs. And Gill garrulously gallops about “living rent free”?
ROFL!
As long as b’ > b, Eli’s plates stand alone. Besides:
https://youtu.be/cimZGu5GadQ?si=VzVeXHQgaxEFAooY
LMAO!
hard to see who is wearing the blindfold because your youtube video explains how energy gets trapped in the atmosphere. pratt estimated his glass cover as being the equivalent 1000ppm of co2. so his trapping effect nearly represented to doublings of co2.
but the problem is his effect on the surface of 1.1 wasn’t caused by gpe warming of the greenplate but instead by reflection from the glass plate prior to any warming of the plate.
so the 2nd law of thermodynamics remains unchallenged and your video didn’t even touch on that issue. they just left with gee it warmed somewhere in the atmosphere without even saying one word about overturning 2lot.
did you notice and chose to ignore it. or did that just fly over your head at 40,000 feet without you noticing
> instead by reflection
Gill fancies that the more a surface reflects, the better it warms.
ROFL!
He would have made a killing in the 70’s by selling greenhouses of mirrors.
LMAO!
While our crank-adjacent peddles the same crap he tried on Nate for so many years, another instructional video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zst7B-B3P2E
Wow, Willard is dumb. That just makes bill’s win even more satisfying.
More insults and false accusations by Graham D. Warner.
after all this discussion and scientific references you still don’t have iota of learning from thermopedia online physics book or the paper by v. a. maiorov that details the role of reflection as insulation. you have been given references and you either didn’t read them or you refuse to believe the science in favor of believing some anonymous blogger who pulled the wool over the eyes of millions. talking about science deniers! turns out those who have chosen calling out people as science deniers were not surprisingly the actual deniers. how apropos!
its not surprising since rather than producing an actual science experiment they had to excuse that by saying they don’t have a world to experiment with which also happens to be the mantra of the anti-progressives and the modern day luddites who opposed textile making machines placing every imaginable hurdle in front of progress including violence.
The GPE’s debunked. bill wins.
> the paper by v. a. maiorov
Gill tries to peddle more crap:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1740662
ROFL!
With such lousy cranks, Eli’s thought experiment is safe and sound.
While Gill tries to find another bait, let’s have another experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pLAtl10mm4
LMAO!
bill wins.
Bill,
You might want to look up a textbook by Lienhard IV and Lienhard V on Radiative Heat Transfer.
A problem very much like the GPE is in chapter 1.
Nah.
https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.mit.edu/dist/6/1810/files/2024/04/AHTTv600.pdf
bill wins.
yes bob when an object is cooling, cooling will be slowed. somebody else already posted a paper that specified that. this is the foundation of passive solar energy technology from home atmospheres and water heating.
another way is with a spectra mismatch. oxygen will warm to thousands of degrees by only being a uv absorber and 1365w/m2 from the sun has the uv to do it but temp at full spectra absorption is scaled down by distance. spectra mismatches arise out reflection and tested and measured to assign the emissivity factor. and the result is some heat will be retained and some will be denied.
but each of the laws have to be obeyed and you can’t make up stuff you just want to make up.
like i said before experiments are how the science advances in em.
electricity which has many orders of magnitude of testing going than light transfer has developed an entire book of various concepts and devices to explain things like tvs, hifi, motors, on and on. their seemingly is an infinite amount of variations and ways of describing them. undoubtedly even there there has to be more to learn than what we have learned. don’t buy cheap electronics or tales of doom.
only buy the good stuff cause when you do things always turn out far better.
> yes bob […] but each of the laws have to be obeyed and you can’t make up stuff
ROFL!
If only Gill could have an argument that defeats the laws of…algebra:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
LMAO!
Thick.
please astute readers dont put in the newspaper that gaslighting graham got mad
he’s not mad
https://x.com/dril/status/549425182767861760
An easy win for bill.
Example 1.2
Lol, no…example 1.2 is nothing like the Green Plate Effect.
bill wins.
Bill and DREMPTY,
If you use the radiant heat transfer equation correctly, there can be no second law violation because the second law is baked in to the equation.
There is no heat transfer from cold to hot with respect to the GPE.
It’s you lot that use the RHTE incorrectly, bob. That’s the problem.
You cannot find a single example from any textbook where the RHTE is used to come to the conclusion that a powered object gets warmer at the expense of a cooler passive object. Yet that’s exactly what happens in Eli’s GPE solution.
> You lot
Graham D. Warner tries to minimize the size of Team Science, which is at least ten thousand times bigger than the bunch of Sky Dragons who linger around in the obscurest places of the Intertubes.
If that were the case, Willard, you would be able to find what I just asked for in a textbook. Nobody has, in eight years.
If Sky Dragon cranks had a case, they would be able to convince every physics professors in every department that they have one.
They just don’t. Perhaps because they can’t.
Meanwhile, all they got is Pure Denial, Sammich Request, Saying Stuff, and Cheap Bargaining:
ROFL!
And of course trolling:
[GILL’S GURU] Glasses act as screens for thermal radiation and an increase in their number reduces the radiant heat flux.
[GILL] That’s correct.
[ELI] Plates act as screens for thermal radiation and an increase in
their number reduces the radiant heat flux.
[GILL] Incorrect. Lulz.
LMAO!
The GPE isn’t textbook science, so why on Earth do you presume every physics professor in every department would agree with it!?
bill wins.
Ark was bickering above about the “K-T” energy budget, and revealed why he can’t understand it — he’s an accountant. Ark is probably referring to this:
https://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf
Nothing wrong with being an accountant, but in science an understanding of what is being counted is important. For example, if a car is moving at 50 mph, and there are 4 dead squirrels along the road, what does the sum of the numbers mean? We know 50 + 4 = 54, but does the result have any meaning?
It’s the same with the so-called “energy budget”. There is NO energy being “budgeted”. They are adding/subtracting flux, not energy. That’s about as bad as adding a car’s speed to dead squirrels!
That ain’t science….
> We know 50 + 4 = 54, but
♂️
Readers of this blog might wonder what it’s like living rent-free in Clint R’s head: It’s a run-down place, and there’s no view, but at least there’s lots of space.
Ark is handicapped by his ignorance of science. He was arguing in support of the bogus K-T “energy diagram” without understanding any of it. I’ve already indicated that “flux” is NOT “energy”, so is NOT conserved and can NOT be “balanced”. If groups like NCAR were really interested in science, they should be willing to learn something. But, they’re only interested in their false religion.
This “paper” is full of science mistakes, errors, and apparent fraud. I mentioned one example. There are many more. I bet Ark can’t identify even one thing wrong:
https://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf
Prove me wrong, Ark. Show you have some grasp of science.
Clint R at 2:11 PM
You’re hallucinating again!
Where was I “bickering above about the “K-T” energy budget”????
In fact, the only discussion that even tangentially mentions it is this by bill hunter: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742912
And it isn’t what you claim.
Prove me wrong.
Has there been a delay to the April global temperature update? I would have expected it by now.
It just posted about an hour ago.
from Clint’s link re the energy budget….
https://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf
See Fig. 7 on page 10 of 12…
The graph shows 168 watt/metre of solar energy reaching the surface. Then it shows 340 w/m^2 leaving it via IR. That’s 172 w/m^2 more leaving the surface than is coming in. To make up the difference they have conjured a back-radiation of 324 w/m^2.
The absurdity here is two-fold…
1)a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface that produced the back-radiation in the first place. That contradicts the 2nd law and represents perpetual motion.
2)how does the surface manage to convert the incoming 168 w/m^2 SW solar to 348 w/m^2 LW infrared as heat dissipation? In fact, if you look more closely at the diagram, you see 24 w/m^2 from convection (thermals) plus 78 w/m^2 evapouration.
That’s a total of 169 w/m^2 incoming versus 348 + 24 + 78 w/m^2 = 450 w/m^2 leaving versus 168 w/m^2 from the only true heat source, solar energy. Pure magic!!!
If you want to believe the fiction that C02 and other so-called GHGs can back-radiation 324 w/m^2 you might also believe in the tooth fairy. It not only contradicts the 2nd law it is pure science-fiction in anyone’s mind who takes science seriously.
The 24 w/m^2 due to convection is also absurd since convection has been proved by Shula, based on the Pirani gauge, to be 260 times more efficient at dissipating surface heat than radiation alone.
As I see it, if 168 w/m^2 of solar is incoming then 168 w/m^2 should be exiting the surface, albeit with a significant time delay. It is ingenuous to separate convection and evapouration so I would lump them together as convection, since heat needs air molecules to produce the required rising air convection.
If radiation is x and convection is 260x then x + 260x = 168 w/m^2. Therefore, 261x = 168w/m2
That means x = 168/261 = 0.65w/m2 and convection is 260 times that which is 167.36 w/m^2.
There is zero w/m^2 back-radiated and most heat dissipation from the surface is due to direct conduction to air molecules which number some 10^28 molecules per m^2. That explains why convection is 260 times better at dissipating surface heat than radiation.
Anyone who doubts back-radiation, and takes science seriously, could measure it in his own backyard.
I see Ark is commenting again, so he’s seen my comment above, and chosen to ignore it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743215
That was a smart choice….
I have no doubt that back-radiation exists from so-called GHGs, I am only claiming that the GHGs are colder than the surface and cannot create heat in the surface due to the back-radiation. The frequency of the BR would be too low to be absorbed by electrons in the hotter surface atoms, which would have a higher frequency.
The 2nd law, according to Clausius, can be stated….’heat can NEVER be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from a colder object to a hotter object’. The meaning is clear, a colder GHG molecule cannot transfer heat to the hotter surface.
This is a no-brainer from another angle. Heat from the surface cannot be recycled via GHGs to increase the surface temperature. That is such a flagrant violation of the perpetual motion meme that I am surprised anyone would invoke such an impossibility.
Even if that was the case, we must consider losses. Heat is dissipated at the surface and converted to IR. Depending on how far the IR must travels, it quickly loses energy due to the inverse square law. If a GHG molecule absorbs the weakened IR it must then radiate isotropically with only a fraction of the IR being radiated back to the surface.
Of course, there is a further reduction in IR intensity due to the ISQ law, and the back-radiated energy would be far too weak to make up for the losses incurred. All in all, the theory is a sequence of non-sequitur arguments.
1/ John Tyndall said it best in 1862: “As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.”
Meaning that because the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases radiate to the surface (as well as to space), that radiation reduces the net rate at which the surface loses energy to space. That reduction in the rate of heat loss, coupled with the fact that it receives a constant massive influx of energy from the Sun, results in a higher surface temperature than would occur in a simple radiative equilibrium without the radiative insulation of greenhouse gases, approximately 15 °C rather than about −18 °C.
2/ Atoms and molecules do not have a single “frequency” based on their temperature; they have specific a b s o r p t i o n spectra. If a photon matches the energy level required to excite a molecule’s vibrational or rotational state, it will be a b s o r b e d regardless of whether the source is hotter or colder than the a b s o r b e r.
Besides, the Earth’s surface is a near-perfect blackbody, meaning it a b s o r b s radiation across almost all infrared frequencies.
3/ No “perpetual motion meme.” The greenhouse effect simply changes the equilibrium temperature at which the Earth radiates enough energy back to space to match the energy it receives from the Sun. No energy is “created”; it is merely delayed on its way out.
4/ The inverse square law applies to radiation from a point source spreading into a sphere. However, the atmosphere is a shell surrounding the Earth and, for an observer on the ground it acts more like an infinite radiating plane where intensity doesn’t drop off with distance in the same way.
Besides, most GHGs responsible for back-radiation are in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), very close to the surface, meaning “losses” due to distance are negligible.
5/ But most importantly, because back-radiation does exist, it must be accounted for in the energy balance.
Yeah, Ark is back commenting again. And, like the other cult kids, he’s avoiding reality and making up crap.
Here are the necessary corrections to his nonsense:
1/ This is because the atmosphere acts as a blanket. Oxygen and nitrogen provide insulation to conduction. Radiative flux can NOT provide insulation.
2/ If a photon does NOT matches the energy level required to excite a molecule’s vibrational or rotational state, it will NOT be absorbed regardless of whether the source is hotter or colder than the absorber.
Besides, Earth having a high emissivity does NOT mean every photon will be absorbed or will raise the temperature if absorbed.
3/ No one should use the term “greenhouse effect” unless they can scientifically define it.
4/ The atmosphere proves that radiative fluxes do not simply add. The surface receives flux from thousands of “disks”. That does not mean Earth is receiving the atmospheric flux multiplied by 1000s!
5/ But most importantly, back-radiation doesn’t need to accounted for in the bogus EEI because it is not leaving the system, or creating new energy.
Clint R fools himself again:
He writes: “…the atmosphere acts as a blanket. Oxygen and nitrogen provide insulation to conduction.”
He believes in heat conduction into space!
Conduction requires a medium, i.e., a continuous chain of mass-to-mass contact. The “walls” of the planet are made of vacuum and, because you cannot conduct heat into a vacuum, radiative insulation is the only type of insulation that matters for global temperature.
Claiming N2 and O2 are the “blanket” ignores the fact that, to an IR photon, they are essentially invisible.
Gordon Robertson at 12:43 AM.
I take it from your silence that you concede the points made.
Wrong again, Ark.
I never said anything conduction “into space”. That’s just you making up crap, again.
And conduction involves molecular collisions. The molecules don’t need to be in constant contact, they just need to be colliding as they are in the atmosphere.
Here’s some more science for you to avoid:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1743434
Here’s what you replied to:
So, you’re either:
a/ lying;
or
b/ too dumb to understand my post.
My guess is both.
ark says:
”1/ John Tyndall said it best in 1862: “As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.”
Meaning that because the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases radiate to the surface (as well as to space), that radiation reduces the net rate at which the surface loses energy to space. ”
if tyndall actually said that he was wrong. today since the early 20th century temperature, voltage, and pressure are analogous, and not to the free flow of water. look it up, don’t take my word for it. then come back when you have found the answer.
if you change the pipesize downwards in a pressurized water system the pressure doesn’t change.
the earth doesn’t lose energy to space it simply constantly seeks avenues to get everything to the same temperature at the point that incoming equals outgoing. you need insulation capable of creating a temperature gradient – blackbody perfectly conducting plates have no capability to present a temperature gradient. clouds represent insulation as they reflect. entrained energy carried by molecules physically to toa move far slower than light. all radiation occurs at the speed of light. ghgs are energy carriers and provide for nonghgs to cool to space.
bill hunter at 6:56 PM
You said: “if you change the pipesize downwards in a pressurized water system the pressure doesn’t change.”
I say: That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!
Then you said: “the earth doesn’t lose energy to space”
And I say: I spoke too soon. THIS is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!!
Further, given that averaged over all regions and day and night and net of the amount reflected back to space, the Earth receives from the sun 36,000 times the annual amount of energy consumed by the US,
I find it really puzzling how you people can rationalize that none of that energy must be shed back to space. Y’all are eejits.