Home/BlogThis month I’m adding plots for USA48 and Canada, too.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2026 was +0.39 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which remains statistically unchanged for 4 months now.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through April 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 28 months (record highs are in red). Note I’ve added Canada to the table this month, by request (although WordPress won’t allow me to add September 2024 for some reason). The warmest April in Canada was in 2010 (+2.61 deg. C), while the warmest anomaly out of all months was in January 1981 (+3.75 deg. C).
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.57 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 | +0.97 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.94 | +0.81 | +1.16 | +1.31 | +0.85 | +1.16 | +2.45 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.25 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 | +1.39 |
| 2024 | May | +0.77 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.04 | +0.20 | +0.52 | +0.67 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.36 | +0.63 | +0.91 | +0.19 |
| 2024 | July | +0.73 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.96 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 | +1.15 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.75 | +0.81 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 | +1.36 |
| 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 | +0.89 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.40 | +0.53 | +1.11 | +0.79 | +1.00 | +1.61 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.61 | +0.75 | +0.47 | +0.52 | +1.41 | +1.12 | +1.54 | +1.65 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.07 | +0.74 | +0.48 | +1.04 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.03 | +2.10 | +0.87 | -0.35 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.73 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 | +0.80 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.76 | +0.46 | +0.36 | +0.81 | +0.85 | +1.21 | +0.45 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.98 | +0.81 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.80 | +0.05 | +0.39 | -0.22 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 | -0.23 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.82 | +0.11 | +0.62 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.30 | +2.44 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 | +2.59 |
| 2025 | Nov | +0.43 | +0.59 | +0.27 | +0.24 | +1.32 | +0.78 | +0.36 | +1.47 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.37 | -1.86 |
| 2026 | Jan | +0.35 | +0.51 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 | +1.17 |
| 2026 | Feb | +0.39 | +0.54 | +0.23 | +0.03 | +1.91 | -0.48 | +0.73 | +0.32 |
| 2026 | Mar | +0.38 | +0.33 | +0.42 | +0.07 | +3.74 | -0.48 | +1.14 | -3.17 |
| 2026 | Apr | +0.39 | +0.43 | +0.34 | +0.23 | +1.20 | +0.30 | +0.70 | -0.89 |
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
Time Series Plots for USA48 and Canada
Starting this month I will include time series graphs for USA48 and Canada, in addition to the usual global plot. Note that for the previous month (March) the record warmth in USA48 (+3.74 deg. C) was in stark contrast to the coldest March in Canada in the 48-year satellite record (-3.17 deg. C).
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for April, 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:
My guess for the September 2024 problem is non-numeric data lurking in there.
The global anomalies for 2026 have started off remarkably consistent. Only 0.04C seperating all four months. Each month has been either 6th or 5th warmest.
Ten warmest Aprils since 1978:
Year Anomaly
2024 0.94
1998 0.62
2016 0.61
2025 0.61
2026 0.39
2019 0.32
2020 0.26
2022 0.26
2005 0.20
2010 0.20
Good to see Canada being added.
I’ve been experimenting with my own country estimates. This month fir instance the warmest anomalues by country were
Kyrgyzstan 2.41
Japan 2.34
Switzerland 2.26
Kazakhstan 2.24
Norway 2.11
France 2.09
Tajikistan 2.04
Luxembourg 1.98
Spain 1.95
Portugal 1.80
and the coldest anomalies were
Belarus -1.80
Ukraine -1.72
Moldova -1.27
Lithuania -1.26
Latvia -1.19
Libya -0.94
Canada -0.89
Syria -0.89
Georgia -0.88
N. Cyprus -0.79
Of course. smaller countries are more likely to have more extreme anomalies. so this ranking doesn’t mean much.
Given the established ~5-month lag between Niño 3.4 anomalies and global lower-tropospheric temperatures, should we expect mild cooling in the UAH data over the next three months as the lingering La Niña (negative Niño 3.4) signal finally works its way through the system?
It seems odd that the media is already pushing a “Super El Niño” narrative based on model forecasts, right in the middle of this lagged cooling phase—when we might instead see global temperature anomalies dip below the long-term warming trend for a while.
What is the news value you’re looking for? A mild la Nina is newsworthy in what way?
If it’s to do with global temps, have a look at the graph at the top here. La Ninas don’t see to have quite the impact of major el Ninos.
Of course, strong el Ninos have significant weather effects locally, so maybe that’s why a potential super el Nino is newsowrthy?
“Potential” is the key word here.
Predictions for heat extremes isn’t news — it’s a constructed narrative. Many media outlets are failing to convey the significant uncertainty involved in the Super El Nino predictions- especially coming off missing the last one. It seems a mask to me to sell a prediction designed to prop up the current scientific misstep that warming has “accelerated” and incorrectly dismiss the recent warm anomaly as a long-term trend rather than a short-term event.
I seek objective media coverage, but we both know that’s unrealistic, media outlets have their biases.
Objective media would present how we are currently at baseline and anticipating most likely futire cooling below the trend over the next few months. Isnt that the bigger story? Climate science wrong again!
Well, the only “construction” I have is the one you’ve offered. I haven’t seen news stories of a looming super el Nino.
“It seems a mask to me to sell a prediction designed to prop up the current scientific misstep that warming has ‘accelerated’ and incorrectly dismiss the recent warm anomaly as a long-term trend rather than a short-term event.”
Yes, global climate trends are based on long-term data, not the peaks and troughs of interannual forces, like ENSO. Who on Earth would try to make make global climate hay out of a few months…?
“Objective media would present how we are currently at baseline and anticipating most likely futire cooling below the trend over the next few months. Isnt that the bigger story? Climate science wrong again!”
Oh dear.
Aaron, I agree that the media has downplayed the uncertainty in El Nino forecasts.
I saw one piece suggesting this will certainly be stronger than 2016 and could be the strongest El Nino in more than a century.
I think media bias is toward overhypying weather/climate stories to GAIN CLICKS. They also dont understand science uncertainty well enough.
“designed to prop up the scientfic misstep”??
What misstep?
Cmon do you imagine some sort of media/science conspiracy to organize this ‘campaign’?
Not plausible.
Here you go:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure06.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure08.gif
The published narrative made the media cycles, but the short term trend was related to the unexpected super El Nino (IMHO super sized by additional water vapor). After the upcoming minor La Nina it wont be empirical to claim acceleration.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494
“After the upcoming minor La Nina it wont be empirical to claim acceleration”
Huh?
When is that coming?
” It seems odd that the media is already pushing a “Super El Niño” narrative based on model forecasts… ”
*
Oh how interesting!
Super La Niñas simply exist and apparently never need to be ‘pushed’ by some ‘narrative’; conversely, Super El Niños are always ‘misused by Alarmistas’.
I perfectly remember the last Super La Niña which lasted in the MEI V2 Index during no less than 34 months, from Apr 20 till May 23:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
*
Woe betide you if you dare to present NOAA’s prediction of a Super La Niña in a PDF-corrected version, let alone using a forecast made by JMA’s Tokyo Climate center! You will immediately be crucified as a Global Cooling downplayer.
*
NOAA’s forecast for Nino3+4, saved on 060426:
https://i.postimg.cc/KjZG3G7Y/nino34Mon-060426.png
… and on 070526:
https://i.postimg.cc/rpGKpN51/nino34Mon-070526.png
*
Maybe someone thinks on saving it next month for a comparison of the forecast to the actual data…
If there is a super El Niño, the world may need a few months warning to prepare, don’t you think? Not that I think most countries will actually do much, but they at least should be given the chance.
Sure absolutely fair to warn about a Super El Nino potential, but why not highlight when model describes super La Nina potential? Similar disturbances and extremes but empirically different coverage (google trends).
A Quick observation on UHI and elevation effects on temperature:
Yes, this is current weather and not climate, but it does make me wonder…
A classic cold front just went thru and we are under a pretty strong high. 5 minutes ago, Lunken airport in Cincinnati, Ohio reported current temperature 10 degrees lower than a station about 4 miles or so away. Lunken lies in a broad river valley, 300 to 400 feet below the other station which lies on the higher plain/hilltop topography and is closer to and almost part of the urban landscape (many paved surfaces, buildings, etc). The colder air has settled into the valleys overnight, creating some fog, just in the valleys.
10 degrees…in 4 miles.
Mr. Hagedorn,
I can’t speak to your stations, but when I lived near Charlotte, NC
and visited there. Quite often the trip home, at night, brought a 6 to 10 deg F lowering of temp according to the car gauge. Understand, this was from an almost completely paved city to a burg of trees, large yards and fields and creeks.
I was always impressed.
We’re another month closer to the next official Monckton Pause.
My prediction is that next month’s anomaly will be lower than this month.
Something dawned on me the other day when I was looking at climatestations.org and their Minneapolis/St. Paul temp record going back to 1820. Of the 4˚C or so of warming Minneapolis has seen from its coldest 10 year period (1860s) to its warmest (most recent)… 2.8˚C of that warming occurred prior to 1935. And, in fact, Minneapolis has only warmed 0.5˚C since 2000 while the concentration of CO2 equivalent has gone up more than 20%. A 13% increase in CO2 from 1820-1965 resulted in 2.8˚C warming. A 15% increase in CO2 from 1966-2000 resulted in 0.7˚C warming… and a 20% increase since 2000 has resulted in 0.5˚C of warming. Considering MN goes the way of the globe temp wise I don’t think it’s some kind of outlier. It’s not corn sweat either.
Dr Spencer,
Thank you for posting this. The big question is the retirement situation. What happens in July? Will this blog and the data set live on in some form?
Wow. I hope so.
While my retirement situation is still up in the air (I have not yet been told I need to retire due to a lack of funding), I get the impression that, at a minimum, John Christy and I will continue on part-time and the monthly updates will continue. For how long, I do not know.
In the previous monthly tempoerature report I see, without any surprise, genius Robertson teaching us about radiation vs. conduction/convection.
*
” 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. ”
Thus:
” 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. ”
*
As we all know, Robertson is one of these geniuses who always refer to those sources which fit best their own narrative: one contrarian voice supporting them matters always more than 999 voices which don’t.
*
Thus we all can be 100% sure that, when looking at a graph showing downwelling/upwelling solar shortwave versus downwelling/upwelling terrestrial longwave radiation measured at the SURFRAD station in Fort Peck, Montana on April 1, 2026:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18KuC6GDaCPo8bX24MglGvhSxqVJK0jHj/view
Robertson will tell us that while the solar shortwave plots measured by two pyranometers are 100% correct, the terrestrial longwave plots are of course both 100% wrong, namely because the two pyrgeometers by miracle always measure faked things.
*
But… I tend to trust the two pyrgeometers at Fort Peck (and those measuring longwave at all other SURFRAD locations) MUCH MORE than Robertson…
Here is a monthly report of Fort Peck’s longwave measurements for 2025:
month up down (W/m²)
1 269.91 228.37
2 246.36 204.75
3 327.21 267.89
4 353.81 281.99
5 392.53 316.26
6 422.60 336.11
7 439.37 356.60
8 429.01 350.55
9 408.67 327.53
10 355.72 291.49
11 309.93 266.77
12 271.89 245.30
*
Maybe Robertson presents us one day in the furure the results of 25 years of measurements by Pirani gauges!
*
And, moreover, yes: there are some better-knowers who claim (without scientific proof, of course) that only a tiny fraction of the downwelling longwave radiation would be due to downward reemission of absorbed upwelling radiation.
But… I trust such contrarian voices exactly as much as Robertson.
*
By the way, I repeat what I wrote on Roy Spencer’s last thread:
CO2 is, on global average, responsible for no more than 10% of the measured back radiation. Nearly all the rest is from H2O.
*
And finally, last not least, Clint R’s claim that ‘CO2 15 µ photons can’t warm the surface’ is 100% correct!
Try expressing your point of view using concepts compatible with thermodynamics. That is to say, use the concept of heat and drop the billiards game with photons that misleads you. Perhaps then you’ll understand something about the greenhouse effect, which is a thermodynamic mechanism.
“CO2 is, on global average, responsible for no more than 10% of the measured back radiation. Nearly all the rest is from H2O.”
Be that as it may. It’s well-known that the main driver of the INCREASE in back radiation is the INCREASE of non-condensable greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, and that the increased back radiation due to increased water vapor is a positive feedback.
0.8°C of warming since 1979 is very much in line with 2.5 W/m² of radiative forcing with no feedbacks. I get 0.758°C using the method Daniel Jacob has in his Text Book (Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry). If you consider the fact that since 2000, there has been a decrease in outgoing short wave of approximately 2 W/m² which BTW results in 0.6°C of warming (with no change in atmosphere), it stands to reason, that there must be a significant NET negative feedback going on and I haven’t even discussed urban heat island effects, effects of mass scale wind farms, improved surface drainage efficiencies etc.
Also note that since there is no evidence CO2 warming causes an increase in upper tropospheric humidity, positive water vapor feedback is just a myth.
“there is no evidence CO2 warming causes an increase in upper tropospheric humidity”
There’s some evidence that the tropical mid-tropospheric ‘hotspot’ arises in response to surface waring, but far from conclusive, primarily due to the significant observational uncertainties.
When it comes to positive water vapor feedback theory and global warming. The only place that matters is the upper troposphere where it is coldest.
Make it the stratosphere and you got something:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/103/11/BAMS-D-21-0351.1.xml
And indeed, Virginia, the upper atmosphere is cooling:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-change-upper-atmosphere-cooling
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
With the new NMME model update, even the more conservative relative Oceanic Nino Index metric now has us roughly tied with 1998 and 2026 El Nino events: dashboard.theclimatebrink.com#enso
https://bsky.app/profile/hausfath.bsky.social/post/3mle5ibjk4c2f
UAH temperature anomalies are likely to exceed 2023-24 levels. Meanwhile the alleged influence of Hunga Tonga still has not dissipated enough to bring back to pre 2023 temperature anomalies, despite confident claims it would by now.
It seems skeptic predictions are often just as inaccurate as the ones made by high profile alarmists (e.g., Al Gore).
A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2026/05/a-look-back-at-an-inconvenient-truth-20-years-later/
20 years later and your cult STILL hasn’t learned anything Ark.
They’re still “trapping heat”!
In REAL science, they need to show how 15 μ photons can warm a 288K surface. They can’t!
Kids these days….
PS Why did you fail to answer the easy assignment?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743215
Yup, although the Hunga-Tonga Effect has lessened, it’s still here:
https://postimg.cc/WFjF6TCZ
The Aura MLS data you presented show the post Hunga Tonga stratospheric water vapor anomaly globally becoming less intense after its 2023 peak.
Meanwhile, UAH LT anomalies during the most recent La Nina period (August 2025 – April 2026) averaged 0.4C versus 0.25C during the comparable August 2016 – April 2017 period.
That ~0.15C difference is basically consistent with the long term warming trend of 0.16C/decade itself.
This suggests the elevated temperatures over the past three years do not necessarily require either a large continuing Hunga Tonga influence or some other extraordinary explanation beyond the underlying long term warming trend.
As more time passes, the Hunga Tonga hypothesis appears increasingly difficult to reconcile with observations.
That’s correct Kyngora, the Hunga-Tonga Effect has lessened, but it’s still here:
https://postimg.cc/WFjF6TCZ
Upthread, I started a little report about NOAA’s SURFRAD station data
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1743295
with as intention to contradict claims that radiation would, compared to conduction/convection processes, play a minimal role, and backradiation… be simply inexistent.
If that was true, then all SURFRAD stations measuring, among many other things, upwelling and downwelling terrestrial radiation, would be ‘plain wrong’.
*
To technically contradict this nonsense is not very difficult: one just needs to collect the monthly averages of all data measured all three minutes by the SURFRAD stations
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/sitepage.html
and to build CONUS-wide monthly anomaly time series showing the two terrestrial radiation components:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lOJsgpuO_7TK91DdaNcJcPmc6vMdpfEQ/view
The anomalies were constructed according to the following baselines for the period 2011-2020:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13NKVxHIgpc9cQ4FyADkdiihPrPsfMtc9/view
*
Linear estimates for the period 2000 – 2026, in Watt/m²/decade
Upwelling: 1.5 ± 0.5
Downwelling: 2.4 ± 0.5
*
Nota bene
I’m a retired engineer, and not a meteorologist nor climatologist.
What I show here is what anyone having some technical skills can observe, download and process.
The goal was to prove that both upwelling and downwelling terrestrial radiation from the surface exist, are measurable, quantifiable, and that the two are both way higher than alleged by Shula.
*
It has NOTHING to do with any explanation of whether the GHE exists, let alone how it works.
This must be handled by people who are truly knowledgeable in this field — and none of us sharing this blog is even remotely so.
I am glad to see that you admit to being clueless about climate science. The fact is that there are very many of us who do understand the science in its entirety. That is precisely why we know that focusing on one single factor, increasing CO2, and selling that concept to the public is a hoax. This will get taken out of context by the hoax supporters, so the very next sentence has to be that the basic science is precisely correct. The hoax is in the focus on one single factor and the hype involved.
” That is precisely why we know that focusing on one single factor, increasing CO2, and selling that concept to the public is a hoax. ”
*
Thanks to the output of one of the most prestigious universities for confirming that he is too dumb to understand what I wrote and why I did.
His brainless, desperate fixation on the CO2 guy is amazing, to say the least. Ball-on-a-string level, at best.
Thank you again!
Bindy Goebells,
Why are you trying to shift away from CO2 being the cause?
For years your eco-nazty cult push the CO2 was the cause of global warming, then renamed it to climate change as if that was supposed to be more meaningful. The eco propaganda of using climate Change to indicate that natural changes is somehow bad was very evident. 1984 was supposed to be a warning but somehow the eco socialists turn it into their doctrine.
You may not know this, but George Orwell named 1984 after the Fabian society as a warning. He was right. We are now having to spend a lot of time trying to counter the evil that is destroying the planet by the back door. And you, Bindy are a one of their useful 1D10Ts, question is for you know what you are.
Face the simple facts:
Orbits changes each and every year,
Solar output is cyclical,
Water vapour is never consistent
Pollution has reduced
Heat islands are very impactful
…
…
CO2 minor!
Meaning that your little eco-nazty cult is howling at the moon
“For years your eco-nazty cult push the CO2 was the cause of global warming, then renamed it to climate change”
You gotta love the stories ‘skeptics’ tell themselves.
IPCC was formed in 1988.
The term ‘climate change’ regarding global climate had been around for a few decades before that.
EG:
“The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”
Plass, G.N. (1956)
Media Narrative (New Scientist)
“There’s been a sudden increase in the rate of sea level rise.
The average global sea level has already risen by more than 0.2 metres (200 mm) over the past 15 years as a result of global warming.”
— New Scientist, recent article.
Satellite measurements show the rate jumped around 2012 from ~2.9 mm/year to 4.1 mm/year (equivalent to ~0.41 m per century).
Perspective from Paleo Records
Do you realize how absurd these headlines sound when placed against paleo climate records? Any balanced coverage would note that current sea level rise is not significant by the standards of past warm periods. The Eemian (Last Interglacial, ~130,000–115,000 years ago) provides a near-perfect natural analogy: a warmer world with higher sea levels and much faster rise rates driven by ice-sheet responses.
Key Eemian rates (standardized):
Rohling et al. (2008) reconstructed Red Sea records and found average rates of 1.6 m per century (16 mm/year) during the Eemian, with peaks potentially higher. This reflects rapid contributions from Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets under warmer conditions.0594c5
Grant et al. (2012) showed that during major episodes of global ice loss in the last 150,000 years (including the Eemian), sea-level rise reached at least 1.2 m per century (12 mm/year) — roughly 3× the current New Scientist-reported rate of 4.1 mm/year.2006cc
Kopp et al. (2009) gave a probabilistic millennial-average assessment: when global sea level was near or above present levels in the Eemian, the rate was very likely >0.56 m per century (5.6 mm/year) and unlikely to exceed ~0.92 m per century (9.2 mm/year). They noted this does not rule out shorter bursts exceeding 1 m per century (10 mm/year).5015ef
Bottom line: Modern rates (~4.1 mm/year or 0.41 m/century per New Scientist) remain well below the rapid pulses documented in the Eemian under naturally warmer conditions. The Eemian was not an “abnormal” outlier — it was the most recent full interglacial, offering a direct analog for how ice sheets and sea levels respond to sustained warmth. Current changes, while measurable, are modest by those standards.
Beware false prophets, North Shields tital gauge shows no such increase in SLR, and as all of Earths major bodies of water are linked one can not increase without the other. many things influence SLR, temperature is only one of them.
Aaron, interesting.
So given that our SLR is currently accelerating, these studies suggest we may reach as high as 1.2 m/y in the near future.
Absolutely, it happened last peak warm glacial phase. Guess what no extinction- actually it was a time of population expansion. Was not catastrophic by any proxy I can find.
I would not expect small nomadic tribes to have any issue with gradual sea level rise.
Our modern world with large unmovable coastal cities: totally different story.
You can’t prove that statement, no one can, the only way measure SLR accurately is by volume, and no one does that it’s just another leap of faith, a rod to beat people with. Now the climate crisis is dead and buried another scape goat has to be found, we must remember all the imaginary dangers have killed no one. I find it amusing that after almost 50 years of nonsense I can still stand on the same spot on my local beach at low tide and not get my feet wet,
“another leap of faith” plus plenty of confirming data
“spot on my local beach at low tide and not get my feet wet”
Key word here is ‘local’, which is not ‘global’.
For example in South Caroline, the local SLR is 12 cm per decade.
Faster than the global average SLR.
“Sea levels in South Carolina are rising at an accelerated rate, particularly around Charleston, where levels have risen by about 13 inches in the last century, with nearly half occurring in the last 20 years. The sea is currently rising by approximately 1 inch every 2 years, leading to increased sunny-day flooding.”
No wonder Aaron won’t cite his stuff:
A Pliocene relative sea level record from New Zealand calculated from grain size
https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.902701
We need better contrarians.
I dont get your point? Sea level increase is natural and not catastrophic. Also CO2 is not equal to climate state, its a invalid analogy.
1. Return to Pliocene was what I wrote and published my PhD on. So I have written very similar justification, because that was the mechanism for funding publications.
2. My final realization from a deep dive was that the biggest climate myth is that warming is catastrophic and that today’s rate of change or weather extremes are unprecedented. This misinformation has driven trillions in inefficient spending. In reality, the costs of moderate warming are minimal while the benefits of higher CO₂—stronger crop yields, global greening, cheap energy, and enhanced ecosystem productivity—are substantial, all without the need to clear forests for wood-burning biomass energy.
Of course you don’t get the many points I just made, Aaron.
Your own source says that we’re on track to experience the same sea level as in the maximum Pliocene. During that time, there was way polar ice at the time than there is today. The number you presented requires an “extensive retreat or collapse of the Greenland, West Antarctic and marine based sectors of the East Antarctic ice sheets”.
Perhaps you could clarify and tell us what you think will happen to our coasts if we lose Greenland and most of Antarctica. Nothing at all?
Also, you seem to be inferring that because something happened before from natural causes, it can’t be catastrophic. There are a few extinction events that seem to be arguing against that inference. I count five at least:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#The_%22Big_Five%22_mass_extinction_events
So I duly submit that this inference is incorrect.
Aaron,
“But CAGW” is the central square of the Climateball bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
“But Damascus” is the usual square for conversion stories:
https://climateball.net/but-damascus/
“But costs” is a square you might help me develop:
https://climateball.net/but-costs/
Before you do, I asked you a simple question:
What do you think will happen to coastal cities if most of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets collapse?
At the very least, you should acknowledge that once we look at the papers to which you paid lip service, your interpretation of the numbers you presented rests on thin ice, and that we usually expect better citation practices from undergraduates.
Willard,
You post really daft comments like
“What do you think will happen to coastal cities if most of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets collapse?”
Firstly, that is not likely to happen for thousands of years, if at all.
Secondly, cities and towns across the world have suffered from coastal erosion since first being built. We already know what happens over many decades. Let alone centuries.
Thirdly, the IPCC has removed the extreme scenarios so they don’t believe what you are gaslighting is remotely possible.
But saying that I can understand why people like yourself are worried and scared of the shadows. My advice, grow up.
> that is not likely to happen for thousands of years, if at all.
Perhaps you should take that with Aaron, Anon for Q-related reasons.
For he just argued that (a) this is what’s going to happen, and (b) it’s no big deal anyway.
Where did you get your “likely” – from where the Sun never shines, by which I mean UK?
Perhaps next time you interject yourself in an exchange you could read it instead of making a Brit out of yourself.
Willard,
You asked where I got the the “likely” for Greenland and the Antarctica to fully melt in thousands of years time.
Well if they melted and added 60 meters to the sea level and sea level rise is 0.0015 meters per year then by you ability with mathematics you are probably predicting next Tuesday.
But with the IPCC removing the worst scenarios then you can discount any of the 1000s of research papers that have predicting all the doom. Researchers have been seeing easy money by mentioning the doom and gloom scenarios. I wonder how many ought to be investigated for fraud and if any will retract their false articles?
We migrate because the continental configuration has more land at high latitude than low. So warmer global temperature increases habitable land, increased CO2 increases crop yields. Did you think Holocene stability was permanent? The risk to humanity is actually climate cooling- cool earth decreases carrying capacity.
> We migrate
That’s a cope, Aaron.
Where can we read your thesis?
> Well if they melted and added 60 meters to the sea level and sea level rise is 0.0015 meters per year
That counterfactual doesn’t tell us when the sheets will melt and what ought to happen to the raising rate once they do, Anon for Q-related reasons. So your “likely” is quite tenuous.
To put Aaron’s 25 meters in perspective:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10196-1
Awaiting your next rant full of silly fighting words!
Aaron, the main reason cited to not transition away from fossil fuels is the imagined cost.
But here you are talking about mitigation, moving population centers and presumably infrastructure, protecting cities from SLR, with no concern for cost.
Beware false prophets indeed. I could easily find a tide gage with faster than average sea level rise. What of it? Do we then go fossicking for individual records to ‘prove’ a point?
A true prophet would get ALL the tide gauge data, account for bias in the data as much as possible, and try to winnow out the global average rise.
“as all of Earth’s major bodies of water are linked one can not increase without the other”
Yeah, that’s not the case. As you remark, “many things influence SLR,” and there are local effects that definitely impact locally, such as land rise and subsidence from the (ancient) loss of ice sheets. For many tide gauges, the land it rising or falling, which presents local bias for global average sea level change.
In the case of North Shields, the land the tide gauge sits on is rising.
Barry,
Yes many things do affect Sea Levels Readings. Like high and low pressure systems, plate tectonics, isostatic rebound.
But the weather system effects should be averaged out over many days worth of readings. I am very sceptical of the claims of sea levels increase are accelerating as we are talking about micrometers of difference. Is that really trend setting,?
Satellites give great coverage, as is often pointed out regarding the data set underpinning this blogs monthly updates. The massive number of readings greatly increase precision, especially over time (Law of Large Numbers).
The uncertainty in acceleration according to satellite-measured SLR is less than the estimated acceleration.
Earth is a “water planet”. If all land mass were pushed into ocean depths, and spread evenly, water would be about 1.5 miles deep over the entire surface.
Of course, land erosion is slowing doing that….
Bindidon,
Your problem is one of climate pataphysics. You’re taking irradiance for a heat flux. No, backradiation is not a heat flux. No, it cannot be considered as radiative forcing. No, you cannot add atmospheric irradiance to the incoming solar flux.
There is absolutely no difference, from a thermodynamic point of view, between radiative, convective, and conductive heat fluxes; they all obey the laws of thermodynamics in the same way.
Your reasoning is therefore incorrect and inconsistent. If you insist on using backradiation, you must also take backconduction and backconvection into account and then manipulate these quantities using statistical thermodynamics. This, of course, makes absolutely no sense.
You are right on one point: atmospheric irradiance explains the greenhouse effect because it reduces the radiative heat flux that cools the planet.
Effective knowledge of the greenhouse effect does not go much further because we do not know how to calculate convection and therefore the effect on temperatures of the reduction in radiative flux.
There is no quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect, nothing, just a vast void and climate pataphysics. Climate modeling using GCMs is nothing but a grim joke.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘quantitative theory’, but many aspects of the theory are quantified, starting with empirical measurements of the absorption lines of atmospheric molecules.
Satellite-borne measurements of irradiance in the ‘greenhouse’ spectra provide more empirical data, as the spectra associated with greenhouse warming darken over time.
Simplified ‘models’ such as the early attempts by Manabe, Wetherald, Ramanathan and Coakley run line by line calculations of absorp.tion, observing optical depth and atmospheric pressure try to calculate the forcing from various gases in the atmosphere. Some early models used a small number of layers of atmosphere to estimate the greenhouse effect. Radiative transfer equations underpin much of the theory.
I suppose it makes sense if you dismiss models altogether, that you think there is no quantification applied to the science of greenhouse gases.
Vast void? Alliterative animus!
A quantitative theory is one that would provide a framework for calculating, for example, the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature. Such a scientifically validated theory does not exist. There is, however, a general theory since Fourier, which in its most developed form is used by Manabe (1964).
But this incomplete theory does not allow for the calculation of the CO2 concentration-surface temperature relationship. The furthest we can go is probably Manabe (1964). It contains this passage:
“The observed tropospheric lapse rate of temperature is approximately 6.5°C/km. The explanation for this fact is rather complicated. It is essentially the result of a balance between (a) the stabilizing effect of upward heat transport in moist and dry convection on both small and large scales and (b) the destabilizing effect of radiative transfer.”
Manabe 1967 and subsequent work employ a convective radiative adjustment that has always been nothing more than a conjecture. Its formulation in Manabe 1967:
“Free and forced convection, and mixing by the large-scale eddies, prevent the lapse rate from exceeding a critical lapse rate equal to 6.5°C/km
It should be noted that these two quotations offer contradictory explanations for the value of the lapse rate.
“But this incomplete theory does not allow for the calculation of the CO2 concentration-surface temperature relationship.”
That specific relationship is well established. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 brings about a 1C rise in surface temperature, absent any feedbacks; a quantitative result derived from empirical knowledge of atmospheric gas spectra and radiative transfer equations.
As you’ve indicated, the responses and feedbacks to CO2 forcing are more uncertain. But I think it’s reasonable to rule out ‘no global warming’ from CO2 increase.
barry says: “A doubling of atmospheric CO2 brings about a 1C rise in surface temperature…”
Sorry barry, but that’s your belief. It ain’t science. Adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere can not warm the surface.
Also, don’t forget, blackbody spheres are imaginary.
Barry,
If all the Greenhouse gases are removed from the troposphere,i.e. no Greenhouse effect, what is the temperature at the surface and at the TOA? Since this is so well-established you should be able to answer. (I don’t expect an answer from Barry.)
stephen,
255K. The TOA without GHGs collapses to the surface. Surface radiation no longer ‘sees’ the atmosphere and passes right through it out to space.
Earth’s effective surface temp without GHGs is S/B law mapped to a sphere with Earth’s albedo (0.3).
T = 4th root of [1360 X (1 – 0.3) / 4σ]
Barry,
So what causes the temperature difference between the base of Mauna Loa and its summit?
Yeah, don’t expect Barry to continue to answer questions. GHT falls apart the deeper one digs.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
barry,
No, this relationship, this 1°C, is not at all established.
This value is calculated based on an arbitrary assertion incompatible with thermodynamics and that has not been verified: a lapse rate independent of radiative transfers.
This is a blatant lie since we know very well how to calculate the radiative component of the lapse rate. It is approximately 3.5°C per km in subsidences that affect the bulk of the tropospheric mass.
In fact, there is no theory that allows us to have the slightest idea of the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 levels on temperatures. There is only a pataphysics of climate and the human predisposition to be fooled.
[TROGLODYTE] If all the Greenhouse gases are removed from the troposphere, i.e. no Greenhouse effect, what is the temperature at the surface and at the TOA?
[SKY DRAGON ROOKIE] But what about lapse rate?
[NICK] The meme is that surface warming is due to the lapse rate and not to the greenhouse effect. Often at Tony’s this comes down to even more simplified assertions that warming is due to atmospheric pressure.
Willard,
The Sun warms the surface. It determines the temperature at the surface at one atmosphere pressure. As pressure decreases with altitude the temperature decreases according to Pascal and Ideal Gas Law. This is the lapse rate. This explains the temperature difference between Mauna Loa’s base and summit. (Or pick any other favorite mountain.) The lapse rate has no radiative function. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary?
According to NASA, Earth’s albedo has been decreasing since 1980. Willard, that means that the amount of sunlight reaching the surface has been increasing. Willard, why would that not explain the Earth’s warming? CO2 has increased as a result of this warming and this explains CO2 lagging temperature as it has always done on many timescales. The Berkley Earth data shows temperature and CO2 are correlated. CO2 accumulates as an integral of temperature, linearly. The lapse rate demolishes GHT.
Really weird that barry would be here still defending the GHE when he’s witnessed the Green Plate Effect being debunked (and, with no “back-radiation” warming there can be no GHE):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733263
Looks like he’s little more than an ideologically-motivated troll.
Im shocked. Shocked I say, to see DREMT baiting, trolling and stalking Barry.
Three false accusations from Nate in one short, typically bitchy comment.
barry storms out of discussions in a huff, waits a week or so then just carries on his endless defence of the GHE as if nothing ever happened.
Well, that gives me the perfect opportunity to share a link to the debunk of the Green Plate Effect, which I’m going to keep linking to, as I’m perfectly entitled to – so that more readers can understand why there’s no “back-radiation warming”.
Nobody needs to discuss it, if they’re bored of discussing it. It’s all there already for people to read through if they so wish.
No need for Nate or barry to respond.
Another win for Barry.
Nate only needs “easy mode” against Puffman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1743508
Another loss for Willard.
Did someone drag DREMT back to the conversation again?
No, as I said – choosing to share the debunking of the Green Plate Effect with as many people as possible. This will continue, every month, for the rest of your lives.
The GPE’s debunked.
Same hypocricy a month ago.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740643
And that after 2 months already.
He is determined to lose the respect of everyone here.
No hypocrisy Nate, when I clearly state that my intention is to bring up the debunking of the Green Plate Effect for readers’ benefit.
Thanks for linking to further discussions about the debunking of the Green Plate Effect.
Trying to make this about me personally is just pathetic trolling from the pair of you.
The GPE’s debunked.
Quit obsessing. Move on.
Nobody’s asking you to respond, Nate.
The GPE’s debunked.
Yes, we fully understand your desire to sell manure. No one here is buying.
Maybe your mom is interested.
I said nobody’s asking you to respond, Nate. Maybe take the hint.
The GPE’s debunked.
The idea of downwelling radiation or back radiation isn’t even how the Greenhouse collective is describing it these days. Why? Because it doesn’t work. So now the description is the planet warm’s more (from 255 to 288K) due to the attenuation until outgoing energy matches incoming and the resulting surface temperature is 288K. But you could just as easily say the attenuation is insignificant because GHG only accounts for 0.4% of the atmosphere, there’s no significant attenuation, so the surface warms to 288K and outgoing energy matches incoming at TOA. The energy dissipation from the surface to TOA is due to a drop in internal energy from a polytropic expansion of air. Very simple. It explains the lapse rate. Fits perfectly. Occam’s Razor.
phi,
“No, this relationship, this 1C, is not at all established.”
On the contrary, it is a very consistent result. Even prominent skeptics like Richard Lindzen get results of around 1K per no-feedback doubling of CO2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/98JD00125
https://www.academia.edu/download/100413355/89c2cd4831f393f1ba23671e9f0b8f12500a.pdf
The reason for the similarity in results is because the math is tightly constrained by a century’s worth of empirical data applied to S/B law, radiative transfer equations and the logarithmic effect of GHG warming.
There aren’t moving parts or guesswork required, no need to parametrize certain components of the atmosphere. The about 1K result is VERY consistent to a no-feedback doubling CO2.
“The idea of downwelling radiation or back radiation isn’t even how the Greenhouse collective is describing it these days. Why? Because it doesn’t work.”
Unfortunately the GHE guys on this blog didn’t get the memo, as they’ve been furiously defending the idea of “back-radiation warming” as though their lives depended on it, for about eight years!
No barry, the 1K is arbitrary because it’s calculated based on an arbitrary behavior of the lapse rate. This isn’t a problem of radiative physics but of thermodynamics.
Luckily Team Science ignores cranks and moves on:
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1926/
Go Team Science!
DREMT,
I agree. This mob seem to be stuck on the idea of back radiation. However, when Dr. Spencer last went through his view which seems to be in line with the moderate views of other prominent (that there is warming due to GHE, but it is not dire or an existential threat
) Scientists, he offered the view that it isn’t back radiation but an attenuation of outgoing. The planet temperature then adjusts so incoming equals outgoing at TOA. The mob then jumped on that because no 2LOT violation, but they quickly and conveniently forgot. The mob isn’t about science like Williard trumpets. The one who proclaims science the loudest is the least scientific of all. Isn’t that how it goes? The problem is that model still doesn’t explain the lapse rate. The model must fit everything we observe. The model has to explain the temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa. GHT does not.
> mob
Team Science is larger than that:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08323-x
Hopefully larger than the number of cranks at Roy’s.
Go Team Science!
Another problem with the “attenuation of outgoing” angle is that they still need the warming to manifest itself at the surface, but the “imbalance” is of course at the TOA. So, they invariably have to invoke “back-radiation warming” at some point in order to get the warming to where they want it to be!
You’re right to point out that they change GHE theory on the fly. There’s so many different ways it’s been described over the years. Now, this could be partially explained by different sources being geared towards different levels of understanding, for example a NASA website designed to “dumb it down for the public” might be expected to give a different account of the GHE than papers published by “experts in the field”, say. But, that explanation only goes so far. At some point it needs to be acknowledged that the theory is actually very difficult to pin down! It shouldn’t be that hard to describe a theory. What is the one, true, ultimate, standard version of the GHE!? Nobody seems to be able to say.
All I know is that every single version of it I’ve seen so far involves “back-radiation warming” at some point. Even if they don’t directly say so, like with the “attenuation of outgoing” explanation.
phi,
“the 1K is arbitrary because it’s calculated based on an arbitrary behavior of the lapse rate. This isn’t a problem of radiative physics but of thermodynamics.”
Where do you get the idea that the lapse rate ‘behaves’ in any way when estimating a non-feedback response to GHG increase?
For the no-feedback response to CO2 doubling the lapse rate of 6.5 C/km is held fixed. This is another empirically derived, not arbitrary value.
The calculation is done by ‘freezing’ other components of the atmosphere, such as keeping absolute humidity fixed. This is done to isolate the optical effect of the gas being varied.
As there are so few moving parts to the ‘model’, the result has been replicated to within a few tenths K for decades.
This really isn’t controversial (except among the cranks who don’t believe the greenhouse effect exists).
It is when the ocean/atmosphere dynamics are unfrozen that the broad uncertainty associated with feedbacks kicks in.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1743792
Barry,
No, the lapse rate is theoretically derived from thermodynamics, specifically hydrostatic pressure which of course comes from the Ideal Gas Law and Pascal’s Principle. There is no radiative function in the lapse rate or its derivation.
Barry,
What causes the temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa? Why is the moist lapse rate more isothermal than the dry lapse rate? Isn’t water a Greenhouse Gas? How is the lapse rate derived?
Not only the lapse rate problem but there is the problem illustrated by Ed Berry’s Model. He demonstrated in his third paper that only about 25% of the CO2 increase since 1780 could be caused by human fossil fuels. Most of the CO2 rise, according to the continuity equation is due to nature. This is problematic for GHT.
stephen,
“No, the lapse rate is theoretically derived from thermodynamics, specifically hydrostatic pressure which of course comes from the Ideal Gas Law and Pascal’s Principle.”
Meet phi:
“The critical gradient is not derived from a physical law; it’s an empirical working value”
stephen said: “There is no radiative function in the lapse rate or its derivation.”
phi said: “The effective average value of the lapse rate depends on the radiative structure. The contribution attributable to radiative cooling in the troposphere is generally estimated at around 3.5 C per km.”
These contradictions are clearer than the exposition for your positions. Perhaps reconciling these might illuminate your theses.
Barry,
I appreciate this parallel with the quotes.
I think Stephen, like many, and like all those with a scientific background should, has a certain unease with the theories of climatologists. It’s not immediately obvious what’s really wrong, and one can easily go in the wrong direction.
In this case, my position is sound. Why?
First, because the notion of a critical gradient is an invention of modelers, and its definition can easily be found in articles dedicated to modeling.
Second, because the order of magnitude of the radiative component of the lapse rate is easily calculated. Starting with an average gradient of 6.5°C per km, rounding the dry adiabatic lapse rate to 10°C per km, and considering that the vast majority of the tropospheric mass is in a state of slow subsidence, we obtain a radiative component of 3.5°C per km.
This last point obscures a mechanism that is quite easy to understand but has been largely ignored: the very existence of a thermal gradient in the troposphere is due to its radiative cooling by GHGs.
Barry,
Phi is not your savior. He seems to be a very eloquent writer but knows little about physics. He keeps stating that the Ideal Gas Law is an equation of state as if he is saying something profound. Does he realize the fact that it is an equation of state supports my argument? This equation of state states that temperature is proportional to pressure for an ideal gas, or something approximating an ideal gas, like the atmosphere.
Phi,
phi said: “The effective average value of the lapse rate depends on the radiative structure. The contribution attributable to radiative cooling in the troposphere is generally estimated at around 3.5 C per km.”
These contradictions are clearer than the exposition for your positions. Perhaps reconciling these might illuminate your theses.
What does this mean? “The effective average value of the lapse rate depends on the radiative structure.”
This has zero meaning and in direct opposition to every textbook on thermodynamics. Even Wiki gets it mostly right. Their only error is trying to incorporate the Greenhouse effect into the lapse rate which you will see doesn’t quite work does it? They do get it right that IR active gases do cool the atmosphere. They don’t heat it. They understand that zero Greenhouse means no lapse rate according to GHT but then go through the mathematics of the lapse rate which is derived from pressure and has no radiative function. So, if GHE goes to zero then does pressure go to zero? Doesn’t make any sense, does it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
phi,
“First, because the notion of a critical gradient is an invention of modelers, and its definition can easily be found in articles dedicated to modeling.”
The critical gradient is irrelevant to calculating the 1K surface warming per doubling CO2.
“Second, because the order of magnitude of the radiative component of the lapse rate is easily calculated. Starting with an average gradient of 6.5°C per km, rounding the dry adiabatic lapse rate to 10°C per km, and considering that the vast majority of the tropospheric mass is in a state of slow subsidence, we obtain a radiative component of 3.5°C per km.”
Again, this is all irrelevant to the task, not to mention that the 3.5 C reduction from the dry adiabatic maximum is the convective-moist adjustment factor, representing how much condensation alters the thermal profile of the atmosphere. It is not the “radiative component.”
Regardless, the critical lapse rate is simply not a feature of that 1K calculation. The atmospheric lapse rate is held fixed, there is no radiative component to the lapse rate to muddy the calculations. Spectroscopy and radiative transfer math is all that’s needed to isolate the optical effect of increased CO2 on surface temperatures.
This is a straightforward radiative model of the atmosphere, no ocean/atmosphere interactions, no varying lapse rate, no feedbacks. No moving parts.
Dunno why you need to turn this into something it isn’t. There is plenty of uncertainty to acknowledge once you get beyond a 1D model.
barry,
“The critical gradient is irrelevant to calculating the 1K surface warming per doubling CO2.”
No, it’s this critical gradient that determines the 1K. It’s precisely the concept of the critical gradient that forces the return to equilibrium through the sole shift of the radiative profile, and therefore to the 1K.
“Again, this is all irrelevant to the task, not to mention that the 3.5°C reduction from the dry adiabatic maximum is the convective-moist adjustment factor, representing how much condensation alters the thermal profile of the atmosphere. It is not the ‘radiative component.'”
Ouch!
It’s basic. Compressional heating in subsidence occurs in the dry, and therefore at a rate of 10°C per km.
“Spectroscopy and radiative transfer mathematics is all that’s needed to isolate the optical effect of increased CO2 on surface temperatures.”
Wrong, of course. You need to know the temperature field in the modified atmosphere, and that’s only possible after a thermodynamic calculation. The atmospheric irradiance can only be a result of the thermodynamic calculation.
Oups, read :
You are right on one point: atmospheric irradiance explains the greenhouse effect because it reduces the radiative heat flux that cools the surface.
I would sincerely like comments on this recent report from Berkeley Earth:
https://berkeleyearth.org/special-report-the-march-2026-western-u-s-heatwave/
It is very appropriate for this blog, given that Dr Roy is now showing the US and Canada series. Since I am not a scientist, can you keep the first comments brief and at the level of, say, an abstract plus a little detail? BE is alarmed by the recent volatility of temperatures in the western U.S. My non-scientist, common sense gut makes me skeptical that a few years of data indicates a change in a long term trend. Still, the swings have been pretty dramatic.
Again, can you keep your opinions to the point without the usual insults that fly back and forth? For awhile.
“BE is alarmed by the recent volatility of temperatures in the western U.S.”
Are they “alarmed” or are simply pointing out that two rather extraordinary extremes in recent years raises interesting questions about the statistics of climate in this region and hence has obvious implications for infrastructure planning?
Sorry Mark, but when they say they’re “alarmed”, that means they’re alarmed.
They’re “alarmists”. That’s what they do for a living. Notice their set up for more funding: This is an open and ongoing question that warrants additional investigation.
That’s the thing Clint, the Berkeley Earth notice and report don’t specifically say they’re “alarmed”, so I’m curious why Thomas and you have characterized it that way.
Mark, you may be mature enough that nonsense doesn’t bother you. Thomas is the same, as he rightly questions it.
But the “Gretas” here won’t be able to sleep. BE used the word “extreme” about 7 times in the short intro blurb.
This is the mother of all fake graphs:
https://berkeley-earth-wp-offload.storage.googleapis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/08161536/Screenshot-2026-05-08-at-9.08.16-AM-1024×571.png
Everyone living in the real world with experience looking at data will tell you that the temperature of earth is “out of control”. That is a technical term that identifies something that is subject to large variation. Clearly, a very large percentage of the data is out of range. One might ask how that “range” is determined.
The other term to describe this is simply chaos. Wait a minute, we already knew that weather, temperature, and climate is chaotic.
It would be interesting to see if any of the data scatter could be attributed to some known condition such as ENSO. Otherwise, the authors are doing what they always do. They want to dismantle the current free market system of a capitalist economy. A socialist system with more government regulation and control would be much better in their view.
[“Everyone living in the real world with experience looking at data will tell you that the temperature of earth is “out of control”.”]
No. They will look and see March Daily TMAX in the Western US.
[“One might ask how that “range” is determined.”]
The range is not arbitrary. Statistical ranges like those shown in the figure are typically derived from the standard deviation of the dataset. This can be computed in Excel.
[“The other term to describe this is simply chaos. Wait a minute, we already knew that weather, temperature, and climate is chaotic.”]
That is a very interesting conclusion. The authors themselves cautiously state that whether variance is increasing is still an open question requiring further investigation.
My second quote was meant to highlight this:
“Otherwise, the authors are doing what they always do. They want to dismantle the current free market system of a capitalist economy. A socialist system with more government regulation and control would be much better in their view.”
Apologies.
3rd.
I overlooked yesterday evening the start of Tim S’ thoroughly incompetent post, above his screeshot of Robert Rohde’s graph:
” This is the mother of all fake graphs: ”
*
The best reply to such an insulting post in my opinion is:
This was the mother of all vicious posts.
Thomas,
Here is an animation of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) over the last year:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/historical-palmers/
Low soil moisture is a well known amplifier of extreme heat.
This variable also shows a long term drying trend, which is physically consistent with increased evaporative demand in a warming climate:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/107/pdsi/1/0/1895-2026
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the extreme anomaly observed earlier this spring was likely a consequence of both the underlying warming trend and the immediate atmospheric setup responsible for the adiabatic compression and associated lack of cloud cover.
This has worrying implications for future heat waves in this region, especially if greenhouse gases are indeed the primary driver of global warming, since their concentrations are expected to continue rising throughout the 21st century.
The lowest soil moister content recorded in England was at Kew in 1976.
Kynqora
Don’t bother about Tim S’ blah blah.
He knows nearly nothing about climate data let alone about its processing, but permanently tries to appear here as ‘the one who knows’.
What he writes on this blog all the time is not at all hard but fair criticism of climate science results: it is merely political polemic.
*
Let us have a look at how far Robert Rohde’s graph is away from sober reality, by comparing his data to quite similar data from two completely different sources.
*
I splitted a while ago the GHCN daily station set for CONUS along the 40°N – 100°W coordinate cross, and used today this scheme to generate temperature anomalies out of all stations in the southwest quarter; in addition, the same was done for an average of the UAH LT grid cells above this SW quarter.
In the graph below I show, for 1940-2026 resp. 1979-2026, the March anomalies wrt 1991-2020 for
– GHCN daily TMAX (to correlate to Rohde’s graph)
plus, to have a better comparison to UAH’s satellite data lacking TMIN/TMAX,
– GHCN daily TMEAN
and finally
– UAH 6.1 LT
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SFf2dafLG0eeh-7Wu5bBvsHv_rYaSSte/view
As we can see: there is no need to look at TMAX (the thin indigo line), as TMEAN (blue) shows the same, and matches nearly perfectly the UAH anomalies computed for the same region (red).
*
Linear TMEAN trends in °C / decade, for 1979-2026
– GHCN daily: 0.45 ± 0.13
– UAH 6.1 LT: 0.50 ± 0.11
… for 2000 – 2026
– GHCN daily: 0.50 ± 0.36
– UAH 6.1 LT: 0.70 ± 0.28
We see also that for this CONUS SW region, surface data keeps well below satellite observation.
Sorting downwards March anomalies in surface and satellite data shows this:
– surface
2026 3 5.90
2017 3 3.00
2004 3 2.90
1972 3 2.62
2007 3 1.91
– satellite
2026 3 5.04
2017 3 2.10
2004 3 1.57
2025 3 1.30
1989 3 1.28
*
Robert Rohde didn’t exaggerate anything.
Exaggeration actually rather comes from all these opinionated people who misuse information to assess their personal narrative, e.g.:
” They want to dismantle the current free market system of a capitalist economy. A socialist system with more government regulation and control would be much better in their view. ”
Oh Noes…
Dr Spencer,
Would there be value, and reader interest, to show daytime/night temperature long term trends?
Tom H
” Would there be value, and reader interest, to show daytime/night temperature long term trends? ”
May I suppose you were asking for e.g. CONUS surface data, as day/night temperatures for satellite-borne soundings are not available?
Here is a graph comparing monthly averages of TMIN / TMAX anomalies for CONUS available from GHCN daily stations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AxL4O0cPDI_eDQX2mv1BW4aVl0hQIluI/view
*
Linear trends in °C / decade
1900-2026
TMIN: 0.13 ± 0.01
TMAX: 0.04 ± 0.01
1979-2026 (sat era)
TMIN: 0.40 ± 0.03
TMAX: 0.21 ± 0.03
My favorite blog-clogger, Ark, recently bragged of his accounting ability, even claiming to have an MBA.
So I proposed he use his accounting expertise to find the fraud in Earth’s “energy budget”, shown in Figure 7:
https://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf
The fraud starts with trying to “budget” radiative flux. But to understand that, a basic knowledge of physics is required. With his accounting expertise, I’m expecting Ark can find errors, just based on numbers and ignoring physics.
So far, no luck….
While we’re waiting for Ark to respond, let’s open this up to the other major blog-cloggers — Bindi, barry and Norman. They’re not as clever as Ark, but they try to make up for it with hostility.
So Bindi, barry, and Norman, can you find the errors in the K-T “energy budget”? I already mentioned that flux cannot be treated as energy, but there are several other major errors. Can any of you find at least one?
Still no responses from the 4 main blog-cloggers, Ark, Bindi, barry, and Norman. All they have to do is find ONE thing wrong with the K-T “energy” diagram, to show they understand some of the science. (I easily found over 10.)
The silence is deafening….
“The fraud starts with trying to “budget” radiative flux”.
No fraud. It is clearly stated in the title whats being measured: “Earth’s annual global mean energy budget”
Whic can be expressed in units
joules/year/Earth-area,
OR in
joules/s/m2 = W/m2
Just different units.
Do you have trouble with converting to different units?
Nate, the fact that you can’t understand that flux is not energy means you won’t be able to find any errors in the bogus “budget”.
Thanks for proving me right.
That fact that you cannot rebut my post shows that your claim is indefensible, and can be safely ignored.
Nate, you are free to ignore me all you want. But you can’t. You’re addicted to stalking me, and slinging your childish crap against the wall.
If your only answer to challenges to what you claim is to throw insults, why bother posting?
If your only answer to challenges to what you claim is to throw insults, why bother posting?
Unless your goal here is simply to troll. That is how it looks.
Nate continues to troll Clint, as usual.
Just challenged his claims, for which, just like you, he has no answers.
The trolling continues.
don’t believe anything nate says. nate acknowledges that in the gpe that the net heat flux moves from the sun to heated plate to the cooler plate. yet he thinks the cooler plate will cool while the warmer plate will warm. he refuses to understand the works of the great scientists such Gustav Kirchhoff, stefan and boltzmann, max planck, william thompson, and rudolph clausius in his denial of cavity radiation resulting in theoretical equilibrium despite acknowledging the concept of theoretical equilibrium ocurring with 100% absorption of radiation and zero conductive resistance and continues to opine for these plates to exert resistance via radiation when all that actually occurs is heating operates faster when there is a large temperature difference than a small difference.
> don’t believe anything nate says.
Gill needs a daddy.
ROFL!
Then he waves his arms to evade a fairly rudimentary point:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
LMAO!
Another good comment from bill.
willlard says
Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature.
————-
the only transfer actually occurring in DREMTs solution is indeed proportional to temperature. AND it actually moves from hot to cold.
Elis solution has it moving from cold to hot. that was my point, but obviously that flew high over your head.
“bill hunter says: … the only transfer actually occurring in DREMTs solution is indeed proportional to temperature. AND it actually moves from hot to cold.”
DREMT’s alleged solution has a net radiative flux moving from one plate to another at the same temperature.
Mark suddenly appears out of nowhere, again. Going to apologise for falsely accusing me of lying, Mark?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744067
Or are you just going to toss a few more false accusations and insults around and then disappear out the back door like you usually do?
“DREMT says: Mark suddenly appears out of nowhere, again…”
I spend most of my time in a place where it is problematic that your alleged solution shows at equilibrium a net radiative flux between two black body plates at the same temperature.
What you call “nowhere”, physics would call “everywhere”.
Are you going to apologise, or not?
Mark B says:
”DREMT’s alleged solution has a net radiative flux moving from one plate to another at the same temperature.”
thats correct a plate or a system of of multiple plates will find a temperature or a range of temperatures the mean of which will be the mean temperature of the surroundings.
thus to the degree this system of plates is insulated the first plate exposed perpendicularly to the warm side of the surroundings will be warmer than the last plate exposed to the cold side.
the problem with Eli’s backbody plates with perfect conduction is that they represent zero resistance to the passage of energy. between the two plates there is no resistance to heat passage and represents a case of cavity radiation where no energy is lost.
these principles were established in various parts by rudolph clauius, lord kelvin, gustav kirchhoff, stefan and boltzmann, otto lummer, ferdinand kurlbaum, and max planck.
out of that work the process of evaluating insulation is detailed in sections 10.3 and 10.4 of the MIT textbook downloadable here: https://ahtt.mit.edu/
the only insulation to radiation is via reflection or diversion of energy out of the cavity (technology used in the james webb telescope heat shield) or entrainment of available energy into a slower process, it doesn’t insulate itself by a variable heat transfer process that does nothing but delay reaching equilibrium within the cavity between the plates due to the time for the plate temperatures to stabilize.
a careful read of the above text should put an end to the GPE misrepresention. if anybody wants to dispute this specifically point to a tested source. politics can attempt to pervert science by fiat but it doesn’t wash here.
> the only transfer actually occurring
Gill just missed that Graham finally conceded that his silly bridge was built on dYnAmICs.
ROFL!
Either he can refute b’ > b, or he folds.
LMAO!
Mark B wins again.
Willard is confused, again.
Mark B says:
”DREMT’s alleged solution has a net radiative flux moving from one plate to another at the same temperature.”
thats correct a plate or a system of of multiple plates will find a temperature or a range of temperatures the mean of which will be the mean temperature of the surroundings.
thus to the degree this system of plates is insulated the first plate exposed perpendicularly to the warm side of the surroundings will be warmer than the last plate exposed to the cold side.
the problem with Eli’s backbody plates with perfect conduction is that they represent zero resistance to the passage of energy. between the two plates there is no resistance to heat passage and represents a case of cavity radiation where no energy is lost.
these principles were established in various parts by rudolph clauius, lord kelvin, gustav kirchhoff, stefan and boltzmann, otto lummer, ferdinand kurlbaum, and max planck.
out of that work the process of evaluating insulation is detailed in sections 10.3 and 10.4 of the MIT textbook downloadable here: https://ahtt.mit.edu/
the only insulation to radiation is via reflection or diversion of energy out of the cavity (technology used in the james webb telescope heat shield) or entrainment of available energy into a slower process, it doesn’t insulate itself by a variable heat transfer process that does nothing but delay reaching equilibrium within the cavity between the plates due to the time for the plate temperatures to stabilize.
a careful read of the above text should put an end to the GPE misrepresention. if anybody wants to dispute this specifically point to a tested source.
willard exclaims bbbbutt! the easter bunny told me that wasn’t true!!!
Gill still has no refutation of Eli’s demonstration:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743258
Enablers like Gill suck doubly so.
Yes, bill, the Easter bunny told him some algebra and that was enough to convince Willard.
Eli’s point follows from algebra.
Graham can’t refute Eli’s algebra.
Yet he claims he refuted Eli’s point.
Sky Dragon cranks suck at logic.
“Eli’s point follows from algebra…”
Wrong. It’s about physics, Willard. Every single aspect of the plates issue is over your head. Just stop trying to even comment on the subject.
“don’t believe anything nate says. nate acknowledges that in the gpe that the net heat flux moves from the sun to heated plate to the cooler plate. yet he thinks the cooler plate will cool while the warmer plate will warm.”
Indeed. But you left out the heat flux from the cooler plate to very cold of space, and on its otber side, direct from heated plate to space.
Thus, despite all the name-dropping, the rest makes no sense.
I know the works of all those named people, and all of them understood that reducing heat loss, from a heated object, results in warming of the heated object.
This is absolutely basic.
Again, I provided you guys with textbook evidence that putting blackbody plates in parallel provides radiative insulation, which reduces heat loss.
Please incorporate this fact into your thinking.
Graham gaslights again.
Eli’s point is that b’ > b.
Graham can’t counter b’ > b.
Physics is a formal discipline: it follows the mathematics it lays out. Perhaps Sky Dragon cranks can suggest a different algebra?
Graham definitely hasn’t an undergraduate degree (with honors!) from maths, physics, or engineering. If it was from computer science, it’d be really sad. Biology?
Eli’s maths works fine, Willard. It’s the physics it represents that’s wrong.
Graham gaslights again.
If the static case is fine, then the dynamics ought to be fine too.
And there’s indeed a dynamical interpretation that is perfectly fine:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
If Graham comes up with a dynamical interpretation that isn’t fine, that could only mean one thing: Graham sucks at interpreting.
Which is more than plausible.
In any case, his reductio fizzles, for purely logical reasons.
The static case isn’t fine. Eli’s final equilibrium plate temperatures of 262 K…220 K are wrong. The physics of the Green Plate Effect are flawed, as I’ve explained at great length multiple times already.
[GRAHAM] Eli’s maths works fine
[ALSO GRAHAM] The static case isn’t fine.
Every single time.
Don’t believe a word from Sky Dragon cranks.
There is no contradiction or inconsistency between your two quoted statements, Willard.
Graham keeps gaslighting.
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
Sky Dragon cranks have spent 8 years trying to come up with a disproof of that.
To no avail.
…apart from the fact that the GPE’s debunked.
[ELI] If the warmer body is receiving energy at a constant rate, then the steady state (colliquially equilibrium) temperature of the warmer body will be higher.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Stop worrying about the direction of heat flow at Eli’s “equilibrium”.
Graham, the misunderstood genius who can one-up the world of physics all by himself.
All he needs is to read here and there at Joe’s.
Eight years.
Still no 2LoT violation.
Still no refutation.
Nope. Only if you shamelessly ignore all of the facts that contradict this BS.
…and still, the GPE’s debunked.
Nate says:
”I know the works of all those named people, and all of them understood that reducing heat loss, from a heated object, results in warming of the heated object.
This is absolutely basic.”
—————————
fine nate but exactly where do think the radiation the gp is radiating to space came from?
its only source is the bp. and if you correctly do the accounting the bp is radiating 200w/m2 directly to space and 200w/m2 to the gp.
100w/m2 of which the gp is radiating directly to space while the other 100w/m2 is warming the gp because its yet to the level of warming to satisfy the lifelong work of those ”named people”.
thus your desire for something to warm is in fact being completely satisfied. additionally, the cavity has all the radiation it needs bouncing around in it forcing the cooler object to get up to speed in accordance with the findings of those named people. the gp to follow that path until it is the same temperature as the bp as described by those ”named people”.
stop lying about having produced a textbook that says differently. if you have one post it and give the section, page number, and paragraph where says that. you have a copy of the mit textbook recommended by barry and the sections where a correct mathematical approach is fully described in how to do thi kind of work. i get you don’t understand it so i would recommend you find a qualified tutor to explain the math to you.
> stop lying about having produced a textbook that says differently.
For some reason Gill forgot to quote and cite that textbook so that the whole world can see how it supports Sky Dragon cranks he’s white knighting.
ROFL!
When sammich requests don’t work for him, so he goes straight for denial and abuse.
LMAO!
Willard can’t follow the discussion, again. Yet, he continues to choose to comment anyway, making himself look silly.
Bill,
Endless rambling. No math, physics, or accounting from you. I thought you were an accountant.
You do not show how you would actually solve the GPE problem differently from Eli.
Thus your complaints about Eli’s solution have no credibility.
“produced a textbook that says differently. if you have one post it”
I’ve posted this to YOU specifically. I’ve pointed it out specifically to YOU several times. You ignored it each time. This will be the LAST.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742023
Nate keeps bringing up his debunked arguments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743835
Nate says:
”endless rambling. No math, physics, or accounting from you. I thought you were an accountant.”
one only solves physics problems by experimentation and not some mathematical extrapolation of what how some downstream surface is going to affect an upstream surface especially in violation of 2 lot and that includes both surfaces of the gp.
Nate says:
”You do not show how you would actually solve the GPE problem differently from Eli.”
not true. we are adopting the findings of otto lummer, ferdinand kurlbaum, and max planck with regard to cavity radiation principles as being a skin effect unrelated to downstream additional transfers of energy. one must be aware that while the upstream emissions of the gp contribute to equilibrium within the cavity the energy in this cavity has zero losses upstream and therefore will progate downstream at full potential. you guys try to treat the upstream emissions identically to radiation to deep space never to return.
your source above doesn’t provide an iota of experimental support to eli’s imaginary non-experiment supported thought experiment.
“one only solves physics problems by experimentation and not some mathematical extrapolation”
What an astonishingly ignorant statement, Bill.
I guess there is no point to developing scientific laws, because they cant be used!
NASA cannot solve the problem of determing the ‘burn time’ required to send a space probe to intercept an asteroid…they just need to do an experiment to find out!
And again you make sammich request, get it, and promply ignore it.
You cannot solve Eli’s problem, because you just dont have the basic skills required.
Thus you need to keep name-dropping and hand waving but never doing the straightforward math to solve the problem.
The solution has been found for you in the texts I linked to.
As I explain, simply set emissivity =1 for each plate.
Then we see that blackbody plates in parallel in vacuum radiatively insulate. They reduce heat transfer. The more plates added, the greater the reduction in heat transfer.
A reduction in heat transfer from the heated BP to its cold surroundings (space) is ALL that is required to cause it to warm with its steady heat source (sun).
There is no ambiguity. Eli gets the right answer.
DREMT again points me to a link with nothing at all helpful to his narrative, and fantisizes that is a debunking!
In fact with his admission that “if you introduce a GP at 244 K then yes, heat flow goes to zero between the plates”, he makes my case for me, that the blackbody GP is reducing heat transfer from the BP, and thus insulating the BP from the cold!
But no, instead he continues to play the fool (or just plain is a fool), unable to follow the unavoidable chain of logic here, to the conclusion that the BP must warm.
It’s not insulation, Nate. The BP won’t warm, due to 2LoT. My points 1) – 5) established 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. That is not how any insulation works. You don’t listen, and can’t learn. Instead, you just make the same mistakes over and over again.
Nate says:
”What an astonishingly ignorant statement, Bill.
I guess there is no point to developing scientific laws, because they cant be used!
NASA cannot solve the problem of determing the ‘burn time’ required to send a space probe to intercept an asteroid…they just need to do an experiment to find out!
You cannot solve Eli’s problem, because you just dont have the basic skills required.”
———————–
Nate thats total and complete BS. Eli’s implementation of scientific laws is not in any textbook despite your lies that it is.
Nate says:
”Thus you need to keep name-dropping and hand waving but never doing the straightforward math to solve the problem.”
Thats also untrue. To solve a problem with 5 transfers you must string together multiple equations including 2 calculations of temperature of two plates from balanced heat flows, each ignoring downstream future transfers.
You can ignore those transfers because they undermine the insulation you claim. The exact amount of insulation you claim is the value of the continued heat flow downstream. The S&B equation is strictly skin to skin for one transfer. Maiorov illustrates the proper treatment of multiple transfers.
Eli handles multiple transfers with one equation found nowhere in any textbook.
you simply believe the downstream transfer has an effect on the upstream transfer but you have completely failed to produce any textbook evidence supporting that viewpoint. I can ignore it because of being trained to ignore and string together 5 transfer calculations that top out at zero additional change, calculate the resulting temperatures and any conductive resistance that will produce a temperature gradient in the plates and solve the problem using the various sections of the heat transfer textbook. You can’t because Eli’s technique is not in the textbook.
Nate lies again:
”The solution has been found for you in the texts I linked to.
As I explain, simply set emissivity =1 for each plate.
Then we see that blackbody plates in parallel in vacuum radiatively insulate. They reduce heat transfer. The more plates added, the greater the reduction in heat transfer.”
—————–
Point to the exact section and paragraph where that claim is made Nate.
Nate says:
”A reduction in heat transfer from the heated BP to its cold surroundings (space) is ALL that is required to cause it to warm with its steady heat source (sun).”
—————————-
That also is not in the textbook.
> we are adopting the findings
Is that the royal We?
Does it come with cheese?
ROFL!
Perhaps he missed Figure 1.16.
LMAO!
“Point to the exact section and paragraph where that claim is made Nate.”
It is right there in post, Bill. Stop playing dumb.
Cant handwave it away.
“It’s not insulation, Nate.”
Textbooks and science publications say it is, and are correct, you are not.
You are just in denial of proven facts.
End of story. Go away.
“To solve a problem with 5 transfers you must string together multiple equations including 2 calculations of temperature of two plates from balanced heat flows, each ignoring downstream future transfers.”
You repeatedly claimed to know the solution, so go ahead and do the F’ing math and show us!
Otherwise admit you have no idea what the solution is, and therefore no way to judge Elis result.
Nate’s denial continues.
its been explained to you by dremt for 8 years and you still don’t get that there is a positive heat flow from the skin of the bp to the skin of the gp that will continue positive until the gp is 244k. . .as described by the “named people” for over one hundred years.
Gill, alas, can’t quote anything of his daddies that would support Sky Dragon cranks.
Shame.
Still nothing to show, Bill? No math, no solution?
Still dismissing the textbook standard solution?
Then your declarations about this problem have no credibility.
“…the textbook standard solution”.
Except there’s nothing like Eli’s solution, or the way in which he gets to his solution, to be found in any textbook. The solution has to actually involve “warming of the BP, at the expense of the GP”. That’s the part you “infer” from what you can find in textbooks. In other words, that’s the conclusion you jump to. You can’t actually find that part, itself, in textbooks. For good reason – it violates 2LoT!
Nate continues to avoid accountability on his false claim that eli’s formula has any textbook support.
Gill still shows he hasn’t read anything from the textbook, proving once again he’s paying lip service to his daddy for no good reason.
“Except there’s nothing like Eli’s solution, or the way in which he gets to his solution”
If one has any understanding of heat transfer and insulation, as you guys claim to, then it is easy to recognixe that the solution found in textbooks is highly relevant to the GPE. Because they clearly shows that parallel blackbody plates can reduce heat transfer, which is precisely what insulation does.
But we recognize your game here is to claim often you know things, while feigning ignorance when convenient.
The amazing about understanding the laws of physics is that it enables one to apply them to many problems, WITHOUT having to find the solution worked out by someone else on the internet.
The very fact that you guys cannot solve the GPE on your own, without finding it worked out by someone else on the internet, proves that your claims to understand this problem cannot be believed.
And guven that you cannot find your ‘solution’ to GPE worked out in any textbook makes the point: your ‘solution’ has no credibility.
Bill. given that you cant solve the GPE on your own,
please indicate how you know your ‘solution’ is correct. Where has it been worked out in a textbook or on the internet?
I can read the mit textbook. I can’t read name’s textbook because it doesn’t exist. Nate just wishes it existed so he could stop looking like a foo er ….tool.
If Gill can read the MIT textbook, perhaps he should start with the introduction. It’s all there. Our Sky Dragon crank-adjacent is just trying to exploit Pure Denial as a way to reiterate his Sammich Request.
Perhaps he could show us that he can read and that he looked?
Nate condescends, but provides no textbook support for the GPE.
Team-fake-physics convenient memory loss is exactly why I bookmarked these links.
Here they are again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742063
They clearly demonstrate that parallel blackbody plates in vacuum reduce heat transfer–they radiatively insulate.
More plates added, more insulation.
Sorry.
PS, DREMT already made clear he knows that the blackbody GP reduces heat transfer from the blackbody BP, initially to 0 in fact.
Which is entirely consistent with my links.
So, you cannot, now, honestly, look at this evidence, and conclude that the GP is NOT radiatively insulating the heated BP from its cold environment.
This one with the direct link to the sources
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742023
Nate still has nothing (as already explained).
No mention of a BP warming at the expense of a GP, means no textbook support for the GPE.
IS DREMT saying he wont believe it unless the textbook examples use plates with the same names as Eli uses?
Or is he saying that he does not believe that heated objects, like the BP, when insulated from the cold, should warm?
Then I guess he is saying that there is no point to using a blanket, or a coat in winter, because our bodies wont be warmer.
Or perhaps he is saying that when a heated object that is insulated does warm, like closing the door to the heated oven causes it to get hotter, THEN, that must be a 2LOT violation?
Its anybody’s guess what his illogical thinking will be today.
Nate pretends not to understand.
Understandable that you wont commit to any particular excuse…they are all flimsy-and just lead to more logical pickles.
There are no good options left.
The nonsense is thankfully over.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744350
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744532
…and, as for Nate’s constant references to “insulation”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744401
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plate
OK, Willard. No more internet for you today.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744548
Was there a point to linking to the dictionary definition of the word “plate” then, Willard?
Gaslighting Graham pretends he doesn’t understand his own comments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744401
It’s because I understand my own comment that I know you don’t have a point.
[GG] Insulation involves a barrier, or resistance, to the flow of heat
[W] *Cites the definition of a plate*
[GG] Was there a point to linking to the dictionary definition of the word “plate”
[W] Gaslighting Graham pretends he doesn’t understand his own comments
[GG] It’s because I understand my own comment that I know you don’t have a point.
Astute readers may wonder if Gaslighting Graham truly understands what a plate is.
A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate presents no barrier, or resistance, to the flow of heat. The heat just flows right through the plate…zero thermal resistance. If the plate were reflective, or possessed thermal resistance, then there would be your barrier, or resistance. Eli’s plates are not, however. This is why I went on to say that all that happens with Eli’s plates is that energy is emitted from GP to BP “against the flow”. That’s not how any insulation works, however. Insulation does not work by energy being directly transferred “against the flow”. The GP is thus not insulation.
I assumed this was all understood. I’m guessing (since you won’t directly spell it out) that you think a plate represents a barrier to the flow of heat simply because it exists and is an object placed “in the stream”. However, that’s not the case. You have to actually consider the physical properties of the object in question.
“A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate presents no barrier, or resistance, to the flow of heat. The heat just flows right through”
Physics textbooks derive equations showing that blackbody plates radiatively insulate.
But DREMT tells us that’s wrong.
Gee, I wonder, how do we decide who’s right?.
Could he please tell us how he defines ‘resistance to the flow of heat’?
Especially given his previous statement that bringing in a blackbody plate behind the BP caused its flow of heat in that direction to drop to 0.
“I assumed this was all understood. I’m guessing (since you won’t directly spell it out) that you think a plate represents a barrier to the flow of heat simply because it exists and is an object placed “in the stream”. However, that’s not the case.”
I guess DREMT did not allow himself to read, much less attempt to understand the physics sources I provided to him deriving the general equation for heat transfer through a set of N thin plates in parallel in vacuum, which showed that such assemlies do indeed reduce the flow of heat. Even when the emissivity of the plates, e =1, that of a blackbody, is plugged into these equations, they show a reduction of heat flow. And even when N =1 plate.
It also seems that he may have forgotten how debate involves more than just giving an opinion, it also is about providing evidence to support those opinions.
Nate still pretends not to understand. Yes, introducing a GP at 244 K means heat flow between the plates goes to zero, as I’ve always said. However (I’ll just quote the part he ignored, again):
“This is why I went on to say that all that happens with Eli’s plates is that energy is emitted from GP to BP “against the flow”. That’s not how any insulation works, however. Insulation does not work by energy being directly transferred “against the flow”. The GP is thus not insulation.”
Graham D. Warner still pretends a plate has only one side and that he read the textbook.
Your average Sky Dragon crank.
Yes, introducing a GP at 244 K means heat flow between the plates goes to zero, as I’ve always said. However (I’ll just quote the part he ignored, again):
“This is why I went on to say that all that happens with Eli’s plates is that energy is emitted from GP to BP “against the flow”. That’s not how any insulation works, however. Insulation does not work by energy being directly transferred “against the flow”. ”
I see, so the ‘evidence’ you cite to support your opinion, is to cite the earlier opinion of noted ‘expert’, DREMT?
And I would simply note that your statement ‘That’s not how insulation works’ is another vague opinion lacking in substance, and bit much help in providing actual evidence to support your other opinions.
Particularly useful to get is a defintion of insulation.
Reducing heat flow is generally a part of the definitions out there.
Let me help in the ‘how’ department.
Blackbody plates are opaque to radiation. Therefore they do not allow radiation to simply flow right through them to the cold surroundings.
The ONLY way for a blackbody plate to transfer radiation is for it to warm up itself and radiate.
However, to warm up and stay warm while radiating to the environment, a blackbody plate must have a source of heat, such as another body warmer than itself.
Thus the BP ends up warmer than the GP, then it can supply heat to the GP, which then radiates it to colder space (albeit at a lower rate than the BP does on uts own).
Together, they have reduced the rate of heat flow..and that effect is what insulating means.
Nate demands evidence…but this discussion was about the failure of his little gang to provide any evidence – beyond the ramblings of the Easter bunny! How quickly they try to reverse that burden of proof. With no textbook support for the idea that the warmer body gets warmer still, at the expense of the cooler body, they really have no support for the GPE.
bill,
Have you read your own [Maiorov] paper?
On page 7:
“The first way to reduce radiant heat loss through a double-glazed window is to increase the number of glasses… for all surfaces ε = 0.837… It follows that the addition of a second ordinary glass to a double-glazed window reduces the radiant heat flux by 1.58 times, the addition of a third of the same glass additionally reduces it by another 1.373 times…
The second way to reduce radiant heat loss through a double-glazed window is to use glasses with low-emission heat-shielding coatings… For a two-chamber double-glazed window, in accordance with the expression (16), the use of one low-emission coating ε = 0.05 leads to a decrease in the radiant heat flux by 4.64 times”
And just so we’re clear the high emissivity example is about the glass surfaces radiating – not reflecting – we go further back in the paper where the problem is described.
“From a room into the environment, heat is transmitted through a double-glazed window by radiation. It is necessary to determine the glass temperatures tI, tII and the density of the radiant heat flux qr through the window… In the analysis of radiant heat transfer, it is assumed that the temperatures of both surfaces of each glass are equal to the temperature of the whole glass: t1 = t2 = tI, t3 = t4 = tII…
It should be noted that the temperatures to and ti are the radiation temperatures of the surfaces…
Two radiating surfaces – the surface of the room Fi and the surface of the inner glass F4 – form a closed system, and the surface of the glass F4 is flat, has no concavities and does not radiate on itself.”
The paper describes thermal insulation using multiple layers of high emissivity glass radiating based on their temperatures, and compares that with low emissivity (highly reflecting) glass, finding that the low-emissivity coating is a more effective insulator than ordinary glass.
The latter quotes are on pages 2 and 3.
Graham D. Warner requests a sammich whence he never provided any himself, and Nate was actually asking for a definition, not evidence.
Readers might start to worry that Graham has never read the textbook to which Gill paid lip service. They might even wonder if he still wonders how a blackbody can emit anything while being a perfect absorber.
“DREMT says: A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate presents no barrier, or resistance, to the flow of heat. The heat just flows right through the plate…zero thermal resistance.”
A perfectly-conducting blackbody presents no resistance to the conductive flow of heat by definition. It is a distinctly different property from convective or radiative heat flow. The utility of the perfect conductor idealization that implies that the plate is always a uniform temperature, thus radiates equally from all (both) surfaces.
Also by definition a perfectly-conducting blackbody object absorbs all incident radiation without regard to the properties of the radiation source including the temperature of the source.
These idealizations are commonly made in physics education so that applying the fundamental physical laws is more mathematically tractably for those inclined to do so. Actually working through the math is fundamental to understanding the physical concepts of radiative energy transfer.
With no textbook support for the idea that the warmer body gets warmer still, at the expense of the cooler body, they really have no support for the GPE.
The GPE ain’t textbook physics.
Right after being quoted chapters and verses from Gill’s pet Russian dude, Graham D. Warner keeps denying having been served a sammich.
And so it goes.
barry just repeated the exact same mistake as Nate, Willard.
And, Mark is basically using blackbodies as an excuse to violate 2LoT. Not that he merits a response as he still hasn’t apologised.
The GPE ain’t textbook physics.
Graham D. Warner pretends that black bodies fail physics.
No wonder he hasn’t read Gill’s pet paper or Gill’s pet textbook.
“Nate demands evidence”
Yep, quite appropriate, given your repeated blasts that the ‘GPE is debunked’.
On this blog, we debate. We have no interest in your religious beliefs that can never be falsified.
“this discussion was about the failure of his little gang to provide any evidence”
False. This discussion is showcasing you rejecting reputable, highly relevant evidence that blackbody plates radiatively insulate in vacuum.
It proves something you have been declaring for 8 years FALSE.
“How quickly they try to reverse that burden of proof.”
You have no burden? Pfffft!
“With no textbook support for the idea that the warmer body gets warmer still, at the expense of the cooler body, they really have no support for the GPE.”
With this statement, you are proudly declaring that you dont have any idea what insulation does!
That you dont get why blankets and coats and oven doors are effective at making heated objects warmer, with no 2LOT violation whatsover.
Yet, you expect people to believe what you claim about heat transfer problems.
So I’m supposed to do what, exactly? Link to every single page of every single textbook that’s ever been written on radiative heat transfer, to show that there’s not an example of a warmer object getting warmer still at the expense of a cooler object!? Obviously it should be easy for you to demonstrate the positive claim. Yet, you can’t.
And, I already explained how the GPE differs to insulation. What’s wrong with you? Learning disability? What is the point of us just endlessly repeating ourselves!?
“So I’m supposed to do what, exactly?”
1. Stop lying by claiming youve not been given reputable evidence that blackbody plates can radiatively INSULATE.
2.Stop pretending to ‘not understand’ that insulating a heated body from a cold environment enables it to warm, without any violation of 2LOT.
Eg. Blankets, coats, or Igloos around people, etc. etc.
“I already explained how the GPE differs to insulation”
3. See #1. Show us a valid definition of insulation that you are using to arrive at that conclusion.
I’m not lying, Nate.
Here’s a definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence.[1] Thermal insulation can be achieved with specially engineered methods or processes, as well as with suitable object shapes and materials. Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[2] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Readers might appreciate this entry that cites Graham’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_barrier
Yes, thank you Willard. That also helps make my case.
“Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence.[1]”
Very good.
Now let’s see if anything going on in the GPE qualifies:
”
“if you introduce a GP at 244 K then yes, heat flow goes to zero between the plates”, he makes my case for me, that the blackbody GP is reducing heat transfer from the BP”
Yes!
“However, to warm up and stay warm while radiating to the environment, a blackbody plate must have a source of heat, such as another body warmer than itself.
Thus the BP ends up warmer than the GP, then it can supply heat to the GP, which then radiates it to colder space (albeit at a lower rate than the BP does on uts own).
Together, they have reduced the rate of heat flow”
According to Thermopedia equation 3 with N=1, e =1, the heat flow in equlibrium is reduced by 50%.
https://thermopedia.com/content/69/
Which meets DREMTs Wikipedia defintion of insulation.
Gaslighting Graham shows why Pure Denial alone isn’t enough.
He also has to keep Saying Stuff.
Here the stuff he says fails to clarify: is it that he silently admits that radiant barriers can provide insulation, or is it that his insistence on conduction and convection was purely fortuitous?
“…reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Neither Willard nor Nate “get it”. Oh well.
N ” 1. Stop lying by claiming youve not been given reputable evidence that blackbody plates can radiatively INSULATE.”
D “Im not lying Nate”
Then demonstrate this by acknowledging that you have been shown reputable evidence that parallel blackbody plates can produce a
“reduction of heat transfer (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence.”,
ie they can INSULATE according to your definition.
Nate, you’re entirely fixated on the wrong thing. I’ve acknowledged and understood for eight years that if you introduce a GP at 244 K, then heat flow goes to zero between the plates. I have no idea why you want to keep providing evidence of something that is already understood and accepted! The problem is your leap to the conclusion that this means the BP will warm at the expense of the GP. It won’t, due to 2LoT. And no, it’s not “insulation”. I’ve explained the difference, and you just refuse to listen.
With no textbook support for the idea that the warmer object becomes warmer still at the expense of the cooler object, you have no support for the GPE.
> The problem is…at the expense of…
That rings a bell:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744680
“And no, it’s not “insulation”. I’ve explained the difference, and you just refuse to listen.”
So lets honestly try to clarify what you are saying:
Have you not looked at the two sources that show, unequivocably, that blackbody plates insulate?
Or can you not do the simple math to verify the fact that they insulate, according to your definition?
Or do you think these two sources should not be believed, and why?
Where do the sources state that the warmer body will get warmer still at the expense of the cooler body? They don’t. That’s your extrapolation, and it’s wrong. I’ve already gone to the absolute ends of the Earth to explain why it’s wrong.
That’s that.
“That’s your extrapolation, and it’s wrong.”
Not disputing that blackbody plates insulate is a step in the right direction.
Once step at a time.
My position hasn’t changed one iota, so if there’s any shift in understanding, it’s yours.
“My position hasn’t changed one iota”
Well that’s just a standard part of the game. Your ‘never back down’ regardless of contradictory facts MO.
But the fact remains that you have been shown solid evidence from two reputable sources that blackbody plates in parallel radiatively insulate.
Which proves that your 8 years declaring that blackbody plates cannot insulate was false.
It is highly relevant that this is wrong. Because it is central to how the GPE works
And you havent even tried to dispute that evidence. You have nothing available to do so.
Zilch.
Instead, you desire to skip that part. And move on to the next flimsy excuse.
But that’s not how honest debate works.
You cant have it both ways.
You skip the part where you give an actual valid scientific rationale for rejecting the evidence shown to you, while at the same time ignoring and rejecting it.
That isnt how honest debate works. And you know that.
I have “been shown” evidence for something that I never disputed – blackbody surfaces can “reduce heat loss”. But, to “reduce heat loss” is only a necessary condition for “insulation”. It’s not a sufficient condition.
Read the whole thing I quoted earlier. Not just the part you want to hear. The whole thing. In other words, don’t forget this part:
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[2] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Graham D. Warner keeps citing the incorrect page.
Eli’s plate only work via radiation:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Eli’s point is independent from the mechanism.
Gaslighting Graham can continue to refuse calling “providing a barrier” insulation, and readers may hope he never has to warm himself at night by using cardboard because his spouse kicked him out of the house.
”
I have “been shown” evidence for something that I never disputed – blackbody surfaces can “reduce heat loss”.“
Fantastic. Because that function, was central to your definition of insulation:
“Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence.[1]”
“But, to reduce heat loss is only a necessary condition for insulation. Its not a sufficient condition.”
Well, YOUR definition of insulation was absolutely correct and sufficient to define the function of insulation.
The two reputable sources shown to you explain how that function, reduction of heat transfer, is achieved by plates in parallel. Both reflective and blackbody plates can produce that insulative function according to the equation derived.
And that specific function, reduction of heat transfer, is ALL that we require to account for the GPE’s ability to cause a heated plate to warm.
Just as it explains how closing an over door causes a heated oven to get hotter.
Or how wearing a coat causes a person to get warmer.
Nothing but that function is needed to explain thses phenomena, with no laws of physics broken.
PLEASE explain specifically why you think ‘reduction of heat transfer’ is insufficient to explain these ordinary everyday phenomena.
Willard continues to demonstrate two things:
1) He’s a stalker. Anywhere bill or I talk about this subject, he appears. If we ignore him, he starts bringing the subject up elsewhere. If we ignore that, he calls us out by name!
2) He doesn’t have a clue about any of it.
Nate apparently didn’t read my comment.
If a “reduction in heat loss” were a sufficient condition for “insulation” then the definition of “insulation” I quoted would not include this:
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[2] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Clearly the authors make a distinction for radiative insulation, and for good reason. They wouldn’t want to imply that 2LoT could be violated. So, they settle the issue once and for all – “reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body”.
An honest response would be for Nate to concede. I predict he won’t.
Either way, that’s that.
Astute readers may note that, were Graham D. Warner truly genuine and competent, he’d have realized by now that the definition he offered is simply “the reduction of heat transfer between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence”.
This does not involve any “it requires some absorbing unless it does not” shenanigans. Readers may still expect shenanigans from him. How could he ever waste 8 years of his life on such trivial pursuit otherwise?
Awwww, bless, they desperately want the “reflected rather than absorbed…” line not to be in the article. But it is!
And, that’s an eight-year issue-settler.
That, and the points 1) – 7), of course, that they’ve never even addressed, let alone rebutted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733329
Ummm, first of all, a list of mechanisms is not a definition, nor is it stated to be comprehensive (eg it fails to mention convection!)
Second, the mechanism is clearly explained in the other sources provided to you, for parallel plates.
BTW the vaccuum gap between the plates has no thermal conduction. Thus it is a BREAK in thermal conduction, just as it is for multi-pane windows!
But this is a red herring, standard evasion on your part.
Please answer my question:
“And that specific function, reduction of heat transfer, is ALL that we require to account for the GPE’s ability to cause a heated plate to warm.
Just as it explains how closing an over door causes a heated oven to get hotter.
Or how wearing a coat causes a person to get warmer.
Nothing but that function is needed to explain thses phenomena, with no laws of physics broken.
PLEASE explain specifically why you think ‘reduction of heat transfer’ is insufficient to explain these ordinary everyday phenomena.”
The discussion is over.
The GPE’s debunked.
Sky Dragon cranks can’t beat Eli’s result, which we could generalize: for n ideal blackbody plates, the total heat leaving the outermost surface is reduced by a factor of 1/n+1 relative to the unshielded emission at that same core temperature.
That’s the lower limit: in case of non-blackbodies, it’s even more than that.
Insulation doesn’t start at some arbitrary limit like R.
All Gaslighting Graham has left is word games.
No word games required, just a simple chain of logic that anybody can follow. And, I can keep linking to it as long as I need to. You can’t fault it!
The GPE’s debunked.
“The discussion is over.
The GPE’s debunked.”
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
That is your tell, that your stuck with no way out.
You have literally no idea how to explain how a blanket warms us, or how closing an oven door makes the oven hotter, with any mechanism other than the ability of these materials to REDUCE HEAT LOSS.
Which as you already acknowledge, is an ability that parallel blackbody plates in vacuum have.
And THUS the GPE is no different from these ordinary phenomena, in its ability to warm a heated body, with no laws of physics violated.
Sorry, but that really is the end of it.
“You have literally no idea how to explain how a blanket warms us, or how closing an oven door makes the oven hotter, with any mechanism other than the ability of these materials to REDUCE HEAT LOSS.”
Sure.
“Which as you already acknowledge, is an ability that parallel blackbody plates in vacuum have.”
Yup.
“And THUS the GPE is no different from these ordinary phenomena, in its ability to warm a heated body, with no laws of physics violated.”
False. The difference is:
“Insulation involves a barrier, or resistance, to the flow of heat. The GPE involves a direct transfer of energy “against the flow”. They’re not comparable, and this has been explained numerous times.”
And, because they’re not comparable, the Wiki article on “thermal insulation” includes the following:
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[2] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
to make sure you’re aware that radiative insulation functions via the reflectivity of the insulator. And, that’s why you’re unable to produce any textbook support for the idea that Th will get warmer still at the expense of Tc for your beloved parallel blackbody plates.
Which is why the GPE ain’t textbook physics.
And, in turn, since the GPE is only blog physics, it can be taken down by a simple blog post, like this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733329
In summary:
The GPE’s debunked.
Graham keeps gaslighting:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
All Eli needs to presume is that the plate has two sides, and both sides will emit to reach equilibrium.
Splitting in two is the lower limit: reducing emissitivity by 0,0001% would suffice to increase the insulation effect.
(Graham might suggest it starts to be insulation, but that’s because he’s a crank.)
That’s it.
Team Science wins again!
“Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!”
P.S: You might want to start writing “lol” or something simple instead of using this elaborate “pantomime villain” laugh.
The GPE’s debunked in any case, of course.
“The difference is:
‘Insulation involves a barrier, or resistance, to the flow of heat.”
Whose sole purpose is what? To provide a means to reduce heat transfer.
Which we all now agree is a property that the blackbody plates HAVE!
And they have both a barrier (opaque plate) and a break (vacuum gap) which enables them to have resistance to the flow of heat.
So this fails utterly to deal with my question or your problem.
“The GPE involves a direct transfer of energy “against the flow”. They’re not comparable, and this has been explained numerous times.”
Nope. They return a fraction of what they receive from the warmer body. And for some reason, you have no problem when reflective plates do that!
Regardless, they reduce heat transfer, and thus insulate!
“False. The difference is:”
Do you know the phrase: ‘a distinction without a difference’?
That applies here. You describe mechanistic distinctions, with the same result.
Reduced heat loss is the result in all these cases:
Blankets added, oven doors closed, blackbody plates added.
Nate, I already explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734228
You just want to have the same discussions, repeatedly, for the rest of your life. It’s done.
The GPE’s debunked.
Graham D. Warner’s handwaving phase returns.
Willard’s desperately obsessive stalker phase continues.
Including up-thread, where he’s bringing up the subject of “insulation” wherever he can, even when it’s completely off-topic and inappropriate.
“The GPE’s debunked.”
Obviously, just after the complete collapse of your argument, this is simply absurd.
To end this discussion is very simple: stop making claims that cannot be supported.
Nate’s in a parallel universe where something new has happened in this debate.
Nothing new has happened. Nothing has been “conceded”. I’ve been saying the same thing for eight years. Perhaps you are just slowly starting to understand.
And yes, the GPE remains debunked.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Eli’s thought experiment stands:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
At least until Sky Dragon cranks can revise thermo or…algebra:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744794
Team Science Wins Again!
Astute readers might also notice the comment that starts this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1743508
Then they should wonder how relevant was Gaslighting Graham’s pet topic…
bill brought up the GPE in this sub-thread, not me.
I’m happy that it remains forever debunked.
Here’s the comment I linked to (Nate will pretend it doesn’t exist unless I quote it, and even then he’ll ignore most of it anyway):
“If the GP were perfectly reflective only on the side facing the BP, and introduced at 244 K, it would cool due to reflecting away the energy from the BP. It would be like the GP wasn’t receiving that energy from the BP at all, yet was still emitting on its other side, to space.
The BP would warm, due to its own emitted energy being reflected back to it, whilst still continuously receiving the energy from the Sun on its other side. It would be like it never even emitted the energy on the side facing the GP.
The distinction is that here, the GP is not [losing] its own internal energy to the BP where it builds up at the expense of the GP. No form of insulation works that way. Instead, the flow of energy from the Sun to the BP to the GP is being “interrupted” and reflected back to the BP.
The reflected energy from GP to BP is not “at the expense of” the GP because it doesn’t originate from the GP. It originates from the BP.”
The agreement on these points is new.
““You have literally no idea how to explain how a blanket warms us, or how closing an oven door makes the oven hotter, with any mechanism other than the ability of these materials to REDUCE HEAT LOSS.”
Sure.
“Which as you already acknowledge, is an ability that parallel blackbody plates in vacuum have.”
Yup.”
Now the recipe is easy. Combine two ingredients: 1.steady heat input to the BP, with 2. reduced heat loss provided by the GP, it is unavoidable that the BP must warm.
The very same recipe explains the warming oven and person when their heat loss is reduced.
Understanding how different phenomena function on the same principles is a beautiful thing about science.
“The agreement on these points is new.”
Wrong, it’s not new. You just obviously never paid enough attention to what I’ve been explaining to you for eight years.
“Now the recipe is easy. Combine two ingredients: 1.steady heat input to the BP, with 2. reduced heat loss provided by the GP, it is unavoidable that the BP must warm. The very same recipe explains the warming oven and person when their heat loss is reduced.”
Except you deliberately ignore the previously explained difference between the oven and person scenarios (insulation) vs. the GPE. You just restate your position and ignore the objections. But, the objections explain why if the BP were to warm at the expense of the GP, that’s a 2LoT violation…whereas the warming oven and person don’t violate 2LoT.
You earlier accused me of being evasive but you’ve repeatedly evaded my entire argument!
Funny.
At least Gaslighting Graham admits that one on Team Sky Dragon cranks derailed Nate’s point.
Eli’s thought experiment stands:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Go Team Science!
Oh, I forgot to add:
The GPE’s debunked.
Graham D. Warner admits that insulation is the reduction of heat transfer, but but but but but but but.
He must be bored.
,”The distinction is that here, the GP is not [losing] its own internal energy to the BP where it builds up at the expense of the GP. No form of insulation works that way.”
Well,
1. in the case of reflecting GP, it loses heat to space, but recieves no heat from the BP, so it cools.
The BP receives heat from the sun, but loses no heat to the GP, only to space, so it warms.
In the case of
2.the blackbody GP, it loses heat to space, receives LESS heat from the BP, than it emits to space, so it cools.
The BP receives heat from the sun, emits LESS heat to the GP than it previously did directly to space, so it warms.
In both cases, 1 and 2, the BP warms because its heat loss has been reduced, as we agree it should in both cases.
And the GP cools in both cases because it emits more heat to space than it receives from the BP.
Both cases are behaving exactly as predicted by the laws of physics.
Im sorry that your beliefs are not supported by the evidence.
“Except you deliberately ignore the previously explained difference between the oven and person scenarios (insulation) vs. the GPE.”
Nope, did not ignore. Simply pointed out that thr point of insulation is to “REDUCE heat transfer between objects at different temperatures”
And we AGREED thst blckbody plates in parallel have tgat ability.
And we also agreed that it is this ability to reduce heat transfer, that enables blankets to warm us, that enables the closed oven door to make the oven hotter.
SO, there is no LOGIC for you to claim that blackbody plates in parallel somehow cannot reduce heat transfer from the heated BP to space, and cause it to warm, when you already agreed that they have this ability!
Im sorry that your feelings are contradicted by these facts.
“In both cases, 1 and 2, the BP warms because its heat loss has been reduced, as we agree it should in both cases. And the GP cools in both cases because it emits more heat to space than it receives from the BP.”
Wrong. In the blackbody case, my points 1) – 5) have 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.
So, to correct what you said: in the blackbody case, the GP is supposedly cooling because it is losing internal energy to the BP, and the BP is supposedly warming because it is gaining internal energy from the GP, all through a direct transfer of EMR. 2LoT will not permit that.
As I said – you’re simply trying to evade my entire argument, get me to explain things to you again from the very beginning. I think you’re hoping I won’t be bothered enough to do that. But, I have the post with my points 1) – 7) linked to enough times in this thread already. It’s thus easy to start from the beginning.
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.”
It is shamelessly dishonest and not at all logical to ignore the obvious alternative explanation that we discussed in the last week, which, unlike your fantasy, has actual evidence to support it.
Your beliefs are not facts. They require you to play very dumb, and pretend that there is no alternative explanation for the BP to warm, and the GP to cool.
And that requires you to play dumb, and pretend NOT to understand that the ability of blackbody plates to reduce heat loss, (ie to insulate), that YOU agree is an ability they have, is all that is required to enable the HEATED BP to warm
And it requires you to play very dumb and pretend to NOT understand that this insulating ability of blackbody plates, is fundamentally NO DIFFERENT than that ability in blankets and oven doors, which as you obviously agree, dont require a 2LOT violations to enable them to warm heated bodies.
“So, to correct what you said: in the blackbody case, the GP is supposedly cooling because it is losing internal energy to the BP, and the BP is supposedly warming because it is gaining internal energy from the GP, all through a direct transfer of EMR. 2LoT will not permit that.”
The word ‘supposedly’ is your word describing your scenario. And it is a clue that you know it is pure fantasy.
“As I said – you’re simply trying to evade my entire argument”
No. That clearly is your specialty!
“get me to explain things to you again from the very beginning.”
No need. Heard it all a 100 times before, and it was ill-logical every time.
But now, more so, given the new evidence and our agreement that blackbody plates do indeed reduce heat loss (ie insulate).
Ill remind you that youve offered no evidence that heat flows from a cold body to a warm body in the GPE. None. Zilch. Thus you provide no evidence that a 2LOT violation is occurring in the GPE.
Ill remind that youve offered no physics source that agrees with your accounting of a 2LOT violation that occurs without heat flowing from cold to warm.
None. Zilch.
No evidence is no evidence. No source is no source. Thus you you have not made a credible argument. And get no credit for it.
But you have succeeded spectacularly at demonstrating that you are prepared to play the fool as often as necessary, and play as dumb as necessary, and be as dishonest as neccessary to keep this zombie argument going.
DREMT 12:25 am ks still wrong as his GPE solution does not increase universe entropy which goes against 2LOT eqn. so there is no hope for DREMT to be correct.
Eli’s GPE solution remains correct & unsuccessfully challenged for 9 years and counting.
Again…I don’t know what Universe Nate is currently operating in, but in the real one absolutely nothing new has happened. I’ve not been shown any “evidence” I wasn’t already well aware of. I’ve not “conceded” anything new.
My arguments refute his. It’s as simple as that.
The GPE’s debunked.
If only you had the evidence to support your narrative. If only you had a physics source to support your spin.
But you have neither.
You have only religion. And hot air. Which is of no interest here, on a science blog.
If you say so, Nate.
Sure, but first, answer me this.
A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff -grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
So Ark is unable to find anything wrong with the “energy” diagram.
Maybe he needs a hint: Is “100 Joules” the same as “100 W/m²”?
[He’s not doing very good at this. I almost feel sorry for him.]
Clint R at 9:32 AM
“Is “100 Joules” the same as “100 W/m²”?”
Here’s a good teaching moment. Pay attention!
One is a stock and the other is a flow. A stock is a quantity stored in a system at a given instant. A flow is the rate at which that quantity moves into, out of, or through the system. Stocks accumulate; flows cause stocks to change.
Radiative heat transfer illustrates the principle well. The Earth system contains enormous stocks of thermal energy in the oceans, atmosphere, and land surface. Solar radiation provides an incoming energy flow, while infrared radiation to space provides an outgoing flow. Climate depends fundamentally on the imbalance between these flows. Even a small persistent imbalance, measured in watts per square meter, gradually changes the stock of energy stored in the climate system.
Change in Stock = Inflows – Outflows.
QED
Very good Ark. You got something correct!
It’s a little wordy, you could have just said “no”. But after your two days of research I suppose you wanted to show off a little. No problem.
So now with your new knowledge, can you find something wrong with the K-T “energy” diagram?
Here’s your chance to show off again….
1. How long will Clint R continue to intentionally confuse ‘flux’ and ‘energy flux’ i.e. the rate of energy transfer per unit area?
2. When will Clint R finally stop to discredit hundreds of astronomers, mathematicians and physicists, and denigrate their century-old results?
1. Never did that, Bindi. You’re just throwing crap at the wall because you can’t admit the K-T “energy” balance is nonsense.
2. I won’t ever stop discrediting crap. Got a viable model of “orbiting without spin” yet?
By stalking me with crap like this, you’re no better than Nate, Willard, or the F-student.
Clean up you act.
Clint posts absurd claims over and over in order to provoke people into a response. He seems to crave negative attention.
But when he gets a response challenging his claim, he calls that ‘stalking’, then has a melt down and spews ad-homs.
Weird.
If your posts cant be challenged, then dont post! Its that simple, people.
Child Nate is still stalking me. He wants to ignore me, but he can’t control himself. He’s addicted to stalking.
All you need to do is rebut my challenge to your claims.
Everyone can see that you cannot. Thus the need to distract via insults.
Keep proving me right.
I’ve learned to ignore child Nate, for obvious reasons. He just stalks me for attention. He has NO science. He only wants to attack me. And if I try to educate him, he only gets worse.
But here is a perfect example to expose his ignorance and immaturity.
He claims he offered me a “challenge” and I will not “rebut”. But he already rebutted his own challenge!
My effort is to show the cult can not find anything wrong with the K-T “energy” diagram. So far I’m right, as not one of the invited has pointed out any flaws in the nonsense. So what did child Nate do? He copied the title of the nonsense! Then, he provided the units for both “energy” and “flux”, proving me right, as they are not the same!
Kids these days….
[Forgive me if I go back to ignoring him.]
“So what did child Nate do? He copied the title of the nonsense! Then, he provided the units for both ‘energy’ and “flux”, proving me right, as they are not the same!”
Nice try at a rebuttal. But you seem to not understand what I posted.
The title told us what they are measuring, which is again: an accounting of the average energy received and emitted by the Earth’s surface per year. (Energy Budget of Earth).
So again this can be measured, energy (J) per unit time (y) per unit area (Earths).
And it is huge:
3.86 x 10^24 J/year/Earth.
And scientists are perfectly allowed to convert this to a smaller, more convenient unit: 240 J/s/m^2.
Why not?
It is just different units. And scientists can easily convert between them, if they so desire.
I believe even you can.
You need to be able to explain to us why that is a problem.
And we get crickets.
Then simply acknowledge that there is no actual problem with the units they use.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1743800
And my stalker DREMT adds useless pre-butted claims, now post-rebutted by Tim.
Stop whining, and take it down-thread, Nate.
binny….”I tend to trust the two pyrgeometers at Fort Peck (and those measuring longwave at all other SURFRAD locations) MUCH MORE than Robertson…
Here is a monthly report of Fort Peck’s longwave measurements for 2025:
month up down (W/m²)
1 269.91 228.37
2 246.36 204.75
3 327.21 267.89
…
***
It seems amazing to me that a pyrgeometer can measure up to 800 w/m^2 of IR at Fort Peck yet the total energy reaching the surface from solar energy is 168 w/m^2 on average Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget claim). How is this magic accomplished, where an input of 168 w/m^2 can be converted to 3 to 4 times that amount of IR?
Trenberth-Kiehle seem confused on the number. Also, Google AI claims there is 160 to 170 w/m^2 of IR alone reaching the surface. The numbers vary wildly although some claim the total solar reaching the surface is 340 w/m^2. They have radiation wrapped up nicely in w/m^2 even though EM cannot be measured directly in watts.
The watt is a measure of electrical power which is equivalent to the mechanical horsepower. There are 746 electrical watts in 1 HP. There is no such equivalence for EM/IR and the watt is applied here in reference to heat produced by the EM, whereby heat has an equivalence to mechanical energy in joules.
The peak IR emission at Fort Peck is close to 800 w/m^2 which means in excess of 1 HP of work could be done by that radiative power. Think of the possibilities. We only need to harness that IR power and we’d be in business. [sarc /off]
It’s all a little too cute and far too glib for my liking. Although one can claim indirect relationships between EM and heat, one must be careful how that relationship is used. When we start using it to measure the heat equivalent of EM from the Sun, then use it to measure an alleged heating equivalent for surface IR, methinks we are getting sloppy and careless.
The 168 w/m^2 from K-T refers to the mid-bands of solar EM, far above the IR input bands. Also, these instruments measure broadband radiation, from which the IR intensity is somehow calculated. Seems to me some sort of calculation is involved related to Stefan-Boltzmann.
It is patently absurd to claim the surface is radiating up to 800 w/m^2 of IR in Montana in April. The ground is likely still frozen, or close to it, and the 800 w/m^2 claimed is ridiculous. If you set up a square metre metal conductor above the surface to absorb the m/^2 of IR radiation, the heat induced in the metal should be able to do basic cooking on the metal. Heck, ice could be used to help heat your home.
I simply do not trust these readings from alarmist sources since the rest of their science is utterly suspect. Achieving 800 w/m^2 IR intensity from the surface stinks of Stefan-Boltzmann and not a true measure of surface IR emission. S=B indicates that ice radiates IR at an intensity of 315 w/m^2, which is in line with the numbers indicated above for IR radiation at Fort Peck.
Google AI claims the pyrgeometers are calibrated using a known source but they fail to specify the known source. I am guessing it is an S-B equation, which is not applicable at surface temperatures.
” It seems amazing to me that a pyrgeometer can measure up to 800 w/m^2 of IR at Fort Peck yet the total energy reaching the surface from solar energy is 168 w/m^2 on average Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget claim. ”
Oh Noes.
For years, I have noticed that Robertson writes such nonsense so frequently simply because he is incapable of reading documents correctly. He merely skims them—searching for anything he rejects, or conversely, for the absence of whatever he values.
*
Today, however, he took it to the extreme.
*
Most recently, I presented a daily report from the SURFRAD station in Fort Peck, Montana, to demonstrate that Schula’s “Pirani nonsense” can be refuted using U.S. radiation monitoring stations — some of which have been in operation for 30 years.
One would think that a simple graph combining daily solar and terrestrial radiation data would suffice.
But in doing so, I had underestimated Robertson’s superficiality by 100%.
For instead of heeding the legend accompanying the graphic in the report, he simply interpreted the curve representing incoming solar radiation as outgoing long-wave radiation — presumably because the former was… red, just like the famous muletas in Spanish corridas.
And then… he simply had to serve us — yet again — dozens of lines of his most idiotic nonsense, for example:
” They have radiation wrapped up nicely in w/m^2 even though EM cannot be measured directly in watts. ”
He should have entered that into Google’s search…
*
The truly mind-boggling thing about this whole affair is not that he will never stop — oh no.
Rather, it is the fact that, despite his constant nonsense, some people still consider him a credible source of “profound insights” — probably because his stance against GHE, AGW and even global warming itself appeals to them.
And at what point did Gordon Robertson become a scientific authority, exactly?:
[“It’s all a little too cute and far too glib for my liking.”]
kinky…I guess it’s all a bit much for you since you appear to rely on authority figures to learn science. There are so many questions out there that are still unanswered and all we have are inadequate interpretations by those authority figures.
You had plenty in my reply to question yet you picked on one simple statement that you quoted out of context. I was actually questioning the 800 watts I mistakenly took to be up-welling IR, due mainly to the poor, in-house diagram produced by Binny. You see, I had it in mind that the diagram was about IR, not incoming solar. Silly me, I presumed a pyrgeometer would be measuring up-welling IR, not incoming solar.
Even at that, had you examined the graphic, you might have questioned the figure of 350 w/m^2, which is excessive for surface IR. The figure is too uncannily close to what Stefan-Boltzmann would claim and not what a properly calibrated pyrgeometer would measure.
Here my statement in full context…
“It’s all a little too cute and far too glib for my liking. Although one can claim indirect relationships between EM and heat, one must be careful how that relationship is used. When we start using it to measure the heat equivalent of EM from the Sun, then use it to measure an alleged heating equivalent for surface IR, methinks we are getting sloppy and careless”.
Do you not understand what I am inferring? EM simply should not be measured in watts. The watt refers to the heat produced in a mass ***IF*** it is absorbed by electrons in the mass. EM/IR per se, has no power, yet people blithely apply w/m^2 to it as if it does.
Actually, even using the watt in reference to heat is wrong. Work is a measure of work and is equivalent to the horsepower. Heat has an ***equivalence*** to work, a fact noted by the physicist Joule circa 1840, but heat cannot be stated as an equality in watts. Heat does not equal an amount of work, it is equivalent to it, a major difference.
However, we have gotten far too cute and now merrily swap units without consideration of the units involved.
Consider a radiating antenna radiating an EM signal of 100 Mhz at 100 watts. The watt here refers to the electric current alternating in the antenna. If the EM travels through space and is absorbed by a receiving antenna, and it produces a typical 6 milliwatts in the antenna, the milliwatt here refers to the induced current in the antenna.
Either electric current in the transmitter or the receiver could do work but EM cannot do work. So, why is it stated in units of work, the watt?
It’s silly to measure EM in watts since much of it will fly off into space and never be absorbed or measured. So, what’s the point?
As I said, we tend to get a little too cute in science with our inferences.
1)Einstein got far too cure when he had the temerity to rewrite Newton, using time and space, both intangibles, to replace the force and mass of Newton. Much of the scientific community got just as cute by accepting Einstein’s nonsense while declaring Newton null and void.
Problem is, most of what we do today in engineering relies solely on Newton, and Einstein’s work is null and void.
Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock claimed that Einstein did not understand measurement. I just gave an example of that. He used kinematics as the basis of his relativity theory, focusing on accelerations while appearing not to understand that accelerations are a product of a force acting on a mass. Newton was aware of that but Einstein, for some reason, failed to grasp it.
In other words, you cannot isolate acceleration and velocity from force and mass, otherwise you can make a major blunder like presuming time and space are physical entities capable of acting independently. In his world of thought-experiments, Einstein apparently missed the obvious, that time is a product solely of the human mind hence has no existence and space is defined based on human measures.
I could go on and on, but people like you will tune me out because you are so hung up on authority figures that you fear contradicting them, or asking questions.
binny…”Most recently, I presented a daily report from the SURFRAD station in Fort Peck, Montana, to demonstrate that Schula’s “Pirani nonsense” can be refuted using U.S. radiation monitoring stations — some of which have been in operation for 30 years.
One would think that a simple graph combining daily solar and terrestrial radiation data would suffice”.
***
The problem here is not mine, it is the seriously faulty graphic created by Binny. The legend for the graphs is in such small print that I could hardly tell the incoming solar from the outgoing IR.
Besides, if you look up the Surfrad site for Fort Peck, all you get are data tables, not drawings. It seems Binny has taken the liberty of converting their data to his own graphic presentation and from past experience with his graphs, I find them to be wildly exaggerated.
In engineering drawing classes we were taught that a drawing should stand on its own. It should be self-explanatory. Binny’s drawing is far from that…
1)there is no title explaining the meaning of the graphs.
2)there is no explanation as to why down-dwelling solar is included.
3)there is no explanation of the meaning of up-welling solar.
4)the graph is essentially cluttered with irrelevant material.
That is a superficial mistake. However, compared to the egregious error of including incoming solar with outgoing IR and claiming they are both measured by the same pyrgeometer, is over the top.
And what is up-welling solar??? Is the surface now able to radiate solar energy?
Even at that, Binny’s diagram shows about 350 w/m^2 of up-welling IR and about 300 w/m^2 of down-dwelling IR. The latter is absurd from GHGs in the atmosphere that cannot possibly create that much heat according to the Ideal Gas Law. Remember, the watt is a measure of heat created in this case and cooler GHGs cannot possibly create heat in a warmer surface that radiated the IR in the first place.
The 350 w/m^2 up-welling is just as absurd. Trenberth-Kiehle estimate 160 w/m^2 of solar reaching the surface yet Binny has a peak of 800 w/m^2 of down-dwelling solar, in Montana, in early May. That is closer to what might expect from TOA.
Which planet are you on, Binny, it’s certainly not Earth?
As I inferred, the 350 w/m^2 stinks of Stefan-Boltzman, since they claim 315 w/m^2 IR intensity from ice. This is not a trivial problem. If one considers a 100 watt incandescent light bulb, with a tungsten filament, 95 percent of its energy is dissipated as heat. Only 5% is radiated as electromagnetic energy and of that energy most is in the visible spectrum.
The heat produced is absorbed by the glass and the base and as we know, heat is not infrared energy. Also, the heat is a product of the tungsten filament resistance. not radiated IR.
A typical electric radiant floor heater radiates about 100 to 160 watts per square metre of power. I dare say that is significantly warmer than the ground in Montana in early May even though Binny has it rated at 350 w/m^2. And, according to Stefan-Boltzmann, that is less than half the IR intensity radiated by a square metre of ice.
It is rather humorous to see an entirely incompetent person criticize others. If you have not figured out Gordon Robertson by now, then you deserve to be gamed by his antics.
Ah yes, another ad hom attack without a semblance of scientific rebuttal. It has become apparent to me, Tim, that you lack the scientific acumen to debate me on science.
Hello Gordon. How is life in Oz, or is that Canada? You’re not in Kansas anymore — you never where. Have fun with your game that so many cannot figure out.
And Robertson goes on with stupid, ignorant claims instead of simply, humbly looking for what he knows absolutely nothing about:
” The problem here is not mine, it is the seriously faulty graphic created by Binny. The legend for the graphs is in such small print that I could hardly tell the incoming solar from the outgoing IR.
Besides, if you look up the Surfrad site for Fort Peck, all you get are data tables, not drawings.
It seems Binny has taken the liberty of converting their data to his own graphic presentation and from past experience with his graphs, I find them to be wildly exaggerated. ”
*
Very interesting thoughts, indeed!
But I have patiently teached ignoramus Robertson for nearly a decade (I still remember his famous nonsense about anomalies), so why not continuing that way?
*
If he had a brain working like mine, he simply would have entered ‘surfrad’ in Google.
Klicking on the very first link gives us SURFRAD’s main page.
On that page you see ‘Data’, and below you click on ‘Radiation Plots’.
Now you are on the page ‘SURFRAD Radiation Data Plots’ and select all you want to see:
– Plot data from: (choose one site)
e.g. Fort Peck, MT.
– Select the Date to plot
e.g. July 1, 2025
and
– Select the variables to plot
Here you click e.g. on
– Downwelling Solar
– Upwelling Solar
– Downwelling Infrared
– Upwelling Infrared
in order to compare the two major aspects you were looking for.
*
Then you click on ‘Plot Data’, and obtain what you wanted to see.
As you in fact want to show others what you see, you click on ‘PDF Version’ and finally get
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6a03100b1182a.pdf
but you see in the link ‘tmp’, anticipate that the link eventually might not live that long, download the PDF instead, and upload it into your preferred long living cloud, e.g. Google Drive.
*
So much about ‘The problem here is not mine, it is the seriously faulty graphic created by Binny’. No problem for me!
*
Then Robertson’s one-man-show goes on with
1. ” – there is no explanation as to why down-dwelling solar is included.
– there is no explanation of the meaning of up-welling solar.
”
OMG! I did not imagine that it was necessary to explain that
– including downwelling solar shows that while the Sun shines half the day, the upwelling infrared actve during the night as well;
– upwelling solar is what is reflected by the surface back to space.
*
2. ” However, compared to the egregious error of including incoming solar with outgoing IR and claiming they are both measured by the same pyrgeometer, is over the top. ”
Where did I claim that?
I have explained enough that at SURFRAD sites,
– solar SW radiation is measured by two pyranometers (one looking down, one up)
– terrestrial LW radiation is measured by two pyrgeometers (one looking down, one up).
*
Now, Robertson’s 100% ignorant nonsense begins:
” The latter is absurd from GHGs in the atmosphere that cannot possibly create that much heat according to the Ideal Gas Law. Remember, the watt is a measure of heat created in this case and cooler GHGs cannot possibly create heat in a warmer surface that radiated the IR in the first place.
The 350 w/m^2 up-welling is just as absurd. Trenberth-Kiehle estimate 160 w/m^2 of solar reaching the surface yet Binny has a peak of 800 w/m^2 of down-dwelling solar, in Montana, in early May. That is closer to what might expect from TOA.
Which planet are you on, Binny, it’s certainly not Earth? ”
*
What is absurd here is that people like Robertson
– do not even understand that while I just wanted to show how solar/terrestrial radiation looks like at one measuring station, Trenberth/Kiehl show data for the whole Earth, including… 70% oceans;
– and then put their own stupid, superficial thoughts above measurements made since over 20 years by perfectly working devices.
*
But Robertson always has discredited and denigrated NOAA’s surface temperature data (without being able to disprove it, of course); hence, he won’t have any problem in discrediting and denigrating NOAA’s radiation data as well.
It’s often striking how certain scientific misconceptions persist in these discussion threads. It’s as if basic concepts must be constantly re-litigated although they have been settled for years.
This is not how science works.
In science we establish things and move on. This is a good thing because it allows us to ask new questions. University and government physics laboratories are not full of scientists sliding balls down inclined planes to see what will happen. Professional chemists do not mix vinegar and baking soda in papier-máché volcanoes.
So yes, the scientific community was once confused about certain things. Now we’re not. If the confusion persists, despite decades of careful explanations and patient rebuttals, that is perhaps not the scientists’ fault.
Well Ark, REAL scientists aren’t confused about the long proven concepts. But cult scientists are confused about a lot of things.
For example, the K-T “energy” diagram is full of major science violations. Can you find even one?
Clint R at 5:37 PM
Thanks for proving my point!
You want to re-litigate a paper written 30 years ago by one of the world’s premier climate scientists. It’s not Dr. Trenberth’s fault that you persist in your confusion, it is your own fault.
By the way, the phrase “science violations” has no meaning in scientific discourse. It’s imprecise and ill-defined rhetorical slop.
Ever see a woodchuck waddle into the obvious live-trap? You don’t even have to hide that it’s a trap, because the woodchuck is all like ooooh free food! Then the rodent is all bug-eyed and confused when the gate drops closed behind him, SLAM! Waaaaaat? A trap, oh no!
But still, free food.
A lot of rambling there Ark, but you avoided the simple question. That’s what I call “clogging the blog”.
Whatever ignoramus Robertson might tell us about Shula’s egregious Pirani gauge manipulation, the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the terrestrial ground, and its atmospheric counterpart, the downwelling infrared radiation, both exist very well, are both far away from zero.
And they look like this – this time using absolute W/m² values:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jATtF_nsFH91UVKLQbxs4yldxYIc4wsd/view
This to show was actually my main interest.
*
However, Robertson’s nonsensical statement:
” The 350 w/m^2 up-welling is just as absurd. Trenberth-Kiehle estimate 160 w/m^2 of solar reaching the surface yet Binny has a peak of 800 w/m^2 of down-dwelling solar, in Montana, in early May. ”
motivated to show solar data too.
*
The difference between Trenberth-Kiehl’s budget and the NOAA graph showing Fort Peck’s radiation for one day, e.g. April 1,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18KuC6GDaCPo8bX24MglGvhSxqVJK0jHj/view
is of course that
– the budget is the average for the whole Earth, from 90N to 90S and 180W to 180 E over ten years,
and that
– the Sun doesn’t shine at night, reducing the daily mean on average to half what is highest on the daily SURFRAD graph.
*
It should therefore come as no surprise when examining a monthly time series showing the solar downwelling resp. upwelling averages of all SURFRAD stations for 2000-2026:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bbnD3yjn8yu0a-v2YEKzJy_YUIsxi-uW/view
In this SURFRAD average graph, the mean downwelling solar is at about 180 W/m², quite near to the 160 W/m² in T&K’s budget.
*
But rest assured: the Robertson toro soon will be charging at this SURFRAD radiation muleta!
Because here too, downwelling SW solar is lower than upwelling LW infrared!
That can’t be! Impossible!
SURFRAD monthly data source
https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/radiation/surfrad/averages/
Tomorrow, I will start itemizing the bad science in the K-T “energy” budget (also seen in the bogus “EEI”). So time is running out for the four blog-cloggers to prove me wrong. I’ve stated they can’t find anything wrong in the nonsense, and so far they’ve proven me right.
Who are the four blog-cloggers? Bindi, Norman, barry, and Ark. Notice I omitted the extreme cult kids and the mentally ill. I’m just too compassionate….
TEST
binny…”Whatever ignoramus Robertson might tell us about Shula’s egregious Pirani gauge manipulation, the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the terrestrial ground, and its atmospheric counterpart, the downwelling infrared radiation, both exist very well, are both far away from zero”.
***
Let’s see if we can dumb this down enough so even Binny can understand it. I doubt it though, since the perverted science he presents here is so wrong I doubt that my explanation will offer insight for him. Above, he claimed to have explained anomalies to me yet when I presented my understanding, that completely paralleled the definition of NOAA, Binny still could not understand anomalies.
Re the Pirani gauge, if we connected a short piece of tungsten or platinum filament wire to terminals and connected electrical power to those terminals, if we increased the voltage slowly, the wire would begin to heat. As we applied more current, by increasing the voltage, the wire would become hotter and hotter and eventually would begin to glow a dull red colour.
That’s heat dissipation by radiation. However, the filament wire is contacted directly by the atmosphere and heat is transferred directly to air molecules by the heated filament wire.
Before the colour appeared, the wire was emitting purely infrared radiation and when the colour appeared, it was emitting infrared plus EM in the visible spectrum. As we increase the current, the colours would change from red to orange, to yellow, etc., indicating higher and higher temperatures. Eventually, the wire would heat to the point it exploded, like a fuse.
The problem here is that we cannot measure the amount of energy dissipated as heat via conduction/convection and the amount dissipated by radiation alone. Enter the Pirani gauge, which conceals the resistive element in a glass tube which can be evacuated to produce a vacuum. Of course, in a vacuum, there is no molecules to allow heat dissipation by conduction/convection, so what we measure is pure radiation.
Shula has claimed that when the tube is filled with gas, the heat from the heated element is dissipated 260 times better than via pure radiation in a pure vacuum. No one here, including Binny, has proved Shula wrong, all they have done is wave their arms in the air and appeal to alarmist authority.
It makes eminent sense that Shula is right. Any surface of a square metre dimension has 10^28 air molecules in touch with it at any one time. Each molecule absorbs heat directly via conduction, and as the heated molecule rises via convection, it carries that heat with it aloft.
Note that air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, therefore most of the heat is transported by those gases with CO2 playing a miniscule role.
Climate alarmists have completely ignored this heat dissipation via conduction/convection and the fact that the heat dissipated can be gradually dissipated to a very low value WITHIN THE ATMOSPHERE. That dissipated heat does not have to be radiated away and it explains why energy in does no have to equal energy out for the Earth.
It has been noted in experiments with the Pirani gauge, that 260 times more heat is dissipated when the glass tube is filled with a gas than when the glass is evacuated and pure radiation is acting as the sole heat dissipator.
Google AI indicates…
“Overall Ratio: For a typical, well-designed gauge, the ratio Qgas/Qrad can vary from nearly zero at 10^-6 Torr (vacuum) to over 100 at atmospheric pressure.
Shula gives an excellent presentation here, comparing the energy budget to reality. In reality, conduction/convection account for 99.6% of surface heat dissipation while radiation account for only 0.4%. The energy budget diagram has that value almost reversed, making it appear incorrectly that radiation alone is responsible for heat dissipation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk&t=120s
The GHE and the AGW theories are wrong for that reason. Radiation is a minor player in the atmosphere.
John Christy of UAH, a real climate scientist of integrity, telling it like it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpGDnuz308&t=59s
barry,
“Where do you get the idea that the lapse rate ‘behaves’ in any way when estimating a non-feedback response to GHG increase?”
The 1K value is obtained by translating the thermal profile to restore equilibrium. Therefore, the 1K value arises directly from a behavior imposed on the thermal profile.
“For the no-feedback response to CO2 doubling the lapse rate of 6.5 C/km is held fixed. This is another empirically derived, not arbitrary value.”
It is not the value that is arbitrary in itself, it is empirical and therefore dependent on a given structure of the atmosphere.
“This is done to isolate the optical effect of the gas being varied.”
Wrong. You don’t need to freeze the gradient to calculate the change in optical properties. The freeze is used to calculate irradiance, which is a thermodynamic value of the system. However, you cannot calculate a thermodynamic property of the altered system without first performing its thermodynamic calculation.
“As there are so few moving parts to the ‘model’, the result has been replicated to within a few tenths K for decades.”
Yes, you can reproduce a stupid calculation just as you can reproduce a sensible one.
“It is when the ocean/atmosphere dynamics are unfrozen that the broad uncertainty associated with feedbacks kicks in.”
Yes, that’s where the uncertainties arise. The fundamental error, however, is a consequence of the absurdity of the initial calculation. Therefore, evaluating the uncertainties becomes pointless.
Phi,
You seem to be questioning the notion thst the atmosphere tends to adjust itself to a critical lapse rate.
But this is very well estabished in meteorology. It is known that beyond this critical value, the atmosphere becomes unstable to strong convection, and storms develop, returning the lapse rate back to near the critical value.
And meteorolgy theory is tested relentlessly everyday via comparisons of measured to predicted weather.
Nate,
The critical gradient is not derived from a physical law; it’s an empirical working value that fits the model. In primitive models, its value is simply the average observed in the troposphere.
The effective average value of the lapse rate depends on the radiative structure. The contribution attributable to radiative cooling in the troposphere is generally estimated at around 3.5 °C per km.
Since a thermodynamic calculation of the system is impossible, the trick used is to assume the thermal gradient is independent of the radiative contribution. This is obviously a false assumption that can only produce equally false results.
Can you point me to a publication that uses this ‘trick’ and explains it?
Thanks.
As promised, we now start a new series exposing the errors, omissions and “bad science” in the K-T “energy” budget. In this “budget”, everything is balanced, but in the later version by NASA (Loeb), they conjured up an “imbalance” of 0.6 W/m² by adjusting the values. In cult science, you can always adjust the values to get any results you want.
The first error has already been mentioned:
1. Radiative flux is NOT energy.
Most people with a background in hard science will know this without question. Energy is just energy, typically with units of Joules. Flux is energy per time per area. Typically with units of Joules per second per square meter, or Watts per square meter. That makes flux completely different from energy. In fact, “energy” is a conserved quantity, while “flux” is not. That means energy is accountable, but flux ix not. Which brings us to the second error:
2. The surface is emitting more flux (390 W/m²) than it receives from Sun (168 W/m²).
Because they confuse “energy” with “flux”, they get all kinds of weird results like that.
Stay tuned, there’s a lot more….
“That makes flux completely different from energy.”
Different, but related. Not ‘completely different’. Like how electric charge and electric current (and electric current density) are ‘different, but closely related’.
A simple integration of flux over time and over a given surface turns fluxes back into energies.
“The surface is emitting more flux (390 W/m²) than it receives from Sun (168 W/m²).”
Similarly, a heat pump “emits” more heat than it “receives” from the air. This in itself is not a problem. Only when you account for all the energy flows (and all applicable laws of thermodynamics) can a situation be understood. Your problem is that you are only looking at two out of 5 energy flows in and out of the surface.
Oh dang, I forgot to invite you to the party, Folkerts. I always think of you more as a “perverter of physics” than a “blog-clogger”, but I guess there’s really not much difference, huh?
Here you choose to pervert physics, again.
Perversion 1: [Fluxes and energy are] “Different, but related”. Not “completely different”, “but closely related”. So, fluxes and energy are the same!
Perversion 2: A heat pump puts out hotter air than the air it pulls from ambient. But, that’s because it’s designed to convert external energy into the hotter air. That’s not happening in the perverted diagram.
But, welcome to the party. Since you’re here, can you find anything wrong with the K-T “energy” diagram”, other then the two examples I’ve already mentioned? The other blog-cloggers were unable. See if you can help them:
https://postimg.cc/ft3S8YzV
CLINT PERVERSION 1. Clint thinks that “closely related” means “the same”. That is certainly a perversion both of the English language and of what I said.
CLINT PERVERSION 2. The point is that you can’t look at just some of the flows in isolation. There is absolutely no reason to compare just “solar radiation in” and “thermal radiation out”. To show an error, you need to state specifically what law you think is being broken. It’s not conservation of energy, and its not 2LoT.
*********************
And congrats Clint, we all think of you as BOTH “perverter of physics” and “blog-clogger”. 🙂
Nice blah-blah, Folkerts. But you should know I’m immune to insults and false accusations.
Still can’t find anything wrong with the diagram, huh?
Well stick around, the learning is just starting….
Clint R
I doubt this will at all help you but it is still worth a try. You are extremely confused of concepts of energy and flux. In your mind you have no ability to understand how they relate to each other. Since energy is too abstract of a concept for you mind, try a model that is comparable. Most posters here know you have little knowledge of real physics or science of any kind. You NEVER support any of your outrageous speculations with valid science and I have requested numerous times that you perform some type of experiment to validate your made up ideas. Since you are not scientifically minded you will never provide evidence but you will insult 90% of the people who post here.
Consider water in some type of storage container. The quantity of water in the container is similar to the quantity of energy in some object. Gallons for water and joules for energy. Now if you have a flow of water into the tank what do you think will happen? Water flow, GPM is similar to flux (Watts for energy, joules/second). Most would claim that the amount of water will increase. But hold on, what if you also have a drain so some water is leaving? Hmm that is interesting. It is too complex for you to grasp but that is okay. We all understand your limits of rational thought process. Okay if you have more water going into the tank than going out what does Mr Clint R think will happen? I guess maybe it depends upon what type of water it is. Some types of water will not add to the tank only special magic water can increase the level of water in the container. The rest will not be accepted by the container if the container contains a threshold level of water. Hmm I wonder if Clint R is able to understand any of his magic when it applies to water levels and inflow and outflow. I doubt it. He is a very simple minded person.
Norman, as I’ve told you many times, drop the insults and false accusations, and I’ll try to teach you some science.
I assume you can’t find anything wrong with the bogus “energy” diagram, either.
See, you need to learn some science….
Clint R
Most ignorant one! You will not be the one to teach any real science since you do not understand it or have knowledge of real science. You are a crackpot as Gordon Robertson but are blind to how little real science you are capable of understanding.
The energy budget is based upon actual measured values. Errors can be made in how the measured values are weighted. Other than that I do not think there are any major errors. You views are total errors and false misleading teachings. If you want me to change my posting tone, DO SCIENCE!! Show, with real world experiments, that 6 heat lamps around a sphere will not increase the temperature of the sphere surface over 4 heat lamps. Until you do such real world experiments you are just a arrogant crackpot who has one lone disciple on this blog, our good friend DREMT that wants everyone to believe he has some science background but can’t even tell us what he studied in. This blog attracts crackpots, like you and Gordon, like S**t attracts flies. You know you have no science and that is why you NEVER will provide valid support for any of your claims. But regardless, keep posting nonsense. We know why you do it. You are a lonely person who has no real talent but needs attention so you come on this blog and provoke people with stupid made up science to get attention.
Norman doubles down on his hatred of reality. I had hopes for him, as he once solved one of my physics problems I use to educate kids. But it seems his cult beliefs have limited what he is willing to learn.
Clint R
Have you got your daily dose of attention? Your diversions will not make your crackpot science more real or valid. Can you answer a question? Why don’t you ever link to valid science to support your opinions or provide experimental evidence that might support your musings?
Norman, you’re a cult child. THat’s not an insult, it’s reality. You can’t make a comment to me without insulting and falsely accusing.
Cult children are not capable of learning.
Clint R
All you do is divert and insult. You are horrible at science but make a good politician. You avoid direct questions and divert to pointless thoughts or whine about perceived insults. Anyway, i am glad you are getting your attention fix for today.
Norman, I’m not a “disciple” of anybody, and I really do have a science degree. Sorry that seems to upset you so much. Every month I have to hear the same sorry trash talk from you, even as you complain to Clint about how insulting you find him! Here’s a thought…maybe stop being such a massive hypocrite, and you might find you have room to learn.
[NORMAN] our good friend [Graham] that wants everyone to believe he has some science background but can’t even tell us what he studied in.
[GRAHAM] I really do have a science degree.
Norman wins.
Willard stalks.
“Energy is just energy, typically with units of Joules. Flux is energy per time per area. Typically with units of Joules per second per square meter, or Watts per square meter. That makes flux completely different from energy.”
Energy is only useful to know in context
For climate of Earth a statement about how many Joules is meaningless until you tell us over what portion of the Earth it is received, and over what period of time.
Thus it is quite appropriate to say how many Joules per year (or per second) is received on the whole Earth surface area, OR equivalently, on average per square meter of the Earths surface.
Since scientists can easily convert between these, this is yet another non problem dressed up as a problem.
The main problem isn’t forgetting about heat flux, but rather equating irradiance with a heat flux. I assume you both know that irradiance isn’t a heat flux and that classical thermodynamics doesn’t deal with termal fluxes other than heat fluxes; its principles apply to heat exchange, not irradiance.
I don’t know exactly what you’re trying to demonstrate, Clint R, but what’s certain is that the five fluxes you’re thinking of, Tim Folkert, aren’t all heat fluxes. There aren’t five fluxes, but rather:
– Three for classical thermodynamics: solar flux, upward IR flux, and convective flux.
– Seven for statistical thermodynamics (by simplification): solar irradiance, atmospheric irradiance, backconduction, backconvection, conduction, convection, and surface irradiance.
Since statistical thermodynamics is irrelevant for explaining the greenhouse effect, there are actually only three fluxes to consider.
Climate physics with five fluxes is commonly referred to as climate pataphysics.
Sounds like a semantic issue, rather than an actual accounting error, Phi.
I agree with Nate here, Phi. Blog posts tend to be sloppy about definitions. And people come in with their own preconceptions. A detailed discussion would require careful definitions of each of us exactly mean by terms like heat/heat flow/heat flux; thermal energy / thermal flow / thermal flux; energy/energy flow / energy flux. Etc.
It also requires careful reading of what others write. For example, you say “the five fluxes you’re thinking of, Tim Folkert, aren’t all heat fluxes” but I actually said “5 energy flows”. “Heat” is not “energy”; “flux” is not “flow”. You shouldn’t complain about things I didn’t actually say. There are indeed 5 energy flows into/out of the surface in the diagram.
1) Solar in
2) IR in
3) IR out
4) convection out
5) evapo-transpiration out
I’m not quite sure why people on here say heat is not energy. Of course, heat is energy. Work is also energy. If they have the same units (Joules) then they’re the same. Equivalence Principle.
“I’m not quite sure why people on here say heat is not energy.”
It has to do with the thermodynamic definition of “heat”, which is energy in transit, ie, the rate of energy flow. Heat therefore typically has units of energy per time, such as “Watts”.
A proper thermo book typically uses “Q” for energy, and “Qdot” (Q with a dot over it) for heat.
So “energy” might have units of Joules, while “heat” has units of Joules/second, which is Watts. Joules/second is also referred to as “power”, which again, is energy in transit.
I can usually tell what someone means, even if they mix up the terms, based on context. But the correct usage becomes important in the CO2 nonsense, where the attempt is to confuse energy with radiative flux. Radiative flux has units of Power/area, which is NOT energy.
Clint R,
Very good point. It seems that many here still haven’t grasped that, from a thermodynamic perspective, there’s no difference between heat transfer by radiation, conduction, and convection.
I was taught a watt is a unit of power. It is used to define how much energy is transferred per any given unit of time. So, 60 watts would be 60 J/s and in one minute 3600 J of energy would be transferred.
I think the idea of flux is being misinterpreted here. Flux is a human mathematical concept developed by the human mind to describe an intangible quantity like energy. Energy is a phenomenon and we know nothing about what it is in reality. Therefore, we have developed ‘forms’ of energy such as thermal, mechanical, chemical, etc.. that merely describe the way energy acts on matter.
https://circuitglobe.com/difference-between-magnetic-field-and-magnetic-flux.html
We have no idea what is acting on the matter, as a force or whatever, all we know is that ‘something’ is acting on something. To differentiate these actions, we have split energy into various ‘forms’ where each form depends on the mass involved. Heat, for example, acts on particles like atoms both externally and internally. Work describes mechanical energy which involves a force acting on a mass over a distance.
If we use flux to describe magnetic energy, we imagine the magnetic lines of force, assuming they are separate entities, as passing through an area. The more lines per unit area the more intense the magnetic field.
Actually the word flux stems back to Newton’s word fluxion, which is essentially the rate of change of a function. Today, we call that the first derivative of a function. Of course, that represents a line function and to calculate the flux over an area we need to work with both an x and y direction hence two derivatives dx and dy. To calculate the total flux over the area we need a double integral that integrates dx and dy separately and sums them. It’s no different that multiplying x and y to get an area.
A magnetic field is often a constant, as is the case when two magnetic are held close to each other pole-wise. It is important to understand that such fields, hence fluxes, are imaginary. No one has ever seen one although they can be demonstrated by placing a magnetic, or two magnets, under a piece of paper and sprinkling iron fillings on the paper. the iron particles will align themselves with the magnetic field.
With alternating magnetic fields, such as produced in electric motors and transformers, a varying electromagnetic field is produced. That is the field rises and collapses at regular intervals based on the alternating frequency of the electric current running through the coils of each device.
These fields differ from fluxes only in the area involved. A flux is a measure of lines of force passing through a certain area whereas the magnetic field is the entire enchalada. Magnetic field is a reference to the entire magnetic field whereas a magnetic flux is defined only within certain area.
In the atmosphere, we are normally dealing with electromagnetic energy, which is essentially an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. It has a frequency. If we consider each frequency as a discrete photon, then the flux of the total field is the total number of photons passing through a given area per unit time.
Clint is correct in claiming flux is not energy but he is also being to particular in divorcing fluxes from energy. Essentially, fluxes are human devices developed to measure the intensity of energy. In other words, no energy, no flux.
The word “flux” does not etymologically stem from Newton’s word “fluxion.”
Instead, both words were borrowed centuries earlier from the Latin root fluxus (meaning “a flowing” or “to flow”).
Flux was initially used in medical contexts to describe an abnormal fluid discharge, and later evolved to mean a “continuous succession of changes” or steady motion. This occurred long before Newton was even born.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/flux
Nate, Tim Folkerts,
Vous avez raison. Pour simplifier, je n’ai pas distingué les flux convectifs ce qui provoque de la confusion. Ce n’est pas 3 – 5 – 7 mais 4 – 5 – 9. Et même, en toute rigueur 4 – 5 – 10 (pour la prise en compte de la radiation Terre – Soleil).
Non, ce n’est pas une question de sémanitque. Les 5 prétendus flux mélangent 3 flux de chaleur et 2 irradiances. Avec ça, nous ne sommes pas dans la thermodyanmique mais dans la comptabilité. Le bilan IN OUT est correct mais vous n’allez pas plus loin.
Pour la thermodynamique classique, l’irradiance n’est pas un flux mais une propriété. Conceptuellement, la thermodyanmique ne possède pas d’outil pour apréhender un flux d’irradiance exactement comme nous ne possédons pas d’instrument pour isoler deux flux d’irradiance opposés. La notion de fux net est une inexactitude regrettable de langage.
Oû cela pose-t-il problème?
Avec votre représentation, vous avez l’illusion de pourvoir additonner le flux solaire à l’irradiance de l’atmosphère et c’est parfaitement inadmissible pour la thermodynamique. A quoi mène cette illusion ? A la notion de forçage radiatif qui est une notion pataphysique. Pourquoi pataphysique ? Parce qu’elle évacue l’entropie. A quantité égale, l’augmentation du flux solaire et l’augmentation de l’irradiance de l’atmosphère n’ont pas le même effet sur le système.
Comment et où cette confusion affecte-t-elle la modélisation ? Dans l’ajustement convectif. Il y est supposé l’indépendance entre gradient thermique et flux radiatifs.
Nate, Tim Folkerts,
You’re right. To simplify, I didn’t distinguish between the convective fluxes, which is causing confusion. It’s not 3-5-7 but 4-5-9. And even, strictly speaking, 4-5-10 (to account for Earth-Sun radiation).
No, it’s not a matter of semantics. The 5 supposed fluxes mix 3 heat fluxes and 2 irradiances. With that, we’re not dealing with thermodynamics but with accounting. The IN-OUT balance is correct, but you’re not going any further.
For classical thermodynamics, irradiance is not a flux but a property. Conceptually, thermodynamics doesn’t have a tool to grasp an irradiance flux, just as we don’t have an instrument to isolate two opposing irradiance fluxes. The notion of net flux is a regrettable inaccuracy in language.
Where does this pose a problem?
With your representation, you have the illusion of being able to add the solar flux to the atmospheric irradiance, and this is completely unacceptable for thermodynamics. What does this illusion lead to? To the notion of radiative forcing, which is a pataphysical notion. Why pataphysical? Because it eliminates entropy. For equal amounts, an increase in solar flux and an increase in atmospheric irradiance do not have the same effect on the system.
How and where does this confusion affect the modeling? In the convective adjutment. It assumes the independence between the thermal gradient and radiative fluxes.
Phi at 1:06 AM
“…we don’t have an instrument to isolate two opposing irradiance fluxes. The notion of net flux is a regrettable inaccuracy in language.”
This is factually wrong. We absolutely do measure directional radiative fluxes separately.
For example, an upward-facing pyrgeometer measures atmospheric downward longwave irradiance and, a downward-looking radiometer measures upward terrestrial longwave radiation, as is done at the various surface radiation measurement facilities of the SURFRAD Network; e.g. https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/desrock.html.
Net flux is not sloppy language. Whenever opposing flows coexist, the net quantity is their difference.
No, a pyrgeometer pointed towards the zenith measures heat loss at room temperature and, if it is sufficiently cooled, heat gain, never directly irradiance. Direct irradiance measurement is completely impossible because nothing can be cooled to 0 K.
Outside of measurement, and within the strict framework of classical thermodynamics, which alone can address the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, there is no flux from the cold atmosphere to the hot surface.
Phi at 6:06 AM
Duly noted.
May I direct you to Roy W. Spencer’s post of August 23rd, 2016 titled “Observational Evidence of the “Greenhouse Effect” at Desert Rock, Nevada” and invite you comment on its content?
Rgrds
Phi,
“you have the illusion of being able to add the solar flux to the atmospheric irradiance, and this is completely unacceptable for thermodynamics. What does this illusion lead to? To the notion of radiative forcing, which is a pataphysical notion. Why pataphysical? Because it eliminates entropy. For equal amounts, an increase in solar flux and an increase in atmospheric irradiance do not have the same effect on the system.”
First off, our dicussions here don’t have the same rigor as science papers. You need to quote a real publication and point out what specifically you think they are doing wrong.
Radiative forcing is defined at the top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA). It is the difference between the incoming solar flux and the outgoing IR flux.
Neither of those are atmospheric irradiance.
Arkady Ivanovich,
Interesting observations. I have no particular criticism other than regarding the vocabulary used.
Perhaps you suggested this reference because you didn’t quite understand what I wrote earlier?
Or do you have a specific point in this article you’d like to highlight?
Nate,
You are partially correct. Radiative forcing is rather poorly defined and is also used to describe atmospheric irradiance or its variation. I am not responsible for that!
But it is indeed the definition you give that I use. The difference is due either to an increase in the inward flux or a reduction in the outward flux. Radiative forcing ignores the different temperatures involved; it therefore ignores the notion of entropy. It is not a thermodynamic concept, nor even a scientific one at all, but a pataphysical one. The return to equilibrium is assumed to be identical by definition in both cases, which is, of course, absurd.
I told you where the problem lies (convective adjustment) and what it is (arbitrary constraint on the gradient). You will find its expression in all the papers devoted to this subject, whether, for example, in Manabe, Ramanathan, or anywhere else.
Phi at 7:40 AM
I wanted you to read Dr. Spencer’s post to highlight that the thing you say is “impossible” to measure is being routinely measured.
Operationally and scientifically, pyrgeometers are fit-for-purpose instruments for measuring longwave irradiance.
Because thermal radiation is additive and well-described by radiative transfer, if detector emission is known, detector temperature is known, and the instrument response is calibrated, then incoming irradiance is recoverable. This is no different mathematically from removing detector offsets in other instruments.
No detector needs to be at 0 K for irradiance measurements to be physically meaningful or experimentally valid.
Lastly, no one claims that net heat flows downward. That’s a strawman.
Rgrds
Arkady Ivanovich,
Quoting me:
“…we don’t have an instrument to isolate two opposing irradiance fluxes. The notion of net flux is a regrettable inaccuracy in language.”
You claimed this was false. However, it is absolutely true, and you certainly haven’t demonstrated the contrary.
You are concealing the fact that I have always spoken of direct measurement to illustrate your error. One can only directly measure a heat flux.
You are using fallacies to try to justify yourself.
Phi at 10:25 AM
I have no need for fallacies or to try to justify myself. I’m simply trying to clarify what it is you’re saying because it sounds so implausible.
When you say “I have always spoken of direct measurement to illustrate your error,” it’s like saying that because a thermometer does not directly measure temperature, it only measures the thermal expansion of mercury or the electrical resistance of a material, therefore temperature itself is not directly measurable, no?
That statement is technically true in a narrow philosophical sense, but scientifically, no physicist would say that temperature cannot be measured.
In closing I will note that you are no longer disputing whether: directional radiative transfer exists, pyrgeometers work operationally, atmospheric longwave radiation is physically real, or radiative-transfer equations successfully model observations.
Rgrds.
“poorly defined and is also used to describe atmospheric irradiance or its variation. I am not responsible for that!”
No, only in blog science.
“But it is indeed the definition you give that I use.”
No you spoke of atm irradiance.
” The difference is due either to an increase in the inward flux or a reduction in the outward flux. Radiative forcing ignores the different temperatures involved; it therefore ignores the notion of entropy. It is not a thermodynamic concept, nor even a scientific one at all, but a pataphysical one. The return to equilibrium is”
There are no temperatures in the well defined TOA radiative forcing.
Not a real problem.
Arkady Ivanovich,
“I have no need for fallacies or to try to justify myself.”
However, it seems that it is: your last paragraph.
No one denies that heat flow can be measured directly. No one denies the existence of irradiance. And… no one claims that it is possible to physically separate the opposing components of a heat flow.
The problem is that you haven’t understood what I’m demonstrating by rigorously adhering to established science. Pay attention, every word counts.
1. The atmospheric system cannot be solved within any general framework other than that of classical thermodynamics.
2. This framework is based on the concept of entropy.
3. Any theory that claims to solve the atmospheric system while deliberately ignoring entropy variation can only produce false results.
I’m stating one irrefutable point: the concept of radiative forcing eliminates entropy from the system’s solution.
Nate,
Again, you’re partially right. I did indeed also use atmospheric irradiance as seen from the surface. But, in the case of the TOA situation, it’s also atmospheric irradiance that’s used, this time as seen from the TOA.
“There are no temperatures in the well-defined TOA radiative forcing.”
That’s precisely what makes it a pataphysical concept (not well defined at all)!
And it’s a huge problem. I assume you at least have some idea of what’s at stake since you spend a lot of time on this subject.
Phi at 2:06 AM
1/
This is false. No single framework “solves” the atmosphere because the atmosphere is fundamentally a nonequilibrium, multiscale, radiative-fluid dynamical system.
Atmospheric physics uses multiple coupled frameworks simultaneously:
(a) Fluid dynamics for atmospheric motion. (b) Thermodynamics for energy and state relations. (c) Radiative transfer for photon transport. (d) Statistical mechanics for molecular populations and spectra. (e) Quantum mechanics for a b s o r p t i o n/emission lines. (f) Continuum mechanics for transport processes. (g) Numerical dynamics for time evolution.
Classical equilibrium thermodynamics alone is insufficient to determine the dynamical evolution of the climate system.
2/
This is only partly true, but you’re exaggerating entropy’s operational role in climate modeling.
Climate models primarily solve (a) conservation of mass, momentum, and energy, along with (b) radiative transfer, moisture physics, phase changes, and turbulence parameterizations.
Entropy constraints are present implicitly through irreversible processes, radiative degradation of energy, viscous dissipation, diffusion, and the second law. But entropy is not usually the prognostic variable driving the calculations.
3/
This is false as stated. A model does not need to explicitly compute entropy to obey thermodynamics.
Take for example, a radiative equilibrium model such as (1-α)S/4 = σT^4. It does not explicitly mention entropy, yet entropy production is embedded within it because energy degrades from high-temperature solar photons to lower-temperature terrestrial infrared emission, thus the second law is satisfied automatically.
The key point is that entropy is implicit in climate analysis.
4/
This is simply wrong and the word “irrefutable” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Radiative forcing is a diagnostic perturbation measure stated as a change in radiative energy balance. Nothing about radiative forcing “eliminates entropy” from the system.
Radiative forcing establishes the energetic constraints under which the climate system evolves. For example, increasing CO2 changes spectral opacity which in turn alters radiative flux divergence, changes the temperature structure of the system, thus changing the entropy production pathways.
Entropy production still occurs [implicitly] as I’ve already said above.
In closing I will say that since you’re fixating on the explicit formulation of entropy, you may want to read Peixoto (1991) “Entropy Budget of the Atmosphere“, or Gibbins (2020) “Entropy Production Rates of the Climate“, for clarification.
Can YOU point me to the literature supporting your assertions, or are these simply your opinions?
Rgrds.
Arkady Ivanovich,
1. I warned you, though, every word counts: general framework
2. “…but you’re exaggerating entropy’s operational role in climate modeling.”
I’m not exaggerating it, since I’m saying precisely that there isn’t any!
3. Tell me then where entropy implicitly comes into play in the concept of radiative forcing.
4. “Radiative forcing establishes the energetic constraints under which the climate system evolves.”
Yes, and independently of the temperatures involved, and therefore independently of entropy production.
Don’t you see the fallacy in your reasoning?
Don’t you understand that the lack of information about entropy forces a return to equilibrium through an arbitrary behavior imposed on the thermal gradient?
Don’t you see the invalidity of your argument from implicitness?
These are purely logical questions and don’t require any external authority.
I misspoke when I said that entropy doesn’t play a role in the modeling at all. It does, however, play a role implicitly, as you described. But do you understand that this isn’t the point?
Just because we implicitly use entropy where we know how to use it doesn’t mean that this will compensate in any way for its removal at the crucial moment of the solution.
Phi at 6:51 AM
So, are you saying that by “general framework” you actually meant say (a) Fluid dynamics for atmospheric motion, (b) Thermodynamics for energy and state relations, (c) Radiative transfer for photon transport, (d) Statistical mechanics for molecular populations and spectra, (e) Quantum mechanics for a b s o r p t i o n/emission lines, (f) Continuum mechanics for transport processes, and (g) Numerical dynamics for time evolution?
Then why did you only say “classical thermodynamics?”
Yes, every word counts.
No references then? Opinions are like arseholes; everybody’s got one, and they all stink!
Arkady Ivanovich,
Within a general framework, you can introduce other frameworks, but you must consider the differences in paradigms and solve the overall problem within the paradigm of the general framework.
This is in no way a matter of opinion, but pure logic.
Modeling resolves the impossibility of convective calculations through convective adjustment, which is nothing more than a negation of established thermodynamic principles and whose computational validity has not been evaluated.
Therefore, modeling is not based on scientific principles.
The resulting radiative forcing is thus a pseudoscientific notion.
Nothing remains.
For what it’s worth, paradigms ain’t pure logic, and paradigm shift means something else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
Our new Sky Dragon visitor is rediscovering “But Semantics”:
https://climateball.net/but-semantics/
Phi at 10:25 AM
Sounds like cope. You’re just trying “to justify yourself.”
More cope. This is you relying on an outdated view of climate science, treating 1970s-era models as if they represent the state of the art. Today’s advanced global climate models do not hard-code a static critical gradient.
I don’t get why this is so difficult for you.
TOA radiative forcing is the perturbation of the Earth’s non-equilibrium radiative entropy budget.
The zero-dimensional radiative equilibrium model (1-α)S/4 = σT^4 clearly illustrates this principle.
FTOA = (1-α)S/4 – OLR. At equilibrium FTOA = 0.
The forcing is not merely an energy flux but a thermodynamic degradation process.
The Earth receives radiation characterized by the Sun’s effective temperature (Ts) = 5760 K, and emits radiation characterized by Earth’s radiating temperature (Te) = 255 K.
The entropy formulation is = Q(1/Te – 1/Ts) and, since Ts >> Te, the same energy flux Q carries little entropy when emitted by the Sun, and much more entropy when emitted by the Earth. Radiative forcing perturbs that thermodynamic throughput; it does not eliminate entropy from the problem.
In closing, climate science expresses TOA forcing in W/m² because radiative flux is the operationally measurable quantity. Entropy is not independently measured by instruments; it is inferred from the measured energy fluxes and the temperatures associated with those fluxes. Thus, entropy is implicit in radiative forcing, not absent from it.
QED
Arkady Ivanovich,
“Sounds like cop. You’re just trying to justify yourself.”
You didn’t understand what a general framework meant; I explained it to you, and that’s all.
“This is you relying on an outdated view of climate science, treating 1970s-era models as if they represent the state of the art. Today’s advanced global climate models do not hard-code a static critical gradient.”
The paragraph you quoted doesn’t use the term “critical gradient,” so it’s another fallacy.
“Radiative forcing perturbs that thermodynamic throughput; “It does not eliminate entropy from the problem.”
A radiative forcing is an instantaneous radiative disequilibrium at the TOA. The effect of such a disequilibrium on the system depends on the duration and shape of the return to equilibrium. Give me the function f(t) of the disequilibrium. You assume that this function is identical regardless of the associated entropy change. How do you justify this?
“Thus, entropy is implicit in radiative forcing, not absent from it.”
Do you realize the absurdity of your statement?
Phi,
“But, in the case of the TOA situation, it’s also atmospheric irradiance that’s used, this time as seen from the TOA.”
Well, the outward flux to space @ 3K from both the surace and the atmoshere is effectively, a heat flow.
So again there is no actual Thermodynamic problem here that you have articulated.
Nate,
Practically yes, but it’s calculated as irradiance.
That’s not the issue here. Radiative forcing is given in W/m² and therefore doesn’t contain any information about the associated entropy change.
And of course, it must be added that its value for a reduction of the upstream flow is arbitrary because it is calculated on the basis of an arbitrary behavior of the lapse rate.
“That’s not the issue here. Radiative forcing is given in W/m² and therefore doesn’t contain any information about the associated entropy change.”
You seem to be using the word entropy just to obfuscate.
Absence of mentioning entropy is not evidence of its absence.
So this is still not a real articulated problem.
How the temperature of the Earth atmosphere and surface responds to this forcing is a different issue.
Nate,
“Absence of mentioning entropy is not evidence of its absence.”
If I ask you to give me the effect of a forcing of 3 W/m², where do you get the information on the associated entropy change?
“How the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and surface responds to this forcing is a different issue.”
The concept of forcing implies that there is no other information to provide to obtain the resulting temperature fields for the initial effect before feedbacks.
What is another problem is modeling by GCMs. The forcing doesn’t come into play; instead, convective adjustment takes over. And it does so without reference to the entropy change. That’s another topic. Let’s first agree on the most obvious one, which is radiative forcing.
“The concept of forcing implies that there is no other information to provide to obtain the resulting temperature fields for the initial effect before feedbacks.”
Again, nonsense, Phi.
It implies no such thing. The Earth is a complex system, with land masses, oceans with currents, atmosphere general circilation patterns, ice sheets, heat transport from equator to poles, hence very much additional information is required to find even the initial temperature fields before feedbacks.
The fact that one can make cartoon-models of a 1D uniform Earth, to make a rough estmate of the initial rise in Tav, in response to an Fav, does not invalidate the forcing concept.
Phi, I can’t quite deduce why you thinking irradiance is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Radiation is one of the basic forms of heat transfer in thermodynamics.
I also don’t know why you think radiative forcing ‘eliminates entropy.” There is nothing about radiative forcing that contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Tim Folkerts,
I didn’t say that irradiance was outside the scope of classical thermodynamics, but rather that it didn’t have the status of a flux within it.
By definition, radiative forcing is the driving force that is supposed to increase the planet’s temperature. By how much and how depends on the associated change in entropy. Again, by definition, the associated change in entropy is ignored by the concept of radiative forcing.
“Radiative forcing” is a phrase from “climate science” that the cult uses to pervert reality. For example, Ark defines it as:
“Radiative forcing is defined at the top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA). It is the difference between the incoming solar flux and the outgoing IR flux.”
Pure nonsense!
“By definition, radiative forcing is the driving force that is supposed to increase the planet’s temperature.”
Indeed so. We know by the First Law, that the Earth system will gain that energy.
“By how much and how depends on the associated change in entropy. Again, by definition, the associated change in entropy is ignored by the concept of radiative forcing.”
False. The point of forcing is to determine how much energy is addeded to the Earth system.
How the energy that is added to the Earth system is distributed in the system is where entropy is involved, an this is a primary goal of climate modeling.
Nate,
“Indeed so. We know by the First Law, that the Earth system will gain that energy.”
It’s undeniable if the forcing originates from an increase in the input. For greenhouse gases (GHGs), it’s not even possible to be certain, let alone quantify. Look at what happens in the stratosphere. GHGs cool the atmosphere, and it hasn’t been demonstrated that an increase in their concentration causes the opposite in the troposphere, even though it can be assumed.
Otherwise, you’re confusing primary convective adjustment with secondary feedbacks. Entropy doesn’t play a role in convective adjustment.
Again Phi, you are not clearly explaining what your problem is, and several people here are having the same issue as I do.
The First Law does not care whether there is a reduction in heat loss or increase in heat gain, at the TOA. The result is a net gain in energy of the system.
So you are not making sense.
Nate,
The so-called radiative forcing is actually an instantaneous radiative imbalance given in W/m². It has no relation to a specific quantity of energy. Even assuming that the value of the imbalance for a doubling of CO₂ is calculated correctly (which it isn’t), the corresponding energy accumulation in the system is undefined because the function of the imbalance value over time in the return to equilibrium is unknown. The function to be integrated is unknown and necessarily different for an imbalance of solar origin or one linked to a change in the radiative structure of the atmosphere.
Constant moving of the goal posts.
The time for the Earth system to return to equilibrium after a forcing, is again, a different issue, that involves the response of the system to a forcing, which requires GCM modeling, and doesnt invalidate the forcing concept.
Nate,
If you don’t understand what I’m writing, if you feel like I’m changing the subject, it’s because you don’t grasp the underlying principles of the theory.
Representation by forcing, initial effect, and feedback is one thing. Modeling is another.
When we talk about forcing, you answer with energy. Energy isn’t part of forcing unless you incorporate the evolution of the radiative disequilibrium.
Models don’t respond to forcing but to a modification of the radiative structure under the control of the convective adjustment.
Perhaps you should brush up on these different concepts.
“When we talk about forcing, you answer with energy. Energy isn’t part of forcing unless you incorporate the evolution of the radiative disequilibrium.”
Models don’t respond to forcing but to a modification of the radiative structure under the control of the convective adjustment.”
These are assertions lacking rationale, Phi, and my training is in physics.
The forcing is at TOA is well defined in terms of heat fluxes.
First you complain that entropy is somehow not considered. That has been explained.
Then you complain about the time for Earth to reach equilibrium after a forcing, which is again, not a problem with the definition of forcing.
In any case there is a lot of research on the time-scale of the various processes involved in return to energy balance after a step forcing.
“Models don’t respond to forcing but to a modification of the radiative structure under the control of the convective adjustment.”
This is gobbldegook. Please clarify.
As I noted above, the forcing is an imbalance in TOA flux, which has been present at varying levels for decades, and thus has led to energy accumulation in the Earth system, as observed via the rise in ocean heat content.
And there is an ongoing response of the system to this forcing including a warming of the surface and of the atmosphere thus tending to reduce the TOA imbalance.
So I dont find your objections to forcing as a concept convincing.
Continuing with exposing the errors, omissions and “bad science” in the K-T “energy” budget:
https://postimg.cc/ft3S8YzV
The first two errors:
1. Radiative flux is NOT energy.
2. The surface is emitting more flux (390 W/m²) than it receives from Sun (168 W/m²).
Next:
3. The 324 W/m² from the atmosphere is bogus.
The back-radiation is nowhere near that high. Notice that’s higher then what the diagram claims reaches the surface from Sun — 168 W/m²! You’d be shocked at how many of the unwashed belief this crap. Dr. Spencer has suggested a simple way to debunk such nonsense. Purchase an inexpensive hand held IR thermometer and read the temperature of the sky yourself.
Yesterday morning, I read overhead blue sky at -54.2 °F. That temperature corresponds to an emitted flux of about 150 W/m²
4. The atmosphere is shown emitting more down than up, 324 down vs 195 up.
Yet in all of “climate science”, it is taught that the atmosphere emits the same up as down. Again, they’ve got too much coming down. But none of the kids care about the blatant mistakes.
Stay tuned, there’s a lot more….
Clint,
Clint,
Very poorly thought-out questions.
1. Already discussed thoroughly above. Not a real problem.
2. Incredulity is not an argument.
3. “324 W/m^2, The back-radiation is nowhere near that high.”
Your clear sky IR measurement is within the IR window to space. You erroneously ignore the clouds!
4. “Atmosphere is shown emiting more down than up”
Up is emitted at the TOA and above all clouds where it is COLD. Down is emitted near the surface, where it is warm.
Maybe next time pause, think, be self-skeptical, before posting such inept questions.
Child Nate doesn’t know the difference between “statements” and “questions”!
Kids these days….
As always, no science answers.
Indeed statements, inept ones, as explained.
3. “Yesterday morning, I read overhead blue sky at -54.2 °F. That temperature corresponds to an emitted flux of about 150 W/m²”
Try pointing it at the sky lower down toward the hazy horizon — you wll get higher reading. Then try pointing at a cloud. Clouds cover ~ 2/3 of the sky globally. You will get a much higher temperature and a much higher corresponding flux. A cloud at 2 C will emit 324 W/m^2. Since many clouds are warmer than this, they will emit more than 324 W/m^2. And roughly 2/3 of the global sky is cloudy.
Suddenly 324 W/m^2 doesn’t sound like bad global average.
4. “Yet in all of “climate science”, it is taught that the atmosphere emits the same up as down. “
No, climate science teaches that a given layer emits the same up and down. A warm lower layer emits large fluxes (both up and down equally); a cool upper layers emits small fluxes (both up and down equally). So the downward flux from the bottom will and must be larger than the upward flux from the top.
So this is YOUR misunderstanding, not a problem with climate science or the diagram.
“Stay tuned, there’s a lot more….”
Well you are 0/4 so far, but sure — tell us your next misunderstandings.
My efforts are producing the exact results I expected.
Folkerts continues his attempts to pervert physics. Pointing the IR thermometer at lower elevations catches higher temperature due to lapse rate. Pointing it at clouds is measuring water vapor, not CO2.
Folkerts claims the bottom layer is emitting up, but the flux doesn’t exist after that? Violating thermodynamics is no problem for the cult kids.
There’s more coming, so stay tuned to see what the cult will try next.
CLINT: “Pointing the IR thermometer at lower elevations catches higher temperature due to lapse rate. Pointing it at clouds is measuring water vapor, not CO2.”
Immaterial! You said 324 W/m^2 of radiation from the sky was “bogus”. The clouds and lower layers are still part of the sky! They are still part of the the downward radiation! No one (until you now) was claiming the 324 W/m^2 was from only CO2, but not from water vapor or clouds.
Yes, the 324 W/m² is bogus. Thanks for quoting me correctly.
The back-radiation is nowhere near that high. Notice that’s higher then what the diagram claims reaches the surface from Sun — 168 W/m²!
Energy radiating from higher entropy atmosphere to lower entropy surface, resulting in negative entropy, is a non-spontaneous process. The probability is low for this to occur.
CLINT: “The back-radiation is nowhere near that high.”
Clearly your objection is to the MAGNITUDE of the stated flux, not to the mere EXISTANCE of the flux from the sky to the ground.
Do I have to lead you through each step?
1) How does the typical temperature of the bottoms of clouds compare to the -54F you measured for clear blue sky?
a) the clouds are warmer
b) the clouds are cooler
c) the clouds are about the same
2) How does the emissivity of clouds compare to the emissivity of clear blue sky?
a) clouds have higher emissivity
b) clouds have lower emissivity
c) clouds have about the same emissivity
3) Given that the answers to both of those are (a), how does the back-radiation from clouds compare to the back-radiation from the clear blue sky?
a) the radiation from clouds is much higher than 150 W/m^2
b) the radiation from clouds is much lower than 150 W/m^2
b) the radiation from clouds is about 150 W/m^2
4) Given that the back-radiation is usually much higher than the 150 W/m^2 you observed, are you still convinced that “the back-radiation is nowhere near that [324 W/m^2] high.”
a) oops — I was wrong about 150 W/m^2 being a good estimate.
b) I am sticking with 150 W/m^2 from the clear blue sky as the correct value.
Stephen says: “Energy radiating from higher entropy atmosphere to lower entropy surface, resulting in negative entropy, is a non-spontaneous process. The probability is low for this to occur.”
If there was a NET flow from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface, THAT would violate the 2LoT. There is nothing to prevent SOME photons from going ‘the wrong way’ as long as MORE go ‘the right way’.
That doesn’t work, Tim. You could only have a “net” flux from the atmosphere to the surface if the atmosphere was warmer than the surface. But, then you also wouldn’t have a 2LoT violation, because heat would then still be flowing from hot to cold.
Don’t you people realise how nonsensical is your version of a radiative 2LoT violation?
Clint shows us a perfect demo of Team-Fake-Science’s patented method. When opponents point out the plainly obvious fatal flaw in their claim, they just pretend they never heard about it, and repeat the claim…over and over.
Then we have an endlessly confused DREMT agreeing with Team Science that there is no 2LOT violation, and claiming that doesnt work!
Nobody expected Nate to understand my point.
Folkerts, I’m just trying to help your cult. Look what happens when just 50 is subtracted from “back-radiation” and added to “emitted by atmosphere”. BR becomes 274 and emitted-up becomes 215 + 30 = 245.
274 W/m² is much closer to 245 W/m², which jives with the atmosphere emits the same up as down.
Your cult needs a lot of help.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
Can Sky Dragon cranks shoot straight?
DREMT: “You could only have a “net” flux from the atmosphere to the surface if the atmosphere was warmer than the surface. ”
Yep! Exactly as I said!
So the only way Tim can conceive of a radiative 2LoT violation is for it not to be a 2LoT violation! Funny.
Just like Clint, DREMT cannot explain to us normies, what his problem is.
I already explained it perfectly clearly to anyone who is a deep thinker, and able to think for themselves.
“So the only way Tim can conceive of a radiative 2LoT violation is for it not to be a 2LoT violation”
Here is what Tim said:
“If there was a NET flow from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface, THAT would violate the 2LoT.”
The confusion that followed wasn’t Tim’s.
Well, don’t look at me, barry. I’m not confused at all!
To have a “net” flux from the atmosphere to the surface, you could either:
1) Have a warmer atmosphere than the surface. Then there’s no 2LoT violation.
2) Have a cooler atmosphere than the surface, but then in order for there to be a “net” flux from atmosphere to surface, the SB Law would have to be violated!
Either way, your lots’ conception of what is a radiative 2LoT violation is completely ludicrous.
“Either way, your lots’ conception of what is a radiative 2LoT violation is completely ludicrous.”
Not at all. We are not desperately seeking a 2LOT violation in a situation where none is necessary, as you are.
Our conception of one has been constant, it requires
heat to flow from colder to a warmer body.
If you have been paying any attention, NO ONE on Team Science has suggested that heat is flowing from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth surface.
So this is a very good example of a strawman.
“If you have been paying any attention, NO ONE on Team Science has suggested that heat is flowing from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth surface.”
EXACTLY
All of us see radiation flowing in 2 (+) directions, but only some of us see heat flowing from a colder object to a hotter one.
I swear to God, DREMT is absolutely one of those seeing heat flowing from a cooler to hotter object in the GPE.
Seems neither barry nor Nate were paying attention to the discussion. No surprises there.
Tim was right, Puffman was wrong.
Willard stalks.
barry says:
”All of us see radiation flowing in 2 (+) directions, but only some of us see heat flowing from a colder object to a hotter one.”
so how did it warm? by the mysterious process of the fairy that does the bidding of the easter bunny? dremt has no problem as his bp didn’t get warmer.
what flies 50,000 feet over your guys heads is that there is no reduction in cooling because gp is cooling at exactly the rate you think the bp is not cooling. at equilibrium all the cooling will done by the gp as if the two plates were in contact with each other.
1.31
Willard stalks bill. Meanwhile, it remains the case that their conception of what is a radiative 2LoT violation is completely ludicrous.
bill,
“so how did it warm”
Its rate of radiative heat loss was reduced because it absorbed more radiation than it was emitting.
The blackbody blue plate doesn’t break any laws of physics by absorbing radiation from the cooler green plate.
The flow of heat in this scenario, as you know, is determined by this equation:
q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
If BP is Th, and GP is Tc, which they are, then heat flows BP to GP.
And if you say that heat flows from GP to BP in Eli’s result, then you reject the above equation as determining the flow of heat, because BP is always warmer than GP, and that is the only condition 2LoT requires. Any other conditions that claim to determine heat flow are pure fabrication.
Meanwhile, it remains the case that their conception of what is a radiative 2LoT violation is completely ludicrous.
> their
Team Science remains undefeated by our bunch of Sky Dragon cranks!
Barry,
“so how did it warm”
It seems every day the hard drives of these guys have been wiped.
They feign ignorance of the facts and basic logic theyve heard from us countless times before.
Bill seems unable to explain why closing the oven door makes the oven get warmer.
And DREMT will be incredulous that we dont find a 2LOT violation is involved.
Bill will claim he can’t find the source we gave him proving that blackbody plates can insulate (like an oven door).
DREMT will feign ignorance that these facts should apply to the GPE.
Even while freely admitting the GP DOES reduce heat transfer from the BP.
This is the game their playing, and it has nothing to do with debating.
Insulation involves a barrier, or resistance, to the flow of heat. The GPE involves a direct transfer of energy “against the flow”. They’re not comparable, and this has been explained numerous times.
Tim said:
“If there was a NET flow from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface, THAT would violate the 2LoT”
I’ve said numerous times:
Q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
T₁ > T₂
Q < 0
That's exactly the same point.
Dunno how Tim's comment could be misconstrued.
Tim’s comment wasn’t misconstrued. This follows directly from what he said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744034
as you know (we’ve discussed it before).
Another good comment from Nate.
If you say so, Willard.
barry says:
bill,
“so how did it warm”
Its rate of radiative heat loss was reduced because it absorbed more radiation than it was emitting.
——————-
Not true Barry. The BP absorbed 400w/m2 on one surface, is 244k and emitting 200w/m2 in every direction. Its in perfect balance.
barry says:
”The blackbody blue plate doesn’t break any laws of physics by absorbing radiation from the cooler green plate.”
Well if you try to stay as close as possible to actual physics, the blackbody plate’s skin absorbs 100w/m2 from the Green plate causing that surface to immediately spit out an extra 100w/m2 back to the greenplate so as to obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
That behavior would be consistent with EM being analogous to a pressurized system of way water in a pipeway as science believes it to be. If compliance with the 2nd law is to be taken seriously unlike how the modern democrat is willing to look at historic precedence before conjuring up exceptions not established by actual facts, the pressure will prevent even possibly absorption in the first place. Quantum mechanics has demonstrated bizarre b behaviors of emissions that can be viewed as exceptions to the most extreme limits of classical theory.
But you have a huge problem on your hands that screams you are wrong. You claim Eli’s GPE is in compliance with standard textbook physics but you have been unable to establish that. Instead I get a copy from you guys of the MIT textbook that supports our point of view and that of V.A. Maiorov where when you run an emissivity of one through you get the actual heat flow result of plus 100w/m2 from the BP to the GP.
And devastating to your position when you use an emissivity of say .96 similar to many darkened surfaces (since there are no blackbodies) the heat flow is not reduced nearly as much as it is with Eli’s math for a blackbody. Thus Eli’s math is not compatible with the very formulas you want to embrace one minute and effectively deny at the same time by endorsing Eli’s completely unsupported implementation of heat transfer. Then to just add the coup d’grace to the situation, the MIT textbook math actually supports the results of all the experiments seen in here and Eli’s GPE math does not. So not only are you wrong, actual real and documented thermodynamic science is on our side.
And when you think for 2 seconds about it, your admission the heat flow runs in the opposite direction of Eli’s outcome its astounding that that fact alone doesn’t ring a bell in your skull speaks only to how invested you are into Eli’s solution.
You keep admonishing us that emissions, temperature change, and heat flows are not all the same thing. Perhaps you need to make yourself aware of that fact when you tell me that a cold emission is preventing heat flow all the while wildly pointing at the 100w/m2 leaving the GP isn’t evidence that the division of the 200w/m2 leaving the BP is divided up as replenishing lost heat from the GP to support the 100w/m2 to space along with the other 100w/m2 from the BP is warming the GP. That might be a small slit for photons to slip through but its certainly not as narrow as your thinking on this matter is.
The flow of heat in this scenario, as you know, is determined by this equation:
q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
If BP is Th, and GP is Tc, which they are, then heat flows BP to GP.
And if you say that heat flows from GP to BP in Eli’s result, then you reject the above equation as determining the flow of heat, because BP is always warmer than GP, and that is the only condition 2LoT requires. Any other conditions that claim to determine heat flow are pure fabrication.
Nate says:
”It seems every day the hard drives of these guys have been wiped. They feign ignorance of the facts and basic logic theyve heard from us countless times before.
Bill seems unable to explain why closing the oven door makes the oven get warmer.
——————
Goodness gracious Nate. Obviously closing the oven door prevents the heated air from leaking out. . .like a greenhouse does. . .and demonstrated thousands of times and you still can’t wrap your head around it.
Nate says:
”And DREMT will be incredulous that we dont find a 2LOT violation is involved.
Bill will claim he can’t find the source we gave him proving that blackbody plates can insulate (like an oven door).”
Blocking convection obviously isn’t insulation in any scientific way. Its simply stopping air exchange.
Nate says:
”DREMT will feign ignorance that these facts should apply to the GPE. Even while freely admitting the GP DOES reduce heat transfer from the BP.”
Criminey! Nate the GPE has no air trapped in the radiation cavity!
And no it doesn’t stop radiant heat transfer so the GP doesn’t reduce total heat transferred. But it might slow how fast the GP warms. But that could just be again analogous to the pressure system where it takes more pumps to get the last 1lb of pressure into a tire than the first.
Nate says:
”This is the game their playing, and it has nothing to do with debating.”
Unfortunately its your way of debating creating bunny trails and strawmen that have to be shot down in an endless circle of obfuscation of the simple fact that experiments support the MIT textbook but not the Bunny rabbit’s GPE blogpost.
bill writes 10:28am: “.. plate’s skin absorbs 100w/m2 from the Green plate causing that surface to immediately spit out an extra 100w/m2 back to the greenplate so as to obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
That’s wrong bill, to comply with your own 2LOT formula posted a month or two ago, the BP temperature MUST increase when the added light from GP is shined on BP so not all of the 100 is “spit out” (bill terms). There is no hope for bill to be correct when violating his own posted 2LOT formula thus the rest of bill’s comment falls apart accordingly along with bill’s 10:52am comment.
Eli’s solution fully complies with bill’s own 2LOT formula so is correct. Adding .04 reflectivity doesn’t appreciably change Eli’s resulting temperatures once the reflected light is fully accounted.
Universally reviled climate troll and proven liar Ball4 materialises from nowhere to carry on lying about the GPE. The blog has definitely been a better place without him, but I guess it was inevitable that the GHEDT would eventually roll him out again. Oh well.
Ball4 says:
That’s wrong bill, to comply with your own 2LOT formula posted a month or two ago, the BP temperature MUST increase when the added light from GP is shined on BP so not all of the 100 is “spit out” (bill terms). There is no hope for bill to be correct when violating his own posted 2LOT formula thus the rest of bill’s comment falls apart accordingly along with bill’s 10:52am comment.
Eli’s solution fully complies with bill’s own 2LOT formula so is correct. Adding .04 reflectivity doesn’t appreciably change Eli’s resulting temperatures once the reflected light is fully accounted.
—————-
All you spew around here is total garbage Ball4.
You do realize that the GP has no light of its own, it all comes from the BP. Now you are suggesting the light from the BP to the GP prevents the BP from warming the GP. Complete nonsense.
You haven’t come up with even a shred of credible support or evidence in support of Eli’s GPE. On the other hand Barry suggested the MIT textbook. An excellent selection that not only results in correctly calculating the all the experiments Nate has complained there being something wrong with but also shows that Eli’s GPE has nothing to do with real world physics.
The hilarious part is you guys accept everything we are saying except you think the object that gets hotter is the one sending net heat flow to the GP.
Thats totally absurd!!!!! The only thing represented by heat flow is the rate that the GP is warming.
Fact is there is no forcing on the BP except by the sun and the correct division of that input is ~200w/m2 direct back to space, 100w/m2 supporting the GP emitting 100w/m2 to space (if it loses a fraction of a degree warmth then the 100w/m2 will be more than what the GP needs to support its current temperature and it will immediately rewarm to the ~205k.
Then the net heat flow at ~205k which is 100w/m2 continues to be fully available to warm the GP toward 244k.
You have some kind of ridiculous idea that the GP can keep emitting 100w/m2 to space without 100w/m2 supporting the temperature of the GP. The GP has no source of energy to do that.
Your failure to recognize that is why you think Tc4 stays the same limiting the BP to only warming the GP to 205k. Thats just a complete misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The proof of it is experiments easily explained by the equations of the MIT textbook that show that Eli has it all wrong.
bill 3:28pm writes: “You haven’t come up with even a shred of credible support or evidence in support of Eli’s GPE.”
No need to add more. As I wrote 12:28PM, bill himself put up the credible support or evidence in support of Eli’s GPE a month or two ago in the form of Clausius’ 2LOT eqn. Thanks to bill doing so we know Eli’s solution is correct.
MIT book shows BP vacuum radiative transfer is always warming Eli’s added GP to equilibrium on p. 9 eqn. 1.7 with a vacuum in place of the wall so no violation of Clausius’ 2LOT eqn. occurs in Eli’s GPE solution.
Balance of bill’s comment falls apart accordingly.
Ball4. . .Nope! Still not a shred of evidence.
bill 5:27 pm then admits bill doesn’t understand what he posted. Typical for bill. Just go back & understand just what you posted, bill. Clausius’ 2LOT eqn. is all the additional evidence needed to prove Eli’s GPE solution is correct.
That 2LOT eqn. can be found in bill’s earlier comment, many first course texts in thermodynamics, and, of course, R. Clausius’ own writings.
You can’t engage with it, bill. It’s one of the worst trolls on the blog. Shame it’s back.
That Graham D. Warner would comment was absolutely certain.
He just can’t prove he read the textbook.
Willard’s commenting in the wrong place, again.
bill,
barry said: “The blackbody blue plate doesn’t break any laws of physics by absorbing radiation from the cooler green plate.”
bill said:
“Well if you try to stay as close as possible to actual physics, the blackbody plate’s skin absorbs 100w/m2 from the Green plate causing that surface to immediately spit out an extra 100w/m2 back to the greenplate so as to obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
If the BP absorbs 100 W/m2 from the GP, as you have just agreed, then it must warm in order to “spit out” the extra 100 W/m2.
That’s standard physics. If BP is absorbing 400 W/m2 from the sun, and 100 W/m2 from the GP, then it is absorbing 500 W/m2, and must emit 500 W/m2 (250 W/m2 from each side) to balance the input. BP can only do this if it warms.
This does NOT mean heat is flowing from GP to BP. EMR is NOT heat.
Later in your reply you correctly identify how heat flow is determined.
“The flow of heat in this scenario, as you know, is determined by this equation:
q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
If BP is Th, and GP is Tc, which they are, then heat flows BP to GP.”
Well done. Is there any argument left?
barry notices that bill accidentally left part of barry’s comment in his post, so quotes it as if bill was agreeing with him!
I didn’t notice they were my own words. That would have been a cheap move. Let’s see what bill says.
I see you’re stalking me.
No, barry. I’ve been consistently present in this subthread. I’m not stalking you. Just patiently waiting for you to concede that your conception of a radiative 2LoT violation is completely ludicrous.
Ball4 says:
”bill 5:27 pm then admits bill doesn’t understand what he posted.”
Stop being such an obnoxious idiot Ball4. I said you have not provided a single shred of evidence that Eli’s solution is correct.
Its more than obvious if I posted an equation thats not a shred of evidence that either you provided nor I provided that Eli’s solution is correct.
If you wish to provide some evidence that Clausius’ equations show that Eli’s equation is correct then by all means make an argument. But your dodging your responsibility here to support what you spout still rests with you believing some anonymous guy in a cheap suit over the MIT textbook.
No bill 6:02 pm, the link you supplied a month or two ago has the 2LOT eqn. that shows Eli’s GPE solution is correct. bill just needs to go look up his own comment link again and understand why that is so. The MIT link just shows why the GP continuously warms to equilibrium as does the BP.
Barry says:
”Later in your reply you correctly identify how heat flow is determined.
“The flow of heat in this scenario, as you know, is determined by this equation:
q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
If BP is Th, and GP is Tc, which they are, then heat flows BP to GP.”
Well done. Is there any argument left?
————————–
You are right Barry there is no theoretical argument left, especially yours where you acknowledge the heat flow is going in the right direction but then with the Easter Bunny algebra you turn it around 180 degrees and make it go the other way in the opposite direction.
Thus one must bow to the experiments that built the theory of cavity radiation where emitted blackbody radiation limits the rate of flow of heat (known as heat shock) but doesn’t limit the limit.
thats because you also don’t understand temperature gradients.
The answer is well known.
As I pointed out above the 100w/m2 cannot warm the BP. Thats detailed in the laws of thermodynamics.
A rudimentary understanding of temperature gradients should help if any help is possible and you aren’t just blindly inculcated into a climate cult.
1. experiments with cavity radiation created the explanation of the radiation bouncing around on the walls of the cavity until the box/room is all the same temperature. that becomes more understandable as you get into temperature gradients.
2) Here is a picture of a temperature gradient (when insulation is present) from before warming occurs and how it changes over time.
https://cmacn.org/u/2021/05/image025.png
At time interval one the surface film is the first to warm. A surface film has near perfect conductance as it is the only molecules exposed for radiation. As time units progress the temperature gradient goes from a sharp curve to a straight line. With perfect conductance no temperature gradient would exist. Then and only then will both sides of the wall be the same temperature. . .244k
But by the easter bunny reckoning and the warmist crowd in here that endorses the easter bunny the plate would stop warming as soon as the surface film was 244k which would be almost immediately before the vast majority of the plate warmed at all.
so on the basis of the science of temperature gradients combined with the twisted thinking of the easter bunny the GP would stop warming immediately upon placing it behind the BP and you would have 200w/m2 bouncing off all the walls. for that to be false you would have to discard the entire concept of equilibrium and you would have a radiation cavity go nuclear, which obviously isn’t the case as you would effectively be roasted like chicken in an oven just sitting in your living room or for that matter walking outside into a radiating sky.
it starts in a stabilized situation with no gradient in the wall where the temperature inside is the same as the outside. Notice that how curved the temperature gradient starts out when exposed to.
IMO, the logic is solid in the presence of a temperature gradient which is always the case. the logic as you like to prey upon sort of falls apart at the limit with perfect absorption plus perfect conduction. But IMO that is expected because the limits are objectives never reached, except maybe someday as technology advances. But right now the technology seems to be going a different direction. That last photon needed for perfect absorption will probably be found not between the plates but someplace else like Spain.
So your viewpoint is twisted beyond just about all thermodynamic science. IMO, for cooling to be slowed down you actually have to have cooling (a reduction in temperature) occurring. . .and even then the heat will be going from hot to cold. Or at least that is what fits with 2,000 year plus old passive solar technology used by the ancient Egyptians to make ice for the pharaohs in the Egyptian desert.
Ball4 says:
”No bill 6:02 pm, the link you supplied a month or two ago has the 2LOT eqn. that shows Eli’s GPE solution is correct.”
But of course you have no evidence of that claim other than I posted it.
I kind of doubt you will try to offer any after what happened to you the last time you tried to defend such a nonsense idea which involved heating processes other that blackbody radiation.
“Consider a solid that is initially at a higher temperature Ts than that of its surroundings Tsur, but around which there exists a vacuum. The presence of the vacuum precludes energy loss from the surface of the solid by conduction or convection. However, our intuition tells us that the solid will cool and eventually achieve thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. This cooling is associated with a reduction in the internal energy stored by the solid and is a direct consequence of the emission of thermal radiation from the surface. In turn, the surface will intercept and absorb radiation originating from the surroundings. However, if Ts > Tsur the net heat transfer rate by radiation Qrad,net is from the surface, and the surface will cool until Ts reaches Tsur.”
https://www.uoanbar.edu.iq/eStoreImages/Bank/2027.pdf
BP absorbs GP radiation. Above is yet another physics text corroborating warmer objects absorb radiation from cooler ones.
After many references corroborating this those who still deny it are now firmly in the anti-science camp.
> Stop being such an obnoxious idiot
Looks who’s talking.
ROFL!
***
> I said you have not provided a single shred of evidence that Eli’s solution is correct.
Simple algebraic transformations are not what we usually call “evidence”.
LMAO!
Keep searching, barry. One day you might even find something that shows Th increases at the expense of Tc. Then you’d have your first ever piece of textbook support for the GPE.
Until then, you’re going to have to accept that the GPE ain’t textbook physics.
bill,
“You are right Barry there is no theoretical argument left, especially yours where you acknowledge the heat flow is going in the right direction but then with the Easter Bunny algebra you turn it around 180 degrees and make it go the other way in the opposite direction.”
Heat never flows from the GP to the BP in Eli’s GPE.
q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
BP = Th: GP =Tc
q is always positive in Eli’s GPE, so the direction of heal flow is BP ro GP.
Whatever it is making you think that heat flows from GP to BP – it is in contradiction to the above equation that determines heat flow.
It can’t just be that BP gets warmer with GP present that makes you think heat flows upstream. Blankets and sweaters ALSO reduce heat loss from a powered object without breaking 2LoT. Oven doors, cooler than the oven interior, nevertheless make the interior warmer just by repositioning them (by closing them).
So why do you believe heat is flowing uphill in Eli’s GPE, that causes you to contradict q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)?
> Thus one must bow to the experiments
Gill switches back to experiments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/suggested-backyard-experiment-to-measure-the-greenhouse-effect-of-more-carbon-dioxide/
ROFL!
Even better:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/
LMAO!
bill 9:18 of course avoids simply looking up the 2LOT eqn. he previously commented that confirms Eli’s solution is correct.
DREMT 12:33, of course shining a more intense light from GP on a sunlit object BP raises BP temperature consistent with the 2LOT eqn. bill was kind enough to post up a month or two ago.
No hope for DREMT to be correct commenting against bill’s earlier post of the 2LOT eqn.
> at the expense of
That rings a bell:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741247
There’s nothing wrong with “at the expense of”. Mark B just likes to make false accusations and insults.
Sure 9:31am, some of the more intense light of the GP is absorbed by the BP to raise BP temperature to equilibrium steady state.
Trolls will be trolls.
barry says:
”Heat never flows from the GP to the BP in Eli’s GPE.”
What are you talking about Barry! Eli’s algebra includes the radiation from the GP in computing the temperature of the BP. He is treating that as a heat flow its a perversion of q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴) which correctly as I explained is what warms the GP and cools the BP. But Eli latches onto theoretical flows of EM as heat flows and bakes it into his heat flow calculation.
EM is not heat flow, can’t you wrap your head around that? As I said temperature is analogous to voltage in electricity and pressure in hydrodynamics. Eli simply imagines that the pressure from hot to cold can be inverted at will while that is prohibited by 2LOT. EM flows from cold to hot are purely theoretical and can’t be used to do anything but regulate the rate of heat flow.
You do understand that Watts per square meter (W/m²) measures power density—how intensely energy flows into, out of, or through a specific surface area. It is analogous to water pressure coming out of a hose nozzle: not the total amount of water in the tank, but how forcefully the water hits a given square inch of your skin.
In electricity, power density is analogous to current density (or heat dissipation rate). It measures how much electrical power is packed into a specific amount of space.
The principles of reaching equilibrium in cavity radiation is well established. And Eli just ignores it.
Thus as DREMT points out for the nth time you continue to just spin your wheels trying to logically argue what you believe to be true and you still completely lack any published support beyond the true believers of the Easter Bunny.
Bottom line Barry there is such a thing as a radiation shield that traps heat as seen in the Pratt experiment where the heat is trapped at the top of the greenhouse adjacent to the IR absorbing window. But it doesn’t work like the GPE. Once you understand that maybe you can allow your mind to open up a bit and learn something new.
Nate says:
”They feign ignorance of the facts and basic logic theyve heard from us countless times before.”
LMAO! facts according to the Easter Bunny and logic that doesn’t understand the difference between EM and what it does and what heat flow and what it does.
—————–
Nate says:
”Bill seems unable to explain why closing the oven door makes the oven get warmer.”
Sure I can. It does the same thing a greenhouse does. (i.e. stops convection) but doesn’t need to be transparent because the heat source is actually inside the oven. Nate hasn’t gotten past lesson one on heat transfer stuck like a crippled cow in quicksand.
—————–
Nate says:
”Even while freely admitting the GP DOES reduce heat transfer from the BP.”
Reducing heat transfer does not amount to a reversal of it. Check your textbooks on that matter.
p.s. reminds me of where Nate almost there on this topic but has one hurdle to overcome an essential error in his logic that is completely illogical.
Nate believes a vacuum gap is more insulative than an air gap. Actually that was proven wrong long ago by a couple of scientific greats that did experiments on animal furs and the role of air gaps as being insulators. We know that radiation across a vacuum gap presents no insulation. If the warmside is 290k and the other side is 0k its going to transfer off a blackbody to another blackbody at 400w/m2.
But Nate argues that the 400w/m2 occurs in addition to a heat flow by conduction.
What Nate is failing on here is we know if the gases are IR active absorbers the transfer rate is going to be less. Why is that?
That kind of thinking is like having two freight trains each capable of hauling heat and splitting the load between the two trains. Nates solution is to add the speeds of the two trains together to get how long it will take to haul the heat from one place to the next. . .a word problem an upper 3rd of the class high school applied math student would do a lot better job of than Nate.
The correct answer is you need to know the transfer rate of the two trains and recognize that any heat transferred is going to reduce surface film available heat remaining for transfer.
Thus if they load at a comparable rate the relative transfer rate across the gap should give you a decent answer.
Conduction takes twice as long as radiation to move across a 15mm gap without gravity assist.
why is that? Well the truth is take a page out of how CO2 operates in the atmosphere where half is pushed up and half pushed down. Collisions among heat carrying gas molecules works similarly. Collision angles are diverse with lots of collisions amounting to sending the heat back to the orginal surface. So for gas molecules of oxygen and Nitrogen they have behaviors of energy transfer similar to CO2 in conductive transfer with a conduction coefficient of .026 while the effective conduction coefficient of radiation across the same gap would be 1.39.
So I did ask google how much the difference would be if sent by pure radiation vs pure conduction and the radiation figure is about twice that of conduction comporting with the .5 net flux for convection and the long standing thought that R=2 for sealed air gaps.
and of course if the gap is filled with Argon that difference goes up as Argon’s conductivity coefficient is .016.
So it seems to me Nate has latched on to an illogical conclusion that you add the convection rate to the radiation rate. Dr Trenberth who no doubt somebody hand picked as a being about as observant as Nate was selected to talk to the dumb public about how all this works as his budget reflects similar results and he patches it together with an exaggerated mean sky temperature, demonstrating how limited our look at the important parameters of climate science and natural variation actually is.
Its actually pretty important to have somebody actually believe what they are saying when they say it and the only hope of fixing that problem is with a bit more education. But its really hard to do that with folks with so much invested in decades of having a loud opinion about something.
bill,
let’s start with things we agree on and build the case from there.
“EM is not heat flow, can’t you wrap your head around that?”
Absolutely correct. That vector of radiation from GP to BP is not a heat flow in and of itself.
“You do understand that Watts per square meter (W/m²) measures power density – how intensely energy flows into, out of, or through a specific surface area. It is analogous to water pressure coming out of a hose nozzle: not the total amount of water in the tank”
Totally agree. W/m2 is the rate of energy passing per unit area and time through a plane.
Now, when we constrict outflow of water from a dam receiving constant input, this causes the water in the dam level to rise. This is analogous to what the GP does. It reduces the rate of radiative heat flow.
Here is the math to prove it.
q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
When no GP is present, BP is emitting to space. Let’s call it 0K for simplicity, but we get the same point with Tc at 3K
q1 = 200 W/m2 – 0 W/m2
q1 = 200 W/m
Now let’s add the GP, which immediately receives 200 W/m2 from the BP. Like the BP splitting the incoming 400 W/m2 solar radiation over 2 surfaces, GP must also split the incoming 200 W/m2 from BP radiation over two surfaces, so now we have…
q2 = 200 W/m2 – 100 W/m2
q2 = 100 W/m2
The rate of radiative heat loss for q2 is less than the rate of radiative heat loss for q1. This means Th (BP) is losing heat less efficiently, while at the same time still receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun.
Any object continually receiving energy that has its outgoing energy reduced MUST warm up.
q is positive at all times here, so I don’t know why you think there is a heat flow going GP to BP.
But I do know that because q is always positive in Eli’s GPE, you must have a different definition of heat flow to q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴).
Whatever definition you have, it completely contradicts this equation that determines the direction of heat flow.
I don’t know what your definition of heat flow is that makes you think heat is flowing from GP to BP, but I know it doesn’t appear in any physics textbook.
“The principles of reaching equilibrium in cavity radiation is well established. And Eli just ignores it”
The cavity model is an isolated system with no external source of energy passing through the boundary. That is the crucial difference. Surround the two plates with a cavity that shuts off the external energy supply and allows no energy to leave, and you now have the classic cavity model, and both plates will equilibrate to the same temperature.
Of course, in open space, with the sun shining on one plate and the other in the shade of that plate, they will be at different temperatures. There is no way for the GP to be as warm as the BP, because it receives from the BP less energy than the BP receives from the sun, and both plates radiate to 3K space, as well as to each other.
For GP to be at the same temperature as BP, it must be continuously receiving the same amount of energy per unit time/area that BP does. Could you please explain exactly how this happens, in your mind?
barry says:
Now, when we constrict outflow of water from a dam receiving constant input, this causes the water in the dam level to rise. This is analogous to what the GP does. It reduces the rate of radiative heat flow.
Here is the math to prove it.
q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
When no GP is present, BP is emitting to space. Let’s call it 0K for simplicity, but we get the same point with Tc at 3K
q1 = 200 W/m2 – 0 W/m2
q1 = 200 W/m
Now let’s add the GP, which immediately receives 200 W/m2 from the BP. Like the BP splitting the incoming 400 W/m2 solar radiation over 2 surfaces, GP must also split the incoming 200 W/m2 from BP radiation over two surfaces, so now we have…
q2 = 200 W/m2 – 100 W/m2
q2 = 100 W/m2
The rate of radiative heat loss for q2 is less than the rate of radiative heat loss for q1. This means Th (BP) is losing heat less efficiently, while at the same time still receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun.
Any object continually receiving energy that has its outgoing energy reduced MUST warm up.
——————–
Well you just flew over the cuckoo nest.
What a dam does is form a reservoir of energy. Remember temperature is analogous to voltage and pressure and potential difference between two points.
A reservoir is related to capacity. How much energy is held in an object is the size of the reservoir. Dams simply create deeper reservoirs. So your analogy is way off base. Once the reservoir is full it spills over and the pressure remains unchanged. Since gravity typically pressurizes a water system your dam just makes what was already impossible simply more impossible of having the water run upstream. You are just trying to give credibility to a middle of the 19th century quote that was wrong.
You already agreed the net heat flow was from the BP to the GP which makes having the BP warm up while the GP cools just ordinary everyday nonsense.
—————–
barry says:
q is positive at all times here, so I don’t know why you think there is a heat flow going GP to BP.
But I do know that because q is always positive in Eli’s GPE, you must have a different definition of heat flow to q = ℯσ(Th⁴ – Tc⁴).
—————–
Yes indeed the BP is losing heat. The 400w/m2 is being fully dispensed. with 200w/m2 going directly to space from the BP, 100w/m2 going directly to space from the BP through the non-resistive reservoir of the GP, and the net 100w/m2 of “HEAT” flow fully dedicated still to warming the GP further.
Absolutely nothing is not accounted for. Again your confusion is with the difference between heat flow and the flow of EM. Both those things are happening in the GP until the GP reaches the 244k temperature then its just a flow of EM with zero heat flow.
Nothing at all is missing. Do you actually believe the GP can sustain a 100w/m2 loss of energy to space without either cooling or having the BP filling it back in? All that happened to you here is you had a brain freeze the moment the GP emitted its 200w/m2. Without that brain freeze the GP warms to 244k and you have zero “HEAT” flow and 200w/m2 of EM passing through the GP.
You simply have failed to recognize that the heat flow and the flow of energy through the GP uses all 200w/m2 and both do not need to come from heat flow, even if it does after the GP cools from losing a 100w/m2 pulse of EM to space.
I have said this repetitively. Its time you recognize it and directly criticize it if you can think of a way of doing that. . .like gee the GP can lose 100w/m2 of the heat flow and there is no more coming from the BP. If you want to be that dense keep at it.
———————-
Barry says:
”The cavity model is an isolated system with no external source of energy passing through the boundary. That is the crucial difference. Surround the two plates with a cavity that shuts off the external energy supply and allows no energy to leave, and you now have the classic cavity model, and both plates will equilibrate to the same temperature.”
BS! Nobody builds boxes that will equilibrate after you shut the power off. Even space ship insulation with better than 98% reflection in a bubble filled foam can’t do that.
Barry says:
”Of course, in open space, with the sun shining on one plate and the other in the shade of that plate, they will be at different temperatures.”
More BS! MIT textbook sections 10.3 10.4 addresses those issue. The GPE is theoretically designed to avoid reflection, insulation, and leaks. The shade issue red herring you are bring up is explicitly dealt with in Section 10.3.
bill,
“Yes indeed the BP is losing heat. The 400w/m2 is being fully dispensed. with 200w/m2 going directly to space from the BP, 100w/m2 going directly to space from the BP through the non-resistive reservoir of the GP, and the net 100w/m2 of “HEAT” flow fully dedicated still to warming the GP further.
Absolutely nothing is not accounted for. Again your confusion is with the difference between heat flow and the flow of EM. Both those things are happening in the GP until the GP reaches the 244k temperature then its just a flow of EM with zero heat flow.”
Ok, so you’re saying 100 W/m2 is going from the BP through the ‘non-resistive reservoir’ of GP, and “the net 100w/m2 of “HEAT” flow fully dedicated still to warming the GP further.”
I’m not sure if you’re saying that GP absorbs 100 W/m2 of energy from BP, or 200 W/m2 of energy from BP, but in either case, GP is still receiving much LESS energy per unit time/area from BP than BP does from the sun.
If the BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, and the GP only receives 200 W/m2 from the BP, how on earth does the GP become as warm as the BP? They both receive different amounts of energy while having identical physical properties.
Please explain.
bill,
barry said: “The cavity model is an isolated system with no external source of energy passing through the boundary. That is the crucial difference. Surround the two plates with a cavity that shuts off the external energy supply and allows no energy to leave, and you now have the classic cavity model, and both plates will equilibrate to the same temperature.”
bill said: “BS! Nobody builds boxes that will equilibrate after you shut the power off.”
You referred to the classic theoretical cavity scenario where no energy crosses the boundary. When it doesn’t escape the object/walls equilibrate as they must. Here is, for example, Max Planck describing it in The Theory of Heat Radiation:
“A system of bodies of arbitrary nature, shape, and position which is at rest and is surrounded by a rigid cover impermeable to heat will, no matter what its initial state may be, pass in the course of time into a permanent state, in which the temperature of all bodies of the system is the same.”
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
page 27
If you were not referring to this classic scenario when you said, “The principles of reaching equilibrium in cavity radiation is well established,” then I don’t know what you ARE referring to.
In any case, this classic scenario is about an isolated system with no external energy entering, different from the 2-plate closed system with a sun continuously feeding energy and the system continuously shedding energy. This makes all the difference.
bill,
I said: “Of course, in open space, with the sun shining on one plate and the other in the shade of that plate, they will be at different temperatures.”
bill said: “More BS! MIT textbook sections 10.3 10.4 addresses those issue”
Please either quote or link to the relevant text you refer to here, so I can see if it says what you think it says. I’d think MIT would agree that two identical objects receiving different amounts of energy will be at different temperatures.
Don’t paraphrase, please, point directly at the text you refer to so I can see for myself.
Barry says:
Ok, so you’re saying 100 W/m2 is going from the BP through the ‘non-resistive reservoir’ of GP, and “the net 100w/m2 of “HEAT” flow fully dedicated still to warming the GP further.”
I’m not sure if you’re saying that GP absorbs 100 W/m2 of energy from BP, or 200 W/m2 of energy from BP, but in either case, GP is still receiving much LESS energy per unit time/area from BP than BP does from the sun.
If the BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, and the GP only receives 200 W/m2 from the BP, how on earth does the GP become as warm as the BP? They both receive different amounts of energy while having identical physical properties.
Please explain.
———————–
I don’t know why I have to explain that to you Barry. You tried to instruct me on it. A Blackbody is defined as absorbing all the radiation that falls upon it. That would be the full 200w/m2.
To your second question, the BP only warms to 244k because the sun doesn’t occupy the entire hemisphere of sky and thus does not fit under the cavity radiation experiment. So the initial temperature for the BP by the Easter Bunny is not being contested. But whatever temperature it does settle at so will the GP via the cavity radiation experiments.
barry says:
May 26, 2026 at 9:26 PM
bill,
”barry said: “The cavity model is an isolated system with no external source of energy passing through the boundary. That is the crucial difference. Surround the two plates with a cavity that shuts off the external energy supply and allows no energy to leave, and you now have the classic cavity model, and both plates will equilibrate to the same temperature.”
bill said: “BS! Nobody builds boxes that will equilibrate after you shut the power off.”
You referred to the classic theoretical cavity scenario where no energy crosses the boundary. When it doesn’t escape the object/walls equilibrate as they must. Here is, for example, Max Planck describing it in The Theory of Heat Radiation:
“A system of bodies of arbitrary nature, shape, and position which is at rest and is surrounded by a rigid cover impermeable to heat will, no matter what its initial state may be, pass in the course of time into a permanent state, in which the temperature of all bodies of the system is the same.”
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf”
——————————
Barry the experiment is powered. The experimenters didn’t fly out into space away from all stars, moons, and planets. And yes various power sources were used to conclude:
“The defining feature of a “black box” in these experiments is that the spectrum of the escaping radiation is completely independent of the box’s material or the geometry of the power source. It depends only on the temperature of the interior.” What we are talking about is science actually widely accepted among thermodynamic scientists. If you want to dispute it, its on you to demonstrate something different. the incantations of the Easter Bunny need not apply. read your own references. Read more carefully what you just posted too.
barry says:
bill,
I said: “Of course, in open space, with the sun shining on one plate and the other in the shade of that plate, they will be at different temperatures.”
bill said: “More BS! MIT textbook sections 10.3 10.4 addresses those issue”
Please either quote or link to the relevant text you refer to here, so I can see if it says what you think it says. I’d think MIT would agree that two identical objects receiving different amounts of energy will be at different temperatures.
Don’t paraphrase, please, point directly at the text you refer to so I can see for myself.
——————–
You provided the link to the MIT textbook Barry as your source. Maybe you should have read it first. I provided you the internal link to blackbody radiation as section 10.3. Try reading it.
So you want to argue that the temperatures are different? As you can see the conclusion was the boxes would equilibrate even if the geometry of the power source varied. Perhaps before arguing for 8 years about cavity radiation maybe you should have learned a bit about it first rather than just believing the easter bunny as he hopped past in front of you.
When discussing the MIT textbook, the issue as to whether two blackbody plates will equilibrate is 100% dependent upon view factor. A cavity is by definition view factor 1.0. Namely all emissions from any portion of any surface will land on the other surfaces.
So are evenly heated infinite sized parallel plates which are only cavities without sealed edges because where the edges are is undefined. that is the entire topic of section 10.3. You might try reading it before continuing your argument or having started it because you are the one that brought the MIT textbook into this discussion.
Any 2 parallel plates of finite size will have radiation losses out the edges causing the heated plate to be warmer than the passive plate but NOT because of backradiation but because of radiation from the BP not reaching the GP. Such out the edge radiation loss is why the earth’s temperature isn’t a lot hotter due to most solar rays not reaching the earth.
Section 10.4 introduces an additional reason the plates would have different temperatures in that graybody’s have emissivities <1.0. Since real surfaces have at least some graybody properties explains why attempts to test blackbody radiation doesn't come up with perfect answers but can become very close when care is given to color and texture.
See equation 10.31. Plug in es = 1 for the emissivity of the shield.
Heat transfer is reduced, even with a blackbody shield.
Just as it was in the other 2 sources that I showed to Bill that he ignored several times.
bill,
“So the initial temperature for the BP by the Easter Bunny is not being contested. But whatever temperature it does settle at so will the GP via the cavity radiation experiments.”
The 2 plate system is not in a cavity with surrounding walls radiating to the plates.
The 2-plate system is in open space, a 3K environment radiating back to the plates.
3K = 0.00000459 W/m2
Are you saying that the universe is going to equilibrate with the plates that are fed 400 W/m2 by the sun?
No, these are two very different scenarios.
You need to understand that the cavity scenario is entirely different from the 2-plate system in open space. The basic principles apply, but the outcomes are different because the systems are entirely different. That is where you err.
“Barry the experiment is powered”
No, the thermal equilibrium cavity scenario is NOT powered by an external source. The cavity is insulated and isolated – as Planck says – allowing no heat energy to pass into or out of the system. It is all contained within the system. I quote Planck again:
“A system of bodies of arbitrary nature, shape, and position which is at rest and is surrounded by a rigid cover impermeable to heat will, no matter what its initial state may be, pass in the course of time into a permanent state, in which the temperature of all bodies of the system is the same.”
Do you understand what impermeable to heat means? It means no energy comes into the system (or out of it).
I fully understand and endorse this classic scenario for its utility in describing the tendency for objects in thermal contact to equilibrate. However, as we know, this tendency tugging on the thermal universe, does NOT result in everything being the same temperature.
The GPE scenario, which does NOT occur in a cavity “impermeable to heat.” The GPE 2 plate scenario is entirely permeable to external heat in the form of radiation powering the system.
“You provided the link to the MIT textbook Barry as your source. Maybe you should have read it first. I provided you the internal link to blackbody radiation as section 10.3. Try reading it.”
I have provided numerous sources – dozens – from MIT and others. I do not recall a “textbook” from MIT, only short web pages from MIT that I have linked to, so I need you to provide the source you are referring to here. Because I think you have completely misunderstood it. I will wait for you to pinpoint the source you are referring to so I can see for myself.
bill,
Ok, let’s treat the universe as the ‘cavity’ in which the 2 plates sit.
BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun + 0.00000459 W/m2 from the ‘cavity’ walls of the universe
GP receives 200 W/m2 from BP + 0.00000459 W/m2 from the ‘cavity’ walls of the universe
Both plates are identical, and one gets more energy from the other.
How can they possibly be the same temperature?
Bonus question: if the universe is the ‘cavity’, have you seen a cavity experiment that includes a sun within it?
No, you haven’t. Because the classic thermal equilibrium in a cavity is absent power sources filling the cavity with more and more and more energy.
barry says:
bill,
Ok, let’s treat the universe as the ‘cavity’ in which the 2 plates sit.
BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun + 0.00000459 W/m2 from the ‘cavity’ walls of the universe
———————
Nobody is calling a universe of undefined size as a cavity Barry so you are merely desperately grasping at straws here.
Barry says:
“GP receives 200 W/m2 from BP + 0.00000459 W/m2 from the ‘cavity’ walls of the universe
Both plates are identical, and one gets more energy from the other.
How can they possibly be the same temperature?”
————————–
They don’t exchange the same amount when warmed half way to equilibrium. At that point the cooler plate is receiving more from the warmer plate than the warmer plate is receiving from the cooler plate. Thus the cooler plate will continue to warm until the radiation between the two is equal.
After they have warmed to equilibrium, at equilibrium 200w/m2 is passing through both plates without resistance, zero insulation maintaining same temperature for these two plates to prevent any substantial cooling.
Nate says:
See equation 10.31. Plug in es = 1 for the emissivity of the shield.
Heat transfer is reduced, even with a blackbody shield.
————-
Nate show your math and note objects 1 and 2 are both gray bodies so you need to turn them into blackbodies as well.
> note objects 1 and 2 are both gray bodies so you need to turn them into blackbodies as well.
0 + 1/A1 + 0
That changes everything. Absolutely everything.
ROFL!
Gill might appreciate:
Exactly what we said earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744794
He might also like:
Again, just like we said a few times already.
LMAO!
bill,
“They don’t exchange the same amount when warmed half way to equilibrium. At that point the cooler plate is receiving more from the warmer plate than the warmer plate is receiving from the cooler plate. Thus the cooler plate will continue to warm until the radiation between the two is equal.”
How on Earth can GP emit more energy than it is receiving?
The math is straightforward.
BP input = 400 W/m2
BP output = 2 X 200 W/m2
GP input = 200 W/m2
GP output = 2 X 200 W/m2
Your solution doesn’t add up, bill.
If BP doesn’t change temperature, the final result is constrained by what energy is actually available.
GP input = 200 W/m2
GP output = 2 X 100 W/m2
The ONLY way GP can radiate more than 100 W/m2 from each surface is if it receives more than 200 W/m2 from BP.
Where is this extra energy coming from?
“Nobody is calling a universe of undefined size as a cavity”
You are, every time you invoke the equilibrium cavity scenario to explain how the plates should behave.
“Heat transfer is reduced, even with a blackbody shield.“
Of course heat transfer between the plates is reduced as the GP warms until it’s the same temperature as the BP. I don’t know why people are acting like this is some kind of revelation. There is no heat transfer between objects at the same temperature.
Unless you guys are trying to do away with the concept of equilibrium altogether, then just because heat transfer is reduced as the plates approach equilibrium, that does not mean the BP is going to warm at the expense of the GP!
When the GP is introduced, a more intense light is shining on the BP thus more thermodynamic internal energy in the system so BP temperature MUST increase to comply with 1LOT and increased universe entropy complies with 2LOT eqn.
DREMT remains wrong, Eli’s solution is correct.
“…thus more thermodynamic internal energy in the system…”
Ball4 creates energy, violating 1LoT.
> Of course heat transfer between the plates is reduced
Graham forgot to add:
butbutbutbutbut it’s not insulation!
DREMT,
“thus more thermodynamic internal energy in the system…”
“Ball4 creates energy, violating 1LoT.”
Make GP a mirror. According to you BP can now absorb the radiation returned to it, getting hotter.
As it must. Like a perfect insulator, mirror GP bounces all BP’s energy back to it. The only escape for radiative energy is from the BP sunwards. BP’s emission will exactly equal its sunside absorp.tion: 400 W/m2 at 290K. GP’s internal energy is unchanged.
There now is more internal energy in the system. Did we create energy, DREMT? Did we violate 1LoT?
Nope, as soon as BP absorbs more energy than just from the sun, it gets hotter. Its internal energy increases.
Same happens in the regular GPE, because the BP absorbs GP’s emitted radiation just as effectively as it absorbs reflected energy.
DREMT 7:41 am is wrong again, the GP has a temperature so adds thermodynamic internal energy to the system and temperatures MUST increase. Eli remains correct.
“…the GP has a temperature so adds thermodynamic internal energy to the system…”
The GP only “has a temperature” due to the BP. The BP only “has a temperature” due to the Sun.
barry and Ball4 just don’t “get it”.
And, they never will. Fine with me.
> The GP only “has a temperature” due to the BP.
Graham confuses once again a plate with an energy source. “By his own accord”, so to speak.
Perhaps he forgot the hundreds if not the thousands of times Nate reminded him.
Every thing has a temperature, DREMT, and GP shines increased intensity light on BP. Temperatures must increase, DREMT is wrong, Eli remains correct.
This site will prevent me from posting soon; DREMT may have the last incorrect word.
The gang try their best, but they fail to get my point.
Neither the 244 K…244 K or 262 K…220 K solutions actually violate 1LoT. However, the only way the 262 K…220 K solution can not violate 1LoT is if the build up of internal energy in the BP is at the expense of the GP. Otherwise, there would have to be energy getting created from nothing.
But, the build up of internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP is a problem in and of itself. That’s energy just “going against the flow”. It’s like water flowing uphill.
It’s a 2LoT violation!
And, we already know their conception of a radiative 2LoT violation is completely ludicrous. So there’s no point them trying to argue that it’s not what they would think of as a 2LoT violation.
My reaction to all of this is simple. If you mud wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it. The laws of physics support all of the major claims of the greenhouse effect — even if the name is not accurate. The technique of the science deniers is to get people bogged down in the details, and thus confuse those who do not really understand the physics involved. That is the problem with most of the climate science claims over the years as well. The details are difficult and computer modeling of the entire earth is not valid.
So that is my position on this. The fundamental science is entirely correct that there should be an effect from increasing CO2, and that effect should cause warming of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans. I think if people would stop there, it is a position that cannot be “denied” and a win for the science. The problem is that people do not stop there. They bring speculation and politics into it. That is the problem.
“The technique of the science deniers is to get people bogged down in the details, and thus confuse those who do not really understand the physics involved.”
No science denial from me, and my intent is to enlighten, not confuse.
Tim S, thanks for the enunciation of your beliefs.
Would you be able to state the “major claims of the greenhouse effect”, especially the one that the “laws of physics support”?
And even mores specifically, could you identify how CO2 “should cause warming of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans”?
If you could do that, it would be a first time I’ve ever seen it….
It is interesting how the science deniers self-identify. I did not call out anyone, but we get this from the fake moderator:
“No science denial from me, and my intent is to enlighten, not confuse.”
Of all the people playing the fool on this site, he is clearly the most talented. He gets the better of Nate every time. It is too bad that he is wasting his time in this way. Gordon Robertson gets the award for the most creative, but also the most annoying. The rest are probably just as dumb as they seem.
I’m genuine, you’re not.
Tim S: “The fundamental science is entirely correct …”.
Which version of the science are you talking about? Initially, the GHE warmed the surface by reemitting half of the energy it traps back to the surface. Oops, that one didn’t pan out. Turns out 99.999% of the energy is passed on to other molecules.
So, next up was the enhanced greenhouse effect which was supposed to raise the emission altitude. Nope, the only place the emission altitude increases is at the edges of the main spectral bands. Not really relevant.
Finally, we get to the only actual mechanism. Energy is absorbed due to pressure broadening. All would be fine except for this little thing called physics. This is only part of a much bigger picture which complete negates this potential warming. Too bad you stopped looking at science. The answer was always there.
The final answer is not “cause warming of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans”. The final answer is a slight increase of precipitation. You know, exactly what plants need when they get more CO2.
Tim,
Heat doesn’t flow from high entropy to low entropy. Also, the lapse rate falsifies GHT. Ed Berry’s model falsifies GHT. GHT is not a good fit for the evidence.
Stephen,
What’s insulation?
I already provided a definition, which mentioned that radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
What is insulation?
Asbestos, glass, fiberglass, concrete, water, aluminum, rubber, etc.
Nice equivocation, Stephen.
Which of these materials work for radiative insulation, and why?
All of them would radiatively insulate to some extent, because all real materials/objects possess some degree of reflectivity. However, aluminium, with the highest reflectivity, would be the obvious choice for radiative insulation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744647
Williard,
I am giving you the benefit of a doubt and assume you’re trying to make a point. If so, get on with it. If not how about stopping the obfuscating?
Stephen,
I am willing to grant you the ability to understand the point I am currently making.
I already told you twice.
Perhaps you should ask other Sky Dragon cranks to help you before you make more a fool of yourself than you actually are?
Stephen, Willard’s just deeply obsessed with me. He’s bringing up insulation because it relates to the discussion around the Green Plate Effect, so he knows I’ll get involved.
Pay no attention to Gaslighting Graham’s whining, Stephen.
Just tell me what’s insulation.
Williard,
I’m sorry I tend to not read your pervasive, mindless copy and paste comments. You were directing them to DREMT through me? What were the two points you think you made?
Don’t be sorry, Stephen.
Be relevant.
(See? The point resurfaces again!)
Back at you.
Yes, he was directing them to me through you, Stephen. He’s just another obsessed stalker. Now you’re challenging the GHE a lot more, you’ll find you’ll get some stalkers yourself. It’s a badge of honour!
Please, Stephen.
You go first.
Willard just admitted he wasn’t relevant.
Graham D. Warner just doesn’t get it.
He may never will.
Isn’t it the job of science to falsify? If GHE was solid it would need no defending. Just like the Ideal Gas Law and Lapse Rate need no defending. Berry’s Model speaks for itself. The math speaks for all three.
Apparently Willard doesn’t “get” how to use the English language.
Team Science falsifies it’s own hypotheses, Stephen.
When are you going to try to falsify yours?
The only defence a theory should ever need is from misrepresentation. Besides that, no theory should need a dedicated team of people who’ve devoted their entire lives to lying on blogs about it. I’m not sure why the GHEDT exists, but Clint may be onto something with the whole “cult” thing.
Gaslighting Graham can’t even acknowledge that his pet “theory” isn’t compatible with Troglodyte’s.
There is an infinity of crank theory.
Why should Team Science waste any time on them?
Falsfiability is another thing our cranks like to misrepresent.
All this for another silly sammich they will refuse to eat anyway.
Willard’s response does not rebut what I said.
A swing and a miss.
Willard doesn’t rebut or falsify anything. Willard claims to be Team Science. If you run around claiming to be Team Science, then you’re probably not Team Science. If you truly are Team Science, you require no pronouncements.
Troglodyte keeps saying stuff, the weirder the better, with the hopes that one day Team Science notices him.
So far no soup for him!
Willard is most certainly not on Team Science. He hasn’t a clue about most of the science he tries to discuss. He believes he’s some sort of “slayer” of those who question the GHE. You’d think that would require him to have a knowledge of the arguments they make, but no such luck. No, he mostly just focuses on personalities. If anything, he’s Team Personalities.
But, it’s fascinating that while he doesn’t understand the science behind the GHE, he’s absolutely determined to defend it, to the death. This is where we get to the “cult” thing. Why are so many people so absolutely certain that a theory they don’t understand, is correct? They must have some other motivation than scientific interest to defend it.
Graham D. Warner is definitely not a singer:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
And according to Bob he still has guitar lessons to learn.
See? Team Personalities.
Graham should stop trying to recruit for his Team of cranks and whiners and take it down thread.
Willard can’t rebut what I say, so continues to personally attack. That’s all he can do, sadly.
Gaslighting Graham tries to pretend his personal attacks are things I need to “rebut”.
Nothing new, to be filed under Step 2 – Sammich Request.
We’ll file Willard under “stalker”.
Graham D. Warner fails to rebut what I just said.
That’s all he can do, really.
It’s nice to see all the interest in this series on identifying the flaws in the cult nonsense. Continuing with exposing the errors, omissions and “bad science” in the K-T “energy” budget:
https://postimg.cc/ft3S8YzV
Covered so far:
1. Radiative flux is NOT energy.
2. The surface is emitting more flux (390 W/m²) than it receives from Sun (168 W/m²).
3. The 324 W/m² from the atmosphere is bogus.
4. The atmosphere is shown emitting more down than up, 324 W/m² down vs 195 W/m² up.
We’re now ready for two more errors:
5. The “235 W/m²” (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) is bogus.
The 235 value comes from the “black body” calculation from astronomy. (The value is sometimes “240”, depending on the value used for Solar Constant.) It has NO relevance to Earth. But the cult tries to claim the imaginary sphere “proves” that Earth is 33K warmer than it’s “supposed” to be.
Using the imaginary sphere, and a solar value (after albedo) of 960 W/m², the surface would reach 255K, emitting 240 W/m². That’s why the cult believes Earth is emitting 235 W/m². They confuse “TOA” with “surface”, among other blatant mistakes.
Earth’s surface emission averages about 390 W/m². So at some point in space, there would be a flux of 235/240 W/m², due to reduction from distance from the source (Inverse Square Law). But that value means nothing.
Anytime you see nonsense like 235/240 W/m², or 33K, or 255K in the cult spew, you know it’s bogus as it comes from the imaginary sphere.
6. Sky is supplying more flux to Earth’s surface than Sun!
In the diagram, the only solar absorbed by the surface is 168 W/m². The little flux would not even be able to melt ice.
Stay tuned, there’s a lot more to come….
Replace “photons” with “flux”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741247
If Mark B wants to say any of that to my face, he’s welcome to try. Easy for these people to dole out their false accusations and insults from the safety of their computer screens.
“[T]he tactics are chosen to keep you engaged.”
And yet, I really don’t ever want excruciatingly long back-and-forths with obsessive stalkers. I just get them whether I like it or not.
“That may include using actual physics when it’s convenient…”
…in other words, Mark is forced to accept a lot of what I’m saying.
“…avoidance or redirection when necessary (as with photons)…”
Worrying about the fate of individual photons is their way of avoiding the bigger picture, the actual thermodynamics.
“…vague semantics structured in a leading way (“at the expense of”)…”
There’s nothing remotely vague or leading about the phrase “at the expense of”. It’s just simple, perfectly plain and clear English.
“…emotionally loaded baiting (“concede to proceed”)…”
No, if people won’t concede points then debate is impossible. No emotion involved, and no baiting involved either.
“…and will feign insult when he is called out for behaving in bad faith.”
I’m feigning nothing. As I said, come say it to my face, and find out whether I’m really insulted, or not. There’s no bad faith behaviour on my part. You want to look in a mirror for that. Mark B suddenly decided, out of nowhere (never exchanged more than two words before recently) to come at me personally in comment after comment. He lets this stuff rip then just disappears out the back door, leaving the thread for days at a time. Never responds substantively to anything. Refuses to engage, generally. So many of them are like that.
”Flux describes any effect that appears to pass or travel (whether it actually moves or not) through a surface or substance.”
up to infinitely different than:
”Flux describes any effect that passes or travel (actually moves) through a surface or substance.”
and
”Flux describes any effect that is seen to pass or travel (empirically seen to actually move) through a surface or substance.”
and of course: there is the only relevant flux:
Google AI:
”Net flux is the total rate of transfer of a substance, energy, or field across a specific surface or boundary. It is calculated as the mathematical difference between inward flow (influx) and outward flow (efflux).”
within the range of ability measure: net flux for the earth varies constantly within all time scales changes in net flux from orbit distance and orbit speed in time with other objects in the heavens in time their orbit periods, the earths own orbit speed and distance, variations in solar output, and the movement of liquid and gas materials within the earth system. flux would include gray body emissions and reflections.
only portions of these effects are recorded and/or publicly available to a high degree of accuracy to actually check is there are imbalances over adequate periods of time to even substantially know the causes of natural variation seen all over both instrument records and lonterm proxy records. science continues to search to actually substantially explain even annual records within a couple of degrees.
Replace “flux” with “photons”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740896
Again: he can say that to my face, and see how he gets on. Worrying about the fate of individual photons is their way of avoiding the bigger picture, the actual thermodynamics.
Replace “lawyerly” with “gaslightingly”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742143
Ibid.
DREMPTY goes all Bogan.
“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.“
Here, readers will note Mark falsely accused me of lying, I proved I wasn’t lying, then Mark refused to apologise.
Graham D. Warner proves Mark and Bob right.
Willard proves himself wrong.
phi…”You are concealing the fact that I have always spoken of direct measurement to illustrate your error. One can only directly measure a heat flux”.
***
Phi…we need to be a bit careful here and that is confusing an IR or EM flux with heat flux. No heat is ever transferred, as heat, by electromagnetic radiation. We can refer to heat flow by conduction through a solid, electron to electron, as a heat flux, although I prefer the simple heat flow. I presume we can do the same via convection in a liquid and in a gas.
I realize this sounds like a technical argument but it is very important to realize that what is referred to as a heat transfer via radiation is actually heat dissipation at the source followed by heat creation at a colder target. That’s why the claim of alarmists that GHGs in the atmosphere trap heat is wrong. There is no heat to trap, just IR.
However, in order to move heat from a hotter body to a cooler body via radiation, the heat must first be converted to electromagnetic energy then recreated as heat is a cooler absorbing body. I don’t call that a heat transfer per see but a relocation of heat via a two-stage process involving energy conversion.
I think it is important to distinguish the difference since many scientists today insist on equating infrared energy with heat. They call it thermal radiation and that is a misnomer. Ergo, solar radiation is not heat, and unless it is absorbed by a cooler body and converted to heat, the radiation has none of the properties of heat.
For that very reason, EM and heat cannot be summed to produce a NET energy, which is how alarmists get around bypassing the 2nd law and allowing a heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
_______________
“With your representation, you have the illusion of being able to add the solar flux to the atmospheric irradiance, and this is completely unacceptable for thermodynamics”.
***
Agreed. It is ridiculous to add solar radiation to back-radiation and claim the two heat the surface to a higher temperature than solar radiation alone. The idea comes from alarmist desperation to bypass the 2nd law.
————
“Because it eliminates entropy”.
****
I prefer to leave entropy out of it because the concept as introduced by Clausius is so misunderstood. He stated entropy in words as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat transfers, dq, at constant temperature, T. He introduced the concept primarily to give a quantitative value to the 2nd law and basically it supports the idea of Clausius that heat, by its own means, can only ever be transferred from hot to cold.
If you look at the Gibbs Free energy equation, the entropy portion (T.S) is heat lost in a process and unable to do work. Gibbs is saying that the free energy is the total heat (enthalpy), H, minus the lost energy (entropy), TS.
When people try talking in terms of entropy, total or otherwise, I think it confuses the point that heat can only ever be transferred, by its own means, from hot to cold.
————–
“The main problem isn’t forgetting about heat flux, but rather equating irradiance with a heat flux. I assume you both know that irradiance isn’t a heat flux and that classical thermodynamics doesn’t deal with termal fluxes other than heat fluxes; its principles apply to heat exchange, not irradiance”.
***
I agree, Thermodynamics is about macro quantities, especially wrt to initial temperature and pressure versus the final P&T. Clausius stated many times in his work that knowing the initial and final conditions is sufficient.
Heat flux is the flow of thermal energy through a mass, liquid or gas. Of course, air is a poor conductor of heat but it is an excellent conductor via convection. Air has 10^28 molecules in contact with a square metre of the surface, and conduction of heat from the surface to there molecules is very effective. Once the molecules are excited, the transferred heat can be efficiently carried aloft via convection.
Radiation as energy has absolutely nothing in common with thermal energy. How anyone can equate heat to infrared energy is beyond me. IR is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it comes from the properties of electrons in atoms. That is, electrons in atoms that are orbiting the nucleus at very high angular frequencies, carry an electric field and a magnetic field. When the electron descends to a lower orbital energy level, it must give up kinetic energy in the form of a conversion to electromagnetic energy, and the generated EM has the frequency of the orbiting electron, along with an electric and magnetic field from the electron.
Heat has absolutely nothing in common with EM/IR. It can only be produced if EM is converted to heat via electrons in atoms.
It’s bushy!
I’m not going to answer you for two reasons:
1. As much as possible, I avoid arguing with those who question the theories of climatologists. I do, of course, accept valid criticisms.
2. I try to function here like a machine. For example, I accept without reservation the propositions of thermodynamics and radiative physics, while seeking to highlight the contradictions in the theory used in the modeling.
Gordon Robertson,
I should add that if I don’t engage in discussion, it’s not because I dispute the relevance of what you’ve written. It seems to me that you’re highlighting important points of thermodynamics here, and your criticisms of me are probably justified. I have a fragmented understanding of thermodynamics and radiative physics, but the method I use is more limited by the knowledge of those I’m challenging than by my own shortcomings.
Gordon Robertson,
I’m going to break the rules I set for myself.
You write: “No heat is ever transferred, as heat, by electromagnetic radiation. We can refer to heat flow by conduction through a solid, electron to electron, as a heat flux, although I prefer the simple heat flow.”
If I understand correctly, classical thermodynamics says nothing about the form of the transfer itself. Within this limited framework, no distinction is made between conductive and radiative modes. Don’t you think it’s inappropriate to address this distinction, given that statistical physics is of no help in solving the climate system? Shouldn’t we rather emphasize the need to adhere strictly to the framework of classical thermodynamics?
I fear that by insisting on the difference you describe, you might create confusion by appearing to justify absurd representations like those in the KT diagrams.
Gordon Robertson,
You wrote, “Agreed. It is ridiculous to add solar radiation to back-radiation and claim the two heat the surface to a higher temperature than solar radiation alone. The idea comes from an alarmist desperation to bypass the second law.”
The addition is meaningless because irradiance is not a heat flux (however debatable the term may be). Just because the addition is unacceptable for the fundamental question of entropy doesn’t mean the effect of irradiance on surface temperatures is zero. Atmospheric irradiance does indeed reduce the upward radiative flux and therefore tends to increase surface temperatures.
The effect of increased CO2 levels on temperatures is undetermined but not nonexistent. No one has the tools to assess its value or even its sign.
That’s what I’m trying to demonstrate.
phi
YOU: “The effect of increased CO2 levels on temperatures is undetermined but not nonexistent. No one has the tools to assess its value or even its sign.”
This may correct your current view.
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
You may not accept this research but your statement that they do not have the tools is not a correct one.
Noman,
What you’re telling me is a bit like me saying to you:
“You know, Norman, the Loch Ness Monster really exists; I’ve seen a picture of it.”
For more information, see the discussion with Arkady Ivanovich.
Do you think he has reason to be happy with his latest comment?
We can see more of Phi’s true colors here, as he dismisses observational evidence contrary to his beliefs by simply labelling it supernatural.
Child Nate comes in 3 days late to stab someone in the back.
This is a typical tactic used by cult kids. It’s just another example of Nate’s childish stalking.
Kids these days….
Any chance of adding Australia to the list?
Phi at 2:02 AM
You never explain how, from this universal super-framework of classical thermodynamics, the multiple coupled frameworks required to solve the dynamical evolution of the climate system somehow operationally emerge?
The key word I’m using here is “operationally.” Your vague philosophical claims about “general frameworks” and “paradigms” don’t solve the dynamically generative behavior of the atmosphere.
I, unlike you, read for context not just the words.
The disequilibrium is embedded in (a) Fluid dynamics for atmospheric motion, (b) Thermodynamics for energy and state relations, (c) Radiative transfer for photon transport, (d) Statistical mechanics for molecular populations and spectra, (e) Quantum mechanics for a b s o r p t i o n/emission lines, (f) Continuum mechanics for transport processes, and (g) Numerical dynamics for time evolution.
Which takes us right back to the issue that no single universal super-framework is appropriate.
By asking for a time evolution f(t) you’ve inadvertently highlighted the incompleteness of your own “classical thermodynamics super-framework.”
More cope and ad hominem. Use your physics words, please.
Arkady Ivanovich,
“You never explain how, from this universal super-framework of classical thermodynamics, the multiple coupled frameworks required to solve the dynamical evolution of the climate system somehow operationally emerge?”
I don’t have to explain something that doesn’t exist. I’m simply stating the framework within which a calculation of the greenhouse effect must be undertaken. Since this is impossible, climatologists have invented a pataphysics of climate that you are trying unsuccessfully to defend.
“I, unlike you, read for context, not just the words.”
No, you’re inventing a context. Be specific. I used the term “convective adjustment.”
“The disequilibrium is embedded in…”
???
False. The notion of radiative forcing falls solely within the domain of radiative physics and the concept of the critical gradient, that old thing that’s no longer used.
“Which takes us right back to the issue that no single universal super-framework is appropriate.”
No, it simply means that you don’t have a valid scientific theory.
Nothing surprising there, and you’re not responsible. Convection cannot be modeled, and there’s no sign that it ever will be.
“More cop and ad hominem. Use your physics words, please.”
This sentence: “Thus, entropy is implicit in radiative forcing, not absent from it.” makes absolutely no sense. Draw your own conclusions.
We’re wasting time. Try to be more rigorous.
Because the internet never forgets, I need to close the loop on my comments about entropy degradation in the Sun-Earth system for future reference.
As I stated above, the entropy of the incoming solar energy is much lower than the entropy exported by the Earth through longwave radiation. Or in equation form: Q(1/Te – 1/Ts), where Ts and Te are the Sun and Earth effective emission temperatures.
Another way to state this is by comparing the quality of the short-wave solar radiation (~0.48μm) with the quality of the long-wave radiation (~10μm) emitted by the earth.
According to the Planck equation, the energy of a photon is given by hν, and thus solar photons are richer in energy than terrestrial photons. By definition then, the amount of entropy associated with the incoming solar radiation is much lower than the amount of entropy associated with the emitted terrestrial radiation, IOW the climate system receives high-quality energy and returns low-quality energy to space.
Furthermore, since the earth is, on average, in radiative equilibrium at the TOA, the generation of entropy (degradation of energy) for all internal processes in the climate system is 20 to 30 times larger than the amount of imported entropy.
This highlights the importance of all the internal processes of the climate system that are not “covered” by a supposed “classical thermodynamics super-framework.”
Arkady Ivanovich,
You haven’t addressed any of my arguments.
Am I to conclude that we’ve finally reached an agreement?
phi at 9:18 AM
You should conclude that I am happy with my comments.
Continuing with exposing the errors, omissions and “bad science” in the K-T “energy” budget:
https://postimg.cc/ft3S8YzV
Covered so far:
1. Radiative flux is NOT energy.
2. The surface is emitting more flux (390 W/m²) than it receives from Sun (168 W/m²).
3. The 324 W/m² from the atmosphere is bogus.
4. The atmosphere is shown emitting more down than up, 324 W/m² down vs 195 W/m² up.
5. The “235 W/m²” (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) is bogus.
6. Sky is supplying more flux to Earth’s surface than Sun!
We’re ready for two more:
7. When addressing alternative inputs/outputs the cult’s accuracy decreases as scientific rigor decreases.
In considering “Thermals” and “Evapo-transpiration”, they are estimating annual values, without including error margins. Even worse, they then “transform” the estimated energies into flux by dividing by Earth’s surface area! That ain’t science.
And what about “photosynthesis”? They completely ignore that process, which uses up at least a couple of W/m². So in the three processes, they could easily be off by over 5 W/m². This is significant because in a later version of the nonsense, NASA/Loeb claim an “imbalance” of 0.6 W/m², which they blame on CO2! The “imbalance” is more correctly blamed on incompetence and/or corruption….
8. The diagram correctly mentions “reflection”. The diagram identifies “Reflected Solar Radiation”. The diagram gets it right, but that conflicts with the cult beliefs. The cult doesn’t believe in “reflection”. They believe everything is a “black body”, absorbing ALL flux. So it’s important to mention the inconsistency, especially since the “plates” nonsense has been debunked.
Don’t forget to check back tomorrow, there’s more to come….
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-1735061
Would you say that the crank quoted above sucks at logic?
No, you suck at correctly summarising discussions. Mark’s full, original comment contained false accusations. The only thing that was accurate in that original comment was the point about “dynamics”. So, you only quote the part about “dynamics”, and leave out all the false accusations! Just desperate to try and make me look bad in some way.
Nice to know I live rent free in your head.
Astute readers can read that Graham D. Warner did not concede to Mark that he switched to dynamics. It might be the first time he ever concedes that.
Which means he never had any refutation in the first place.
“It might be the first time he ever concedes that.”
Yet Willard has quoted me saying, “it’s about “dynamics””.
And he says I suck at logic! Gee whizz.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
His “dynamics” as been said once and only once. It slipped from him. He does not even acknowledge having said it when we reminded him of it. He never said that Eli’s thought experiment was not. Or that he interpreted a static thought experiment that rests on more than basic algebra.
Graham sucks at pragmatics.
There’s no “if we interpret Eli’s algebra dynamically” in his silly troll bridge. There’s no “it’s the only way to interpret Eli’s algebra dynamically” either. This would be false:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Graham D. Warner simply “forgot” to show how Eli’s setup implies his silly troll bridge.
Cranks suck at logic.
To show such implication, all he needs is to use algebra. So all he got is a silly troll bridge.
Graham sucks at algebra.
Here we are, eight years later. And Graham still sucks at pragmatics, logic, and algebra.
And then he pretends being genuine?
Yeah, sure.
I have no idea what Willard is even wittering on about.
Gaslighting Graham returns to gaslighting.
Here’s his full comment to Barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734944
Does that mean he conceded that Eli’s thought experiment was correct all along?
I can see it’s just going to be random link and quote time.
Of course Graham will plead ignorance.
Of course Willard will troll. The GPE’s debunked.
Thanks for bringing it up again, and for all the links to the debunking you’ve been providing over the last few days.
Of course Graham will claim victory after conceding that Eli’s maths are fine.
All he needs is to concede that Eli’s simplest demonstration only relies on very simple maths:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
That he could misinterpret it is on him, and proves very little.
The GPE’s debunked.
Next comment after Graham’s “random” one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734955
Except that Graham’s logic is not even OK.
As I predicted – it’s random link and quote time. I respond, you bring up another random link and quote. Just another game you play.
Anyone can read through the entire discussion, from beginning to end, if they so wish. So why bring up individual comments? It was a huge discussion.
Graham reads the comment in response to his, and finds both comments “random”. An insult and a false accusation. Let’s read what he responded to Mark B’s astute observation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735001
Nothing.
Graham has nothing in response.
Every time Mark tries to argue with him, Graham flees.
So pure. So genuine.
Willard continues to prove me right.
“3. The 324 W/m² from the atmosphere is bogus.”
Your support for this was “Yesterday morning, I read overhead blue sky at -54.2 °F. That temperature corresponds to an emitted flux of about 150 W/m²”
I just read 55 F on my IR thermometer on a cool cloudy day, which corresponds to ~380 W/m^2. Given that cloudy skies are more common than clear, do you now understand how — using your own methods and reasoning! — that an average of 324 W/m^ is perfectly plausible?
Folkerts, my use of the word “bogus” was meant to be in reference to the entire diagram. For example my next sentence: Notice that’s higher than what the diagram claims reaches the surface from Sun — 168 W/m²!
So some parts of the diagram may be reasonable, but the complete assembly results in “cult science”. For example, here’s one that really has you confused: 4. The atmosphere is shown emitting more down than up, 324 down vs 195 up.
Your irresponsible response was: “No, climate science teaches that a given layer emits the same up and down. A warm lower layer emits large fluxes (both up and down equally); a cool upper layers emits small fluxes (both up and down equally). So the downward flux from the bottom will and must be larger than the upward flux from the top.”
So show us your diagram of say, 5 layers, that result in more being emitted down than up. Without violating any Laws of Physics.
I won’t hold my breath….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
Do you often hear diagrams speak?
Tim Folkerts – the amazing disappearing man!
Graham D. Warner is stalking Tim.
Ah, Willard is here to pick up the pieces, again. What a reliable troll.
“4. The atmosphere is shown emitting more down than up, 324 down vs 195 up.”
Clint sez:
“Your irresponsible response was: “No, climate science teaches that a given layer emits the same up and down. A warm lower layer emits large fluxes (both up and down equally); a cool upper layers emits small fluxes (both up and down equally). So the downward flux from the bottom will and must be larger than the upward flux from the top.”
Perfectly responsible and accurate.
Even Clint should be aware that the downward radiation comes from low-altitude warm atmosphere layers.
And even he should be aware that the the atmosphere is cooler at high altitude, where the atmosphere is thin enough to emit direct to space.
And I suspect even he can understand that cooler gases emit less radiation.
So it is truly baffling what his problem with this perfectly reasonable explanation is.
No doubt he will send insults my way, and no science answers.
Well Nate, if you believe Folkerts has it right, then help him out. He doesn’t seem to be able to support his own spew. I suggested a way for him display his “knowledge”:
So show us your diagram of say, 5 layers, that result in more being emitted down than up. Without violating any Laws of Physics.
So do that for him. Show us you’re not just a childish stalker.
The physics here is absolutely straightforward.
But Clint plays the fool again: ‘I don unnerstan, need sammiches’.
“The physics here is absolutely straightforward.”
That’s why neither Folkerts nor Nate can support their false beliefs.
But, Nate continues to prove he’s a childish stalker. Watch him continue….
Says the guy who never has answers to challenges and never supports his claims with sources. That aint science. Its trolling.
Yep, Nate continued.
New research published May 15th in Science Advances:
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.aef3132
phi…”I’m not going to answer you for two reasons:
1. As much as possible, I avoid arguing with those who question the theories of climatologists. I do, of course, accept valid criticisms”.
***
I’d prefer that you relax and enjoy your experience posting. If I reply to you, or any other poster, I am not replying to that poster per se, but posting for 3rd party lurkers who may have an interest in an alternative point of view.
I was not offering criticism per se of your posts, in fact, I agree with much of what you are saying. As far as questioning the theories of climatologists, I question the theories of all scientists if they bear criticism. Climatologists in particular tend to be at the bottom of the heap when it comes to understanding and applying basic physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.
I have criticized the stupid theories of engineers and textbooks in my own field, electrical engineering. The basic theory of EE, that electrical current flows positive to negative is too stupid to conceive yet EE profs and textbooks continue to push the conventional current flow theory that current flows positive to negative. Both must contradict themselves by pointing out that electrons, the basic current carriers in electrical circuits flow negative to positive.
To demonstrate how stupid this can get, consider the theory prevalent in semiconductor theory that holes can be a current carrier. The hole refers to a hole left behind in the valence band of an atom when an electron leaves that position. Of course, if you follow that theory out through a conductor, as electrons move negative to positive through the conductor, holes move in the opposite direction, positive to negative. They have no mass or charge, so how can they carry electricity?
The theory is normally applied to semiconductors since n-types are doped with atom that produce an excess of electrons in the silicon material. P-types are doped with atoms that leave a lack of electrons in the material. Since there are more holes, spaces where electrons would normally be located, hole current is claimed to move positive to negative.
I have never accepted that theory and even the inventor of the theory as applied to modern semiconductor theory, Shockley, admitted that he intended hole theory as a model, not an actuality. But why do scientists feels the need to invent vague theories when it is just as easy to consider a problem with actual phenomena?
My complaint is that science in general has become invaded with such stupid theories and that we need to back up and re-investigate with the focus on reality, not fanciful theories.
I take exception with this nonsense for the simple reason that conventional current flow was initially posited by Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century, more than a century before the electron was discovered in 1898 and the operation of an atom was proposed by Bohr in 1913. Franklin knew absolutely nothing about electricity yet idiots in my field honour him by maintaining that stupid theory despite the fact that Bohr disproved it once and for all in 1913.
I think it’ safe to say that most profs teaching engineering courses are at the top of all profs at a university. They have to be since they they apply science and anything applied incorrectly stands out like a sore thumb. However, they are required to teach a syllabus laid out for them based on a particular paradigm invoked by the university. Mechanical engineering profs must teach that heat can flow both ways via radiation, even though, if asked, they will have reservations.
Clausius once stated that heat flow via radiation must obey the 2nd law. As he stated the law, heat can NEVER be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from cold to hot. Clausius knew nothing about atomic structure yet he intuitively understood why. He did it by applying heat engine theory, which demonstrates why heat can never flow cold to hot by its on means. In the day of Clausius, all scientists believed that heat flows through the atmosphere via heat rays, a claim that has never been substantiated.
I dare say that if challenged, anyone claiming heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperature, could never prove it.
I have no time for stupidity or paradigms based on stupidity. Neither Roy who owns this blog, or John Christy, his colleague at UAH, are climatologists. Any idiot can be a climatologist, even an economist, or a geologist, claiming to have knowledge of climate science. Both are proper scientists who have degrees in meteorology and atmospheric physics respectively. Climatology is a vague term that essentially suggests someone is involved in the study of climate. It involves all types of wannabees and hanger-ons. The rest, those who support the current meme about catastrophic global warming/climate change are nothing more than wannabees who have no idea how real science works.
The irony is that John Christy, as a grad student, studied under Kevin Trenberth, the co-author of the energy budget theory. IMHO. Trenberth has demonstrated over the years, a poor understanding of the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. When the IPCC announced a 15 year warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012, Trenberth claimed the ‘missing’ heat was hiding in the oceans. Climate alarmists will conjure any kind of ridiculous theory rather than admit they were wrong.
In the climategate email scandal, Trenberth was caught confiding in private that the warming has stopped and it is a travesty that no one knows why. That was a few years before the IPCC formally announced the 15 year flat trend.
___________
“2. I try to function here like a machine. For example, I accept without reservation the propositions of thermodynamics and radiative physics, while seeking to highlight the contradictions in the theory used in the modeling”.
***
As far as I am concerned climate modeling that is the basis of climate disaster, should be banned as criminal negligence. The models themselves are unvalidated, meaning they can predict nothing. Furthermore, they are programmed with sheer pseudo-science. CO2 is given a warming factor of 9% to 25% while the Ideal Gas Law limits its warming factor to 0.06C per 1C overall warming of the atmosphere. Nitrogen and oxygen account for 99% of the warming. Also, a positive feedback is included in the models which allegedly produced heat. Problem is, positive feedback cannot work without an independent amplifier.
I mean, the idea that CO2, which accounts for 0.06% by mass of the atmosphere can, in any way, cause significant warming, never mind catastrophic warming, is based in sheer lunacy. We know what the warming is about since 1850, it is a re-warming from the preceding Little Ice Age.
That is why I regard climatologists who support the current climate disaster with contempt. They are basically incompetent scientifically.
Gordon,
The IGL doesn’t distinguish between molecules of different cases, and CO2 is able to transfer energy back and forth to the other molecules in the atmosphere.
So no limit based on the concentration of CO2.
It seems to me that a lot of time is being wasted on radiative physics. Manabe and Strickler (1964) can be considered to have sufficiently demonstrated that there are no major problems in this area.
The major difficulties are related to convection; they are described in euphemistic and insecure terms in subsequent papers on the subject. The solutions provided are sophisms that are not always subtle and in all cases, they are at best solutions that have a hypothetical status. This status is systematically concealed.
By adopting the unacceptable representation that distinguishes between an initial effect and feedbacks, the inconsistency concerns the initial effect, and that is the point on which we must focus.
I find it hard to understand how those who clearly possess all the intellectual tools to identify the real inconsistencies in the theory fail to see them. This perhaps highlights the underlying nature of the debate, which is not scientific in nature. Insofar as this leads to a refusal to accept reality, there is a loss of self-respect.
There is no symmetry in the positions. On one side, there are generally people who have correct intuitions but who, because the subject is not purely scientific, go astray into dead ends. On the other, there is a combative attitude of actively protecting an incoherent theory with significant social consequences.
You are correct in identifying a real difficulty in climate modeling; namely the parameterization of convection and clouds in multiscale turbulent systems.
However, these uncertainties arise not because the underlying microscopic physics is unknown, but because the atmosphere is a nonlinear continuum system operating across enormous ranges of spatial and temporal scale.
In fact, weather prediction itself demonstrates that increasing computational power, increasing resolution, and reducing dependence on parameterization have steadily improved predictive skill.
This significant evolution strongly argues against your broader implication that climate physics is fundamentally incoherent. If the theory were fundamentally incoherent, increasing physical realism and resolution would not systematically improve performance, whereas in reality, as more processes become explicitly resolved rather than parameterized, predictive skill improves.
There is a large gap between “difficulty” and “incoherence.”
Arkady Ivanovich,
“This significant evolution strongly argues against your broader implication that climate physics is fundamentally incoherent.”
This doesn’t change the fact that the highlighted logical inconsistencies don’t exist, but it does reframe the theory, and the models, within their hypothetical status.
The assessment of relevance then shifts to the interpretation of observations, and that’s a completely different matter.
Oups, read : This doesn’t change the fact that the highlighted logical inconsistencies exist, but it does reframe the theory, and the models, within their hypothetical status.
From an observational standpoint, the situation is far from clear: https://www.zupimages.net/up/26/20/hvhk.png
Sorry, it’s in French. (Sunshine in Zurich – Anomalies in Alpine glacier melt (Huss 2019) – Mass variation of the Mer de Glace – CO2 forcing).
From the study referenced in your figure (Huss et al. 2009), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009GL040789
Seems pretty clear that the observed early 20th century melt was driven by a multi-decadal anomaly in solar radiation forcing (blue line). However, by the second half of the 20th and early 21st century, the melt rate (orange line) is completely overwhelmed by the CO2 (green line) greenhouse warming, locking the glaciers into permanent mass loss.
This only strengthens my point that climate physics is “difficult” but not “incoherent.”
Arkady Ivanovich,
Look more closely. There is no recent decorrelation with sunlight. The introduction of CO2 is unnecessary.
As for Huss’s conclusions, he doesn’t provide a physical basis for them. The correlation with sunlight settles the matter anyway.
I have demonstrated the very real internal inconsistency. It remains to be seen whether the underlying assumptions are truly effective. This graph illustrates, at the very least, that the task ahead is daunting.
phi at 7:21 AM
Looking closely at the timeline in your figure, the 1960s to the early 1980s represent a distinct bottoming out phase where glacier melt rates decelerated significantly. From that point onward, the rate of melting sharply reversed course and has climbed rapidly, moving in lockstep with the accelerating curve of CO2 forcing.
My read of the Huss et al. (2009) study is that the unrelenting rise of greenhouse gases has the glaciers trapped in a state of rapid, continuous deficit that continues today.
Thanks for flagging this study. I hadn’t seen it.
phi…The Manabe/Strickler paper is based on an unvalidated model and means nothing. There is proof that their methodology is wrong on page 2 of 25 in the paper…
https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/manabe64a.pdf
1)at the Earth’s surface, the net upward flux of IR is equal to the net downward flux of solar radiation.
2)at TOA, the net upward IR flux is equal to the net downward solar flux
Both of these statements are ridiculously naive and based on the old adage that energy in must equal energy out and that radiation is the only means of dissipating surface heat.
They present the problem as a straight one-for-one situation. However, as the Sun heat the surface and the oceans, there is a delay of various lengths before that heat can be dissipated.
As Shula pointed out, the radiative theory is wrong. Convection involving the 99% nitrogen/oxygen mix is 260 times more effective at cooling the surface than radiation alone. There is really nothing in this paper that addresses the problem. Nor is there mention of the loss of heat naturally in the atmosphere due to heated air rising into a cooler atmosphere.
I mean, this is crazy. They mention the lapse rate yet miss the entire point of it. The lapse rate is telling us that heat is lost by altitude. I asked Google AI how much heat is lost via the lapse rate and it replied that heat is not lost, just the temperature decreases.
Duh!!! and Double-duh!!! Temperature measures a relative heat level and if temperature decreases as in the lapse rate, heat has been lost. Ask anyone who climbs mountains like Everest. You can freeze to death at 20,000 feet in summer.
I don’t think these people have given much thought to what heat is and how it acts in different forms.
The paper is a review of their model which like most alarmist propaganda is based on the presumption that only GHGs can warm the atmosphere and ultimately radiate all solar energy back to space.
Think about it. How can a gas like CO2, making up only 0.06% by mass of the atmosphere possibly warm it significantly? If you calculate the actual warming using the Ideal Gas Law, it limits the warming to that 0.06% for the simple reason that in an constant volume situation, air pressure and temperature are directly proportional.
That is temperature decreases naturally as the air pressure decreases and air pressure decrease due to a smaller and smaller number of air molecules. By the time one reaches the stratosphere one is experiencing a literal vacuum. This is a perfect example of heat being dissipated naturally.
Since pressure is based on gravitational force and the number of molecules in a certain altitude of the atmosphere, it stands to reason that as altitude increases the number of molecules of air decreases. By 30,000 feet, near the peak of Everest, air pressure is only 1/3rd the pressure at sea level.
The 0.06% by mass for CO2 is at the surface. By the time you reach 30,000 feet it is 1/3rd that value, or 0.02% by mass.
Please…none of the crap from the usual peanut gallery re 0.06% ink in water makes it cloudy.
Gordon Robertson,
“That is, temperature naturally decreases as air pressure decreases, and air pressure decreases due to a decreasing number of air molecules.”
No. There is no direct link between temperature and pressure. The ideal gas law is a law of state. Hydrostatic equilibrium, on the contrary, implies an increase in temperature with altitude.
The decrease in temperature with altitude is solely the effect of greenhouse gases cooling the troposphere. Convection sets a local limit to this gradient.
That is why you are wrong, and why the IPCC’s climatology has turned its pataphysics of climate into dogma.
clint…”clint…”It has to do with the thermodynamic definition of “heat”, which is energy in transit, ie, the rate of energy flow. Heat therefore typically has units of energy per time, such as “Watts”.
***
This is not meant as a shot at you but simply a debate on the science. I don’t care who is right and who is wrong, I am only concerned with the truth, much of which no one ultimately “knows” with any amount of accuracy.
I do not regard myself as knowing more than you, I think each human has varying degrees of bs in their minds and I am no exception.
Between the two of us hopefully we can find some semblance of truth. Tee hee.
The idea of heat as energy in transit goes back to the theories of the late 18th century when heat was regarded as a fluid that somehow moved through an object. I think it’s safe to say that if you have a textbook that defines heat as such, I would throw it out because it was likely written in the 18th century.
By 1850, scientists like Clausius were questioning that theory of heat as a fluid and Clausius was one of the first to state that heat is related to the motion of atoms. How it is related is the question. Personally, I see it as a relative level of atomic motion. If you have a flame, the atoms in the flame have a high energy and if you apply the flame to the end of a metal bar, the more excited flames atoms pass energy to the cooler atoms in the metal bar.
If you compae the energy in the flame to the energy that is gravity, can you say they are the same energy? I can’t.
r
Of course, we are talking about an unknown, energy, but we have no idea what it is. So, we have offered definitions of different forms of energy based on how that energy interacts with matter. Heat has been defined as the energy associated with motion of atomic level particles while work is defined as the energy that produces a force than can move a mass through a distance. Each form of energy has a unique definition and I regard it as ingenuous to talk about a generic energy that we cannot describe while relegating heat, a legitimate form of energy, to simply a transport agent.
As the metal bar heats up, it must pass its gained energy to adjacent atoms via their electrons, and a temperature gradient is created down the bar from hot to cold.
Heat does not have units of joules per second, it is measured historically in calories. A calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise 1CC of water by 1C. It is measured in joules due to an equivalence discovered by Joule circa 1840, in which he measured an equivalent of 1 calorie of heat as being produced by 4.184 joules of a mechanical paddle turning in water.
No mention of joules/second which is a statement of work/time = power.
When we go on a diet, we talk about the number of calories we are consuming, we do not discuss the number of joules. The number of calories is a reference to the amount of heat produced in the body by food. You can call it energy if you like but when we exercise we burn calories of heat and we warm up. At least, I do.
————-
“A proper thermo book typically uses “Q” for energy, and “Qdot” (Q with a dot over it) for heat”.
***
Q means heat and Q-dot is the first derivative or rate of heat flow per unit time. Q-dot is a measure of power, provided the heat is doing work.
Entropy, which measure a heat loss in a process is stated as …
S = integral dq/T
Here, the units of entropy are joules/degree K. No time units.
If you want to express the amount of heat transferred per unit time (Q-dot), it is commonly expressed in watts, which is joules/second. However, the watt is not a natural unit of heat, it is the calorie.
Same with electrical current. Current is measured in amps and power is measured in watts. Electrical power is the amount of current through a resistor over a period of time.
Glad we had this little chat.
ark….”The word “flux” does not etymologically stem from Newton’s word “fluxion.”
***
Maybe not etymologically but scientifically it does. He introduced the word fluxion as a rate of change of a function, both of which he developed. The fluxion, along with the concept of limits, is the basis of calculus. We use the word flux today essentially as a measure of energy passing through a surface at a certain rate, based on the meaning of fluxion put forward by Newton..
Cool story, Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux#Terminology
It’s really not that complex, but do continue.
This series of comments has been about debunking the absolute nonsense of the K-T “energy” budget, which led to the NASA/Loeb “Earth Energy Imbalance” (EEI) fraud. How much money has been wasted on this CO2 nonsense? How many lives have been lost? How many people have been injured? How much actual science research could have been done if the money had not been wasted?
Continuing with exposing the errors, omissions and “bad science” in the K-T “energy” budget:
https://postimg.cc/ft3S8YzV
Covered so far:
1. Radiative flux is NOT energy.
2. The surface is emitting more flux (390 W/m²) than it receives from Sun (168 W/m²).
3. The 324 W/m² from the atmosphere is bogus.
4. The atmosphere is shown emitting more down than up, 324 W/m² down vs 195 W/m² up.
5. The “235 W/m²” (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) is bogus.
6. Sky is supplying more flux to Earth’s surface than Sun!
7. When addressing alternative inputs/outputs the cult’s accuracy decreases as scientific rigor decreases.
8. The diagram correctly mentions “reflection”. The diagram identifies “Reflected Solar Radiation”. The diagram gets it right, but that conflicts with the cult beliefs. The cult doesn’t believe in “reflection”. They believe everything is a “black body”, absorbing ALL flux. So it’s important to mention the inconsistency, especially since the “plates” nonsense has been debunked.
We’re ready for two more:
9. Where is the accounting for hurricanes, winds, and tornadoes?
Do these “scientists” believe this wind energy just somehow comes from magic? The energy for strong winds comes from solar. Solar energy is the source for winds and wind extremes, and it’s a massive amount left out of the “budget”. ChatGPT estimates about 2 W/². Add that to the other omissions and errors, and we’re nearly at 10 W/². Even their “bad science” only puts CO2’s [bogus] contribution at 0.6 W/².
10. The incompetent diagram tries to “balance” solar flux with Earth’s emitted infrared flux. But, fluxes do NOT balance. Even with the imaginary sphere, fluxes do not balance. The solar flux (960) in does not balance with the surface emission (240) out.
So the kids divide solar by 4. They use the value 1368 for the Solar constant. Divided by 4 gives 342 W/², for “Incoming Solar Radiation”, and results in 168 W/² at the surface. But, such unscientific manipulations mean less solar is absorbed by the surface than is realistic. A flux of 168 W/² could never produce 288K surface temperature. (Of course, “realism” is not their goal.)
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml
Is any division-by-four in the room with you right now, and why do you keep forgetting Fasullo?
I may be able to explain the flux problem — probably to nobody’s satisfaction. Fluxes are real when they are properly modeled and constructed, but they are a construct. In the atmosphere, the radiant gases emit omnidirectional thermal radiation. The arbitrary use of layered fluxes at different elevations is therefore a construct. This gives the science deniers an opportunity — an opening — to criticize the climate models and create confusion.
Let’s be clear that as constructed, the use of fluxes in climate models is scientifically correct. The problem there is that they do not accurately describe the omnidirectional behavior of radiant gases. The technique of the science deniers to attack this problem puts attention of this major flaw in climate modeling, but does not alter the science or discredit the use of fluxes in general.
Tim S, upthread you left some unfinished business. You implied that the “laws of physics support” the “major claims of the greenhouse effect”.
But what are the “major claims”, and what physics supports them?
And even more specifically, could you identify how CO2 “should cause warming of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans”?
It would be best if you cleaned up your mess before making another one, don’t you think?
From above:
It is interesting how the science deniers self-identify. I did not call out anyone…
…Gordon Robertson gets the award for the most creative, but also the most annoying. The rest are probably just as dumb as they seem.
So Tim S, you have no science to support your beliefs?
That’s often an indication that your beliefs are wrong. That is probably also why you feel the need to insult others.
Tim,
Can you explain how the lapse rate is derived?
Troglodyte,
Please explain radiation shielding to me.
Williard,
It depends on the shielding. The three most common shielding types (at least what we used on subs) are water, lead and steel used in nuclear power plants. Water has the lowest half thickness, steel the next and then lead the greatest half thickness. The half thickness is what it takes to reduce the radiation by one half. That means it takes more thickness of water than it does lead. Now, how is the lapse rate derived?
Williard,
I assume you meant me. You call so many people who disagree with your agenda Troglodyte that I can’t keep up with it. Thanks for continuing to champion science.
Troglodyte,
There are three primary types of lapse rates used to understand atmospheric conditions: the actual, measured temperature of the surrounding air at any given time and place, the rate at which an unsaturated, rising parcel of air cools, and the rate at which a saturated, rising parcel of air cools.
Now, why is radiative shielding an important element in superinsulations?
Willard,
You really didn’t answer my question. I asked how is lapse rate derived? What determines the lapse rate? And Williard, lapse rate is mathematical. It is the rate of temperature change per height in the atmosphere- usually degree C or K per kilometer. There is a dry adiabatic lapse rate or a moist lapse rate. Adiabatic means there is no heat transfer so the change in internal energy for the dry column of air (or moist) is due to work from pV expansion. That’s how the rising columns of air dissipate their energy. There is no radiative function in the lapse rate, so this presents a serious problem for the GHE. I don’t know what super insulations are. We didn’t have those on subs.
Stephen,
You didn’t answer my question either. I asked you to explain how radiative shielding works. Not a gloss on materials.
Why would expect more room service than you ever provide? In fact, it’s as if you presume anyone could not see you’re just playing Columbo to peddle your pet theory. Search for “moyhu” on this page if you want to know more about that.
Superinsulation involves powders, fibers, or multilayered materials that have been evacuated of all air. It is often called multi-layer insulation, or MLI. This concept is more important here than your silly squirrel.
> search for “Moyhu”
Looks like it’s in implicit link.
Search for “what about lapse rate” instead.
Stephen was answering about shielding from harmful radiation…a completely different type of “radiation shielding” to what Willard was asking about…and the funny thing is, Willard didn’t even notice! It just goes to show how clueless Willard really is.
Willard was trying to ask about “IR radiation shielding” – an entirely different beast. From Google AI:
“Infrared (IR) radiation shielding works by blocking, absorbing, or reflecting electromagnetic waves that carry thermal energy (heat). Because infrared is non-ionizing, IR shielding doesn’t protect against radiation sickness; instead, it acts as a thermal barrier to regulate temperature, protect sensitive electronics, or keep workers safe from extreme heat sources.
IR shielding relies on a combination of specific physical processes to interrupt the transfer of heat:
1. Reflection
Highly reflective materials act like mirrors for infrared waves. When IR radiation hits the surface of a reflective material—such as polished aluminum, gold, or specialized multi-layer insulation (MLI) films—the waves "bounce" off, changing direction and keeping the heat away from the shielded object.
2. Absorption
Some materials are designed to absorb infrared waves rather than let them pass through. As the material absorbs the IR energy, it converts the radiation into microscopic vibrations (heat), which then warms the material itself. The material can then shed this heat outwards through convection or re-radiation, keeping the space or object on the other side cool.
3. Low Emissivity (Low-E)
Emissivity refers to a material’s ability to radiate absorbed heat. Effective IR shields often have a "low-E" side facing the heat source and a different structure on the inside. This prevents the shield itself from heating up and re-radiating the heat onto the object it is trying to protect.
Common Shielding Materials
Reflective Films and Glass: Optically clear, specialized films (often made of metallic oxides) can be applied to windows to reflect over 99% of infrared rays while allowing visible light to pass.
Aluminum and Gold Foils: Widely used in aerospace (like on satellites) because they provide excellent heat reflection with minimal weight.
Specialized Safety Eyewear: Industrial workers and welders use PPE treated with specific tints and metallic coatings that block harmful IR rays to protect their eyes from cataracts and burns.
Because IR is a form of thermal radiation, it does not require a physical medium (like air or water) to travel, so it can cross a vacuum (like space). Consequently, effective IR shielding interrupts the wave itself, preventing it from imparting its heat into a protected area.”
Graham’s trolling continues.
Willard keeps on losin’ arguments.
Barry,
When you’re on a dive boat going out for a dive do they leave the compressed tanks sitting in the Sun? Just asking.
What about the tank in your garage – how hot is it?
In fact, what about a tank you would drag on Mount Stupid:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/
Clint R plays the fool, and then he wants to play the victim for being insulted as a fool. If he does not want to be included with those who are “just as dumb as they seem”, he should make intelligent commentary that correctly states scientific facts.
Tim,
You claim to be speaking from authority calling Clint a science denier, but you deny the science of the lapse rate. This is classical science- Avogadro, Boyle, Charles, Pascal, Claussius, Kelvin, and on and on. There is no radiative function in the lapse rate. Do you deny that statement?
Tim S, if you’re going to throw a tantrum every time you get caught spewing crap, then maybe you should stop spewing crap?
stephen p anderson, the question for you is simple. Do you want to be included in with the science deniers? I am not at all “speaking from authority”. That is just another ridiculous strawman. I am agreeing with every Physics text book ever written concerning thermal radiation. It is that simple. There are literally millions of people on earth who have completed a college level curriculum in physics and fully understand these concepts.
This is not rocket science. This is very basic physics. You can do the research on your own. If you still do not understand the subject matter, then you have my sympathy, but not my support.
Just for fun, and because I like laughing at people like stephen p anderson, I will point out that even Willard can produce a reasonable statement about your favorite strawman, the lapse rate. This is close enough to being correct:
“There are three primary types of lapse rates used to understand atmospheric conditions: the actual, measured temperature of the surrounding air at any given time and place, the rate at which an unsaturated, rising parcel of air cools, and the rate at which a saturated, rising parcel of air cools.”
When you get beat by the likes of Willard in a science discussion, you need to take a good hard look in the mirror. What kind of content do you want to be associated with? Is it science or science denial?
Tim S dodges both Clint’s questions and Stephen’s question.
Tim,
Why the propaganda? The lapse rate is a strawman? The lapse rate unfortunately for you guys is a nail in the coffin. I asked Williard and you if the lapse rate contains a radiative function. You try to speak from authority but the only authority that supports you is the big climate propaganda. Tim, the lapse rate is the temperature difference from the Earth’s surface to an altitude. The Greenhouse Theory claims this temperature difference from the Earth’s surface to the TOA, the lapse rate (you know your strawman), is due to radiative forcing. All the classical work from Charles, Boyle, Avogadro, Pascal, Clausius and others say it is due to pressure. So, I really don’t know what authority you’re speaking from. For instance, the temperature difference from the base of Mauna Loa to the summit is due to atmospheric pressure and not radiative forcing. Only one can be right. Which is it?
Tim,
They teach this in physics. To know where something comes from you determine how it is derived. Tim, how is the lapse rate derived? I’ll give you a clue, and it isn’t using radiative forcing.
dT/dz = dT/dP (dP/dz)
z-altitude
P-pressure
T-temperature
It is a result of the temperature change with pressure and pressure change with altitude.
stephen,
“For instance, the temperature difference from the base of Mauna Loa to the summit is due to atmospheric pressure and not radiative forcing. Only one can be right. Which is it?”
Neither.
Pressure does not create temperature. The bottom of the sea has pressure 1000 times greater than the surface. My scuba tank has 200 times the pressure of Earth’s surface, but the metal is cold to the touch. A car tyre has more pressure than the surrounding air, and yet is at the same temperature.
Pressure does not cause temperature.
The greenhouse effect (not ‘forcing’) creates the atmospheric structure for the lapse rate.
Think of it. The sun shines on Earth’s atmosphere. We should think that the atmosphere will be hotter near the top. And indeed, this is the case for the stratosphere. It is warmer at the top than the bottom, because the gases in the stratosphere primarily absorb solar radiation. Obviously, pressure is not responsible for temperature in the stratosphere.
But the troposphere receives most of its heating from the surface, not from the sun. That’s why it is warmer at the bottom; because the greenhouse gases absorb Earth radiation much more powerfully than other gases in the troposphere absorb solar radiation.
Without that inverted effect in the troposphere, there would be no convection and no lapse rate.
Radiative ‘forcing’ is a different topic. That’s about changes in radiative dynamics causing temperature change at the surface.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2025-0-43-deg-c/#comment-1724783
“nothing like”
No idea what point Willard is making.
Graham D. Warner’s abuse continues.
A relentless gaslighting machine.
[shrugs shoulders in polite confusion]
I read the post at your link, DREMT. Your point doesn’t rebut mine at all, nor does it corroborate your claim. Rising parcels of air do not happen without a negative lapse rate, and you can’t explain the lapse rate based on insolation. If GHGs don’t do anything, the sunlight should be filtered through the troposphere and temperatures should be cooler at the surface.
Then I read a bit further.
“Claimed to be debunked by many… and yet, after 14 years, it’s still going strong”
Endurance = validity. So scientific. I guess the Earth must be flat, too.
“Of course, I will now be dragged into a 30-day back-and-forth”
No, you don’t have to worry about that with me. You can enjoy your dramas without my help.
It rebuts your point about the scuba tank, barry. And, if you read on further through the discussion, you’ll see your point about the stratospheric inversion is rebutted also. Then, if you read on still further, you’ll see I even mentioned that I was certain one day you would bring up both debunked points again, as if they were never debunked! Thanks for being so predictable.
Mischaracterizing the conversation and claiming victory. Par for the course for you, DREMT.
You’ll never deal straightly, you’ll always be a drama queen.
And once again, you have butted in to a conversation where stephen was making the same argument buzz was back then. They both think pressure induces temperature. That’s wrong and you know it’s wrong.
Let me demonstrate to you how to not get dragged into a tedious conversation.
Both your points are refuted, barry, and an honest man would not make those points ever again. Your false accusations are noted and dismissed.
Barry,
You can’t be serious. That’s your argument? You fail physics. We assume the atmosphere behaves as an ideal gas and follows the ideal gas law, pV=nRT. Are you familiar with this law? Temperature is directly proportional to pressure of compressible, non condensible gases. We are not discussing liquids or the deep ocean. Go crawl back into your hole.
Barry,
P.S.-If you have any friends who post here, they should intervene before you embarrass yourself further. You’ve posted some of the most unscientific garbage I’ve seen yet.
Stephen and Graham D. Warner keep losing arguments.
Willard is obviously bored today.
DREMT,
stephen said:
“We assume the atmosphere behaves as an ideal gas and follows the ideal gas law, pV=nRT. Are you familiar with this law? Temperature is directly proportional to pressure of compressible, non condensible gases…”
LoL! Just as I said, stephen thinks pressure and temperature are directly related.
stephen,
My scuba tank is filled with compressible non-condensable gases at 200 atmospheres.
Here are the values:
p = 200 atm
V = 11.1 litres
n = 92.2 moles
R (Gas Constant for atm and litres) = 0.0821
Now, room temperature when I put my tank on is, say, 293.15 K.
Could you please use the ideal gas law to tell me how hot my 200 atmosphere scuba tank will be, and whether it’s safe to wear?
LOL!!
barry repeats the debunked scuba tank argument. Unbelievable.
Barry,
You are a mental midget. I have an experiment for you. Take your compressed air scuba tank and go sit beside it in a big field on a hot sunny day. If pressure isn’t proportional to temperature, then you have nothing to worry about.
Barry,
Have you ever felt a scuba tank or any tank as it was being filled with compressed air? You are such a genius. You need a friend to intervene. Maybe Williard or B4 will come in and save you.
Barry,
I mean you’re obviously an intelligent person but you’re doubling down on stupid. My professor would have given you the G.C.E. label on your paper (Gross Conceptual Error). Willard is going to kick you off of Team Science. This is egregious, man.
Troglodyte steals Puffman’s recipe: insults and riddles.
That’s how he gets served so fast and so well in every fast food he goes to.
Barry,
When you’re out on a dive boat do you leave the compressed air tanks sitting in the Sun? Just asking.
Hey Willard,
Is Barry still on Team Science?
Willard,
Come on man, that should be like a one-year suspension from posting.
Hey Troglodyte,
Do oceans have a temperature?
Stephen,
First, You keep claiming the lapse rate can be derived from the Ideal Gas Law.
But look it up, there is no such derivation. Because the Ideal Gas Law contains 3 variables, P, density, and temperature.
Instead, the lapse rate is assumed, and P vs altitude is obtained.
Second, convection transfers heat upward. Thus it REDUCES the lapse rate.
Because the atmosphere is heated at the surface from the sun, and it is cooled at the top of the atmosphere by radiation to space, making a very steep lapse rate.
It is convection which makes the lapse rate smaller than it would be by rafldiation alone.
Nate,
Really? What did you look up? The derivation of the lapse rate is in many thermodynamics textbooks and in many places on the internet. This isn’t hard, Nate. Have you joined Willard’s Team Science? You can go here. It is all laid out for you.
tiny.cc/jk64101
stephen,
“When you’re out on a dive boat do you leave the compressed air tanks sitting in the Sun”
Ah, so you understand the extreme pressure in the tank does not keep it hot.
I’m glad you realise that temperature is proportional to PRESSURISATION, not to pressure.
Average gas density through the layers of the atmosphere remains constant. The atmosphere is NOT being pressurised. Local compression and expansion associated with weather occur within a static average. These local effects cancel out.
The surface layer is not warm because of pressure or compression. The temperature layer is set by how energy flows through the atmosphere.
If pressure were the primary determinant of temperature, the stratosphere should have a negative lapse rate like the troposphere. The dominant cause of the opposite signed temperature gradients through the layers of atmosphere is radiative energy interacting with atmospheric gases.
barry continues to spout both debunked arguments. Unbelievable.
barry is correct, pistons and cylinders do not inhabit the atmosphere. DREMT remains unbelievable.
Ball4 remains a troll, to be ignored by everyone.
phi…”No. There is no direct link between temperature and pressure. The ideal gas law is a law of state. Hydrostatic equilibrium, on the contrary, implies an increase in temperature with altitude.
The decrease in temperature with altitude is solely the effect of greenhouse gases cooling the troposphere. Convection sets a local limit to this gradient”.
***
GHGs have nothing to do with the gas pressure of the atmosphere or its temperature. They are so trivial re mass as to be essentially insignificant. Water vapour in the Tropics can apparently reach 4% but CO2 is stuck at 0.06% mass no matter what. Of the 4% WV, most of it is carried aloft and pole-ward due to convection.
Let’s clarify your statement about the IGL, that it is a law of state, which is a red-herring argument used by alarmists to dismiss the law. An equation of state means the equation addresses a static atmosphere which is never the case. However, ask yourself this, does introducing convection to the system change the ratio of CO2 mass at 0.06% to that of nitrogen/oxygen with a mass percent close to 99%?.
The lapse rate is based on a similar context. A vertical column of air without convection is considered, with the added cheek that heat cannot flow in and out of the column as in the adiabatic lapse rate. Of course heat can flow in and out of the column freely via convection. Obviously the lapse rate is an equation of state since it considers a column of air that is insulated and with none of the convection found in the real atmosphere.
I have addressed this in the past re the IGL. It can be applied to a static situation simply because the difference between the effect of CO2 versus N2/O2 is the same for both static and dynamic conditions. All I am trying to do is slow the atmosphere down so ideal conditions apply, even for a fraction of a second. I am trying to show that it is not possible for CO2 to contribute a significant amount of heat to the atmosphere.
*****
Your statement that no relationship exists between pressure and temperature belies a basic understanding of the meaning of pressure and temperature and how they are directly related. Both are directly related through the kinetic energy of gas molecules. It is the sum of the KE hitting the walls of a container that is the pressure and the average KE that is the temperature. Naturally, decreasing the number of molecules reduces the pressure and the temperature.
Both are directly related in a constant volume under adiabatic conditions. If the system is not adiabatic, heat created by an increase in pressure will bleed off eventually through the walls of the container since the KE of the molecules is transferred to atoms making up the container walls. However, at the instant pressure changes, the temperature will immediately rise or fall with it.
It is due to the intimate relationship between temperature, pressure and the number of molecules present. While pressure defines the force exerted on the walls of a container by the molecules, temperature is a measure of their average kinetic energy, a measure of the heat content. If either one of P, T or n changes in a constant volume, the others must change as well.
Ergo, if pressure changes vertically due to gravity, the temperature must change with it. Lowered P with altitude means less air molecules and less air molecules means a lowered average kinetic energy. That means less heat, which is the point I have made many times. As altitude increases, heat (and pressure) is dissipated naturally due to less and less air molecules. Eventually, there will be little or no air molecules, representing a vacuum, and we know heat cannot exist in a vacuum since there are no molecules to enable it.
One must not confuse this with a 100 watt incandescent light bulb in an evacuated glass bulb. 95% of the heat in such a lamp is produced by the electrical energy dissipated in the filament. Only about 5% of the energy is dissipated by radiation and most is in the visible EM spectrum. When we touch a 100 watt bulb and it burns our fingers, the heat is conducted from the filament, through the base, and into the glass.
Pressure is defined as the force exerted on the walls of a container by gas molecules. Heat, as measured by temperature, is the average kinetic energy of those same molecules. In the IGL, ‘n’ refers to the total number of molecules, or the gas mass.
Our atmosphere is a unique context in that gravity orders pressure into a negative gradient from the surface up. The IGL is normally applied to static gases in a volume, however, I am applying it in equal volume concentric spheres in which the pressure is constant. The next higher concentric sphere will have a lower pressure and as if the atmosphere has no convection.
However, as P decreases with altitude, n must also decrease. In fact, that is the reason P decreases, there are less and less air molecules as altitude increases. That is the effect of a reduced gravitational force.
Newton calculated that the ratio of the Earth’s radius to the distance to the Moon is 1/60. The inverse square law needs the square of the distance, which is (1/60)^2 = 1/3600. One must divide the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration of a mass due to gravity by 3600 to get the equivalent acceleration at the Moon. That is 9.8/3600 = 0.003 m/s^2.
All molecules in the atmosphere are affected by gravity in the same way albeit with a caveat. Air molecules are very light and their kinetic energy can override gravity to an extent. That is the molecules are free to zip about as anti-gravity particles at time but on average, they produce a negative pressure gradient.
I don’t care if convection can upset that balance since it does not matter. I am looking only at the effect of a trace gas according to the IGL for a static atmosphere. After all, the lapse rate ignores it as well, going so far as to specify an adiabatic column of air which is an impossibility due to convection.
Gordon Robertson,
“I am trying to show that it is not possible for CO2 to contribute a significant amount of heat to the atmosphere.”
That’s right. But we need to go further. What is the role of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the perspective of the atmosphere? To cool it, absolutely not to heat it. Heating is provided by convection and direct solar radiation, and only GHGs and clouds can dissipate this heat.
The problem is that the pataphysics of climate has completely perverted common sense, and no one understands how the atmosphere works anymore. There has been a tremendous distortion of knowledge with the climate scam.
Look for the basics (heat flow), then you’ll see how everything becomes clear without having to twist established scientific knowledge.
> we need to go further.
Exactly.
Not only must we try to show, we need to show.
That’s the tough part.
It’s been more than 15 years now. Another 15?
Phi,
“There has been a tremendous distortion of knowledge with the climate scam.”
As each of your science concerns is so far rebutted, you keep replacing them with new ones. That is called moving the goal posts.
Now we see why. Your strong bias leaves you seeking a legitimate cause to dismiss the GHE theory, even as you are unable to articulate a solid reason.
Nate,
“As each of your scientific concerns is so far rebutted, you keep replacing them with new ones.”
You’d have a hard time finding a single proposition I’ve put forward that has been refuted here.
Go ahead! Try it and see.
Rebuttals throughout by many people. Not going to relitigate them all.
Some of your issues amount to semantics, as pointed out by several people
Entropy is unmentioned in the definition of forcing, nor does it need to be, as pointed out by several people.
I became aware of hydrostatic equilibrium in the atmosphere the other day. I think it is a serious joke.
Scientists who have developed basic atmospheric physics theory have tried to compare the atmosphere, under control of gravity, with gas in a cylinder being compressed by a piston. There is no such comparison.
To demonstrate the foolishness of this, I just asked Google AI, “how much force can a human being experience on his head due to the weight of atmospheric molecules”?
The answer comes from MIT and is this…
“https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-01l-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2005/dc557812f12348dba46dcde01cba295c_prs_12_06_05sol.pdf”
What absurd nonsense. This is an example of rubbish being printed by an eminent institution simply because they have failed to grasp the obvious. Atmospheric gases simply don’t press down on anything as a unified mass. The molecules are flitting about, upward, downward, and laterally.
They can’t exert a downward force (pressure) since they are not a cohesive unit. If you could place a person in a chamber, like a cylinder, and a piston could be engaged to compress the air to a point where it exerted 500 lbs on the walls, then it could be said that the human would experience a 500 pound pressure on his/her head, and he she would likely implode.
MIT claims they don’t implode because humans developed a thick skull via evolution. Duh!!!
Anyone who has tried to bench press even 225 pounds knows how much weight is involved. 500 lbs is something a very strong person might bench press, or more likely dead lift. The idea that the human skull has 500 pounds of pressure bearing down on it is absurd.
Anyone who has tried to do a squat with 500 pounds would find the same problem. If you put 500 pounds on the shoulders of an average person, he/she would collapse. I used to do 800 pounds on a slanted apparatus that allowed me to brace my back and push just from my legs up a 45 degree ramp. Afterwards, I had trouble walking with a steady gait for a few minutes.
No sir, humans do not have to support 500 pounds of downward air pressure and the science needs to be reviewed. I think an egregious error has been made somewhere along the line by presuming that air molecules are exerting a downward force en masse. Air molecules have bouyancy and thank God for that, if they all collapsed to the surface, we’d be in seriously danger of extinction.
Back to hydrostatic equilibrium. It is based on the nonsense that the atmosphere acts like the cylinder/piston described earlier. No such mechanism could reproduce the actuality of the atmosphere with a negative pressure/temperature gradient.
In water it would apply since the water molecules act like a cohesive force which can act downward. However, if you took an equivalent number of molecules of air, it would not act in the same way.
The 15 psi pressure for air at the surface is a calculation based on the presumption that a column of air from the surface to space, with a 1 sq. in area is acting downward on the surface. I am questioning that.
If the 15 psi is based on a calculation, and that calculation is the basis of a barometer measurement, if the calculation is wrong, then the barometer reading is wrong.
I am currently trying to verify how barometers are calibrated and if anyone has input, it is welcome.
phi…”…we need to go further. What is the role of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the perspective of the atmosphere? To cool it, absolutely not to heat it. Heating is provided by convection and direct solar radiation, and only GHGs and clouds can dissipate this heat”.
***
Phi…I don’t think GHGs play any significant role. Conduction/convection cools the surface adequately while dissipating heat naturally.
I think we need to re-examine the entire problem of warming/cooling since there may not even be a problem. I think the Sun and Earth have formed a kind of symbiotic relationship over billions of years that has produced the current atmospheric temperature.
I would like us to eventually get off fossil fuels but not in the foreseeable future. We simply lack the energy to replace them at this time and projecting a near future without them is the work of idiots who don’t care about humans and worship some kind of Neanderthal god they call the environment. Talking about zero emissions by 2030 or even 2050 is serious insanity.
The 15C global average has been formed over billions of years, long before humans began emitting GHGs. The notion that a trace gas can significantly change that temperature is absurd to me.
The so-called greenhouse effect can be explained by the obvious, heat in does not equal heat out, at least, not in real time. I have also claimed that heat is dissipated within the atmosphere due to the negative pressure gradient.
Heat intensity in a gas is relative to the number of molecules and their kinetic energy. If the number is reduced along with the KE, heat is dissipated automatically without having to be converted to another form of energy. That is exactly what happens as heated air from the surface rises.
The idea that GHGs can cool the surface is equally absurd to me. That theory seems to be based in the action of GHGs in the stratosphere, not the atmosphere as a whole.
There is a lot of bs attached to this theory. It is based on the claim that CO2 is a well-mixed gas, meaning it is uniform throughout the atmosphere. So, alarmists are claiming the same 0.06% mass percent of CO2 in the stratosphere as in the lower atmosphere.
Problem is, 0.06% of nothing is still nothing. At the base of the stratosphere, near the peak of Mt. Everest at about 30,000 feet, air density has dropped to 30% of that value at sea level with CO2 now at 0.0018% by mass. Near the top of the stratosphere at about 50 km (164,000 feet) the air density is less than 1%, with CO2 at 0.0006% by mass.
Humans cannot breath adequately at the top of Everest unless acclimatized. Even at that, they cannot exist more than a week before irreversible deterioration begins. Why are we talking about the effect of a trace gas in the stratosphere as if our existence depends on it?
CO2 cannot possibly warm the lower atmosphere more than its mass percent of about 0.06%. That translates to about 0.06C for each 1C warming of the atmosphere of which 99% is due to nitrogen and oxygen. In the stratosphere, its density drops from 0.02% by mass down to less than 0.0006% by mass. How can a gas of such low density possibly have an effect on atmospheric temperature, either by warming or cooling?
The entire theory is a scam, as claimed by scientist Will Happer. Manabe was one of the scam artists who put forward such theories based on unvalidated climate models. He obviously had little or no understanding of basic physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics.
That’s no surprise, the current head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, himself a modeler, has a degree in math. When he tried to explain the theory of positive feedback, he fumbled it badly. Yet he uses such inane theories to represent warming in the models he programs.
Sadly, this video is the perfect metaphor for much of the discussion on this blog.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bystander-video-captures-norfolk-southern-train-t-boning-septic-truck-at-virginia-railroad-crossing/ar-AA23vuXc
Sea Level Rise – Any scientists on this string who have done a deep dive on sea level rise? I am not presently interested in the mitigation versus adaptation argument. Two recent studies have suggested that sea level has been rising faster than previously thought. Please don’t refer to the news coverage – let me/us know what the data and research show. The WOHI study criticized the DOE study in which Dr Roy participated. (He may not be able to comment here, even if he chose to do so.)
I think you’re referring to paper by Christopher G. Piecuch from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025AV002018
The “Plain Language Summary” box of that paper essentially describes the problem with the DOE report: “A recent report argues that rates of coastal sea-level rise in the U.S. are not increasing. However, that report only considers a small subset of the available coastal sea-level data from U.S. tide gauges. Here I instead use all of the available longterm records from U.S. tide gauges, and I reach a dramatically different conclusion. I find that, on a nationwide average, rates of coastal sea-level rise in the U.S. have doubled in the past 125 years, and that present-day rates are well above the historical average. This represents conclusive evidence that coastal sea level in the U.S. is accelerating, likely due to climate change.”
That is, the DOE report didn’t find obvious evidence of sea level rise because it didn’t try very hard and it didn’t provide any evidence of the procedure by which even the selective data was analyzed.
In any case the sea level data derived from satellite altimetry data also shows statistically significant acceleration is sea level rise, so it’s quite a stretch to suggest that there is no such evidence.
As I commented at the time, the DOE report presented a very selective view of climate change, but the sea level rise chapter was notably egregious in that regard: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/07/the-doe-scientific-report-underpinning-the-epas-decision-to-reconsider-the-2009-endangerment-finding-on-co2/#comment-1709716
Thanks. I will read your comments. And to clarify, the dispute is not over the whether average sea level is rising. It is whether that rise is accelerating.
Thomas Hagedorn
I’m watching sea level data from PSMSL tide gauge and NOAA satellite data since 2017, and process PSMSL data with own software since 2019.
*
The first paper I read about acceleration in sea level rise was from Sönke Dangendor & al.:
Reassessment of 20th century global mean sea level rise
Sönke Dangendorf, Marta Marcos, Guy Wöppelmann, and Riccardo Riva (2017)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616007114
In the paper, Dangendorf & al. showed a sea level rise acceleration since the 1960s.
*
It became so interesting that I tried to produce a own layman version of their professional work which was updated all the years long.
*
Later on, I read
The causes of sea-level rise since 1900
Thomas Frederikse, Felix Landerer, Lambert Caron, Surendra Adhikari, David Parkes, Vincent W. Humphrey, Sönke Dangendorf, Peter Hogarth, Laure Zanna, Lijing Cheng & Yun-Hao Wu (2020)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2591-3
*
My latest comparison of all the results (in 2025):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Or0jeeNG9Or1dPvxzb48QtrsUgeNE8GJ/view
*
Better than thousand words is a comparison of 5-year distant running trends, from 1900-2015 till 1995-2015:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unX9nvORdkmSipb22DfldIGRT-U3n5BE/view
If there was no sea level rise acceleration, all lines in the graph woulds be flat (my acceleration rate is the lowest of all).
*
Now about the US coasts, here is an early evaluation of the East coast (2023):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sAZrQAVqBxoju_RGdYH9qdFj5ZOc9941/view
The variant with VLM correction shows a much lower trend because most of the East coast is dominated by subsidence aka land sinking.
Sea level rise (2) – Charles Ritter posted a critical response to one of the recent articles about accelerating sea levels in Whatsupwiththat 3 months ago. He makes some pretty cogent and funny comments.
The debate is effectively over.
Clean energy has won on both economic and strategic grounds, and the global energy transition is now likely to accelerate far faster than most observers expected.
Future historians may well look back on the disastrously conceived and poorly managed Iran war as the geopolitical shock that finally forced the world to confront the fundamental vulnerability of fossil fuel dependence.
What is unfolding now is not primarily a moral awakening over climate change. Rather, it is the realization that an energy system built around oil chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz represents a profound national-security liability.
Until recently, the expansion of solar, wind, EVs, and grid-scale battery storage was justified largely in terms of decarbonization and the avoidance of catastrophic warming. That justification has now been joined, and perhaps overtaken, by considerations of energy security, supply-chain resilience, and strategic independence.
Once nations begin to view renewable energy infrastructure as a matter of national defense rather than environmental preference, the political and economic dynamics change completely.
The resulting transition will not be temporary. It will be structural, global, and extraordinarily powerful.
Welcome to reality, Ark.
Yes, we need energy. The more the better. Drill baby drill.
But don’t worry about “catastrophic warming”, that’s all cult nonsense like this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743805
Wow, we couldn’t be further apart in our views of the impact of the Iran War/Hormuz closing. What governments, what news outlets confirm your predictions? I read the Wall Sfreet Journal daily. I watch Bloomberg News for about 15 minutes every day to get caught up on investments, economics and government. I watch a couple business shows on Saturday mornings. Do you have any specifics that support your views?
Based on your reading habits, I’m sure you’ve already seen Adnoc CEO Sultan al-Jaber’s comments:
As I’m sure, you already know, ADNOC is among the top 10 largest integrated energy companies globally by both production volume and proven reserves.
Well, 10 solid reasons why the K-T “energy” diagram is trash is enough. In REAL science, even one reason would be enough. Here, the focus was only on the diagram, not the “paper” itself. I’ll leave the “paper” for another day, or another person. There are glaring errors in it also.
The general public needs to understand that there are huge problems in the GHE nonsense. Unfortunately, the simple basics are unknown to most people. Here are some things to watch for:
1. There still is no viable description/definition of the “greenhouse effect”. Claiming CO2 “traps heat” (as NASA does) just doesn’t cut it, for adults. In science, it’s necessary to provide valid science, and not keep changing it, especially while claiming the “science is settled”!
2. The concept of a “black body” is misused throughout the cult. As there is no such thing. Certain objects can get close, having a very high emissivity, especially as they approach 0K. But even in such rare cases, they do NOT violate 2LoT.
3. The concept of “Top of Atmosphere” (TOA) is misused in the cult “science”. There is no consistent altitude for the TOA. And beyond that, there are no independent verifications for any data there.
4. “Radiative forcing” is another term found repeatedly in the CO2 nonsense. But, it is seldom REAL science. For example, photon absorp.tion is NOT “radiative forcing” if the photon can not cause a temperature increase. The flux from an ice cube is NOT “radiative forcing” to a cup of hot water.
5. Other things to be wary of are the calculated values from treating Earth as an imaginary sphere, like “255K”, “240 W/m²”, and especially the bogus “33K”.
” Manabe was one of the scam artists who put forward such theories based on unvalidated climate models. He obviously had little or no understanding of basic physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics. ”
*
Dr. Syukuro “Suki” Manabe is a Nobel Prize-winning Japanese-American meteorologist and climatologist.
What the heck is this arrogant and ignorant pseudo-engineer Robertson compared to Manabe?
*
Especially when we read for the umpteenth time his stupid claim, posted on May 14, 2026 at 2:38 AM:
” Above, he [means me, Bindidon] claimed to have explained anomalies to me yet when I presented my understanding, that completely paralleled the definition of NOAA, Binny still could not understand anomalies. ”
OMG… I’ll never forget his tremendous inability to understand that no, anomalies do not work ONLY as described by NOAA for Robertson-like wannabees:
Anomalies vs. Temperature
” In climate studies, temperature anomalies are often more useful than absolute temperatures. A temperature anomaly is the difference between the observed temperature and a baseline average temperature. This baseline is usually calculated by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data for a specific location.
A positive anomaly means the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly means the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline. ”
*
His appeal to NOAA’s authority led him already years ago to a few unbelievably astute statements.
Here two of them, posted
– on September 13, 2022 at 5:59 PM:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
” The NOAA graph shows 8 years of global temps above 0.8C, including 2022, from 2015 – 2022, while UAH shows nothing close to that. ”
– on May 1, 2023 at 4:06 PM:
” You have had the temerity in the past to post graphs showing UAH and NOAA in lock-step. “.
*
With ‘lock-step’, he meant this:
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
which was in clear contradiction to what he thought be the reality:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
because he had not considered what was missing in NOAA’s description, namely that anomalies can be accurately compared only if they were constructed with respect to the same reference period (while UAH’s is 1991-2020, NOAA’s is here 1901-2000, what gave of course much higher anomalies).
*
Finally, though having been often enough shown this major info
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Robertson (who never generated any anomaly series out of any absolute data) also never understood what Roy Spencer and all other scientists understand with ‘annual cycle removal’, and how that differs from NOAA’s trivial description:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view
*
Yet Robertson never learns, never admits to being wrong, and — to the point of tedium — constantly falls back on his utter nonsense.
phi at 2:44 PM
Your ratio of confidence to understanding is off the charts:
“…we don’t have an instrument to isolate two opposing irradiance fluxes. The notion of net flux is a regrettable inaccuracy in language.”
“You are concealing the fact that I have always spoken of direct measurement to illustrate your error. One can only directly measure a heat flux.”
And let’s not forget the “general framework” and the “radiative forcing is thus a pseudoscientific notion” obfuscations.
binny…is even more of a miserable, old wannabee kraut these days. I’m OK saying that because being a Scot I refer to myself as an oatmeal savage and/or a haggis basher.
He is still harping on about anomalies when it is equally apparent what they are.
https://tinyurl.com/yjtzthb8
The bone of contention seems to be my claim that a positive anomaly means that anomaly is warmer than average. Exactly what NOAA claims at the link above. I mean, this is simple stuff, yet Binny is struggling with it.
Expanding Roy’s graph at top of page, one can see plainly that the 1979 anomaly was -0.4C below the baseline, which is zero. In fact most anomalies were below the baseline at that time and UAH explained it as cooling due to two different volcanic aerosol actions.
It needs to be understood that the anomalies are relative only to the range 1979 till present but based on the 1991 – 2020, 30-year average baseline. That is 0C on the graph is the 1991 – 2020 average. They do not apply to a temperature record with a different baseline.
Binny often likes to compare the UAH record to NOAA even though they have vastly different baselines. He does it here…
https://postimg.cc/PP8Nfnvz
The NOAA baseline is 1901 – 2000 whereas the UAH baseline as shown in Binny’s cartoon graph is 1991 – 2020.
Binny tries to slide this by us, hoping we won’t notice his sleight of hand. Not only are the baselines vastly different, the NOAA graph is based on fudged data wherein NOAA has liberally altered past temperatures to reflect the AGW meme.
Here is a typical NOAA surface temperature graph. Note how it has a constant positive slope from 1979 0nward whereas the UAH graph shows cooling period till 1998 followed by an 18 year flat trend till about 2015. Following the 2016 EN there is another 6 year flat trend.
https://www.climate.gov/graph-dashboard-global-average-surface-temperature
This graph is pushed by NOAA even though the IPCC declared a flat trend from 1998 – 2012. NOAA used to show that flat trend, albeit at a reduced scale, then they retroactively added a trend by re-fudging the SST. You can see the IPCC flat trend, and more, in the UAH graph.
No comparison whatsoever except in Binny’s imagination.
binny… is still harping on about anomalies when it is equally apparent what they are.
https://tinyurl.com/yjtzthb8
The bone of contention seems to be my claim that a positive anomaly means that anomaly is warmer than average. Exactly what NOAA claims at the link above. I mean, this is simple stuff, yet Binny is struggling with it.
Expanding Roy’s graph at top of page, one can see plainly that the 1979 anomaly was -0.4C below the baseline, which is zero. In fact most anomalies were below the baseline at that time and UAH explained it as cooling due to two different volcanic aerosol actions.
It needs to be understood that the anomalies are relative only to the range 1979 till present but based on the 1991 – 2020, 30-year average baseline. That is 0C on the graph is the 1991 – 2020 average. They do not apply to a temperature record with a different baseline.
Binny often likes to compare the UAH record to NOAA even though they have vastly different baselines. He does it here…
https://postimg.cc/PP8Nfnvz
The NOAA baseline is 1901 – 2000 whereas the UAH baseline as shown in Binny’s cartoon graph is 1991 – 2020.
Binny tries to slide this by us, hoping we won’t notice his sleight of hand. Not only are the baselines vastly different, the NOAA graph is based on fudged data wherein NOAA has liberally altered past temperatures to reflect the AGW meme.
Here is a typical NOAA surface temperature graph. Note how it has a constant positive slope from 1979 0nward whereas the UAH graph shows cooling period till 1998 followed by an 18 year flat trend till about 2015. Following the 2016 EN there is another 6 year flat trend.
https://www.climate.gov/graph-dashboard-global-average-surface-temperature
This graph is pushed by NOAA even though the IPCC declared a flat trend from 1998 – 2012. NOAA used to show that flat trend, albeit at a reduced scale, then they retroactively added a trend by re-fudging the SST. You can see the IPCC flat trend, and more, in the UAH graph.
No comparison whatsoever except in Binny’s imagination.
Last month I wrote:
“Let’s do a thought experiment…
Question: Assuming that from now on “the earth doesn’t lose energy to space” as bill hunter and others say, what will its temperature be in 1 billion years?
Answer: 288 + 800,000 = 800,288 K.
QED”
To which Clint R has just replied with:
My stalker doesn’t understand that, without outgoing infrared flux carrying information about Earth’s rising temperature, the Sun never “sees” a hotter Earth.
The energy flow is strictly one-way with no compensating return flux.
And here’s where I corrected Ark, again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1744399
My guess is he could be mostly cured with a couple of years of proper therapy.
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen Bill Hunter say the Earth doesn’t lose energy to space.
Lucky you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1743710
Willard,
He’s right. Would the planet be warming if it was losing energy to space?
How about your oven, Stephen: are you suggesting it doesn’t lose energy to its environment when it’s on?
In fact, aren’t you suggesting it cannot?
All that is demonstrated here is that if there’s a way to misrepresent someone – no matter how absurd the straw man – they will do it. Do they really think bill was suggesting the Earth doesn’t emit!? For crying out loud. In full context his comment reads that the Earth is constantly seeking equilibrium, input equalling output, and so it doesn’t lose net energy to space. But, the gang wants to point and laugh at bill, so the gang just attacks the most ludicrous straw man imaginable…
Graham D. Warner should stop stalking and whining, and take it down-thread instead.
Willard is obviously bored today.
I am putting this here so it will get attention. We get this from a science denier:
“For instance, the temperature difference from the base of Mauna Loa to the summit is due to atmospheric pressure and not radiative forcing. Only one can be right. Which is it?”
That is the most classic of all classic mistakes in science. The very simple answer is that more than one thing can happen at the same time. The atmosphere is complex. Atmospheric science is complex. It is that complexity that makes climate modeling difficult, not some mysterious flaw in the basic science.
I will have more later.
It is difficult to tell whether the science deniers are just as dumb as they seem or playing dumb games. The more troubling option is that they are actually alarmists trying to discredit skepticism.
The fact remains that the science deniers make the alarmists task much easier. The best way to defeat the science deniers is to simply demonstrate that the basic science is correct. In that way, it is any easy extension to claim that skepticism is wrong because it relies on science denial.
The reality is that it is not necessary to deny the basic science of radiant heat transfer (yes, heat), or the greenhouse effect, even if the name “greenhouse” is not correct, to refute the major claims of climate change. The climate models are not based on pure science. They are calibrated by circular logic. If one assumes that all recent warming is due to increasing CO2, it is easy to calibrate the models that way.
There are other problems with climate change claims. No, the “recent study” is not correct if it is based on incorrect assumptions. No, weather variability is not “evidence of climate change”. No, media hysteria is not science. No, there is not a consensus of any kind. Even the climate models, and therefore the climate modellers themselves, have significant disagreements.
There are many ways to criticize climate hysteria. Attacking basic settled science is not one of those ways.
Tim,
I’m glad you’re starting to see the flaws in GHT. You’re right, the climate is very complicated. But the reason for the temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa is pressure. However, there are IR active gases in the atmosphere. And heat is transported up in the atmosphere through conduction, convection and radiation. The surface heats the atmosphere. That’s a fact. However, read Dan Pangburn’s site. The most predominant IR active gas in the atmosphere is water, by far. But as soon as radiant energy is absorb=ed, it is thermalized instead of spontaneous emission, at about a 50000 to 1 rate. The sensible is then carried up into the atmosphere where some of it eventually reaches IR active gases where spontaneous emission to outer space occurs when thermalization is low enough. So, the surface is warmed from the Sun, the atmosphere is warmed by the surface, IR active gases radiate energy in the upper atmosphere to space, some of the IR energy passes right through the atmosphere to space, gravity enhances the warming at the surface from hydrostatic compression of the atmosphere, and the lapse rate is caused by pressure difference from surface to altitude. Radiative forcing does not occur. CO2 is a wonderful life-giving gas.
This is more nonsense from you. The fact that you were defeated in a science discussion by Willard says it all.
Tim,
So, when Willard asked me off topic about radiative shielding and super insulation, he won the discussion? The discussion about the lapse rate was won by questions about radiative shielding? Can you put two and two together for me?
As if your question about lapse rate was germane to TS’ point about flux, Stephen…
It was germane because he is the one claiming that we’re science deniers so he shouldn’t have any problems answering questions about the lapse rate. I had no problem answering your questions about radiation shielding although they weren’t pertinent to the topic. My questions were.
First Stephen 6:39 pm writes there IS radiative forcing: “heat is transported up in the atmosphere through…radiation.”
Then Stephen writes there is NO radiative forcing: “Radiative forcing does not occur.”
It is apparent Stephen hasn’t accomplished enough studies in the field about which Stephen is writing.
B4,
Be careful, Tim will claim you wore me out in a debate. Question: How is the atmosphere warmed?
> he is the one claiming that we’re science deniers so he shouldn’t have any problems answering questions
That’s not how topicality works, Stephen, otherwise your insinuation that you know better about physics than physicists might allow me to ask you to tell me what you know about the conductivity of superinsulators!
TS was talking about “radiant heat transfer”: how is that related to Berry’s pet theory?
My argument goes to the heart of the topic of Greenhouse Theory which is the purpose of this board. Either the lapse rate is caused by pressure, or it is caused by Greenhouse gases. Can’t be both. Which is it? He claims we’re the science deniers. Answer the question.
stephen 7:47 am, a planetary atmosphere is essentially warmed over many annual periods by measured SW, measured LW radiation, & cooled by measured LW radiation close to steady state equilibrium.
stephen should work to accomplish enough studies in the field about which stephen is writing to not have to ask such a question.
“My argument goes to the heart of the topic of Greenhouse Theory”
That might explain why it’s main thing you talk about and why you feel entitled to peddle it in just about every single substhread!
That still does not mean it’s related to heat transfer, which is what TS was talking about.
B4,
That’s a non-answer. What causes the air in the atmosphere to warm? What causes the temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa?
10:38 am: Weather causes the temperature differences between the base and summit of Mauna Loa and the air to warm and cool.
stephen needs to study up on field of meteorology to understand climate answers.
Willard,
If GHT cannot explain the lapse rate, then it isn’t correct.
Another problem with GHT is that it doesn’t conform to the First Law of Thermodynamics, Q = U + W. The Earth receives radiant heat from the Sun. The radiant heat from the Sun raises the internal energy of the system plus it does work. Where is the work in GHT? It doesn’t exist.
Stephen,
If you can’t meet what Tim says squarely on heat transfer, then you’re peddling an irrelevant talking point.
That is something you must know since elementary school.
“stephen needs to study up on field of meteorology to understand climate answers.”
B4,
Doesn’t weather change?
B4,
You’re not helping the GHT cause.
Yes, Stephen, as pointed out, you should have learned weather changes the air temperature. This is a climate blog so studying up on meteorology will improve your comments on climate.
B4,
What is the reason for the temperature difference between the summit of Mt. Everest and Katmandu?
Some comments about Clint R’s completely stupid,incoherent and incompetent posts about the energy budget published long time ago by Trenberth / Fasullo / Kiehl
Part 1
*
Clint R is as much an engineer as is Robertson; if he was one, he never would write nonsense like
” 1. Radiative flux is NOT energy. ”
Of course it is NOT! Radiative flux (or radiant flux density) is power per area.
The energy produced within a year by an electricity generation plant is obtained by multiplying the plant’s power (e.g. 900 MW) by the period expressed in hours (8760 resp. 8784 for leap years) and the load factor (e.g. 0.75) giving for a nonleap year an energy of 5.913 TWh per year.
Well, the terrestrial radiant energy output to space is obtained in the same way.
*
And if Clint R was an engineer, he would search for data related to OLR at TOA, instead of writing nonsense he heard at some GHE denial podcast, e.g.
” 5. The “235 W/m²” (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) is bogus. ”
Instead, he would find this:
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/cdr#UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/
He would then choose for example the year 2025:
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/cdr/UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/OLR-Daily_v02r00_s20250101_e20251231.nc
*
This NetCDF file any technically educated person can dump into a text file containing 365 1 degree grids (180*360 cells with values in W/m²), and process it.
As always, such grids are ‘flat Earth’ rectangles, and must be converted into spherical data by calculating the grid cells’ surface according to their latitude to obtain their respective power.
The radiant energy lost by Earth out to space, computed out of the 365 grids for 2025 is
1,076,426,018 TWh
This corresponds to an average radiant flux density of
240.37 W/m².
For 2024: 1,076,665,779 TWh and 240.42 W/m²; for 2023: 1,075,935,374 TWh and 240.26 W/m².
Nota bene in between: the 235 W/m² wasn’t bogus; as we can see, it’s just plain outdated.
*
The result looks like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mQvG04c6yHJCQH9PvAYxkbyj-lep7Cmg/view
*
But, but… Bindidon ‘kennt seine Pappenheimer’, as Krauts love to say, and he anticipates that ball-on-a-string genius Clint R might brazenly claim:
” Oh look how naive this Bindi is… He doesn’t understand that the bogus 240 W/m² he obtained is simply due to all the bogus W/m² in the entire grid data he thought he would find the truth in. ”
*
It is so pleasant, so practical, to be a pseudo-skeptic: one can discredit everything without refuting it, and be proud of it, isn’t it?
” We ‘True Skeptics’ don’t need to disprove anything, our doubt is proof enough! “.
Look for example at what the Hunter boy wrote a thread earlier:
” … 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. ”
Did I ever read anything dumber about Earth’s energy behavior? Not sure.
***
More to follow as soon as I have time again.
Bindi, I almost feel sorry for you. You’re just throwing crap at the wall, hoping something will stick. None of it does!
Your links are pathetic and don’t even work. You haven’t correctly identified your elevations. And your calculations don’t make sense.
I’d like to help you, but like I do with Norman, you need to drop the insults and false accusations.
Grow up, and I’ll try to teach you some science.
I’m not suprised about
” Your links are pathetic and don’t even work. ”
Apparently, genius Clint R did not click on the link showing my results:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mQvG04c6yHJCQH9PvAYxkbyj-lep7Cmg/view
That the other links suddenly don’t work since May 21, 2026 at 5:37 PM is not my fault.
*
Even at NOAA, things suddenly disappear since the worldwide worst president of any country since WW II is busy with making at least half of the US poorer than ever.
*
Even the data crawled on Feb 5 by ‘Save Page Now’ is not present:
https://web.archive.org/web/20260205182453/https://archive.data.noaa.gov/cdr#UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/
Only the links to the main CDR pages work:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00875
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/outgoing-longwave-radiation-daily/access/
but the link I found in ‘README.txt’ no longer does – at least right now at 12:11 UTC+2.
Incredible.
*
What remains is that the terrestrial energy budget — despite Clint R’s foolish attempts to make it appear incorrect — is fully accurate.
Clint R would never be able to technically contradict what I did.
*
So let us leave the ‘genius’ Clint R behind, along with his pathological urge for nonsensical, childish remarks — such as “insults and false accusations”, “Grow up”, etc etc.
He is, after all, best known for repeatedly insulting hundreds of scientists — who have been engaged in astronomy for centuries (starting with Newton himself) — by woefully labeling them “astrologers”.
Bindi, you seem to be in competition to be the biggest blog-clogger here. And like your other competitors, you understand none of the science.
Your “graph” is invalid because you can’t directly measure Earth’s entire energy emission from satellites. You MUST use several estimates, conversions, and calculations to come up with a value which then becomes meaningless if you attempt to convert it to “W/m²”. And, you’re unwilling/unable to learn why.
You’re over impressed with your own incompetence, which you believe reveals technical skills. Back in the day, our group had to do a monthly report for the VP. I hated the worthless process. One day our secretary heard me complaining and said “Let me do the report!”
Without hesitation, I offered her about an hour of training as to how to download the data and convert it into Excel graphs. She was a smart lady, wanted to become a tech writer, and learned quickly. She took my intro training to a new level by learning all of the features of Excel to make really great, readable graphs even a VP could understand. About a month later, the VP came back to my office and raved about the graphs in the report. I told him Diane had done them, which made it much easier for him to approve a big raise for her at her next review.
You don’t have a clue about the science here, and can’t even make readable graphs. So you try to make up for it with excuses, insults, and false accusations.
Grow up, and I’ll try to teach you some science.
Bindidon,
Those IR satellites don’t measure energy coming from the Earth’s surface just like a portable IR temperature gun doesn’t measure energy coming from a surface. It is calibrated to wavelength, but it isn’t measuring W/m^2. There’s no way it could. You could write algorithms based on a mathematical model, but the whole Greenhouse model is a model based on assumptions. The lapse rate falsifies the model.
I wrote above:
” Yet Robertson never learns, never admits to being wrong, and — to the point of tedium — constantly falls back on his utter nonsense. ”
*
No chance to get him learning anything! Look at the confused nonsense he writes:
” It needs to be understood that the anomalies are relative only to the range 1979 till present but based on the 1991 – 2020, 30-year average baseline.
That is 0C on the graph is the 1991 – 2020 average. They do not apply to a temperature record with a different baseline.
Binny often likes to compare the UAH record to NOAA even though they have vastly different baselines. ”
*
Unbelievable: he still didn’t get it!
Maybe this helps here – I’m not sure, however…
*
1. A chart comparing NOAA’s Globe data in anomalies wrt the mean of 1901-2000 to UAH 6.1 LT data in anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N9S1pa_aqJFqtP9HpoeYcZ79zZZtv3Sm/view
The average of all UAH anomalies within UAH’s reference period (between Jan 1991 and Dec 2020) is: 0.0.
But since NOAA’s anomalies were computed within NOAA’s reference period (between Jan 1901 and Dec 2000), the average of all NOAA anomalies within UAH’s reference period (between Jan 1991 and Dec 2020) is NOT 0.0, but: 0.61.
*
To accurately compare NOAA and UAH wrt UAH’s reference period therefore implies to displace all NOAA anomalies by… 0.61:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyO0hcJAPxAqhYTudtKRfzczUybQj4TI/view
**
2. A chart comparing, for Robertson’s hometown Vancouver,
– NOAA’s Climate at a Glance for the coordinates 49N – 123 W (generated by NOAA wrt the mean of 1991-2020)
– UAH 6.1 LT’s grid cell above Vancouver
– my generation of GHCN daily data wrt the mean of 1991-2020 as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ObiXxRbOOVa-A0g1kX6KxTWx-Av3gDCh/view
*
No no no! It’s not me who ‘had the temerity to show NOAA and UAH in lock-step’.
It’s NOAA and no one else: all time series for single coordinates are generated in anomaly form wrt the mean of 1991-2020.
*
Now, imagine I would have made the mistake of generating the GHCN daily time series wrt the mean of 1951-1980, instead of 1991-2020.
Then, the same graph would look like this instead:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GvSHHxWFVVEfq-uVp7_mC13NHD9DVduB/view
*
A last point a propos ‘baseline’.
Robertson really thinks that UAH’s baseline is the ‘zero line’ on all UAH graphs.
This is wrong.
When generating anomalies with annual cycle removal, the baseline is the selective average over a reference period of all absolute values.
Selective in the sense that e.g. in monthly time series, all baseline months are separately averaged; in daily time series, all days, etc.
This is UAH 6.1 LT’s 12 month baseline for the Globe:
….Kelvin…°C
Jan 263.179 -9.97
Feb 263.268 -9.88
Mar 263.427 -9.72
Apr 263.843 -9.31
Mai 264.448 -8.70
Jun 265.099 -8.05
Jul 265.418 -7.73
Aug 265.233 -7.92
Sep 264.637 -8.51
Oct 263.944 -9.21
Nov 263.405 -9.75
Dec 263.191 -9.96
Each monthly anomaly is obtained out of its absolute source by subtracting the value in the corresponding month of the baseline from the absolute source.
If Robertson had read Roy Spencer’s 2016 thread about absolute data and anomalies, he probably would understand this a bit better.
But…
binny…”Robertson really thinks that UAH’s baseline is the ‘zero line’ on all UAH graphs.
This is wrong.
When generating anomalies with annual cycle removal, the baseline is the selective average over a reference period of all absolute values”.
***
Binny loves to deceive by talking in ancient tongues and using logic of that ancient day.
Along the y-axis on the graph we can read, “T Departure from ’91 – ’20 Average (deg C)”. Obviously, T means Temperature. Since the anomaly is defined by NOAA as the departure from a long term average, one might presume Roy is referring to 0C on the graph as the long term average from which the anomalies on the graph are departing.
I am not interested in how they calculated that long term average, I am interested only in Roy’s claim that 0C is that long term average.
Here Monty Python exposes the logic of climate alarmists and Binny. It is the witch scene from The Holy Grail, and King Arthur’s soon to be knight has come upon a mob intent on burning a witch.
You can be sure that had climate alarmists existed in those sorry days, they’d be leading the campaign against witches and scientists like Galileo and Copernicus.
The movie version…
https://tinyurl.com/5bd99vub
script…
https://www.qedcat.com/moviemath/holy_grail.html
I could swear I saw some current members of NOAA and NASA GISS in the mob. Binny was most definitely in the mob.
binny…takes a shot at Clint, claiming “Radiative flux (or radiant flux density) is power per area”. Then he goes on to compare flux to electric power. Electric power generators don’t have a lot in common with the flux we are discussing here. They use magnetic flux produced by varying electric currents in armature or stator coils, but the electrical power generated is not related to flux fields as we are discussing them here.
The power in electric generators comes from electrons in the windings of the generator coils. That current can be converted to mechanical work by various means. The flux we are discussing is produced in the Sun via thermonuclear activity after being converted from heat via electrons and protons. As it moves through space as a flux, it has no power. The power is realized only after the EM is converted to another form of energy that can do work.
I get what Clint is saying and I don’t disagree with him entirely. One can safely claim that flux is not energy per se, rather it is a mathematical reference to energy. There has to be something passing through an area at a certain rate. The best we can do as humans is theorize what is passing through, how strong it is relatively, and what form it takes (EM).
In order to have power, we need a force acting over a distance. Power is a measure of mechanical energy and of no other energy. It is being used in reference to heat, electricity, and EM only through equivalences, not equalities.
Radiative flux is simply a mathematical expression of some rate of radiative flow through an area. As such, radiative flow means electromagnetic energy. We have to specify what the mathematical measurement means. If the measure is the amount of electromagnetic energy flowing through the area per unit time, that measure mathematically is defined as flux. Newton defined it as such, as fluxions.
We can run a current through a resistance and claim power indirectly (equivalence). Heat represented is still an equivalent since heat was demonstrated by the physicist Joule to have an equivalence based on the number of calories of heat that could be produced in water by a small rotating paddle. The point is, heat should not be equated to the work that can be produced by heat since they have nothing in common as energies.
There is no one-to-one equality between the heat in calories and the mechanical energy in joules delivered to the paddle. That is, the heat is produced when the paddle breaks weak hydrogen bonds in water molecules, releasing the bond energy as heat. The joules of work to rotate the paddle are not related to the heat released from breaking water molecule bonds. The heat is not produced by the work put into the paddle but as a byproduct of it.
I am hesitant about referring to a heat flow as flux since we have no idea what is flowing and how it is enabled. We know that heat travels through a solid via electrons but can that be classed as a field, or a flux?
With magnetic flux, we can visualize it in a way by placing a magnet under a piece of paper and sprinkling iron filings on the paper. The filings align themselves with something that resembles a field of some sort. The field even appears to be composed of lines. We might presume from that visualization that electromagnetic energy takes a similar form as a field. That’s because electric currents somehow produce magnetic fields, and when alternating at a high enough frequency, can generate EM fields into space.
I think it ingenuous and distracting to use units of mechanical energy like watts to describe energies like heat and especially electromagnetic energy. Neither heat nor EM have power on their own, the power being equated to the effect heat or EM can have on mass as a motivating effect.
Heat in steam can definitely create mechanical power through expansion and moving a piston, and EM fields in electric motors can affect rotating loads to produce mechanical power. Neither heat nor EM can do that without some intervening activity.
Remember, power is a mechanical measure of the work done by a force acting on a mass. The horsepower, or watt, are related to the initial muscular force in a horse. If heat or EM can ultimately be converted to mechanical energy, they can be stated in terms of work but only as an equivalent. EM itself, or heat, cannot do work without a change in energy form.
It’s a complex situation since we have no idea of what energy is as a phenomenon but we have defined different forms of energy based on how energy acts wrt particles (heat), macro masses (work), chemicals interactions (chemical energy), etc. We have to be careful when using the word energy as a generic energy.
tim s whines to Stephen, I think, who I think claimed…
“For instance, the temperature difference from the base of Mauna Loa to the summit is due to atmospheric pressure and not radiative forcing. Only one can be right. Which is it?”
In reply, Tim offers one of the biggest loads of bafflegab I have encountered in posts.
“That is the most classic of all classic mistakes in science. The very simple answer is that more than one thing can happen at the same time. The atmosphere is complex. Atmospheric science is complex. It is that complexity that makes climate modeling difficult, not some mysterious flaw in the basic science”.
Straight out of the notebook of Gavin Schmidt trying to explain positive feedback, fumbling all the way.
***
Tim evaded Stephen’s claim, who is correct. There is nothing else in the atmosphere can account for a diminishing temperature proportional to a diminishing pressure. Rising heat, via convection cannot explain it and nothing in radiative physics can explain it, although they do try.
Tim fails to grasp that pressure and temperature are based on the number of molecules in air and their kinetic energies. If the pressure reduces, it can only mean the volume has increased or the number of molecules have decreased along with their kinetic energies.
Temperature as well is based on the number of molecules and their kinetic energies. If the number of molecules decrease and their kinetic energies, temperatures will drop naturally.
The difference between pressure and temperature is that pressure is the average force exerted by a gas on the container walls, while temperature is the average kinetic energy of the same molecules. They are always directly proportional. High molecular KE means high pressure/temperature whereas lower molecular KE means lower pressure/temperature.
The reduction in both pressure and temperature with altitude is based entirely on the diminishing gravitational field. The field is strong near the surface and gradually decreases with the square of the distance from the surface.
Why some atmospheric scientists have managed to screw up such simple physics is beyond me. If you listen to them they’ll have you believe that rising heat via convection causes cooling at higher elevations.
Tim has emphasized in a following post that radiation is the same as heat. Even though radiation is essentially a different form of energy, he, like other alarmists, somehow believe they are one and the same, going so far as to call the combo ‘radiative heat’.
That term is an oxymoron. I have resisted the urge of relating morons to climate alarmists. Methinks I am getting soft in my old age.
Try harder! This is a very weak effort. You failed to quote Clausius or fall back on any of your other dishonest fantasies. Actually, you are just a garden variety pest. Being creative and dishonest at the same time is not really a genuine skill. Any fool can do that. For you, it fulfills your desire be a complete pest. Congratulations! I have stronger words, but that would give you too much attention. I have to admit that I am amused that Bindidon is so dumb he cannot figure out what you are doing. You guys are two peas in a pod.
I want to give Richard M full credit for this incredibly dumb comment below. No, being arrogant and obnoxious does not make a dumb comment correct. Claiming to understand physics, and then misstating it, is just dumb commentary. Sorry!
“Tim S: “The fundamental science is entirely correct …”.
Which version of the science are you talking about? Initially, the GHE warmed the surface by reemitting half of the energy it traps back to the surface. Oops, that one didn’t pan out. Turns out 99.999% of the energy is passed on to other molecules.
So, next up was the enhanced greenhouse effect which was supposed to raise the emission altitude. Nope, the only place the emission altitude increases is at the edges of the main spectral bands. Not really relevant.
Finally, we get to the only actual mechanism. Energy is absorbed due to pressure broadening. All would be fine except for this little thing called physics. This is only part of a much bigger picture which complete negates this potential warming. Too bad you stopped looking at science. The answer was always there.
The final answer is not “cause warming of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans”. The final answer is a slight increase of precipitation. You know, exactly what plants need when they get more CO2.”
For those who are a bit slow or have not been paying attention, I will explain the greenhouse effect one more time. Every molecule in the entire universe is, at all times, emitting thermal radiation depending on its spectrum and its temperature. The spectrum is a result of various bond angles and lengths that resonate. As such, these molecules are able to absorb radiation, but only at the same frequencies or wave lengths that they emit.
There it is. Everything else is a complexity, and there are many. Other effects such as pressure changes and lapse rates do not change the radiant character of the molecules. Solids and liquids produce a surface effect and gases behave in an omnidirectional manner.
Heat is transferred any time there is a change in temperature of the molecule. That is the definition of heat transfer. It should not be confused with the radiant energy that is always and continuously emitted. The effect is made complex (there is that word again) in the gas phase by the kinetic theory of gases, but it is not erased — it is shared with its neighbors.
People who want to argue this are free to do so, but without my participation. Your argument is with every physics text book ever written, not with me.
So Tim S, because all molecules absorb, that’s your GHE?
I don’t think even the cult kids would agree with that nonsense.
You seem to be in your own cult, much like gordon. You have no knowledge of the science involved, so you attack everyone. You don’t really fit the pattern of a cult kid. You’re more like an angry drunk.
Maybe when you sober up I can try to teach you some physics.
You are a disgrace. That is actually a kind and gentle comment within the context of the freedoms allowed by Dr Spencer on his website to tolerate people who wish to be disruptive and make a fool of themselves in the process.
Why all the hatred, Tim S? Is it your upbringing? Is it your lack of education? Is it your alcoholism?
Why do you feel compelled to attack everyone?
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-1743710
Do you caution this because you’re a disgrace?
Tim S, let’s do some science. This problem has been provided before, so you should already know the answers:
Part 1: A flat plate is in deep space. The plate is so thin that only its front and back faces need to be considered, and it has emissivity of 1. The plate receives 1000 W/m² on its front face only. What temperature will it reach?
Part 2: After the plate has reached its maximum temperature, a second source provides 300 W/m² to the back face. What temperature will result?
Prove you know more than a stalking cult child.
Here’s Tim thinking he is speaking from authority.
Well, it appears Tim S has “left the building”.
More likely, he’s left the city.
He obviously has no clue about any of the relevant science. Like the other cult kids, he only knows how to use his keyboard.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of radiative physics should be able to solve Part 1. When the plate warms to its maximum temperature, based on the 1000 W/m² incoming, it will be emitting 500 W/m² from both sides. From the S/B Law, we know that the emission temperature would then be 306.4K.
Even beginners should be able to answer that basic problem. There are even online calculators that can do the algebra for you. Anyone here that cannot answer such a basic question, should not be commenting….
Now, Part 2 brings things to a new level. To answer correctly, one would have to understand the intricacies of both radiative physics and thermodynamics. The plate is emitting 500 W/m², so it can NOT absorb a lesser flux. The 300 W/m² would be reflected, having NO effect on the temperature of the plate. But the cult can’t accept that basic fact because it destroys their cult belief in the CO2 nonsense.
Watch for long keyboard sessions filled with insults and false accusations.
Clint,
In real science, it doesn’t matter where you start, so
You must get the same answer to your problem if you start with 300 watts/m^2 and then add the 1000 watts/m^2.
Try teaching real science, if you know any.
You would get the same answer in any order, bob.
Stalking me 3 days late didn’t work for you this time, huh?
Clint R
In case one each side is emitting 500 Watt/m^2 so the temperature would be 306.4 K
Now case 2 with the added 300 watts/m^2 flux the temperature would go up and reach a steady state at 327.2 K
If you feel strongly (going against all established science and even against engineering math) that the 300 Watt/m^2 will add nothing to your plate you will have to provide valid evidence that your case is the correct one. Just making claims IS NOT SCIENCE at all! You can claim this energy will not have an impact but real science (not belief, based on experimental evidence) says this opinion is false. It is a false claim only made by bloggers on the Internet that have no real background in any valid science. Without evidence anything is possible but not real. So you need to verify your opinions with real world experiments. I have requested multiple times that you create an experiment with your 4 heat lamps around a sphere then you add two more above and below the sphere and measure the temperature of the sphere surface.
Thanks Norman. Let’s see if Tim S gets the same answers as you, or not.
Then we can discuss.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20020078360/downloads/20020078360.pdf
What’s the title of this document?
The cult kids prove me right again.
From the link:
Yes, photons can be easily reflected.
[What will they try next?]
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Doesn’t that imply that a radiation barrier is an insulation method, and what are you blabbing about?
Well, the kid sticks to his same nonsense, “radiation barrier”, not realizing he’s just proving me right, again!
Yes, photons can be easily reflected.
He’d be boring but he just keeps proving me right. So what’s not to like?
Hey Puffman riddle me this:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, 9:27 AM] it’s not “insulation”
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, 9:50 AM] radiative insulation
Which of these Grahams do you prefer, and who are you calling kids, NASA?
Willard, Eli’s plates are blackbodies, thus have zero reflectivity. Thanks for stalking me again.
Hard to tell if Graham D. Warner which is weirder: Gaslighting Graham’s conception of stalking, or his conception of insulation.
You are in a completely different thread, talking to different people, and have started mentioning me by name. Certainly seems like stalking. Certainly seems like I’m “on your mind”. You’re doing much the same thing up-thread.
Gaslighting Graham proves me right once again.
If by “prove you right” you mean “expose you as a stalker”, then sure.
Readers might notice the implausibility of Gaslighting Graham’s if-by-whiskeys, here and in general.
Readers might notice that Willard is a stalker.
Yep, Graham continued.
Yep, Willard stalked.
Astute readers might wonder what “where ordinary insulative methods would not have sufficed” means in the head of Sky Dragon cranks.
Astute readers might wonder why Willard keeps stalking.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
When cooled to its superconducting state, niobium blocks the radiative flow of heat 20 times better than when in its metallic state, according to a study led by a University of Michigan Engineering team. The experiment marks the first use of superconductivity—a quantum property characterized by zero electrical resistance—to control thermal radiation at the nanoscale.
Leveraging this effect, the researchers also experimentally demonstrated a cryogenic thermal diode that rectifies the flow of heat (i.e., the heat flow exhibits a directional preference) by as much as 70%.
https://me.engin.umich.edu/news-events/news/superconductor-phase-transitions-manage-radiative-heat-transfer/
Readers might wonder what “blocks” means here.
Twenty years ago, on May 24, 2006, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” brought climate change into the global mainstream.
Looking back from 2026, the core physical framework presented in the film has been strongly validated by observation.
The film popularized a foundation of empirical climate science that researchers had been developing for decades.
To mark the 20-year anniversary, here are 14 major predictions and diagnostic fingerprints of greenhouse warming that have since been observed:
1/ Global mean surface temperature increased.
2/ Ocean heat content increased.
3/ Winters warmed faster than summers.
4/ Nights warmed faster than days.
5/ The Arctic warmed faster than the global average.
6/ The stratosphere cooled.
7/ Glaciers retreated worldwide.
8/ Arctic sea ice shrank and thinned.
9/ Permafrost thawed.
10/ Ocean pH declined (acidification).
11/ Atmospheric oxygen slowly decreased from fossil-fuel combustion.
12/ Sea level rose.
13/ The atmospheric 13C/12C ratio shifted as expected from fossil-fuel emissions.
14/ The effective emission height of infrared radiation increased as greenhouse gases accumulated.
Models are valuable precisely because observations of the future do not yet exist.
Arklady,
Your comments are very ridiculous at best.
Just choosing your 11th comment “Atmospheric oxygen slowly decreased from fossil-fuel combustion.” I could of easily ridiculed any other of your comments.
Yes it’s factually correct, but not very meaningful. So CO2 has increased by 5 parts per million so oxygen has probably decreased by the same amount. To put this in perspective a person breaths in 0.04% of CO2 and breaths out 4.4%. Not a single person will notice the microscopic change while breathing.
You Arklady are on par with Bindy Goebells for distorting facts into propaganda for your cult.
Anyway, to lighten the mood a joke I heard today:”two socialists are arguing, one calls the other a fascist”
Facts always trigger the ignorant.
StudentDuh,
As RCP 8.5 has been ditched by the IPCC, does seem that a shed load of alarmists research was based on a lie. So that 10,000s of research paper and authors who ought to retract their articles as they have been based on a faulty premise.
Care to bet how many willbe honourable?
My bet is zero, as they just love the funding.
Anon for Q-related reasons,
Glad you mention it:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/05/scenarios-schmenarios/
Bad faith BS is your second nature.
Anon for a reason’s reply at 1:52 PM offers a useful teaching moment.
He first effectively concedes the scientific point by acknowledging that the atmospheric oxygen decline is factually correct.
He then proceeds to attack a strawman argument, that humans would “notice” oxygen loss while breathing; a claim I never made!
Lastly, rather than addressing the scientific substance, he resorts to insults and propaganda accusations. That is not a rebuttal; it’s an attempt to distract from the fact that he has provided no scientific counterargument to the observations I listed.
Many denialists on this blog follow the exact same pattern.
Ark, what you cult kids can’t understand is Earth has been in a natural warming trend since the 1970s. Before that it was in a cooling trend. Next, it will be in a cooling trend again.
So all of your points only verify the current warming trend.
The graph at the top of the comments even verifies the warming trend. Where have you been?
Arklady,
Real world monitoring of CO2 has shown a slight increase over the decades with seasonal fluctuation, it’s not news. It is you who is arguing in bad faith in the same way that Bindy Goebells argues. Real world verse cult theories and models!
I was putting the slight increase of CO2 in perspective, something that your cult fails to do. Plants are thriving and animals don’t notice the CO2 increase. The only organism that it getting bothered about this insignificant increase is the socialists cult. Are you more concerned with the lack of interest in your cults doom mongering or are you struggling with all the lack of doom that hasn’t yet happened?
Either way it’s very apparent that you have a lot of rent free space in your head. So let’s help fill it with another observation this time on your point 10. The ph of the ocean is not acidic it’s alkaline, can you point to any geological period when the co2 was really high and the ocean was actually acidic?
Oh goody, another excellent teaching moment; actually this one is a layup!
The poorly educated and not very smart, Anon for a reason, doesn’t know the difference between acidification and acidic.
When oceanographers speak of ocean acidification, they are not claiming the oceans have become acidic. They are describing a measured decline in pH caused primarily by dissolved atmospheric CO2.
Some comments about Clint R’s completely stupid,incoherent and incompetent posts about the energy budget published long time ago by Trenberth / Fasullo / Kiehl
Part 1 (slightly revised)
*
A few days ago, I wrote
Clint R is as much an engineer as is Robertson; if he was one, he never would write nonsense like
” 1. Radiative flux is NOT energy. ”
Of course it is NOT! Radiative flux (or radiant flux density) is power per area, expressed in Watt / m² – or Megawatt / km², as you want.
By multiplying power with time, you obtain… energy.
*
Since 1979, polar-orbiting satellites have onboard devices measuring infrared radiation following techniques known since decades – like dozens of other techniques doubted only by… pseudoskeptics.
Some even tell you that no one really knows where TOA is – as if that would matter when measuring radiation! TOA simply means ‘above the highest place able to absorb infrared… OMG.
*
Others try to appear knowledgeable and proudly post:
” Those IR satellites don’t measure energy coming from the Earth’s surface just like a portable IR temperature gun doesn’t measure energy coming from a surface. It is calibrated to wavelength, but it isn’t measuring W/m^2. ”
They have no idea about how less satellite-borne devices measure temperature when sounding atmospheric O2 emissions around 60 GHz, how many models are involved to obtain the info, and how much uncertainties of various kinds widen the data confidence intervals.
Let alone do they have the tiniest clue of how much heuristic is behind computations of lower troposphere anomalies based on a formula like:
LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
used since 2015 at Huntsville, Alabama. { NOAA STAR TLT is based on a similar formula. }
*
In my original comment of May 21, 2026, at 5:37 PM, I had the minor mishap of referencing data that actually existed—but which, alas, had been moved to a different location:
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/climatedatarecords#UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/
I hope it will stay there for a while at least.
*
Anyway, I had the opportunity to download all the data (for each year and for every day: a 1 x 1 degree array of latitude independent values which you of course must transorm into surfaces on the sphere.
Though 1979 was complete, many years in the 1980s showed holes here and there; so I started evaluation with 1990, as pseudoskeptics hate nothing more than… interpolation mechanisms used anywhere else.
*
Here is a comparison of the years 2025 and 1979, together with the daily average for 1990-2025:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17VuesjAkQheHXuyjgqIgDPsgnulARZdj/view
The yearly energy output by Earth since 1990:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HbbQRfk_NniOO8NSTnFHhYiqvZiu2rNX/view
*
The average radiant flux intensity for 1990-2025 is: 239.6 Watt / m²; thus, Clint R can throw his ‘240 W/m² is bogus’ crap against the wall as long as he wants.
*
The next point is:
10. … ” So the kids divide solar by 4. … A flux of 168 W/² could never produce 288K surface temperature. ”
It’s hard to imagine how people cstill an believe such a crap:
– Has the Earth now become a huge cube perpendiculatly facing Sun’s radiation?
– Does the Sun suddenly hit avery place on Earth 24/24?
More about this soon…
Bindi, you’re behaving as a child, again. You seem to want to make a comment but you don’t know what to say. You write that I’m correct that flux is not energy, but you claim it’s nonsense?
You ramble on claiming “239.6 Watt/m²” is Earth’s emission, not understanding Earth emits about 390 W/m², based on a surface temperature of 288K.
Then you end with more nonsense about Earth being a cube and Sun shines all over Earth “24/24”?
Can you find a responsible adult to help you next time?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
– the Sun
– household heating
– light bulbs
– heat lamps
– electric heaters
– radiators
– electric stoves
– a candle’s flame
– warm Blooded Animals
– night vision equipment
– sensors for automatic light switches
– the cooling of the Earth at night
– you doing the Pole Dance experiment
Which of these are not blackbody radiators?
Bindi Goebells,
Still trying to persuade others that your ill informed posts are anything more than propaganda for your doom cult. As usual your poor kindergarten maths is woeful, perhaps you ought to spend time in learning how to do even basic data analysis rather than trembling at the occasional missing data. Or do you take any medication when you see that your averages are wrong due to seasonal differences with non linear energy losses.
Reading your posts often makes me wonder if you were a professional in any legit field. It sure as hell wouldn’t be anything to do with data or logic! Feel free to correct me, but please be concise.
A brief reminder: UAH revision 5.6 was released in 2005 to eliminate a cooling bias in Rev. 5.5, and was later superseded in 2015 by Rev. 6.0, which executed a 180-degree turn toward ‘cooler’ readings (from 0.14 °C / decade down to 0.11).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_AXpbZGmRZQLZEPqTokLekhvdUqCb0vz/view
*
Comparing revisions 5.6 and 6.1 raises a legitimate question: How many UAH proponents — those who stick to the “cooler” time series — would still be on board today had the 180-degree U-turn in 2015 not taken place?
What, then, would the global anomaly for May 2026 look like if 5.6 were still active?
*
The source still is available, together with even older ones:
https://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/
Time and again, this cowardly QAnon scum has to insult me in such unspeakable ways.
To identify me with Goebbels, Hitler’s accomplice in the murder of millions, is so disgusting! This tells us on this blog that the absolute filth resides beneath the skull of QAnon.
He reminds me of German and French right-wing extremist fascists, who hurl the insults that describe themselves at anyone they perceive as a fiend.
*
But the very best is:
” As usual your poor kindergarten maths is woeful, perhaps you ought to spend time in learning how to do even basic data analysis rather than trembling at the occasional missing data. ”
Says an incompetent idiot who has never presented a single data analysis on this blog — yet cowardly disparages others.
He wouldn’t even be capable of replicating exactly what I did regarding energy radiation at the top of the atmosphere, let alone processing data series such as GHCN daily, USCRN, PSMSL, and so on.
Bindi Goebbel
I think the comparison between you and your father figure you seem to be imitating is very apt. The current cult you are pushing is anti capitalist, wants control over people’s lives and uses fear and lies to achieve its socialist aims. You and your ilk are creating so much social anxiety that the young don’t want to have children of their own. So like I said not different to the Germans National Socialist Workers Party.
And what is this wonderful blog you run, the only thing I have seen is links to Google Drive. Is this yet another of your wild claims?
Independently of the stupid replies and the cowardly insults above, I continue my little layman expose about incompetent critique against TFK’s energy budget.
In the first part, I wanted to contradict
a) the Hunter boy’s completely stupid statement
” 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. ”
and
b) Clint R’s no less stupid allegation
” 5. The “235 W/m²” (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) is bogus. ”
*
Now I continue with a reply to
10. … ” So the kids divide solar by 4. … ”
{ Nota bene: Clint R doesn’t interest me at all here: what he gullibly replicates comes from quite elsewhere. }
For example, from a guy like Brandon Godwin who claimed some years ago it would be incorrect and illegal to divide the full TSI value in any way! And believe me or not: he managed to present a ‘new’ energy budget which does not consider simple geometric facts due to Sun hitting a rotating sphere.
On the one hand, Sun’s rays don’t hit the hemisphere uniformly but on surfaces becoming smaller and smaller with the angle of ray incidence. The surfaces are weighted with the square of the cosine of this angle, and the integration of that weighting over the whole hemisphere gives 0.5.
On the other hand, while data shows that Earth’s surface and atmosphere radiate longwave infrared at any time, the Sun conversely does not radiate shortwave the whole day.
An example: the station Cabauw in the Netherlands, Nr 53 in the BSRN (Baseline Surface Radiation Network).
1. Daily data over a whole year:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MzMUIX9AcyYuxiUs0t0lKHjZGp6bYI4Q/view
2. Hourly data over 7 days in January
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kxasmClyWWRj3XtOICLhKmcQU3L8bzd1/view
3. Hourly data over 7 days in July
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rawcSmgeHzt9-k405IcMYugc5-uW4hO2/view
As we can see, the data confirms what is written everywhere.
And it is no surprise that when looking in Cabauw’s data for all 8760 hours of a non-leap year for solar radiant flux lower than 10 W/m², you obtain for 2025 a bit over 4400 hours, i.e. over 50% of the year.
Yearly averages for the Cabauw station in 2025:
– solar down SW: 139
– terrestrial up LW: 370
– terrestrial down LW: 310
This is, quite like the monthly data for all SURFRAD stations, a hint that the radiation observations clearly go in the direction of TFK’s energy budget.
*
Next time I’ll show such data for three other BSRN stations:
– 18, ALE, Alert, Canada, Arctic: lat: 82.5 N, long: 62.5 W, alt: 127 m
– 30, NAU, Nauru, Nauru Island, Equator: lat: 0.5 S, long: 167 E, alt: 7 m
– 13, GVN, Georg von Neumayer, Antarctic: lat: 70.5 S, long: 8 W, alt: 42 m
Despite locate at places differing completely from the Netherlands, the results are similar.
Sorry Bindi, but you’re all wrong, again.
You somehow believe handling data is “science”. As I recounted up above, I taught someone how to retrieve and graph data in about an hour. Just retrieving and graphing data is nothing more than keyboarding. It’s not that different from playing video games. Kids believe they are brilliant after playing video games for thousands of hours, but they can’t pass their school exams. That’s YOU.
In your data, solar is averaged, but the infrared is constant. You can’t understand how that distorts reality.
You can’t understand this example, so it’s just for others:
Question: Which will make you warmer, 1000 W/m² from one source, or 5 sources each supplying 300 W/m² to you?
Answer: The 1000 W/m² will make you MUCH warmer. The five 300 W/m² sources couldn’t even melt an ice cube.
The cult believes the five sources add to 1500 W/m². And you can’t teach them otherwise….
Hey Puffman,
You’re a crank.
Otherwise you’d be able to solve this riddle: is glass a good or bad insulator?
What will you try next…
Clint R
YOU: “The cult believes the five sources add to 1500 W/m². And you can’t teach them otherwise…”
Maybe if you would do some valid experiments and prove your case. Tim Folkerts has already pointed out that you do not grasp the difference between what is emitted by a object (like ice) and what is received by and object.
Ice emitting at 300 W/m^2 only can add 300 Watts to a square meter. If you surround a sphere with a 1 m^2 surface area with a shell of ice that is emitting at 300 W/m^2, the sphere will only receive 300 watts total from the shell. If you have 5 sources of energy that a sphere can receive 300 watts from each source, the sphere will receive a total of 1500 Watts of energy and it has to increase in temperature until it is losing this amount of energy. I am not sure why all this confuses you and you look at legitimate science as “cult” but real science does work. If you test your ideas you will see they fail. Since you will not test or provide any evidence for you opinions the big question is why should anyone on this blog believe what you think is true??
Thanks for proving me right, Norman.
I said The cult believes the five sources add to 1500 W/m². And you can’t teach them otherwise, and you verified that.
I’ve provided plenty of evidence but you just don’t have the science background to understand. You’re like Bindi, your beliefs are are your reality. Just like with your Moon beliefs, you STILL can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. I’ve got a viable model, you’ve got NOTHING.
So thanks again for proving me right, and also thanks for displaying some maturity by omitting your usual insults and false accusations.
Clint R
NO YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY REAL EVIDENCE AT ALL!! You offer opinions and claim posters who do understand actual science are cult minded. You offer some “Truth” but with zero evidence. Just your opinions on how you believe reality functions. Never any experimental evidence. Definitely no links to any established science. You throw out some “thought experiments” and in your mind you think this is somehow valid evidence. Sorry it is not. You need to perform real experiments. I have suggested one you try multiple times. So far you have not offered to do this.
A Ball on a string is not a viable model of an orbiting object. If you replace the Earth on a string (your viable model) how does this show the Earth orbiting and rotating at the same time? It does not. The ball on the string is only a rotating system. NOT an orbit. I have given you many examples showing how orbit and no rotation would look. Your rejection of them means nothing. They have been given.
Your false claim that I have no background in science may make you feel better about your total lack of science understanding. I have a BA in Chemistry. I have done lab work so I have some experience with actual experimenting. Far greater than yourself.
Sorry Norman, but you’re WAY off, again.
My “evidence” comes from established physics and thermodynamics. You’re not educated in either. It’s easy to tell. I’ve explained photon absorp.tion, how temperature is determined, and what a photon has to do to increase temperature. You did not, and still don’t, understand any of it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be believing in nonsense that would mean ice cubes can boil water.
You don’t know science, and can’t learn. You have no appreciation for the scientific method. Your beliefs are all that matter to you. Want an example?
No matter how many times I have used the phrase “viable model of orbiting without spin”, you rush to pervert it with “how does this show the Earth orbiting and rotating at the same time?”
You completely ignore “without spin”, trying to avoid reality. Your goal is to pervert reality, rather then accept it.
That makes you a cultist. And because you can’t control yourself, that makes you a “cult child”, not much better then Bindi or Willard. And, you can’t change. That’s the reality!
Now, prove me right some more….
> Want an example?
This is how our cranks keep spinning their three talking points.
When will you get new material, Puffman?
Clint R
You claim your evidence comes from established physics then link to your sources. I have given you several links to valid textbooks that show your opinions are wrong and not based upon any experimentally verified established physics. You know it has bern yeats of back and forth and yet you still have not provided even one link to any established physics that supports yout claims!! The only source for your claims that I find are from crackpots like Joseph Postma, Claes Johnson or some bloggers. I have yet to see any links from you to a valid source like textbook material. I know you will never provide it. You can insult my intellect or knowledge all day. It will not alter the reality that you never link to valid sources. Maybe you don’t know how to link to sources??
Norman, you wouldn’t have any of the relevant textbooks, but it’s such basic physics you can find sources on the Internet.
Search:
* photon absorp.tion
* how temperature is determined
* what a photon has to do to increase temperature
But, you can’t learn. So your first effort must be to clear your head of hallucinations such as:
“I have given you several links to…show your opinions are wrong and not based upon any experimentally verified established physics.”
“The only source for your claims that I find are from crackpots like Joseph Postma, Claes Johnson or some bloggers.”
All false, just the disjointed ramblings of a cult child.
Again, I know you have no interest in science because you wouldn’t be trying to pervert the simple “orbiting without spin”.
Prove me wrong.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
What if you dropped a bowling ball in the Mariana Trench?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYoHYq8VRt0
Possible answer: it would confirm what Sky Dragon cranks said all along.
tim s ….”Try harder! This is a very weak effort. You failed to quote Clausius or fall back on any of your other dishonest fantasies. Actually, you are just a garden variety pest”.
***
What did I write to produce such vexation in Tim? I wrote…
“Tim fails to grasp that pressure and temperature are based on the number of molecules in air and their kinetic energies. If the pressure reduces, it can only mean the volume has increased or the number of molecules have decreased along with their kinetic energies.
Temperature as well is based on the number of molecules and their kinetic energies. If the number of molecules decrease and their kinetic energies, temperatures will drop naturally.
The difference between pressure and temperature is that pressure is the average force exerted by a gas on the container walls, while temperature is the average kinetic energy of the same molecules. They are always directly proportional. High molecular KE means high pressure/temperature whereas lower molecular KE means lower pressure/temperature”.
This is very basic science and can be easily verified. However, it clashes with the pseudo-science of the climate alarmist cult and has obviously hit a nerve in Tim’s understanding of science.
Tim regards me as a pest because I talk about real, verifiable science, a science he apparently cannot refute objectively using real, hard science.
tim s offers a lesson on the GHE…”…I will explain the greenhouse effect one more time. Every molecule in the entire universe is, at all times, emitting thermal radiation depending on its spectrum and its temperature. The spectrum is a result of various bond angles and lengths that resonate. As such, these molecules are able to absorb radiation, but only at the same frequencies or wave lengths that they emit”.
***
Huh!!! How exactly does this explain a 1C warming in our atmosphere since 1850? It does not even explain how a molecule warms by absorbing infrared energy? It does not explain how non-infrared absorbing gases like N2 and O2, which make up 99% if the atmospheric mass, can warm by 1C on average over 175 years. Obviously, there are other scientific principles involved that have been conveniently ignored by climate alarmists.
Tim’s offering fails to explain how a gas with a mass of 0.06% of the atmosphere can warm it catastrophically while gases with a mass of close to 96% have little or no effect. Some wags have put this warming down to thermalization, a quaint concept that suggests this trace gas can warm the other 99% of atmospheric mass simply by converting IR to heat and spreading it molecule to molecule throughout the rest of the atmosphere.
That requires molecular collisions and air is a very poor conductor of heat via this direct conduction.
Quaint idea with a major problem. The Ideal Gas Law says it cannot warm the rest of atmospheric gases any more than a trivial amount. The IGL limits the degree of warming to the 0.06% indicated by the mass percent of CO2. Neither Tim or any other alarmist has managed to refute that claim other than to try eliminating the IGL as a law of state.
All ‘state’ means is that the IGL refers to a static condition, much of which we humans often experience on a quiet, hot summer day with little or no convection. I have countered that such a static state does not change the percent of each gas in the atmosphere. In other words, the argument is a red-herring argument that holds no water.
Our atmosphere contradicts several accepted rules in science due to its uniqueness. Normally, gases in a container are uniform in pressure and temperature. Our atmosphere is an outlier in that gravitational force arranges air molecules by pressure, hence temperature, into a negative temperature gradient. That changes slightly at higher altitudes due to ozone absorbing solar UV and warming oxygen molecules. However, there are so few O2 molecules that the warming is barely significant.
Sorry, but the catastrophe theories are full of holes. Our negative gradient pressure/temperature profile even helps cool the Earth by dissipating heat naturally. That means we don’t need to return all the solar energy delivered hence the atmosphere remains warmer.
barry…”Pressure does not create temperature. The bottom of the sea has pressure 1000 times greater than the surface. My scuba tank has 200 times the pressure of Earth’s surface, but the metal is cold to the touch. A car tyre has more pressure than the surrounding air, and yet is at the same temperature.
Pressure does not cause temperature”.
****
Barry…are you sure the air in your scuba tank is not laced with laughing gas (nitrous oxide)? ☺ ☺ ☺ If the shell of your tank, or your car tire, was made of an insulator that could pass no heat, then the air in both would still be hot. When the pressure is initially increased in your tank, or the tire, the air is hot, However both the tank and the tire rubber allow the built up air pressure to bleed off the heat, allowing it to reach thermal equilibrium with the outside air.
In moments of desperation, I have actually inflated a car tire using a hand pump. For those attempting it, I suggest jacking the wheel involved to remove pressure encountered when trying to lift 1/4 of a two ton vehicle with compressed air. The one thing that becomes apparent is how exceedingly hot the connection between the pump hose and the pump becomes. That heat comes from compressing air in the pump, and there is a lot of it.
If you start with an empty scuba tank, or tire, the air inside and outside are at the same pressure and in thermal equilibrium. As you force air into either vessel, the temperature of the air must rise according to the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT. Since the tank has a constant volume, we can rewrite that as P = n(R/V)T where R/V is a constant for any one gas.
We can see now that we have 3 variables, P, n, and T. P is then directly proportional to n and T. Since P and n must increase as we force more air into the tire, T and n must rise. However, we must not confuse n and T on the RHS with P on the LHS since n and T have different actions. Increasing n raises both P and T, since the number of molecules of air affect both equally.
The IGL is actually a culmination of several diifferent gas laws. one of then the Gay-Lussac Law. We can calculate how much the temperature rises using the Gay-Lussac Law, which is a component law in the overall IGL, as….
P1/T1 = P2/T2.
There is a good video explanation at the following site. You must activate the video.
https://www.socratica.com/pages/gay-lussacs-law
It is vitally important to understand the difference between P, V, n, and T and how they affect the properties of a gas. These are not simply letters in an equation that must be balanced, they are based on vital properties of the molecules involved that are directly related to each other.
_______________
“But the troposphere receives most of its heating from the surface, not from the sun. That’s why it is warmer at the bottom; because the greenhouse gases absorb Earth radiation much more powerfully than other gases in the troposphere absorb solar radiation.
Without that inverted effect in the troposphere, there would be no convection and no lapse rate”.
****
One problem, Barry, you have omitted the cooling effect of conduction/convection while failing to note that air molecules adjacent to the surface are warmed by it and must rise. That creates a vertical circulation problem whereby the rising warmer air must be replaced by falling cooler air.
Both the GHE and AGW theories conveniently minimize this process if not ignoring it altogether. It is ingenuous scientifically to focus on a trace gas as the cause of warming when far more scientifically feasible explanation are available. And that does not include the most obvious, rewarming from the Little Ice Age.
Gordon,
“When the pressure is initially increased in your tank, or the tire, the air is hot, However both the tank and the tire rubber allow the built up air pressure to bleed off the heat, allowing it to reach thermal equilibrium with the outside air.”
Exactly! At last someone speaks the truth.
PRESSURIZATION, not pressure itself has a direct relation to temperature.
The atmosphere is NOT in the process of being pressurized. Atmospheric pressure was not imposed yesterday, it’s been there for aeons.
The surface is not hotter than aloft because of pressure.
barry said: “Without that inverted effect in the troposphere, there would be no convection and no lapse rate”.
Gordon said: “One problem, Barry, you have omitted the cooling effect of conduction/convection”
False. I said that convection arises BECAUSE of the negative lapse rate in the troposphere.
There is no convection in the stratosphere, because the lapse rate is inverted.
So you explain the difference, Gordon. What is it that makes temperatures rise with altitude in the stratosphere, but decline with altitude in the troposphere.
When you understand why that difference arises, you will understand a lot more about the reason convection occurs in the troposphere.
“Both the GHE and AGW theories conveniently minimize this process if not ignoring it altogether”
Do you know what GCM stands for? “General Circulation Model.”
Since the mid 1960s researchers have been worked primarily with Radiative Convective Models.
Eg, Ramanathan and Coakley 1979 – “Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models.” It’s in the effing title.
Sorry Gordon, but to claim convection is “ignored” by climate science betrays an astounding ignorance. All modeling groups and others in climate research include and investigate convection.
The tropospheric lapse rate without convection is about 10K/kilometre. With convection it is 6.5K/kilometre.
All models use the moist adiabatic lapse rate shaped by convection. That is definitively NOT preferring the radiative atmosphere sans convection.
You can fulminate about how crap you think models are, you can rail that climate researchers haven’t pinned down convection.
But to say it is ignored, dismissed or downplayed is just sheer, unadulterated trash. Educate yourself, man.
barry hilariously chirrups:
“Exactly! At last someone speaks the truth.”
Yet the comment I linked him to earlier says exactly the same thing as Gordon is saying:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2025-0-43-deg-c/#comment-1724783
“When a scuba tank is filled, the act of compression rapidly increases the temperature (adiabatic heating) due to the work done on the gas. Once the filling stops, the tank is no longer an isolated system in terms of heat. The heat quickly dissipates into the surrounding environment (water or air) via conduction and convection until it reaches thermal equilibrium. The final, stable temperature of the stored, high-pressure air matches the ambient temperature.”
And what does the comment go on to say?
When is barry ever going to learn that the scuba tank argument does not refute the atmospheric pressure theory? Even Google acknowledges that it doesn’t, and that’s incredibly biased against the idea:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2025-0-43-deg-c/#comment-1725185
Some comments about Clint R’s completely stupid,incoherent and incompetent posts about the energy budget published long time ago by Trenberth / Fasullo / Kiehl
Part 3
” In your data, solar is averaged, but the infrared is constant. You can’t understand how that distorts reality. ”
It’s NOT my data – it’s what is measured anywhere all the time – at some places for decades.
*
Here are the graphs for three surface radiation stations belonging to the BSRN network:
– 18, ALE, Alert, Canada, Arctic: lat: 82.5 N, long: 62.5 W, alt: 127 m
– 30, NAU, Nauru, Nauru Island, Equator: lat: 0.5 S, long: 167 E, alt: 7 m
– 13, GVN, Georg von Neumayer, Antarctic: lat: 70.5 S, long: 8 W, alt: 42 m
https://drive.google.com/file/d/103bWbIPX7MwZwC42hfr15mcsO5Bu6c6h/view
*
As for the Dutch BSRN station Cabauw (see comment posted on May 26, 2026 at 6:03 PM), no source data was modified here; only averages were added.
The reason to present this data is to show that independently of the latitude and the season, the situation at the surface keeps the same:
– downwelling solar radiation varies over the year due to Earth’s orbit around the Sun and over the day due to Earth rotation about its axis
but
– outgoing terrestrial radiation (upwelling from the surface, down from the atmosphere keep nearly constant over days and years.
*
And that even during the winter time in Arctic and Antarctic!
No: no volcano feeds the pyrgeometers there, no: the pyranometers, pyrheliometers and pyrgeometers aren’t measuring wrong things since over 30 years, and no: the conversion from radiation density to W/m² is not wrong.
No global conspiracy at work, sorry.
*
As mentioned all the time: I’m a retired engineer with some additional software background, and not a meteorologist nor climatologist.
I’m happy to have processed all the US SURFRAD data, ths BSRN data and the OLR data because it helped me to better understand Trenberth/Fasullo/Kiehl’s energy budget.
*
Nothing bogus in it – except for stubborn, opinionated and incompetent pseudoskeptics :–)
Sorry Bindi, but you’re not an engineer. You don’t have the knowledge of science or the common sense required. To you, “beliefs” are reality. That’s why when I provide the science to debunk the K-T nonsense, you can only respond with beliefs. You have no science, only your false beliefs.
Another perfect example is the Moon issue. You fully believe in ancient astrology, yet you have NO understanding of orbital motion. And, you can’t learn.
Like the rest of your cult, you use beliefs, insults, and false accusations in place of science.
Hey Puffman, prove Sky Dragon cranks can absorb something:
https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/what-is-a-vantablack-car/3507
Is this an insulator?
1. I’m glad to see that for one of this blog’s most opinionated ignoramuses, data collected by calibrated devices are the same as ‘belief’.
Wonderful!
*
2. I wrote above something really wrong:
” – downwelling solar radiation varies over the year due to Earth’s orbit around the Sun… ”
OMG. Mea culpa…
Please read instead
” – downwelling solar radiation varies over the year due to Earth’s polar axis inclination … “
I can tell by the excessive flak that I’m definitely over the target. The cult knows their nonsense is getting heavily bombed. Destruction of the bogus “energy” diagram was too much for them.
To make it even funnier, Bindi and Willard have teamed up! They can’t understand their childish tactics don’t hold up to science.
Kids these days….
Bindi Goebbels,
So you claim that you are “… retired engineer with some additional software background…” As usual nothing to back that up. Care to elaborate on the type of engineer, cos at the moment I believe that you are nothing more than a script kiddy with an ego.
Your little graphs are just just that. They don’t add any meaning, they detract from a wider view of more likely influences on the natural climate change.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Oxford, the longest running continuous weather station in UK history, with temperature observations stretching back to 1815, has preliminarily broken its maximum temperature record for May yesterday by OVER 3ºC with a temperature of 33.7ºC. Unprecedented in its 211-year history.
https://bsky.app/profile/metjam.co.uk/post/3mmu6kqmuks2t
Three cheers for the Gulf of Hormuz!
Dullard,
Oxford is really built up and is a known heat island. So not exactly a surprise for being hotter than surrounding area which is what the real world experiences.
Bit like the gas engineer Bindi, you are pushing the cult propaganda too much.
Anon for Q-related reasons,
I believe that “being hotter than ever recorded” is a tad stronger than “being hotter than surrounding area”.
Are you suggesting there were recent building developments in Oxford?
Oxford did not suddenly become an urban heat island last week. It has been a built up city for a long time, and the station has operated within that environment for many years.
Because of that, urban heat island effects are unlikely to be the main explanation for the current May anomaly, which, as Willard pointed out, significantly exceeded its previous record.
The Met Office also notes that this was a widespread national heat event, with record breaking temperatures observed at multiple stations, including more rural locations such as Boulmer:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2026/record-breaking-heat-rewrites-may-temperature-records-across-the-uk
Given that broader context, it becomes even less plausible to attribute the event primarily to local urban effects.
Dullard,
There is not much new build in Oxford for obvious reasons. But it is a heat island so is being affected by the surrounding buildings. What I don’t know is by how much Oxford power demand has increased over the years. There are a lot of air conditioning and electric cars in Oxford.
Do you know where this fabled record was made in Oxford and which class of accuracy is the weather station being categorised as?
barry…”PRESSURIZATION, not pressure itself has a direct relation to temperature.
The atmosphere is NOT in the process of being pressurized. Atmospheric pressure was not imposed yesterday, it’s been there for aeons”.
***
Barry…pressure is force, it is the force exerted by gas molecules on a surface. The only force in the atmosphere capable of such on-going force is gravitational force. There is force in convective winds, but they too are due to gravitational force. Just as most heat on Earth is due to the Sun, most atmospheric forces are due to gravity.
A glider with a pilot of considerable weight can be lifted by rising air (thermals), but thermals are ultimately due to gravity, which drags colder air molecules lower, allowing heated molecules to rise. Air density is weight per unit volume, and the weight comes from gravity exerting a downward vertical force on the molecules. All weight is the product of gravity acting on mass.
The idea presented by alarmist scientists that rising heat produces the pressure is just plain balmy. Some claim the lapse rate is due to rising heat, which is nonsense. If that was the case, in the Arctic in mid-winter, where little or no heat is available to rise, there would be no lapse rate and no air pressure.
According to Google AI, the lapse rate at the North Pole in mid-winter is inverted. That is, the air actually gets warmer for 1 to 2 km then reverts to the traditional lapse rate. But, what does warmer mean when the average air temperature is -50C?
Meantime, AI claims that air pressure has its normal negative trend from the surface up at the NP in mid-winter. That defeats the alarmist pseudo-science that rising warmed air produces your so-called pressurization. That sounds like a Yank word for pressure. If the air pressure still has a negative trend when there is no heat to rise, how does that fit alarmist pseudo-science, or lapse rate theory. It is clearly gravity producing the lapse rate.?
There is also the myth that air pressure is the total force of air molecules in a vertical column of 1 sq. inch. That would result in 500 pounds downward force on a typical human head, a force that could not be supported by the human neck and legs for long.
Air pressure is far more complex and obviously has not been well thought out. Apparently, the air pressure in a typical scuba tank is around 3000 psi. That is the force per square inch exerted on the walls of the tank by the increased and considerable KE of the air molecules under tremendous pressure.
A question that comes to mind is why the air molecules keep moving? What force impels them and what force impelled them in the first place?
Where in the atmosphere can air be pressurized even to 15 PSI? There is nothing in general for the collective force of the air to act on except for a surface, or the surface. Of course, human standing on the surface would feel it. However, at 15 PSI and a head area of 8″ x 8″, that is 64 sq. inches and multiplied by 15 PSI, that is 960 pounds downward force on a head.
There is something drastically wrong here and if anyone can explain it, I am all ears. MIT could not explain it, they simply claimed that humans have evolved to withstand such downward pressures. Methinks they are not thinking very clearly.
As the theory goes in alarmist circles, all air molecules would have to collapse in a heap of air molecules on the surface. I mean, what is stopping that? In that case, it is conceivable that a human might experience 500 pounds of force since he/she would be buried deep in air molecules. However, we are not, and thrive with over 10^19 air molecules contacting us at any one time.
However, air molecules have a buoyancy that allows them to dart about and literally defy gravity. Heated air molecules defy it altogether due to their increased collective kinetic energy.
With water it is a different matter. Water molecules have light attractive forces due to the hydrogen bonds linking them together. In an ocean, or a tumbler of water, the molecules stick together, albeit lightly, and their individual masses can add vertically. Water, for example, weight 62.5 pounds per cubic foot.
If you look up Google AI, posing a question re the equivalent volume of air to a cubic foot of water, it claims the volume would be 817 cu feet. That does not tell us a lot since it simply compares the equivalent mass of air wrt water. Air molecules do not press down on each other since they are largely free to defy gravity and are as likely to be moving up or laterally as opposed to downward.
Air simply cannot be compared to water in that respect with regard to forces. Air molecules act individually, and whereas the downward force may be significant, I cannot accept that it is a highly theoretical equivalent to a square inch of vertical column of air extending from the surface to TOA. That makes no sense.
Barometers are measuring something. However, if you take a barometer with a partially evacuated disk, that measures pressure by the amount the disk can expand or contract due to changes in air pressure, the pressure must be based on a reference value. What is that reference value? Is it based on a theoretical human calculation, or what?
Gordon,
When a barometer is calibrated its reading are only accurate over the rated range. If you take a calibrated barometer for measuring the earth’s atmospheric pressure at low levels then it will work. Expecting the same barometer to work on Jupiter then it won’t, obviously. To suggest otherwise would put the person on par with Willard.
aaaahhhh…some light. It was Torricelli who proposed that air has weight and he based that on air pressure in a column of air in a vial which could exert pressure on a column of water. Of course, it raised the column of water.
Good insight but hardly applicable to the atmosphere vertically. Air in the atmosphere is free to move in all direction whereas air in a vial is restricted horizontally due to the walls of the vial. Therefore, any forces between molecules cannot go sideways and are forced into a vertical motion. That increases the vertical pressure.
I liken that to water pouring out the end of a hose. The water is free, once exiting the hose, to spread out laterally, hence the pressure is lower. However, if the hose can be attached to a 1 inch diameter tube, the water pressure coming out the end of the tube will be higher. As we narrow the diameter of the tube, the water pressure rises.
This is due entirely to restricting the inter-molecular distances. There is no such restriction in free air.
Although air is being pulled toward the surface by an ever-decreasing gravitational force, it is not restricted in motion laterally and can spread out as much as it likes, reducing pressure significantly. However, 15 PSI is rated as if the air was being forced down a one square metre tube, which is not the case.
Even so, if you could create a 1″ square tube that extended a mile into the atmosphere, does anyone seriously think there would be 15 PSI at the lower end of the tube? Or if you have a 64 square inch tube of the same vertical height, that 960 pounds, nearly half a ton of force, would be available at the lower end?
BTW…with the 64 sq.inch pipe, if you placed a sealed cylinder in the end that was free to move, then put a scale under it, you should measure 960 pounds of force. I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that you would not measure anything but the weight of the cylinder.
In fact if I stood on the scale, the scale should indicate my weight plus the 500 pounds claimed by MIT due to vertical air pressure.
What say ye?
I am open to criticism, as usual. But try to make it constructive rather than resorting to the typical ad homs and insults. It’s not that I am sensitive, it just bores me.
I am questioning everything, obviously, and I know a few of you are frustrated with that. However, I simply no longer trust long-established so-called facts from authority figures simply because they have been accepted by others.
I can no longer trust my own field in electronics. Current is defined as the number of charges, in coulombs, passing a point in a circuit in 1 second. Of course, the charges are carried by electrons that can move at a slower speed than the charges, which move at the speed of light. No one has ever explained how that works.
However, in electrical engineering classes, we are taught that current is carried by some mysterious component that moves in the opposite direction to electrons, which move negative to positive. The positive to negative flow is called conventional current flow. In other words, it’s not true but it has been established by a convention dating back to the 18th century and they are sticking by it, lie or not.
How do we know what other so-called truths have been slid past us, based on our blind trust in authority figures? Yesterday, our former climate minister in the Canadian Parliament resigned, claiming that he believes in the truth of scientific ***CONSENSUS*** passed off as truth by the louts at the IPCC. The entire climate catastrophe theory is based on pseudo-science created by imaginative and misinformed do-gooders. It is claimed as science simply because many of them agree their pseudo-science is right.
Stefan Lanka, a German microbiologist, who discovered the first virus in the oceans, has challenged virus theory dating back several centuries. In 1935, a scientist claimed that virus theory does not meet Koch’s Postulate, that is, it is not verifiable or reproducible. Lanka has done vast amounts of research on each virus claimed and has found no basis for the claims made re identification of said viruses.
I await Norman’s displeasure.
Lanka has offered 100,000 Euros to anyone who can prove, using one paper, that the measles virus has been isolated. One ijit claimed it using cherry-picks from 6 papers, and the judge allowed his claim. When Lanka appealed to a higher court, the lower court ruling was overturned. The higher court had appointed their own expert who agreed with Lanka in the end.
I expect Binny along momentarily with more bafflegab re the court findings. Even Luc Montagnier, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, even though he only claimed to have inferred a virus, since he could not see it on an electron microscope, in the end, claimed that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system, and that AIDS is oxidative stress due to lifestyle. The WHO and many health outlets still preach the old dogma that high risk lifestyles, creating up to 30 opportunistic infections, related to AIDS deaths, are produced by a harmless virus.
One need look no further than Einstein and his abuse of time to slide his relativity theory past the gullible. And there are a lot of gullible scientists lined up to anoint his thought experiments as fact. Time has no existence other than an idea in human minds, and space, although there, has been quantitatively defined based on human inventions like the metre. Yet, Einstein insisted that these non-forces run the universe and that gravity as a force is imaginary.
Many dimwits are trying to replace Newton’s sound science with this utter pseudo-science dreamed up by Einstein. They claim Newtonian physics does not apply at the atomic level, even though Newton’s gravitational relationship of masses works perfectly for individual charges, F = k.q1q2/d^2.
Even Schrodinger’s equations, that are the basis of quantum theory, are based in Newtonian physics. In fact, Bohr’s 1913 theory that is the basis of quantum theory uses electron momentum and radial distance from the nucleus in a manner similar to Newtonian orbital theory. I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of why some seem to think Einstein’s theories have replaced Newton.
I still have faith in a lot of science since it has been well-thought out and researched. Newton’s work is in that category as is the brilliant work of Clausius on heat. Yet, even Newton and Clausius have fallen prey to the inadequacies of their times. Newton was mistaken about time and Clausius about heat transfer via radiation. Furthermore, modern buffoons have tried to redefine the meaning of both entropy and the 2nd law, both inventions of Clausius.
We need to be questioning science, or anything, that makes no sense, and it makes no sense to me that most humans are walking around with a 200 pound column of air weighing down on them.
“Questioning everything” without learning is not skepticism; it’s intellectual laziness.
Doubt has value only when paired with the willingness to seek, understand, and accept answers supported by evidence.
Called it!
https://uksif.org/press-release-87-of-investment-firms-expect-surge-in-renewable-energy-financing-in-wake-of-iran-conflict/
https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/bloombergnefs-new-energy-outlook-2026-transition-to-newer-technologies-expanded-electrification-to-strengthen-nations-energy-security/
JIT…
Pressure Causes Temperature? It’s Time to Climb Down from “Mount Stupid”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/