Home/BlogThis month I’m adding Australia to the Global, USA48, and Canada time series plots.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2026 was +0.53 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which is up from the April, 2026 value of +0.39 deg. C..
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through May 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
A Note on These Tropospheric Temperature Anomalies vs. Surface Temperature Anomalies
It has been a while since I have discussed the main reason why our global monthly satellite-based tropospheric temperature anomalies can sometimes differ by quite a lot from the global monthly surface temperature anomalies. A good example is the last 2 months. In April, our +0.39 deg. C anomaly was statistically identical to the +0.38 deg. C surface temperature anomaly from the NOAA Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS, which I take from WeatherBell.com maps). But then last month (May) the CDAS anomaly went down slightly (+ 0.34 deg. C), while our UAH anomaly went up considerably (+0.53 deg. C). These month-to-month fluctuations in the relationship between surface and tropospheric temperature changes are almost certainly dominated by fluctuations in moist convective heat transfer from the surface to the free troposphere. When there is a burst of extra convection (usually in the tropics), it cools the surface and warms the free troposphere more than normal, which is probably what happened last month (May).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 29 months (record highs are in red).
| 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 |
| 2026 | May | +0.53 | +0.53 | +0.53 | +0.58 | +0.21 | +0.33 | +0.10 | +0.21 |
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
Time Series Plots for USA48, Canada, and Australia
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for May, 2026 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
Thank you for this update highlighting the rise in temperatures. This is just the beginning:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Is the Global value of 0.53 correct? I’m not entirely sure how you determine this value… but NH is 0.53 and SH is 0.60, so I would have expected a Global value of around 0.57.
I believe NH means 30N – 90N (maybe 23N – 90N). The global value then comes from NH & SH & Tropics.
The file Lower Troposphere file says the are 0-90. There does seem to be a typo with one of those values.
As Bellmann says, could be a typo. Maybe global value is 0.56 (?)
my mistake… both hemispheres are +0.53.
Bellman June 2, 2026 at 7:53 AM
” The file Lower Troposphere file says the are 0-90. ”
You certainly mean
” GL 90S-90N, NH 0-90N, SH 90S-0, TRPCS 20S-20N
NoExt 20N-90N, SoExt 90S-20S, NoPol 60N-90N, SoPol 90S-60S ”
*
This can’t be correct because in all 2.5. degree grids of all four 6.1 layers (LT, MT, TP, LS) all three bottommost and topmost latitude bands are filled with the undefined data (-9999).
Thus, 82.5S-82.5N IMHO would be more correct.
In Rev 5.6, there was data for 90S-90N.
Yep. All other months Globe is average of NH + SH.
My mistake… the table should have 0.53 for both NH and SH.
I stand corrected!
Significantly, the 3, 4, and 5 year running means just keep on breaking records.
The 3 year running mean is now 0.60, which is 0.33 larger than the previous, non-overlapping record from 2018.
Phew. It’s a good thing no-one’s expecting a “super” el Niño by September on top of the persistent high anomaly.
Elliott Bignell June 2, 2026 at 6:46 AM
” It’s a good thing no-one’s expecting a “super” el Niño by September… ”
*
Sure sure?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Comparing today’s graph to what I saved on April 6 sounds amazing:
https://i.postimg.cc/sXVbBdVp/nino34Mon-060426.png
Well, slightly sure…
“These month-to-month fluctuations in the relationship between surface and tropospheric temperature changes are almost certainly dominated by fluctuations in moist convective heat transfer from the surface to the free troposphere.”
ENSO happily supports that evaluation:
https://postimg.cc/6TpntS9D
I’m away from my laptop this week, but from a quick look through the data file this seems to be the second warmest May, though statistically tied with 1998.
Recent researches show that the average global temperature rise is not a good indicator of climate change. It is the uneven distribution of temperature on the surface that is more critical.
Beyond global mean temperature: increasing asymmetry of global warming in past and future climate change | npj Climate and Atmospheric Science https://share.google/HtF4jkH93SV5qIOB0
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44292-026-00077-7
Clarification: climate change severity may be better defined by considering uneven temperature rise on the surface. The global temperature rise is slow and gives us opportunities to adapt. Uneven warming of the surface produces climatic extremes, which are deadly and catastrophic.
So what’s the weather like on your planet? The current rate of warming is geologically sudden. Native Australian oral history records a rate of sea-level rise at the end of the last glaciation that amounted to the high-tide line moving inland by tens of metres per year. The current rate of warming is far faster than that. How do you plan to move cities by tens of metres per year, pray?
“The current rate of warming is geologically sudden.”
How many warming trends have there been in Earth’s geological history? What were the rates of each? What was the rate of the one that produced seas over western Nebraska, where oyster shells and shark fossils have been found at 3000 ft elevation?
Clint R: “How many warming trends have there been in Earth’s geological history?”
Lots.
Clint R: “What were the rates of each?”
Nowhere near today’s rate, except possibly the aftermath of the Chicxulub asteroid (after a few years of cooling due to atmospheric dust from the impsct). Not even the PETM or the deglacializations can touch the present wsrming rate.
Clint R: “What was the rate of the one that produced seas over western Nebraska, where oyster shells and shark fossils have been found at 3000 ft elevation?”
Who knows? But you’re clearly confusing warming RATE with warm temperature. And obviously oceans were not 3000 ft higher then, instead that land was much lower than today. Earth looked nothing like today. https://news.unl.edu/article/sharks-once-roamed-nebraskas-ancient-seas
Gadden, you realize that all of your answers are based on your beliefs, right?
They don’t even qualify for “Soft Science”!
Nabil, “The global temperature rise is slow and gives us opportunities to adapt”.
Huh? Which planet are you on? This global warming is twenty times faster than the most rapid global warming we’re aware of in Earth’s past, with the possible exception of the aftermath of the Chicxulub asteroid impact 66 million years ago (after a few years of cooling).
The effects on ecological systems are difficult to predict but I’m happy I will not be alive in the 2070s or later.
Gadden, I believe that we and living things around us have already adapted to the observed temperature rise we have had, nearly 1.5 degrees. There is no reason why we cannot adapt to another 1.5 degrees. Climatic extremes, however, are not easy to adapt to. Presently, insurance companies do not cover residential, commercial, and industrial in US states prone to climatic extremes. This mean catastrophy to those who live there, no adaptation is possible.
Yeah, this data point is unexpected and my model was wrong. I was anticipating a trough below the mean (taking everything into account). According to my model, we should currently be at peak La Niña impact in UAH Lower Troposphere temperatures, based on the typical 5-month lag from Niño 3.4.
Looking ahead, this suggests that the upcoming ENSO-neutral period could run above the long-term trend, and a shift to El Niño (ENSO Positive) might produce new record highs. I had been expecting that trough below the mean and its unlikely from here.
[“Looking ahead, this suggests that the upcoming ENSO-neutral period could run above the long-term trend, and a shift to El Niño (ENSO Positive) might produce new record highs.”]
Yes, and what’s more: the intervals between successive record highs appear to be decreasing: roughly 18 years from 1998 to 2016, 7 years from 2016 to 2023, and only 4 years from 2023 to 2027.
The 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption injected about 150 teragrams of water vapor into the stratosphere — roughly 10% extra on top of what’s usually there. As of early 2025, about half had been removed, with a big drop in 2024, but there’s still excess up there. Its tracked with NASA’s MLS satellite and decaying with an e-folding time of about three years now, and expect it to fully return to pre-eruption background levels around 2030. So in 2026, we’re past the peak impact but still not quite back to normal. The initial spread was mostly around the equator before it mixed more widely.
I dont know the connection, but I suspect there is new atmospheric physics in this data given the asymmetrical Llower troposphere response to Nino 3.4 in this el Nino, but its a hypothesis and highly uncertain. Its a fun conversation, but its apparently a trigger word and I dont want to harm in the safe space, so cautious wording.
[“Its tracked with NASA’s MLS satellite and decaying with an e-folding time of about three years now, and expect it to fully return to pre-eruption background levels around 2030.”]
So, what do you expect the global average temperature to do from now until 2030? Do you have a prediction we can test?
Mainstream science projects continued warming driven by rising CO2 concentrations, which seems plausible.
I have also considered the possibility of the Sun becoming more active in the future, contributing to the trend.
Global temperature will continue to rise with CO2 and composite El Nino warming short term. By 2030 it will eventually return to baseline warming from CO2 as the extra water vapor declines, if hypothesis is correct. But the reality is the current El Nino in equatorial pacific, nino3.4, may be enhanced in L Trop. But unlikely like last El Nino.
Its fun to have hypotheses and test them.
If this increased rate is from aerosols then it will continue indefinitely as the atmosphere is now cleaner from regulations
“the intervals between successive record highs appear to be decreasing: roughly 18 years from 1998 to 2016, 7 years from 2016 to 2023, and only 4 years from 2023 to 2027.”
‘Appears’ is right. I can’t do the math, but I would bet someone who could work out the probability would say that the apparent ‘acceleration’ in record highs is highly uncertain.
Clarification: climate change severity may be better defined by considering uneven temperature rise on the surface. The global temperature rise is slow and gives us opportunities to adapt. Uneven warming of the surface produces climatic extremes, which are deadly and catastrophic.
[“Uneven warming of the surface produces climatic extremes, which are deadly and catastrophic.”]
Yes, surface warming is occurring unevenly.
The Arctic is warming substantially faster than the tropics and mid latitudes. This reduces the temperature gradient between the poles and lower latitudes.
This, in turn, is expected to influence the behavior of the polar jet stream.
I stand corrected!
Also, uneven warming is occuring between the Hemispheres, which is believed to contribute to El Nino Southern Oscillation and climatic extremes.
It is interesting to note that the main expected consequence of a strengthening of the greenhouse effect is a reduction in temperature differentials.
Land heats up faster than oceans, and there is a lot more land in the Northern Hemisphere.
phi: “the main expected consequence of a strengthening of the greenhouse effect is a reduction in temperature differentials”
Source?
Also, because 87 percent of the world population have lived in the northern Hemisphere, more anthropgenic waste heat has been rejected in the northern hydrosphere. This has contributed to the warming assymetry between the Hemispheres.
A question about the +0.16 deg/ C/decade linear average increase since 1979 – It seems that it has been stuck there for awhile. Someone or some official body must have decided 30 year periods were required to smooth out temperatures for the calculation of normals. So, what was the value of the linear average increase in 2009 and how has it changed since then? Perhaps a 30 yr trailing average would be better from that point on? Maybe, Dr Roy or someone better at math and not as lazy as me can calculate that. Those commentators on here who are more alarmed about global warming than me might be interested in this as well. Has the 30 yr average accelerated?
it depends on what it does next!
Thomas Hagedorn, if you’re interested in 30-year averages of the UAH data, see the third graph at https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/
Gadden – that was helpful, but not exactly what I was looking for. I hope you will check back to this part of the string in a few days when I have more time to look at this. Various ocean oscillations seem quite powerful in determining temp changes. I like 30 moving averages to try to smooth them out. I may not be asking the right question. I am looking at the UH data to try to see if there has been ant acceleration of the temp Increase, even though it is slight.
Thomas Hagedorn, check the 30-year average temperature graph I linked to. It’s clearly a convex function, indicating an acceleration of the global warming.
I computed UAH 6.1 LT’s running trend with fixed start in Dec 1978.
The trend starts from a 30-year period Dec 1978 – Nov 2008 at 0.127 °C / decade, and ends from Dec 1978 – May 2026 at 0.157 °C / decade:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rvZPB8OnMU-lQU_E2e6YSBJNA04YRqQq/view
There is an acceleration (the trend has itself an increasing trend) of 0.019 +- 0.001 °C / decade². That’s a lot, to say the least.
Bindi – thank you for your reply. I was busy Sunday, missed your reply, and then jumped right into a new post. That was very helpful.
So, can you help me with projecting this acceleration out? I get involved with trying to explain these things to other non-scientists. You re much less likely to screw that up than me, although it lookspretty simple.
Copernicus and Berkeley Earth report average global temperatures for 2025 at 15C and 59F. My granddaughter is 10. Can you (or someone else) use the trend and its acceleration to project C and F global temps out to when she will be 30 (2045), 50 (2065), and 70 (2085)?
If someone else calculates this, please use bindi’s acceleration or explain why you are using something different. And don’t give me something from the models. They seem to have some flaws.
Thanks to anyone who will respond.
Thomas Hagedorn
I’m quite busy with solar data processing, and will reply as soon as I have some time to do.
Thx.
AI chatbot responses are a mixed bag, but they are currently pretty good at synthesizing answers to well formed questions concerning publicly available data, like “what was the trend of the UAH TLT data over a specific time period?”
https://gemini.google.com/share/c538b9beeca7
I point this out because it both addresses the question if it is asked in good faith and mitigates the possibility that one is perceived as asking questions in bad faith. To the latter, passing out work assignments (aka “sammich request”) is a common tactic used by persons more interested in manipulating other posters than in good faith discussion.
Thomas
” Thank you for your helpful post about temperature acceleration. ”
Thank you in turn for your comment, much appreciated.
*
” Can you (or someone else) use the trend and its acceleration to project C and F global temps out to when she will be 30 (2045), 50 (2065), and 70 (2085)? ”
*
Above all, please do not forget that any projection over such a long period, based on linear trend or polynomial propagation is 100% speculative.
You only need to enter a long series of volcanic eruptions with explosivity index 5,6,7 and encompassing 50 years (as happened in front of the Little Ice Age) and your prediction fails.
Thus, this is just for fun.
*
Here is an Excel graph for UAH data with a linear estimate and a 2nd order (i.e. quadratic) polynomial, both with a function showing how they are computed and thus how the figures can be propagated:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-2e7M-GXWubbPT_PBXNaA3ihPQ3agdpM/view
The right ends show the temperature anomaly values for now – May 2026: 0.35 °C for linear, 0.44 °C for quadratic, all wrt the mean of 1991-2020.
*
When entering the number of months till 2045, 2065 and 2085 respectively in the green resp. red equations, you obtain the following propagations:
– linear:
2045: 0.66 °C
2065: 1.24
2085: 1.55
– quadratic:
2045: 1.10 °C
2065: 2.85
2085: 4.09
All values again above the mean of 1991-2020.
*
As I said: this is just a little game, nothing to be taken seriously.
*
And don’t forget: basing the propagation on an anomaly sytem whose reference period is moved forward every 10 years is bare nonsense, especially when you consider the fact that the temperature increase leads to an increase of the 12-month baselines at reference period change, and hence a corresponding decrease of the anomaly values.
Better would therefore be to rely on absolute temperatures.
Possibly missing explanations…
1. In the equations
y = ax + b (linear)
resp.
y = ax² + bx + c
the variable ‘x’ is the number of months since beginning.
In May 2026, there were 570 months since beginning.
For x = 0 one obtains the intersection of the trend lines with the y axis.
*
2. ” When entering the number of months till 2045, 2065 and 2085… ”
I just see that this might be misunderstood.
Should read:
” ” When entering the number of months since beginning/b> till 2045, 2065 and 2085… “.
Thus one adds to 570 respectively one, two, three times 240.
Bindidon – Thanks for the analysis. Yes, recognize the speculative, “fun” nature of this exercise. And, if you go back to my question, my primary interest was in future absolute temps, not anomalies. Very few people outside of scientists really understand or are interested in anomalies, although I appreciate their usefulness in science. I may present this data to a chatbot and see what absolute temps it cranks out for those years. I have lots of doubts about the predictive abilities of the models, so I thought this exercise might be interesting.
BTW, a retired earth science professor was working on a paper examining the role of lower lever volcanism on the ocean floor (“black smokers” and other phenomenon). We know embarrassingly little about the ocean floor – only about 30% is mapped. In addition to isolated hot spots, we have volcanic mid-ocean rifts across the globe that drive the spreading of the ocean floor. He claims to be able to tie this to temperature changes.
Yes you are right, all people – me included – regularly comparing temperatures like for UAH LT and for surface (or for different UAH layers) are always bound to anomalies relative to the same reference period.
To avoid polemic about surface data being always too ‘hot’, I computed UAH LT’s absolute data for the Globe out of their grid data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XQoFaGUzGXThACXe2yh9xKZwyZ3qs4WP/view
Linear and quadratic temperature increases in case of absolute values
– linear:
2045: 0.68 °C
2065: 1.25
2085: 1.56
– quadratic:
2045: 1.00 °C
2065: 2.42
2085: 3.40
*
Why the linear case keeps nearly constant but the quadratic case show much lower values, I don’t know; mostly it is due to the noise induced by the seasonality (the annual cycle) included in the absolute data.
It depends on what it does next!
It depends on what it does next! https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
Not a scientist and so I just look at the numbers, for the most part. I want to understand how Canada average could increase by 1.1 C while USA declines by .99 C and Arctic is pretty much flat. Given that Canada is between the two and entire northern hemisphere only rose by .1 C, doesn’t that make anyone here suspicious for the input from Canadian sources?
Those Canadians have been blowing a lot of hot air.
martinitony, you seem to be talking about the temperature change (in monthly averages) from April to May in US48 (1.6% of Earth’s surface) and Canada (2% of Earth’s surface). The combination of such a short short time and such small parts of Earth means that the numbers can differ widely. Regional monthly temperature behaviour is totally different from planet-averaged temperature behaviour. The longer the averaging (months, years, decades…) and the bigger the region (country, hemisphere, globe), the clearer the CLIMATE change signal. See for example the 30-year global average (third graph) of the UAH data at https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/ .
Gadden – great, concise answer. Short term climate is extremely variable. We live in the eastern U.S. – Ohio. Our grandchildren live in the mountain west of the U.S.- Idaho. A strong jet stream can bring hot weather to one region and cold to the other, or vice versa. This is a fairly common aspect of our short term – weeks or maybe a month at a time – climate. The same thing goes with other regions of the world.
Yours and other answers are not really addressing my question. The question is about variances and deviations from the mean. The mean here is not a mean of temperatures but mean of temperature differences from one area to the other. Some of you have programs that can do actual calculations. A cursory look tells you that something appears to be amiss these days. These differences that I drew your attention to are very large if you take a look at the record for several years. I would suggest they lie more than two deviations from the mean and that means if they were random, they happen only about 1 in a hundred months or even less and that should give everyone pause to wonder. Yes, the jet stream is the cause, but it pretty much should always be and yet you can go back over decades and not find such extreme differences. Why is that? That questions is not just answered by “it’s the jet stream.” Why is it the jet stream NOW? Why so much NOW? If I just accept your answers, I am accepting that these are not unusual events and statistics. I don’t like doing that.
Martinitony,
Interestingly, if you look at March, US was a record 3.74 C above average, while Canada was 3.17 C below average.
It seems that the jet stream was keeping all the cold Arctic air in Canada that month, blocking it from the US.
Some here claim that the recent warming is unprecedented. That’s not what the observations say. To go back in time, you have to use temperature proxies, and none of them show any particular behavior over the last century. The belief in a specific modern pattern stems from combining thermometer-based indices with temperature proxies. But that’s an illusion; the two diverge significantly over the common period—they don’t measure the same thing.
phi,
[“To go back in time, you have to use temperature proxies, and none of them show any particular behavior over the last century.”]
Proxies are not expected to reproduce every feature of the 20th and 21st century warming perfectly. Their purpose is to estimate large scale temperature variations over centuries to millennia.
[“But that’s an illusion; the two diverge significantly over the common period—they don’t measure the same thing.”]
In a typical reconstruction, a statistical relationship between proxies and observed instrumental temperatures is developed during a calibration interval.
The reconstruction is then tested on a different overlap interval that was not used for calibration (holdout testing).
If the reconstruction can successfully predict temperatures in the withheld period, that is evidence the proxy contains temperature information.
If the proxy genuinely had no temperature signal, it would fail these verification tests.
The mere fact that proxies and thermometers are different measurements does not imply they are unrelated or incomparable.
The problem is that they diverge in the 20th century, depending on the location, from the first quarter or at the latest from the last quarter of the century. This divergence is comparable with all proxies in the same region. Of course, I’m talking about verified proxies whose high-frequency behavior follows the data from thermometers.
The divergence problem is primarily associated with certain tree ring records. It is not regarded as a universal feature of all paleoclimate proxies.
Many modern temperature reconstructions synthesize multiple proxy types.
“An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Kynqora,
No, the divergence is widespread and affects all quality proxies worldwide. See, for example, Briffa 1998.
Multi-proxy studies are simply unverifiable experiments; they should be disregarded, and we should return to the raw data.
> See, for example
Name a second one, phi.
You’ll never guess what I started to play Climateball.
Here’s a hint:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/
Best of luck.
phi,
[“No, the divergence is widespread and affects all quality proxies worldwide. See, for example, Briffa 1998.”]
Briffa 1998 is explicitly a study of tree ring width and maximum latewood density from high latitude regions or high elevation forests in the Northern Hemisphere. It’s not worldwide.
It also does not study ice cores, corals, Mg/Ca proxies, etc.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232785046_Reduced_sensitivity_of_recent_tree-growth_to_temperature_at_Northern_high_latitudes
[“Multi-proxy studies are simply unverifiable experiments; they should be disregarded, and we should return to the raw data.”]
I disagree.
Individual proxy records contain proxy specific uncertainties and very local influences. Combining multiple independent proxies is one way climate scientists attempt to isolate the common large scale climate signal.
And a single proxy record is generally representative of a particular site or region, not the globe.
Kynqora,
No, the data series leaked as part of the Climategate scandal is built on Schweingruber’s complete dataset, which covers the entire extratropical Northern Hemisphere.
No high-quality proxy shows any particular behavior in the 20th century.
The question you should be asking yourself is this: If no observational data points to any particular behavior in the 20th century, if the effect of CO2 on temperatures has no measurable consequences in nature, and if complicated processing involving hundreds of inconsistent observation series is required to extract a recalcitrant signal, is CO2 really the problem?
[“No, the data series leaked as part of the Climategate scandal is built on Schweingruber’s complete dataset, which covers the entire extratropical Northern Hemisphere.”]
Sorry, I don’t understand what this has to do with Briffa 1998. Would you mind explaining?
[“No high-quality proxy shows any particular behavior in the 20th century.”]
That is quite a strong claim.
Scientists usually look for proxies that have a strong and statistically significant relationship with observed temperatures during the instrumental period.
More importantly, I still do not see how Briffa 1998 supports your earlier claim that divergence affects all quality proxies worldwide.
[“The question you should be asking yourself is this: If no observational data points to any particular behavior in the 20th century, if the effect of CO2 on temperatures has no measurable consequences in nature, and if complicated processing involving hundreds of inconsistent observation series is required to extract a recalcitrant signal, is CO2 really the problem?”]
Doesn’t Dr. Spencer think CO2 has a measurable consequence in nature?
Yes, I think there is reason to believe it is a problem.
I don’t know whether CO2 is the dominant cause of recent warming or not. But it could be, and it could lead to a substantial amount of warming in the future.
The uncertainty itself is quite large. The contribution from CO2 could be smaller than many mainstream estimates if factors such as cloud cover variability play a larger role than currently thought. OTOH, it could be consistent with IPCC range, in which case CO2 would be a dominant contributor.
Some people do not find that uncertainty very comforting. In that sense, I can understand why people consider it a problem.
Briffa 1998 simply take the Schweingruber data base which extends to the entire extratropical Northern Hemisphere.
The divergence is significant: https://zupimages.net/up/19/47/ilvv.png
If nature is insensitive to rising CO2 levels, how could CO2 be a significant problem?
So if I am understanding correctly, you are arguing that the Climategate incident revealed something about the underlying dataset that is not disclosed in Briffa’s paper?
That would be a serious scientific integrity issue and could qualify as misconduct.
What makes you confident that Climategate was genuinely a scandal rather than a narrative advanced by bad actors?
Kynqora,
I’m not putting anyone on trial here; I’m simply observing that the proven proxies of temperature don’t carry the CO2 signal.
Nature is clearly unaffected by rising CO2 levels. We can draw a wealth of lessons from this, but that’s not my specific topic here.
> Schweingruber data base
That’s just for tree rings.
Here’s a multiproxy database:
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
Cranks will be cranks.
[“I’m simply observing that the proven proxies of temperature don’t carry the CO2 signal.”]
Unlike tree rings, ice cores are generally regarded by skeptics as among the more reliable proxies because they preserve information at relatively high resolution:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
Notice the inflection in the early 20th century coinciding with the period of rapidly increasing industrial emissions.
And as the warming progresses, temperatures increasingly depart from the multi millennial cooling trend.
Kynqora,
Ouch! Look at your proxy in Figure 0 to 2000. The temperature rise begins in the early 18th century, peaks in 1950, and cools until the end of the proxy in 1970. CO2 is not involved in the 18th century, and it is generally accepted that the CO2 signal only appeared from the 1970s onward.
Do you realize how much your proxy contradicts you and doesn’t refute anything I’ve written? It’s simply irrelevant.
In any case, I don’t think we can properly assess the quality of a temperature proxy with such low resolutions (20 years) for reasonable calibration over a period of a hundred years at most. MXDs have an annual resolution. Furthermore, ice cores are often difficult to interpret due to gas diffusion.
“This graph is misleading for a number of reasons.”
Clint R, I didn’t even try to answer your questions as they’re impossible to answer. What I did was to ‘address’ them in the context of the discussion.
1. Your question about “how many warming trends have there been is impossible to answer as climate is constantly changing. Some of the most rapid warming trends are the End-Permian (aka ‘the Great Dying’), End-Triassic and the PETM, all of which were much slower than the current 2 degrees C per century warming rate. The deglacializations were on par with the onset of the PETM. After tge Chicxulub impact, there were likely significant warming of high rate as well. We know enough about climate change drivers to rule out a NATURAL global warning at the current rate to ever have occurred, with the possible exception of some huge asteroid impact VERY long ago. (Asteroid impacts first warm Earth (hours, days), then cool (month, years) and then warm again, and this latter warming could rival present-day man-made warming.
2. You asked about the rates of past warmings. All evidence indicates much lower rates thsn the present. See 1 above. Feel free to explain how a natural warming at the present rate could realistically occur.
3. You asked what the warming rate was ~100 million years ago when the land masses that would become North America were huge islands in the ocean. All we can be reasonably sure about was that it was way lower than the present warming.
This isn’t “beliefs”. It’s based on today’s knowledge about what CAN affect Earth’s gloval average temperature over climate-relevant timescales.
Again Gadden, you realize that all of your answers are based on your beliefs, right?
They don’t even qualify for “Soft Science”!
There are knowledgeable people that don’t think Chicxulub was an asteroid. The formation is in an area of big volcanoes, and a lot of evidence points to just another big volcano. Wait for the next “paper”….
In the area of global warming, we know Earth is in a current warming trend. The “consensus” is pretty solid on that, thanks to the work of UAH. But what specifically is causing it is another thing. I’m content with it’s just natural variations, but we know from “Hard Science” that CO2 isn’t causing it.
Gordon (and, by implication, CR):
“There must be a precise temperature for a photon.”
Dumb and dumber.
This “studentb” child stalks me often. Because he has no science, he resorts to false accusations. There’s no way I ever said such a thing, consequently there is no way this child could provide a link with me saying it.
Why he gets to freely comment here attacking those who offer science is another issue….
“by implication”
That is the logical deduction based on your flawed interpretation of the 2loT.
The child gets caught making a false accusation, so he just makes another false accusation.
The cult loves that kind of perversion. The more, the better….
phi,
“Some here claim that the recent warming is unprecedented”
Recent warming is a bit vague. You could mean latest global temperatures or trends.
Some here and many in the literature say that the current rate of warming (last 50 years) is very likely unprecedented. The Earth’s surface temperature has been warmer in the past, such as the previous interglacial 120,000 years ago.
barry,
“Some here and many in the literature say that the current rate of warming (last 50 years) is very likely unprecedented.”
It’s possible but unlikely. Observations over 2000 years don’t have sufficient resolution, and annual proxies show fairly similar warming patterns a thousand years ago.
Source?
We’re talking about global, or NH warming (where studies only use NH data), so I’m unsure what you mean by ‘warming patterns’. When looking at regional climate patterns over the last 2000 years, the present patterns are far more uniform (almost the entire globe warming) than in the past. The MCA, for example has both warming and cooling trends depending on where you pick your proxies.
The lack of resolution contributes to the uncertainty, but you have it the wrong way around. It’s more likely the last 50/100 years are a steeper warming trend than any in the proxy record.
vhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-today-unlike-last-2000-years-climate-shifts
barry,
A hockey stick evolution isn’t just a record slope, but a radical change in behavior. Do you have any observations that validate this exceptional behavior?
Any observation about the center of Earth?
So, no source for your contention? I’ll take it as uncorroborated. My sources corroborate. Check the first link – it’s the PAGES 2K report, which I believe is the largest proxy network there is underpinning the analyses.
I have no idea what your last comment means. It is more incoherent than the first one. There are dozens of studies about the past 2000 years. I gave a couple links, you’re welcome to acquaint yourself with the research there and more besides. Up to you.
barry,
You’re asking me for sources. It’s not up to me to prove that nothing unusual is happening, but rather up to the person claiming extraordinary behavior to prove it.
I’m not asking for reconstructions, but for observations—raw data. I don’t think it will be difficult to find some and offer one or two examples of the extraordinary impact of CO2 on nature.
> It’s not up to me to prove that nothing unusual is happening,
That’s often the excuse for Step 1 – Pure Denial.
phi, I just gave you 2 sources for what I said. I am providing corroboration, you are not. The burden of proof is equal on us. Bye bye.
phi,
As Willard points out, the chart you are referring to is misleading. It would be best for both of us not to refer to it.
[“it is generally accepted that the CO2 signal only appeared from the 1970s onward.”]
If my understanding is correct, mainstream science generally suggests that during the late 19th / early 20th century, CO2 was already contributing to the warming, albeit as a relatively modest and growing influence alongside other factors such as increased solar output and quieter volcanic activity.
Meehl et al. 2003 conducted separate model experiments using greenhouse gases alone, solar forcing alone, and a combination of greenhouse gases, solar forcing, and sulfate aerosols.
The combination of forcings reproduced the observed early 20th century warming more successfully than any individual forcing alone.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/16/3/1520-0442_2003_016_0426_saggfa_2.0.co_2.xml
The paper also mentions multi decadal variability in the Atlantic, which is particularly relevant to Greenland temperatures.
[“In any case, I don’t think we can properly assess the quality of a temperature proxy with such low resolutions (20 years) for reasonable calibration over a period of a hundred years at most.”]
Lower temporal resolution certainly provides fewer calibration points than annual resolution proxies such as MXD.
However, we can also compare it against independent reconstructions derived from different proxy records and methodologies.
As noted in the article, the Greenland composite used by Carbon Brief is broadly consistent with other large scale reconstructions (Marcott).
Independent replication across different datasets and methodologies is hardly something to scoff at.
Kynqora,
“The chart you are referring to is misleading.”
Really? And why is that, please?
“The combination of forcings reproduced the observed early 20th-century warming more successfully than any individual forcing alone.”
Yes, of course. Aerosol forcing is very poorly understood and allows for arbitrary adjustment.
“However, we can also compare it against independent reconstructions derived from different proxy records and methodologies.”
No. We don’t validate one theory by another, one model by another, or one reconstruction by another. We validate through observations.
The fact is indisputable: no observation validates a hockey stick-shaped temperature pattern.
Borehole temperatures are a reliable method of recovering past surface temperatures. They go back at most 500 y. But they show a clear hockey stick.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35001556
Fig 2.
Fig 2
https://www.nature.com/articles/35001556/figures/2
“Borehole temperatures are a reliable method of recovering past surface temperatures.”
This is a perfect example of “cult science”. Give some cultist a borehole and he can arrive at any temperature he wants!
That ain’t REAL science….
[“Really? And why is that, please?”]
Because it is based on a single site in Greenland and cannot be extrapolated to the rest of Greenland, let alone the globe.
Richard Alley is quoted as emphasizing that snowdrifts and other local influences complicate the interpretation of an individual ice core.
[“Yes, of course. Aerosol forcing is very poorly understood and allows for arbitrary adjustment.”]
Uncertainty in aerosol forcing does not automatically make the result arbitrary.
The authors did not just compare global temperatures. They also examined the seasonal and regional responses to the forcings.
One reason I find this paper plausible is that the enhanced early century South Asian monsoon response in the solar residual experiment is qualitatively consistent with observed rainfall trends in India, which were more positive in the early 20th century than later in the century.
That doesn’t prove the mechanism, but it does provide an independent line of support beyond simply matching the temperature record.
Nate,
I assume you’re joking.
Kynqora,
I only provided one graph, and it’s this one: https://zupimages.net/up/19/47/ilvv.png
“Nate,
I assume you’re joking”
Phi, we can assume you have no rebuttal.
FYI
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/02/21/new-study-shows-independent-evidence-of-global-warming/
phi,
I don’t know what that has to do with the reply I just made.
Nate,
Okay. So, it’s simply that you don’t know much about the world of proxies. You’re clearly unaware that borehole temperature can only have a shape similar to a hockey stick, one way or the other. It’s a proxy that carries very little information.
Regarding the Forbes link, I’m asking for raw data, not reconstructions. It’s still strange how you can’t find anything at the observational level.
Kynqora,
I don’t understand you either.
I was responding to your statement: “As Willard points out, the chart you are referring to is misleading.”
I was referring to a chart concerning the Northern Hemisphere, but it was you who provided the link to the Greenland study.
Me: *cites Carbon Brief article*
phi: “Ouch! Look at your proxy in Figure 0 to 2000. The temperature rise begins in the early 18th century, peaks in 1950, and cools until the end of the proxy in 1970.”
Willard: *quotes*: “This graph is misleading for a number of reasons.”
Me: “As Willard points out, the chart you are referring to is misleading. It would be best for both of us not to refer to it.”
“You’re clearly unaware that borehole temperature can only have a shape similar to a hockey stick, one way or the other. It’s a proxy that carries very little information.”
Again with absurd unsupported claims, Phi.
I am quite familiar with how surface temperatures are determined from borehole temperatures. There is certainly no reason for them to only produce a hockey stick.
They produce regional results with various shapes, in some cases cooling.
That’s exactly what I was saying, you don’t know what can be gleaned from borehole temperatures. The resolution, if we can even call it that, is the number of years relative to the present. So the hockey sticks are generated automatically, either up or down.
“That’s exactly what I was saying, you don’t know what can be gleaned from borehole temperatures.”
Non sequitur. The theory linking surface temp to borehole temps is well established.
“The resolution, if we can even call it that, is the number of years relative to the present. So the hockey sticks are generated automatically, either up or down.”
Error bars increase at earlier times. That alone does not produce a hockey stick.
Again, a non-sequitur.
You are just making up nonsense unsupported by evidence.
Nate,
No. You don’t understand the physics of borehole temperatures. The problem isn’t just the margins of error, but the indeterminacy of the temperatures. Several different evolutions can give the same shape to the temperature profile. Do some research.
Phi,
OK, I agree that there is some degree of indeterminacy. It is addressed by putting reasonable constraints on the inversion, such as limiting the output to long time-scale trends, as they did in the paper I cited above.
This produces a highly smoothed surface record, which can be compared in the overlap period with observations.
I dont see how this only produces hockey sticks.
Thomas Hagedorn, OK but if you refer to weather over weeks, months or even a few years, you’re talking about weather, not climate. Climate by definition refers to averages over longer time, at the very least a decade. Thirty years is generally taken as the lower limit.
Of course you are correct.
If you were to remove the interminable arguments on this blog about some basic laws of physics, which, frankly, I don’t understand at a deep scientific level (I am not a scientist, I am very interested in education on climate change) and am not interested in, you would be left mostly with observations of recent changes in weather – a month, a year, even three or four year weather trends – and even regional weather as opposed to global. Then those observations about WEATHER are used to argue for or against st the global warming narrative about CLIMATE. This is one of the reasons I am not concerned about climate change at this point (although I am open to changing my mind if the evidence is there). The scale of the changes in CLIMATE,which is where scientists camp out, and WEATHER, which is what most average citizens, politicians, journalists, and NGO policymakers seem to focus on just seem too small to make much of a difference in living conditions. I have looked at a lot of 30 year temperature normals for major U.S. cities and how they have changed from legacy normals. The changes are barely perceptible over the span of a lifetime. Sea level increase seems to bring the same, tiny (the depth of pennies) result. So, perhaps you and I can join forces and remind others that WEATHER is not CLIMATE.
Hunga Tonga has left the conversation.
Good point, Robert. We need to talk about HTE more, as it is still with us. The water vapor is slowing leaving upper altitudes, but lingering effects could last another year or so. If it’s gone by 2029, that could easily put UAH Global back to 0.0°C by 2030, if not earlier?
https://postimg.cc/5HqnsRxr
I am amazed at how many fortune tellers there are on a science blog. Nonetheless, there are at least 2 very interesting events unfolding. One is the continued dissipation of the 2023-effect — whatever that was. The other is the consensus El Nino that is approaching. The ensemble forecast is very strong. Is it possible that the models might be wrong? It seems unlikely with such a strong consensus. The problem is that, just like hurricane prediction, strength is often difficult to predict. There is no consensus on just how strong it will be.
Tim S, you weren’t able to solve the simple problems.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744604
You try to sound like you understand science, but you run when given a challenge. It’s like you fear learning.
Boo!
“I am amazed at how many fortune tellers there are on a science blog.”
If you stopped posting there would be one less.
This is to Gadden and Kyngora:
You both appear to be Warmists, yet you’re behaving as adults, not like the cult Kids. So I’m curious about your level of knowledge of the science. For example, do you understand where the “240 W/m²” comes from? That is, what calculation does the CO2 cult use to arrive at that value?
Clint R, before deciding which camp I belong to, you might find a few quotes from the papers I have been citing, and the conclusions I draw from them, worth considering.
“The only previous GMST reconstruction for the Holocene based on multi-proxy data2 showed maximum warmth around 7000 ± 2000 years ago (7 ± 2 ka BP, where ‘BP’ is relative to 1950) followed by multi-millennial global cooling. This cooling trend occurred while the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases were increasing.”
Takeaway: The extent of CO2’s contribution to modern warming remains an active area of research (though there is certainly substantial evidence that it plays an important role).
“The CCM3 has a relatively low equilibrium climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 of 2.1°C when coupled to a slab ocean with implied ocean heat transports, sometimes called a “q-flux” ocean (Meehl et al. 2000).”
Takeaway: The model used in this study (which reproduced not only aspects of the temperature record but also several regional and seasonal climate responses I discussed above) had an ECS near the lower end of climate model estimates and broadly comparable to values often favored by climate skeptics.
Thanks for better explaining your position, Kyngora. You seem open-minded and not yet fully committed to the CO2 cult. So, I want to warn you about some tricks the cult uses.
Responsible adults would agree that temperatures are rising (Earth is in a warming trend). That’s a “known”. But what is causing the warming trend is an “unknown”. The cult would have us believe that CO2 is causing the warming, but they are unable to describe how that can happen.
A morning cup of coffee is usually served very hot. And it can be “known”, without conjecture, how that coffee became “hot”. It may have been from a microwave oven, stove top, coffee maker, or even a campfire. But, we could find out how it became hot.
Now what if someone told you the coffee was hot because of CO2! You seem like someone that might question that. You might ask how could CO2 warm a cup of coffee. The “believers” might answer, “We know the coffee warmed from CO2 because CO2 is rising.” Then you might say “That might just be a coincidence. It does not prove CO2 warmed the coffee”. Then, a room full of “believers” would respond that they “know” CO2 caused the warming. But they would be unable to describe how CO2 could warm the coffee. They just believe it did.
So the first trick to avoid is being distracted by coincidences. Always stick to the basic science — How can adding CO2 to the atmosphere raise surface temperatures? REAL science knows it can’t.
That’s why I asked you if you understand where the “240 W/m²” comes from. That’s an example of how the CO2 perverts science. Just one of their convoluted “tricks”.
[Kynqora, I just realized I’ve been misspelling your “handle”. Sorry, my mistake. I’ve got it fixed now. I’ll finish my thoughts about the “240 W/m²”.]
The “240 W/m²” comes from the imaginary sphere used in cult science. The Solar Constant is first adjusted for albedo, resulting in 960 W/m². That is the flux striking the sphere’s disk. Since the sphere’s surface area is four times its disk area, the 960 W/m² is divided by 4 resulting in 240 W/m². Since the imaginary sphere is assumed to use no energy, the surface emission would then be 240 W/m², resulting in a surface temperature of 255K. So far, there is no perversion of reality. [It’s okay to divide flux is this special case, where the geometry allows, and there are no energy losses.]
The perversion of reality starts when they try to compare the imaginary sphere to Earth. They claim that since Earth’s surface temperature is 288K, and the imaginary sphere’s surface temperature is 255K, then Earth is 33K warmer than it’s supposed to be!
They completely ignore the reality that Earth has oceans, atmosphere, and land area, all with the ability to maintain thermal energy (enthalpy). Earth would have a completely different thermal equilibrium temperature than an imaginary sphere. They’re comparing two different things!
Yeah, it’s tricky. It’s convoluted. It’s perverted. But, it ain’t science….”
So any time you see the cult using “255K”, “33K”, or “240 W/m²”, you know you’re seeing “cult droppings”. Take proper precautions….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
“imaginary sphere”
Do you know of any real sphere, and is it flat?
Clint R, you’re right that the 240 W/m^2 cannot be directly translated into a global average temperature (of 255 K) by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since Earth’s temperature is not the same all over the planet. The average value of T^4 over the planet is simply not the same as the average temperature raised to the power of 4. But you’re making incorrect conclusions from this. You see, Hölder’s inequality (combined with S-B equation) means that the 255K temperature is an UPPER LIMIT to the global average temperature when the average emitted flux from your “imaginary sphere” is 240 W/m^2. In other words, since we know that Earth’s temperature is around 288K, the greenhouse effect is AT LEAST 33K.
Furthermore, the average temperature of almost every single place on Earth is in the range 270K-300K (with only very few percent of Earth outside this range), so the deviation between the ACTUAL magnitude of the greenhouse effect and the simplified 33 degrees value isn’t very large.
Clint R, of course I know where the 240 W/m^2 comes from.
The TSI (Total Solar Irradiance at our distance to the sun) is 1361 W/m^2. The total solar power towards Earth is therefore 1361 x pi r^2 [W], since Earth looks like a disc with radius r and area pi r^2 [m^2] when (hypothetically) viewed from the sun. When dividing this power by Earth’s entire surface (4 pi r^2), we get 1361/4 = 340 [W^2] which is the average solar flux to Earth (before subtracting the flux reflected back to space) . Finally, we need to consider Earth’s albedo and the resulting reflection of sunlight. The reflected sunlight anounts to 100 W/m^2, leaving 340-100 = 240 [W/m^2] which is the solar flux to Earth.
Your “CO2 cult” seems to mean the people who understand climate science basics. The cult would be the science deniers, not people who understand textbook-level atmospheric physics discovered in the mid-1800s.
Would you be a science denier by any chance?
barry,
To help you, here’s an example of raw proxy temperature data:
https://zupimages.net/up/19/48/soa3.png
If you think global temperature trends resemble a hockey stick, if you think CO2 has a decisive effect on nature, you should be able to find measurements that demonstrate this.
If you can’t find anything, it means CO2 isn’t a problem for nature and that these reconstructions are artistic creations meant for gallery display, not for publication in scientific journals.
The chart displays raw polar MXD proxies from 1900, the data set with the well-known divergence issue. Where is the rest of the proxies? Where are the other 19 centuries?
You have shown nothing here that has not been identified and discussed over decades in NH temperature reconstructions.
NH and global reconstructions use many more proxies, different kinds of proxies, and the general results have been corroborated many times with some variation.
You are seeking to raise doubt, not illuminate. I did this round 20 years ago. Please don’t waste my time with these old, hackneyed talking points.
What is interesting is that Nate’s hockey stick doesn’t resemble Michael Mann’s hockey stick. In Nate’s plot every century had warming. The warming also looked like it was accelerating up preindustrial revolution. My questions to Nate are what caused the warming in every century from 1500 to today? What caused the acceleration preindustrial revolution?
What’s even more interesting is that the hockey stick did not show such thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
Besides the fact that it wasn’t Mike’s.
Wha?
OK, Williard’s hockey stick.
MBH, Troglodyte. MBH. And that’s just one of them.
The hockey stick is characterized by its shaft, not its blade. And it shows temps dropping *down* to industrial times. The industrial period started earlier than 1850, BTW.
Glad to see you found back your way to the S-word.
Williard,
Are you a girl? Why do you pretend to be a boy? Did you steal “Troglodyte” from a well-known television series? Nate’s hockey stick or your hockey stick doesn’t show that.
Troglodyte,
You can’t spell. You can’t read graphs.
What are you doing here?
Somebody wrote this nonsense:
“We need to talk about HTE more, as it is still with us. The water vapor is slowing leaving upper altitudes, but lingering effects could last another year or so. If it’s gone by 2029, that could easily put UAH Global back to 0.0°C by 2030, if not earlier?”
I am willing to bet that UAH will be greater than 0.0°C
by end of 2026
by end of 2027
by end of 2028
by end of 2029
by end of 2030
Name your price. (Easy money to be made here)
I’ll bet that absent some major cooling event like a massive eruption or asteroid, UAH lower trop temps will not hit 0.0 per the current 1991 – 2020 baseline in 2029 or 2030.
The baseline will be changed to the 2001-2030 30-year period at the end of this decade, dropping all temps downward on the chart. Worth mentioning for the bet.
I’ll put AU$1000 dollars on it. We’ll convert to your currency at whatever exchange rates apply in 2031.
(AU$1000 = US$705.20 right now)
Who believes what they’re saying?
Let’s make it easy for them.
I will offer 10 to 1 that UAH is back to zero by the end of 2030.
Any takers?
In more than a decade here here I’ve never seen a ‘skeptic’ put their money where their mouth is. I’ve offered bets about a dozen times against ‘predictions’ they make. They have no conviction at all.
I’m going to repeat myself because apparently common sense and climate change don’t mix.
If CO2 is a serious problem, we should necessarily be able to detect its effect in observations. This is a minimum requirement. I demand to be shown a set of observations where its signal is visible, and no one is able to provide anything.
Nature appears to be unaffected by CO2.
All I’m presented with are hockey stick reconstructions supposedly based on data where no CO2 signal is detectable.
Whether or not CO2 has an effect on temperatures, I don’t know. What I do see is that its potential effect is certainly too weak to emerge from observations.
The only thing that can be definitively demonstrated is that the recent warming is linked to sunlight:
https://www.zupimages.net/up/26/20/hvhk.png
phi
I already gave you a study that detailed the specific effect CO2 plays in surface warming. You rejected the study, not with any valid points, just plain rejected it.
Here it is again so you can reject it again.
You still think they cannot directly measure IR at room temperature using valid math and scientific principles. That is a hurdle for you to jump, not the science community. If you need detailed explanation of how this is possible I will provide information to IR measuring devices that are fairly accurate. Like being able to tell the correct temperature of cold water that is lower than room temperature. If the science behind the IR measuring devices is flawed it seems it should be unable to provide any valid temperatures that are colder than the instrument and yet they do!
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Norman,
They are assuming the increased CO2 level is causing warming. I’m assuming the increasing surface temperature is causing higher CO2 which is evolving as an integral of temperature. Hey, if they can assume then I can assume. Right?
Norman,
Off-topic. Refer to the discussion in question and don’t twist what I’ve said.
Stephen
You and Norman are both right.
Co2 and temperature have an equilibrium relationship.
Changes in temperature can drive changes in CO2.
Carbon sinks including the ocean and permafrost, release CO2 when the temperature rises and take up CO2 when the temperature falls. Thus a change in temperature can drive a change in CO2. The most recent past example is the start of the Holocene when an orbit driven increase in temperature from 9C to 14C increased CO2 from 200ppm to 280ppm.
Changes in CO2 can drive changes in temperature.
Increasing CO2 reduces the rate of heat loss to space around 15 micrometres and increases the temperature. Equilibrium temperature is reached when increased heat loss through the atmospheric window restores the balance. Past examples include the volcanic eruptions that drove several mass extinctions and the PETM.
The most recent example is anthropogenic global warming. An increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 420ppm has so far increased global temperature from 13.8C to 15C.
The study proves very little if anything. They are claiming some kind of qualitative relationship that is heavily influenced by other things as follows: “sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor”. Sometimes you have to read the text:
“Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”
Here is the math: 0.2/240 = .00083 or 0.083 percent relative to the “ten percent” in the study. It is not clear how that translates to temperature. The satellite record does not show steady growth of temperature between 2000 and 2010.
What is your analysis and conclusion? Be honest.
phi
I look at your graph then you just need to consider the piece of the puzzle that easily explains your cooling trend.
Here:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-ago-scientists-puzzled-over-slight-global-cooling
And a graph of SO2 on a global scale. You can see it was at a peak during the cooling your graph shows. Pollution standards reduced the emission rate and the warming picked up again. Your graph actually does show the warming trend matching the increase in CO2 when you remove the SO2 cooling effect to counter the CO2 warming.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
Tim S
The article claimed they considered all the sources of downwelling IR and were able to find the 0.2 W/m^2/decade in the data.
This would not make a large difference in surface temperature. Roy Spencer calculates a 0.16 C/decade warming signal. But the signal is there. Other things do alter the course but they did find a real measured signal for the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
““Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”
Here is the math: 0.2/240 = .00083 or 0.083 percent relative to the “ten percent” in the study.”
Oops! Does Tim strangely think that 240 W/m2 is the “trend” in IR?
He needs think again…or think for the first time.
Ent,
I enjoy watching Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon. Do you ever watch it? I’ve learned that the climate crazies in UK are trying to destroy British farming. Climate crazies are just an extension of socialism. Capitalism stands in the way of socialism. Socialism grows out of envy. Socialists don’t like letting the free market decide. They use government to decide the winners and losers instead of the free market. That’s all this is about. That’s all you are about.
Nate,
I thought you just told us that downwelling radiation doesn’t transfer heat? So now it does?
“Socialists don’t like letting the free market decide. They use government to decide the winners and losers instead of the free market.”
Like this:
“The United States has not built a new utility-scale coal plant since 2013, and many of the nation’s existing plants are more than 40 years old. Since 2010, 330 coal plants have retired and 60 others have announced plans to close by 2031”
“President Trump on Thursday announced $700 million in new federal funding for the country’s struggling coal industry, including money that would help build the first two new coal-burning power plants in the United States in more than a decade.
In recent months, the Energy Department has ordered units at five aging coal plants to stay open instead of shutting down as planned. And Mr. Trump has directed the Defense Department to buy more electricity from coal plants to power military installations nationwide.” NYT 6-7-26
Nobody, not the public, nor the free market, wants to bring dirty, polluting, expensive, coal back.
Similarly:
https://fortune.com/2026/04/29/trump-spent-nearly-2-billion-of-taxpayer-money-to-undo-wind-projects-already-underway-dems-demand-answers/
”
Under a deal made public in March, French company TotalEnergies is getting $1 billion — essentially a refund of its leases for offshore wind projects off North Carolina and New York— if it invests the money in fossil fuel projects instead.”
and
”
The Trump admin paid a French company $1 billion to not build offshore wind farms. Blue states are suing”
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/02/climate/trump-totalenergies-lawsuit-offshore-wind
The President clearly wants to decide the winners and losers in the energy market.
The left has used government to destroy the coal industry. Trump is using government to rebuild it.
Trump is one of the most anti-free marketers of recent presidents. The tariffs alone are the most significant hike in many decades. This is pure protectionism, not letting the market decide. But that’s just the beginning of Trump putting his thumb on the economic scales rather than letting business and consumers duke it out.
There hasn’t been a true socialist in federal government for more than 70 years. The conservative canon on this notion is the equivalent of schoolyard taunts, effective but pig ignorant.
Barry,
If there are tariffs all around the world on US goods, then that is a distortion of the free market. Trump is just playing their game.
“The left has used government to destroy the coal industry. Trump is using government to rebuild it.”
The primary cause of the decline of the coal industry is the free market. Gas from fracking surged and became cheaper than coal. Energy providers voluntarily moved away from coal towards the cheaper alternative.
Trump rolled back liberal policies that put heavier regulations on coal burners in his first administration but the decline continued, because coal couldn’t beat market forces. Clean energy subsidies made wind and solar viable, and now that the renewables industry has grown ad the technology improved, it is competitive even without subsidies. Now, instead of letting the market decide, Trump wants to wind the clock back and shield coal from market realities.
Coal has always been subsidised, even more in the early days and 100 years ago. It takes some explaining, with the history illuminated, why anyone today would further subsidise a more expensive source of energy than gas and renewables. It’s not just anti-free market, it doesn’t make economic sense. I can understand it from a national energy security perspective, where a diverse energy supply protects against shortages, but economically it’s the opposite of free market.
Speaking of national energy security, we’ve just had a fine lesson in the vagaries of oil supply, as if volatile petroleum prices haven’t long given us some insight.
Barry,
You are a plethora of leftist talking points. The energy industry has received no subsidies. They are called investment tax breaks. All industries get them; pharmaceuticals, chips, food, restaurant, banks, technology, mining, etc. etc. So, you’re saying all those industries should get tax breaks but energy companies that you don’t like? Sorry, that’s not the way it works, and we don’t listen to Australians to decide our tax policies.
“If there are tariffs all around the world on US goods, then that is a distortion of the free market. Trump is just playing their game.”
Sure. Just remember next time you moan about ‘leftists’ interfering with the free market that you yourself condone such practises when YOU think it’s justified. In fact, you thought the ‘reciprocal’ tariffs were a great idea – the largest distortion to international markets since the subprime mortgage fiasco of 2008/9.
But it’s not just tariffs, which have actually done damage to some American industries (eg semiconductors, agriculture – he’s had to give money to farmers to patch the losses from retaliatory tariffs – great deal-making Donald), he has redirected capital internally. Even at home he is thumbing many scales rather than letting demand and supply decide. Trump doesn’t give a fig about the free market.
Quit worrying about socialists. They have no power, and are no threat to capitalism.
stephen,
“You are a plethora of leftist talking points. The energy industry has received no subsidies. They are called investment tax breaks. All industries get them; pharmaceuticals, chips, food, restaurant, banks, technology, mining, etc. etc. So, you’re saying all those industries should get tax breaks but energy companies that you don’t like?”
“Like?” No, I pointed out the free-market economic peculiarity of continuing to subsidise an energy source (coal) that’s now more expensive than other sources. I also acknowledged it could be part of a strategy of diversification. I also pointed out that energy providers voluntarily trended towards natural gas because of the economic reality of it being cheaper (abetted but not caused by government regulating coal more heavily), a trend Trump wants to buck.
And like a true partisan dimwit you reduce this to “companies you don’t like.”
And thank you for pointing out the government interferes in the market across industries. Where is your vaunted free-market championing now? More to the point, why is it that the energy sector excites you on this point, but not the other industries? Answer – you’re don’t give a fig about the free market either, it’s just a foil to use to poke at industries or policies Let’s you “don’t like.”
Tax breaks for industry is public money used as a regulatory instrument on the free-market. You tax dollars subsidise tax breaks for business. Tax breaks for coal have been huge and ongoing for more than a century in the US.
As well as tax expenditure, the US fed has continued to provide direct subsidies for coal for about as long, the major part being R&D currently, but over the past century and longer the fed directly subsidised the building of infrastructure and transport for coal. Direct subsidies have been hovering around the $2 trillion mark per annum for the past decade.
You may see my focus on coal in this comment as “dislike.” No, it is to relieve you of disinformation.
For instance, while federal government subsidised coal infrastructure in the early days, it didn’t much fund power plant construction. The cumulative direct subsidies for coal over more than a century is only slightly higher than direct subsidies that exploded since the later 2010s for renewables, adjusted to today’s dollar.
So renewables have had a massive leg up in a very short time frame, compared to the longer slow drip of gov direct expenditure for coal. Government pushed harder on the levers for quicker results for renewables, and did so to help a new technology merge with an existing energy grid largely tailored for coal-generated energy. Renewables are now getting substantially more government assistanceI wonder if you than coal.
The pro-fossil fuel talking point implies that tax breaks aren’t really government subsidies. Of course they are, and the fossil fuel industry has had a massively disproportionate boost over time. Oil and gas have had the lion’s share, even more than coal.
It’s not “dislike,” nor is it preference for renewables that I challenge your ideas. If you’re going to talk about this stuff, at least get your facts straight. Check the hyperlink above for evidence of the direct subsidies for coal (and other sectors), as well as tax expenditure over recent years.
So, I know what you think of subsidising renewables, but I’m curious to know if you consider the historical and current direct subsidisation of the fossil fuel industry to be a market distortion to be frowned upon? Or do you think government help was necessary to accelerate public access to cheap energy in the past?
Barry,
Tax breaks for industry aren’t public money. It is their money. You’re showing your socialist stripes. That is the difference between a leftist and a free market conservative. Fossil fuels aren’t the demon. They are the drivers of capitalism and our economy. I feel sorry for the average Australian. They have allowed themselves to be duped by the left. You have no rights except those bestowed on you by the government. During the pandemic you were a clown show. Your system showed its authoritarian stripes and the people had no recourse. There’s a man on YouTube who silently protests by wearing a placard in city in Australia and the police show up and tell him he has to leave. The placard is “hate speech.” No free speech in Australia as well as many other socialist countries like Britain and Sweden. We don’t want your path. It is a path to tyranny. Of course, if Australia is threatened by China you will come to us to save your sorry asses.
“left has used government to destroy the coal industry. Trump is using government to rebuild it.”
I see, Stephen.
So you are perfectly ok with a socialist govt led by your guy, picking winners and losers in the energy market, as long as you like the picks.
Got it.
stephen,
It’s hard to know where to start to unpack that extraordinarily distorted view of economics, Australia, and of me.
I’ll start with you completely ignoring the fact I linked for you that coal gets $2 trillion in DIRECT subsidies. And that coal has received even more in direct subsidies in the early 20th Century.
I put that down to you being a purely political animal with big blinders.
It’s the reason why you are making a conversation about economics a political hammer. Is that all you can do?
Australia has a conservative party. We have conservative voters. They win half the time. We’re not a ‘socialist’ country. You clearly don’t know the meaning of the word. We’re a mixed economy, with a regulated free market, not much different from the US.
While our free speech freedoms are differently structured, the US is a little more free, but in some cases Australia is. No one gets locked up here for criticising the government. We can trash the ruling party just as freely as you can. Our laws vary state to state, the US has a constitutionally backed free speech protection. Both countries have similar restrictions, such as incitement to violence, defamation, fraud, perjury, etc. Your cartoon view of the situation is based on snippets.
As for tyranny, see to your own backyard. The Australian prime minister does not have nearly the power of the US president in the frame of government, and thus is unable to abuse that power as much as a US president can. The prime minister has far less scope to act unilaterally. The US president can issue decrees in the form of Executive Orders. The prime minister needs to work through cabinet approval and sign off by an executive council and the governor general, The US president is closer to a king than the Australia prime minister. The ‘checks’ on executive power are far stronger here than in your country, and we are witnessing your president push the envelope on presidential authority far further than any prior.
Tax expenditure: the government taxes individuals and corporations equally. That is expected revenue that is public money. When tax breaks are given, that is not a person or a company getting their own money back, that is directing public money which COMES from everyone’s taxes – to select industries.
If the government collects standard tax from a company and then writes a check to subsidise that company, it has exactly the same effect on the public purse as creating a tax break for the same amount. The accounting is exactly the same, the name of the vehicle is different. The federal government operates on a budget. If a corporate sector is granted a $10 billion tax expenditure, the government still needs to fund its operations. To make up for that missing $10 billion, the tax burden must be shifted onto the rest of the public—meaning everyday citizens and unsubsidized businesses end up paying higher taxes than they otherwise would.
It’s political optics: writing a direct multi-billion-dollar government check to a fossil fuel or green energy corporation can trigger public outcry. Passing a “tax deduction” or “credit” makes it sound like the government is simply letting a company keep its own money. It’s an easier sell to the public (and to congresscritters, who like to keep their constituents onside when they pass legislation). Either way, the economic effect is exactly the same. It’s also cheaper to write laws for tax exemptions and credits than set up an agency to disburse money.
But you didn’t answer my question, which I exempted from the idea of tax breaks being subsidies just for you. Hopefully you can wean yourself off the left/right claptrap for a whole post.
I’m curious to know if you consider the historical direct subsidisation of the fossil fuel industry to be a market distortion to be frowned upon? Or do you think government help was necessary to accelerate public access to cheap energy in the past?
Barry,
Again, a plethora of leftist talking points. The coal industry has not received any direct subsidies, even though you did capitalize direct. They get exploration tax credits and development tax credits like all other US corporations. Trump recognizes we need coal. Farmers get subsidies, direct by the way. The President can’t do anything more than the Constitution allows. We didn’t have your lockdowns. We didn’t have your vaccine mandates even though Biden (not Trump) tried. You recognize you don’t have free speech or the right to keep and bear arms. We don’t want to be like you. Yes, you do have conservatives. I love SkyNews Australia. But conservatives haven’t been in power for a long time. Your country is like Britain; conservatives exist but barely hanging on. We don’t want that. You hate capitalism until you need it to save your sorry asses.
Sharp comment, Nate.
Barry,
You don’t see conservatives on the whole or in any significant part supporting this global warming due to fossil fuels nonsense. That’s because it is seen for what it is. It is a way for government to control free market capitalism. Your faux concern about how tariffs are hurting US consumers is laughable. You don’t give a rat’s ass about US consumers. You hate Trump because you can’t control him. He sees socialism (leftism) which is just soft Marxism, for what it is-antithetical to the US Constitution.
Barry is like Scott Pelley, former 60 Minutes host. He’s a leftist but doesn’t know it or admit it.
Troglodyte is like Bari Weiss, a complete tool:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/07/scott-pelley-bari-weiss-renee-good-report
An inveterate liar too, most probably.
Is Nate actually confused about basic algebra? Percent increase per decade divide by baseline is a trend. The percent is the increase per decade.
left right left right left right….
What a limited, distorting lens to view things through.
There’s no such thing as center or an independent. An independent is a leftist who won’t admit it. Just accept who you are.
Tim,
The study was clear
“This increase is about ten percent of the trend”
Then you:
“Here is the math: 0.2/240 = .00083 or 0.083 percent relative to the “ten percent” in the study.”
So NO, that is not THE MATH, since 240 is not THE TREND.
You are either confused or trying to mislead people.
There is such a thing as a reactionary centrist, and Pelley is one.
https://bsky.app/profile/michaelhobbes.bsky.social/post/3mnpmqpbfus2p
There is such a thing as a troglodyte:
https://www.propublica.org/article/mark-mcafee-raw-milk-recalls-maha
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_atl_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_atl_1.png
https://i.ibb.co/7xkWWZcz/cdas-sflux-ssta-atl-1.png
Due to the Earth’s position relative to the Sun (aphelion in July), summer temperatures at the North Pole do not rise compared to the 1958–2002 average. The Sun is the primary factor influencing climate change on a timescale of thousands of years.
https://i.ibb.co/PGX4kWCD/daily-ts-2026.png
Polar bears can still hunt on the ice in Hudson Bay.
https://i.ibb.co/4n9nXqZz/masie-all-r10-4km.png
One of the hallmarks of pseudoskeptics is their constant tendency to ignore or discredit anything that contradicts them via irrefutable data.
*
First, a few clarifying words regarding the comparison between the “good” UAH data and the “bad” NOAA or NASA data.
Just as O2 emissions in the 60 GHz range are recorded by extremely precise AMSU instruments aboard polar-orbiting satellites, infrared radiant flux densities have also been determined since 1979 by extremely precise HIRS instruments aboard (sometimes the very same) polar-orbiting satellites.
And just as there is obviously no reason for pseudoskeptics to question the accuracy of UAH’s processing of 60 GHz O2 emissions to derive temperatures – simply because they like the results (due to the low temperatures) – there should likewise be no reason for them to doubt the accuracy of NASA’s processing of infrared emissions just because they dislike the results (which support the dominance of radiative processesin Earth’s energy budget).
*
1. I have already explained the origin of this 240 W/m² figure:
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/climatedatarecords#UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/
*
As with UAH, the data determined above the atmosphere are incorporated into data grids, where each cell is assigned an infrared radiant flux density value.
This flat grid (for OLR: 1 x 1 de sgree, i.e., 180 x 360 cells) must be mapped onto a sphere (or ellipsoid); therefore, the spherical surface area is calculated for each cell latitude.
Using the OLR grid and assuming a perfect sphere, a grid cell at 45° latitude has an area of 8,743 km² (compared to 8,762 km² for the WGS84 ellipsoid); at e.g. 220 W/m² (which equates to 220 MW/km²), this yields an available power output of 1,923,460 MW – or approximately 1.92 TW – on the day of measurement.
If one sums all these available power outputs and divides the total by the Earth’s surface area, a purely spherical calculation yields an average infrared radiant flux density of 240.37 W/m² for the year 2025, for example; the average across all years since 1987 is 239.56 W/m².
*
The “Chief Ignoramus” failed to grasp this some time ago, so I will state it again: just as a 900 MW power plant delivers 21.6 GWh of energy in 24 hours, the aforementioned cell at 45°N delivers approximately 46 TWh infrared radiation energy on the day the 220 W/m² figure was derived from HIRS measurements.
Summing the values for all cells for each day, and then summing the daily totals for the year, the calculation yields a total energy output (in the form of infrared radiation escaping to space) of 1,076,426,351 TWh for the year 2025.
**
2. And this MUST correspond over a period of say 10 years to the energy supplied by the Sun: cell by cell, hour by hour – during that same year, rather than the 100% figure of 1,361 W/m² everywhere at any time. Otherwise, we are heading either toward a furnace or a frozen snowball.
I will forgo the discussion regarding the variation in solar irradiance across a hemisphere – which effectively halves the total – as that topic has become irrelevant to me since I began analyzing solar data.
It is far more interesting and revealing to analyze the solar radiation actually measured by ground stations; this allows us to see, regardless of the location or year chosen, what remains of that famous 1361 W/m² when averaged over the day and the year.
I have presented a great deal of US SURFRAD, OLR and worldwide BSRN data in graphical form over the past few weeks; here is some new data, this time from the Selegua station (Mexico, lat. 15° N), whose data is accessible in the BSRN (Baseline Surface Radiation Network), for e.g. the year 2020.
Annual data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P5BXl2SBXvemsm24QvjxaC_wbDiBEybK/view
How can the blue average line be so low?
Simply look at the marked differences in the daily data for downwelling solar radiation versus downwelling and upwelling infrared radiation:
Daily data: January 1–7
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j0yewnbibZxwoCegqfUnhGnovUWhC_z5/view
Daily data: July 11–17
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hXqxon8zdPr-9tIDZS6S4psFp02-lNwD/view
*
The annual figures tell an even clearer story. Maximum of downwelling solar:
2020 09 25 1390 (*)
2020 09 07 1338
2020 09 06 1311
Minimum: 0 (yeah, zehro, night is night)
Maximum e.g. of downwelling infrared:
2020 09 05 471
2020 08 20 470
2020 08 02 466
Minimum:
2020 12 27 306
2020 02 03 306
2020 02 03 306
Number of days with less than 10 W/m² of incident solar radiation: 4512, i.e., 52% of the year.
Should anyone consider the solar radiation in Selegua to be exceptional, it should be noted that the average across all 10 BSRN stations whose data I downloaded was 51%.
{ (*) Don’t be surprised by the irradiance values, which are well above the actual maximum value of 1361: This is due to effects such as forward refraction or cloud lensing; values above 2000 have been measured in the Atacama Desert at altitudes above 5000 meters. }
*
This is precisely what pseudo-skeptics cannot accept: While solar radiation is interrupted daily by the night and seasonally depending on latitude, the same does NOT apply to the terrestrial response to it.
Number of days with less than 10 W/m² with downwelling solar: 4512, i.e. 52%
Should anyone believe the solar situation in Selegua is special, sorry: the average for all 10 BSRN stations I downloaded the data of is 51%.
*
If we now look at this budget diagram from 2015:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/6af63d13-c314-46ec-86f3-82254ba4df4e/qj2704-fig-0001-m.jpg
…then there is simply nothing wrong with it, neither the 240 W/m² of averaged infrared radiant flux density at the TOA, nor the downwelling solar radiation, though appearing apparently so low compared to other radiation values.
What pyranometers, pyrheliometers, and pyrgeometers have been measuring for decades should not be called into question without well-founded technical objection—any more than the brightness analyses from UAH based on MSU and AMSU.
But I know: pseudoskeptics always reject numbers not fitting their narrative…
There was a little clash when transferring translated text from Google into the blog’s edit form, things duplicated, others missing.
*
Here are the averages of the BSRN stations I downloaded the data of (from Alert, Nunavut in Canada; over Nauru Island at the Equator; down to South Pole):
downwelling solar: 173 (W/m²)
downwelling infrared: 281
Only four of them had info for upwelling. Thus,
upwelling infrared: 278
is therefore not very informative in comparison to the former.
Bindi, thanks for proving me right again.
The satellites are NOT measuring infrared flux (W/m²) at TOA. They measure “spectral radiance” (W/m²/sr/μm). Then they use a model based on values like the bogus 240 W/m². There is NO valid measurement of OLR. It’s all modeling!
You don’t have to prove me right all the time, but I appreciate your efforts when you do.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
What’s the area of the Earth?
1. Some here don’t have the least idea of on what for emprical models UAH’s trasformations from brightness to temperature are needed…
*
2. ” Then they use a model based on values like the bogus 240 W/m². ”
This is a blatant lie.
*
I read about CERES EBAF years ago, anyone can see it today anywhere, just ask some AI bot.
The instruments measure indeed spectral radiance (W/m²/sr/μm) at specific angles, rather than directly outputting a globally integrated flux, and thir data processing is based on Angular Distribution Models.
Coincident imagers scan the same footprint to determine the exact scene content, such as cloud fraction, aerosol types, and surface properties (e.g., snow, ocean, desert).
Because the Earth does not reflect or emit radiation uniformly in all directions (it is anisotropic), scientists use scene-dependent ADMs to estimate how radiance varies based on viewing geometry (viewing zenith, solar zenith, and relative azimuth angles).
The measured spectral radiance is integrated over all viewing angles to obtain the total shortwave (reflected) or longwave (emitted) flux for that specific scene.
For times when a satellite isn’t passing overhead, algorithms use models to account for diurnal variations (how the reflection/emission changes throughout the day) to establish a daily mean flux.
*
If Clint R had the least idea of how to process the data stored e.g. in
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/climatedatarecords/UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/OLR-Daily_v02r00_s20250101_e20251231.nc
he would know that the 240.37 W/m² for the year 2025 is not a bogus number used by the scientists, but is on the contrary the result of processing the data stored in the file linked above, which contains for each of the 365 days a 1 degree grid array (180 x 360 cells which all contain the result of the spectral radiance accurately derived for each cell).
I.e. 189.87 W/m² for January 1 at 90S-180W resp. 171.82 W/m²at 90N-180E.
The average of all the 23,783,400 radiant flux density values for 2025 is 224.92 W/m² – a lot below the true value obtained by transforming the flat grid into a sphere or an ellipsoid.
*
But Clint R has, like Robertson and all the arrogant and ignorant pseudoskeptics infesting this blog, NO technical skills of how to compute the final result and contradict what I did, let alone what the scientists did; hence, what remains to him is to discredit, denigrate and… lie.
So are they, the Clint Rs…
Sometimes I feel sorry for Bindi. He’s such a sad case. He wants so bad to stalk me and prove me wrong, but he doesn’t understand any of the science. Like with the Moon issue, he STILL has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. That means he knows NOTHING about orbital motions.
Here, he first claims what I said was a “blatant lie”, then he goes on to clog the blog to say what I said! (Only in 20 times the words!)
He’s an immature cult child, like the rest. He doesn’t understand the science, and can’t learn. He’s one of the cult kids that has NEVER answered one of my basic physics questions.
I don’t understand why he keeps beating his head against the wall. Immaturity combined with mental illness?
Allow me to remind everyone what Gordon (and, by implication, CR) believe:
“There must be a precise temperature for a photon.”
Dumb and dumber.
This “studentb” child stalks me often. Because he has no science, he resorts to false accusations. There’s no way I ever said such a thing, consequently there is no way this child could provide a link with me saying it.
Just another example of how the cult kids disrespect reality.
Anybody who refers to “CO2 15 micron photons”, by definition, is labelling them with a temperature.
I stand by my claim of “dumb and dumber”.
Making up false definitions is what a cult does to pervert reality.
Thanks for proving me right.
The North Atlantic is cooled by a vast upper-level low-pressure system. Heavy cloud cover prevents the surface from being warmed by solar radiation.
The highest sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific occur in a limited area south of Mexico and north of the equator.
https://i.ibb.co/4wB4L5kN/cdas-sflux-sst-global-1.png
Are the temperature increases accelerating?
I am still struggling with this question. I used an AI model for awhile and wasn’t completely satisfied with “our” conclusion: no (or very little) acceleration.
Dr. Roy has been publishing the linear trend since 1979 for awhile. I don’t want to hunt back through all those posts to see what it has been in the past. It is currently +0.16C/decade. I found +0.14C/decade through October 2020. Does anyone have the months when it first went to +0.16C, +0.15C, etc, back to, say, 2009, when we first had a 30 year period? Also, what is the potential error in the measurement? +/- what?
No new analyses and charts/graphs, please, unless they are quite clear. I am not a practicing scientist. Think of me as Feynman’s first year student (or bartender). BTW, whether you are a warming advocate or critic, that is how you have to communicate if you want to change policy.
Thomas Hagedorn
What exactly didn’t you understand what I wrote above for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1745986
1. The trend for 1978-2008 was 0.13 °C /decade
2. The trend for 1978-2026 is 0.16 °C / decade.
What else do you need?
This is a perennial problem for Republican politicians. Many are climate change deniers because that is what their campaign donors pay them to be.
For US temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-states/average-temperature-by-year. The Thi and Tlo data from 1901 to 2024 are displayed in long table. Here is the data for these two years:
Year—–Thi——Tlo Temperature are °C
2024—–16.8—–4.3
1901—–14.9—–1.6
Change—+1.9—-+2.7
For Thi the temperature increase is: 1.9/12.4 decades=0.15/decade
This value of 0.15° C is very close to your value.
The Extremeweatherwatch website has yet to updated temperature data for 2025 for the countries. However, temperature data for cities is available for 2025.
Apologies for some remarks letting me appear like an arrogant teacher.
What wonders me all the time again is that people can compare temperature trends for
– completely different periods: 1901-2024 versus 1979-2026
– completely different regions (US – I suppose you mean CONUS – versus the Globe.
Moreover, when we speak about ‘temperature increase’, I suppose you mean ‘trend’, a procedure used by everybody, and based on ordinary least squares rather than simply dividing an increase by a time period.
Please look at UAH’s regional and zonal data:
https://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
There you will see at the bottom the trend for CONUS aka “USA48” till (currently) April 2026:
0.21 °C / decade (versus 0.16 for the Globe).
*
I just uploaded your EW data, and here are the linear trends in °C / decade for (Thi+Tlo)/2 (sat data has only Tavg), within different periods, compared where meaningful to UAH’s time series for CONUS:
1901-2024
EW: 0.11
1979-2024
EW: 0.32
48: 0.19
2000-2024
EW: 0.41
48: 0.24
*
Seems to look a bit different.
Tropical storm over Jamaica.
https://i.ibb.co/cX7mxk1W/goes19-ir-watl.gif
Stephen
You have it backwards. Through campaign donations the companies control the govermnent.
Oh, do you mean like Soros or Singham>
Doesn’t really make much difference who is donating or to which party.
The American political system is corrupt because the politicians at all levels are dependant on campaign donations and the donor then controls what the politician says, how he votes and where the government funding ends up.
As the old saying goes; “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
The USA is probably the greatest country and best political system that’s ever been and ever will be. Is it perfect? No. It is the greatest wealth building, where even poor people are fat. Is it utopia? There is no utopia. Never will be. Socialism is nowhere near utopia. That’s the thing with you leftists, you think you can plan utopia, you can’t. Every socialist system ends in disaster, or they jump back into capitalism so it can save them. Our system has always been about equality of opportunity but utopians demand equality of outcome. Doesn’t work, never will. It goes against human nature. If you took every penny from Elon Musk and kicked him into the streets, within 5 years he’d be a billionaire again. That’s human nature and leftists hate it and thrive on envy and with every word that comes out of your mouths you prove my point.
“The USA is probably the greatest country and best political system that’s ever been and ever will be.”
ROFL.
More fun with “240 W/m²”
[CAUTION, not suitable for children.]
The cult is so obsessed with their bogus 240 W/m² that they even use it as the solar input to Earth, after albedo. So they have no problem replacing Sun with 4 sources equally placed around an imaginary sphere. The sphere is then receiving 240 W/m² at each of four disks, resulting in a temperature of 255K.
That works for an imaginary sphere. There are no violations of physical laws. The cult believes four sources supplying 240 W/m² is the same as one source supplying 960 W/m². But, that does not mean you can keep adding more 240 W/m² and still raise the temperature.
One source supplying 240 W/m² to the imaginary sphere would result in the sphere having a temperature of 180K and emitting 60 W/m².
Two sources each supplying 240 W/m² to the imaginary sphere would result in the sphere having a temperature of 214K and emitting 120 W/m².
Three such sources — 237K, 180 W/m².
Four such sources — 255K, 240 W/m².
Each new 240 W/m² is able to continue to raise the temperature. So the cult believes it will go one forever. However, once the sphere is emitting 240 W/m², an additional 240 W/m² would not be able to increase the temperature. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add.
An arriving flux MUST be greater than the flux being emitted by a surface to raise the surface’s temperature. Believing a lesser flux can raise temperature is one of the many flaws in the CO2 nonsense.
More fun: What temperature would result from four sources supplying 960 W/m² to the imaginary sphere?
Temperature of 361K, emitting 960 W/m².
Clint R
Since you believe all science minded people and those who have actually studied various branches are in some type of cult that you invented, can you verify your claims with an actual experiment. You claim adding more heat lamps to a sphere will not increase its temperature but you provide ZERO evidence. Textbook science, which I have linked you to, clearly states that EMR energy from a colder source will be absorbed by a hotter one. I linked you to a valid textbook and gave you the page numbers. I cannot help you when you claim valid science is a “cult” but will offer NO EVIDENCE whatsover to support your claims.
I can help you here. People who belong to cults blindly believe what authorities tell them to believe (like what you do, make claims with no evidence and that goes against established physics). Your posts are cultish. You make claims with no support and belittle any one who questions your claims. This is what cults do.
The science minded on this blog you insult regularly do support their claims with links and supporting evidence which is opposite of what you do and which is NOT cultish in anyway.
Norman, I’ve told you over and over that if you want me to teach you science, you MUST stop the insults and false accusations. But, like the rest of the cult kids, you can’t learn.
Thanks for proving me right.
Clint R
Sounds like you are admitting to being a cult mind! When I ask for evidence you divert. You do it all the time.
Basically you are clearly saying you have zero desire to provide valid science. You are happy to divert.
Wrong again, stalker.
What I’m saying is I no longer waste time with cult kids that have no respect for reality.
Norman,
Longwave radiation doesn’t warm the ocean. It doesn’t warm land either because the land is warmer. Shortwave IR will warm the ocean. You can’t have a warmer planet heating a colder atmosphere and then the colder atmosphere heating the planet. That would be a perpetual motion machine. If EMR energy could heat a warmer object you could create a perpetual motion machine.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Clint R
A correction for you. What you rally will not “waste” your time on is providing valid science evidence for your cult claims! Thank me for correcting you Cult Clint!
Stephen p anderson
I am hoping you have more ability to rationally think than our Cult friend Clint R. The atmosphere is not warming the surface!! Look the Global energy budgets. The surface emits around 398 W/m^2 (just an average). The colder atmoshere retuns 340. The effect is not warming. The GHE works because GHG reduce the Net surface energy loss of what would be 398 W/m^2 to 58 W/m^2. Still losing energy so not warming. This allows the average solar input of 163 W/m^2 has a net gain 105 W/m^2 which is removed by the other surface cooling, convection and evaporation.
In your experience you know the air temperature inside a car in summer is much higher than outside air. The inside air is not receiving greater input solar energy but the rate of heat loss is reduced so it gets much warmer. The body of the car restricting heat loss is not warming this air! It acts to reduce heat loss so solar input then results in higher temperature.
Please help me understand why the “skeptics” who post here are unable or unwilling to accept basic established science??
Here’s just one example of how Norman attempts to distort reality: “You claim adding more heat lamps to a sphere will not increase its temperature but you provide ZERO evidence.”
I never said any such thing. What Norman is confused about is my example above about 4 sources each providing 240 W/m² to a sphere. The sphere would be emitting 240 W/m². So a fifth, sixth, or more identical sources would be unable to raise the sphere’s temperature, since it is already emitting 240 W/m².
He can’t understand because he’s never studied radiative physics or thermodynamics. Worse yet, he can’t accept reality.
Cult Clint R
Are you goofy? You state “He can’t understand because he’s never studied radiative physics or thermodynamics. Worse yet, he can’t accept reality.”
I have linked you to textbooks on heat transfer I have studied. What up with your false claims? You are the one who has NEVER studied real physics.
Here:
https://lampinsider.com/how-many-watts-does-a-heat-lamp-use/
So you can buy yourself 6 heat lamps. If you buy a 250 Watt bulb it will not produce more than 250 watts of power. Now surround a globe with one and measure the surface temperature at various points. Add another then keep measuring the surface temperature until you have all six going. Make up a sheet and post your results as what happens to the sphere temperature as you add heat lamps. See if it is limited (eventually you will run out of space to add more but you can post the results of each addition).
You can babble like drunk about your supposed superior knowledge that you can’t support with valid science. I would expect you to do some actual science and demonstrate your knowledge of heat transfer is superior to one such as Tim Folkerts. Rational posters on this blog already know you will not perform any science (such as an experiment). You will keep calling intelligent people cult minded. You will attract a few ignorants like DREMT or Bill Hunter to your made up science. You have convinced zero scientists that you have any real knowledge. Let us see you convince NASA scientists the Moon does not rotate once per orbit (tidal locked). Send them your great idea of a ball-on-a-string and convince them that they are brain-dead Astrologers for thinking the Moon actually rotates.
Sorry Norman, but finding a source on the Internet is not the same as taking a dedicated college-level course. I can tell you’ve never had a real course in thermodynamics. That’s why you have to resort to insults and false accusations. But, I’m immune to such childishness.
Here’s just one example of how you attempt to distort reality: “You claim adding more heat lamps to a sphere will not increase its temperature but you provide ZERO evidence.”
I never said any such thing. You’re fixated on “heat lamps”, which is your attempt to pervert my example. What you are confused about is my example above about 4 sources each providing 240 W/m² to a sphere. The sphere would be emitting 240 W/m². So a fifth, sixth, or more identical sources would be unable to raise the sphere’s temperature, since it is already emitting 240 W/m².
You can’t understand because you’ve never studied radiative physics or thermodynamics. Worse yet, you can’t accept reality. You keep forgetting you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You have to just keep making up crap.
Keep proving me right.
Norman says:
You will attract a few ignorants like DREMT or Bill Hunter to your made up science. You have convinced zero scientists that you have any real knowledge. Let us see you convince NASA scientists the Moon does not rotate once per orbit (tidal locked).
——————-
Norman obviously disputes the concept of a rotation on an external axis. Indeed the moon does rotate and does so around earth. Norman can’t even get the facts straight much less figure out that both DREMT and I recognize that the moon rotates with the only dispute being where the “true” axis lies. Talk about being an ignorant. Sheesh!
Norman,
You just linked a post to Berkley Earth that is in direct opposition to your claim that it is just “returning the warmth+ but not really warming anything, which doesn’t make sense, thermodynamically.
I asked google AI on an incognito tab:
“If I have 8 suns around a blackbody sphere, each supplying 240 W/m2 to the surface, what flux will the sphere emit?”
Copy and paste that question to an AI, Clint, and do it on a brand new incognito window/tab.
This is the answer I got (minus some of the math):
“At thermal equilibrium, the sphere will emit a flux of 480 W/m2.
Core Assumptions
The sphere is a perfect blackbody.
Absorptivity equals exactly 1.
Emissivity equals exactly 1.
Total power absorbed equals total power emitted.
Suns do not overlap or shadow each other.
Step-by-Step Calculation
1. Calculate the intercepted power per sun:
A sphere of radius R projects a flat cross-sectional disk area to a distant light beam.
[math]
2. Calculate the total power absorbed:
Eight suns each deliver 240 W/m2 across this cross-sectional area.
[math]
3. Determine the emission surface area:
The sphere radiates energy out into space from its entire surface.
[math]
4. Calculate equilibrium emitted flux:
At thermal equilibrium, total power emitted equals total power absorbed.
[math]
= 480 W/m2”
Go on Clint, try it. To keep the answer free of bias, ask it neutrally like I did, in a brand new conversation, incognito.
“Black Body Barry” is back!
Ask your worthless AI, “What the temperature of the sphere would be if surrounded by 8 sources that each provided 300 W/m² to its surface.”
If it again gives you the wrong answer, ask it is 8 blocks of ice could boil water?
I didn’t pay attention to this earlier.
“…8 sources that each provided 300 W/m2 to its surface…
…8 blocks of ice could boil water…”
Emitted flux v absorbed flux…
Oh, McGooo, you’ve done it again!
I think I can help you out, Clint.
Imagine it is our sun irradiating the sphere.
Now completely fill the entire field of view of the sphere with suns. A great sphere encasing the sphere, like a giant cavity.
We all know that the sphere temperature must equal the temperature of the cavity ‘wall’. The sphere must be 5778K.
This is radiative transfer 101, the basic equilibrium in a cavity scenario. If the walls are fixed at a certain temperature, all objects within the cavity must equilibrate to that temperature. They cannot be hotter or colder.
The flux for that temperature is 63,200,700 W/m2. That is what the sphere must emit at equilibrium on this scenario.
AI tells me that 184,260 suns like ours could surround a sphere at 1 AU.
Do you see it yet?
Now start taking away suns one by one.
Each sun removed reduces the temperature of the sphere.
4 suns equipositioned around the sphere do not provide the temperature limit for the sphere. Each sun added makes the sphere warmer, until the temperature of the sphere equilibrates with the surface temperature of the sun/s when completely surrounded.
With your view, we encase the sphere with an enclosure of suns at 5778K, and still the sphere remains at 340K.
Do you see it?
You mean the inconsistency between your two comments?
Yup, I see it.
Do you see it?
If not, you might need a responsible adult to help you.
Clint,
There’s no legitimate way around this very basic equilibrium cavity scenario. If the temperature of the walls are fixed, any object inside must come to the same temperature and radiate the same flux.
Surrounding the sphere with a wall of suns at 5778K must give the sphere the same temperature as the surface of the suns.
The corollary is obvious. As you remove suns the sphere drops in temperature and radiates less and less intensely. Eventually we get down to 4 equipositioned suns each delivering 340 W/m2 to the sphere, and a much lower temperature/flux emitted by the sphere.
Removing suns subtracts from the total radiative flux it absorbs, adding suns increases it.
If you don’t agree with this, could you please explain why?
barry, you’re perverting the problem, just like you attempt to pervert reality. That’s what you have to do to protect your cult.
My comment (above) involved 4 sources each providing 240 W/m² to the sphere. If you change that scenario drastically, you change the problem. That’s the problem with radiative physics and thermodynamics. If you don’t understand what you’re doing, you end up getting in trouble as you did with your AI. You’ve got AI basically saying you can boil water with ice!
You even have a bag of tricks you use to pervert reality — a black body, and the bogus “heat transfer” equation, for example. Others of your cult use “CO2 lasers”, microwave ovens, IR thermometers, and magnifying glasses, to pervert reality.
Now, what perversion will you attempt next?
A good rebuttal to your thesis isn’t a ‘perversion.’, it’s just something you have no answer for.
“My comment (above) involved 4 sources each providing 240 W/m2 to the sphere. If you change that scenario…”
Your comment mentioned an extra 240 W/m2 irradiating the sphere, asserting no effect. I took that assertion to a logical conclusion to demonstrate its falsehood. If what you say is true, 184,000 suns completely surrounding the sphere would provide no more warmth to it than 4. My argument scotched that assertion, as the sphere must be in equilibrium with its environment.
“a bag of tricks you use to pervert reality — a black body”
The sphere in your scenario is a blackbody. If it weren’t it wouldn’t absorb all the radiation from the 4 suns and its temperature would be lower than your solution.
Are you sure you want to say using blackbodies is a trick to pervert reality? You’re unwittingly accusing yourself.
Ad hom really won’t obscure your mistakes here, Clint. It is perfectly clear that you have no answer to this rebuttal.
Fluxes add. See above.
You, and some of you cult, have stepped in it again, blackbody barry.
I usually don’t waste my time debunking such nonsense, but this is worth it. You have revealed your vast incompetence and ignorance. Unfortunately I will have to wait until this weekend to find the time.
Stay tuned….
Clint has been thoroughly schooled.
Unfortunately, he has no time, and needs to crawl away. Though, as usual, he leaves a slimy trail.
A correction: a greybody would respond to radiative input like a blackbody. So your sphere could be a greybody rather than a blackbody, Clint.
However, both constructs are equally theoretical, so your criticism of blackbodies reflects equally on the sphere as greybody too (pun intended).
I was thinking of albedo when I said emissivity. The sphere is a planet in my mind.
Speaking of “cavities” reminds me of this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742689
Barry,
“Surrounding the sphere with a wall of suns at 5778K must give the sphere the same temperature as the surface of the suns.”
And thus, the Clint ‘theory’ is burnt like the surface of the Earth.
Nate comments in the wrong place (quite deliberately).
DREMT tries to distract us from Clint’s ‘theory’ going up in flames by baiting people into relitigating his Zombie arguments, and nost importantly, posting etiguette!
Actually, the dream is to post a comment and get no responses. Sadly that is not possible when I have so many stalkers.
Weird. Post bait, in hopes of getting no response!
Poof goes your credibility, again.
See what I mean?
These comments remind me of a time when I won a conversation. I do hope no one interrupts my perfection by commenting below. I do so hate getting dragged into conversations that I already won.
Yes, folks – barry’s another stalker.
All I want to do is just provide a link so people can read through the discussion, and hopefully learn something.
All I want is for no one to comment on my posts.
A little more for people to read, on the same subject:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742923
[PUFFMAN] *Repeats one of his silly riddles*
[BARRY] A great sphere encasing the sphere, like a giant cavity.
[GRAHAM] Speaking of “cavities” reminds me of this:
[NATE] Yes, Barry. Puffman’s riddle is a little silly.
[GRAHAM] Go away, stalker!
[BARRY] Yes, Nate. Really silly.
[GRAHAM] ANOTHER STALKER!
*Faints*.
It goes without saying that my biggest stalker would appear, and thus identify himself as a stalker.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Last month FastNet, the AI weather model we’re developing with
@metoffice.gov.uk, predicted the high temperatures of May’s heatwave 84hrs ahead.
It captured the highest midday temperatures more closely than the current operational physics-based global model.
Learn more: bit.ly/47JvdRm
https://bsky.app/profile/theturing.bsky.social/post/3mnu2mcrrjc2o
Meanwhile Sky Dragon cranks can’t make elementary divisions.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Last month FastNet, the AI weather model we’re developing with @metoffice.gov.uk, predicted the high temperatures of May’s heatwave 84hrs ahead. It captured the highest midday temperatures more closely than the current operational physics-based global model.
https://bsky.app/profile/theturing.bsky.social/post/3mnu2mcrrjc2o
Meanwhile Sky Dragon cranks can’t make elementary divisions.
Nate,
This is related to these three characteristics:
1. Smoothing that increases with depth.
2. Regular and significant computational smoothing (one century) that is added to the physical smoothing.
3. The use of a point for the present, which is arbitrary given the smoothing used.
Bindidon – Thank you for your helpful post about temperature acceleration. Can you go way back up in these posts and answer my response? It was around 4:30 AM on June 9. Just asking for a few simple calculations. I could likely try them, but not sure they would be right.
“The USA is probably the greatest country and best political system that’s ever been and ever will be.”
ROFL.
Britain used to be a great country. It reached its apex probably during Victoria’s reign. Now it is a shell of its former self. Britain needed us to defeat the Nazi socialists and then it embraced socialism. Communism worked its way into Britain through the Labour Party. Why would Britain embrace socialism after it worked so hard to defeat it? It was already headed down that path. Staggers the imagination.
No deflection.
Never mind the UK; I want go hear you defend a system in which the fossil fuel lobby can buy a president.
Said president then enriches his family. He uses his Justice Department to harass his political opponents and he fires Senators and officials who dare to disagree with him. He packed the Supreme Court with his own appointees.
His party practices racism and discriminatory voting practices on a scale unheard of in recent history. Both parties practice gerrymandering to fiddle the vote.
Tariffs have damaged his economy by restricting trade and making necessary imports such as rare earths more expensivemore expensive. His enefgy policy discourages the use of cheap and plentiful renewables while encouraging the costliest and most expensive fuel on the planet.
His science policy is demolishing what used to be one of America’s greatest strengths. Finally he
We wont even discuss his egotism, his encroaching senility or his urge to put his name on everything and build monuments to himself.
Overall, the US has become a mockery of a democracy. It’s not yet a dictatorship, but its certainly an oligarchy with Trump as the supreme oligarch.
Entropic Man,
Did you say you don’t like companies and billionaires donating to presidential campaigns? Were you okay with the Harris campaign receiving $1.5 billion Vs Trump getting $350million
Ent,
OK, I get it. You hate Trump. Woo oooh. I don’t even give British politics a second thought. Why are you so interested in US politics if we’re a has been country?
Anon for a reason.
Do you not find it obscene that in the “world’s greatest democracy” people spent $1.85 billion trying to buy an election?
Entropic Man,
What I find obscene is the bias of the media. Joe biden was totally incapable of organising anything. Yet the majority of the media still claimed he was perfect.
The money is a problem but as Trump proved it’s not the whole answer as he had a fraction of what the democrats had and still won. You must be aware in the UK that a lot of union members don’t agree with political funding as it is at odds with their own voting preference.
Of course if you prefer a Chinese style of election then say so.
Also, by the way, these tranches of mail in ballots in California are coming in and can you believe they counted over 10,000 the other day and not one, zero, ballot was for the Republican? How is that even possible? Not one.
No, I dont believe it. Where is this data from?
Trumps been telling his base for months that mail in ballots are terrible and should not to be trusted
No one should then be surprised that his base listened to him, and few voted by mail.
Nor should anyone be surprised that when the majority of mail-in ballots indeed were for Democrats, that Trump would declare there must have been cheating!
And no one should be surprised that his supporters are fooled by this.
We heard exactly the same allegations during the 2020 election and those were debunked in court. So I looked it up.
Yep, a lag in updates to a news service for a candidate is the culprit.
“In fact, the update that showed zero Pratt votes was followed one minute later by another update that showed tens of thousands of votes for Pratt, and none for Bass or Raman.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2026-06-05/how-simple-mix-up-fueled-false-conspiracies-about-la-vote-count
Oh, it was debunked by Pravda. OK.
Barry,
So, does Australia allow the counting of ballots that come in after election day?
So, this fact checking and debunking is more leftist propaganda. For instance, if you look up Germany’s mail in ballots, first you have to request a mail in ballot. You either have to do so with a form or in writing. You also have to have a polling card. This essentially verifies that you are who you say you are and is like the old absentee ballot system. This is not mass mailing of ballots. The only reason to mass mail ballots is to allow cheating. Nate and Barry are a couple of lying propagandists.
In the UK registered voters must submit an application to the electoral registration officer. There are time and document requirements for the application. There must be a reason the person cannot show up to the polls on election day. So again, this is like our absentee ballot system. This is not what is happening in California. This is a mass mailing of ballots. What states allow mass mailing of ballots in all elections? California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.
Stephen, if you dont like having your conspiratorial narratives fact-checked, maybe do it yourself before posting them here.
We will see, Nate. Why don’t you do mail in ballots in Pennsylvania?
Postal voting is commonplace worldwide, it is common to have many of them counted after election day, especially in places with high population density, and it is also normal in many countries to receive them after election day as long as they were posted by election day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting
Trump’s incessant and always debunked claims of election corruption appears to have misled his followers into thinking that postal votes are an aberration and a regular gateway to election fraud.
They are common practise all over the US, even in red states, and worldwide, in order to give everyone the best opportunity to participate in their respective democracies.
Yes, stephen, Australia has postal voting for people who aren’t able to vote in person on the day, and postal ballots can be counted days and even weeks after the election, in order to ensure everyone’s voice is heard.
stephen says: “Why don’t you do mail in ballots in Pennsylvania?”
facepalm
“If you’re a registered Pennsylvania voter, you may apply to vote by mail.”
https://www.pa.gov/services/vote/apply-for-a-mail-in-or-absentee-ballot
stephen, what are the procedures and safeguards in place for mail ballots in California? I’m not American, I believe you are, so you’d know more than I do, and no doubt you’ve taken the time to understand how it works. I know they are automatically mailed out. Then what happens?
“What states allow mass mailing of ballots in all elections? California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.”
Utah is a red state, and the mass mailout provision was enacted under a Republican legislature. Republicans championed the cause to make voting more accessible for rural areas, military families, and to encourage people to vote.
Or they did it, according to the conspiracy theorists, to rig elections.
Do you realize that both Democrats and Republicans have won election in regions with mailout ballots?
I did a quick google and found that wherever mass mailout ballots have been adopted, there was no sudden shift in election results. Studies show that the only thing that noticeably changed was a modestly higher turnout for elections.
There’s a lot of smoke from MAGA in this issue. Let’s see the actual fires. Let’s see substantive evidence for impropriety rising above the noise about it.
Barry,
Stop deflecting. I never said there was no postal voting. There is no mass mailing of ballots and then counting those mass mailed ballots for days after election day except for California, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Colorado. Certainly not in Australia, UK or Germany. Stop your lying propaganda. You are just one lying machine.
Barry,
You don’t have the benefit of the US in your actions. You Australian leftists have Australia virtually destroyed and so you’re spending time on us. You don’t care if Australia and the US burn down into a pile of rubble as long as you leftists are standing on top declaring yourselves “Kings of the Pile.”
Barry,
So, Utah is changing their law so that mail ballots have to be requested. No more mass mailing. Also, it doesn’t matter that Utah is a red state. I disagree with their mass mailing. It is ripe for fraud.
Australia isn’t ‘destroyed’, you eejit. On scores of measures we have it as good or better than the US.
Australia is consistently ranked more free, more free and balanced journalism, better longevity (6 years more life than Americans), overall health, education (HDI). We rarely have mass shootings, no one shoots up schools, we have one of the highest median health per capita in the world.
The US has slightly better free speech protections, but Joe Aussie can trash the government without fear, as we do al the time.
Our towns and cities are sanitary, we don’t have as large a wealth gap as the US, and no one goes bankrupt from health care. We have mandatory voting, which you may think is ‘unfree’, but guarantees the populace not only participates in elections, but is also better informed. We see it as a civic duty, and it’s one of the reasons we rank higher than the US on the democracy scale.
The US has a higher GDP per capita than Australia, the most powerful military in the world and is a powerhouse in cutting edge technology and venture capital.
Our constitutions champion different ideals. The US constitution champions individual rights and separation of powers. The Australian constitution champions stable democracy and the rule of law largely set by the legislature. The framers trusted parliament to address the rights and protection of the people rather than unelected judges, or the committee that wrote the constitution. Rather than frame the values of the nation in a near immutable document, that task is given to the people through elected representatives.
Neither is better than the other. They each have strengths and weaknesses. I’ve always thought the American constitution is excellent.
“I never said there was no postal voting.”
Oh yes?
“Why don’t you do mail in ballots in Pennsylvania?”
You didn’t know Pennsylvania has mail in ballots. You have no idea what Australia is like.
Utah is a red state with universal mailout of ballots. Explain the conspiracy to rig the election here.
And while you’re at it, are you going to explain what safeguards are in place for mail ballots in California, or would finding out give you a tic?
Stop being a partisan and learn some stuff. Any fool can shout what they heard in their echo chamber.
Barry,
Yes, the Australian Constitution champions government not the individual. It trumpets democracy, which is nothing but mob rule, the whims of the day. The Parliament bestows people’s rights. You as an Australian citizen only have the rights that the current legislature decides. The US Constitution reinforces man’s natural unalienable rights through its Bill of Rights. It protects us from Government. There’s nothing natural about equality of outcome and it doesn’t work long-term as an economic system. Australia survives off of America’s capitalism. For instance, your healthcare system survives mostly off of our medical research, not yours. Same way with the rest of the world. But you want us to be like you. Why? Doesn’t make sense. There would be no one to develop medicine or protect the world from the bad guys.
https://cha.house.gov/the-elections-clause-states-primary-constitutional-authority-over-elections
“Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be counted according to state law. Through an examination of history, precedent, the Framers’ words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself, this document explains the constitutional division of power envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal government with respect to election administration. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”. Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to serve to protect one of Americans’ most precious freedoms, the right to vote.”
Concur.
Still can’t work out how to use a search function and check how California’s mail ballot works, stephen?
This was your complaint, it took a second to debunk, and you’ve changed the subject ever since. To topics you are even more ignorant about.
When grown-ups get something wrong, they say so.
I know exactly how California’s mail ballots work you blithering leftist. Why don’t you explain to me California’s Motor Voter registration process? Or how ballots are automatically mailed to “registered” voters? Or how mailed ballots have to be “dated?” Or how long they are counted? Or who Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong is?
“I know exactly how California’s mail ballots work”
Well, that’s great. Then you know the system of checks includes barcode ID, signature verification and random recounts to check the system is working.
You may or may not know that there have been many challenges to the system in court, and that there has been 100% consistent rulings that the challenges either lack evidence, or that they are simply wrong on investigation.
A lot of complaints, no fire.
Just like the 2020 federal election, where courts with judges of all political stripes unanimously found no evidence of widespread fraud.
All very familiar – cry foul and to hell with the facts. You’ve just exemplified that in this discussion.
Trump-appointed DoJ prosecutor checking California election for fraud
“There was a claim circulating on social media about an election night ballot update at the Los Angeles Registrar of Voters where one candidate received zero votes. We reviewed official county records. The claim is false. Each candidate received votes in every update.”
https://x.com/USAttyEssayli/status/2063108426461270199?s=20
Tell me about the checks and balances. How do you register in California? Tell me about the checks and balances on mailed out ballots? (There are no checks and balances by the way, but you go ahead.) Do you think Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong was a lone wolf?
Barry,
Are there large criminal organizations committing crimes in the US? Are they doing it every day? Do you have any evidence that they’re doing it?
Glad you ask:
https://www.ft.com/content/744ea8dc-6d93-4fe9-a5e3-36de4f5d06db
Want more?
One thing Barry is doing is pointing out a significant weakness in our form of decentralized government. It is a weakness in our Republic and ripe for exploitation by the corrupt. One or more states like California don’t have to follow the rules and there is nothing any of the other states can do about it. If one party completely takes over a state or a city like Chicago or New York, then the Federal Government can do nothing. Our system relies on the integrity of all the members. It is very similar to the game of golf. Do you improve your lie when no one is looking? If one party’s mantra is “By Any Means Necessary”, then their agenda is more important than the integrity of the system or the principles we were founded on. The Democrat Party is a party with no principles or one principle and that is the advancement of their utopian agenda.
Bill Essayli, the US Attorney in Los Angelese, who investigated and charged Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, says that there are multiple other investigations similar to the Armstrong case being investigated and believes there will be other convictions. Is this the “no evidence” you were talking about, Nate?
You might also like:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge0grppe3po
Glad this fraudster was caught.
If this becomes a widespread problem then, maybe California will change its voting procedures.
As you agreed, that is up to the States.
If the Federal Govt tries to take over management of elections, or use ICE to ‘oversee’ voting, or to try to have the Post Office manage who gets a mail-in ballot, you should know that all of these are Unconstitutional.
Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong committed registration fraud. I looked the case up. She wanted money. There was no politics involved. No ballots were sent to be counted. No election rigging.
As you are familiar with California’s ballot safeguards, stephen, you would know that had Armstrong tried to actually send fraudulent ballots they would have passed the barcode check and failed the signature check.
Thanks for confirming that Bill Essayli is, as I said, investigating election fraud in California. A thoroughly good idea for every state in the union! There are always bad actors. Is there widespread fraud? According to a multitude of state and federal audits and reports, these remain exceedingly rare for a country with hundreds of thousands of head to head elections every 4 years (municipal, sherriff, mayoral, congressional etc).
“One or more states like California don’t have to follow the rules and there is nothing any of the other states can do about it. If one party completely takes over a state or a city like Chicago or New York, then the Federal Government can do nothing. Our system relies on the integrity of all the members.”
Utah Republicans are corrupt, too? Inconceivable!
All the states with universal mailout have striven to make the system foolproof. Those states have mandatory, independent audits of their electoral system every election cycle, and implement the recommendations if feasible. Hardly the behaviour of people trying to rig the system.
I thoroughly agree with you that election fraud should be wiped out. I think you should have a federal election commission, operating completely independent of party, like the reserve bank, managing federal elections at least, and possibly congressional and gubernatorial.
Unfortunately, we have this in Australia, and you don’t want to be like us. A pity, as we’ve never detected election fraud with our system, and our elections are widely held by international observers to be one of the most secure in the world. No party controls any state or federal election in Australia. It is inconceivable to us in the 21st century that any party should run a major election.
So I guess you’re stuck with a hodgepodge of electoral systems, most administered by party Republicans or Democrats, all over the greatest country in the world.
Bill Essayli, bulldog for electoral integrity, advises you were wrong about the vote spike that started this conversation.
Will you continue to spread that rumour anyway, or have you taken that correction on board?
DOJ is requesting California to turn over their voter rolls to be audited. The Federal Government has a right to do that. California is fighting the request. Why? California allows ballot harvesting. That is why these huge bundles of votes are arriving. There is no voter ID in California. When you register to vote it says only eligible voters (US Citizens) are allowed to register. How does it prevent ineligible voters from registering? It doesn’t. It is based on honor. Anyone can get an ID in California. Anyone can vote. Anyone can harvest votes. They system is fraudulent, intentionally under the auspices of increasing voter turnout. It is designed to favor the Democrat Party. However, it will end up causing California’s destruction.
Speaking of the DOJ:
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto_release_properties_addendum_-_final.pdf
Barry has a copy of “Rules for Radicals” beside his bed. He is a good commie propagandist; deny, deny, deny, obfuscate. Barry is about advancing his utopian vision. Barry will get a nice Dacha in the country while the rest of us are in cramped one-room apartments in the city.
Barry says Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, also known as “Anika,” wanted money. Yes, she was a paid collector of registered voters. I wonder how many people she got to register? Isn’t “Anika” a nice name for a comrade. What is your “comrade” name, Barry? Or is “Barry” your “comrade” name? What is your real name, “Barry”?
“DOJ is requesting California to turn over their voter rolls to be audited. The Federal Government has a right to do that.”
Again, Stephen, according to the Constitution, the States manage their elections. Which means registering voters, keeping the lists. The Feds have no role in that.
The DOJ going on fishing expeditions, exclusively in Blue States, is a politicized, weaponized DOJ.
It is a Dept of Injustice.
Is it gonna take a Democratic President, going after Red State elections, for you to figure out why this is a problem?
Californian Victor Davis Hanson explains exactly what is happening in California:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzHVOcyZ0Qk&t=659s
The Claremont Institute is indeed “Californian”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_Institute
Hanson is a Claremont Institute fellow.
Mike Johnson on the California election being rigged.
“Some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream that it’s impossible to prove, but I think everybody knows instinctively, something is wrong here, and that’s a concern.”
The Kool-aid is so strong that he doesn’t realise what he said there. How many people are this dumb in the halls of congress?
Williard,
Maybe you should pay a little closer attention to your fact checking. He’s a Hoover Fellow.
Looks like for our Troglodyte fact checking is reciting AI slop:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/hanson-victor-davis-1953
Speaking of Hoover:
https://lostnotstolen.org/
More from Victor Davis Hanson about California’s doom loop. He also mentions the UK, but I think it also applies for Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L1X3xvijYI
More fraud from Donald:
https://theweek.com/politics/trumps-conflicts-of-interest
For some reasons Tom doesn’t seem to mind Troglodyte…
“Californian Victor Davis Hanson”
And how many Californians see it differently?
BACK AT THE RANCH
The Alabama Legislature had just passed a bill to strip Black Alabamians of a second congressional district — not one where they are in the majority, mind you, but one where they are merely politically within reach of the winning side.
Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter was bullish on the prospect — if only the courts would side with them — and said so in a press conference at the close of the special session.
“It gives us a chance to look at all of them, if we get some reprieve from the courts, so we’ll see how that goes and certainly hope that the Supreme Court will overturn Amendment 14,” he said.
https://link.al.com/public/45636598
Watch this fool walk that back. Oh no, he meant the other Amendment 14.
Almost certainly he’s not alone in his rejection of the constitution and his duty to it. You only say stuff that dumb when it’s supported by the people around you.
“I solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God.”
On review, he didn’t mean what he said. He said it twice, too. He was just very inarticulate.
“The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through May 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).”
And the global figure is?
??
You just quoted it.
How long does this difference exist? Forever?
You’re welcome.
How long does this difference exist?
As above, AI has made it extremely easy to synthesize answers to well formed questions if getting an answer is the objective:
https://gemini.google.com/share/01c93dfb392f
AI is a method of pattern matching. Anything more is speculation.
Answering yes and no is AI at its best.
The AI response was not ‘yes and no’. It explained the difference (adding detail I wasn’t aware of), and affirmed it would continue without ceasing while the planet warms.
For the new information I checked the literature. The hydrological cycle and the lapse rate response over land v oceans do indeed seem to be the primary cause of the land/ocean difference.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/12/jcli-d-12-00262.1.xml
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/3/560
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00206-6
Note: though the 3rd link is relating the difference to CO2 warming, the phenomenon arises under warming/cooling no matter what the cause. The difference remains even with short term warming/cooling, such as ENSO events.
“The land-ocean warming contrast is not a temporary glitch; it will exist for as long as global warming continues” Yes.
“The land-ocean warming contrast is not a temporary glitch; it will exist for as long as global warming continues, and will persist even after greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize.” Yes.
“The land will always warm faster than the ocean.” Yes.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2026-06-10.gif No. The protected line is trending downwards towards the last 10 years.
“Answering yes and no is AI at its best.”
You just confirmed that it didn’t answer ‘no’.
Then you posted a link to something different so you could say ‘no’.
You are the epitome of a contrarian. Coherence doesn’t matter, as long as you can be contrary. It’s as predictable as it is boring.
Your link is broken by the way. Don’t bother reposting. You can be contrarian on your own.
The data says no.
And still do ALL the ignorant pseudoskeptics dodge around two evidences:
1. First evidence
NO ONE – except the public relation ‘dis’informers at NOAA – does tell that ‘Backradiation warms the surface’.
That sounds exactly like
” CO2 traps heat. ”
which is shher unscientific nonsense
or
” 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. ”
which hardly could be a more stupid explanation of how UAH and the rest of the world compute anomalies.
*
2. Second evidence
When you compute the energy reaching the surface AT ANY POINT ON EARTH over a full year, the 1361 W/m² coming from the Sun above the atmosphere ALL TIME 365/6 days per year and 24 hours per day have NOTHING in common with what IS MEASURED at the point – due to DAY VERSUS NIGHT and SUMMER VERSUS WINTER – regardless where that point is on Earth, from the North Pole down to the South Pole.
*
If all these pseudo-skeptics were able to download and analyze the surface radiation data collected worldwide by pyranometers, pyrheliometers, and pyrgeometers, they would quickly realize that while solar radiation is effective for only half the year, infrared radiation is present continuously.
*
Take all seven US SURFRAD stations or ten stations affiliated to the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN), in latitudes from North to South, download their data in different years, and you see, for all of them – hence on their average – that while
– the yearly number of hours with downwelling solar radiation is half that of the number of hours in the year, and consequently the yearly incoming solar energy is half as well,
– the upwelling and downwelling longwave radiation is, while of course modulated according to the solar radiation, day and night, and all the year long, present.
For ten BSRN stations, average radiant flux density of
– downward solar during active hours only (48.5%): 355 W/m²
– downward solar during all 8760 resp. 8784 hours: 180 W/m²
– downwar longwave during all 8760 resp. 8784 hours: 280 W/m²
*
The very best is that while pseudoskeptics do discredit and denigrate all measuring devices and measurement evaluation techniques associated to climate research, not any of them would ask, for example:
” Which industrial applications of pyranometers resp. pyrgeometers do exist? ”
In France for example, pyrgeometers are used – among several other contexts – even for the early detection of radiation frost on vines in high-value cultivation areas producing top-tier Burgundies, Bordeaux and Champagnes.
*
Reminder:
– monthly absolute averages of downwelling solar, upwelling and downwelling infrared for all SURFRAD stations in the US:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jATtF_nsFH91UVKLQbxs4yldxYIc4wsd/view
*
three BSRN stations (Arctic, Equator, Antarctic)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/103bWbIPX7MwZwC42hfr15mcsO5Bu6c6h/view
Bindi Goebells,
Yet again you are promoting the cults falsehoods. When will you ever learn?
The earth doesn’t receive 1361 w/m2 every second of the year unless you believe that the earth orbit is circular. A step up from you believing that the earth is flat, which would be on par with your out dated scientific knowledge.
As an engineer you might even understand that the earth albedo also varies at different places and at different times of the year.
Just the changes in energy received and changes in albedo would create a chaotic system with pseudo trends. You might know how a gas will spread through an oven in your ideal world but we are talking about the real world where people are going to get hurt from your cults evil propaganda.
Bindi can’t make a point. He just slings crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
He rambles aimlessly about pyranometers, pyrheliometers, and pyrgeometers, infrared radiation, Burgundies, Bordeaux and Champagnes, and SURFRAD, not understanding any of it.
Kids these days….
The stalker QAnon proves once again that he is not only a vile insulter but also a fool who fails to notice that others are perfectly well aware that the 1361 W/m² figure represents an average value, and that solar irradiance fluctuates between approximately 1,300 and 1,400 W/m² due to Earth’s orbit and solar cycles.
*
And since he apparenly lacks a mouth and, as we can all see, can effectively only speak out of his ass, whatever serves as his brain can’t be too far from that filthy location, as evidenced by the sheer stupidity of his post.
*
If he had a bit more brainpower, he would have grasped that the so-called ‘bogus’ 240 W/m² figure – along with all SURFRAD and BSRN data – ALL are averages; consequently, his attempt to sound knowledgeable with his superfluous hint on solar power fluctuation over the year was completely wide of the mark.
Bindidon says:
June 11, 2026 at 8:59 AM
The stalker QAnon proves once again that he is not only a vile insulter but also a fool who fails to notice that others are perfectly well aware that the 1361 W/m² figure represents an average value, and that solar irradiance fluctuates between approximately 1,300 and 1,400 W/m² due to Earth’s orbit and solar cycles.
*
And since he apparenly lacks a mouth and, as we can all see, can effectively only speak out of his ass, whatever serves as his brain can’t be too far from that filthy location, as evidenced by the sheer stupidity of his post.
—————-
Perfect! Now Bindidon can show he isn’t a fawning sycophant by providing a reference to the model that came up with that average that includes what the average was for say 2024. With calculations for all the variations he mentioned above.
Bindi Goebbel,
Your understanding of orbital mechanics is non existent, if it wasn’t then you wouldn’t be pushing your evil authoritarian socialist cult views on to the rest of us. At least you have stopped referring to orbital mechanics as astrology.
Earth will soon be at it’s furthest point from the sun by a few million kilometres. Yet we we will be experiencing the warmest part of the year in the northern hemisphere due to the earth’s tilt a thousand kilometres closer. There is no simple equation that defines the energy input, only crass over simplifications. Yet the cult believes it’s all averaged out!
But evil authoritarian socialists like Bindy expect everyone to believe that a slight increase in CO2 will cause a great calamity. They forget that a different offshoot of Marxism is the CCP who consume 70% of the annual coal production and yet Bindy, Dullard and Entropic Man don’t say a word about the CO2 being burnt.
Marxist coal burning is good,
non-marxist vocal burning bad
Sums up the whole CO2 cult as evil.
” Perfect! Now Bindidon can show he isn’t a fawning sycophant by providing a reference to the model that came up with that average that includes what the average was for say 2024. With calculations for all the variations he mentioned above. ”
*
Yeah…
The Hunter boy is once more writing such incomprehensible gibberish that you’d think he’d downed at least three glasses of bad whiskey beforehand.
But… at least he doesn’t insult like love to do some Fascists on this blog.
*
Instead of asking me, he rather should read for example
(1) a general publication about the matter
Total Solar Irradiance CDR
Odele Coddington (UCol) & al. (continuous)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/total-solar-irradiance
and
(2) a no less interesting while local and very specific one
A sub-hourly spatio-temporal statistical model for solar irradiance in Ireland using open-source data
Maeve Upton & al. (2025)
https://arxiv.org/html/2509.21041v1
Bindi Goebbels,
You really dont understand your politics do you. Fascism evolved from Marxism and then Nazism evolved from fascism. Exactly what education have you had? Just look at the earlier personal history of those leaders and what they wrote.
Anyway, your first link as usual proves you don’t understand what is being discussed. Within the first the first paragraph it clearly states that a correction is being made to present the data as 1 au. So not the actual energy being received by earth.
Can you get anything correct?
Anon for Q-related reasons never disappoints:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism/FAQ
See especially the point about Mussolini.
Knowledge of what Marx thought of socialists might be required.
Dullard,
Wikipedia is not unbiased. In fact because a lot of activists are unemployed/unemployable usethen they have the time to manipulate Wikipedia. Even the originators have stayed this is a problem.
So don’t quote Wikipedia at me and then expect me to be impressed by the left.
Dear Anon for Q-related reasons,
That FAQ acts as a reminder that you repeat troglodyte tropes refuted a thousand times by myriads of historians.
Your rants are amusing until some take their themes seriously and turn them into this:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/13/belfast-southampton-riots-racism-why-is-the-uk-burning
I chose the Grauniad FYEO.
Bindidon said:
“and that solar irradiance fluctuates between approximately 1,300 and 1,400 W/m² due to Earth’s orbit and solar cycles.”
Bindidon only offers up uncalibrated estimates of the solar cycle irradiance changes and suggests it covers all the variables he acknowledged.
But he just skipped over his acknowledgement of earth’s orbit cycles without so much as devoting one word to it mirroring the IPCC corrupt practices.
Such an obvious omission and Bindidon expects it to just fly over our heads.
Orbital variations are an additional element of mean annual insolation in addition to changes in solar irradiance. You spend to much time close to the sun in summer you get a sunburn.
Solar irradiance changes are roughly estimated with limited calibrated measurements to be limited to about 2 watts. . .which if you apply the 6x feedback factor suggested in some models would amount to 12 watts of climate change. Which gives you more than 2 degrees of warming alone since the LIA.
Orbital variations have apparently not been responsibly estimated though they could be responsible for up to 15C climate variations considering feedbacks.
Orbital variations are also known to affect earth’s speed during the course of an orbit. We know that the Naval Observatory measures the effect of this exacted by the moon (per the naval observatory).
During the recent warming period 1980 to 2024 the effect of the moon causes changes in earth’s speed through half an orbit that slows progress through perihelion and speeds it up through aphelion by 5 days.
the IPCC is derelict in not modelling this lunar effect and ignoring physics underlying Milankovic’s work and the conclusion that Jupiter and Saturn are primarily responsible, not to speak of the other other jovian planets for the ice ages that come and go at various levels up to 15c.
the timing of these variations also explains the multi-decadal variations seen in the instrument record that climate modelers can’t duplicate with their CO2-based models. Not to speak of explaining the 10 major Holocene warming peaks of up to 3c seen in ice core data.
And Bindidon just lies about it while at the same time ignoring the fact he just acknowledged it. (“Earth’s orbit and solar cycles”)
Obviously Bindidon lacks the receipts he claimed.
From Engineer to CEO: In Memory of Lee Raymond (1938-2026).
Former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, an executive who led one of the country’s biggest oil and gas corporations for more than a decade, died in Dallas on Saturday June 6, 2026, at the age of 87.
The former oil executive led negotiations to merge Exxon and Mobil in 1999 to form Exxon Mobil Corp., which is now headquartered in Spring, north of Houston. ExxonMobil is the second most valuable oil and gas company globally by market capitalization (surpassed only by Saudi Aramco), and it consistently ranks in the top 15 of all global corporations by revenue. Among Western “supermajor” integrated oil companies, it is the largest by market cap.
A native of Watertown, South Dakota, Mr. Raymond graduated from Watertown High School in 1956. He received a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering in 1960 from the University of Wisconsin, and a Ph.D. in the same discipline from the University of Minnesota in 1963. He joined Exxon that same year as a production research engineer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Over the next 16 years, he held positions of increasing responsibility with Exxon Company, U.S.A.; Creole Petroleum Corporation, which was Exxon’s operating affiliate in Venezuela before those facilities were nationalized; the former Exxon International Company, which was responsible for Exxon’s international supply and transportation of petroleum products and crude oil; and Lago Oil & Transport Company, Limited, the Exxon affiliate in Aruba.
He became president of Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. in 1979, and moved to New York in 1981, when he was named executive vice president of Exxon Enterprises. In 1983, Mr. Raymond was named president and director of Esso Inter-America Inc., with responsibilities for Exxon’s operations in the Caribbean, Central and South America. Mr. Raymond was named a senior vice president and was elected to the board of directors of the corporation in 1984. He became president of the corporation in 1987. In 1993, he became CEO succeeding Lawrence G. Rawl and held this post until 2005.
Arklady,
So there was a report out of how many about. No company will be take a report in isolation without having an alternative view being expressed. Anyway, the IPC has removed the extreme scenarios as they were impossible. So this report you use as proof was based on what? Anything remotely possible?
Anyhow, there were many reports on Joe Bidon on his mental decline, his immoral behaviour towards girls and women, his business dealings etc. yet the left did absolutely nothing. So cherry pick much ?
There have been many reports on Chinese slavery, Chinese sponsorship of hacking and attacking the west’s businesses etc. The reports are credible and numerous yet the left politicians do nothing.
Double standards from the left, yet again!
US supermajor ExxonMobil is studying potential acquisition targets, including Australia’s Woodside Energy, as it eyes options to increase its share of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets, Bloomberg reported, citing sources with knowledge of the matter.
Clint R
I would be considered a glutton for punishment to somehow believe you possess enough logical rational thinking to see the flaw in your own statement.
YOU: “An arriving flux MUST be greater than the flux being emitted by a surface to raise the surface’s temperature. Believing a lesser flux can raise temperature is one of the many flaws in the CO2 nonsense.”
From:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746074
So you can do a quick experiment to provide evidence that your statement is correct.
Concrete has an IR emissivity of 0.94 so it will work well. At room temperature of 70 F the concrete slab will be emitting about 400 watts/m^2. So based on your above statement, if you have a heat lamp that is generating 250 Watts you will agree it can’t produce more than 250 W/m^2 to the concrete? So if the concrete is emitting around 400 W/m^2 a 250 Watt heat lamp could not possibly warm up the concrete. So get a thermometer, a heat lamp and see if the heat lamp can increase the temperature of the concrete. If the concrete increases in temperature it would indicate your thought process and understanding of physics and heat transfer are not correct and maybe would be wise to read up on the actual science before posting again.
Norman, thanks for sharing your incompetence.
You’re confusing “Watts” with “W/m²”. That’s a common amateur mistake. gordon does the same thing.
The heat lamp, even with no focusing reflector, could be emitting close to 10,000 W/m² at its glass surface. So, within a distance of half a meter, or less, it would have no trouble warming the room temperature concrete.
What perversion of reality will you attempt next?
Clint R
It does not matter what the heat lamp is giving off at all! I do not know why you divert to this point.
It would not be emitting 10,000 w/m^2 to the concrete even if you twist it like a goofy pretzel. You real lack logic and reason at a most basic level. The heat lamp will still only put a flux of 250 W/m^2 on the concrete at its most.
Read your own words again and again.
I will post them for you: YOU: “An arriving flux MUST be greater than the flux being emitted by a surface to raise the surface’s temperature. Believing a lesser flux can raise temperature is one of the many flaws in the CO2 nonsense.”
The flux arriving at the concrete is not 10,000 W/m^2. The flux arriving at the concrete could not be more than 250 W/m^2 if the area of the concrete is one square meter. If you make statements that are incorrect on what you mean than that would be on you to correct.
The cult kids have given me a lot to comment on. But tonight all I have time for is this attempted perversion from Norman:
“The heat lamp will still only put a flux of 250 W/m^2 on the concrete at its most.”
So, according to Norman, heat lamps wouldn’t even be able to melt ice cubes! The food industry will be surprised to hear that….
(More this weekend.)
Norman is supporting the Easter Bunny GPE. The GPE has been completely debunked by textbooks, experts, and experiments. Check out last months UAH update to read all about it. . .again. We are still waiting for Norman and his ilk to bring a single one of those forward in explicit endorsement of the Bunny’s GPE.
Gill still pretends his pet gurus disagree with Eli:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1740662
Starting to feel a little sad for Gill.
See what I mean?
Willard spews out a nonsense response completely lacking support of any textbooks, experts, or experiments.
Bill Hunter
Wrong on all counts. You are just a contrarian crackpot who haunts the blog with ignorant science. What textbook material refutes the GPE?? Both Roy Spencer and E Swanson have done experiments to verify the effect. No amount of evidence will convince crackpots!
Clint R
Then you are saying a 250 watt heat bulb will emit more than 250 watts of power?? Not sure what you are saying here.
No, that is NOT what I’m saying child Norman.
If you would start paying attention to EXACTLY what I’m saying, you might eventually learn some science. But, you can’t. You’re too addicted to your cult.
You make up crap. You make up what you want me to say, then you make up that people have done experiments to “verify the effect”. What effect? If you can’t define/describe the effect, then it does not exist.
Gill keeps asking for sammiches he already got:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/a-simple-experiment-to-show-how-cool-objects-can-keep-warm-objects-warmer-still/
Gill will keep denying he got any sammich.
Almost sad.
Norman claims the Roy Spencer and Swanson experiments establish the GPE but neither come even close to doing so. Instead both do a better job of supporting the MIT textbook process of establishing insulation in a GPE like experiment which rejects the anonymous source, non-experiment, ruminations they want to rely upon.
And of course Willard just keeps on lying about sammiches. There is nothing wrong whatsoever of questioning the legitimacy of an anonymous source and there are no legitimate facts supporting that source.
Gill continues to pretend he has not been served that specific sammich he now requests again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1744494
Funny, but sad.
Wow Willard the MIT textbook has 307 discussions about plates. Bet you can’t point to a single page/paragraph that endorses or demonstrates how to calculate the Bunny rabbit’s GPE. . .and thats the point isn’t it. . .you said it was about the math and now you can’t deliver anything in support of the bunny rabbit GPE. However you can find calculations in that textbook that delivers the meager results due to emissivities less than 1.0 as seen in experiments including Roy’s, Vaughn Pratt’s, R.w. Woods, S&O and many others.
Gill keeps denying having received the sammich he’s requesting once again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746359
A little less funny, a little sadder.
And still Willard is all spew and no evidence.
I doubt if even MIT, as perverted as they’ve become, would endorse the bunny rabbit’s nonsense. But, it they did, I’d love to see it.
I can see the headlines now, “MIT proves 2LoT is invalid!”
[GILL] The GPE has been completely debunked by textbooks, experts, and experiments.
[ALSO GILL] And still Willard is all spew and no evidence.
Sad, truly.
Bill Hunter
So where does MIT heat transfer documents support your crackpot contrarian points? I see quite the opposite!
Here:
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
“For body 1, we know that $ E_b$ is the emissive power of a black body, so the energy leaving body 1 is $ E_{b1} A_1$ . The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is $ E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2}$ . The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is $ E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1}$ . The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is
$\displaystyle E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2} – E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1} = \dot{Q}_{1-2}.$”
In the GPE both plates are theoretical black bodies so that all radiant energy is absorbed. In the MIT document, contrary to the false made up cult science of Clint R and others, the energy given off by the colder object is absorbed by the hotter one. This is established physics. Other views are contrarian and if you want to be believed you would have to provide some experimental evidence to support your view. Otherwise it is crackpot cult material. Bill Hunter, if you think the likes of the phony poster who insults everyone he can and posts misleading made up physics is a valid source of anything scientific, you are certainly an ignorant person.
I would like to see your evidence that MIT supports your crackpot claims? I have seen NONE from any of your alleged skeptics (actual crackpots). The likes of Clint R, DREMT, you, Gordon Robertson. If you make claims post links so posters can see where you get your ideas from.
Just a reminder that the GPE’s debunked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733329
Norman, the MIT textbook covers the elements of heat transfer. Without getting too technical for you, Nate claimed the GPE was standard textbook science. We have examined several textbooks and the GPE is absent in all of them.
If you want to change that you can’t do that by relying on a back alley website on the internet run by an anonymous blogmaster pretending to be the Easter Bunny.
In the MIT textbook the only variable in heat transfer between blackbodies is geometry known as view factor. The SB equation for blackbodies tells you that if the view factor is 1.0, the warmer body will continue to transfer “heat” to the cooler body until the two bodies are equal temperature.
I hope that’s not too technical to understand.
Gill keeps waffling:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1741500
Sad.
Already done all that:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/#comment-1745926
The GPE’s debunked.
Bill Hunter
The MIT link states the energy from the cold source is absorbed by the hotter source! I think you are stuck not understanding the difference between a static (no external energy added) and a dynamic one where there is a constant input of external energy. The fact that energy is absorbed from by the hot object from the cold is the correct basis for the GPE.
Norman, there is no such thing as a “black body”. It is used to make calculations easier, but it can NOT be used to violate 2LoT, as you cult kids try.
When your beliefs are built on things that don’t exist, and perversions of reality, you might be a cultist. When all you can do is attack others, you might be a cult kid.
Grow up, and face reality.
“The GPE’s debunked.”
Looks like thst narrative was debunked in that discussion.
Then we also have DREMT stuck in a logical pickle. His narrative contains an obvious contradiction.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/#comment-1745951
His “ongoing delusion that “the GPE is debunked” is based on these two claims that DREMT keeps making:
1. Blackbody plates DO reduce heat loss.
2. The mechanism for (1) violates physics, so it “Doesn’t happen”
His answer: shamelessly repeat the contradictory claims, and declare them not to be a contradiction!
My original comment, that I just linked to, refutes your response to it, Nate. Then you went on and on and on, endlessly repeating yourself, and I refuted you again and again. Now, apparently, you still believe there is a contradiction. Funny.
Your contradiction is simple and obvious and none of your words make it go away.
The only fix available is to acknowledge that only one of the contradicting statements can be true.
And the first one is an observable established fact.
While the second one is a claim unsupported by evidence of heat flow from cold to warm.
Thus, we know that #2 is the one that is false.
Nate says:
”1. Blackbody plates DO reduce heat loss.”
Nate argues that perfect absorption creates insulation. He bought that from the Easter Bunny and didn’t get a receipt. so now he is trying to make the best of it because there is no way to get his money back.
You haven’t even got 2) right, Nate. The “reduction in heat loss” does happen, but it doesn’t result in warming. GP warms to 244 K, same temperature as the BP, so “heat loss from the BP is reduced”. The BP does not warm to 262 K.
So you are content to look very foolish, by continuing to claim
1. X is happening
2. The mechanism for X is not allowed, so it cannot happen.
but then
3. but X still happens.
Round and round you go.
Your theory fails the simplest logical test: self consistency.
Yes Bill. And I have shown you the physics sources 5 times.
Nate, if you can’t follow slightly more complex arguments, you have to accept that it’s only you that looks foolish.
X cannot be both TRUE and NOT TRUE.
If you keep denying that then you are a fool.
So long as X = “blackbody plates reduce heat loss”, then X is true, but cannot lead to warming.
No need for another 30-day back-and-forth.
You clearly stated several times that the mechanism for X violates 2LOT..
For example:
“The way in which ‘heat loss is reduced’ matters. In the GPE, the mechanism is a direct transfer of thermal energy ‘against the flow’. That’s fundamentally different to the way ‘insulation’, or even an ‘insulating effect’, works.
2LoT says ‘no’ to it.”
Thus, logically, you are saying X = ‘blackbody plates reduce heat loss’, cannot happen.
Which is a plainly, obviously a CONTRADICTION.
Will you follow the LOGIC?
It is loudly informing you that your ‘mechanism’ for X must be wrong, and it does not violate 2LOT.
That’s right, Nate, blackbody plates can “reduce heat loss” (see the 244 K…244 K solution) but they cannot result in warming (see the 262 K…220 K solution). The reason they cannot result in warming is the good ol’ 2LoT, as explained in the quotes you clipped. Thank you.
Please do continue to try to manufacture a contradiction for the rest of your life. Most amusing.
Willard,
If you look at Kiddo’s first replies in each thread since that conversation, it becomes pretty clear that he is acting in bad faith. His attempts to bait people are far from subtle, as you say here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1740670
Eldrosion’s commented in the wrong place, again.
Just a reminder that Sky Dragon cranks have nothing against that:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
…except everything that has already been explained dozens of times.
“manufacture a contradiction for the rest of your life”
Nothing to do with me. YOUR words create an obvious contradiction, as everyone can see.
Your words fail to explain it away.
Thus you are loudly declaring that logic can be sacrificed to preserve your beliefs.
Thus your credibility is dead.
Everyone can see that there’s no contradiction, so maybe it’s actually your credibility that’s dead?
Graham D. Warner’s credibility is more undead than dead, as he keeps killing it every month.
That makes Betty’ heart pound, so it’s worth it.
If I have no credibility then there is absolutely no requirement for any of you to respond to me ever again. Bliss!
[GRAHAM] Norman is completely unresponsive to every single point I’ve made.
[ALSO GRAHAM] If I have no credibility then there is absolutely no requirement for any of you to respond to me ever again. Bliss!
Astute readers might note that these two comments were made one after the other.
It’s not difficult, Willard. I’d rather you guys didn’t respond to me, but if you’re going to respond anyway, I at least expect you to actually engage with what I’m saying.
No, you want people to respond to you.
People who are capable of conceding points, who can think logically, who don’t resort to pathetic ad hom crusades, and who aren’t ideologically biased, are welcome to respond. Unfortunately, that’s the GHE Defence Team (GHEDT) completely ruled out.
Looks like Graham just admitted all he wants is the last word, Eldrosion.
“Astute readers might note that these two comments were made one after the other.
Yes, Willard. Kiddo was right that my earlier comment was misplaced. Looking back, though, it foreshadowed how the thread would evolve.
He is so transparent that even something I posted by mistake ended up accurately anticipating him.
Meanwhile, Team Science wins:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
One day Sky Dragon cranks will be able to come up with something more serious than “but insulation”.
“If I have no credibility then there is absolutely no requirement for any of you to respond to me ever again. Bliss!”
Which shows trolling is your goal.
“GHE Defence Team (GHEDT)”
Just the standard DREMT meltdown after he loses another argument.
I’ll just wait to see if any of the more serious commenters return.
Indeed, Eldrosion.
Watch Graham D. Warner reply how he’s still waiting.
Nate, the 244 K…244 K solution and the 262 K…220 K solution are two completely different things, with different arrangements of energy flows, etc.
So, when I say that blackbody plates reduce heat loss, like in the 244 K…244 K solution, but do not result in warming, like they (wrongly) do in the 262 K…220 K solution, then there’s absolutely no contradiction, is there?
For there to be a contradiction, the 244 K…244 K and 262 K…220 K solutions would have to be the same thing, with the same arrangement of energy flows, etc. But, they’re not.
Just another way to explain why you’re wrong, and I’m right.
You may continue your meltdown.
[N] Just the standard Graham meltdown after he loses another argument.
[G] I’ll just wait to see if any of the more serious commenters return.
[W] Watch Graham D. Warner reply how he’s still waiting.
[G] Nate, the 244 K…244 K solution …
Just like Eldrosion said
He is now probably going to pretend to be sincere for a while, Willard.
Well, Nate was meant to be the more serious commenter I was waiting for, but his responses (which cross-posted with my “waiting for more serious commenters” remark) were just as immature as the two trolls.
Well, Nate was meant to be the more serious commenter I was waiting for, but his responses (which cross-posted with my “waiting for more serious commenters” remark) were just as immature as the two trolls.
“Nate, the 244 K…244 K solution and the 262 K…220 K solution are two completely different things, with different arrangements of energy flows, etc.”
In both cases back-radiation exists, the SB law applies, Kirchhoff’s Law is valid, and the radiative heat transfer equation applies.
And the ability of blackbody plates to reduce RADIATIVE heat loss comes from those radiative laws.
Then why would the mechanism for the blackbody plates to reduce heat loss be any different for the two cases?
You get no points for simply asserting. You need to EXPLAIN how the mechanism is different, while still satisfying the valid laws of physics.
Nate obviously realises there is no contradiction, so moves on to the next thing: requesting information he already knows full well.
Graham D. Warner repeats his gaslighting.
“pretend to be serious for awhile”
Yep, that didnt last very long.
As expected, he has no serious explanation.
…and they act like I’m the one that baits!
Is Nate seriously going to pretend to be unaware of the difference between the two solutions!? In the 262 K…220 K solution, “heat loss is reduced” by a direct transfer of thermal energy “against the flow”, something he already agreed can’t happen! In the 244 K…244 K solution, because that direct transfer of thermal energy can’t happen, it’s returned to the GP, and that results in “heat loss being reduced” from the BP.
But, all that was already known. Discussed over eight years!
Ah… reverse gaslighting:
“…and they act like I’m the one that baits!”
It’s a neat trick. But, if I were Kiddo, I would have maintained the facade of a sincerity / seriousness for a while longer before pulling the reverse gaslighting card.
It loses its effectiveness when it is deployed right after getting caught being unserious.
Still not serious, because you just keeps repeating the same nonsesnse over and over again, which lacks logic or facts.
Blackbody plates reduce heat loss regardless of the two temperatures of the bodies, and the mechanism does not change just cause you say so. I showed you physics sources, remember?
No credit for completely made up non-physical rules!
The mechanism is explained purely with the radiative heat transfer equation RHTE.
At 244k/244k we find by the RHTE that the heat loss Q = 0.
At 262K/220K we find by the RHTE that the heat loss is Q = 133 W/m2
At 244K/3K with no GP blocking the BP from space, we find that the heat loss is Q = 200 W/m2.
Notice there is no change in the mechanism! It is always just the RHTE.
And notice that with the GP present the heat loss from the BP is reduced, as all agree.
“In the 244 K…244 K solution, because that direct transfer of thermal energy can’t happen, it’s returned to the GP, and that results in “heat loss being reduced” from the BP.”
Utterly fake Clint-Fizux. Does not agree with the RHTE or Kirchhoffs Law.
If the back radiation from the GP is returned to it, then do the math:
The BP emits 200 W/m2, but receives nothing from the GP, then its heat loss is 200 W/m2.
Not at all reduced!
So again you are in a muddle of contradictions.
I’ve established what the mechanism is for both solutions via the points 1) – 7), which you cannot refute.
You went on and on about there being a contradiction. Without conceding that you were wrong, but instead quietly dropping the subject, you’ve now moved on to the next thing. Then, when that’s refuted, without conceding the point but instead quietly dropping the subject, you will move onto something else. All while trolls yap away in the background. It never ends. Yet you people think I want you to keep responding to me!? I really don’t.
“If the back radiation from the GP is returned to it, then do the math: The BP emits 200 W/m2, but receives nothing from the GP, then its heat loss is 200 W/m2. Not at all reduced!”
You’re confusing “heat” and “energy” (EMR), Nate. As the plates are at the same temperature, heat flow between them is at zero.
“So again you are in a muddle of contradictions.”
You’ve pointed out no contradictions that have withstood scrutiny. But, while we’re on the subject of contradictions, you state:
“Blackbody plates reduce heat loss regardless of the two temperatures of the bodies”
but then go on to say:
“The mechanism is explained purely with the radiative heat transfer equation RHTE.”
and your examples make clear that any reduction in heat loss is entirely due to the two temperatures of the bodies! After all, the RHTE relates the temperatures of the two bodies to the amount of heat flow!
Another meltdown.
Surely it must be all of us that cause you to contradict yourself and not make a sensible argument.
It is easier to imagine evil opponents conspiring, then to simply admit youve made errors.
No meltdown here, Nate. You sure do read a lot of things into comments that simply aren’t there.
And, there are no contradictions in my arguments. Let’s see if you can admit to the one I just found in yours!
The GPE’s debunked.
Science deniers say the darndest things:
“You’re confusing “heat” and “energy” (EMR), Nate. As the plates are at the same temperature, heat flow between them is at zero.
Heat is defined as NET energy transfer. In your narrative, with the GP emission returned to it (utter nonsense), the NET energy transfer from BP to GP, is most certainly not 0.
It is 200 W/m2.
You needed it to be 200 W/m2 to satisfy 1LOT, remember?!
This is what happens when you rely on made-up fake physics from the idiot Clint.
You end up in a muddle of contradictions!
You are making a fool of yourself.
“Blackbody plates reduce heat loss regardless of the two temperatures of the bodies”
but then go on to say:
“The mechanism is explained purely with the radiative heat transfer equation RHTE.”
and your examples make clear that any reduction in heat loss is entirely due to the two temperatures of the bodies!”
Where is the inagined contradiction?
The Q value depends on the two temperatures, no question.
But tbe fact of heat loss REDUCTION with blackbody placed in between is still happening.
Compare no GP: 244K/3K, BP heat loss 200 W/m2, to GP present:
262K/220K. BP heat loss 133 W/m2.
A heat loss reduction.
Nate apparently believes repeating his mistakes will cover up the glaring contradiction in his arguments.
Regardless your words, you have not explained your first contradiction.
Then by invoking Clint’s fake physics that violates laws of physics, you create a second contradiction.
Either
1. you use the RHTE, which requires the back radiation to be absorbed by the BP, which gives Q =0 at 244K/244K, which, if equilibrium ‘solution’, fails to satisfy 1LOT.
Or you
2. drop the RHTE and Kirchhoffs Law, to claim the back radiation is returned, which gives Q =200 W/m2, which means heat loss is NOT reduced, a contradiction.
You cannot mix and match to pick the results you want.
This all really exemplifies the tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive.
Graham apparently believes that adding “apparently” changes everything.
Nate, either:
“Blackbody plates reduce heat loss regardless of the two temperatures of the bodies”
Or:
“The mechanism is explained purely with the radiative heat transfer equation RHTE.”
Can’t be both.
Meanwhile, you’re trying to move on to criticising the 244 K…244 K solution. It’s exactly like I said – your argument gets refuted, and without conceding the point, you quietly move on to something else. Your original point about the contradiction was refuted. Can’t you admit that?
Distraction games: Accuse your opponent of your errors.
The RHTE applies in all cases being discussed.
Yes or no?
Blackbody plates reduce heat loss in all cases being discussed.
Yes or no?
Kiddo is cornered.
“Meanwhile, you’re trying to move on to criticising the 244 K…244 K solution. ”
Which you brought up to claim that its heat loss reduction mechanism is ‘different’.
Thus I asked you to explain that. Because, as I said, the mechanism is simply the RHTE, which applies in all cases.
That led YOU to explain the 244/244 is different because it uses Clint’s fake physics, which has all sorts of problems.
We saw it leads you to another contradiction, which you also cannot fix.
These contradictions show that your narrative just falls apart under scrutiny.
When you use fake physics, but try to satisfy real physics, contradictions inevitably arise.
More distraction games from Nate. That’s all you get from him when he’s cornered.
The points 1) – 7) debunk the GPE.
The RHTE isn’t a “mechanism”, Nate.
The mechanism by which “heat loss is reduced” in the 262 K…220 K solution is a direct transfer of thermal energy “against the flow”, which you have already agreed cannot happen. You’d think you would concentrate on that!
Since it cannot happen, the “back-radiation” transfer must be returned to the GP. As the GP warms to the same temperature as the BP, “heat loss is reduced” from the BP. This is, of course, a completely different mechanism to the one in the 262 K…220 K solution because the transfer of thermal energy “against the flow” is not happening!
Whether you accept the 244 K…244 K solution is immaterial. What matters is that your original claim of a contradiction is thoroughly debunked. You don’t have to like my logic, Nate, but you can’t claim it is not internally consistent.
Your entire argument against what I’ve said for eight years has always been based on “blackbody plates reduce heat loss”. I’ve shown that indeed they do, but they don’t lead to warming. So, now you should see why my arguments refute yours.
The GPE’s debunked.
“The RHTE isn’t a “mechanism”, Nate.”
The mechanism for reduction of radiative heat transfer is, obviously, governed by the RHTE.
We use it at 244/244, and at 262/220 to find the heat flow.
The physicists who derive the heat transfer for multple plates use it, in the sources I showed you.
There is no other mechanism at work.
“The mechanism by which “heat loss is reduced” in the 262 K…220 K solution is a direct transfer of thermal energy “against the flow”, which you have already agreed cannot happen. You’d think you would concentrate on that!”
Your feelings on this, no matter how often repeated, are not facts.
Again, ‘against the flow’ of what? Heat obviously. Thus heat is always flowing downstream as it should.
You offer zero evidence that the mechanism for ‘heat loss reduction’ is somehow different at different temperatures.
Use of the RHTE by you to calculate the heat flow = 0 at 244/244 means you are using the very FACT that the emissions from each plate are absorbed by the other and thus fully CANCEL, giving a NET energy (heat) transfer =0.
There is no other way to get 0!
So like it or not, the back radiation from the GP is transferred to the BP, even at 244/244!
So the very same mechanism is producing heat loss reduction in 244/244 or 262/220.
I’m tired of you saying it’s “my feeling”.
The points 1) – 5) logically demonstrate 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. “Feelings” don’t enter into it. As you can’t refute that chain of logic, you should concede the point. But, you never have! So, we get nowhere. Then, if I say “concede to proceed” that’s taken as being some sort of “bullying” or underhanded “tactic”!
So, now you change “the RHTE is the mechanism” to “the mechanism is governed by the RHTE” – then what exactly are you claiming is the actual physical mechanism itself, that the RHTE governs!? You won’t say. You keep it as vague as possible.
Obviously you are doing that because you know I’m right – the mechanism itself is the transfer of thermal energy from cooler to warmer which only happens in your 262 K…220 K solution.
The GPE’s debunked.
“I’m tired of you saying it’s “my feeling”.”
Well. If you say things that have no evidence, now matter how many times you say it, it does not become a fact.
To become a fact, requires both evidence, and no contradictory facts.
“The mechanism by which “heat loss is reduced” in the 262 K…220 K solution is a direct transfer of thermal energy “against the flow”, which you have already agreed cannot happen.”
Youve shown no evidence of net energy (heat) flowing from a cold body to a warm body. Thus no evidence of a 2LOT violation.
Yet you keep saying that it is so.
This demonstrates that your claims are just your personal feelings, not facts.
The SB law requires that all high emissivity surfaces emit according to their temperature.
This happens for the GP whether it is 244 K or 220 K.
Kirchhoffs Law states that high emissivity surfaces absorb nearly all radiation they receive.
This happens for the BP whether it is at 244 K or 262 K, with NO dependence on the T of the emitting GP.
So when you say there “a direct transfer of thermal energy “against the flow”, this nothing more that the normal SB law emission from GP and its absorption by the BP, which is neither heat nor NET energy.
And it happens at 244K-244K! There is no evidence of any different ‘mechanism’ at work.
Again, your feelings are not facts.
And this is consistent with the fact that at 244/244, the heat transfer Q= 0, as given by the RHTE.
Your claims that the BP does not absorb the GP emissions at certain T are not factual, and are inconsistent with the observable facts and the RHTE.
These are just your personal feelings, no matter how often you repeat them.
Because you do not get to makeup your own kaws of physics, nor tell us that ordinary laws dont apply whenever you feel like they dont
You cannot refute the points 1) – 5). No matter what you say, and no matter how many times you say it. You don’t try to address it, even! It’s utterly pointless talking to you.
The GPE’s debunked.
8:53 am: the conclusion from DREMT’s points 1)-7) was addressed and refuted by the 2LOT eqn. months ago. DREMT’s GPE solution has nothing new since then thus remains debunked & imaginary even according to DREMT.
Eli’s original GPE solution remains physically & real world correct since it complies with 2LOT eqn.
Just repeating your claims is not debate.
Wheres the beef?
Where is the evidence that heat flows from cold to warm?
None offered? Then no 2LOT violation.
Wheres the evidence that heat loss reduction works differently at 244/244 than at 262/220?
Where is the evidence that the RHTE operates differently at 244/244 than at 262/220.
Where is the evidence that a blackbody can become a mirror?
Who made you a god that can alter the laws of physics?
“Youve shown no evidence of net energy (heat) flowing from a cold body to a warm body. Thus no evidence of a 2LOT violation.”
Why on Earth is Nate still talking about “net”? Has he never understood what is being argued!?
The GPE’s debunked.
“Wheres the evidence that heat loss reduction works differently at 244/244 than at 262/220?
Where is the evidence that the RHTE operates differently at 244/244 than at 262/220.”
Both of these questions indicate that you have not understood anything I’ve explained. Geez Louise. Please stop wasting my time.
Could it ever be remotely possible that Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting.
The simplest demonstration of the green plate effect remains unrefuted:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
“Why on Earth is Nate still talking about “net”? Has he never understood what is being argued!?”
Bwa ha ha!
As much as youd like to deny it, HEAT is defined as NET energy transfer between bodies.
In radiative heat transfer between two bodies, you should know very well by now that both bodies emit, according to the SB law, and yet that one-way emission is NOT the NET energy transfer betwewn the bodies, and therefore NOT HEAT.
The relevant 2LOT statements are specifically about the flow of HEAT. That it can naturally flow only from a hotter to a colder body.
It is incredible that you still think that 2LOT says anything at all about the one-way energy emission in radiative heat transfers.
When it most certainly does not.
“Both of these questions indicate that you have not understood anything I’ve explained. Geez Louise”
New ways to evade explaining stuff that you cannot factually explain?
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. That’s an established fact. And, that makes it a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
“New ways to evade explaining stuff that you cannot factually explain?“
No. I already explained, perfectly clearly, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746865
All you did, apparently, was read the first sentence. You seemed to ignore the rest, entirely.
Just stop responding to me altogether, if you’re not actually going to listen to what I say. Your questions indicate a total lack of understanding. And, if you don’t believe that’s a genuine remark, then stop responding to me altogether, again. What’s the point of you talking to me if you’re not going to believe anything I tell you?
“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. That’s an established fact. And, that makes it a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
Total bullshit. None of that are established facts.
Sorry you dont get to play God and redefine HEAT however you feel like.
What a loser you are.
Hard to be a loser when I’ve won an eight-year argument, Nate.
To prove you don’t pay attention, I linked to the wrong comment in my last response to you, and you didn’t even notice! It was meant to be this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746847
In both cases you just quoted the first sentence, then ignored the rest entirely!
You can’t debate honestly, and you’re only lying to yourself.
The GPE’s debunked.
DREMT 1:27 pm again mistakes EMR for heat. According to 2LOT eqn. the added EMR from the GP to BP MUST increase the BP temperature as in Eli’s solution. There is no hope for DREMT to be correct.
No, Ball4, I’m not mistaking EMR for heat. It’s because EMR is not heat (and thanks to 2LoT) that the “back-radiation” EMR transfer does not cause the BP to warm. So, it’s actually your 262 K…220 K solution in which EMR is mistaken for heat. And, not by me.
“Hard to be a loser when I’ve won an eight-year argument, Nate.”
Lets poll the readers:
Is it winning, if to make your argument, you need to redefine standard scientific terms, like HEAT?
Is it winning, if to make your argument, you need to magically transform perfect absorbers into perfect reflectors?
Is it winning, if to make your argument, you need to ditch or alter various Laws of Physics, such as Kirchhoffs Law and 2LOT?
Is it winning, when your various claims are in contradiction with each other?
Earlier:
“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. That’s an established fact. And, that makes it a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
Now:
“No, Ball4, I’m not mistaking EMR for heat. It’s because EMR is not heat”
Another self-goal by self-contradiction.
First comment – there are no redefinitions, and no contradictions, Nate. Not from me, anyway.
Second comment – your reading comprehension fails you again.
The GPE’s debunked.
DREMT 1:27 pm obviously mistaking EMR for heat in the GPE: “a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
Then DREMT tries and fails to back pedal 1:03 am: “I’m not mistaking EMR for heat”
If so, then what DREMT really meant at 1:27 pm: “a transfer of energy by EMR from cold to hot.” which is what is happening in Eli’s 2LOT eqn. consistent vacuum GPE solution showing the BP warming from the increased intensity light (EMR) of the added GP.
There remains no hope for DREMT’s GPE solution to be correct when it violates 2LOT eqn. with no BP temperature increase from the increased intensity light of the added GP.
No, Ball4. In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” EMR transfer is treated as “a transfer of heat from cold to hot.” That’s why I said it. Whereas, in the 244 K…244 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer is treated as a transfer of energy (EMR). The difference in the plate temperatures speaks for itself.
DREMT,
No one on Team Science is claiming that EMR is heat. If thats what you think, then its a huge strawman.
Team Science has always maintained that HEAT is the NET transfer of energy between two bodies, and always in the GPE flowing from hot sun to warm BP to cool GP to cold space.
Here you are failing to understand that HEAT is NET energy transfer:
“Youve shown no evidence of net energy (heat) flowing from a cold body to a warm body. Thus no evidence of a 2LOT violation.”
‘Why on Earth is Nate still talking about “net”? Has he never understood what is being argued!?'”
.
Only YOU are falsely claiming that EMR back radiation, which is obviously not a NET energy transfer, is HEAT flowing from cold GP to warm BP.
You cannot put that on Team Science.
If, you are trying to say that since the BP warmed and the GP (sometimes) cools, then there MUST have been heat flow from GP to BP!
But this is simply you ignoring all other heat flows in the problem.
Ignoring that the GP is cooling to SPACE. And the BP has its flow of heat to space REDUCED while simultaneously being heated by tbe sun.
These changes in heat flows fully account for the warming of the BP and the cooling of the GP, while stisfying the laws of physics.
But you are playing the fool to claim that
‘there MUST have been heat flow from GP to BP, because there is no alternative explanation’
“Heat” is a transfer of thermal energy from hot to cold. Given that it’s defined as being from hot to cold, working out what a transfer of heat from cold to hot is, is not exactly “obvious”. Especially when it comes to radiative heat transfer. As the “back-radiation” transfer is building up internal energy in the warmer BP at the expense of the cooler GP in your 262 K…220 K solution, we know that this is EMR being wrongly treated as “heat”. Nobody’s saying that anyone on the GHEDT admits that they’re treating EMR as “heat”, but that’s what they’re doing, regardless.
That is simply what their solution entails.
DREMT’s 2:22 pm wording fails to physically describe the original GPE.
Physically, since the EMR transfer in the vacuum builds up internal energy in the warmer BP from the added warmer than space GP in the 262 K…220 K solution, Eli’s solution again complies with both 1LOT and the 2LOT eqn.
DREMT’s equilibrium solution does not increase temperature in the BP with the increased intensity light (EMR) above that of space from the added GP thus again fails the 2LOT eqn. It remains that there is no hope for DREMT to be correct at system equilibrium.
Ball4, once again, concedes the point Nate won’t dare admit.
“As the “back-radiation” transfer is building up internal energy in the warmer BP at the expense of the cooler GP in your 262 K…220 K solution, we know that this is EMR being wrongly treated as “heat”.”
The only one wrongly ‘treating’ it as heat has been you.
Everyone else understands that there is a perfectly sound alternative with normal heat flows.
Wrong, Nate. In the 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” EMR transfer acts as “heat”. That’s simply what your solution entails. In the 244 K…244 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer acts as “energy” (EMR). The difference in the final plate temperatures speak for themselves, meaning that because the BP temperature is higher in the 262 K…220 K solution, and the GP temperature lower, you can see that the “back-radiation” transfer has built up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP in your solution. Thus, you can see it has acted as a flow of heat from cold to hot. It’s not me treating it as heat, it’s simply what your solution entails.
DREMT 12:57 pm is wrong, physically in the correct 262 K…220 K steady state equilibrium solution, the forward radiation added GP to BP EMR energy transfer acts as “higher intensity light” than that of space warming the BP to a higher equilibrium temperature to satisfy the 2LOT eqn.
DREMT doesn’t yet understand “Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still”
“Wrong, Nate. In the 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” EMR transfer acts as “heat”. ”
Here you are reverting to what YOU personally feel is happening, ‘EMR transfer acts as “heat”‘, without a shred of evidence.
Whereas just above you declared that only Team Science is ‘treating’ EMR as heat.
Obviously you are still confused as to who is claiming what.
“That’s simply what your solution entails.”
Not at all.
You often claim to ‘understand’ very well how our ‘solution’ works, but here you knowingly misrepresent it.
Team Science claims that the blackbody GP causes heat loss from the BP to be reduced and thus with the steady solar heat input, the BP must warm.
Given that you agree that blackbody plates reduce heat loss from the BP, and obviously you agree that the sun is supplying a steady heat input, there is simply no sound logic to denying that the BP must warm.
“In the 244 K…244 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer acts as “energy” (EMR).”
EMR emission by blackbody plates is required at 244K, 220K, or 262K according to the SB law.
Absorption of all EMR hitting blackbody plates is required at 244 K, 220K, or 262 K, according to Kirchhoff’s Law.
Your claim that something different happens at 244/244 is unsupported by the laws of physics.
And it disagrees with what the RHTE produces, which is Q = Net Energy Transfer = 0.
So that is a contradiction, and thus it is pure fantasy.
“The difference in the final plate temperatures speak for themselves, meaning that because the BP temperature is higher in the 262 K…220 K solution, and the GP temperature lower, you can see that the “back-radiation” transfer has built up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP in your solution.”
Again feelings unsupported by any facts or physics.
You often claim to ‘perfectly understand’ Team Science’s solution. Then you perfectly understand that 262K/220K are valid equilibrium temperatures that satisfy the RHTE and 1LOT.
Lets summarise what happens at 262K/220K:
The sun supplies 400 W/m2 to the BP, which emits 267 W/m2 from both sides to space and to the GP (total 533 W/m2).
The GP emits 133 W/m2 to the BP and to space.
Unlike Bill, I believe you can do the accounting and find that each plate is in energy balance at these equilibrium temperatures.
If you understand this accounting, then you must agree that these are valid equilibrium temperatures.
It makes sense to argue that equilibrium temperatures cannot be reached, nor that there are any other valid equilibrium temperatures.
Correction:
It makes NO sense to argue that equilibrium temperatures cannot be reached, nor that there are any other valid equilibrium temperatures.
“Obviously you are still confused as to who is claiming what.”
Obviously your reading comprehension sucks.
“Your claim that something different happens at 244/244 is unsupported by the laws of physics.”
It’s not that “something different happens at 244/244”. It’s more that the 244 K…244 K solution is fundamentally different to the 262 K…220 K solution. I already linked you to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746847
which explains everything perfectly clearly.
I get your argument, Nate, you still don’t get mine. My argument refutes yours.
The GPE’s debunked.
“which explains everything perfectly clearly.”
It perfectly asserts your beliefs, while not showing any evidence.
“I get your argument, Nate”
Great which parts do you get? And which parts do you refute, with what rationale?
“the 244 K…244 K solution is fundamentally different to the 262 K…220 K solution”
Yes it is different because, as I explained, it does not agree with the laws of physics, eg Kirchhoffs Law, and it disagrees with the RHTE result Q=0 that you agree must be correct.
So again this is a fundamental contradiction that you have not fixed.
No, you dont get to ignore the definition of Heat = Net energy transfer.
No, it is not sufficient to declare no contradiction, when there obviously is one.
” My argument refutes yours.”
Again you fail to understand how honest debate works.
Your argument contradicts established laws of physics and contradicts your own statements.
Thus it refutes only itself, if we are going to be honest.
So, skipping over Nate’s arrogant and ignorant posturing, let’s go over something important that he keeps failing to understand. It doesn’t matter if I say “he treats EMR as heat” or “EMR acts as heat” in his 262 K…220 K solution. I mean exactly the same thing either way. I’m simply trying to find a way to get across the idea that in his 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” EMR transfer is behaving as a transfer of heat from cold to hot, in that it is building up internal energy in the warmer BP at the expense of the cooler GP. And, if he could only accept that, he’d stop worrying about the 244 K…244 K solution altogether!
DREMT is still physically wrong at 11:45 am and has no hope of being correct as already explained.
“…it disagrees with the RHTE result Q=0 that you agree must be correct.“
It doesn’t disagree, because heat flow is indeed zero between plates at the same temperature. That doesn’t mean there can’t be energy (EMR) flow between them. You just need to understand the difference between “heat” and “energy” (EMR).
So, that point is refuted once again.
That means there are no contradictions in my arguments, as the first alleged contradiction (which was supposedly the whole reason for this discussion taking place) was debunked some time ago and has been dropped completely, but with no actual concession from Nate!
And, he tries to lecture me about “honest debate”!
The GPE’s debunked.
“doesn’t disagree, because heat flow is indeed zero between plates at the same temperature. That doesn’t mean there can’t be energy (EMR) flow between them. You just need to understand the difference between “heat” and “energy” (EMR).
Again, sorry, you dont get to randomly redefine Heat as needed to suit your narrative.
Heat is the spontaneous Net Transfer of thermal energy between bodies.
In your bizarre 244/244 narrative you claim there IS a spontaneous Net energy transfer of 200 W/m2 of between the plates at the same temperature.
This was invented to fix your 1LOT problem.
Then you correctly note that the Heat (Net energy) transfer is 0 by the RHTE.
This is you contradicting yourself.
If there is 0 Heat transfer, then by definition, there must be 0 Net Energy transfer.
This proves that your narrative is a house of cards that easily collapses in contradictions.
“That doesn’t mean there can’t be energy (EMR) flow between them. You just need to understand the difference between “heat” and “energy” (EMR).”
Yes it does mean that.
Clearly you still dont understand basic heat transfer.
No, there cannot be a NET spontaneous exchange of energy between bodies at the same temperature.
There has to be a driving force to transport energy from place to place. That is a temperature difference.
If energy can be transported without a T difference then this would save our economies billions in energy costs.
The reason you invented this energy innovation, was to satisfy the 1LOT.
Lets review 1LOT. It connects heat flow from a body with internal energy change in a body and work done by the body.
There is no work involved. That leaves HEAT as the only way for internal energy to increase or decrease in a body.
Only HEAT can do that in our problem.
Sorry, you are not allowed to makeup your own fake physics.
As noted, If there is 0 Heat transfer, then by definition, there must be 0 Net Energy transfer.
But hey, just for a laugh, if you can find real world examples of net energy transfer without heat or work involved, and a physics source that indicates this can happen, then I will stand corrected
But lacking that, it is just another loser’s argument.
I’m not redefining “heat”. “Heat” is a transfer of thermal energy from “hot” to “cold”, as I said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746986
Your endless focus on trying to discredit the 244 K…244 K solution is understandable. You’ve got nothing else. However, attacking the 244 K…244 K solution does not save your 262 K…220 K solution, which is debunked by my points 1) – 5), and always will be. If you could only accept that, you wouldn’t even worry about the 244 K…244 K!
The GPE’s debunked.
Your original complaint, which started this whole discussion on this thread, is debunked.
You’re just incapable of conceding any point, ever. A thirty-day back-and-forth was what you intended to have, and so you do what you always do – get to the point where you should concede, then just…don’t concede. Change the subject, instead.
Bemoaning my “focus on 244/244 solution”
I see. So we’re doing the Motte-Bailey routine again.
You keep bringing up your 244/244 ‘solution’.
But clearly you recognize that it cannot survive scrutiny, wit ith its physics-defying, contradictory net energy flows and magical perfect absorbers turning into perfect mirrors, it is truly truly indefensible.
So you return to talking about the 262/220 solution?
Gladly.
You often claimed to ‘perfectly understand’ Team Science’s solution. Then you perfectly understand that 262K/220K are valid equilibrium temperatures that satisfy the RHTE and 1LOT.
Lets summarise what happens at 262K/220K in equilibrium:
The sun supplies 400 W/m2 to the BP, which emits 267 W/m2 from both sides to space and to the GP (total 533 W/m2).
The GP emits 133 W/m2 to the BP and to space.
Note that these numbers are simply found using the valid RHTE.
Note that they show a REDUCTION in BP heat loss on the right side relative to without the GP (133 vs 200).
Unlike Bill, I believe you can do the accounting and find that each plate is in energy balance at these temperatures, thus in equilibrium.
If you truly understand this accounting, then you must agree that these are valid equilibrium temperatures.
Yes?
If not, then quote what you want to refute, and give a fact-based reason for it.
We are just talking about equilibrium, not yet about getting there.
The 244 K…244 K solution is perfectly fine, especially once you’ve realised why the 262 K…220 K solution is debunked. I responded below on bill’s behalf, but realise it also resolves your query up here. So, let’s take it down-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1747077
Clint R
Your post is noted but your inability to understand that a cold object’s radiant energy absorbed by a hotter one does NOT violate 2nd Law in any way!! I do believe a wall could grasp basic concepts better than you are able. You are a cult mimd. No evidence facts or logic can help you. I am trying to see if Bill Hunter is as hopeless as you are. So far the ignorants of real science are you, DREMT, Gordon Robertson. I am hoping valid science can alter Bill Hunter’s current contrarian crackpot thinking. I can always hope! You are too far gone though. Nothing will help you! You are too arrogant to consider the possibility you are very wrong in your understanding of heat transfer. Unlike cult people, like you most cetainly are, science minded people follow evidence!! They can change their views when evidence shows they are wrong. This is not a possible state for an arrogant cult mind!
The GPE is debunked, Norman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733329
It’s easy to ignore Norman when he’s spewing his usual insults and false accusations. But, as he’s never studied thermodynamics, there’s always a chance I can help him:
The cult has latched onto the concept of a “black body”. They use the concept in their attempt to pervert science to thereby justify their violations of 2LoT. Here’s how they do it:
Step 1: Point out that a “black body” is defined to absorb all frequencies.
Step 2: Point out that the “black body” is used in classrooms to make calculations easier.
Step 3: Now that the concept has been established, twist the concept so that everything is a “black body”.
Step 4: Since everything is now a “black body”, everything can absorb all flux, including a hot object will absorb all flux from a cold object.
Step 5: It now becomes “fact” to children like Norman that “cold” will warm “hot”. The cult has twisted science to support their false beliefs, again.
11:08 am:
Step 1: confirmed by definition
Step 2: confirmed by many college thermodynamic texts
Step 3: unconfirmed nonsense, no real object is a black body though black body radiation exists
Step 4: unconfirmed nonsense, real object reflectivity is never experimentally zero.
Step 5: confirmed, Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
Thus DREMT’s GPE solution is debunked by experiment and the 2LOT eqn.
Graham D. Warner, Puffman, and Gill keep repeating themselves on and on, even after being beaten cleanly by Team Science.
Only in Gill’s case is this a little sad.
DREMT
i looked at your allrged bebunk but is is not the best logic I have read. Your point that the green plate is warming the blue plate at its expense does not consider the dynamic dituation that the blue plate is receiving continuous 400 watts of energy. In the dynamic case as the GPE any reduction of energy loss will cause the blue plate to increase in temperature. If you had really good insulation on the backside of the blue plate the temperature would rise about 45 K reaching a temp of 289 K. Using your logic, the insulation is heating the blue plate. This is not good sound thinking. Any reduction of heat loss of a heated object will cause its temperature to increase. The green plate reduces the amount of energy lost by the blue plate and so the blue plate temperature increases.
The GPE’s debunked (which of course means the 262 K…220 K solution is debunked).
“Your point that the green plate is warming the blue plate at its expense does not consider the dynamic dituation that the blue plate is receiving continuous 400 watts of energy…”
…Norman is off to a terrible start. That’s completely false. Every single energy transfer is included in the analysis, just in one case you’re looking at all the energy transfers without the “back-radiation” transfer, and in the other case you’re looking at all the energy transfers including the “back-radiation” transfer. That’s how the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer is isolated. By looking at what the plate temperatures are without it, and comparing it to what the plate temperatures are when it is included and goes “to completion”. The analysis proves that in your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the warmer Blue Plate at the expense of the cooler Green Plate.
That is not how insulation works, Norman.
12:31 … only in DREMT’s vivid imagination and not in the real experimental world.
DREMT
Your claim the GPE is debunked does not make it so.
“…unconfirmed nonsense, real object reflectivity is never experimentally zero…”
…which is why there are small warming effects observed in the various experiments people try to present as evidence for the GPE. All they are confirming is that radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
2:33 pm: DREMT finally admits his GPE solution is debunked in the real world as his GPE solution has zero warming effect on the BP inconsistent with 2LOT eqn. & exists only in DREMT’s vivid imagination and not in the real experimental world.
DREMT 2:33 pm confirms he now agrees Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
Ball4, try not to be a wildly dishonest sack of human garbage.
The GPE involves perfectly conducting blackbodies. The real world experiments do not. Again, all the real-world experiments do is confirm that radiative insulation functions via reflectivity. In other words, because the real-world objects are reflective (and have thermal resistance) they can insulate. So, you get a small warming effect. You do not get a warming effect in the GPE because the GPE objects are not reflective (and do not have thermal resistance).
GPE = no warming effect.
Real-world experiments = small warming effect.
The real-world experiments do not provide evidence that the GPE is real. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Sky Dragons have been defeated:
https://skepticalscience.com/green-plate-dynamics.html
Thanks for playing, everyone!
Finally correct DREMT 4:38, your imaginary GPE solution per your own admission has no hope of being correct in the real world. In the real world, the GPE solution warms the BP to equilibrium as Eli showed in his 2LOT eqn. compliant GPE solution because in the real world Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
NB: Black body radiation is produced by real objects with thermal resistance in the real world so DREMT statements about thermal resistance are without merit & have nothing to do with the GPE as originally stated.
My statements about “thermal resistance” relate only to the fact that perfectly conducting objects have no thermal resistance, while real objects will have some degree of thermal resistance. Google what “thermal resistance” is if you need to, Ball4.
And, please stop being grotesquely dishonest.
Good DREMT 12:34 am, Eli’s original GPE says nothing about perfectly conducting plates. Eli’s solution remains real world while DREMT’s solution is purely imaginary in not complying with the 2LOT eqn. since DREMT’s BP does not increase in temperature as required.
“Ball4 says: Eli’s original GPE says nothing about perfectly conducting plates.”
He doesn’t explicitly say the plates are perfect conductors, but it is implicit in his solution in that both surfaces of the blue plate are presumed to be the same. If they were not perfectly conductive there would be a thermal gradient across the thickness of the plate. This assumption makes the problem more mathematically tractable, but doesn’t change the fundamental physical principle.
DREMT’s alleged solution is still stupid reasons I won’t repeat, but he’s right about this unstated assumption of the problem.
He says they’re perfectly conducting plates in the comments under the original article, Ball4, and ever since then, that’s how they’ve been treated. As you know. Please stop lying.
7:08 am: I never started.
NB: I wrote “original GPE” with the original solution. DREMT’s GPE answer is imaginary and transient so not steady state equilibrium. Comments can and do change things.
Mark B: There is nothing implicit about blackbodies being perfect conductors in their formal definition. In the original GPE, no plate thickness is specified but Eli’s math implies no thermal gradient so that implies thin enough for government work. And right, the real 2LOT eqn. compliant Eli solution is far from DREMT’s admittedly imaginary solution.
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507945224036#c4948017542973854095
Sorry, Ball4, but saying that you never started lying is just another lie.
DREMT
If you are a rational person who has the ability to think logically, why do you think the blue and green plate would reach the same steady state temerature? They have the same radiant emitting surfaces. The blue plate is receiving 400 watts of energy (assuming one square meter per side) and the green plate is receiving only 200 watts from the blue plate. How do you logically come up with the absurb notion that receiving less energy will then be at the same temperature??? You post a strange graphic that is not based upon any real science to support your stange conclusion. Still not sure what actual science you have studied. Your posts indicate you have very little science background. More like you studied music theory.
Astute readers might take comfort in the idea that Betty Pound might have found her man.
Norman, here is where we are in our discussion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746488
I wrote that comment, and you have yet to respond to it. OK? As it stands, you lose.
Willard
I read comments on your link to Eli Rabbet blog. I might be convinced the poster here wo goes by Clint R is the same one who went by Betty Pound on Eli blog. She also thinks if eli is correct it means ice cubes can boil water. This is a signiture point of Clint R. Are they one and the same? Would appear to be.
Clint R obviously lives rent free in Norman’s head.
Just for the record, this is actually the comment from Eli I was referring to:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1508404424409&m=1#c9132319957148497274
“EliRabett 19/10/17 5:13 AM
Just to concentrate minds. The problem assumes infinitely thin, infinitely large, perfectly conducting, flat plates with two sides.
This is physics, not engineering and such idealizations are common, clarifying and useful for understanding.
Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides.“
1:13 pm: Just to concentrate DREMT’s mind: only the modified problem in comments may assume infinitely thin, infinitely large, perfectly conducting, flat plates with two sides.
In the originally posted by Eli & correctly solved GPE problem statement, there is no mention of plate thickness, flatness, size, or material; only their color is mentioned & the explanatory graphics.
Why is Ball4 still allowed to comment? I’m not a fan of censorship, but I can make an exception for Ball4. He’s the most dishonest commenter on the blog, and should have been banned years ago.
Norman,
You might also like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734529
Norman, you have a comment to respond to:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746488
Or, you could just concede that the GPE’s debunked.
Norman the GPE is debunked by scientific references and the fact the lot of you can’t come up with any scientific basis to even partially revive it.
Gill has no receipt.
Sad.
Norman runs away, again.
When he does not get a reply, Graham isn’t happy.
When he gets a reply, Graham isn’t happy.
Graham is seldom happy.
DREMT
First thing is you actually link to this total poop graphic!!
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
That you would link to this indicates you have not studied actual science. It is a terrible graph that only someone with zero science background would post as credible.
It shows the green plate emitting 200 Watts to the blue and for no reason at all it bounces off the blue plate and returns to the green. Makes zero sense to have such an effect for what is stated as blackbodies. Radiant energy does not bounce off a blackbody like it is a mirror. So now we know you do not understand real physics and think, for unknown reasons that the blue plate warms up at the expense of the green? Bad logic leads you to this false concept and also the fact you do not understand science and will not read up on it, content in your Contrarian Crackpot opinions.
Here is a way to consider the blue plate. Get rid of the green plate completely, just partially insulate the back side with 1/2 insulation on it so the area goes from 1 square meter to 1/2 square meter surface. You already know that if you totally insulate the back of the blue plate the temperature will go up. Did it go up at the expense of the insulation?? Your logic truly sucks!
Anyway what do you conclude will happen to the blue plate temperature that receives 400 watts on one side and the radiating surface on the back is reduced not by green plate but by insulation?
I think most the science people on this blog will come up with the correct answer. I don’t know about a Contrarian crackpot. I guess we will have to wait.
Willard I have no need of a receipt. . .I am not advocating anything outside of the textbooks I have provided. You are just another one one in need of a receipt if you want to market unconventional science theories.
“You already know that if you totally insulate the back of the blue plate the temperature will go up. Did it go up at the expense of the insulation?? Your logic truly sucks!”
No, if you insulate the back of the BP the temperature of the BP will go up, and it is not at the expense of the insulation. That’s my point! That’s the difference between the GPE and insulation, and that’s why the GPE is not an insulation effect!
The rest of your comment does not address my linked comment at all. Did you even read it? I didn’t link to the comment with the diagram so I have no idea why you are referring to it.
DREMT
If you keep the blue plate at 244 K so the IR from the green plate will not force th temp up the green plate will receive constant 200 watts from the blue plate. It will then emit 100 watts from each side. It wil reach a steady state temp of 205 K. Now remove what maintains the blue plate at 244 K. It will absorb the 100 watts from the green plate. Now its net loss of energy on the side facing the green plate is only 100 not 200 as it would be with no green plate. The green plate net effect is the same as if you insulated 1/2 the backside of the blue plate. In each case it can only lose a net of 300 watts but it constantly gains 400 so it gains an excess of 100 watts in both cases. This change in energy will force the blue plate to a higher temp until it can get rid of 400 watts. You did have that extremely unscientific graphic in a previous post. The graghic has both plates at the same temp but for unknown reasons th energy of the green plate is reflected 100% of the blue plate but the energy of the blue plate is completely absorbed by the green plate. Thankfully at least you admit this graphic is terrible in all respects!!
[GILL] Norman the GPE is debunked by scientific references
[ALSO GILL] I have no need of a receipt
Saddening, a little.
Norman is completely unresponsive to every single point I’ve made.
DREMT says:
“No, if you insulate the back of the BP the temperature of the BP will go up, and it is not at the expense of the insulation. That’s my point! That’s the difference between the GPE and insulation, and that’s why the GPE is not an insulation effect!”
Norman maintains willful ignorance of the effects of insulation.
Reflection is heat not absorbed by the GP thus the GP only potentially emits 100w/m2 to space if its emissivity if .5.
If the GP has R-2 insulation it will also only emit 100w/m2.
In the first case, with reflection, the temperature of the GP is 205K.
In the second case, with insulation, the mean temperature of the GP is 227K with the BP facing surface at 244K and the space facing surface at 205K with a signature temperature gradient spanning the thickness of the GP. In the case of dual glaze window the gas inside the window, the molecules being free to move the gas adopts a temperature half way between the inner glass and the outer glass providing the insulation via the free movement of molecules. This has all been measured by experiment and our bunny rabbit worshippers continue to believe the bunny rabbit is omniscient and not in need of experiment.
There you have it the two means of insulating. Its incompatible with the GPE.
the GPE fails to recognize the cause and effect process of radiation. First the GP warms then it reemits and that reemission does not change the outcome as it is immediately provided with another refreshing wave of energy to support the relevant temperature profile of both the GP and the BP. Thus our bunny rabbit worshippers believe that future emissions to space can cause the wrong object to warm (the warmer one rather than the cooler one) by radiation itself being treated as an insulating force.
So to believe in the GPE, unless the rules change in outerspace keeping in mind you need to properly test every suspected outcome of radiation as established by QM. Where folks get off track is at the extremes of classic electromagnetics where odd behaviors have been noted in QM. Thus in space where apparently nothing has been published those behaviors could differ. but classic textbook physics doesn’t recognize that yet if it does. . .and worse it still wouldn’t apply to the GHE.
Nate is aware of that so he tries to prey upon the unknown to support a theory that only non-specialist scientists believe in.
Accountants run into this number game of halves quite a bit. Its an inherent issue with double entry accounting. Its a location in thought where numerology fails to solve the issue and one has to look to empirical outcomes to determine if the classic physicists hadn’t lost their minds wrt to entropy and 2LOT. And empiricism is where our bunny rabbit numerology worshippers fail to make their case.
Granted one has to appreciate the issue and if you think about it some you might realize that the surface emits nearly 400w/m2 and 200w/m2 of that is lost to space with the additional 40w/m2 coming from the approximate 80w/m2 of sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere.
So that leads to an interesting question, is the GHE static as it doesn’t matter having water vapor do anything but prevent radiation going directly from the surface to space.
DREMT
Actually my posts cover your points quite well. Since you are hung up about the word “insulation” it is not needed. A backbody green plate that warms up will send IR to the blue plate which absorbs this energy. This will reduce the net rate of energy loss of the blue plate so that the 400 watt input drives the temperature to the point it can get rid of the 400 watts.
You falsely believe the green plate gives up energy to the blue plate and cools which in your mind violates 2nd law. Consider blue and green plates not connected. Blue plate receives 400 watts green plate receives 200
Blue plate reaches steady state temp of 244 K. Green plate goes to 205 K. Remove green plate heat sourc and move it in place with blue plate. The temperature of both plates goes up so your theory is debunked. Read some actua heat transfer physics. It could help you!
Norman, it doesn’t matter what temperature you introduce the GP at. You could introduce the GP at 0 K and then, in your solution, it would warm to 220 K. It’s still warming to a lower temperature than it would if the “back-radiation” transfer didn’t occur. That means the “back-radiation” transfer still has a cost to the GP. At the same time, the BP is reaching a higher temperature than it would if the “back-radiation” transfer didn’t occur. And, that all means that the “back-radiation” transfer is building up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP.
So no, you haven’t debunked a thing, I’m afraid.
Norman,
The word “insulation” is certainly not needed.
It’s still interesting to note how Gill still tries to haggle over its price:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/#comment-1746152
Sadly.
The GPE ain’t insulation, and it’s not even an “insulation-type effect” or any phrase you guys can try to dream up. That only leaves one option – it’s heat flowing from cold to hot.
DREMT
Have you considered the Green plate will be at a lower temperature in steady state condition because it is receiving 200 watts of energy while the blue plate receives 400??
Both plates actually get warmer because the returning energy of the green plate causes the 400 watt input to drive blue plate temperature up. When the blue plate temperature increases it emits more energy to the green plate increasing its temperature as well. But no violation of anything here as the energy in is 400 and the total energy out is 400 watts.
I still wonder how you logically twist a simple idea into an absurd conclusion. I can’t fathom how you think the green plate would ever stay at the same temperature as the blue plate when it is receiving less energy input. None of your points are based on rational thought or logic and you are immune to seeing the weakness of your thoughts. It appears that regardless of anyone trying to correct your ignorance, all will fail and you will triumphantly (but incorrectly) declare the GPE is debunked. You will still be wrong but it will not alter your thought process in the least.
Norman is once again unresponsive, this time he doesn’t seem to acknowledge the existence of my 12:31 PM comment at all! I had hoped we could actually have a discussion, Norman, if you are going to bother to respond to me. Shame you’re not willing to.
Norman says:
”Have you considered the Green plate will be at a lower temperature in steady state condition because it is receiving 200 watts of energy while the blue plate receives 400??”
thats simple Norman, the blue plate has twice the area to lose heat to its surroundings. The Green plate only has one side to lose energy to space. It loses zero energy to the blue plate. Instead as you well know its the BP constantly losing energy to GP until the GP is the same temperature as the BP.
Norman says:
”Both plates actually get warmer because the returning energy of the green plate causes the 400 watt input to drive blue plate temperature up. When the blue plate temperature increases it emits more energy to the green plate increasing its temperature as well. But no violation of anything here as the energy in is 400 and the total energy out is 400 watts.”
So far Norman you haven’t found a single textbook, expert, or experiment that supports that idea.
Norman says:
”I still wonder how you logically twist a simple idea into an absurd conclusion. I can’t fathom how you think the green plate would ever stay at the same temperature as the blue plate when it is receiving less energy input.”
You are repeating yourself.
You are the one going out of bounds into perpetuum mobiles where energy can simply be circuited back to the BP causing it to warm despite losing energy GP. To avoid that you just ”invent out of whole cloth” a new kind of insulation for which you have absolutely zero support.
Reconcile that idea with a pile of bricks in a pile separated by tiny beads. Assume this pile is in a box with all the walls of the box radiating 200w/m2 into the pile. According to your math the bricks should all be at least 290k because it gets 200w/m2 from the walls and and where not exposed to walls providing primary radiation on all sides also receive 200w/m2 from mythological backradiation. Yet you don’t believe this pile will get hotter . . .or do you?
200w/m2 from the other bricks, and of course if that happens the brick in the middle of the pile will get even hotter. Obviously there is a flaw in your argument long ago settled by classic thermodynamics and the establishment of 2LOT and the rules of entropy. Undoubtedly those laws were need to bring experimental results in line with theory.
Getting this right reverberates throughout electromagnetics. As you learn electricity for example
”The Mechanics of Electron Flow” The “Drift”: Free electrons in a wire move randomly at incredibly high speeds. When voltage is applied, it pushes these electrons forward in a slow, collective march called drift velocity.
In a standard circuit, this net movement is actually very slow—often just millimeters per second. The Relay Effect: Individual electrons do not zip from the battery all the way to a lightbulb. Instead, they bump into neighboring electrons in a chain reaction, passing energy and charge from atom to atom almost instantly.”
You don’t analogize properly the pressure model where temperature is the equivalent of a voltage with a polarity of hot to cold.
You see all of electromagnetics is analogous to a pressure model despite theories of emission or random directional motion of electrons.
So yea you can have photons flying all over the place but the power is driven by temperature and it goes one way. . .call it photon drift if you like.
> the blue plate has twice the area
Allow Eli to correct Gill:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
That Gill tries to wreck a trivial thought experiment is funny, until it is a little sad.
It’s hard to know whether Willard is intentionally trying to deceive with his quote-mining, or whether he genuinely hasn’t got a clue what bill meant. Either way, he’s convincing nobody rational with his relentless onslaught of crap.
Worse Willard is thinking I have no more credibility than the Easter bunny he worships.
While being correct about that.who he is actually believing the Easter bunny has more credibility than MIT, the classic thermodynamics physicist greats of history and the results of countless experiments by modern scientists many of them attempting to produce the effect because they bought into the political con job on the public producing consistent two answers from AI. And in every case only producing the results consist with MIT from emissivities less than 1.0
Bill
“Instead as you well know its the BP constantly losing energy to GP until the GP is the same temperature as the BP.”
And then what?
With the BP in equilibrium with the GP, it loses NO energy to it.
Yet the BP is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun.
It can it now only LOSE energy on one side. How does it LOSE 400 W/m2 on one side to stay at a fixed temperature?
What must its temperature be?
You are supposed to be an accountant, Bill. Do the energy accounting for the BP!
Astute readers might wonder if Graham is going to defend Gill’s armwaving, which no one cares about, or if he’s just gonna repeat his gaslighting.
Meanwhile:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744097
“…producing consistent two answers from AI…”
Yeah, it’s quite something that Google will consistently produce two entirely opposing answers on this subject. It’s been trained on two different sets of information, clearly. The GPE narrative seems to be something that’s been talked into existence on blogs, and now it’s the proverbial snowball running down the hill. It’s getting bigger and bigger, and it’s become like some kind of mass delusion. Obviously it didn’t start with the GPE. Before the GPE there was the “Steel Greenhouse” idea from Willis Eschenbach of all people, for example.
That’s what I don’t get. If you have a powered blackbody object, alone in space, it will come to a temperature at equilibrium with its internal source, Temperature A. Now, surround it with a blackbody enclosure, which has no energy source of its own. The GPE and Steel Greenhouse narrative suggests the object will rise in temperature to a new equilibrium, Temperature B! I truly don’t get how people can not immediately, intuitively just “see” that this is impossible. The only source of energy is within the object, but somehow the cavity just “recycles” that energy to get extra warming from the object!
It’s nonsense.
> …is thinking…he worships…he is actually believing
Gill is sadly not very good at mind reading.
Perhaps he could read to us from his pet textbook instead?
Nate says:
”You are supposed to be an accountant, Bill. Do the energy accounting for the BP!”
Nate I don’t need to do any accounting for you. I have already done it and you accepted it.
At the point that the Easter Bunny claims the BP starts warming where ever that is you have acknowledged repetitively that the SB equation is right and the BP is losing heat energy to the GP. If the GP is 0k that means 200w/m2 of heat energy is being lost by the BP to the GP yet the Easter Bunny claims it is warming.
So what else do you need? A smart pill?
DREMT says:
“…producing consistent two answers from AI…”
”Yeah, it’s quite something that Google will consistently produce two entirely opposing answers on this subject. It’s been trained on two different sets of information, clearly. The GPE narrative seems to be something that’s been talked into existence on blogs, and now it’s the proverbial snowball running down the hill. It’s getting bigger and bigger, and it’s become like some kind of mass delusion. Obviously it didn’t start with the GPE. Before the GPE there was the “Steel Greenhouse” idea from Willis Eschenbach of all people, for example.”
I researched that. Google AI always provides links to its answers. following Nate’s favored answer it took me to this paper:
https://scispace.com/pdf/the-theory-of-heat-radiation-revisited-a-commentary-on-the-3044gvrhf3.pdf
So I then put the reference to that paper through Google AI “title and authors” and appended a request to Google AI. . .”comments please”.
Google AI returned in part: “The scientific community overwhelmingly rejects the authors’ conclusions, maintaining that Max Planck’s derivation and Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission remain perfectly valid pillars of modern physics.”
LOL!
I will say I haven’t drilled down into the list of specific criticisms of the science underlying Nate’s “preferred answer” as it gets pretty deep going. . .but came away with the idea that Google AI while providing the answer because of published information. . .notes that it remains a very fringy claim not supported by the wider science community. Meaning of course it doesn’t stand as the preferred answer and to move it to that level, as I have said, somebody needs to devise an experiment to make Nate’s case.
Personally I think my reply above to Nate suffices just fine. He is the one that cannot explain the accountings.
Bill
“Instead as you well know its the BP constantly losing energy to GP until the GP is the same temperature as the BP.”
And then what?
With the BP in equilibrium with the GP, it loses NO energy to it.
Yet the BP is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun.
It can it now only LOSE energy on one side. How does it LOSE 400 W/m2 on one side to stay at a fixed temperature?
What must its temperature be?
Since you are unable to do the simple accounting, I will do it for you.
The BP must lose 400 W/m2 from one side. Its temperature must be 290 K.
In your narrative, then the GP is also 290 K.
This does not agree with DREMT, who says they will be 244 K.
Now lets do the accounting for the GP. It is receiving 0 W/m2 from the BP, and emitting 400 W/m2 on its other side to space.
It must cool!
So in your ‘solution’ the GP is not in equilibrium.
> I researched that. Google AI
Gill gets sadder and sadder.
All this to hide that Robitaille’s now his new pet guru, and to deflect his refusal to do more than paying lip service to his pet textbook. Speaking of “Google AI”:
Progress in Physics is an open-access physics journal known for its inclusion on directories of potentially predatory or questionable publications, such as Beall’s List. It should not be confused with legitimate, prestigious journals like Reports on Progress in Physics.
The GPE’s debunked.
Nate says:
”With the BP in equilibrium with the GP, it loses NO energy to it.”
—————————–
The SB equation does not state how much energy the BP is losing Nate. It says that at equilibrium, the BP is losing zero heat to the GP.
I cautioned you about extrapolating with photons. Indeed there are a lot of mysteries surrounding photons so there is no basis of to extrapolate about them. The classic physicist greats laid out the math without any extrapolation about energy, using measures of heat loss. . . which isn’t the same thing as energy loss.
Making it a measure of energy loss is merely manufactured without an scientific support because you want it to be true. There obviously is no other basis you have brought forward.
There is no accepted EM equation that supports your claim there.
“Q” is a measure of “heat” transfer, not energy transfer.
Thus you need to stick with the science rather than making up your own science or believing some anonymous guy who made up science. One can use algebra to claim an infinite number of untruths.
From almost the first day I commented on the GPE I noted a degree of uncertainty wrt to radiant systems in space. But in view of classic physics that issue cannot be resolved without carefully designed experiment. Google AI which gave the two different answers says the answer you favor is one that scientific community overwhelmingly rejects. Changing that will require a carefully designed experiment.
The only reason you are ignoring that is because you have no response to it.
> The SB equation does not state how much energy the BP is losing Nate.
Few equations state how much Nate they lose.
Sad.
> “Q” is a measure of “heat” transfer, not energy transfer.
Allow Gill’s best buddy to explain:
“In physics, \(Q\) fundamentally represents thermal energy in transit—the specific measure of energy transferred between systems as a result of a temperature difference.”
Sadder.
Q is heat flow, Willard.
Willard amazingly you found the right source:
”In physics, \(Q\) fundamentally represents “thermal” energy in transit”
EMR is not thermal energy its simply “light”. When you use the SB equation you can compute how much thermal energy is being transferred by light. When you use a phony equation like the Easter Bunny’s you are not going to get the right answer. Pratt’s experiment for example shows that as do many others.
I see, Bill.
When heat flows dont work out in your narrative, you decide to stop talking about heat.
Go it.
Pretty sure you don’t see, Nate.
Nate says:
”I see, Bill.
When heat flows dont work out in your narrative, you decide to stop talking about heat.”
What are you talking about Nate?
You said on June 18, 2026 at 1:52 PM
Bill, With the BP in equilibrium with the GP, it loses NO energy to it.
The proper statement would be: With the BP in equilibrium with the GP, there is zero heat transfer from the BP to the GP.
The SB equation does not calculate energy transfer to the GP. . .it calculates heat transfer.
If you disagree with any part of the above be sure to point out exactly what you disagree with, and why, and sources that support your disagreement.
> With the BP in equilibrium with the GP, there is zero heat transfer from the BP to the GP.
Which reminds me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744097
Saddening.
Just stating what happens in the 244 K…244 K solution is not a criticism of that solution.
“It says that at equilibrium, the BP is losing zero heat to the GP.”
I agree. Then do the accounting from there, Bill.
With 400 W/m2 heat input, and 0 heat loss on one side, how much heat loss does it require on the other side from the BP?
And thus, what temperature will the BP have?
The what temperature will the GP have?
“I cautioned you about extrapolating with photons.”
Nowhere have I mentioned photons in this discussion.
Astute readers might wish to compare and contrast:
[GILL, June 19, 2026 at 6:31 PM] The SB equation says that at equilibrium, the BP is losing zero heat to the GP.
[MARK] Graham’s alleged solution has a net radiative flux moving from one plate to another at the same temperature.
[GILL, May 17, 2026 at 10:53 PM] thats correct
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744121
Nate says:
“It says that at equilibrium, the BP is losing zero heat to the GP.”
I agree. Then do the accounting from there, Bill.
With 400 W/m2 heat input, and 0 heat loss on one side, how much heat loss does it require on the other side from the BP?
And thus, what temperature will the BP have?
The what temperature will the GP have?
“I cautioned you about extrapolating with photons.”
Nowhere have I mentioned photons in this discussion.
—————————-
The BP does not have to be in equilibrium with its heat source Nate. It can be in a stabilized condition also due to radiation loss out of both sides.
We are only talking about equilibrium between the BP and the GP. If that is 200w/m2 as established by the Easter Bunny then thats what we are dealing with. If you want to reject the Easter Bunny and use a different number we can do that too. But you wanting to do that here is just your bid to obfuscate a long running discussion you lost.
> The BP does not have to be in equilibrium with its heat source Nate. It can be in a stabilized condition also due to radiation loss out of both sides.
Graham will either ignore Gill’s complete butchering of Eli’s thought experiment, or amplify it at some point.
Bill,
“The BP does not have to be in equilibrium with its heat source Nate. It can be in a stabilized condition also due to radiation loss out of both sides.”
Ok, words, but no numbers, no accounting. We know you are an accountant.
The pattern here is evasion. Is it because the numbers dont support your or DREMTs narrative?
So what are the numbers, and what do they give for the temperature of the BP? And the temperature of the GP?
Nate says:
”Ok, words, but no numbers, no accounting. We know you are an accountant.
The pattern here is evasion. Is it because the numbers dont support your or DREMTs narrative?
So what are the numbers, and what do they give for the temperature of the BP? And the temperature of the GP?”
One needs an example to give an accounting.
So if you want one lets take the situation where the BP is stabilized at 244k and emitting 200w/m2 in two different direction from each surface.
The Easter Bunny shows the GP at 205k and emits 100w/m2 in two directions.
That is the first accounting error of the easter bunny. The GP is prohibited from warming the BP because the GP is cooler while the BP is not prohibited from warming the GP because the BP is warmer.
So what happens here? Its simple the GP is initially emitting 100w/m2 to space and because temperature is analogous to pressure the 100w/m2 the easter bunny believes is warming the BP and has that baked into his calculation in violation of 2LOT and the rules of entropy that simply isn’t happening because the temperature pressure prevents it.
Now I am perfectly aware that the science community has not explained the exact process with little particles, its important to note that radiation isn’t known to be little particles but some kind of thing that shares characteristics of particles and waves.
So you try to take advantage of this known property to claim the 100w/m2 is going to pressurize the BP and force it to warm and then cunningly claim its not the emission from the GP that makes that happen but the sun instead.
However we know from the MIT textbook the only way that can happen via radiation is insulation and the MIT textbook does not recognize blackbody radiation as insulation. So you can’t account for this process either. Thus it appears anybody who can will be at the front of the line for a Nobel Prize.
But one cannot use a lack of accounting to discount what we know works and can measure to verify it and have measured it. Even people who don’t know how to measure it have done experiments that do measure it, but somebody forgot to use the MIT textbook and tables of emissivity to verify it in many of these cases of people trying to demonstrate the Easter Bunny obviously imaginary effect. We know that because the only way to approach the Easter Bunny effect is with an IR emissivity around .5 which you probably can’t even get out of even a “metallic black” cadillac. . .which would typically have an emissivity of .85 to .95.
Therefore we don’t care what happens to the photons in this example. We know how they are applied however. of the 200w/m2 emitting to the GP from the BP, 100w/m2 to is lost to space and 100w/m2 is devoted to warming the GP. We know both to be true because the GP can not manufacture energy and its only source of energy is the BP. We also know from the Stefan Boltzmann law that the other 100w/m2 is being utilized to warm the GP.
And what does that leave? Zero. The accounting is complete. And we have made no inconsistent claims in the process.
You have nothing. The BP is losing 400w/m2. 300w/m2 are lost to the surroundings (space) in two different directions and from the SB equation the balance of the 400/m2 is warming the GP.
Thus your claim the sun is warming the BP is hogwash and your claim the GP isn’t warming is hogwash. And your claim that the BP is not losing 400w/m2 is hogwash. And the pressure analogy along with 2LOT and the rules of entropy explains why the BP is not getting 100w/m2 from the GP.
Bill,
You are now continuing to evade my straightforward question, by talking about someone elses accounting problem.
So to repeat the question:
You say:
“It says that at equilibrium, the BP is losing zero heat to the GP.”
I say: “I agree. Then do the accounting from there, Bill.
With 400 W/m2 heat input, and 0 heat loss on one side, how much heat loss does it require on the other side from the BP?
And thus, what temperature will the BP have?
The what temperature will the GP have?”
Nate says:
You are now continuing to evade my straightforward question, by talking about someone elses accounting problem.
So to repeat the question:
You say:
“It says that at equilibrium, the BP is losing zero heat to the GP.”
I say: “I agree. Then do the accounting from there, Bill.
With 400 W/m2 heat input, and 0 heat loss on one side, how much heat loss does it require on the other side from the BP?
And thus, what temperature will the BP have?
The what temperature will the GP have?”
—————–
Hmmm, I can see your problem. Apparentlyh you are not very good at math problems.
If you want to learn hire a tutor that usually works.
AFA, the MIT textbook solution goes with zero insulation, blackbodies, and a field of views all around at 1.0 (cavity radiation where no EMR can escape.
The temperature of the BP gives you the equilibrium value and the EMR emission of the BP. No matter where it is in the warming process you can use the SB equation to determine how much EMR is utilized for warming the GP. The remainder is the EMR that goes to space. I solved for one example. I am sure with enough tutoring you can learn how to calculate other examples.
I say: “I agree. Then do the accounting from there, Bill.
With 400 W/m2 heat input, and 0 heat loss on one side, how much heat loss does it require on the other side from the BP?
And thus, what temperature will the BP have?
The what temperature will the GP have?”
What do we get from our accountant? No accounting. Just bla bla bla.
Clearly you are afraid to do the accounting, since it will reveal the failure of your narrative and it destroys DREMTs.
So let’s again do it for you, and you can tell us which part you refute and WHY.
All the units are W/m2. All are HEAT flows
BP input 400 output 400 to space , 0 to GP. T = 290 K
GP input from BP 0, output 400 to space. T = 290 K and must cool.
So how is it that your ‘solution’ gives equal plate temps in equilibrium, when clearly the GP must cool below the BP T?
How does DREMTs 244K/244K ‘solution’ make any sense?
Obviously, nothing emitted from the GP on the BP-facing side can lead to cooling of the GP…because then it would be cooling to the BP, i.e. sending heat to the BP! That would be a violation of 2LoT. So, the GP has only half its surface area over which it can cool – the side facing space.
It is official now:
https://cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso/roni/strengths/
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure06.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure06.gif
https://i.ibb.co/nsXR7F5V/cdas-sflux-sst-global-1-1.png
Even more astonishing than simply looking at the (uncorrected) NCEP-CFSv2 situation from June 7 is the comparison with the forecast from April 6 — just two months ago!
1. April
https://i.postimg.cc/sXVbBdVp/nino34Mon-060426.png
2. June
https://i.postimg.cc/FKC8NktZ/nino34Mon-070626.png
*
However, even though it has long been known that the MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index) is based on a much larger ocean area (30S–30N, 100E-70W) —and on far more factors than just local sea surface temperature —the biggest surprise is that this index still remained below the La Niña threshold (-0.5) for March/April:
2026 -0.76 -0.95 -1.03 -0.64
We’ll see what MEI tells us for the April/May average.
BACK AT THE RANCH
View of the Kennedy Center after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined Donald’s request to temporarily pause an order requiring his name to be removed from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5-d08Y-Vys
Cold spot in the Atlantic. Low ocean surface temperatures in this region. Heavy cloud cover.
https://i.ibb.co/whvmsY5J/ventusky-temperature-500hpa-20260613t1200-52n51w.jpg
Will bears be allowed to hunt on the ice in the western part of Hudson Bay until the end of June?
https://i.ibb.co/svhrNTH6/masie-all-r10-4km-2.png
Allowed?
I didn’t know they need permission.
They require facilitation from Mother Nature EM.
I read above without suprise:
” Cold spot in the Atlantic. Low ocean surface temperatures in this region. Heavy cloud cover. ”
The post’s author apparently was once more looking for something cold to report about.
He doesn’t seem to have understood that he posted a picture which hardly could have anything to do with surface temperatures… because the cold spot on the picture is at 500 hPa i.e. at an altitude near 5600 meters: a bit above UAH LT’s mean, 100% computed out of the layers MT, TP and LS since beginning of revision 6.0 in 2015.
*
A bit nearer to reality would be for example:
” At 52°N, 51°W (in the Labrador Sea southeast of Newfoundland), the estimated sea surface temperature for June 13, 2026, is approximately 9°C to 11°C (48°F to 52°F). This reflects the typical cold, subarctic water currents of the North Atlantic for early summer. “
https://i.ibb.co/7JLq7VXJ/ventusky-currents-20260613t1500.jpg
0.9 between Crete and Egypt? What’s that?
SST there yesterday: about 24 °C.
Planetary mean temperature increases with the product N⋅cp (rotation × thermal inertia).
Slow rotators like the Moon absorb less heat, while fast rotators like Earth absorb more heat.
The higher N⋅cp product causes more heat absorption, not only the more even heat distribution, but also the higher heat absorption.
When two planets are subjected to the same solar flux, the one with the higher N⋅cp product has a more even the absorbed heat distribution, but also the one with the higher N⋅cp product absorbs more heat, and therefore, because of the combined double effect (more heat absorption and more even the absorbed heat distribution), that planet develops a higher average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Slow rotators like the Moon… ”
*
C’est ce que, selon quelques éminents apôtres de la religion mondialement connue de la Lune non-rotationelle (Clint R, Robertson, le pseudo-modérateur DREMT, Hunter boy et quelques autres ignorant[e]s), l’on appelle en français tout simplement du blasphème.
Attention: le bûcher n’est pas loin!
*
English:
https://tinyurl.com/23ev539a
Christos Vournas wrote:
If two planets receive identical solar flux and have identical albedo, then long-term absorbed energy must be equal by conservation of energy principle.
Thermal inertia does not create energy.
Thank you, Arkady, for your response.
“If two planets receive identical solar flux and have identical albedo, then long-term absorbed energy must be equal by conservation of energy principle.”
Shouldn’t the planets be identical too?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas, you wrote:
But you’re confusing a b s o r p t i o n with redistribution.
Suppose Earth and the Moon had identical albedo. By conservation of energy, they would absorb the same long-term average solar power per square meter regardless of rotation rate or thermal inertia.
What would differ is the temperature distribution since Earth’s atmosphere and oceans smooth temperatures spatially and temporally.
That is not additional absorbed solar energy. It is the same absorbed energy distributed differently.
Two bodies subjected to the same flux.
It is always there – a strongly irradiated area (24/7), which area moves on the rotating surface, but which always faces sun.
The planet 2, whith a higher Ncp product develops lower IR-emitting conditions(temperatures), and the planet 1, with a lower Ncp product develops higher IR-emitting conditions
Immediate IR1 > Immediate IR2
The planet 2 is not so hot at local noon hours, so it gives Immediatelly out less IR, so less heat is immediatelly lost.
The planet 1 is warmer at local noon hours, but those higher temperatures only weakly affect locally the planet average surface temperature rise, as it influences at their first power (T), whereas those higher temperatures – IR emission at fourth power (T^4) – they, at the same time, they lessen the average surface temperature significantly, because those the higher local noon temperatures contemplate for the much higher Immediate IR energy emission.
Tmean2 > Tmean1
The higher Immediate IR emission constitutes higher energy loss – lower heat input.
What we have is that the higher Ncp product lessens the Immediate IR emission. A planet absorbs more energy in form of heat then. More absorbed heat results to higher average surface temperature (Tmean).
Physical interpretation:
The higher average surface temperatures are well documented by the planets average surface temperatures (Tsat) measurements, alongside with their respective spin rates N, and, from the surfaces chemical composition, the values of surfaces specific heat cp.
In that context we claim, that planets and moons with a higher Ncp product – they are warmer, because they absorb more solar energy in form of heat!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas, you wrote:
When two planets receive the same solar flux and have identical albedo, asserting that the higher N⋅cp planet “absorbs more heat” violates conservation of energy.
Reduced instantaneous IR emission due to smoother temperature distribution is not the same thing as increased solar energy a b s o r p t i o n.
So where is this additional absorbed energy coming from?
Thank you, Arkady, for your response.
“Reduced instantaneous IR emission due to smoother temperature distribution is not the same thing as increased solar energy a b s o r p t i o n.
So where is this additional absorbed energy coming from?”
–
Because the planet is not the same energy-absorbing-wise when its Ncp product is higher.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ok! When distributed, a portion of energy is distributed towards the instantaneous IR emission. When instantaneously emitted, that portion of energy doesn’t participate in further energy conservation.
=
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas, you wrote:
Ok! You’ve now changed your claim from “higher N⋅cp product absorbs more heat” to “higher N⋅cp reduces immediate IR loss.” I will draw my own conclusions.
FWIW, even after energy is emitted to space, it absolutely still participates in energy conservation. The planet’s energy budget is given by dE/dt = Power absorbed – Power emitted.
Arkady.
“FWIW, even after energy is emitted to space, it absolutely still participates in energy conservation. The planet’s energy budget is given by dE/dt = Power absorbed – Power emitted.”
–
The energy emitted to space doesn’t warm planetary surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, there is definitely something in your math that rings true. Have you looked at Nikolov’s math? Your math and his math are very similar.
Thank you, stephen, for your response.
“Christos, there is definitely something in your math that rings true. Have you looked at Nikolov’s math? Your math and his math are very similar.”
I am very glad to hear that! Hope my math were similar to someone else’s too.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A lot to catch up on. The fun starts here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746074
That comment explains that a surface already emitting a flux can NOT be warmed by a lesser arriving flux. This, of course, destroys the CO2 nonsense. So the cult is in panic.
First to respond was Norman, with:
“You claim adding more heat lamps to a sphere will not increase its temperature but you provide ZERO evidence.”
I never mentioned “more heat lamps” not being able to “increase its temperature”. So Norman clearly understood nothing from my comment. He’s just slinging crap at the wall, hoping something will stick. Norman continues:
“Textbook science, which I have linked you to, clearly states that EMR energy from a colder source will be absorbed by a hotter one.”
Norman never linked to any such thing. He linked to a textbook that used the bogus equation, which is NOT proof of anything, because fluxes do NOT simply add/subtract.
After that, in another comment, Norman is so perplexed he’s denying his own cult’s nonsense:
“The atmosphere is not warming the surface!! “And again, “The effect is not warming.”
Then Norman continues with a car in the Sun, but he’s so uneducated that he doesn’t understand that example has NOTHING to do with CO2. Or that there is no temperature “much higher” if car windows are open!
The cult has been unable to define their bogus “greenhouse effect” for decades. One time its “back-radiation” from CO2 is “warming the planet”. But, when shown that is impossible, the next time, they go to “CO2 back-radiation is keeping Earth warmer than it would otherwise be”. But, that is what the ATMOSPHERE does, not CO2. CO2 emits energy to space. The 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.
Norman always makes big claims to support his nonsense, “I have linked you to textbooks on heat transfer I have studied”, but falls on his face because his “links” seldom are on the same subject, of if they are, Norman doesn’t understand them!
He links to info about a heat lamp that he can’t understand, then he demonstrates his ignorance. He proposes an “experiment”: Heat a concrete surface with a 250W heat lamp.
He claims that a 250 W heat lamp cannot warm a room-temperature concrete surface because the surface is emitting 400 W/m². Again, he’s confusing “W/m²” with “Watts”. This is a common mistake by the cult, and they can’t learn.
The heat lamp, even with no focusing reflector, could be emitting close to 10,000 W/m² at its glass surface. So, within a distance of half a meter, or less, it would have no trouble warming the room temperature concrete.
Norman makes up his own reality: “It does not matter what the heat lamp is giving off at all! I do not know why you divert to this point. The heat lamp will still only put a flux of 250 W/m^2 on the concrete at its most.”
And this classic: “The flux arriving at the concrete could not be more than 250 W/m^2 if the area of the concrete is one square meter.”
So in Norman’s head, a heat lamp cannot warm concrete! And he finishes with:
“If you make statements that are incorrect on what you mean than [sic] that would be on you to correct.”
So, poor Norman has a lot of correcting to do. Don’t hold your breath….
Clint R
Looks like you need your attention fix. Most of what you post is garbage. I will spend time on just one of your multiple points that is quite stupid (meaning you cannot think or comprehend anything, kind of a mindless zombie).
“The atmosphere is not warming the surface!! “And again, “The effect is not warming.”
I have spent too much time hoping you have a rational mind only to see you have none.
HERE: “The atmosphere is not warming the surface!! “And again, “The effect is not warming.”
That is correct. You have no understanding of the GHE and yet many have explained it to you several times! The only thing warming the surface is the Sun and some geothermal activity. The GHG do not warm the surface, they reduce the rate of cooling allowing the solar input to force a higher surface temperature (similar to any other form of insulation, not that you can understand this at all).
So blab on. You have a few ignorants who follow your stupid posts, the science minded consider you a foolish poster who makes a fool of himself on a daily basis with clown posts.
Wrong again, Norman.
Sun is a constant heater for Earth. You’re confused because day temps are warmer than night temps. But, solar heating is constant.’
Again, it’s obvious you don’t understand any of this.
(I noticed you didn’t mention your other failings.)
What crap will you sling next?
Norman,
What I don’t understand is you say that it isn’t warming the surface but then link the Berkley Earth post that says radiative forcing from Carbon Dioxide is warming the surface. It seems like you’ll post anything that advances your leftist agenda.
Stephen p anderson
Your political mind and obsession with what you think is “left” has turned your mind to mush! Sad to see. You are super gullible to every crackpot theory that goes against GHE!! I reread the Berkley article and they do not claim the CO2 is doing the warming! The Sun is warming. The added CO2 reduces the amount of energy leaving the Earth system. I suggest you take of your political glasses and read cleary what the article is saying. You whine about the left while being a fanatic rightwing nutjob! Fanatics are bad on either side!! You lose the ability to think and just mindlessly react!!
Norman,
That isn’t what is happening either. The convective energy from the adiabatic expansion of the rising parcels of air at lower pressure results in a drop in internal energy of the air. That’s why it is called the adiabatic lapse rate.
Norman,
This is their exact statement: “The first graph shows CO2 radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma.”
And “both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”
I don’t know if your understanding of English is the same as mine, but it seems pretty clear what they’re meaning.
stephen p anderson
Forget the English and consider evidence! In the article they do not say the 0.2 W/m^2 per decade are warming the surface. You won’t find that in the article.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6a3080aa51449.png
Look at this link. The Downwelling IR is less than the Upwelling IR. It is NOT producing warming of the surface!! It is reducing the rate the surface cools. You can see the Net IR is negative meaning the surface is still losing energy, just at a lesser value with GHG present. Without any GHG (like if just O2 and N2) the loss would be at a rate between 400-600 W/m^2 range as with GHG just less than 200 W/m^2. This allows the solar heater to produce a higher surface temperature (the forcing term they use).
Here is some English “Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space.”
Nowhere does it say the colder atmosphere is warming the surface! The GHE works because the GHG present reduce the rate of energy loss to space. The surface warms via solar heating to the point where the emission of the surface is high enough so that 240 W/m^2 exit at the TOA.
I have given you actual values to demonstrate the GHE. If you choose not to understand it, that would be on you.
So, copying the verbiage word for word doesn’t convince you. OK.
stephen p anderson
In you quote from the article: “both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”
Okay so where, in English, do these words convey that the increased infrared is “warming” the surface???
YOU: “but then link the Berkley Earth post that says radiative forcing from Carbon Dioxide is warming the surface.”
Where in your quote does it says this. I gave you a explanation in a post showing you what it means and giving you a link that the solar input is the energy source, the GHE lowers the loss of energy so the solar input is able to heat the surface to a higher temperature. It is stated as such in the Berkley article.
Norman,
So, the quote “CO2 radiative forcing measurements” isn’t a quote. OK. If I quoted an article that says “the ball is red” you’d say where’s the quote the ball is red? You’d say, no you said the ball is red but where’s the quote the article says the ball is red? And, I’d say I just quoted it. And, you’d say, no you didn’t.
Stephen p anderson
The lack of understanding is on your end. You do not know what radiative forcing means. You have some idea in your head but have not done the mental work necessary to understand what it means. Adding more GHG to atmosphere reduces the rate of energy lost to space. Please look at the SURFRED link in my post above!! It was put in for your benefit! The energy (back radiation) is not actually warming the surface. Remove the Sun and surface cools. Look at the Net IR in my link! It is negative!! GHG return some energy back to surface but less than the surface emits so it is still cooling the whole time. The increase in the DWIR they discuss will reduce the energy loss a bit which allows the solar input to establish a higher surface temperature. Tell me what I am saying that convinces you I do not have a solid grasp of the concept of Radiative Forcing??
Norman,
So, this is what you’re claiming the article says. CO2 goes up by X amount. Surface radiation goes up by X amount. Therefore, CO2 insulation causes more surface radiation. That’s real science.
Norman,
It isn’t my lack of understanding. I know that’s the propaganda now but that’s not what the Berkley Earth link implied. The IPCC’s model still has the 340 W/m² of downwelling radiation. So, you’ve flipped from that to the CO2 acting as an insulator schtick. Now, you just have to show evidence that greenhouse gases absorb outgoing radiation and results in the atmosphere warming.
So Norman, everyone has dropped the back radiation model like a hot potato, right? Maybe someone should tell the IPCC.
Stephen p anderson
Have to ask you, do you know how insulation works??
Yes there is an average back radiation of 340 w/m^2, bur the surface emits 398 w/m^2! The surface radiatively cools. The GHG reduce the rate of cooling allowing the solar input to maintain aa higher steady state surface temperature!! If the addition of CO2 results in a slighly higher DWIR, it will reduce the cooling rate and the solar input will reach a bit higher temp as cooling is reduced.
This might help you understand. Wrap a heated object in insulation and see if the effect of insulation increases the temperature of your heated item. You know the insulation is not the source of new energy but still the insulated object gets hotter!
Norman,
You go in circles. You claim the surface emits 398 but there is 340 of back radiation that counters the 398. Is there energy transfer with the back radiation? If so, then you have a cooler atmosphere heating a warmer planet. Doesn’t happen and there’s no evidence for ti.
stephen p anderson
Good Grief! Your lack of comprehension blows me away! Maybe you failed math as a youth? What do you not understand that if something is emitting 398 (loss) and getting a return from back radiation of 340 it still is losing 58 W/m^2. It is not gaining energy in this exchange!!
The reduced rate of surface heat loss of only 58 W/m^2 rather than 398 W/m^2 (case with no GHG) allows the Solar input to increase the surface temperature to a new steady state. Similar to what any insulating effect would have on a heated object.
Rather than show ignorance, do what I suggested and insulate a heated object and let me know what happens to the temperature of the heated object before and after you add insulation. If you can do this then maybe you can try to grasp what is going on with the GHE. If you can’t grasp the concept of insulation your mind is true mush!
Good grief yourself. There is no such thing as a heat exchange between a hotter object and a cooler object. Heat flows only flows in one direction, from lower entropy to higher entropy. Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no net heat exchange in thermodynamics. I made an “A” in thermodynamics. Not sure what you made.
Norman,
Yes, I know how insulation works. The adiabatic lapse rate falsifies your CO2 acts as an insulator theory.
Troglodyte might never guess who wrote that:
Perhaps he might be able guess who wrote that:
He’ll get an A if he comes up with two correct guesses.
Glad to have you back, Clint! Let’s review.
“One source supplying 240 W/m2 to the imaginary sphere would result in the sphere having a temperature of 180K and emitting 60 W/m2… Four such sources — 255K, 240 W/m2… once the sphere is emitting 240 W/m2, an additional 240 W/m² would not be able to increase the temperature. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add.”
Make the sources just like our sun at 1 AU to an Earth sized sphere. We do this because we now know the temperature of the source, which is critical to the following.
Completely surround the sphere with suns. Now we have the classic cavity equilibrium scenario.
The sphere must equilibrate temperature with the walls of its environment, which is 5778K. This is thermo 101.
Ergo, you must keep adding fluxes beyond the 1360 W/m2 provided by 4 suns to the sphere to achieve equilibrium with the sphere’s environment when it is surrounded by suns. Each added sun is added flux until the sphere’s field of view is completely filled.
Sorry blackbody barry, but that’s no more than “focusing”, as with a magnifying glass.
That ain’t “simple” adding.
What will you try next?
If adding fluxes is equivalent to concentrating them, then adding more fluxes makes the target hotter.
The solar radiation falls as collimated light at 1 AU from the sphere. No concentration of light, it’s all just adding flux.
As you must agree the sphere is 5778K when surrounded by suns, I’m curious to know what happens if you add suns one by one until the sphere is completely surrounded. Is it a gradual rise in temperature or is there a sudden jump at some threshold, such as when the last sun is emplaced?
What do you see happening temperature-wise to the sphere on the journey from 4 suns to 184,000 filling the sphere’s field of view?
blackbody barry, when you grow up you will realize that changing the problem is perverting the problem.
What perversion will you try next?
It’s exactly the same problem. You added an extra source claiming no further temperature change was possible. Adding more sources stress tests your claim using your own method.
You’re now calling foul on the most logical extension of your own idea.
Fluxes add. It’s proven. Whether or not you own up to it, it’s plain to anyone reading.
No blackbody barry, it is NOT the same problem. You have perverted it. In your perversion of “184,260 suns”, what if the sphere remained at 255K, until the very last sun was added?
See, that’s the trouble with your perverted scenarios. You can get any answer you want.
But, in reality, you can easily prove fluxes do not simply add. Just try to boil water with the flux from ice blocks. You get to use as many ice blocks as you want….
(Got a diagram of the plates together yet?)
“what if the sphere remained at 255K, until the very last sun was added?”
Thank you for giving the answer I anticipated you’d try out.
“Is it a gradual rise in temperature or is there a sudden jump at some threshold, such as when the last sun is emplaced?”
“What if” indeed.
It doesn’t matter that there is no credible physical explanation for this magical proposition, what is important is that you answered speculatively, which is something you almost never do. Commendable.
The answer, of course, is that as the sphere’s field of view of coldest space is slowly replaced by a field of view with a high temperature, the sphere must equilibrate with each change to the temperature of the whole environment.
Fluxes add. You’ve been given quotes from physics texts, intuitive examples, and now an irrefutable rebuttal based entirely on your own argument. It is not commendable to cling to your opinion after all this.
Clint,
There is one more point that you have not considered, that refutes the notion that the sphere would not get any hotter beyond 4 sources even if we believed that only fluxes of higher irradiance can increase the temperature of the sphere.
It’s down to the geometry of the light. Four suns cannot provide an even spread of flux across a sphere. The irradiance is brightest directly underneath each individual sun, and it fades to where the light from the neighboring suns overlaps at a weak, shallow angle. I asked AI to do the math, and it said there is a roughly 20% irradiance variance across the surface of the sphere for 4 equipositioned suns.
So, adding more suns would provide an intensity of flux greater than being received at every point directly beneath each added sun, until every point on the sphere received an equal intensity of illumination. The sphere would get hotter even with your erroneous belief that ‘fluxes do not add’.
“But, in reality, you can easily prove fluxes do not simply add. Just try to boil water with the flux from ice blocks. You get to use as many ice blocks as you want”
Nope, I can only use as many blocks of ice that fill the field of view of the object being irradiated by the ice.
And, just like filling the sphere’s field of view with suns, the flux absorbed by the target is now equal to the flux emitted by each block of ice.
4 sun-sized blocks of ice at 1 AU from an Earth sized sphere: you think the sphere is getting 4 X 300 W/m2 irradiance?
You’ve been schooled on this for years, and yet you keep equating the flux emitted by an ice cube with the flux being received from the ice cube. You know better, because you correctly work with radiative geometry when you calculate the flux/temperature of 4 sources around a sphere.
Well blackbody barry, I suspect you’ve already figured out your mistakes. That’s why you’ve resorted to misrepresenting me.
I’m used to such childishness.
Again, the reality is your “184,260 suns” are not only a perversion of the problem, but they also debunk your “plates” nonsense. With the inner sphere at sun temperature, the suns are still emitting to it. Where do all those fluxes go? Does the inner sphere get even hotter? If you admit the fluxes can no longer warm the inner sphere, you’ve debunked the bunny rabbit nonsense!
And as usual you don’t want to discuss the fact that your beliefs mean you can boil water with ice. You avoided that before, and now you claim the geometry wouldn’t allow it? Instead of realizing how idiotic your beliefs are, you’re inventing ways the geometry won’t allow 300 W/m² to reach the sphere’s disk from multiple directions?
Since you believe fluxes simply add, it would only take 6 arriving 300 W/m² fluxes to total 1800 W/m². That would bring the sphere to 422K (300F, 149C), more than enough to boil water. You can’t visualize 6 large blocks of ice around a sphere?
Just think what 186,240 such arriving sources could do….
What childishness will you try next?
“With the inner sphere at sun temperature, the suns are still emitting to it. Where do all those fluxes go? Does the inner sphere get even hotter?”
What do you think happens in ANY enclosure at equilibrium? Do you honestly think objects inside get hotter than the enclosure?
Of course not.
Everything inside reaches the same temperature. Every surface emits all that it receives.
None of those replies responds to the rebuttal.
“With the inner sphere at sun temperature, the suns are still emitting to it. Where do all those fluxes go? Does the inner sphere get even hotter?”
The classic cavity scenario has the walls at a fixed temperature that doesn’t change. The point is about thermal equilibrium between the object and the environment, which is germane to your scenario.
Allowing the walls to change temperature is a different analysis and I’m not inclined to change the subject.
“you’re inventing ways the geometry won’t allow 300 W/m2 to reach the sphere’s disk from multiple directions?”
On the contrary. I said:
“And, just like filling the sphere’s field of view with suns, the flux absorbed by the target is now equal to the flux emitted by each block of ice.”
That’s how you get 300 W/m2 irradiating the entire surface of the target.
But, if you disagree, how many sun-sized blocks of ice at 1 AU from the sphere do you think it would take to irradiate the total surface of the sphere with 300 W/m2?
For context, our sun radiates 63 million W/m2 from its 5778K surface, but irradiates the disc of the Earth at only 1630 W/m2.
“Since you believe fluxes simply add, it would only take 6 arriving 300 W/m2 fluxes to total 1800 W/m2”
I didn’t read this before I replied, sorry.
Yes, that’s correct. However, you have again assumed that the flux arriving at the surface is the same as the flux emitted by the block of ice.
That’s like saying that because the sun emits 63 million W/m2 from its surface that must be the flux irradiating the Earth.
You can scale this all the way down to real ice cubes and a marble in space. The geometry issues are the same.
Inverse square law: the intensity of radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source
Adding to this is that the arriving flux from the ice cube is spread over a curved surface.
Because of this geometry, you need the entire field of view of the sphere filled with ice cubes to get it radiating at 300 W/m2.
Barry
Good try. This has been explained to him multiple times. He is a Cult Brick. Reason does not enter this dim mind! I think one constant is true. Contrarian crackpots never change their points. They post the same nonsense month after month and year after year. I think the motivation for a crackpot mind is that they are incredibly intelligent and eveyone else are either dishonest or dumb! Their extreme ego does not allow the possibility they are wrong. Evidence and logic do not work on these mind types!
The cult kids have gotten themselves in deep doo-doo again!
Child Nate was able to quote me correctly, but he omitted the last sentence: If you admit the fluxes can no longer warm the inner sphere, you’ve debunked the bunny rabbit nonsense!”
And blackbody barry also quoted me correctly, but he ignored the word “arriving”: “Since you believe fluxes simply add, it would only take 6 arriving 300 W/m² fluxes to total 1800 W/m².
Kids these days….
“barry also quoted me correctly, but he ignored the word “arriving”: “Since you believe fluxes simply add, it would only take 6 arriving 300 W/m2 fluxes to total 1800 W/m2.”
That’s simply untrue. I’ll quote myself.
“However, you have again assumed that the flux arriving at the surface is the same as the flux emitted by the block of ice.
That’s like saying that because the sun emits 63 million W/m2 from its surface that must be the flux irradiating the Earth.”
I then explained the inverse square law: flux intensity (300 W/m2) dies off by the square of the distance it travels.
I made the same point to you two comments before that one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746517
Therefore, 6 arriving fluxes of 300 W/m2 are not coming from ice cubes, they are coming from much hotter objects.
In just the same way the 63 million W/m2 flux from the surface of the sun dies off to 1360 W/m2 by the time it arrives at Earth.
This is the point that is continually ignored. By you.
Dang, is blackbody barry still beating his dead horse?
I made it clear. The fluxes are ARRIVING. So there’s no need for the keyboard extravaganza involving emitting, inverse square law, hotter sources, and the endless babbling.
That’s called “clogging the blog”.
Kids these days….
“I made it clear. The fluxes are ARRIVING.”
And I made it clear that an arriving flux of 300 W/m2 MUST come from a source much hotter than an ice cube. UNLESS the ice completely fills the target’s field of view.
Which means it doesn’t matter how many ice cubes you irradiate the target with, the incident flux will always sum to a maximum of 300 W/m2.
You posited 6 fluxes from 6 sources irradiating your sphere at 300 W/m2 each, for a total of 1800 W/m2. That’s quite correct, as I said.
But those sources are much hotter than ice cubes to be able to supply that intensity of flux to the sphere.
Your ice cubes boiling water comment doesn’t pass the inverse square law and the view factor geometry. That’s the point of this conversation.
In case you’ve forgotten what you said, Clint, here it is.
“your beliefs mean you can boil water with ice. You avoided that before, and now you claim the geometry wouldn’t allow it? Instead of realizing how idiotic your beliefs are, you’re inventing ways the geometry won’t allow 300 W/m2 to reach the sphere’s disk from multiple directions?
Since you believe fluxes simply add, it would only take 6 arriving 300 W/m2 fluxes to total 1800 W/m2. That would bring the sphere to 422K (300F, 149C), more than enough to boil water.”
Are you saying that the arriving 300 W/m2 comes from an ice cube, in defiance of the inverse square law?
blackbody barry, you keep proving me right. You don’t understand the science and you can’t learn.
If a block of ice is close enough, it could easily provide 300 W/m² to the surface. Or, a sun at millions of miles away could easily provide 300 W/m² to the surface. It doesn’t matter. In your false beliefs, 6 such ARRIVING fluxes would add to 1800 W/m², which is more than enough to boil water. So you, and your cult, believe the flux from enough ice would add to boil water. And because you are so uneducated and immature, you can’t learn why you’re wrong. You just continue throwing crap at the wall.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Norman,
Please explain the cause of the difference in temperature between the base and the summit of Mauna Loa?
“If a block of ice is close enough, it could easily provide 300 W/m2 to the surface.”
A block of ice half a millimetre away from a surface of the same area provides 289 W/m2.
But the block of ice you slot next to the first one only provides 2 W/m2 to the same target area, because of the angle of incidence.
Let’s map this out.
An inch wide block of ice an inch away from a surface of the same area provides 60 W/m2 (assuming the ice radiates at 300 W/m2).
Surround that cube with eight others. 9 square inches of ice over the one inch target area = 215 W/m2 irradiating the target.
1 square inch of ice = 60 W/m2
9 square inches of ice = 215 W/m2
25 square inches of ice = 264 W/m2
49 square inches of ice = 281 W/m2
63 square inches of ice = 288 W/m2
121 square inches of ice = 292 W/m2
169 square inches of ice = 294 W/m2
225 square inches of ice = 295 W/m2
If you doubt these numbers, please check for yourself.
See what’s happening? Each expanded border of ice cubes we add is further away from the target, has an ever greater angle of incidence, and adds less and less flux to it.
We could add hundreds more ice cubes, and still we would not quite get to 300 W/m2 if the target’s field of view included even a sliver of cold space.
But, we can configure only 5 ice cubes to irradiate the area with 300 W/m2. Just slide 4 of them forward to make a closed box with the original cube at one end, and the target on the other.
Now the entire field of view of the target is filled with ice. It will radiate at the same temperature as the ice.
Fluxes add, but because of the inverse square law and view factor, no amount of ice cubes will ever irradiate a surface to greater than 300 W/m2.
I don’t know how to explain this any better. You’re on your own after this.
Actually, there might be a better way, and I already did it with the suns.
Create an enclosed box of ice using blocks, with the sphere inside. Sphere is at equilibrium with the environment, radiating at the temperature of the enclosing ice.
If you remove any ice and expose the sphere’s view to colder space, the temperature of the sphere will drop accordingly. 300 W/m2 – X W/m2.
Ergo, adding blocks of ice to the sphere’s field of view will increase the sum of flux to a maximum of 300 W/m2 and never any more.
So blackbody barry can’t visualize six 300 W/m² fluxes ARRIVING a sphere, from six different directions? Four equally spaced around the equator and one at each of the poles?
Cultism has obviously destroyed his ability to think rationally.
But, he can still clog blogs with nonsense, endlessly.
“So blackbody barry can’t visualize six 300 W/m2 fluxes ARRIVING a sphere, from six different directions? Four equally spaced around the equator and one at each of the poles?”
Of course I can. As I’ve laid out, those fluxes can’t originate from ice. Has to be a hotter source. And if the sources completely enclose the sphere, then in equilibrium they are all radiating at 1800 W/m2.
So each of those sources are at least 149C. Any gaps between them to open space, then they need to be even hotter to supply 300 W/m2 each to the sphere.
No amount of added flux from blocks of ice can ever boil water. That’s the point.
Clint,
Use delta U = Q + W
And each time you add a Q the U goes up.
No matter that the surface area of a sphere is four times the cross section of said sphere.
Sorry blackbody barry, but the ONLY consideration is what flux is ARRIVING. You just keep slinging the same crap against the wall.
You can learn how ridiculous you look by watching boob droege….
“the ONLY consideration is what flux is ARRIVING”
Ok, if you don’t care what the source is, fine. No problem.
However, you can no longer posit that ice cubes boil water, because no number of added flux from ice cubes will irradiate a target above 300 W/m2, as I’ve demonstrated.
As you are now categorically ignoring the source flux altogether, you no longer have an interest in the temperature of the source, and there’s nothing left to say.
The ONLY consideration is what flux is ARRIVING, blackbody barry.
You believe six 300 W/m² fluxes arriving the sphere could boil water. Ice, at freezing point, emits 315 W/m². So if you correctly positioned huge ice blocks around the sphere, you’d easily have enough to boil water, in your false beliefs.
You’re running out of crap to throw at the wall. That’s why you have nothing left to say….
stephen p anderson
YOU: “Good grief yourself. There is no such thing as a heat exchange between a hotter object and a cooler object. Heat flows only flows in one direction, from lower entropy to higher entropy. Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no net heat exchange in thermodynamics. I made an “A” in thermodynamics. Not sure what you made.”
First I did not make the claim of a “heat” exchange!! I have strong doubts you made an “A” in any science class. You show little knowledge of any physics and can’t see garbage physics when it is presented to you. That out of the way. There is a net energy exchange as stated by any textbook on the topic. I have linked to textbooks more than once which clearly states such.
The further proof that you did not get an “A” in a science class is you think pressure is the reason the surface is warmer than radiant energy alone could create. Dr. Roy Spencer could see this from the previous thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/#comment-1744940
I can tell you why such theories are garbage, not that you will care. If Venus or Earth did not have a radiative GHE but had these high surface temperatures from pressure and solar input, you would have bright IR temperatures at the TOA. Venus would be really hot. This is not the case. You just believe these nonsense theories because you are gullible and did not achieve any high grade in any science class. I would be amazed if you actually studied any science at a higher level.
What I have on my side is evidence. What you have is blind belief and a rejection of science as you believe it is created by the “left” and your hatred of anything “left” turns your mind to mush.
A thinking person could evaluate ideas from both “left” or “right” sources and be able to think about them. Some left ideas may be good and helpful and some may not be, some right ideas may be good and helpful and some might not me. You have a polarized mind and it has lost all thinking ability. I think it is sad, maybe in your youth you could think and reason and maybe did get an “A” in a science class. Now your mind is gone, lost to polarization.
You need evidence?
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6a320fe93a352.png
You can reject it in favor of some crackpot theory from some person with a degree in Forestry, that is your option, you are a free human. You might expect to get scrutinized by your choice on a science blog.
Norman,
Dr. Spencer says a lot of right things but he’s wrong about this. Please explain the cause of the temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa. Also, if there is an adiabatic expansion of a parcel of air against lower pressure, is there a drop in the internal energy of the parcel of air?
stephen p anderson
This debate is old and well thought out. Here is what a physics professor debunks the gravity heating hypothesis. Maybe read through this and see if Roy Spencer is not correct.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
Norman,
That guy’s response is gobbledygook. If pressure due to an outside forceNo one is saying that radiant heat isn’t heating the surface and the parcel of air isn’t heated from the ground up. No one is saying that air isn’t rising convectively. How is the lapse rate derived? It isn’t derived from radiative forcing. There is no radiative function in the lapse rate. Again, what causes the temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa? (
Norman,
I don’t need an appeal to authority to understand the physics. That guy’s response is gobbledygook and doesn’t really address the physics of the lapse rate. He doesn’t understand it. He creates a straw man. No one isn’t saying that the parcel of air is heated from the ground. Conduction and convection cool the surface. The parcels of air lose their internal energy from adiabatic expansion. The physics of the lapse rate isn’t really debatable. Pressure of an ideal gas is proportional to temperature. That’s a fact. Atmospheric pressure changes with altitude. That’s a fact. The outside force, gravity, is applying the pressure. That’s a fact. How does a diesel engine work? What causes the temperature of the air in the cylinder to increase? Again Norman, you answer, what causes the temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa? (Hint: It isn’t radiative forcing)
Troglodytes need to understand that what they understand is quite irrelevant. It’s the understanding they show that matters. For that, citing sources helps. Citing is not enough: explanation is crucial. Without authoritative support, cranks end up in Step 3 – Saying Stuff. We already have Bordo for that.
Playing riddles doesn’t count.
Handwaving doesn’t count.
It’s all pretty basic. Misunderstanding these social norms makes me wonder if troglodytes ever paid any attention to the social cues around them.
Stephen p anderson
The commpression initially heats the gas but does not keep it warm!! You can look at our atmosphere profile and see that in the region, tropopause, where there is no longer convection creating the lapse rate, the temperature is isothemal even though the pressure is still dropping the whole distance!
You will not accept evidence that goes against your established beliefs! I have already pointed out that if not for GHE you would have a much higher IR emission to space. I already know rational thought or evidence have zero effect on your contrarian crackpot brain. I would like to know what school gave you a A in thermodynamics when you don’t even understand emissivity??
Norman,
Yes, but with the Earth, heat transfer doesn’t stop. You get the continual input from Earth. With the diesel engine, you get combustion due to the increase in air temperature, some of the energy is converted to work and the rest is lost through inefficiency. My point was which you seem to want to continue to deny is that pressure can cause an increase in temperature. Also, when the pressure falls so low in the tropopause other factors take over temperature but the lapse rate due to pressure still applies. Also, the effective emission height of OLR is way before the tropopause. Convection doesn’t create the lapse rate. Changing pressure creates the lapse rate as seen in its derivation. Again, what is the cause of the temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa? You’ll need to support your answer.
BACK AT THE RANCH
In recent months, as Paramount and Netflix vied to buy Warner Brothers, Double Dealing Donald bought stock in all three companies. Now the Justice Department is considering whether to approve Paramount’s purchase of Warner Brothers.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/epic-corruption-plain-sight
Dullard,
So how many USA public servants become millionaires?
Unlike all the previous presidents Trump has not claimed any salary.
So yet again your double standards is very evident.
Op. Cit.
Dullard,
Are you making up for all of your missing comments about the corruption of the Democrats and their very suspect behaviour?
Remember that Trump used to donate to the democrats, then they used to ask him favours.
Op. Cit.
TDS.
Oh, Tom:
https://magnatewealth.com/about-us/tom-hagedorn/
Is that what you’re Lord told you to behave?
Apparently, the truth can really hurt. I don’t know how else to describe the conduct of someone who continually posts political opinions about political figures and contentious political issues on a blog dealing with the science of climate.
Apparently, Tom is just an ordinary troglodyte.
Let’s hope he did not charge more than 1%.
Tom,
Wear the troglodyte label like a badge of honor. Williard’s a girl by the way.
Troglodyte,
Is there something in Tom’s bible using “girl” as an insult?
Catching up on the never ending nonsense…
Upthread, blackbody barry tried to disprove science using AI. He got AI to provide “evidence” that ice cubes could boil water!
But blackbody barry wasn’t finished. He formed a shell around a planet with 184,260 suns, proving enough suns could bring a planet to sun temperature.
But, that wasn’t even relevant to a fifth 240 W/m² arriving flux being unable to raise the temperature of a sphere already established by four 240 W/m² arriving fluxes.
Kids these days….
“…formed a shell around a planet with 184,260 suns, proving enough suns could bring a planet to sun temperature.
But, that wasn’t even relevant to a fifth 240 W/m2 arriving flux being unable to raise the temperature”
You were going to explain why not. Please lay out your argument.
Focusing with a magnifying glass is NOT simple adding.
Have you got your diagram of the plates in full contact yet?
You probably can’t create one, so feel free to use this:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
(Yea, that means your bunny rabbit is bogus, just like your imaginary sphere.)
I replied to this above.
Barry,
What percentage of the Australian labor force works for the government?
I condensed my argument just upthread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746420
“once the sphere is emitting 240 W/m2, an additional 240 W/m² would not be able to increase the temperature. Radiative fluxes dont simply add.”
But Barry showed that many sun sources, filling the sky around Earth WOULD increase the temperature by a huge amount.
“Your comment mentioned an extra 240 W/m2 irradiating the sphere, asserting no effect. I took that assertion to a logical conclusion to demonstrate its falsehood. If what you say is true, 184,000 suns completely surrounding the sphere would provide no more warmth to it than 4. My argument scotched that assertion, as the sphere must be in equilibrium with its environment.”
And Clint could not refute this.
Clint promised to go away and think and come back last weekend with a rebuttal.
But clearly he has come up with nothing.
An adult would admit that his theory has been falsified.
Child Nate, when you blindly follow blackbody barry, you fall in the same pits as he does.
That’s “togetherness”, I guess….
Happy to take on the title of blackbody barry. It has a good ring! Keep it up.
Do you not know your sphere has an emissivity of 1? Your math is true only if the surface of the sphere reflects no radiation. You’ve been working with a blackbody the whole time! LoL
Yes, I use the concept of a black body to keep things simple, so even children can understand. But, I don’t use the concept to violate the laws of physics, like cult kids do.
And, speaking of cult kids, I was trying to find an old comment and found this instead:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/#comment-1745851
I had been gone for 3 days and boob decides to sneak in a comment, full of his childish tricks, obviously hoping I wouldn’t see it. And as usual, he was more confused than funny.
What is it with these cult kids?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://popular.info/p/update-email-exposes-gop-dirty-tricks
What’s the Cosmic Microwave Background?
So sorry Clint, I wasn’t around for your regular trading.
Now back to Physics instructions.
Delta U = Q + W
You have been found repeatedly violating the above law.
What do you think?
Is it bogus?
According to that equation and law, what happens when a 15 micron photon hits a surface with 0.95 emmissivity?
Bob,
Why don’t you show us your evidence that the Earth’s emissivity is 0.95?
“Why don’t you show us your evidence that the Earth’s emissivity is 0.95?”
So you are skeptical even though you don’t know the evidence?
Stephen,
Google is free, but I charge 50 simoleans.
And Clint STILL has no answer, but plenty of insults.
He has been schooled.
But he cannot learn.
boob is addicted to stalking me.
Maybe he will out grow it someday, but it hasn’t happened for Willard yet….
Oh, yeah, Google, that’s the ticket.
Well Clint,
You were the complaining about not being fed.
Still trying to teach you some thermodynamics.
Apparently it is beyond your comprehension skills.
Again
Delta U = Q + W
Q is flux * area
Stephen,
I thought you might have enough competence to Google a chart of various emmissivities.
But I was wrong.
My cat can do better
Sorry boob, but in thermodynamics, “Q” is “energy” and “flux” is “energy per time per area”, or “power per area”.
So your “Q is flux * area” is WRONG.
It should be “power is flux * area”.
The more you stalk me, the more you prove yourself incompetent. Stick with comedy.
Hey Puffman riddle me this:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/29/full-network-clitoral-nerves-mapped-out-first-time-women-pelvic-surgery
Why are you proving every day that you’re a lousy engineer?
You are correct Clint I forgot to multiply by time.
Q = flux*area*time
Can you solve the problem now?
I no longer waste much time with cult kids that stalk me with insults and false accusations.
Problem solved.
Bob,
I’ve heard your cat is a very smart cat. I don’t know, it just seems the Earth has a lot of reflectivity to have an emissivity so high. Don’t you think?
Bob,
Emissivity is just a fudge factor, right? Ideal Black Body is 1. Everything else has a fudge factor called emissivity. I think they make emissivity what they want to get the answer they want. For instance, the Earth with an emissivity of 0.6 with an albedo of 0.3 gives you a surface temperature of 288K. Right?
Bob,
Hey, maybe we should ask your cat?
Troglodyte,
Given the 240K lives lost and the Taliban’s return to power, do you consider Occupy Afghanistan a victory?
Stephen,
Emissivity is not a fudge factor, it is measured.
Most of Earth’s albedo is due to reflection form clouds
Roughly 75% of Earth’s surface is seawater which has a very high emissivity, 98-99%.
Clint,
I am only stalking those who claim 15 micron infrared can’t cause any increase in temperature
If the boot fits, you gotta wear it.
And those who do not understand that 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
That be you.
boob, if you weren’t such an immature brat you would try to avoid making obvious false statements.
But, you can’t control yourself.
I NEVER said “15 micron infrared can’t cause any increase in temperature”. I don’t have time for your irresponsible childishness. You’ve just earned yourself a 30-day ban.
Hey Clit, riddle me this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/#comment-1745472
What will you try next to keep deflecting?
Bob,
And I thought emissivity was dimensionless. My bad.
The incompetent, ineffective flak from the cult kids confirms I’m hitting the target.
“That’s why CO2s 15u photons cannot raise Earth’s 288 K temperature”
That’s what you posted.
Stephen,
It is dimensionless.
Bob,
So, it is a correction factor. Can you measure correction factors?
Stephen,
No, it is a measure of a materials ability to emitting thermal radiation.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Conclusion: a good absorber (at freq ν) is a good emitter (at freq ν).
A perfect absorber ≡ “black body” is a body with α(ν, T ) = 1 for all ν, T .
So: thermal radiation is blackbody radiation.
This proves that the size, shape, reflectivity of the cavity don’t affect the spectrum.
https://mcgreevy.physics.ucsd.edu/s12/lecture-notes/chapter07.pdf
The name is Arthur:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at1+shtml/171753.shtml?cone#contents
Apart from pesudoskeptics who doubt everything they either dislike or don’t understand, anybody can read this document and draw his own, mature conclusions:
The ASTER Global Emissivity Dataset (ASTER GED): Mapping Earth’s emissivity at 100 meter spatial scale
Glynn C. Hulley & al. (2015)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL065564
Just a hint:
” The emissivity of natural Earth surfaces is a unitless quantity and ranges between approximately 0.6 and 1.0 depending on the wavelength.
Surfaces with emissivities less than 0.85 are typically found over deserts and semiarid areas due to the presence of quartz grains, which are ubiquitous in these types of environments.
Vegetation, water, and ice have high emissivities above 0.95 that are nearly constant over the TIR wavelength range. ”
That should be sufficient for people with a normally functioning brain.
But…
Vegetation, water, and ice do not radiate visible light, they reflect light from the Sun. When the Sun dips below the horizon, there is no further radiation in the visible band unless the Moon is out or reflected starlight is included. Some ocean water does phosphouresce but not nearly enough to change the darkness of the oceans to be seen from any appreciable height.
The fact is that the only band where radiation is detected is in the infrared band and it is minimal compared to incoming sunlight during the day. According to Roy, there is some microwave radiation from the surface.
Methinks far too much is made of surface radiation, most of which, some 90+%, is radiated directly to space. If you look at any graph involving surface radiation, it is measured in milliwatts per frequency unit.
I can explain this. The guy posts this crap with an obvious error. The challenge is for you to find the error. If you find the error and respond, then it is game on. Do not respond. It just encourages him. The only regular who could not figure this out because he is so dense is Bindidon.
Others who play the same game include Clint R and the fake moderator. Others are just a dumb as they seem.
Nate and barry are playing a different game.
atephen…”Good grief yourself. There is no such thing as a heat exchange between a hotter object and a cooler object. Heat flows only flows in one direction, from lower entropy to higher entropy. Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no net heat exchange in thermodynamics. I made an “A” in thermodynamics. Not sure what you made”.
***
Stephen…I agree with you completely re the one way transfer of heat. In fact, I am in general agreement with your posts. However, as skeptics, we need to get the idea of entropy onto the same page, since it has become a murky definition that many modern scientists fail to grasp.
Some have extended the meaning to a measure of disorder. However the units of entropy are joules/degree K (that is, a heat quantity/degree K), and I don’t see how that applies in any way to disorder. The idea of disorder came from a musing of Clausius after he had defined the 2nd law and entropy that on a larger scale that…
1)the energy in the universe is constant
2)entropy tends to a maximum.
He said nothing about disorder, it was other who drew that inference, albeit incorrectly. He did imply that all irreversible processes lead to disorder but that statement was incorrectly related to entropy becoming a maximum.
If you base that on hi definition of entropy, he is saying that the sum of all heat losses in irreversible processes is tending to a maximum. That makes sense in a way but it applies only to heat losses and not to other forms of energy being lost. Disorder is not simply related to heat losses it applies to any form of mass breaking up, with a heat loss or not.
Clausius defined entropy in support of the 2nd law. Any time you see someone defining the 2nd law in terms of entropy, they likely have no understanding of the meaning of entropy. Not talking about you here, I am referring to authority figures who tend to use the term entropy incorrectly.
Entropy as defined by Clausius is an integral quantity, that is, a summation of infinitesimal heat transfers (dq) in a process at temperature, T. Low entropy as compared to high entropy means there is less heat transferred in a lower entropy transfer.
Entropy is more clearly understood in the Gibb’s Free Energy equation…G = H – T.S. Here G is the total free heat (energy) while H (enthalpy) is the total heat (energy) while T.S is the entropy, or the heat (energy) lost and unavailable to do work.
T.S comes from the Clausius definition of entropy…
S = integral dq/T
The formula tells us that integral dq is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat at temperature T and S = entropy, is the sum of those tiny heat losses. T has been transposed to the LHS to isolate the integral, or sum, of individual dq’s.
In the Gibb’s free energy formula, T.S is the sum of those heat losses and it is a loss indicated by the minus sign. Obviously, a lower entropy means the integral(sum of) dq is smaller than the integral dq for a larger entropy. Comparing entropies is not really associated with the 2nd law since the law applies to each entropy case respectively, not to both. In other words if you had a low entropy, S1, and a high entropy, S2, case, each would require different heat quantities, Q1 and Q2. That means, essentially, two different processes.
Each to his own, but I find introducing entropy only muddies the water wrt the 2nd law. That’s why I stick to the Clausius definition of the 2nd law that heat can NEVER be transferred, ***BY ITS OWN MEANS*** from cold to hot. To me, that is far clearer than introducing an intangible like entropy.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
As with the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics has been verified by countless natural facts. The second law has different statements for different physical phenomena. The classic statements given in most of the literatures mainly include the Clausius Statement and the Kelvin–Planck Statement [1,2,3,4,5]. The Clausius Statement was expressed as “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”, and the Kelvin–Planck Statement as “It is impossible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no other effect than the production of work and the transfer of heat from a single body”. The Clausius Statement is more in accord with experience and thus easier to accept, while the Kelvin–Planck Statement provides a more effective means for bringing out second law deductions related to a thermodynamic cycle [3]. Besides, the Carathéodory Statement also occupies an important position in thermodynamics, which is “In the neighbourhood of any arbitrary state of a thermally isolated system, there are states which are inaccessible from that state” [6,7]. It is not more widely used but brings out its essential features in a way that the traditional treatment does not [7]. Since then, various understandings for the statements of the second law came out continuously [8,9,10,11], which help to clarify the connotation of the second law from different angles. It is important to emphasize that these statements are logically interlinked, consistent, and equivalent [5,12,13].
However, it is strange that the second law of thermodynamics is quite different from other laws, like Newton’s law of motion, Ohm’s law of electric conduction, and Fourier’s law of heat conduction, etc. There are differences such as; (1) there are many different statements for the same law; (2) it is only a qualitative description of a physical phenomenon, rather than a quantitative relationship between different physical quantities; and (3) some phenomena similar to the Clausius Statement exist in other disciplines. For example, an object can never move from low to high location in a gravity field without some other change, and electrical charges can never move from low to high potential in an electrostatic field without some other change. However, none of them has been accepted as the statement of a certain law. With that in mind, we have reviewed Clausius’ mechanical theory of heat, published in the nineteenth century [14,15], and indeed found that he himself only called “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time a fundamental principle rather than the statement of the second law of thermodynamics.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7514258/
“The Clausius Statement was expressed as “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time””,
****
Good point. I have seen this statement stated in other ways by Clausius and the point he emphasized is what he called ‘compensation’, or ‘by its own means’, which he associated with ‘some other means’.
If you look at a situation where heat appears to be transferred cold to hot, it involves a convoluted process involving external power, compressors, and a gas that can easily be compressed to a high pressure, high temperature liquid.
In other words, you are doing work on a gas to raise its pressure and temperature.
The idea here is to collect heat from a warmer location in a low pressure gas, then compress the low pressure gas to a high pressure, high temperature liquid. The high temperature liquid must exceed the temperature of the medium into which the heat is to be transferred, hot to cold, thus keeping the 2nd law intact.
In essence, you are increasing the collected heat’s temperature to a temperature higher than the medium to which you want to transfer the original room’s neat. If you check this out in the air conditioner of a vehicle, the compressed liquid can get seriously hot.
That can only be done using a special gas and a compressor that can increase the gas pressure, hence its temperature, to a higher temperature than the medium to which the heat is to be dissipated.
This is actually an application of the Ideal Gas Law. If you increase the pressure of a gas, it’s temperature must increase as well. Since the gas has been pre-warmed in the room needing to be cooled, that heat is, in essence, amplified by the compressor to a point where the gas, converted to a liquid, is now hotter than the medium to which the heat must be vented.
I think of that more as smoke and mirrors rather than a true heat transfer cold to hot.
More on Clausius’ statement:
Op. Cit.
Gordon,
Any energy source can power a refrigeration unit, for example The SSN Narwhal had steam driven air conditioners. The special gas being good ol H2O.
Clint,
Let’s go back to your original claim.
“One source supplying 240 W/m2 to the imaginary sphere would result in the sphere having a temperature of 180K and emitting 60 W/m2…
Three such sources — 237K, 180 W/m2.
Four such sources — 255K, 240 W/m2…
However, once the sphere is emitting 240 W/m2, an additional 240 W/m2 would not be able to increase the temperature. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add.
An arriving flux MUST be greater than the flux being emitted by a surface to raise the surface’s temperature.”
If your 4 sources ring the equator, then the poles will be very cold, emitting far less than 240 W/m2.
Place two more sources each supplying 240 W/m2 to the poles.
The arriving flux is greater than the flux being emitted at the poles, the surface temperature there must raise, and the global average becomes hotter than 255K.
The maximum limit of the temperature of the sphere is not set by the flux arriving from the sources, it is set by the flux emitted from the sources. Enclose the sphere in the source temperature and the sphere will match that temperature, whether ice or suns.
Wrong again, blackbody barry.
The “imaginary sphere” is also a super conductor, like your “plates”. So the poles would result in the same temperature.
You are really getting desperate to prove me right. Why not just admit I’m right?
The problem here is that Clint is just not very smart.
A spherical shell of suns around the planet gets you an equilibrium surface T = 5800 K.
A spherical shell of ice around the planet gets you an equilibrium surface T = 0C.
Whatever the T of the spherical shell, the surface must quilibrate to that T.
Clint is too dumb to comprehend that a spherical shell can be built from many individual emitters.
And he is too dumb to realize that this PROVES that temperature of the emitters is what sets the limiting T of the surface.
It is amusing to see Clint align his model’s parameters with Elis Rabbett’s to try to hold on to his mistaken belief.
All I have to do is ask, “what if the sphere isn’t a superconductor”, and his thesis goes up in smoke. Whereas, if you do the same wirth Eli’s model, the complexity increases but the thesis remains intact.
Clint will never be able to understand this distinction.
Of course, surrounding Clint’s sphere with sources to make a cavity instantly disproves his claim.
He’ll never understand that, either, it seems.
It’s been 2 days since my comment, so the cult kids must feel it’s safe to insult me and falsely accuse me.
But, they’re only proving me right, again!
Hope they keep it up, I’ll never get bored being proven right….
“But, they’re only proving me right, again”
We demonstrate glaring flaws in Clint’s ‘science’.
Do we get answers? Rebutal? Any sign of understanding?
No. We get throw away patent phrases.
Recently, Ark smirked….
““Partial temperature”? By all means, say more!”
***
If Dalton can break pressures from several gases into partial pressures what is wrong with associating the heat contributed by each partial pressure to the entire mix? After all, climate alarmists are doing precisely that by inferring that CO2 can heat the rest of the atmospheric gases. Some call it thermalization even though there is no way to measure it.
I am reasoning that a gas with an overall temperature, which some claim to be the average KE of all gases in a mix, should be able to be broken down in accordance with which gas contributed the heat associated with it.
If we have two gases in a mix, gas A and gas B, Dalton claimed that Ptotal = P gas A + P gas B.
That means according to the IGL, that …
Pgas A .(Vgas A) = ngas A. (R gas A) . (T gas A), and…
Pgas B. (Vgas B) = n gasB. (R gas B) . (T gas B)
Add those equations to get P gas total and you have two temperatures based on the KE contributed by each gas.
If you are going to talk about theoretical averages in such a gas mixture, you must account for the mass of each gas and its mass percent.
I think the idea that partial pressures cannot be associated with partial temperatures is rather anal.
Whoever defined temperature as an average was being rather short-sighted, but hey, when you are dealing with fake gas particles in a statistical environment, that’s what comes of it.
It should be remember that defining temperature as an average of the KE of gas particles is a definition based purely in statistical averages and not on real world gases.
The quantities used in reporting the experimental results for the absorption of radiation can be introduced by considering the derivation of Beer’s law for an absorbing solute in a nonabsorbing solvent. The decrease in intensity of the radiation as it penetrates a distance dl, is, according to Beer’s law, proportional to I, the radiation intensity; to C, the molar concentration; and to the path length dl. Introducing α(ν), the absorption coefficient, as the proportionality constant allows the equation
-dI=α(ν)IC dl
to be written. The dependence of α on the frequency is here emphasized by writing α(ν). Integration of this equation over the cell length l allows the absorption coefficient to be measured in terms of I₀, the incident intensity, or the intensity with no absorbing material, and I, the intensity of the radiation after passing through the cell containing the solution. The integrated form of Beer’s law is obtained in this way as
α=1/Cl ln(I₀/I)
An absorption band for a given transition usually extends over a range of frequencies. The total intensity of the band is obtained by measuring α(ν) in the region of the absorption and determining, usually by graphical integration, the integrated absorption coefficient A, i.e.,
A = ∫ α(ν)d(ν)
Where I expose the fantasy in the “two temperatures” argument.
Partial pressure is defined as the pressure that a component gas would exert if it alone occupied the total volume at the same temperature, assuming the gas behaves ideally.
Mathematically for a mixture of two gases, start with the ideal gas law:
PV=nRT
PV=(n₁+n₂)RT
If we remove Gas 2 entirely, leaving Gas 1 alone to occupy that exact same total volume (V) at that exact same temperature (T), it will exert its own specific pressure (P₁):
P₁V=n₁RT
We do the exact same thing for Gas 2 alone in the container:
P₂V=n₂RT
Adding the two partial pressure equations together:
P₁+P₂=(n₁RT/V)+(n₂RT/V)
P₁+P₂=(n₁+n₂)(RT/V)
(P₁+P₂)V= (n₁+n₂)RT
Since P=P₁+P₂ and n=n₁+n₂ we have recovered the ideal gas law equation.
If instead “you have two temperatures”:
P₁=n₁RT₁/V and P₂=n₂RT₂/V
P₁+P₂=(n₁T₁+n₂T₂)(R/V)
(n₁+n₂) can no longer be isolated, and the ideal gas law for the mixture does not exist.
Interesting stuff published at WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/tech/cybersecurity/how-millions-of-digital-home-devices-are-secretly-powering-cyberattacks-8fd73584?mod=WTRN_pos1
Robertson ‘think’s… Oh Noes.
” Methinks far too much is made of surface radiation, most of which, some 90+%, is radiated directly to space. ”
Since 1980, polar orbiting satellite-borne devices measure on global average 240 W/m² above the atmosphere.
Here is a computation of the radiant energy yearly emitted to space:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HbbQRfk_NniOO8NSTnFHhYiqvZiu2rNX/view
*
But Earth emits at its surface a lot more. A few examples:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/103bWbIPX7MwZwC42hfr15mcsO5Bu6c6h/view
*
” If you look at any graph involving surface radiation, it is measured in milliwatts per frequency unit. ”
Show us these ‘any graph’s…
Bindidon
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c03-p06.html
This is the type of graphs Gordon Robertson refers to. This is an old ploy by him. I explained it to him a few years back but he has very low comprehension skills like most the Contrarians on this blog.
Gordon Robertson does not understand integration. The units are in Milliwatts per cm-1. You have to integrate each milliwatt over the entire band. They are also in steridan units so you multiply the value from integration by PI to get the actual value in milliwatts/m^2 than you divide that value by 1000 to get Watts/m^2.
You can spend much time with him and you will nut budge his ignorance. I have found all the contrarians on this blog stick to their idiot ideas for years. They are not seeking Truth. They come here just to throw a wrench in the works. Mostly just asshole personalities who think it is funny to provoke people. Kind of childish but that is where we are. Some are just fanatics that are polarized by a belief. I interact with the clowns from time to time but after some years of it I do realize that they have zero desire to learn any truth and mostly think it is funny to provoke posters.
Yes, I suppose the GHE deniers are content with undermining the skeptic movement, as Roy Spencer noted in April 2014:
“So why am I trying to stir up a hornets nest (again)? Because when skeptics embrace �science� that is worse that the IPCC�s science, we hurt our credibility.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Whether they support it as a joke or in earnest, the effect is the same. Thanks to the Sky Dragons for inadvertently aiding Team Science.
Exactly!
While it’s true that some of the Skeptics do not fully understand the science, it’s even worse for the cult kids. Everyone would benefit from learning the basics.
But the big problem is the cult can’t agree on an exact definition/description of the CO2 nonsense. One time it’s “back radiation”, the next time it’s “insulation”. Until the cult can come up with a consistent statement of their belief how CO2 is warming the planet, they can expect many responses that don’t fit a moving target.
“One time it’s “back radiation”, the next time it’s “insulation”.”
Those two ideas are not in conflict.
CO2 absorbs some of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth’s surface and then re emit it in all directions, including back toward the surface.
As a result, some of the energy that would otherwise escape into space is redirected downward. This reduces the rate at which the surface loses heat and making the surface warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases.
Insulation is an analogy for that process (though not entirely).
I sincerely appreciate your efforts in helping take down these pesky fossil fuel shills and supporting meaningful progress toward a more sustainable future!
Eldro submits another attempt at defining the illusive CO2 nonsense: “This reduces the rate at which the surface loses heat and making the surface warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases.”
If he’s right, the “consensus” has moved away from its original Arrhenius equation that [fictitiously] produced a “forcing” from increased CO2.
We have to guess what ELdro means by “loses heat”. And we have to guess what he means by “making the surface warmer than it would be”.
It’s a lot of hand-waving and confusion. Just believe!
That ain’t science.
There are several different statements for the second law of thermodynamics.
Si if Planck, Clausius, Lord Kelvin, Carnation, and others couldn’t agree, then we should ditch that law too?
” CO2 absorbs some of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth’s surface and then re emit it in all directions, including back toward the surface. ”
Did H2O in its water vapor form suddenly disappear?
*
Devices like High-Resolution Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectrometers, e.g. Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI), analyze downwelling infrared radiation “line by line” to determine the specific percentage caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) backradiation.
According to these measurements, CO2 backradiation accounts, depending on the location, for at best 15-25 % of the downwelling infrared radiation (some say even only 10 %); but water vapor however account for for 60-70 %. The rest is clouds, methane (CH4), ozone (O3), etc.
*
Why this endless, boring fixattion on CO2 ???
How long will we have to read that CO2 is the ‘control knob’, is ‘well-mixed’ and ‘doesn’t condense’ ?
That’s exactly what feeds the GHE deniers for years.
“We have to guess what ELdro means by “loses heat”.”
Earth continuously emits IR to space, and that is the main way it loses energy.
Either you didn’t know that or you did, and you’re trolling.
Whichever it is, it appeared only a few posts after the one that included the link where Dr. Spencer says GHE denial is embarrassing for skeptics….
Bindidon
Thank you for mentioning H2O. It is indeed important.
Warmer sea surface temperatures (resulting from the enhanced GHE) increase evaporation. The resulting increase in H2O concentration enhances the GHE further.
Global temperatures are going to rise substantially over the coming century.
Eldrosion,
IR absorbing gases emit 240w/m^2 OLR to space. That’s part of the energy budget. That’s what we think we know. Everything else is conjecture.
Eldrosion,
The lapse rate and Dr. Ed Berry’s model falsifies Greenhouse Gas Theory. There’s no doubt heat is radiated to space in the form of OLR. None of us deny that. That does not support GHT.
Sorry Eldro, but “loses heat” is not a meaningful phrase. You may have meant “loses thermal energy”. But, Earth emitting IR to space is NOT an alarming event. It’s quite natural.
Even Bindi doesn’t fall for your nonsense. You can’t responsibly describe your CO2 nonsense. No one can.
It’s not that hard to make a scientific statement. Want an example?
CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s average 288K surface.
See how easy that is? No endless rambling, no attempt at using differential equations, no appeal to authority, just basic physics….
“Humans will cease to exist without CO2.”
Is that a second law statement?
CR:
“CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s average 288K surface.”
Here we go again.
Try answering this simple question:
How can you tell the difference between a 15μ photon emitted by CO2 and a 15μ photon emitted by the sun?
Answer:
You can’t. Unless you erroneously believe photons have temperatures (which poor old Gordon believes).
Troglodyte’s JAQing off gets an F.
And Clint R continues his endless, futile attempt to manipulate the blog:
” CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s average 288K surface. ”
*
No one – except Clint R himself who is the one and only source of that nonsense – did ever claim it. No one!
*
Of special interest is once more that like all pseudoskeptics, Clint R always refers to CO2 ‘s 15µ photons but intentionally omits the fact that H2O is responsible for WAY more backradiation than CO2.
Why doesn’t he ask for example:
” IR frequency range of H2O’s absorption/re-emission in microns ”
*
But he never will.
*
And anyway, anyone except dense people understands that NOAA’s primitive, simple-minded explanations for the ‘grand public’ like
” CO2 traps heat”
or
” Backradiation warms the surface ”
don’t have anything to do with the reality that any gas molecule intercepting IR photons emitted by Earth
– reemits half of them back
– remeits the second half at a temperature much lower than the surface, hence with an energy lower than the photons reaching outer space directly.
*
But slow-witted people love simple explanations (“Keep It Simple, Stupid!”); no wonder they fall into traps like below:
” Anomalies higher than the baseline mean warmer temperatures, those lower than the baseline mean lower ones ”
what leads them to the ridiculous allegation that NOAA creates ‘fudged data’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N9S1pa_aqJFqtP9HpoeYcZ79zZZtv3Sm/view
OMG…
Bindi, you’ve become as much a cult kid as the rest. A responsible adult would know not to make false accusations. You make false accusations because you have no science. You’re a complete fraud.
CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s average 288K surface. That’s a well know fact in “hard science”. You continually confuse your “cult science” with “hard science”.
I’ve mentioned H2O many times. Your cult hates it when I bring up the water vapor inserted into the upper atmosphere by Hunga-Tonga. Water vapor, because it can emit a large number of wavelengths, can do what CO2 can’t. Your cult doesn’t like that.
You’re a fraud. That’s why you have no viable model for “orbiting without spin”. That’s why you’ve been unable to answer any of the physics problems I’ve given you. Even the basics are way over your head. You believe making unreadable graphs is “science”. I could teach a high school kid how to make quality graphs in less than an hour!
You’re an empty vessel relying on cult tactics because you understand none of this.
Now, make some more false accusations to further prove me right.
Norman
Why did you feel the need to answer?
Better would have been to let Robertson reply himself with his usual nonsense.
Trump, who has long promised to drain the swamp in Washington, has literally created one.
He gave his fiend and donor a NO BID contract:
“Federal contracting records show that firm’s ultimate owner is the J.J. Cafaro Investment Trust, led by John J. Cafaro, a donor to Mr. Trump and a neighbor to Mar-a-Lago, the president’s private club in Florida.”
The Contract was for installing water cleaning devices to Reflecting Pool which has led to it turning green with a major algae bloom.
” We thank President Trump for fixing the Reflecting Pool for good. ”
Yeah.
bob d…”Any energy source can power a refrigeration unit, for example The SSN Narwhal had steam driven air conditioners. The special gas being good ol H2O”.
***
Yes, Bob, but the process is much the same. High pressure steam from a nuclear reactor is used to create a near vacuum in a container containing water. Due to the near vacuum conditions, the water boils at a much lower temperature and the latent heat of evapouration is drawn from the area requiring cooling.
Simply another use of the Ideal Gas Law re manipulation of pressure, volume, and temperature. Other systems use lithium bromide to cool water. Same old, same old…Ideal Gas Law stuff.
In other words, heat cannot be transferred by its own means from cold to hot, and even with such transfers, it’s not a transfer cold to hot. There needs to be an intermediate stage in which the temperature is artificially raised to a higher level so it can be transferred hot to cold.
Gordon,
Quote the whole law.
Not just the first half.
willard…
“Considering the natural tendency that heat always passes from a warmer to a colder body for eliminating the temperature difference, Clausius presented a well-known proposition that “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”. Unfortunately, it met with much opposition [15]. Muller [22] stated that “this statement, suggestive though it is, has often been criticized as vague”. And Muller believed that Clausius himself did not also feel entirely satisfied with this proposition for the reason of it lacking an unequivocal mathematic description [22]”.
***
This is not intended as a critique of Willard. The information he presents is sound on the face of it. However, the criticism presented by Muller of Clausius is way off base.
Since the Clausius definition of the 2nd law came out at the same time as the others, circa 1850, the 2nd law was not a well-known proposition. Carnot did not present such a law, in fact, Clausius critiqued the Carnot assumption that no heat losses occurred in such transfers in a heat engine. In fact, no other scientists of the time who offered definitions of the 2nd law offered such a detailed explanation as did Clausius.
The work done by Clausius on the 2nd law and entropy is classic and has never been negated.
I don’t know who this Muller is supposed to be but I don’t see his name offered in relation to the 2nd law. If anyone reads the Clausius explanation of the 2nd law there is nothing vague about it. Clausius lays it out precisely using the Ideal Gas Law to accurately map the steam engine processes re pressure, temperature, and volume.
Clausius did that by holding one variable constant then varying the other two. By carefully following the steam engine cycle to completion he demonstrated clearly why that process cannot be reversed, hence allowing a heat transfer cold to hot.
It seems to me that critics of Clausius have never read and understood the work he did in his mechanical theory of heat documents. I don’t think the criticism of Muller is justified on the basis that it is vague. The 2nd law as presented by Clausius applies to all energy forms in that none of them can be transferred from a low potential energy state to a high potential energy state by their own means. Ergo, if the Clausius definition is vague then all energy references are equally vague.
There is a certain snobbery among certain scientists in that they think any scientific observation bereft of a mathematical explanation is invalid. Faraday was sidelined for that reason. Although his work on magnetism is unequaled subjectively, it was dismissed by the snobs of the day as unacceptable due to the lack of in-depth math presented. In fact, Maxwell got the credit for Faraday’s work by presenting it mathematically to the liking of the snobs.
Pardon me for being a “snob” but I must insist that photons do not have temperatures.
then how do you explain that when a massive number of photons are emitted from a surface that the surface cools? The meaning is clear, if you divide the number of degrees cooling by the number of photons emitted then each photon must represent a fraction of the number of degrees of temperature change.
The point is, electrons emit photons as they lose KE upon descent from a higher orbital energy level. The loss of KE is a loss of heat in the overall mass, hence a reduction in temperature.
The reason it is silly to talk about an individual photon having a temperature is that we cannot identify where a photon is never mind its temperature. That is, we cannot measure anything related to an individual photon. That’s because the electron emitting the photon cannot be located precisely. That’s why they talk about temperature being an average KE of all atoms in a mass. Presuming that is, that the mass has a uniform heat distribution throughout.
Now, try to be a good student and try responding scientifically. I don’t hate you or intend any venting of my spleen toward you, it’s just that you insist on smart-assed answers.
Pardon me for being a “smartass”and a snob but, as all schoolboys know:
Photon energy E is the discrete amount of energy carried by a single photon, which is directly proportional to the electromagnetic wave’s frequency f and inversely proportional to its wavelength. It is calculated using Planck’s constant h.
E = h . f
As we can all see, there is no mention of temperature.
If a surface cools it is due to a loss of KE carried away by emitted photons. The temperature of the surface determines the NUMBER of photons being emitted at all wavelengths, NOT THEIR (non-existent) INDIVIDUAL TEMPERATURES.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Gordon,
I thought you claimed electronics experience.
Photomultipliers, Geiger counters, and scintillation counters just to name a few things that can detect individual photons.
Then there is PET, or postron emmision tomography, where both the location of an electron positron annihilation event and the location of the two photons produced when they hit the detector are found.
Tell the truth, you never passed the required physics classes in an engineering program.
Let’s repeat the relevant bit:
Muller did not criticize Clausius.
Clausius criticized Clausius.
eldrosion…”As a result, some of the energy that would otherwise escape into space is redirected downward. This reduces the rate at which the surface loses heat and making the surface warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases”.
***
You need to explain how IR back-radiated from CO2 affects the rate of heat loss at the surface. There is no known mechanism that can explain such an action.
Heat is dissipated at the surface at the instant the IR is created. To elabourate, heat is converted to IR, and is lost.
The heat is well gone before any IR is back-radiated. To understand that you need to understand basic quantum theory as proposed by Bohr in 1913. As he explained it, and it is still true, when electrons in surface atoms drop to a lower orbital energy level, they must give up kinetic energy. That is done by converting the KE to IR, an entirely different form of energy than heat.
The loss of KE represents a lost off heat and we all know that. When a surface radiates IR it is tantamount to a loss of heat since KE in atoms and electrons represents heat. It is not possible to lose that heat twice due to back-radiated IR. Surely anyone can see that heat lost by the initial production of IR is no longer related to the heat that produced the IR.
Some argue that heat loss by individual atoms/electrons is silly but overall, in an entire mass, the sum of KE losses of each electron in the atoms of a mass, represents an overall loss of heat.
Once that heat is dissipated at a surface, no amount of back-radiation from CO2 or WV in the atmosphere can affect the initial rate of heat loss. The only element affecting heat loss rate is the temperature difference between the atmosphere and the surface.
Since nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere it is the temperature of those two elements that governs the rate of heat loss. Neither CO2 nor water vapour have a significant say in the matter. Since the atmosphere and surface are essentially in thermal equilibrium the surface should retain a lot more heat and Lindzen estimated that without the convection due to heated air rising, the surface temperature could rise to 70C.
That’s what saves us, the amount of heat dissipated by air heated by the surface that rises, being replaced by cooler air from above. GHGs have nothing to do with this process with the exception that WV in the Tropics may play a bit of a role. Still, it is N2 and O2 that control the heat dissipation rate.
Besides the total amount of IR absorbed by so-called GHGs is a trivial 10% at best, the rest being radiated to space.
Norman called me on that, claiming I did not understand the integration over a range of IR frequencies where the amplitudes are in milliwatts. I have already pointed out that the integration comes to about 28 watts. Google AI claims the total IR radiation is about 400 watts and 400/28 = 14%. That is a generous figure and the amount trapped by IR is closer to 10 watts.
And the 400 watts is bs anyway since that means more heat is being dissipated than the Sun can deliver. Ergo, we are arguing apples and oranges since the theory is nonsense.
Anyone here arguing on behalf of climate alarmists is using pseudo-science as the basis of their arguments. In all the years I have been posting here I have yet to see an alarmist argument that can be backed by hard science.
Gordon Robertson
You are quite wrong in your understanding of electron energy!! I do not know where you come up with these ideas. Do you just make them up or are you getting them from Crackpot blogs???
You keep claiming an electron gains kinetic energy when it absorbs EMR. This is a totally fictitious fabrication. All real science clearly states the electron loses Kinetic Energy but gains potential energy as it moves to a higher orbital. Similar to what you can understand with gravity. Mercury moves very fast around the Sun. Has a lot of kinetic energy. If you add energy to Mercury it will mover further away from the Sun. It will lose kinetic energy but gain potential energy. This is well established physics that goes totally against your made up version.
Can you be honest with me?? Why do you have this need to just make stuff up? You know it is not true but act as it is. I would like to understand the motivation of all the skeptics that post made up physics and act like some type of experts. I can easily look up the real physics and see your versions are wrong and actually bad. You, Clint R, Bill Hunter, stephen p anderson, DREMT all post bad science that is easy to find evidence it is bad. I post links many times showing the crackpot physics is not correct but it does not alter any of your beliefs. I am attempting to understand the way your mind works. You are fine to post false information and reject valid science. Not once or get something wrong now and then. These false made up physics is posted for year after year after year. No amount of actual evidence, or facts ever show any sign of changing your minds’. I wonder what is the structure of a mind that makes up this false version of reality and sticks to it like a super glue. Help me out here. Inquiring minds want to know what makes your mind work in that fashion. Science motivation is to find the truth and most accurate description of reality possible. They fail a lot but do not continue on paths that are shown to be false. Your mind works different. It is not seeking truth so what is it doing? What is it trying to accomplish on this blog??
There you go again, Norman. Making false accusations to cover up for your lack of understanding.
You claim that I provide “bad science that is easy to find evidence it is bad”. So, what “bad science” have I provided?
And since you can’t do that, you can give me your “viable model of orbiting without spin”.
Let me guess: You don’t have either?
eldrosion…”Earth continuously emits IR to space, and that is the main way it loses energy”.
***
Sorry to disappoint but the surface loses a lot more heat to conduction/convection. That’s because there are something like 10^28 air molecules touching the surface per square metre and each molecule absorbs heat from the surface. That heated air then rises via convection and the cycle repeats endlessly.
That is, as long as the sun can reach the surface. In winter, in the Arctic and Antarctic, the surface is much colder than the atmosphere and does not warm it. In fact, the air gets warmer up to a kilometre or so since the Sun is still warming the air at that altitude, making it warmer than surface air. So, the lapse rate is said to be negative up to that point, then it gets positive again.
Shula, who has done work with the Pirani gauge pointed out that conduction/convection is 260 times more efficient than radiation at cooling the surface. As I have tried to point out, heat dissipated from the surface is dissipated further as it rises, making it far less necessary for heat to be dissipated that is injected by solar energy.
To me, that is the real GHE. The atmosphere is warmed by solar energy far more than it should be since not all energy input is delivered back to space. The Earth retains heat in the atmosphere and oceans an actually dissipates a lot of it as the air rises when heated by the surface.
Gordon Robertson
The planet as a whole only loses energy through a net transfer to space. Radiation is the only form of energy transfer that can travel through a vacuum, so it is the only way energy can leave Earth.
Convection move energy within the atmosphere, and condition exchanges energy between the surface and the lower atmosphere.
Neither of these removes energy from Earth’s system. They just redistribute it internally.
Convection moves energy within the atmosphere, and conduction exchanges energy between the surface and the lower atmosphere.
Eldrosion,
Conduction doesn’t exchange energy. Conduction transfers energy from the surface to the atmosphere flowing by and pressing up against it.
Heat is transferred from the surface by conduction, convection and latent heat mostly, very little radiant heat until the effective emission height which is about halfway up the troposphere according to Nikolov. The parcels of air rise and are attenuated adiabatically by pressure volume work. The heat that does reach mid troposphere can then be transmitted radiantly to space. Then radiant heat transfer becomes dominant and creates OLR. The OLR is what we see in these satellite images. It isn’t surface radiation.
Eldrosion,
Also, there is no 33K Greenhouse effect. If you look at the lapse rate from the surface to the top of the troposphere, it is a lot more than 33K. It is all due to pressure. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it would have zero effect on the dry lapse rate. It would have an effect on the moist lapse rate due to water’s specific heat capacity.
stephen, conduction transfers energy from the surface to the atmosphere during the day, in general, and transfers energy from the atmosphere to the surface at night, generally. The ground is a much more efficient emitter of radiation than the atmosphere (being able to emit at a far wider spectrum), so at night the surface gets cooler than the atmosphere just above it in short order.
Barry,
At night, why is there a temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa?
This is the dumbest of all dumb statements ever written on this blog, and you have a lot of competition for that prize. Our friend stephen p anderson wrote this all by himself:
“Conduction doesn’t exchange energy. Conduction transfers energy from the surface to the atmosphere flowing by and pressing up against it.
Heat is transferred from the surface by conduction, convection and latent heat mostly, very little radiant heat until the effective emission height which is about halfway up the troposphere according to Nikolov. The parcels of air rise and are attenuated adiabatically by pressure volume work. The heat that does reach mid troposphere can then be transmitted radiantly to space. Then radiant heat transfer becomes dominant and creates OLR. The OLR is what we see in these satellite images. It isn’t surface radiation.”
If you don’t like the criticism, then don’t write dumb statements.
Barry,
You’re from Australia, so you should know when you go out in the desert at night and it gets cold, you want to lay down on the ground to warm up. Also, out in the ocean, the ocean warms the atmosphere at night. And there is a lapse rate at night. That means that one nm above the surface the lapse rate starts. One nm above the surface it is conducting heat from the surface. Not really sure where you get these things, but I guess it’s necessary for you to believe your greenhouse propaganda
stephen p anderson
Why don’t you work to earn another “A” and do some real research on topics you post about. The lapse rate exists because the surface is heated much more by the Sun than the air above. This is like any heating process you studied when you got your “A” in thermodynamics.
Heat gradient established across a body from the hot side to the cold side.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/conductive-heat-transfer-d_428.html
So the air above the heated ground will develop a natural lapse rate. But here is where your crackpot pressure idea fails completely. (Of course rational people on this blog already know that logic will not change your mindstate).
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/winds/nighttime_influences/Nighttime_Influences.htm
At night an inversion forms in inverse of daytime lapse rate. The air above is warmer than the air below. Primarily because of radiant heat transfer through the atmospheric window. If your crackpot belief is correct than pressure should keep the lapse rate. It somehow fails to do this.
GHE established by radiant energy works on multiple levels of science. You tend to gravitate toward crackpots but for some reason will believe multiple scientists working from various fields are all wrong but a handful of crackpots know more than all the others.
You are similar to Gordon Robertson in some ways. He accepts the total credibility of a crackpot Lanka on Measles virus and rejects all the other experts in the field that state opposite of Lanka. Thousands of highly educated experts that continue to study and take in new information are wrong or dishonest while a handful of crackpots have all the answers and you blindly accept whatever BS they feed you with and reject all other evidence showing the flaws to their ideas.
stephen,
I’ve slept in the desert, around Alice Springs in the middle of the country and Tennant Creek 500km North.
Near Alice I used a swag to keep from going cold at night. You need a protective layer to avoid hypothermia when the ground temp drops down from the intense heat of the day. Takes an hour or so, depending on the kind of ground.
In Tennant Creek I slept in a hammock all night under the stars in boxer shorts. Because the air cools a lot slower than the ground I could do that. If I’d slept on the ground I’d have been shivering by midnight.
More info on air/ground conduction here.
“During the day, sunlight heats the ground, which in turn heats the air directly above it via conduction. At night, the ground cools and the heat flows from the warmer air directly above to the cooler ground via conduction.”
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/conduction
Stop being a recalcitrant dummy and google stuff before you spout.
Changing the subject doesn’t make you smarter, mate. Accept the correction first, or else prove yourself a waste of bandwidth.
Norman,
It isn’t my crackpot idea although I would love to take credit. The crackpot idea can be attributed to Lord Kelvin. He derived the lapse rate in the 19th century. However, I had a good thermodynamics teacher who understood the role of differential equations in thermodynamics and physics. I made A’s in differential calculus too.
Barry,
You’re a big believer in that back radiation, aren’t you? Does the atmosphere warm the ocean at night?
Barry,
I’m not changing the subject. By what process does the air warm the Earth? Does the air warm the ocean?
So, Barry accuses me of changing the subject, but I ask him why there is a lapse rate at night at Mauna Loa. If the temperature of the atmosphere decreases with altitude at night at Mauna Loa, then the air can’t be warming the ground. Heat flows from hot to cold. It doesn’t flow in two directions.
This is the dumbest of all dumb statements ever written on this blog, and you have a lot of competition for that prize. Our friend stephen p anderson wrote this all by himself:
You need to read some of your statements. You accept GHE nonsense hook, line and sinker, then repeat them.
stephe, you senile? Let me help you remember.
stephen said: “Conduction doesn’t exchange energy. Conduction transfers energy from the surface to the atmosphere flowing by and pressing up against it.”
barry said in reply: “stephen, conduction transfers energy from the surface to the atmosphere during the day, in general, and transfers energy from the atmosphere to the surface at night”
stephen changed the subject: “Barry, At night, why is there a temperature difference between the base and summit of Mauna Loa?”
Then in a later comment:
stephen said: “You’re from Australia, so you should know when you go out in the desert at night and it gets cold, you want to lay down on the ground to warm up… And there is a lapse rate at night. That means that one nm above the surface the lapse rate starts. One nm above the surface it is conducting heat from the surface. Not really sure where you get these things, but I guess it’s necessary for you to believe your greenhouse propaganda”
So I replied I’d slept in the Australian desert and lying on the ground is a bad idea, but you can get warmth from the air – opposite to what you said. I’ve lived it. Then I provided a reference and returned the snark you offered after I’d been neutral. The silver rule applies.
” ‘During the day, sunlight heats the ground, which in turn heats the air directly above it via conduction. At night, the ground cools and the heat flows from the warmer air directly above to the cooler ground via conduction.’
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/conduction
Stop being a recalcitrant dummy and google stuff before you spout.
Changing the subject doesn’t make you smarter, mate. Accept the correction first, or else prove yourself a waste of bandwidth.”
So stephen, you’ve proved you’re a waste of bandwidth. And you’re still a recalcitrant dummy. All you had to do was admit you were wrong about surface/atmosphere conduction being a one way process and you would have earned a litte credit for being an honest player.
There’s nothing wrong with not knowing something, but everything wrong with failing to admit it when shown.
Stephen,
I believe you know that weather happens in the atmosphere.
When there is an extreme heat wave, as there is in France right now, it is the atmosphere that is reaching 108 F.
And it warms everything it comes in contact with, ground, people, structures.
It us often caused by a high pressure dome, with air getting heated as it subsides.
“A sphere of 255K emits 240W/m2 only if there is a constant 240W/m2 flow of heat from inner layers towards the surface.”
There is no material emitting that much.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
It seems that Vournas does not know the difference between
– emissivity (a unitless factor)
and
– radiant flux density (power per area, expressed in Watt/m²).
*
Emissivity is a material’s effectiveness in emitting thermal radiation (infrared energy) compared to a perfect emitter, called a blackbody. It is represented by the symbol ε and is measured on a scale from 0 (perfect reflector) to 1 (perfect emitter)
*
Radiant flux density is the amount of radiant power (energy per unit time) passing through or hitting a specific surface area. Measured in Watts per square meter (W/m²), it quantifies how concentrated electromagnetic, thermal, or optical radiation is at any given location
Thank you, Bindidon, for clarification.
“It seems that Vournas does not know the difference between
– emissivity (a unitless factor)
and
– radiant flux density (power per area, expressed in Watt/m²).
*
Emissivity is a material’s effectiveness in emitting thermal radiation (infrared energy) compared to a perfect emitter, called a blackbody. It is represented by the symbol ε and is measured on a scale from 0 (perfect reflector) to 1 (perfect emitter)
*
Radiant flux density is the amount of radiant power (energy per unit time) passing through or hitting a specific surface area. Measured in Watts per square meter (W/m²), it quantifies how concentrated electromagnetic, thermal, or optical radiation is at any given location.”
–
–
It seems that Bindidon does not know there is not a material emitting 240W/m² at 255K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” … there is not a material emitting 240W/m² at 255K. ”
1. Any real material with a high emissivity (close to 1.0) will emit almost exactly 239.76 W/m² (commonly rounded to 240 W/m²) at 255 K according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
2. Despite its average emissivity of only up to 0.85, the atmosphere nevertheless emits 240 W/m² of thermal radiation to outer space from an altitude where the air temperature is approximately 255 K (somewhere in the troposphere at about 500 hPa, between 5 and 6 km above ground).
Ευχαριστώ πολύ που μάθατε πριν γράψετε!
Despite its average emissivity of only up to 0.85, the atmosphere nevertheless emits 240 W/m² of thermal radiation to outer space from an altitude where the air temperature is approximately 255 K (somewhere in the troposphere at about 500 hPa, between 5 and 6 km above ground).
This is Nikolov’s effective emission height based on his modified SB equation.
Should water at 255K (-18C) emit 240 W/m² ? What law says that?
–
–
240W/m²
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is not any Stefan-Boltzmann radiative energy absorption law.
The planetary effective temperature equation is a pure mathematical abstraction.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
If you look at the lapse rate approximately 6.5K/km wouldn’t that give you a temperature of approximately 255K? The effective emission height is about 5500 meters.
Stephen,
“If you look at the lapse rate approximately 6.5K/km wouldn’t that give you a temperature of approximately 255K? The effective emission height is about 5500 meters.”
Earth does not emit uniformly. Earth emits approximatelly from ~15 W/m² at lowest to ~50 W/m² at highest, and those might be overestimated numbers.
The instantaneous at the very instance of solar energy incidence IR emission cannot be considered as absorbed heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas, you behave here like an incompetent, boastful braggart.
1. ” Should water at 255K (-18C) emit 240 W/m² ? What law says that? ”
*
No one claims that, Vournas. No law says that.
2. ” There is not any Stefan-Boltzmann radiative energy absorption law. ”
*
I repeat what I wrote above:
” Despite its average emissivity of only up to 0.85, the atmosphere nevertheless emits 240 W/m² of thermal radiation to outer space from an altitude where the air temperature is approximately 255 K (somewhere in the troposphere at about 500 hPa, between 5 and 6 km above ground).
*
Stefan-Boltzmann’s Emission Law: The power radiated by a surface is defined as
P = ε σ A T^4
ε: emissivity of the surface
σ: Stefan-Boltzmann constant
A: its area
T: its temperature
*
3. ” The planetary effective temperature equation is a pure mathematical abstraction. ”
*
Never would you ever be able to scientifically contradict it.
All what you were able to do until now was to invent your ridiculous Φ nonsense which has been debunked many times in the past – especially at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc blog.
*
4. ” Earth does not emit uniformly. Earth emits approximatelly from ~15 W/m² at lowest to ~50 W/m² at highest, and those might be overestimated numbers. ”
This is one of the most stupid allegations I have read from you.
Do you think tah ALL stations WORLDWIDE measuring IR radiation from both the surface and from the atmosphere give wrong data?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10oZEK21bfTnPIFCdLf-4OTAeSQR7UOGh/view
If you think so, then you are exactly as ignorant as Robertson, Clint R, Anderson and all the people thinking like them.
I read above, without any surprise:
” Heat is transferred from the surface by conduction, convection and latent heat mostly, very little radiant heat until the effective emission height which is about halfway up the troposphere according to Nikolov. ”
*
It’s hard to believe that people can be so incredibly brazen that they intentionally ignore facts known since decades.
*
Here is the monthly average of the data measured since 2000 by seven SURFRAD stations in the US:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jATtF_nsFH91UVKLQbxs4yldxYIc4wsd/view
This monthly data comes from averaging hourly data measured by each station, for example Fort Peck, Montana on 2025, July 1:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10oZEK21bfTnPIFCdLf-4OTAeSQR7UOGh/view
If I well remember, Fort Peck started working in the 1990s.
*
Here is similar data measured by three stations associated to the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/103bWbIPX7MwZwC42hfr15mcsO5Bu6c6h/view
*
The network’s head page:
https://dataportals.pangaea.de/bsrn/?q=LR0100
*
One must be completely dense to ignore such things.
Source of the monthly SURFRAD data for the single stations
https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/radiation/surfrad/averages/
Bindidon,
I think they can measure SW solar radiation (downwelling) with a pyranometer. I think there are a lot of assumptions with the LW upwelling. I think it is a very small percent of the total surface flux.
It is kind of like the satellite images that are routinely posted here that are supposedly evidence of CO2 absorp-tion from the surface. Not.
Also, that’s not Nikolov. I don’t want to speak for him. In his paper he describes the surface flux as conductive, convective and radiative. I believe the radiative part is very small and the more we look into SURFRAD, the more assumptions we will find. My opinion.
Anderson
” I think… ”
” I think… ”
*
Typical pseuso-skeptic behavior: To doubt, discredit and deny instead of technically and scientifically contradicting.
This is incredible. You lack any technical let alone scientific knowledge and experience but allow yourself to put anything in question what does not fit your personal egocentric narrative.
You are not even able to post a link to an article scientifically disproving the SURFRAD and BSRN results!
*
” I believe the radiative part is very small and the more we look into SURFRAD, the more assumptions we will find. My opinion. ”
Belief, belief… that’s antiscience at its best.
Not your ‘opinion’ matters: only knowledge does.
You are a perfect duplicate of Robertson and Clint R – two posters who doubt everything and endlessly fill the blog with their unproven allegations.
*
Try to learn about how pyrgeometers and Fourier-Transform interferometers do their work – devices which are in use since decades – instead of arrogantly talking about ‘assumptions’.
n France for example, pyrgeometers are used – among several other contexts – even for the early detection of radiation frost on vines in high-value cultivation areas producing top-tier Burgundies, Bordeaux and Champagnes.
” It is kind of like the satellite images that are routinely posted here that are supposedly evidence of CO2 absorp-tion from the surface. Not. ”
*
This above best shows your paranoid CO2 Derangement Syndrome, and also how ignorant and devious you behave on this blog.
Never did I publish here any info intentionally pushing CO2.
I merely pöosted links to an old paper written by Joseph W. Chamberlain and another one written by the French scientist Jean-Louis Dufresne.
The contrary is the case: while people like you, Clint R, Robertson and a few other ‘specialist’s always reduce effects like backradiation to CO2 instead of widening that discussion up to its main cause, namely H2O, I never got tired to explain that H2O is the major gas with regard to IR interception in the atmosphere.
*
Recently, I even published numbers showing that CO2 accounts for maximally 15-25 % of the backradiation.
I also contradicted bloody claims that backradiation would warm the surface, what it does not at all.
*
And especially info about downwelling IR (which of course come from surface stations and not from satellites-borne devices) I never published with the intention you and others woefully insinuate.
Bindidon,
A heat flux sensor cannot differentiate between the different types of flux. You have to tell it what the flux is. Big problem with your SURFRAD argument. A lot of assuming going on.
I do acknowledge that you often point out that water absorbs IR and is in much greater abundance in the atmosphere so that if there is a greenhouse effect, it is mostly due to water.
” Big problem with your SURFRAD argument. A lot of assuming going on. ”
Why do you stalk me all the time with your imbecile allegations, Anderson, instead of informing yourself?
You are really even dumber and more ignorant than Robertson and Clint R taken together.
Are you even too lazy to look at what a SURFRAD station REALLY is and what kind of measurement devices it hosts?
Are you too dumb to search yourself for the huge difference between a heat flux sensor and a pyrgeometer?
*
There is only one BIG problem here, Anderson, and that is your ignorance due to your stubborn, opinionated behavior which keeps you assuming everything instead of learning.
*
No wonder by the way that the arrogant, incompetent twat who insulted me as ‘dense’ (and also woefully denigrated barry) 100 % endorsed you as ‘our friend stephen p anderson’.
You two perfectly fit together with your total lack of technical skills and scientific knowledge.
*
Again: Stop finally stalking me, you are wasting my precious time.
Bindidon,
OK, I read about a pyrgeometer. It is still a heat flux sensor. It is a thermopile, supposedly sensitive to IR energy. Other heat is still going to affect it. The lapse rate is a big problem for GHT, so it makes me question everything. Greenhouse gases are 0.4% of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is pressing against the surface. It makes sense that most of the heat is removed by conduction, convection, latent heat and not radiation until the atmosphere is less dense. The whole energy budget model is based on assumptions.
People like Anderson are absolutely incredible.
They don’t have even the least bit of competence to talk about devices like pyrgeometers but ‘know’ that:
” It is a thermopile, supposedly sensitive to IR energy. Other heat is still going to affect it. ”
*
He would never be able to write a valuable technical paper proving his beliefs.
*
” The whole energy budget model is based on assumptions. ”
Let alone would he be able to scientifically prove such absolutely superficial allegation.
Blindidon,
Explain every single flux in the NASA energy budget and where that number came from.
Anderson
” Explain every single flux in the NASA energy budget and where that number came from. ”
*
1. You can name call me ‘Blindidon’ as long as you want: you are way, way more ignorant than I am.
*
2. Are you really dumb enough to believe I would waste my time in infoming you? You would deny and discredit anything I would communicate.
One exception: the 240 W/m² observed by satellite-borne interferometers at TOA since 1979:
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/climatedatarecords#UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/
Unlike you who are at best able to insinuate about ‘assumptions’, I processed that data to understand from where the number came from:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oFCUviGRTwTpCrFWQPDFopFJI2PTGhMo/view
The red line is the average over the years.
*
But people like you are too obstinated to accept what they either dislike or don’t understand.
Search yourself, Anderson.
*
Bindi, I see you’re still confused about the “OLR”. As I’ve explained before they do NOT actually measure 240 W/m². That value is obtained through a maze of embarrassing manipulations, based on the fraud of an imaginary sphere.
I know this is all over your head, but let me present some things for you to think about.
How does Earth’s atmosphere emit 342 W/m² back to the surface while also emitting 240 W/m² to space?
If Earth’s surface is emitting 390 W/m² to the atmosphere, but the atmosphere only emits 240 W/m² to space, then you’ve got the atmosphere gaining 150 W/m².
Over a year, that results in a gain of 2.4 (10)^24 Joules. And of course, it does that every year, in your cult’s “science”.
See why I like to keep things simple? That way even kids can understand.
So if you’re not ashamed of your ignorance yet, I can mention your inability to describe a viable model of “orbiting without spin”….
My reply to Clint R’s incompetent, unscientific rambling
A. ” So if you’re not ashamed of your ignorance yet, I can mention your inability to describe a viable model of “orbiting without spin” “.
*
No one knows why Clint R is so deeply obsessed by his subcutaneous guess that the Moon does not spin about its axis, that he can’t stop writing this nonsensical crap.
His choice, however. Let’s watch his further nonsense…
*
B. “As I’ve explained before they do NOT actually measure 240 W/m². That value is obtained through a maze of embarrassing manipulations, based on the fraud of an imaginary sphere. ”
No one knows where Clint R got this 100% personal – and, as always, completely unsubstantiated by science- absolutely absurd allegation.
Let’s have a look at what current information sources tell us: after all, they should be at least trustworthy as is Clint R’s antiscientific blah blah, shouldn’t they?
Here it is:
” Polar-orbiting infrared (IR) observations are transformed into global Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) fluxes like 240 W/m² by converting localized radiance or brightness temperatures into broadband radiative fluxes using multispectral regression models and radiative transfer physics.
The transformation from raw sensor data to OLR (measured in W/m²) follows these core steps:
1. Polar-orbiting satellites like NOAA-21 or Metop (carrying instruments like CrIS or IASI) capture spectral radiance (energy per unit area, solid angle, and wavelength). Using the inverse Planck function, these spectral radiances are converted into equivalent blackbody temperatures, known as brightness temperatures.
2. Because satellite instruments measure specific channels (narrow wavelengths) rather than the entire infrared spectrum, algorithms apply multispectral regression models. The specific algorithms rely on the correlation between certain channel temperatures (such as water vapor and window channels) to estimate the total emission over the full infrared spectrum (4 μm to 100 μm).
3. Satellites view the Earth at various angles (nadir to limb). Mathematical limb-darkening corrections are applied to account for the longer path length through the atmosphere at the edges of the sensor’s swath compared to directly below (nadir). This calculates the total upward-directed flux hemispheric emission.
4. Instantaneous local flux estimates are averaged over daily, weekly, or monthly timeframes. By integrating this data across all latitudes and longitudes, scientists arrive at the planetary average of approximately 240 W/m², which balances the energy Earth absorbs from the Sun. ”
*
Don’t imagine that the “360-degree denier” Clint R would ever be capable of refuting all of this on technical – let alone scientific – grounds!
He is not even able to post a link to a document authored by trustworthy individuals that provides the very refutation anyone quite rightly expects.
*
C. Now let’s come finally to Clint R’s most stupid nonsense:
” How does Earth’s atmosphere emit 342 W/m² back to the surface while also emitting 240 W/m² to space?
If Earth’s surface is emitting 390 W/m² to the atmosphere, but the atmosphere only emits 240 W/m² to space, then you’ve got the atmosphere gaining 150 W/m². ”
*
Ah well ah well. A few lines later, ignoramus Clint R writes:
” See why I like to keep things simple? That way even kids can understand. ”
Yeah.
*
The reality, however is that he is not even able to accurately read a simple chart:
https://i.postimg.cc/8zXQPdTj/Energy-Budget.png
which clearly explains that while the surface emits 390 W/m² of which 378 are absorbed by the atmosphere, the latter conversely emits 333 of them back to the surface.
*
Now I won’t hold my breath, as Clint R always writes, and won’t wonder that he replies some nonsense like:
” That value is obtained through a maze of embarrassing manipulations, based on the fraud of an imaginary sphere. ”
*
However, when you dowmload hourly data from BSRN, the Baseline Surface Radiation Network for various stations over various years, you see that while
– the Alert station (Canada, 82.5 N) measures on a yearly average 229 W/m² and that located at the South Pole (89.9 S) still 113,
– stations in the Tropics like Selegua (Mexico, 15 N) show 388 W/m²
and
– stations near the Equator like Kwajalein measure over a year 388 W/m² as well, and Nauru even 413.
Lauder (southern end of New Zealand, 45 S) still measures 306 W/m² on a yearly average.
*
Thus, except one ticks like the Anderson boy who insinuates without any proof that pyrgeometers measuring longwave radiation might be highly questionable, the 333 W/m² in the Energy Budget can’t be that wrong.
Bindi returns to prove me right, again!
I stated:
Bindi, I see you’re still confused about the “OLR”. As I’ve explained before they do NOT actually measure 240 W/m². That value is obtained through a maze of embarrassing manipulations, based on the fraud of an imaginary sphere.
So Bindi proves me right with:
“Polar-orbiting infrared (IR) observations are transformed into global Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) fluxes like 240 W/m² by converting localized radiance or brightness temperatures into broadband radiative fluxes using multispectral regression models and radiative transfer physics.”
Cult kids will miss the “multispectral regression models”. But that’s why they’re cult kids….
And Bindi avoided providing his viable model of “orbiting without spin”, again.
I never get tired of being right….
No educated scientist (whether skeptical of AGW or not) disagrees with the general principle that our atmosphere increases Earth’s temperature.
The above statement specifies “educated scientist,” which filters out the unscientific fringe theories of internet blogs and non-scientists who argue against the greenhouse effect.
Ark, the “general principle that our atmosphere increases Earth’s temperature”, is called the “atmospheric effect”.
You’re not confusing that with the undefined, nebulous “greenhouse effect”, are you?
The “atmospheric effect” refers to Earth’s “blanket” of nitrogen and oxygen that acts as insulation. But there are at least 3 different definitions of the “greenhouse effect”, but the bogus definitions have CO2 warming the planet.
So whenever you use the term “greenhouse effect”, you should state which definition you mean.
” … our atmosphere increases Earth’s temperature. ”
100 % correct.
But… between this correct statement and the illusion that
” Backradiation warms the surface ”
there is a gap no one with a functioning brain shall bypass. It is no more than one more of these ridiculous, misleading NOAA simplifications.
Measuring downward longwave radiation with a pyrgeometer provides evidence that the Earth would be cooler without infrared-absorbing gases (a category that, as is well known, does not include N2 and O2).
*
As a reminder:
Why Back-Radiation is not a Source of Surface Heating
Leonard Weinstein
July 18, 2012
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/why-back-radiation-is-not-a-source-of-surface-heating/
***
By the way, Clint R once more deliberately omitted to mention H2O on June 21, 2026 at 7:58 AM:
” … but the bogus definitions have CO2 warming the planet. ”
*
H2O warms the planet WAY more than CO2!
(That he often mentioned H2O together with the ‘HTE’ is of absolutely no interest here.)
Bindi is at it again, with his false accusations.
He claims I don’t know H2O is much more effective at warming the planet than CO2. So when I correct him, he says it doesn’t count!
If the cult kids had some maturity, they would know their constant false accusations only show they have NOTHING.
Bindi’s especially funny because he combines his immaturity and haughtiness, to make a complete ass out of himself.
Kids these days….
If CR had “some maturity” he could answer this simple question:
What is the difference between:
a CO2 15 micron photon
and
a H2O 15 micron photon
and
a 15 micron photon emitted by the sun
?
All 15 μ photons are the same.
You can explain this is to children, over and over, but they still can’t understand….
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/why-back-radiation-is-not-a-source-of-surface-heating/
Even a ‘skeptic’ website explains that backradiation is not a source of heat but a throttling of heat loss. They join Roy Spencer, John Christie, Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, and other experts in atmospheric sciences who are ‘skeptics’ regarding AGW.
Denying the GHE is not skeptic cannon, just as accepting it isn’t alarmist or leftist.
Denying the GHE is a view held by a tiny fringe group in the skeptiverse, commonly known as ‘cranks’.
And like a cult, they lambast ‘believers’ as alarmists, seemingly unaware that most of their AGW skeptic kin, especially those with expertise, side with the so-called ‘alarmists’ on the GHE.
They frequently cry appeal to authority when expertise is referenced, completely misunderstanding what the fallacy is.
What imbeciles.
Before you start assigning people to different beliefs, blackbody barry, you need to define the beliefs.
So what is your definition of the “GHE”? There are several different definitions, some valid, some invalid. In science, you need to clearly define things.
For example, some have used a car parked in full sun, with the windows rolled up, as the “GHE” . Well most adults would agree that the car is getting a lot warmer. But, that has NOTHING to do with CO2.
Sometimes you see the “GHE” defined as “trapping heat” by “greenhouse gases”, where water vapor is included as a GHG. Sometimes only CO2 is mentioned as “trapping heat”.
You need to be clear about what you mean by “GHE”. Especially before you start with your insults and false accusations.
“Before you start assigning people to different beliefs…”
I hear you, Clint – let you assign your own beliefs to yourself. Do YOU think atmospheric greenhouse gases keep the surface warmer than without them?
What description of the GHE do you think is ‘valid’, as you mentioned? Do you join Roy Spencer, John Christie, Richard Lindzen and other skeptics with expertise on the matter?
Sorry blackbody barry, but you got caught again.
Don’t try to weasel out.
What is your definition of the “GHE”?
You don’t have one that both fits your cult’s CO2 fetish and matches up with hard science.
Prove me wrong.
“All 15 μ photons are the same.”
Correct.
Therefore it is pointless talking about CO2 15 μ photons.
Agreed?
Clint,
I already provided a link to an explanation of the GHE in this thread – the comment you first replied to. I endorse it 100%.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/why-back-radiation-is-not-a-source-of-surface-heating/
I’ll go one better just for you, and give you Roy’s description, seeing as I mentioned him.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
I think the first one is a bit more thorough, but you can pick either. Maybe go for Roy’s, as I’m wondering if you agree or disagree with this skeptic who is an atmospheric physicist.
So, which description of the GHE do you think is ‘valid’? I don’t want to misascribe any view to you, so pony up and explain. You’re not trying to weasel out of answering are you?
The reason no educated scientist disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect is that it rests on well-established molecular physics.
The first rule of insulation is that the insulating material must interact with the energy being transferred. Earth’s surface cools primarily by emitting thermal infrared radiation, therefore, gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation can impede the rate at which energy escapes to space, while gases that are largely transparent to infrared radiation cannot.
The absorption of terrestrial infrared radiation by atmospheric gases depends on their concentration, molecular structure, and whether they possess vibrational modes that produce a changing electric dipole moment. Molecules such as CO2, H2O, CH4, O3, and NH3 readily absorb infrared radiation, whereas the dominant atmospheric constituents, N2 and O2, are largely transparent to it.
Because the atmosphere is composed primarily of N2 and O2, the greenhouse effect is controlled by relatively small concentrations of infrared-active gases. These gases absorb a portion of the thermal radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere.
The absorption occurs through quantized vibrational and rotational transitions, producing characteristic absorption bands across the infrared spectrum, particularly between about 5 and 100 μm, where Earth emits most of its thermal radiation.
This is not a controversial concept or an advanced climate-modeling assumption. It is well-established molecular physics and spectroscopy taught in introductory science and physics courses.
The hurricane season in the Atlantic is expected to be weak, unlike the one in the Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/7xqZPpp2/eatlssta.png
Nikolov:
“While the average outgoing LW flux of a planet is an observable physical parameter, Te derived from it using Eq. (3) is a mathematical abstraction with no physical analogue at, below or above the surface. Thus, planetary effective emission temperatures are not compatible with measured physical temperatures regardless of the albedo they are based on. In other words, Te is a non-physical quantity with respect to a sphere. Consequently, comparing Earth’s observed global mean surface air temperature (287.6 K) to any Te is bound to produce numerically and theoretically misleading results. The conceptual distinction between Te on one hand and Tna or Ts on the other arises from the mathematical understanding that mean planetary temperatures cannot in principle be inferred from globally averaged radiative fluxes. In this regard, our analysis demonstrates that evaluating the strength of a planet’s ATE strictly requires the use of physical surface temperatures.”
Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
https://x.com/i/grok/share/57dfcec55ce9451b9f5f62a366a43024
Almost identical results from two completely different approaches.
For several weeks now, a significantly colder-than-average air mass has been present over Antarctica. In the coming days, temperatures there are expected to remain more than 20 °C / 40 °F below the long-term average (see the video). This mass of Antarctic air is concentrated mainly over the continent, where it has persisted for an extended period. In recent days, some of this cold air has also spread into South America, bringing below-average winter temperatures there as well: https://www.ventusky.com/temperature-map/anomaly-2m…
https://www.facebook.com/ventusky?locale=pl_PL
eldrosion…”The planet as a whole only loses energy through a net transfer to space. Radiation is the only form of energy transfer that can travel through a vacuum, so it is the only way energy can leave Earth.
Convection move energy within the atmosphere, and condition exchanges energy between the surface and the lower atmosphere.
Neither of these removes energy from Earth’s system. They just redistribute it internally”.
***
I beg to differ, convection related to rising, heated air parcels dissipates heat naturally with altitude.
You are regurgitating what you are taught by climate alarmists and misinformed text books and university professors who buy into the climate alarm hysteria. I am merely asking you to consider what actually happens, and what we know happens through experience.
In essence, I am asking you to considider what well established laws like the Ideal Gas Law tells us about the intimate relationship between gas mass, temperature, pressure, and volume.
We know that heat generated at sea level in the vicinity of Mt. Everest rises. However, by the time those parcels of air rise to the peak of Everest at 30,000 feet, all of that heat can be said to have dissipated. The loss of heat that initially came from the Sun, has literally disappeared.
***IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RADIATED BACK TO SPACE***
That’s my point, so prove me wrong. That in itself explains why we near sea level experience temperatures much higher than what we should and what some attribute to a mysterious greenhouse effect that in no way can be explained by the real mechanism that raises temperatures in real greenhouses.
It must be understood that the so-called energy budget comes from the mid 19th century when the idea was presented that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That blind acceptance has lead to the current alarmist notion that any energy input by the Sun must be returned to space.
The Earth-Sun system is far more complex. It is true that if the Earth was cut off from solar radiation, it would rapidly lose most of its heat, however, the Sun injects enough energy each day to elevate Earth’s temperature to its current 15C average. That’s all the Sun is doing, injecting energy periodically, which is converted to heat, like a furnace does in our homes in winter. Since the Earth has internal means of distributing that energy, and dissipating it internally, we don’t have to return it all to space.
We have learned since that energy conservation is not necessarily true. The first law was presented as a conservation of energy law and I find that connection to be short-sighted. It is pretty well true for the equivalence of heat and work for which the 1st law is intended (conversion of thermal energy to mechanical energy and vice-versa) however it does not hold up for individual forms of energy that can be created or destroyed.
The idea that energy can neither be created nor destroyed comes from the mid-19th century some half century before atomic theory was developed. We still have no idea what energy is and we have broken it down into various forms according to what each form of energy interacts with mass. Based on heat as a form of energy involving atoms and their sub-particles, like electrons, we know that heat can be created and dissipated.
The idea was developed that energy must be converted to another form, hence conserved, but that is not always the case. I have described conditions in our atmosphere where heat is dissipated without being converted to another energy form based on the natural properties of our planet.
If we did in fact live in a real greenhouse environment with a glass roof extending out to our current atmospheric boundaries, and there was no gravity, there would be no negative pressure gradient. Temperatures near the roof would be the same as at the surface, and only then could your theory have meaning.
However, there is a catch. If all air molecules created a pressure against the roof glass, all air molecules would be involved in the radiation to space. That’s because all air molecules would be heating the glass and that heat would be converted to infrared radiation. We would not be hindered by the current meme that only so-called GHGs are capable of radiating to space.
The idea that nitrogen and oxygen cannot radiate energy to space, to me, is wrong-headed.
It is one of the silliest arguments I have encountered in science that trace gases are responsible for heating our atmosphere and transferring all energy input by the Sun back to space. By 30,000 feet, near the summit of Everest, the density of GHGs is 1/3rd the density at see level and to me it’s a case of 1/3rd of nothing is still nothing. By the time we reach the altitude of TOA, there are virtually no GHGs left to radiate anything.
So guess what? The alarmists have moved the goalposts and claim the radiation takes place at a much lower altitude. So, how do GHGs know at which level they should radiate, hence dissipate any heat left, which is essentially nothing at that altitude? And how many of them are radiating? Hardly any. So how do such scarce amounts of GHGs radiate all the energy input by the Sun?
You don’t seem to get it that 99% of surface heat at the effective altitude of radiation claimed by alarmists has already been dissipated due to a natural heat dissipation mechanism related to a natural negative pressure gradient. And that natural pressure gradient is due to our gravitational field that has a natural reduction in force due to the inverse square law.
Furthermore, the natural negative pressure gradient produces a natural negative temperature gradient due to the intertwined relationship between temperature and pressure in a gas. I have already gone through this so I will spare you the details. I can sum it up by pointing to the dependence of both P and T in a gas on the common kinetic energy of the molecules.
If the KE of air molecules reduces it affects both pressure and temperature equally. The KE is bound to be higher near the surface since air molecules gather heat directly from the surface wherever the Sun can heat the surface. Furthermore, near the surface, the gravitational field is strongest and the pressure is highest.
As altitude increases, the gravitational force decreases, pressure decreases, and with it, temperature decreases. It’s as simple as that. However, alarmists have bypassed the static conditions and focused only on rising, heated air parcels, which vary wildly at different locales on Earth. They have reasoned that the rising parcels of heated air are causing the lapse rate, which to me, is shear nonsense.
We know that heated air parcels in the Tropic travel poleward. That is a horizontal motion coupled with a vertical motion. How can that explain the lapse rate? And how about heat transported from the Tropics via the oceans? It must then augment heat created directly by solar energy at certain locales. No way that can be considered in a lapse rate theory.
“We have learned since that energy conservation is not necessarily true.”
Gordon, you cannot be serious about this.
norman…”You keep claiming an electron gains kinetic energy when it absorbs EMR”.
***
Norman…you are a piece of work. Your understanding of science is exactly backwards yet you use that backward understanding to criticize others.
If an electron absorbs a packet of EM of the proper frequency, the EM interacts electrically and magnetically with the same fields in the orbiting electron. The EM, if absorbed, causes the electron to increase its angular velocity, which leads to a higher angular frequency.
Since kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2, if the velocity increases so does the KE, by the square of the velocity.
I think there may be a misunderstand as to the meaning of gaining KE. If an orbiting body gains KE, it means that it velocity has increased. Velocity is not a component of potential energy which is more concerned with the distance from a mass exerting a force.
Specifically, if we have a boulder at the edge of a cliff, the PE is maximum and KE is zero. If we push it off the edge, the KE increases as the PE decreases till it hits the ground where KE is max and PE is zero. Therefore the higher the cliff, the greater the PE and the greater the KEmax when the boulder hits the ground.
Obviously, the amount of gained KE determines, in an orbiting body, the new altitude of the orbit. With electrons, Bohr prescribed discrete orbits with no in-between orbits.
That may be why electrons require precise energy packets to move them with those packets having precise frequencies. Does not explain how heat affects electrons, or even, the meaning of heat as energy.
We also know that an excited electron in a higher orbital must lose energy in order to fall to a lower energy level. That means a loss of KE and that KE must be converted to EM.
Conversely, if an electron is in it ground state it is at its lowest possible energy level. If it absorbs energy like heat or EM, it becomes excited and jumps to a higher energy level.
With a planet, say the Moon, if you wanted to move it to a higher orbit, you’d have to increase its velocity, which is equivalent to increasing its KE. To move it back to its present orbit, you’d need to reduce its velocity, equivalent to reducing its KE.
An electron operates under s similar principle where it is attracted to the proton positive charge in the nucleus. The main difference is how the energy levels are depicted. With the electron, the energy levels are rated negatively with ground state in hydrogen being -13.2 eV, with 0 being rated at infinity. It means that the electron is no longer under the influence of the nucleus.
I think this may prove confusing to people analyzing the orbitals. On Earth, masses closest to the surface feel the greatest attraction. Same with electrons in ground state. If we had an aeroplane in a low orbit of the Earth, to move it to a higher orbit would require more thrust from the engines. That means the plane moves faster and can move to a higher orbit.
However, at the higher orbit level, the plane is covering more distance per orbit therefore, flying at the same speed as the lower orbital it can be claimed it is moving more slowly (speed, not velocity) since it travels more distance at the same speed. It can then be claimed its KE is lower at the higher orbital, which is not true wrt the plane itself, only to the greater distance covered.
To return to the lower orbit, the plane must give up KE. With an electron, that lost KE is converted to EM.
I think quantum theory has completely screwed a simple concept with their sci-fi mathematically-based logic. Feynman got it right, QM works but no one knows why. The math and logic are so convoluted that the human mind cannot visualize it.
All I am attemting here is to visualize an electron orbiting a nucleus based on a lifetime of studying electrons and their behavior in electronics theory.
It is clear that an electron must gain energy to become excited and move to a higher orbital. The only way it can gain energy as a moving particle is to gain it as kinetic energy. Potential energy is a non-factor here. Whereas it is true that total energy is the sum of KE and PE, we must be careful to associate KE with only a moving mass.