Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2026 was +0.46 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which is down from the May, 2026 value of +0.53 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through June 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 30 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 | +0.46 | +0.60 | +0.58 | +0.21 | +0.34 | +0.10 | +0.21 |
| 2026 | June | +0.46 | +0.54 | +0.38 | +0.57 | +0.64 | +1.01 | +0.38 | +0.99 |
| 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 June, 2026 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here. John officially retired yesterday, July 1, 2026, but will continue working as a part-time employee of UAH.
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:
Third warmest June, and mean the last three years have been the three warmest June’s since at least 1979.
Warmest Junes according to UAH are now.
2024 0.69
2025 0.47
2026 0.46
1998 0.44
2019 0.34
2023 0.30
2020 0.29
2016 0.21
1991 0.18
2010 0.18
2015 0.18
That’s a good way to report it, Bellman.
Test
Dr Roy – sorry for the “test” post. I have been getting a “403” msg using DuckDuckGo on an iPad. I changed to Chrome.
Bellman, fair enough. I usually get aggravated when people use relative terms like warmest, hottest, only etc, without providing the actual data. Any data in this discussion should also provide a reference points to long term trends and to absolute temperatures.
I shall continue to ask those who paint the picture of some sort of existential threat to mankind from warming, “why should I be concerned about higher temperatures, rising sea levels, etc when the amounts are so tiny and within the current experience of humans living today.?” Simply look at the conditions that Homo sapiens (and other life forms) can thrive in.
If Europeans are too cruel, stupid, or fooled by propaganda to use air conditioning, that is not my problem.
“when the amounts are so tiny”
Sorry, but it isn’t “tiny”. It is a substantial amount of warming:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
“Therefore, although air temperatures were warmer than today in other parts of the Holocene, the rate of climate warming during the industrial era is unprecedented over the past ∼12,000 y.”
Best explained by greenhouse gas forcing.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
‘Hotter and hotter and hotter’ – Europe’s new climate in seven charts
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8e2j0j87reo
Nobody cares if cranks keep denying the cause and contrarians keep asking for evidence about the future.
Dullard,
It’s adorable that you still think that the BBC is honest with it’s reporting.
Anon for Q-related reasons,
Is this one of the reasons:
https://bsky.app/profile/ehrenohkneel.bsky.social/post/3mptfot55hc2x
Thank you for this other delightful oration.
Anon. Regardless of the media source, its just data.
Can you refute it or not?
Nate,
Ah that is so innocent a view to hang on to. Does your comfort blanket have fluffy bunnies on it?
Not certain what nationality your have but do you say that Fox News or GB News just present data?
Looks like you cant refute the data. So you need another flimsy excuse.
Of course, Fox News can be trusted to report the latest jobs data, stock market data, weather, all kinds of data.
You can’t expand the graph for global temperatures by clicking on it. The other three are expandable.
Ugh… I tend to forget to turn that on. I’ll fix it.
…And half of the top ten are from the 2020s, which is understandable given the accelleration in the rate of warming demonstrated by Dr. Spencer.
For example, in June 2020 this site reported that the rate of increase was +0.14 C/decade globally.
Today, the rate of increase is reported to be +0.16 C/decade globally. But:
In that same period, the rate of increase over globally averaged land–where almost all of us live, yes?–reported by this site went from +0.18 C/decade to +0.22 C/decade–a 22% increase in the rate in just six years.
Where will it be in another six years? I *speculate* that the rate of increase over land will be at least +0.25 C/decade by June 2032, and could go as high as +0.27 C/decade. In fact, I’m going to put a prompt in my calendar to check. Mere extrapolation, but testable.
Or Dr. Spencer and associates could start publishing a time chart of the rate of increase globally, over land, over the oceans, and include the rate of increase of temperatures *in* the oceans.
But “Milankovich cycles”, so…
MFA, natural cycles are real. Milankovitch is just one example. The 60-70 year cycle is currently ending its warm phase. This alone cancels any future warming for the next few decades. Underlying this short term cycle is what is often referred to as the millennial cycle. It is responsible for the warming since the Little Ice Age. It is also due for a change.
Look for the next Monckton pause to be a long one.
We seem to be on the same page, Richard M. I see UAH GLOBAL remaining about where it is, 0.5C +/- 0.05C until about October when the El Niño further develops and the PV moves north. Then, we could see a last gasp, taking anomalies even above 0.7C. After that, it’s down to 0.0C by end of 2030.
That, of course, is without any more underwater volcano eruptions….
[“The 60-70 year cycle is currently ending its warm phase. This alone cancels any future warming for the next few decades.”]
Multidecadal oscillations don’t typically peak and then immediately transition into sustained cooling. They generally plateau near their maximum, fluctuate around that level for a period, and only then begin a gradual decline.
The UAH temperature record has yet to show even the onset of such a plateau.
Record high temperatures are anticipated during boreal winter and spring of 2027.
Aha!
Ye olde Monckton pause has arisen to haunt us again.
Does anybody have a wooden stake and a hammer?
Richard M,
On the topic of Lord Monckton –
I noticed he didn’t publish another “pause” update after the last El Niño, even though the subsequent La Niñas gave him an opportunity to do so.
I wonder whether the statistical criticisms of the “pause” methodology (particularly regarding confidence intervals and statistical significance) played any role in that decision.
After all those years of telling the WUWT audience there had been “no global warming from x to x,” is it a case of too little, too late? Your comment implies that the “pause” has become embedded in WUWT’s DNA.
“The 60-70 year cycle is currently ending its warm phase. This alone cancels any future warming for the next few decades.”
I assume you are talking about the AMO.
Even if you are correct that it is ending, that could only reduce the warming in the Northern portion of tbe North Atlantic, and Northern Europe.
Not likely a stop to warming in the rest of the globe..
Nate says:
“The 60-70 year cycle is currently ending its warm phase. This alone cancels any future warming for the next few decades.”
I assume you are talking about the AMO.
—————————
Nate the AMO is NOT a Milankovitch cycle, thus the remainder of your comments are irrelevant.
But those comments are wrong anyway because the global mean temperature is the result of regional climate change. The atmosphere is known to incorporate regional climate change within 3 to 4 months. And global mean temperature is completely measured regionally so some of the effect is immediate. |But as we know the lionshare of the effect is the effect of water vapor that goes up and down between the oceans and the atmosphere warming each subsequent region sequentially.
And FYI the AMO is an ocean current effect that is driven by tides and winds generated by both the pull of celestial objects and by the rotation of the earth.
Of course you have been told that many times before yet for some reason it never sinks in. Can you shed some light on that or is it that the bulb just that dim.
Even if you are correct that it is ending, that could only reduce the warming in the Northern portion of tbe North Atlantic, and Northern Europe.
Not likely a stop to warming in the rest of the globe..
Bill why so you feel the need to follow me around and try to divert discussions down rabbit holes?
What? you mean actually having scientific evidence when discussing science is going down a rabbit hole?
Obviously you must have been talking about your derivation of the SB equation where you imagined an additional variable for the SB equation that you determined neither Stefan nor Boltzmann thought of. . .ROTFLMAO! Thats the only one I can recall on this topic that you tried to pass off as textbook science.
But don’t hesitate to correct me if you have any evidence of me being wrong about that. . .I am sure I must of missed more or your errors than that. . .like today in the June temperature thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1747897
Here you are definitely way out in front for the ditziest post of the month in the first day after the June update was posted. You are so far out in front you may be the only guy who could potentially overtake it.
Not takin the bait…
“The 60-70 year cycle is currently ending its warm phase. This alone cancels any future warming for the next few decades…”
“After that, it’s down to 0.0C by end of 2030.”
If you gents are confident about these predictions I’ll lay you $US1000 against them.
Richard – the next 10 years will be warmer than the previous (2017-2026 incl). The 2030s will be warmer than the 2020s. 14.5 years to pay up.
Clint – based on the current 1991-2020 baseline, no anomalies after 2029 will reach 0.0. Only 4.5 years to pay up.
And, like Clint with the underwater volcanoes, I’ll stipulate that my predictions will occur absent a large volcanic event or meteor strike etc that causes global dimming in the atmosphere.
Sound fair?
If you’re convinced you are right this should be easy money.
“the AMO is NOT a Milankovitch cycle”
Who was the dumbass that conflated these two fluctuations? I only see one name attached to this witless idea.
barry says:
” “the AMO is NOT a Milankovitch cycle”
Who was the dumbass that conflated these two fluctuations? I only see one name attached to this witless idea.”
Nate of course our local chief source of misinformation whether its denying the AMO is a cycle. this was a more popular response early on in this blog suggesting it was instead chaotic. as a cycle which is most likely directly primarily caused by the 60 year orbital cycle of jupiter and saturn. the two planets which cause the “nudges” recognized at one time by nasa to cause earth’s longterm changes in orbital ellipticity. This was before the disinformation program from the environmental
institutional complex that took control of NASA’s GISS in 1981 from the civil service.
the cyclical nature of these effects have been well established over the past 50 years from every effort to understand them. the disinformation crowd has done every thing possible to avoid any of this to be formally modeled via attacks on its proponents. the only known means of this being a cycle is closely related to the cause of tides and that means its an externally driven pattern. god forbid that gets out into the wild after 37 years of the UN watermelon coalition efforts to avoid giving it any recognition at all.
kind of like you barry. religiously, literally, avoiding understanding the MIT textbook that you brought to this blog as support for the easter bunny gpe believing it backed up the idea that backradiation was the cause of the greenhouse effect. then you ditched the conversation to avoid any chance for you to experience any scientific curiosity. indeed though in the end the truth will prevail.
no, bill, Nate said no such thing. Only you came up with that ridiculous conflation.
bill,
“as a cycle which is most likely directly primarily caused by the 60 year orbital cycle of jupiter and saturn. the two planets which cause the “nudges” recognized at one time by nasa to cause earth’s longterm changes in orbital ellipticity. This was before the disinformation program from the environmenta institutional complex that took control of NASA’s GISS in 1981 from the civil service.”
Uh… the AMO was not ‘discovered’ until the 1980s, so there was no narrative to change. Most of the work since has occurred outside the NASA research community and a small number of causes have been proposed. There is more recent research which suggests the AMO may not be a regular oscillation.
The notion of a planetary influence is a fringe idea that lacks a convincing mechanism – ie, the gravitational pull of large planets is too weak to stir changes in Atlantic currents (and why should the alleged effect be different between the Atlantic and the Pacific?). I read a pretty solid criticism that it is is possible to select a range of planetary orbital cycles and fit just about anything.
Are you basing your interest in this model on the work of Scafetta?
He did if you understand English grammar. The 60-70 year cycle (actually its a 60-80 year cycle) needs a reference as it is being introduced here in the thread and Milankovitch cycle mentions (two)immediately precede it.
Fact is there are 3 60-80 year cycles in worlds oceans. 1 in the north pacific, 1 in the north atlantic, and 1 in the southern oceans.
Saturn and Jupiter dominate with a 60 year cycle but Neptune and Uranus moving more slowly contribute to extended peaks.
The periods are all combinations of orbit period ratios between the 4 gas giant planets. Then all have longer term patterns with Saturn and Jupiter having a 900 year cycle in addition to it 60 year cycle.
Neptune and Uranus have a 175 year cycle between conjunctions and due to their near 2:1 orbit ratio also has an ~88 year cycle intermittent in their conjunction cycle and a very long period cycle of about 3,500 years for their conjunctions to march around the compass.
These cycles may have shorter phases but modeling only goes back to the late 17th century because of diminishing data. I have pointed out laying out the orbital patterns mentioned above matches up to both ice core data going back 9 thousand years and instrument data. But the IPCC has failed to address the matter.
But research continues into a global ocean model that operates on the same time scales providing growing evidence of a tidal influence. From my perspective since there is a lack of an internal mechanism for this one needs to look directly at the known external water movement mechanisms at all levels of scale. . .namely tidal mechanisms. . .forces that literally give planets their shape and moves continents. Obviously one guy can’t do it and it requires a commitment. Personally having dabbled in it I am really impressed with Milankovic (or vitch if you want western spelling). His work done in the first half of the 20th century without help from computers and widely accepted as the main driver of natural climate change
I noticed you skipped over most of my post. That’s come to be expected from you Barry.
Barry, actually you seem to be a nice polite guy Barry. I respect that. However, you seem to have hitched your wagon to crowd of less respect with your Easter Bunny backradiation, and now your limited knowledge on the AMO.
Here is a rough outline of the progression of science on the AMO from Google AI.
”The basic concept of the thermohaline overturning system was first identified in the late 18th century when Count Rumford (Benjamin Thompson) deduced that deep, freezing water in the tropics had to be originating from the poles. The modern, large-scale physical theory was first formally formulated by oceanographers Henry Stommel and Arnold B. Arons in 1960.The scientific understanding of this system (also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation) developed in a few key stages:
1797: Count Rumford analyzed early deep-ocean temperature measurements and deduced that cold, dense water sinks at the poles and creeps along the deep ocean floor toward the equator.
1960: Henry Stommel and Arnold B. Arons published the seminal theoretical model for large-scale deep-ocean circulation driven by temperature and salinity.
1961: Stommel expanded on this by describing how salinity feedbacks act as a threshold for the overturning system, making it sensitive to freshwater inputs.
1987: Scientist Wallace Broecker popularized the term “global conveyor belt” to describe this planet-wide, density-driven system.
But you are probably correct that the multi-decadal pattern via ocean temperature monitoring probably was not connected to the astronomical events until recently. First there needed to be extensive modeling and collection of data. NASA clearly connected Saturn and Jupiter cycles changes in ellipticity in the 1970’s or earlier.
I hope you do notice that this was identified as a ”global” phenomena in 1987 which is in fact qualifies Nates response wholly and 100% in the ditz category.
No, bill, Nate said clearly he was talking about the AMO. The confusion is all yours.
“since there is a lack of an internal mechanism for this one needs to look directly at the known external water movement mechanisms at all levels of scale. . .namely tidal mechanisms.”
The (potential) AMO has a number of plausible mechanisms that are local and could provide enough oomph to have an effect, as distinct from the gravitational pull of other planets.
Scafetta himself has changed his theory whenever it is demonstrated to be without merit. I think the on iteration 4 or 5 now, having moved on from direct effect, influencing the sun, then influencing the solar core, and now space dust?
“I noticed you skipped over most of my post.”
You have a habit of rambling and I have a habit of sticking to the original point.
The periods are all combinations of orbit period ratios between the 4 gas giant planets. Then all have longer term patterns with Saturn and Jupiter having a 900 year cycle in addition to it 60 year cycle.”
If you pick enough variables you can fit anything and ten tell yourself you’ve found a cause. But you need an actual mechanism and a few solid predictions. This is sorely lacking.
You remember the correlation between pirate attacks in the 20th century and some climate phenomena? That was an amusing way to make this point.
“one needs to look directly at the known external water movement mechanisms at all levels of scale. . .namely tidal mechanisms”
Lunar gravity effect on Earth is significant and measurable. The gravitational effect of distant planets, even Jupiter, is very much minimal.The moon’s gravity has 100,000 times the force of Jupiter’s on Earth. On scales of tens of thousands of years Jupiter’s force tugs at Earth’s orbit, but over the scale of decades the pull is far too weak to influence Earth’s annual/decadal tides.
This is why Scafetta abandoned that line of argument and tried other ways to furnish a mechanism to go along with the curve fitting.
“1987: Scientist Wallace Broecker popularized the term “global conveyor belt” to describe this planet-wide, density-driven system.”
The GCB is one of the theorised causes of the AMO. The drivers of the GCB are definitely local. Planetary perturbations are just too weak to be a cause.
It seems to me that people like Scafetta have assumed Milankovitch cycles must be operating on short time scales, and have been curve fitting in order to assert this is the case. The physical mechanism is simply lacking, and, like the history of astrology, that seamlessly incorporated the discovery of other planets into its mystical narrative, as if they’d always been included, the gravity theory of decadal climate morphs into ever more layered assumptions about mechanisms whenever the last iteration doesn’t survive scrutiny.
It’s good to be curious, to explore ideas and work them to their fullest possible before abandoning them, but that’s not what’s happening here. Scafetta’s work is an assumption looking for an explanation that can’t be debunked.
I went back to read an early work of Scafetta’s on this topic. He made a prediction (in 2009).
“The temperature record presents a clear 60-year cycle that oscillates around an upward trend. In fact, we see the following 30-year trends: 1850-1880, warming; 1880-1910, cooling; 1910-1940, warming; 1940-1970, cooling; 1970-2000, warming; and, therefore, a probable cooling from 2000 to 2030.”
Because of the high global temperature in 1998, the years following were referred to ‘skeptics’ as a ‘pause’, because linear trends in the datasets of the day showed no or modest warming.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2009/trend/plot/uah5/from:1990/to:2009/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2009/trend
No doubt this gave Scafetta confidence in his prediction.
So how did it turn out?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/uah6-land/from:1970/to/mean:13/plot/uah6-land/from:2000/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/uah6/from:1970/to:2000/trend
If it takes one example to disprove a theory, this is a lu-lu. Rather than the cooling expected by Scafetta’s ‘model’, surface temperatures warmed faster than the time before 2000.
barry says:
”The (potential) AMO has a number of plausible mechanisms that are local and could provide enough oomph to have an effect, as distinct from the gravitational pull of other planets.”
Obviously the thermohaline conveyor belt is an internally generated effect. But if you apply a few brain cells to the matter the first thing you have to ask yourself is why does it change. well if the change was chaotic you would not have an answer. . .right?
But if its a cycle you know the answer must be external because you have tidal effects that move the water in a measurable pattern due to gravitational pulls by celestial objects. You have no known internal mechanism to change the process of ice melting and freezing near the poles, downwelling creating moving fronts of near freezing dense water (made far more dense via the squeezing of dense brines out of the saltwater freezing process resulting in freshwater ice sitting in sheets on top of the ocean.)
You though are have been induced to abandon curiosity and without a shred of evidence to the mountain of contrary evidence exhibit exactly zero curiosity. . .to the extent you go on line and argue vehemently against curiosity. How strange you are.
barry says:
”Scafetta himself has changed his theory . . . .”
LMAO. Now Barry is trying out a red herring fallacy and see if he can float that. I haven’t mentioned Scafetta, I could care less about Scafetta.
barry says:
”You have a habit of rambling and I have a habit of sticking to the original point.”
Where did you see Scafetta in the original point? You didn’t so here you are trying to invent yet another Red Herring fallacy. The original point was that there are many valid theories about natural climate variability that folks of your sort, obviously pursuing some other agenda than trying to learn about them. Clearly my comments remained on the original point. Nate is the one that tried to tell us the global thermohaline overturning system was a regional effect. Nate may be even more prolific than you at bringing up Red Herring fallacies, especially considering you can’t see them when they hit you in the face.
barry says:
”If you pick enough variables you can fit anything and ten tell yourself you’ve found a cause. But you need an actual mechanism and a few solid predictions. This is sorely lacking.”
LMAO! We are talking about a single ”variable” gravity. . .something that is up there with regards to how we can calculate its effects known as rocket science. The fact that there are multiple objects with gravity all of whose variables are pretty well known clearly demonstrates the problem is a hidden agenda, not solving the effects of natural climate change by the institutions you actually believe are working for the betterment of mankind. Nope, like any institution, corporation, or individual given responsibility there needs to be effective management. Quite simply you cannot put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop and expect their dereliction of duty can go on indefinitely. Trying to make a claim that this is too messed up to come up with a model to give a reasonably good answer is merely catering to that dereliction of duty.
barry says:
”You remember the correlation between pirate attacks in the 20th century and some climate phenomena? That was an amusing way to make this point.”
Barry just can’t resist digging up more Red Herrings. But I guess that is all he has to fight with he has nothing to fight with but oddly keeps doing it. why?
barry says:
”Lunar gravity effect on Earth is significant and measurable. The gravitational effect of distant planets, even Jupiter, is very much minimal. The moon’s gravity has 100,000 times the force of Jupiter’s on Earth. On scales of tens of thousands of years Jupiter’s force tugs at Earth’s orbit, but over the scale of decades the pull is far too weak to influence Earth’s annual/decadal tides.”
boy more misinformation pouring from the font of Barry’s ignorance. First, Barry is off by almost 3 orders of magnitude. The moon’s pull is about 103 times Jupiter, not 100,000 times. Additionally the moon’s side real orbit period is less than 28 days. . .reversing its influence (effects on continuous acceleration that translates in variations in distance to the sun) in less than 14 days. The moon moves massive quantities of water on earth.
Jupiter’s sidereal orbit period is 4,332.59 days, reversing its influence once every 2,166 days. The Jupiter orbit period influence is 154 times that of the moon. Sounds pretty significant to me. Where did you come up with the idea it has no significant influence?
barry says:
”It’s good to be curious, to explore ideas and work them to their fullest possible before abandoning them, but that’s not what’s happening here. Scafetta’s work is an assumption looking for an explanation that can’t be debunked.”
Yeah well when you debunk stuff by waving your arms curiosity is an endangered specie.
“I haven’t mentioned Scafetta”
As far as I’m aware he is the leading proponent of Milankonvitch-style gravitational effects on climate on decadal scales. As you weren’t offering specifics I went looking for them.
“Obviously the thermohaline conveyor belt is an internally generated effect. But if you apply a few brain cells to the matter the first thing you have to ask yourself is why does it change”
As plenty of people have researched that question, we’re in luck!
“You have no known internal mechanism to change the process of ice melting and freezing near the poles, downwelling creating moving fronts of near freezing dense water (made far more dense via the squeezing of dense brines out of the saltwater freezing process resulting in freshwater ice sitting in sheets on top of the ocean.)”
If you exercised a few brain cells and did a very cursory search you would find out that plausible mechanisms have been well-researched. For example:
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-1924/6/3/59
“You though are have been induced to abandon curiosity and without a shred of evidence to the mountain of contrary evidence”
Mountain of contrary evidence for variation in thermohaline circulation? What mountain?
“The original point was that there are many valid theories about natural climate variability that folks of your sort, obviously pursuing some other agenda than trying to learn about them”
No, the original point was Nate presuming Richard M was referring to the AMO, and you asserting incorrectly that Nate was conflating that with Milankovitch cycles. That is precisely where I joined in, quoting you.
From there you rambled and deviated to your favourite hobby-horse. Admittedly, I enabled the deviation, but I, for one, ave not forgotten the thread of the conversation.
As for learning about alternative theories, it pays to learn the difference between a theory that has an agenda, and one that is pure, innocent curiosity. Over the last 20 years I’ve wasted a lot of time following crank ideas down rabbit holes, only to discover the purveyor cares more about how climate mitigation policies will affect their bank balance than objective analysis – for one example of agenda driven discourse.
“Clearly my comments remained on the original point. Nate is the one that tried to tell us the global thermohaline overturning system was a regional effect.”
Nate said precisely nothing about the global thermohaline overturning system.
Oh dear! Have you mistaken Nate mentioning the AMO for AMOC?
I think you better go back and read. You’ve totally got Nate’s line of inquiry wrong!
barry says:
If you exercised a few brain cells and did a very cursory search you would find out that plausible mechanisms have been well-researched. For example:
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-1924/6/3/59
————-
Exactly where in that long article do you see evidence of a multi-decadal heating and cooling process varying for decades at a time?
I get that we have a rotating earth creating a Coriolis effect. Artillery and rocket experts have provided for earth’s rotation when the fire a projectile over a long distance. This has an effect on weather and winds, which in turn affects ocean currents.
Earth’s rotation also provides for seasonal freezing and melting in polar regions.
When earth’s orbit speed varies we get that heating and cooling variability. And we know from well before Milankovic wrote his book that the other planets in our solar system changes the orbit speed of earth (and other planets) by a significant amount so as to vary how much insolation the earth receives each year. Because there are especially 4 major planets whose gravitational influences approaches and passes tangency to earth’s orbit these 4 planets will have the most impact on orbit speed variations.
Do you see the most powerful variable related to how much sunlight the earth receives on average due to these perturbations discussed anywhere in the document you linked to? Or in the entire body of IPCC work? Do you see any other variable discussed in a quantitative way that would explain the variations we see in the instrument and proxy records? If not, Why not? And why are you trying to suggest these are the causes for what Nate wants to demote to regional affects when modern science is telling us its a global effect?
Either Nate is ignorant of that fact or he wants to ignore it. Which do you think it is?
I’m going to straighten out the conversation, bill, so you’ll know how you got it so wrong.
Richard M said:
“MFA, natural cycles are real. Milankovitch is just one example. The 60-70 year cycle is currently ending its warm phase. This alone cancels any future warming for the next few decades….”
——————————————
Nate quoted Richard and said:
” ‘ The 60-70 year cycle is currently ending its warm phase. This alone cancels any future warming for the next few decades ‘ ”
I assume you are talking about the AMO.
Even if you are correct that it is ending, that could only reduce the warming in the Northern portion of tbe North Atlantic, and Northern Europe.”
——————————————-
Nate is clearly talking about the Atlantic Meridional Overturning, one of the cycles referred to by Richard. If he wanted to talk about Milankovitch cycles he would have quoted Richard’s comment on that.
Apparently you assumed Richard was conflating Milankovitch cycles with the AMO. Nate did not make the conflation, and I very much doubt Richard did. He just gave two examples of natural cycles, he didn’t tie them together.
And for some reason, rather than correct Richard, who put the two cycles in the one sentence, you went for Nate, who didn’t.
“Do you see any other variable discussed in a quantitative way that would explain the variations we see in the instrument and proxy records? ”
Are you kidding? Have you actually read the IPCC reports you claim are empty of these ‘variables’?
“And why are you trying to suggest these are the causes for what Nate wants to demote to regional affects when modern science is telling us its a global effect?”
The AMO index is based on temperatures in the Atlantic. As this was what Nate was talking about, it is indeed a regional effect.
“Either Nate is ignorant of that fact or he wants to ignore it. Which do you think it is?”
Nate has already told you which it is.
Nate: “Bill why so you feel the need to follow me around and try to divert discussions down rabbit holes?… Not takin the bait.”
And he was right. You took me down rabbit holes instead, careening past an alleged NASA GISS cabal, an UN ‘watermelon’ cabal, a quick feint to an MIT textbook disagreement on a completely different topic, then a 4-planet gravitational influence on decadal climate patterns in three different ocean basins, then a history lesson on the thermohaline conveyor belt…
bill,
You quoted me saying “If you pick enough variables you can fit anything and ten tell yourself you’ve found a cause. But you need an actual mechanism and a few solid predictions.”
And you answered, “LMAO! We are talking about a single ”variable” gravity”
I am referring to the use of multi-planet gravitational forces in order to fit a curve. I’ll quote you:
“Saturn and Jupiter dominate with a 60 year cycle but Neptune and Uranus moving more slowly contribute to extended peaks.
The periods are all combinations of orbit period ratios between the 4 gas giant planets. Then all have longer term patterns with Saturn and Jupiter having a 900 year cycle in addition to it 60 year cycle.
Neptune and Uranus have a 175 year cycle between conjunctions and due to their near 2:1 orbit ratio also has an ~88 year cycle intermittent in their conjunction cycle and a very long period cycle of about 3,500 years for their conjunctions to march around the compass.”
The gravitational effect of Uranus and Neptune? Hundreds of times weaker effect than Jupiter on Earth and the sun.
Venus sas a greater gravitational force on Earth than Saturn, by an order of magnitude. Here is a physical mechanism enumerated. Why isn’t the orbit of Venus included in your list of planets affecting decadal climate on Earth?
Follow-up. Mars has a greater pull than Uranus and Neptune by an order of magnitude. Why isn’t Mars included in the list of planets that affects Earth’s climate?
The point is that you can select and discard planets at will until you find gravitational ‘harmonics’ with the right selection that match Earth’s. If Mars or Venus provided a better fit if added to the mix, those are the ones that would have been selected for the fit. But even though they have a much greater gravitational force than two of the planets in your list, they are discarded because they don’t fit the climate oscillations.
This is exactly what the pejorative use of ‘curve-fitting’ is. Running enough possibilities until you find a curve that fits a preconceived narrative RATHER than positing the actual mechanics (not just ‘gravity’, but the specifics) and testing them.
Your correction is taken on. Jupiter’s pull is 100,000 times weaker than the sun’s gravitational force on Earth. I incorrectly said the moon instead of the sun. But to round it out the Moon’s gravitational force is 100 times greater on Earth than Jupiter’s. The Moon’s pull on the Earth is several orders of magnitude greater than the outer planets.
But curve-fitting ignores the greater gravitational force of nearer planets over the remote ones, because the nearer planets orbits don’t fit the 60-80 year climate cycles.
barry says:
”I am referring to the use of multi-planet gravitational forces in order to fit a curve. I’ll quote you:
“Saturn and Jupiter dominate with a 60 year cycle but Neptune and Uranus moving more slowly contribute to extended peaks.
The periods are all combinations of orbit period ratios between the 4 gas giant planets. Then all have longer term patterns with Saturn and Jupiter having a 900 year cycle in addition to it 60 year cycle.”
Its still one variable. reducing multiple force vectors into a single vector was a chapter in my high school physics class.
The harder part is building a rotating solar system model to produce the vectors and a powerful computer and compute what our solar system has done over the past several hundred years and maybe a hundred years into the future. Thats tons of calculations worthy of quite big computer.
That will tell you how much earth gets displaced and how long it takes to travel through the various sectors of its orbit further and closer to the sun. These are not free variables as they are all known and can be used to compute exactly where another planet will be.
It was actually done in the 1840’s in a reverse manner to account for the position of Uranus and that led to the discovery of Neptune. Mathmaticians figured out where Uranus should be with known planets. They still came up short of a correct answer per observations. So they hypothesized the existance of another planet and viola at the end of the force vector that would produce that missing variable they found Neptune. It hadn’t been seen before because its quite dim due to a low albedo.
So it boils mathematically down to a single perturbation/variable. The ”get any outcome” from multiple variables requires manipulable free variables or a bad computer program that produces too much unparsed data to see the forest for the trees. . .like with certain spaghetti graphs.
barry says:
“The gravitational effect of Uranus and Neptune? Hundreds of times weaker effect than Jupiter on Earth”
Neptune is a considerably weaker force than Jupiter. but not hundreds of times. You need to consider the duration of accelerating nudges. Not just the gravitational force which is an accelerating force but how long its produces nudges toward one temperature destination.
Those nudges that Milankovic introduced to produce the ice ages is a pattern where the nudges on earth occur in a pattern of an annual hot nudge every year of a half orbit of the perturbing planet followed by a series of annual cold nudge for the other half orbit of the perturbing planet. A half orbit for Neptune is >80 years. For Jupiter its about 6 years. During a cold phase these are accelerations through Perihelion followed by a decleration through aphelion. and an opposite effect for the other half of an orbit that produces a warm phase.
The Jupiter effect with the timing included is likely stronger than the moon because the moon does it 14 days at a time for a half orbit. . .the major planets do it not intervals of days but instead years and decades. The temperature effects of the nudges are carried forward overtime by feedbacks. . .ice and albedo changes, and storage of heat or loss of heat from the oceans and ice.
While the moon has a 14 day half orbit it also has an orbital precession as do all the planets. And the moon while relatively short periods they can add or subtract from the planetary effect giving you effects manifested as global ENSO and ocean oscillation temperature effects as gravity doesn’t only change sun exposure and sun distance, it also produces tidal effects in the ocean.
Then you need to consider all these orbiting bodies follow the same rules of gravity and it is hypothesized that if their forces were evenly distributed around the planet in question its orbit would be circular. Since only planets with orbits further from the sun ever have gravitational vectors tangent to earth orbit where the pull is in line with the direction of earths motion. So interior planets have less effect because their pull comes at an angle to earth’s direction.
For the earth, sunlight changes by about 23% between aphelion and perihelion when the orbit is most elliptical vs least elliptical. That is about 9C (assuming the mean change would be about half the difference between the extremes) with mean radiation change of 45watts . . .and thats without feedback.
There is no model that can tell you how often it will change by 1.5C which would only be around 8 watts and potentially fully explain industrial age warming.
With all the estimated changes in ellipticity of the planets and aligning their major axes, then redistributing them as evenly as possible must have been done at some time to find the range of change in earth’s elliptical orbit.
Without computers and thousands of observations thats a some what doable problem, estimating how well they can align vs how well they can be evenly distributed.
We have a good idea of the frequency of 1.5C natural warmings for the ice sheets because they have occurred about 10 times in a row over the past 9000 years.
So the missing piece is what the effects on mean annual global insolation for lower latitudes. For all I know somebody already figured all this stuff out and decided to use it as a system to beat the house. I am not accusing anybody of that but it would be a good idea to figure out its capabilities first then worry about that. If that is a problem you can bet they will be the ones protesting against finding out the loudest.
Arm waving is of no help.
“Since only planets with orbits further from the sun ever have gravitational vectors tangent to earth orbit where the pull is in line with the direction of earths motion. So interior planets have less effect because their pull comes at an angle to earth’s direction.”
That is simply untrue. All the planets pull at Earth perpendicularly, along its line of orbit and at every other angle along its orbital track. It takes little imagination to see that in the mind’s eye, particularly as the orbital paths are on the one disc (with minor variation).
The point remains – the pull of Venus is comparable to Jupiter’s, and much stronger than the other outer planets. In fact, the Jupiter/Venus combined effect produces the most regular metronome of Earth’s orbit, the 405,000 year change in eccentricity.
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~polsen/nbcp/kent+18_CPCP_405ky+SI.pdf
The 10-100K year variations in Earth’s orbit have a key mechanism that accounts for changes in climate – Earth’s relation to the sun.
At decadal scale, the Earth’s relation to the sun shifts by tens of thousands of a percent – far too small to have the effect of the traditional Milankovitch cycles, which change insolation at high latitudes by up to 25%.
The decadal Milankovitch-like cycles simply don’t have the climate-changing mechanism that actual Milankovitch cycles do, with changes in Earth’s orbital parameters significant enough to change either the amount or angle of sunlight hitting the surface.
barry says:
Bill says: “So interior planets have less effect because their pull comes at an angle to earth’s direction.”
”That is simply untrue. All the planets pull at Earth perpendicularly, along its line of orbit and at every other angle along its orbital track.”
Nope!
to obtain the maximum speed change in earth’s orbit another planet’s vector of force must me tangent to the orbit thus in direct line with subject planets direction of travel. Outer planets do this twice with each rotation of the subject planet. Inner planets never cross that tangent line. As I said there is still pull its just factored as significantly less important per newton of gravitational pull.
Another much larger consideration is that the orbit period of Neptune is 165 years and Venus is only .62 years. I will explain why that matters in a moment.
the theory of perturbation are nudges of one orbit of earth. These nudges represent changes in solar insolation preserved in ice and the oceans that add up over time.
Venus has a very short orbit period of about .615 earth years its effect on earth goes from hot to cold as it completes a half orbit then back again in the other half.
While the potential acceleration Venus from its distance and mass is about the same as Jupiter acceleration only lasts less than 4 months before deceleration winds it back down. It can have seasonal effects but we really don’t even bother checking those.
Its acceleration on earth is governed by its mean angle of attack factor which cycles between zero and 73%.
Jupiter about the same gravitational force though stays and creates a warm nudge that goes on for 6 years and its angle of attack factor cycles between zero and 100% so it has a 27% stronger mean angle of attack.
And this is where the other gas giants step in. the longer orbit periods of these planets in part prevent Jupiter from unwinding its effects by adding their own positive nudges of 15 years, 42 years, and 82 years.
then lets take that last one Neptune. While Neptune has a gravitational pull on earth 266 times less than Venus, it sustains the acceleration it does have 268 times longer for a single nudge and its mean angle of attack is much stronger. Ranging from 90degrees with zero acceleration in earth’s direction of travel to a position 43 degrees out of line with the maximum effect. The net result is Neptune has multi-decade long climate effects a wee bit stronger than Venus’ <4 month seasonal effects.
but you have to consider what happens when these planets conspire to conjunct in the warmest spot in the sky (the spot in the sky where acceleration through aphelion and deceleration through perihelion is optimized as occurring in one calendar year. this happens perfectly rarely. But all these planets get into one quarter of the sky about once every 175 years. While in that quarter they certainly must conspire to give us some significant warming, particularly with likely significant feedbacks from water.
I find it fascinating that a less than 4 month long perturbation cycle of Venus can be seen repeating itself in 50 million year long geological studies. Who knew?
But what we are discussing here is the cycles that change insolation by 23% repetitively every 100,000 years or so and somewhat less a lot more frequently than that.
bill,
Fair enough on the angle of pull for the inner planets.
The point remains – the Milankovitch cycles change Earth’s orbit relative to the sun in measurably significant ways that can affect global climate.
That mechanism is not available with the incredibly minor orbital perturbations relative to the sun, when the period is sub-millennial. The change in sunlight either absolute or incidental is a tiny fraction of a percent, compared to the integer percent changes over Milankovitch periods.
I’m still not seeing a mechanism. And I’m not seeing Venus being included, when it has a stronger perturbation on Earth’s orbit. It also has a longer effect on Earth’s orbit than outer planets. Earth crosses the line beneath the slow-moving outer planets about once a year, whereas Venus has a 10-month pull in either direction (Venus orbit is 225 days, Earth 365, combined period when they align with each other and the sun, 584 days). That means Venus pulls forward on Earth for 10 months (with a diminishing rate of forward pull as it draws away from Earth, and pulls backward for 10, while the same dynamic occurs with the outer planets over 6 months.
Here is a very simple table of the relative gravitational pull each of the planet’s have on Earth.
https://www.theplanetstoday.com/gravitational_forces_of_the_planets.html
“I find it fascinating that a less than 4 month long perturbation cycle of Venus can be seen repeating itself in 50 million year long geological studies.”
I have no idea what you are referring to. Venus’ 10-month alternating accelerating and decelerating tug on the Earth does not, to my knowledge, have a marker in Earth’s geological record. The only evidence of its effect is orbital variation – which as you pointed out is insufficient at sub-geological timescales to have an effect.
That’s the point I’m making WRT to the decadal variations in Earth’s climate system.
barry says:
”That mechanism is not available with the incredibly minor orbital perturbations relative to the sun, when the period is sub-millennial. The change in sunlight either absolute or incidental is a tiny fraction of a percent, compared to the integer percent changes over Milankovitch periods.”
If you have some information on that I would be interested in it if its in the form of a study with enough facts to replicate the results or its in a transparent model where one can see what is being calculated. Not interested if it comes from your favorite easter bunny.
Barry says:
”I’m still not seeing a mechanism. And I’m not seeing Venus being included, when it has a stronger perturbation on Earth’s orbit. It also has a longer effect on Earth’s orbit than outer planets.”
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you see no mechanism how can you see Venus has a bigger effect than the outer planets?
barry says:
”https://www.theplanetstoday.com/gravitational_forces_of_the_planets.html”
Yes I have been using this information.
barry says:
”I have no idea what you are referring to. Venus’ 10-month alternating accelerating and decelerating tug on the Earth does not, to my knowledge, have a marker in Earth’s geological record.”
Maybe you should actually read the paper you linked to on the 9th
barry says:
”The only evidence of its effect is orbital variation – which as you pointed out is insufficient at sub-geological timescales to have an effect.
That’s the point I’m making WRT to the decadal variations in Earth’s climate system.”
There is a graph in Berger, I think 1968, apparently pulled from some unreferenced source, probably Milankovic that shows a cycle without describing it of the same intensity as the industrial age perhaps as high as 2.5C. I believe you may have been in on that conversation about that last year.
when I get time I intend to work on that one and locate its source. Perhaps you can share the source you got your opinion from.
MFA
” The 60-70 year cycle is currently ending its warm phase. ”
*
Poster Richard M is best known for his endless attempts — ongoing for about ten years, if not longer — to twist the end of AMO until it finally fits his bizarre narrative.
But…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RealgHHJ5DyZkBPnKDhYhVy-T3ofnQJ7/view
… speaks for itself. AMO is a pretty stubborn donkey.
It appears Bindi is unaware that when a cycle sits on top of another cycle, you must detrend the data. Always hilarious when someone tries to insult a person while making a simple mistake.
I have been mentioning the AMO cycle for a long time. That has nothing to do with the timing of the phases. The point was the warmth we were seeing had a natural cause. The last cool phase transition of this 64 +|- 4 year cycle was ~1962. We have now reached the point where a phase change is likely.
IMO, the driver of the AMO changes is a natural Arctic sea ice cycle. So, it really has little to do with the Atlantic Ocean. If I’m right, we will get an early indication via increases in Arctic sea ice. Most of the cooling comes from an increase in cloudiness.
Oh, I’m here frequently enough to know most of the players without a scorecard. I try not to argue with crackpots and their ‘geometric logic’ because what’s happening on Earth now is happening faster than anything cyclical we know of, and until someone demonstrates through peer-reviewed science some natural, cyclical driver that produces the rate of change we see today, the increase in the rate of increase is the breaking point for both warmists and deniers. Short of a natural disaster or nuclear war, the increase will increase faster. So long as Dr. Spencer or his staff/students/peers continues to publish his work this way, we’ll see clearly in six or so years.
I thought AMO was a thing of the past. And that the 50-70 year quasiperiodic variation is not internally generated, but is rather caused by variations in historic volcanic activity. Also that the interpreted “negative phase” during 1960-70ies really is caused by the cooling effect of increased aerosol pollution.
https://climateattribution.org/resources/multidecadal-climate-oscillations-during-the-past-millennium-driven-by-volcanic-forcing/
“appears Bindi is unaware that when a cycle sits on top of another cycle, you must detrend the data”
Richard, this shows that you sre aware that beyond the AMO there is a stronger warming trend, and thus AMO is insufficient to ‘cancel’ global warming.
Here is a plot of AMO (green) scaled to match the detrended Northern Hemisphere temperature (red).
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:60/offset:0.38/from:1880/to:1995/detrend:0.6/plot/esrl-amo/mean:60/scale:0.65/from:1880/to:2020/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:60/offset:0.38/from:1880
Decent match up to 1990s, because the N. Atlantic is part of the Northern Hemisphern.
Also shown is NH data with no detrending (blue). It should be obvious that the warming trend is significany larger than the AMO contribution.
It rather appears that poster Richard M’s professoral tones might be a good explanation for how quick he feels insulted by a little remark salted with a bit of sarcasm.
Richard M should refrain from claiming I would insult him, and instead wait until I do this like others insult me on this blog, by name calling me a Nazi, a Fascist, or linking me to Josef Goebbels.
{ A core Nazi who belonged together with Heinrich Himmler to the topmost bloodthirsty leaders in the Nazi era between 1930 and 1945, were responsible for murdering not only millions of Jews but also millions of Polish and Russian civilists, and even over a million of German Communists, Socialists, Socialdemocrats, Christians, Sinti and Roma, and people with physical or mental disabilities.
Heil freedom of speech! }
*
Back to the technical point.
1. I perfectly know that AMO detrended is best to show its oscillating behavior, as I showed years ago:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_sgA1QI-f6ZELCxGE3TUp3IgsAvJsSfr/view
2. Some decades ago, detrending AMO was no more than subtracting the linear estimate from the series; today thi has become nonsense as acceleration implies to detrend with nth order polynomials instead.
This means that in fine, it’s till possible to obtain a variant perfectly showing the cyclic shape.
But that’s self-deception, since the cyclical core inevitably loses more and more of its significance with regard to acceleration (which by the way is even visible in UAH’s data, though at a slightly lower extent).
For this reason, in the long term there could well be a shift in the term from “AMO” to “AMV”, i.e. to “Atlantic Multidecadal Variability.
Bunch Goebells,
Your namesake, like yourself, spent a lot of time trying to convince others by using very corrupt and illogical arguments.
You have shown that you can not process data.
You have shown that your data abilities are on par with a script kiddy.
What you have done is pushed an evil agenda that is harming millions of people in the developed world and keep billions in the developing world hamstrung by your constant propaganda of marxist/fascists ideals.
Anon for Q-related reasons,
Another mystery solved:
https://bsky.app/profile/eublogo.bsky.social/post/3mpzyos35p22w
Farewell to the +0.3°C range (0.30–0.39°C).
It may not make another appearance until either a strong La Niña or the future 2001–2030 baseline update.
The fortune tellers are back. Predictions are difficult — especially about the future. I will wait for the future to actually happen. The data currently do not seem to be moving one way or the other.
I’ll be here the first week in July 2032 to discuss if my extrapolation was too little, too much, or just right. Care to wager?
Well I guess that settles it. Never in the history of the world has anyone lost a bet based on science that is so precisely correct. Or, is that correctly precise? Would you know the difference?
I am really impressed that someone has finally derived the correct computer simulation to convert lab data to an accurate model for the effect of increasing CO2 on the entire earth. It must have been a real moment of satisfaction, when all of those pesky and distracting alternatives were all finally eliminated.
Congratulations!
So, what amount can I put you down for, Tim S.?
The bet is not the proof. The temperature in June 2032 is the proof. The bet is the accountability. I cloud be wrong. Those who won’t bet don’t have even the slightest courage in their own convictions.
Does the fake moderator have a cousin or just 2 different accounts? Could there be a new stalker who has poor reading comprehension and is deeply interested in following my comments? Inquiring minds what to know.
Our Ivy Leaguer is as good at reading tells as he is at betting:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets/
Perhaps he doesn’t know that beliefs and bets are connected?
Ice cover in Hudson Bay as of July 1, 2026.
https://i.ibb.co/Z1LRgd6V/736314500-1540442424121352-297369407146755705-n.jpg
This will not be a typical El Niño in the atmosphere. Tropical cyclones are constantly forming in the tropical North Pacific, driven by high temperatures in the tropics above the equator. Below the equator, the jet stream draws air from the south.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/epac/mimictpw_epac_latest.gif
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/wpac/mimictpw_wpac_latest.gif
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_2026.png
The typhoon is approaching the Mariana Islands. It is very strong.
https://i.ibb.co/qLwQSqWX/himawari9-ir-09-W-202607031430.gif
The North Atlantic remains cool, as does the South Atlantic. The likelihood of a hurricane is low.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_atl_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_samer_1.png
Article discussing new research on the origins of the polar ice caps, specifically focusing on the role of continental land mass dynamics:
https://theconversation.com/why-antarctica-froze-millions-of-years-before-the-arctic-new-research-286589
Thanks Mark B, these articles always provide several laughs. The funniest one here was in one of the comments:
“Norman rides” doesn’t understand why nobody “noticed this before”!
Mark B at 6:01 AM:
Very interesting.
Paraphrasing:
East Antarctica became permanently glaciated about 34 million years ago while the Arctic remained largely ice-free for another 25 million years.
The study emphasizes that ice sheet formation depends on both climate and topography. Climate (especially atmospheric CO2) determines whether conditions are cold enough, and topography determines whether snow can survive long enough to initiate large ice sheets.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations were falling during the Eocene-Oligocene transition, producing global cooling. However, that cooling alone would not have produced a continental ice sheet.
The study refines the standard understanding of Cenozoic climate evolution by proposing that tectonic uplift of East Antarctica was a necessary precondition for continental glaciation, while declining atmospheric CO2 provided the climatic trigger. During the breakup of the supercontinent of Gondwana, deep-Earth mantle flow gradually uplifted East Antarctica over tens of millions of years, producing a high plateau crowned by the Gamburtsev Mountains. Much of the continent rose above the critical threshold of about 1.5-2 km, where snowfall could accumulate faster than it melted, allowing permanent mountain glaciers to develop.
Once mountain glaciers formed, their high reflectivity increased planetary albedo, producing additional cooling that accelerated glaciation and allowed the glaciers to merge into the modern East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
In contrast, the Arctic lacked a high-elevation continent. Without that topographic advantage, it required substantially colder global temperatures and lower atmospheric CO2 before permanent continental ice sheets could develop.
Key takeaway: Melting an existing ice sheet can occur far more rapidly as the climate warms. Once a continental ice sheet is lost, it cannot simply reform on human or even millennial timescales because the geological conditions that enabled its original formation took millions of years to develop.
It’s a bit early to be sure, but if El Nino produces expected warming, then the current TROUGH in the running average may EXCEED any previous PEAK!
I agree that the next 2 to 5 years will be very eventful. As mentioned in my comment above, I am not in the prediction business. I will observe that it is not possible for all of the fortune tellers to be correct in their various predictions.
The southern stratospheric vortex has strengthened significantly since June 15. This is causing very low temperatures in Antarctica and a decline in ozone levels over Antarctica. The strong polar vortex is preventing ozone from flowing into the polar region.
https://i.ibb.co/pvLXvVRL/hgt-aao-cdas.png
On a timescale of about 6,000 years, the Milankovitch cycles function perfectly. These processes are imperceptible on a human timescale, but they are inevitable. Very clear evidence of this is the summer temperature at the North Pole and the greater temperature differences between summer and winter in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Right!
–
https://www.christos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Just an absurd amount of wildfires and smoke in Canada from three days ago.
https://bsky.app/profile/weatherdak.bsky.social/post/3mppl63yko225
Normal, not absurd, learn some history Willard. Many times in the past smoke has been observed from Canadian wildfires as far east as Northern Europe ,sometimes for weeks.
I am Canadian, Ian.
Are you once again trying to teach me how to suck eggs?
Why did ancient civilizations begin to make detailed astronomical observations? It is clear that this was necessary for agricultural societies and served a strictly practical purpose, since the climate—especially in the tropical zone—is not stable. However, the magical thinking about human influence on climate change began in the Middle Ages and, unfortunately, continues to this day. Human impact is most evident in Chernobyl. As soon as humans disappeared, nature recovered very quickly.
Pripyat Years Later: A City Hidden in the Forest
Our interviewee emphasizes that one of the most significant experiences of Chernobyl is encountering a city that has practically vanished beneath the vegetation. These aren’t just abandoned apartment buildings and schools, but a space that nature has reclaimed almost entirely. “In reality, Chernobyl is very colorful, because nature has simply reclaimed what humans once took from it,” he says.
According to his account, trees grow everywhere—inside buildings, between school desks, on balconies, and on rooftops. Sometimes it’s even hard to reach the entrance, because everything has become so overgrown that the former boundaries between the city and the forest have practically ceased to exist. That is precisely why Pripyat, even though it still captures the imagination as a symbol of the disaster, makes a different impression today than it did in the first years after the accident.
I come back to Palmowski’s post dated July 3, 2026 at 7:01 AM, showing for the umpteenth time data collacted and displayed by DMI, the Danish Meteorology Institute.
Palmowski wrote:
” Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002. ”
with a link to DMI’s superposition of daily data
https://i.postimg.cc/RFYszD3D/DMI-80N-till-2026.png
*
The intention was clear: to show cooling – it is in Palmowski’s DNA – no offense!
What he shows is by the way 100% correct.
However, it is also a complete distortion of the reality reflected by the DMI data from the satellite era.
*
I downloaded and processed DMI’s daily Arctic data for the latitudes above 80N
https://download.dmi.dk/pub/plus80N_temperatureindex/
and compared the resulting monthly time series to
– GHCN daily stations above 75N (19; 6 in Canada, 2 in Greenland, 3 in Norway, 2 in Sweden and 6 in Russia)
– UAH 6.1 LT grid data in that 80N+ region:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mz17VZJXsk1YcbAbORBEmqU58S-Q2dk9/view
*
If you follow the green DMI line, you see that it is very near to GHCN daily’s; as always, UAH LT is in comparison way flatter.
*
Linear trends in °C / decade in the period Dec 1978 – Mar 2026
UAH: 0.39 ± 0.03 (to be compared to 0.27 ± 0.02 for 60N-90N)
DMI: 0.96 ± 0.07
GHCN: 1.05 ± 0.06
*
I get a big, big laugh when I see Heartland’s pseudoscience journalist Kip Hansen trying to sciencelessly discredit at WUWT the well-known Arctic Amplification (trends in the Arctic higher than elsewhere), shown in all existing datasets, including UAH’s.
Oooops?!
I got irritated by the contry shortid SV, thinking of ‘Sveridge’ i.e. Sweden… The two allegedly Swedish stations actually belong to Svalbard, i.e. Norway.
Ah, the good old DMI charts, which show daily surface temperature for the 80-90 North region that is mostly ice bound even through Summer.
https://i.postimg.cc/RFYszD3D/DMI-80N-till-2026.png
This has been a favourite of ‘coolistas’ for about 20 years, and they almost never understand what they are showing.
And yes, even DMI data show warming there (which is mainly occurring outside Summer).
barry
” … (which is mainly occurring outside Summer). ”
Thanks for your comment which to confirm with data is pretty easy.
Here is the top 20 of a descending sort of the DMI_80N+ anomalies:
2025 2 9.30 (°C)
2016 11 9.15
2018 2 8.84
2006 1 8.70
2024 2 7.15
2020 11 6.93
2016 12 6.93
2026 3 6.75
2025 10 6.69
2024 10 6.32
2018 10 6.12
2016 2 5.69
2025 12 5.64
2014 2 5.46
2016 1 5.35
2017 1 5.32
2005 2 4.99
1990 1 4.86
2023 12 4.85
2016 3 4.76
*
Not one in April or September, let alone in summer months.
And except position 18 of 20: all occured later than 2000; except positions 4, 17 and 18, all occured later than 2010.
” No warming here, move along, you uberalarmist. “
I think it was Lord Faulkner who said in an address to the royal Society, the natural world has caused more damage to the planet than humans good ever achieve, Northumberland once was home to hundreds of coal mines,today hardly anyone knows where they were, nature has reclaimed them,only a handful of shaft mines are visible,
“I think it was Lord Faulkner who said in an address to the royal Society, the natural world has caused more damage to the planet than humans good ever achieve”
That’s hardly fair. We’ve only been at it for a few tens of thousands of years, compared to the hundreds of millions nature has had to wreak havoc. Give us a chance!
Barry,
One minute you push the evil ideology that the human race is doomed due to man made climate change, forgetting that natural climate change has and will always exist.
The next minute you say that we need more time to do worse than natural events.
1. No I don’t and no I don’t.
2. Humour.
In early July, the planet reaches aphelion, and the Earth’s axial tilt is halfway through its decline. The Milankovitch cycles are at work, and summer temperatures at the North Pole will not rise above average for the next several hundred years.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
It’s a new month, but the cult kids continue with the disruptions. This time, they seem to be mixing some “soft science” in with their “cult science”. They love “millions and millions” of years:
“over the past ~12,000 y.”
“34 million years ago”
“for another 25 million years”
They probably believe “consensus” and “artist conceptions” are reality! Hey, they believe black bodies are real….
But the funniest one is Ark’s “Key takeaway”:
Ark believes an ice sheet can melt rapidly, but it takes “millions of years” to form. Little does he know there’s no “consensus” on that:
https://excalibur.guide/ideas/earths-great-flash-freeze
Clint,
When you wrote “Ice core samples show temperature drops of up to 18 degrees Celsius within decades rather than the thousands of years…”
Do you think the cult can read and understand the concept that the temperature can also rise geological quickly as well? Or do you think because they don’t understand what a biological women partially due to Hollywood, that they also believe all the other hype from Hollywood.
“Do you think the cult can read and understand the concept that the temperature can also rise geological quickly as well? ”
There are a couple things to note:
#1)The Younger Dryas rapid temperature shift was a regional event, not a global one.
#2)The leading explanation is that large amounts of freshwater entered the North Atlantic, leading to reduced surface water salinity and density. This weakened the ocean circulation system responsible for transporting warmer water northward, which caused significant cooling in the North Atlantic region.
As such, the Younger Dryas is largely irrelevant when discussing contemporary climate change.
Scientists have been investigating alternative explanations for decades and none have been able to explain the observed warming trend as well as greenhouse gas forcing.
Maybe they need to keep investigating since there is no greenhouse gas warming.
“Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.””
https://web.archive.org/web/20120516110457/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3
Eldrosion,
When you wrote “… the Younger Dryas is largely irrelevant when discussing contemporary climate change.” Did you realise that it’s blanket excuse that you use all to often?
If it doesn’t fit your climate cult views you dismiss it without a second thought.
Try strong manning the others side, with an opened mind. I did and that is why I changed from pushing the cult dogma to being disgusted by the cults tactics, and amused by the lack of critical thinking by the majority of the climate cult.
“Try strong manning the others side, with an opened mind.”
Your reply does not provide any convincing reason to think the Younger Dryas is a reliable analog for contemporary climate change.
Your reply lacks substance. It’s just your usual hostility.
And as a result, I’m even less inclined to keep an open mind about your position.
By the way, you should really give up the insults. It costs everyone who resorts to insults credibility, but you, especially, can’t afford the loss.
“Geomagnetic evidence shows Earth experienced a significant magnetic excursion during this same timeframe, potentially weakening the planet’s protective field.”
The collapse of Earth’s magnetic field in the western and southern hemispheres leads to an increase in the protons speed and spiral-radius motion around the magnetic force lines. More chances are created for the protons to collide with one another at a higher speed. The impact of stronger collisions at higher speeds, results in higher thermal energy reaching Earth’s surface; Global Warming is thus observed. It is imminent, therefore, that a change in the temperature pattern and precipitation map of the planet will follow any change or repositioning of the magnetic poles and the associated magnetic field intensity; causing Climate Ex-change; as some countries experience warmer than earlier average temperatures such as North America and others experience cooler than earlier average temperatures such as Siberia, in the past few winters. The combined effect of the weakening and the tilting of Earth’s magnetic field lower its intensity above the North Pole ice cap. The lower the intensity and number of the magnetic field force lines, the longer spiral-radius motion and the faster the speed will protons pick up. A higher thermal energy is generated upon such protons’ collision with one another in the Thermosphere layer.
https://planet-earth-2017.com/heat-not-from-the-sun/
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2026/05jul26/TCI_Daily_NO_Power_Percentiles.png
Well. Fair play is simply more powerful than the worst US president of all time — a man who, like a child, cannot go a single minute without lying:
“I had no idea what a red card was.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVFZk4bVHIo
*
But of course, the MAGAmaniacs suffering of the Trump Addiction Syndrome will soon pardon him – he was just joking, after all.
Well, sports are back in full swing.
The Boufort Sea won’t melt this summer.
https://i.ibb.co/bgbxbMBn/masie-all-r01-4km-1.png
Where is your proof for this claim?
Did you ask your preferred infobot for
” When did the Beaufort Sea not melt during summer ? ”
No?
*
By the way: what about informing us of how it will look like in this region?
https://www.canada.ca/content/canadasite/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/sea-ice/_jcr_content/par/mwstabbed_interface_/summary-details0/mwsadaptiveimage_428246526/image.img.jpg/1737570700994.jpg
Well…
https://i.ibb.co/PZJBt608/r01-Beaufort-Sea-ts-4km.png
What happens when you include data from even earlier years, like the 1980s and 1990s?
Look at these ugly ‘Patriot Front’ cowards masking their faces:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront-us-east-1%252Eimages%252Earcpublishing%252Ecom%2Fwapo%2FTV4VYCNOJRP5ROWZ3KPRPKLVMI%252EJPG&w=1256&h=838
The “Patriot Front” are wearing identical caps, masks and glasses.
Somebody planned this in advance and purchased the equipment to hand out to the participants.
It would be interesting to know who backed this and what they hoped to gain from it.
Entropic Man,
Oh you mean like how some group has produced a large amount of placards, busses people to “mainly peaceful” demonstrations and pays them for their time?
Sounds like rent-a-mob sponsored by the democrats! If it is okay for the Democrats would it the same play book be okay for any other political group?
Bindi Goebbels,
Do you ever look at the whole issue? Or you gaslighting yet again.
The lass was not harmed, harassed, or touched by anyone from the Patriots Front. If she felt intimidated then that is her mindset, probably due to listening to the CNN.
The reason why they are masked is probably they don’t want to be doxed. Cancel culture is weapon mainly, not exclusively, used by the left to inhibit free speech.
I wonder if the Patriots Front is sponsored by the Democrats, you know the same Democrats who created and sponsored the KKK!
> I wonder if
I doubt you do, dear Anon for Q-related reasons.
You’re more into peddling Dinesh D’Souza silly talking points.
You’re like Propaganda Barbie, who rants about Marketsists but has married a millionaire three decades older than her, have a baby out of wedlock, and wear a cross daily to remind how Christian she is.
But a little worse, for it doesn’t involve any millionaire.
What would be a Dinesh D’Souza silly talking point for example?
Oh the dumb, cowardly ultra far right Fascist QAnon can’t stop linking me to the second hardest Nazi after SS top man Heinrich Himmler…
Heil freedom of speech!
Dullard,
So the usual dishonesty from you, does an argument depend on the facts of who a person marries? To those who don’t believe in your cult the answer is an argument relies on facts!
On your other childish point answer these simple questions:
Which American political party was opposed to ending slavery?
Which USA party created the Jim Crow law?
Which USA political party created and sponsored the KKK?
Which USA political party has tried to abolish Title 9 (Title 9 protects women from discrimination)?
Which party was happy to meet and greet the German national socialist workers party?
Which USA political party caused mass sterilisation of the poor?
…..
Even you should get the point by now!
One last question: what did Willard get on his maths test?
The answer is: dribble!
Dear Anon for Q-related reasons,
Usual dishonesty is your middle name:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/victor-marx-wont-say-how-many-people-hes-killed.html
Another Market fabulist like you.
Dullard,
On your other childish point answer these simple questions:
Which American political party was opposed to ending slavery?
Which USA party created the Jim Crow law?
Which USA political party created and sponsored the KKK?
Which USA political party has tried to abolish Title 9 (Title 9 protects women from discrimination)?
Which party was happy to meet and greet the German national socialist workers party?
Answer is the same the Democratic Party of the USA.
Doesn’t matter how many distractions you throw up more and more people are realising that the left wing political parties are evil and always have been evil and will likely always be evil.
It was only in the 1950s did a bunch of academics promote that the fascists didn’t evolve from Marxism. The only comparable scale of gas lighting is that of your climate cult.
Gee, the political parties didnt evolve?
Todays parties would not resemble the pre-Civil War parties or even the pre-Civil Rights era parties.
The MAGA Republican party of today barely resembles the R party of 10 years ago.
Your ‘History’ stops in the 1960.
That was when the Democratic President pushed the Civil Rights Bill through Congress, overcoming the Racist wing of the party.
Notably, the racists all switched to the Republican party after that. And the Republican party adopted the Southern Strategy of race-baiting to win elections ever since.
Which party’s Justice Dept has effectively stopped investigating and enforcing Civil Rights laws?
Yep the MAGA-Republican party.
Nate,
Was wondering why people refer to you as Child Nate, mystery solved.
When you wrote “Notably, the racists all switched to the Republican party after that. ” does beg the question, do you actually believe what you write?
Bindy is really good at gaslighting people, you come a close second.
Let’s ask our Anon for Q-related reasons:
Which US party shifted its base from the Northeast to the American South during the mid-to-late 20th century?
Which US party historically favored high tariffs to protect American business before switching to a free-trade stance, and then back to high tariffs?
Which US party has suppressed minority voter turnout by using gerrymandering and strict voter ID laws?
Which US party has overwhelmingly voted against the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act?
Which US party spearheaded the 2003 invasion of Iraq based on intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that were never found?
Which US party created the Patriot Act, which expanded government surveillance powers over citizens?
Which US party appointed the Supreme Court justices who ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade, ending constitutional abortion protections?
Which US party has frequently denied or minimized the scientific consensus on man-made climate change?
Very simple questions indeed.
“When you wrote “Notably, the racists all switched to the Republican party after that. ” does beg the question, do you actually believe what you write?
”
No awareness of actual history shown by you. Any interest in learning about it?
It is Fact that politicians from the South who strongly favored keeping segregation, such as Sen. Strom Thurmond, switched parties to become Republicans, after the adoption of the Civil Rights Bill in 1964. For others it took more time, but eventually the South become solidly Republican.
Anon,
Seems you get your American history from unreliable sources.
The KKK was founded by veterans of the Confederate armed forces, not any political party.
How has the average summer temperature at the North Pole changed since 1958? The Milankovitch cycles are at work.
https://i.ibb.co/TqBxT4T1/daily-ts-1958.png
Testing.
Testing
Ireneusz
A glass of ice water at OC remains close to 0C until all the ice has melted.
Thermodynamics favours using incoming heat to turn ice at OC to water at OC rather than increasing the water temperature.
Similarly extra heat entering the Arctic in Summer is melting ice rather than increasing temperatures. As your graph shows, temperatures near the North Pole remain close to 0C and will remain so until all the Summer ice melts.
Nevertheless Arctic annual average temperatures have increased by about 4C. Look at your graph and you will see why. Winter temperatures have increased considerably.
In early July, the planet reaches aphelion, and the Earth’s axial tilt is halfway through its decline. The Milankovitch cycles are at work, and summer temperatures at the North Pole will not rise above average for the next several hundred years.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Aren’t those atmospheric temperatures?
Not sure what that has to do with a glass of ice water.
Don’t believe you’d have any conditions where you’d have sublimation of water at the polar caps. Maybe sublimation of CO2. Its freezing point is -78C. Don’t think it would affect atmospheric temperature though.
Its all about latent heat.
Melting ice requires a lot of energy to turn it from ice at 0C to water at OC. Heat added to a glass of ice water converts ice to water with none warming the water until the ice has all thawed.
Plot the temperature of a glass of iced water as the ice thaws and you will see that it remains cloae to 0C until the ice is completely melted and only then does the temperature start to rise.
The same physics applies in the Arctic. Sunlight or heat carried into the Arctic by warm air melts ice first, keeping the water temperature and air temperatures above the ice within a few degrees of 0C.
As long as the North Pole remains ice covered Summer temperatures will remain low.
That doesn’t even make to the level of a bad theory.
But Stephen, that was the first experiment in sophomore high school chemistry.
While I was in the US Navy, one could tell if we were under the ice or not just by looking at a seawater thermometer.
Bob,
My goodness. Did you forget all the stuff your learned in chemistry? The ocean at the poles is colder than the ice. The ice is fresh water. The ocean is saltwater. The atmosphere is colder than the ice or the ocean. Have you heard of freezing point depression? We learned about that in physical chemistry. The ocean heats the atmosphere even at the poles. The ocean’s temperature isn’t controlled by ice nor is the atmosphere’s. I’m not surprised by Ent. I’m surprised by you.
Stephen,
Under the Arctic ice cap, the seawater is 28F, I measured it myself. In open water, seawater is 29F or more.
The salinity of the ice varies, the older the ice the fresher the ice due to constant melting and refreezing.
It is not all fresh at all, and there is less older ice now than earlier last century.
And the temperature of the ice is 32F or colder.
The air temperature varies the most, way below zero to slightly above freezing.
You should have learned freezing point depression way before Pchem, high school or freshman year. That’s why seawater under the ice is 28F.
Temperatures on the surface are controlled by the input from the Sun, modified by the atmosphere. Which, in the case of the Earth, results in polar ice caps, which do control the temperatures there.
Have you ever observed sublimation of water? If not, you need to get out more.
Bob,
Thanks for reinforcing everything I just said. I knew you’d come to your senses.
Bob,
Just to let you know, the polar ice caps latent heat of fusion does not control the temperatures there. Those big oceans surrounding the polar ice caps control the temperature. My point to Ent was that his latent heat model of ice cubes in a glass of water have no relation to the polar ice caps.
Stephen,
How can you know what controls the temperature of the ice cap if you are wrong about the temperature of said ice cap.
Ent is correct, the ice keeps the temperatures cold.
Katie bar the door when it’s gone.
Maybe you can petition your college to get you mommy’s money back.
Bob,
Think about that, man. Does that make any sense? The latitude of the ice caps, cause the fresh water to freeze. The salinity of the seawater, which is colder than the ice, keeps the seawater from freezing. You’re saying the ice causes the temperature at the poles which causes the ice? You’re having a brain fart. Being in the Greenhouse LaLa Land can have those effects.
Stephen,
If the ice is warmer than the seawater, it would melt.
The lack of sunlight is what causes the seawater to freeze.
The salinity of seawater is what causes seawater to freeze at 28F.
It does not prevent freezing, if you actually passed any Chemistry, you would know that water at those latitudes is constantly freezing and melting.
Never been to Greenland, only north of there, under the ice, recording the temperature of the seawater, several times an hour.
28F, and usually the ice is colder than that, because air temperatures up there are often below zero.
It isn’t going to melt as long as the temperature of the ice is below 32F. My contention is the polar ice, and its latent heat doesn’t control the temperature of the atmosphere as seen in Ireneusz’s link. Lack of solar irradiance at the poles determines the temperature. Also where have you seen sublimation of water? Were you ever on Mars?
Stephen,
Did you really get a Chemistry Degree.
One day it snowed, then the snow disappeared, without the temperature ever getting above even 30F.
Ice still has a vapor pressure, even below freezing.
And have you ever handled dry ice?
Solid CO2 turns directly into gas, without stopping at the liquid phase.
That’s called sublimation.
Bob,
We were talking about the sublimation of water. I don’t know where on this planet you would have sublimation of water. The temperature and pressure have to be below water’s triple point. Maybe somewhere in the stratosphere, or on Mars. Have you been there? Yes, I’ve used dry ice in the lab and also, liquid nitrogen as cryogenic traps to freeze gases. Neither would sub cool when the temperature got down below 10K. Their temperatures would stay close to their phase change temperatures of 194K and 77K.
Stephen
Just Google vapor pressure of water at 0F.
You know what a triple point flask is?
Where water melting, freezing, condensing, evaporating, subliminal, and vapor deposition are all occurring at the same time?
And I have observed snow sublimating into water vapor without melting.
It happens when the ice temperature is below the melting point.
Bob,
Google? If the vapor pressure of ice is 600Pa but atmospheric pressure is 101,000 Pa, how are you going to see it? Look in any P-chem textbook at the phase diagram of water. Water sublimates below its triple point. You nor Google can change that.
Stephen,
It does not need to be below the triple point for ice to sublimated.
Look for a vapor pressure graph in your Pchem textbook
Ice still has a vapor pressure below it’s triple point
Stephen
“That doesn’t even make to the level of a bad theory.”
Pleasr tell me that was sarcasm.
My pupils did the ice water experiment at the age of 11 and could understand latent heat of fusion and specific heat capacity when they were 15.
How did you manage to avoid learning such elementary physics?
Stephen, congratulations.
You have now displaced GR at the bottom of the class.
Its all about latent heat.
Melting ice requires a lot of energy to turn it from ice at 0C to water at OC. Heat added to a glass of ice water converts ice to water with none warming the water until the ice has all thawed.
Plot the temperature of a glass of iced water as the ice thaws and you will see that it remains cloae to 0C until the ice is completely melted and only then does the temperature start to rise.
The same physics applies in the Arctic. Sunlight or heat carried into the Arctic by warm air melts ice first, keeping the water temperature and air temperatures above the ice within a few degrees of 0C.
As long as the North Pole remains ice covered Summer temperatures will remain low.
It is always a delight to see how beautifully Palmowski presents — for brief moments — skillfully selected, tiny, magnificently ice-covered stretches of the Arctic Ocean:
https://i.ibb.co/PZJBt608/r01-Beaufort-Sea-ts-4km.png
The Beaufort sea is not only just tiny 3 % of the Arctic Ocean; it is also best known to host the Beaufort Gyre, a water circulation system ensuring sometimes year-round coverage with multi-year sea ice.
*
If we look at the entire Arctic however, we see this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J9kx750_CtARv4sKfXBddRnkZm3E2U4v/view
or, in better readable anomaly form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
*
But I understand Palmowski’s need to concentrate on cool and icy stuff, and am happy to show the Antarctic sea ice in best form these days:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BY_ACQnX5hfQbvPAih6YTzsYEISTatTO/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
I read above, without surprise:
How has the average summer temperature at the North Pole changed since 1958? The Milankovitch cycles are at work.
With a link to a chart showing DMI’s daily temperatures over 80N for the year 1958:
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_1958.png
*
What does this small period of time have to do with the immense periods of the Milankovitch cycles (eccentricity, obliquity, and precession – resp. 100,000 – 41,000 and 23,000 years) ?
Barely anything.
To mention this in the context discussed is sheer nonsense.
*
Let’s therefore rather concentrate on DMI’s data.
First question: why does Palmowsky show only the year 1958?
What about showing 2025 as well, so that we can observe what differs:
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_2025.png
*
Second question: why does he talk only about summer temperatures?
And why not talking about the winters which seem to have changed much more than the summers when looking at the graphs above?
*
Let’s have a closer look after having downloaded all the DMI data for 80N+ and averaged their daily data into months:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GwYOyCfKK9vzBW8R2tNieuiLZLcxCYnc/view
No change visible at the top temperatures in the summers.
How winters compare to summers we see even better with a seasonal split showing Dec/Jan/Feb versus Jun/Jul/Aug:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gwa8bpETqbw179pcQacl7AVzAKhH6X3p/view
All warming happens outside the summers.
Seasonal trends for 1958/59 till 2025/26, in °C / decade
Jun/Jul/Aug: -0.04 ± 0.02
Dec/Jan/Feb: +1.20 ± 0.13
*
I suppose that the higher warming during the winters is due to much stronger poleward advection streams from the Tropics, as then the Tropics-Arctic temperature gradient is highest.
The Sun itself, with on average 150 W/m² radiant flux density above 80N (i.e. 40% of the radiation in the Tropics) therefore can’t be the primary cause.
*
Allin all, we should not forget however that we are talking about latitudes between 80N and 90N, i.e. less than 2 little % of the hemisphere’s surface.
Since January 2020, the PDO has been negative.
https://i.ibb.co/k2MqVLj3/ipdo-timeseries-hadisst1-1-2000-2026-a.png
When the climate anomaly patterns are reversed, with warm SST anomalies in the interior and cool SST anomalies along the North American coast, or above average sea level pressures over the North Pacific, the PDO has a negative value (Courtesy of Mantua, 1999).
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/pdo/
Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Date PDO
June 2026 -1.34
May 2026 -1.64
April 2026 -1.28
March 2026 -1.18
February 2026 -0.79
January 2026 -0.87
December 2025 -0.39
Test
Interesting. So, if PDO is trending a lot stronger, it will moderate the warming influence of the current, apparently fairly strong ENSO?
Thomas Hagedorn
” So, if PDO is trending a lot stronger, it will moderate the warming influence of the current, apparently fairly strong ENSO? ”
*
Not sure at all.
Historically, PDO has indeed been an ENSO smoother: weakening La Niña in positive phases, weakeníng El Niño in negative phases.
This seems to belong to the past.
Despite having since Jan 2020 the lonngest uninterrupted sequence of negative PDO values since 1850, and with their sum by far the greatest,
– we had in the NCEP Nino3+4 series in Nov/Dec 2023 the fourth greatest El Nino since 1982
and above all
– we very probably face the strongest El Nino since the first Nino3+4 SST values (from Met Office’s HadISST1 SST) in 1871:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/179W9R9fOmH54vJGmvIPoscPoHTyQlY2_/view
I can’t remember NOAA ever having had to literally double its forecast for an ongoing El Niño within three months:
– Beginning of Apr
https://i.postimg.cc/sXVbBdVp/nino34Mon-060426.png
– Beginning of Jul
https://i.postimg.cc/3rS5Hg7G/nino34Mon-090726.png
*
No idea what this means let alone where it comes from.
Simply to say “That’s Global Warming” is a bit too simple.
I feel that we have a lot more to learn about ocean circulation patterns, various oscillation patterns (known and MAYBE as yet unknown), and their impact on weather and climate.
I am currently watching a very good class on Oceanography and plan to read the chapter in a text about ocean circulation. The class is about 10 years old, but I was surprised by our lack of monitoring of ocean conditions. The volume is massive, our ability to “see” is very limited, and I gather those research efforts are not blessed with a lot of funding.
One example would be geothermal heating from tectonic activity, which is absolutely a vital aspect of our planet, in terms of physics, chemistry, and biology. Dr. Arthur Viterino has done some very interesting work on geothermal heating. Correlation is not causation, but he has demonstrated some incredible correlations between geothermal heating and temperatures. If one volcanic eruption (which we can easily “see”) can impact our weather for a year, or two or three, why wouldn’t the constant action of magma on the ocean floor be an important factor in climate?
Thanks for the convenient reply.
Whatever Dr. Arthur Viterito might have written: no one disputes the fact that all geothermal energy emitted by Earth per year
– through the ocean floor along mid-ocean ridges and submarine volcanic zones
– through the continental crust including radiant energy by volcasnic eruptions
accounts in the sum for less than 20,000 TWh.
This is what you have to put in relation to Earth’s energy obtained from the Sun and returned to space around it: about 1,000,000,000 TWh:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U5XPfiyODfbZsadlMph4N6ZCmLe3eRc3/view
{ Don’t bother about ignoramuses telling us ‘that value is obtained through a maze of embarrassing manipulations, based on the fraud of an imaginary sphere’.
They would never be able to technically let alone scientifically contradict such results. }
I’d like to add that I’m light years awy from putting any discredit on Dr. Viterito’s private work: I’m myself since over ten years the target of such behavior.
*
But fact remains that his 2022 paper
1995: An Important Inflection Point in Recent Geophysical History
https://juniperpublishers.com/ijesnr/IJESNR.MS.ID.556271.php
is backed by nobody outside Heartland’s influence sphere.
*
I prefer real work based on real data, e.g.
heatflow.world makes scientifically curated geothermal data openly available
https://www.gfz.de/en/press/news/details/heatflowworld-macht-wissenschaftlich-kuratierte-geothermiedaten-offen-zugaenglich
*
I keep aequidistant from sources like Skeptical Science and Heartland, the GWPF and the Heritage Foundation.
And when a I look at how one-sided so-called science journalists affiliated to Heartland publish pseudoscience at WUWT,I think I’m not quite wrong.
Please read for example Kip Hansen’s guest post at WUWT and my reaction to it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/19/is-arctic-amplification-an-averaging-error/#comment-4067318
Curious about long held ideas on global temperature being directly affected by PDO, here is a 60-month rolling average of both, with global temps detrended.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2018.68/mean:60/normalise/detrend:0.686/offset:0.08/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:60/normalise/scale:0.3
That old website hasn’t updated its data sources for some time, so the period is 1900 to July 2018. But it seems to me that the correlation ends for 20 years from 1985. The ENSO spikes seem to correlate well, but not so much the multi-decadal climate shifts.
Ice definitely cools the air near the surface. However, why does the summer temperature at the pole remain close to the average for the years 1958–2002, even though the extent of the ice is changing? Please identify the year in which the temperature at the pole deviated significantly from that average.
https://i.ibb.co/4wv4zfSq/daily-ts-1963.png
https://i.ibb.co/PztFscnL/daily-ts-1960.png
Palmowsky
” Please identify the year in which the temperature at the pole deviated significantly from that average. ”
There is no such year.
If, instead of simply posting DMI’s daily charts, you were able to download and process their 80N+ data
https://download.dmi.dk/pub/plus80N_temperatureindex/
you could check the correctness of my evaluation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gwa8bpETqbw179pcQacl7AVzAKhH6X3p/view
You would then see that in Arctic summers, the Sun just has enough power to partly melt ice and snow but doesn’t manage to additionally warm the ambient air – despite shining 24h a day.
Thus, as long as there is ice to melt, ambient temperature won’t move much about 0 °C.
This is the reason why the average summer temperature did not increase since 1958.
That’s right Bindidon. Years ago I emailed a DMI researcher on precisely this question, and got back the equivalent reply.
…I just found the reply in my emails – from 2010.
“From the link to WUWT, that you’ve attached below, it seems that a cooling temperature trend in the Arctic summer is present, throughout the past approximately 10 years. Where ‘summer’ is defined as the period where the +80N mean temperature is above 273K.
However, I very much doubt that a simple conclusion can be drawn from that, as there are complicating aspects to that analysis, e.g.:
1) The surface in the +80N area is more or less fully snow and ice covered all year, so the temperature is strongly controlled by the melting temperature of the surface. I.e. the +80N temperature is bound to be very close to the melt point of the surface snow and ice (273K) and the variability is therefore very small, less than 0.5K. I am sure you will find a much clearer warming trend in the same analysis applied to the winter period. The winter period is more crucial for the state of the Arctic sea ice, as this is the period where the ice is produced and the colder the winter the thicker and more robust the sea ice will become.
2) The +80N temperature data after 2002 are based on the operational global deterministic models at ECMWF, at any given time. Before 2002 the ERA 40 reanalysis is used. I.e. the +80N temperatures are based on 4 different models, the model used for the ERA 40 data set and the operational models T511, T799 and T1279. The point is that there can be a temperature bias in one or more of the models, that can cause the lower temperature level since approximately 2002, where the shift between the ERA40 data and the operational model data occur in the WUWT-plot from the link below.”
I don’t know if today DMI still use the different reanalysis sets at the same periods. I was grateful this researcher took the time to reply.
I’m also grateful my memory works well. Almost upthread I wrote that temperatures are at the melt point of the ice, but decided I wasn’t sure that was exactly the right way to put it.
Thanks barry, interesting stuff.
A negative PDO weakens the effects of El Niño, as the high-pressure system over the northern Pacific promotes the formation of tropical cyclones.
https://i.ibb.co/FL2SkCy3/goes18-ir-90-C-202607091635.gif
Low temperatures in the southern tropical Atlantic.
https://i.ibb.co/CfRXFP7/satlssta-1.png
Reading climate denier comments makes me concerned about the state of scientific literacy and public discourse in the US.
Climate deniers have some of the weakest arguments (e.g., “CO2 is only a trace gas,” “one part of the world is anomalously cold,” “there was a pause in global warming from 1998 to 2015,” and so on), yet a significant portion of the American public and some of its political representatives are still persuaded by them.
There was a time when scientifically literate sceptics would come here and debate the science.
They are long gone. Instead we have Stephen and Ireneusze who lack even basic scientific literacy.
Hence the regular complaint here that for useful debate we need a better class of sceptic.
FYI: At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere O.85 g of CO2. This small amount of CO2 cannot absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the earth’s warm surfaces to heat up such a large mass air and can have no effect air temperature, weather and climate.
The claims by the IPCC and the collaborating scientists that this trace greenhouse gas can cause “global warming” and is the “control knob of climate change” are based on various climate models which are now considered “implausible”. Water is the only greenhouse gas of importance, but its greenhouse effect is quite variable and depends on the local specific humidity, and it is not the main cause of the warming of the air.
The main process for warming of the atmosphere is quite simple: (1) sunlight heats the earth surfaces, (2) air contacts the warm surfaces and by conduction it heats up and (3) the warm air then rises up and by convection heats up the atmosphere. In winter the days are short and the surfaces never warmup and heat is lost by radiation. Last winter in the Yukon and NWT air temperatures plunged to -50°C on one occasion, which broke all previous low temperature records.
The bottom line is that we do not have to worry about the emission CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. The reason there is such a trace amount of CO2 in the air is that most of it is absorbed by the oceans and land surface waters.
“This small amount of CO2 cannot absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the earth’s warm surfaces to heat up such a large mass air and can have no effect air temperature, weather and climate.”
CO2 does not heat up anything. It slows Earth’s cooling by absorbing some of the outgoing infrared radiation and re emitting part of it back toward the surface.
“Water is the only greenhouse gas of importance, but its greenhouse effect is quite variable and depends on the local specific humidity, and it is not the main cause of the warming of the air.”
Water vapor is primarily a climate feedback, not an initial forcing. It depends on ocean temperature: as the oceans warm, they evaporate more water, raising the amount of H2O in the atmosphere
“Last winter in the Yukon and NWT air temperatures plunged to -50°C on one occasion, which broke all previous low temperature records.”
Meanwhile, 9 states in the contiguous United States recorded their warmest meteorological winter (December 1 – February 28) on record:
Source: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/national/202602
“The bottom line is that we do not have to worry about the emission CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”
Blah blah blah blah blah
Of course we do. Earth is our only home. For far too long, humanity has been a cancer to the Earth, consuming and degrading the very systems that sustain us.
BTW, you forgot your customary “Harold the Organic Chemist Says:” opening.
I’m not a scientist, but I have a degree in mathematics and a keen eye for detail. I don’t know if my opinion matters to you, but everything you’ve written are observable facts.
ATTN: Eldrosion
Since I cannot reply to your reply, I to have use this indirect method by replying to myself.
There is no such process as positive water feed back. The major process for transporting water into atmosphere is the wind. As the wind blows over the surface of a body of water, the water as vapor, mist or fog is swept up into the atmosphere.
I stand by what posted 100%. There is so little CO2 in the atmosphere, it can no effect on air temperature.
BTW: What does Eldrosion mean?
Harold, it’s basic thermodynamics. For every 1°C increase in temperature, the saturation vapor pressure increases by about 7%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation
Wind is not the sole factor. It removes the humid air immediately above the ocean surface, which enhances evaporation, but energy is still required for the phase change from liquid water to water vapor.
“BTW: What does Eldrosion mean?”
It’s a pseudonym I came up with after thinking about Amur tigers. I liked the way it sounded.
Harold, the 1 m^3 of air has about 10,000 equivalent cubic meter column of air above it. Your .85 g becomes 8.5 Kg of CO2.
Infrared in the CO2 absorption wavelengths cannot pass through that much CO2, without being absorbed. It is a basic optical fact.
And that results in a significant reduction of IR that can escape to space, and thus the warming of the Earth.
Nate doggedly clings to his cult nonsense, believing more 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface. With his lack of knowledge, that’s like claiming more ice can radiatively raise the temperature of a surface above ice temperature.
And, he can’t learn….
As usual, Clint cant refute anything in my post. Just trolls.
“This small amount of CO2 cannot absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the earth’s warm surfaces to heat up such a large mass air and can have no effect air temperature, weather and climate.”
As upwelling radiation in the 15um range (near Earth’s peak emission) is almost completely saturated by CO2 in the first few metres, the above comment seems woefully ill-informed.
In fact, the “CO2 absorption is saturated” argument is part of the skeptic canon. As ever, skeptics contradict each other.
And, as Nate pointed out, optical depth makes a significant difference to absorption. Which is why satellites aloft see a significant darkening over time in the CO2 spectra.
Atmospheric WV is – empirically – a function of temperature and pressure, so there’s more when it’s warmer, less when colder. Of course it is a feedback.
the problem is there is little or no cooling of the surface by radiation. the surface cools almost entirely by convection which has its own coefficient heat transfer which roy rightly points out climate models can’t get right. in addition some of the warming over the past 45 years has been due to orbital perturbations that explain the multidecadal warming nudges that produce ocean tidal effects and unmeasured variations in global mean solar insolation which out of institutional self interest is being completely ignored and/or misdirected in, for example, poorly thought studies of the effects of uhi creating errors in compilation of mean global surface station temperatures due to non-representative data collection.
its like errors in estimating the value of the world’s real estate, mostly sales prices are considered when in fact there is a strong tendency to never sell the best real estate that hides from the truth at every effort to define a group of real estate parcels into a single indicator of value. people who make fortunes in real estate do so by exploiting that inefficiency by knowing the market and having great vision and great observation skills.
Bill Hunter
Radiation cooling is reduced greatly because of back radiation. If not for back radiation surface emission would be the dominant cooling mechanism. It cools the Moon’s surface quite well!
YES norman it definitely slows cooling. as i pointed out in last months thread on (which is still ongoing) two identical plates of the same temperature have twice the heat content of a single plate and therefore take longer to cool when you turn off the point source of light. we can see that fact in earths temperature record where mean low temperatures have warmed a lot more than mean high temperatures arising from effectively the rotation of earth turning off the light every evening.
“the surface cools almost entirely by convection”
Convection occurs after surface energy has been transferred or transformed via radiation, evaporation and conduction.
The relative contribution changes dramatically when considering cooling of the near-surface atmosphere, where convection dominates.
The higher up you go, the relative contribution to cooling of each layer changes. The final mechanism of heat loss from the Earth is purely radiative.
The ‘atmospheric window’ by itself allows about 13% of the surface’s radiative heat loss to pass directly to space (including cloud cover). So ‘almost entirely by convection’ is an exaggeration even if we take the surface to mean the skin and first metre or so of atmosphere.
[HAROLD] At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere O.85 g of CO2.
[GILL] YES norman it definitely slows cooling.
barry says:
”Convection occurs after surface energy has been transferred or transformed via radiation, evaporation and conduction.”
Yes and almost all of it (radiation), if not all of it, is absorbed in the atmosphere. various budgets show 90-95% is absorbed. and some climate specialists say multiple times. And there is no way of knowing if all is absorbed because all we globally measure on land is above the surface and from ships and bouys below the surface at sea where it is slightly warmer due to that evaporation effect at the surface. Anyway what isn’t absorbed is called an atmospheric window supposedly immune to GHG absorption. Since water is a full spectrum absorber and even in the desert there is substantial water in the atmosphere the range of possibilities approaches zero.
Also due to convection any gained heat is quickly converted to work so transport is almost entirely by convection. And convection itself exhibits an insulation value. . .explaining potentially the entire GHE. The typical coefficient of heat transfer is .5 which is analogous to a U-value of the same quantity.
So the surface gives up about 390 watt/m2 from radiation, and more from water evaporating at the surface lets say 90w/m2. Virtually all convecting at some point and earth emits 240w/m2 to space out of a total 480w/m2 convected to TOA. then use the widely estimated convective heat transfer coefficient for convection and everything is accounted for including the GHE.
Just saying its a plausible idea as a replacement for that Easter Bunny nonsense of losing energy in 2 directions causing the GHE.
Sure CO2 is emitting away like crazy but you do need some science to say that backradiation always creates a GHE, which we know via the MIT heat transfer textbook it doesn’t. But yes the MIT heat textbook does provide for an insulation value for convection. A type of insulation that prevents radiation to space until it qualifies as coming from TOA (i.e. its not just reabsorbed by a higher layer) The general idea is right half radiated to space and half being denser sinks back down to the surface in convection loops. In fact this is a technology known for thousands of years and utilized by enterprising humans in moving energy using crude capture liquid and gas systems that run without an energy source on the work of convection. I realize thats probably really difficult to swallow with the catfish you guys got stuck in your throat provided to you by the the easter bunny.
The relative contribution changes dramatically when considering cooling of the near-surface atmosphere, where convection dominates.
The higher up you go, the relative contribution to cooling of each layer changes. The final mechanism of heat loss from the Earth is purely radiative.
The ‘atmospheric window’ by itself allows about 13% of the surface’s radiative heat loss to pass directly to space (including cloud cover). So ‘almost entirely by convection’ is an exaggeration even if we take the surface to mean the skin and first metre or so of atmosphere.
Willard yes it does slow cooling but via a convective heat transfer coefficient not due to a warm surface absorbing heat from a cold atmosphere per the erroneous physics by the Easter Bunny. You also get a “statistical cooling” effect from lows warming due to cooling a greater mass under an intermittant light source which is created by earth’s rotation. But statistical cooling occurs because of intermittent slowing of cooling through multiple layers of gas again pointing at the convective heat transfer coefficient when no significant heat capacity has been added to the atmosphere.
Gill is trying really hard to deflect from Harold’s own contrarian talking point.
Cranks can’t help but step on each other toes.
willard you are claiming a contradiction between harold and myself. but its not descriptive enough to identify specifically exactly what that contradiction is.
he makes a good point. i don’t see any contradiction. you will need to describe it in enough detail so that what you are babbling about can be understood. co2 is a convective medium just like all the gases in the atmosphere. it may even be true that no gases “reflect” heat. . .and we do know that water, even in a misted state does.
what we don’t know is what the value of climate sensitivity is unless we attach it to some other measure like assuming gases reflect heat which makes it about as informative as to say x% of children who drink milk grow up to be serial killers.
the way to properly estimate what climate sensitivity is is to model actual real world causes of temperature change rather than refusing to touch major known mechanisms and hope they remain untouched all the while running campaigns that take money from hardworking people and spreading it out to already wealthy influencers, celebrities, and consulting corporations.
> you are claiming a contradiction
Gill just can’t read.
Harold wasn’t talking about Gill’s pet talking point.
Gill tries to peddle his talking point.
Gill is acting like an asshat.
Simple as that.
Willard unless you specify the contradiction and why you think its a contradiction its not possible to glean anything wrt what you are talking about.
> unless you specify the contradiction
Gill imagines that red herrings need to contradict one another.
bill,
“various budgets show 90-95% is absorbed. and some climate specialists say multiple times.”
The atmosphere absorbs about 87% of upwelling radiation, the other 13% escapes through the atmospheric window directly to space. The 8-12um window is where GHGs are virtually transparent to IR. Water vapour in high concentration does absorb some radiation in that window, but not a lot. However, ice crystals and water droplets do absorb more strongly in that window, so the window is partly shut in cloudy conditions (as I indicated above).
13% of surface radiation escapes directly to space unimpeded on average. 25% of surface radiation escapes straight to space in clear-sky conditions.
And yes, because of the kilometres thick optical depth of the atmosphere, infrared radiation is absorbed and reemitted gazillions of times. And this occurs less often than collisional energy transfer. However, the radiative course is of interest because it is the only way the planet ultimately sheds its heat to space to balance incoming solar energy.
“Since water is a full spectrum absorber…”
Water is largely transparent to visible light.
Water vapour is NOT a full spectrum absorber, which gives us the 8-12um atmospheric window.
Where water exists in the atmosphere (clouds, droplets, ice) it is a broad spectrum absorber, as mentioned above.
“transport is almost entirely by convection”
In the lower troposphere this is true. But this is distinct from the surface cooling ‘almost entirely’ by convection.
Nearer the top of the troposphere radiation and convection share the load more equally. At the tropopause convection ceases and heat is transported purely radiatively.
“So the surface gives up about 390 watt/m2 from radiation, and more from water evaporating at the surface lets say 90w/m2. Virtually all convecting at some point and earth emits 240w/m2 to space out of a total 480w/m2 convected to TOA. then use the widely estimated convective heat transfer coefficient for convection and everything is accounted for including the GHE.”
Convection doesn’t transfer energy out of the climate ssytem. Earth only sheds through radiation.
“Just saying its a plausible idea as a replacement for that Easter Bunny nonsense of losing energy in 2 directions causing the GHE.”
Radiative energy DOES travel in two directions, and every object that sheds radiative energy ‘loses’ it from the surface/mass, the temperature of which is determined by the balance of incoming and outgoing energy. Physics 101.
Eli’s GPE was only to prove that 2LoT is not broken by slowing the rate of heat loss from a warmed object with a cooler one. We already know this from sweaters and blankets and closing doors on heated rooms. The GPE simply spelled out how this reduction in heat loss occurs radiatively.
“you do need some science to say that backradiation always creates a GHE, which we know via the MIT heat transfer textbook it doesn’t.”
You’d better cite the handbook. MIT clearly supports the GHE, as does every science institute in the entire world. Extraordinary claims to the contrary require extraordinary proof.
bill,
Here is a page from MIT physics courses, explaining that the energy from two different surfaces is exchanged. This is the basis of Eli’s GPE.
“We want a general expression for energy interchange between two surfaces at different temperatures… The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is [equation]. The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is [equation]. The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is [equation].”
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
DREMT, Clint, and presumably you reject that two bodies at different temperatures exchange energy with each other radiatively. This MIT page scotches that misconception.
MIT make the exact same point on mutual double exchange between surfaces on this other course page:
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
At equation 19.3 we see the same energy transfer equation we’ve used for equal area blackbodies…
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
…with a factor included for greybodys with different emissivity.
On both pages, energy is exchanged between the surfaces regardless of the temperature of each surface.
Eli’s GPE is based squarely on this function, plus a constant heat source powering one of the plates.
Willard says:
”Cranks can’t help but step on each other toes.”
Since I am stepping on your toes that makes perfect sense.
Gill steps on Harold’s toes thinking they’re mine:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748397
“But trace gas” is not the same Bingo square as Gill’s crap.
“DREMT, Clint, and presumably you reject that two bodies at different temperatures exchange energy with each other radiatively.“
I’m not taking the bait.
Eli’s 262 K…220 K solution is debunked in these five simple steps:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1748493
and that’s the end of it.
It would kill you to say outright that you disagree with MIT?
The baiting continues.
You’ve had since January to rebut the points 1) – 5). Obviously, you can’t do it. In fact, you’re mostly in agreement – you’ve agreed before that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. You’ll note that point 5) is now more explicit in why that is a 2LoT violation.
Willard says:
Gill steps on Harold’s toes thinking they’re mine:
—————————
hmmm, its a crowded room and you are the only one who squawked.
> its a crowded room and
Gill seems to forget I wasn’t even there when he threw his squirrel in the middle of the dance floor.
> The baiting continues.
As predicted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1747871
I was called out, by name, on the topic of the GPE, Willard.
Exactly as predicted, Graham D. Warner blames otters for his own trolling.
Gill’s bait started here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748563
If I get called out by name, I’m most likely going to respond, Willard. And, why wouldn’t I want to link to the debunking of the Green Plate Effect? Five simple points, and bang! There goes your entire religion. I expect they will be linked to every month, if others keep bringing up the GPE. But, again, I’ve no desire for another month-long back-and-forth on the subject. Just want to post my links, and leave it at that. Will I be able to do so? Already, you’re trying to make it as difficult as possible…
“You’ve had since January to rebut the points 1) – 5)”
THIS is the bait.
An authoritative source is quoted and cited clarifying a fundamental point of contention in discussions here about the GHE. It cuts to the heart of the matter.
In a normal conversation this would be honestly addressed. But in the post-normal world of ‘skeptic’ debate, it is militantly avoided with bait and switch.
You can elect to take up the MIT challenge to your views, or you can hide behind your oft-refuted mantra. The choice is entirely yours, and so are the optics.
“If I get called out by name”
Drama Queen, you were mentioned.
barry says:
”Here is a page from MIT physics courses, explaining that the energy from two different surfaces is exchanged. This is the basis of Eli’s GPE.
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html”
Very good the equations look correct and supported by the MIT heat transfer textbook.
The problem for you is all the problems have a solution with those equations and none of them have the colder object warming the warmer object. . .meaning of course there is no help for your knitting of photons into sweaters and blankets. thats a process of insulation by convection. I suppose though that if you have a technology to knit photons into blankets and sweaters, as you seem to claim, then they should be able to provide more insulating air pockets.
barry, as bill points out, until you have a source that actually shows the warmer object getting warmer still as a result, you don’t have a “challenge to my views”.
On the other hand, declaring I have an “oft-refuted mantra” when the points 1) – 5) have never been refuted, is plainly dishonest. In fact, as I said, you’ve already agreed with most of it – you’ve agreed that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Do I need to link to your agreement with that, or are you going to start being honest? All you need to do now is click on my link to the updated points 1) – 5) and read the updated point 5).
bill,
“Very good the equations look correct and supported by the MIT heat transfer textbook.”
Excellent, then let’s hear no more nonsense about warm objects being unable to absorb the radiative energy from colder objects. It’s there in black and white at MIT that they do.
“The problem for you is all the problems have a solution with those equations and none of them have the colder object warming the warmer object”
That’s because none of the problems have an external heat source providing continuous energy to one part of the system.
And the colder object doesn’t “warm” the warmer one, it reduces its rate of heat loss – just to get your terminology correct. This is what sweaters and blankets do without breaking 2LoT.
Once you accept that radiation is exchanged and apply the math, it works out that the ENERGY radiated by the cooler object reduces the heat loss from the heated object. Ergo, the heated object must get warmer. This doesn’t work without the external heat source, which is why critics conveniently forget it’s there all the time.
And of course, this doesn’t break 2LoT, because energy isn’t heat, and because heat is defined ONLY as the NET exchange of energy, which at all times is warm to cold in Eli’s GPE.
barry, your argument has been understood for eight years. For the refutation of it, click on the link to the points 1) – 5).
bill,
Let’s ‘knit’ it together for you.
Point sun provides our Blue Plate (BP) 400 W/m2 at one surface.
BP emits 200 W/m2 from each side. We ignore edge effects to keep the math simple.
BP emits to space, which for simplicity we will call 0K, or an environment at 0 W/m2.
We now run the radiative heat transfer equation for BP.
q = σ(Tbp⁴ – Ten⁴)
q = 200 W/m2 – 0 W/M2 = 200 W/m2
BP is gaining 400 W/m2 constantly from the sun, and losing 200 W/m2 constantly from twice the surface area being irradiated. Because the value is positive, heat is flowing from BP to space.
Now we introduce the Green Plate (GP), which is receiving 200 W/m2 from BP. GP heats up to emit 100 W/m2 from each side.
We know from MIT that BP absorbs the energy from GP.
Now we do the equation again.
q = 200 W/m2 – 100 W/m2 = 100 W/m2
So BP’s rate of heat loss is less than before. It was 200 W/m2 to space from each surface, but is 100 W/m2 from the surface facing the GP. That’s becaus BP is absorbing 100 W/m2 from GP even as it emits 200 W/m2 on that side. The math is straightforward, and the physics is as IT has made clear.
But now we have an energy imbalance. BP is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun, is losing 200 W/m2 from the sun-side, but is now only losing 100 W/m2 from the GP side.
BP is absorbing 400 W/m2 but only losing 300 W/m2 total over both surfaces.
If you can’t see that BP must warm here, then you truly do not understand the most basic physics, and the most basic math.
GP isn’t sending heat, it is sending energy, and that energy reduces the rate at which BP loses heat.
So BP, constantly gaining heat from the sun, must warm in response.
bill, if you have any objection to this, don’t waffle about something else.
QUOTE the part that you think is wrong and explain why without diatribe. Stick to the point, don’t avoid it. Please.
DREMT wants to be able to do his usual asymmetric warfare.
He will post his points, then expect nobody to refute them. When they are refuted, he will claim the are unrefuted, then bitch and moan about how the argument doesnt end.
He knows there is one way to end it: stop promoting the nonsense.
But he will not ever do that.
I see. So barry mentions me by name, but has no intention of speaking to me. Instead, he wants to use bill as an excuse for endlessly reiterating his beliefs.
Well, his arguments are refuted here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1748493
“Well, his arguments are refuted here:”
Except that argument has been refuted many times.
It relies on comparing (1) established laws of physics are ditched, to (2) the established laws of physics are not ditched.
(3) compare ditched laws of physics to not ditched, and find a CHANGE in heat flow and temperature.
(4) declare that the CHANGE in heat flow between the two scenarios IS a HEAT FLOW, and its from cold to hot!
(5) That’s a 2LOT violation! Thus we DO need to ditch established laws of physics.
Its like:
lets ditch Newton’s law F=ma. And then find that an object gained energy, apparently for free! That violates Conservation of Energy.
So we DO need to ditch Newton’s Law.
Briliantly stupid.
“We know from MIT that BP absorbs the energy from GP.”
barry highlights this sentence. He thinks it’s the clincher for his argument, but actually it’s quite the opposite. He is emphasising here exactly how much his argument hinges on the “back-radiation” transfer. Without that transfer, he knows nothing changes for the BP. Hence he’s conceding once again that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Here’s where he first explicitly conceded that point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734877
So, that’s most of the points 1) – 5) already conceded by barry. The only thing he needs to get now is why it’s a 2LoT violation.
barry says:
” “Very good the equations look correct and supported by the MIT heat transfer textbook.”
Excellent, then let’s hear no more nonsense about warm objects being unable to absorb the radiative energy from colder objects. It’s there in black and white at MIT that they do.”
Barry I keep saying and you keep ignoring . . .it doesn’t matter if the energy is absorbed. The issue is easy to understand.
As one of you GPE supporters pointed out radiation flows works like a dammed river. So can you solve this word problem? Perhaps this question should be on a test to get an elementary school graduation diploma.
how many hours will it take to fill a lake with a capacity of 200,000 acre feet if your water input is an average of 2 acre feet per hour and you are running an average of 1 acre foot per hour through generators to the down stream side of the dam in order to generate electricity for the residents that live near the dam.
And there we have it. DREMT confirms that his narrative requires ditching the laws of physics, and he is comfortable with that.
bill,
“how many hours will it take to fill a lake with a capacity of 200,000 acre feet if your water input is an average of 2 acre feet per hour and you are running an average of 1 acre foot per hour through generators to the down stream side of the dam”
200,000 hours if the flows are constant. But unmodulated by machinery, outflow at the bottom of the lake won’t be constant. It will increase under pressure – which is where the analogy works for the GPE and the GHE. Eventually the lake will settle at a new level, when outflow matches inflow.
“it doesn’t matter if the energy is absorbed”
It matters entirely, indicated by the fact that DREMT refuses to address this point. It absolutely interferes with the criticism of Eli’s GPE. If BP absorbs GP’s energy then it must warm to output equal to total inputs (sun + GP).
I asked you to quote anywhere in my explanatory post on this where you believe the radiative physics are unphysical. Here it is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748804
I want to know precisely where you diverge from the process outlined here. No analogies, please, just quote the exact point/s you think is wrong.
DREMT,
“[barry] is emphasising here exactly how much his argument hinges on the “back-radiation” transfer. Without that transfer, he knows nothing changes for the BP.”
That’s completely correct.
“Hence he’s conceding once again that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP”
Nope. The ‘cost’ to the GP – why its internal energy drops – is the sudden doubling of its emitting area. That has nothing to do with transferring energy to BP.
Now that energy is being transferred from GP to BP, BP’s radiative heat loss is reduced on the GP side. Here’s the math.
q₁ = (BP 200 W/m2 – SPC 0 W/m2) = 200 W/m2
q₂ = (BP 200 W/m2 – GP 100 W/m2) = 100 W/m2
As BP gets 400 W/m2 from the sun, and is now only losing a total of 300 W/m2, it must warm up to compensate.
Can I take it you agree that BP DOES absorb GP’s energy, DREMT? This only works if you agree with Kirchoff’s Law, after all.
And because the direction of radiative heat flow is not determined by the direction of a single energy flow, nor by changes in the temperature of radiatively connected objects, but solely and only by the NET exchange of energy, there is no 2LoT violation, as the NET exchange is always BP to GP, in Eli’s example and in yours with my solution.
Not to mention that number 1 in your thought experiment contains a distinctly unphysical proposition, where a blackbody surface absorbs but does not emit.
There, you’ve been refuted again. I’m sure you will remember this time :eyeroll:
Refuses to address the point?
Addressed right here, barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748834
It is entirely the point that proves you wrong.
barry quotes me:
“Hence he’s conceding once again that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP”
and says:
“Nope.”
Has barry forgotten that I linked to a comment where he’s already conceded that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP!? There’s no going back on it now, I’m afraid.
“The ‘cost’ to the GP – why its internal energy drops – is the sudden doubling of its emitting area. That has nothing to do with transferring energy to BP.”
Of course it does, when the extra emitting area that has appeared is pointed squarely at the BP! Silly barry.
The rest of his comment falls apart accordingly.
DREMT,
Let’s see what I actually said:
“The “back radiation” of the now-cooling object adds to the energy being supplied to the warmer warming object by the sun, resulting in an increase in its internal energy, while the cooling object now loses a portion of its its internal energy to the warmer object.”
When it became clear that you were using the phrase “at the expense of” to semantically infer ‘heat’ was transported to the warmer warming object, I clarified later that internal energy, being a function of state, is not transferred, and you agreed with that. We agreed that only energy is transferred.
IOW, the GP does not pass some of its temperature to the BP. There is no transfer of internal energy, all that is transferred is energy.
And it is on this point that you mix up heat and energy, rationalising your misconception with a non-physical model and semantics like, “cost,” and, “at the expense of.”
Yes the BP gains internal energy, yes the GP loses internal energy, yes the only difference is the switching on of backradiation.
But that’s not a transfer of heat. It’s a transfer of energy that redistributes the energy flowing through system.
GP loses internal energy because its emitting area is doubled
BP gains energy because it receives constant solar energy and GP reduces its rate of energy loss
The flow of heat is always from the object with greater flux
Thus it is always from BP to GP
If you change the temperature of the environment that a constantly heated object radiates to, the heated object must change temperature accordingly.
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
Warm objects really do absorb radiative energy from cooler objects.
BP really does absorb GP energy.
The surface and lowest atmosphere really do absorb energy from the cooler atmosphere above.
None of this violates physics. It IS physics. It’s Kirchhoff’s Law.
Your 1-5 violates standard physics in the very first step, even as a thought-experiment.
So, I’ve taken your bait. Well done. I believe this is your cue to triumphantly exclaim you’ve won the argument, claiming no one has dealt with your mantra. Cheerio, then.
“GP loses internal energy because its emitting area is doubled…”
…but the additional emitting area is the side facing the BP. The side facing space was already emitting. So the GPs loss of internal energy must be effectively “to” the BP. Yes, internal energy is not directly transferred, but via the medium of EMR, it effectively is.
“Yes the BP gains internal energy, yes the GP loses internal energy, yes the only difference is the switching on of backradiation.”
Right. So you concede that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP.
Next step – read the updated version of point 5).
DREMT,
“but the additional emitting area is the side facing the BP. The side facing space was already emitting. So the GPs loss of internal energy must be effectively “to” the BP. Yes, internal energy is not directly transferred, but via the medium of EMR, it effectively is.”
If BP didn’t exist, GP would still lose internal energy from the doubling of its emitting area. And it is not losing internal energy “to” the BP. We’ve already agreed no internal energy is transferred. You keep trying to jimmy this wrong semantics to shore up your belief that a quantity of heat is being transferred. Again – for the zillionth time – energy, not heat, is transferred GP to BP. The temperatures changes occur due to the redistribution of ENERGY, not heat.
You seem surprised that I acknowledge backradiation is responsible for the temperature changes. There’s no mystery. The switched on backradiation is a redistribution of energy, not heat.
We know how heat is defined in this radiative environment.
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
Your 1-5 rejects this definition. There’s no way around that. “At the expense of” is just your semantic way of trying to shift a quantity called ‘heat’ from GP to BP. And therefore…
“Right. So you concede that the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP.”
is not conceded if you mean that this process = heat transfer. Which is absolutely what you mean.
It is conceded that energy is redistributed, and heat flows only from warmer to colder objects.
Now, I gotta go outside and break the second law by putting a sweater on.
“Refuses to address the point?”
Yep. MIT is quoted and cited clearly stating warmer bodies absorb radiation from cooler bodies.
The point was that you (and others) reject this (and thus reject standard physics). When you first piped up I asked you outright if that was so, and you refused to answer, instead making your own point.
I trust you will corroborate the above by doing the same thing. Better to deflect than contradict MIT, eh?
barry…as I said, internal energy is not directly transferred from GP to BP, but via a transfer of EMR, it effectively is. The internal energy from the GP is converted to EMR, so there is an expense to the GP, and once the EMR reaches the BP – at least, in your solution – it is converted back into internal energy, thus builds up in the BP.
The “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. You are the one desperately using semantic nonsense to backtrack on your previous agreement that this was the case!
Even Ball4 accepts that this is the case.
Keep on wriggling, barry, but the updated point 5) is waiting for you when you come to your senses.
“We know how heat is defined in this radiative environment.
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
Your 1-5 rejects this definition. There’s no way around that. “At the expense of” is just your semantic way of trying to shift a quantity called ‘heat’ from GP to BP.”
Exactly…
DREMT feels that HE can act like God and decide to reject a law of physics when he needs to.
I dont know why he thinks that could ever be a winning argument.
I dont know why he thinks any sensible person should believe him.
barry says:
”200,000 hours if the flows are constant.”
congratulations. That’s an indicator you might worthy of a graduation certificate from elementary school.
barry says:
” “Bill said: it doesn’t matter if the energy is absorbed”
It matters entirely, indicated by the fact that DREMT refuses to address this point. It absolutely interferes with the criticism of Eli’s GPE. If BP absorbs GP’s energy then it must warm to output equal to total inputs (sun + GP).”
Hmmmm, maybe not. When dealing with theoretical objects anything goes as long as it doesn’t warm because that hasn’t ever been documented as happening despite how doesn’t ever happen.
What I see is the the energy flowing through the object in accordance with the problem you just had no problem with solving. I don’t see any water molecules going ”uphill”. Since we don’t even understand the physical structure of a photon how can one know? We can’t. Thus we have to created formulas and procedures for the use of those formulas to do with energy what happens with the water going into the lake. . .because thats the only thing that results in that situation. . .verified countless times.
Barry says:
”I asked you to quote anywhere in my explanatory post on this where you believe the radiative physics are unphysical. Here it is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748804
I want to know precisely where you diverge from the process outlined here. No analogies, please, just quote the exact point/s you think is wrong.”
Whats wrong is you are saying the 100w/m2 going to the BP is a resistance to the BP cooling and the MIT heat transfer textbook explicitly says on page 569 there is no resistance created in the case of a blackbody. Can I tell you about each individual photon exactly where it goes that creates zero resistance. . .no. I just think MIT is about as good as you can get in an educational text and I also have noted many experiments conducted, including in this forum by people trying to show the original experiment by R.W. Woods was flawed failing to show the flaw.
What I have repetitively said is if somebody can do an experiment that is documented well enough to be replicable wrt to all the q’s, all the resistances, all the emissivities and all the temperatures that is what will change my mind.
Science is not something set in stone, all its elements are symbolic of observed phenomena. you can’t preach theory when stuff just do what you say the theory does. Bottom line here is the theory says it doesn’t. Somebody points out that it can with resistance. The theorists did not build these theories on nothing if they had they would be able to convince no scientist who for a real one making discoveries is a guy that understands talk doesn’t create science and gets curious enough himself to do an experiment or try to get somebody else to do on.
Einstein is a model he theorized using math he had trouble convincing others, then years later somebody was able to do the experiment and his theory was accepted.
I mean heat transfer has terms. temperature (potential), current (q), resistance (r).
I imagine that MIT stands by zero resistance from theoretical backradiation by say an experiment with a black plate measuring a very low resistance, and thousands and thousands of experiments with plates that reflect more light resulting in a measure of resistance higher with enough experiments that take you from backradiation warm of .5% to 99% resistance. Sure then you take the leap of faith and say a blackbody one that reflects zero light has zero resistance. Then I look at the experiments being performed around me achieving similar results.
Meanwhile you point to Kirchoff’s work as setting absorption in stone. . .when the backradiation part has never been proven by experiment to this day. Plenty of ways to kid ourselves it has but the experts recognize it hasn’t. In fact denying the classic physics is exactly how Google AI brings up contradictory answers. But none of that denial is disrespected nor is it accepted. . .because science is always changing especially in the fields of electromagnetics.
barry says:
”If you change the temperature of the environment that a constantly heated object radiates to, the heated object must change temperature accordingly.
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
Warm objects really do absorb radiative energy from cooler objects.
BP really does absorb GP energy.
The surface and lowest atmosphere really do absorb energy from the cooler atmosphere above.
None of this violates physics. It IS physics. It’s Kirchhoff’s Law.”
———————–
I am afraid barry you need a different reference than Kirchoff’s Law.
Kirchoff’s law:
Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation states that for an arbitrary opaque body in thermal equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its absorptive power at a given wavelength and temperature is the same for all bodies and is equal to the emissive power of a perfect black body at that same temperature and wavelength.
This only applies when the body is in thermal equilibrium and an exception to thermal equilibrium is exactly what you are trying to carve out of Kirchoff’s Law.
Again refer to Chapter 10 of the MIT heat transfer textbook for the ways you can prevent thermal equilibrium from occurring.
Gill conceals his word games about insulation by handwaving to a textbook he has yet to prove he has read.
“This only applies when the body is in thermal equilibrium and an exception to thermal equilibrium is exactly what you are trying to carve out of Kirchoff’s Law.”
False. That is not stated in Kirchhoffs Law.
And it makes absolutely no sense.
A material property doesnt change when in equilibrium.
A blackbody is black whether in equilibrium or not!
A mirror reflects whether in equilibrium or not!
The SB law tells us a body’s emission, equilibrium or not!
bill,
“Whats wrong is you are saying the 100w/m2 going to the BP is a resistance to the BP cooling”
From MIT we know that BP absorbs this 100 W/m2. That was the point of quoting and citing them saying that both the warmer and cooler body absorbs the radiation from the other.
If BP absorbs GP’s energy, that IS the resistance to its cooling. BP gets 400 W/m2 from the sun, emits 200 W/m2 to GP but absorbs 100 W/m2 from GP. The NET loss to GP is now only 100 W/m2. That’s exactly what the equations tell us.
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
q₁ = (200 W/m2 – 0 W/m2)
now add GP
q₂ = (200 W/m2 – 100 W/m2)
q is the rate of radiative heat transfer from the first object to the second. When BP transfers energy to space, it transfers 200 W/m2. When BP transfers to GP, it transfers only 100 W/m2.
It’s rate of energy loss is less with GP present.
Therefore, as it is constantly getting 400 W/m2 and now 100 W/m2 from GP, it is ABSORBING a total of 500 W/m2. It must emit the equivalent energy to equilibrate with input. BP’s rate of heat loss has to increase.q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
bill
“he MIT heat transfer textbook explicitly says on page 569 there is no resistance created in the case of a blackbody”
Please provide the quote. Do you have the link? I don’t.
bill
“Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation states that for an arbitrary opaque body in thermal equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its absorptive power at a given wavelength and temperature is the same for all bodies and is equal to the emissive power of a perfect black body at that same temperature and wavelength.”
You mistake the way the theory was proved for its application to ral materials. Kirchhoff’s law applies to non-equilibrium materials. MIT covers that here
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node135.html
Wikipedia spells it out.
“However, the law can be extended to the absorptivity and emissivity as a function of wavelength: not only is thermal emissivity equal to absorptivity overall, it is equal at each wavelength. Thus, at every wavelength it will be true that [emission wavelength = absorption wavelength]. Expressed as a function of wavelength, the principle is independent of the requirement for thermal equilibrium.
MIT already told us this upthread, Warm objects absorb radiation from colder objects. This is true whether they are blackbdies, greybodies, or just ordinary objects.
Point is, when BP absorbs GP radiative energy, that changes BP’s energy balance. BP temperature has to change.
Heat is only ever gong from BP to GP – determined simply by the fact that BP’s radiative flux s greater than GP’s. Only energy is going the other way.
Have you read the updated point 5) yet, barry?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1748493
barry says:
“Whats wrong is you are saying the 100w/m2 going to the BP is a resistance to the BP cooling”
From MIT we know that BP absorbs this 100 W/m2. That was the point of quoting and citing them saying that both the warmer and cooler body absorbs the radiation from the other.
If BP absorbs GP’s energy, that IS the resistance to its cooling. BP gets 400 W/m2 from the sun, emits 200 W/m2 to GP but absorbs 100 W/m2 from GP. The NET loss to GP is now only 100 W/m2. That’s exactly what the equations tell us.
———————
First some caveats here. Backradiation is so theoretical we have no evidence it exists other than it was a convention that survived a search of empty space for an ‘aether’ that could operate broadly in space like a “ground” in electricity where the energy just runs one direction. But on the basis of KISS there is no reason that light would need a ground. So thats just a caveat to what I am about to say. I just hang on to it probably because of my experience in doing electrical work so it seems an intuitive idea. But like others I shelved that idea when considering how things could possibly work as described by science.
So setting that aside no its not a resistance to cooling. It sometimes acts like resistance. Let me explain. If the GP were perfectly insulated its temperature would rise to 290k in the GPE and the BP would rise to that same temperature. Q would go to zero and the q from the sun to the BP would remain the same as the Q from the BP to the GP. The resistance here is in the insulation behind the GP, not in any backradiation (if it exists. . .see caveat). But what you see here if you monitor what is happening is that the GP is warming more slowly as it gets warmer and that is because Temperature is a 4th power function of the input. It just takes a lot more joules to warm each next degree in the GP than the previous degree. So there is no change in the rate of energy but a change in the rate of warming. So this process has no effect on the BP. Gee where did the backradiation go? Who knows? the guy that discovers whats going with the backradation will be very near front of the line for a nobel prize. In fact thinking on the fly here. . .the golden ring in thermodynamics is the theory of everything which includes electricity and magnetics. clinging to concrete ideas about backradiation right down to if it exists could be a major blockage to the necessary thinking outside the box it will take to seize that golden ring.
So lets move to the next case where the GPE has been designed with no insulation.
With zero insulation what is happening is the dam with a leak analogy is in play. You got the right answer on that both conceptually and mathematically. If the GP loses 100w/m2 to space its not going beable to send the next 100w/m2, its going to come up 100joules short.
So the difference here for the BP is nothing. the entire 200w/m2 is either going to faster warming of the GP to equilibrium with the BP or its going to slower warming to equilibrium. The only thing that changes is GP
what you are seeing as a variable between the two scenarios is the time rate of temperature rise for the GP. There are a lot of joules in a square meter plate and a difference of 100joules/sec vs 200joules/sec. The difference is where the energy goes. . .its not coming back to the BP. The loss rate of the BP is always in sync with the engineering toolbox table and the engineering toolbox tells you its the cooling rate and never tells you that it is the GP warming rate because that depends upon how much insulation is applied to the GP and where its applied.
When you arbitrarily change the laws of physics, you get a different pattern of heat flows.
#5 says that imaginary CHANGE in heat flow is a HEAT FLOW.
That is a non sequitur, because it is not true that a change in heat flow is the heat flow!
Even in the actual problem with valid laws of physics, when we bring in tbe GP, say at 244K, the heat flows change, as expected. Its now a different problem!
The BP was losing 200 W/m2 of heat to space, then with the GP, it drops to 0.
That is a change in BP heat loss of -200 W/m2.
But the actual heat flow is 0 from the BP to GP.
0 does not equal -200, because the CHANGE in heat flow is NOT the HEAT FlOW.
And 2LOT is a constraint on heat flows. It does not constrain any CHANGE in heat flow, when a problem is changed.
Why should it?
barry says: You have 3 posts I will reply in parts:
“Whats wrong is you are saying the 100w/m2 going to the BP is a resistance to the BP cooling”
From MIT we know that BP absorbs this 100 W/m2. That was the point of quoting and citing them saying that both the warmer and cooler body absorbs the radiation from the other.
If BP absorbs GP’s energy, that IS the resistance to its cooling. BP gets 400 W/m2 from the sun, emits 200 W/m2 to GP but absorbs 100 W/m2 from GP. The NET loss to GP is now only 100 W/m2. That’s exactly what the equations tell us.
———————
First some caveats here. Backradiation is so theoretical we have no evidence it exists other than it was a convention that survived a search of empty space for an ‘aether’ that could operate broadly in space like a “ground” in electricity where the energy just runs one direction. But on the basis of KISS there is no reason that light would need a ground. So thats just a caveat to what I am about to say. I just hang on to it probably because of my experience in doing electrical work so it seems an intuitive idea. But like others I shelved that idea when considering how things could possibly work as described by science.
So setting that aside no its not a resistance to cooling. It sometimes acts like resistance. Let me explain. If the GP were perfectly insulated its temperature would rise to 290k in the GPE and the BP would rise to that same temperature. Q would go to zero and the q from the sun to the BP would remain the same as the Q from the BP to the GP. The resistance here is in the insulation behind the GP, not in any backradiation (if it exists. . .see caveat). But what you see here if you monitor what is happening is that the GP is warming more slowly as it gets warmer and that is because Temperature is a 4th power function of the input. It just takes a lot more joules to warm each next degree in the GP than the previous degree. So there is no change in the rate of energy but a change in the rate of warming. So this process has no effect on the BP. Gee where did the backradiation go? Who knows? the guy that discovers whats going with the backradation will be very near front of the line for a nobel prize. In fact thinking on the fly here. . .the golden ring in thermodynamics is the theory of everything which includes electricity and magnetics. clinging to concrete ideas about backradiation right down to if it exists could be a major blockage to the necessary thinking outside the box it will take to seize that golden ring.
So lets move to the next case where the GPE has been designed with no insulation.
With zero insulation what is happening is the dam with a leak analogy is in play. You got the right answer on that both conceptually and mathematically. If the GP loses 100w/m2 to space its not going beable to send the next 100w/m2, its going to come up 100joules short.
So the difference here for the BP is nothing. the entire 200w/m2 is either going to faster warming of the GP to equilibrium with the BP or its going to slower warming to equilibrium. The only thing that changes is GP
what you are seeing as a variable between the two scenarios is the time rate of temperature rise for the GP. There are a lot of joules in a square meter plate and a difference of 100joules/sec vs 200joules/sec. The difference is where the energy goes. . .its not coming back to the BP. The loss rate of the BP is always in sync with the engineering toolbox table and the engineering toolbox tells you its the cooling rate and never tells you that it is the GP warming rate because that depends upon how much insulation is applied to the GP and where its applied.
Barry asks:
“he MIT heat transfer textbook explicitly says on page 569 there is no resistance created in the case of a blackbody”
Please provide the quote. Do you have the link? I don’t.
Sure, https://ahtt.mit.edu/
barry says:
” ”You mistake the way the theory was proved for its application to ral materials. Kirchhoff’s law applies to non-equilibrium materials. MIT covers that here”
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node135.html ”
I don’t see anything in there contradicting what I am saying barry. Obviously if the BP is 244k and the GP is 205k, the BP is losing 200w/m2 and the GP is losing 100w/m2. Thats not equal it only becomes equal when they are the same temperature. Anyway this page you linked to is getting info from the MIT textbook by Lienhard.
barry says:
”Wikipedia spells it out.
“However, the law can be extended to the absorptivity and emissivity as a function of wavelength: not only is thermal emissivity equal to absorptivity overall, it is equal at each wavelength. Thus, at every wavelength it will be true that [emission wavelength = absorption wavelength]. Expressed as a function of wavelength, the principle is independent of the requirement for thermal equilibrium.”
Barry that may be true but I see no reason to ponder why or pursue it further. Number one we are only talking about blackbodies, by definition at every wavelength they will be equilibrium if the blackbodies are.
I see no purpose in clouding it up with grey body exceptions where wavelengths a and e could be equal without equilibrium temperature. Also if the two greybodies were spectrally identical we know from the heat transfer equations the plates will not be in thermal equilibrium.
barry says:
”Point is, when BP absorbs GP radiative energy, that changes BP’s energy balance. BP temperature has to change.”
thats true to the extent the GP doesn’t dump the energy to space. Remember we have zero resistance per MIT with blackbodies and no restriction on energy transfer to space. I have noted many times that energy travels a path of least resistance. I would be extremely skeptical of zero resistance turning into resistance with plates with no resistance. to me thats a lack of discipline to make such changes without incontrovertible proof.
the Stefan Boltzmann heat transfer equation recognizes where the energy is going consistently and is completely silent on backradiation. IMO, it is simply a device one could call a canard. Which comes from a French phrase: “to half-sell a duck” or cheat somebody.
Here it is:
“5) Which in turn means that the “back-radiation” transfer is building up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Per the 1LoT equation, in the absence of work, any transfer leading to a change in internal energy of a body is a transfer of “heat”. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is acting as a transfer of “heat” from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.”
So, unless you’re saying the 1LoT equation is wrong, the GPE’s debunked.
> Climate deniers have some of the weakest arguments
In fairness, they’re better than what we usually got here.
True.
We have crackpots and Sky Dragons.
Like Gordon:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748855
Do you think he is sincere, or does he just enjoy writing long blocks of crap for his own amusement?
And then there is Kiddo, who baits people in practically every new thread.
“There was a time when scientifically literate sceptics would come here and debate the science. They are long gone. Instead we have Stephen and Ireneusze who lack even basic scientific literacy. Hence the regular complaint here that for useful debate we need a better class of sceptic.”
Kind of an unnecessarily provocative comment for a “warmist” commenter to make on a skeptic blog, don’t you think? Surely that’s “baiting”. Not to mention the OP…
So, do you agree with climate deniers that there was a ‘pause’ in global warming from 1998 to 2015, or that because CO2 is a trace gas, it can’t warm the planet?
I agree that Entropic Man, and you, were baiting.
“provocative” comments
Gee, that is rare on this forum! Sarc
Yes, Nate, there is a shed-load of baiting from your own “team”, which you of course turn a blind eye to.
There was a time when scientifically literate sceptics would come here and debate the science.
They are long gone. Instead we have Stephen and Ireneusze who lack even basic scientific literacy.
Hence the regular complaint here that for useful debate we need a better class of sceptic.
Ent, you’re lost in your cult nonsense, again.
There is no “debate” about hard science. For example, the effects of gravity can be observed, measured, and predicted. Hard science is synonymous with reality. Such as, CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s average 288K temperature, and an arriving flux can NOT raise the temperature of a surface emitting a greater flux.
Your cult “debates” by throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick. When that fails, they use insults and false accusations. That’s just childish.
And yes, I’ve said it before, Skeptics should stop making up explanations for the current warming trend. It’s sufficient to only point out its “natural variability”. The cult kids have to prove it’s something else, but of course they can’t. Just like they have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Clint R is crying about “cult kids” being childish while replying to Entropic man with a needlessly provocative comment. The self awareness really took the day off.
“Such as, CO2’s 15μ photons..”
There you go again.
Wilful ignorance writ large.
Student Duh
Do you agree or disagree that 15μ photons exists.
As usual, the cult kids (stu and eldro) quickly show up to prove me right.
“Do you agree or disagree that 15μ photons exists”
Agree.
My turn.
Do you agree or disagree that all 15μ photons are identical?
Entropic man
“They are long gone. Instead we have Stephen and Ireneusze who lack even basic scientific literacy.”
To say nothing of Gordon Robertson’s explicit rejection of 1LOT:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1747060
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1747606
And I agree. This website deserves a higher quality of scientific discussion. The Sky Dragon material that gets posted here only lowers the signal to noise ratio.
Fortunately, the usual low quality material hasn’t appeared too, too, too much in this new thread. Instead, Bindidon has been posting new threads with better scientific discussion (IMO), and they’ve been much more enjoyable to read.
Eldrosion & Entropic Man,
If the discussion is beneath you then why don’t you go to BlueSky and their echo chambers.
Both of you dismiss anything that doesn’t suit your ideology as non-scientific which is amusing as both of you don’t exactly argue with an open mind.
Btw, Willard appears to be on BlueSky so you might be disappointed.
Admittedly, I was much more open minded toward climate skeptics a long, long time ago, but many of their predictions of imminent global cooling turned out to be wrong:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/
https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/14/the-planet-is-experiencing-an-unexplained-major-cooling-and-scientists-are-ignoring-it/
This is the oldest cooling prediction I’ve saved:
http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01a.htm#iceman
Eldrosion,
I would say it no worse or no better than the climate alarmists who have made millions on failed predictions.
Actually who on the absolute denier side has made as much as Al Gor , Doom Goblin etc .
Micheal Shellingberg, Born Limbourg are both warmest, not deniers.
Judith Currie has stated that when she promoted Climate Alarmism she had a much better income & benefits in kind, compared to realisation of how bad the science was in promoting the doom industry.
Not as straightforward as you make it out to be.
So how many trillions are being wasted on net zero? What opportunities are being sidelined in the name of climate change. Cure for cancer? Space flight? Nuclear power,,?
World poverty is certainly as victim to the climate cult!
“I would say it no worse or no better than the climate alarmists who have made millions on failed predictions.”
Then you’d be wrong.
The alarmists (or climate realists) have at least gotten the broad direction right: warming.
By contrast, many skeptical models that attribute warming primarily or entirely to natural variability haven’t even managed to predict the sign of the long term temperature trend correctly.
Eldrosion XX
How utterly binary your thought process is.
The world may be warming for many reasons but to spend trillions on dollars on net zero is evil.
Anon for a reason
On Judith Curry:
I respect her. She is an accomplished scientist with a considerable depth of knowledge.
However…
If you read her recent farewell post on Climate Etc., her stated reason for stepping away from blogging was that climate science is no longer at the center of public attention compared with topics like AI.
What I find off putting is that her measure of success appears to be public influence rather than scientific performance, for example, how her 2013 Stadium Wave temperature prediction compared with projections from GHG forced climate models.
Will Peruvian anchovies survive at a temperature of 24°C?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_samer_1.png
“Peruvian anchoveta are found in the southeastern Pacific Ocean off Peru and Chile, and typically found in huge schools within 80 km (50 mi) of the coast.”
eldrosion…”To say nothing of Gordon Robertson’s explicit rejection of 1LOT:”
***
I said…”It is abundantly clear that the 1st law addresses only the relationship of work, heat, and internal energy, which, according to Clausius, has an internal heat and work component”.
You see, Clausius was not only a brilliant scientist he also excelled at math. He know that heat and work on one side of an equation has to be balanced by internal heat and work in the internal energy, U, which he contributed to the 1st law. Many today regard internal energy as some form of energy independent of heat and work which is simply pseudo-science.
Where in either of your two links did I reject the 1st law? I merely stated the obvious, that the 1st law is not a general energy law but a law specifically about heat and work.
There have been two inferences connected to the 1st law, both questionable…
a)that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
b)that energy must always be conserved.
These presumptions were made circa 1850, long before the true nature of atomic energy was understood.
Neither are true in general but alarmists have latched onto them to create the infamous energy budget which is a load of hooey based on the nonsense that all heating in the atmosphere and all outgoing energy must be done by a trace gas, CO2.
Certainly, a certain amount of energy arriving from the Sun as EM ‘should’ have to be balanced by an equal outgoing quantity of energy. That would be true if the Earth and its atmosphere were solid masses lacking dynamics. However, the Earth’s atmosphere has a peculiar property in that the air pressure essentially reduced to zero with altitude. The IGL makes it clear that reducing pressure must be accompanied by reducing temperature in such a context, meaning heat, being measured by temperature, must alsio be dissipated naturally.
re a)…gravitational energy and other forms of energy, are just there and no one knows what causes them. There’s an example whereby gravitational energy creation is an unknown. Ergo, claiming that it can neither be created nor destroyed is plain speculation.
re b)I have demonstrated using the IGL that heat is reduced in intensity to the point it essentially disappears in our atmosphere as heated air molecules rise from the surface. It is not converted to another form of energy and simply disappears due to the negative pressure gradient produced by gravity.
Heat depends on atomic mass and as atomic gas mass becomes less dense with altitude, the average KE becomes less with altitude and heat, being the energy defined as KE, simply disappears. Or. at least, it is reduced to the point where it can be claimed to no longer exist.
If anyone has a good scientific rebuttal to that without blindly appealing to the 1st law, I’d like to hear it.
harold pierce…”One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere O.85 g of CO2. This small amount of CO2 cannot absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the earth’s warm surfaces to heat up such a large mass air and can have no effect air temperature, weather and climate”.
***
Thanks for that, Harold. I have been claiming the same for a long time. I have based my claims on the Ideal Gas Law, which makes it clear that CO2 at a mass percent of 0.06% can offer no more warming than about 0.06C per 1C rise in the overall atmospheric gas.
Some have claimed that this trivial amount of CO2 can convert an equally trivial amount of surface radiation and back-radiate the radiation to the surface to warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar energy. More nonsense. Since the atmosphere gets progressively colder with altitude the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it clear that no heat transfer can take place between a colder atmosphere and a warmer surface.
Furthermore, such a recycling of heat would be perpetual motion.
Please don’t expect intelligent replies from climate alarmists, all they can offer are ad hominem attacks and insults.
” … (2) air contacts the warm surfaces and by conduction it heats up… ”
That’s a big pseudoscience joke.
Air is one of the worst conductors we could imagine, with 25 mW/mK about 16,000 times weaker than a metal like copper. It is actually a natural insulator!
*
At a temperature of 288 K, Earth’s peak emission frequency is ~ 10 µ, in the middle of the atmospheric window (7.5 – 12.5 µ); only ozone absorbs there at 9.4 µ; the rest emitted in the window reaches directly outer space.
Outside of the window, there are enogh molecules able to absorb radiant infrared energy (H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O…).
The only possiblility to create warmth directly at the surface is obtained by collision of such molecules having absorbed a photon with their immediate surroundings.
This collision warmth then indeed is transported upwards by convection.
*
Would all such molecules collide, then there would be no downward infrared radiation.
But at any place on the Globe where infrared measurement is performed using pyrgeometers, you observe that – even at the BSRN South Pole station (latitude: 89.90 S):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kK3JgCOfgicbX-Xz7NA-2yq_RHdjl3w9/view?usp=sharing
Oh really? Air doesn’t conduct heat. That’s your claim. There are a lot of mechanical engineers around the world who might disagree with you. The more you look at the SURFRAD data it is a joke. It is all processed data. You can make it look like anything you want. Your problem is these two differential equations, dCO2/dt=Inputs – Outputs, and dz/dp(dp/dt), falsify GHT and you know it. Why don’t you find another cause to put your silly beliefs behind?
“At a temperature of 288 K, Earth’s peak emission frequency is ~ 10 µ, in the middle of the atmospheric window (7.5 – 12.5 µ); only ozone absorbs there at 9.4 µ; the rest emitted in the window reaches directly outer space.”
Big mistake!!! Earth is not a uniform temperature body.
Big mistake!!! At terrestrial temperatures the S-B emission law is not the same formula.
Big mistake!!! Earth’s atmosphere is transparent both ways – in and out – because atmosphere is very thin.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, Anderson denial boy… Air doesn’t conduct heat.
” There are a lot of mechanical engineers around the world who might disagree with you. ”
Apart the pseudo-engineer Robertson (who actually rather posts like a retired teacher), NO real engineer would, like you, misunderstand let alone misinterpret and misrepresent the simple facts below:
– Air conduction factor: 25 milliWatt/meterKelvin
– Copper conduction factor: 400 Watt/meterKelvin
You are an absolutely ignorant, by the way filthily insulting person.
*
” The more you look at the SURFRAD data it is a joke. ”
And here you stop behaving ignorant and start being stupid.
Firstly, you would never be able to contradict SURFRAD data: you merely cowarly discredit it.
Secondly, SURFRAD isn#t alone: there is also the Baseline Surface Radiation Network whose results you woefully discredit as well, though being 100% unasble to technically let alone scientifically contradict.
You are no more than a useful pickup driver idiot, Anderson.
*
” Your problem is these two differential equations, dCO2/dt=Inputs – Outputs, and dz/dp(dp/dt), falsify GHT and you know it. Why don’t you find another cause to put your silly beliefs behind? ”
Silly beliefs?
You are the poor useful idiot who supports Nilolov/Zeller only because they write what you want to read.
And to believe people who really managed to get a paper published under ‘Volokin & Rellez’ without being rejected by the editor: you must be megadumb, Anderson.
*
Compared to you, Robertson seems to at least have a brain.
Blindidumb,
I don’t know about any copper atoms floating around in the atmosphere, only air. Air doesn’t have to compete with copper so its immaterial. I can name several dozen metals that are better conductors than air. You leftists’ modus operandi is to attack the person when you can’t defeat his idea. The problem is those two differential equations don’t care about your propaganda or your attacks. They do falsify GHT and you can’t do a damn thing about it.
Blindidumb,
What cools your automobile’s engine? What cools any engine? What cools your AC unit? What heats your heat pump? What makes evaporative cooling work better? What cools those copper fins? Besides conduction and convection, you have these bit bodies of water called ocean where evaporative cooling along with conduction and convection occur.
Anderson
You are opinionated to such anextent that you don’t get it.
I repeat: air is with 25 mW/mK one of the worst conductors.
What you tell about the cooling of motor engines or AC units is of no interest: motor engines and AC units are not cooled by air but by water and ventilation. Stop the ventilator in either case and we get a big laugh.
Try to cool with air a 4th generation nuclear plant in which fast neutrons emitted by Pu239 fissions heat the core. Even pressurized water isn’t enough, you need liquid sodium!
You are such an ignorant guy, Anderson.
Bindidumb,
Greenhouse theory states that the cause of the difference in temperature from the surface to TOA or effective emission height is due to GHE, that GHE causes the lapse rate. I’ve shown through mathematics that the lapse rate is derived from a chain rule differential of a hydrostatic column of air behaving as an Ideal Gas. The solution to that differential dz/dt = -g/Cp
= -0.0098K/m, which is the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Also, the solution to the moist lapse rate is a function of the dry lapse rate which is a function of pressure. It varies based upon the moisture in the air but is never greater than the dry rate. There is no radiative function in the lapse rate. Either the mathematical proof of the lapse rate is correct, or it isn’t. There is no mathematical proof of the lapse rate that includes GHE (surface radiation, back radiation, none). Those are the facts.
I wish you guys would figure out that the moist lapse rate is higher than the dry lapse rate.
Dry is about -9 C per 1 km.
Moist is about -4 C to -9 c per 1 km.
-4 > -9 for those of you in need of remedial math.
Of course this means greenhouse gasses, particularly that moist one H2O, are responsible for the lapse rate.
Bob,
Have you been drinking? You repeated what I said, the moist lapse rate is never higher than the dry rate. But, since water is an IR active gas, why is the moist lapse rate lower than the dry rate? It should be higher shouldn’t it? If there was a radiative function involved? I can link a derivation of the moist rate for you. It has to do with the specific heat capacity of moist air and pressure of course. It is a function of the dry lapse rate.
Bob,
LOL. The minus sign is used as a convention. You are joking right?
OK Stephen,
By convention it’s negative, so what. Seems some are afraid of or can’t deal with negative numbers.
The plot of temperature vs altitude has a negative slope, I won’t call that the lapse rate, just dt/dh.
Anyway, the moist lapse rate is different than the dry lapse rate.
Say the surface is 20 C.
Under dry conditions, at 1km the temperature is 11 C.
Under moist conditions, at 1km the temperature is higher, saturated maybe 15 C.
More warmth there. It’s due to the GHE of water vapor.
Not dur to pressure.
Though there is a pressure component to the lapse rate, if your Google fu is sufficient you may find a paper that has calculated that.
That value has a bakers dozen zeros after the decimal point.
The trouble is, bob’s not joking, nor is he ignorant. It’s deliberate deception. That’s what we’re up against. They’ll just say anything, in the hope that it deceives people who don’t know any better. They’re disgusting, dishonest and disgraceful. Simple as that.
Kiddo freely admits his purpose here is to troll:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220410205319/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068210
If you’re supporting Bob in what he’s said on this thread, you’re as bad as he is. If you’re trying to change the subject onto me to distract from what he’s said on this thread, you’re as bad as he is.
Kiddo freely admits his purpose here is to troll:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220410205319/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068210
Kiddo freely admits his purpose here is to troll:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220410205319/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068210
:llort ot si ereh esoprup sih stimda yleerf oddiK
https://web.archive.org/web/20220410205319/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068210
:llort ot si ereh esoprup sih stimda yleerf oddiK
https://web.archive.org/web/20220410205319/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068210
sih stimda yleerf oddiK purpose here is to troll:
Kiddo freely admits his :llort ot si ereh esoprup
Ah, I forgot how childish you were.
Yes, you are as bad as Bob, then. Thank you.
DREMPTY,
Sorry, I am not being deceptive, but you definitely are.
You lie about the Moon, the GPE, and the GHE.
You are never capable of refuting anything I post with any evidence.
You think a no Bob will suffice.
False, bob…but funny.
Bait and accuse Bob droege of being deceptive, only to later or elsewhere present himself as the victim and claim that he does not want anyone responding to him.
Somehow, Kiddo believes people won’t see through his actions and expects them to accept that he is here in good faith.
You’re seriously suggesting Bob is not trying to deceive in this thread!?
Lol.
Yes, Kid O. Bob droege is simply pointing out that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is smaller in magnitude than the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
I am struggling to see the deception here.
[ELDROSION] Bob droege is simply pointing out that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is smaller in magnitude than the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
[BOB] Of course this means greenhouse gasses, particularly that moist one H2O, are responsible for the lapse rate.
[STEPHEN] Have you been drinking? You repeated what I said, the moist lapse rate is never higher than the dry rate. But, since water is an IR active gas, why is the moist lapse rate lower than the dry rate? It should be higher shouldn’t it? If there was a radiative function involved? I can link a derivation of the moist rate for you. It has to do with the specific heat capacity of moist air and pressure of course. It is a function of the dry lapse rate.
Eldrosion is obviously also here to deceive.
Kid O cherry picks Bob droege’s comment and conveniently omits this:
“Dry is about -9 C per 1 km.
Moist is about -4 C to -9 c per 1 km.”
Being correct was never on the table for him.
Lol, but it was suggesting that “of course this means greenhouse gasses, particularly that moist one H2O, are responsible for the lapse rate”, when precisely the opposite conclusion should be drawn, that was Bob’s deception!
Eldrosion continues to prove he is also here to deceive.
It is a fact that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is smaller than the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
Why is that the case? As an air parcel rises, it expands and cools. Once it becomes saturated, some of the water vapor (cough, cough) condenses into tiny liquid droplets
It is a fact that Bob tried to deceive in this thread.
Since the lapse rate is g times the specific heat capacity of air, and since both CO2 and water vapor raise the heat capacity of air, then of course greenhouse gasses raise the change in temperature with altitude.
No deception from me, but from DREMPTY, all can decide.
Except obviously Stephen was talking about the lack of a radiative function in the lapse rate, you deceitful…
Bindi Goebbels,
You wrote “Air is one of the worst conductors we could imagine, with 25 mW/mK about 16,000 times weaker than a metal ”
So 25 milli watts per milli Kelvin or 25 watts per Kelvin.
Did you really think using milli watts is honest, or is it your usual stasis double speak.
Comparing air to metal is dishonest as well as you are trying to say that there is no heat transfer.
But you are the picture of Orwellian nastiness. Your evilness is typical of the left democrats evil.
“Do you agree or disagree that 15μ photons exists”
Agree.
My turn.
Do you agree or disagree that all 15μ photons are identical?
There is still the planetary surface rotational warming phenomenon to consider.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, the Earth’s rotation plays a huge role in mitigating the effects of heat loss at night, because it allows for horizontal air flow near the surface.
That is why, in winter, warm oceans can moderate temperatures on the continents.
Taiwan will soon be in the path of a typhoon.
https://i.ibb.co/RpSrT9pR/himawari9-ir-09-W-202607101230.gif
“It last reached its maximum tilt about 10,000 years ago, and it will reach its minimum tilt in about 10,000 years. As the Earth’s axial tilt decreases, our seasons are gradually becoming milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters and cooler summers, which in turn, over time, allows snow and ice at high latitudes to accumulate, forming vast ice sheets.”
Since the angle at which solar radiation strikes the pole will decrease, the temperature at the North Pole in July cannot rise, especially since at the beginning of July, the Earth is 5 million km farther from the Sun than at the beginning of December.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_2026.png
” Since the angle at which solar radiation strikes the pole will decrease, the temperature at the North Pole in July cannot rise, especially since at the beginning of July, the Earth is 5 million km farther from the Sun than at the beginning of December. ”
And indeed, it doesn’t, Palmowski!
Look at the red plot in the graph below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gwa8bpETqbw179pcQacl7AVzAKhH6X3p/view
But the reason you wrote to explain does not have anything to do with the reality, namely that in the summers, temperatures in high latitudes above 80 N nearly never raise much above ° C because all solar warming is busy with ice melting.
Maybe one day the hypermathematician Palmowski gets it…
” Such as, CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s average 288K temperature, and an arriving flux can NOT raise the temperature of a surface emitting a greater flux. ”
*
How long with Clint R bore us with a claim he HIMSELF invented?
No one except Clint R did ever claim such a completely stupid nonsense.
*
Photons emitted at the surface, absorbed by any molecule (monstly H2O) and reemitted in all directions OF COURSE don’t warm the surface, even those which by accident reach it.
Why? Simply because they lack the energy needed to warm that surface.
*
But… if the blog still exists in the next 10 years, Clint R will stubbornly continue posting his nonsense for the next 10 years as well.
Sorry Bindi, but your cult claims CO2 can warm the planet. Where have you been?
I only show that that Is not possible. But, as with the Moon issue, you’re unable to comprehend.
With some in your cult, it’s immaturity, with others it’s senility….
Lol, as with Anon for a reason: zero scientific rebuttal, just insults.
Toothless and embarrassing.
Eldro, when you act like a child, you’re a child. If calling you a child is an insult, then you need to behave like an adult. Clean up your act.
You constantly call people “climate deniers”, not realizing how immature that is. No one here denies Earth has a climate. You’re so childish you can’t even understand that simple fact. Clean up your act.
You and your cult constantly try to claim I have the science wrong, but your only evidence comes from misrepresenting me. You have NO scientific rebuttal of anything I’ve stated. You just sling crap against the wall hoping something will stick.
Clean up your act.
Google AI:
“A climate denier is an individual or group that rejects the established scientific consensus on global climate change. This includes denying that the planet is warming, that human activities (such as burning fossil fuels) are the primary cause, or that the resulting environmental changes pose a severe threat.”
Eldro, responsible adults would know that a “climate denier” is someone that denies there is a climate. But, making up definitions is what your cult does.
My purpose in wasting time with you is to show how ignorant and childish you are. You’re making it way too easy….
Two remarkably dumb lies
1. ” Big mistake!!! At terrestrial temperatures the S-B emission law is not the same formula. ”
This is utterly wrong. S-B is valid at any temperature.
*
2. ” Big mistake!!! Earth’s atmosphere is transparent both ways – in and out – because atmosphere is very thin. ”
This is also a lie.
Not only does the atmosphere absorb a lot of short wave energy coming from the Sun; it also absorbs a lot of longwave energy emitted by Earth:
Baseline Surface Radiation Network station Selegua (Mexico)
Radiation measurements during the year 2020
– downward solar radiation measured by pyranometers
– upward resp. downward terrestrial radiation measured by pyrgeometers
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P5BXl2SBXvemsm24QvjxaC_wbDiBEybK/view
*
But… I’m sure Vournas will claim that ALL pyranometers and pyrgeometers do WORLDWIDE give wrong results.
Bravo Bindindon,
1. Derived from first principles, easily found on the net.
2. Mylar with vapor deposited aluminum is even thinner, easily blocks IR light.
Sorry Bindidon, about the extra n.
” Some have claimed that this trivial amount of CO2 can convert an equally trivial amount of surface radiation and back-radiate the radiation to the surface to warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar energy. ”
*
The only ones who claim such nonsense on this blog are pseudoskeptics like Robertson, Clint R and their acolytes.
*
1. No one talks solely about CO2, as anyone knows that H2O is the major agent.
2. No one – except unluckily misinforming public relation personal – claims that backradiation ‘warms the surface’.
What is – correctly – claimed is that backradiation is a simple, clear proof that not all infrared radiation emitted by Earth in response to solar radiation reaches outer space.
3. And certainly does no one claim ‘to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar energy’.
*
What is – correctly – claimed is that because
– solar radiation reaches each point on Earth during at best 50 % of the year
but
– terrestrial longwave radiation is emitted 24 hour/day and 365 day/year,
the yearly radiation averages show solar radiation being over the year smaller than terrestrial radiation.
*
For example, if you sum up the downward solar radiation measured by 5 stations (located between 82.5N and 89.9S) over 365 days, you obtain as resulting radiant flux density only 142 Watt/m² because the Sun shines on average only 50% of the time.
When however summing up the upward resp. downward terrestrial longwave radiation measured over the same year by the same stations, you obtain 278 Watt/m² resp. 207 Watt/m² – because Earth radiates infrared all the time.
*
Why summing up over the year? or over a decade or two?
Because you don’t compare solar vs. terrestrial radiation power at a given moment; what you compare is the energy delivered, i.e. power over time.
Is that so complicated to grasp?
Entropic man
“Hence the regular complaint here that for useful debate we need a better class of sceptic.”
You keep being proven right. I read the following:
“The more you look at the SURFRAD data it is a joke. It is all processed data.”
Very interesting.
Normally, skeptics at least make an effort to come up with a technical-sounding reason for dismissing data they do not like.
The argument is often flimsy and falls apart under even casual scrutiny, but there is usually some attempt at substance.
This time the argument seems to be, “It’s processed data.”
That’s a curious standard, considering virtually every environmental dataset undergoes some form of processing before it’s analyzed. If “processed” is enough to invalidate a dataset, you’ve just ruled out most of modern observational science.
Another example of these types of “arguments” (though amazingly more sophisticated than this one) is the claim from British climate deniers that the UK Met Office is a gaslighting institution and that its surface temperature record is unreliable:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/01/met-office-record-temperature-claims-are-fraudulent/
That argument overlooks two important and readily apparent points:
Dr. Spencer posted in December 2025, the mere presence of urban development around a surface weather station is not, by itself, enough to invalidate its temperature record.
Second, UK near coastal waters are now about 0.9°C warmer than the 1961–1990 average:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.70010
That is not a trivial amount of warming AT ALL. And, more to the point, because land has a lower heat capacity than the ocean, basic physics also indicates that nearby land should warm more rapidly than adjacent coastal waters.
Oh, wait… are we now supposed to believe drifting buoys are also suffering from UHI contamination?
Wilting French maize to shrink Europe’s harvest as farmers fear repeat of 1976
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/wilting-french-maize-shrink-europes-harvest-farmers-fear-repeat-1976-2026-07-10/
Wait…
Weren’t we told that crop yields were supposed to benefit from global warming?
Yet as last year, crops in the North of England are well above average, with some expecting an early harvest and record year, even better than last years harvest, which was the best for over a decade.just like the South East of the UK, France has a long history of hot dry Summers, much is made of the warmth in the South of the UK, yet Northumberland only 300 miles north of London has only had one day when temperatures have reached 30 c this year, but summer is not over so that might change, thunder storms today all across the North with heavy rain, typical English summer, three warm days and a thunderstorm,two friends of mine just back from Porto , said it was unseasonably cool and damp, more resembling England than Southern Europe,
You need to stop downplaying the seriousness of rapid global warming.
binny reaches a new high in obtuseness…
[GR]”” … (2) air contacts the warm surfaces and by conduction it heats up… ”
{Binny]That’s a big pseudoscience joke.
Air is one of the worst conductors we could imagine, with 25 mW/mK about 16,000 times weaker than a metal like copper. It is actually a natural insulator!
***
This is a Homer Simpson “Doh!!!” moment if not a double Duh!!! moment.
Heat is conducted just fine to air molecules touching the surface but after that air absorbs heat it cannot be conducted easily molecule to molecule. Whereas air is a notoriously poor conductor of heat, molecule to molecule, once the molecules in contact with the surface absorb heat by conduction, those molecules gain KE from the heat and rise via convection.
In any room, air is warmed by heater element where heat is conducted directly to air from those elements. That heat excites the air molecules and they become agitated, spreading through the room by convection. Forced air furnaces heat air molecules directly via conduction then use a blower motor to provide the convection.
According to Binny, such natural processes cannot take place in the atmosphere.
Binny would expect us to accept that CO2 can conduct molecule to molecule better than other air molecules, which is the basic assumption in the vague theory of thermalization. CO2 is outnumbered 2500 to 1 by oxygen and nitrogen molecules yet the thermalization theory, without specifying a method, claims CO2 can magically transfer oodles of heat to the rest of atmospheric molecules.
As for WV, it too is a trace gas with its density varying significantly from the Equator to the Poles. It gets as high as 4% at some times in the Tropics but drops off significantly toward the Poles. Also, all WV is almost gone by the altitudes indicated by the stratosphere. It is estimated that the overall concentration in the atmosphere as a whole is something like 0.3%, hardly a gas hat can provide significant heating in the atmosphere.
Lindzen has claimed that moist air from the Tropics is transported upward and poleward but he did not specify how much of the heat was carried by WV and how much by nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99% of the atmosphere. Based on the IGL, I would claim most of the heat is carried by the majority gases, N2 and O2.
But here’s the good part. As heat scavenged from the surface by air molecules adjacent to it rises naturally, that heat is dissipated as warm heat parcels rise into and through cooler air parcels with an ever-decreasing density due to the negative pressure gradient. The meaning is clear, our atmosphere dissipates a significant portion of incoming solar naturally within itself.
You won’t read that in alarmist literature since they regard conduction/convection as insignificant. Go figure.
“According to Binny, such natural processes cannot take place in the atmosphere.”
Gordon, I don’t think Bindidon disputes that conduction occurs in the atmosphere. I think he’d say that conduction, convection, and radiation all operate simultaneously and together determine how energy is transferred through the atmosphere.
“CO2 is outnumbered 2500 to 1”
Hemoglobin is a tiny fraction of your body mass but transports essentially all of your oxygen…
“As heat scavenged from the surface by air molecules adjacent to it rises naturally, that heat is dissipated as warm heat parcels rise into and through cooler air parcels with an ever-decreasing density due to the negative pressure gradient. ”
You are disregarding 1LOT again. Energy cannot simply vanish, so what exactly do you mean by “dissipated” here?
Eldro,
There are 300 million hemoglobin molecules per every red blood cell. Almost 100% of the hemoglobin is bound to oxygen. Maybe you might try another analogy. You are making your sycophant brethren cringe.
Eldrosion
1. ” Gordon, I don’t think Bindidon disputes that conduction occurs in the atmosphere. ”
*
Conduction plays a negligible role (some speak about 2%, some say 5%).
Air is, I repeat it for the umpteenth time, one of the worst conductors.
Energy transfer from the surface happens through
– (1) evaporation, evapotranspiration
– (2) absorption of longwave radiation by molecules and subsequent heat transfer to molecules around them.
Convection is the major player of heat transfer within the lower atmosphere, as it transports sensible and latent heat fluxes; but it can of course only exist in the presence of heat.
The intentional overestimation of conduction (see for example the Pirani gauge syndrome) has as only goal to discredit the role of infrared absorption processes near the surface.
*
2. ” Energy cannot simply vanish, so what exactly do you mean by “dissipated” here? ”
Robertson really thinks that energy can disappear.
But… he thinks also that time does not exist, that GPS needs no relativistic corrections, and and and: the list is endless.
Stephen p anderson
I am not saying hemoglobin is rare inside red blood cells. The point was that hemoglobin is a small fraction of total body mass, yet it performs a critical function.
Likewise, CO2 is a small fraction of the atmosphere, but its climatic importance depends on its infrared ab.sorption properties, not its percentage.
Eldro,
The body is designed so that it has exactly what it needs to oxygenate the body. All mammals have almost the exact same amount. So tell me what is the exact right amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and what is the correct temperature for the planet? And tell me how you determined this.
Interesting question, but I don’t think there is a single “correct” atmospheric CO2 concentration or global mean temperature.
Even if there were some hypothetical optimum global mean temperature, we wouldn’t simply stop at that threshold.
At the current pace of global warming, we would rocket straight past any hypothetical optimum. There would be no lingering at some ideal climate.
We would overshoot it before we ever had the opportunity to experience it.
Gordo,
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn’t quite clear about Bindidumb’s argument about conduction and comparing air to copper. Surely he didn’t think I meant conducting heat all the way up into the atmosphere, gross conceptual error. Conduction occurs at the interface of the surface and atmosphere and then convection transports the heat up into the atmosphere because air isn’t a good conductor but it does convect well as all our forced air HVAC systems attest. If you think about it, he helped make my argument. The continuous drop in pressure causes the expansion of the rising air parcels and its energy is lost through pV work resulting in a drop in internal energy and temperature. Then the cooler, more dense air parcels can fall back down and displace the warmer air at the surface. This adheres to the lapse rate proof. GHT does not.
stephen…I agree with you completely. Binny and the alarmists simply don’t understand science that contradicts the so-called science from their authority figures.
I did not take you as implying air is a good conductor of heat, that was Binny’s misinterpretation. He completely misunderstood the science implied. I understood your example re Moana Loa from the start.
Stephen
” The continuous drop in pressure causes the expansion of the rising air parcels and its energy is lost through pV work resulting in a drop in internal energy and temperature. ”
No.
As the pressure drops the volume increases and the temperature drops.
The internal energy per kilogram of gas remains constant.
Immediate IR Emission and Reversed Milankovitch Cycle
The Immediate IR Emission overturns what Milankovitch Cycle’s prediction.
Instead of a natural cooling trend, Earth actually experiences a natural warming trend.
We explain about it further on down the page.
We should first, as we already started, to continue with the Rotational Warming Relationship.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
stephen p anderson
YOU: “The more you look at the SURFRAD data it is a joke. It is all processed data. You can make it look like anything you want. Your problem is these two differential equations, dCO2/dt=Inputs – Outputs, and dz/dp(dp/dt), falsify GHT and you know it. Why don’t you find another cause to put your silly beliefs behind?”
What do you think the raw data for SURFRAD instruments is?? It is some voltage or current change that is converted to meaningful information. If you were given a graph of current changes what do you do with it so of course all the data is processed into meaningful information like W/m^2 a value people can understand and use.
Here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/81/10/1520-0477_2000_081_2341_sansrb_2_3_co_2.pdf
Read a little, learn a little and quit being so ignorant and braindead. You act like a non-thinking fool! I was hoping some intelligence from you as you claim to have actually studied real science (unlike the clown Clint R or the crackpot Gordon Robertson that cannot learn any valid science. I have tried for years, these two clowns are immune to anything but repeating their nonsense for years!!!). We do not need another poster who pretends to know science and babbles nonsense!! If you are a thinking skeptic great, a right-wing political hack is not such a good skeptic. Such minds already believe all kinds of lies and false realities.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/
This article shows that SURFRAD closely monitors errors in the instruments, finds them and corrects them and reports them for the viewers of the data. They are actual diligent researchers with integrity. Since you are so used to being gullible and lied to, you are not able to understand that there are honest researchers out there doing their best to present a truthful representation.
I see you’re back with more insults and false accusations Norman. And, as usual, you’ve found some links you can’t understand.
Surfrad data are considered “direct measurements”. There’s nothing wrong with the data, it’s the interpretation of the data that is wrong. It’s just like looking at the Moon and realizing it always keeps one side facing Earth. The correct interpretation is then that Moon is NOT spinning. But cult kids are unable to figure it out.
Bindi’s bogus TOA nonsense is considered “indirect measurements”. They use programming to try to covert “spectral radiance” to flux, based on the assumption that Earth is a black body. That ain’t science.
No it’s not Norman who is ‘back with more insults and false accusations’; it’s actually, as usual, Clint R.
Clint R once more discredits hundreds of scientists, denigrating their work and accusing them of producing wrong evaluations of data – regardless which data it is and where it came from – and by the way, finally insulting them of manipulating the public by wrongly “converting ‘spectral radiance’ to flux – but without being himself able to technically let alone scientifically contradicting all that work.
Thus, according to Clint R, all evaluations of data measured worldwide (!) by pyranometers, pyrheliometers, pyrgeometers, Fourier-Transform spectrometers
– SURFRAD (7 stations in the US)
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/overview.html
– Baseline Surface Radiation Network (solar and terrestrial radiation measurements)
https://dataportals.pangaea.de/bsrn/?q=LR0100
– Outgoing Longwave radiation measured at ~850 km altitude aboard polar-orbiting satellites
– https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00875
are ALL, by magic, members of a giant deep state Conspiration aiming at manipulating the entire world.
**
This denigrating of science is exactly in the same vein as Clint R’s discrediting, denigrating and insulting as ASTROLOGERS (!) thousands of scientists specialized in astronomy and having successfully, for centuries, computed the period of our Moon’s rotation about its axis.
*
No one knows where Clint R’s hatred against so much science comes from, though he never has been nor will ever be able to contradict it.
All he is able to do is to endlessly repeat absolute childish nonsense like
” It’s just like looking at the Moon and realizing it always keeps one side facing Earth. The correct interpretation is then that Moon is NOT spinning. But cult kids are unable to figure it out. ”
*
The very best is that Isaac Newton himself has explained the lunar spin principle in his Principia, 18 years before Domenico Cassini – the French King Louis XIV’s Astronomer Royal – made the first demonstration of this spin, with an at that time amazing accuracy.
*
But people like Clint R, Robertson and a few other pseudoskeptics never admit being wrong. Never!
It’s not only Norman that uses the childish cult tactics, bindi. You’re right up there with him.
At least Norman sometimes attempts some science. You don’t. You have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You have no viable mechanism as to how CO2 can “warm the planet”. You’ve got NOTHING.
But you keep proving me right, so please continue.
“You’ve got NOTHING.”
Except for:
– SURFRAD (7 stations in the US)
– Baseline Surface Radiation Network (solar and terrestrial radiation measurements)
– Outgoing Longwave radiation measured at ~850 km altitude aboard polar-orbiting satellites
Eldro, your cult doesn’t even understand such data. I’ve done an exposé on the bogus “energy” balance.
Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1743800
I always keep it simple so even children can understand….
Thanks for confirming you have nothing.
stephen p anderson
On the previous thread I responded to your gullible acceptance of Edwin Berry CO2 conjecture.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1748398
You think researchers are liars but you accept, blindly and with no thought or logical reasoning, crackpot ideas peddled on the Internet.
Why are you so stuck in lunatic right-wing mentality when it is just a bunch of lies peddled by billionaires to keep growing wealth at the expense of everyone else. Are you in their class? Are you extremely wealthy? I am neither fanatic right (like you are) nor fanatic left (like you think I am). I like a balance. Somewhere in the middle not on the extreme edges. Why do you think Marxist philosophy took root?? It wasn’t because all was well with Capitalism. We have a modified Capitalistic system to try and keep some of the abuses of the system at bay. Read some history about working conditions in the US that caused the formation of Unions to help the common worker. Ignorance, like yours, will not create a better Union. Thinking and working together for some common good are what lead to better systems. When you have most the Capital in the hands of very few people, then you have lots of misery and anger.
stephen p anderson, why not take a break from fanatic thinking and read and learn and try to understand things. If you would attempt this you would be less gullible and many could contribute with actual good ideas on this blog instead of mindless promotion of crackpot theories that are very easy to dispute. We have the other two clowns. Two is company, three is a crowd.
Some reading for you, maybe you will be less fanatic if you take the time to read and understand the material.
https://library.norwood.vic.edu.au/c.php?g=944311&p=6839744
Renewable Energy in the UK is creating billionaires at the expense of the poor,billions of pounds of taxpayers money disappearing down a black hole ,a knee jerk reaction to a none problem
Norman,
Those two differential equations falsify GHT. There is nothing you can do about it. It is comical when you leftist lunatics call others lunatics. You can’t see the forest for the trees.
Norman,
Why do you hate Trump? Is it because he stands in the way of your radical utopian agenda? Where is your leftist utopia? Where has it ever been?
Norman,
When my grandfather came here from Italy he worked in the coal mines. The coal companies treated their employees well. They built housing for them, opened schools and stores for them, provided medical care for them, and on and on. He eventually opened his own business and provided goods and services to mine employees who were paid well. Ford employees didn’t get improved wages because of the union. It was because of Henry Ford. Unions are started by rabble rousing ne’er do wells with ties to Marxism. Unions don’t do anything for the employees. Employees usually end up worse. But the unions end up much better with their union dues. You are a sheep.
stephen p anderson
When did your Grandfather come over and start work in the coal mine industry?
Coal Mine Unions formed in 1890 because working conditions were so bad.
https://umwa.org/about/history/
https://energyhistory.yale.edu/coal-mining-and-labor-conflict/
Many people died in coal mines and people organized for better pay and working conditions.
So when did your Grandfather start work in the USA?
So, are you going to tell me about it? My family lived it. My grandfather came over about 1909 I believe. There was no union at the time. Many of the immigrants were provided housing, schools, etc. The unions took advantage during the depression in the 1930’s. My uncle was shot during a shootout between the coal company police and the union when he was trying to deliver groceries to the mining store. Not all the workers wanted union. The union intimidated, bullied, threatened. Typical Marxist tactics.
Norman,
So how do you improve the working conditions in a coal mine? It was in the company’s interests to have accidents and their employees die? That mining company would not survive. Idiotic. More propaganda.
I sold my soul to the company store. There is enough folk music to tell me that minors were treated badly, but better when unionized.
“Made good money, 5 dollars a day”
What a load of rose colored glasses memories of how well the mining companies treated their minors.
Found a Facebook thread where minors told how much they made. Union wages were higher. Plus union mines had better safety.
My first real job in 1984, I was paid better as a second year apprentice than most miners topped out at. Annual physicals and other testing to make sure the Mine Safety Appliances I sometimes needed would actually protect me.
eldrosion…”Gordon, I don’t think Bindidon disputes that conduction occurs in the atmosphere. I think he’d say that conduction, convection, and radiation all operate simultaneously and together determine how energy is transferred through the atmosphere”.
***
What Binny is saying is clear, he thinks that heat via conduction, molecule to molecule, in the atmosphere is trivial and it is trivial. And that includes any heat transfer from CO2 and WV molecules to other molecules. Heat transfer molecule to molecule in a gas via conduction is just not efficient between a low density gas and surrounding gases of much higher densities (% mass/unit volume).
However, he completely misses the point that air molecules are quite capable of absorbing heat directly from the surface via conduction and that amount of heat transfer is not trivial. In fact, it accounts for far more heat dissipation at the surface/atmosphere interface than does heat dissipation via radiation by a long shot. Furthermore, since nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the air in contact with the surface, the amount of heat transferred from the surface to the air is 99% due to N2 and O2.
Binny has taken shots at me for using the Pirani gauge to illustrate my point, as laid out by Shula. Again, he refuses to understand how the Pirani gauge works and how it measures the relative heat dissipation from a surface between radiation alone and heat dissipation when all three forms of transfer are present.
It is dead easy to understand. The Pirani gauge is a sealable glass tube containing a filament wire that can be electrically heated. It was originally designed to measure the level of vacuum in something like an electric light bulb since air in the tube can oxidize the tungsten filament causing its life to shorten dramatically. In vacuum tubes, any air left in the evacuated glass tube will interfere with electrons moving through the tube and if the tube has a grid, they accumulate at the grid causing the electron flow to stop.
If the tube is evacuated to the level of a vacuum, and the filament is heated electrically, the only means of dissipating heat from the filament is via radiation. The heat dissipation per unit time can be measured, giving you the rate at which heat is dissipated by radiation alone. If air is then introduced into the tube, the rate of heat dissipation can be measured again.
Shula found that with air in the tube, heat is dissipated 260 times faster than with radiation alone. It is obvious why, the air molecules in the tube are collecting heat directly from the filament and transferring it via convection to the glass tube cover where air molecules in contact with the glass envelop can transfer heat to the glass. Heat is transferred through the glass and dissipated via air molecules on the other side.
In our atmosphere other matters must be considered. If there was no convection, the air molecules in contact with the surface would remain at the same temperature as the surface causing thermal equilibrium. Little or no heat would be transferred, and as Lindzen claimed, the surface temperature would rise to 70C or so.
That does not happen because heated air does rise and as it rises, it is replaced by cooler air from above. That cycle keeps our surface temperature at a livable temperature. However, as it rises, it also cools. It has to since it is rising into less dense air at a lower temperature. If it rises high enough it has to peter out almost altogether, which I call a literal disappearance of heat.
Anyone can argue that the heat does not disappear altogether but I call that reasoning pretty idealistic. If the surface air at sea level is 20C and the same air at 30,000 feet is now -40C, I regard that has a rather complete dissipation of heat. The heat that created a temperature of 20C at the surface does not have to be returned to space in any form.
Gordon,
Not dissipated but converted to potential energy.
Some of it is converted to potential energy due to gravity but some of it is dissipated through pV work. There is a drop in internal energy.
There you go again, Ark — cherry-picking quotes, not realizing Graham later came to his senses.
https://youtu.be/4-03PitO0ZE?t=264
RIP Lady G.
You will be missed, but not by me.
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
Droege,
How do you go from serving on submarines to a Marxist? Staggers the imagination.
That’s much better, Ark. Graham effectively admitted he didn’t understand the science. So there’s no need to try to use him to support your cult nonsense.
That just makes you look desperate….
I’m really surprised at you two. I didn’t think you two were devoid of a conscience. You probably cheered at Kirk’s assassination and would do the same if something happened to Trump.
I did not know who Charlie Kirk was when he was murdered.
But anyone who thinks women should be homebound, pregnant, and submissive to their husbands needs to be expelled from a freedom loving country.
Anyone who believes victims of race should have to keep the baby is not anywhere remotely near being a good person.
Funny how money always rears it’s ugly head, trillions wasted world wide with effect,
https://youtu.be/YYoJ73reLcs
Renewable Energy in the UK is creating billionaires at the expense of the poor,billions of pounds of taxpayers money disappearing down a black hole ,a knee jerk reaction to a none problem
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The country is in the midst of a nationwide outbreak of explosive diarrhea caused by a parasite the CDC stopped surveilling at the federal level in July 2025.
That’s around the same time Donald thugs began haphazardly attacking and defunding federal health and science agencies under the guise of “government efficiency,” with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. separately also pushing out critical federal scientists and researchers.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cdc-stopped-monitoring-diarrhea-parasite_n_6a51348fe4b057296980d94b
MAGA’s anti-Enlightenment era: Congratulations! We’re debating settled science while the planet rapidly heats up and preventable diseases get a second chance.
Eldro,
Have you ever had any science classes? If you had a good science teacher in sixth grade you would have learned that there is no such thing as settled science.
Troglodyte,
Have you ever taken any psychology classes?
Had you a decent father you’d realize you’re just a crank:
https://bsky.app/profile/circlesspinning.bsky.social/post/3mpuhmethsc2w
I didn’t become interested in AGW until 2018, so I only recently came across what seemed to be a fairly common argument among technically inclined climate skeptics about 15 years ago. It also seems to have largely fallen by the wayside.
The argument was that rapid collisional de-excitation prevents atmospheric CO2 from emitting significant IR because collisions occur much faster than spontaneous emission.
I’m curious how many skeptics today understand that argument.
How, exactly, is the equilibrium population of vibrationally excited CO2 molecules maintained in the atmosphere if collisional de-excitation is much faster than spontaneous emission?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Mamdani asked New Yorkers to keep air conditioning at 78 degrees. A wave criticism hit online.
A MSNBC broadcast pointed out the US Department of Energy recommends that 78 degree figure.
Immediately after, the US Department of Energy deleted 6,000 web pages related to energy saving.
https://www.theverge.com/policy/961449/white-house-mamdani-heatwave-deletion
Thanks.
The DoE’s next step is clear: threatening the people behind the Wayback Machine with a $10 billion lawsuit if they do not delete the content of
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/*
[“poorly thought studies of the effects of uhi creating errors in compilation of mean global surface station temperatures due to non-representative data collection.”]
The UHI argument has been around for a long time in the skeptic blogosphere. The claim is that expanding urbanization has artificially inflated global surface temperature records, such that the true amount of warming is considerably smaller than the major datasets suggest.
It is an appealing argument because, at face value, it seems perfectly reasonable. But once you look beyond land based thermometers and consider the broader body of evidence, it quickly falls apart. Bindidon and Eldrosion have already made good arguments against the UHI hypothesis, and I’d like to add another independent line of evidence.
Consider Arctic sea ice.
June 2026 Arctic sea ice extent was 1.51 million km^2 below the 1979 – 2005 June average. Using the 1979 – 2005 June distribution, that’s a Z-score of about −4.2 (an extraordinarily large departure that would be very unlikely in an unchanging climate).
By itself, that does not identify the cause of the warming, but it does demonstrate that the Arctic has undergone substantial physical change that cannot be explained by urban heat islands affecting land thermometers.
In fact, the retreat became so pronounced that a paper published in May of 2007 by polar climate scientist Julienne Stroeve concluded that observed September Arctic sea ice was declining faster than any of the IPCC AR4 climate model simulations. They said that the amount of late summer sea ice observed in 2006 was around what the average AR4 model projected about 30 yrs later:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007gl029703
The authors had to consider the possibility that the climate models underestimated the response of Arctic sea ice to external forcing.
None of this has anything to do with urban thermometers.
Whether modern warming is unprecedented can be debated, but the notion that the warming has been insignificant is difficult to reconcile.
Yep.
Global average surface temperature warming seems to be one of their ultimate weaknesses:
“Climate deniers hate the surface temperature data sets, but they love to insult ’em. That’s because they show how much the globe has warmed … and that’s something deniers don’t want to admit, not even to themselves. They live in denial of it. They’ll do almost anything to minimize and/or discredit it.”
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/people-of-the-land/
Now the UHI argument has descended into one of their recurring zombie arguments.
Eldro,
Is it at all possible that CO2 increase is due to temperature increase?
As late David Bellamy would have said,poppycock.if your sure you are right, tell us the temperature for one day anywhere on Earth during the medieval warm period, or any other warm period,
Holy Meteorological Fallacy, Bat Ian!
Stephen
“Is it at all possible that CO2 increase is due to temperature increase? ”
Yes. At the start of the Holocene changes in Milankovich cycles increased global temperature by 1.2C. This caused CO2 concentration to increase from 200ppm to 280ppm, which in turn amplified the temperature increase from 1.2C to 5C.
Eldro,
So, the 1.2C temperature increase caused CO2 to increase from 200 to 280ppm, which in turn caused temperature to increase an additional 5C. Then why didn’t the additional 5C cause CO2 to increase more?
Kynqora,
That’s kind of a strawman argument. I don’t think anyone is saying all the warming is due to UHI.
Some of these comments here are rather humorous. Is science real? What does the science say? Climate change is real and already happening. Surface warming is faster than atmospheric warming because the earth actually is burning up. The deniers are wrong — it is a crisis. Blah Blah Blah
Where is the rational argument that China is concerned about contributing fully 1/3 of all greenhouse gas emissions? What impact is there that China has more than half of all wind and solar panel capacity in the world? When is Germany ready to admit that shutting down nuclear power was a dumb idea or that buying natural gas from Russia is a bad situation? What about the rest of Europe being long on rhetoric and short on rational decision making.
On the humorous side, it is not just lithium batteries that catch on fire. Solar panels are a fire hazard and almost impossible to put out. Sales of EVs are dropping like a rock and all of the major automakers — except Chinese — are reporting multi-billion dollar loses on their EV programs.
The fact is that most people are rational, and Capitalism is still alive — at least for now. Whether climate change is real or not does not matter when most rational people are making a purchasing decision. Most people can tell the difference between hype and a genuine emergency.
End of rant.
” Most people can tell the difference between hype and a genuine emergency.”
Tim S, I disagree. Whether people perceive something as an emergency isn’t a reliable measure of whether it actually is one.
Human psychology, economics, and politics all tend to prioritize immediate costs and benefits over those that unfold gradually or lie further in the future.
That’s the central concern with climate change.
The issue isn’t whether today’s impacts feel like an emergency to most people, but where the current warming trajectory leads over the coming decades and centuries.
People naturally discount risks that develop slowly, even when the long term consequences are substantial.
You post hype to claim there is no hype. Got it!
The only thing that is scientifically proven to date, is that CO2 is increasing and the earth is in a mild warming period for reasons that cannot be reliably attributed to any one of many possible causes. Everything else is speculation, exaggeration, and hype with no quantifiable harm or consequence to anything. People like myself who have taken the time to study the issue, realize that all of the claims of extreme future events have proven wrong, and all of the claims such as weather extremes are hype.
In the next 20 to 30 years, when all of the competing theories have run out, it might be possible to quantify the true effect of increasing CO2. Computer simulations based on circular logic are not that proof. In the mean time, the IPCC RCPs clearly show that everyone who is rational can sit back and wait to see what happens. The biggest hype of them all is that “we must act now to stop the worst effects of climate change”. That is total bull crap because the rest of the world is not listening and does care. They are going to keep on burning fossil fuels not to live comfortably, but to survive.
What has been scientifically proven is that increased CO2 helps plants.
stephen…CO2 helps humans stay alive, if we don’t exhale it, we die.
Imagine several billion humans continually venting CO2 from one end and methane from the other.
Too much information!!!
Then there are countless billion animals doing the same. Of course, the alarmist solution is to get rid of all life on the planet, like humans. Some of them have actually said that humans are the problem on Earth. Good old Nazis.
Yeah, good point.
Kyngora:
“Consider Arctic sea ice.
June 2026 Arctic sea ice extent was 1.51 million km^2 below the 1979 – 2005 June average. Using the 1979 – 2005 June distribution, that’s a Z-score of about −4.2 (an extraordinarily large departure that would be very unlikely in an unchanging climate).”
–
Global warming is orbitally forced, it doesn’t happen because of fossil fuels burning.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…Kyngora seems to be missing the real cause of sea ice variations in the Arctic ocean. There are two main ocean phenomena, the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift. The gyre is a circular event that causes Arctic sea ice to compact and expand, making accurate measurements essentially impossible. It also moves the compacted ice around, leaving space between the northern Canadian coast while pushing it against Siberia, or vice versa.
In the 1940s, Captain Henry Larsen sailed the RCMP cutter, St. Roch, through the Northwest Passage both ways, from Vancouver to Halifax and back. On the way east, it took them nearly two years due to compacting sea ice hemming them in along the north coast of Canada. On the way back two years later, they sailed straight through in 86 days.
The Vancouver Maritime Museum, where the St. Roch is currently stored, are trying to retell that story from an Inuit perspective. Is nothing sacred these days, is nothing safe from political correctness?
How do you accurately measure sea ice extent when it is always compacting and expanding naturally?
Furthermore, there is a problem with vertical ice stacking, called pressure ridges. As the ice moves around, sheets of ice tend to rise on top of other sheets (ice rafting). Some sheets are 10 feet thick!!! Eventually, this rafting can increase in vertical height to reach 40 feet or more. Google AI estimates that such vertical ridges account for 30 to 40% of the sea ice area and nearly 50% of the sea ice volume.
These ridges are fairly constant in places as explorers traveling on foot from the northern Canadian coast to the North Pole know only too well. They must cross these ridges one after the other with all their equipment and at times the ridges are only separated by short distances. Once formed, they don’t seem to go away.
The Transpolar Drift is responsible for dumping sea ice into the Atlantic Ocean. How much it can dump is obviously related to how much the ice has expanded due to the Beaufort Gyre.
Blaming sea ice extent on a trace gas is pretty silly.
Of course.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
New DSA policy platform:
-Eliminate the US Senate
-Replace the President and the Supreme Court with an Executive and Judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress
-Amnesty for all immigrants
-Defund the Department of War
Leftists hate themselves; they hate people, their minds are so twisted with hate that the want all traces of mankind destroyed.
eldrosion posts this propaganda from Tamino, the alarmist mathematician.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/people-of-the-land/
It shows a relatively flat trend for 2000 years, with seriously generous error bars, then a sudden surge over the last 1000 years or so.
And where did he get the data? Hadcrut temperature fudging has not been around that long. Their modern units date back no further than 1970. It appears our mathematician, like Michael Mann of hockey stick fame, has no problem splicing one data set onto another even if neither is related.
Why is this propaganda? There is no indication of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. The MWP was so warm that Vikings moved to Greenland and were able to farm. The LIA drove them out, that’s how cold it got, some 1C to 2C below normal.
The red curve near the end that Tamino so ridiculously depicts as real, is actually a recovery from the LIA, which he failed to show. How convenient!!!
Had he shown the LIA, the curve would have dipped from about 1300 AD down 1C to 2C, which would have taken it off the bottom of the page, then the recovery would make sense. But hey, alarmists don’t like to destroy their propaganda with fact.
Had he shown the MWP, the warming he is fretting about would be on par with the warming of the MWP, then the curve would have been normal.
When Tamino claims the red curve is not normal, he means his propaganda is not normal.
Tamino’s figure is based on the PAGES 2k global reconstruction, which combines proxy records from every inhabited continent and the oceans, not just Greenland or Europe.
The MWP and LIA do appear in the reconstruction, but they were not globally synchronous events. Greenland’s climate history is not the same thing as global climate history.
Also, there is nothing improper about splicing the instrumental record onto a proxy reconstruction when the reconstruction has been calibrated and validated against the instrumental period.
You describe it all as alarmist propaganda, but the evidence points to a climate that is changing in ways that are genuinely concerning.
A more precise view at PAGES2k, made some years ago
1. The time series
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view
2. A compariosn of its end to contemporary data (HadCRUT, UAH LT)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view
(The comparison using HadCRUT is similar to that using the global time series of Japan’s Met Agency.)
Economic irony of the year: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-us-will-control-strait-hormuz-get-paid-it-2026-07-13/
If this policy permanently or even persistently raises the cost of transporting oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz by imposing a 20% transit charge, it would likely:
1/ Increase global crude oil and LNG prices.
2/ Raise the prices of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, petrochemicals, fertilizers, and many manufactured goods.
3/ Increase inflationary pressure across much of the world.
Higher fossil-fuel prices generally improve the economics of alternatives such as wind and solar power, electric vehicles, heat pumps, battery storage, and energy efficiency investments.
So, you thought renewable energy tax credits, research funding, emissions regulations, or clean-energy legislation were too expensive, but this is fine.
Robertson again and again bores us with long, long, long posts whose content is always inversely proportional to their size.
Let’s give an answer as concise as possible.
*
1. “However, he completely misses the point that air molecules are quite capable of absorbing heat directly from the surface via conduction and that amount of heat transfer is not trivial.
In fact, it accounts for far more heat dissipation at the surface/atmosphere interface than does heat dissipation via radiation by a long shot.
Furthermore, since nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the air in contact with the surface, the amount of heat transferred from the surface to the air is 99% due to N2 and O2. ”
*
As usual, Robertson claims things he never would ever be able to technically let alone scientifically prove, let alone to disprove the actually existing findings, namely that conduction accounts for at best 5%; the rest is 50% by evaporation and evapotranspitration and 45% by radiation.
*
2. ” Shula found that with air in the tube, heat is dissipated 260 times faster than with radiation alone. It is obvious why, the air molecules in the tube are collecting heat directly from the filament and transferring it via convection to the glass tube cover where air molecules in contact with the glass envelop can transfer heat to the glass. Heat is transferred through the glass and dissipated via air molecules on the other side. ”
*
Robertson is so profoundly ignorant, stubborn, and fixated on his own opinion that he fails to grasp this: if Pirani gauges were a suitable instrument for comparing heat conduction, convection, and radiation outside the laboratory, then all those funding climate change denial (starting with the super-billionaires at Koch Inc.) would — naturally —have financed the development and global installation of such devices, with the obvious aim of refuting the findings regarding radiation.
*
The scientific work of a group of genuine skeptics from 2012 best illustrates the actual significance of radiation.
They conducted a highly nuanced analysis of so-called “collision-induced absorption” (CIA).
This phenomenon arises when N2 and O2 molecules — which are physically incapable of absorbing infrared radiation on their own — exhibit signs of slight absorption during collisions with molecules having absorbing infrared (such as H2O, CO2, etc).
However, the group points out that the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) resulting from CIA involving N2 and O2, amounts to a maximum of 0.11 (N2) + 0.05 (O2) = 0.16 W/m² — a figure to be compared with 67.77 (H2O) + 23.04 (CO2) + 6.45 (O3) + 1.60 (N2O) + 1.55 (CH4) = 100.41 W/m², i.e. over 600 times more than by the N2/O2 pair.
*
The paper:
The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)
M. Höpfner & al. (2012)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409
*
Compared to such excellent work, Shula’s superficial Pirani gauge blah blah sounds simply ashaming.
Gordo,
That’s pretty interesting about Shula’s Pirani gauge. So Bindidumb endorses pyrgeometers but not Pirani gauges. Both work essentially the same way but somehow Bindidumb thinks one is bad science and the other is good science. Bindidumb thinks pyrgeometers are settled science and Pirani gauges are not settled scienced.
Bindi has found a resource that indicates how N2 and O2 act as insulation, thus stabilizing Earth’s temperature. That’s just one more “nail in the coffin” for the CO2 nonsense.
But don’t expect the cult kids to understand….
Clint R
Nitrogen and oxygen only isulate the atmosphere from the surface since air is a very poor conductor. They do nothing to reduce the IR emitted by the surface!! Again tell me what science courses you have taken. You do not understand heat transfer at all but pretend to have knowledge of the topic. I have doubts you ever took one actual science course and if you did you failed out and that would explain your disdain for valid, experimentally verified science based upon rational logical thinking. You show zero logic ability and you have yet to link to any valid science that remotely supports your endless nomsense!!
I think the vast majority of posters here no you will NEVER support any of your claims with real science.
Well, would you look at that!
Clint R is so incompetent in his ignorance that he doesn’t even notice the difference between
0.16 watts/m²
and
100.41 watts/m²
*
So, to him, these values are the same—even though they differ by a factor of more than 600.
That’s roughly like equating geothermal energy (~0.1 watts/m²) with absorbed solar radiation (~240 watts/m²).
That’s just how the Clint Rs of the world are.
Norman,your first sentence makes no sense. After that, it’s just your usual insults and false accusations.
I had hopes for you, but at some point I just have to admit your you’re lost.
Clint R
Not that hard to understand. Air is a poor conductor of heat. The atmosphere extends upwards for miles. The Earth surface is directly heated by solar energy. Air being a poor conductor limits greatly how much heat conducts from surface into atmosphere. Convection, evaporation, and radiant energy are the primary cooling process for surface. What insulating effect does N2 and O2 perform? The surface heats up the near surface air but it does not seem to keep the surface warm at night. I cannot understand why you think your clown ideas are valid!
Also i am NOT giving false accusations! You have never provided valid science for your BS nonsense!! You still will not provide any. You never do but you know how to babble about insults and false accusations.
Would it not be far more productive to link to valid science instead of whining?? We know the answer to that. You need to whine and cry since it is easier for an ignorant like you to cry than provide valid evidence.
All wrong Bindi, as usual.
I never said anything against the study. It’s pretty solid science. It clearly shows that CO2 15μ photons have little impact on N2 and O2. That’s what I’ve been saying.
Rather than you, Norman, and the other cult kids, always trying to falsely accuse me, why not try to learn some science? For example, you’ve been unable to provide a viable model for “orbiting without spin’, for years. Why not learn? Why wallow in your ignorance?
You’re never to old to learn, unless you’ve got dementia….
Norman, your first attempt was largely incoherent. Your second attempt was somewhat better, especially because it showed your inability to reason:
You asked, “What insulating effect does N2 and O2 perform?”
Just after providing the answer, “Air being a poor conductor limits greatly how much heat conducts from surface into atmosphere.”
After making a fool of yourself, you went on with your childish false accusations.
Grow up.
“It clearly shows that CO2 15μ photons have little impact..”
Sorry to repeat for the umpteenth time:
There are no such things as “CO2 15μ photons”
You cling to this fantasy like a child does with his belief in Santa Claus.
Don’t be sorry, stu. You’re here to be an uneducated childish stalker.
And, you’re doing a great job….
Norman,
Air doesn’t have to be a great conductor of heat to do its job. It just has to be able to conduct heat. We don’t need copper atoms floating around in the atmosphere for heat to be conducted. Air is the perfect medium for our planet. It provides life giving gases, acts as an insulator, acts as a conductor, provides pressure, etc. etc. Air is perfect the way God designed it.
[BINNY] Bordo again and again bores us with long, long, long posts whose content is always inversely proportional to their size.
[PUFFMAN] Binny has found a resource that indicates how N2 and O2 act as insulation
[ALSO PUFFMAN] Don’t be sorry… You’re here to be an uneducated childish stalker.
No wonder Puffman got banned a few times already.
It is typical of the pseudo-skeptics who infest this blog that
(1) they fundamentally twist and misrepresent everything one writes;
(2) they brazenly twist reality such that it matches their narrative.
*
(1) ” So Bindidumb endorses pyrgeometers but not Pirani gauges.
…
Bindidumb thinks pyrgeometers are settled science and Pirani gauges are not settled scienced. ”
*
Nowhere did I ever discredit Pirani gauges; I merely criticized many times their incredibly incompetent and unscientific misuse by Pseuodo-Skeptics who brazenly try to turn them into useful tools for comparison of sources transporting energy from the surface up to the lower atmosphere -what they are not at all.
(2) ” Both work essentially the same way but somehow Bindidumb thinks one is bad science and the other is good science. ”
This is an absolute lie: Pyrgeometers and Pirani gauges don not have ANYTHING in common.
They measure completely different things on the base of completely different methods, techniques and instruments.
About Pyrgeometers
https://www.hukx.com/products/solar-radiation-sensors/pyrgeometers
About Pirani and other vacuum gauges
https://www.lesker.com/newweb/pressuremeasurement.cfm?section=piranigauges
*
What else could you expect from people insulting you as Nazi just because you technically contradict their ignorant nonsense?
**
Anderson can name call mi ‘Bindidumb’ as long as he wants; this does not make him looking clever.
*
Thus I repeat extra for him:
Anderson is so profoundly ignorant, stubborn, and fixated on his own opinion that he fails to grasp this: if Pirani gauges were a suitable instrument for comparing heat conduction, convection, and radiation outside the laboratory, then all those funding climate change denial (starting with the super-billionaires at Koch Inc.) would — naturally — have financed the development and global installation of such devices, with the obvious aim of refuting the findings regarding radiation.
Wow, Bindidumb has bolden his text. He must be serious. Both sensors work on the principle of thermal conductivity. Both sensors have metal elements that produce a current. But Bindidumb has decided they have nothing in common and if Bindidumb says so then it must be true because Bindidumb is the ultimate arbiter of science. The Koch brothers don’t need to spend billions of dollars falsifying GHT with a Pirani gauge because it looks like Mr. Shula has already done so with this simple experiment using a metal element that measures thermal conductivity (sounds like a thermocouple to me). Thanks Gordo. But Mr. Shula didn’t need to because the lapse rate and Berry’s model already mathematically falsify GHT.
Stephen p anderson
Bindidon is quire correct. The two instruments are designed for totally different functions and employ different materials for their respective operations. Get your Grade “A” brain on and think! The Pirani gauge has a heated element held at constant temperature so radiant energy is a constant. Also the filament uses a super low emissivity material (like polished gold or platinum) as a material with high emissivity would greatly reduce the sensitivity od the instrument as radiant energy loss would interfere with loss by conduction.
In the pyrgeometer they use dome material that is transparent to IR band. The detector material is painted with Parson’s black material that has an emissivity of 0.98 so it will absotb almost the entire band of IR that reaches it.
The two have opposite materials for detection. Pirani gauges use a detector that emits very poorly in IR bands and the pyrgeometer uses exactly opposite material to maxize IR absorb!
Thanks to Norman for having anticipated what was to be replied to the Anderson ignoramus, who – of course intentionally – diluted huge differences between pyrgeometers and Pirani gauges into
” Both sensors work on the principle of thermal conductivity. ”
following the pseudoskeptic rule ‘Keep it simple, Stupid’.
**
This reminds me Robertson, Clint R and a few other geniuses claiming that the Moon cannot spin because it shows us all time the same face.
**
A pyrgeometer measures downward and upward longwave radiation from the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.
A Pirani gauge determines low gas pressure in a vacuum system by monitoring how much heat is conducted away from a heated filament by the surrounding gas.
*
But this is not the major aspect of Anderson’s stupid denial attitude.
It is here:
” The Koch brothers don’t need to spend billions of dollars falsifying GHT with a Pirani gauge because it looks like Mr. Shula has already done so with this simple experiment using a metal element that measures thermal conductivity… ”
*
Why?
Simply because if someone had for example verified GHT by ‘already doing so with a simple experiment’, you can be 100% sure that
– Robertson soon would have ranted against the result like a toro chasing the torero’s muleta in a Spanish corrida
and that
– Anderson would have 100% endorsed Robertson’s ranting.
But… Shula’s simple experiment is for the Cosa Nostra, hence automatically right.
*
Anderson can’t manage to understand that conduction from the surface to air indeed takes place!
But only within a few millimeter thick layer above it (except arid deserts – 8% of the Globe’s total surface – where the layer extends up to one or two dozens of centimeters).
This is the sensible heat flux: about 5% of the total energy transferred from the surface to the lowest atmosphere; the remaining 95% are:
– latent heat flux by evaporation and evapotranspiration over the oceans (50%)
– absorption, reemission of infrared radiation by H2O, CO2 etc, and energy transfer by collision with nearby molecules (45%, 0.03% of that due to N2/O2’s ‘Collision Induced Absorption’).
*
Shula’s smalltalk about the Pirani vacuum gauge was nothing more than a mirage that was circulated a few years ago on Heartland’s Voix de son Maître WUWT.
*
Of course: Anderson won’t spend a minute in reading this:
The Human Contribution to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
How Human Emissions Are Restoring Vital Atmospheric CO2
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Human-Contribution-to-Atmospheric-CO2-digital-compressed.pdf
*
That might help him a bit, however.
I forgot to add in my last comment that it is the very first time I post a link to a paper hosted at ‘co2coalition.org’.
However, the report prepared by Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton was well impressive enough to keep my aversion in check this time.
It is remarkable that this:
“However, the group points out that the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) resulting from CIA involving N₂ and O₂ amounts to a maximum of 0.11 (N2) + 0.05 (O2) = 0.16 W/m² — a figure to be compared with 67.77 (H2O) + 23.04 (CO2) + 6.45 (O3) + 1.60 (N2O) + 1.55 (CH4) = 100.41 W/m², i.e. over 600 times more than by the N2/O2 pair.”
was met with this response:
“Bindi has found a resource that indicates how N₂ and O₂ act as insulation, thus stabilizing Earth’s temperature. That’s just one more ‘nail in the coffin’ for the CO2 nonsense.
But don’t expect the cult kids to understand….”
To the silent readers: do you think making a reply like this, presumably to provoke, is worth the cost in credibility? And not just the credibility of the person posting it, but also that of climate skeptics by association?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
I empathize with Roy Spencer.
There are so many cult kids obsessed with me!
If they had any money, I’d start a paypal account….
Thermometers cannot measure outdoors air temperature. Neither the stratospheric air temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The irony is that if fossil-fuel prices are driven high enough -whether by climate policy, geopolitical conflict, or tariffs and transit fees- they make renewable energy more economically attractive. That’s what decades of economic analysis would predict.
It also reminds me of implicatory denial: people may fully understand the facts but avoid acting because accepting their implications is psychologically or politically uncomfortable. It’s like the patient who knows for years that a healthier lifestyle is necessary, does nothing, and eventually faces far more painful and costly options. At that point, the problem isn’t a lack of information, it’s the consequences of having postponed action.
If higher oil prices end up accelerating the energy transition, it would be an ironic case where market forces accomplish what many people resisted doing voluntarily.
One of the many flaws in the bogus “energy” budget is the omission of consideration for both solar panels and wind turbines.
The “energy” budget is only part of the hoax, which starts with the inability to provide a viable mechanism for CO2 “heating the planet”.
It isn’t an irony. That is the way it should happen. The free market is much more efficient than government.
Stephen p anderson,
There are disadvantages to free markets. One is that markets do not automatically account for costs imposed on third parties. For example, a coal plant pays for its fuel and labor, but the climate and public health costs of its emissions may fall on everyone else.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/negative-externality
Eldro,
The government is always the last bad actor. Is it in the interest of coal plants to make their customers ill? Or their employees sick? Or to pollute the air or environment? That’s why we have a free press. But politicians always want to get involved to make themselves the hero. Government is rarely the best solution and almost always the worst last solution after the problem is usually solved.
Stephen, many major US environmental regulations enacted in the 1970s produced substantial public health and environmental benefits.
The Clean Air Act significantly reduced emissions of major air pollutants.
The Clean Water Act also improved water quality in many rivers and lakes by regulating industrial discharges and supporting wastewater treatment infrastructure.
So the claim that government intervention is “rarely the best solution” is an overstatement.
“Is it in the interest of coal plants to make their customers ill? Or their employees sick? Or to pollute the air or environment? ”
No, that is an unintended consequence, of course.
Eldro,
The act created the EPA. It was kind of after the fact. Government’s solution always seems to be to create a large behemoth to solve a problem. Now the EPA has 12000 employees and an $8.8 billion dollar budget and have now determined CO2 is a pollutant, ridiculous. They were already developing the catalytic converter and taking steps to remove lead from gasoline. Now we have this list of hundreds of pollutants that this “Agency” regulates.
Eldrosion,
The clean air act helped so did consumer choice.
The totally hypocrisy from you is expected when you defend the point that CO2 is a pollutant.
Have you stopped breathing yet? Of course not.
Do you really think that all the CO2 you are responsible for is a better type of CO2 from anyone else? If you df o then explain how the chemical reactions are different.
Testing
binny…”if Pirani gauges were a suitable instrument for comparing heat conduction, convection, and radiation outside the laboratory…”
***
It’s not only a suitable instrument, it’s the only instrument that can directly measure the effectiveness of radiation versus conduction/convection as a heat dissipation mechanism. The Pirani gauge is perfectly suited for such measurement since it can operate in a vacuum to measure the heat dissipating effect of radiation directly as well as measuring the same dissipation effect with a gas involved.
Anyone with a basic science background can easily understand why. Heat can only exist in a gas, a solid, or a liquid. It cannot exist in a vacuum since it needs mass to exist. To transfer heat through a vacuum, heat must be converted to electromagnetic energy, a form of energy that has nothing in common with heat. EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has a frequency. Heat has neither.
The fact that Binny, and his buddy Norman, are arguing this point reveals clearly that their understanding of science is limited. Binny simply cannot grasp the elegance of the Pirani gauge, and based on my experience with him over the years, it is more likely that the Pirani gauge defeats his alarmist defense so completely that he can only rave against it.
That is why I began calling him an idiot. He is willing to use bluster, ad homs, and insults in lieu of hard science.
What I wrote to Robertson’s buddy Anderson is of course valid for Robertsonhimself:
1. A pyrgeometer measures downward and upward longwave radiation from the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.
A Pirani gauge determines low gas pressure in a vacuum system by monitoring how much heat is conducted away from a heated filament by the surrounding gas.
*
But this is not the major aspect of Anderson’s stupid denial attitude.
It is here:
” The Koch brothers don’t need to spend billions of dollars falsifying GHT with a Pirani gauge because it looks like Mr. Shula has already done so with this simple experiment using a metal element that measures thermal conductivity… ”
*
Why?
Simply because if someone had for example verified GHT by ‘already doing so with a simple experiment’, you can be 100% sure that
– Robertson soon would have ranted against the result like a toro chasing the torero’s muleta in a Spanish corrida
and that
– Anderson would have 100% endorsed Robertson’s ranting.
But… Shula’s simple experiment is for the Cosa Nostra, hence automatically right.
**
2. Anderson can’t manage to understand that conduction from the surface to air indeed takes place!
But only within a few millimeter thick layer above it (except arid deserts – 8% of the Globe’s total surface – where the layer extends up to one or two dozens of centimeters).
This is the sensible heat flux: about 5% of the total energy transferred from the surface to the lowest atmosphere; the remaining 95% are:
– latent heat flux by evaporation and evapotranspiration over the oceans (50%)
– absorption, reemission of infrared radiation by H2O, CO2 etc, and energy transfer by collision with nearby molecules (45%, 0.03% of that due to N2/O2’s ‘Collision Induced Absorption’).
*
Shula’s smalltalk about the Pirani vacuum gauge was nothing more than a mirage that was circulated a few years ago on Heartland’s Voix de son Maître WUWT.
*
The opinionated, stubborn Ignoramus-in-chief Robertson can insult me ‘idiot’ as long as he wants.
I know it’s too much for him to spend time to READ the following document (i.e. instead of merely scanning it for things he dislikes), but it might help him a bit too:
A Composite-Type MEMS Pirani Gauge for Wide Range and High Accuracy
Shuo Chen & al. (2023)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9921686/
Bindidumb,
And you deny the lapse rate falsifies GHT. What a pyrgeometer or a pirani gauge does is immaterial. dCO2/dt = Input – Output and the chain rule differential dz/dp(dp/dt) falsify GHT. So, what SURFRAD does, or NOAA does or IPCC does is irrelevant you ignorant, stubborn, dummkopf.
Bindidumb,
No one ever said conduction doesn’t occur at the surface. It occurs in unison with convection. Air is moving along the surface, heat is transferred through conduction, the air molecules move away and are replaced by more air molecules. It is a continuous process. The fact that those two differential equations falsify GHT tells us that something else besides radiative heat transfer is occurring. SB blackbody radiation in a vacuum is not what is occurring.
Stephen p anderson
You are wrong! The SURFRAD data clearly shows GHE! Edwin Berry is wrong on the most basic level of simple logic! The amont of CO2 added by human emission a year is reduced by 1/2. This means sinks for CO2 like the ocean are NOT currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere! If they were the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels would not go down but actually would increase. Time for you to start thinking and quit mindlessly posting garbage right-wing propaganda! Posting nonsense that is logically invalid does nothing to support your integrity!!
On the lapse rate, the pressure equations determine the amount of lapse rate not the cause!! The cause is a temperature gradient caused by solar heating of the surface!
I have given you many links on the lapse rate and what produces it. Read them and relearn how to think for yourself! Now you just parrot lunatic right-wing talking points and display zero thinking on your part!! You almost sound like twins of the two other ignorants Clint R (who posts nonsense endlessly to get reactions) and Gordon Robertson who is incapable of learning and repeats his talking point for years even when they are easy to disprove wrong. Gordon ignores all evidence and minlessly repeats same things over and over!
Norman, like some petulant child, you cannot eat, sleep, or breathe without insulting me. You’re clearly obsessed with me. And it’s only because I bring the reality that nukes your cult beliefs. You should not be so triggered by basic reality. It’s not healthy.
Get professional help.
Norman,
They can make it show anything they want. But we know the lapse rate falsifies GHE.
stephen p anderson
YOU: “They can make it show anything they want. But we know the lapse rate falsifies GHE.”
How do you figure that “they” make it show anything they want??? What evidence do you have to support this demented conclusion??
Also I would like you to prove that a steady pressure is what causes the lapse rate, not the amount, but the actual cause. Just find one valid source like a textbook on meteorology. I have given you many links that show that is not the case at all. The amount of lapse rate is what is determined by the equation this does not make the claim that a constant pressure causes the lapse rate!
You’re not making any sense. Pressure changes with altitude. I linked the proof of the lapse rate. Even you should be able to follow it.
The fact is that the Earth’s can only lose energy by radiation. The misuse of a Pirani gage does not change that.
I don’t know if it was a misuse of the Pirani gauge or not. Still pretty interesting.
Norman,
It seems you love to attack Ed Berry. What about his model do you disagree with? Let’s start with rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere is described by dCO2/dt = Inputs – Outputs (continuity equation). Do you agree?
norman…”Air is a poor conductor of heat. The atmosphere extends upwards for miles. The Earth surface is directly heated by solar energy. Air being a poor conductor limits greatly how much heat conducts from surface into atmosphere”.
***
Are you trying to claim that a heated surface cannot transfer heat to air directly by conduction, or to any gas? Are you trying to claim that air directly in contact with a heated surface is not at the same temperature as the air, or gas?
Of course it is. The heat from any surface is conducted directly to any gas. After conduction, and after the surface air has warmed, the air then rises via convection. The meaning is clear. The heat transferred from surface to air is then transferred through the atmosphere by vertical convection.
If you think this is wrong then hold your hand close to a 100 watt incandescent light bulb. What you feel is air heated directly by the light bulb. The amount of heat produced by radiation is roughly 5%, the rest is air heated directly by air contacting the hot light bulb glass. If you touch the light bulb glass it will burn your skin and it does the same to air molecules contacting the glass. it does not burn them but it conducts the same heat to the air as it does to your hand.
Why does this have to be explained to you?
ark…”It also reminds me of implicatory denial: people may fully understand the facts but avoid acting because accepting their implications is psychologically or politically uncomfortable. It’s like the patient who knows for years that a healthier lifestyle is necessary, does nothing, and eventually faces far more painful and costly options”.
***
You alarmists throw the word fact around in an manner that upholds your pseudo-science. The fact is, you have zero proof that a trace gas is causing the kind of catastrophe you are projecting so you make audacious claims as fact then browbeat the naive into accepting them. In fact, you guilt them by using the words ‘science’ and ‘fact’ dishonestly.
As for humans abusing themselves then having to pay the price later in life, that is hardly the same thing. The information is always there if they want to look, and it is up to them whether or not to heed it. You alarmists present scare tactics as fact, with zero science to back it, then clobber people over the head with it. While you are at it, you go out of your way to discredit skeptics, going so far as to having them fired from their jobs.
Furthermore, medical science is getting as bad as climate science these days for misinformation. In 1982, Barry Marshall, an Australian researcher, discovered that duodenal ulcers were caused by a bacterium, H. Pylori, that could survive in stomach acid. His paper was rejected by a medical journal which claimed his paper was one of the top ten worst papers ever submitted.
Not to be deterred, Marshall carried on and in 1985, made himself very ill by consuming a concoction containing the bacteria h. pylori. He subsequently healed himself using an antibiotic and bismuth. Only then, was he taken seriously and published in the Lancet. That puts a different slant on the statement, ‘physician…heal thyself’.
About the same time, in 1983, Dr. Luc Montagnier and his team ‘inferred’ that HIV causes AIDS. He admitted that, he claimed he did not see a virus on an electron microscope but inferred a virus using retrovirology. For years, the media referred to HIV as the virus ‘thought’ to cause AIDS but eventually that morphed into HIV, the AIDS virus.
Later, Montagnier revised his finding to claim that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to life style. Meantime, pundits in the medical community began bombarding healthy immune systems with potent drugs like AZT, allegedly to ill HIV. AZT is highly toxic drug formerly abandoned as a cancer chemotherapy agent because of its extreme toxicity. As pharmaceutical expert, David Rasnick, pointed out, had a cancer specialist put any cancer patient on AZT for life, he/she would have lost his/her license. However, AIDS specialist thought it perfectly fine to put someone on AZT for life simply because they tested positive for AZT.
Of course, those otherwise healthy people were killed by the medical community in what Peter Duesberg claimed as ‘death by prescription’.
And, what was the test for HIV? It did not test for a virus, rather it tested for RNA converted to DNA based on the inference that RNA was a marker for HIV. A pioneer in the field of retrovirology in the 1970s had already warned against using RNA as a marker for a virus since RNA is found naturally in the body, often related to sickness. During illness, cells break down and die, leaving RNA as cell debris.
Guess what? Covid was based on the same inference offered by Montagnier. The RNA/PCR test used does not test for a virus and the Wuhan scientists who announced the virus in 2020 did not claim to have seen a virus or discovered one. The vaccine is based on the same mysterious process and has proved ineffective at preventing covid infections.
In fact, Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel for inventing the PCR test, was adamant that PCR cannot be used to test for a virus. PCR amplifies DNA (when RNA is converted to DNA) and Mullis claimed that if a virus cannot be seen on an electron-microscope, PCR cannot magically amplify it so it can be seen. Yet both HIV and covid are based on such an allegation that such an amplification is possible. Mullis referred to those supporting the claim as liars.
For the past 40+ plus years, since 1983, we have been bombarded with misinformation about HIV and AIDS when all along, as Montagnier indicated, AIDS deaths were almost exclusively related to certain high risk groups.
The message is clear to me, as one surgeon suggested…if at all possible, stay away from doctors unless absolutely necessary. The information available to them is often contradictory and founded on bs from pharmaceutical companies and other liars. Drug companies don’t profit from good health, they rely on you being sick. At one time, they tried to have vitamins banned outright.
Gordon Robertson:
You dismissives and deniers are immune to facts.
I’m still waiting for your “scientific” demonstration of how ozone, a trace gas whose concentration in the ozone layer peaks at only about 10 ppmv (40 times less abundant than CO2), absorbs enough solar UV radiation to produce the well-known stratospheric temperature inversion, raising temperatures by roughly 50 K between the tropopause and the stratopause.
If as you say a trace gas cannot significantly influence atmospheric temperature because of its low concentration, how do you explain the fact that ozone clearly does exactly that?
Spare me your stream of consciousness soliloquies, just the facts.
Ark,
That’s kind of irrelevant, isn’t it? The lapse rate is due to pressure, not CO2. Over 400ppm of CO2 in the troposphere doesn’t cause the lapse rate. Pressure does. Also, I don’t think we know that much about our upper atmosphere. It’s not easy to study.
Also, that seems like a pretty easy question to answer. The ozone layer only filters out uV-C which is about 0.5% of the spectrum. The Sun is 93 million miles away. uV is very high energy compared to longwave IR so it can cause a lot of heating. It is your contention that the Earth emits nothing, but longwave IR. Gordo believes there is way too little CO2 in the atmosphere to cause 33C of warming from 430ppm of CO2 from lower energy OLR.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Musk, in a post on X on Sunday, claimed those who say DOGE’s USAID cuts resulted in deaths “cannot cite a single name of someone who died out of the ‘millions’ they falsely claim have died. Not a single name!”
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who last year identified specific people he says died after USAID-backed services were disrupted, quickly responded with the names of four he said died because of the cuts, including an 8-year-old girl, and suggested the world’s richest person travel to Africa with him to “talk to these moms and dads, and you’ll see the dying children themselves.”
In another post late on Monday, responding to a separate response from Kristof, Musk called Kristof “an utter piece of s— and a liar.”
A study published in March 2025 found the loss of aid funding for children facing malnutrition in low- and middle-income countries would cut off 1 million children from treatment, potentially resulting in 163,000 child deaths each year. Another study published in the Lancet in July 2025 found the funding cuts could cause the deaths of more than 4.5 million children and more than 14 million total deaths by 2030. Kristof, citing data from the Center for Global Development, found that more than 1.6 million people could die within a year without American foreign aid for HIV prevention and treatment. A tracker co-created by Boston University professor Brooke Nichols projected more than 780,000 deaths caused by the cuts, roughly 518,000 of which are children, after cuts to treatment for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV and pneumonia, among others.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2026/07/01/musk-escalates-unproven-usaid-claims-in-fiery-posts-as-studies-link-doge-cuts-to-child-deaths/
Elon has turned into a crank.
Dullard,
So you were happy with the billions of fraud that occurred lining the pockets of evil people. Money often then ended up going to groups that then sent some of the money to help sponsor the Democrats. Total fraud.
If anyone wants to donate their time and/or money to charities then good. But to force people to pay into things that could be against their faith is outrageous. Or do you think that Muslims have to donate to Pride charities?
Of course it goes beg the question on how much money you received by USAID or government handouts!
Dullard,
A government is responsible to its own citizens first. The government is not responsible to how corrupt other countries are.
When the democrats were fleecing the USA tax payer, the countries that received USAID were skimming off the top. Do you know how little aid actually gets to those who genuinely need it. Just express it as a percentage. Hint you only need a single digit.
Democrats are saying they are against the Save America Act because they cannot win any elections if it is passed. They are admitting they cannot win unless they are allowed to cheat.
stephen p anderson
Any old right-wing lie you believe. I know you are not thoughtful enough to come up with your idea on your own. No doubt some lying right-wing talking head put that idea in your head and you are not able to research the topic on your own and find out why even some Republicans are not supporting it. You will no doubt gobble up every lying word coming out of Trump’s mouth tomorrow night. You are very gullible and easily fooled and you will not look up things on your own. Your polarized mind is a major obstacle in solving problems in the USA. Many many more brainless emotional polarized people out there who do not want to think for themselves but just accept whatever lie that is thrown their way (this of course applies just as strongly to left-wing fanatics…to me a fanatic is someone who quit thinking and just feeds of highly charged emotional lies).
Now for you.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
This article goes into the issues with the Save Act. It is not a good act for a thriving Democracy. It is intended to limit voting power of some citizens. I know you are okay with that because you Worship Dictator Trump your Savior. He is saving the country and making himself quite wealthy in the process.
I’m just telling you what Democrats are saying.
It is well-known that Teh Donald is a predator, but it does not bother Troglodyte or Anon for Q-related reasons because they only pretend to care about morality.
I thought Biden was pretty creepy the way he used to paw at kids all the time.
Anon for Q-related reasons,
Elon was government for a while, and your talking point is silly during the American blockade of Hormuz.
If you want to become a better ankle biter, you need to take heed on Puffman.
This is how deniers do Math:
They force a false conclusion by ignoring the foundational rules.
No,
We understand you can’t divide something by zero.
Can’t believe you said that Arkady,sometimes it is better to keep one’s mouth shut,and appear stupid,than to open it and remove all doubt.
In May 2019, The Guardian changed its editorial style from “climate skeptic” to “climate denier.”
Had they believed that genuine scientific skepticism was the dominant pattern, they might have retained “skeptic” or recommended distinguishing between skeptics and deniers on a case by case basis.
But there doesn’t seem to be much genuine scientific skepticism on the issue…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment
Asylum seekers Ibrahim Alshafe, 26, and Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, have been jailed at Hove Crown Court for 21 years each for raping a woman on Brighton beach on 4 October 2025.
Karin Al-Danasurt, 21, who filmed the attack, has been sentenced to 18 years and six months in prison.
The court on Wednesday was told that all three will serve a further six years on extended licence.
White American men unfortunately commit heinous acts of rape against women as well, yet you only seem to care when the perpetrators are immigrants.
Strange.
It reminds me of the way some right wing media outlets disproportionately focused on the rare cases involving transgender shooters while giving far less attention to the broader pattern of mass shootings.
It couldn’t be that the extreme American right is disproportionately comprised of bigots, racists, and homophobes, right?
Eldrosion,
You really do not get it with your smug comments do you.
Yes there is already crime in the UK & USA and wherever you live. It’s the extra crime that have occurred when the illegals have broken into a country. All the liberals & democrats do is to condone the illegal behaviour. You and your kind really are poor in logical and feeling for your fellow citizens. Why is that?
Btw it was known that Graham Planter was a predator, but it only became an issue when the allegations came from a democrats.
Anon for Q-related reasons’ could vouch for Brits’ decorousness:
It is well-known that the solutiom to the potato famines would have been to close their own borders, and set up Israel-like policies in Belfast.
Is it too late for them to invade and occupy everything upward Dublin?
There are about 40 murders per day in the US.
But Fox News viewers are so enraged when a single murder is found to have been committed by a brown illegal immigrant, it will be talked about for weeks.
So much so that gullible viewers can be led to believe that this should be the #1 issue in our country.
I’m enraged at any murder but especially if the murderer is an illegal immigrant. Why come to this country and murder our citizens? Stay in your own country and murder your citizens.
You do understand that these are men who go to the UK seeking asylum and then decide to gang rape women.
It looks like Denmark is fighting back. It isn’t just whites either. There are signs all over that say “Fuck Islam.”
The warden at a privately run immigrant detention center in San Diego County has authority to decide how to investigate rape reports there.
A San Diego county supervisor wants to revisit the agreement giving that power to CoreCivic.
Welcome to CalMatters, the only nonprofit newsroom devoted solely to covering issues that affect all Californians. Sign up for WhatMatters to receive the latest news and commentary on the most important issues in the Golden State.
San Diego County Sheriff’s officials failed to investigate at least seven reported sexual assaults at the privately run Otay Mesa immigration detention center in 2025, and records show the agency has ceded control of the cases to civilian administrators employed by the nation’s largest for-profit prison contractor.
Under a 2020 memorandum of understanding between the sheriff’s department and CoreCivic, detention center Warden Christopher LaRose has authority to decide whether to investigate rape allegations at the facility, which currently houses just under 1,500 federal immigration detainees, most of whom are in custody awaiting hearings and have not been convicted of a crime.
https://watchers.news/2026/07/13/billings-and-salt-lake-city-set-all-time-heat-records-as-dangerous-heat-continues-u-s/
Nothing to see here, just exceptional heat popping up all over the world this summer.
It’s all just summer, right?
You do know humanity has thrived since 1800,and all past warmings were hugely beneficial,all it takes is a period of explosive volcanic eruptions and we are back to pre industrial temperatures with all the agricultural and food problems that would bring,but you are right it is Summer,but not everywhere.
That’s right, just summer. You are suffering from issues with the human mind whereby we are simply not around long enough to experience the overall weather picture.
Look up ‘The Day of the Killer Tornadoes’ when close to 150 tornadoes ripped through tornado alley in one day in 1974, I think it was.
And let’s not forget the immense tornado that carried Dorothy and Toto off to OZ (not Australia). Of course, Binny will take me seriously.
Here in Canada the media is making a big deal out of 15 or so tornadoes in Eastern Canada.
These heat waves come and go, surprisingly in summer. We had one on the west coast a few years back and now they are getting them in eastern Canada while we are enjoying pleasant, cooler weather.
The 1930s still hold the record, by far, for heat waves, even if NOAA et al are budsy fudging the record to say otherwise.
Eldro,
Let me explain the four seasons in the Northern Hemisphere. In the Winter it is cold. The Earth is closer to the Sun, but the tilt causes the colder climate. In Spring, the axial tilt is getting less, and it starts to warm. Flowers emerge and plants start their growing and pollination cycles. In the Summer the axial tilt is the least and it is hot. Finally, in the Fall, it starts heading towards Winter again. God designed it this way. I thought this might help you.
The axial tilt does not change on an annual basis, the seasons are caused by the direction of the axial tilt.
Yes, thanks for the correction. I meant in relation to the Sun.
It’s summer in those areas, but Earth is also in a natural warming trend.
Are you able to understand the UAH chart at the top?
Around 80% of individuals prosecuted for sexual offences in England and Wales are identified as White, which is roughly proportional to the white demographic making up the majority of the UK population.
Most migrants these days are not White.
But that doesn’t seem to matter much to white US or UK men of course…
That’s not the question. The question is do you want criminal immigrants coming to your country? Do you want to give criminals sanctuary? Don’t you have enough home-grown criminals? If you’re going to have immigrants, wouldn’t you rather have non-criminal immigrants?
Stephen p anderson
I agree with your point on violent or thiefs do not need to be in the USA that are immigrants. These should be deported. The issue is they are rounding up non-violent immigrants who are working and a benefit to the USA. There is a vSt difference between working immigrants and criminal. ICE is programmed to round up 2000 a day! There are not 2000 vilent immigrants on this daily basis!
There are a wide range of non-violent criminals. If someone has been here many years, been productive, been a contributor, paid taxes, etc. then ICE usually isn’t going to bother them. However, their conduct has to be perfect if they want to stay here in an illegal status. ICE came through our area, a lot of the Mexican restaurants and Asian restaurants shut down for a couple of days. However, as far as I could tell, no one was apprehended by ICE who works and is a contributor. I think ICE went by the jail and took a couple of the inmates but that was all. ICE is targeting overstayed Visas, criminals, people with prior removal orders, and recent border crossers (during Biden’s term). I’ve got no problem with this. I know a brother and sister who are here technically illegally, she’s a junior in high school and he’s a recent graduate. ICE didn’t bother them or any in their family. Both of them work at a restaurant, have taxpayer ID numbers, pay taxes and social security. Hey, I hope ICE leaves them alone. I’m not going to be mad at ICE if they don’t. They don’t have a right to be here, and they’ll be the first to tell you. They both speak Spanish very well and could easily go back. Do they want to go back? No, and who can blame them. Everybody in the world wants to come here.
Norman, nowhere did you use the word “illegal”.
This is how Leftists pervert society. They make it appear as if the USA is bad. They twist and distort reality to sway the uneducated and unaware. They try to make the USA look bad because we deport “working” illegals?
To make it easy to understand, if someone is working are they then able to cheat on their taxes? Steal autos? Shoplift? How many laws do they get to ignore if they’re “working”?
Puffman, the real question is why cranks and troglodytes are such hypocrites:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2024/10/27/what-elon-musk-working-illegally-says-about-the-immigration-system/
Prove me right once again.
re tornadoes from reply to eldrosion…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVKqU9FmvMI&t=369s
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.youtube.com/live/mZXxXsKF4H0
2025 was the warmest year in the UK since 1884 when records began.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.70470
And if it isn’t the Met Office will make sure it is.
Negative PDO.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/pdo/
https://i.ibb.co/ZRHKDVy7/ventusky-pressure-20260717t1300-43n139w.jpg
The upper low over Texas.
https://i.ibb.co/GvFw7CC5/goes19-ir-us-1.gif
Reed Timmer Extreme Meteorologist
The Guadalupe River out of Kerrville and Comfort, Texas has now crested over 36 FEET which is a higher crest than the deadly flood last year down this same river on July 4.
Heart-breaking mega flood once again in the Texas Hill Country but even more widespread rainfall footprint.
Is ENSO trying to turn Texas into a tropical forest?
https://postimg.cc/gnryZYMy
Take a look at the temperatures along the west coast. That’s how a negative PDO works.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_epac_1.png
Global warming is orbitally forced, it doesn’t happen because of fossil fuels burning.
In our times, there is a reduced total yearly solar energy reflection.
And, also, in our times, there is a reduced total yearly immediate IR emission.
It is obvious, because oceans reflect less, and also because oceans immediatelly emit less than lands. And, in our times, it happens so, that oceans are tilted closer to the sun!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s right, perihelion occurs in the middle of summer in the Southern Hemisphere.
Yes, The higher – during perihelion – energy gain, it cannot be balanced by the regular IR emission, leading to inevitable temperature rise.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Like-wise, the higher – during annual spring time – the daily energy gain, it cannot be balanced by the 24 hours’ regular IR emission, also leading to inevitable temperature rise.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The question is not if unchecked greenhouse gas emissions will eventually produce catastrophic ecological consequences, but when.
If atmospheric CO2 were to continue increasing at 3 ppm per year (an illustrative assumption rather than a prediction) the atmosphere would gain about 1,000 ppm over the next 333 years. Whether such a rate can be sustained depends on future emissions and the response of natural carbon sinks.
333 years is a blink of an eye compared with the tens of thousands of years over which comparable greenhouse gas increases occurred during the end-Permian mass extinction (https://news.mit.edu/2018/permian-period-extinction-0919)
It is this unprecedented rate of change, not merely the absolute CO2 level, that makes today’s climate experiment so dangerous.
I don’t believe 1000 ppm CO2 is obtainable, but we should certainly try. The optimum for plants is between 600-800ppm.
Even with CO2 at 1000 ppm, we would not see any reduction in temperature. Noticeable cooling from CO2 would probably not occur until at least 5000 ppm.
If we could ever get to 5000 ppm, Ark might have bananas growing out of his ears!
The thunderstorms in Texas won’t let up.
https://i.ibb.co/p786Z4c/ventusky-wind-400hpa-20260718t1800-32n100w.jpg
United Cajun Navy Weather Watch
United Cajun Navy
Reople Reportedly Trapped in Attics as Major Water Rescues Continue in the Texas Hill Country Thank you First Responder
This video shows an ambulance making one of the last safe crossings over a bridge in Center Point, Texas before floodwaters turned the roadway into a raging current.
We are receiving chilling reports from dispatch of families with water in their homes and people trapped in attics from Ingram to Center Point and Kerrville. Multiple water rescues are underway as first responders take advantage of a brief break in the heaviest rain.
While rainfall has eased slightly around 5:30 AM, it is still falling. Another very heavy round of rain is expected to arrive within the next one to two hours, so this dangerous situation is far from over.
If you are anywhere in this area, keep checking radar upstream. Flash flooding is not only caused by rain where you are. Water falling miles away can quickly move downstream, and water main breaks and overflowing aquifers can also add to flooding in unexpected places.
Please stay off the roads, avoid low water crossings, and follow any evacuation orders immediately. Your safety is the priority.
We are incredibly thankful for the rapid response of local first responders, law enforcement, firefighters, EMS, and rescue teams who have already saved lives this morning. Please keep them, along with every family affected, in your prayers as they continue working through these dangerous conditions.
Our teams remain on standby to assist if needed. If it is safe to do so, you can help by submitting photos through the United Cajun Navy Weather app to improve situational awareness for responders and your community.
Please pray for protection over everyone in the flood zone and for the safe return of every rescuer.
#TexasFlooding #FlashFlood #Kerrville #CenterPointTX #UCNweather