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.
“…the amounts are so tiny…”
Try adding 5 parts per million (not 425 parts per million, as is the case with CO2 in the atmosphere) of arsenic to your bloodstream and let us know how that tiny amount affected you. (Actually, just in case you believe that tiny amounts are safe, don’t do it – just think about what would happen. Ask AI, if you prefer).
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.
We have had a solid week in Cincinnati in the American Midwest of mid 90F with dew points in the low 70s, producing heat indexes over 105F. We are quite comfortable in our almost 100% air conditioned homes, apartments, and all public spaces. Our politicians would not dare suggest we not use it to its fullest extent, other than the crypto-communist Mayor of New York City. I continue to be amazed at how docile are the sheep (voting public) are in Europe.
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.
The warming phase of a 60-yr cycle lasts only 30 years. Each decade since the 1950s has been warmer than the previous one. That is more than twice as long as a 60-yr cycle would cause.
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.
There is still time for 2026 to approach 0°C.
Congratulations John to retirement!
Thank you for staying a bit longer at UAH!
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.
The El nino is now fully established it’s full effects on the atmosphere wont be realized for a few more months. I have included a link to a great webpage filled with tools to follow the El Nino. Currently OHC in the East Pacific has already blown by previous record highs. Sub surface ssta on tao/triton broke the previous record of +7C. They are peaking almost at 9C. This is a reflection of how much depth the huge warm anomalies from the March-early May kelvin wave has brought with it. For about 3.5 weeks now at have been in the EL NINO created feedback of having constant WWBs over the West Pacific pushing to about 160E. While at times pushing all the way towards the SA coast.
CFS and GFS/Euro ensembles all show a record breaking NINO and not just slightly breaking the record. We are looking at it smashing it. The uncorrected model forecasts are still showing ENSO 3-4 reaching 4.5C+. The record is like 2.65C+ for the peak week/month. The July 4th CFSR forecast is crazy.
The July 4th CFSR forecast is just crazy wild. It has all of ENSO3 reaching 5C+ for about 2.5 months. And ENSO3 3-4 reaching 4C+ for about the same time. If these numbers come to fruition we will see ENSO affect the global weather and global temperature and temperature anomalies like we have not seen in at least the last 200 years. The 2022 Volcanoes effects on the global temperatures is waining so the warm bump that it gave will be much weaker than it was 2 years ago. I look forward to following the next 12 months here with all of you
https://www.stormsurf.com/page2/links/ensocurr.html
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.
Scholars of religion and anthropologists would likely (not certain) say that astronomical observations served important spiritual purposes. Ancient peoples wanted to know about God/gods and, at times, to discern God’s (gods) inventions, plans and desires for them. This is pretty universal across most cultures that I have been exposed in one way or another. It was also vital for navigation.
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.
Has anyone compared the worldwide time graphs since 1979 for the 4 levels of the atmosphere?
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.
Re: “with zero insulation”
the MIT book page 571 discusses radiation shields and derives eq.10.31. It is virtually identical to the one shown to you in the Thermopedia source.
Again, if you put in emissivity = 1 for the all surfaces, making them blackbodies, we find, as before, that the heat transfer is reduced.
Without the shield the denominator is 1/A1. With the shield the denominator is 1/A1 +1/As.
If the area of the shield is the same as the area of body 1, as in the GPE, then the denominator is doubled. And the heat transfer is again cut in half.
So, clearly, we have strong evidence that blackbody plates in parallel can insulate.
“So, unless you’re saying the 1LoT equation is wrong, the GPE’s debunked.”
Nope again you dishonestly pretend that no one has refuted your #5 as well as #1-#4.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749014
Nate, please butt out of my discussion with barry.
Nate says:
”the MIT book page 571 discusses radiation shields and derives eq.10.31. It is virtually identical to the one shown to you in the Thermopedia source.”
Well then it probably comes up with the same result as Thermopedia. What do you make of zero surface resistance? Are emissions a surface phenomena?
Is your confidence wavering? I asked you after you provided a mapping of the GPE to Thermopedia if you were confident in that mapping. I admitted I know little about boundary layers as it wasn’t in my curriculum in the late 60’s to around ’71 or at least I don’t recall if it was.
Seems to me if these books have the same idea as you have MIT would not be saying what it is saying. Just how confident are you in your thermopedia mapping of the GPE?
Nate says:
“Again, if you put in emissivity = 1 for the all surfaces, making them blackbodies, we find, as before, that the heat transfer is reduced. Without the shield the denominator is 1/A1. With the shield the denominator is 1/A1 +1/As. If the area of the shield is the same as the area of body 1, as in the GPE, then the denominator is doubled. And the heat transfer is again cut in half.
So, clearly, we have strong evidence that blackbody plates in parallel can insulate. ”
I really can’t answer that until you commit to a position. I have so much experience with you producing an idea then flipflopping that lets know we are talking about the same thing.
I have the picture you mapped out last month so if you could answer that question here or there so we can talk about that before we move to something else.
Here are my questions with your mappings if you want to answer here rather than there: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1748971
The thing is, bill, in their 262 K…220 K solution, if the “back-radiation” transfer is allowed to build up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, of course that would be seen as “heat loss being reduced” from the BP and the BP warming as a result. Their problem is, 2LoT says “no” to that happening. Thus, the transfer GP to BP must be returned to the GP. As a result, the GP will warm until it’s the same temperature as the BP, and, as it does so, heat loss from the BP is reduced because objects at the same temperature have no heat flow between them. Unless they’re trying to rule out the entire concept of “thermal equilibrium” from existence, the GP must come to the same temperature as the BP without that “reduction of heat loss” from the BP leading to warming of the BP.
“I really can’t answer that until you commit to a position.”
I have no idea what you are looking for. My position has been absolutely clear and consistent.
“Their problem is, 2LoT says “no” to that happening. Thus, the transfer”
Nope. Asked multiple times, you cannot quote any statement of 2LOT that says NO to one-way EMR transfers that are NOT HEAT TRANSFERS.
In the absence of WORK, 2LOT constrains only HEAT flows to flow from hotter to colder bodies.
In the 262K/220K the actual HEAT transfers are always from hotter to colder bodies.
Sorry, you do not get to change a Law of Physics just to suppprt your fallacious argument.
Why does Nate keep responding to me?
Graham D. Warner is trying really hard to fulfill his fantasy:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
bill
“Backradiation is so theoretical we have no evidence it exists”
Unmitigated nonsense. We’ve been measuring downwelling radiation from the sky for decades.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950630124000036
If backradiation were theoretical, the voltage output on a pyrgeometer at midnight would be exactly zero.
Bill, there is absolutely empirically – daily – measured evidence of backradiation.
The downwelling measurements are used in meteorology. Furthermore, we daily record the spectrum of downwelling atmospheric radiation, and it matches the spikes in the spectrum that gases in the atmosphere radiate at. EG, we see a clear spike at 15 microns consistent with CO2 radiation. It is categorically NOT theoretical.
Do not dwell in Camp Crank on this.
MIT specifically states warm objects absorb radiation from cooler objects, and also gives us the language and math that shows Kirchhoff’s law applies.
In the GPE, the objects are blackbodies – which absorb everything.
I feel I need to repeat these fundamentals of radiative physics because you keep sweeping them under the carpet.
“But on the basis of KISS there is no reason that light would need a ground.”
So the sun doesn’t warm the surface? Think, bill.
“So the difference here for the BP is nothing.”
You reject MIT as quoted upthread. You believe BP cannot absorb the 100 W/m2 from GP. Even though they share wavelengths per Kirchhoff. Even though they are both blackbodies. I knew you would get here. It was only a matter of time before you would openly reject what you agreed to only a few posts ago re MIT.
“what you are seeing as a variable between the two scenarios is the time rate of temperature rise for the GP”
How long it takes for either plate to warm is immaterial to the point.
I’ll put it simply.
Blackbody BP definitely does absorb GP radiative energy – or you reject blackbody physics.
Blackbody BP definitely does absorb GP radiative energy – or you reject Kirchhoff’s law regarding absorptivity at equal wavelengths.
Blackbody BP definitely does absorb GP radiative energy – or you reject MIT’s course notes upthread that warmer bodies absorb radiation from cooler bodies.
Blackbody BP is now absorbing 400 W/m2 + 100 W/m2 – or you reject all of the above, as well as standard physics about energy transfer.
Blackbody BP must now emit the equivalent of the 500 W/m2 it is receiving – or you reject 1LoT.
“if the ‘back-radiation’ transfer is allowed to build up internal energy in the BP *at the expense of the GP* [fake rhetoric alert], of course that would be seen as “heat loss being reduced” from the BP and the BP warming as a result. Their problem is, 2LoT says “no” to that happening.”
No it doesn’t.
In a radiative environment, all 2LoT says about direction of heat flow is this:
q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
2LoT is not circumscribed by your semantics, as much as you hope it is.
“Thus, the transfer GP to BP must be returned to the GP”
No blackbody is returning GP’s energy. As BP is a blackbody (it can be any body that emits at the same wavelengths GP emits – that’s Kirchhoff’s law) – GP’s energy is absorbed, not reflected.
As soon as you reject standard physics you lose the argument. It is a monumental mystery why you don’t get that. I guess standard physics is not a valid yardstick for you. That instantly wipes your views out of contention.
It’s remarkably simple, barry.
It’s a proven fact that in your solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. A fact you’ve already agreed with, and I don’t care if you now want to try to wriggle out of it. I won’t be letting you do that.
According to the 1LoT equation, in the absence of work, a change in internal energy relates only to heat. So, the “back-radiation” transfer must be acting as a transfer of heat from cold to hot, violating 2LoT. The 1LoT equation insists, I’m afraid. That transfer affects the internal energy of both bodies. Of course it does! It’s a transfer.
“must be acting as a transfer of heat”
This lengthening list of qualifiers shows that even you understand it is NOT heat.
2LOT says ‘Im not interested in it’.
Get a new cause.
“As soon as you reject standard physics you lose the argument.”
Can’t get much more “standard physics” than the 1LoT equation. Looks like barry is hoisted by his own petard.
barry says:
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.”
———-
Your comment doesn’t in any way address my statement Barry.
I very clearly said to you that Kirchhoff’s law doesn’t matter to the outcome of the GPE. you are simply extrapolating from the easter bunny math that it does. Yet any standard textbook that calculates the effect of the GPE finds any resistance from the GPE.
the math used in the standard textbooks shows the exact opposite of what you think and the easter bunny’s math calculates out to.
I even gave you the elementary school level dam leakage word problem which you solved just fine.
But for some reason your brain is blocking the concept of the leaky dam still allowing the lake to fill all the way as long as Q in the SB equation has a positive number. Of course when q nets to zero (the lake tops over the dam sufficiently) the lake stops filling. That was the analogy of John Tyndall Barry. Your concept of the GPE is contrary to that of every one of the classical physicists. the equations in the MITHTT, Thermopedia, V.a. Maiorov, and many others all agree. And more important those equation agree with experiments. Vaughn Pratt learned that in trying, correcting discrepancies, and arriving at a result consistent with the textbooks. Seim and Olsen did it with a concentration of CO2 sufficient to imitate the atmosphere and got instead a result consistent with the textbooks.
What you need to do, and you are a smart guy, is separate yourself from the devious people you listen to. Use your own abilities, your own research, your own calculations to verify what is really going on. In fact don’t listen to my calculations do them for yourself from the textbook.
“if the plates are both black (ε = 1), then both surface resistances are zero and which, of course, is what we would have expected”
MIT’s
A Heat Transfer Textbook
Sixth Edition 2024
John H. Lienhard V and John H. Lienhard IV
Phlogison Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Section 10.4, page 569, equation 10.25
https://ahtt.mit.edu/
“Can’t get much more “standard physics” than the 1LoT equation. Looks like barry is hoisted by his own petard.”
1LOT and 2LOT are standard. It is your attempts to alter them that is obviously not standard.
Then there is the fact that you desire to replace a blackbody in the problem with a hybrid blackbody/mirror that breaks physics. So you are not solving the GPE as given to us.
And given that you have no demonstrated competence in this subject, why should anyone believe you?
Lets be honest, no one does
SIDEBAR – this is a reply to Barry on all the reasons he thinks it is important to fix my skepticism on all sorts of topics. Much more important is the post I just posted above explaining to Barry why he is wrong. These complaints by barry of what I do, don’t, or maybe do or don’t believe have no bearing on the true facts surrounding the GPE. The proof of what the GPE actually produces comes from experiments from which smart guys famous in history formulated the criteria by which to build, design, and deploy useful devices.
Others deceived by others like Barry wrt to the what is a scientific fact and what is a scientific theory and may or may not be true is what this post covers.
1) barry says:
“Backradiation is so theoretical we have no evidence it exists”
Unmitigated nonsense. We’ve been measuring downwelling radiation from the sky for decades.
If backradiation were theoretical, the voltage output on a pyrgeometer at midnight would be exactly zero.”
Do it wouldn’t barry subtracting zero from an electronic device that measures net q from the temperature of the sensor lets you compute the temperature of what you are pointing the pyrgeometer at.
Description of how a pyrgeometer works: “A pyrgeometer works by utilizing a blackened thermopile sensor that absorbs incoming infrared radiation. Because the instrument itself absorbs and emits heat, it measures the net energy transfer between the sensor and its surroundings.”
The device did not directly show a radiation number on a screen; instead, a user read an electrical current meter (ammeter) and calculated the radiation based on the energy required to balance the strips.
Myth one busted!
———————
2) barry claims:
”You believe BP cannot absorb the 100 W/m2 from GP.”
Wrong! I am indifferent to it. . .its just an unestablished theory. I recognize that thermodynamics has advanced without needing to establish that as fact.
Myth two busted!
3) Barry says:
”In the GPE, the objects are blackbodies – which absorb everything.”
I have never disagreed with this one as long as you confine this to light. Refer back to myths 1 and 2.
this isn’t even a myth it might question what light is but folks have a lot of questions about that.
4) barry says:
”How long it takes for either plate to warm is immaterial to the point.”
Well that makes sense that it would be immaterial to either my point or your point. All the radiation issued by the BP to the GP is completely accounted for in either warming the GP or supplying the leak in the dam where radiation goes to space from the GP.
You just have a theory that starves the lake and pushes that water you diverted from from the stream back upstream in violation of 2LOT. thats a problem that diarrhea of the mouth, pen, or keyboard can’t fix and is solidly fixed in “accepted” science but constantly questioned in blog science which isn’t science at all.
Myth 3 busted.
Barry says:
”I’ll put it simply.”
”Blackbody BP definitely does absorb GP radiative energy – or you reject blackbody physics.” See the busting of myths above, just another variant
”Blackbody BP definitely does absorb GP radiative energy – or you reject Kirchhoff’s law regarding absorptivity at equal wavelengths.”
”Blackbody BP definitely does absorb GP radiative energy – or you reject MIT’s course notes” See the busting of myths above, just another variant
barry says:
J
”In a radiative environment, all 2LoT says about direction of heat flow is this:
q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
2LoT is not circumscribed by your semantics, as much as you hope it is.”
No it is circumscribed by DREMT. It is jointly attributed to physicist Sadi Carnot, who established its foundational principles in 1824, and German physicist Rudolf Clausius along with Scottish physicist Lord Kelvin, who formally defined and mathematically expressed the law in the mid-19th century.
What you cannot do without proof by experiment is mathematically or by semantics (which covers all hype) take heat from the GP and warm the BP. And thats what the easter bunny did without an experiment. Calling it a thought experiment need no apply especially to some anonymous guy running around on a blog wearing a bunny suit. He did have a sense of humor anyway taking on the psuedonym Eli Rabbet and naming his blog Rabbet Run. He is probably still laughing about that today. If he isn’t the owner of SkS well what can I say about SkS?
Barry says:
”That instantly wipes your views out of contention.”
My view with respect to the GPE is the view of the thermodynamics textbook from MIT.
YOU MIGHT BE GETTING A LITTLE LARGE FOR YOUR BRITCHES!!! Just saying.
bill,
Thanks for the link to the text, at last. I would give you kudos for doing something the other GHE deniers don’t do, but it is long overdue.
You misunderstand the text. ‘Resistance’ is not thermal resistance as in insulation, it is how resistive the surface is to EMR – to heat transfer. As blackbodies by definition absorb all EMR, they have zero resistance to absorbing/emitting it.
IE, if ε = 1 there is no resistance
of ε = 0.5 there is some resistance
if ε = 0 there is total resistance to EMR emission/absorption
This has no bearing on the GPE, as we know the plates absorb ALL EMR. How GP reduces BP’s radiative heat loss is AFTER the fact of their surface properties/resistance to EMR. As your textbook kindly shows us….
At the bottom of page 552 there is the equation for radiative heat transfer between two plates at any temperature (T₁ and T₂).
It says q.net = [emitted by plate 1 – radiation absorbed by plate one emitted by plate 2]
Yes, those exact words appear alongside the equations.
Thus the definition of heat flow is determined by the difference between what plate 1 emits and absorbs, just as I have been saying, and the rate is derived by subtracting what plate 1 absorbs from plate 2 from what it emits to plate 2.
Hence, we determine the rate of radiative heat transfer from BP to GP by subtracting GP’s absorbed radiation from BP’s emitted radiation.
Thus when BP transfers radiation to space, it transfers at 200 W/m2. When it transfers radiative energy to GP, it transfers at 100 W/m2.
GP reduces BP’s rate of radiative heat loss in that direction.
Any powered object that has its rate of heat loss reduced must become warmer.
The textbook you provided just proved BP’s radiative heat loss is reduced by the presence of GP.
Thank you.
barry – page 6, equation 1.1. Read onto page 7 and pay attention to the situation without work (there’s no work involved in the GPE).
“In a radiative environment, all 2LoT says about direction of heat flow is this:
q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
2LoT is not circumscribed by your semantics, as much as you hope it is.”
Both barry and Nate seem to suffer from some strange delusion that 2LoT mentions anything about one-way vs. “net” transfers of EMR. It absolutely doesn’t. All it states is that without work being performed on the system, heat can only be transferred from hot to cold.
Per the 1LoT equation, since that “back-radiation” transfer affects the internal energy of both BP and GP in their solution, we have to think of it as a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
“Both barry and Nate seem to suffer from some strange delusion that 2LoT mentions anything about one-way vs. ‘net’ transfers of EMR. It absolutely doesn’t. All it states is that without work being performed on the system, heat can only be transferred from hot to cold.”
Well 2LOT doesnt need to mention ‘NET’, because it already mentions HEAT, which is defined as the NET transfer of energy between bodies due to their temperature difference.
But thanks for admitting what Barry and I have been saying all along, that 2LOT only constrains HEAT to flow from Hot to cold.
“Per the 1LoT equation, since that ‘back-radiation’ transfer affects the internal energy of both BP and GP in their solution, we have to think of it as a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
False and utterly weird interpretation of 1LOT:
if the back radiation is fully cancelled by forward radiation, and it always IS in the GPE, then there is no transfer of HEAT from cold to hot, and 1LOT finds no increase in Internal Energy due to it.
Obviously, the internal energy of the BP is increased by the HEAT SOURCE, the sun, providing actual HEAT to the BP, as 1LOT agrees.
‘we HAVE TO THINK OF IT AS a transfer of heat from cold to hot’
Only you ‘have to think of as’ in order to rationalize your false narrative.
These weasily words tell us that you understand perfectly well that what is being transferred is NOT HEAT.
We don’t use ‘think of as’ known quantities in the Laws of Physics!
As you finally admit, 2LOT only is concerned with actual HEAT transfers, you should be able, by simple logic to see that there can be no 2LOT violation in the GPE.
“All it states is that without work being performed on the system, heat can only be transferred from hot to cold.”
Precisely!
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
If T₁ > T₂ then heat flows from T₁ to T₂. YES, that is ALL 2LoT says. It says nothing else about heat flow.
BP is hot. GP is cold. The heat transfer is hot to cold.
Everything else is your strange insistence that because a cooler object causes a warmer object to warm that this determines the direction of heat flow. 2LoT does NOT describe heat flow this way.
A sweater makes your skin warmer. Your argument would mean that heat flows from the sweater to your skin.
Bt 2LoT is not interested in HOW your skin got warmer – which is what your 1-5 is all about – 2LoT ONLY cares which object is hotter than another.
So stop reinventing 2LoT. Today you seem to know what it says. Tomorrow you’re going to say that 1-5 violates it, when all 2LoT says is:
“without work being performed on the system, heat can only be transferred from hot to cold.”
You’re so close to understanding it, but that silly mantra addles your mind.
barry has completely failed to respond to the argument made, so I’ll re-post:
It’s remarkably simple, barry.
It’s a proven fact that in your solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. A fact you’ve already agreed with, and I don’t care if you now want to try to wriggle out of it. I won’t be letting you do that.
According to the 1LoT equation, in the absence of work, a change in internal energy relates only to heat. So, the “back-radiation” transfer must be acting as a transfer of heat from cold to hot, violating 2LoT. The 1LoT equation insists, I’m afraid. That transfer affects the internal energy of both bodies. Of course it does! It’s a transfer.
and:
“In a radiative environment, all 2LoT says about direction of heat flow is this:
q = ε σ (Th⁴ – Tc⁴)
2LoT is not circumscribed by your semantics, as much as you hope it is.”
Both barry and Nate seem to suffer from some strange delusion that 2LoT mentions anything about one-way vs. “net” transfers of EMR. It absolutely doesn’t. All it states is that without work being performed on the system, heat can only be transferred from hot to cold.
Per the 1LoT equation, since that “back-radiation” transfer affects the internal energy of both BP and GP in their solution, we have to think of it as a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
“A sweater makes your skin warmer. Your argument would mean that heat flows from the sweater to your skin.”
No, barry, it wouldn’t, because the sweater does not insulate by sending a direct transfer of thermal energy to your skin, building up internal energy in your skin at the expense of the sweater.
“sending a direct transfer of thermal energy to your skin, building up internal energy”
Which was literally proven to be NOT a heat transfer, and therefore cannot build up internal energy and is not a 2LOT violation.
It seems DREMT will endlessly, shamelessy pretend he has no awareness of the flaws in his argument.
Nate simply lies, which is why he’s not a part of this discussion any more. Can’t concede, can’t tell the truth.
“You’re so close to understanding it, but that silly mantra addles your mind.”
barry, I’ve understood your argument, with absolute crystal clarity, for years. That’s how I know the GPE’s debunked. It’s on you to show you understand my argument, because currently I’m not seeing any evidence of that.
Indeed, Nate. This interminable mistaking a vector of energy for a vector of heat.
Convection and conduction travel unidirectionally through matter; radiation is a crossfire across a gulf. This confuses our friends.
Thus, they easily perceive how a cold object slowing conduction, or a cold object slowing convection can cause a powered object to get even warmer. The energy flow through is one-way. But as soon as a reduction in heat loss entails a vector of energy in the opposite direction, they confuse this for heat.
All the while rejecting the actual definition of heat flow.
Not to mention rejecting a bunch of other standard physics. bill is actually arguing that Kirchhoff’s law only applies to objects at the exact same temperature. DREMT believes blackbodies must reflect energy from colder objects.
I’m looking forward to the cite from a physics textbook that says warm objects do not absorb radiation from cold objects. Or another that says an increase in absorbed energy makes no difference to the internal energy of an object (when no work is done).
barry, I’m looking forward to you actually addressing the argument I’ve made! Another comment from you, another total dodge!
barry says:
”You misunderstand the text. ‘Resistance’ is not thermal resistance as in insulation, it is how resistive the surface is to EMR – to heat transfer. As blackbodies by definition absorb all EMR, they have zero resistance to absorbing/emitting it.”
Of course its not insulation barry. insulation (other than the emissivities being calculated) is something to calculate as heat crosses a barrier via conduction. Resistance includes any kind of resistance in the electrical analogy that you add up over multiple heat transfers. it could be emr, conduction, emr, conduction, emr etc each with a resistance like putting resistors in an electrical circuit in series to add and in parallel to subtract. The only difference here is your circuits don’t work, turn on the switch and you get system failure because the results don’t match the experiments of Lord Kelvin and everyone I have seen since. Pay attention to R.W. Wood, Vaughn Pratt, and Seim and Olson have all been presented in this forum without refutation.
bill,
The fact that BP and GP have emissivity 1 instead of 0.9 or 0.5 – their ‘surface resistance’ – is immaterial to the fact that BP absorbs GP’s radiative energy, thus lowering its rate of radiative loss while still receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun.
Nothing you have said responds to what MIT has laid out.
BP DOES absorb GP’s energy. I’ve quoted MIT now in numerous ways that establishes this must be so.
Unless you argue that an increase in absorbed energy has no effect on internal energy (without any work done), then you must concede BP’s internal energy grows.
The thing that seems to be making you reject standard physics is this mistake that the ‘backradiation’ from GP to BP is a conduit for heat.
There is only one definition of heat in a radiative scenario, and that is the NET radiation from one object to another.
There is NO OTHER definition, but you keep inventing definitions to maintain Eli’s GPE violates the 2nd Law.
Your insistence that a heat flow occurs when if radiates to BP and BP warms (because BP also gets solar energy), completely rejects the fact that BP is warmer than GP which means heat ONLY flows BP to GP.
YOU reject 2LoT, not me, not Eli.
Here is a vacuum furnace that deliberately uses blackbody radiators as heat shields/insulation to keep the core hotter
https://expoadvancedmaterials.com/articles/vacuum-furnace-temperature-uniformity-graphite-ams2750
Yes, the high emissivity, cooler walls radiate ‘lower temperature’ radiation back to the core to make it warmer (by slowing its heat loss).
Just as lower temperature GP radiates to warmer BP and slows its heat loss.
Just as the atmosphere radiates to the ground and slows its heat loss.
“Unless you argue that an increase in absorbed energy has no effect on internal energy (without any work done), then you must concede BP’s internal energy grows…”
…if BP’s internal energy grows as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer then that proves (per the 1LoT equation) that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot, and 2LoT is violated.
We’ve been over the furnace thing before. You either can’t learn, or you’re dishonest.
There is a two-way EMR transfer involved in radiative heat transfer. That is literally how it works, and the MIT book makes that absolutely clear.
As do all other reputable sources.
DREMTs absurd argument relies on it NOT working that way, because if it did, that would cause 2LOT violations not just in the GPE, but constantly in everyday events.
Physics must be broken!
But radiative heat transfer does work that way, and 2LOT is never violated as a result.
Hence his argument is never ever going to be a winner. It has been thoroughly debunked.
But just like a Flat Earther, he will just ignore all its flaws and never stop believing it.
”
…if BP’s internal energy grows as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer then that proves (per the 1LoT equation) that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot, and 2LoT is violated”
Proves? In what universe?
All you are doing here is intentionally cherry picking a subset of the facts in order to arrive at a wrong conclusion!
The neglected facts are that HEAT is the NET of the forward and backward energy trasfers, and thus there is NOT a flow of heat from cold to hot!
In addition there is a neglected heat source involved, which does heat up the warm body by supplying heat to it.
So this argument is a shameless lie.
“There is only one definition of heat in a radiative scenario, and that is the NET radiation from one object to another. There is NO OTHER definition, but you keep inventing definitions to maintain Eli’s GPE violates the 2nd Law.”
a) There are numerous definitions of heat. One is set by the 1LoT equation. Per that definition, in your solution the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot.
b) The Radiative Heat Transfer Equation (RHTE) can be seen to be expressed in different ways. In one oft-repeated variant, heat is said to flow both ways, and there is supposedly such a thing as “net heat” – you will see it expressed as “Qnet”!
c) Examples from texts using the RHTE never feature a powered scenario like the GPE. You extrapolate from the non-powered scenarios. Are you correct to do so?
I have more, but that will suffice for now.
“if BP’s internal energy grows as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer then that proves (per the 1LoT equation) that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot”
No, the backradiation is a transfer of energy, not heat.
Heat is determined in a radiative scenario by the NET radiative transfer. ONLY. There is NO OTHER WAY to determine heat flow.
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
Your schtick simply rejects this. Your schtick rejects several components of standard physics. Blackbodies behaving like blackbodies, Kirchhoff’s law etc etc.
Your avoidance of these issues demolishes your credibility even more than the flaws in your thesis.
“No, the backradiation is a transfer of energy, not heat.”
barry…you keep avoiding my argument. Are any of your responses ever going to acknowledge the 1LoT equation, and what it shows?
Nate knows I’m ignoring him and he knows why I’m ignoring him, but he keeps responding anyway! How desperate can you get?
“must be acting as a transfer of heat”
This lengthening list of qualifiers shows that even you understand it is NOT heat.
2LOT says ‘Im not interested in it’.”
Hence now he shamelessly drops all qualifiers:
”
the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot.”
Oh what tangled web he weaves when hes desperate to achieve a phony outcome.
Nate’s scrabbling around in the dirt, frantically clutching at straws, hopelessly over-analysing my every word choice! Yes, people, this is why he’s excluded from the discussion.
“There are numerous definitions of heat. One is set by the 1LoT equation. Per that definition, in your solution the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot.”
Riiight…
No need to worry about any pesky cancelling forward energy transfers!
As a CEO of a corporation, DREMT wouldnt worry about expenditures,
because Profit = Revenue according to DREMTs understanding of economics.
Try telling that to stockholders!
“b) The Radiative Heat Transfer Equation (RHTE) can be seen to be expressed in different ways. In one oft-repeated variant, heat is said to flow both ways, and there is supposedly such a thing as “net heat” – you will see it expressed as “Qnet”!”
More semantic games.
“c) Examples from texts using the RHTE never feature a powered scenario like the GPE. You extrapolate from the non-powered scenarios. Are you correct to do so?”
Thank you for admittimg that you just have no competence in this subject.
Thus why should anyone believe you when you shamelessly ignore Laws of Physics?
Seriously why?
Your theme song must be ‘I fought the Laws and the Laws won’.
The Laws of Physics won long ago. That means you lost.
“Are you correct to do so?”
That was, of course, a rhetorical question. a) – c) were just points to get your brain in gear, barry. Looks like I’m not going to be getting any serious responses to any of my comments, anyway. Another waste of time.
When I challenged barry that he’d previously agreed that in his solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, he responded:
“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…”
1) “At the expense of” just means the plain English definition of the phrase. I don’t understand why people keep treating it like it’s some kind of mysterious incantation or something. It simply means the transfer has a cost to the GP. The build up in the BP is at the expense of, i.e. is provided by and to the detriment of, the GP.
2) The truth of a proposition is not dependent on what I’m going to use that proposition for! In other words, just because barry later found out that my overall argument involved making the case that “heat” was being transferred, does not change that the proposition is true and that he’d agreed it was true!
3) It should have been clear to him from the start what I was going to use that proposition for, since I had already spelled out my overall argument with the original points 1) – 7). So his “when it became clear” doesn’t ring true.
Just something that has been bothering me since he said it.
Barry and Nate both adamantly refuse to address observations.
Despite that being the “Gold Standard of Science” and being constantly reminded of the fact they won’t honestly address the issue nor issue a single word other than to deny the observation.
Now as I tried to explain to Nate after he faked it, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1749096 and then refused to respond after that.
P.S: I’d like to make it clear that I have no problem with “EMR flows both ways and heat is the net” so long as it’s understood that the “back-radiation” transfer cannot build up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object. I’d also add that this only becomes an issue when we’re talking about a “powered” scenario such as the GPE. In the “non-powered” scenarios that you find in textbooks where the RHTE is used, everything proceeds according to 2LoT in all the examples you can find. It’s just not an issue at all until the “power source” comes into play. Then, everything barry and co. believes happens is simply an unjustified extrapolation. And, I think it’s one of the biggest mistakes in scientific history.
“In one oft-repeated variant, heat is said to flow both ways, and there is supposedly such a thing as “net heat” – you will see it expressed as “Qnet”! ”
While the word heat is used in various ways, in its classic sense it goes only one way, and that is determined by the NET transfer. There is no other definition or word salad that determines the flow of heat in the classic sense, including backradiation causing a warmer object to get warmer.
“Examples from texts using the RHTE never feature a powered scenario like the GPE. You extrapolate from the non-powered scenarios. Are you correct to do so?”
Am I correct to maintain that putting a lid on my saucepan suppresses convection making the contents hotter, even though standard university physics texts on convection fail to have a section on kitchen appliances?
There are thousands of theoretical and real world set-ups that do not appear in basic physics and radiative transfer textbooks. The principles are regularly applied without the anti-science screed attending them that this particular scenario excites.
Sorry Bill,
Its always risky to make-up your own facts without bothering to check them.
No, the emissivity of space is not 0, which would have meant it is a perfect reflector!
It is in fact close to a perfect absorber, with emissivity = 1.
See my detailed response:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1749096
barry…the 1LoT equation argument. Please address it. At least acknowledge its existence. That you’re avoiding it like the plague speaks volumes.
Sorry, but you can’t make an honest comparison between the lack of textbook coverage on the RHTE applied to powered systems vs. the lack of textbook coverage on kitchen appliances. That’s just silly rhetoric. And, it’s extraordinarily arrogant.
Also, dismissing b) as merely semantics could be another big mistake. What if the reason some texts express it as “Qnet” is because they recognise the truth re the 1LoT equation argument?
bill,
“Now as I tried to explain to Nate after he faked it, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1749096”
Well I read you comment and you got the math wrong because you got the ‘resistance’ wrong.
BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun.
Let’s call the 400 W/m2 striking BP a.
BP splits this 400 W/m2 over two surfaces, and emits 200 W/m2 over each side, which we’ll call b.
a = 2b
With me so far? #1
Now BP emits from one side to GP, which splits the 200 W/m2 over both its surfaces.
b = 2c
With me so far? #2
Now, we have agreed that BP absorbs GP’s energy. Not just because BP is a blackbody, but also because MIT said, as quoted upthread on 2 of their course pages – warm bodies absorb radiation from colder bodies.
With me so far? #3
Because if you’re still with me the rest is straight algebra. You’ll need to make your objection above this line.
Now…
a + c = 2b
(because BP is two-sided, and receiving input from sun + GP)
a = 2b – c
a = 2b – (½b)
a = 3/2 b
b = ⅔a
Now solve c per a…
c = ½b
c = ½(⅔a)
c = ⅓a
Now solve for a = 400 W/m2
b = 266.67 W/m2
c = 133.33 W/m2
If BP is at one boundary of the system, and GP is at the other, then our system is outputting
266.67 + 133.33 W/m2 = 400 W/m2
matching input to the system from the sun.
2-sided blackbody ‘shields’ do not provide a resistance of 1, they provide a resistance of 0.5, as only half the energy they emit goes back to the source of their energy.
The algebra is clean, so I’ve numbered the premises #1, #2 and #3. If you have a problem with any of these, don’t waffle about lakes. Be specific. What premise do you reject, and why?
“barry… the 1LoT equation argument. Please address it. At least acknowledge its existence.”
I clicked one of your links to it and wondered what kind of point you are trying to make.
Explain yourself or don’t bother. I have zero patience for your crap.
OK, barry. For the third time of posting this specific comment:
“It’s remarkably simple, barry.
It’s a proven fact that in your solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. A fact you’ve already agreed with, and I don’t care if you now want to try to wriggle out of it. I won’t be letting you do that.
According to the 1LoT equation, in the absence of work, a change in internal energy relates only to heat. So, the “back-radiation” transfer must be acting as a transfer of heat from cold to hot, violating 2LoT. The 1LoT equation insists, I’m afraid. That transfer affects the internal energy of both bodies. Of course it does! It’s a transfer.”
This is the 1LoT equation:
Δ U = Q – W
So, without work:
Δ U = Q
Change in internal energy = heat.
Get it?
One DREMT says
“in your solution the ‘back-radiation’ transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot.”
Another DREMT says:
“I’d like to make it clear that I have no problem with ‘EMR flows both ways and heat is the net’ so long as its understood that the ‘back-radiation’ transfer cannot build up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object.”
So we are left to wonder which DREMT should we believe?
DREMT has no demonstrated competence in solving basic heat transfer problems. Here we see him confirming that he is lost at sea when it comes to ‘powered’ heat transfer problems like the GPE, because he has never seen this exact problem solved in textbooks.
“Examples from texts using the RHTE never feature a powered scenario like the GPE. You extrapolate from the non-powered scenarios. Are you correct to do so?”
Again, these comments leave astute readers wondering:
Why does DREMT express absolute certainty that HE has debunked the GPE solution provided by an actual expert, Eli, and confirmed by other physicists? Why should we believe DREMT?
“According to the 1LoT equation, in the absence of work, a change in internal energy relates only to heat.”
My skin’s internal energy increases when I put a sweater on.
Oops.
“My skin’s internal energy increases when I put a sweater on. Oops.”
Yes, barry, but your skin’s internal energy does not increase as the result of a direct transfer of thermal energy from the sweater to your skin. Oops.
Hope Nate grows up soon.
DREMT makes a 2LOT mistake commenting 11:11 am: “barry, (the sweater) wouldn’t, because the sweater does not insulate by sending a direct transfer of thermal energy to your skin, building up internal energy in your skin at the expense of the sweater” by not mentioning the context of the GPE is in space so no conduction or convection would be acting in DREMT’s sweater analogy for the GPE which DREMT doesn’t tell the reader.
Adding the sweater, like adding the GP, sends a direct transfer of thermal energy to your skin (via sweater reducing its internal energy when emitting radiation more intense than, & replacing, that of space), building up internal energy in your skin (when the sweater’s LW radiation is absorbed as demanded by 2LOT eqn.) from the expense of the sweater’s internal energy.
Everyone (except DREMT) can then simply replace the sweater analogy with the actual GP in the GPE. There is no hope for DREMT to be correct on the GPE when commenting against the 2LOT eqn.
I get that DREMT 8:24 am is basically physically wrong. Δ U takes a finite amount of time, so Δ U units are energy per unit time of the thermodynamic process which is a rate. That means the units of Q are energy per unit time which is also a rate. Clausius’ heat is defined as an amount of energy not a rate.
Therefore, Clausius’ 1LOT Q is not heat so DREMT is wrong. Clausius properly used the first letter of heat for enthalpy H.
Did somebody order another desperately obsessed stalker that I’d rather die than talk to?
Nobody agrees with your opinions about “heat”, Ball4.
I’m talking to barry on this one. Off you pop.
“Δ U = Q
Change in internal energy = heat.
Get it?”
Yes.
And Q is the heat added by the heat source to the BP, while no heat from the GP was added to the BP.
To ignore the heat source here, as you keep doing, aint logical.
Get it?
See, Ball4? Nate “gets it”, thus immediately disagrees with everything you’ve said.
Of course, Nate lies by falsely accusing me of ignoring the heat source when we both know full well that’s not the case, but that’s why he’s no longer a part of this discussion.
Good to see you guys bumping heads in your desperation, though.
I’m only going to discuss this with barry.
The GPE’s debunked.
DREMT 12:36 pm, my 11:22 am comment is not opinion; my comment is physical fact. Please point out someone not agreeing with those physical facts.
It is DREMT that has many commenters disagreeing with his GPE opinions when misunderstanding 2LOT eqn.
DREMT 1:45 pm can be proven wrong yet again since all commenters on heat in this thread agree with me viz. Nate: “heat to flow”, bill’s source: “call that flow heat”,barry: “rate of heat loss”. Flow is a rate.
There is no hope for DREMT to be correct on the GPE when commenting against the 2LOT eqn.
Those with the ability to follow the discussion will be having a good laugh at Ball4’s expense.
Good to see Nate and Ball4 bumping heads in their desperation.
I’m only going to discuss this with barry.
The GPE’s debunked.
Lets quote you to see where you ignored the HEAT SOURCE.
“According to the 1LoT equation, in the absence of work, a change in internal energy relates only to heat. So, the “back-radiation” transfer must be acting as a transfer of heat from cold to hot, violating 2LoT. The 1LoT equation insists, I’m afraid. That transfer affects the internal energy of both bodies. Of course it does! It’s a transfer.”
This is the 1LoT equation:
Δ U = Q – W
So, without work:
Δ U = Q
Change in internal energy = heat.
Get it?”
In this equation Q = all of the heat gains or losses to the body.
So where is the KNOWN heat transfer Qsun in this 1LOT equation.
It is missing.
Instead you falsely assume Q is ONLY the back radiation from the GP.
That is obviously wrong (and circular logic).
THE actual Qgp, via the RHTE, is from BP to GP. It is a heat LOSS to the BP not a HEAT gain.
So your inputs to the 1LOT equation are completely wrong.
The 1LoT equation argument is just a part of point 5), which is the last step in this overall argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1748493
Anyone who can actually follow what I’m saying knows that all the transfers are included in the analysis that isolates the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. All of them. Including the transfer from the Sun to the BP.
The difference between the plate temperatures being 244 K…244 K or the plate temperatures being 262 K…220 K is solely down to the “back-radiation” transfer. That transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, in their solution.
And, per the 1LoT equation, that means it’s a flow of heat from cold to hot.
Now, watch Nate demonstrate why he’s banned from the discussion…
Nate says:
”Its always risky to make-up your own facts without bothering to check them.
No, the emissivity of space is not 0, which would have meant it is a perfect reflector!
It is in fact close to a perfect absorber, with emissivity = 1.”
Congratulations Nate you finally got me on an error. An impressive achievement. Normally I am more fastidious and avoid such obvious errors.
that also leads me to congratulate you on an achievement I called you a liar on of establishing an effect of the Easter Bunny GPE soundly based on the textbook formulas of Thermopedia. Thats a huge breakthrough and no longer can I accuse you or the Easter Bunny from making that up. The math works out perfectly for a 205/262K relationship based upon the Thermopedia formula you proposed for the GPE. Nice job! I would apologize if you had referred specifically to this previous. But I have to give you credit for it now.
See here for the specific details of my response. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1749338
You have proven that a textbook provides a mathematical avenue for the GPE to return the Easter Bunny’s results.
No DREMT, your inputs to the 1LOT equation really are physically, laughably wrong. See the original GPE for the correct inputs and solution.
bill, their solution is 262 K…220 K, not 262 K…205 K.
Bear in mind:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749049
“Reduction in heat loss” does not necessarily equate to warming, especially when the overall mechanism for that hypothetical warming violates 2LoT. Ask yourself how equilibrium is possible, if a cooler object cannot approach the same temperature as the warmer object without the warmer object getting warmer still!
Barry says:
”The algebra is clean, so I’ve numbered the premises #1, #2 and #3. If you have a problem with any of these, don’t waffle about lakes. Be specific. What premise do you reject, and why?”
First nobody has disputed the algebra. so the problem isn’t there. You mention premises and there isn’t anything wrong with the premises.
Under theories like the photon theory theoretically the bp could be warmed by the gp.
The problem is another equation developed out of observations known as the Stephan-Boltzmann heat transfer equation. this equation suggests that the BP while warming from the emissions from the GP, that potential warming gets canceled out simultaneously or within nanoseconds by emission by the BP.
And thats the rub, the SB equation tells us the direction and with what intensity radiation is being absorbed by the GP leaving nothing to warm the BP. . .or at least nothing observable within what ever the interval is between the two plates emitting/absorbing photons. The process is random so for all intents and purposes the BP emissions are overcoming the effects of the BP absorbing photons from the GP so fast no observed warming can be detected.
And I think the only thing that matters is what we can detect because if we aren’t detecting it we are shooting in the dark.
So out of countless observations the great scientists of the passed didn’t explain the exact minute details of the process they just made a law. A law now based on even more countless observations to be true.
so more simply than any equation: Emitting 200w/m2 evenly across a blackbody flat plate target is going to cause that target to warm unless its emitting at least 200w/m2 itself. There is more one can formulate here but that should be enough to refute the easter bunny gpe as if I worded it correctly its fully supported by observation with very little extrapolation from observations. The easter bunny GPE merely makes it easier to refute as its never been observed or ever extrapolated from observations.
DREMT says:
bill, their solution is 262 K…220 K, not 262 K…205 K.
—————————–
You are right DREMT and I know that. I keep getting tangled up with the emission solution of 300 – 100 that keeps popping up in the conversation. . . which results in 267k and 205k. that happens so often its turning into a tic. tics and brain farts are a sign of being an octogenarian if you haven’t led a pure life of good nutrition or have been overly influenced by pharmacology
No worries, bill. Just letting you know before they do!
“According to the 1LoT equation, in the absence of work, a change in internal energy relates only to heat.”
I’m going to keep quoting this masterpiece of physics and talk about blankets and sweaters and ceiling insulation and closing doors on wintry days.
“your skin’s internal energy does not increase as the result of a direct transfer of thermal energy from the sweater to your skin.”
I won’t bother repeating that you mistake a transfer of energy for a transfer of heat, because it’s been said so many times you’ll never get it.
It’s also been repeated many times that you flatly reject the actual definition of heat flow in a bidirectional exchange of energy.
q = 200 W/m2 – 0 W/m2
q = 266.67 W/m2 – 133.33 W/m2
Does the direction of heat flow change between these two equations?
How about….
q = 200 W/m2 – 0 W/m2
q = 201 W/m2 – 100.5 W/m2
q = 202 W/m2 – 101 W/m2
q = 203 W/m2 – 101.5 W/m2….
….
q = 266.67 W/m2 – 133.33 W/m2
Can you point out when the direction of heat flow changes?
And you are going to say, “but HOW does the change in BP happen?” And I will tell you yet again that this is entirely irrelevant to the true definition of heat flow, and that ‘backradiating’ a warmer, powered object isn’t a transfer of heat and refer you to the above, true definition of heat flow in a radiative environment.
To which you are impervious.
As I said upthread, you and the small handful of people on the world who think like you, have no problem understanding that a cooler object can prevent conductive or convective loss from a warmer object making it warmer still.
But when energy is exchanged in more than one direction, you get very confused. Backradiation is how a reduction in heat loss can occur in a radiative scenario. Simple as that.
bill,
“the SB equation tells us the direction and with what intensity radiation is being absorbed by the GP leaving nothing to warm the BP. . .or at least nothing observable within what ever the interval is between the two plates emitting/absorbing photons. The process is random so for all intents and purposes the BP emissions are overcoming the effects of the BP absorbing photons from the GP so fast no observed warming can be detected.”
As we agree that BP absorbs ‘colder’ radiation, then BP ‘overcomes’ the (roughly) 0 W/m2 radiated to it by space by sending out 200 W/m2, as it does from its other surface, in balance with the 400 W/m2 being received.
We know from MIT that BP’s net radiative loss to GP is determined by subtracting the radiation it absorbs from the radiation it emits.
“q.net = [emitted by plate 1 – radiation absorbed by plate 1 emitted by plate 2]”
That’s from page 552 of the MIT textbook you linked.
So,
q.net = 200 W/m2 – 100 W/m2
BP is now losing energy at a rate (q) of 100 W/m2 to GP.
That’s the math and it is also the principle, as MIT says just above.
So now BP is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun, but is only emitting a net 300 W/m2.
BP must warm up to be in balance with the inputs.
“Ask yourself how equilibrium is possible, if a cooler object cannot approach the same temperature as the warmer object without the warmer object getting warmer still!”
Somehow we don’t burn to death inside sweaters and under blankets.
It’s as if you know less as time goes by.
bill,
Sorry if this is a duplicate, not sure the first reply stuck.
“the SB equation tells us the direction and with what intensity radiation is being absorbed by the GP leaving nothing to warm the BP. . .or at least nothing observable within what ever the interval is between the two plates emitting/absorbing photons. The process is random so for all intents and purposes the BP emissions are overcoming the effects of the BP absorbing photons from the GP so fast no observed warming can be detected.”
That makes almost no sense. ‘Overcome’ has no meaning.
On p. 552 of the textbook you linked, MIT tells us in words:
“q.net = [emitted by plate 1 – radiation absorbed by plate one emitted by plate 2]”
BP absorbs GP’s energy, and as a result its rate of energy transfer (q.net) from the side facing GP is halved.
q.net = 200 W/m2 – 100 W/m2 = 100 W/m2
BP is now transferring 200 W/m2 to space on the sun side, and transferring a net 100 W/m2 to to GP.
It is now transferring a net 300 W/m2.
But it is receiving 400 W/m2.
BP must warm to balance output with input.
Put another way, BP is receiving 400 W/m2 + 100 W/m2. It must output a total of 500 W/m2 to balance the input.
2LoT tells us heat travels from hotter to colder.
It does not tell us that a smaller energy flux causing a warmer object to warm negates the first principle.
Can’t win with you can I, barry?
First, you accept that in your solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Let’s call that Proposition A. You then argue that heat transfer is not defined as something that induces changes in the internal energy within a body. That’s where we got to last time.
Then, I show (via the 1LoT equation) that in fact heat transfer is defined as something that induces changes in the internal energy within a body, and you back-track on your agreement over Proposition A!
Seems like you’re just in denial.
“Somehow we don’t burn to death inside sweaters and under blankets.”
Can’t work out the difference between “insulation” and the GPE, can you, barry? No matter how many times I explain it.
Your denial continues.
Again somehow this oft-stated opinion,
” the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP.”
has been mistakenly burned into the FACT department of DREMTs brain.
Some sort of wiring problem.
1.What is true is that the BP increases its internal energy when the GP is placed behind it.
2. And it is true that when the GP is placed behind it, back-radiation is transferred from the GP to the BP.
3. And its true that if the GP is brought in at a temperature greater than 220 K, then it loses Internal energy and cools until it reaches 220 K, its steady-state temperature.
These true events are correlated.
So DREMT assumes Correlation = Causation, and that he knows the cause.
And that CAUSE = Internal Energy of the GP is transferred to the BP.
Easy-peasey-lemon-squeasy as they say.
But wrong.
Because the only way for Internal Energy to be transferred from the GP to the BP is for there to be a HEAT transfer from the GP to the BP, according to 1LOT.
But we all KNOW very well that the HEAT flow is always from BP to GP.
Thus his CAUSE is mathematically impossible.
And we KNOW that there is a perfectly valid different cause. And that is that the GP reduces HEAT loss from the BP, enabling the Heat source (sun) to transfer Internal Energy to the BP without it being removed to space.
Nevertheless, DREMT has adopted the impossible CAUSE, and just saying it gives him a dopamine rush just like a good drug.
And thus he cant quit his addiction to this lost CAUSE.
As I had said:
“Now, watch Nate demonstrate why he’s banned from the discussion…”
He doesn’t disappoint!
The only way the “back-radiation” transfer could not build up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP is if the transfer either didn’t happen at all, or got returned to the GP. And, we plainly see that in the difference between the plate temperatures of the 262 K…220 K solution and the 244 K…244 K solution!
“You then argue that heat transfer is not defined as something that induces changes in the internal energy within a body”
Beg pardon? Where did I make this argument?
Are you again mistaking energy for heat?
“Then, I show (via the 1LoT equation) that in fact heat transfer is defined as something that induces changes in the internal energy within a body”
As soon as I mentioned sweaters you saw that changes in the internal energy of a body doers not necessarily have to be from heat transfer.
It can also be from a reduction in heat loss.
Which is what the GPE and the GHE are. Only difference is that the reduction in heat loss comes from energy directed backwards instead of a chokepoint.
You just can’t see that because you have spent years saying the same thing in different ways.
“Backradiation is a cold body sending heat to a warmer one.”
That’s your erroneous dogma. From this all your word salads flow.
“Can’t work out the difference between “insulation” and the GPE, can you, barry? No matter how many times I explain it.”
Some claptrap about only reflectors can return energy to warm a warmer object.
Claptrap that rejects what MIT says above, rejects the function of blackbodies, rejects Kirchhoff’s Law – with the astounding crapola that these standards are “not allowed” to be used if the science – as you see it – is wrong.
EVERY time you explain it you reject standard physics. That’s what your original error makes you do. That’s why you drop that specious line “I don’t pretend to know the fate of individual photons.” What pathetic sophistry.
I’ll link to you making the argument if necessary, barry. You certainly said many times that changes in temperature (which after all, relate to changes in internal energy) do not equate to any definition of heat transfer. Were you ignorant of the 1LoT equation, or just a sophist?
“Which is what the GPE and the GHE are. Only difference is that the reduction in heat loss comes from energy directed backwards instead of a chokepoint.”
Yes, but obviously that difference is pivotal…because “energy directed backwards” that builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object is a flow of heat from cold to hot per the 1LoT equation!
“You have proven that a textbook provides a mathematical avenue for the GPE to return the Easter Bunny’s results.”
Thank you, Bill.
“banned from the discussion…”
No I’m not. I can post whatever and wherever I want.
Your ridiculous and utterly dishonest posts of late are inviting the ridicule that you get from me.
DREMT’s 10:03 am whole mistake is writing: “is a flow of heat from cold to hot”. bill’s MIT source does not actually define heat flow that way in the first couple of sentences. DREMT’s example would be a flow of cold at the expense of the cooler object.
DREMT has simply been duped into using a certain phrase out of context.
Sure, Nate, please continue to disgrace yourself as you have been. I’ll just wait for someone else to hopefully respond with something intelligent and rational.
And, in the meantime, I’ll keep linking to the complete and utter annihilation of your religion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1748493
Thoroughly refuted point by point here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748830
Which naturally, you ignored.
Again your mistake is to think your one-way arguments should be viewed in isolation from their rebuttals.
Incorrect.
Not ignored, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1748836
Stop lying, and butt out of the discussion.
Your response does not quote or deal with any of thr point-by-point refutations of your claim.
A key point has never been refuted:
A CHANGE in heat flow is NOT a heat flow. And you keep making this mistake, while never responding to it.
My response, which you just got caught pretending didn’t exist, dealt with your ridiculous “point by point” rebuttal with the respect it deserved – little to none. In each of your points you don’t actually quote from or respond to my argument, you simply try to replace each of the 1) – 5) with your own spin on what you think is happening at each step! Why should I take that seriously!? But, unless I waste my time responding in detail to your every word, you believe that means you’ve won the argument!
This is, again, why I would just like you to butt out of the discussion. You’re simply a waste of my time. Stop playing these ridiculous games, and grow up.
“You certainly said many times that changes in temperature (which after all, relate to changes in internal energy) do not equate to any definition of heat transfer.”
Nope, I never said that this can never be the case – it absolutely is in many standard examples, such as the cavity equilibrium scenario.
The words I bolded constitute your mischaracterisation of my prior comments.
It is also the case that a change in temperature can be brought about by a reduction in heat loss. You’ve mistaken remarks I made about the 2nd Law and the direction of heat transfer for what you’re trying to argue with the 1st Law.
“Were you ignorant of the 1LoT equation, or just a sophist?”
No, just aware of your misapplication of it, still trying to make a bidirectional energy exchange a unidirectional flow of heat.
Here’s a test for you. As you believe reflectors are the only object that can radiatively reduce heat loss, go ahead and use the 1st Law equation to identify Q and delta U when GP is a perfect reflector.
For the absolute clincher that will convince me you know what you’re doing, make the equation work when reflector GP is a slotted pane that allows exactly 50% of BP’s radiation to pass through to space, and 50% reflected back to BP.
This should be VERY interesting.
” ‘energy directed backwards’ that builds up internal energy in the warmer object at the expense of the cooler object is a flow of heat from cold to hot per the 1LoT equation!”
This is your original assertion (minus ‘at the expense of’) from the moment the GPE was introduced here, and you’ve been striving mightily ever since to construct an argument relying on pure rhetoric rather than math. Because there is no legitimate math that confirms the nonsense.
All you’re really saying is that you disbelieve warmer objects absorb radiation from cooler ones – or if they do, that this affects their energy balance.
A complete rejection of standard physics.
Which you fail to deal with continuously, always circling back to the rhetoric and avoiding the equations and the physics.
But maybe today I’m wrong, and you’ll explain reflector GP reducing BP’s heat loss using the 1LoT equation.
barry I addressed your equations so no need to be repeating them over and over again.
Your equations are nothing but a symbolic representation of what you think the results will be with the GPE. Your premises are fine. Your mistake is assuming backradiation constitutes a resistance.
Usually as resistance rises flow through the GP slows. But in this case EMR rises. Heat flow increases departing the GP.
Your premise is as EMR from the GP increases less heat flow goes through the GP. Clearly that’s not the case and if that was the case then 2lot would be false and entropy would decrease and that rule would be false also.
Perhaps you can at least take a physics position on this debate. Buck up the courage like Nate did.
Here’s one example of what you said, barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734843
“Specifically, your definition of heat flow is based on a change in temperature rather than a difference in temperature, and that this is NOT how heat is defined in classic thermodynamics.”
Wriggle away.
And here is (once again) why warming of the BP through insulation via reflection doesn’t violate 2LoT:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734228
The distinction should be clear.
The GPE is not insulation because in your solution, the “reduction in heat loss” comes about by a direct transfer of energy from the GP to the BP, which builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Per the 1LoT equation, that is a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
bill,
“Usually as resistance rises flow through the GP slows. But in this case EMR rises. Heat flow increases departing the GP.”
GP itself is not the point of ‘resistance’, it is the EMR from GP that lands on BP. I’ll remind you of what MIT said:
“q.net = [emitted by plate 1 – radiation absorbed by plate 1 emitted by plate 2]”
The point of ‘resistance’ is on the surface of BP.
BP emits 200 W/m2 but absorbs 100 W/m2 from GP.
With GP present BP’s balance of energy is changed.
Heat flow ‘departs’ GP to space, not to BP. The temperature difference determines this.
“Your premise is as EMR from the GP increases less heat flow goes through the GP”
I can barely understand what you mean. GP emits 100 W/m2 on being introduced to BP. After they equilibrate with 400 W/m2 from the sun and reach steady state with each other, BP is emitting 266.67 W/m2, and GP is emitting 133.33 W/m2.
q has changed from 100 W/m2 to 133.33 W/m2.
The rate of heat transfer has increased BP to GP.
The rate of heat transfer from BP to space has decreased (because GP is warmer than space), which is why BP has to push more energy out to balance.
If you constrict the outlet pipe at the bottom of the lake while maintaining constant inflow, the level of the dam must rise until the pressure squeezes flow through the narrower outlet sufficiently to balance influx.
GP is the narrower outlet. The analogy is limited only by the fact that BP is an outlet as well as an inlet. Both boundaries combined must output equal to absorbed energy.
The trouble seems to be that radiation is a bidirectional phenomenon, and convection and conduction are unidirectional. It can only be repeated that energy is not heat, and that direction of heat flow is determined ONLY by a temperature difference, not a change in temperature due to redistribution of radiative energy.
“It can only be repeated that energy is not heat, and that direction of heat flow is determined ONLY by a temperature difference, not a change in temperature due to redistribution of radiative energy.”
Oh, the irony. If only you would take on board that energy (EMR) is not heat! In your 262 K…220 K solution, every transfer is a heat transfer! They are all treated exactly the same way, i.e. even the “back-radiation” transfer is allowed to build up internal energy in the recipient at the expense of the “donor”!
DREMT,
I’ve never said temperature change can’t be connected with heat transfer. A transfer of heat most certainly caninduce temperature changes. But that is not the determinant of the direction of heat heat flow, because a reduction in heat loss can do the same thing.
The 2nd Law states clearly that the flow of heat is dictated by a temperature difference – and not by anything else.
The 1st Law does not repeal the 2nd Law.
The 1st Law is completely blind to the direction of heat flow, which is why the 2nd Law was invented. If I used the 1LoT equation to posit the cold table added 100 joules to my coffee cup rather than the other way around, that would completely satisfy the equation, because no energy is created or destroyed.
The only thing the 2nd Law tells you about direction of heat flow is that it goes from hot to cold. The 2nd Law dictates that a temperature DIFFERENCE, not a temperature CHANGE, determines the gradient for heat.
You have often asked for an example that breaks 2LoT. Just run the GPE without a sun. Start with two plates pressed together at 244K, then split them apart. If NOW GP cools while BP heats, that’s 2LoT broken the moment there is a temperature difference.
So why is 2LoT not broken with a sun present?
Because the sun is providing heat to BP, not GP. GP is only reducing BP’s heat loss. Heat CAN’T flow from GP to BP while GP is colder than BP.
BP warming from GP backradiation does not violate 2LoT. It only violates you’re novel definition of it, which itself REJECTS 2LoT definition heat being ONLY about temperature difference.
“In your 262 K… 220 K solution, every transfer is a heat transfer!”
Nope. That’s YOUR misunderstanding. Still mistaking energy for heat.
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
The sign of q (+/-) determines heat transfer.
barry…as usual, you are misrepresenting me. The 1LoT equation argument I’m making is not simply that if the internal energy of an object changes, there’s heat flow. The argument (in full) is that in your solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP (Proposition A)…and then, per the 1LoT equation, this is a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
You are still back-tracking on your previous agreement over Proposition A, which is why you cannot just simply put the two things together and get the right answer.
Obviously, in absence of the Sun, both plates will cool to 3 K, so there’s nothing you can do to try and twist that into an example of a radiative 2LoT violation from your perspective. Your perspective leads only and inevitably to the conclusion that to violate 2LoT, the cooler object would have to emit more than the warmer object! Absolutely ludicrous.
DREMT 7:59 am, after taking on board that energy (EMR) is not heat as EMR from the GP travels to the BP, “and then, per the 1LoT equation, this is a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
DREMT tries to change past history with semantics.
No, DREMT, physics doesn’t work that way. Per bill’s MIT source first couple of sentences in Chapter 1, heat flow is only defined radiating hot to cold object; then later in chapter 1, 2LOT eqn. confirms.
I also note DREMT didn’t disagree with a single word barry wrote earlier. Typically DREMT has to ignore correct physics to play a semantic game as we have seen for 9+ years that ends up DREMT going against the 2LOT eqn. so there is no hope for DREMT.
DREMT’s points 1) thru 5) remain defeated by 2LOT eqn. with Eli’s GPE solution using correct physics agreeing with bill’s MIT source on the 2LOT eqn. in Chapter 1 Entropy Production.
Wow, that’s a neat trick, Ball4 – heat is only defined as flowing from hot to cold thus (according to Ball4) it’s not possible to even conceive of heat flowing cold to hot due to its definition. So, there’s no such thing as violating 2LoT and therefore no need for 2LoT to even exist! You’re a genius, Ball4! Ball4 defines 2LoT out of existence, then continues to appeal to the 2LoT equation anyway, even though he’s never once substantiated how anything I’ve said goes against the equation!
Let’s see how many times Ball4 can say “DREMT” in his next ridiculous response.
That definition of heat flow is from bill’s MIT source DREMT 12:04; so you are mistaken since it’s not mine. As I wrote, that defn. is confirmed by 2LOT eqn., all in Chapter 1 of bill’s MIT source DREMT didn’t bother to read and learn.
I didn’t say it was your definition, Ball4. I know it came from the textbook. And, I don’t disagree with it. In fact, I’ve often said that heat is a transfer of thermal energy from hot to cold. My point was that just because heat is defined that way, it doesn’t mean that we can’t conceive of what a heat transfer from cold to hot would be.
As usual, everything I say is over your head. You can’t even read properly, and you apparently have no concept or understanding of humour whatsoever. All you do is endlessly stalk me, constantly try to belittle me, twist everything I say, and lie.
“So, there’s no such thing as violating 2LoT and therefore no need for 2LoT to even exist!”
How ignorant.
Laws of physics like 1LOT, 2LOT, Newtons Laws are Laws precisely because they are not violated in nature.
Yet they are quite useful to us.
Nate misses the point I was making also.
Never mind, I’ll just talk to myself.
And I’ll say, once again, that the GPE’s debunked.
The GPE’s debunked.
Barry
DREMT applied correct physics to the absence of a heat source.
“Obviously, in absence of the Sun, both plates will cool to 3 K”
It is noteworthy that the backradiation is happening there, and is absorbed by the other plate and we get equal temperatures.
As he agreed, 262 K and 220K are points of energy balance for this configuration, ie equilibrium.
Thus, these are the temperatures reached after the heat source is turned on, and that is the ONLY CHANGE that occurred.
It should be obvious that all of the internal energy increases in both plates came from the HEAT source.
So there’s nothing he can do to try and twist that into an example of a radiative 2LoT violation.
That would be absolutely ludicrous.
“The argument (in full) is that in your solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP (Proposition A)… and then, per the 1LoT equation, this is a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
1LoT equation has no idea which direction heat is traveling in. The ONLY thing 1LoT does is establish if the universe has gained or lost energy.
If I seal a heated room with a door that gets colder by the same amount the room warms once it is shut against the Wintery night, 1LoT will happily tell you that heat has been transferred from the door to the room. All 1LoT accounts for is conservation of energy.
The 1st Law of thermodynamics does not repeal the 2nd Law, which was created when it became apparent the 1st Law didn’t account for the fake news that heat flows from doors to heated rooms.
You need the 2nd Law to understand the direction of heat flow. You can’t wipe away its determinant that heat flows, and ONLY flows from a warmer to a cooler environment.
Stop trying to reinvent the 2nd Law in order to argue for your erroneous dogma.
“Your perspective leads only and inevitably to the conclusion that to violate 2LoT, the cooler object would have to emit more than the warmer object! Absolutely ludicrous.”
Yes it is, and yet that is EXACTLY what a violation looks like, because it is the exact opposite of what the law entails.
Your 1-5 doesn’t spell out a violation of the 2nd Law, it reinvents it.
You are saying that a temperature change from backradiation is a 2nd law violation that supersedes the actual definition that heat flow arises purely from a temperature difference.
You’ve got some gumption to reject the 2nd Law.
No surprise that you cannot grasp the point and value of the Laws of Physics, thus you think they can be ignored to support your narrative.
barry, you just repeated your misrepresentation!
I’m not saying that 1LoT determines the direction of the flow of heat. That’s determined by the fact that the “back-radiation” transfer is building up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. The 1LoT equation simply tells you that these changes in internal energy signal that the transfer (the direction of which is already established) is a heat transfer.
Why is this so difficult?
barry says”
:
”bill,
Sorry if this is a duplicate, not sure the first reply stuck.”
duplicate? I think its about the 10,000th time you have said the same thing. You don’t need to say it anymore because mathematics doesn’t have any energy in it to warm the BP and according to many classic physicists its a violation of the rules of entropy and 2lot.
If you want to push that thought of yours one millimeter forward, find something that shines some light that radiation from a cold object can warm a warmer object. Otherwise, think of something original because your constant repeating the same thing is a total waste of time.
The issue you have to make some progress on is to convince mainstream science to rewrite the rules of entropy and 2lot. but you will need to find some different argument or you are continuing to prove that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
It seems apparent the textbooks don’t want to tackle it either. they all have different but similar approaches. MIT gives a caveat about not working for blackbodies because of producing some zeros and all appear to start with a Q and work down hill from there.
so in that respect I was partially wrong about Nate having something that supports the easter bunny as I see no models dealing with warming the top of the chain all I see is the production of a an extra 1. R-1 is considered to be zero insulation.
In my view the problem is entrainment. energy loves to warm stuff and is of mysterious stuff when not warming something. Perhaps the problem of no insulation can be solved by assuming zero up stream loss anytime.
The pressure model operates so. You can stop the flow with no consequences, no loss of energy like water in a pipe from an elevated storage tank with the spigot turned off. You haven’t lost any pressure, lost no gravity, and lost no water.
I asked Google AI:
when did the search for aether start and end:
“The scientific search for the luminiferous aether—a hypothetical, invisible medium once believed to fill all of space to allow light to travel—spanned several centuries, starting formally in the 17th century and essentially ending in the early 1920s.”
My comment:
Maybe we didn’t look long enough or felt it needed to be sidelined due to lack of new approaches to detect it. And of course what is significant is it left questions unresolved.
More Google AI:
”The word “photon” was coined in 1926 by the American physical chemist Gilbert N. Lewis. He introduced the term in a letter published in the scientific journal Nature to describe a hypothetical, indestructible packet of radiant energy”
“Hypothetical” hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Me: How did this differ from Einsteins theory:
“Destructibility vs. Permanence: Einstein’s Lichtquanten (light quanta) are transient energy packets that are created during emission and completely destroyed during absorption. In contrast, Lewis argued that his photon was “uncreatable and indestructible,” merely acting as a reusable storage tank for energy.”
Why the Physics Community Rejected Lewis’ theory:
Physicists quickly proved that light particles are constantly created from nothing (like turning on a flashlight) and utterly annihilated when they hit a surface.
Because Lewis’s “indestructible atom” model completely failed to match empirical data, the physics community rejected his entire structural theory within a year.
However, because the name “photon” sounded highly scientific—harmonizing beautifully with electron and proton—they took his word and slapped it onto Einstein’s energy packets.
How Lewis Reacted to the “Hijacking”
Lewis was deeply embittered and frustrated by how the physics community treated his paper.
The Quick Rejection: Within months of the letter’s publication, prominent physicists mathematically and experimentally proved that light particles are not conserved—they are constantly created and destroyed.
The Semantic Theft: Despite rejecting his science, physicists fell in love with the word “photon” because it perfectly matched the naming convention of the electron and proton.
They completely detached the word from Lewis’s theory and welded it to Albert Einstein’s Lichtquanten (light quanta).
Lewis’s Bitterness: Lewis felt that physicists had committed a form of intellectual plagiarism, stripping his word of its original, intended meaning. He reportedly resented the fact that his name became immortalized in physics textbooks for a theory he didn’t actually believe in (Einstein’s), while his own structural theory was mocked and forgotten.
The Historical Fallout: This frustration contributed to a growing isolation between Lewis and the mainstream physics establishment. Despite being one of the greatest American chemists of the 20th century—inventing the Lewis dot structures taught in every chemistry class and being nominated for the Nobel Prize over 30 times—he never won it, partly due to his combative relationships with contemporary scientists.
My comment:
Or at least until somebody with a giant wallet came along and resurrected Lewis’ structure and we now hear all about it in this forum.
“The 1LoT equation simply tells you that these changes in internal energy signal that the transfer (the direction of which is already established) is a heat transfer.”
Then when I seal the room with the dor and its temperature drops while the room warms, the flow of heat is from door to room.
I establish the direction by omitting everything that was happening already.
The heater was already giving off heat – that didn’t change.
The room was already losing heat to the outside – that doesn’t change.
What has changed is that the dor was moved. By the power of deduction we see the only difference is the door, which cooled while the room warmed, therefore heat flowed from the door to the room.
The 1LoT equation confirms that this was a transfer of heat, because the amount of energy the door lost and the room gained was the same.
Does that train of logic seem familiar, DREMT?
It doesn’t matter how you try and spin you view.
The fact remains that in rejecting that warmer BP sends heat to cooler GP, you reject the very definition of the 2nd Law.
You never deal with that fact. You side-step it (“But HOW did BP get warmer??”) Your silence on your rejection of the actual definition of 2LoT exposes your blind spot.
You really are asserting that the true definition of the 2nd Law is wrong, and you are right. You just don’t know it.
“Does that train of logic seem familiar, DREMT?“
No.
There is no direct transfer of energy from door to room which has been shown to build up internal energy in the room at the expense of the door in some proposed stupid mechanism
You’re a relentless, unstoppable force of misrepresentation.
Barry if you read my post above yours you would see that mainstream science believes 1LOT doesn’t apply to photons.
So there in lies a fatal problem for your argument.
I can certainly appreciate your skepticism on that. In fact there is a lot in science to be skeptical about. In fact skeptics shattering old beliefs of science is exactly what the job of science is. If it were all settled then what would we need scientists for?
Would we need them to go to meetings in exotic locations such as tropical resorts to comingle and socialize then draft another statement assuring us the science is settled?
“You need the 2nd Law to understand the direction of heat flow. You can’t wipe away its determinant that heat flows, and ONLY flows from a warmer to a cooler environment.”
Yes, and for each type of heat transfer, it deligates that determination to a heat transfer law. For radiation, it is the RHTE.
Operationally, the RHTE tells us the direction of heat flow.
DREMT created the stange notion that if the RHTE is appllied to a problem, then 2LOT can still be violated…somehow.
But that makes no sense.
“The issue you have to make some progress on is to convince mainstream science to rewrite the rules of entropy and 2lot.”
The 2nd Law on direction of heat flow says only one thing.
Heat flows from a warmer to a cooler body.
The gradient heat rolls down is set by a temperature DIFFERENCE. Not a temperature change. A temperature DIFFERENCE.
I absolutely accept that.
If BP is warmer than GP, there is only one way that heat can flow.
BP is warmer than GP at all times in the GPE.
Bill, why do you reject the 2LoT definition of heat flow?
Yes, Nate. It’s so very simple.
2nd Law on heat flow says ONLY that heat flows from hot to cold.
For the GPE scenario both DREMT and bill completely and utterly reject that definition when they say heat flows the other way.
They reject the 2nd Law on heat flow.
“Which is what the GPE and the GHE are. Only difference is that the reduction in heat loss comes from energy directed backwards instead of a chokepoint.”
This is the crux of the matter, right here. Calling it “reduction in heat loss coming from energy directed backwards” is, quite frankly, just semantics. It’s actually a total acknowledgment that the “back-radiation” transfer is, simply, warming the BP in your solution. You just don’t currently see that as clearly as I do. I think, in time, you will.
Other than that, you guys seem to be constantly conflating three different concepts:
1) The definition of “heat”.
2) The RHTE.
3) 2LoT.
“No.
There is no direct transfer of energy from door to room which has been shown to build up internal energy in the room at the expense of the door in some proposed stupid mechanism”
And yet, this is how radiative heat transfer works.
Because every body with non-zero emissivity radiates.
And every other body with non-zero emissivity absorbs.
And the warmer bodies emit more than the colder ones.
This is simply what nature does.
Your only option, DREMT, is to accept what nature does, understand it, and incorporate it into your theories.
Because there is no way to make nature stop doing what it does.
The fact that no sane, rational person would ever suggest the closed door is warming the room via the proposed GPE mechanism ought to give Nate pause for thought about the proposed GPE mechanism. But, nothing ever gives Nate pause for thought.
“This is the crux of the matter, right here. Calling it “reduction in heat loss coming from energy directed backwards” is, quite frankly, just semantics. It’s actually a total acknowledgment that the “back-radiation” transfer is, simply, warming the BP in your solution. You just don’t currently see that as clearly as I do. I think, in time, you will.”
I know exactly how you see it. I’ll write a potted history of the whole debate in a sec.
It’s not semantics. I know what determines the direction of heat flow. It is a temperature difference.
Because heat can only go from a hotter to cooler object, I literally am prevented from describing the GPE as a heat flow from GP to BP. 2LoT forbids the nomenclature. But 2LoT does not forbid the action. So how do I describe it?
I describe it exactly the same way Roy Spencer describes it, time and again, here on this blog in numerous articles.
As GP categorically cannot send heat to BP, it is providing resistance to BP’s radiative heat loss.
And that is exactly what the RHTE tells us. q = 200 W/m2 without GP, then 133.33 W/m2 with GP. MIT defines q as BP’s emission minus its absorption from GP. q is the NET rate of transfer from BP to GP.
2LoT demands my description
RHTE confirms my description
MIT clarifies the RHTE function
Roy Spencer sees just as clearly as I do
“The fact that no sane, rational person would ever suggest the closed door is warming the room via the proposed GPE mechanism ought to give Nate pause for thought about the proposed GPE mechanism. But, nothing ever gives Nate pause for thought.”
Nor did I say that.
Back-radiation-transfer is a fact of nature. It is simply how radiative heat transfer works.
Thus no sane rational person would declare it doesnt happen.
barry, you’ve gone back on your agreement over Proposition A.
Accept Proposition A, and that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot follows directly from the 1LoT equation.
Simple as that.
Your false history of the debate will be amusing, I’m sure.
Proposition A, that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot goes against learning from bill’s MIT source Chapter 1.
So, DREMT continues to ignore basic college physics in obtaining his wrong answer for the GPE.
You plainly are unable to refute the fatal flaws pointed out in your argument.
-Your argument depends on back radiation transfers not being allowed to happen.
It is an established fact that back radiation transfers happen. It is how nature does radiative heat transfer from hotter to colder bodies.
Because the resultant heat flow is always from to hot to cold, there can be no 2LOT violation.
Thus your argument is wrong.
Simple as that.
Proposition A is that in your solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Ball4 cannot write one honest response!
“It’s not semantics. I know what determines the direction of heat flow. It is a temperature difference. Because heat can only go from a hotter to cooler object, I literally am prevented from describing the GPE as a heat flow from GP to BP. 2LoT forbids the nomenclature”
In just a few short sentences barry proclaims it’s not semantics, and then immediately contradicts himself! I have to laugh. They’re all over the place.
Nate is even forgetting that I’ve never denied the existence of back-radiation, I only maintain that it does not result in warming of the warmer object.
barry’s “history of the debate” will probably be as false as it was last time, when he tried to pretend that basically I had no understanding of what insulation even was until Nate and barry came along. Funny. In fact, all that has happened over the years is that I’ve become better and better able to accurately express the same argument.
> It seems apparent the textbooks don’t want to tackle it either. they all have different but similar approaches. MIT gives a caveat about not working for blackbodies because of producing some zeros and all appear to start with a Q and work down hill from there.
It did not take that long for Gill to dismiss the sammich he requested for so long.
All he needed was to open it, and realize there was no Sky Dragon dressing in it.
barry says:
“The issue you have to make some progress on is to convince mainstream science to rewrite the rules of entropy and 2lot.”
The 2nd Law on direction of heat flow says only one thing.
Heat flows from a warmer to a cooler body.
The gradient heat rolls down is set by a temperature DIFFERENCE. Not a temperature change. A temperature DIFFERENCE.
I absolutely accept that.
If BP is warmer than GP, there is only one way that heat can flow.
BP is warmer than GP at all times in the GPE.
Bill, why do you reject the 2LoT definition of heat flow?
———————–
sounds like a strawman Barry. Define 2LOT and point out where I am rejecting it.
Now DREMT changes to 11:39 am Proposition A is that “an unidentified your” solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP which is consistent with 2LOT eqn. in bill’s MIT source Chapter 1 so that “unknown your” is correct.
No “change”, Ball4. I’ve referred to Proposition A several times in this thread and it’s always meant the same thing. You’re basically just proving that you don’t pay any attention. Thanks for confirming, once again, that you agree it’s correct, anyway.
bill,
“Define 2LOT and point out where I am rejecting it.”
You’re having a lend, aren’t you?
If you don’t know the provision of the 2nd law dealing with the direction of heat flow (from hot to cold), then what in hell are you doing claiming the GPE violates the 2nd Law? This has been the absolute basis of the whole debate on the GPE for years.
No, I’m not going to provide a link. If you don’t understand what the 2nd Law is on direction of heat flow then it’s far too late for you.
Anyone who says Eli’s GPE violates 2LoT rejects its stipulation on heat flow direction because at all times, Tbp > Tgp.
Now I know why you reject 2LoT on direction of heat flow – you don’t know what it is!
DREMT 12:15 now clearly claims he will “only maintain that (“back-radiation”) does not result in warming of the warmer object” which goes against the 2LOT eqn. in bill’s MIT source Chapter 1.
Thanks to bill posting up that source, now there remains no hope for DREMT’s GPE solution to be correct.
For experimental results confirming bill was helpful, refer to the post Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
I’ve been here for the entire evolution of this argument since the GPE was first introduced.
The assertion from critics was that backradiation is a heat transfer in violation of the 2nd Law, because a cold object can’t make a warm one warmer.
So we said that sweaters and blankets and ceiling insulation are cooler objects that make warmer ones warmer.
Critics adjusted. They said this works for convection and conduction, but the energy beam going backwards has ENERGY, and so was transferring heat. Just not possible it could be reducing heat flow, because it has energy directed backwards, it wasn’t a choke point.
The reply was that a single vector of radiation doesn’t define the direction of heat flow in this scenario, only the NET radiation exchange does.
We said that heat is a macro quantity, and bidirectional EMR is the micro transactions. Heat, in the classic sense, is blind to the two-way transaction, and only perceives the NET. Backradiation reduces the radiative energy loss of the heated, warmer object.
When critics began to consistently remember there was an external source of heat involved (something they still sometimes forget), they said that analogising backradiation as insulation doesn’t work, because insulation only works in one direction. So we pointed to heat shielding for spacecraft to keep the internal temperature up.
Unable to refute the fact that radiative energy can act as insulation, critics came up with a new objection. This could only work with reflected energy. Why only reflected energy? Well, that’s the only examples that engineering books came up with. But why NOT emitted energy, we said. Because the reflected energy was only recycling the heated object’s own energy. It is not permitted, for them, that emitted energy from a cooler source can have the same effect. Why, we asked? Well…. something about the photons being acceptable to be absorbed by the heated object being insulated only if they are reflected. It’s a bit murky here, because critics don’t really explain this. Clint waves his hand at ‘the right kind of photons’. DREMT says he doesn’t have to explain it. But the warmer receiving source is a blackbody, we said. To this they replied that blackbodies are fictional, and are not allowed to break the laws of physics (at least as they interpret them). And they kept right on using them in their thought experiments.
In order to maintain the assertion backradiation is a heat transfer DREMT came up with a scenario where he believed a quantity of heat could be passed from GP to BP if the end result was the same as Eli’s. DREMT pressed infinitely conducting blackbody plates together to be the same temperature heated by the sun, and pulled them apart to announce the drop in internal energy in GP and rise in internal energy from BP was caused purely by the new vector of radiation from GP to BP.
When it was pointed out that the conduction provided no impediment to BP’s energy loss where GP now returns energy, that two infinitely conducting plates pressed together is thermally indistinct from one plate, that doubling GP’s radiative surface is the cause of GP’s cooling, as well as other challenges, DREMT abandoned a perfectly reasonable thermal premise for a new one that was purely radiative – the magical scenario where GP receives all the energy emitted by BP in its direction, but emits zero radiation from the same surface. Then gets colder when backradiation gets switched on.
With words about internal energy changes (temperature changes, kids) coming about through backradiation, and this happening ‘at the expense of’ GP’s internal energy, finally he had contrived a scenario where he believed he’d proved a quantity called heat went from colder GP to warmer BP. So convinced he was of this that he repeated it over and over, and pretended no one ever challenged it. No matter that his narrative tacitly rejected the definition of heat flow per the second law, he had found the holy grail, and wonders that others could fail to see its light.
There were other thought-burgers along the way. Clint tried to argue that radiation arriving at a surface could not be summed because ICE CUBES would boil water! Physics texts linked here stating that radiation at a surface is summed somehow got ignored by Clint, who readily agreed that a body encased in a cavity comes to thermal equilibrium with the walls and emits what the walls put out, meaning that even with the field of view completely covered in ice cubes the maximum temperature of the irradiated body could only match that of ice cubes. Clint somehow didn’t get that. But when it was a wall of suns he, he was convinced that as soon as you remove one sun from the near 200,000 surrounding the object at 1AU, there is an instant drop in temperature, as the object can only absorb a maximum of 4 (or is it 6?) suns worth of received flux. Somehow, more magic occurs where all the radiative fluxes from all the suns are summed when there are no gaps in the cavity wall, but once a single sun was removed, the radiative flux diminished immediately by 4 orders of magnitude to only have the flux of 4 (or is it 6?) suns. How this precipitous change works was not explained.
DREMT toyed with blackbody cubes next to each other, saying that they could not raise each others’ temperature when one appirated next to the other already warmed by a sun. When it was pointed out if the sun was entirely encased by a dome of cubes, that the cubes would have to be the same temperature as the sun (or close to, if a tiny radiative gap is left between each cube to avoid conduction), as in the cavity equilibrium scenario that is a standard of physics (cf Clint’s thesis)… well I can’t remember what DREMT replied to that. Perhaps he holds the same view as Clint? Remove one cube and suddenly they all drop in temperature to the same as if only one cube were present?
Throughout all of this, standard physics was rejected. The most common was that blackbodies DON’T always, in their view, absorb all EMR incident. Why? Because it’s not allowed due to their views about the GPE and radiation not summing. Clint’s belief in ‘the right photons’ being required to be absorbed by a blackbody flatly rejects Kirchhoff’s Law.
Asked to provide physics texts for various of their claims – for example that warmer bodies cannot absorb radiation from cooler bodies – I cannot remember a single reference in all these years from Clint and DREMT, while plenty have been provided them. bill has provided some links, but exceedingly rarely, and they didn’t, for the most part, say what he thought they said.
It’s been quite the journey through the minds of those who think the greenhouse effect breaks the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. I do admire the tenacity.
But I don’t admire the intellectual cowardice of failing to deal head on with their rejection of standard physics, in blackbodies, Kirchhoff’s Law and the standard definition of heat flow per 2LoT. Instead, they stay on track with their thought bubbles and studiously avoid substantially commenting on these significant hurdles to their case.
“In just a few short sentences barry proclaims it’s not semantics, and then immediately contradicts himself!”
Nope. I’m quoted for this reply saying;
“It’s not semantics. I know what determines the direction of heat flow. It is a temperature difference. Because heat can only go from a hotter to cooler object, I literally am prevented from describing the GPE as a heat flow from GP to BP. 2LoT forbids the nomenclature”
All I’m saying is that 2LoT determines the language, not my own ideas of what the direction of heat flow is. I have to follow
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
You reject this with your erroneous description of heat flow in Eli’s GPE.
And you don’t talk about your rejection of this standard.
Well, that’s barry’s false view of the history, filled with his spin and missing lots of important points along the way.
Here’s the correct recent history – barry conceded that Proposition A was correct (as has Ball4). That’s points 1) – 4) from my points 1) – 5) conceded. So, for all of the fuss about how my points 1) – 5) have supposedly been refuted (a link to the refutation got lost in the post, apparently), in fact the vast majority of it is (or, in barry’s case was) accepted by two of the main people arguing in support of the GPE!
Point 5) just starts with Proposition A and explains, quite simply, that the changes in internal energy indicate clearly, per the 1LoT equation, that the “back-radiation” transfer is a transfer of heat from cold to hot. This part of the argument has not been refuted either, with barry’s attempts being misrepresentation, Ball4 just lying as usual, and Nate still refusing to accept Proposition A.
barry has now gone back on his acceptance of Proposition A. Ball4 hasn’t. Nate never accepted Proposition A, but also never did anything but misrepresent the arguments leading to it. Meanwhile, the gang are still gleefully conflating three different concepts:
1) The definition of “heat”.
2) The RHTE.
3) 2LoT.
DREMT claims 6:07 pm, the “back-radiation” transfer is a transfer of heat from cold to hot where that part of the argument has already been refuted by bill’s MIT source first couple of sentences in Chapter 1.
DREMT’s points 1) thru 5) were repeatedly refuted several months ago.
DREMT’s GPE solution is refuted by 2LOT eqn. in bill’s MIT source Chapter 1 Entropy Production.
DREMT has nothing left that hasn’t been refuted multiple times over the last several months. In addition, DREMT has not explicitly refuted a single point made by barry.
For experimental results confirming all DREMT arguments are refuted, refer to the post Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
“barry, you’ve gone back on your agreement over Proposition A.”
I amended my position months ago, as I laid out.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748868
And I amended my position because of assumptions you conceived in the phrasing that were wrong. EG, in the same March discussion linked in that postyou said:
“Internal energy is converted to EMR which is radiated from the body, therefore any passive object that is radiating EMR is technically losing internal energy”
Clearly not: any object that radiates EMR but stays at the same temperature is NOT losing internal energy, and absolutely not ‘technically’ doing so. Radiative emission as a vector is not bound to gains or losses in internal energy, which is a state function. That’s why the 1LoT equation can’t help us with direction of heat flow. As MIT states:
“Do two bricks at a medium temperature ever go to a state where one is hot and one is cold? Will the gas in the unrestrained expansion ever spontaneously return to occupying only the left side of the volume? Experience hints that the answer is no. However, both these processes, unfamiliar though they may be, are compatible with the first law. In other words the first law does not prohibit their occurrence. There thus must be some other “great principle” that describes the direction of natural processes, that tells us which first law compatible processes will not be observed. This is contained in the second law.”
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node37.html
You can’t repeal the 2nd Law with the 1st. To whit:
MIT confirms in multiple places that the direction of heat flow is determined by the NET radiative exchange – as has been said from the very beginning – not from a one-way transfer of energy and attendant temperature changes.
https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.mit.edu/dist/6/1810/files/2024/04/AHTTv600.pdf – from the bottom of page 552.
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Your argument against the GPE rejects the standard definition of heat flow, because Tbp > Tgp.
How can you not understand that? How can you fastidiously let this slide by?
Ball4 lies about everything in his comment, and barry continues to misrepresent me.
First, barry hadn’t withdrawn his agreement months ago. He hadn’t disagreed that in his solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. We were instead arguing only about a qualifier – that this happens regardless of the starting temperature of the GP. He brings up the point about internal energy being lost by passive objects that radiate. That point was being argued only about the qualifier. Of course, I was right on that point anyway (as AI confirmed), but there’s no point going over it again, as barry is apparently now incapable of conceding points.
Second, barry continues to misrepresent my 1LoT equation argument. For the nth time, I’m not saying 1LoT determines the direction of heat flow. That is already determined by Proposition A and the fact that the EMR transfer is from cold to hot. The 1LoT equation just confirms that this EMR transfer is acting as a transfer of heat.
If barry won’t debate honestly, there’s little point in us continuing.
“conflating three different concepts:
1) The definition of “heat”.
2) The RHTE.
3) 2LoT.”
They are grounded together, not ‘conflated.’
We are concerned with the definition of the direction of heat flow. The definition of ‘heat’ is a broader category and the word is malleable to circumstance. We are treating with heat in the classic, 2nd Law sense. And we are doing that because of skeptics’ initial rejection of the GPE (and GHE). Skeptics set the point of contention, not me.
We go by Clausius’ statement of the 2nd Law – which was discussed for months – that heat flows from hot to cold absent some other change connected therewith.
The RHTE determines the direction of heat flow per Clausius’ statement when the energy flows are bidirectional (radiative), and particularly for the GPE scenario, where we can do away with terms like emissivity, view factor and area. As these are all 1 for 1, the equation boils down to:
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
There is no ‘conflation’ here. Physics sources have been quoted and linked spelling out that the NET exchange determines the heat transfer. If q is positive, the heat flow is T₁ -> T₂, if negative, the other way. It’s just saying heat flows from hot to cold in that equation. Pretty straightforward.
What of this do you disagree with, DREMT?
“The 1LoT equation just confirms that this EMR transfer is acting as a transfer of heat.”
No, you’re arguing your premise as your conclusion.
The rebuttal has always been that a transfer of heat is about NET energy exchange. That fact doesn’t disappear just because you continually cherry-pick a one-way energy transfer. The GPE ONLY works with an external heat source. You are sidelining that factor, as usual, as well as the exchange from BP to GP, which is required to determine heat transfer per Clausius, per 2LoT, and per MIT.
So let’s use the 1LoT equation for the GPE.
ΔU = Q- W
No work involved so
ΔU = Q
Just BP:
Q = Qsun – Qspace = 0
ΔU = 0: BP is holding steady losing no internal energy.
We’ll work in joules as we are dealing with the 1st Law. So, for a square metre in one second:
ΔUbp = 400 J – (200 J + 200 J) = 0
When GP is the same temp as BP, the moment we switch the emissive power of backradiation on, things change. Let’s start in the first instant the switch occurs and GP sends 200 W/m2 to BP.
ΔUbp = 400 J + 200 J – 200 J – 200 J = +200 J
BP must warm, because ΔU = 200 J. Internal energy is increased.
What about GP?
ΔUgp = 200 J – 200 J – 200 J = -200 J
GP must cool.
Any laws broken so far? Nope. 1LoT is satisfied that no energy has been destroyed or created. At this precise moment the plates’ energy transfer is 0, but that’s about to change.
Halfway through the change BP emits 240 W/m2, and GP emits 160 W/m2. Let’s check for one second:
ΔUbp = 400 + 160 – 240 – 240 = +80 J (still warming)
ΔUgp = 240 – 160 – 160 = -80 J (still cooling)
Let’s check if 2LoT has been broken between the plates, for which we must calculate the NET exchange.
Q.net = BPgross – GPgross = 240 – 160 = 80 J
Q = +80 J
Because Q is positive, heat is flowing from BP to GP.
You can see the rest, but let’s finish up. At steady state we get for BP over 1 metre and 1 second
ΔUbp = 400 + 133.33 – 266.66 – 266.66 = 0
For GP
ΔUgp = 266.66 – 133.33 – 133.33 = 0
Checking for 2LoT violation:
Q.net = 266.66 – 133.33 = +133.33
Q.net is positive, heat flow is BP to GP.
ΔU for the whole system:
ΔU = 400 – 266.67 – 133.33 = 0
1LoT equation tells us that the system is steady.
(I altered values by 0.01, of course, because I couldn’t be arsed finding a recurring symbol, if there is one).
Your perennial mistake is to ignore all the energy flows. And it really is perennial, as you’ve been told this for years.
You said upthread that the train of logic I went through wasn’t familiar – it was exactly like your used-to-be process of elimination to sideline all other energy flows except the GP -> BP energy vector. You went on about that for a few months. Remember? The sun was already shining, GP was already emitting to space, BP was already emitting to GP, so the only difference was the new energy vector GP to BP (after splitting the plates).
That was your argument then for why you didn’t need to consider the NET exchange.
Now you’re just excluding them automatically. And you continue to ignore the fact that your arguments reject the definition of heat flow direction per 2LoT, as stated by Clausius. You just hedged at the problem by suggesting that people are ‘conflating’ the definition of heat (flow), 2LoT and the RHTE, without explaining why they DON’T belong together.
We won’t see an substantive explanation on this remark from you.
Sorry, barry, but quote-mining and then falsely accusing me of circular logic is not honest debate, either!
Fundamentally, you do not seem to even understand my argument (perhaps you’re just pretending not to, who knows!?).
My argument is to isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer in the 262 K…220 K solution, in order to prove that it’s a transfer of heat from cold to hot, in that solution. To do this requires comparison of the results of all the transfers occurring to completion, with the results of all the transfers except the “back-radiation” transfer. So, straight away, you’re wrong. I am not forgetting about the Sun. The transfer Sun to BP is included, along with all the other transfers, in isolating the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. Once that’s done, we get to Proposition A.
Remember, this is the isolated effect of the transfer, thus all talk of “net” is redundant. Yet, that’s all you guys go on about!
The purpose of the 1LoT equation is simple. Not a lick of maths needs to be done. All I’m saying is that in the absence of work, changes in internal energy equate to heat flow. Done.
In a rational world, that would be the end of it.
“Remember, this is the isolated effect of the transfer, thus all talk of “net” is redundant…”
How inconvenient for you that the NET exchange determines direction of heat flow.
You would have to find some way to try and dismiss this fact….
Which is all you have been doing for years.
So, when are you going to address the problem that your argument rejects the true definition of the 2LoT on direction of heat flow? You’ve managed to not talk about this for years.
And will you now explain why you think there is a problem with the definition of heat (as in direction), Clausius’ statement on the 2LoT, and RHTE corroborating each other?
How about the issue with your solution that a blackbody also is a perfect reflector?
What about the reputable sources we’ve linked confirming that the NET exchange of radiation determines the direction of heat flow?
It’s a bit premature to declare victory, DREMT, and it’s clear that you are doing it out of intellectual cowardice.
Barry, you applied the known laws of physics correctly, and ran the numbers correctly to find the solution is 262 K, 220 K, AND most importantly, that there is no evidence heat flow from cold to hot. No evidence of a 2LOT violation.
You asked him to point out specifically what is wrong with your analysis.
His answer?
“My argument is to bla bla bla rinse and repeat..”
And to ignore your argument and analysis and queston completely.
That perfectly illustrates that the only way for him to keep his argument going is to shamelessly ignore his opponents argument:
That proves his narrative fails on the facts and the math.
It is thus pure fraud.
As to his argument:
“My argument is to isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer in the 262 K…220 K solution, in order to prove that it’s a transfer of heat from cold to hot, in that solution. To do this requires comparison of the results of all the transfers..
For the billionth time, your comparison finds the CHANGE in heat flow between two different configurations.
But the CHANGE in heat flow is NOT the heat flow. You never ever acknowlege this fact.
2LOT does constrain a CHANGE in heat flow with a change in the problem.
Why would it?!
2LOT only contrains the heat flow direction.
And again, you simply ignore this logical failure.
Oops. Correction:
“2LOT does NOT constrain a CHANGE in heat flow when a change in the problem occurs.”
DREMT incorrectly writes 12:29 am and 4:48 am: “the EMR transfer is from cold to hot. The 1LoT equation just confirms that this EMR transfer is acting as a transfer of heat…All I’m saying is that in the absence of work, changes in internal energy equate to heat flow.”
No since even bill knows that is wrong as it is ruled out by bill’s MIT source first couple of sentences defining heat flow in Chapter 1.
For experimental results confirming DREMT is wrong refer to the post: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
Well, barry has nothing honest to say. Nor does Nate, but let’s clear up one of his major mistakes once and for all:
“For the billionth time, your comparison finds the CHANGE in heat flow between two different configurations. But the CHANGE in heat flow is NOT the heat flow. You never ever acknowlege this fact.”
Perfectly wrong, Nate. My comparison isolates the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. And, that effect is shown to be the buildup of internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Proposition A, that Ball4 agrees is correct, and so did barry (up until his moment of intellectual cowardice).
If neither of you can agree to Proposition A, there’s nothing to discuss. You have to get up to speed with Ball4, first.
9:56 am: “…that effect is shown to be the buildup of internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP.”
…. as bill’s MIT source confirms in Chapter 1 Entropy Production.
For experimental results confirming bill’s MIT source refer to the post: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still showing DREMT’s GPE solution is wrong and Eli was right on the GPE.
Ball4 flatly lies:
“No since even bill knows that is wrong as it is ruled out by bill’s MIT source first couple of sentences defining heat flow in Chapter 1.”
Those sentences are:
“People have always understood that something flows from hot objects to cold ones. We call that flow heat.”
This is how far the discussion has devolved. “The gang” seem to think they can refute my argument by simply pointing out that heat flow is defined as a flow of thermal energy from a hot object to a cold one! Ridiculous…but funny.
> that effect is shown to be the buildup of internal energy in the BP at the expense of
Semi-regular reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/pressure-causes-temperature-its-time-to-climb-down-from-mount-stupid/#comment-1746094
Now DREMT 10:55 am humorously writes quoting MIT text: “heat flow is defined as a flow of thermal energy from a hot object to a cold one” is “ridiculous” (DREMT term). LOL.
Just learn per the MIT text, DREMT, that there is no heat flow from GP to BP as DREMT incorrectly imagines so Eli was right on the GPE and DREMT is wrong.
Mark B’s false accusations are facts according to Willard, and Ball4 twists my words again. Two of the worst trolls this blog has ever seen.
No, Ball4, heat flow is indeed a transfer of thermal energy from a hot object to a cold object. What is “ridiculous” is that you apparently think this fact somehow refutes my argument.
DREMT’s own argument: “the EMR transfer is from cold to hot. The 1LoT equation just confirms that this EMR transfer is acting as a transfer of heat”
bill’s MIT text quoted by DREMT: “People have always understood that something flows from hot objects to cold ones. We call that flow heat..”
So DREMT’s argument in his own words is completely refuted by bill’s MIT text words. No word twisting necessary at all. Entertaining to watch & comment on the sad story of DREMT & the GPE unfold over a decade.
They’re so desperate it’s unreal.
“Perfectly wrong, Nate. My comparison isolates the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. And, that effect is shown to be the buildup of internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Proposition A, that Ball4 agrees is correct, and so did barry (up until his moment of intellectual cowardice”
Where is your answer? Nothing here explains why or how a change in heat flow IS the heat flow.
Nothing you say there tells us why that is ‘perfectly wrong’.
“So, when are you going to address the problem that your argument rejects the true definition of the 2LoT on direction of heat flow? You’ve managed to not talk about this for years.”
This is the perfect example of you conflating the three things. “The true definition of the 2LoT on direction of heat flow”!? You’re mixing up the concepts!
“And will you now explain why you think there is a problem with the definition of heat (as in direction), Clausius’ statement on the 2LoT, and RHTE corroborating each other?”
Heat flows from hot to cold. This doesn’t mean we can’t conceive of what it would be like for heat to flow from cold to hot. In fact, we have to, in order to work out what’s a 2LoT violation. You take it to the extreme that, for a radiative 2LoT violation, the cold object has to emit more than the warm object! I don’t get how you can’t just intuitively “see” how wrong that is, but I guess I’m not indoctrinated the way you guys are.
“How about the issue with your solution that a blackbody also is a perfect reflector?”
A blackbody (an imaginary object) cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.
“What about the reputable sources we’ve linked confirming that the NET exchange of radiation determines the direction of heat flow?”
I don’t dispute that, for example, two objects at the same temperature have zero heat flow between them. If an object is warmer than another, then the heat flows from the warmer to the colder. However, in order for the warmer object to get warmer in the first place, it requires heat flow to the warmer object, unless it’s being insulated. But, the GPE is not an insulating effect, as explained.
” ‘The gang’ seem to think they can refute my argument by simply pointing out that heat flow is defined as a flow of thermal energy from a hot object to a cold one! Ridiculous… but funny.”
That’s not what we’re saying. The flow of energy from BP to GP doesn’t determine the direction of heat flow, neither does the flow of energy from GP to BP.
It is the NET thermal energy exchange between parallel plates that determines the direction of heat flow.
“You take it to the extreme that, for a radiative 2LoT violation, the cold object has to emit more than the warm object! I don’t get how you can’t just intuitively ‘see’ how wrong that is”
To move heat from a cold object to a warm object in a radiative scenario, for heat to flow ‘uphill’, more energy has to travel from the cold object to the warm object than the other way around. I don’t understand how this is not obvious to you when the definition of heat is in the NET radiative exchange. As has been cited and quoted here for you many times.
“A blackbody (an imaginary object) cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.”
This answer boils down to “because my view is correct.” Circular reasoning at its finest. This is how you fool yourself that it’s fine to reject standard physics. You lack the humility to concede your blackbody mirror is non-physical, when every textbook on radiation transfer tells you you’re wrong.
“However, in order for the warmer object to get warmer in the first place, it requires heat flow to the warmer object, unless it’s being insulated. But, the GPE is not an insulating effect, as explained.”
Though it is repetitive, this is a legitimate answer.
You claim an object that emits radiation rather than reflects cannot ‘insulate’ radiative heat loss from a warmer object.
But here again your ultimate answer as to why this should be, why ta warm object can’t absorb emitted radiation from a cold object, thus changing its energy balance, is “because my view is correct.”
To which I offer this link:
https://expoadvancedmaterials.com/articles/vacuum-furnace-temperature-uniformity-graphite-ams2750
“Unlike gas-fired or atmosphere furnaces where convection contributes significantly, vacuum furnaces rely on radiation from the heating elements to the load and from radiation shields reflecting energy back toward the centre of the work zone…
Graphite has high emissivity (ε = 0.7–0.9 depending on surface condition) which makes it an excellent radiator. Fresh, machined graphite surfaces tend toward the lower end; graphite with pyrolytic carbon deposits from previous cycles tends higher. This matters for uniformity because:
* Higher emissivity radiation shields reflect more of the incident radiation back toward the load”
There you go. High emissivity shielding is a ‘good radiator’ that ‘reflects’ incident radiation back to the core. Used in some furnaces to spread the returned radiation over a broader emission spectrum, and in this case to ensure temperature uniformity (reduce hotspots).
This is (near) blackbody radiation shields, insulating radiation loss. I posted another example a few months ago, where reflectors didn’t work as well as black shielding because of the narrow spectral properties of the load.
What you need to do to convince is to explain the mechanics of it. What physically happens at BP’s surface that it reflects AND absorbs 100% of radiation? If you can’t do that, then realists have to go with what textbooks say on blackbody radiation.
“I don’t pretend to know the fate of individual photons,” is a cop out. You are welcome to quote and link to the physics texts that supports your view. You will be laughed at if you simply re-assert that your view demands physics conform to it against what is in textbooks on radiative transfer.
“That’s not what we’re saying.”
It quite literally is what Ball4 was saying.
“To move heat from a cold object to a warm object in a radiative scenario, for heat to flow ‘uphill’, more energy has to travel from the cold object to the warm object than the other way around. I don’t understand how this is not obvious to you when the definition of heat is in the NET radiative exchange. As has been cited and quoted here for you many times.”
It’s obvious to me that this is the logical conclusion to your viewpoint, and it’s obvious to me that it’s absurd. I don’t get why you don’t see that!
“This answer boils down to “because my view is correct.” Circular reasoning at its finest. This is how you fool yourself that it’s fine to reject standard physics. You lack the humility to concede your blackbody mirror is non-physical, when every textbook on radiation transfer tells you you’re wrong.”
Every textbook on radiation transfer fails to mention what happens in a powered scenario like the GPE. Yet you just assume you’re correct anyway. Every textbook would also mention that 2LoT cannot be violated, and the points 1) – 5) demonstrate that the GPE violates 2LoT. Thus the “back-radiation” transfer must be returned, as much as that pains you.
“Though it is repetitive, this is a legitimate answer.”
Thanks, I guess.
“But here again your ultimate answer as to why this should be, why ta warm object can’t absorb emitted radiation from a cold object, thus changing its energy balance, is “because my view is correct.””
No, I have thoroughly explained why the GPE is not an insulating effect. Also, where did I ever say anything about the fate of individual photons? I never did.
“To which I offer this link…used in some furnaces to spread the returned radiation over a broader emission spectrum, and in this case to ensure temperature uniformity (reduce hotspots).”
Which ain’t the same mechanism as the GPE, as was already pointed out to you last time. Generally, high-emissivity surfaces are used for cooling purposes, and even in these extreme outlier cases you dredge up, they are not used in any way that proves anything about the GPE.
“What you need to do to convince is to explain the mechanics of it. What physically happens at BP’s surface that it reflects AND absorbs 100% of radiation? If you can’t do that, then realists have to go with what textbooks say on blackbody radiation. “I don’t pretend to know the fate of individual photons,” is a cop out. You are welcome to quote and link to the physics texts that supports your view. You will be laughed at if you simply re-assert that your view demands physics conform to it against what is in textbooks on radiative transfer.”
Same response as further up. Look, this blackbody obsession of yours is a hangup that is so extreme I realised that nothing I can say would ever convince you. So, I removed points 6 and 7 from the points 1) – 7) and made it the points 1) – 5). Because, ultimately your 262 K…220 K solution is debunked without even needing to consider the issue of whether the “back-radiation” is returned or not. 6) and 7) are for after you’ve accepted the GPE’s debunked.
And, basically, I think you understand that if you accept Proposition A, that’s it for the GPE. You also realise that you already had accepted Proposition A, and have since gone back on it. So, you must realise your position is hanging on by a thread. You’d already, whether you understand it or not, accepted that the GPE was debunked! So, of course, you try to divert to these points. I even indulge you in it, not that you’d ever give me any credit.
The points 1) – 5) debunk the GPE. You called me out in this thread, you wanted to talk to me, so listen to what I’m saying.
“A blackbody (an imaginary object) cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.”
But thet are part of the GPE problem as it was given to us.
Clearly you cannot solve the GPE as given to us.
So that is that.
Regardless, make the plates have emissivity .95, as happens often in the real world. In that case, 95% will be absorbed by tbe BP and 5% reflected.
And we still cannot end up with equal temperature plates in equilibrium.
And your argument still is built upon the false notion that a CHANGE in heat flow when the problem is changed, IS a heat flow.
You claim to have an answer for thss.
Where is your it? Nothing given explains why or how a change in heat flow IS the heat flow.
Nothing you say there tells us what is ‘perfectly wrong’ with this challenge to your narrative.
“And your argument still is built upon the false notion that a CHANGE in heat flow when the problem is changed, IS a heat flow.”
No, the change in the problem isolates the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. That is my answer. Not sure why you don’t understand it!
And, reflective plates can radiatively insulate, in response to your other comment.
DREMT 11:48pm: “It quite literally is what Ball4 was saying.”
No. I’ve repeatedly said it is as bill’s MIT source writes.
“Every textbook would also mention that 2LoT cannot be violated, and the points 1) – 5) demonstrate that the GPE violates 2LoT.”
No. Those points have been shown to be repeatedly refuted by bill’s MIT source in Chapter 1 Entropy Production. Just like every modern text on the 2LOT refutes them. DREMT’s GPE solution is then wrong.
bill’s MIT source shows Eli’s GPE solution is correct. DREMT writing EMR from the GP which DREMT agrees isn’t heat then suddenly turns into heat once the EMR is incident on BP is laughable & ludicrous (DREMT term).
Ball4, repeatedly pointing in the vague direction of some chapter of a textbook without any sort of specific page number, quote, reference or accompanying explanation is what’s known as, “shameless handwaving bullshit” [DREMT term].
Twisting my words is also known as, “disgusting, repellent trolling” [DREMT term].
Also, people complain about me declaring victory but you do it in almost every comment you make.
Begone, foul sophist.
No, the change in the problem isolates the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. That is my answer”
I perfectly understand that you are isolating the change.
Still, a CHANGE in heat flow is not the heat flow.
Is it really?
And 2LOT is only concerned with the actual heat flow. Not how much it changes when something in a problem.
Should say “when something in the problem changes.”
Now Nate’s twisting my words!
I said: “No, the change in the problem isolates the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. That is my answer”
and he responds:
“I perfectly understand that you are isolating the change. Still, a CHANGE in heat flow is not the heat flow.”
You don’t “perfectly understand” because I am not isolating any “change”. I am isolating the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer.
Gee whizz.
4:25 pm … and the effect of the added GP “back-radiation” transfer incident on the BP being more intense than the previous “back-radiation” directly from space incident on the BP increases the BP temperature to a new 1LOT equilibrium as shown by Eli. All in accord with 2LOT found in bill’s MIT source Chapter 1 section on Entropy Production.
“Every textbook on radiation transfer fails to mention what happens in a powered scenario…”
Hang on, this is a reply to me saying that every physics textbook DOES tell you that your blackbody mirror is impossible, because blackbody function is described as having no reflectivity. It’s also baked into the value ε, where 1 absorbs 100% and 0 reflects 100% of EMR. You have two exclusively opposed emissivities operating at the same time.
I have an absence of comment. You have a direct rebuttal in standard physics.
However, the GPE satisfies all the building block standards of radiative transfer. Furthermore, there is a near analog to the GPE in the textbook bill linked.
“Also, where did I ever say anything about the fate of individual photons? I never did.”
You’ve said it many times.
“I don’t pretend to know the fate of individual photons”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1650773
“I’m not one to claim to know the fate of individual photons..”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1504463
“I tell barry that I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons…”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742123
“Thinking about the fate of individual photons is a waste of time..”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1530405
You’ve said it many times more than these. When confronted with standard physics this is your dodge to avoid dealing with your rejection of standard physics, particularly blackbodies rejecting EMR, or warmer bodies not absorbing radiation from cooler bodies (and having their energy balance changed).
It’s the main cog in your circular reasoning. You just shrug your shoulders and announce that it doesn’t matter what textbooks say, or if mechanics happen in your view that standard physics can’t explain. Your view is right so standard physics is simply irrelevant.
For years you just wave the inconvenient facts away like this. Blackbody mirror is unexplainable at the quantum level? Doesn’t matter, your view is right, so a blackbody mirror is acceptable.
Textbooks say all objects absorb radiation from other objects at warmer AND cooler temperatures? Irrelevant if so, warmer objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects AND have their energy balanced changed by this, because my view is correct.
Every time you refuse to go the distance on a point is exactly when you revert to circular reasoning. Your proposition about the GPE is assertions all the way down.
An analog for the GPE appears in A Heat Transfer Textbook by Leinhard and Leinhard, 6th edition.
https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.mit.edu/dist/6/1810/files/2024/04/AHTTv600.pdf
Page 571, eq. 10.31
Here is a screenshot of the equation:
https://i.imgur.com/MvXuFZu.png
The example is for a body enclosed by another, as we’ve often used in our discussions, but is easily converted to two planar surfaces. T1 (BP) will be the powered plate, and it will only emit from one side, in keeping with the enclosure scenario. T2 will be space. The heat shield will be GP.
If you make all the emissivities 1 (for a blackbody) the solution is:
q.net = ½σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)
This is what our RHTE equation looks like with a ‘radiation shield’ inserted between T1 and T2.
This means that the net radiative loss from T1 to T2 is halved.
Which means a blackbody shield does indeed reduce the radiative loss of a warmer blackbody. That’s the main point of bringing the equation here. It demonstrates in math what Nate and I have been saying. Sourced from a physics textbook on radiative transfer. Blackbodies can insulate, just as reflectors do.
————————————————————
If that blackbody is powered, then its temp must rise due to its radiative loss being reduced.
We can plug in numbers.
T1 = 244 K = 200 W/m2 to start with
T2 = 0 k = 0 W/m2
Add blackbody heat shield and solve:
q.net = ½(200 W/m2 – 0 W/m2)
q.net = 100 W/m2
T1 is being powered to emit 200 W/m2 to 0 K environment, but with blackbody shielding it is now only losing 100 W/m2.
It must heat up or 1LoT will not be satisfied.
ΔU = 200 (heat source) – 200 + 100 = +100
The powered plate must heat up until ΔU = 0
The solution (in joules per second):
ΔU = 200 – 400 + 200 = 0
The shield is emitting 200 W/m2 from each side, meaning that the equivalent 200 W/m2 that was going into T1 plate is now leaving the heat shield to space, establishing the steady state equilibrium. Because the heat shield emits both ways, it has to emit 200 W/m2 back to T1, which emits 400 W/m2 to the shield to power it sufficiently. All the fluxes balance.
Qualitatively, the presence of the shield reduces the rate of heat loss from the powered plate to space, so the plate, which is receiving constant energy, must heat up.
To convert this to the GPE, just make T1 double-sided and receiving 400 W/m2. You’ll end up with:
400 – (266.67 + 133.33) = 0
All fluxes balance for a blackbody scenario.
But the main point is that physics allows a blackbody radiation shield, or insulator.
Got a really simple question for you, DREMT.
If GP has emissivity 0.5 (reflects 50%), what percentage of the radiative energy incident on one surface is emitted out of the other surface to space?
Thus, what percentage of incident energy is sent back?
barry has a major reading comprehension failure. I say:
“Also, where did I ever say anything about the fate of individual photons? I never did.”
and he quotes multiple examples of me saying that I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons. Yes, barry. Exactly. I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons. So, I ask you again:
Where did I ever say anything about the fate of individual photons? In other words, where did I ever say they were absorbed or reflected? I never did. You put words in my mouth all the time.
“This means that the net radiative loss from T1 to T2 is halved. Which means a blackbody shield does indeed reduce the radiative loss of a warmer blackbody. That’s the main point of bringing the equation here. It demonstrates in math what Nate and I have been saying. Sourced from a physics textbook on radiative transfer. Blackbodies can insulate, just as reflectors do.”
Oh, barry. It’s as if you were completely unaware that Nate, bill and I have just had an extended two-month back-and-forth on exactly this subject. Look, when the GP warms to the same temperature as the BP, in my 244 K…244 K solution, “heat loss is reduced” from the BP as the GP approaches the BP temperature. And, the solution is 244 K…244 K. So, a “reduction in heat loss” did not result in warming of the BP. Obviously not, or thermal equilibrium would be impossible!
Oh, I see. You were repeating the cop out, not denying it.
I can explain what happens at a blackbody surface when radiation hits it, on several levels including quantum, because all I have to do is quote physics.
But you can’t even cite a physics text supporting your blackbody/mirror. So either you explain it against standard physics telling us you’re crazy, or concede it’s something you made up to support your view.
Asserting it’s a valid result because your view is right is circular reasoning.
“Oh, barry. It’s as if you were completely unaware that Nate, bill and I have just had an extended two-month back-and-forth on exactly this subject. Look, when the GP warms to the same temperature as the BP, in my 244 K…244 K solution, “heat loss is reduced” from the BP as the GP approaches the BP temperature. And, the solution is 244 K… 244 K. So, a “reduction in heat loss” did not result in warming of the BP. Obviously not, or thermal equilibrium would be impossible!”
I certainly don’t read every post, mostly the ones you write specifically to me.
If BP heat loss is reduced it must warm up, as it is getting constant energy. Your answer here reveals that you either don’t believe BP absorbs GP’s radiation, or if it does, that the energy balance doesn’t therefore change.
Questioned on this, this is the point where you shrug your shoulders, unwilling (actually unable) to explain how BP operates like this, other than by circularly reasserting that your view is correct.
It should be intuitively obvious that GP is shaded from the sun and is cooler. But if intuition fails you, just apply emissivity to the equation. Your surface has two mutually exclusive values, ε = 1 AND 0.
How many standards of physics can you accept violating to keep your view?
Why on Earth should the result be equilibrium temperatures between the plates? The math doesn’t work. You have to make up a surface that is not only fictitious but actually DEFIES the law of emissivity – Kirchhoff’s Law.
Are such non-equilibrium steady states real? Of course! From the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere, Earth has many layers not in thermal equilibrium but remain in an averaged steady state. Same for every planet with an atmosphere. Hell, same for any time you step into the shade.
Sorry, barry, but you keep tossing around the “circular logic” accusation, and it never applies.
This was the clearest exchange that to me, sums up my point perfectly:
“Unless you argue that an increase in absorbed energy has no effect on internal energy (without any work done), then you must concede BP’s internal energy grows…”
…if BP’s internal energy grows as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer then that proves (per the 1LoT equation) that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot, and 2LoT is violated.
barry, you had already accepted Proposition A.
I think you know that means you’d already accepted the GPE is debunked. Stop fighting it!
The RHTE includes emissivity terms if you want to use them.
https://i.imgur.com/DespuEK.png
q = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) ÷ (1/ε₁ + 1/ε₂ – 1)
Clearly, BP can’t have emissivity 1 and 0 at the same time.
The physics text A Heat Transfer Textbook has been quoted in this thread explaining re the RHTE, that the warmer object absorbs the emission from the cooler object, and subtracting this from the warmer object’s emission gives you the net transfer from the warmer to the cooler body.
These cites make clear that BP can’t reflect GP’s energy.
If BP doesn’t warm up, GP gets only 200 W/m2, and emits 100 W/m2 from each side.
Thus, the 2 plates emit a combined 300 W/m2 to space, but the 2-plate system receives 400 W/m2.
The only way this deficit can be addressed is if BP and GP warm to emit a total of 400 W/m2. This is a natural consequence of a powered object having its rate of heat loss reduced.
When BP emits 266.67 W/m2 and BP emits 133.33 W/m2 the algebra, the geometry and the physics are satisfied. The same cannot be said for DREMT’s solution.
Blackbodies can indeed insulate against radiative heat loss, just less effectively than reflectors (in most cases). Changing the emissivity in the equations demonstrates that.
barry is, once again, completely unresponsive to my comment. There is so, so much in this debate that he simply has no answer to!
“barry, you had already accepted Proposition A.”
Not when I understood what you meant by it. As I said months ago, internal energy is not transferred, it isn’t a quantity that you can call ‘heat’ that moves from one object to another. Heat isn’t a substance, it is a process.
GP does not lose its internal energy TO BP. That’s your rhetorical trick.
“At the expense of” is just another rhetorical trick.
I can use the rhetoric just as easily.
GP doubles its surface area at the expense of its internal energy. GP loses internal energy from the extra emitting acreage.
Those sentences are as superficially plausible and wrong as yours.
barry, every word you just said has already been refuted, e.g:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748870
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748875
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749281
This is the problem. I refute your comments. You do not have a response. You then wait a little while, and repeat yourself, opinion unchanged.
“barry is, once again, completely unresponsive to my comment.”
I was busy transcribing equations and running the numbers from physics texts.
Feel free to respond to that effort. Seems a little more pertinent than the circular rhetoric.
DREMT 6:34 am, all three links are dealing with the 2LOT as better explained in Chapter 1 Entropy Production of bill’s MIT textbook which shows your solution to the GPE is ruled out. Thus, there is no hope for DREMT’s GPE solution to be correct.
For an object in thermal equilibrium (BP), adding more intense light to its surface (from GP instead of space) will increase its equilibrium temperature as confirmed by Eli.
Nope, you’re repeating yourself after being rebutted.
“So the GPs loss of internal energy must be effectively “to” the BP”
You agreed a couple of months ago, and above, if I remember correctly, that internal energy is not transferred. Internal energy doesn’t travel. It has NO direction if it is gained or lost. It doesn’t “effectively” travel anywhere. “Effectively” is another weasel word you use to have your cake while you deny you’re eating it.
Just as when you use the weasel word “to”, you are still trying to get a quantity of heat moving from B to A, attached to a temperature change (change of internal energy).
” “At the expense of” just means the plain English definition of the phrase. I don’t understand why people keep treating it like it’s some kind of mysterious incantation or something. It simply means the transfer has a cost to the GP. The build up in the BP is at the expense of, i.e. is provided by and to the detriment of, the GP”
You are using the phrase to say that a quantity called heat left GP and travelled to BP.
The proper way to put it is that when the surface area of GP is doubled it loses energy more quickly. BP absorbs the energy, meaning that it loses energy less quickly.
No heat is inferred in this redistribution of energy.
Heat in the classic sense is defined in one way only – it travels along a gradient established by a difference in temperature.
When I say GP doubles its surface area “at the expense of” its internal energy, that is obviously plain English that tells the real story. Right? As internal energy doesn’t travel, my version implies no direction, therefore its the correct interpretation.
Right?
Fun with rhetoric!
Your whole problem is that you are isolating one component of the whole system. In fact, you announce that this is what you are deliberately doing. But this has been a classic mistake from the beginning. The GPE does not work without the external energy source, and failing to account for the whole process fails to rebut it.
You really don’t remember that you argued for setting the sun and GP’s emission to space aside because they hadn’t changed? You’re doing it again right now, arguing that ignoring the balance of energy flows is legitimate.
“You don’t “perfectly understand” because I am not isolating any “change”. I am isolating the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer.
Gee whizz.”
We get 3 comments from DREMT, none of which actually address the issue, that a CHANGE in heat flow is NOT the heat flow. And 2LOT only cares about the heat flow.
But he shamelessly gaslights that he addressed the issue!
He never did.
Why does he need to gaslight? Obviously he knows his argument is indefensible.
Long story short, I’ve proven above – with references – that you don’t need reflectivity to insulate against radiative loss.
GP insulates BP’s radiative loss, resulting in its warming.
With no sun, introducing GP would only slow BP rate of cooling.
Therefore, it is the sun providing the energy buildup in BP when GP is introduced.
Heat flows from sun to BP to GP, along a gradient established by a difference in temperature, even while BP warms and GP cools (per DREMT’s thought experiment).
barry…another thing you do is respond to one sentence from an entire comment, pretending nothing else has been said. That’s what you’ve done here. The three linked comments explain everything that needs to be said.
Proposition A is correct.
For example, from the second comment:
“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!”
Up in flames goes barry’s objections to the word, “effectively”.
“Your whole problem is that you are isolating one component of the whole system. In fact, you announce that this is what you are deliberately doing. But this has been a classic mistake from the beginning. The GPE does not work without the external energy source, and failing to account for the whole process fails to rebut it.”
Already refuted, once again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749745
“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!”
“Up in flames goes barry’s objections to the word, “effectively”.”
I didn’t bother quoting this before because you’re just saying the same thing as the first link with more words, still trying to get us to believe internal energy has been transported.
You even use the same weasel word here – “effectively.”
“but via a transfer of EMR, it effectively is”
So no, not up in flames, corroborated by your own quote.
Still trying to eat your cake while denying it’s in your mouth.
Your semantics doesn’t equate to a transfer of heat. We have a definition and an equation for that, and no amount of you pleading/cajoling others to see it the way you do is going to make us reject standard physics.
“My argument is to isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer in the 262 K…220 K solution, in order to prove that it’s a transfer of heat from cold to hot, in that solution. To do this requires comparison of the results of all the transfers occurring to completion, with the results of all the transfers except the “back-radiation” transfer. So, straight away, you’re wrong. I am not forgetting about the Sun. The transfer Sun to BP is included, along with all the other transfers, in isolating the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. ”
Translatikon:
Having acknowledged that the others transfers exist I’m going to ignore them while I focus on this one action in the whole.
Sorry, no dice.
The sun provides the energy that heats BP up. All GP does is reduce BP’s heat loss by adding energy to it.
That’s not a transfer of heat, because heat goes hot to cold, and the only thing hotter than BP is the energy source fueling the whole system.
So now I’ve quoted your quoted and responded time for you to deal with the proof that blackbody GP insulates BP’s radiative heat loss….. summing the work done above next post.
Why blackbody radiation can reduce heat loss from warmer bodies
Upthread we have quotes from MIT corroborating that warm bodies absorb radiation from cooler bodies.
By 1LoT this means that the warmer body rate of energy loss must be affected.
This is corroborated by the MIT textbook on radiative exchange, describing the RHTE as emission minus absorption. Page 552, eq 10.9
“q.net = [emitted by plate 1 – radiation absorbed by plate 1 emitted by plate 2]”
The reduction in transfer occurs at the surface of plate 1.
I’ve provided two examples of high emissivity radiative shielding used in furnaces, one just above. This is to provide proof of application.
We also apply the RHTE with emissivity variables, per MIT, to test if a blackbody reduces radiative transfer like a heat shield. It does when you run the math. Page 571, eq 10.31
This is now confirmed WITH REFERENCES from standard university physics texts and courses, as well as direct aplication in undustrial furnaces.
Rejecting this proof because “my view is correct” won’t cut it, DREMT.
You need to pony up some authoritative source corroborating your view that BP somehow returns GP’s EMR without absorbing it and getting warmer, as you agree it would with reflected radiation. We need to see the standard science that explains how a perfect blackbody can also be a reflector, or some mechanism that science explains where a blackbody emissivity 1 rejects any incident radiation.
Here is a link to the textbook bill and I have been referring to.
https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.mit.edu/dist/6/1810/files/2024/04/AHTTv600.pdf
Feel free to find your own standard physics texts.
barry’s denial reaches fever pitch. Internal energy is not directly transferred, but objects can make other objects warmer through a transfer of EMR, yes? Take a transfer of energy from hot to cold. The hotter object emits EMR. This is converted from the hotter object’s internal energy. Because energy is neither created nor destroyed, this means that there is now less internal energy in the hotter object than there would otherwise be. The EMR is received by the cooler object. Because energy is neither created nor destroyed, this means that there is now more internal energy in the cooler object than there would otherwise be.
How do you not understand that if this process occurs in reverse, if a transfer of EMR goes to completion from a cold object to a warmer object, then the principle remains exactly the same…the cooler object emits EMR. This is converted from the cooler object’s internal energy. Because energy is neither created nor destroyed, this means that there is now less internal energy in the cooler object than there would otherwise be [1]. The EMR is received by the warmer object. Because energy is neither created nor destroyed, this means that there is now more internal energy in the warmer object than there would otherwise be [2].
[1] means that there is an expense of internal energy to the GP, with the “back-radiation” transfer. No matter what.
[2] means that there is a build up of internal energy in the BP, with the “back-radiation” transfer. No matter what.
Thus, in your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Proposition A is correct.
And, we ain’t moving on from this point until you agree.
“Translatikon:
Having acknowledged that the others transfers exist I’m going to ignore them while I focus on this one action in the whole.”
Sorry, barry, but misrepresentation this blatant does not even qualify as a response. Once we get the agreement on Proposition A, you’ll need to apologise for this.
GP does not lose its internal energy to BP.
BP does not warm up “at the expense of GP” because the cost to GP came from doubling its emitting area, not from the presence of BP.
Take away GP and BP’s account steadies at a lower amount. Take away the sun and BP’s account empties.
The growth in BP’s account is being funded by the sun, not by a return of interest from GP.
Start with GP at 0 k and your word salad withers in the bowl.
Then you have to make an even sourer word salad by claiming the GP has lost internal energy even if it gains it.
I’ve proven GP is an insulator, multiply referencing MIT. No wonder you’re clutching your beads and repeating your mantra.
So, you’re saying energy is created from nothing. Interesting. Because, that’s the only way EMR gets transferred between bodies without there being an expense to the internal energy within the body the EMR is transferred from.
“[1] means that there is an expense of internal energy to the GP, with the “back-radiation” transfer. No matter what.”
No matter what?
Without any transfer at all, without any BP, switching on the backradiation costs the GP internal energy.
“Transfer” has nothing to do with the ‘cost’ to GP from flipping the backradiation switch.
GP doesn’t lose internal energy TO anywhere. It loses internal energy FROM itself.
If anything intercepts the newly activated backradiation that can absorb it, that object has its balance of energy changed.
‘Heat’ is definitely determined by a temperature difference, not necessarily a temperature change. Sweaters, blankets, etc.
EMR is not heat. Internal energy is not heat. Temperature change is not heat.
Heat is not “a build up of internal energy in a warmer object ‘at the expense of’ a cooler object’s internal energy due to backradiation.”
You know what heat is.
“So, you’re saying energy is created from nothing. Interesting. Because, that’s the only way EMR gets transferred between bodies without there being an expense to the internal energy within the body the EMR is transferred from.”
Intriguing. You mean passive bodies, of course. The sun manages to increase internal energy over time while the planets absorb its energy.
Before GP is present, BP is at 244K.
When GP is present, what is the internal energy cost to BP of its energy being absorbed by GP?
barry, you’re just endlessly waffling.
Again:
So, you’re saying energy is created from nothing. Interesting. Because, that’s the only way EMR gets transferred between bodies without there being an expense to the internal energy within the body the EMR is transferred from.
“you’re saying energy is created from nothing. Interesting. Because, that’s the only way EMR gets transferred between bodies without there being an expense to the internal energy within the body the EMR is transferred from.”
You really have no idea what you are saying.
The sun shoots 400 W/m2 to the space where the BP sits whether or not the BP is there. What is the ‘cost’ to the sun’s internal energy when we put BP there? How much internal energy does the sun lose?
And when BP is emitting 200 W/m2 each way and we pop the GP into existence, what is the cost to BP’s internal energy when GP absorbs its EMR?
You didn’t answer this question.
Apparently you believe that the temperature of the sun and the BP has to drop – the expense to their internal energy – when other bodies absorb their EMR.
So enumerate this ‘expense’ for sun and BP, please.
This should be interesting.
I know exactly what I’m saying, barry…and yes, there is even an expense to the Sun’s internal energy…only of course that is continually replaced. Obviously if the Sun couldn’t emit, its internal energy would increase. You really need to learn basic logic, barry.
The EMR is converted from the body’s internal energy. Unless you’re creating energy from nothing, then the transfer has an expense to the emitting body. Just get over it!
DREMT is, once again, completely unresponsive to my comment. There is so, so much in this debate that he simply has no answer to.
To be fair, he has a response. It is to gaslight and claim that he answered. But we know he did not!
The issue is that he treats a CHANGE in heat flow between two different problems as it it is a ‘heat flow’. And then claim that this ‘heat flow’ is from the cold body to the warms body. Then this must be a 2LOT violation
But this is absurd, desperate fantasy.
Just image we have a problem a problem with a heat flow from a warm, heated body, to its cold environment that is 1000 W. Then the geometry is changed, eg, a new object is brought in, changing the heat flow from the warm body to the cold environment to 500 W.
DREMT wants to claim in that situation that the CHANGE in heat flow of -500 W, is actually a heat flow of 500 W from a cold body to the warm body!
And if the warm heated body, actually gets warmer, as a result of this change in the problem, then that must be a 2LOT violation!
Even though the heat flow was always from the hot body to its cold environment.
Thus the 500 W reduction in heat flow was NOT ever the heat flow.
And DREMT has no rational explanation as to how this qualifies as a ‘2LOT violation’.
“Because, that’s the only way EMR gets transferred between bodies without there being an expense to the internal energy within the body the EMR is transferred from.”
All bodies except perfect mirrors emit EMR according to the SB Law. Yet we know that all bodies are not cooling.
Thus many bodies are emitting EMR without losing any internal energy!
He just doesnt think things through, but says them anyway.
Thanks, Nate, but I really have thought it through. And, everything I’ve said is correct.
I haven’t said anything about warming or cooling overall, yet. Obviously the Sun doesn’t cool.
The EMR is converted from the object’s internal energy. There is no other source for it. Thus, unless you are creating energy, a transfer incurs an expense to the internal energy of the emitting body. Fact.
“I know exactly what I’m saying, barry… and yes, there is even an expense to the Sun’s internal energy… only of course that is continually replaced. Obviously if the Sun couldn’t emit, its internal energy would increase. You really need to learn basic logic, barry”
I am literally laughing out loud at this.
Internal energy and temperature scale linearly.
Neither the sun nor the BP drop in temperature when they feed their energy to another body. The balance in the account does not decrease.
So “expense” is not necessarily related to a drop in internal energy. Good to know!
So what does “expense” mean, I wonder. It looks entirely like a synonym for “radiates.”
DREMT says: “Because, that’s the only way EMR gets transferred between bodies without there being an expense to the internal energy within the body the EMR is transferred from.”
Nate says: “All bodies except perfect mirrors emit EMR according to the SB Law. Yet we know that all bodies are not cooling.
Thus many bodies are emitting EMR without losing any internal energy!”
It is very difficult to understand what DREMT means by “expense” to internal energy, when it can be completely constant while energy is being transferred from that body to another.
As far as I can tell, a body could GAIN internal energy, but it is also incurring an expense to its internal energy just by radiating. certainly, that is what DREMT maintains when I referred to the scenario where GP starts at 0k.
DREMT said: “Obviously if the Sun couldn’t emit, its internal energy would increase. You really need to learn basic logic”
Yep, DREMT really is saying that all a body has to do is emit for there to be an “expense” to its internal energy.
Which exposes the rhetoric for what it is. Let’s replace ‘expense’ with “emits” and see what happens to his mantra for his 1-5 scenario.
“Internal energy builds up in BP because of the radiative emission of GP, while GP loses internal energy.”
Well that’s closer to the truth, though it still overlooks that the sun is the real reason BP gets warmer. “Expense” is just weird and unnecessary rhetoric that appears in no physics textboook on radiative transfer, only in DREMT’s universe. He obviously wants it to mean something other than “radiate,” but that’s all it means.
> Obviously the Sun doesn’t cool.
Unlike our Sky Dragon cranks, at some point it must.
Laugh it up, barry. I’m right.
EMR is converted directly from the object’s internal energy. Where else would it come from!?
DREMT 8:52 am: “The EMR is converted from the object’s internal energy.”
Physically, yes, this is more frequently & accurately stated as some of the internal energy U of the object is transformed into equivalent EMR over time, say, each second as any massive object continually radiates.
“… a transfer incurs an expense to the internal energy of the emitting body..”
More physically, then, a relevant transfer incurs a transformation of the internal energy of the emitting body into EMR. Objects don’t keep ledgers showing revenue and expense (DREMT accounting term).
In the GPE, when the added GP shines more intense light (from that transformation) on the BP than that of space, the BP warms to a new equilibrium as Eli correctly calculated almost a decade ago.
When you’ve finally started to grasp the problem, read this comment again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749988
as many times as you need to, until you accept that Proposition A is correct.
And remember:
““At the expense of” just means the plain English definition of the phrase. I don’t understand why people keep treating it like it’s some kind of mysterious incantation or something. It simply means the transfer has a cost to the GP. The build up in the BP is at the expense of, i.e. is provided by and to the detriment of, the GP”.
DREMT 9:48: “Thus, in your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP. Proposition A is correct. … but physically inaccurate.
Because DREMT again uses accounting term “expense” when this blog is a physics blog. In the field of physics: in the 262 K…220 K solution, the EMR transformed from the internal energy U of the GP transforms to U in the BP. Added GP shining with more intense EMR than that of space, the BP warms to a new equilibrium powered by the sun.
“…this blog is a physics blog…”
Is it? Seems like about half of the discussions on here are about politics.
Anyway, thanks for your help in debunking the GPE.
DREMT 2:28 pm, you’re welcome now that DREMT realizes Eli’s solution is correct since with a more intense light incident on the BP then BP warms to a new, higher equilibrium temperature
No, Ball4. The 262 K…220 K solution is debunked.
You’ve helped make it happen.
Now, if the children can stop giggling about dry facts, they ought to be able to concede that Proposition A is correct.
DREMT 4:05 pm is mistaken since the only GPE solution I’ve debunked is DREMT’s. More intense light on the BP means BP must warm to higher equilibrium temperature when the GP is added as Eli calculated long ago.
“The EMR is converted from the object’s internal energy. There is no other source for it. Thus, unless you are creating energy, a transfer incurs an expense to the internal energy of the emitting body.”
Ok. Then, according to you all bodies emitting EMR must be cooling, since there is no other source for it!
Again, you just don’t think it through.
“When you’ve finally started to grasp the problem, read this comment again…”
Where you ask us to imagine the difference between objects above 0 K not radiating and radiating.
“At the expense of” = “radiates,” as you’ve helpfully established in multiple comments, including that one. An object can be cooling, warming or holding steady, and if it is radiating, that is still “at the expense of” its internal energy.
So your argument is basically your premise. BP can’t get warmer from GP’s radiation.
Just using different words to make the same assertion again and again.
But it’s over, as it is established that blackbody GP can act as a radiative shield, or ‘insulation’ to BP’s energy loss. Just like a reflector, only less effective. It’s in the math.
Cf – https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749980
So your objection to GP reducing BP’s heat loss is demolished. GP is an insulator after all, and the direction of heat flow works as it does with sweaters, blankets, ceiling batts, and thermal reflectors on spacecraft.
The Problem With the Magic BP in DREMT’s Solution
In the solution
400 W/m2 -> (x2)
DREMT has 2 X 200 W/m2 traveling from BP to GP.
Where this extra 200 W/m2 comes from is entirely unclear.
It cannot be emitted by BP, because BP would then be 244 K on one side and 290 K on the other. Not to mention this is physically impossible in this scenario, DREMT’s view is that BP is 244 K, and no warmer.
It cannot be reflected by BP, as this breaks several physical laws, most pertinently Kirchhoff’s Law and 1LoT.
Why 1LoT?
The standard enclosure scenario has walls at temperature T with emissivity 1, and an object inside at the same temperature and emissivity.
Per Kirchhoff’s Law, emissivity = absorptivity at a given temperature and wavelength. This is the case for every wavelength in this classic scenario.
ε = ɑ
Let G be the total radiation striking the surface of the object from radiation emitted by the chamber walls. And let’s assume that the object emits and reflects perfectly at the same time.
Qabs + Qref = G
The symbol for reflectivity is rho: ρ
ɑG + ρG = G
G + G = G
2G = G
Our blackbody mirror surface is coming up with twice the energy it is receiving.
BP can’t be emitting or reflecting that extra 200 W/m2 without breaking 1LoT.
There is no radiative transfer physics that supports this scenario.
That’s why DREMT has some splainin’ to do beyond asserting his premise.
“400 W/m2 -> (x2)”
Unfortunately the angle brackets in this flowchart were read as HTML entities and aren’t shown. No matter, DEMT and Nate, at least, are familiar with DREMT’s GPE solution diagram.
barry, “at the expense of” does not equal “radiates”.
“It simply means the transfer has a cost to the GP. The build up in the BP is at the expense of, i.e. is provided by and to the detriment of, the GP”.
That’s what it means.
When you’re prepared to accept, as Ball4 has, that the following statement is correct:
“In your 262 K…220 K solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP”.
Then the discussion can continue.
As I’ve already explained, blackbody surfaces can “reduce heat loss” (see the 244 K…244 K solution) but this does not lead to warming of the warmer object (see the points 1) – 5)).
barry uses “semantics” and “rhetoric” to try to downplay the significance of the fact that an object’s only source for the EMR it emits is that object’s internal energy.
It ought to be obvious by now that the only way a transfer of EMR between bodies cannot incur an expense to the internal energy of the body sending the EMR is if that transfer is returned to the body sending the EMR!
This fact is demonstrated by the observation that if the “back-radiation” transfer is returned to the GP, the plate temperatures are 244 K…244 K, whereas if it is not returned, and instead goes to completion, the plate temperatures are 262 K…220 K.
Proposition A cannot be denied!
If “semantics” bother you, use Ball4’s statement instead:
“In the 262 K…220 K solution, the EMR transformed from the internal energy U of the GP transforms to U in the BP.”
It makes no difference. In either statement, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible. Ball4’s statement clearly shows that the U of the BP will be higher than it otherwise would be, and the U of the GP lower than it otherwise would be, as a result of the transfer.
DREMT 3:40 am: “It ought to be obvious by now that the only way a transfer of EMR between bodies cannot incur an expense to the internal energy of the body sending the EMR is if that transfer is returned to the body sending the EMR!”
No, that’s physically wrong wording DREMT. This is correct wording according to the 2LOT eqn. as shown in bill’s MIT text Chapter 1 section on Entropy Production so you should use correct eqn.s as does barry:
In the physically correct 262 K…220 K solution, the EMR transformed from the internal energy U of the GP transforms to U in the BP. More intense light on the BP means BP must warm to higher equilibrium temperature when the GP is added as Eli calculated long ago.
” barry, “at the expense of” does not equal “radiates”. ”
DREMT, meet DREMT.
“and yes, there is even an expense to the Sun’s internal energy… only of course that is continually replaced. Obviously if the Sun couldn’t emit, its internal energy would increase”
So the expense occurs because the sun radiates. Even as it says at the same temperature.
“The EMR is converted from the body’s internal energy. Unless you’re creating energy from nothing, then the transfer has an expense to the emitting body.”
EMR itself is the cause of the “expense.” Nothing to do with temps going up or down. Even the sun is incurred an “expense” just because it radiates.
“So, you’re saying energy is created from nothing. Interesting. Because, that’s the only way EMR gets transferred between bodies without there being an expense to the internal energy within the body the EMR is transferred from.”
So if we don’t create energy, the only way EMR transfers between bodies is by “expense” to its internal energy. Doesn’t matter if it’s sun, BP or GP, radiating = expense.
All bodies radiating are incurring an expense to the internal energy they otherwise would have (if they were not radiating).
Yeah, DREMT, radiating and expense are synonymous. Like “breathing out” and “emptying your lungs.”
So just say radiating. “At the expense of” loses all meaning if every single object in the universe is radiating “at the expense of” its internal energy.
GP getting cooler, then, is irrelevant to your definition of “at the expense of.”
What a remarkably versatile bit of rhetoric it is.
No, Ball4, you’ve gone “physically wrong” there. You keep tacking on incorrect statements to the end of your otherwise correct statements. For example:
“In the…262 K…220 K solution, the EMR transformed from the internal energy U of the GP transforms to U in the BP.”
Fine, apart from your words “physically correct”, which I’ve removed.
Then you incorrectly add:
“More intense light on the BP means BP must warm to higher equilibrium temperature when the GP is added as Eli calculated long ago”.
DREMT, you’ve been sad that I haven’t answered everything you’ve written, so I’ve been quoting you and trying my best.
I notice you have said nothing about the posts referencing MIT proving blackbody radiation can insulate radiative loss from a warmer object. Thus establishing GP as a legitimate radiative shield to BP.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749980
I’ve also pointed out the problems with your solution breaking the laws of physics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1750075
“Meanwhile, the gang are still gleefully conflating three different concepts:
1) The definition of “heat”.
2) The RHTE.
3) 2LoT.”
There is no conflating. All of these relevant to the flaws in your argument, which you consistently fail to fix.
Your thing about emitted EMR must have been converted from the Internal Energy is simply philosophical mumbo jumbo that has no consequence.
For instance, when a body is emitting EMR, but also receiving external energy to stay in energy balance, then there is NO WAY to distinguish whether that EMR came from the internal energy of from the external source.
And it makes no difference.
barry, Proposition A is correct. As I’ve explained, and you haven’t refuted.
“I notice you have said nothing about the posts referencing MIT proving blackbody radiation can insulate radiative loss from a warmer object…”
…then you haven’t been paying enough attention.
Nate, are you sure you’re a physicist!?
The fact is that the only source for the EMR emitted by an object is the internal energy of that object. So long as you accept that energy cannot be created from nothing, it seems you have to also accept that the transformation of internal energy to EMR incurs an expense to the object’s internal energy.
Of course, an external supply of energy received by the object can replace to an extent, balance, or increase the object’s internal energy overall, sure. The expense still remains, however.
And, it’s not some “philosophical mumbo-jumbo”, either. For why it’s relevant, read this comment carefully:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1750103
If you still don’t like my statement of Proposition A, you have Ball4’s statement of it. I wonder how many times I will have to point that out before either you or barry acknowledge Ball4’s existence?
“The fact is that the only source for the EMR emitted by an object is the internal energy of that object. So long as you accept that energy cannot be created from nothing, it seems you have to also accept that the transformation of internal energy to EMR incurs an expense to the object’s internal energy.
Of course, an external supply of energy received by the object can replace to an extent, balance, or increase the object’s internal energy overall, sure. The expense still remains, however.”
And there we have it. The first paragraph disagrees with the second.
Do you just realize you are contradicting yourself?
How bout lets just agree on the second paragraph, that energy can come from an external source, and prevent any change in internal energy due to EMR emission.
That is certainly the case with the solar heated BP reaching 244 K.
Do you really think there is an ongoing expense to the internal energy of the BP in that case?
Or is sn expense to tbe sun?
And how would you tell the difference?
The Problem With barry’s “The Problem With the Magic BP in DREMT’s Solution”
I’m not sure why I have to point this out, but nobody is saying the BP is a blackbody and a perfect mirror. It’s a blackbody. Emissivity = 1, Reflectivity = 0.
Reflectivity is an intrinsic property of the material. This is 0 for both plates.
If (and it’s a big “if”, I’m not committing to any position because I don’t know and there’s no need to) the “back-radiation” transfer is “reflected”, then it’s not reflected due to the material’s reflectivity. It would be reflected due to something like Clint R’s “wavelength mismatch” hypothesis.
There is no problem with 1LoT because everything balances – see the diagram.
So…that’s that.
P.S: I asked Google:
“What is the term for when photons are rejected due to wavelength incompatibility?”
and was informed:
“The general term for when photons are rejected due to wavelength or energy incompatibility with a medium or atomic system is absorp.tion rejection (or failing to meet a resonant frequency / bandgap requirement), leading to transmission or reflection. When specific optical hardware blocks them, it is called wavelength rejection or blocking.
Key Physics Concepts
Resonance / Selection Rules: Photons are only absorbed if their energy matches an allowed quantum transition (E = hv); mismatched wavelengths bypass the electron structure and result in transmission or scattering.
Bandgap Exclusion: In semiconductors or insulators, photons with energies below the bandgap lack the required energy to bridge electronic states, causing the material to be transparent to those wavelengths.
Forbidden Transitions: Quantum states that prohibit certain photon interactions based on symmetry or spin rules.”
“And there we have it. The first paragraph disagrees with the second. Do you just realize you are contradicting yourself?”
The first paragraph doesn’t disagree with the second. There is no contradiction.
I’m starting to doubt you’re a physicist.
And, as predicted, the existence of Ball4 and his statement of Proposition A continues to be ignored.
“It would be reflected due to something like Clint R’s “wavelength mismatch” hypothesis.”
Ugggh.
The issue here is that you are willing to violate the laws of physics, while entertaining completely made-up physics, in order to support your argument.
Readers can thus determine that yor argument is wrong, and that you have zero credibility.
“The issue here is that you are willing to violate the laws of physics, while entertaining completely made-up physics, in order to support your argument.”
Not at all. I’m quite insistent that 2LoT not be violated, whereas you guys couldn’t give two hoots about that. The whole issue of “how the “back-radiation” transfer is returned” is a point 6) and 7) thing. Nothing to do with the debunking of the 262 K…220 K solution, which occurs in the points 1) – 5). So, I feel completely free to speculate about it as I wish – the GPE’s still debunked no matter what.
“the U of the BP will be higher than it otherwise would be, and the U of the GP lower than it otherwise would be, as a result of the transfer.”
The U of the BP is a combination of solar and GP energy. Without the sun the BP U will fade to 0.
BP definitely needs GP to have a higher U than with sun alone. But GP doen’t need BP to have its U reduced by the new vector of radiation. So GP’s reduction in U is not “a result of the transfer.” Not one tiny bit. And the heat transfer is based, as dictated by 2LoT on the difference in temperature between all three bodies.
“If (and it’s a big “if”, I’m not committing to any position because I don’t know and there’s no need to) the “back-radiation” transfer is “reflected”, then it’s not reflected due to the material’s reflectivity. It would be reflected due to something like Clint R’s “wavelength mismatch” hypothesis.”
Translation:
I don’t know what actually happens, but it has to happen because my view is correct. That’s why I don’t need to explain anything.
Extempore:
I could provide the answer from a physics text, but there’s a random guy on the internet who has a theory which may or may not be true. But anyway, I don’t need to explain anything because I’m right.
I quote physics and you reference Clint. That’s some fine comedy, DREMT. The lack of self-awareness is truly mirth-inspiring.
“The general term for when photons are rejected due to wavelength or energy incompatibility with a medium or atomic system is absorp.tion rejection (or failing to meet a resonant frequency / bandgap requirement), leading to transmission or reflection”
Take your pick, DREMT. Does BP reflect or transmit to get that extra 200 W/m2?
If it’s too hard to figure it out, please ask your AI to explain what is going on in your set-up with that extra 200 W/m2. Perhaps it can enlighten you as to whether it comes from blackbody reflection or transmission.
“Clint R’s “wavelength mismatch” hypothesis”
I can’t help following the stupid where it leads.
As photons never intercept each other outside of particle accelerators, the only place this ‘mismatch’ could occur is on the surface of BP.
Meaning that GP’s photons bounce off BP in DREMT’s solution.
Unless Clint and DREMT have come up with a brand new way that radiation interacts with matter, that action is called reflection. How does blackbody reflection work?
Don’t worry, DREMT doesn’t need to explain it, because the correctness of his opinion relieves him of the need.
Does DREMT actually think any of those things apply to black bodies, which by definition, absorb all?
Or is he just throwing out random chaff to distract from his failure to find actual evidence of heat flowing from cold to warm in the GPE.
barry carefully chops around the existence of Ball4 and his statement of Proposition A (God forbid either Nate or barry should acknowledge that), and instead only quotes me correctly saying:
“the U of the BP will be higher than it otherwise would be, and the U of the GP lower than it otherwise would be, as a result of the transfer.”
He starts his response by saying:
“The U of the BP is a combination of solar and GP energy. Without the sun the BP U will fade to 0.”
No problems there.
“BP definitely needs GP to have a higher U than with sun alone.”
Sure…because it receives EMR from the GP, and in your 262 K…220 K solution this is converted into U in the BP. Then, barry suddenly begins his nervous breakdown:
“But GP doen’t need BP to have its U reduced by the new vector of radiation. So GP’s reduction in U is not “a result of the transfer.” Not one tiny bit”.
Erm…well, it is a result of the transfer. Obviously. Since the EMR GP emits to the BP is converted from GP’s U. It isn’t created from nothing.
barry…in your inevitable response to this, please do me a favour and quote to me Ball4’s statement of Proposition A. Thanks.
“How does blackbody reflection work?”
Like this:
[BARRY] Unless you argue that an increase in absorbed energy has no effect on internal energy (without any work done), then you must concede BP’s internal energy grows…
[DREMT] …if BP’s internal energy grows as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer then that proves (per the 1LoT equation) that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot, and 2LoT is violated.
Nate,
DREMT doesn’t pretend to know the fate of individual photons, though no one ever asked him that question.
But he for absolutely sure knows that, by some magic process he can’t identify, all the photons come whizzing back from BP to GP without being absorbed by the blackbody BP and changing its energy balance.
“…though no one ever asked him that question…”
You’re asking about the fate of individual photons every time you ask me what happens to the “back-radiation” transfer.
It’s a point 6) and 7) thing. Irrelevant to the debunking of the 262 K…220 K solution, which occurs with the points 1) – 5).
“well, it is a result of the transfer. Obviously. Since the EMR GP emits to the BP is converted from GP’s U. It isn’t created from nothing.”
No, GP’s loss of U is not a result of the transfer. We know this because exactly the same thing would happen without BP being present. The transfer ALSO happens, it is not the cause of GP’s U decreasing, and therefore GP’s decrease does not result from the transfer.
It’s like saying your exhalation was the result of the candle going out.
barry’s nervous breakdown continues.
Since barry refuses to acknowledge the existence of Ball4, or his statement of Proposition A, I’ll just write out this comment again, in full, and see if barry can deal with it more honestly the second time around.
barry uses “semantics” and “rhetoric” to try to downplay the significance of the fact that an object’s only source for the EMR it emits is that object’s internal energy.
It ought to be obvious by now that the only way a transfer of EMR between bodies cannot incur an expense to the internal energy of the body sending the EMR is if that transfer is returned to the body sending the EMR!
This fact is demonstrated by the observation that if the “back-radiation” transfer is returned to the GP, the plate temperatures are 244 K…244 K, whereas if it is not returned, and instead goes to completion, the plate temperatures are 262 K…220 K.
Proposition A cannot be denied!
If “semantics” bother you, use Ball4’s statement instead:
“In the 262 K…220 K solution, the EMR transformed from the internal energy U of the GP transforms to U in the BP.”
It makes no difference. In either statement, the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible. Ball4’s statement clearly shows that the U of the BP will be higher than it otherwise would be, and the U of the GP lower than it otherwise would be, as a result of the transfer.
This is great, DREMT, I translated you earlier:
“I don’t know what actually happens, but it has to happen because my view is correct. That’s why I don’t need to explain anything.”
And you come along and corroborate what I just said. Here’s your post in full, starting with quoting me.
“How does blackbody reflection work?”
“Like this:
[BARRY] Unless you argue that an increase in absorbed energy has no effect on internal energy (without any work done), then you must concede BP’s internal energy grows…
[DREMT] …if BP’s internal energy grows as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer then that proves (per the 1LoT equation) that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot, and 2LoT is violated.”
Because what I believe is correct, blackbody reflection is valid. I don’t need to explain how this surface works because my argument is correct.
You are the blind king of circular reasoning.
DREMT,
You have a habit of standing someone in front of you. I’m talking to you, not Ball. Defend your OWN comments.
“In the 262 K… 220 K solution, the EMR transformed from the internal energy U of the GP transforms to U in the BP”
Two things
1. This is the case in both directions. BP’s/GP’s internal energy transforms to EMR, which is absorbed by GP/BP, and this transforms into internal energy. An object with a temperature (U) radiates. If that is absorbed by another body this statement holds regardless of what the temperatures are or whether they change.
The NET exchange determines heat flow direction. Duh.
2. In the 262 K… 220 K solution, the change of U in each body is not the same amount. The change of U is set by the radiative redistribution and the S/B law, not some bulk amount of U going from one body to the other.
So GP is a radiative insulator for BP. It works like a less efficient reflector. This should clear it all up.
barry, I don’t think you even know what circular logic is. Certainly your comments indicate that you don’t, because you constantly accuse me of it, and you are never correct.
Do you accept that Ball4’s statement of Proposition A is correct?
“Do you accept that Ball4’s statement of Proposition A is correct?”
I don’t think he’s saying the same thing you are, but it’s hard to tell. Is he referring to changing temps? I dunno. I responded to what I saw. As I said, EMR transforming to U happens in any transfer whether hot to cold, cold to hot or steady temps. In that respect, Ball is describing the normal chain of events. It’s got nothing to do with heat flow, that’s for sure, and I know Ball would agree with me.
I’m done trying to parse Ball4.
Now, GP is a radiative insulator, as referenced and explained above. It does the same job as a reflector, only less efficiently. GP reduced BP’s heat loss, obviously, because, as with reflected EMR, BP absorbs what arrives and its balance of energy changes.
“Defend your OWN comments.”
I don’t require a defence as you have provided no coherent attack. barry finally quotes Ball4:
“In the 262 K… 220 K solution, the EMR transformed from the internal energy U of the GP transforms to U in the BP”
and responds:
“1. This is the case in both directions. BP’s/GP’s internal energy transforms to EMR, which is absorbed by GP/BP, and this transforms into internal energy. An object with a temperature (U) radiates. If that is absorbed by another body this statement holds regardless of what the temperatures are or whether they change.”
Now you’re getting it, barry. Only, the transfer from BP to GP is permitted, because it’s going from hot to cold. The transfer from GP to BP violates 2LoT, per the 1LoT equation, because obviously a change in internal energy (that you have finally conceded happens) relates to heat transfer via that equation.
“barry, I don’t think you even know what circular logic is”
Definition circular reasoning:
“Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the reasoner begins with the exact conclusion they are trying to end with. Instead of offering independent evidence, the argument goes in a loop, utilizing the claim itself as its own proof”
By isolating a single vector and calling it a heat transfer, you create a fictional violation of physics, and then have to invent a physically impossible reflecting blackbody to solve the problem you created.
When asked for a physics reference for this impossible construct you created, or to describe how it functions mechanically, you point back to your fictional violation of physics as proof that it must exist.
That is classic circular reasoning.
And it is obviously so, because you don’t even try to reference or explain this impossible object on request, claiming that your argument relieves you of any need to do so.
You can’t explain how a blackbody acts as a reflector, so you simply declare that it must do so to save your thesis.
For a primer in logic: It doesn’t matter how good YOU think your argument is. When it is being contested, it is a fallacy to assert its validity to establish something else.
“By isolating a single vector and calling it a heat transfer, you create a fictional violation of physics, and then have to invent a physically impossible reflecting blackbody to solve the problem you created.”
barry, the chain of logic leading to the 2LoT violation in your solution is one thing.
What happens as a result of the 2LoT violation is another thing altogether.
You simply can’t help yourself in mixing up the two things. That’s your problem, not mine.
“Only, the transfer from BP to GP is permitted, because it’s going from hot to cold. The transfer from GP to BP violates 2LoT, per the 1LoT equation, because obviously a change in internal energy (that you have finally conceded happens) relates to heat transfer via that equation”
Firstly, and unimportantly, I’ve never denied a change in internal energy occurs. So you can burn that straw man immediately.
Secondly, the universally accepted equation for radiative heat transfer is q.net = σ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴).
Per the First Law, the value for heat (Q) is always the net energy transfer across the system boundary, not an isolated internal vector. By isolating a single directional vector and falsely labeling it as an independent heat transfer, you violate the Second Law definition of heat and completely misapply the First Law.
Your error remains — and it seems always will — that you fail to understand that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply strictly to the net energy balance, not to individual, one-way radiative transfers.
The other error we already mentioned is that you refer to your flawed argument as proof for other things that you need to be valid in order to prove your flawed argument.
THAT is circular logic.
It’s as if you forget I don’t agree with your argument when you present it as proof for other things.
THAT is argument by assertion, which is the launch pad for circular logic.
P.S: yes, Ball4’s statement of Proposition A is saying the same thing as mine. Ball4 has previously agreed with my wording anyway, as you should know.
“And there we have it. The first paragraph disagrees with the second. Do you just realize you are contradicting yourself?”
The first paragraph doesn’t disagree with the second. There is no contradiction.”
FALSE.
The first paragraph says the EMR must come from Internal Energy, there is no other source.
The second paragraph says, oh, well, yeah, there is another source and it can come from there.
Good example of DREMTs dishonest debate tactic #1: pure denial of obvious truth.
barry…the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to any transfer of energy. Why wouldn’t they?
And, instead of continuing to falsely accuse me of circular reasoning, you perhaps need your own primer in logic – you can’t refute the points 1) – 5) by pointing at something in point 6)!
Gee whizz.
Nate – there is no contradiction. The only source for the EMR emitted by a body is that body’s internal energy. Of course, the body’s internal energy can be “added to” by other things. I’m keeping it as simple as possible, so even a physicist can understand.
“That is classic circular reasoning.”
Yep he does this constantly. It is DREMT dishonest debate tactic #2.
Having asserting some absurdly false claim a few times, it seems to get placed in the ‘fact’ department of his thinking.
And from then on, it can be used as ‘proof’ of something else.
Good example here:”
“if BP’s internal energy grows as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer then that proves (per the 1LoT equation) that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot, and 2LoT is violated.”
1LOT is actually deltaU = Q for a body (when no work is involved)
The Q = total HEAT input to body = NET of all energy inputs and outputs for the body.
But DREMT is falsely saying Q = ONE EMR input, neglecting two other energy flows!
The 1LOT equation as we know it is unrecognizable here. It is totally shamelessly misrepresented.
” “By isolating a single vector and calling it a heat transfer, you create a fictional violation of physics, and then have to invent a physically impossible reflecting blackbody to solve the problem you created.”
barry, the chain of logic leading to the 2LoT violation in your solution is one thing.
What happens as a result of the 2LoT violation is another thing altogether.
You simply can’t help yourself in mixing up the two things. That’s your problem, not mine.”
Let’s cut through the BS. I can provide a quote from multiple physics texts describing the function of a blackbody.
If your argument is not circular, please provide a single authoritative physics reference that corroborates how an idealized blackbody can also be a perfect reflector, or admit that your solution relies on an object that physics dictates is impossible: emissivity (ε) can only be 1 OR 0, it cannot be both. Alternatively, provide a single authoritative reference explaining how the colder body’s radiation to a warmer surface is boomeranged, if not by reflection.
If you can’t do that, but instead refer to your own argument, your reasoning is circular. And you’ll have simply reinforced that your view is not grounded in standard physics.
It’s all a bit of a frenzy of overlapping conversations at the moment. Once you two have stopped hurling your false accusations, misrepresentations and stream of consciousness rambling, I’ll have a look at where we’ve got to later today.
DREMT 3:49 again mistakes EMR for heat. That transfer relates to EMR DREMt; one has to watch the pea under the thimble very closely because DREMT gets it wrong so often.
OK. Everybody finished? Right, then.
“Having asserting some absurdly false claim a few times, it seems to get placed in the ‘fact’ department of his thinking. And from then on, it can be used as ‘proof’ of something else.”
If this were true (which it isn’t), then it would be “arguing from a false premise” and not “circular logic”. Neither of you understand what circular reasoning even is! Funny.
Nate, the 1LoT equation mentions absolutely nothing about “NET”!
Neither 1LoT nor 2LoT specify “NET”.
barry needs to read the post I already wrote on his “magic BP” rant, again. Seems he’s forgotten what I said, already.
“Nate, the 1LoT equation mentions absolutely nothing about “NET”!
Neither 1LoT nor 2LoT specify “NET”.”
Science deniers say the darndest things.
Looks like you know absolutely nothing about these Laws.
1LOT is Conservation of Energy. Thus all energy flows must be included in it.
That means ‘Net’ is absolutely essential to 1LOT.
And HEAT is defined as the NET EMR transfer. Which is all that 2LOT is concerned with.
As you know very well.
“the 1LoT equation mentions absolutely nothing about “NET”!”
Well this is a pretty stunning rejection of the principles of thermodynamics. The 1st Law is about conservation of energy. Failing to account for all the energy leads to violations as a first order.
Q is regularly described as a NET transfer in physics texts.
Q =
“net amount of energy transferred in across the system boundary by heat transfer during the time interval” link
“net energy transfer to (or from) the system as heat… where Q = net heat transfer (=∑Qin – ∑Qout)link
“Net heat transfer into the system”link
“The net heat transfer between two temperatures is given by Q/time = σεA(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)link
The last link ties the 1st Law Q into the 2nd Law RHTE.
Isolating one vector of energy once again mistakes a radiative transfer for a heat transfer. Heat, whether q or Q is the NET energy entering and leaving a system, and 1LoT requires a proper accounting.
Here we are again referencing physics texts that you utterly ignore – and reject.
You claim your GPE solution (A) results in a magical process (B) that returns GP’s energy from BP. When asked to explain this magical process (B) you point back to your solution (A) as the explanation.
A leads to B. B leads to A.
This is circular reasoning. It ALSO contains a flawed premise.
But how about we cut the BS now?
If your argument is not circular, please provide a single authoritative physics reference that corroborates how an idealized blackbody can also be a perfect reflector, or admit that your solution relies on an object that physics dictates is impossible: emissivity (ε) can only be 1 OR 0, it cannot be both. Alternatively, provide a single authoritative physics reference explaining how the colder body’s radiation to a warmer surface is boomeranged, if not by reflection.
If you can’t do that, but instead refer to your own argument, your reasoning is circular. And you’ll have simply reinforced that your view is not grounded in standard physics.
Deflecting the question achieves the same result.
“barry needs to read the post I already wrote on his “magic BP” rant, again. Seems he’s forgotten what I said, already.”
You said you can’t explain it, and said maybe Clint can.
No authoritative physics references appeared.
Now’s your chance…
“Well this is a pretty stunning rejection of the principles of thermodynamics. The 1st Law is about conservation of energy. Failing to account for all the energy leads to violations as a first order.”
You’re conflating two different things. “Accounting for all the energy” is one thing, and both our solutions do that. So that’s not the issue. What I’m saying is that the LoTs must apply to a single transfer of energy. That’s another thing.
There’s no reason for them not to. Asking Google “do the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to a single transfer of energy?” returns:
“Yes, the laws of thermodynamics apply to a single transfer of energy. Every individual energy transfer strictly obeys the conservation of energy and the rule of increasing entropy.”
In the MIT source we’ve been using throughout, their 1LoT equation in the first chapter does not mention “NET”. And, there’s no mention of “NET” in statements of 2LoT.
“The last link ties the 1st Law Q into the 2nd Law RHTE.”
It’s subtle, but your conflation of the three things continues. 2LoT is not the RHTE!
“You claim your GPE solution (A) results in a magical process (B) that returns GP’s energy from BP. When asked to explain this magical process (B) you point back to your solution (A) as the explanation. A leads to B. B leads to A. This is circular reasoning. It ALSO contains a flawed premise.”
You really are desperate to label my overall argument as “circular reasoning”, but it isn’t. Never has been, never will be. I have explained why about fifty times to you over the years but nothing with you ever sinks in! Your summary above is wrong, anyway.
I explain the “magical process” (B) as being a result of “your solution violating 2LoT” (A).
In other words, the points 6) and 7) result from a disputed premise (A). The premise as far as I’m concerned is established in the points 1) – 5), but you dispute this.
So, it’s not circular logic. It’s “arguing from a disputed premise” which affects only points 6) and 7).
So, you can claim that if I don’t fulfil your sammich request then my argument is circular logic all you like…but, that is false.
And, constantly picking at points 6) and 7) will never refute the points 1) – 5).
P.S: I will assume that both you and Nate have finally conceded that Proposition A is correct, as we now seem to be moving on from that. Great!
I asked google on an incognito tab:
Do the laws of thermodynamics apply to a single energy vector in a system, or to the net energy? Or both? IOW, can I satisfy the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by accounting for a single vector of radiation in a system that has multiple vectors?
The Reply:
The short answer is both, but to satisfy the First Law of Thermodynamics, you must account for the net energy of the entire system. You cannot satisfy it by looking at a single energy vector in isolation if other vectors are changing.
Here is how the laws apply to individual vectors versus net energy.
1. Individual Vectors vs. Net Energy
The First Law applies to the Net Energy:
The First Law is a statement of global conservation. It dictates that the total change in internal energy (ΔU) of a system must equal the net heat added (Q) minus the net work done (W).
Individual Vectors must balance the total equation: You can track a single vector (like a specific wavelength of radiation, conductive heat transfer, or mechanical work). However, that single vector does not have to be conserved on its own. It can freely convert into other forms of energy.
The Second Law applies to every individual pathway:
While the First Law looks at the net balance, the Second Law governs the direction of each individual energy vector. For example, heat radiation cannot spontaneously flow along a single vector from a colder body to a hotter body, regardless of what the rest of the system is doing.
2. Why a Single Radiation Vector is Insufficient
In a system with multiple energy vectors, accounting for only one radiation vector will violate the First Law unless all other vectors happen to be exactly zero.
Consider a real-world example:
A greenhouse or the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Single Vector:
Incoming shortwave solar radiation.
The Other Vectors:
Outgoing longwave thermal radiation, convective air currents, and latent heat from evaporating water.The
Consequence:
If you only measure the incoming solar radiation, your energy accounting ledger will not balance. The system will appear to be continuously creating or destroying energy. To satisfy the First Law, you must sum every incoming and outgoing vector of radiation, conduction, convection, and phase change.
To give you the most accurate explanation for your specific project, could you tell me a bit more about the type of system you are modeling (e.g., an optical sensor, a planetary climate model, a thermal engine) and what specific energy vectors are at play? Knowing your ultimate goal for this accounting will help me provide the exact thermodynamic equations you need.
———————————————————-
Yes, Q is the net energy.
Yes, 1LoT considers the net transfers.
No, you cannot apply 1LoT to one component of a system and get a valid energy ledger.
I’m going to answer the AI’s question…..
In his enthusiasm, barry seems to have missed:
“For example, heat radiation cannot spontaneously flow along a single vector from a colder body to a hotter body, regardless of what the rest of the system is doing”
You just proved me right!
Plus, this applies:
“You’re conflating two different things. “Accounting for all the energy” is one thing, and both our solutions do that. So that’s not the issue. What I’m saying is that the LoTs must apply to a single transfer of energy. That’s another thing.”
As far as I’m concerned your AI response confirms that.
Asking it a more specific question, e.g:
Per the 1LoT equation, would a single transfer of EMR be a heat transfer if it builds up internal energy in one object at the expense of the other?
Returns:
“Yes, a single transfer of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is considered heat transfer if it is driven by a temperature difference and increases the internal energy of one object while decreasing the internal energy of another.”
“P.S: I will assume that both you and Nate have finally conceded that Proposition A”
DREMT plays exceptionally dumb about his opponents oft stated position.
DREMT plays quite dumb about 1LOT and Conservation of Energy including all energy flows.
DREMT plays very dumb about Heat = Net transfer of thermal energy.
and finally:
DREMT plays exceedingly dumb about 2LOT constraining Heat flows.
His entire argument is based on playing dumb.
And then he wonders why his argument has no credibility with readers.
I gave the AI a brief overview of the scenario in my answer:
“In a radiative scenario where a sun provides energy to a system of two infinite area, parallel blackbody plates, with one plate only receiving sunlight, can I apply the 1st Law only to the vector of radiation going from the shaded plate to the sunlit plate? If so, what can I ascertain?”
The reply:
No, you cannot apply the First Law of Thermodynamics exclusively to the single radiation vector from the shaded plate to the sunlit plate. Doing so violates the fundamental principle of energy conservation because a single vector does not exist in isolation.
However, you can apply the First Law to the shaded plate as a localized subsystem. By analyzing all vectors interacting with that specific plate, you can isolate the vector you are interested in and ascertain exactly how the two plates interact.
Here is what you can mathematically and physically ascertain using this scenario.
The 3 Energy Vectors at Play
In this steady-state system, there are three distinct radiation vectors to track:
1. Isun: The incoming solar radiation absorbed exclusively by Plate 1 (sunlit).
2. J₁→₂: The infrared radiation emitted from Plate 1 to Plate 2 (shaded).
3. J₂→₁: The infrared radiation emitted from Plate 2 back to Plate 1.
Because the plates have infinite area, all radiation emitted from the inner face of one plate is entirely intercepted by the other (the view factor is 1). The outer face of Plate 2 radiates out into the vacuum of deep space (0 K).
What You Can Ascertain About Plate 2
By applying the First Law (Energy In = Energy Out) specifically to Plate 2, you look at the net balance of its individual vectors.
The Energy Balance:
Plate 2 receives radiation from Plate 1 (J₁→₂), and it emits radiation from both its inner face back to Plate 1 (J₂→₁) and its outer face to space (J₂→space).
Because it is a blackbody: A blackbody emits energy equally from all exposed surfaces based entirely on its temperature (T). Therefore, the vector from the shaded plate back to the sunlit plate is exactly half of its total emitted energy:
J₂→₁ = J₂→space = σT₂⁴
The First Law Equation for Plate 2:
Energy In = Energy Out
J₁→₂ = J₂→₁ + J₂→space
σT₁⁴ = σT₂⁴ + σT₂⁴ = 2σT₂⁴
From this localized First Law analysis, you ascertain a strict mathematical relationship between the two plates: The energy vector from the sunlit plate to the shaded plate must be exactly twice the magnitude of the vector returning from the shaded plate to the sunlit plate (J₁→₂ = 2J₂→₁).
What You Can Ascertain About the Entire System
If you zoom out and apply the First Law to both plates combined as a single system, the internal vectors between the plates J₁→₂ and J₂→₁ cancel out. You are left with only the system’s global boundaries:
Energy In = Energy Out
Isun = J₁→₂ + J₂→₁
By combining the global system boundary balance with the individual plate balances, you can solve for the exact equilibrium temperatures of both plates relative to the sun’s input:
Plate 2 (Shaded): σT₂⁴ = ⅓Isun
Plate 1 (Sunlit) σT₁⁴ = ⅔Isun
Ultimately, analyzing these vectors demonstrates the “Greenhouse Effect” in a vacuum.
If Plate 2 did not exist, Plate 1 would radiate equally from both sides into empty space. Its equilibrium state would be σT₁⁴ = ½Isun.
Because Plate 2 is present, its back-radiation vector (J₂→₁) traps additional energy. This forces the sunlit plate to become hotter (σT₁⁴ = ⅔Isun) than it would be on its own.
To take this simulation further, let me know if you want to see how the equations change if we introduce reflectivity (albedo) to the plates, or if the plates have a specific thermal conductivity allowing heat to conduct from the front face to the back face.
———————————————————–
I don’t have an account for GoogleAI. It has no memory of me even in standard browsers, much less incognito.
So, with no training from me, this is the answer it gave. To the scenario. I made my query neutral as possible, so as not to lead the witness.
““P.S: I will assume that both you and Nate have finally conceded that Proposition A”
DREMT plays exceptionally dumb about his opponents oft stated position.”
You can’t be seriously suggesting that you still don’t accept Proposition A!? On what grounds could you possibly reject it!?
And Nate, I keep trying to distinguish between:
I) the concept that all the transfers must balance (which they do, in either solution).
II) the idea that a single transfer of EMR can be a heat transfer when it is building up internal energy in one object at the expense of another.
Both I) and II) are connected to 1LoT but in different ways. Naturally you both keep conflating the two!
“In his enthusiasm, barry seems to have missed:
“For example, heat radiation cannot spontaneously flow along a single vector from a colder body to a hotter body, regardless of what the rest of the system is doing”
You just proved me right!”
I didn’t miss that at all. And you hilariously removed the first sentence of that paragraph. Let’s see that again.
“While the First Law looks at the net balance, the Second Law governs the direction of each individual energy vector. For example, heat radiation cannot spontaneously flow along a single vector from a colder body to a hotter body, regardless of what the rest of the system is doing.”
Heat indeed can’t flow along a single vector of radiation, disregarding the rest of the system. I’ve been saying this al along.
I asked what the AI meant.
“You wrote:
“The Second Law applies to every individual pathway: While the First Law looks at the net balance, the Second Law governs the direction of each individual energy vector. For example, heat radiation cannot spontaneously flow along a single vector from a colder body to a hotter body, regardless of what the rest of the system is doing.”
Explain what you mean by the second sentence.”
The reply:
That specific sentence means that net heat transfer must always flow from hot to cold, even when individual microscopic energy carriers are moving in both directions.
When discussing thermal radiation, it is easy to accidentally confuse the behavior of individual photons with the behavior of heat transfer. The Second Law clarifies that relationship.
The Difference Between Photons and Heat
To understand what the Second Law governs, we have to separate a vector of electromagnetic radiation from the thermodynamic definition of heat:
Photons travel unconditionally: Every object above absolute zero continuously shoots out photons via blackbody radiation. A cold plate shoots photons at a hot plate, and a hot plate shoots photons at a cold plate. Individual photons do not know the temperature of their destination; they travel blindly across their respective vectors.
Heat is a net property: In thermodynamics, heat is defined as the net transfer of thermal energy resulting from a temperature difference.
The Second Law Rules the Net Vector: The Second Law states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold to hot. This means that when you sum up the energy vectors traveling back and forth, the net arrow of energy transfer must always point from the higher-temperature body to the lower-temperature body.
——————————————————–
Yup
““You’re conflating two different things. “Accounting for all the energy” is one thing, and both our solutions do that. So that’s not the issue. What I’m saying is that the LoTs must apply to a single transfer of energy. That’s another thing.”
The Laws of thermodynamics apply to all transfers, but you can’t isolate a single vector to arrive at a correct 1LoT result – as the AI explained, corroborating what I’ve said earlier.
You have screened out the pertinent bits from the reply:
“2. Why a Single Radiation Vector is Insufficient
In a system with multiple energy vectors, accounting for only one radiation vector will violate the First Law unless all other vectors happen to be exactly zero.”
Seems you missed that.
“The First Law applies to the Net Energy:
The First Law is a statement of global conservation. It dictates that the total change in internal energy (ΔU) of a system must equal the net heat added (Q) minus the net work done (W).”
And you missed that.
“To satisfy the First Law, you must sum every incoming and outgoing vector of radiation, conduction, convection, and phase change.”
And you missed that.
Q is a net of energy tranasfers. 1LoT is a global accoiunt.
So now AI and quoted physics texts have told you you are wrong.
The blinders you wear are the most powerful I’ve ever seen,
“No, you cannot apply the First Law of Thermodynamics exclusively to the single radiation vector from the shaded plate to the sunlit plate. Doing so violates the fundamental principle of energy conservation because a single vector does not exist in isolation.“
Again, this is conflating I) and II).
We know Google tends to give answers suggesting the Green Plate Effect is correct. I did reason with it one time and got it to see things my way. I posted that discussion up here a few months ago – unfortunately the link no longer works. But, Nate saw it at the time.
“Someone said: “a single transfer of EMR can be a heat transfer when it is building up internal energy in one object at the expense of another.” Is this true for all circumstances?”
Reply:
No, this statement is not true for all circumstances.
Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) transfers energy, but that transfer only counts as heat when it is driven by a temperature difference between two objects.
“If I said:
“Is it true that a single transfer of EMR can be a heat transfer when it is building up internal energy in one object at the expense of another.”
Might an AI answer affirmatively to that question? Ignore my first question above, so you consider this query in isolation from the former.”
The reply:
Yes, an AI might absolutely answer affirmatively to that question.
While the statement is technically incomplete from a strict physics standpoint, many AI models would agree with it because it aligns with a broad, everyday understanding of energy transfer.
Why an AI Might Answer Yes
Focus on Context: The phrase “at the expense of another” strongly implies a source giving up energy to a receiver. In casual physics discussions, radiation transferring energy from a hot stove to a cold hand is universally called heat transfer.
Pattern Matching: AI models trained on general textbooks often see “EMR transfer” and “heat transfer” linked together under the topic of thermal radiation. The AI might overlook the specific edge cases (like lasers or microwaves) and focus on the general rule.
Simplified Definitions: In introductory science, heat is often simplified as “energy in transit that changes an object’s internal energy.” The prompt fits that basic definition perfectly.
How a Highly Precise AI Might Respond
A more advanced or specialized physics AI would likely give a nuanced “Yes, but…” answer. It would validate your core idea—that thermal radiation is a form of heat transfer—while gently pointing out that the transfer must be driven by a temperature difference to strictly qualify as heat.
———————————————————-
Your questions lead the witness, DREMT. Note how the AI quoted the exact language that is rhetorical.
“Simplified Definitions: In introductory science, heat is often simplified as “energy in transit that changes an object’s internal energy.” The prompt fits that basic definition perfectly.
How a Highly Precise AI Might Respond
A more advanced or specialized physics AI would likely give a nuanced “Yes, but…” answer. It would validate your core idea—that thermal radiation is a form of heat transfer—while gently pointing out that the transfer must be driven by a temperature difference to strictly qualify as heat.”
Yes, because “heat”, by definition, is a transfer of thermal energy from hot to cold. But, we need to still know what would constitute a transfer of heat from cold to hot. So, “energy in transit that changes an object’s thermal energy” seems like the most sensible suggestion.
And, that happens to prove me right.
“the idea that a single transfer of EMR can be a heat transfer when it is building up internal energy in one object at the expense of another.”
In case you missed it, as your comments seem to imply, I do not agree with this. You are still passing internal energy from one object to another. Still weasel wording it. Still rejecting that heat transfer is determined by the net exchange of EMR.
You have ignored several requests to corroborate your views with references.
You’ve been ignoring these requests for nearly a decade.
Your ‘switch-on’ scenario doesn’t violate the 1st Law because the Green Plate is not cooling due to BP soaking its energy, it is cooling because it doubled its emitting area.
You can’t isolate one arrow in a complex energy balance, treat it like an independent system, and demand it satisfy the 2nd Law by itself.
Because you insist on isolating a single vector, you are forced to invent an impossible ‘reflecting blackbody’ that violates Kirchhoff’s Law just to keep your loop intact.
Since you cannot provide a single authoritative physics reference that allows a blackbody to act as a reflector, or that explains mechanically how GP’s radiation gets boomeranged near BP, or that allows 2LoT definiti0n of heat flow to be applied to a single one-way radiative vector, we are done. Your ten-year-old premise is based on a fundamental misunderstanding and even rejection of physical laws.
Substantiating your views with sources is a first order requirement in a legitimate discussion. Your complete dereliction in this disqualified you years ago.
Take care now.
This post has been sitting in a tab for a while. Been meaning to quote this incredible doublespeak:
“My argument is to isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer in the 262 K… 220 K solution, in order to prove that it’s a transfer of heat from cold to hot, in that solution. To do this requires comparison of the results of all the transfers occurring to completion, with the results of all the transfers except the “back-radiation” transfer. So, straight away, you’re wrong. I am not forgetting about the Sun. The transfer Sun to BP is included, along with all the other transfers, in isolating the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer. Once that’s done, we get to Proposition A.
Remember, this is the isolated effect of the transfer, thus all talk of “net” is redundant”
I’m isolating one vector, but I’m including all the vectors in order to isolate one vector, so please don’t talk about the net of vectors, because I’ve isolated it from the others.
This is a seriously troubled bit of bafflegab. Even this one sentence is phenomenal.
“The transfer Sun to BP is included, along with all the other transfers, in isolating the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer.”
Ye Gods.
So let’s take another sentence from this alphabet soup.
“To do this requires comparison of the results of all the transfers occurring to completion, with the results of all the transfers except the “back-radiation” transfer.”
What does that even mean?
The actual result without backradiation is that GP is 0 K. If it can’t radiate, it can’t absorb.
In radiative scenarios there are rules about how surfaces behave, even idealised surfaces, in order to not break the laws of physics and get invalid results.
Anyway, I’m done.
“2. Why a Single Radiation Vector is Insufficient In a system with multiple energy vectors, accounting for only one radiation vector will violate the First Law unless all other vectors happen to be exactly zero.”
This concerns I), not II).
“To satisfy the First Law, you must sum every incoming and outgoing vector of radiation, conduction, convection, and phase change.”
This concerns I), not II).
This:
So, “energy in transit that changes an object’s thermal energy” seems like the most sensible suggestion.
Should have read:
So, “energy in transit that changes an object’s internal energy” seems like the most sensible suggestion.
Oh well. barry has stormed off in a huff, again. Leaving a barrage of lengthy responses that no one human being should be expected to be able to sift through and correct.
I think he was annoyed that I pointed out he couldn’t even understand what circular logic was.
“Your ‘switch-on’ scenario doesn’t violate the 1st Law because the Green Plate is not cooling due to BP soaking its energy, it is cooling because it doubled its emitting area.”
How many times do I have to point out that the additional emitting area is the side pointing at the BP!? It was emitting to space already, then after “switch-on” it’s now also emitting to the BP, so if it starts cooling that’s because of the “back-radiation” transfer! I’ve pointed that out about five times in this discussion alone, and every time you have no response!
Not accepting Proposition A at this stage is pure denial. Both you and Nate are in denial.
At least Ball4 gets that bit right.
“Proposition A is that in your solution, the “back-radiation” transfer builds up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP.”
These are talking points that fail to match the math or physics. Thus it has been debunked many times in this discussion.
Eg. As has pointed out to you, the heat flow (net energy transfer) is always from BP to GP according to valid laws of physics (RHTE).
With no NET movement of internal energy from GP to BP, it is impossible for this transfer to build up internal energy in the BP.
QED
But internal energy is building up in the BP, because the heat source (sun) IS providing a NET energy (heat) transfer to it.
And internal energy is reducing in the GP due to it has a heat flow to space.
I dont why you still have trouble wrapping your brain around this basic math and logic.
Nate, I don’t know how you can still not grasp that Proposition A is about the isolated effect of the “back-radiation” transfer.
It’s not the effect of the “forward-radiation” transfer minus the “back-radiation” transfer that’s being discussed in Proposition A.
It’s the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer only.
Every time I explain this to you I’m not sure what happens inside your brain, whether you imagine I’m saying something else, I don’t know. But, you don’t get what I mean. Ever. I can tell from what you respond with.
Nate, I don’t know how you can still not grasp that “Proposition A is about the isolated effect of the “back-radiation” transfer.”
I grasp that.
“It’s not the effect of the “forward-radiation” transfer minus the “back-radiation” transfer that’s being discussed in Proposition A.
It’s the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer only.”
I dont know how you still cannot grasp that with a forward radiation always = or > the backward radiation, that there can be no ‘build-up’ of internal energy in the BP as a result.
Nor can there be any reduction in the internal energy of the GP as a result.
Your PROP A words do not match the math! This is a truly basic fact.
Thus prop A is mathematically falsified.
Nate has DDS – DREMT Derangement Syndrome. The compulsion to push back on everything I say regardless of how ridiculous it makes him look.
Nate hears me say that Proposition A is not concerned with the effect of the “forward-radiation” transfer minus the “back-radiation” transfer, it is concerned with the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer only – but it’s in one ear and out the other. He simply cannot compute what is being said, due to his DDS.
Everything I’ve said regarding Proposition A and how the “back-radiation” transfer is thus acting as a transfer of heat is confirmed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1750468
in the simplest possible terms.
Graham D. Warner pins six theses.
Graham D. Warner presents the first three to his best buddy.
Graham D. Warner claims that E V E R Y T H I N G has been “confirmed”.
You can’t make this up.
Willard reads: “Everything I’ve said regarding Proposition A and how the “back-radiation” transfer is thus acting as a transfer of heat is confirmed here.”
But Willard thinks he’s read: “Everything I’ve said (on any subject relating to the GPE) is confirmed here.”
Willard has DDS.
And now Graham D. Warner pretends that his “Proposition A” isn’t related to his (4)-(5)-(6).
He’s not called Gaslighting Graham for no reason!
Willard just has to push back on anything I say. It’s because he’s dangerously, desperately devoted to his DDS!
“Nate hears me say that Proposition A is not concerned with the effect of the “forward-radiation” transfer minus the “back-radiation” transfer, it is concerned with the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer only”
Well, like it or not, 1LOT and 2LOT, the relevant Laws, ARE concerned with the forward radiation, as well as the heat from the sun, and the heat loss of the GP to space.
Semi-regular reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1734529
Graham D. Warner has done the same since then.
What I would suggest is one of the advocates of writing this particular exception to 2LOT and the rules of entropy; mathematically explain how anything can still violate 2LOT and the rules of entropy.
Google AI:
heat is already considered the most disorganized form of energy (lowest-quality energy). Because of this, nothing can literally be “more disorganized than heat”. Instead of disorder, heat is defined scientifically as the dispersal of energy.
When objects reach equilibrium then the direction of heat becomes reversible. So the GP has to be warmed to 244K before it can return any subsequent emissions of the BP to the GP.
Good luck with the math as observations led to 2LOT and the rules and math of entropy, which led to the theory of radiation bouncing back and forth within the cavity.
Kirchhoff in 1860 defined a blackbody that our favorite warmists use to claim an exception. . .that a blackbody absorbs all the radiation that falls upon it.
5 years later Clausius identified a possible exception to that when he proposed entropy.
I have no idea what entropy is other than a logic check to make sure your logic isn’t haywire and one gets overly excited by blackbody absorption. Logic checks are what newly hired out of college graduates get to do a lot of in the consulting/accounting model business. If anybody has a better idea bring forth the sources.
Folks get excited about cooling even when no cooling is happening. An object does not cool when the input equals the output.
Just trying to clean up a few illogical niches our friends like to hide out in.
As we saw from his last comment, where he was still storming off in a huff like the Drama Queen that he is, barry couldn’t understand it, either. But, in order to get the plate temperatures in the situation without the “back-radiation” transfer, all the other transfers need to be considered. So, as strange as it may seem, in order to isolate the effect of the “back-radiation” transfer, you are in fact taking all the other transfers into account. Clearly, this is over your heads.
But, it’s irrelevant, because I realised that you can get to the same point in accepting Proposition A, and that the “back-radiation” transfer acts as a transfer of heat, without even needing to refer to the Green Plate Effect numbers at all! If only you’d clicked on the link and read the comment…
DREMT
Either you understand 1LOT or you dont. Either you ubderstand how Q is defined or you dont.
If you do understand these two facts, there is no need to ask (mis)leading questions about it.
If you STILL dont understand what Q in radiative heat transfer between two bodies is, then ask AI.
It will tell you it is
Q = e*sigma*A*(T1^4-T2^4) the NET of the two EMR tansfers.
For the 47th the time, if the direction of Q is from BP to GP, how can Q possibly be from GP to BP?
Stop being ridiculous.
Yeah, you really need to take it down-thread, Nate.
Or rather, perhaps stop pretending you haven’t already seen what’s going on down-thread.
> What I would suggest is…mathematically explain
Gill will never let go of Step 2 – Sammich Request.
Perhaps he should spell out “this particular exception” first?
More diversionary tactics.
Either you understand 1LOT or you dont.
Either you understand the definition of HEAT or you dont.
If the heat flow is from BP to GP, then, plainly, obviously
no heat is flowing from GP to BP.
Then by 1LOT, there is no transfer of internal energy from GP to BP.
Just stop playing very dumb.
> page 569
Gill almost reached the correct page.
At his very slow pace of one page per month, two more months and he’ll get there.
Nate says:
”Either you understand 1LOT or you dont. Either you ubderstand how Q is defined or you dont.”
I understand that the Stefan Boltzmann law and “Q” was derived and defined from a perfectly insulated black box model. Do you?
I would argue that conductive materials operates largely transparently to the flow of energy. Seems the rules of entropy are little more than a theoretical formulation of pressure model fitted to that insulated blackbox model. That effectively suggests your understandings about uninsulated blackboxes may be fundamentally flawed. . .unless of course you can come up with some empirical evidence otherwise.
More diversionary tactics from Nate, refusing to go down-thread and face the music. I linked him to the comment, and he’s absolutely ignored the argument made.
Yes, I understand 1LoT, that’s partly how we know the energy carried by the “back-radiation” EMR transfer “functions as heat” (Google AI’s words).
Take it down-thread, Nate. The discussion up here is closed for comments, and that’s a message I will be repeating once every 24 hours until it’s the last word on this sub-thread.
There is no such variable ‘acting as heat’ in 1LOT or any other equation.
There is only Q, heat, in 1LOT. Ask AI how to define Q in radiative heat transfer.
You have “misunderstood”, Nate, and I believe you have done so deliberately.
Read these two comments, in full. Follow the link in the second comment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1750382
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1750468
When you are ready to concede that Proposition A is correct, respond. Otherwise, don’t bother.
And, take it down-thread.
All that you prove is what we all already knew, that AI is unreliable. It can be misled into giving wrong answers, and different answers depending on how the question is phrased.
If you use vague terms not found in physics, then it will try to answer with those vague terms, instead of telling you that the term is il-defined as it should.
Because it wants to please you.
The actual Laws of physics use only well defined terms.
In 1LOT and 2LOT, only heat transfer, Q, is used, never ‘acting as heat’.
Nate, I didn’t want your pathetic rationalisations for information you find troubling to your beliefs. If you have nothing sensible to say, don’t respond. When you’re ready to grow up and concede the point, take it down-thread and do so.
“Nate, I didn’t want your pathetic rationalisations for information you find troubling to your beliefs. If you have nothing”
Weird. Arent you rationalizing when AI gives you a different answer?
“If you put all six points into the Google search bar, it throws a hissy fit and starts talking about ‘net’ ‘net’ ‘net’
It rejects point 4) because it suddenly states that the energy carried by EMR does not function as heat, and that only the ‘net’ is heat. So, it fundamentally contradicts itself! That fundamental contradiction is the root problem in the GPE argument.”
Try asking AI simple, straightforward questions and you will generally get reliable answers.
Such as ‘What is Q in radiative heat transfer?’
No rationalising from me, Nate. Having the argument neatly laid out in numbered points makes it very clear where the problem is in your solution. The first three points the AI accepts with no problem, and concludes (by itself, with no prompting from me) that all transfers of EMR that go to completion carry energy that “functions as heat”. But, when that is spelled out back to it in point 4), it suddenly rejects that idea because it has been trained that “heat is the net”.
That’s the fundamental contradiction in your solution. The “back-radiation” transfer heats the BP, in your solution. Simple as that. But, you refuse to see it that way because you have been trained that “heat is the net”. And, sure, heat flow between the plates does go to zero when they’re at the same temperature, and yes, heat does flow from the warmer BP to the cooler GP in your final equilibrium state…but the question is, how does the BP get to be warmer in the first place?
The answer is, ultimately, “due to the “back-radiation” transfer”. No matter how you try to dress it up, that’s the cause. And here, you show the fallacy of your logic:
“Either you understand 1LOT or you dont. Either you understand the definition of HEAT or you dont. If the heat flow is from BP to GP, then, plainly, obviously no heat is flowing from GP to BP. Then by 1LOT, there is no transfer of internal energy from GP to BP.”
You are ultimately “ruling out” an undeniable fact by coming at the 1LoT equation “backwards”! That any transfer of EMR adds to the internal energy of the recipient at the expense of the “donor” is an undeniable fact made plain by simple conservation of energy. The “donor” has its internal energy depleted because it is converted to EMR, and that EMR is converted back into internal energy within the recipient. That cannot be disputed.
But, you are coming at the 1LoT equation “backwards” and claiming that there is no heat flow GP to BP, because “heat is the net”, and so you rule out there being a change in internal energy even though we know that there is one!
No, the logic of points 1) – 3) is undeniable. There is a change in internal energy as a result of the transfer, and so the energy carried by the EMR really does function as heat. You get to Q from the fact of the change in U. That’s the right way around. What you don’t do is use a specific definition of Q to rule out there being a change in U, when you know that the change in U is a fact! That’s backwards, fallacious logic.
From DREMT’s favorite go to source google AI using a clip entered verbatim from DREMT’s last comment: “electromagnetic radiation (EMR) changes a system’s internal energy upon absorp_tion, but it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics (2LOT).”
This can also be learned from bill’s MIT text Chapter 1 section on Entropy Production.
Sure, because it has been trained that “heat is the net”, but it can’t fully “think for itself”, yet.
You have to understand, the consensus of information available to Google AI will tell it that there’s a GHE. So, it’s trained on that information, and it will thus always have a bias towards that idea. And, that’s partly why I use it. Precisely because I know that it’s biased against what I’m arguing, overall, so when it does support my ideas on a specific point, that is significant!
Of course, anyone can do like Ball4 just did and go, “tee hee hee your own source disagrees with you, overall”, but that’s a bit silly, really. I fully acknowledge that it does disagree with me overall, and that’s partly why I’m using it!
DREMT,
This is a long-winded statement. At least you are tryingbto debate, even though you say some contradictory things.
Im going to try my best to find some areas of agreement.
“But, you refuse to see it that way because you have been trained that ‘heat is the net’. And, sure, heat flow between the plates does go to zero when theyre at the same temperature, and yes, heat does flow from the warmer BP to the cooler GP in your final equilibrium state.”
Very good. But, right there, when you say heat flow goes to zero, and does flow from warmer to colder body (RHTE) YOU are agreeing that heat is NET.
Yes, I have been trained that ‘heat is NET’ bacause it is a fact, and because it makes perfect sense.
When you say “any transfer of EMR adds to the internal energy of the recipient at the expense of the ‘donor’ is an undeniable fact made plain by simple conservation of energy.”,
what I can agree with is that the back-transfer from GP to BP will tend to increase the BP internal energy and decrease the GPs internal energy, AND the forward-transfer from the BP to the GP will tend to decrease the internal energy of the BP, and increase the intetnal energy of the GP.
The net result of these two transfers is to keep the internal energy of the BP the same or slightly decreased, and to keep the internal energy of the GP constant or slightly increased.
IOW, in any exchange between bodies, it really is the NET transfer that determines the result. And this is what 1LOT states.
This is obvious. So I assume you can agree with this?
“but the question is, how does the BP get to be warmer in the first place?”
Good question. But to be honest, you have heard our explanation many times!
From above, we know that the NET exchange BP to GP by itself cannot warm the BP, because it does not increase the internal energy of the BP, nor decrease the internal energy of the GP.
As you correctly stated, the heat flow goes to zero when the GP is brought in.
But that still represents a CHANGE in the heat loss of the BP,
from the prior situation when the BP was constantly losing heat (200 W/m2) to space.
That reduction in heat loss cannot be disputed. It is simply what happens.
And then with the steady heat input from the sun, and the reduced heat loss from BP. The BP must warm.
Similsrly, the GP, if it was previously at a steady 244 K, it must have had s steady heat gain to counter its continuous heat loss to space.
Now there is no or too little heat gain from BP, to replace its heat loss to space. It must cool.
Yes, Nate, I understood your way of looking at it eight years ago. There really is no need for you to keep repeating yourself.
I refuted an important point you made in the last few paragraphs of my previous comment to you, and you’ve ignored it completely. Yet you suggest that I’m the one not trying to debate properly!
“…what I can agree with is that the back-transfer from GP to BP will tend to increase the BP internal energy and decrease the GPs internal energy, AND…”
You needed to stop right there, just before the “AND”. That change in U means the “back-radiation” transfer is a heat transfer, per the 1LoT equation. Don’t obfuscate by including the “forward-radiation” transfer. Focus on the facts about the “back-radiation” transfer.
[ZENO] You needed to stop right there…
There was a comment from barry, that I responded to here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1750190
Which really shows the lengths they’ll go to, to avoid admitting the obvious truth of Proposition A. And yet, we had already had this exchange:
[BARRY] Unless you argue that an increase in absorbed energy has no effect on internal energy (without any work done), then you must concede BP’s internal energy grows…
[DREMT] …if BP’s internal energy grows as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer then that proves (per the 1LoT equation) that the “back-radiation” transfer is a flow of heat from cold to hot, and 2LoT is violated.
It’s not my response that’s the clincher, really, so much as it’s what barry is conceding in his comment! He’s clearly admitting that the GP directly warms the BP, in their solution. How else can you read it!? The “increase in absorbed energy” he was referring to was the EMR from the GP…
The mask slipped. The “insulation” narrative is just a cover.
The truth is as clear as it used to be, when it used to say on various websites that the “back-radiation” heats the ground…
“You needed to stop right there, just before the “AND”. That change in U means the “back-radiation” transfer is a heat transfer, per the 1LoT equation.”
Why would I do that, given that both transfers affect the internal energy?
The point of 1LOT is to be able to predict what the internal energy will be. How can we do that if we exclude the forward-transfer?
And as we all know, the heat transfer between bodies is the NET energy transfer, even you:
“And, sure, heat flow between the plates does go to zero when they’re at the same temperature, and yes, heat does flow from the warmer BP to the cooler GP in your final equilibrium state”
Nate, you’re still coming at this from completely the wrong angle.
I’ll give you another try:
“Either you understand 1LOT or you dont. Either you understand the definition of HEAT or you dont. If the heat flow is from BP to GP, then, plainly, obviously no heat is flowing from GP to BP. Then by 1LOT, there is no transfer of internal energy from GP to BP.”
You are ultimately “ruling out” an undeniable fact by coming at the 1LoT equation “backwards”! That any transfer of EMR adds to the internal energy of the recipient at the expense of the “donor” is an undeniable fact made plain by simple conservation of energy. The “donor” has its internal energy depleted because it is converted to EMR, and that EMR is converted back into internal energy within the recipient. That cannot be disputed.
But, you are coming at the 1LoT equation “backwards” and claiming that there is no heat flow GP to BP, because “heat is the net”, and so you rule out there being a change in internal energy even though we know that there is one!
No, the logic of points 1) – 3) is undeniable. There is a change in internal energy as a result of the transfer, and so the energy carried by the EMR really does function as heat. You get to Q from the fact of the change in U. That’s the right way around. What you don’t do is use a specific definition of Q to rule out there being a change in U, when you know that the change in U is a fact! That’s backwards, fallacious logic.
[GRAHAM D. WARNE] barry carefully chops around…
[ALSO GRAHAM] you needed to stop right there…
The difference is, I’ve written an entire argument justifying why Nate needed to “stop right there”…
DREMT,
Where do address my question?
“Why would I do that, given that both transfers affect the internal energy?
The point of 1LOT is to be able to predict what the internal energy will be. How can we do that if we exclude the forward-transfer?
And as we all know, the heat transfer between bodies is the NET energy transfer, even you:”
BTW, why do you alternate between the correct definition of Heat = NET and the inveted defintion: HEAT is not NET?
This is completely unconvincing.
My answers to the questions should be clear enough if you read the argument that you obviously cannot refute.
You want to include the transfers both ways because you believe “heat is the net”.
But, when you define Q that way and put it into the 1LoT equation, you come up with a conclusion that you know is false – that the “back-radiation” didn’t increase the internal energy of the BP and decrease the internal energy of the GP!
That still happened, regardless of what the “forward-radiation” transfer did.
You need to let Q be undefined at first, and acknowledge that the change in internal energy as a result of the “back-radiation” transfer means that the transfer itself is Q!
“You want to include the transfers both ways because you believe “heat is the net””
Not a belief, an unavoidable fact.
That you need to contradict it (and yourself!) proves that your argument is wrong.
It belongs in the dust bin.
QED
“But, when you define Q that way and put it into the 1LoT equation, you come up with a conclusion that you know is false – that the “back-radiation” didn’t increase the internal energy of the BP and decrease the internal energy of the GP!”
FALSE. As just explained for the 47th time, and apparently ignored again, and certainly not refuted, the BP warms and GP cools because of the heat source, and the Heat loss of the GP to space,
neither of which are part of the BP/GP heat transfer.
You are now just repeating thoroughly debunked talking points.
Stop being ridiculous.
Nate, why are you roaring, “FALSE” at something you’ve already agreed is true!?
You’ve already agreed that the “back-radiation” transfer increases the internal energy of the BP and decreases the internal energy of the GP. That the “forward-radiation” transfer makes changes and the emission of the BP to space on the Sun-facing side makes changes and the receipt of energy by the BP from the Sun makes changes does not change the fact that the “back-radiation” transfer increases the internal energy of the BP and decreases the internal energy of the GP!
You’re just not cut out for thinking about this stuff.
> 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.
barry says:
“Define 2LOT and point out where I am rejecting it.”
You’re having a lend, aren’t you?
If you don’t know the provision of the 2nd law dealing with the direction of heat flow (from hot to cold), then what in hell are you doing claiming the GPE violates the 2nd Law? This has been the absolute basis of the whole debate on the GPE for years.
————————-
Stop being a jerk Barry.
Its obvious that you need to explain the part of the law well enough to specifically identify what I am allegedly rejecting.
Do you lack so much confidence in your argument you don’t want to lay it out physically? I can’t think of any other reason you would balk at specifying exactly what you believe. . .especially after accusing me of violating a law of physics just thinking you are wrong. Give us a physical/logical model that you believe in talking in physics terms of energy flows and temperature. It should be easy with no complicated emissivities or fields of view.
> its obvious that you need to explain
Gill obviously conflates his sammich request with some indefinite “need” anyone else may have.
Perhaps he should have read his pet textbook instead of simply handwaving to it?
Willard is always ready to jump right in with a warning. . .no. . .no. . .don’t try to explain it as it will probably be different than the many ways we don’t understand it. . .especially Willard’s way. . .I bet thats a doozy!
> don’t try to explain it
Gill’s indirect requests are getting more and more creative.
Has he ever considered refuting the claims he put in otters’ mouth?
Yes, bill, I can’t even imagine how messed up is Willard’s understanding of the GPE. It must be something truly spectacular!
Gaslighting Graham returns!
Semi-regular reminder:
Astute readers can expect more gaslighting from Graham D. Warner.
Huh?
Is Willard holding a grudge from sometime in the past and needs some acknowledgement and maybe an apology?
Well sure remind me and perhaps I can oblige.
DREMT says:
”Yes, bill, I can’t even imagine how messed up is Willard’s understanding of the GPE. It must be something truly spectacular!”
Seems to me he knows that too as as long as he has been here he hasn’t even tried.
> Huh?
Gill playing dumb complements very well his sammich requests.
I’m sure whatever I say will be considered “gaslighting”.
Another semi-regular reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1747541
Non-gaslighting response.
bill,
Why are you suddenly ignorant of Clausius’ statement on the second law and heat flow? It is the basis of all our contention here.
After years of us all, including you, operating off this premise in debating the GPE, for you to now profess uncertainty on this is beyond the pale.
Let me know when you’ve ‘remembered’ what the 2nd Law says about the direction of heat flow, and I’ll tell you exactly where you reject it per the GPE.
Obviously we’re all aware that heat only flows from hot to cold, barry, in absence of any work performed on the system.
yes, I said that to bill and he reaffirmed he didn’t know what I was talking about.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749729
How about you just explain what you think bill is rejecting!?
Sure
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749921
Now explain how you think bill is rejecting that.
Gee whizz this is hard work.
Tbp > Tgp
No more gaslighting, please.
Tbp > Tgp
Hard work is tolerating bill pretending he doesn’t know what 2LoT says about the direction of heat flow.
So I don’t.
“Tbp > Tgp”
And, how does that come to be the case?
DREMT 9:53 simple answer: The light shining on the BP from the GP is more intense than that of space. The BP must warm.
Lets face it Barry’s held belief is a total extrapolation. He uses a spontaneous stream of energy to force the BP hotter in direct conflict with what 2LOT says is not allowed.
Now he is in here trying to enforce a SB definition of heat flow when we know heat and EMR are different animals and “heat flow” is always a net flow of EMR, heat itself is just temperature not a flow. In electricity its heat is voltage and flow is a rate of energy flow in an equation with voltage.
So in 1854 when Clausius made his statement, Stephan and Boltzmann were still 22 years away from their equation. So we have folks modifying what he was saying, cutting out exceptions where cold objects. Of course Einstein thought it was all frequency based and it might be. But that argument doesn’t arise for obvious reasons. In fact guys that bring that up are just called deniers. But then they just flipflop the next day and tell us the sun will warm the BP if the GP gets warmer. Otherwise of course all the watts are being absorbed by a blackbody.
That’s especially important since Clausius had no way of knowing what Einstein was going say he discovered and create some kind of tentative existence in precise time and space for a photon.
We have offered up observations and experiments showing in the atmosphere this does nothing. . .which just happens to be exactly what the bunny rabbit wants you to believe is false.
So on some really totally irrelevant point this conversation got underway of, gee what if there is no atmosphere.
So I offered up a pressure analogy and Barry correctly predicted that the dam would get full all the way as determined by height of the dam in accordance with Tyndall’s analogy.
Now Barry denies this analogy playing word games and shoving ideas into Clausius’ mouth and wants us, who he thinks to be as dumb as codfish, are going to bite on his totally invented clam without him producing neither hide nor hair of additional evidence.
And thats where we stand. Barry confirmed the pressure analogy held by science and then flipflops and reembraces the bunny rabbit and claims the dam will not fill higher than the hole where the leak is.
When I got involved in this conversation years ago I sad we need an actual experiment to clarify these points in a consistent manner and have some confidence in the science.
that while we have good reason to think we know what happens in the atmosphere, which the sycophants of fear continue to deny. (namely that the combination of radiation effects in an experiment will cause a hot spot in the atmosphere which has no effect on the surface). The fact is we cannot find a clear hot spot which was what? how many times greater than the surface warming due to the difference in emissivity effects between IR blocking glass and IR transparent rocksalt.
I am aghast and completely exhausted. . .watching all the chicken littles running in panic around the coop.
Roy points out that modeling is a great tool for solving these kinds of problems. The problem is you can’t have chicken littles only looking for one cause because they are so sure thats the cause.
You need to go to square one and explain the multi-decadal and multi-centennial temperature excursions seen in the observation records and proxies of observational records. In other words if using a model to predict the future you want that model to correctly explain the past. If thats not doable then you simply don’t have enough info for modeling to work as a prediction tool.
you have a huge quantities of science available and wide open buckets of things to learn more about and you can’t have chicken littles who have already made up their mind running the show.
Of course that happens not only when one thinks the sky is falling. It also happens when manna is falling.
In my view it will be like a free equities market. The manna will continue to fall in even greater quantities as soon as we learn to correctly predict the climate. . .and right now we have a lot of manna just falling into a black hole. Its the same as it ever was, if nothing is getting done somebody has to start kicking butt. Future generations depend on it.
But I am out of time and probably have some mistakes in the above rant so take it with a grain of salt but hope there are some pearls of wisdom in there.
> He uses a spontaneous stream of energy
At best that describes Gill’s ruminations. As soon as they mention Clausius they become indistinguishable from Bordo’s.
The “nothing gets done” bit is just that, a bit:
https://www.climatescorecard.org/2026/07/spain-the-status-of-solar-and-wind-energy/
As if caring for others made sense.
Gee willard sounds like Spain is the front runner for an official climate ball gold star award
Gee Gill almost had something to say.
Willard is contractually obliged to comment on anything bill says.
bill,
“He uses a spontaneous stream of energy to force the BP hotter in direct conflict with what 2LOT says is not allowed.”
Could you please give the correct definition of the 2nd Law as it applies to direction of heat flow?
Two days ago you couldn’t remember, and needed me to explain.
Today, you seem to have remembered it wrong.
It might be best if you actually quote an authoritative source.
Getting the definition right in the first place will be more instructive than me arguing with you.
Barry net heat flow isn’t mentioned. It says:
“Rudolf Clausius formulated the second law of thermodynamics in 1854 as follows: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
In modern physics, this is frequently restated as: “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter body.”
This fundamental principle explains why heat naturally flows spontaneously from hot to cold, and dictates that a refrigerator requires an external power source (such as a compressor doing work) to move heat out of a cold space and into a warmer environment.”
It says ”no process” and “heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body.
You can’t validate the Easter Bunny that way. You need to bring forth an experiment that demonstrates the effect.
Personally I thought Swanson’s attempt had a good approach. Unfortunately he didn’t document the leaks or the emissivities.
bill,
“Rudolf Clausius formulated the second law of thermodynamics in 1854 as follows: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
In modern physics, this is frequently restated as: “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter body”
You knew this all along. Why did you play silly games?
The reason you reject this definition in the GPE is that Tbp > Tgp.
You cannot claim that heat flows from colder GP to warmer BP unless you reject the standard definition of heat flow that heat must move from a warmer to colder body.
So nnt only do you have an alternative definition of heat for the GPE, that definition tacitly rejects the standard definition, which holds that if Tbp > Tgp, heat flows BP to GP.
Just for you, barry:
How to debunk “back-radiation warming/insulation” without reference to the Green Plate Effect
1) A transfer of EMR involves emission from body A and receipt by body B.
2) The emission of EMR reduces the internal energy of A, compared to what it would be otherwise, and the receipt of EMR increases the internal energy of B, compared to what it would be otherwise.
3) Per the 1LoT equation, in the absence of work, energy in transit that changes an object’s internal energy is a heat transfer.
4) All EMR transfers that go to completion are thus heat transfers.
5) A transfer of EMR from cold to hot that goes to completion thus violates 2LoT.
6) Such a transfer must not go to completion then, and instead must be returned to body A.
> compared to what it would be otherwise
Semi-regular reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1632009
Yeah, Willard…that doesn’t even address anything I’ve written.
barry says:
”You knew this all along. Why did you play silly games?”
barry actually sees and acknowledges net heat flow moving from the bp, cooling the bp with 100% of bp’s energy absorbed by the gp warming the gp, then he reasons just the opposite. lol! you ask an excellent question. indeed i wonder why i am still playing your silly game.
If you put the first three points into the Google search bar, it comes back with something like this:
https://share.google/aimode/jcAJ0xbVhn3OpfEw3
Which confirms that everything said in the first three points is correct. It states:
“Statement 3 (The Thermodynamic Definition): Correct. The First Law of Thermodynamics is expressed as: Delta U=Q-W. Where Delta U is the change in internal energy, Q is heat, and W is work. If no mechanical, electrical, or chemical work is done (W = 0), then any change in internal energy (Delta U) must balance exactly with heat transfer (Q). Therefore, the energy carried by the EMR functions strictly as heat.”
If you put all six points into the Google search bar, it throws a hissy fit and starts talking about “net, net, net…”
It rejects point 4) because it suddenly states that the energy carried by EMR does not function as heat, and that only the “net” is heat. So, it fundamentally contradicts itself! That fundamental contradiction is the root problem in the GPE argument.
Gill actually fails to get what “whose sole result” means.
DREMT 7:47 am: “That fundamental contradiction is the root problem in the GPE argument.”
You got that right.
AI’s that learn:
1) the defn. of heat from a dictionary will tell you heat is something that transfers out of an object even though heat is not contained in that object,
2) AI’s that learn from bill’s MIT text book will tell you heat is something defined such that it can be poured from a hotter object into a colder one and cannot be poured out of a cold object into a hotter one,
3) and those AI’s that learn from Clausius’ writing will know heat in an object (BP,GP) is best defined as the component of U arising from the total kinetic translation motional energy of the object’s constituent particles.
Eli physically used the last of those definitions in his calculations so Eli’s solution using EMR transfer in a vacuum for the GPE solution is physically correct.
Willard says:
”Gill actually fails to get what “whose sole result” means.”
What does it mean Willard with respect to the GTE? Make your case.
An easter bunny whispering in your ear that entropy decreasing will result in saving the world hardly qualifies as a scientific argument. . .no matter how much you want it to. Physics doesn’t care about your feelings. Near as I can tell you science only exists in your head as a pretty picture depicting what you want it to be. And your statement above has as much merit as a pretty picture in your head.
That is what is so compelling about the pressure model. Once the river runs down hill into the lake its not going to go back up the hill without work or phase change which are two exceptions that further decreases the entropy of the universe.
Ya think there is an invisible easter bunny blowing the water upstream? Sounds like it since in all the years you have been advocating it you haven’t spoken about it.
> What does it mean
After a few years being Sky Dragon cranks’ white knight, Gill still plays dumb.
…but anyway, back to my point…
…the energy carried by the “back-radiation” EMR transfer in the GPE is thus shown to “function strictly as heat”, same as any other energy carried by any other EMR transfer that goes to completion. The only problem is, the “back-radiation” transfer is going from cold to hot!
But, then it’s all supposedly OK because suddenly the fact that energy carried by EMR functions strictly as heat is forgotten. It’s not heat transfer any more. Suddenly it’s just “energy” transfer, and only the “net” is the heat. Just like that…the energy carried by EMR both functions as “heat” and “not heat” when necessary!
To eliminate any confusion DREMT 12:22 pm, stick to definition of heat by Clausius which means EMR is never heat. Those that use other definitions will eventually fall into your different EMR function critique.
Clausius’ experiments in his time found no problem with the EMR transfer from cold to hot so he invented 2LOT & entropy to deal with that circumstance as explained in bill’s MIT source Chapter 1 section on Entropy Production with which Eli’s GPE solution complies.
There’s no confusion, Ball4. The 262 K…220 K solution has, at its heart, a fundamental contradiction, as explained.
I’m sorry, but there may (or may not) be “no problem with the EMR transfer from cold to hot” in systems that are not powered, but when it comes to powered systems like the GPE, that “back-radiation” transfer is not going to result in the BP getting warmer.
… which fails Clausius’ 2LOT as I’ve explained and DREMT can learn from bill’s MIT source chapter 1 section on Entropy Production so there is no hope for DREMT to be correct.
> Make your case.
Semi-regular reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735156
> Make your case.
Semi-regular reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1735156
Willard says:
”Consider a simple water analogy. There is a pond in a stream with a constant inflow of water. When the water flow out is equal to the water flow in, the water level is constant. A reduction in outgoing water (for example, damming part of the outgoing stream), will cause a rise in the water level.
Of course, a rise in water level will in turn result in increased outflow as the water goes over and around the dammed part. But only to compensate for the the initial change. The water will stabilize at a new, higher level.
An enhanced GRE reduces the outflow of OLR. This means energy builds up and the temperature increases. This warming should and does result in increased OLR … increasing BACK to the level before the extra CO2 was added.”
Congratulations Willard you actually got to the level of presenting a half-baked idea. So much improvement over the imaginary picture in your head.
Of course now you and Barry are in disagreement on that stabilization. If you look back Barry got the right answer for the dam analogy which is the only stabilization that occurs is when equilibrium is reached and the dam is full. Water at that point will be running down hill at a rate equal to the input.
I’ll leave it to you two guys to iron out your differences.
> Willard says
Once again Gill can’t recognize the author he pretends having read.
Why should anyone give him any of the sammiches he keeps requesting?
In any event:
[GILL] Congratulations
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] that doesn’t even address anything
Shouldn’t they DM one another to keep their stories straight?
No I didn’t Willard. You are advocating a position (the position was Folkerts) I merely said that position was different than Barry’s. You need to work it out with him. If you need help from Tim then you need to do that too. Who knows Barry seems pretty susceptible to suggestion and he may forget what he already knows.
I read the section on Entropy Production in the MIT source Chapter 1 and, as usual, you’re lying, Ball4.
Here’s the deal on “entropy”.
Basically, it’s just a more complicated, more obscure, more difficult to understand, more maths-heavy way for them to make the exact same argument.
So, naturally, people like Ball4 will jump at the chance to mention nothing else.
To simplify, the “back-radiation” transfer, in isolation, does decrease entropy. That’s the “no-no”. But, they justify it by saying, “ah, but you have to look at the “forward radiation” transfer and the “back-radiation” transfer together, as one big process.”
So, it boils down to the exact same argument, as I said. They say, “at all times the BP is warmer than the GP, thus heat is always flowing from hot to cold, so no 2LoT violation”. And, it’s effectively the exact same argument they’re making with entropy. Entropy is “nothing new”. It brings nothing to the overall argument that wasn’t already discussed.
It’s the same question to them, again – how does the BP get to be warmer than the GP in the first place, in your solution? And, the answer they will give, underneath all the semantics and bluster, boils down to, “because of the “back-radiation” transfer”.
The same EMR transfer we know decreases entropy, and carries energy that functions as “heat”!
Round and round we go…
> No I didn’t
Gill regresses to Step 1 – Pure Denial.
Here’s what he said:
That’s false.
***
> I merely said that position was different
Gill merely said indeed.
Has he showed that it was?
Not at all.
And so Gill swiches to Step 3 – Saying Stuff.
When will he show any understanding of Tim’s scenario?
Not his uphill crap, which kinda makes astute readers doubt he has any experience about dams, or insulation for that matter.
Willard if you want a response. . .speak in full sentences and not baby babble.
For some reason Gill believes that “When will Gill show any understanding of Tim’s scenario” isn’t a complete sentence. If that’s too complex for him, perhaps he could resolve this very simple issue:
Is the CHANGE in cash flow between the two scenarios IS a CASH FLOW?
As for scenarios, I’m sure he could think of one based on the Murican debt and various interest rates.
Alternatively, he could ask his best buddy.
6:58 am: “To simplify, the “back-radiation” transfer, in isolation, does decrease entropy.”
No, those are DREMT’s made up words “to simplify” incorrectly & not found in bill’s MIT source Chapter 1 Entropy Production. DREMT must quote the section verbatim to be correct.
“ah, but you have to look at the “forward radiation” transfer and the “back-radiation” transfer together, as one big process.”
No, do not have to do so. Entropy of any defined universe must increase in every real process per 2LOT so DREMT’s imaginary GPE solution is ruled out physically by 2LOT eqn. & is thus without hope of being correct.
“They say, “at all times the BP is warmer than the GP, thus heat is always flowing from hot to cold, so no 2LoT violation”.”
Only those that use the dictionary definition of heat; those that use Clausius’ definition of heat know that description is not physical.
“Entropy is “nothing new”.”
Concept of entropy is completely new to DREMT & clearly DREMT has not yet understood bill’s MIT source Chapter 1 section on Entropy Production.
“The same EMR transfer we know decreases entropy, and carries energy that functions as “heat”!”
No, that’s physically wrong DREMT. There is only EMR transfer between objects in the vacuum of the GPE where EMR is NOT Clausius’ heat.
Ball4 is on a rampage of dishonesty.
“6:58 am: “To simplify, the “back-radiation” transfer, in isolation, does decrease entropy.”
No, those are DREMT’s made up words “to simplify” incorrectly & not found in bill’s MIT source Chapter 1 Entropy Production. DREMT must quote the section verbatim to be correct.”
The “back-radiation” transfer, in isolation, does decrease entropy. Fact.
““ah, but you have to look at the “forward radiation” transfer and the “back-radiation” transfer together, as one big process.”
No, do not have to do so. Entropy of any defined universe must increase in every real process per 2LOT so DREMT’s imaginary GPE solution is ruled out physically by 2LOT eqn. & is thus without hope of being correct.”
So you’re arguing against your own team. Hilarious!
““They say, “at all times the BP is warmer than the GP, thus heat is always flowing from hot to cold, so no 2LoT violation”.”
Only those that use the dictionary definition of heat; those that use Clausius’ definition of heat know that description is not physical.”
So, you’re arguing against your own team. Hilarious!
““Entropy is “nothing new”.”
Concept of entropy is completely new to DREMT & clearly DREMT has not yet understood bill’s MIT source Chapter 1 section on Entropy Production.”
I am the concept of entropy. I may as well be Clausius.
““The same EMR transfer we know decreases entropy, and carries energy that functions as “heat”!”
No, that’s physically wrong DREMT. There is only EMR transfer between objects in the vacuum of the GPE where EMR is NOT Clausius’ heat.”
No, I’m physically correct on both points, and win the decade-long argument. Thx.
12:09 pm:“back-radiation” transfer, in isolation, does decrease entropy. Fact.”
Not a fact, DREMT, since that goes against the 2LOT eqn. that DREMT has not yet mastered as well as Eli. DREMT has been previously informed an isolated cooling process such as DREMT described MUST increase entropy.
The rest of DREMT’S comment falls apart accordingly.
I’m correct, Ball4:
https://share.google/aimode/roHGZ0gp8Y5Z40Lek
DREMT is still wrong since AI’s last answer “entropy change of the plates” is for 2 plates when the “back-radiation” is only emitted from 1 plate which is a cooling process.
DREMT should have simply asked Google AI: “does a cooling process obey 2LOT?” instead of torturing poor defenseless AI into submission.
Ball4…it confirms everything I said. I hardly, “tortured it into submission”, I simply pointed out that it was actually confirming what I said. And, it agreed.
The “back-radiation” transfer, in isolation, decreases entropy.
But, they try to justify it by saying that you should think of the “forward-radiation” transfer and the “back-radiation” transfer as one giant process. And…that’s bullshit. As you said yourself!
So…you have no leg to stand on. You continue, regardless.
5:38 pm: “The “back-radiation” transfer, in isolation, decreases entropy.”
No, that is ruled out by the 2LOT eqn. for such a cooling process – as google AI & bill’s MIT text confirm if DREMT had quoted them.
Humorous that DREMT’s last AI response also treated 2 plates as a “giant process” which DREMT now calls BS.
Ball4 says:
”No, that’s physically wrong DREMT. There is only EMR transfer between objects in the vacuum of the GPE where EMR is NOT Clausius’ heat.”
what!!!! they didn’t have a easter bunny in 1865!
Sure they did bill 7:20 pm, just ask Google AI like DREMT does. Thanks for linking the MIT text wherein DREMT can start to learn about entropy production in the GPE instead of erroneously using Google AI.
Ball4, the AI says:
“If we look strictly at that specific directional stream in isolation, yes, the transfer of energy from a cold body to a hot body represents a local decrease in the combined material entropy of those two plates.”
And, in response to the AI’s argument that instead you have to look at the “forward radiation” transfer and the “back-radiation” transfer together, as one big process, you already said:
“No, do not have to do so. Entropy of any defined universe must increase in every real process per 2LOT…”
So, you have no leg to stand on. Yet, you will still continue anyway…
Ball4 says:
”No, that’s physically wrong DREMT. There is only EMR transfer between objects in the vacuum of the GPE where EMR is NOT Clausius’ heat.”
what!!!! they didn’t have a easter bunny in 1865!
Ball4 says:
August 1, 2026 at 9:50 PM
”Sure they did bill ”
you know you are right! he grew up not as a physicist but instead a chemist, like the real id of the current easter bunny if you are inclined to believe nate on anything. in 1865 svante arrhenius was 6 years old.
the hilarious part, like the easter bunny’s today and yesterday, is how when you come across a grand tree house built high in the sky spanning multiple treetops you conclude without expending a fraction of a watt of brain energy that you can chop down the trees and the grand house will have an improved view.
the rest of us are just giggling bystanders waiting at the tree house for you, and your pack of easter bunnies to show up with axes to prove your point.
> they didn’t have
Gill handwaves to some “they” that certainly does not include Sky Dragon cranks like him.
When did his pet textbook start to exist, and when will he solve the cash flow problem?
1:28 am (with emphasis added) DREMT comments: “…those two plates”.
DREMT changes the universe again adding a plate without so notifying readers. The “back-radiation” is only emitted by one green plate in the universe under discussion, DREMT, which is a cooling process for the 1 plate thus increasing its universe entropy.
I note DREMT has found no quote from bill’s MIT text Chapter 1 section on Entry Production to post up supporting his GPE position. There remains no hope for DREMT to be correct on the GPE where Eli’s GPE solution complies with bill’s text section on entropy production.
DREMT still needs to re-read AND learn to understand the MIT text section on Entropy Production.
Ball4 is grotesquely dishonest, as always.
I think we are going to be waiting a long time for Ball4 to honestly address any issue put in front of him. . .
Seems that the Easter Bunny, actually somebody anonymously disguised as a celebrity rabbit, told him so and that is all he has to go on.
He can’t even back up his made up story that Clausius believed heating by EMR by a cold body heating a warmer body via a completely separate emission process was completely exempted from his 2nd law.
We now know, from Ball4 himself, that he believes that Clausius used the word heat rather than EMR, the radiation that heats the warmer body.
LMAO, is anybody here really that dumb to buy that notion?
One might actually want some proof to go along with that what Ball4 believes to be a brilliant deduction apparently and solely because a guy in a rabbit suit told him so.
Gee, Ball4 I have a great toll bridge to sell you cheap! Pulls in $millions each year you can have it for a song.
> you can have it for a song.
Semi-regular reminder:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
I wonder if Gill realizes that CO2 is a chemical compound.
Stalkers are gonna stalk.
Willard jumps in to support Ball4’s Easter Bunny argument that you can both have a treehouse and chop down the tree holding it for firewood to keep the treehouse warm.
Gill acts as if he’s not in my sub-thread. Meanwhile, he seems to ignore that spectroscopy is a fundamental exploratory tool in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, materials science, and physics.
Quite strange that he pretends being an auditor while still being unable to solve a rudimentary cash flow problem.
Willard obviously doesn’t understand something about cash flow problems. In cash flows there is no prohibition against giving cash to a guy richer than you. . .other than of course the government getting a larger share of the proceeds.
A fact that socialists simply can’t wrap their heads around out of being too inculcated. They see everything as a perpetuum mobile. . .grand schemes dreamt up while ruminating in dark rooms and windowless 8×6 offices.
> In cash flows there is no prohibition against giving cash to a guy richer than you.
It did not take long for Gill to reveal his utter cluelessness.
Both about flows and about thermo.
Sky Dragon cranks will defend him because they have no honor.
Shame.
“Gill acts as if he’s not in my sub-thread…”
…not really true as Willard’s comment starting this sub-thread was in response to bill’s comment immediately above it. Strictly speaking Willard should have just hit reply under bill’s comment rather than starting another sub-thread.
Astute readers might recall the top of that sub-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749763
Another semi-regular reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1591801
Nobody needs a “semi-regular reminder” that Willard is dangerously, desperately obsessed with me. “Needing to get the police involved” level of obsessed.
“You get to Q from the fact of the change in U. Thats the right way around. What you dont do is use a specific definition of Q to rule out there being a change in U, when you know that the change in U is a fact!”
Oh, its a fact now? Weird.
The definition of Q in physics is what it is. Neither you nor I get to change it. That you need to change it sends your argument straight to the dust bin.
Using the only legitimate definition of HEAT available, we can understand the change in U of the plates as arising from REDUCED heat loss, together with the steady input of heat from the heat source, and the ongoing heat loss from the GP to space.
Prior to the GP coming in, we have a heat loss of 200 W/m^2 to space on its right side. After the GP comes in, even YOU AGREE that its heat loss is initially 0,
“sure, heat flow between the plates does go to zero”.
So that is, undeniably, a reduction in heat loss. And we can all agree that the HEAT source is steady.
So follow the simple train of logic from these agreed upon facts to understand why the U of the BP increases, and U of the GP decreases.
No 2LOT violation required.
“Oh, it’s a fact now?”
Of course. You even agreed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1750732
“…what I can agree with is that the back-transfer from GP to BP will tend to increase the BP internal energy and decrease the GPs internal energy…”
…and, you will say that is quote-mining, but I’ve explained why it isn’t.
“After the GP comes in, even YOU AGREE that its heat loss is initially 0,”
Which looks like this:
https://postimg.cc/F1fryx8h
That is the situation with zero heat flow between the plates.
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.
> Micheal Shellingberg, Born Limbourg
Q-Anon must be using LLMs.
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…
Yes DREMPTY,
Stephen was claiming no radiative function in the lapse rate, he’s wrong for the reasons I laid out in this thread.
Your points 1 through 5 are deceptive because they take into account the real nature of the second law as understood by PhD Phyicists like the Rabbet.
Or you can point out where I have been wrong on this thread or this site.
There are examples where I have been wrong, can you find them, oh deceitful one?
Well he isn’t wrong, though, is he Bob? There is no radiative function in the lapse rate. The heat capacity of water vapour being high has nothing to do with any radiative function.
And, I’m among the most honest commenters on the blog.
Of course he is wrong DREMPTY.
Here is how to do it right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild%27s_equation_for_radiative_transfer
Asking Google: is there any radiative function in the derivation of the lapse rate?
Returns:
“No, the standard physical derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate does not use a radiative function. It is derived purely from adiabatic thermodynamics (no heat exchange), hydrostatic balance, and the ideal gas law.”
Now, stop dripping in these responses every two or three days in the hope that I won’t see you’ve replied, and grow up.
DREMPTY,
I am giving you time to learn something, and by the way I am not hanging on waiting for the next serving of half digestive maypo coming forth from your mouth.
Your AI source is for a lapse rate without heat transfer, which isn’t happening.
I have already grown up and passed a course in thermodynamics which is why I understand this and you do not.
Greenhouse gases determine the range of the lapse rate.
Without greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be isothermal, and all the thermal radiation from the surface would escape to space.
Bob, the discussion upthread is as clear as day. This is where you came in:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748547
No matter what you want to move the discussion onto now, your opening remarks (first few comments) were deliberate attempts to deceive. You got caught. Now, shut up.
DREMPTY,
Nothing in that post is wrong or deceptive.
Tha lapse rate is not due to pressure, or Venus would have a much higher lapse rate.
Do you tell your teachers to shut up?
It’s not nice to tell people to shut up, just because they tell you you are wrong, when you are indeed wrong.
Tell me exactly what I said wrong in that post and then go fuck yourself.
Calm down, Bob. Just because you‘ve been caught lying doesn’t give you the right to fly off the handle at a better, more honest man.
How they operate:
[BOB] I wish you guys would figure out that the moist lapse rate is higher than the dry lapse rate.
[ELDROSION] Bob droege is simply pointing out that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is smaller in magnitude than the dry adiabatic lapse rate…it is a fact that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is smaller than the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
I mean…one of you is wrong, and remarkably it’s not Eldrosion. Well, he’s right on the fact that the moist rate is smaller than the dry, but he’s wrong that that’s what you said. Lol, you two really do spin a tangled web.
Then there’s your conclusion…
In your first comment, you were trying to imply the difference in the dry compared to moist adiabatic lapse rates demonstrates there is a radiative function in them. This becomes explicit in your second comment where you write:
“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.”
When actually (as Eldrosion pointed out, but acted like he was correcting me instead of you), saturated air cools more slowly (ranging between 3 C and 9 C per kilometre) because water vapour turns into liquid droplets, which adds stored latent heat back into the air parcel.
The difference between the lapse rates proves nothing positive about the GHE. It only proves that condensation of water vapour releases latent heat.
DREMT, you quote mined bob droege and pushed the narrative that he claimed the moist lapse rate is greater than the environmental lapse rate, even though the math in that very same comment shows the opposite. You even implicitly acknowledged this yourself in your July 14, 2026, 9:36 PM comment.
So there goes your cre-DUH-bility.
You also present your interpretation that water vapor isn’t a greenhouse gas as though it’s an established fact.
Once one declares their opinion to be the truth, anyone who disagrees with them becomes a liar in their world.
Hilarious. No, water vapour is a “greenhouse gas”. It is a radiatively active gas.
Bob’s numbers say the opposite of what he verbally claimed about them, and you think that makes him honest, and me dishonest. Staggering.
Bob droege calls the moist lapse rate ‘higher’ because −4°C is numerically greater than −9.8°C.
In meteorology, if someone says one lapse rate is “greater” or “larger,” they are usually referring to the magnitude of the rate. In that sense, the dry adiabatic lapse rate is greater because the temperature decreases more rapidly with height.
Both are referring to the same values; they are just using ‘higher’ in different senses.
Not a big deal. The underlying science is not affected. Both are talking about the same physical values.
“No, water vapour is a “greenhouse gas”. It is a radiatively active gas.”
Ok, good. And you also agreed that the presence of water vapor is what makes the moist adiabatic lapse rate lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
So there’s that.
Bob’s been trying to mislead readers throughout. And, in covering for him, you’ve been doing the same.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749899
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1749901
Lol, just like the victimhood you regularly try to manufacture, this accusation falls apart pretty quickly.
Your own link literally shows you acknowledging the point I made about the difference between the moist lapse rate and the dry lapse rate.
Yes, you were acting like you were correcting me when actually you were correcting bob.
The difference between the two adiabatic lapse rates, dry and moist, is not due to any radiative properties of water vapour.
There is no radiative function in the derivation of either lapse rate. Just as Stephen said.
You would not have got that impression from reading bob’s comments.
It’s taken my involvement in this thread to get the facts straight.
My accusation against bob remain correct. He tried to deceive.
DREMPTY
You were arguing that the lapse rate is due to our resident YEC argument that the lapse rate was due to pressure, but now you changed to the latent heat of vaporization of water.
That’s still wrong.
The latent heat transfers enthalpy from the surface to the cloud condensation layer, and if there are not clouds, no transfer.
So you have two incompatible scenarios, both wrong, both lies, you deceptive little fuck.
And the radiative part is in the Schwarzchild derivation I posted, did you even read it?
“You were arguing that the lapse rate is due to our resident YEC argument that the lapse rate was due to pressure, but now you changed to the latent heat of vaporization of water.”
1) Where was I arguing that the lapse rate was due to pressure in this thread, Bob?
2) My point was that the difference between the dry and moist adiabatic lapse rates is due to the latent heat of vaporisation of water.
“The latent heat transfers enthalpy from the surface to the cloud condensation layer, and if there are not clouds, no transfer.”
bob, if there are no clouds then by definition the air is unsaturated, meaning it obeys the dry adiabatic lapse rate and a separate moist lapse rate does not actively apply to it.
“So you have two incompatible scenarios, both wrong, both lies, you deceptive little fuck.”
Bob gets very angry when he gets caught.
“And the radiative part is in the Schwarzchild derivation I posted, did you even read it?”
Sorry, Bob, but Schwarzchild is not part of the derivation of either the dry or moist adiabatic lapse rates. More deception from the Bobster.
DREMPTY,
July 18, 2026 at 5:12 pm
Or are you forgetting your support of our resident YEC.
If air is not saturated, that only means it’s humidity is less than 100%, it doesn’t mean it is dry. The dry lapse rate means 0% humidity.
There is the dry, the moist, and in between is the environmental lapse rate.
You stupid little fuck.
Here you go trying to be deceptive again by telling porky pies.
You deceptive little fuck.
And I am not angry at you, just failing to teach you something.
One who claims there is no greenhouse effect or claims to have debunked that and the green plate effect is definitely deceptive.
“July 18, 2026 at 5:12 pm”
Bob, in that comment all I said was that Stephen was right that there was no radiative function in the lapse rate, and he is right. There is no radiative function in the derivation of either the dry or moist adiabatic lapse rates, which is what he was discussing.
“If air is not saturated, that only means it’s humidity is less than 100%, it doesn’t mean it is dry. The dry lapse rate means 0% humidity. There is the dry, the moist, and in between is the environmental lapse rate.”
That’s wrong, Bob. The dry lapse rate does not mean 0% humidity. It simply means that the air’s relative humidity is less than 100%. Even if the air has 99% humidity, it still cools at the dry rate as long as no water vapour is actively turning into liquid droplets. The moist lapse rate applies only at 100%. The environmental lapse rate is not an “in-between” blend of the other two, the ELR is the actual temperature change you would measure with a thermometer if you went up into the sky right now.
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…
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/uah-global.jpeg
Tropical
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2026/07/10/uah-tropical-for-jun-2026/
” 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.
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2026/07/10/uah-global-for-jun-2026-climate-data-and-summaries-of-the-data/
Tropical
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2026/07/10/uah-global-for-jun-2026-climate-data-and-summaries-of-the-data/
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,
I didn’t realize you were a leftist psychopath. How do you go from serving on submarines to a Marxist? Staggers the imagination.
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?
Because the mechanism that started the whole thing reversed, according to orbital variations under the Milankovitch theory. Polar insolation decreased, allowing ice to rebuild, the oceans cooled, CO2 fell.
If you want to learn about this, there are two very early papers that set up the background – orbital variation and changes in CO2 content associated with that.
https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/hays76sci_268464.pdf
https://escholarship.org/content/qt7rx4413n/qt7rx4413n_noSplash_8b2a58b96aa144613a71272dbf11be93.pdf
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.
Anon for a reason
“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?”
LMAO, I am the one with poor logic? Meanwhile you’re out here convincing yourself an entire political demographic is ok with sexual assault.
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.
Norman, if you want to get back to science, here’s where we left off:
1) Provide a viable, concise definition/description of how CO2 can warm Earth’s 288K surface. Or, admit that can’t happen.
2) Provide a viable, concise model of “orbiting without spin”. Or admit the “ball-on-a-string” does that.
3) Provide a viable, concise example that a surface emitting a flux can have its temperature raised by a lesser flux. Or admit a lesser flux cannot raise the temperature.
“Viable” means it cannot violate the laws of physics.
“Concise” means no rambling word-salads, or “shotgunning” with a bunch of irrelevant links.
And of course, omit your childish insults and false accusations.
Clint R
You are describing criminal behaviors. If immigrants commit crimes then they should be liable for deportation.
No doubt you came from some family of immigrants. Stephen p anderson stated he is a 2nd generation immigrant. More than likely his Italian Grandfather was fleeing some difficult condition and was looking to make a better life for himself.
If people are noncriminal and working and productive, than I do not think it is a great policy to deport them to lands they no longer know. Perhaps speed up citizenship since they have demonstrated citizenship by their behavior.
Clint R
1) CO2 is not warming the surface. The solar input is what is warming the surface. The CO2 in atmosphere reduces the rate of heat loss of the surface (an insulation type property) and allows the solar heating to reach a higher steady state temperature than it would without the CO2 present.
I have given you an real world example of how reducing heat loss increases temperature. In a car in summer you would not say the rolled up windows are heating the air in the car. Yet with windows up you reduce the ability of the air in the car to be replaced by cooler ambient air and so it gets considerably warmer than the ambient air outside. Can you see the logic here??
2) I have given you numerous examples of this. The best one is orbiting and one rotation per orbit (what the Moon actually does but no one on this blog has been able to alter your opinion on this matter). The ISS orbits the Earth and is forced to spin on its axis once per orbit in order to keep the same side of the ISS always facing Earth (just as the Moon does which you will not accept). Ball on a string is not an orbit, it is a rotating object. One connected thing. A ball on the string can give some idea of forces acting on orbiting objects but it does not represent a real orbiting object.
3) A single lesser flux will not increase surface temperature but it will reduce cooling rate. You claim fluxes do no add, nothing in physics supports your conjecture, it is your opinion not founded on any experiment or established science. Each flux can contribute and if the fluxes exceed the emitted flux then the temperature of the surface will increase.
Norman,
“1) CO2 is not warming the surface. The solar input is what is warming the surface. The CO2 in atmosphere reduces the rate of heat loss of the surface (an insulation type property) and allows the solar heating to reach a higher steady state temperature than it would without the CO2 present.”
What causes the temperature difference from the surface to TOA or effective emission height? Also, show us your math.
Norman, since you answered without your usual insults, it’s worth my time to respond. You’ve mixed some real science in with your cult beliefs, so let me sort it out:
Norman says: “CO2 is not warming the surface. The solar input is what is warming the surface.”
Correct.
Norman says: “The CO2 in atmosphere reduces the rate of heat loss of the surface (an insulation type property) and allows the solar heating to reach a higher steady state temperature than it would without the CO2 present.”
Incorrect. That is the nonsense you’ve learned from the cult. CO2 is NOT insulation. You’re confusing CO2 with nitrogen and oxygen, which do act as insulation. So your example of a closed car better fits with nitrogen and oxygen. CO2 emits energy to space, cooling the planet. O2 and N2 cannot do that.
Norman says: “I have given you numerous examples of this [orbiting without spin]. The best one is orbiting and one rotation per orbit (what the Moon actually does but no one on this blog has been able to alter your opinion on this matter).”
Yes, Moon is “orbiting without spin”, but you deny that! So you’re trying to say two different things at the same time! You STILL have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”, that you can agree with. Your “logic” is confused.
The ISS “tries” to not spin, but even at its altitude and speed there is enough atmospheric drag to produce a torque on its irregular structure. The torque tries to spin the ISS, so constant adjustments must be made to keep one side facing Earth. At a much higher altitude, say 1000 miles, the craft could move much slower in a much weaker atmosphere, thus greatly reducing torque. So it could be “orbiting without spin”
The “ball on a string” is a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. The string models gravity. Two vectors act on the ball, as on Moon. One vector for the linear speed and the other for gravity. You’ve never studied things like vectors, orbital motions, axial rotation, angular momentum, or moments of inertia. Let’s see if you can learn:
Moon has ZERO angular momentum. Since the sting provides a mechanical attachment to the ball, the ball would have angular momentum, L = mvr. But if the ball were spinning, it would also have “spin angular momentum”, L = Iω = 2/5ωmr². Notice the equations are NOT the same. The Moon cult believes an orbit is also a spin. Obviously not.
Norman says: “A single lesser flux will not increase surface temperature but it will reduce cooling rate. You claim fluxes do no[t] add, nothing in physics supports your conjecture, it is your opinion not founded on any experiment or established science. Each flux can contribute and if the fluxes exceed the emitted flux then the temperature of the surface will increase.”
All wrong. You have never studied radiative physics or thermodynamics. You keep making the same mistakes. A cube in space closely surrounded by 6 equally-sized cubes of ice could be receiving 300 W/m² on each face. In your belief, that would mean it is receiving 1800 W/m²! Your entire CO2 cult believes that. Your cult doesn’t understand the difference between “flux” and “energy”, as demonstrated in the bogus “energy” budget.
You’ve controlled your childish insults here, but the next step is to fully face reality, even if it conflicts with your beliefs.
As immigrants have a lower crime rate than US citizens per capita, surely the answer is to have more immigration and fewer US citizens?
I mean, if reducing crime is the most important thing….
But that’s not the most important thing, is it, stephen?
Can you tell us what is more important than reducing crime overall?
That’s idiotic. If illegals commit one crime, then that is too many. They have no right to be here. Go back home and commit crimes.
Also, that study is based on the arrest records in one state.
How many crimes can troglodytes do before there are too many:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin-elon-musk-election-law-1-million-voters/
Clint R
YOU POST: “Incorrect. That is the nonsense you’ve learned from the cult. CO2 is NOT insulation. You’re confusing CO2 with nitrogen and oxygen, which do act as insulation. So your example of a closed car better fits with nitrogen and oxygen. CO2 emits energy to space, cooling the planet. O2 and N2 cannot do that.”
CO2 cools the upper atmosphere but you are totally incorrect. There is zero logical explanation of how CO2 could cool the surface.
Nitrogen and Oxygen cannot prevent the massive amount of IR the surface emits (averaged around 390 W/m^2) from going directly to space. Warm CO2 near the surface is continuously emitting IR in all direction. Around 1/2 of its emitted energy is reaching the Earth’s surface. Real science (not your version you make up with zero supporting evidence) clearly states that if a surface can emit IR at a certain wavelength (or frequency) it will also absorb this energy.
The surface layer is constantly emitting some IR. It is constantly losing energy because of this and cooling. It can be warmed by internal energy that is stored and it can also be warmed by returning IR. It really does not matter the source. It will receive internal energy and convert this to IR or it will receive an IR from emitted CO2. The result from that process is to slow down how much internal heat is lost because it is a process where the surface is receiving energy from both internal source and CO2 emission. That is how it works to insulate the surface. It is a radiant insulator and it is fairly effective.
Real World measurements (you can choose to ignore them)
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6a5aafc51795e.png
Clearly shown (which you have never countered this evidence with anything of your own, and it is highly unlikely even certain you will not ever be able to dispute what is real, you can say it is a graph I don’t understand all day, that does not at all change what is clear evidence, your lack of understanding is your flaw not the flaw of science or researchers).
Without GHG (CO2 is just a small part of the total, most is H2O and other GHG. CO2 contribution ranges from 10-20% of downwelling IR depending upon air conditions) the surface emission in day would be over 600 W/m^2 at this location and still over 400 at night. Because of GHG the heat loss by radiant energy is greatly reduced to between 100-250 W/m^2 depending on time of day.
Your logic fails and you are wrong. Science wins Clint R loses but he will not see the major flaws with his thinking so he will go on peddling his junk science for years to come. Nothing known will ever cause his mind to actually think and come to the conclusion his ideas are wrong and not based upon any evidence or any science.
As usual Norman, when you can’t responsibly deal with reality you just start rambling incoherently.
Nothing new….
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.
And the Japanese Meteorological Association? And Berkeley Earth? And NASA GISS? And the European global temp record?
Conspiracy theorists by definition see as many people in on the conspiracy as necessary.
I didn’t know Berkley Earth did a temperature record?
barry
” I didn’t know Berkley Earth did a temperature record? ”
*
That’s the very best.
And such absolutely uninformed, hence absolutely misinforming pseudoskeptics, discrediting SURFRAD, OLR etc etc want to show us what is right with the climate…
Oh Noes.
*
Here is some Berkeley stuff…
https://berkeleyearth.org/data/
I downloaded their specific UK data months ago
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-region/united-kingdom
to compare it to my own GHCN daily processing and UAH LT’s 2.5 degree grid data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8KYVf7WCUa1fEvjHJ9fkF8Vy7NEcdNL/view
Unfortunately, they stopped this local data processing in 2020.
*
Just a hint, to avoid misunderstandings re. the extreme similarity of the two surface series in the chart: Berkeley Earth’s and GHCN daily’s station sets are disjunct.
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
Orbital forcing has the earth at least a third of the way through a 30,000 – 50,000 year cooling trend.
https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/hays76sci_268464.pdf
But guess what?
Orbital forcing has the earth at least a third of the way through a 30,000 – 50,000 year cooling trend…..
Where is that in the paper?
Orbital forcing has the earth at least a third of the way through a 30,000 – 50,000 year cooling trend…..
Where is that in the paper?
Earth is in orbital warming pattern.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Last page, just before the summary it says 20,000 year cooling of the NH (which has global effect). But I know it is up to 50,000 from reading many papers on this. That was one of the earlier papers – which I provided upthread on a different point. It was simply to hand.
This might be the topic I’ve read most on in climate science, in terms of peer-reviewed papers. I read about 50 and skimmed 50 more some years ago. That’s aside from explainers and whatnot. Here’s one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Present_and_future_conditions
Thank you, barry!
“This might be the topic I’ve read most on in climate science, in terms of peer-reviewed papers. I read about 50 and skimmed 50 more some years ago. That’s aside from explainers and whatnot. Here’s one.”
Yes, barry, me too. I read
and I still do.
Yes, the orbital cycles are governing climate. Here it is how I see it, here it is an excerpt from my site:
“Immediate IR Emission and Reversed Milankovitch Cycle
The Immediate IR Emission issue is not only about the rotational warming phenomenon explanation.
It is also the basis of the Global Warming’s orbital nature.
Because 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
The conclusion the 50 years ago research https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/hays76sci_268464.pdf
came to was:
“7) A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next several thousand years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
A theoretical mistake is mistakenly “solved”. Those mistakes triggered an entire alarmism behavior.
–
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!
Clint R
Why do you think you are obligated to post nonsense on a daily basis. You are an ignorant one! You do not understand any real science. You never will support your nonsense claims with valid science. You can’t understand a real example of why an orbiting object must rotate once per orbit to keep the same side constantly facing the Earth surface (I have given you links to read, sometimes I forget you have no real ability to think or reason so it is just generally wasted).
YOU: “Noticeable cooling from CO2 would probably not occur until at least 5000 ppm.” (a super ignorant declaration)
Here is an example of your unscientific nonsense that you will never support or even explain why you post things of this nature (you are like Gordon Robertson trying to convince everyone that Measles does not exist because someone named Lanka declared it, he also ignores countless evidence like Electron Microscope images and the fact a vaccine almost eradicated the disease except when parents started to go anti-science and believe crackpot theories like Gordon does on a regular basis).
Norman, you can’t learn.
As usual, you’re just throwing crap at the wall, hoping something will stick. You can’t find one thing wrong with the science. You just insult me and falsely accuse me.
That’s why you’re a “cult kid”.
Grow up.
Clint R
I think you need to look in the mirror on learning ability! As for me I can read and learn fine. I can understand what textbook material really is saying. So far you demonstrate no learning ability. When confronted you divert and attack. You still provide zero supporting evidence that CO2 woul cool the surface. It would cool Upper Atmosphere, is that what you are saying?
Norman,
Nothing wrong with 800 to 1000 ppm of co2 for mammals. If anything mammals have adapted to low co2 levels a lot better than p!ants.
There are many reasons why the temperature record is increasing. Poor records, change in albedo, beat islands, change in orbit etc. But to just blame co2 for everyone is a gross evil.
Q-anon,
Your claim is not only irrelevant, it isn’t quite true:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132323011459
The direct effects of CO2 on living things matter less than its impacts on the water cycle, temperatures, and overall predictability of food production.
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
Upthread, Gordon Robertson wrote:
“The 1930s still hold the record, by far, for heat waves, even if NOAA et al are budsy fudging the record to say otherwise.”
Fine. Let us look at the raw CO-OP observations from the U.S. National Weather Service rather than adjusted datasets:
https://postimg.cc/fkMCZ8Lg
Beginning in 1935 (the decade Gordon argues was the hottest), both Salt Lake City, Utah, and Billings, Montana, exhibit positive long term summer warming trends.
Linear regression indicates that JJA average temperatures are increasing at rates of approximately 4.1°C/century in Salt Lake City and 1.3°C/century in Billings.
Salt Lake City’s recent summers are clearly warmer than those of the 1930s. In Billings, 1936 remains the hottest individual summer, but 2021 is a very close second, and the long term trend is still upward.
So these raw CO-OP observations do not support the claim that the 1930s were “by far” hotter than the present. They instead show that summers have warmed substantially since the Dust Bowl era.
In response to these:
“It’s summer in those areas”
“Let me explain the four seasons in the Northern Hemisphere…”
“You do know humanity has thrived since 1800,and all past warmings were hugely beneficial…”
Climate deniers be like: “La la la la la… record heat? Never heard of it. Everything is totally fine. Just keep smiling. La la la la la la la la la la la la la.”
The frog does not notice the water getting hotter because it happens gradually…
Summer temperatures across the NH are increasing. That is supported by multiple independent datasets, including UAH LT.
Analyses of extreme heat posted here have also shown that heat extremes are becoming more frequent and more intense across much of the Northern Hemisphere. Here’s another example posted only a few days ago:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2026/07/14/american-summer/
At some point, it won’t be so easy to shrug this off as “it’s just summer.”
The people hit hardest by increasing heat will be those least able to adapt, facing higher cooling costs, greater heat stress, and increased health risks.
“In Billings, 1936 remains the hottest individual summer, but 2021 is a very close second, and the long term trend is still upward.”
This isn’t actually true. Sorry.
The top 10 hottest summers in Billings are:
1988: 23.74°C
1936: 23.70°C
1961: 23.60°C
2021: 23.50°C
2012: 23.00°C
2003: 22.80°C
2006: 22.50°C
2007: 22.40°C
2022: 22.40°C
2017: 22.30°C
For Salt Lake City, the top 10 hottest summers are:
2022: 27.4°C
2021: 27.1°C
2017: 27.1°C
2013: 27.0°C
2024: 26.8°C
2016: 26.8°C
2007: 26.2°C
2025: 26.2°C
2012: 26.2°C
1994: 25.8°C
The 1930s forgot to show up.
A thunderstorm is west of Kerrville.
There is a boat on a river near my place.
Elida is forecast to become a hurricane.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_ep5+shtml/170234.shtml?cone#contents
The next hurricane in the eastern Pacific will be much stronger.
https://i.ibb.co/nMpSmY1y/ventusky-wind-10m-20260723t0600.jpg
That forecast has changed. The same link is now updated to TS.
I tried to watch the President’s speech, but it was too cringeworthy. I lasted maybe 3 or 4 minutes, and then I gave up. He should just stick to the facts.
I did catch some of the news spin. That made me dizzy, but there was one moment that caught my attention. One of the Democrat Senators asked rhetorically if any of the 280,000 non-citizens registered to vote actually voted. That is the new Democrat standard. Everything is okay, so long it is not too extreme. The more important question is whether deep-state officials succeeded in hiding information from politically appointed officials as Trump claims? Was the civilian elected government running the country?
Democrat voters are very odd these days. The lead Trump impeachment counsel, Dan Goldman, lost his reelection primary by a wide margin simply because he is Jewish. Platner had every problem imaginal, that previously would be disqualify including rape, but that first claim was a Republican woman. He had to rape a Democrat to get axed.
My biggest concern is support by Democrats for Iran. The JCPOA gave them the bomb — just don’t build it too fast! Now they are really upset that Trump is trying to end the madness.
There is a lady named Wendy Sherman who is making the talk shows. As the lead clown in charge of the JCPOA she is almost in tears complaining about Trump. We had a deal she says! Why is allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons and missiles so important to these people?
The Two-State Solution is dead. It died on October 7, 2023. Israel is the winner. It is time to move on. The plan crafted by Jared Kushner should now be accepted and put into action — just as soon as Iran surrenders.
“One of the Democrat Senators asked rhetorically if any of the 280,000 non-citizens registered to vote actually voted. That is the new Democrat standard. Everything is okay, so long it is not too extreme.”
If you knew the facts of the matter you would not be so bellicose.
Find out – how many of those 280,000 “non-citizens” are actually non-citizens.
Then find out how many of actual non-citizens ever cast a vote (0.04% – this figure shrinks after manual review to 0.001%).
Discover the penalties in every state for non-citizens voting.
Why the rhetorical question? Because the statistic is false and the concern unfounded. But there’s no holding a liar’s feet to the fire when she has immunity.
Utah, for example, audited 2 million votes and found 27 non-citizens voting. These instances are almost always accidental, and never enough to change the outcome of an election.
Worth fixing? Sure. A national emergency? Not slightly.
I’ll lay 4 to 1 odds Trump will declare an emergency near election and interfere with them at the federal level.
Well said leftist propagandist from Australia.
Barry,
Why on earth are you worried about only citizens to vote. In the UK we have I provide ID to vote, it’s not a problem.
Is it because you are worried that the point left yet back into power and raise your welfare payouts for drugs?
I’m not worried about non-citizens voting, Q-Anon, as it is a non-issue, revealed in numerous audits and studies. But any American should be worried that one party is trying to make it harder for citizens to vote.
Tim,
Barry demands you find evidence that all 280,000 non-citizens actually voted.
It is interesting that the liberal media and politicians are commenting on the easy question. Most elections are decided on a wide enough margin that fraud is highly unlikely.
The important question concerns the extent to which career government employees went, to conceal facts from the elected officials. Did they lie to the political appointees? Who is really running the government? Is the deep state real or a conspiracy theory?
The other issue is mail-in ballots. Should a live person have to request a mail-in ballot? Does it make sense to automatically send a ballot to every address on record?
The mass mailing of ballots today has nothing to do with the historical process of absentee ballots. The only purpose of it now is to give one party an advantage over the other. The party with no scruples and where their agenda is so moral and so important that BAMN is the motto. Mass mailing of ballots is part of the process of dismembering a civil society.
Those 280,000 illegal registered voters were in four states not California, Illinois, New York, or NJ.
What makes sense is to get your view of election issues from investigative audits and reports that are detailed and give context. Definitely don’t formulate your opinion from a personal agenda, political bias or ideological imperative.
Just the facts should do.
Just as I stated. They want to argue the easy stuff for a safe win. Is the deep-state real or a conspiracy theory? Do career government employees respect the political system? Elections have consequences. Is this the correct perspective to look at the various firings of people in career positions that the media have complained about so loudly? Does this extend to the military?
There are currently two upper-level lows active in the U.S., one over Texas and the other over Florida.
https://i.ibb.co/xSdStbnt/goes19-ir-atlpac-wide-1.gif
Puffmsn,
Riddle me this:
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
Did you not have to take any geology class to become a gigolo?
Dullard,
Other than drool what did you get on your maths test?
Anon for Q-related reasons,
Is 2000 bigger than 1000, and when will you post your code so we will be able to judge if you are a script kiddo?
eldrosion…it’s obvious that you have bought into the alarmist bs to the point you are unwilling to read about their chicanery. This site has specialized in revealing the alarmist propaganda…
https://climateaudit.org/2005/02/12/feedback-from-dr-vincent-gray/
A good site that reveals the chicanery of NOAA and GISS re fudging temperatures….
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
More???…
Ok… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave
If you dig into the links they explain exactly how NASA GISS allowed 1998 to bypass 1934 as the warmest year ever. You claimed snidely that the 1930s failed to show up for Salt lake City yet immediately above for Billings, Montana you show 1936 as the 2nd warmest year. Does that not say anything to you?
See last link re Salt Lake City.
The 1930s caused havoc in those areas with dust storms and consecutive records for heat waves that have yet to be surpassed. Have you seen similar dust storms or consecutive heat waves anywhere these days?
“The 1930s caused havoc in those areas with dust storms and consecutive records for heat waves that have yet to be surpassed. Have you seen similar dust storms or consecutive heat waves anywhere these days?”
Describe your personal experience of the 1934 heatwaves, Gordon. What was life like for you back then?
Ken Burns did a documentary on the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s. Also, John Steinbeck documented it in “The Grapes of Wrath.” Can you read, Barry?
Sure can, which is why Gordon’s words tickled me.
I read Grapes of Wrath in high school and was mightily bored. Probably not old enough to appreciate it. Had the same experience with Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. Dull in high school, but 12 years later I read it and realised it is a masterpiece. A little off-topic, as Miller set it during a storm of fear and puritanical witch hunts, mirroring the then present times.
Gordon Robertson
“If you dig into the links they explain exactly how NASA GISS allowed 1998 to bypass 1934 as the warmest year ever. You claimed snidely that the 1930s failed to show up for Salt lake City yet immediately above for Billings, Montana you show 1936 as the 2nd warmest year. Does that not say anything to you?”
Yes, it tells me that the Rocky Mountains did not experience the extreme 1936 heat anomaly in the same way that the central United States did. In the Rocky Mountain region, 1936 was an above average year but not an exceptional one, as your own link demonstrates.
Your first two links are not directly relevant to this specific comparison because I chose to use unadjusted data for my analysis. I would have preferred to use the adjusted data, since those adjustments account for known issues such as station relocations and other inhomogeneities that can affect raw temperature records, but I wanted to evaluate the argument on your terms.
(Also, context, 1935-1936 was the one of the coldest winters on record for the contiguous United States (CONUS), FYI.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave
Since you shared personal weather experiences, I will share one of my own.
I lived in Salt Lake City from 1986 to 2001, and I still remember the winter of 1993, when I crashed my car on an icy road and nearly died. It was an especially severe winter that left a lasting impression on me. A local news report from that time documented the conditions:
https://www.deseret.com/1993/1/17/19027101/snowed-under-in-93/
Winters like that were uncommon even then, but they have become increasingly rare. The region’s traditional mountain climate, characterized by cool summers and cold, snowy winters, appears to be disappearing as warming temperatures alter the conditions that historically defined this area.
Another problem affecting this region is the Great Salt Lake.
It is the largest natural salt lake in the Western Hemisphere and is a remnant of the much larger Lake Bonneville, which covered much of western Utah during the last Ice Age.
Lake Bonneville once stretched into parts of present day Idaho and reached depths that submerged most of modern day Salt Lake City:
https://geology.utah.gov/popular/great-salt-lake/#
But now, rapid global warming is creating an existential threat for this region.
The lake is shrinking rapidly as hotter temperatures increase evaporation.
And as more of the lakebed is exposed, wind can carry dust containing arsenic and other toxic metals into nearby communities. A very serious future threat to the city’s air quality and public health.
Gordon has been told many times that 1930s summer heat in the US is still the highest in the official records, but annual temperature of the hottest years in the 30s has been eclipsed.
IOW, 1930s record summer heat has not been erased in US temp records.
He absorbs nothing, unfortunately.
The “the 1930s were hotter than today” meme is apparently too important for fake skeptics to let go. Their position on that issue seems fixed, but that doesn’t mean engaging with it is entirely pointless, IMO.
Willard made a good point some time ago in that it’s often more interesting to watch what fake skeptics *do* with the evidence they’re given than to spend too much time dissecting their arguments.
In this case, Gordon asked for unadjusted data instead of adjusted data, claiming the adjustments were “fudged.” So I met him on his own terms and presented the unadjusted data.
Rather than engage with the evidence he had requested, he simply ignored it and returned to alleging a conspiracy.
That’s the entertaining part.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Tracy Venison’s son, Aidan Venison, was 19 when Toby Spiring, 28, ploughed into Aidan’s motorcycle near Wisborough Green, West Sussex, on 30 June, 2024.
Police said Spiring was more than twice the legal limit of alcohol when the crash happened as he tried to overtake another vehicle after going to the pub.
Now Aidan’s mum has started a petition urging Parliament to act against offenders like Spiring, from Littlehampton.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74y4pr3xxzo
Drunk driving kills 12K persons per year in the US.
ren…re flooding in Canada and US. Please note that such floods have a long history and the real story is the governments involved are too cheap to provide proper dikes and such.
Here in Richmond, south of Vancouver, arms of the Fraser River used to flood to the point Richmond was literally under water. Since, the dikes have been built up with granite blocks and Richmond remains high and dry.
We had a flood in the Vancouver area that became far more disastrous than it had to be. The governments of the province of BC and Washington State in the US knew the flood control device were inadequate. Furthermore, the greatest flood damage came in an area where a lake had been drained to build homes and farms.
Duh!!!
They know that a broken dike would flood the area and guess what?
In Manitoba, the Red River historically flooded around Winnipeg, with 1979 be labelled as the flood of the century in Winnipeg. Although the dikes have been upgraded around Winnipeg and Brandon, we can see for ourselves that Brandon is sill having problems with flooding from the Assiniboine River.
I lived in Regina at one time and after one thunderstorm, the area between Regina and its airport to the west was a virtual lake. I joked with a waitress in a restaurant about Lake Pasqua, Pasqua being the extreme western road in Regina at the time. She told me there is no Lake Pasqua, to which I replied, there is now.
The prairies around Regina and extending east toward Brandon are very flat. There is literally nowhere for excess water to go, and lakes form quickly.
This flooding has nothing to do with global warming or changing climates. It’s about excess rain, that has always been there, causing floods. No climates in Canada have changed significantly, just the weather on a temporary basis.
So, this is a great point relative to the concerns about rising sea levels. Givens: 1) sea levels, on average, are rising slightly; 2) that is due to very slight increase in temperatures; 3) this is likely due, in part at least, to CO2 increases from the needs of our modern society.
Man has proven over centuries that it is able to adapt to rising sea levels or levels that hinder our use of a coastal area…The Netherlands, Venice. Our technological advances – not in a small way brought about by the use of the easily transportable energy sources of oil and gas – make it much simpler today. The Ohio River valley (and large tributaries) experienced devastating floods in the 1910s and the 1930s. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came in and built a very extensive system of dams, lakes, earthen levees, and a few man-made channels. Problem solved. Then, some of the most important parts of major U.S. cities have been “reclaimed” from the sea:
Back Bay Area of Boston in 19th century
Lower Manhattan, quite close to Wall Street, starting when we were a British colony
San Francisco’s entire financial district and the Marina District
Miami Beach – all of it
Chicago’s lakefront, including Grant Park
Why exactly am I supposed to worry about a sea level rise that can be measured with a short stack of Pennie’s? And why do some politicians and NGOs insist that we radically change our lifestyle and economy to try to slow this down? I am quite sure that we are more than capable of dealing with this non-problem. That is a much cheaper and more rational way to go.
Thomas says: “3) this is likely due, in part at least, to CO2 increases from the needs of our modern society.”
Sorry Thomas, but you’re drinking the kool-aid.
You owe it to yourself to learn the basic science. Yes, there is a lot to it, but the simple parts are all you need, and that only takes a few hours, not years.
Start with the simple fact that the CO2 cult can’t even define/describe how CO2’s 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
The city of Ur is farther away from the coast than it was 4000 years ago.
Have you forgotten the information on Ur you were provided with stephen?
River sediment buildup over 6000 years infilled coastal areas including around Ur, pushing the coast farther outwards.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12367111/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/gea.3340020102
https://hal.science/hal-05270431v1/file/TigrisEuphrates-Hypotheses2025.pdf
In other parts of the world land rise rebounding from the weight of melted ice sheets has lifted some locations higher over the centuries and millennia, even outpacing global sea level rise of the last 100 years or so.
Barry,
River sediment build-up would not elevate Ur. It was a fishing port. It is still above sea level. What’s your next guess?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In a new study, Ohenhen and colleagues analyzed vertical land motion in 40 of the world’s major delta systems, 1 shown in figure 2 . The researchers explored not only how fast delta systems are subsiding but also how much specific human activities, such as groundwater pumping and urban expansion, contribute to their sinking. For nearly half the deltas studied, land subsidence rates exceed the rate of sea-level rise. Thus, alongside global work to curb climate change impacts, local land management strategies are crucial for reducing future flood risk.
https://physicstoday.aip.org/news/cities-built-on-river-sediment-are-sinking
Gordon Robertson:
Today would be a good day for you to provide 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 what you say is true, and 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?
A single UV-C photon carries roughly 2,000 to 20,000 times more energy than a single longwave infrared (LWIR) photon.
I think that is a misunderstanding:
Ozone absorbs UV radiation, right.
But it first is generated by oxygen absorbing UV light forming radicals that attack additional oxygen to form ozone which then is broken down by absorbing UV light again.
The temperature rise is due the whole photochemically process not because of ozone alone. It’s called the Chapman cycle.
And you can’t call oxygen a trace gas.
According to your logic, oxygen without ozone should be fine.
Would it?
O2 absorbs UV-C, O3 absorbs UV-B. Two different parts of the UV spectrum. Both deadly to organic matter.
The point stands. Everyone accepts that ozone protects us from UV, as does oxygen. At 1000 times less mass than CO2 in the atmosphere this ‘trace gas’ prevents you from being sunburned to death.
‘Trace gas’ is pure rhetoric. Septics will continue to use it while owing their survival to an even tracier trace gas.
I’m guessing child Willard got into his mother’s liquor cabinet, again.
He’s much too young to be drinking….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-can-such-small-amount-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-only-around-420-parts-million-cause-so
Why can’t your new socks get new material?
I was just trying to point out the fallacy of Arklady’s argument. Not quite the same. However, we do need ozone and we need CO2. The more the merrier.
Willard provides us another “teachable moment” with his link to the MIT source. The source mixes science with cult beliefs. So for the CO2 believers like Ark, Tim S, blackbody barry, and Norman, can you tell where the science ends and the beliefs start?
The answer is simple, if you really understand science….
They are doing the data center scare rallies in my town. The “No Data Centers” protestors are the same as the “No Kings” protestors. I stopped and talked to one lady holding a sign. She rattled off the usual stuff about them being noisy and using a lot of water and taking up too much space. I asked her if she was opposed to industrial plants in general. She said no, not industrial plants, just data centers. Also, they were protesting detention centers. I asked her what detention centers has to do with data centers. Her answer was ICE is untrained and they kill people. I told her they don’t kill people unless they pose a threat or interfere with their operations. I asked if protestors interfered with local police does she think someone might get shot. She said they’re not (ICE) real law enforcement and they’re not trained properly.
I remember Penn Jillette saying that there’s a segment of the populace who treats being a skeptic not as “I’m not going to accept this commonly accepted fact without proof” but instead as “there’s no way that you can convince me this commonly accepted fact is true.”
Puffman and Troglodyte are such incredulous cranks.
@Willard
The process is an equilibrium.
There is no oxygen without ozone as long as the sun radiates as it does.
Ozone IS not there, it is constantly generated AND broken down.
As long as there is oxygen and there is nothing that reacts with the oxygen radicals produced by UV (like the halogen carbohydrates before their ban) than O2, there will be ozone.
That’s just how the chemistry works.
@barry
As I wrote above, it is an equilibrium.
Ozone gets destroyed by UV-B.
That is the main reason why it is a trace gas.
It builds by oxygen absorbing UV-C producing oxygen radicals, forms, absorbs UV-B, gets back being oxygen.
It’s not reflecting or absorbing UV-B unharmed, it gets destroyed in the process.
Ron, the destruction of ozone by UV-B is entirely immaterial to the point.
The point is that ozone, which has 1000 times less mass than CO2 in the atmosphere prevents UV from killing us, making a mockery of the idea that a ‘trace gas’ can’t do anything substantial.
This is not a difficult point to understand.
A familiar rejoinder is to invite someone to inject themselves with 0.04% of their blood’s volume in arsenic or LSD and to report on the results.
The point is the same – the rhetoric that small amounts can’t have an effect is just rhetoric, belied by numerous examples.
Ozone doesn’t absorb UV. The UV is displayed on theoretical blackbody curve. It is not emitted by sun!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You and Dimitri should send a note to the EPA, Christos:
https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/basic-ozone-layer-science
Make sure to cite Aristotle and Eratosthenes.
Ron is telling you it isn’t a trace gas. It is 20% of the atmosphere.
Yes, Ron is telling a bunch of stuff that fails to be of any relevance. Some of them are barely true: his remark about equilibrium fails to take pollution into account.
stephen: “Ron is telling you it isn’t a trace gas.”
Ron: “it is a trace gas.”
Ron: “absorbs UV-B”
Christos: “Ozone doesn’t absorb UV.”
I hope you fellas sort all this out.
I know, logic is difficult to teach to Marxists. Maybe he can try another strategy.
@barry
You don’t seem to understand what ozone is on a molecular level and why its amount is as low as it is. Ozone is just O3. Three oxygen atoms in a triangle.
The turnover is fundamental and not ‘immaterial’. The whole ozone layer is exchanged in 8-10 days! That is how massive and fast the production and destruction is. ~400 million metric tons per day!
Which is only possible because the resource for its production is anything else than a trace gas: oxygen.
stephie p anderson at 7:43 AM
Where, exactly, in the Ideal Gas Law is the physics that predicts the observed warming of the stratosphere?
It doesn’t as far as I know.
The Van Halen Test
When every detail matters, if you can’t be trusted to get a simple request like “no brown M&M’s” right, how can you possibly be trusted for anything actually important?
Moderate El Nino already exists. The potential for a strong El Nino is almost certain. The chance of a very strong El Nino (index > 2.0) rises to 81% by the 4th quarter (OND). The next year is going to be a wild period for the fortune tellers.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Many parts of Australia have already broken early winter maximum and minimum temperature records.
In southern Australia, Sydney and Melbourne had their warmest ever starts to winter. Daily observations show both cities experienced above-average June temperatures almost every day of the month.
Adelaide has also recorded above-average June temperatures in its first three weeks. Hobart and Canberra had mild starts to winter, with temperatures well above normal. So far, Perth is the only southern capital with typical June temperatures.
The world is experiencing a trend of unseasonably high temperatures driven by global heating, including the early summer heatwave in western Europe and parts of Asia.
So, what can we expect for the rest of the winter season? And does a warm winter have consequences for Australia’s next summer?
The months ahead
Abnormally warm conditions in Australia are likely to continue for at least the coming weeks, according to the Bureau of Meteorology’s seasonal outlooks. Long periods of dry weather are likely, especially in late winter and spring, following the recent El Niño development.
https://theconversation.com/could-this-be-australias-warmest-winter-ever-285947
As far as Climateball is concerned, we can expect our dismissives to disniss, our deniers to deny, and our cranks to peddle their three crankiest talking points.
Watch them say, ‘it’s just winter’, LOL!
As absurd as it sounds, it wouldn’t surprise me.
For those who — for obvious reasons — see only benefits in rising CO2 levels, the following is likely of little interest.
People with a broader, less ideologically driven perspective, however, might conversely show some interest in it.
Here are some infos I recently collected.
*
For vegetation, the major drawback of excessively high CO2 levels is nutrient dilution — a phenomenon where accelerated carbohydrate production outpaces the plant’s ability to absorb essential soil minerals.
Consequently, the resulting plant tissue and crop yields become less dense in vital nutrients like protein, zinc, and iron.
*
Beyond nutrient collapse, elevated carbon dioxide levels trigger several cascading drawbacks:
Photosynthetic Down-Regulation
While high CO2 initially boosts photosynthesis, many plants eventually “acclimate” or down-regulate.
Once excess sugars build up in the leaves and demand from the rest of the plant is met, the plant reduces the activity and production of key enzymes (like Rubisco) to adapt to the surplus.
*
Impaired Cooling and Heat Stress
Under high levels, plants partially close their microscopic leaf pores, known as stomata. While this reduces water loss, it also restricts transpiration — the process through which leaves naturally cool themselves.
This loss of evaporative cooling leaves vegetation highly vulnerable to heat stress.
*
Altered Ecosystem Dynamics
Not all vegetation benefits equally from CO2 spikes. For instance, fast-growing invasive weeds and woody vines often respond more aggressively to excess than native plants or crops, leading to altered plant communities and the displacement of less adaptable species.
*
Increase in fertilizer demand
Though faster plant growth generates more biomass, it forces plants to draw higher amounts of nitrogen from the soil to sustain that growth, what implies an increased need for fertilizers.
While plants require CO2 for photosynthesis and growth, there is a threshold beyond which the benefits diminish. In greenhouse settings, maintaining CO2 levels around 1,000 to 1,200 parts per million (ppm) is often considered optimal for maximizing growth without compromising nutritional value. Levels significantly above this range can lead to nutrient deficiencies in crops. John Hopkins.
Since most of the rise is natural, I don’t think there is much we can do about it.
Oh dear… Tow paragraphs didn’t get copied into the comment box:
Researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health—most notably led by Dr. Samuel Myers—along with international collaborators at institutions like the University of Washington and the University of Melbourne, assert that staple crops grown in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations frequently show significant reductions in nutritional density, including lower levels of protein, zinc, and iron.
*
Beyond vital grain crops, with regard to open air agriculture we must not overlook the millions of hectares of potatoes and other vegetables — and also not the billions of apple and orange trees and grapevines —whose cultivation likewise has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses.
Thanks BillyBob for your as always convenient reply.
But… it is a bit suprising to me due to two complementary reasons:
– your consideration of ” greenhouse settings… ”
and
– the ‘John Hopkins’ reference at the end of your reply.
*
1. Taking consideration of greenhouse settings is EXACTLY what I’m not at all interested in: what after all globally matters is agriculture of usual size and yield, be it busy with wheat, rye, rice, maize, sorghum or whatever else: the greenhouse / open air agriculture ratio is between 1:400 and 1:500.
Moreover, though much more efficient than open air, greenhouse production is globally negligible also because it is completely dominated (70%) by products like tomatoes and lettuce which do not play any role in the vast majority of our countries worldwide.
*
2. I’m surprised by hour hint on John Hopkins just because it is similar to the info I mentioned above:
“At University of Washington, Global Health Professor Kristie Ebi, PhD, who worked on a paper relating to the rice field studies in China and Japan, is curious about the health implications of consuming more carbohydrates in plant-based foods because of rising CO2 concentrations.
If the relationship between declining micronutrients and rising carbon is linear, that may mean our food today is already less nutritious than what our grandparents ate. ”
https://magazine.publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/less-nutritious-crops-another-result-rising-co2
*
This is by the way confirmed by the German Web site
FACE with crops: data for climate change impact models
Hans-Joachim Weigel, Remy Manderscheid (2016)
https://literatur.thuenen.de/digbib_extern/dn056309.pdf
and by various, though less precise pages within the Internet presence of the German Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency).
Oh good, Bindi has found another science to “investigate”. This time it’s “botany”. He likes to search the internet and find things that he can’t understand. One time, he found about 20 sources that he believed “proved” Moon was spinning. But not one of the sources had any such “proof”, and most didn’t even mention lunar rotation.
But, he provides great science comedy….
Clint,
So, is Bindidumb claiming that the CO2 rise has been good for us now to give us this perfect agricultural ratio?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
ProPublica and The Texas Tribune reported last week that Paxton has voted six times in the past two years while registered at an address in Collin County where he previously lived with his wife.
https://www.propublica.org/article/ken-paxton-voter-registration-election-law
Why are troglodytes and cranks willing to break every law, including decency and physics?
Like the rest of his cult, Bindi searches the internet trying to find something he can throw against the wall, hoping it will stick.
If he and his wife were separated (together now), he could still use that address.
“You must register to vote using the address where you reside,” the attorney general’s guidance stated.
Aren’t you Canadian? Why are you so interested in US politics? I don’t give a rat’s ass about Canadian politics. Is it because you’re a globalist Marxist?
Thak you for conceding you were saying stuff once more, Troglodyte. You might also like:
Ken Says Dirty Donald Would’ve ‘Lost’ State If It Hadn’t Blocked Mail-in Ballots Applications Being Sent Out
https://www.newsweek.com/texas-ag-says-trump-wouldve-lost-state-if-it-hadnt-blocked-mail-ballots-applications-being-1597909
Isn’t Donald a third generation Murican, and what is he doing in othee coubtries?
Man, that’s a stretch. You can come up with a better argument, can’t you? Nope, probably not. He’s first generation by the way and so am I. You’re no generation. What’s your point?
Ken Paxton can stretch however he likes, Troglodyte. He is current in divorce proceedings, but not yet divorced. That would make these condos martial property as the money used to buy them was martial property. Putting them in trust and using a fake address sure looks like a fraudulent scheme to hide assets from his wife.
You were saying?
Oh, and checking back how we count immigrant generations, Donald is the second one. Fred is first. Friedrich-the-pimp was the zeroth one.
Database accounting is just weird.
No,
Trumps grandparents were both immigrants from Germany so Donald as the grandson would be counted as first generation. Again, why are you so interested in Ken Paxton’s divorce trial that has been cancelled? Aren’t you a Canadian? I guess if you’re a Marxist your loyalty is to no one except your grand Marxist utopia.
Yes, Friedrich immigrated from Germany in 1885. That’s one immigrant.
And yes, he did make a little fortune as a pimp in Yukon.
Also yes, Fred was born in the US of A. That is the first born and raised.
So yes, Donald is second generation, in the sense of being born in the US of A.
And yes, Donald cheated all his life. All he needed was to find gullible marks like Troglodyte and Tom.
Just sharing what John Hopkins reported was the level of CO2 that maximized the benefit. Nothing more.
You should at very least own your silly Climateball talking points, Billy.
Ten days of water left as salt water from the Adriatic Sea is pushing 20 to 25 kilometers (12.5 to 15.5 miles) upstream into soil that fed generations.
We bear witness to a land dying on a timeline measured in days, not decades.
Imagine what it must have been like in the great Tudor drought, MI
In fact, Bangladesh is one of the best-documented examples of the point this article is making: the earliest impacts of sea-level rise are often salinization of rivers, groundwater, and soils; not permanent inundation.
In very flat deltaic terrain such as Bangladesh, a few centimeters of vertical sea-level rise can shift the salt front by many kilometers, particularly during the dry season when river discharge is low. The change is governed not by simple flooding geometry but by estuarine hydraulics: a higher sea level reduces the freshwater hydraulic gradient, allowing saline water to penetrate much farther inland. The salt front therefore migrates long before the coastline itself appears to move appreciably.
This is an important distinction that is often overlooked in public discussions. When people imagine sea-level rise, they picture seawater overtopping beaches or flooding streets. In reality, one of the earliest and most economically damaging consequences is the loss of freshwater resources and agricultural productivity through saltwater intrusion. That is precisely the mechanism now being reported in northern Italy and has been documented for years in Bangladesh.
The conclusion the 50 years ago research
https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/hays76sci_268464.pdf
came to was:
“7) A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next several thousand years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
There are – in this old theory – there are many mistakes awaiting to be corrected. Those mistakes triggered an entire alarmism behavior.
–
https://www.christos-vournas.com
Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, Ohio, going after Canada for the wildfire smoke blanketing the country today.
https://www.semafor.com/article/07/17/2026/republican-senator-goes-after-canada-for-wildfire-smoke
He must think Canadians control the air flow.
On the bright side, the smoke was so bad that it actually mitigated the heatwave.
Welcome to the Anthropocene.
Christos Vournas says:
July 19, 2026 at 5:03 AM
Ozone doesn’t absorb UV. The UV is displayed on theoretical blackbody curve. It is not emitted by sun!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Willard says:
July 19, 2026 at 7:09 AM
You and Dimitri should send a note to the EPA, Christos:
https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/basic-ozone-layer-science
Make sure to cite Aristotle and Eratosthenes.
Thank you, Willard. Doesn’t EPA know?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Most welcome, Christos.
Make sure to warn Environment Canada too:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/air-pollution/issues/ozone-layer/depletion-impacts/about.html
See also the section on the connection between smog and ozone.
Ozone layer – Wikipedia
“The ozone layer was discovered in 1913 by French |physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson. Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.[3] Its properties were explored in detail by the British meteorologist G. M. B. Dobson, who developed a simple spectrophotometer (the Dobsonmeter) that could be used to measure stratospheric ozone from the ground. Between 1928 and 1958, Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations, which continue to operate to this day. The “Dobson unit” (DU), a convenient measure of the amount of ozone overhead, is named in his honor.”
(Emphasis added)
Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum.
It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere.
It was deduced
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So was GHE.
BAD:
“Although ozone high up in the stratosphere provides a shield to protect life on Earth, direct contact with ozone is harmful to both plants and animals (including humans). Ground-level, “bad,” ozone forms when nitrogen oxide gases from vehicle and industrial emissions react with volatile organic compounds (carbon-containing chemicals that evaporate easily into the air, such as paint thinners). In the troposphere near the Earth’s surface, the natural concentration of ozone is about 10 parts per billion (0.000001 percent). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to ozone levels of greater than 70 parts per billion for 8 hours or longer is unhealthy[1]. Such concentrations occur in or near cities during periods where the atmosphere is warm and stable. The harmful effects can include throat and lung irritation or aggravation of asthma or emphysema.”
BAD.
It’s always amazing how simple concepts can cause so much confusion.
CV believes Sun does not emit UV because it is only “deduced”. But the link he found clearly explains the reason:
Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.
Plus, we know some UV reaches the Earth’s surface because it both tans human skin and produces vitamin D. So Sun definitely emits some UV. Why confuse that simple concept?
Yesterday on July 18, 2026 at 5:24 PM, barry wrote:
” Gordon has been told many times that 1930s summer heat in the US is still the highest in the official records, but annual temperature of the hottest years in the 30s has been eclipsed.
IOW, 1930s record summer heat has not been erased in US temp records. ”
barry, Robertson has been all the years either unable or unwilling to remind anything else than his own guessings.
*
Just below your comment, Eldrosion wrote:
” In this case, Gordon asked for unadjusted data instead of adjusted data, claiming the adjustments were “fudged.” So I met him on his own terms and presented the unadjusted data. ”
That’s hopeless of course: I did so for years with GHCN daily, the rawest data you ever could obtain, and with a 100% daily-based evaluation (i.e., without any averaging into months let alone years):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16mZKKnMwtVxt3gIoRALPIHDZY27bOa-x/view
This chart presents, now for the period 1895-2025, the numbers of daily high temperature maxima and minima resp. low temperature minima and maxima recorded by about 900 GHCN daily stations belonging to USHCN – and (!) whose lifetime encompasses the period observed.
*
Robertson automatically ‘forgets’ any information contradicting his dumb claims and always restarts them from scratch – claims which he obtained up to 15 years ago from contrarian blogs like e.g. ‘chiefio’ and which he gullibly replicates since then ad nauseam.
*
A descending sort of the 131 years since 1895 clearly shows how wrong Robertson’s endlessly repeated allegations actually are:
Year High maxima per 100,000 measurements
1934 2458.8
1936 2300.8
1910 1839.0
1911 1819.7
1931 1807.5
1939 1792.1
1925 1724.8
1933 1688.6
1930 1545.9
1921 1385.8
Six of the ten 1930s in the top ten!
*
Now, this time series based on yearly sums of daily maxima/minima might appear a bit ‘special’ to some; maybe it is therefore better to switch to more classical time series based on temperatures instead.
*
Caution however: one of the most frequent mistakes when looking for highest temperatures during different periods is to use either yearly averages or, even worse, anomalies:
– (1) yearly averages of daily / monthly data dilute summer highs into often much colder seasonal data;
– (2) monthly or daily anomalies are not constructed as differences between absolute data and an average over all data for a given reference period, but rather as differences between that data and the selective monthly or daily averages within that period.
In other words, (2) means that because e.g. monthly anomalies don’t show which month is warm or cold but is warmer or colder than the average of all same month in the reference period, they are inadequate for showing in a time series warmest months in the absolute sense.
This is best shown with the top ten of a descending sort of all GHCN daily CONUS TMAX anomalies wrt the means of 1981-2010:
1910 3 4.45 (°C)
2026 3 4.15
1954 2 3.69
2012 3 3.48
2006 1 3.40
2021 12 3.35
1939 12 3.29
1930 2 3.05
1999 11 2.89
2017 2 2.88
This is 100% correct… but 100% useless: we are not at all interested in the fact that March 1910’s diffenrence to the average of all 30 March months within 1981-2010 is the greatest of all such differences in the whole anomaly time series.
*
So we have to come back to absolute data in this case. Sorting down all monthly TMAX temperature values in the absolute time series gives then this:
1936 7 32.86 (°C)
1980 7 32.75
1934 7 32.75
1901 7 32.61
1931 7 32.53
1930 7 32.40
1954 7 32.25
1937 8 32.22
2023 7 32.17
1917 7 32.13
Five of the ten 1930s in the top ten!
Thus now we got it, finally. Again, it shows how utterly wrong Robertson’s dissimulation and fudging claims against NOAA, GISS etc etc etc in reality are.
But… as Frank Zappa sang on his legendary Zoot Allures album:
” The torture never stops. ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvTyL_Sbyn8
Bindidon
I don’t know if you comment on WUWT, but over there the “the 1930s were hotter than today” narrative (across every month and metric, not just summer) is VERY common.
What is ironic is that Anthony Watts’ own 2011 paper analyzed the USHCN data in three forms (unadjusted, TOBS-adjusted, and fully adjusted (TOBS + PHA) to evaluate how the NOAA adjustments affect differences between well sited and poorly sited stations:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146
The paper does not criticize the TOBS adjustment. In fact, it describes the effects of the TOBS adjustment as being “consistent with expectations.”
Yet many WUWT commenters insist that only the completely unadjusted record is legitimate and continue to present it as THE US temperature record:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/11/the-recent-decline/#comment-3514904
If they applied the TOBS correction that Watts and his co-authors accepted, the apparent warmth of the 1930s relative to today would diminish noticeably.
It just goes to show what a joke climate deniers are.
Watts and Spencer are treated as their “experts” — right up until even they say or do something that doesn’t fit their narrative.
It’s no wonder they aren’t taken seriously.
All they have are their blog posts and comment sections (their echo-chamber support groups), where they gather to reassure each other that climate science is just an elaborate scam invented to steal their freedoms.
Eldrosion
OMG!
Are you really still struggling with that prehistoric stuff from Fall & Co.?
I wrote about that for years, even at WUWT but I don’t recall when that was..
*
An old comparison I made 6 years ago:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tbreucKhA5wCgFtPcgKIWGuCiwHe4zCC/view
*
One of my latest communications on this blog is the head of a long series of comments I posted in reply to stuff written by ‘red krokodile’:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1698036
*
The very best contradiction to Fall & al. came from Berkeley Earth:
Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the
United States
Richard A. Muller, Judith Curry (*), Donald Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Robert Rohde, Arthur Rosenfeld, Charlotte Wickham, Jonathan Wurtele (2013)
https://tinyurl.com/mrpehvmx
(*) Mrs Curry was of course heavily discredited for having participated.
*
Back to the 1930s: especially that pic is best known to me, it was replicated thousand times at least:
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NASA-US-1999-2016-2-1652311874.6379.gif?fit=300%2C240&ssl=1
*
But, as written above, I can only repeat that when using absolute TMAX temperatures measured by GHCN daily stations in CONUS, the 1930s are and keep a tiny bit above nowadays.
Yeah, Watts and some co-authors had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the TOBS adjustment, as Watts had been excoriating it for years. But eventually they realised there is an actual TOBS bias and joined the mainstream.
The hoped for thrust of Fall et al, before they finished, was to show how wrong the official US temp records are. Unfortunately for them and their followers they corroborated the US average temps time series and trends.
They buried this finding way down the paper, and readjusted their focus to the already known issue of maximum and minimum biases per station quality (these biases cancel out in the average).
So the paper became critical about problems with the trend in diurnal range. In this respect it did some good, adding a new dimension of understanding to a known problem.
So, I don’t have the current training or abilities to comment on the adjustments to temperature data that make the idea that the 1930s were not appreciably hotter than today. But I can say that if you go to the climate page of our regional NWS station in Wilmington Ohio, the 1930s almost jump off the page at you. The 2000s certainly do not. It is quite a leap for me to believe that “adjustments”, “corrections” to absolute recorded temperatures show that there was nothing unusual about the 1930s. My father was a young man in the 1930s. He lived from 1910 to 2008. Any time we experienced unusually hot weather in Cincinnati Ohio USA he would tell me about his experiences in the 1930s and how much worse it was in some of those summers. And what about the epic, migration-forcing, “dust bowls” of the 30s? High temperatures had nothing to do with that?
I did a deep dive into academic American history for about 20 years. What I learned shocked me to the core. American history scholars and scholarship largely work today to serve left wing political and cultural interests. Sort of like sophisticated “opposition research.” There is a broad narrative that scholars and scholarship are expected to follow. Heretics to this orthodoxy are crudely outed and excluded. Sadly, the same thing appears to have happened in any discipline connected to climate science. The “climategate” revelations and personal testimonies of the few brave scientists who dare challenge the orthodox position have convinced me of this.
So, I still seek the truth about warming, CO2, etc. I do read both sides, when they engage the public and some of the research. But “color me” skeptical. I do not automatically accept or reject any reasonable article or post. But at this point I categorize the notion that the 1930s were not exceptionally hot right alongside Michael Mann’s initial hockey stick that smoothed out the MWP and the LIA. Hundreds of years of literature and history bear witness to the significance of both (GREENland). Population surged during the MWP and plummeted during the LIA (of course, one big additional factor was the plague). Humans, animals, fish, plants, plankton PREFER more warmth, growing seasons, and CO2. What is so hard about that?
I trust “Understanding Climate Change” from the National Academy of Sciences (1975), which was a legitimate scientific appraisal of climate science before the scientific enterprise was corrupted by politics and distorted funding. Too bad that we abandoned that mostly unbiased approach to seeking truth.
It is very important to these nitwit propagandists that today’s temperatures are highest on record. It isn’t about truth. It is about the agenda.
Speaking of CG, my favorite is the Wegman Hoax:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/WegmanHoax
The Auditor himself would follow gubmint recommendations.
Meanwhile, troglodytes will troglodyte.
Well stated, Thomas. “Academia” has been taken over by Leftism. No one is permitted to even question obvious fallacies. Science is not supposed to be affected by politics, but modern “science” is now almost all political. I have two friends that went into professorships, after obtaining advanced degrees in engineering. One became so disgusted that he resigned and went to work for an “evil” corporation.
It’s not only climate, but you can’t even question the false “science” of evolution. Who knows what is being perverted in medical science. How many deaths from curable diseases have occurred because discoveries are being blocked? Even astronomy has been perverted.
The first step in science is to separate reality from beliefs. Beliefs ain’t science! So in the CO2 nonsense, the first step is to scientifically identify how CO2 can warm the planet. But, that has NOT been done. From your reference, “Understanding Climate Change”, page 17:
It is fact that certain clouds and water vapor can raise surface temperatures. But it is only “belief” that CO2 can. In fact, we know from radiative physics and thermodynamics that atmospheric CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
You’ve seen the insults and false accusations from the cult kids here. That’s all they’ve got.
Your “common sense” is working for you.
When will our troglodytes emulate the Troglodyte-in-Chief and blame Canada for the forest fires:
https://bsky.app/profile/pbump.com/post/3mr35k3krg22g
Puffman should go first
Thomas Hagedorn wrote above
” So, I don’t have the current training or abilities to comment on the adjustments to temperature data that make the idea that the 1930s were not appreciably hotter than today. ”
*
If Mr Hagedorn, instead of imitating ignoramus Robertson and his numerous acolytes, had spent some time in reading the comment I wrote on July 19, 2026 at 3:11 PM, he would have understood that
moving temperature data evaluations
– from daily over monthly to yearly,
and especially
– from absolute data to anomalies removing the annual cycle as is done everywhere (beginning at UAH),
results in dissipating many really existing differences, for example that between the 1930s and nowadays.
And if he had been, at UAH’s climate department, for years responsible for the public presentation of the anomaly data for all four atmospheric layers observed by the team, he very probably would have forgotten in between that this data is actually originating from highly complex absolute data, behaving completely different from what he daily would deal with.
Simply because this original, absolute data is nowhere visible in the corner he were responsible for: only anomalies are visible there, and people interested in absolute data for UAH’s layers consequently have to reconstruct such data out of grid anomalies and climatology by their own.
*
” But I can say that if you go to the climate page of our regional NWS station in Wilmington Ohio, the 1930s almost jump off the page at you. The 2000s certainly do not. ”
This is true!
Here is the top ten of a descending sort of all 4,459,875 daily TMAX reports by all GHCN daily located in Ohio:
USC00334006 OH_JACKSONBURG________________ 51-38 1901 7 24 45.0 (°C)
USC00333029 OH_GALLIPOLIS_________________ 51-39 1934 7 21 45.0
USC00333029 OH_GALLIPOLIS_________________ 51-39 1934 7 25 44.4
USC00339219 OH_WILMINGTON_3_N_____________ 51-38 1934 7 21 43.9
USC00336465 OH_PAULDING___________________ 52-38 1936 7 14 43.9
USC00335664 OH_NAPOLEON___________________ 52-38 1947 8 6 43.9
USC00333483 OH_HAMILTON_FAIRFIELD_________ 51-38 1934 7 24 43.9
USC00333483 OH_HAMILTON_FAIRFIELD_________ 51-38 1934 7 21 43.9
USC00332098 OH_DEFIANCE___________________ 52-38 1934 7 25 43.9
USC00331072 OH_BUCYRUS____________________ 52-38 1918 8 7 43.9
Of the top 1,000 reports in the sort, 123 belong to the 1910s, 613 to the 1930s, a miserous 52 for all years from 2000 to 2019, and… 0 (zero!) for the 2020s.
This is still visible in a monthly averaging of the OHIO data, to which 326 stations partly contributed between 1900 and 2026:
1934 7 33.32 (°C)
1936 7 32.87
1930 7 32.69
1901 7 32.58
1921 7 32.40
1931 7 32.29
1934 6 32.21
2012 7 31.96
1916 7 31.95
1988 7 31.73
*
But Thomas Hagedorn, when working au UAH, would never be able to present such data, as there are no viable daily satellite-borne reports, let alone TMAX vs. TMIN data. All UAH data is basically TMEAN, and so are many other datasets.
A simpe switch to TMEAN when generating absolute data for Ohio, already gives a mitigated picture by averaging TMAX and TMIN:
1934 7 26.16 (°C)
1901 7 25.84
1921 7 25.67
2012 7 25.57
2011 7 25.52
1949 7 25.35
1955 7 25.33
1947 8 25.26
1931 7 25.26
1936 7 25.21
This clearly due to the fact that the 1930s not only had the hottest summers but also harsh winters.
*
Finally, when switching to his daily work, the UAH anomalies, Thomas Hagedorn would experience a big surprise when generating Ohio data in the same way, and looking at the resulting top 10 of the sort:
1932 1 7.10 (°C above the same month’s average in 1981-2010)
2012 3 6.72
2015 12 6.67
1950 1 6.45
1946 3 6.18
1945 3 6.02
2006 1 6.01
1933 1 5.87
1923 12 5.33
1921 3 5.30
*
Where are the summers of the 1930s? Well, the first one is at position 63:
1934 6 3.64
What the sort indicates is that the highest anomalies all appear in months outside the summer.
Thus, comparing by sorting is no longer of use in the anomaly context.
*
Here is a graph instead, in which the absolute temperatures were displaced by their mean, to portray them on an equal footing with the anomalies:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dMQxLSkZfj59TdJcl0QVbN86dUT6G1xy/view
*
Linear trends in °C / decade
– 1900-2026
absol: 0.02 ± 0.06
anoms: 0.02 ± 0.01
– 1979-2026
absol: 0.31 ± 0.28
anoms: 0.28 ± 0.06
***
No tricks, no dissimulation, no agenda, no cult: that’s the home of those who polemically discredit though lacking technical skills to contradict.
Bindi – I didn’t think that I would have to state in my post about the NWS climate page from the Wilmington station (basically includes the southwest quadrant of the state of Ohio) that I was referring to record HIGHS (t-max) only, since heat waves make us uncomfortable (as our timid allies in Europe are finding out now) and can even kill (as they also unfortunately are finding out). They kill a lot fewer humans than extreme cold (not even close) but they do kill. Using statistics and combinations of temperatures, including winter temps, to try to make several of the summers of the 30s seem normal isn’t even a good trick. You can do better.
To all my European friends, buy an air conditioner, please. They work. And you can thank an American, Willis Carrier, who invented it in 1902. It’s finally time. It is hot as hell in Arizona this time of year, yet life goes on, in the middle of a desert. AI-related semiconductor manufacturing is surging, powered mostly by natural gas. So, while you sit in a pool of sweat, we have our thermostats at 75F, adding some CO2 to the air with the cleanest of fossil fuels. China, which has no such concerns, is fueling its AI race with mostly coal-produced electricity. Why are you doing this to yourselves?
Thomas Hagedorn
” Bindi – I didn’t think that I would have to state in my post about the NWS climate page from the Wilmington station (basically includes the southwest quadrant of the state of Ohio) that I was referring to record HIGHS (t-max) only… ”
*
Sorry, but… I wrote above the following:
Here is the top ten of a descending sort of all 4,459,875 daily TMAX reports by all GHCN daily located in Ohio:
…
USC00339219 OH_WILMINGTON_3_N_____________ 51-38 1934 7 21 43.9 (°C)
…
Feel free to look up!
Bindi – are we then in agreement that the heat waves of the 30s (Tmax) were indeed epic and nothing has come close since, even in the 21st century? If so, after 90 years of increasing CO2 why is that? 90 years? Why should I be concerned about increasing CO2? Scare me please, because frankly, like most older folks, I prefer warmer weather over colder weather.
“It is quite a leap for me to believe that “adjustments”, “corrections” to absolute recorded temperatures show that there was nothing unusual about the 1930s.”
Who told you there was nothing unusual about climate/weather in the 1930s in the US?
The adjusted, corrected official records still show the mid 1930s with the highest summertime temps in the record.
So I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Please refer to Eldrosion’s post in the string that I posted on. Seems like you have a beef with him.
barry
You wrote above (July 20, 2026 at 6:07 AM)
” So the paper became critical about problems with the trend in diurnal range. In this respect it did some good, adding a new dimension of understanding to a known problem. ”
No, sorry: even in that detail the Fall & al. paper failed.
In my discussion with the ‘red krokodile’ poster, I compared last year once more the data of the famous 71 USHCN stations selected as ‘site1′ by Watts’ surfacestations.org:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ipzDRdJppZDM6ii4qj9h1AKFrC3t0h94/view
then to 258 anonymous GHCN daily stations, respectively located in the same 1 degree grid cell as the 71 ‘well sited’; these 258 stations very certainly would not have been selected as ‘site 1 station’ by the volunteer group.
*
1. Time series
TMIN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-IHF0hCUK8n-Qki14wwd0YCxQdBSeiy2/view
2. TMAX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RzP181WalVgApyoYdJ9lR1jPwSDTr6NK/view
*
But this was not enough, and the poster claimed that the Fall & al. paper would finally have detected a DTR bias within the ‘bad’ USHCN stations.
Indeed, their claim was at a first glance correct:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K9dcpm2epOqNJbATHVO3Udl30tkgkYZi/view
But… as I started the comparison in 1951, I obtained this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D5pklY3jKnxA61nKx3AlEhDNNCL3RlDt/view
*
We can immediately see that while the 1979-2011 period shows a sinking DTR trend, this is not at all the case for the 1951-2011 period.
This has a name: cherry-picking, cuz they can’t have ignored the point.
Bindidon
I have never interacted with red krokodile, but I found his exchange with Barry interesting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1698524
His argument closely resembles Pat Frank’s.
Both argue that uncertainty arising from systematic measurement errors corrupts land surface temperature records, and that these systematic errors are spatially correlated.
According to their arguments, homogenization cannot effectively correct the biases because most or all stations within a region supposedly share the same systematic error.
I had a discussion with Pat Frank about this on WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/04/happy-250th-birthday-america/#comment-4214487
He argued that land surface temperature records have an uncertainty of approximately ±0.5°C. I challenged that claim by comparing the USCRN station in Virginia (since the discussion specifically surrounded the state of Virginia for July 4th) with the statewide Virginia temperature record from Climate at a Glance (CaaG):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/04/happy-250th-birthday-america/#comment-4214784
He argued that even if the historical CO-OP record contains systematic biases while the USCRN does not, the two records would still be expected to correlate closely.
That does not make sense to me.
USCRN stations use platinum resistance thermometers with redundant sensors and rigorous siting standards, whereas the historical CO-OP network relied on CRS and MMT systems.
If the CO-OP record really were affected by large systematic errors on the order of ±0.5°C, I wouldn’t expect it to match an independent reference network as closely as it does.
Sometimes WUWT links don’t take you to the exact comment for some reason.
“The ozone layer peaks at 8 to 15 parts per million, of ozone,[1] while the average ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is about 0.3 parts per million. The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth, although its thickness varies seasonally and geographically.[2]”
(Emphasis added)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
It is a very small amount in absolute numbers the 8 to 15 parts per million,of thin earth atmosphere in the much thinner stratospheric air!!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The ozone layer absorbs 97 to 99 percent of the Sun’s medium-frequency ultraviolet light (from about 200 nm to 315 nm wavelength), which otherwise would potentially damage exposed life forms near the surface.[4]”
(Emphasis added)
absorbs 97 to 99 percent
The ozone’s deduced absorbing abilities are not even saturated. Not even close…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> [1]
That citation leada here, with our emphasis:
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html
That resource also confirms: “Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs most of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Without ozone, the Sun’s intense UV radiation would sterilize the Earth’s surface.”
MAGAts this morning:
Can’t breathe the air. Have explosive diarrhea. Can’t afford meat. Can’t afford gas. Can’t afford rent and sure as hell can’t afford to buy a house. The country is at war, again, still, whatever the term is for this sh!tshow. Farms in foreclosure because farmers can’t sell their crops, can’t afford seeds, can’t even get fertilizer. Government goons are kicking in doors without a warrant, detaining people without due process, murdering citizens in the street.
But at least now our soldiers will have enough testosterone.
US gas prices back up to an average of $4 a gallon as Iran war heats up
Did you know televisions and microwaves cost less today than they did in 1985? Another thing, furniture. I’ve been watching some old Price Is Right re-runs and it is amazing how many things cost less than they did 40 years ago.
Did you know that back in your days one could buy a house with one year of salary or so?
Today it costs a little more than that.
Oh, and you owe more than 100k as a US citizen to service your debt. Back in your days, it was less than 25k. You can thank Donald for more thab half that increase.
Hey, you can blame all our precariousness on Trump. All the world’s debt. Real Estate debt, automobile debt, pension fund precariousness, student loan debt, banks, insurance companies, bonds, artworks, stocks, collectibles, etc. etc. Blame all the over inflation and overpricing on Trump. When the bubble bursts, you Marxists can rush in and save the day and offers yourselves as the solution. You’ve done such a bang-up job with your ideology and solutions through the years. Everybody ends up poor but equal.
No need to blame Donald of amything. The Thing speaks for itself.
The fact remain that no other president has put more debt on your shoulders.
How Marketsist of you!
You Marxists are miserable, aren’t you?
Did you know that televisions, microwaves, and much of today’s furniture became cheaper largely because of decades of globalization, lower trade barriers, international supply chains, container shipping, and production shifting to the lowest-cost locations?
These price declines occurred gradually over the past 40-50 years (you’re welcome), primarily during the era of expanding globalization from roughly the 1980s through the 2010s, well before the recent wave of broad U.S. tariffs.
The irony is that the low prices you cite are evidence of the success of globalization, the very system Trump’s tariff policies were intended to reverse.
Four dollars a gallon ? I wish, UK average one pound sixty pence a litre for petrol. one pound seventy for diesel.
When I was just a pup I could fill up my Plymouth Fury for less than $10. Now my Chevy Silverado, with the same size tank, takes just under $100 to fill up.
On the bright side, my truck gets twice the mileage.
All the things you cite like can’t breathe air, afford meat, government goons, etc. etc. aren’t true. Only in your dystopian world are they true. You want them to be true. You believe your own twisted propaganda.
Have you seen the news lately?
Bad Air Quality Engulfs Multiple US States: https://www.newsweek.com/bad-air-quality-engulfs-multiple-us-states-how-it-impacts-your-health-12217846
Beef prices reach record highs: https://www.producer.com/beef-cattle/u-s-beef-prices-stay-red-hot-for-summer-cookouts/
ICE is terrorizing communities and targeting innocent, hardworking people on the basis of their race: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/19/ice-immigration-maga
You must live in the bubbliest bubble that ever bubbled.
You need to get out of your Marxism induced stupor. Trump isn’t responsible for wildfires. I keep seeing beef prices dropping where I shop for beef. ICE is a law enforcement agency which is responsible for enforcing immigration laws. Laws that weren’t enforced during Biden’s term. (The Guardian is a Marxist rag. Maybe you should stop reading it.) This was designed to promote anarchy and civil unrest. These immigration laws are laws that Democrats also voted for. We are a sovereign nation. Illegal immigrants have no right to be here. You leftists are all for an uncivil society since Trump is in office. P.S.-Even when Biden was in office. You wanted open borders and anarchy.
Troglodyte is so obnubilated by his self-inflicted red baiting that his moral compass is lost at sea:
Interviews and records reviewed by ProPublica show a White House official told senior Department of Homeland Security officials to return the devices to the brothers several days after they were seized. The official who delivered the message, Paul Ingrassia, is a lawyer who previously represented the Tate brothers before joining the White House, where he was working as its DHS liaison.
In his written request, a copy of which was reviewed by ProPublica, Ingrassia chided authorities for taking the action, saying the seizure of the Tates’ devices was not a good use of time or resources. The request to return the electronics to the Tates, he emphasized, was coming from the White House.
https://www.propublica.org/article/andrew-tate-investigation-dhs-paul-ingrassia
Troglodytes this morning:
GOP senator recited the Declaration of Independence — next to a Confederate flag.
https://www.ms.now/news/dan-sullivan-confederate-flag
They never got over losing that war, didn’t they?
“They never got over losing that war, didn’t they?”
A Canadian Marxist wouldn’t know this, I guess. Still don’t understand why so interested in our politics. Oh yeah, you’re a Marxist.
The Confederate battle flag was a symbol for the Democrat Party. The GOP won the Civil War. The Democrats lost.
(P.S.-you used a double negative in your question.)
Troglodyte has yet to get the memo:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/21/us/politics/olive-garden-voting-save-america-act-republicans.html
He should be ranting about Olive Gardens now.
Meanwhile, Drunken Pete’s Department of War lost the only war they got under that new name.
Based on the latest Polar Portal data, it is entirely possible that Greenland may see the first year of net ice gain in 30 years. Here is a picture of the Surface Mass Balance as of July 20.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fBe_5uqj6sQ7rZSxPYXLaOTpbBt9rOs1/view?usp=drivesdk
The Surface Mass Balance (SMB) is snowfall minus melting. It always finishes the season hundreds of tons in the positive, but does not take into account ice flow into the sea and calving of icebergs. For this reason, the SMB must finish the season at 480 billion tons or higher to record a net gain of ice. Right now the SMB is at 600 billion tons. One month of melting to go before season ends. Looks to me like it will finish above 480.
Thanks for posting this.
It would have been interesting to view the same picture for 2024/25 on the same day.
That was easy some years ago by simply modifying the date in the link.
This is now no longer possible, as a unique id is associated to the date:
https://polarportal.dk/api/v1/serve-image/surface?image_name=1784594920085_SMB_curves_LA_EN_20260720.png
*
From the page
Greenland ice sheet mass balance from 1840 through next week
https://dataverse.geus.dk/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z
one can obtain the annual data, and show it in a graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ak32DWKhJ_GkZcUzQgfJywPtz4B7-AZ/view
*
Out of the daily data, one can see that the average daily accumulated SMB for 2025/26 till June 30 is less than that for the same period in 2024/25: how then could the whole 2025/26 season till August 31 become higher than in 2024/25?
Just asking for a friend… :–)
“It’s not only climate, but you can’t even question the false “science” of evolution.”
Who would have thought that a believer in “CO2 15μ photons” would also be a “creationist” ?
Science is all about questioning, isn’t it? Or shouldn’t it be? Until Lemaitre and Hubble came along, scientists overwhelmingly believed that the universe was static, that it had always existed. Einstein even disbelieved his own work in general relativity that seemed to indicate an expanding universe so much that he put in a “fudge factor” to make it go away. Now, there seems to be overwhelming proof that the universe (Space/time) has been constantly expanding since the Big Bang, when it was created or originated.
Pick up an Introductory text on Biology and read the sections on Evolution. Focus on the hedging adjectives and adverbs used. And the evidence put forth for the theory is quite sketchy when you consider the massive claims of the theory. The first hurdle is somehow randomly getting life to evolve from nonlife. Then, there is the hurdle of the need for an incredible number of gradual changes needed from helpful mutations to progress to higher and higher forms of life. Evolutionary science and the theory seems to ignore the earth’s cosmological history, which closely limits the periods when life is possible. Lastly, it has no plausible answer for the explosions of life and phyla happening over very, very short time periods. Look at the first and second Avalon explosions and the Cambrian explosion.
It takes a lot of “faith” to believe in evolution as the explanation of the origins of life on earth. My faith remains in evidence and argument. (BTW, “appeals to authority” are a logical error and don’t hold much water with me. They didn’t for the Greeks either, and they didn’t have the massive corruption of so much of the 21st century’s truth seeking enterprises with politics, power, and money. And I see that on both the left and the right. Aristotle and Orwell must both be shuddering in their graves.)
I hate to say it, but it looks like we have four active Marxists operating on this forum: Willard, Ark, Norman, and Barry. Others come and go. Willard and Barry are both foreigners who seem to want to see our civil society disrupted as much as possible. Ark claims to be from Texas, so disappointing. He probably lives in Austin or Houston. Norman, not sure where he is from. I believe US. Haven’t seen him say but definitely a Marxist. He hates capitalism. The US citizen Marxists are very disappointing. The greatest country that has probably ever been and they hate it. It isn’t about the science for these guys or ladies; it is about the agenda. There are a few other socialists but not downright Marxists. Marxism really reared its ugly head at the end of the Queen Victorian era in Great Britain, and it’s never been the same since. Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR tried their best in the US, but free market capitalism and liberty prevailed when WWII saw the power of free-market capitalism. I hope now is not the end of a great era for the US. It is going to be a dystopian world if their Marxist wishes come true. Trump might be our last best hope.
“The greatest country that has probably ever been”
You are not exactly well-traveled, are you?
Among all nations the US ranks:
Education 18th
Environmental performance 35th
Infant mortality 53rd
Life expectancy 42nd
Standard of living 20th
Democracy index 20th
The United States incarcerates more of its population than any other nation. It holds 21.0% of the world’s prisoners even though the US represents around 4.4 percent of the world’s population.
So, no, the rest of the world disagrees with you. If you could chose where to be born, Switzerland or Denmark are far better options.
p.s. Communism, as practised by the Chinese, seems to be an extremely successful system.
Don’t forget an embarrassingly poor pandemic response for a first world country:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7411243/
Those who have actually voted on this topic with their feet don’t seem to agree with you. However, facts never matter with fools.
Top Destination CountriesThese countries host the highest number of foreign-born residents (total migrant stock):United States: Hosts over 52 million migrants.Germany: Hosts approximately 17 million migrants.Saudi Arabia: Hosts roughly 14 million migrants.United Kingdom: Hosts about 12 million migrants.France: Hosts around 9 million migrants.(Note: While the U.S. has the highest absolute number, Gulf nations like Qatar and the UAE have the highest percentage, with immigrants making up over 74% of their total populations.)Top Origin CountriesThese countries have the largest number of native-born citizens currently living abroad:India: Over 18.5 million citizens living abroad.China: Approximately 11.7 million citizens living abroad.Mexico: Roughly 11.6 million citizens living abroad.Ukraine: About 9.8 million citizens living abroad (a sharp increase due to displacement).Russia: Around 9.1 million citizens living abroad.
Any reason why you wouldn’t go with a per capita analysis on this? There are good reasons to do so.
The U.S. has the world’s third largest population and the fourth largest landmass. It naturally attracts more people simply because it has more physical room, more jobs, more infrastructure and more entry points. Comparing the total intake of the US to a small country like Switzerland or Portugal is mathematically rigged; the U.S. is over 35 times larger in population than Switzerland. It has the CAPACITY for more immigration.
Per capita, there are plenty of other countries that are ahead of the US.
And then there is the reason people move. What do you think motivates people to move to the US? The idyllic lifestyle, the emphasis on inclusion of immigrant groups, the embrace of different cultures?
Or do you think they are gagging to salute the flag?
Test
Stephen P Anderson – I mostly agree with your analysis. Not gonna waste my time discussing US history and politics on a science blog. Some of the comments by the left on here are fairly accurate. Some are wildly off the mark. So, if the U.S. is such a horrible place, why have so many people – sometimes at great peril and with huge uncertainties – come here from other nations?
Why did my ancestors come to the U.S. from Ireland and Germany? How about freedom from direct, obvious oppression and bigotry (and survival from terrible economic conditions) – Ireland. How about freedom from a class based society that “kept you in your place” and conscripted you into or forced you into service thru an economic system (“Germany”/Prussia/Hesse). I have many freedoms (civil liberties) here in the U.S. that seem to be under attack in Europe.
Yes, there is more risk from various things that come with living is the U.S. Downside AND upside. That is why we lead the western world in innovation, including today, AI. No one in the west is even close. Meanwhile, Europe slowing, inexorably moves towards extinction as a culture. Socialism and globalism (an essential part of socialism) are destroying their work ethic and beautiful national identities. Europe is running out of money and credit to pay for cradle to grave government benefits.
And that is why the US is increasingly turning to the west – to the Pacific.
Speaking of Covid response:
Of the $8.4 trillion teh Donald added to the debt, $3.6 trillion came from COVID relief laws and executive orders, $2.5 trillion from tax cut laws, and $2.3 trillion from spending increases, with the remaining executive orders having costs and savings that largely offset each other.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-trump-add-debt
The socialistest of them all.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Ken Paxton isn’t the only Looney Toon running for a position in the United States Congress this November. An extremist gun YouTuber is the Republican nominee for a House seat in the district that contains Uvalde, Texas. How did this happen?
https://www.liberalcurrents.com/ken-paxton-and-the-potential-boogaloo-congressman-half-the-answer-95-with-steven-monacelli/
Myrmidon.
Troglodyte reached his thesaurus:
Elon’s artificial intelligence company is continuing to fuel its datacenters with unpermitted gas turbines, an investigation by the Floodlight newsroom shows. Thermal footage captured by Floodlight via drone shows xAI is still burning gas at a facility in Southaven, Mississippi, despite a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruling reiterating that doing so requires a state permit in advance.
State regulators in Mississippi maintain that since the turbines are parked on tractor trailers, they don’t require permits. However, the EPA has long maintained that such pollution sources require permits under the Clean Air Act.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/13/elon-musk-xai-datacenters-air-pollution-mississippi
If only he was half as lawful as he pretends to be.
The inherent fault with capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings,the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery for all.Winston Churchill.
Except for the Marxist elites. They don’t share in the misery.
Ian Brown at 2:01 PM:
Genesis 18 provides ethical guidance for reasonable Christians.
From decades of experience with French and German far right-wing extremists (both men and women) I know that, for such people, anyone positioned to their political left is, by definition, a Marxist or at least a socialist.
And ironically, all these people — including those few who daily infest this blog — nevertheless often enough denigrate and insult you a Nazi or a fascist: actually what they themselves are.
*
Even Alice Weidel — a leading figure in the far-right wing German AfD (who is, curiously enough, a lesbian, married to a dark-skinned woman, and a resident of Switzerland — all things AfD supporters ostensibly loathe most) declared to Elon Musk, a very well-known proponent of far-right parties: “Hitler was a communist!”
Just imagine that! Hitler — the supreme Nazi leader who, alongside Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler, bore primary responsibility for the murder of hundreds of thousands of German communists and socialists — suddenly, after eighty years, miraculously transforms into a communist… Oh boy.
*
But… such distortions of fact are common to all these people; they dwell within them like a kind of superego. And thus, none of them will ever refrain from insulting you.
What I learned long time ago about the Confederate Battle Flag and can review nowadays on the Internet
The battle flag was indeed most famously used by General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. That is true and admits of not the slightest contradiction.
Following the war, it was largely reserved for veteran tributes until it was resurrected in 1948 by the so-called “Dixiecrats”. This group of Southern Democrats used the flag to protest the national Democratic Party’s embrace of civil rights and to advocate for segregation.
As the Democratic Party officially adopted the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in the 1960s, a major political realignment occurred.
Southern Democrats began migrating to the Republican Party. Over the decades, the Confederate flag’s partisan association shifted; today, it is predominantly used by conservative and far-right cultural conservatives within the modern Republican base, rather than the Democratic Party.
*
While the 1860s Democratic Party was the political face of the Confederacy and indeed lost the war, today’s Democratic Party is the direct descendant of the party that later championed the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement.
The political platforms of the GOP and the Democrats effectively swapped their regional and ideological strongholds between the Civil War and the late 20th century.
*
Some dumbies here really think anyone outside the US wouldn’t know anything about that country’s history!
Good evening Bindindon,
You are correct, the Democrats championed the New Deal. Which was the greatest expansion of US federal government. FDR even threatend to pack the Supreme Court if they did not uphold the Act. But even FDR thought this was a temporary need.
However the Civil Rights Act was supported by a super majority of Republicans. The actual vote had the democrats at only 60% in favor and republicans 80% in favor. LBJ even used some colorful words on why the democrats needed their face on the act, but even so many voted against it. Not sure why many historians don’t bother to provide that fact. Yes the DEMs had the majority but the ratio of Dems against the ACT vs Rep against was 3 to 1.
The GOP followed that by using what they called the Southern Strategy to win the favor of the Southern States. Thus Nixon became president. The overall philosophy’s of the partys have not change, one wants bigger government, the other wants wants smaller government but does not have the balls to do it. Trump tried with Elon but no real cuts. Rather Republicans cut taxes and Democrats expand government both putting the US in deeper debt.
Just an FYI since you seemed interested.
Thank you for this FYI BillyBob, much appreciated.
There were 44 Dixiecrats and only one, Strom Thurmond, switched from the Democrat to Republican Party. All the rest died as members of the Democrat Party. Robert “KKK” Byrd, the Democrat Lion of the Senate who died in 2010 was praised by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton upon his passing. The Republican Party has never been a racist Party. However, the Democrat Party today is the same party it was in 1860. In 1860 the antebellum plantation was a Democrat institution. Everyone who owned slaves was a member of the Democrat Party. Slaves in 1860 were used by Democrats for their labor and today they’re used for their vote. In 2026, the Democrat plantation is the Democrat dominated and run inner city. Almost all black Democrat politicians come from the urban Democrat run inner city. In Kenneth Stampp’s treatise on slavery called “The Peculiar Institution” he describes five characteristics of the antebellum plantation that are also characteristic of the Democrat run inner city: (1) Dilapidated housing, (2) Broken Families, (3) High degree of violence to maintain order, (4) Everybody gets basic provisions but no one gets ahead, (5) Nihilism and despair. The parties have not changed.
For your information:
The title of “Democrat” has its beginnings in the South, going back to the founding of the Democratic-Republican Party in 1793 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It held to small government principles and distrusted the national government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
Ideas top word games.
The Democrat Party was co-founded by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, mostly Jackson. Their claim to fame was the Indian Removal Act. The Act was supposedly enacted to allow Indians to sell their land and negotiate treaties, but we know how the Democrats were with treaties. The Act was eventually used to forcibly remove American Indians from their native lands to Indian Oklahoma territory. It made Jackson and Van Buren exceedingly popular with white voters. We know many Indians died on the notorious Trail of Tears. Jackson, founder of the Democrat Party, was an avaricious slave trader who owned as many as 150 slaves. According to left wing historians, he treated them very kindly.
Jacksonianism emerged from the factionalization of the long-dominant Democratic-Republican Party around the 1824 presidential election, but it was also part of a broader democratic transformation already underway in American politics. Even before Jackson’s rise, suffrage had been extended to a majority of white male adult citizens, a development Jacksonians celebrated and interpreted as the end of what Jackson called a monopoly of government by elites. Jackson’s supporters organized this democratic spirit into what became the modern Democratic Party, while his political rivals John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republican Party, which later combined with other anti-Jackson groups to create the Whig Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy
The GOP has always worked toward favoring the elite, including vote rights. It turned populist only recently, without letting go of its elitist agenda. Only marksetsists still fall for that.
Troglodytes are just cranky uncles who have yet to realize their porkies can be fact-checked live at family parties.
Fact checked? You nitwit. The only point you’ve made is that you’ve confirmed the Democrat Party is the Party of slavery and racism and the Republican Party isn’t.
Just like with climate change, Troglodyte will reject any evidence that does not cohere with his usual deifications: capitalism, Lincoln, etc.
With his symbolic grasp of history he can’t compute that the origin of “Democrat” is not like what his paid sophists promote. Next he won’t ackowledge that slavery is still the law of his land:
https://www.vera.org/news/slavery-is-still-legal-for-two-million-people-in-the-u-s
Such a carpetbagger is a perfect mark for corporate overlords.
You’re all for chaos and propaganda. Typical Marxist nitwit.
There were 44 Dixiecrats and only one, Strom Thurmond, switched from the Democrat to Republican Party. All the rest died as members of the Democrat Party. Robert “KKK” Byrd, the Democrat Lion of the Senate who died in 2010 was praised by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton upon his passing. The Republican Party has never been a racist Party. However, the Democrat Party today is the same party it was in 1860. In 1860 the antebellum plantation was a Democrat institution. Everyone who owned slaves was a member of the Democrat Party. Slaves in 1860 were used by Democrats for their labor and today they’re used for their vote. In 2026, the Democrat plantation is the Democrat dominated and run inner city. Almost all black Democrat politicians come from the urban Democrat run inner city. In Kenneth Stampp’s treatise on slavery called “The Peculiar Institution” he describes five characteristics of the antebellum plantation that are also characteristic of the Democrat run inner city: (1) Dilapidated housing, (2) Broken Families, (3) High degree of violence to maintain order, (4) Everybody gets basic provisions but no one gets ahead, (5) Nihilism and despair. The parties have not changed.
Climate change is falsified by the way. It’s called math. Not a damn thing you can do about it.
Carpetbagger? Isn’t that a Democrat Slave Owner term? Funny you would use it.
Vintage 2012:
We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.
https://www.cnbc.com/2012/11/07/secret-to-romneys-defeat-not-enough-angry-white-guys.html
Lindsay Graham did his best to follow up the Solid South exploitation.
Time for our Troglodyte to take the lead!
Meanwhile, Troglodyte will wash his hands over just about anything as long as we promise him the Other will suffer more. He will close his eyes to this Republican member of the West Virginia House has just been charged with enticing a 15-year-old minor through Roblox and Snapchat.
https://westvirginiawatch.com/2026/07/22/wv-gop-house-member-elliott-pritt-charged-with-enticing-minor-girl-through-roblox-snapchat/
His selfish bigotry may never be satisfied. For those who exploit his anger, this is a boon.
stephen p anderson
YOU: “Climate change is falsified by the way. It’s called math. Not a damn thing you can do about it.”
Well I have given you ample evidence that pressure does not “CAUSE” the lapse rate, it only determines the value of it. The lapse rate would exist without convection and be much higher. The root cause of the lapse rate is NOT pressure (pressure determines the value, not the cause!). The fact the surface absorbs more radiant energy than the atmosphere does from the Sun and the TOA radiates away energy will form a temperature gradient in the atmosphere (which disappears in the Tropopause because there is no variation in energy exchange in that region even though pressure DOES CHANGE!!).
The pressure gradient will allow near surface air to get only so hot before it becomes buoyant and rises. The pressure gradient sets how rapidly the buoyant air can expand and cool and so sets the dry lapse rate to 9.8 C/km. What you think as a cause is not what causes the lapse rate, it only determines the value.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Cause
If you have valid science information demonstrating that it is indeed pressure and not radiative heating and cooling that actually are the cause of the lapse rate, then please share your source as I can find zero to support your assertions on this topic.
I’m willing to go through it with you step by step. Which differential do you want to start with? This differential
dCO2/dt = Inflow – Outflow falsifies CO2 origin, and GHT.
dt/dp(dp/dz) proves the lapse rate and falsifies GHT.
Which do you want to start with?
“Well I have given you ample evidence that pressure does not “CAUSE” the lapse rate, it only determines the value of it. The lapse rate would exist without convection and be much higher. The root cause of the lapse rate is NOT pressure (pressure determines the value, not the cause!). The fact the surface absorbs more radiant energy than the atmosphere does from the Sun and the TOA radiates away energy will form a temperature gradient in the atmosphere (which disappears in the Tropopause because there is no variation in energy exchange in that region even though pressure DOES CHANGE!!).”
This is a gross conceptual error. You are saying the temperature gradient causes the temperature gradient. Gravity causes the pressure which causes the lapse rate. You can see from the derivation of the lapse rate that it is derived from a hydrostatic column of air behaving as an ideal gas. We can go through it step by step and also Berry’s model step by step. This video goes through the chain rule derivative for deriving the lapse rate, but we can argue each step so you can tell me to what you object. Also, I will go through Berry’s Model step by step with you. You will lose. But you can continue to duck and avoid like the propagandist that you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wal9PGqyEyw
Stephen p anderson
I have debunked Edwin Berry illogical paper on CO2 so start with that one. I would really like to see how you torture math to show ocean CO2 sink is the cause of the atmosphric CO2. We can do the lapse rate next.
OK, so let’s start with the continuity equation:
dCO2/dt = Inflow – Outflow
Do you agree this differential describes the change in CO2 level with respect to time for the atmosphere? And do you agree that the current level of CO2 (at Mauna Loa) is about 430ppmv?
Stephen p anderson
I am not saying the temperature gradient causes the temperature gradient. I am saying the heating of the surface, via solar energy, and the cooling of the upper atmosphere via GHG create the gradient. The rate is determined by pressure and gravity is what creates the pressure.
You can go ahead with trying to prove Berry’s illogical idea. I can accept your points that atmoshere CO2 is increasing and your differential seems valid.
Norman,
Let’s take today’s level of CO2 which is equal to 431.4ppm and level a year ago of 429.6ppm, dCO2/dt = 1.8ppm. That’s been constant for several years. So,
dCO2/dt = Inflow – Outflow
Inflow=Lb/Te (Lb=Balance Level)
Outflow= L/Te
L=431.4ppm
If we use dC/dt=1.8ppm/yr (3.82PgC/yr) and a Te of 4 years from Dr. Ed’s paper. (IPCC estimates 3.5-5years)
Outflow=431.4ppm/4yr=107.9ppm/yr
Inflow= 107.9ppm/yr + 1.8ppm/yr =109.7ppm/yr
Balance Level = 109.7ppm/yr(4yr) = 438.6ppm
Te (eTime) is the time it takes for Level to reach 0.693 the distance from the level to the balance level. (This is in the solution to the differential equation) So, in 4 years from now, the level should be 436.4ppm.
If inflow is 5.2ppm (11.02PgC/yr) human and 104.5ppm natural, then in 4 years when the level is 436.4ppm, human CO2 can be no more than 20.8ppm of the total. Outflow, which is 107.9ppm/yr, is 5.202ppm/yr human and 102.7ppm/yr natural. So, of the 1.8ppm/yr increase, 0.0867ppm is human and 1.713ppm is natural. Natural emissions are greater than natural sinks. This is conservation of mass and in compliance with the equivalence principle.
“I am not saying the temperature gradient causes the temperature gradient. I am saying the heating of the surface, via solar energy, and the cooling of the upper atmosphere via GHG create the gradient. The rate is determined by pressure, and gravity is what creates the pressure.”
You just restated what I said which is the lapse rate proof and then afterward inserted the GHE on the backend without any proof.
Personally, I think Dr. Berry and the IPCC both have Te wrong. I think Te is about 7.5 years. Here’s why. If you go back to 2022, CO2 level was 420.9ppm in June. This June it was 431.4. If you use a Te of 7.5 years, it nails this June’s level at 431.4ppm. In 4 years, that would put level at 440.8ppm.
Thomas Hagedorn
What I said is actually consistent with your father’s experience. I don’t think anyone disputes that summers (particularly maximum temperatures)in parts of the CONUS were exceptionally hot during the 1930s.
The question is whether the annual US average temperature was higher than today. Those are not the same thing.
Your father’s memories are valuable, but they cannot tell us what the national annual mean temperature was.
“But at this point I categorize the notion that the 1930s were not exceptionally hot right alongside Michael Mann’s initial hockey stick that smoothed out the MWP and the LIA. Hundreds of years of literature and history bear witness to the significance of both (GREENland).”
No one, including Michael Mann, disputes that Greenland was relatively warm during the Medieval Warm Period. The mistake is assuming that Greenland’s climate represented the globe as a whole:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
Lastly, regarding Climategate.
I think deniers have given you a misleading impression of what happened. The so called “Climategate” scandal largely revolved around excerpts from private emails that were circulated without their scientific context.
One example is a September 2009 email from Tom Wigley discussing the apparent blip in sea surface temperatures around World War II. Some people portrayed it as evidence that scientists were secretly trying to “cool the past.”
This is the specific excerpt they focused on:
“So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).”
The broader context of this email was a discussion of a known measurement bias in the sea surface temperature record around World War II.
During and after World War II, changes in how sea surface temperatures were measured (shifts between engine room intake and bucket measurements) introduced an artificial discontinuity into the SST record. Scientists were discussing how to quantify this known measurement bias.
All of this was public. Scientists had already published papers and openly discussed the issue before the Climategate emails were leaked. It was not secret. It was an effort to quantify a known measurement bias.
For example, RealClimate explained the issue in June 2008, more than a year before the Climategate emails became public:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/
I think you overestimate the warmth in Greenland.
Even at its peak the only way to grow barley was in small walled gardens on South facing slopes. This was the only way to get the soil above the 5C germination temperature of barley seeds
Barry
“these biases cancel out in the average”
You may not know this, but in July 2022 Anthony Watts updated his SurfaceStations.org project, concluding that 96% of U.S. weather stations were artificially corrupted by poor siting.
I followed his commentary on the project closely when he presented it at WUWT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw9iAysZ_qg
If you watch from 8:52 to 10:45, you will hear him make the following statement near the end of that segment:
“So the problem is that we’re warming the nighttime because of this re-radiated infrared thats’ warming up the air near the sensors and in the nighttime temperatures going up. Well the way they measure global warming, so to speak, is combine the high and low to get the average for the day – the average of the high and the low. Well if you bring the low way up, that’s going to bring the average up and that is the, the basic center of the problem.”
What struck me was not what he said, but what he left out.
He tells his audience that artificially elevated nighttime temperatures inflate the daily mean, yet, as you point out, his own 2011 paper reports that poorly sited stations also have lower daytime maximum temperature trends, largely canceling out the effect on the mean.
Deliberate omission?
I know he was working on a new paper, but either didn’t submit it or couldn’t get it published. Unless he managed to get it past peer review since last I looked (some years ago).
Maybe Fall et al didn’t have quite the clear message he is used to? His agenda has been patent and consistent, but he had some bona fide researchers on that work – which is why he reluctantly had to concede Time of Observation Bias in the study.
TOBs, being the biggest warming adjustment to the US temp record, was pilloried by WUWT for years. I imagine the bitter pill caused retching.
Eastern Tennessee, particularly down around Del Rio in Cocke County along the French Broad River, was hit by heavy rainfall again last week. The flooding triggered mudslides, damaged homes and roads, and forced swift-water rescues in a community still recovering from Hurricane Helene in 2024. Just days earlier, parts of the Texas Hill Country experienced another catastrophic flood after rainfall estimated to be consistent with a historical 1-in-1000-year event, for the second consecutive summer in which communities there have endured devastating flash flooding.
As the climate warms, the atmosphere holds more moisture, increasing the potential for heavier rainfall events. That doesn’t mean climate change “caused” any single flood, but it does increase the odds and intensity of many extreme precipitation events. For communities repeatedly in harm’s way, recovery is becoming less of a destination and more of a recurring cycle.
The traditional disaster model assumes preparedness, response, recovery, and eventually a return to normal. Increasingly, that assumption is breaking down. Families may rebuild only to face another flood, wildfire, heat wave, or drought before they have fully recovered financially or emotionally.
The challenge is that today’s disasters often cascade through multiple systems. Floods damage transportation, disrupt healthcare, interrupt supply chains, strain local economies, and compound existing housing shortages. Communities are frequently coping with several climate-related stresses simultaneously rather than one isolated event.
This is consistent with what climate science has projected for decades. Heavy precipitation events are becoming more frequent and more intense in many regions, while extreme heat is increasing virtually everywhere. These trends do not mean every disaster is caused by climate change, but they do mean that the baseline risk is rising, making repeated disasters increasingly likely in vulnerable communities.
We need to adapt. Build houses on elevated places, not on the rivers banks.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” We need to adapt. Build houses on elevated places, not on the rivers banks. ”
It’s easy to make such condescending pronouncements when you live far removed from other people’s problems.
Southeastern Asia: densely populated river deltas…
” Tropical Asia concentrates the largest number of vulnerable people due to a combination of dense populations, rapid land subsidence, and exposure to intense tropical cyclones and storm surges. ”
… and big coastal towns
” Millions of people live in endangered major cities like Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), Shangai and Bangkok. “
Does this experiment explain your thinking about Donald Trump?
https://youtu.be/UQslljSx-00?si=S63UDV9P-llzFVtz&t=385
No.
Better would this image do:
https://i.postimg.cc/02NKpzXf/Trumping-boy-in-JUly-2026.jpg
*
For the usual TAS zombies: No, I don’t hate your Trumping idol.
He is simply too stupid and reckless to be hated.
Nate,
That could be said about those who believed that Joe Biden was capable and not suffering from cognitive decline. Or have you a very short memory?
No U. Whatabout Captain Joe.
Q-Anon is so Very Intelligent.
Joe created 300K manufactiring jobs.
Donald lost 75K.
Only a mark would still fall for him. Some of our cranks still do. Other in-house contrarians rather enjoy Donald’s whims vicariously.
Some of them are into “but cold kills” these days. As if it was a scientific issue, not a political one. Or as if the ponderousness with which they introduce their squirrel meant they should be taken seriously.
Willard always sounds like an uneducated 10-year-old.
And, he’s not kidding….
You’re giving Willard way too much credit.
Two of our cranks chime in, saying sweet nothings.
Meanwhile:
https://couriernewsroom.com/news/how-republicans-just-used-todd-blanches-confirmation-hearing-to-map-out-the-next-abortion-fight
The true descendants of Whigs and Know Nothings.
“That could be said about those who believed that Joe Biden was capable and not suffering from cognitive decline. Or have you a very short memory?”
Dont be absurd. Nobody thought of Biden as an infallible Dear Leader the way many MAGAts feel about Trump.
Child Nate,
You are gaslighting and much as Bindy.
There are numerous comments from the democrats of all shapes and ugliness who were saying that there wasn’t anything wrong with Joe Biden until that famous video of Trump Vs Biden. After which Biden stood aside for the Harris & Waltz farce.
Just because your echo chamber chooses to forget doesn’t mean the rest of the world has, or stopped laughing at Joe
Q-anon does not see Donald hitting REM on camera:
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mk6rg5mpe227
It’s just incredible.
Nobody thought of Biden as an infallible Dear Leader the way many MAGAts feel about Trump.
Which you do not address Anon. ‘Dear Leader’ is what N.Koreans call their dictator, who they consider to be infallible and always truthful.
There was no such unquestioning adoration of Joe Biden.
I dont need to adore my President, governor, etc. I just want them to do their job effectively without being divisive.
You must have loved Obama and Biden. They were both so non-divisive.
With his Dijon mustard and his tan suit, Barack pales in comparison with Donald saying that asylum seekers come from mental asylums.
He was the divisest of them all.
Nate, thank you for explaining Socialism. Money for nothing and chicks for free!
I dunno, but it is a good explanation for true MAGAts.
Socialism:
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cfpb-marc-andreessen-silicon-valley
Elon’s Stalinesque measures have killed millions of people.
How are you dear friends!
It is a heat wave in Greece, but not as strong. And we are prepared, the 90% of houses have ac unit.
We do not sunbath. When fainting from overheating we do not jump in the waters, because… we are seeking for ac cooling refuge.
The media, when about heat, they show beaches.
Is it logical ?
There are countries 40C, 50C all the time. And no death casulties reported.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Trump administration’s proposal to eliminate federal funding for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is deeply concerning.
The National Academies have advised the federal government since 1863 under presidents of both parties. They are not infallible, and individual reports or committee compositions can and should be scrutinized. But dismantling one of the nation’s premier independent scientific advisory institutions because of disagreements over some of its conclusions is a very different matter.
American science education already suffers from a “one inch deep and a mile wide” syndrome. I certainly do not advocate widening that trench.
Science advances by testing evidence, not by defunding the institutions charged with evaluating it. Disagreement should be answered with better evidence, not with budget cuts.
Nations competing with the US for technological and economic leadership are unlikely to view a weakening of our scientific institutions as bad news for their own interests.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116949428377514667
They will not be missed.
The National Academies – Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine.
This is an absolutely terrible time to be alive if you are a person with a low tolerance for asininity.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
• A law called the “Food Traceability Rule,” designed to make tracing contaminated food easier, was supposed to go into effect on January 20, 2026.
• Taylor Foods started paying Sidley Austin to lobby on “regulation of food safety” in January of 2025.
• On March 20, 2025, FDA announced they were pushing back the implementation of the “Food Traceability Rule” by 30 months.
• On March 26, 2025, Taylor Fresh Foods Inc contributed $1,000,000 to MAGA Inc, a Donald-aligned super PAC.
Why did the federal government point to Taco Bell instead of Taylor Foods? Why is it taking so long to trace the outbreak?
Let’s spend more billions on LLMs to know more.
Just another reason for you to stay hidden under your bed, Ark. It’s a dangerous world out there. If the CO2 doesn’t get you, the lettuce will.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/bbc-demands-trump-jan-6-181259665.html
How long are you gonna lick Don’s boots?
AIDS (Arkady Ivanovich Derangement Syndrome): describes extreme emotional or psychological reactions to my posts.
How to recognize the warning signs that you may have caught the AIDS:
1/ General hysteria and an inability to objectively evaluate the facts in my posts.
2/ Intense, uncontrollable hostility, anger, or verbal outrage.
3/ Compulsive monitoring of this/other blogs, sleeplessness, and obsessive preoccupation with each of my new posts. A general feeling that I might be living rent-free inside your head.
4/ Aggression toward or demonization of me personally without regard for the factual content of my posts.
Oops, I confused Ark with Willard.
But, that’s easy to do. Neither has an understanding of science, both have extreme TDS, both clog this blog with nonsense, and both are afraid of nature.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mr6hjlz77c26
Do you have a cowboy hat?
Don’t waste time in naming me an alarmist: I just want to inform.
Forest fires in Southern Europe and Northern Africa, 2026 07 23
Burned areas over the last 30 days and active fires detected by satellite over the last seven days
https://i.postimg.cc/0j6hD4ZV/Wild-fires-in-Southern-Europe-and-Northern-Africa-2026-07-23.png
This matches exactly the ‘heat dome’ surfaces recently presented by NASA/NOAA, and so nicely discredited by the usual pseudoskeptics.
*
‘Only’ 250,000 hectares in total in 2026 for Europe.
Looks tiny when compared to Canada and Siberia during the last years… but what you see on the map is at best 50 % of the surfaces there.
No data about Tunesia. Doesn’t look that good there, as 100 km beloe the coast there is only desert.
*
When looking at the whole picture including Greece, I wondered about so few fires there compared to some years ago.
A good old friend living south of Thessaloniki told me that there are currently few forest areas that could burn again, everything burnable is away for the next years.
Bindi, when sea level get high enough it will put out the fires.
You should make one of your worthless graphs showing that….
How many of those fires were caused by accidental or deliberate acts, we have had fires in the UK but all were caused by either idiots or power line failures,rewilding in the UK has the potential to cause huge problems sooner or later, instead of green fields we now have acres of tall grass, nettles,thistles and many other tall plants, all fuel for future fires.Net Zero stupidity.
I have decided that in the future, I will try to reply with the historical context when posts discuss things like floods, hurricanes, fires, droughts, etc. Some contributors on here seem to jump on extreme weather events and try to link them to warming, CO2 increase, etc. Humanity has been challenged with extreme weather long before it developed the internal combustion engine, oil and gas supplies on a large scale, powering the Industrial Revolution (which has improved mankind’s condition in incredible ways).
So, context to me means the latest IPCC consensus (the science report – is it AR6 or 7). And what are the CONFIDENCE LEVELS that they assign to their consensus. Now, I must also look at critics/skeptics/realists to balance this off, since the IPCC is essentially a multi national political body, with its own agenda. Truth-seeking really demands this – in courts, in dissertations (review of the literature), in published research. The critics play a vital role today, since the truth-seeking enterprise in mainstream science is badly broken.
I see some ridiculous claims made at times about extreme weather, usually by a politician, an NGO spokesman, a news organization, and sometimes on this blog. Examples I can think of were:
– a flash flood from a Glacier in Alaska in the summer of 2025. I happened to be there on a cruise and read the accounts in the local paper. Outside accounts (including comments here) were wildly off the mark.
– recent flash flooding in my area (Cincinnati, Ohio, USA) that the local progressive mayor blamed on increasing downpours due to climate change, thereby downplaying his incompetent administration which failed to maintain a critical, very expensive floodwall that could have lowered the flooding and damage. His answer? We have to spend more money.
– coastal flooding in western Alaska from storms being blamed on warming. It is well-known that that region is plagued with frequent and terrible coastal flooding. All it takes is a one minute glance at a relief map. Look at the low elevations, proximity to the ocean, and to the Aleutian Low, a prodigious “parent” of storms.
So, historical context matters.
I have decided to emphasize every claim Tom makes that are not science-related:
“Humanity has been challenged with extreme weather long before it developed the internal combustion engine, oil and gas supplies on a large scale, powering the Industrial Revolution (which has improved mankind’s condition in incredible ways).”
“I must also look at critics/skeptics/realists to balance this off, since the IPCC is essentially a multi national political body, with its own agenda.”
“Truth-seeking really demands this – in courts, in dissertations (review of the literature), in published research. The critics play a vital role today, since the truth-seeking enterprise in mainstream science is badly broken.”
“I see some ridiculous claims made at times about extreme weather, usually by a politician, an NGO spokesman, a news organization, and sometimes on this blog.”
So, Tom is mostly a political commentator that pretends not being one, with the usual repertoire of contrarian talking points.
Thomas,
So, Tinkerbell Willard (Willard flits around like Tinkerbell on the internet) is going to throw chaos, distractions and deflections at you because you’re posting things that run counter to his propaganda-his (or her) Marxist utopian agenda. He’s a paid propagandist by the way. Best to ignore him, her, it.
After spending more than a decade ranting on this blog, Troglodyte still can’t press the proper “reply” button.
Donald denies grocery prices are up and then says people will be fine because “their 401ks are up”. Those who live in trailer parks nearby Troglodyte and Tom might have a tougher time consoling themselves with their 401ks, as half of Muricans have no retirement savings.
At all.
Still, it’d be fun to look at Tom’s information ratio over the years. Just to see if his clients were justified in giving him 2 and 20.
Doesn’t matter. Thomas got my message.
Nothing really matters to someone who relies on the Bible belt to remain politically relevant.
Divorces, teen pregnancies, infant deaths. Doesn’t matter to Troglodyte.
Obesity, poverty, smoking, life expectancy don’t matter to Troglodyte.
Homicides don’t matter either.
All that matters is that Troglodyte feels he is sticking it to the Other.
All those things you listed are happening everywhere, not just the Bible belt. But they are especially happening in Democrat run inner city.
Troglodyte might as well wonder why the Confederate states compose the Bible Belt when there are biblical folks elsewhere too.
Fun facts: evangelicals vote the same way he does, and like him they seem to have forgotten the Gospel and how stats work.
The confederates were radical anarchists. They believed that it was OK to enslave a human for his labor. The confederates were Democrats just like today’s Democrats. Democrats also believed it was OK to remove Indians from their ancestral lands and intern Americans of Japanese ancestry without any due process. Amazingly the Democrat elites of the South got the average southern citizen to fight their battles although most southerners did not own slaves. Their enshrined their motto as “states’ rights.” Funny how the Democrats are doing the same thing today with their racism mottos and DEI mottos.
The Confederates hated federal intervention, wanted a minimal gubmint, and to be free to seek capital rents on the back of others. They have succeeded to take the power to wreck the country. They were defeated once, but organized thanks to Troglyte’s most cherished heroes. They started to tilt after Barack’s election. For them it’s a question of survival. Just like troglodytes and Talibans, they are dangerous integrists.
Troglodyte is a far-right extremist.
You’re too obvious Tinkerbell.
Troglodyte seems to forget that for Team Science, minimax is more than enough.
The Democrats in the North also favored slavery. The Civil War was a war between Republicans and Democrats. Lincoln called four northern Democrats the Four Horsemen (of the Apocalypse) of Slavery: James Buchanan, Stephen Douglass, Roger Taney and Franklin Pierce.
Troglodyte hates the GOP from 1956:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1956
He puts all his chips on the massive propaganda by the far-right megaphones he relishes.
Thu 23 Jul 2026 12.06 EDT:
US EPA – August 2016:
Arklady,
All climates change and sadly there are deaths every year due to the weather. To try and make political capital out of it just shows how nasty you are.
Anna for a reason at 10:06 AM:
Looks like you’ve caught the AIDS.
“Most of the state has warmed one-half to one degree (F) in the last century”
0.5 – 1.0F! In a century. Well, that has never happened in the past, has it. These folks are real comedians, except the joke is on us.
I have decided to emphasize every claim Tom makes that are not science-related:
“These folks are real comedians, except the joke is on us.”
One could argue that the incredulity expressed before that Very Serious claim isn’t quite scientific either.
So much blamed on so little,how would a 5c drop in 50 years go down, as happened around 8000bc in northern Europe.
A little in so little time often grows big.
[“0.5 – 1.0F! In a century.”]
Yes, compared with the Arctic and much of Eurasia, warming in West Virginia has been relatively moderate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BtdHC0ix6cEfHbbmAQktTDq6ecZdQo-T/view?usp=sharing
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
MS Now guest said she fears that Trump is going to use the fact that NJ had almost 400 non-citizens vote in the recent election to prove a point that doesn’t exist. The 400 non-citizens who voted don’t exist. Nothing there.
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Louisiana Republicans have eliminated an elected position days before an exoneree who overwhelmingly won the New Orleans-based clerk seat was set to take office.
Guess the skin color of the clerk seat winner, and how many years years he spent behind bars for a crime he did not commit.
The PDO remains negative and high pressure persists over the North Pacific.
A typhoon is hitting southeastern China.
The latest explanation for the heat domes that appear sporadically is something called an omega block. That is a reference to a high pressure region shaped like the Greek letter omega (think of the ohm symbol in Ohm’s Law). The underlying air can no longer rise and is trapped under the dome.
Of course, the trapped air continues to warm, like in a real greenhouse. We had one here in the Vancouver, Canada region a few years back and we experienced temps up to 40C. If you are used to our summer norms like 25C, that kind of heat can become uncomfortable.
There are ijits out there claiming this omega block acts on top of AGW, which is nonsense. The best AGW has been credited for is a 1C warming over 175 years and that is based on pseudo-science. The warming factor in that 1C, according to the Ideal Gas Law, is a measly 0.06C.
I would venture a guess that such blocks are caused by weather phenomena like ENSO, or ENSO working in conjunction with the PDO and AMO, or other oscillations.
Where in PV=nRT is there a term for incoming solar radiation or outgoing infrared radiation?
kinqy…first you need to ask yourself why the IGL would be applied to electromagnetic radiation when it is intended to measure the relationship of pressure, temperature, volume, and mass in a gas, or mixed gases.
I am applying the IGL only to gases in the atmosphere, precisely gases in the lower troposphere. Don’t care about solar EM till it is absorbed by Earth surfaces and converted to heat.
When I claim that CO2 accounts for only 0.06C per 1C rise in temperature of the entire lower troposphere, I am addressing the gases that are the lower troposphere after they have been heated directly by absorbing solar EM or after absorbing heat directly from the surface. I don’t care about radiation from the surface since it does not amount to a hill of beans re warming/cooling.
We do planets and moons surface temperatures comparison.
The presence of atmosphere doesn’t warm Earth’s surface.
It is the other reasons, not the presence of atmosphere, that make Earth warmer than the Moon by +68°C.
Also, the Global Warming is orbitally forced, it doesn’t happen because of fossil fuels burning.
It is all about the Reduced Immediate IR Emission!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
BREAKING: Major goalpost move!
After claiming that the IGL invalidates the greenhouse effect, Gordon Robertson now claims that he only cares about the lower troposphere.
Ark,
That’s kind of a foolish argument. Only a dolt would make that argument. It would be like saying objects float around in space, so it invalidates gravity in space. The chain rule differential that proves the lapse rate is for a hydrostatic column of air behaving as an ideal gas, from the surface all the way to the top of the column, however high that is. In our atmosphere these laws (Ideal Gas Law, Gravity (hydrostatic column of air) are dominant to about 11000 meters. WE CONCEDE, above this radiative heating of the upper atmosphere has a major influence. The lapse rate due to pressure doesn’t go away it is just that its effect diminishes and radiative heating takes over. It isn’t Greenhouse Effect. It is UV heating, very high energy waves, almost as high energy as X rays.
P.S.- By the way, 11000 meters is above the effective emission height for the atmosphere, which appears to be lower at around 5500 meters. This is where IR radiation transmits energy to space. So, the IR radiation isn’t heating the atmosphere, it is cooling it.
So the top surface layer of the fiberglass insulation in my attic emits the heat from my house to the attic in winter.
So would you claim that the top layer COOLS the house?
I’m not saying anything that you don’t already know.
Blocking highs are a not uncommon feature of weather in the eastern U.S. (and the southern portions of eastern Canadian provinces). Probably also connected to movements in the jet streams. I look at synoptic weather maps every morning. It seems like they involve the semi-permanent Bermuda high. Anyway, any other systems get stacked up in a holding pattern for a number of days. That can mean Lows and rising, unstable air or highs and falling, stable air to the east of the blocking high. Blocking highs come up every now and then in National Weather Service forecast discussions.
When I was involved in environmental research many decades ago, we planned our data collection (indirect measurement of particulates) for such periods because the particulate concentrations would build up under the “dome” (we didn’t use that term) day by day. These are also periods when ground level ozone levels are the most unhealthy for the same reasons. Particulates are more persistent because they stay in the air longer, while ozone needs direct sunlight, so those levels go down at night (but not their precursors – NOX and volatile organic compounds, so when the sun comes up the next day, ozone levels rise once again).
BTW, the U.S. has made incredible progress in reducing our 7 “criteria” pollutants over those 50+ years.
The Obama administration (with the aid of a less conservative Supreme Court than this one) managed to literally rewrite US law to make CO2 – a gas that is essential to all life on earth – a pollutant. Making it our 8th pollutant. Hopefully, we will get that changed. In any event, our technological breakthroughs in mining for oil and gas have allowed us to replace a lot of our coal burning with natural gas, which burns much cleaner and cheaper. I don’t believe our GHG production has gone up in many years. So, if you are of the belief that CO2 increases are very dangerous, you should thank the good old USA (and our current energy secretary) for providing this CHEAP gift to the world. When you drill for oil (as we have stepped up this year) you will get nat gas as a bi-product. We have so much natural gas right now in west Texas (Persian basin) that it has a NEGATIVE price. Producers either must pay other companies to take it at the well head or they burn it off! (There are limits as to how much of that they can do). California has European style environmental laws and outlooks. All fossil fuels are bad and to be avoided. So, instead of building a pipeline from West Texas (where they are GIVING nat gas away) to California, they close refineries, forbid offshore drilling, and suffer from some of the highest energy costs in the U.S. (still way less than Europe).
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This El Niño is set to be the largest on record by a ‘mind-blowing margin’
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02293-y
You might get a job for the IPCC, they enjoy pushing worse case scenarios. guessing is fools game.
You should get yourself a Twitter account, Ian. Elon’s has become Radio Rwanda.
Summer is coming to an end at the North Pole.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_2026.png
At 80°N latitude in the high Arctic, summer effectively ends in late August or mid-September, depending on whether you use the calendar definition or real polar weather changes.
Eastern China will see a massive amount of rainfall.
Solar energy is absorbed by oceans.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Changes in Earth’s magnetic field and solar activity are the cause of climate anomalies that may become apparent in the coming years.
The latest Swarm results highlight the dynamic nature of Earth’s magnetism. For example, in the southern hemisphere there is one point where the magnetic field is particularly strong, and in the northern hemisphere there are two—one around Canada and the other around Siberia.
“When you’re trying to understand Earth’s magnetic field, it’s important to remember that it’s not just a simple dipole, like a bar magnet. It’s only by having satellites like Swarm that we can fully map this structure and see it changing,” said Prof. Finlay.
However, since Swarm has been in orbit, the magnetic field over Siberia has strengthened, while it has weakened over Canada. The strong-field region over Canada has shrunk by 0.65% of Earth’s surface area—an area nearly the size of India—while the region over Siberia has grown by 0.42% of Earth’s surface area, an area comparable to the size of Greenland.
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_growing_weak_spot_in_Earth_s_magnetic_field
During the current solar cycle, the level of galactic radiation has dropped significantly. Is this related to the decrease in global cloud cover? It is known that air ionization increases the number of water vapor condensation nuclei, which are essential for cloud formation. It is important to remember that secondary galactic radiation reaches the Earth’s surface, particularly at high latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/xqkqFF9f/onlinequery.gif
Do the Milankovitch cycles work?
The project used observations by NASA and DLR’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) mission. By 2016, the satellite’s data began to reveal a slowdown in net ice loss.
According to the study’s lead author, Marlen Kolbe, this slowdown switched to a net gain at a rate of roughly 68 gigatonnes per year, between 2020 and 2024. As of late 2025, there is no clear indication of a return to net mass loss, though whether the trend will continue or level off remains unclear and will also depend on changes in dynamical discharge.
“What makes this remarkable is that the ice sheet isn’t losing less ice – it’s actually losing more. Ice discharge by iceberg calving has increased by nearly 100 gigatonnes per year compared to the previous two decades. The snowfall surge has simply outpaced it – for now,” explained Marlen.
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/Space_for_our_climate/Why_is_Antarctica_s_mass_increasing
From the linked ESA article:
1/ Antarctica has experienced a net gain in ice-sheet mass since about 2020.
2/ The principal reason is exceptionally heavy snowfall, especially over parts of East Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, linked primarily to:
2a/ More frequent and more intense atmospheric rivers.
2b/ Stronger westerly winds that help deliver this moisture.
2c/ A warmer atmosphere that can hold approximately 7% more water vapor per degree C of warming (the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship), allowing larger snowfall events.
2d/ Reduced sea ice contributes somewhat by increasing evaporation.
3/ The ice sheet is actually losing more ice through glaciers and iceberg calving, but the additional snowfall currently outweighs those losses.
Key takeaway: The same warming climate that is increasing snowfall is also accelerating ice discharge. Antarctica is presently in a transient, finely balanced state, and there is no evidence yet that the recent gains represent a permanent reversal of the longer-term trend.
” … and there is no evidence yet that the recent gains represent a permanent reversal of the longer-term trend. ”
Longer-term trend ??? Are you serious?
Antarctic’s sea ice extent from HadISST1 ICE and NSIDC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H2vjQnA0wlA9X6MBE2bO9etnGlHx8zyf/view
For me, the longer-term trend for Antarctica’s sea ice extent does not start by magic in 2015
HadISST1 ICE: -0.76 ± 0.23 (Mkm² / decade)
NSIDC: -1.17 ± 0.17
but… in 1979 the latest:
HadISST1 ICE: 0.10 ± 0.02
NSIDC: -0.08 ± 0.02
I’m serious as a heat attack. Are YOU serious?
The ESA article concerns Antarctica’s land ice mass (the ice sheet), measured by the GRACE gravity satellites since 2002. Your graph shows sea ice extent, which is the area of floating ocean ice.
They are not interchangeable.
Further, no one claimed the trend starts in 2015. This is a straw man.
So, answer me this: do you agree that Antarctic sea ice extent and Antarctic ice-sheet mass are different physical quantities measured by different instruments? If so, how does a sea-ice trend invalidate a GRACE measurement of ice-sheet mass?
Oh apologies… It’s about the ice sheet :–(
I saw my dumb mistake long before you posted your last comment.
We all write sometimes quicker than we read, don’t we?
No worries. I appreciate your taking the time to acknowledge it.
My goal isn’t to score points but to better understand the science, and I welcome objective fact-checking including of my own comments. If I’ve overlooked something or misstated the evidence, I’d much rather have it corrected than repeated.
That’s how these discussions become useful for everyone.
An old mistaken narrative: Earth is warmer than our Moon because of the presence of atmosphere.
When putting more CO2 Earth becomes warmer.
It cannot be the atmosphere. Atmosphere would require a very precise temperature tunning!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
About the Oulu Neutron Count
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Galactic neutrons are of course not blocked by weather clouds.
Water vapor and condensed droplets in the sky have an insignificant effect on high-energy, fast-moving neutrons.
Some info:
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/ICRC_NMdb.pdf
*
From other sources:
” The Oulu Cosmic Ray Station measures secondary neutron counts created by galactic cosmic rays entering Earth’s atmosphere.
The neutron count is inversely related to the sunspot number (and similar measurements like the radio solar flux at 10.7 cm or the Bremen MgII Index).
When the sunspot number is high (solar maximum), increased solar wind and magnetic fields block cosmic rays, causing neutron counts to drop.
Conversely, when sunspot numbers are low (solar minimum), the sun’s magnetic shield weakens. More galactic cosmic rays reach Earth, causing the recorded neutron count at Oulu to peak. ”
*
Here is a graph comparing the Finnish Oulu Neutron Count to the Belgian SILSO Sun Spot Number (SSN) from 1979 till now:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-xATDPu2uq0-KJpwZyUwIPedlFNAaIJF/view
During this period, SSN fluctuated between 0 and 284.5; that of Oulu NC between 4879 and 6844. To make a visual comparison meaningful, the two series were placed on an equal footing, by displaying them relative to their means and downscaling Oulu NC.
*
There is an apparent lag netween SSN and NC.
” Changes in cosmic ray intensity and neutron counts typically lag behind sunspot activity variations by several months (around 6 to 12 months) because solar wind takes time to propagate through the heliosphere. “
BACK AT THE RANCH
The US has hit a 35-year high in measles cases, according to new figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36dw75dkw5o
No one of all these pseudoskeptics infesting the blog would ever believe what BBC writes.
What about FOX News?
https://www.foxnews.com/health/measles-surge-hits-new-milestone-us-cases-surpass-last-years-total
In the old days, it was liberal nut cases who wanted to “go natural” that had the highest rates of vaccine resistance. Keep in mind that Steve Jobs died from a curable pancreas cancer because he wanted to take natural cures that did not work.
COVID changed everything because the vaccine was oversold as a complete prevention. Now it is paranoid people who are vaccine resistant. Because COVID originated as a weaponized lab experiment, the original variant was very potent. Despite all of the hype, no zoonotic route has been identified. Neither SARS-CoV-1 nor MERS ever became efficient at human to human transmission. SARS-CoV-2 was instantly highly efficient. It had already been “trained” in the lab.
The vaccine is useful, but only marginally. I know someone who got COVID last summer just 2 months after a booster. It probably helped to make it less severe, but clearly it is not a cure or complete prevention. It is the same for the FLU shot. I still get mine, but clinical evidence shows it is only marginally useful.
Some all-time-better-knowers seem to have robertsonian difficulties to accurately read documents.
” To achieve herd immunity, which limits the spread of measles and protects the unvaccinated, around 95% of the population must have the shots. ”
This is valid for all vaccines.
” But vaccination rates have dipped far below that in some areas. ”
And that is the real problem in the US.
We have it in Germany too, but to a much lesser extent (most of them located in the far right wing AfD supporting population).
Speaking of contagion:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.70067
One reason why our Ivy Leaguer and contrarians won’t even bring their A-game is because they don’t have to: truthiness spreads more easily than truthfulness.
And in other news:
https://familyfarmlivestock.com/herding-sheep-on-foot-guidance-for-the-first-time-flock-owner/
At least that’s better than Covid contrarian crap. I know someone who had to deal with Covid contrarian crap:
https://ourworldindata.org/key-charts-understand-covid-pandemic
Contrarian crap is the main reason why we have measles right now.
So somehow Bindidumb is equating the rise in measle cases with GHT skeptics, who happen to be right. Not sure the analogy.
It’s as if Donald’s officials were spying on our cranks:
WELKER: Is Murica backing away from a larger attack because our stockpile has been depleted?
WALTZ: We have to take a step back. A lot of our stockpiles were depleted because of Biden.
WELKER: But you acknowledge they’re depleted?
WALTZ: No. And the people leaking this nonsense deserve to be in jail.
Vaccine denial and climate change denial share a common feature, the triumph of belief over evidence.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1189939229/covid-deaths-democrats-republicans-gap-study
This is interesting. More Republicans than Democrats died of Covid-19.
I wonder why.
Stephen p anderson
Bindidon just knows that fanatics like you, who no longer posses rational scientific mind. GHE is well established physics. Your inability to understand it and to accept speculations from contrarians like Edwin X Berry and some clowns in the forestry industry who write BS papers to con extremely gullible people like you, he can see how you would believe the likes of a Lanka (as Gordon Robertson blinly does, maybe Gordon can wxplain the cause of the current Measles outbreak since he does not accept a virus is the cause). You posted that the researchers in SURFRAD could be manipulating data even though the IR values follow SB Law. You think good scientists are deceptive but believe every lie your President tells you!! You are also okay with him enriching himself using his Presidential powers. You are such a right-wing loon that you have lost your moral compass. In your world a lying leader that is totally corrupt is graet and awesome but honest hard working scientists are bad!! Wow yhat is one messed up brain you have!!
No, always wrong Ent, the triumph of math over propaganda.
Propaganda happens when Troglodyte pretends to be doing math when he’s just paying lip service to it.
Team Science moves on:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617
Trying to present “43% higher” as marginal is propaganda too.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1189939229/covid-deaths-democrats-republicans-gap-study
This is interesting. More Republicans than Democrats died of Covid-19.
I wonder why.
Dimwit. I thought you were a science teacher. Figure it out.
Propaganda happens when Troglodyte pretends to be doing math when he’s just paying lip service to it.
Team Science moves on:
Between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, there were 538 159 individuals in Ohio and Florida who died at age 25 years or older in the study sample. The median age at death was 78 years (IQR, 71-89 years). Overall, the excess death rate for Republican voters was 2.8 percentage points, or 15%, higher than the excess death rate for Democratic voters (95% prediction interval [PI], 1.6-3.7 percentage points). After May 1, 2021, when vaccines were available to all adults, the excess death rate gap between Republican and Democratic voters widened from −0.9 percentage point (95% PI, −2.5 to 0.3 percentage points) to 7.7 percentage points (95% PI, 6.0-9.3 percentage points) in the adjusted analysis; the excess death rate among Republican voters was 43% higher than the excess death rate among Democratic voters. The gap in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters was larger in counties with lower vaccination rates and was primarily noted in voters residing in Ohio.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617
Trying to present “43% higher” as marginal is propaganda too.
Now we have another dimwit repeating propaganda.
Stephen
“Dimwit. I thought you were a science teacher. Figure it out.”
I already have.
Republicans show two thought patterns.
“Nobody tells me what to do!” is a typical ssentiment on the right. Too many Republicans refused to wear masks just because they thought that they were being told to. This increased the rate of spread in Republican communities, hence more infections and more deaths.
Republicans tend to distrust science and scientific advice. Hence they tended to doubt the existence of Covid and ignore the advice on how to deal with it, including vaccination. Once again, a behaviour pattern which increased infection rates and death rates.
Propaganda isn’t science. Try again.
Stephen
The behaviour of Covid-19 during the epidemic and the responses designed to minimise its effects were not unique.
Most of it was standard epidemiology, straight out of the biomedical science postgrad I did after leaving teaching.
Should I add epidemiology to the list of sciences that you know nothing about?
This “paper” is the kind of trash the panic produced. I remember one story of a guy killed in a motorcycle listed as a Covid death!
It wasn’t standard epidemiology. But that is not the glaring problem with your link. Try again.
That our cranks evoke the most regressive rants on this blog while dismissing vaccine efficacy can only be a coincidence:
https://goodauthority.org/news/vaccines-gop-republicans-vaccine-hesitancy/
As I tried to explain, the current vaccine hesitancy can easily be blamed on the lies and absurd statements from the COVID era.
The list is long. They were guessing, but they should have made that clear:
Six feet to stop the spread. Reality: The virus is spread by aerosols.
Don’t wear a mask. Reality: some masks work very well, but before they admitted the virus was spreading human to human, China secured every purchase contract for not just masks, but all PPE they could find. There was an acute shortage for healthcare workers. They needed every single mask they could find.
Wear a mask. Reality: The only available masks were not effective against aerosols. Cloth masks do work at all.
Two weeks to stop the spread. Reality: This was just a dumb statement.
The vaccine will protect you from the virus. Reality: The vaccine made people really sick with side effects versus some people who had only mild cases of the actual virus. Vaccinated people got sick anyway. The vaccine was not a cure. It did reduce hospital overcrowding — especially for seniors — but it was not sold that way.
The virus is completely consistent with coming from nature. Reality: Fauci knew that was a lie when he said it on live TV at a Presidential press conference. He knew the lab was doing gain of function, and he was exchanging emails with various people of great concern about that. In his defense, Trump was talking like a fool about the “Kung Flu”.
There is a lot more. Those are the big ones off the top of my head.
@Tim S
“Wear a mask. Reality: The only available masks were not effective against aerosols. Cloth masks do work at all.”
I assume that is meant to be read as “don’t work at all”?
They did a (very cute) experiment with hamsters infected with COVID wearing surgical masks or nothing and could show that even surgical masks prevented infection to a very significant degree.
What is often overlooked in the debate is that aerosols and smaller liquid particles are not behaving like dust when it comes to pore size as they are absorbed by hydrophilic cloth/cotton on contact.
They actually need to cross the fabric without touching it if it is not saturated.
Our Ivy Leaguer did not try to explain anything. He simply wanted to deflect to his pet topic, i.e. lab leak. Intriguingly, such modern conspiracy theories started with measles:
https://www.cma.ca/healthcare-for-real/what-fuels-vaccine-hesitancy
Infodemics happen when Ivy League bros promote conspiracy theories.
Willard is displaying the Dunning-Kruger effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–93Kruger_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Sorry, but I was not sure which way would work.
The fact remains that rational young people will take a risk that being infected by the real virus could be less traumatic than taking a vaccine that is certain to have bad side effects.
More to the point, the zoonotic route does not exist for COVID without the crossover animal. To date, it is therefore impossible for the zoonotic route to exist. SARS-CoV-2 does not exist in nature.
For example, the recent bird flu was infecting cattle, and dairy workers were getting sick from the cows. There was a concern that those workers could reinfect the cows. Then those cows could reinfect the workers with a more potent strain that might then become transmissible human to human.
That is how viruses develop. It is the back and forth that creates the genetic modification. With gain of function, all of that happens right there in the lab. The first infection is highly potent because it has been trained. Is nobody curious why the Chinese refused to allow the inspectors into the lab beyond the lobby? With a wink of humor they claimed that the lobby was
> More to the point,
Our Ivy Leaguer once again tries to peddle his pet conspiracy, now as being “the point”. The point was rather that the US has hit a 35-year high in measles cases. Franz Luntz has a simple explanation as to why troglodytes couldn’t even listen to teh Donald himself:
https://www.newsweek.com/pollster-frank-luntz-says-vaccine-hesitancy-among-gop-has-transformed-opposition-1612543
They’re contrarians, just like our Ivy Leaguer. At least he tried to post a link.
Let’s be clear. The “conspiracy theory” was that gain of function is not real. How many times was that played out. It almost worked. I think there is an honest scientist in Australia who spilled the beans. Gain of function was well known to exist, but nobody wanted to be the one to divulge the secret because it explained the lab leak that was “not genetically engineered”. Remember that one?
This is so much fun and so revealing. This is the face of climate change doing what these people do. Someone who knows nothing at all about the science, but repeats political talking points in defense of the political science.
The common theme in all this is you must trust us, we’re science. If you don’t then you’re a denier.
Our Ivy leaguer opposes everything, including how time works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._federal_government_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic
Give troglodytes a fish and they’ll eat for a day. Them them to fish and they’ll steal your rod, take your wallet, assault the fish, and then blame Captain Joe…
Massive illegal immigration is to blame. Until the 1880s the US did not prohibit in any way immigration into the US, but we did not have “open borders.” I believe we prohibited Chinese immigration into the 1880s, on a racist basis (BTW, many European countries had similar racist attitudes towards many people groups at the time). Those policies continued until the 1920s. Immigration was quite massive as many Europeans fled their home countries seeking (and most of them finding) the American Dream. It has been estimated that as many as 40% of all Americans are related to someone processed at Ellis Island. They all had to go through a quarantine to make sure that they weren’t carrying disease. Ellis Island in New York City, by the Statue of Liberty, was the main station. Angel Island (a beautiful place) in San Francisco Bay was used on the west coast. Until Trump, the idiots in charge just let them in. Bringing all manner of desease with them. Most of them were voluntarily detained because they knew they would be released into the country (maybe even transported all over the country at taxpayer expense). None of these almost 100% unvaccinated people were even offered vaccination. Stupid. Or devious?
I have decided to emphasize every claim Tom makes that are not science-related:
Massive illegal immigration….
Until the 1880s the US did not prohibit in any way immigration…
I believe we prohibited Chinese immigration…
Immigration was quite massive…
It has been estimated….
They all had to go through a quarantine…
Ellis Island in New York City, by the Statue of Liberty…
Until Dirty Donald, the idiots in charge…
Most of them were voluntarily detained…
None of these almost 100%…
Stupid.
Or devious?
The cult kids are back on the immunizations kick. Only this time it’s measles. We’ve been all through the immunization science, back with Covid, but the kids haven’t learned a thing.
Immunizations only do what would happen naturally. They introduce the body to a small sampling of the pathogen, hoping to trigger the creation of antibodies. So, if the vaccine is safe, there’s nothing unhealthy about getting it. But, if your immune system is healthy, you don’t need it. It should be a personal choice.
My wife and I decided not to get the Covid shot. But all of my friends and immediate family got some form, either the mRNA, or the J&J. Only one of them died, but I don’t know if it was from the vaccine or not. I’m too considerate to ask his family.
The most important thing is to take care of your immune system. A healthy immune system can handle any pathogen that comes along.
That is a layman’s misinterpretation of how the immune system works and what the benefit of a vaccine over getting infected is.
The immune system chops up the infectious, replicating pathogen and raises antibodies only against these randomly generated pieces.
A vaccine has two benefits: 1st, it does not replicate, so is not infectious not being able to spread to other people or make you severely sick and 2nd it is not randomly composed but formulated in a way that the immune response should work and not fail.
It is just utterly stupid to question the measles vaccine as this is practically the safest vaccine on the market and generating real steril immunization what most vaccines do not.
And btw, the measles vaccine IS still living virus, just weakened, so that you don’t get sick getting it.
“So, if the vaccine is safe, there’s nothing unhealthy about getting it.”
“But, if your immune system is healthy, you don’t need it.”
That is a misguiding following sentence. The risk with a well established vaccine is lower than with the pathogen.
“It should be a personal choice.”
With measles’ R of 12-18, from a population health perspective, that would be catastrophic.
I wish nobody to witness a child that suffers from measles induced encephalitis. Occurrence is 1:1000.
Pneumonia is even 1:10.
Vaccination is probably responsible for 40% of the observed decline in infant mortality over the last 50 years worldwide.
“But, if your immune system is healthy, you don’t need it.”
@Clint R
That is dangerous misinformation and oversimplification of how infections and immunology work.
You can get sick even with a complete intact immune system.
Part of it is the amount of virus you are exposed to at once.
“My wife and I decided not to get the Covid shot”
Maybe that explains the obvious brain rot.
“Covid vaccine had the worst side effects in history of vaccines.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXG_9Wm_dOE
“there is no significant association of COVID-19 vaccination with the rate of hospital encounters for cardiac disease, including acute coronary syndrome, pericarditis, myocarditis, congestive heart failure, and conduction abnormality”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8881227/
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
After Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona, Colorado.
Widepread 100s and even 110s between Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota. All time records include high elevated Colorado stations:
106 Raymer
102 Trinidad
https://bsky.app/profile/extremetemps.bsky.social/post/3mrlewkn45c2u
El Nino should be fun!
I realise that you are a Republican, which makes it difficult to see your own mind and your own people from outside.
I look at the US from the outside and the difference between the two sides in American culture is more apparant.
Republicans are often referred to as conservative. They try to conserve their existing beliefs, culture and lifestyle and avoid change until it is forced upon them.
Changes such as epidemics or climate change are a threat. Since conservatives are not flexible they tend to respond to a crisis by denying its existence and rejecting the evidence until disaster is upon them. You can see this in the Republican response to Covid, and the price in higher death rates.
Democrats are referred to as progressive. They see change, hopefully improvement, as a normal part of life. This gives them a certain flexibility and allows them to accept evidence for such processes as climate change.,
It also made it easier to accept the existence of Covid-19 and the advice from the epidemiologists on how to minimise the damage. Changing their behaviour was acceptable rather than anathema and it resulted in fewer extra deaths in Democrat communities when compared to Republican communities.
Ent,
It is a good thing for both of us that math isn’t political. Two differential equations falsify GHT.
In your dreams.
The forest in Canada is burning, and the smoke is a big problem for both Canadians and Americans as it makes its way across their country and into ours. Our president has blamed Canada for mismanaging their forests and threatens to hold them responsible, but the truth is:
It’s Climate Change You Idiot
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2026/07/21/canada-wildfire/
Eldro must believe there were no forest fires before he was born?
Kids these days….
You need to stop downplaying the severity of human-caused climate change.
Eldro,
I’m sure they need volunteers up there. Tinkerbell and Gordo would surely appreciate you pitching in. You could give us a weekly update.
The climate changes,always has and always will.the present recovery began thousands of years ago,and would have been much warmer but for a handful of cool periods which interrupted the ice age recovery,do you not find it a little ironic that as we clean the atmosphere the warming continues on its merry way,trillions wasted with no result,now that is denial.
What does the IPCCs AR-6 conclude about wildfires?
“Anthropogenic climate change has led to warmer and drier conditions (i.e., fire weather) that favour wildland fires in North America (high confidence) (see AR6, WGI, Chapter 12, Ranasinghe et al., 2021). In response, increased burned area in recent decades in western North America has been facilitated by anthropogenic climate change (medium confidence). Annual numbers of large wildland fires and area burned have risen in the past several decades in the western USA (USGCRP, 2017; USGCRP, 2018), and area burned has increased in Canada (although the number of large fires has declined slightly recently) (Gauthier et al., 2014; Natural Resources Canada, 2018; Hanes et al., 2019). Attribution studies have reported that climate change increased burned area in Canada (1959–1999) (Gillett et al., 2004) as well as the western USA (1984–2015) (Abatzoglou and Williams, 2016) and California (1972–2018) (Williams et al., 2019a).”
p.1948
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter14.pdf
“Anthropogenic climate change” is a belief. Beliefs ain’t science. You would need to show how CO2’s 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface, to make it science. You can’t do that.
As to forest fires, there are 3 causes–Carelessness, Arson, and Lightning. Carelessness has been reduced due to Smokey-the-Bear. Arson is increasing due to Leftism. Lightning is ongoing.
At one time the US Forest Service maintained 24/7 observation towers to quickly locate new fires. Often, cleared “fire breaks” were established. The effort was to contain fires, reducing area burned. Then the policy changed to “let it burn”, increasing burned acreage.
The greenhouse effect is not that CO2 photons heat the surface directly. That is a regular straw man of yours.
Smokey Bear was a United States campaign that began in the 1940s. It does not account for Canadian wildfire trends. The fact that both countries, with different forest management policies, have experienced increases in burned area suggests that a common driver, such as climate change, is also contributing.
And Smokey Bear era fire suppression actually had unintended ecological consequences. Decades of suppressing naturally occurring low intensity fires allowed forests to become denser and fuels to accumulate. Indigenous cultural burning, by contrast, helped reduce fuel loads and maintain healthier forest ecosystems.
And those unintended consequences were not some historical accident in isolation. The United States seized Indigenous land, displaced the people who had managed those ecosystems for generations, and replaced those practices with an extractive approach that prioritized short term economic gain over long term ecological stewardship.
A lot of the problems we’re dealing with today are downstream of that history.
Despite all of this, we are still told capitalism is the pinnacle of economics.
Eldro, have you ever counted all of the different ways you try to evade providing a simple viable definition of your bogus CO2 nonsense?
Of course you haven’t. That would be too close to reality for you.
All you’re interested in is perverting society.
Eldrosion,
Fires in France have now burned over 91,000 acres, by far the most of any year since the satellite record started in 2006. Current area burned is about 34x larger than this date in a typical (median) year.
https://bsky.app/profile/zekehausfather.com/post/3mroiptkbmw2m
People in France are describing the wildfires as “apocalyptic” and “otherworldly.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/28/ash-fell-from-the-sky-tourists-describe-fleeing-apocalyptic-wildfires-in-france
But don’t worry, I’m sure it’s all worth it if another fossil fuel executive can make a few more million.
Ash falling from the sky? Entire regions burning? Tiny price to pay for quarterly profits, apparently.
Who needs a habitable planet anyway?
/s
Eldro,
Run up to Canada and put those fires out then head over to France and help them out. That’s your life’s mission.
Dullard,
Yet on BBC radio 4 this morning they were interviewing a French man, who complained that since the last major set of fire a few years back the government had done nothing to limit the spread. No new policies, no fire planes, no maintained fire breaks etc. The French are socialists and spend a lot of other people’s money on not doing what the suppose to.
Why is it so difficult for the socialists to understand that maintenance and planning would be effective in limiting the spread. It appears to me that drag queen your in France is more important to saving lives.
Eldrosion,
In Spain fires are currently running second highest for this point in the year at 8x the area burned in a typical year, but are still well below the record for annual area burned set just last year (2025):
https://bsky.app/profile/zekehausfather.com/post/3mroiptkbmw2m
No.
The planet is dying and there is nothing we can do about it…
…except laugh at deniers who believe AGW has been “debunked” because they found a convenient talking point, a cherry-picked graph from some obscure source, or a blogger convinced they’ve disproven the scientific consensus.
Willard
Weird how climate deniers like A Song for a Reason reject the simple chain: reduced snowpack → drier vegetation → more flammable fuels.
Eldrosion,
Not surprised you call me a climate denier, same daft comment from Bindy Goebells & Dullard
I don’t deny climate change that naturally occurs, nor do I deny many aspects of mans influences on the environment or on the temperature record. Yet you three tend to distort the English language to Orwellian double speak accusing others of what you are guilty of.
You mistake weather for climate.
Where the IPCC says there is low confidence you three with your faux morals turn low confidence into stel clad proof.
Eldrosion,
Q-Anon doesn’t deny climate, so he can’t be a climate denier.
Our cranks are very cunning linguists.
You might like:
https://bsky.app/profile/beetlemoses.bsky.social/post/3mnzww2bzy22y
norman…to stephen…
“Bindidon just knows that fanatics like you, who no longer posses rational scientific mind. GHE is well established physics”.
***
Norman…I have been waiting years for you and other alarmists to prove, using hard science, that the GHE exists never mind being well established science. It is certainly well-established consensus, even rhetoric, but there is no scientific proof that a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause significant warming of the atmosphere.
Even your authority figure, the IPCC, is unable to supply such scientific proof. All they offer is likelihoods that their pet theory is correct.
———
“…he can see how you would believe the likes of a Lanka (as Gordon Robertson blinly does, maybe Gordon can wxplain the cause of the current Measles outbreak since he does not accept a virus is the cause)”.
***
No one can explain the current measles outbreak simply because no virus has been discovered that has been proved to cause measles. Lanka has never claimed that measles, as a disease, does not exist, he has only ever claimed, and proved to the satisfaction of a German higher court, that the paper claiming to have discovered a measles virus is fraught with error.
I have never claimed that measles does not exists as a disease. I lack the expertise to argue against the existence of a virus causing measles but the explanation offered by Lanka makes good sense to me. For the same reason, lack of experience, I can argue for or against the claims of Lanka re vaccinations.
It appears, based on your bitterness toward Lanka, that you do have an understanding of viruses that he lacks. He discovered the first virus in the ocean and based on his experience with viral technology he cannot understand how viruses got their evil reputation.
Until 1950 or so, when the DNA molecule was discovered, the jury was out on viruses in general. In 1935, a scientist commented that viral infection seems to contradict the Koch hypothesis for identifying the cause of a viral illness. That all changed in the 1950s as scientists, emboldened by DNA theory, began speculating wildly on the genome of a virus based on the brand new science of retrovirology.
Retrovirology has literally rewritten the rules around identifying a virus with scientific proofs being thrown out the window. Just as in climate science, consensus and speculation have replaced hard sciences where concrete evidence is required to claim a virus.
Circa 1970, when retrovirology was in its infancy, a pioneer in the field warned that RNA should not be used as the marker of a virus. His reasoning was sound: RNA is found everywhere in the human genome and it is most definitely produced by dying cells that likely came from the disease being investigated. So, what did Montagnier and his team do, after being unable to see HIV on an eletrcon microscope, he took a sample of RNA from a person with AIDS, and used that RNA to infer a virus?
Sorry, Norman, you seem unable to do sciencific thinking at a deep enough level to understand any of this. Hence, you become frustrated and strike out blindly at excellent scientists like Lanka.
Gordon Robertson
Being an ignorant Contrarian is one thing. How do you justify your blatant lying and deception?? I have read the ruling! The lower German Court awarded the money
An appeals Court let the slimy corrupt Lanka off the hook by claiming in his stupid challenge you needed to provide one source proving measles exist. The guy provided 6 and the appeals court said it had to be proven in one. It was a Lanka BS technicality!! The Court NEVER agreed Measles Virus did not exist!! That you keep claiming this demonstrates you are intentionally deceptive!! Why are you like this? What benefit is it to you to lie about this point???
Anyway i have seen multiple Electron Microscope images of the Measles Virus! Lanka is an aweful human and I think Bindidon is right that your character is as bad as Lanka you are intentionally dishonest!!
ent…”Vaccine denial and climate change denial share a common feature, the triumph of belief over evidence”.
***
To illustrate the folly of the current vaccine blind-belief system that also applies to the HIV/AIDS hysteria, please consider the following…
Circa 1915 there was a serious pellagra outbreak in the southern US. A representative from Washington, Goldberger, was sent to investigate, and he almost immediately identified the problem as diet related. Of course, his idea was treated with scorn while the pundits searched with futility for a ‘germ’ cause. No one identified the real issue, a B-vitamin deficiency, since no one knew much about vitamins in 1915 and how they worked.
Turned out the issue was related to the use of corn products which lacks a decent compliment of certain amino acids, in this case vitamin B3. The same is true in sub-Saharan Africa where a disease called wasting syndrome prevails due to the lack of nutrition. The WHO, not the rock group, but the health propagandists, anointed the cause of wasting syndrome as HIV, to prove their lame theory that deaths from wasting syndrome were due to the spread of HIV by heterosexuals.
The cause of wasting syndrome had already been related to malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and infection like malaria.
Meantime, a few years earlier, circa 1910, the US suffered the most polio deaths ever due to a serious polio outbreak. It cleared up on its own eventually, and came and went several times before the 1950s when the polio vaccine was introduced. The fact is, several polio epidemics came and went by their own accord, yet when Salk introduced his vaccine in the 1950s, it was claimed as the sole reason polio was brought under control.
The problem I have with all this certainty re vaccines is the willingness to ignore the blatant fact that the entire western world cleaned up its sanitation and diet in a major way following WW II. In the UK alone, housing schemes were built by the government, a socialist government, that introduced internal bathroom facilities in housing schemes for the first time ever in the UK.
Since the beginning of the 20th century when disease was rampant throughout the planet, we have made major strides with medicine and healthy living conditions.
I have never been vaccinated against polio but I have always enjoyed a strong and healthy immune system.
I do not subscribe to the notion that vaccines are useless simply because I don’t know. I do think that children, especially infants, are introduced to vaccination far too early and unnecessarily. I do think that the theory relating vaccines to childhood issues like autism has merit and should be investigated scientifically.
Gordon Robertson:
Since you appear to have run out of excuses, I’ll leave one final observation for anyone who may read this thread in the future.
Throughout, you have repeatedly asserted that the IGL limits the warming influence of CO2 to only 0.06°C per 1°C rise in atmospheric temperature, and that radiative transfer is merely a “minor player.”
Despite numerous opportunities, no demonstration has been given of how an equation of state containing no spectroscopy, no absorption coefficients, no emissivities, no radiative transfer equation, and no mechanism by which electromagnetic radiation interacts with matter can impose this quantitative limit.
Instead of addressing how trace amounts of ozone can contribute to the rise in stratospheric temperatures of roughly 50 K, you moved the goalposts by claiming that you only care about the lower troposphere.
Well, that dog won’t hunt either. In the lowest layer of the atmosphere, it is not uncommon to see surface-based temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the air immediately above it, raising the simple physical question:
How did the ground become colder than the air above it?
It wasn’t conduction. It wasn’t convection. The only mechanism capable of initiating the cooling is net IR radiative loss from the surface. The ground emits more IR radiation than it receives, cools first, and only then cools the adjacent air by conduction, producing the inversion observed in the soundings published NOAA.
Nature performs this experiment every clear, calm night. The IGL is unchanged. Gravity is unchanged. Atmospheric composition is essentially unchanged. The principal change is the radiative boundary condition.
Nocturnal surface inversions is a classic example of radiative cooling of the Earth’s surface.
You may run away from facts, but nature’s inconvenient truths prove you wrong at every turn.
https://ibb.co/LD02T7FW
This sounding, OTX 29 July 2026 at 0600 UTC (11:00 PM PDT on July 28), for Spokane, Washington is a strong example of nocturnal radiative cooling.
The first thing that stands out is the red temperature trace in the lowest part of the sounding.
Instead of decreasing with height, the temperature increases with height through roughly the lowest 50-100 hPa (approximately the lowest 500-1000 m). This is a classic radiation inversion.
The atmosphere is therefore statically stable, not convectively mixed.
Conduction cannot explain the inversion. The ground is colder than the air immediately above it therefore, conduction is from the warmer air to the colder ground and acts to destroy the inversion, not create it.
Convection is even less plausible. The inversion suppresses buoyancy and vertical mixing so that convection is virtually shut down. Yet the surface continues cooling.
The IGL predicts none of this.
I was wondering where George Martin got that from. Got the rest of it mostly from Tolkien. No originality anymore.
Yet the records show no increase in the burning of biomass,some of the fires in the UK are small compared with the past,the first documented report on UK wildfires I can find,is from 1078, parish records recorded fires all over England with many towns, villages and homesteads raised to the ground,the year was said to be hellish hot with no rain until late Autumn.over the centuries the cultivation and pasteurization of land, along with controlled burning of uplands and forest management had reduced fire damage to property from wild fires to almost zero, but now I fear, with a government pushing a re wilding program and forest clearance in decline ticking time bomb is waiting to explode.
The American Indians cleared the land with controlled burns. Many Spanish explorers and European settlers chronicled how the Indians did controlled burns to manage the forests, but the stupid Europeans stopped them because they didn’t understand the benefits. I think the stupid European descendants reside in Canada and California.
Hmm. In the 2021 IPCC Climate Assessmemt Report, Table 12.12 states “evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to low confidence of an emerging signal” with fire weather.
Predictions about fire “weather” are not the same as actual fires. A lot of other factors come into play. The number of acres of US forest area burned is far lower than during our last period of warming -1920s – 1940s. It has been modestly increasing since the late 99s, as you would expect. But nothing like that earlier period. Interesting that Ark excluded Table 12.2, which deals with the entire GLOBE, not just individual regions.
> fire “weather”
It’s “fire weather”:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf
See also chapter 11.
Distinct, meaning not the same as. So, wildfire occurrence has nothing to do with “fire weather.”
“Apple” and “Macintosh” have distinct meanings, therefore they have nothing to do with one another.
Troglodyte is a born-again linguist.
No shite, Tinkerbell.
No shite, Tinkerbell.
That’s all you are is a linguist if yapping a lot makes you a linguist. You sure ain’t no scientist.
[TROGLODYTE, 9:07 AM] No shite
[TROGLODYTE, 9:07 AM] No shite
[TROGLODYTE, 9:35 AM] yapping a lot
For clarity, fire weather is the term generally used to describe the meteorological conditions favorable for the ignition and spread of wildfires.
It is a measure of weather conditions that favor wildfire, not whether one will occur or how much area will ultimately burn.
Low temperature in the tropopause above the South Polar Circle.
https://i.ibb.co/Mx8b0KQP/GEFS-T-100mb-9060-S-1.png
It won’t rain in California.
https://www.sat24.com/pl-pl/continent/na
BACK AT THE RANCH
Elon is suing Minnesota over a first-in-the-nation law banning technology that allows users to create and post deepfake videos or images of people naked without their consent.
The GOP is the party of high moral grandstanding.
That’s because he understands it isn’t the posting of deepfake videos that they are targeting. They don’t care about the videos.
Vintage June 2026:
https://www.wired.com/story/grok-is-still-hosting-sexualized-deepfakes-of-famous-women/
And the very best is that a well-known climate science team thinks that an utterly unscientific corner like grok{ipedia} is best suited to host a presentation of their work:
https://grokipedia.com/page/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
Yeah.
In Search of El Niño in the South Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/XrDdd5C3/mimictpw-spac-latest.gif
The predictions that a monster super El Nino would develop this year have proven to be remarkably accurate..so far.
This
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4
shows its sea-surface-temperatures are unprecedented for this time of year.
But that doesn’t work. High temperatures occur mainly in the tropics. High-pressure systems in the northern and southern Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/xK03JMmQ/cdas-sflux-sst-global-1.png
Ummm yes it does work.
It’s not working; no precipitation in California. Low temperatures along the West Coast. Negative PDO. California is at risk of wildfires.
https://i.ibb.co/tPWMsYLS/ventusky-temperature-2m-20260802t1800-39n131w-1.jpg
El Ninos develop in the equatorial Pacific. Super El Ninos have extra strong warming there.
This one most cenrtainly has very much of that. plus strong atmospheric pressure and wind effects.
All of its effects on the rest of the world will play out over the Fall and Winter.
According to NOAA, California has been warming at a rate of approximately 1.3°C/century.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series/4/tavg/ytd/12/1895-2026
Best is as always to look at a worldwide map showing the departures from a long range period (1991-2020):
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/maps/sstanom_1991-2020/world-wt3/2026/sstanom_world-wt3_2026_d209.png
There we see that the temperatures recorded in the minuscule nino34 area aren’t by far something limited to the Tropics.
This El Niño will be interesting.
I have a dataset of UAH monthly anomalies recalculated relative to an older baseline than the current 1991–2020 reference:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pxYFyN33P4hmS-Vj_05V1zMj6wMLvv9p/view
This data is referenced to the 1979–1998 average, which was one of Dr. Spencer’s earlier baselines:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/december-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-28-deg-c/
We’ll see how high the anomalies climb over the next 12 months.
Super Typhoon DOLPHIN in the western Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/nqqDdpCX/himawari9-ir-12-W-202607291420.gif
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/epa-says-power-data-centers-can-sidestep-pollution-laws-2026-07-27
It is easy to imagine the implications if you look at a secret agreement between Louisiana lawmakers and Meta regarding a ~ 6 square-mile data center which will consume seven times more energy than New Orleans, and extrapolate that to the entire United States:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/27/technology/meta-data-center-louisiana.html
*
And there are really, really, people dumb enough not to think about how much water such a data center will consume, and what will happen to all the people, farms and firms around it.
*
Sidestepping all pollution laws might then become a secondary problem.
The forecast shows no chance of rain in California.
https://i.ibb.co/zhr1G4Nj/ventusky-pressure-20260811t2100.jpg
I feel sorry for Dr Fauci. He had a long and brilliant career that has now ended in disaster with a pardon and taking 5th Amendment protection.
All he had to do was tell the truth. In January 2020 he could have held a press conference and admitted that they had funded dangerous research in Wuhan, and that COVID-19 has most likely resulted from something escaping that lab. He could emphasize the fact that it was most likely not from the research we funded.
Instead he stated that the virus was completely consistent with coming from nature. That was a lie based on what he knew at the time.
Like all liars, he got caught. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
All liars eventually get caught.
,”admitted that they had funded dangerous research in Wuhan”
That research was well known and was considered to be essential to prevention of SARs type infectious diseases, coming out of South Asia.
” and that COVID-19 has most likely resulted from something escaping that lab.”
That was not then and is not now settled.
What is going here is right wingers have a strange and bizarre obsession with getting Fauci (Why?), who had a lengthy and honorable service to the country and served several Presidents including Trump.
And this raises an obvious question: why do right wingers
suddenly care?
They spent years brushing off recommendations from public health agencies like the CDC during the pandemic.
Only so they can harass scientists, just as they have long targeted high-end climate scientists like Michael Mann.
Fauci lied!
Dizzy Donald:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/12/01/trump-takes-credit-for-vaccine-created-by-others-including-immigrants/
Tim S
I consider you one of the more rational skeptics that tries to remain scientific. Some of your complaints mirror mine. Claiming extreme weather is driven by a warming globe. This is a valid possibility but it needs to be verified by hard science, real world observations of trends. They have the ability to measure wind speeds, temperatures, rainfall, severity of thunderstorms. With modern computers they could submit billions of bits of data from all over and make many trend lines on all types of metrics and get solid evidence if a warming planet is actually producing significant amount of damaging weather patterns or other factors, like greatly expanded population that are now in paths of severe weather are the cause of more property damage. An F5 tornado in the plains with very few people would not cost billions of dollars in damage. A forest fire in California would not kill people and destroy property is no one lived in those areas.
That being said, I am not sure you are being the good skeptic with the Covid debate.
YOU: “and that COVID-19 has most likely resulted from something escaping that lab.”
I am trying to research what is known so the best source is scientists. They have a great complaint that Covid origin is becoming a Political issue and not a scientific one!
Currently most scientists believe that Covid came from the Wet Market and had natural origins but they do consider the lab leak. It is determined (at this time with the limited data available to the researchers) that lab leak is less likely than natural origin. So to that would be a very strong reason for Fauci not to declare what you suggest he do. That would not be a scientific statement of the available evidence.
Here is an interesting paper on how scientists look at the issue (not Facebook posts or political actors).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00530-y
My immediate and brief response is that “the scientists” are the very worst source of information. Your link is proof of that. They are attempting to use speculation and statistical probability to push their agenda. The wet market is fake news — period.
Here are the facts:
1) The behavior of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is all the proof anyone needs. They had scientists who cooperated with the outside “disappear”. Before they admitted to the world that the virus was spreading human to human they were building large temporary hospitals and gathering up every possible purchase contract for masks and other PPE from the entire world. They refused access beyond the lobby of the lab and had the nerve to suggest that was access. The WHO basically accused them of a coverup.
2) The intelligence community is unanimous. They know what happened. The first rule in intelligence gathering is to protect methods and sources. The vague “most likely” and “low confidence” label is strong language from those organizations in this kind of case. The CCP has already disappeared and most likely killed everyone who cooperated.
3) No virus in the history of viruses has ever been so capable on the first zoonotic crossover. It takes time. Look at the history of the virus. It was initially trained in the lab — most likely as a bio-weapon — to infect the lungs. Years later it is now an upper respiratory virus. Look how long that took.
4) It is now totally political and that is why Fauci is being defended so strongly — anything to get after Trump. Fauci lied. His dairy now proves that. Why did he lie?
More later.
[“3) No virus in the history of viruses has ever been so capable on the first zoonotic crossover.”]
The phrase “first zoonotic crossover” is interesting because we almost never know when a virus first crossed into humans. The first time a pathogen is discovered is not necessarily the first time it infected a person.
When the Ebola virus was first identified in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1976, it was already causing human outbreaks with sustained human-to-human transmission.
There was no documented period during which scientists observed Ebola gradually acquiring the ability to infect humans.
Early in the outbreak (much like with COVID-19), there was also diagnostic uncertainty.
Clinicians initially considered other diseases with similar hemorrhagic symptoms (e.g. yellow fever) before laboratory testing identified Ebola as a previously unknown virus.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1410540
This is so much fun when people make dumb comments just to be a pest.
You may be a smart person, but you made a dumb comment.
Ebola infects primates.
Good bye!
Okay, I left too fast. For those who need help, there is no reservoir of Ebola in humans. It so deadly that it either kills everyone or people get smart and isolate themselves. The next outbreak occurs the next time there is another exposure to the reservoir in the wild population.
I learned a few things here, but I already knew most of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola
“My immediate and brief response is that “the scientists” are the very worst source of information.”
Gee, I wonder, who could be better at analyzing the origins of a particular Corona virus?
Scientists with expertise in Corona viruses and DNA evolution?
Or
Spies?
Right-wing talking heads?
Right wing politicians out to get the scientists?
For all the conspiracy minded people speculating on why the Wuhan Lab Corona virus research was funded by the US:
Google AI says:
“Research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was funded to identify bat coronavirus strains, assess the risk of spillover to humans, and help prevent future pandemics. This funding was channeled through US grants to the non-profit EcoHealth Alliance.
Scientific Objectives:
Surveillance: Discover and catalog novel coronaviruses circulating in bat populations.
Risk Assessment: Evaluate how animal viruses adapt, evolve, and potentially cross the species barrier into humans.
Prevention: Generate data to improve global preparedness and counter future infectious disease outbreaks”
Also:
https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699
to learn how the collaboration with Wuhan was approved by NIH and a UNC Biosafety Committee as NOT Gain-of-Function research.
And the NIH has a committee of experts to review proposals and make such determinations, ie not Fauci.
Thus when Fauci stated to Congress back in 2021 that this was not Gain-of-Function research, he was truthfully reporting what was determined by the expert committee.
Tim S
You have 4 points but zero supporting evidence for each point. I totally agree with Nate on the science experts. You can believe experts and researchers are liars and deceptive. The link I sent you does mot support your speculation! They seem very knowledgeable and are looking at things I only understand on the surface. Genetic evolution of viruses. I have zero expertise in evaluating a virus. There are people who do this for a living. Some may be bad or dishonest. Hard for me to accept all are! I have always been attracted to science because it is seeking Truth with evidence. So I kind of assume, maybe incorrectly, that people going into science like the Truth and want to look for it with best intentions. You sound more like you are throwing out unsupported Conspiracy Theories. Conspiracy Theories work because they could be possible. They fail because they are not supported by valid evidence. Like Alex Jones with Sandy Hook School shooting. He claimed the parents were crisis actors and the whole event was staged. This is a possible scenerio but he provided no evidence to support it. He sent no private investigator there to see if the parents and children were citizens of the town. He just supported his Conspiracy by claiming the parents acted strange.
If you want your 4 points to be valid skepticism then provide evidence not speculation.
Tim S
YOU: “2) The intelligence community is unanimous. They know what happened.”
Where does this statement come from? I looked at their web site and this is not a true assessment! Did you get it from a Conspiracy Blog??
What the agencies really say.
https://archive.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf
What they conclude: “The IC judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of
COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial
natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARSCoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged.”
Tim S
I am not being slick at all. I am requesting you be a better skeptic. Already on this blog we have unscientific Clint R that calls every science point a “cult”, rejects direct evidence, rejects textbook physics (as does Gordon Robertson), and promotes untested ideas and will not support any of his claims with any experimental evidence or links to some form of established science. He calls it science but he does not even know what that word means.
Because we have ignorant unscientific skeptics already you do not need to become one. You make these points that are not facts and I requested you link to supporting evidence or sources for your points.
On your science claim “It is interesting that “the scientists” Norman finds so credible seem to be promoting the most absurd conspiracy theory of all, that the virus was developed somewhere else and transported to Wuhan.”
Sounds like you just glanced at the report looking for things that support your idea but rejecting everything else. The made the claim on that idea “Challenging widely circulating theories” They do not accept those at all!!
Also “During our work, we were presented with several reports from civil movements and scientists working with scholars from unrelated fields of expertise.”
The conclusion was there is not enough information to truly scientifically say if it was natural or accidental release from a lab. If you know different than provide a valid source.
You have your belief on it and your opinion. That is not science. Science says their is not enough information to prove either of the two theories correct at this time.
Norman now moves to page 2 of the playbook with smears, misdirection, the strawman, and stereotypes. Argument for the sake of argument is proven.
Good bye!
This is how Norman operates. I scored several TKOs against him, and he disappears for several days, only to return and knife me in the back.
He’s not only a cult kid, he’s a devious cult kid.
Norman,
Although these comment sections are about debate, Tim S. is not here to debate.
He is here to splain the way it is to us. Anyone who fails to see the genius of his posts, and challenges what he says, will be treated as an inferior life form.
Nate is doing what Nate does, so no response is required.
It is impossible to tell whether Norman thinks he is being slick — he is not — or genuinely lacks critical thinking skills. Like Nate, he is just making an argument for the sake of making an argument.
It is interesting that “the scientists” Norman finds so credible seem to be promoting the most absurd conspiracy theory of all, that the virus was developed somewhere else and transported to Wuhan.
Here is their conclusion which in my view actually supports the lab leak reality:
“Hypothesis three: SARS-CoV-2 originated from an accidental lab-related event
Much of the information needed to assess this hypothesis has not been made available to the WHO or SAGO.
Repeated requests have been made to the Chinese government by the WHO to release the health records of research-lab staff, biosafety and biosecurity protocols, and audits or independent inspections conducted to verify the safety procedures of labs in Wuhan. These include those of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Wuhan and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading research centre for bat coronaviruses. In our view, the government has not provided the necessary information that we have requested since the launch of SAGO in November 2021 to investigate a potential biosafety breach. The National Health Commission of China states that the country has shared all relevant data and information, and proposes that investigations be undertaken instead in labs in other countries where coronavirus research has been conducted13.”
I will help Norman, and everyone else who is confused about this.
There are 2 critical data points that are missing. They are the intermediate crossover animal, and information about what the lab was doing. Unless and until the crossover animal is found, the zoonotic route does not exist. Find it!
The information about the lab will never come from the CCP. This is clearly a state secret of the highest order. Why? What are they hiding?
If the intelligence community has the lab information, then their assessment is validated. They will never share methods and sources, so that route is also dead. Both FBI and CIA are on record in their most recent announcements that it is most likely the lab. There is no spin or detraction from that.
The rest involves critical thinking, and most importantly an answer to why the very first stain was so effective at attacking human lungs when so many subsequent strains have literally taken billions of mutations to emerge. The furin cleavage is much too technical for this group.
Tim S
Here is one paper on the origin of Covid. If you take the time to read it you can see researchers are quite knowledgeable in their field of study. I really cannot understand the material. It just sounds like they are not on a simplistic level but actually doing a lot of work to find the origin that killed over 5 million people.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337
The “Bat Lady” was a leader in her field.
“Nate is doing what Nate does, so no response is required.”
Translation: Nate cited sources and facts that contradict my claim that ‘Fauci lied!’ And I have nothing to rebut these sources and facts, nor anything to support my claim.
Virologists who study pandemic origins are much less divided than the U.S. intelligence community. They say there is “very convincing” data and “overwhelming evidence” pointing to an animal origin.
https://www.npr.org/2026/07/29/g-s1-136142/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-lab-leak-spillover-pandemic-origin
That is a crap article written by crappy people who are just as lost as you are about science. Studies written 4 years ago are not “very convincing” or “overwhelming”. They are the best evidence that the spillover animal does not exist. There has to be a spillover animal. Claiming it is possible, or citing studies from years ago does, nothing to prove a theoretical possibility. Even Fauci says the wet market was not the source.
[OUR IVY LEAGUER] page 2 of the playbook with smears, misdirection, the strawman, and stereotypes.
[ALSO OUR IVY LEAGUER] That is a crap article written by crappy people who are just as lost as you are about science
Tim S
Are you interested in digging for the Truth on the Covid origin or are you just stuck in one gear unwilling to consider all possibilities. That you call the article Willard linked to crap by crappy people, what is your expertise to make such a bold statement?
You say you are into science than act like it!
Here is a detailed explanation of Fauci and his diary entry. He did not think it was the wet market at the time he wrote it because of some initial research. Things in science change as more evidence is found.
https://www.factcheck.org/2026/07/paul-distorts-faucis-diary-entry-about-covid-19-and-wet-market/
I cannot and do not apologize for being intelligent, perceptive, well informed, and most importantly capable of critical thinking. Anyone who is lacking in any one of those areas, and is criticizing me, does not affect my presentation here.
Am I arrogant? Yes, when someone posts something that legitimately challenges anything I have posted, I will absolutely respond. Otherwise, I stand by every word.
Could I do a better job of explaining complex topics? Sure, but that is not being wrong.
Do I post comments on topics I do not understand? No.
Have I criticized both “sides”? Yes, just ask anderson and Clint R about that.
[“Do I post comments on topics I do not understand? No.”]
You responded to a comment about the unknowns surrounding the first zoonotic crossover of a pathogen by pointing out that Ebola infects primates — as though that somehow addressed the point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1750341
It did not.
All you did was affirm that Ebola is a zoonotic disease – a fact that was never being disputed in the first place.
The distinction here is fairly basic: a zoonotic disease is a pathogen that originates in animals.
A first zoonotic crossover refers to the specific historical event when that animal-derived pathogen first crosses into humans.
Confusing those two concepts doesn’t strengthen your argument. It merely highlights that you have confidently responded to a point you have not actually understood.
And fruit bats, rather than non-human primates, are currently considered the leading reservoir candidates:
“The natural reservoir of Ebola has not yet been confirmed, but fruit bats may be natural hosts for EBOV and are currently thought to be the principal animal reservoir.”
https://www.woah.org/en/disease/ebola-virus-disease/
Repeating the same error does not magically make it correct. The distinction here is between “spillover” and a “crossover”.
“Ebola is not a genetic crossover; it is caused by viruses in the genus Orthoebolavirus that naturally circulate among animals like bats, with spillover events occasionally infecting humans.”
https://www.cdc.gov/ebola/faq/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/ebola/causes/index.html
After an initial spillover event, the virus can spread from person to person.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist anywhere in nature. In fact, the original variant probably does not exist anymore either. The only way it was able to infect humans was from a “crossover”. Since then, it has mutated many times into many different variants with massively different properties.
The latest outbreak (spillover) of Ebola in Africa involves a strain that was not known before. It could be a crossover from humans, but that is only possible if a human with a previous strain of Ebola somehow infected a wild animal which has then given it back to humans.
Did I mention this is a complex topic?
I will add here that if some people would spend more effort trying to be educated instead of making an automatic reflexive argument, they might learn something. I make this plea to Nate as well.
[“After an initial spillover event, the virus can spread from person to person.”]
But under the distinction you are making, a virus would need to have already developed the ability to infect humans before spillover could occur. So wouldn’t that crossover step have to happen before the initial spillover event?
[“The only way it was able to infect humans was from a “crossover”.”]
Again, using the terminology framework you are applying, “spillover” is the event that describes transmission from an animal host into humans.
So, in this framework, the spillover is the event that results in human infection, while the “crossover” refers to the evolutionary process that enabled or facilitated that event.
If “crossover” refers to acquiring the ability to infect humans, then it describes evolutionary changes that may enable or facilitate spillover, rather than the spillover event itself.
For the animal spillover, Tim asserts that absence of evidence is evidence of its absence.
For the Lab leak Tim says the opposite!
What a pity! I forgot to download and save MEI’s recent data.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
YEAR DJ JF FM MA AM MJ
2026 -0.76 -0.95 -1.03 -0.64 0.27 1.52
Their May/June average is way, way higher than it was two weeks ago.
MEI is the Multivariate ENSO Index, a much more complex evaluation of ENSO than NCEP’s nino3+4:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
Gordon Robertson
Some links for you on vaccine reduction of diseases.
One Polio:
https://i0.wp.com/publicgoodnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/US-polio-cases-deaths-1.png?resize=768%2C519&ssl=1
Cases did go up and down but they were eliminated after vaccines.
Smallpox:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Global_number_of_reported_smallpox_cases_%281920-2016%29.svg/1920px-Global_number_of_reported_smallpox_cases_%281920-2016%29.svg.png
Does cycle but the numbers are high for many years before vaccine!
Smallpox was a deadly disease and killed millions of people!!
https://www.gapminder.org/wp-content/uploads/f65_smallpox-was-eradicated.png
Gordon Robertson
Some more links:
Mumps:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/mumps-cases-and-deaths-in-the-united-states
Finally images of Measles via Electron Microscope. So much for your evil hero Lanka!! He is a sick human with a twisted agenda. Could be he wants diseases to return and kill off the weak, a eugenics kind of hero. You love him because God gifted you with a good immune system and you might also want the weaklings to perish through disease, let nature take her course right??
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC375751/
Gordon Robertson
Also there have been many studies done on any link to Autism and Vaccines. There is not evidence vaccines cause Autism. Not one study but many!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2908388/
Norman,
Why did Dr. Fauci invoke the 5th Amendment over 100 times in his testimony before the Senate? Also, Measles, Mumps, Polio and Smallpox were not mRNA vaccines. They were developed naturally from dead virus.
“Covid vaccine had worst side effects ever.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaI_6KgtRm0
Norman,
Spike protein in tumors?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqVz15W1Rmk
Stephen p anderson
I watched your video and vast research has been done on the issues brought up. The adverse side effect rate from Covid vaccines is less than 1%. I had two Covid shots. 1st one no side effects beyond sore shoulder. 2nd one made me sick and i missed a day of work. They said 37% of people developed such illness. I have not taken any Covid shots since than as I do not want a vaccine shot that makes me sick. I have had flu shots and they do mot give me the flu so i am okay with them. I looked up links for increased cancer rates of Covid vacinated individuals and the current state of things is that there is no trend of increased cancer rates
If your research finds evidence of increased cancer rates please post as it would be valuable information. Just do not link to some Conspiracy blog. Need valid medical research if it is to be of value.
Consider your sources more carefully, Stephen.
The speaker in ‘Covid vaccine had worst side effects ever.’ is rabid anti-vaxxer. Toby Rogers.
Example of his methods:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313835/
“The Publisher and the Editors-in-Chief are retracting this article. After publication concerns were raised with respect to the methodology used in this article. Post-publication review by a number of experts in the field has confirmed the following:
-Misrepresentation of the incidence of autism and insufficient attention given to various other factors that might account for apparent changes in rates
-Use of unrepresentative data
-No valid justification for the mechanisms proposed for prevention
-Arbitrary and insufficiently justified use of the birth cohort 1931 as an origin for the time trend
-Use of higher estimates and assumptions that inflated costs, together with failure to consider discrete events that occurred in referent years, including changes in definitions, alternative surveillance methods, and alternative explanations which may have contributed to changes in diagnosis.”
In other news, Dubious Donald invokes Fifth Amendment nearly 450 times in N.Y. AG’s civil probe of his business practices
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-deposed-ny-ag-civil-probe-business-practices-rcna42355
Oh, OK, because Trump has been treated so fairly by New York’s prosecutors it is unfathomable that he would invoke the 5th. Of course, Fauci’s been pardoned. So, it should be unnecessary and he doesn’t have the right to invoke the 5th before Congress. You’re good at comparing apples to oranges.
In other news:
Eric Trump pleaded the Fifth to over 500 questions related to his role as teh Donald Organization’s executive vice president:
Before the Jan. 6 committee, Roger Stone invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to every question in a 90-minute deposition.
Not-our-Mike declined to even answer whether he believed in a peaceful transition of power.
John Eastman, who counseled Donald on overturning the 2020 presidential results, reportedly invoked the Fifth dozens of times during an appearance before the Jan. 6 committee.
Former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark was the first witness to plead the Fifth before the Jan. 6 committee.
The far-right radio Alex Jones touted that he’d pleaded the Fifth “almost 100 times” during questioning by the Jan. 6 committee earlier this year.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3597691-these-figures-in-trumps-orbit-have-pleaded-the-5th-amendment/
Troglodyte once again exhibits a malleable morality.
“So, it should be unnecessary and he doesn’t have the right to invoke the 5th before Congress. You’re good at comparing apples to oranges.”
Totally wrong. Post pardon ‘crimes’ are not pardoned.
The point of this witch hunt was to get him to say something that to Rand Paul sounds like perjury.
The point is whether a person is on your your team or not, taking the 5th is not evidence of a crime.
CONJECTURE
What if someone told you there’s MORE than one horse? Have you ever considered that?
https://bsky.app/profile/realinfowars.bsky.social/post/3mriagdoz7d2u
A strong southern polar vortex.
https://i.ibb.co/9m95B8YG/gfs-z10-sh-f00.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Low Danube river levels force Romania to shut down both of its nuclear power reactors
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/low-danube-river-levels-force-romania-shut-down-both-its-nuclear-power-reactors-2026-07-29/
Forecasts call for very high temperatures in California through August 13.
https://i.ibb.co/0p643XqW/ventusky-temperature-2m-20260813t0000-38n115w.jpg
Over the last decade (2016-2025), California summer temperatures averaged +2.2°C above the 1895–1910 normal.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oHkgJ4ttX-zSSIeVU5S8f_Ic3kEvNgz_/view
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series/4/tavg/3/8/1895-2026
How’s the climate change science denial going?
It’s always fun to see the cult kids get so tangled up in science. Especially when the topics are essentially off-topic.
Ark is obsessed with the forest fires, not understanding that Eldro seems to be hinting that Smokey-the-Bear caused them. And, he doesn’t appreciate the fact that when sea levels get high enough there won’t be any forest fires!
Then there is their cult hero, Fauci, taking the Fifth even though he got a “preemptive” pardon from Biden.
We live in interesting times….
Do you really not think an increase in temperature and a reduction in snow cover are important for the formation of large fires?
No one is suggesting that other factors, such as fire suppression policies associated with Smokey Bear, are irrelevant. However, anthropogenic global warming is clearly an important contributing factor.
Another question I have is whether you share my concern about the increasing frequency of smoky days (from larger wildfires) across North America.
How do you think North American ecosystems will respond to the associated decline in air quality?
It’s a “natural” warming trend, Eldro.
You’re unable to get away from your invalid, unscientific beliefs.
Smokey Bear.
Not Smokey the Bear.
ark…”Since you appear to have run out of excuses, I’ll leave one final observation for anyone who may read this thread in the future.
Throughout, you have repeatedly asserted that the IGL limits the warming influence of CO2 to only 0.06°C per 1°C rise in atmospheric temperature, and that radiative transfer is merely a “minor player.”
Despite numerous opportunities, no demonstration has been given of how an equation of state containing no spectroscopy, no absorption coefficients, no emissivities, no radiative transfer equation, and no mechanism by which electromagnetic radiation interacts with matter can impose this quantitative limit”.
***
A batter question is why you persist with this red-herring argument. I have used the IGL only to examine the various gases making up the troposphere and, equation of state or not, the IGL offers a perfectly valid examination of said gases.
According to Google AI, a red herring argument is defined as…”a logical trick that introduces an unrelated topic to distract people from the main issue. It changes the subject to mislead the audience, avoid a hard question, or hide a weak point”.
You are introducing intangibles such as the radiative transfer equation and mechanisms through which EM interacts with matter and neither has anything to do with the way atmospheric gases spread heat between each gas. Only the heat diffusion equation can do that and when applied, it reveals that CO2 at 0.06% mass in the atmosphere can deliver no more than 0.06C of heat to the atmosphere for each 1C rise in atmospheric temperature.
All I have said about radiative transfer is that it is a minor player in the atmosphere. Shula made that clear with his Pirani gauge explanation, showing that heat transfer from surfce to the atmosphere is 260 times more effective with conduction/convection than radiation. Alarmist lunimaries like Norman and Binny Bundtcake have used similar red-herring arguments to discredit his work.
You are also trying to dismiss the IGL as just an equation of state. There is nothing wrong with applying an equation of state in such a manner as long as we are examining only initial conditions versus final conditions. It is plain, in the form of the IGL created by Gay-Lussac, P1/T1 = P2/T2, that his equation represents initial and final states.
I have explained that Gay-Lussac’s equation should not be taken as an equality, rather it represents a ratio comparison. So, if we apply PV = nRT at the surface then compare it at 10,000 feet, we should see that temperature has decreased in proportion to pressure.
Of course, nothing in physics or the real atmosphere is ever that simple. There are other factors coming into play and I have acknowledged that the IGL is not perfect. However, it does serve the purpose of refuting the current alarmist notion that a trace gas in the atmosphere is responsible for massive effects such as surface cooling and energy balance while the majority gases do nothing.
The IGL only serves as a ballpark example of the relationship between temperature, pressure, and mass in atmospheric gases.
All I have really tried to reveal is that nitrogen and oxygen play an immense role in cooling the surface and in dissipating heat within the atmosphere produced by solar energy. The current alarmist energy budget completely ignores N2 and O2 and their significance, relying on fairy-tale pseudo-science re radiation.
ark…”https://ibb.co/LD02T7FW
This sounding, OTX 29 July 2026 at 0600 UTC (11:00 PM PDT on July 28), for Spokane, Washington is a strong example of nocturnal radiative cooling.
The first thing that stands out is the red temperature trace in the lowest part of the sounding”.
***
To see the error in your claims you must first understand what the top end of the red line means at 200 Pa. It is located at roughly 200 Pascals which indicates an altitude of roughly 44,240 metres or about 5 times the height of Everest. It is well into the stratosphere.
At this altitude the air density is about 0.3% of its density at sea level. Since any air molecules are few and far between it seems illogical to speak of air temperature at this altitude. If you stuck a mercury thermometer out there the mercury would likely freeze.
Anther point is that the ozone level is high at this altitude. That means UV rays from the Sun are being absorbed and heating the ozone.
stephen…from norman…”Why did Dr. Fauci invoke the 5th Amendment over 100 times in his testimony before the Senate? Also, Measles, Mumps, Polio and Smallpox were not mRNA vaccines. They were developed naturally from dead virus”.
***
You should read Robert kennedy’s book on Fauci, ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ to see what a deceitful creep Fauci was over his career. Fauci served as the director of NIAID from 1984 to 2022 and during that time withheld funding from Dr. Peter Duesberg, simply because Duesberg claimed HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. That action effectively ended Duesberg’s career, which was brilliant compared to that of Fauci.
During the same era, Fauci helped establish a test for HIV which does not test for a virus. He knew from Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, that the virus is elusive to the point it cannot be seen on an electron microscope. Montagnier admitted he did not see it on an EM, that he had inferred it.
Nevertheless, Fauci and David Ho used PCR to amplify this invisible virus. At least, they claimed to have amplified it even though they could not explain how. Mullis, who won a Nobel for inventing PCR was adamant that PCR could not be used diagnostically in that manner to identify a virus that could not be seen on an EM. When Fauci continued with his claim, Mullis began calling him a liar, and one would think someone of Fauci’s status would react with a lawsuit. Not a peep out of Fauci.
This same quasi test was used for covid and the Wuhan scientists who claimed the virus in early 2020, admitted they had not physically isolated a virus. They too inferred it based on the Montagnier method.
Re mRNA. An expert on MRNA, Dr. Robert Malone, claimed that such an mRNA based vaccine could not prevent covid spreading. He was thanked for his diligence by being banned by Google and the likes for spreading misinformation.
Dr. Robert Malone was the developer of mRNA vaccine technology. He gave interviews about the Covid mRNA vaccine, and his recommendation was not to take the vaccine. He said the risks outweighed the benefits. The debate is not whether you should take vaccines but whether the new vaccine technologies are safe enough. There’s no question the benefits of the early vaccines to combat diseases such as Rabies, Polio, Smallpox, etc. The question is do we understand all the risks of modern vaccine technologies and is the need for a particular vaccine being overhyped. If a President tries to force the population to take a vaccine or risk losing their livelihoods then there is something wrong with the risk-reward ratio and there’s something wrong with that President and his party who should have reigned him in. The citizens are going to inherently not trust that President or his vaccine. I’ve had Covid three times, never had the jab, had minor cold or flu-like symptoms, happy to have my natural immunity.
Also, who posted here claiming Dr. Fauci was science and anyone who denied the jab and Dr. Fauci’s assertions were denying science? Dr. Fauci is a national disgrace, and Joe Biden gave him a full pardon.
Fauci gets a pulmonary infection from his jab and he doesn’t tell anyone. He tells everyone to get the vaccine. Now he is such an advocate for Constitutional rights but wanted to force everyone to take the vaccine, enforce social distancing, enforce mask policy, enforce school closings, and claim that he is science. Sounds familiar.
stephen p anderson
Thank you for posting “Fauci gets a pulmonary infection from his jab and he doesn’t tell anyone.”
This might finally convince you that your right-wing sources of information are blatantly lying to you and it is on a continuous basis. They portray regular media as the liars as all cults do, the outside is bad only trust us (even when we are the biggest of liars).
First it was NOT and infection and he had this condition six months before he got a Covid Vaccine shot. Your sources are quite bad, maybe rethink the right-wing is just a cult and if you are still able to think, time to remove yourself from it and become independent thinker.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-pulmonary-infarction-covid/
My source was a British journalist however an infarction is even worse. It is essentially damage due to a clogged artery.
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough wrote on Substack that the episode occurred months after Fauci received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine and was a “direct result of a pulmonary embolism which is a known side effect of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.”
McCullough contends Fauci’s medical event may have been vaccine-related. He believes federal officials didn’t adequately inform the public about potential mRNA COVID-19 vaccination risks.
McCullough wrote:
“There is a profound, sick irony in a public health leader suffering a life-threatening blood clot following a novel mRNA inoculation, only to return to the podium to demand that millions of others accept the same risk profile.
“While he navigated his own recovery with the specialized care of top-tier pulmonologists and radiologists, he simultaneously championed policies that forced the populace into a state of medical compliance.”
– Pestering Peter, who has made a significant number of false statements about the COVID-19 pandemic, is the Chief Scientific Officer of the Wellness Company
– The Wellness Company is part of the libertarian medical movement which seeks to divorce the practice of medicine from any government or industry influence
– The solution proposed by the Wellness Company is to get rid of your medical prescriptions and replace them with unproven and disproven dietary supplements
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-medical-critical-thinking/dr-peter-mcculloughs-libertarian-medical-train-makes-pit-stop-east-palestine
A lot to be said for that philosophy.
So why did Anthony Fauci continue to lie about the origin of the Covid virus and push the “I am Science” narrative? Why?
Troglodyte’s faux outrage sounds a like like Faux News’:
Fox settles Dominion lawsuit for $787.5 million over US election lies
https://www.reuters.com/legal/dominions-defamation-case-against-fox-poised-trial-after-delay-2023-04-18
Semi-regular reminder:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
Glad you asked, Tinkerbell. It is because he was funding “Gain of Function” research at Wuhan and he didn’t want the lab looked at. He and the “Bat Lady” were “Comrades.”
Trgolodyte imagines being asked something. Meanwhile:
https://www.propublica.org/article/arkansas-private-schools-vouchers-delta-institute-developing-brain-autism-harm
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Gordon Robertson
They have been able to identify HIV with Electron Microscope. This is one of many images available.
https://globalhealthchronicles.org/items/show/6892
BACK AT THE RANCH
The US used to be a beacon of human rights. Not anymore. Today, it stands alongside North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali and Russia. Isolated. And the world no longer listens to it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/28/diplomats-un-walkout-france-human-rights-trump-record
This is another great example of how the cult is indoctrinated. Now Willard believes USA is as bad as North Korea!
Adults know that a simple way to compare countries is who has to keep people in vs who has to keep people out.
Willard should move to North Korea, when he grows up….
“In addition to the US, nine other countries voted no to Türk’s re-appointment, including Russia, North Korea, Israel, Nicaragua and Mali.”
Tinkerbell, if USA becomes like Canada, who is going to protect the world from bad actors? Canada?
Socialist indoctrination:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eHkCcCjTQEs
GOP candidate Victor Marx says God has given him a “gift” to uncover people’s demons and rid them of evil spirits through a specialized prayer. Marx says you, too, can learn how to do it. The eight-part course is $99:
https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/victor-marx-hunts-demons-and-votes-colorado-governor-race/73-7bd6b948-f6b5-4430-a709-65fd3282e636
In other news, Kash intends to cash in his ZZ ties:
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/20/kash-patel-fbi-russia-trip-01005078
Why socialism’s biggest fans are often rich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7n6injw8GI
Twof of the biggests fan of Elon’s Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism:
HANNITY: Elon Musk talked about Americans not even needing to save for your retirement like we have historically because of the abundance AI will create. Do you believe that?
BESSENT: I do, but I think I would change the timeline. Elon is so far ahead of the curve.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mrocykgqix2k
A third is Trolodyte.
OPEN PROBLEM
Where’s Mitch?
https://bsky.app/profile/cwebbonline.com/post/3mrnkhoouc22f
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
2026 is increasingly likely to be the warmest in GISTEMP but second across all six records
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/why-hansen-may-end-up-being-right
“More Fucked Today than Yesterday
And even more fucked tomorrow
Prof. Eliot Jacobson
Jul 27, 2026
I keep wanting to write a post showing off my latest graphics along with the latest data and forecasts, because the picture they paint is one of a truly fucked planet. From the latest global surface temperatures to sea-surface temperatures to the latest El Niño forecasts to the Earth Energy Imbalance to albedo to polar ice. And then there’s everything else. There is so much to write about, so much to document, so many warnings to give.”
https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/more-fucked-today-than-yesterday
Just embrace it, says Allister Heath, Editor of The Sunday Telegraph.
Yes, this is the same Allister Heath who wrote “There will be some short-term pain but Brexit will make us richer” in April 2017.
Well, Heath’s position would certainly be mine, given the data and argument so far concerning warming. The incredible rise in energy costs has been particularly damaging for Europe. Natural gas is the cleanest of fossil fuels and would seen a very good, available choice. We are literally burning (flaring) off some of it in the Permian Basin in West Texas. We will gladly convert to LNG and ship more to Europe. Large, mostly undeveloped fossil fuels, literally sit under the feet of many Europeans.
Continued:
The flaw in Heath’s article is that it presents adaptation as a substitute for mitigation when, in the real world, both are necessary. Climate is driven by cumulative global emissions whence adaptation reduces unavoidable damages and mitigation reduces future warming.
The amount of adaptation required depends on how much additional warming we allow.
Pretending we can simply adapt our way out of an increasingly warmer climate is just another version of the free-lunch argument.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Logically, what you say makes sense until you do a cost benefit analysis. And this is what Lundborg has been arguing for a while. Often, if you look at a specific climate change problem, the cost of adaptation is many orders of magnitude less than mitigation. And that ASSUMES that the aspect of climate change that is creating a “problem” is relatively accurate and not counterbalanced to a small or great degree by benefits. There are benefits, many benefits, from warming, though they are rarely discussed. At 59F the earth is actually 4F BELOW 63F, the global temperature where two of the great “explosions” of life occurred back in our geological history. Fossils are a testament to that.
A massive typhoon in the western Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/8D4H6jHb/mimictpw-wpac-latest.gif
The Donald admin lists fictional nation Wakanda as trade partner.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50849559
Some more reality for the cult kids to ignore:
(Start at 15:30, if you’re in a hurry.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-Cj7ipZdGM
Wildfires, Fire Weather, etc. – I give up. Finding “the truth”, which to me means, at first, what is the history of both, WAY too time-consuming. And it seems intentional. LLMs have big biases on anything political, cultural, etc., except for GROK. Tried to download the 2021 IPCC Ar6 WG-1 to read Chapters 11 and 12, to read it myself. Neither will download.
I have read much of the critics on this. I have read some of the warming advocates, mostly on here about it. Scale matters, both absolute numbers and the time frame. In the US at least, we are nowhere close to the numbers of actual fires in the 1920s to 1940s. Fire weather seems to have been a lot worse then, than now.
I have some personal experience with the wildfires in the US west. I have traveled there extensively and have close family in Idaho. Best practices policy is quite complicated but has some basic “common sense” aspects. Both in the US and in Europe, “common sense” seems to have been ignored at times, sometimes with tragic consequences.
Comparing wildfire statistics in the 1920s–30s with today is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
This document provides more background and details:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/wildfires_documentation.pdf
I understand why the 1930s & 1940s are often viewed as a particularly hot period, but that warming was largely concentrated in certain regions.
Summers of the 21st century have been warmer than those of the 1930s in most regions of the world:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1amETojYLvnFC5fKlYjJdmnIdkGk_JgCC/view?usp=sharing
The central US and the North Atlantic are the exceptions.
Even then, the picture changes when the baseline is expanded from 1930-39 to the standard 1921-1950 30-yr period. That regional warmth is then averaged with summers from a broader period that were less extreme and more representative of the overall climate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NK-YoQ72JsgqfhtJmJzESfH02slI2PrU/view?usp=sharing
kinqy…”I understand why the 1930s & 1940s are often viewed as a particularly hot period, but that warming was largely concentrated in certain regions.
Summers of the 21st century have been warmer than those of the 1930s in most regions of the world:”
***
It is viewed as a hot period due to factors like dust storms that prevailed throughout the affected regions. Also, due to he fact that the 1930s had far more heat waves than anywhere today. The dust storms point to both heat waves and major droughts that dried up the soil, leaving it vulnerable to strong winds.
We don’t know that your second statement is true. The reason is simple, they lacked the instrumentation in the 1930s, or even the interest in collecting global data in those days. Also, many parts of the planet were simply inaccessible to scientists.
Furthermore, outfits like NOAA and NASA GISS have been actively altering data to what they think it should have been in those days.
Re summers of the 21st century, I know for a fact that the temperature records here in Canada have been altered by Environment Canada. I was living in Regina, Canada a while back and I recall vividly the newspaper headings regarding a temperature of -50C in Regina and -55C in Winnipeg, a bit to the east. I looked that up recently, and EC has amended it to about -45 C in Regina.
That represents global warming according to EC, record temps in Regina have magically warmed by 5C, and it’s all on paper.
You need to awaken to the games being played in science these days.
Kynqora
” I was living in Regina, Canada a while back and I recall vividly the newspaper headings regarding a temperature of -50C in Regina and -55C in Winnipeg, a bit to the east. I looked that up recently, and EC has amended it to about -45 C in Regina. ”
Never believe Robertson: this is once more pure invention.
A guy who – despite having been contradicted many times – persistently continues to lie about
– Montagnier and HIV
– Lanka and Measles
– polio
– GPS and relativistic effects
– the Shula conduction/convection/radiation nonsense
– the lunar spin
etc etc etc, does not deserve being believed in anything he writes – especially on this blog.
*
Top ten TMIN ascending sorts of historical GHCN daily data for
– Regina SK
CA004016560 SK_REGINA_INT’L_A_____________ 56-30 1885 1 1 -50.0 (°C)
CA004016560 SK_REGINA_INT’L_A_____________ 56-30 1884 12 23 -48.3
CA004016560 SK_REGINA_INT’L_A_____________ 56-30 1936 2 16 -47.8
CA004016560 SK_REGINA_INT’L_A_____________ 56-30 1916 1 12 -47.2
CA004016640 SK_REGINA_CDA_________________ 56-30 1936 2 16 -47.2
CA004016640 SK_REGINA_CDA_________________ 56-30 1954 1 20 -47.2
CA004016560 SK_REGINA_INT’L_A_____________ 56-30 1887 1 6 -46.7
CA004016560 SK_REGINA_INT’L_A_____________ 56-30 1909 1 6 -46.7
CA004016640 SK_REGINA_CDA_________________ 56-30 1950 1 26 -46.7
CA004016560 SK_REGINA_INT’L_A_____________ 56-30 1886 1 8 -45.6
– Winnipeg MB
CA005023243 MB_WINNIPEG_ST_JOHNS_COLL_____ 55-33 1879 12 24 -47.8 (°C)
CA005023270 MB_WINNIPEG_U_OF_MANITOBA_____ 55-33 1966 2 18 -45.6
CA005023222 MB_WINNIPEG_RICHARDSON_INT’L_A 55-33 1966 2 18 -45.0
CA005023243 MB_WINNIPEG_ST_JOHNS_COLL_____ 55-33 1877 1 15 -44.4
CA005023243 MB_WINNIPEG_ST_JOHNS_COLL_____ 55-33 1879 12 23 -44.4
CA005023243 MB_WINNIPEG_ST_JOHNS_COLL_____ 55-33 1893 2 1 -44.4
CA005023261 MB_WINNIPEG_STP_______________ 55-33 1966 2 18 -44.4
CA005023243 MB_WINNIPEG_ST_JOHNS_COLL_____ 55-33 1883 1 20 -43.9
CA005023243 MB_WINNIPEG_ST_JOHNS_COLL_____ 55-33 1883 1 21 -43.9
CA005023243 MB_WINNIPEG_ST_JOHNS_COLL_____ 55-33 1899 2 8 -43.9
*
I trust such data 1,000,000 times more than Robertson’s ‘vividly’ recalling ‘the newspaper headings regarding a temperature of -50C in Regina and -55C in Winnipeg’.
Even if I accepted your premise that Environmental Canada altered historical temperatures, that wouldn’t explain the broader pattern.
This map isn’t based solely on Canadian stations.
Much of North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia also show substantial warming.
A claim about one country’s records cannot account for a warming signal that appears across many independent observing networks worldwide.
I must be a glutton for punishment. Tried again to access the actual full report for Working Group 1 (Physical Sciences) from the 2021 AR-6 so I could read for myself what the “consensus” view actually is on wild fires and wild fire weather. Could not download on iOS, retried it on Mac running the current MacOS, two different browsers, no luck. Of course, you can easily access many sources and summaries that will “explain” it for you, as if you are an idiot. Chat Gpt absolutely refuses to give you actual extensive quotes from the report. Lots of mischaracterizations of the actual report, from what I can tell (including on this blog), all leaning heavily into alarmism over wildfires. Critics, on the other hand, reference real data, easily accessible are verifiable.
Conclusion? Little evidence of a long term (100 year) pattern of increase in actual wildfire or even wildfire weather.
Incompetent left wing governments – California, Hawaii, France – need to get their act together. One little state in the US – Idaho – working with the US Forest Service and other states that experience first fires can handle this, with FAR LOWER taxes and bureaucracy.
[“Conclusion? Little evidence of a long term (100 year) pattern of increase in actual wildfire or even wildfire weather.”]
I’m honestly a little confused.
You started by saying you wanted to read the report so you could evaluate the evidence for yourself, but then admitted you couldn’t access it.
So how did you end up arriving at a conclusion about what the evidence shows without ever evaluating it?
Kynqora – if someone or some group makes claims about something, like man-influenced warming, and then works mightily to tell you about it, but works just as mightily to make the scientific results inaccessible, I am not going to trust the representations of what it said and really consider it as not having been presented. The IPCC publishing process seems to do just that. It is 95% summaries, each one more influenced by political actors than the last, so far from the original scientific work, it is unrecognizable. Then the fun begins. Politicians with an agenda and propagandists disguised as reporters take the most extreme outcomes (RCP 8.5) and distort that even further.
AR-6, I AM TOLD, chose the 1980s as its starting period for Fire Weather, I AM TOLD. It fortuitously chose the early years of the current warming period as its starting point, leaving out the the scorching 20s, 30s, and early 40s, where one data set shows far more wild fires (yes, I know the difference between wild fires and fire weather). AR-6 also ignored the cooling 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Warming enthusiasts seem to have a pattern of either ignoring inconvenient data or adjusting it away with a statistical approach. All to fit an existing narrative that must not be challenged.
So, yeah, conclusions reached. At least until I see more data that goes the other way. For me, the science is never “settled,” contrary to many warming enthusiasts. If the science were “settled” we might still be avoiding swamps lest we get an infection or opening up a vein to bleed out some of the illness that is making patients sick or believing the cosmos is static.
[“I AM TOLD, chose the 1980s as its starting period for Fire Weather, I AM TOLD. It fortuitously chose the early years of the current warming period as its starting point, leaving out the the scorching 20s, 30s, and early 40s, where one data set shows far more wild fires (yes, I know the difference between wild fires and fire weather).”]
The EPA documentation I posted earlier discusses the issues with making confident comparisons between the pre-1983 wildfire record and the modern one.
Incomplete geographic coverage, non-standardized reporting, and changes in data collection all complicate long-term comparisons.
I’m not sure why acknowledging those limitations amounts to cherry-picking. It seems like a reasonable methodological concern.
[“Warming enthusiasts seem to have a pattern of either ignoring inconvenient data or adjusting it away with a statistical approach. All to fit an existing narrative that must not be challenged.”]
I agree that alarmists can cherry pick evidence to support a narrative.
But the same thing applies to skeptics.
I don’t think there is solid observational evidence that the 1930s were warmer globally than today.
I posted a GISS map of global temperature anomalies relative to the 1930s showing that much of the world is warmer today.
Gordon responded by arguing that thermometer coverage outside North America and Europe was too sparse to know whether the 1930s were truly warmer globally.
But if that is the case, how can we simultaneously be confident that the 1930s experienced hotter temperatures than the present?
To me, that is applying two different standards of evidence.
If the historical record has important limitations, then those limitations should cut both ways.
And why are we skeptics so determined to defend the 1930s? Accepting that the 1930s may not have been warmer globally than today does not mean surrendering your skepticism.
We only have about 176 years of instrumental temperature observations, which is a very short window in Earth’s climate history.
If the goal is to emphasize the limits of the historical record, it seems more reasonable to acknowledge that there may have been periods of comparable (or even greater) natural warmth before widespread observations began.
“If the goal is to emphasize the limits of the historical record, it seems more reasonable to acknowledge that there may have been periods of comparable (or even greater) natural warmth before widespread observations began.”
……while also being careful not to use that uncertainty to claim DEFINITIVELY that there was such a warm period, of course.
Kynqora – thank you for your reasonable reply. And thank you for sending that earlier information relative to the 1930s….but, I have tried very hard (apparently wasting a lot of time) trying to get the latest evidence, argument, and conclusions from the IPCCs scientists on fires and fire weather. The “official” world-wide source on climate. This is not the first time this has happened to me relative to the larger issue/controversy of climate change. I haven’t found ONE “honest broker”, a neutral, credible independent, robust, source. Some are better than other, but all are biased in one way or another. The more I learn about the atmosphere, ocean, and crust of the earth, the more I marvel at both the complexity and interaction of the three.
I am fine with conclusions of varying degrees…we don’t know… we don’t know, but we suspect, …we don’t know, but we have decent amounts of evidence,… we are fairly certain AT THIS TIME (subject to revision),…we have high confidence that this is true about climate or any other subject. Since appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, made even more dangerous when money, prestige, career, vast political outcomes are on the table, if I don’t get the above (evidence, argument, and conclusions) from even the IPCC, I am forced to conclude, at best, that WE DON’T KNOW. If that is the case I oppose most of the world-changing mitigation efforts that have been underway since the late 1980s.
Since the geological record (which I believe is very durable and dependable) shows that life on earth actually thrived in warmer temperatures (63F) than we have today (59F), we have decent amounts of evidence that the recent small increase in temperature are not a problem, and may actually benefit man (“short term” explosions of life occurred at about 63F.).
[“I haven’t found ONE “honest broker”, a neutral, credible independent, robust, source.”]
Yes, it is important to apply a skeptical filter to every source of information online, whether it’s from skeptics or alarmists.
That said, I would not go so far as to say there are no credible sources.
I wouldn’t put Dr. Spencer in the “non-credible” category simply because he has a particular perspective.
[“I am forced to conclude, at best, that WE DON’T KNOW.”]
I still think I am missing a piece of the puzzle. If the conclusion is that we don’t know, then how do we know fire weather was worse 100 years ago, or that the 1930s were hotter than the present?
I’m not seeing how those conclusions follow if the evidence is uncertain.
[“Since the geological record (which I believe is very durable and dependable) shows that life on earth actually thrived in warmer temperatures”
You need to be careful about claiming that all increases in temperature are beneficial.
When warming is slow, populations may have centuries or millennia to migrate and adapt genetically.
When it is rapid, the suitable climate shifts faster than organisms can follow or evolve.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Shell profits double as oil prices rise due to Iran war.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpq8n45r5e8o
And then our troglodytes worry about Euro energy prices.
Perihelion occurs in the middle of summer in the Southern Hemisphere
It is a Historical Coincidence! A Major Orbital Phenomenon – Earth’s Perihelion – coinciding with the other Major Orbital Phenomenon – the Earth’s Winter Solstice!
One could ask, the Global Warming coincides with Industrial Revolution…
It is the Civilization benefited by the natural phenomena coincidental timing!
Because the Global Warming is a slowly accelerating Orbital process.
At our times, by the natural phenomena coincidental timing, the Global Warming happens to proceed in its culmination phase!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More irony from Canada.
Edmonton, on the western end of the Canadian prairies, normally has a fairly arid climate which can vary from drought conditions to ridiculous amounts of rainfall, especially via thunderstorms. This year is one of those high rainfall seasons and climate alarmists are falling all over themselves claiming such extreme rainfall is due to climate change.
The real problem seems to be the developing El Nino and guess what, ENs are cyclical in nature, especially the strong ones. Why are we wasting time pursuing the pseudo-science related to a trace gas causing all our problems when it is obvious that variations in ocean oscillations are the problem?
Here on the real west coat, in Vancouver, we are experiencing non-typical summer weather. Temperatures have ranged up to 30C+ in places, which is normal in summer, but more recently, things have cooled off, thankfully, and we are getting sporadic rain showers, again, thankfully.
People in central and eastern Canada are suffering from rainstorms and flooding wile we on the ‘Best’ coast have it fairly mild. Go figure. We have all forms of Chicken Little’s claiming the sky is falling but to those of us who have been around for a bit, it’s simply business as usual.
Are Eldro’s lamentations getting to you? Do you feel like you have to pull him back off the edge? Nah. Let him go.
Thank you, Gordon.
“The real problem seems to be the developing El Nino and guess what, ENs are cyclical in nature, especially the strong ones. Why are we wasting time pursuing the pseudo-science related to a trace gas causing all our problems when it is obvious that variations in ocean oscillations are the problem?”
\\
ENs are cyclical in nature, that is right. It is a consequence phenomenon of the orbitally forced Global Warming.
The more the Orbital Global Warming proceeds on, the stronger the EL Nino will be.
At our times we are witnessing the continuous Global temperature tise. It is that accumulated energy where El Ninos are energing from.
El Ninos will not abruptly stopped. They will quietly fade out when Earh’s Orbital Position turns to cooling.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
July results should be posted soon. With ENSO remaining strong, and the PV starting to weaken, we should expect a rise in UAH Global over the coming months. Then, once into winter/spring, the cooling should continue, heading for 0°C by 2031.
That’s if there are no more “Hunga-Tonga” type occurrences….
“the cooling should continue, heading for 0°C by 2031.”
You feeling confident?
I’ll bet you $1000 US that – based on the CURRENT UAH baseline – from January 2030 onwards there will be no anomalies that hit 0 C or under.
Caveat: unless there is an unexpected dramatic cooling event like a super-massive volcanic eruption, or extraordinary meteor strike kicking up dust, that cools the world like the ’91 Pinatubo eruption did for 3 years.
I’m good for it, and will honour it.
Sorry blackbody barry, but you’re NOT “good for it”. If you lost you would just find some way to pervert the issue. You would try to change the definitions of “bet”, “baseline”, or “cooling”, or some other trick. You can’t accept reality.
My prediction is based on the reasonable assumption that the warming trend is coming to an end. In fact, it’s likely the trend was over years ago, before the HTE occurred. But responsible adults wouldn’t bet large sums of money on just an assumption.
We are getting close to 50 years of UAH data. There are now close to 4000 Argo floats in service, monitoring many parts of oceans. At some point in the near future, we’ll have enough data to learn how the climate works. Then, we can more accurately predict warming/cooling trends.
So not confident, then. Fair enough.
I forgot to provide my best guess for July, +0.53C.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
‘It’s too fast, too big’: speed of climate crisis is devastating crops, say farmers
Drought and extreme heat are killing plants, driving up prices while also making some farms economically unviable
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jul/31/speed-of-climate-crisis-devastating-crops-say-farmers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I’m sure these farmers would like to see the cost-benefit analyses our Very Serious contrarians are armwaving as we speak!
Another load of nonsense from the Guardian,UK weather history proves them wrong,droughts are common all through history,some lasting a decade, every century has reports of drought. many are mentioned in parish records going back to 500ad,
Ian should have a word with Tim:
Op. Cit.
Not our braggart Tim, another one.
Temperatures in Southern California could rise as high as 48°C.
https://i.ibb.co/k2NwPSpL/ventusky-temperature-2m-20260801t2300-38n118w.jpg
Palmowski now behaves like an alarmist, doesn’t he?
Just a little hint to these pseudoskeptics who think the UAH anomalies would plummet to 0 °C in a near future.
*
When we drop all years following 2021 off the UAH LT time series , we obtain a series whose trend since Dec 1978 is 0.14 °C / decade instead of the current trend till Jun 2026 (0.16 °C / decade).
*
While after each peak (see 1998 and 2016) anomalies moved down to around 0 °C (caution: wrt the mean of 1991-2020, look at the green line how it was wrt the very first reference period 1979-1998), the basic trend always continued to hold.
I forgot to add the chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aiJ3UQpKXCsdNYG1wsU8NVgZt0ll0Wmf/view
Does the chart following / showing about the El Nino variations, Bindidon?
No.
The chart above is a temperature chart for the Lower Troposphere.
This chart is about ENSO:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/179W9R9fOmH54vJGmvIPoscPoHTyQlY2_/view
1982/83, 1997/98, 2015/16, 2023/24.
The 1982/83 El Niño was completely hidden in the UAH data by the VEI 5 eruption of El Chichón in Mexico in 1982.
We will see in January how the newest 2026/27 edition will look like.
Thank you, Bindidon.
Thank you, Bindidon.
When looking in the chart, do El Ninos more often than La Ninas?
No.
The monthly Nino3+4 value is in El Niño mode when equal to or above the El Niño treshold (+0.5); conversely, it is in La Niña when equal to or below the La Niña treshold (-0.5).
Summing up the modes for the whole period (1950-2026) gives
– El Niño: +201
– La Niña: -351
Thus, La Niña clearly dominates.
*
Glad to help you; conversely, you would help us all when stopping your warming pseudo-theory.
Regarding natural Milankovitch orbital mechanics, Earth’s axial tilt is slowly decreasing, eccentricity is low and near a circular orbit, and precession trends favor very gradual, long-term cooling in the Northern Hemisphere.
But since the Southern Hemisphere contains much more water, its anticyclic warming effect is very much weaker – due to higher thermal inertia – than the faster cooling of the Northern Hemisphere.
Thus, La Niña clearly dominates.
Does it accelerate, in frequency, in magnitude?
Thank you, Bindidon,
“Glad to help you; conversely, you would help us all when stopping your warming pseudo-theory.
Regarding natural Milankovitch orbital mechanics, Earth’s axial tilt is slowly decreasing, eccentricity is low and near a circular orbit, and precession trends favor very gradual, long-term cooling in the Northern Hemisphere.
But since the Southern Hemisphere contains much more water, its anticyclic warming effect is very much weaker – due to higher thermal inertia – than the faster cooling of the Northern Hemisphere.”
(Emphasis added)
Yes, that’s right: “precession trends favor very gradual, long-term cooling in the Northern Hemisphere.”
“trends favor very gradual”, but still the energy budget is very much positive!
–
By analogy, we are now in August 2, and the Earth’s orbital position trends favor very gradual to cooling (at Northern Hemisphere).
Still having very strong heat waves!
Because, it is still very gradual to cooling, the temperature continues to rise, we consider August the hottest month of the year, so everyone goes hollydays!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Another real-world example of why fire weather matters:
This is exactly why fire scientists focus on fire weather rather than simply counting fires or acres burned. Fire weather describes the atmospheric conditions that make extreme wildfire behavior much more likely. Whether a fire actually starts and how much it ultimately burns still depend on ignition sources, fuels, and land management.
Clutching at straws,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGMQUDfGVfE
If warnings from the National Weather Service about exceptionally dangerous fire-weather conditions can simply be dismissed as “clutching at straws,” I’m curious what, in your view, would constitute evidence worth taking seriously?
In the meantime, let’s start holding deniers accountable for deliberate deception about anthropogenic climate change science.
The key legal concept is scienter:
Even more reality for the cult kids to ignore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qANchcyF45w
This is YOU, Bindi, barry, Norman, Nate, Willard, Eldro, and several others.
Clint R
I watched the video. I did some research on Hawley claim of unlawful. He could state it might not be of best interest but receiving a prize is not a crime under the CFR rule.
Here:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2635/subpart-B/section-2635.205
It specifies a gift to influence actions.
Here:
From AI source, maybe not the best, but it claims: “No, a prize or award is generally not considered a legal or tax-free gift. While they both involve receiving something of value for free, they are treated differently based on how they are earned and taxed”
As usual Norman, you don’t understand any of this. You develop false beliefs, then find something on the web that you believe supports your false beliefs.
That’s called “throwing crap at the wall, hoping something will stick”.
Paul’s disgusting foulplay against Fauci
Paul’s year-old crusade against Fauci centers on allegations that Fauci funded dangerous research in China, lied to Congress about it, and helped cover up the origins of COVID-19.
Paul personally and directly accuses Fauci of:
– funding dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, that may have resulted in a lab leak, releasing SARS-CoV-2 into the world (which Fauci denies);
– promoting mitigation policies that infringed on civil liberties;
– profiting off his pandemic-era fame;
– hiding the truth about what he knew about the virus’s origins
and when.
Parts of Paul’s claims are backed by grant and email records showing U.S. funding went to Wuhan, but the core accusation — that Fauci lied about “gain-of-function” — largely hinges on a dispute over bureaucratic definitions rather than a proven cover-up.
*
What Paul is Ranting About
Wuhan Lab Funding
Paul claims the National Institutes of Health (NIH), via grants to EcoHealth Alliance, funneled taxpayer money to the Wuhan lab to “juice up” bat coronaviruses.
Lying to Congress
Paul insists Fauci lied under oath in 2021 when he stated the NIH never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
The COVID Origin Cover-up
Paul alleges Fauci privately suspected a lab leak early on — pointing to his release of Fauci’s pandemic diary entries and emails telling colleagues to delete messages — while publicly pushing a natural spillover narrative.
*
What is True in the Attacks
U.S. Money Went to Wuhan
It is a documented fact that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Fauci, provided grant money to EcoHealth Alliance, which subcontracted some coronavirus surveillance and genetic work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Early Private Uncertainty
Released emails and diary notes prove that Fauci and other top international scientists actively discussed the theoretical possibility of a lab leak or genetic engineering in late January and February 2020 before standard scientific consensus leaned toward natural zoonotic spillover.
Record-Keeping and Deletions
Some recovered emails show Fauci or aides occasionally writing “please delete this email after you read it,” which investigators argue flouted transparency norms. (Notably, a top Fauci advisor was separately indicted by the DOJ for concealing records).
*
What is Misleading or Unproven
The Definition of “Gain-of-Function”
The fierce disagreement over whether Fauci “lied” comes down to semantics. Independent scientific bodies and Fauci maintain that the specific projects funded in Wuhan did not meet the strict federal definition or P3CO framework criteria for enhanced potential pandemic pathogens requiring high-level oversight.
Paul applies a broad, layperson definition meaning any experiment altering a virus’s transmissibility.
No Proof of Creation
There is no evidence that any NIH-funded grant in Wuhan created SARS-CoV-2, the specific virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. intelligence agencies remain split on whether the pandemic started via a lab accident or natural animal-to-human transmission, with no definitive consensus.
*
That’s really the ideal terrain for the pseudoskeptic cowards infesting this blog.
*
I’ll write about the Covid lab leak pseudo-theory next week.
Horse Poop.
There was no natural to human transmission. It came from the lab.
Fauci unequivocally lied about GOF research.
Rand Paul took the Hippocratic oath as did Fauci. Rand Paul is an oath keeper. Fauci is not.
Curious about the allegations I read the grant documents years ago. It’s a lot of paperwork but in at least 2 places the specific gain of function work prohibited by the US Gov was stated to be prohibited in the grant papers.
What is US taxpayer money doing being used to fund research anywhere near a Marxist regime’s bioweapons lab?
You filled the talking points bingo card!
Also, how did Fauci treat esteemed scientists, physicians and researchers who publicly disagreed with him? “I am Science.” There was no room for disagreement. That ain’t science.
stephen p anderson
Here is an exchange of Fauci and Paul. Paul is an ass! He makes claims ignorants like yourself will blindly believe but absolutely does not allow Fauci to defend himself. It is quite obvious, based upon past treatment, that Fauci would take the 5th. Paul was not the least bit interested in finding the Truth. He just ranted with accusations that allowed no ability to defend.
https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-committee/heated-exchange-between-sen-rand-paul-and-dr-anthony-fauci/4995558
No ability to defend? He pleaded the 5th over 100 times.
Attorney: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Drafting Dodger Donald?
Epstein: What do you mean by ‘personal relationship,’ sir?
Attorney: Have you socialized with him?
Epstein: Yes, sir.
Attorney: “Have you ever socialized with Drafting Dodger Donald in the presence of females under the age of 18?
Epstein: Though I’d like to answer that question, at least today I’m going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.
Stephen p anderson
And why wouldn’t he do that? He has testified multiple times! I gave you a clip of how he tried to defend himself but Paul would not allow him to. He has been out of power for years what wete they trying to do here? You MAGA act outraged by Fauci, still not sure why, but give your lord and savior Trump all passes and cab’t accept he is a lying grifter that is using his office to make him and his family quiye wealthy!!! Iyour fake outrage at Fauci is sickening when you still worshop lord Trump! If you applied the same standards to Trump as you do Fauci you may have some integrity. At this time you are a right-wing lunatic who blindly loves Trump and brlieves all his lies without question. A really sad state to be a MAGA mind. No rational or consistent thought in your mind. The only constant is love Trump and whstever he says or does is perfect in all ways!!
… and people like Anderson, who can’t stop insulting me with ‘Nazi’, ‘Fascist’, ‘Marxist’ just because I don’t share their far-right wing ‘opinion’, really think I’d be interested in such a stupid, superficial answer?
Oh Noes.
BACK AT THE RANCH
When the United States ratified the 13th amendment in 1865, federal lawmakers very nearly outlawed slavery for good — but not entirely. Tucked within arguably the most important corner of the US constitution is a massive caveat: “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States”.
In the 160-some years since that amendment, a quieter type of forced servitude has lived on in the US: prison labor. From the debt peonage of the post-Civil War reconstruction era to the privatized contracting of the 21st century, prison labor is a massive money maker, generating $11 billion worth of goods in 2022 alone.
It turns out that Taylor Farms, the agricultural company widely believed to be behind the cyclospora outbreak currently raging throughout the US, is also heavily involved in modern-day forced labor.
https://futurism.com/science-energy/diarrhea-lettuce-taylor-farms-prison-labor
Slavery is alive and kicking in Murica.
Dullard,
Slavery has been banned in the Western world due to the British. What you are talking about is repayment to society for the crimes that they committed. Yet you condone the slave wages of the illegal migrants, double standards by you yet again.
Or are you one of those Marxists, sorry is it democratic socialists, who want to defund the police and close the prisons?
Which part of “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” you do not get, Q-Anon?
Is Count Binface the establishment to you?
Don’t you know that it’s “tit for tat”?
Have you ever heard of uncertainties?
Where’s Mitch?
Washington Wildfires Trigger Mass Evacuations and Power Outages
Fast-moving wildfires have scorched more than 250,000 acres across Washington state, forcing widespread evacuations and leaving around 60,000 customers without power in the Spokane area. Officials have declared a state of emergency, while over 4,000 firefighters and the National Guard continue battling multiple major blazes fueled by extreme heat and strong winds.
#Washington #WashingtonWildfires #Spokane #Wildfire #BreakingNews #USA #FireSeason #Emergency #Evacuations #Climate #Weather #PNW
Spokane Complex Fire Devastates Washington
The Spokane Complex Fire—including the Old Trails, Fairview, and Autumn Lane fires—remains 0% contained as powerful winds fuel rapid fire growth across North Spokane.
More than 600 structures have been destroyed, over 5,390 acres have burned, and thousands of residents are under Level 3 (GO NOW) evacuation orders as firefighters continue battling the fast-moving blaze.
Trump threatened Canada over the wildfires:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyq93j34lgo
Now we can be sure he will likely threaten the Democratic-led state of Washington…
Nature demands its rights. It’s better to take care of national parks than to build monuments in Washington.
Bindy Goebells,
So what, it’s probably tit for that on Canadian posturing about tariffs.
You forgot the aspects of Trump trying to prevent voter fraud and monetary fraud that has stopped BC the actual needy receiving care and support.
Typical little authoritarian you mis direct the gullible. Do you take pride in men in women’s sport, or the depressed wages caused by silly little Marxists ideas that have never proved to work.
Try reading books on economics rather than burning them.
Here, too, QAnon once again shows what a repulsive, cowardly person he really is.
He is incapable of doing anything other than discrediting, disparaging, and insulting others.
This is typical of far right-wing extremists in Germany and France; and I wouldn’t be surprised if such types behaved any differently in UK.
If he had any balls, he would try insulting commenters on other blogs — Steven McIntyre’s, for instance: McIntyre would shoot him off his blog within minutes.
Even Anthony Watts wouldn’t allow for insults linking a commenter to a top Nazi figure like Goebbels.
That is why far right-wing extremists like QAnon publish their mental feces only here and nowhere else.
South Korea has registered its highest temperature since records began more than a century ago, as authorities warned people to “immediately” stop all outdoor activities in affected areas.
………………………………………………
Half of England and the whole of Wales are officially in drought and July is set to be the driest month on record as extreme heat intensified by the climate crisis continues to grip the UK and Europe this summer.
What climate crisis? Nothing in Europe this century comes close to the great Tudor drought1538/1541.
Oh, Ian:
“Estimated annual temperatures in 1540 were by far the highest between 1500 and 2000, while estimated precipitation was by far the lowest registered until 2025.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_year-round_heat_and_drought_of_1540_in_Europe
Why do you keep lying on an asynchronous channel?
Student Duh,
Wow drought in England and Wales, not as if we don’t have hose pipe bans every year except for the odd wet summer.
If memory serves, the last reservoir was built when the population was 12 million smaller than today. Or in other words the population is 20% bigger without any better water storage.
So drought is not really an issue beyond poor planning.
The irony that you Willard’s miss is that with less particulates in the air the less rain there is. Unintended consequences of improving air quality.
> you Willard’s miss
Q-Anon is having a hard time hiding his dyslexia.
Of course droughts are an issue “beyond poor planning”, whatever that might mean, e.g.:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/2/hungary-plans-to-shut-down-only-nuclear-power-plant-amid-drought
Contrarians like Q-Anon parrot talking points they don’t understand.
Bindidon, didn’t you know:
“El Niño and La Niña events occur every two to seven years, on average, but they don’t occur on a regular schedule. Generally, El Niño occurs more frequently than La Niña.”
(Emphasis added)
Sourse: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
“During La Niña, waters off the Pacific coast are colder and contain more nutrients than usual. This environment supports more marine life and attracts more cold-water species, like squid and salmon, to places like the California coast.”
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
https://i.ibb.co/W4PbRPBJ/ventusky-temperature-water-20260803t1800-37n127w.jpg
El Niño and La Niña events are the confirmation of the Global Warming Orbital Nature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
El Niño is not active in California, as evidenced by the low ocean temperatures off the coast. In winter, however, the weather is determined by the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex.
” El Niño occurs more frequently than La Niña. ”
That depends on what you mean with ‘more often’.
While NOAA simply, trivially counts the number of events regardless how long their duration, I prefer to count the number of months within the events.
*
The last major “big” (multi-year or triple-dip) La Niña lasted from late 2020 to early 2023, spanning roughly 3 years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
It should be evident that such an event had more impact than three small El Niños or La Niñas of less than 10 months duration each.
I see what you mean.
In short, the old theory claims Earth naturally should be cooling, but fossil fuels burning overhelms the natural cooling, so Earth is warming.
Actually, the fossil fuels burning does not affect the Global temperature, because, as we have shown, Earth’s temperature rise is natural.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ian (Dismissive) Brown:
You have invoked The Great Tudor Drought twice now: once in response to the Adriatic Sea encroaching into Italy’s Po River, and then again responding to a heatwave in South Korea and the England/Wales drought.
The Great Tudor Drought is a non sequitur. Weather determines individual heatwaves and droughts; climate determines the conditions in which they occur.
Europe today is ~1.5-2°C warmer than in the sixteenth century.
That warmer baseline makes many heatwaves more intense, increases heavy rainfall potential, raises evaporative demand during droughts, and amplifies coastal flooding through sea-level rise. The existence of historical extremes doesn’t refute that.
See Climate Change for Dummies: https://ibb.co/RGcH5jQj
Weren’t there mass famine and starvation in Europe during the Little Ice Age? To you that’s preferable?
Murica wasn’t even a thing during the Ice Age, Troglodyte:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/03/epstein-files-transparency-act
Why do you care?
Tinkerbell,
Your counterpoint is so bad it isn’t worth responding to.
Troglodyte folds as fast as Jeanine did.
Arklady
You claim that the world is 1.5C or even 2C warmer that the 1600s. Which is it?
So how much of that is down to natural climate change?
How much due to the pollution reducing in ye atmosphere?
How much due to heat island and poor data?
Or the solar insolation changes?
Or man kind affecting the albedo of the planet?
Aren’t you glad that the IPCC has thrown out the worst scenario as being impossible? My bet you make more excuses than Willard does and corrupt the English language more than Bindi Goebbels, just so you can feel smug.
QAnon shows us once again what a filthy, cowardly asshole he really is.
He knows a Nazi asshole when he sees one.
Q-Anon sure does:
https://www.al.com/politics/2026/08/trumps-mention-of-public-company-sparks-speculation-he-bought-its-stock-got-to-give-them-a-plug.html
Except when he doesn’t.
” He knows a Nazi asshole when he sees one. ”
Heil freedom of speech!
You, Anderson and QAnon are hundred thousand times more Nazis than I.
And you, Anderson, are exactly the same kind of filthy coward as QAnon.
Never would you two cowards dare to write such filthy insults anywhere else than on a blog you know to 100% allow you for posting insults of any kind.
Bindy Goebells,
Funny how you don’t try to answer any of the questions posed.
Bindy Goebells,
You spend a lot of your time insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinions. I just highlight your hypocrisy with a concise phrase. Btw face to face I would be even more blunt.
Anyway why didn’t you try to answer any of the questions I raised. Is it because you are incapable or is it that you shy away from having to concede that the alarmists view you push is false.
Btw the socialist workers party was against capitalism, and used the term capitalist as a slur against any they disagree with including the Jews. Perhaps you ought to revisit your posts to see what commonality you have with national socialist workers party.
Q-Anon’s loaded and leading questions are as genuine and genuine as he is.
Questions maketh the concern troll.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Contrarians’ favorite 80 year-old “exploded” at a meeting with his top national security officials last week.
Distracted Donald was reportedly “yelling expletives” to express his frustration over the lack of progress in the war he launched on Feb. 28 and which has cost the lives of 18 U.S. service members.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/exasperated-trump-battles-with-top-goons-in-white-house/
You knew it all along. Your top goons have no clear reason why they engaged with Iran, no exit strategy or victory conditions, they’re using shitty real estate grifters to negotiate with international relations doctorates, and they have no theory of mind for their opponents whatsoever.
There is a very small chance of precipitation in the western United States.
https://i.ibb.co/ZRnXhbnc/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f024.png
Mamdani’s broke. He’s learning socialism doesn’t work when it runs out of other peoples’ money.
BACK AT THE RANCH.
Major crime dropped 13%. Murder dropped 32%. Robberies dropped 15%. Vehicle thefts dropped 25%. Meanwhile:
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-nick-adams-state-flag-charity-civics-state-department
Adams learned from the best scoundrels the Earth has ever witnessed.
Dr Jha endorses the lab leak. It’s not just a theory anymore:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/general/former-biden-covid-19-response-coordinator-dr-ashish-jha-says-pandemic-probably-was-a-lab-leak/ar-AA29jDap
Based on information I learned and based on information I have seen, I have come to conclude that it is more likely to have been a lab leak
Here’s the bottom line: No one in the United States knows for sure. The only people who know for sure are people — officials in China, and we still need transparency and accountability on that
tim…there are other factors that require consideration.
In January of 2020, when the Wuhan scientists first announced the covid virus they did not claim to have physically isolated a virus. In fact, they admitted only to inferring a virus based on the practice introduced by Luc Montagnier when he inferred HIV back in 1983.
Montagnier has freely admitted, much to his credit, that neither he nor anyone on his team had physically isolated HIV as required at the time. When Montagnier first tried to isolate HIV, he was using a method devised by his institute, the Louis Pasteur Institute, that was regarded as the gold standard at the time.
The LPI gold standard method at the time required that a suspected virus material must be isolated by a vigorous method. First, the suspected material had to be applied to a sucrose solution that had been graded by density in a vial. If the combo was then centrifuged, the suspected material would gravitate to a density level in the sucrose solution, forming a dark band, indicating the density.
That was the first clue that a virus might be there since viral material has a definite density. However, that was not enough to claim a virus. The LPI method required another step. The material forming the dark band was then extracted and prepared in a thin film of about 90 nm, so it could be used in an electron microscope. The EM fires electrons through the material and a very thin slice is required to allow that action.
With the thin film in place, under an EM, the virus particles should then show up clearly on an inage as individual virii with a definite and similar shape and size.
After using that method Montagnier saw no virus!!! Both he and his lab technician, who operated the EM, saw no virus.
The experiment should have ended there but Montagnier and LPI were under tremendous pressure to explain the cause of AIDS. They were in direct competition with Robert Gallo, who was inferred to have stolen information from Montagnier’s research. That charge was swept under the rug in a joint agreement between the French and US governments. The alleged chicanery outlines the tremendous pressure on both to find a cause for AIDS.
The irony is that a perfectly good explanation had already been forwarded by Peter Duesberg. He explained quite logically that the two major risk groups, male homosexuals and IV drug users were compromising their immune systems with their life styles. Only 16% of male homosexuals were affected by AIDS and those were the ones practicing unsafe sexual practices with multiple partners while high on drugs. Duesberg was blunt in his association between the two group re drug use.
Ironically, Montagnier arrived at the same conclusion years after Duesberg went out on a limb and made his claims.
The entire point is that no one knows what caused the covid outbreak. No virus was physically isolated, the tests did not test directly for a virus, and the vaccine was rushed out in a few months whereas such research normally took 6 years.
The test for covid, like the test for HIV, did not test for a virus. Rather, both tests depended on the number of iterations required for the PCR method for DNA amplification. The tests made no sense. In fact, a joke began circulating with male homosexuals that is they tested positive for HIV, they should be retested in a few days, at which time they were likely to test negative.
Guess who developed the test for HIV based on PCR? Anthony Fauci!!! He was advised by Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, that PCR could not be used in that method to claim isolation of a virus.
Fauci was still head of NAIAD when he claimed the RNA-PCR test for HIV and he used his power to suppress Peter Duesberg’s claim that HIV was a harmless passenger virus that could not possible cause AIDS. He did that by stopping Duesberg’s funding. That’s what kind of creep Fauci is.
Duesberg and Gallo had been friends prior to Duesberg’s claims about HIV and Gallo simply stopped talking to him after the claims.
Even more ironically, Montagnier came out later and agreed with Duesberg that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system.
The point is clear, whatever caused the covid hysteria is still not identified. The so-called pandemic was quietly redefined as an endemic issue, making it the same as the common flu.
Is that possible? Sure it is. Many humans are living on the edge health-wise and all it would take is a stronger than normal flu to cause the havoc blamed on covid. As it turned out, those most affected by covid were those with already compromised immunity and those with one or more pre-existing health conditions.
Moreover, the real cause of covid deaths was pneumonia.
One of the first places covid became noticeable outside of China was Italy. In 2016, more than 20,000 people in northern Italy succumbed to the common flu. The number succumbing to covid in the same region was about the same in 2020.
I think far too much has been made of covid by hysterical officials. We should rename it the hysteria pandemic.
It would be interesting to see the stats between Covid deaths and HIV positive individuals. Maybe Tinkerbell could help us.
More interesting stats:
Michigan Reports Two Deaths In Ongoing Cyclosporiasis Outbreak
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/-michigan-deaths-cyclospora-outbreak_n_6a70c49ce4b07f032143e81f
BACK AT THE RANCH
In the 78-page document, we determined that most of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic origin, meaning that it came from an animal.
Most of the scientific reviews we assessed support the zoonotic-origins hypothesis and find no conclusive evidence for a lab leak.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00530-y.pdf
I have sympathy, and it is sad to see so many otherwise talented scientists shame themselves just to keep a political narrative alive. Fauci Lied.
From your precious report:
“Determining how a disease originated gets
harder with time. We reiterate our request for
any researchers, scientists or governments
with information on the origins of SARS-CoV-2
to make that information available to the WHO
and the next iteration of SAGO. We also stress
that formal scientific evaluation of findings
requires peer-reviewed publication.”
That difficultly sits squarely on the fact that the crossover animal does not exist. SARS-CoV-2 does not exist in nature. It was not a natural virus that escaped the lab. Instead of posting crap speculation, they should be at work finding that crossover. Why are they not interested in doing that? What is the conclusion?
Dullard,
The journals Nature & Science sold out to the woke brigade years ago. The fact that they don’t understand the difference between male and female in the biological sense is all the proof needed.
There have been studies on the genetic sequence of the COVID virus, which proved it wasn’t a natural virus. How much silver do you get paid by the CCP? Or are you one of their useful idiots?
The paper was so long,it defended itself from ever been read.Winston Churchill.
One must have sympathy for contrarians.
Many don’t get that a theory remains a theory even if one guy from the establishment started to “endorse” it. They may not realize that the citation comes from their own source, and simply read something that confirms their biases and ran with it. They read so little that everything looks like a smoking gun to them.
Others even say that five pages is too long to read. As long as they’re simply powered by reactance, they never read anything.
Others will simply spit. As if their anonymous reactionary opinions mattered in the grand scheme of things.
One must also realize that cranks are tools used by regressive forces, and treat them accordingly.
One area of concern is the furin cleavage. What is your expert analysis? Is that important or not?
Anyone who knows the basics about how scientific inference works would not appeal to ignorance while claiming to have “compelling evidence” at the same time.
Our Ivy Leaguer just found another peddler who sells “mission grade biological intelligence”:
https://bioradarusa.com/#team
“Protecting the warfighter” pitches to Drunken Pete.
“Deploy target intervention” pitches to Steroid Junior.
“Build public confidence” pitches to state & local gubmints.
No wonder our Ivy Leaguer’s newly discovered dude worked so hard against universal healthcare.
All and all, another distraction from Iran and Epstein.
Just about anything to steal the mid-terms.
Tinkerbell,
So when will you learn the basics? Of course you have to have math skills first.
Some interesting maths for troglodytes –
Roger Shoffstall spent three years in prison for evading income taxes.
It hasn’t stopped the FCC from sending him $1 million a year to sell obsolete internet service in Alaska.
The money comes from a special government subsidy program. Muricans help pay for it.
https://www.propublica.org/article/alaska-telecom-subsidies-roger-shoffstall
Typhoon Delphin will certainly not weaken before reaching China near Shanghai.
The paper was so long,it defended itself from ever been read.Winston Churchill.
The obsession with Fauci on the Right is truly bizarre, yet lucrative for Paul and Kennedy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/03/us/politics/fauci-rfk-publisher.html?unlocked_article_code=1.21A.8tSf.CENkKlm_8SdN&smid=url-share
It seems MAGA needs scapegoats, and for some reasom have selected this 85 year old scientist.
It’s called Justice. He needs to be remembered for who he is.
Justice:
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/03/blanche-pledged-abortion-pill-crackdown-private-call-01023304
is not a concept troglodytes master very well.
Another mindless red herring from Tinkerbell.
Troglodyte presents himself as the King of squirrels when the fishing expedition is quite obvious:
https://www.farmaid.org/issues/challenges-family-farmers-face/tracking-the-farm-economy-in-crisis/
Donald sucker punches farmers, and troglodytes are all for it.
SCIENCE, VOL. 201, 4 AUGUST 1978: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.201.4354.401
If you pulled a Rip Van Winkle and woke up today, you would do well to read this 1978 Science paper by Dewey M. McLean, not because every hypothesis it contains stood the test of time, but because it shows how remarkably early scientists recognized the potential consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2. It demonstrates that concern about anthropogenic CO2 predates modern politics.
Even though its principal hypothesis about the end-Cretaceous extinction has not become the accepted explanation, the paper is prescient because it contained several ideas that anticipated later developments in climate science.
At that time:
1/ atmospheric CO2 was about 335 ppm,
2/ satellite observations were in their infancy,
3/ modern General Circulation Models were primitive,
4/ no IPCC yet existed.
The paper contains genuine scientific foresight, and it reminds us that concern over anthropogenic climate change did not arise suddenly with the IPCC in the late 1980s, but was already emerging from geology, oceanography, atmospheric physics, and paleoclimatology in the 1960s and 1970s.
Among the many concepts already being discussed seriously in the peer-reviewed literature then were:
1/ anthropogenic alteration of the carbon cycle,
2/ greenhouse warming from CO2,
3/ feedback amplification,
4/ polar amplification,
5/ sea-level rise,
6/ and the possibility of crossing climatic thresholds.
Serendipity lies in the fact that, while investigating one geological mystery, McLean articulated several concepts that later became central pillars of modern Earth system science.
Arklady,
When you wrote “modern General Circulation Models were primitive” referring to 1978 what exactly were you referring to?
Back then mainframes roamed the earth, I think it was IBM who said the number of computers would be limited to a few hundred. So are you referring to the climate models or is it some other Orwellian double speak you using to malinform every one.
Ark, someday you need to sit down and learn some science.
The way to evaluate a “paper” is to read both the introduction and conclusion first. If there is ANY nonsense in either, you can trash the paper.
The very first sentence of you paper:
That’s a mixture of “soft science” and “cult science”, resulting in extreme nonsense.
Trash can….
Once more, Robertson can’t stop distorting the reality about Montagnier and HIV because he as always exclusively relies on contrarians who woefully denied Montagnier’s results, among them the well known Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos.
*
In May 1983, Dr. Luc Montagnier and his team at the Institut Pasteur actually published direct physical evidence of the virus (initially named LAV). They observed retrovirus-like particles using electron microscopy and detected reverse transcriptase activity in lymphocyte cultures from patients.
The team visualized viral particles budding from T-lymphocytes via electron microscopy.
They measured reverse transcriptase activity, a definitive enzymatic marker of retroviruses, and successfully cultured the cytopathic retrovirus from patient lymph node tissues.
Montagnier never admitted to “only inferring” a virus without seeing it; rather, initial skepticism from other researchers concerned whether the virus was the definitive cause of AIDS, a causality confirmed conclusively by 1984.
Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi received the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine precisely for isolating and identifying the virus; anything else is a lie.
*
I trust the Institut pasteur much more than Robertson’s eternal lies and distortions:
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/research-journal/news/40-years-hiv-discovery-virus-responsible-aids-identified-may-20-1983
Once again, Binny puts his size 14 (Eu 47) shoes firmly in his size 18 mouth (Eu 53). I have already posted the Montagnier interview in which he and his lab tech admit they saw no virus on an electron microscope.
The entire video can now be found here…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyPq-waF-h4
At 52 minutes plus, the EM lab tech, Dr. Charles Dauget states….
“We have never seen virus particles in the purified gradient. What we have seen all the time is cellular debris, no virus particles”.
Elsewhere, Montagnier agreed with that assessment. I mean, had they seen a virus on the EM, there would have been no need to create a new hypothesis about RNA. As he admits freely in the video, they were under tremendous pressure to find a virus, so it appears they created one.
The irony for me is that a member of Montagnier’s team. a Dr. Barre Sinoussi, sat on the LPI board that created the gold standard, using an EM, for isolating a virus. Yet when they failed to see HIV on an EM, she said nothing. And here we find LPI braying years later about isolating a virus.
Robertson, of course, deliberately ignores the fact that the late Montagnier began to discredit his achievements from decades ago.
I am aware of further, even more recent excerpts from Montagnier’s post-Covid-19 era, in which he—apparently even more mentally weakened than before—sinks even deeper into despair.
The Pasteur Institute is and remains the historically accurate source.
The planet is warming.It is warming gradually accelerating for ten (10) millennias now. It happens the warming is in its culmination phase.
It is an Orbital Phenomenon. The fossil fuels burning does not affect Global temperarure.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course.