Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
Recently, several media outlets claimed that June 2024 was the hottest June on record globally and that it topped off a string of 12 or 13 warmer than normal months, which they blamed on human-induced climate change. Each of the news stories made false claims of reaching climate tipping points, extreme weather events, and that the extended streak of hot temperatures proved a “climate crisis” was at hand.
Here are some of the headlines: Temperatures 1.5C above pre-industrial era average for 12 months, data shows (The Guardian,) June sizzled to a 13th straight monthly heat record, but July might break string (National Public Radio,) and World in line for hottest year as 1.5C limit breached for 12 months in a row (Financial Times.)
That ongoing 1.5C temperature limit scare-story has people around the world rattled. For example, this infographic from The Asia-Pacific branch of the International Union of Food workers (IUF) says (bold author’s):
Global warming caused by human activities reached approximately 1°C over the past 170 years, increasing at 0.2°C per decade. Scientists warn that an average rise of more than 1.5°C in the surface temperature of the earth compared to pre-industrial levels will be catastrophic for the environment and human health.
But despite 12 months of the globe being above the so-called temperature limit, nothing bad happened on a global scale. Claims of climate catastrophe once we passed the so-called 1.5C temperature limit, never happened. The limit was nothing more than a political talking point from the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, as described in this Associated Press article: The magic 1.5: What’s behind climate talks’ key elusive goal. The AP wrote, “in a way both the ‘1.5 and 2 degree C thresholds are somewhat arbitrary,’ Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson said in an email. ‘Every tenth of a degree matters!’”
Now, despite surpassing that arbitrary limit, the “crisis” progressive politicians and alarmists in the mainstream media have been warning about failed to materialize.
First let’s check the global temperature. The source of all these news stories comes from a recent press release by Copernicus, part of the European Commission. A graph by Copernicus, seen in Figure 1 below, illustrates the “limit” and the 12-month temperature peak:
Note the sharp peak in Figure 1 topping out at 1.63°C. In Figure 2 below, there’s detail provided by Copernicus concerning the year-long peak of temperature.
Note in Figure 2 that global temperature is already coming down from the peak that occurred 5 months ago. Soon, it will likely be below the 1.5°C mark.
As you can see in Figure 1 and confirmed in Figure 2, this sharp upshoot of temperature is unlike anything prior in the temperature record. It makes you wonder; why? Did mankind suddenly go on a fossil fuel burning blitz to create more carbon dioxide in a single year?
No, but there was a unique volcanic eruption. According to this article from NASA Research, A volcanic eruption sent enough water vapor into the stratosphere to cause a rapid change in chemistry. They say:
The eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano on January 15, 2022, produced the largest underwater explosion ever recorded by modern scientific instruments, blasting an enormous amount of water and volcanic gases higher than any other eruption in the satellite era.
In case you didn’t know, NASA also says in this article Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth’s Greenhouse Effect that water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas:
Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder.
So, imagine for the first time in history since humans have been able measure such a thing, the eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano injected massive, megaton levels (146 metric megatons) of water vapor into the stratosphere never seen before. See Figure 3 below.
According to a scientific paper published shortly after the eruption, “Observations from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) aboard the NASA Aura satellite immediately following the eruption indicated that this single event increased water vapor in Earth’s normally dry stratosphere by approximately 10%.” With that much extra water vapor (the strongest greenhouse gas) injected into the atmosphere, global warming was guaranteed.
Another scientific article titled Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of Warming said, “The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai sent megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming over the next 5 years.”
In addition, there was immediate ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere. NASA Research says: “Our measurements showed that stratospheric ozone concentrations decreased rapidly – by as much as 30% in air with the highest water vapor concentrations – in the immediate wake of the eruption.”
The EPA says, “The ozone layer in the stratosphere absorbs a portion of the radiation from the sun, preventing it from reaching the planet’s surface.” So, with less ozone, more sunlight reached the surface of the planet than it usually does, and the extra energy hangs around in the atmosphere due to the increased water vapor in the role of a greenhouse gas. The eruption had a double-whammy effect on Earth’s atmosphere, you could have bet your bottom dollar that the planet would get warmer as a result.
And it did. This completely natural volcanic event created the spike in temperature to 1.63°C seen in Figure 1. Meanwhile the media, whether out of unintentional or willful ignorance, remains oblivious to how the atmosphere responded to the volcano. Accordingly, they are still writing misleading scare stories, blaming humans for the recent increase in temperature due to their use of modern energy and transportation, such as what CNN wrote in a recent article about the spike in global temperature:
The climate crisis is driven primarily from humans burning coal, oil and gas for energy. El Niño, a natural climate pattern that originates in the Pacific Ocean, has also boosted temperatures in much of the world in recent months.
No mention of the volcano or resultant water vapor blast letting humans off the hook. Surprised? Don’t be. This shameless pattern of “the world is getting hotter and it is your fault” has been repeated over and over again by the media for years. When evidence that humans are not at fault for the current warming spike is widely and easily available, the media ignores it. Even though nothing bad happened on a global scale from the Hunga-Tonga volcanic event, they seem even more focused on the false narrative of a “climate crisis,” rather than factual reporting. It’s shameful and wrong.
Meanwhile, the much warned about 1.5C temperature increase was exceeded for an entire year, yet extreme weather events and the numbers of deaths due to temperature and weather did not see an unusual increase. This undermines years of assertions by the mainstream media who’ve claimed that more severe and more frequent extreme weather events and more deaths would be the inevitable result of exceeding the 1.5C temperature increase threshold. Chalk that up to one more in a long-train of failed predictions.
What will the media say in a couple of years when temperatures go back down as the extra water vapor dissipates and the ozone returns to normal? Perhaps they’ll embrace Emily Littela with a collective “never mind!”
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
I don’t think there is any way we know what the average global temperature is. Much less what it was in the 1700s and 1800s. The 1.5C and 2.0C increases from preindustrial times is meaningless.
Whatever warming we have had since the LIA has been absolutely beneficial.
Even a couple more degrees, especially in the cold northern and southern countries, where it would occur if it did…
… would be absolutely beneficial.
There has been a 22% increase in greening due to CO2 increasing from 296 ppm in 1900 to 421 ppm in 2023.
The greening has been 15% since 1979, per NASA satellite observations
It shows, flora has been eking out a living on a starvation diet
In greenhouses, CO2 is added to reach 1200 ppm, because plants grow so much better, such as tomato plants 15 to 20 ft tall.
You can see these perfect tomatoes in supermarkets in Europe and the US.
That is great side benefit from using fossil fuels, which provided 81% of the energy the world used in 2023
That percentage has been nearly unchanged for about FIFTY YEARS, despite all the scare-mongering brouhaha, and subsidies, which enriched the moneyed elites and well-connected bureaucrats and screwed everyone else
From the article:
According to a scientific paper published shortly after the eruption, “Observations from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) aboard the NASA Aura satellite immediately following the eruption indicated that this single event increased water vapor in Earth’s normally dry stratosphere by approximately 10%.” With that much extra water vapor (the strongest greenhouse gas) injected into the atmosphere, global warming was guaranteed.
.
Actually, based on measurements and calculations, the TEMPORARY increase is about 17%
.
Heating and Evaporating 146 megatons of Water = m x Cp x dT = (1.46 x 10^11 kg) x (4182 J/kg.C) x (100 – 26, C) x
1/10^18 = 0.0452 EJ, for heating + (2260000 J/kg.C) x (1.45 x 10^11 kg) x 1/10^18 = 0.3300 EJ, for evaporation, a total of 0.3751 EJ; excludes energy to heat gases to well above 100 C, and increase in potential energy from below surface to high elevation. 1 exajoule = 10^18 J
.
Because the eruption occurred about 150 m underwater, the red hot lava immediately superheated the shallow seawater above and converted it to steam.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/#:~:text=Water%20vapor%20is%20Earth%27s%20most,gases%20keep%20our%20planet%20livable.
.
Adding WV to Stratosphere: There is a lag of a few months from the onset of an El Niño near Papua New Guinea and its effect on sea surface temperature, SST. See blue and green lines in image
.
The Hunga Tonga eruption quickly increased the WV ppm above 20 km
Air pressure at sea level is 101.325 kPa, about 10000 kg, at 288.1 K
Air pressure at 20 km is 5.529 kPa, at 216.6 K
Weight of air above 20 km is (5.529/101.325 = 0.0546) x 10000 kg = 546 kg, or (546 x 10^3 g)/(29 g/mol) = 18816 g mol
.
Before eruption, WV was 1.8 g/m^2/ 29 g/mol = 0.062 g mol, or 0.062/18816 = 3.3 ppm
After eruption, WV was 2.1/29 = 0.072 g mol; a 0.072/0.062 = 17% increase
See image in this article
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
Al Gore reportedly has made $11 billion buying and selling carbon credits.
“here has been a 22% increase in greening…”
My lawn is at least 22% greener than usual for mid July.
My lawn is still too soggy to mow ! 🙁
I like rain, it is very necessary….. but gees… give it a break !
I complained to the BBC about their use of the Ed Hawkins stripes that only go back to 1850 on Climate stories. After the usual first rejection with the usual BBC is right responses I appealed.
I asked them to check with Ed Hawkins as they often quote so they must be able to talk to him. The reply was that there’s no reliable data from before then.
I have subsequently used that in complaints about warmest in x thousand years stories. The BBC then use their other get out of jail free excuse – it’s what they said.
but.. but… the tree rings talk to us— they say it’s warmer now- we can trust the tree rings… /s
Actually the tree rings say it’s colder now vs. the thermometers.
Cue the “Hide the Decline” video 😁
Except the ones after 1960.
Anomalies are not a temperature. Anomalies are a rate of change in temperature compared to a baseline. It is a ΔT. It should be expressed as ΔT/T when making a comparison.
For example:
LIA T= 13°C and ΔT=+1
Versus present T=15°C and ΔT=+1
Does anyone think either 14 or 16°C is really a warm globe?
The real issue is what regions are doing, as this article shows.
How are people DEALING with this HORRIFIC CRISIS for the past YEAR?!
Mostly by having gotten one year older.
Here at 37S, I have had the wood burner operating at low level to make a couple of rooms cozy. I am awaiting the 2024 global warming that will come later in the year. When the global warming arrives I can collect more wood from a nearby forest for the 2025 global cooling event.
This global warming and cooling appears cyclic. At least in my part of the globe.
I have been observing weather around Australia for 70 +years and can honestly advise I have not seen much change. Last year was a great growing season and there is enough water over central Australia to suggest spring of 2024 will also deliver on the growing front.
“I have been observing weather around Australia for 70 +years and can honestly advise I have not seen much change.”
That would be unusual
Here in SE Michigan the warming of the winters since I moved here in 1977 has been huge. Snow shoveling has eclib ned from almost every week to ONE TIME last winter, for just 10 minutes
Our summers have not changed much but the 2023 summer was unusually cool with a record amount of rain. The grass did not tur brown for the first time since 1977.
This summer so far has also been unusually cool with an unusual amount of rain.
We are rarely using the air conditioner so far this summer. Yesterday the wife opened the windows to “air out the house’ and it got so cold inside that my cat decided to sleep inside a warm closet. I had to close the windows and turn on a small electric heater under my desk.
Our SE Michigan climate change has been warmer winters for decades, and perhaps two cooler summers in a row.
No one I know in this area thinks OUR climate change has been bad news.
Our warming seems to resemble the USCRN +0.34 degrees C. per decade since 2005
That rate of warming is considered to be part of a climate crisis. But in reality, the warming has been very good news.
The climate crisis is a hoax
Nut Zero is a fake engineering project to “fight” a fake climate crisis.
Nut Zero is actually a Trojan horse used to implement leftist fascism. Infortunately, that is real, not fake.
New Joe Bribe’em theme song
Should I Stay Or Should I Go – The Clash // Cover by Crooked Riot (youtube.com)
Well, no-one really expected temperatures to rise (or fall) by the same amount all over the planet – did they?
P.S. I don’t do /sarc tags…
Great comment, Richard
In Vermont, winters are warmer, which sucks for spoiled skiers, but is great for older folks doing shoveling
The summers have not been getting warmer, per 4 NOAA station readings of the past 42 years
GLOBAL WARMING IN VERMONT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/global-warming-in-vermont
Each year has peak temperatures during the summer months June, July, August. The below graph shows those peak temperatures in Vermont, for about 40 years.
Those temperatures were measured by the weather stations in Vermont of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA
Vermont has four weather stations; Burlington, St Johnsbury, Castleton and Windsor.
New Hampshire also has four stations
The peak temperatures increased by 1.5 F over 40 years, or 0.0375 F per year.
Almost all people cannot sense the difference of 77 F and 78.5 F
.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/a47e5e67-6de9-4617-a59b-e5d8237e6742
.
A similar graph shows the minimum temperatures during the months of December, January, February
The minimum temperatures increased by 4.2 F over 40 years, or 0.1 F per year. Most older Vermonters agree, winters in Vermont have been getting warmer.
Heating demand is driven by temperature difference, which was about (65 F, indoor – 9.8 F, outdoor = 55.2 F) in 1980, and became (65 F, indoor – 14 F outdoor) = 51 F in 2020
At present, it takes 7.6% less Btu for space heating a house than 40 years ago.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/45810467-9dc9-43ba-9bb6-0f28e6306f02
“Most older Vermonters agree, winters in Vermont have been getting warmer.”
And probably not warm enough- VT is losing population to warmer regions.
Also they want to avoid death taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, taxes on distributions from pension funds, including IRAs, and taxes on Social Security income
Many older Vermonters move to New Hampshire for those reasons
NH is one of the least socialist, woke states in the US
VT is one of the most socialist, woke states in the US
“Live free or die”.
NH’s forestry rules and regs are minimal compared to Wokeachusetts. I like that. I should have moved there 50 years ago.
Biden is holding a news conference today at 530pm EST. An act of desperation, I would say.
This is going to be a real news conference with lots of reporters asking hard questions. Like the news conferences Trump used to hold every day. This time, I don’t think the leftwing reporters are going to be gentle with Joe.
This will be a big test for Joe, and should determine whether Joe stays or Joe goes.
I think Joe is going to have a hard time today. For one thing, he’s not used to leftwing reporters attacking him or challenging his credibility. This angers Joe, and Joe is liable to go off message because of it and become discombobulated. For the first time, Joe will get a taste of how Republicans get treated at news conferences.
He’ll just shuffle away with a blank look on his face.
Escorted by Jill….
He has the questions and answers on his que cards
He is an experienced plagiarist and sleigh of hand artist already in Law school, where he plagiarized the works of others
Because it’s a scheduled presser, I have little doubt that there will be “seeded” questions, to which Joe will have answers down pat.
The thing is, the seeded questions will have to come early in the presser before Joe’s super dose of Adderall starts to wear off.
Otherwise he’ll be giving answers such as –
“Well, as I’ve always said –
tfw sy d uuhh i iefo odf iejrj
No joke.”
“Look, when I was driving trucks, it want wioe sdgfjh wesolk…”
And rode the train over the Delaware Bridge, which never had any tracks, the one hit by a container ship
Biden has been screwing the US while lining his pockets for 45 years.
The game is up
“Because it’s a scheduled presser, I have little doubt that there will be “seeded” questions, to which Joe will have answers down pat.”
Yes, that’s what it looked like. I thought the press would be much more aggresive than they were, and it looked like the reporters called on had easy questions for Biden, to let him look as competent as possible.
Biden did call Trump his vice president, when he meant Kamala Harris, but he was lucid enough to tell lie after lie about Trump, so he’s not completely gone mentally yet.
I thought Biden did pretty good at his news conference. Better than I thought he would, but then he wasn’t really challenged by the reporters. He did say “anyway” about 17 times. “Anyway” is code for him losing his train of thought.
I note that this morning, more Democrats are calling for Biden to resign, so his news conference didn’t convince some people that he is competent enough to be president.
And he called Lezinsky Putin
Give me a break
We shall see.
In all past news conferences, the questions were submitted in advance and JRB was given a list of reporters allowed to ask questions. He knew which reporter was going to ask what question and had the answer written down.
We shall see.
We saw. Biden was treated with “kid gloves” by the reporters.
Biden did not call on any Fox News reporters for questions.
No doubt his cheat sheet had photos of the reporters to call on.
“YOU walk to podium”
Maybe they finally got his meds right?
Or will be another short one?
Biden did pretty good. I would attribute some of it to drugs.
Biden had been going all day with the NATO meeting and then the news conference. He hasn’t been this busy during his entire term as president.
I liked when he said Vice President Trump is qualified to be President.
Just goes to show that the hundreds, thousands of local climates all the world all do their own things in their own ways and cycles.
What’s all this crap about a “global climate / average global temperature” again?
When I was at MSU in the 70s, Michigan was the coldest spot in CONUS at least times. I can imagine how the people can appreciate not breaking that record.
The climate crisis killed me, but I got better.
‘Mostly by having gotten one year older.’
Believe me, for some of us, that is starting to feel pretty serious (if not, yet, horrific)!
“Another scientific article titled Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of Warming said, “The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai sent megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming over the next 5 years.””
There is much talk of how some scientists think the stratospheric wv might cause warming, but never of how much warming they think there would be. The first link only mentions warming in passing (no numbers), but the second (quoted above) does:
“The model calculated the monthly change in Earth’s energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035°C over the next 5 years.”
The extra wv is said to be 150 Mtons. We emit 35000 Mtons CO2 per year. It’s said that the wv has amplified effect by being in the stratosphere, but even so, the effect can only be small. The recent rise has been breaking records by up to 0.5°C. That isn’t because of HT.
and we can only hope that number increases.
It is said…
Indeed
So your apple is bigger than my orange.
Poor Nick…
You know there is no evidence CO2 has any effect on “climate” or “weather”
So why the moronic fixation??? !
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the current El Nino spike was caused or influence by human CO2?
If not, you are just making up mindless fairy-tales.
The recent rise has been breaking records by up to 0.5°C. That isn’t because of HT.
What do you think it is due to, and why?
El Nino. It is having larger effect thatn usual, for unclear reasons.
Thank you for admitting that you don’t know.
I’m in good company. Here is an article by Gavin Schmidt on the various theories. Money quote:
“However, this is really just the beginning of what is likely to be a bit of a cottage industry in the next few months relating to possible causes/influences on the extreme temperatures seen in 2023. So to help people keep track, we’ll maintain a list here to focus discussions. Additionally, we’ll extract out the key results (such as the reported radiative forcing) as a guide to how this will all eventually get reconciled.“
One significant paper is this one which calculates that, despite the unusual wv plume from HTHH, the regular effect of aerosols dominated, leading to:
““HTHH produced a global forcing of -0.17±0.07 W/m2 over 2022-2023″. (i.e. a net cooling!).”
IOW, part of the apparent warming was the wearing off of that volcano cooling.
Thank you for admitting that you don’t know.
I’m in good company.
If you call the likes of Gavin Schmidt good company, well… from the “ClimateOfGavin…
“”I have thoughts about scientists ‘debating’ contrarians, conspiracists and assorted bad faith actors (or authors).
For reference, I speak w/25 years experience of being a ‘public’ climate scientist…””
https://x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1670880898567249920
Thoughts? Or is it just a fear of losing a debate? Either way, they’ve come up with some pretty weird neo-religious ideas.
“”Understanding climate change skeptics
…from a social or political point of view, climate change belief is an extremely relevant construct to understand why skeptics exist
…
Climate change believers are generally younger, more educated, have more money, and are non-white (which means skeptics are generally older, less educated, and white).””
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/eyes-on-environment/understanding_climate_change_skeptics/
Climate change believers [over the last 20 to 25 years] have been indoctrinated in schools and universities and bombarded non-stop by a more than compliant media. h/t BBC et al.
I wonder which was you class, Nick. Pre or post indoctrination?
PS
At an XR or JSO protest – spot the non-white middle class yah boo.
Also from that Nature article —
Tremendous amounts of research have analyzed the factors behind climate change skepticism and the subsequent opinions developed from these beliefs.
This study provides a statistical summary of all these studies to describe which citizens are believers and what values are tied to skepticism. With this information in hand, we can begin thinking about targeted interventions to change public perception of climate science.
—–
Straight out of the totalitarian playbook. We will be your sole source of truth regarding
COVID vaccinesclimate change. Simply cannot have any of these deplorables form their own thoughts.—
. This study confirms that we will have to shape the conversation around the financial incentives of renewable energy, possibly discussing environmentalism as a form of patriotism, to connect to individualistic value systems that hope to preserve the status quo.
—
Yes, let’s discuss the financial burdens of renewables and the destruction of the environment to build the wind and solar factories.
“Straight out of the totalitarian playbook.”
Yep.
Climate skeptics are interested in reality and the truth.
Climate con-men like Gavin are in it for the power and the money.
“Climate skeptics are interested in reality and the truth.”
Hilarious, coming from a climate skeptic who is a:
Greenhouse Effect denier,
AGW denier,
CO2 does Nothing Nutter, and a
El Nino Nutter.
You are a four star Nutter, detached from reality and truth … who lectures others on reality and truth.
THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK Definition: someone with a particular fault accuses someone else of having the same fault.
Your comments here will appear frequently in the upcoming “The Climate Nutter’s Bible”
“a four star Nutter”
I wonder, Richard, could you possibly post your ‘nutter’ rankings and what it takes [to qualify] to achieve them? I’m guessing there’s a one star, two star nutter etc
So much for raising your personal standards, avoiding personal insults, and conducting adult conversations.
You poor ignorant evidence-free petal.. another little child-tantrum
Get that ADHD/Tourette’s under control.
You still haven’t presented any empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2…
Why is that ??? is it immeasurable.. or is it non-existent
You are so dumb that you still get mixed up between AUW and AGW, and are totally incapable of showing any evidence of AGW.
You are the one DENYING the El Nino warming, despite it being totally obvious in the UAH data…
You are totally detracted from any scientific reality, buried deep in the BS of AGW mantra.
Just “believe” little muppet… evidence doesn’t matter to you.
Gavin Schmidt is a loathsome low-level AGW con-man and coward.
If you consider him “good company”, you must like living in a mental sewer.
“extreme temperatures”
Propaganda from Gavin Schmitt, and Stokes regurgitates it.
Quite telling.
“El Nino. It is having larger effect than usual”
Thanks Nick, for backing me up on this, what I have been saying all along. !
Early, strong, and persistent El Nino event.
Absolutely no evidence or possibility of any human causation.
And “model calculated”.. seriously !!
You know any model could only be based on conjecture and guesses..
So why pretend otherwise ??
I am quoting the reference that the head post uses for support. As far as possible effect of HT, there is nothing but models.
Thanks for admitting you are clueless have have no evidence.
WE are discussing the evidence advanced by AW in the lead post.
yawn!
No, you are making up strawmen
speaking of modelling. I’ve read the latest (26/6/2024) ISP from AEMO. They are still banging on about reaching 100% renewables! Urgent investment is needed in the race to net-zero!
Here is part of the Disclaimer to the document —
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has made reasonable efforts to ensure the quality of the information in this publication but cannot guarantee that information, forecasts and assumptions are accurate, complete or appropriate for your circumstances. Modelling work performed as part of preparing this publication inherently requires assumptions about future behaviours and market interactions, which may result in forecasts that deviate from future conditions. There will usually be differences between estimated and actual results, because events and
circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material.
———
For those readers outside of Australia this document gives an overview of the proposed (modelled) trajectory / costs the country is on relating to net-zero & the renewable build across the east coast of the continent.
AEMO ISP
Yes, that’s in line with Spencer and Christy’s estimate, based on their UAH August 2023 Global Temperature Report in which they say:
Let’s say HTE has added +0.04C to the average UAH monthly global temperatures since its eruption in January 2022. Every month from July 2023 to June 2024 would still have set a new highest temperature record by significant margins.
+0.04C
I bet you really felt that, too. It must have been hell.
Yes idiot, it was a very strong El Nino event.. released a lot of energy..
You have yet again shown that you know that it has ZERO human causation.
“Let’s say HTE has added +0.04C to the average UAH monthly global temperatures since its eruption in January 2022”.
OK, I can play that game too. Let’s say that HTE has added 4C to the average UAH global temperatures since its eruption. This means that the last 2 years would have been incredibly cold if it hadn’t been for the eruption.
“it appears” is NOT a scientific statement…
But you, being totally devoid of any scientific background, would not realise that.
TFN, your guess is as bad as anyone’s, I guess.
What’s the effect of a 30 percent decrease in Ozone?
More UV radiation at the surface, more sunburns, more skin cancer.
Possibly an ozone hole effect in Antarctica as pushed on us in the past several decades.
During daytime, water and carbon dioxide absorb incoming IR light in sunlight. About
40% of sunlight is IR light. This is why cool morning air warm ups quickly after sunrise. The incoming visible and IR light that is absorbed by the surface is converted to heat. The warm surface then emits IR light some of which is absorbed water and carbon dioxide resulting in the heating of air. By afternoon the air can be quite warm even hot. After sunset, water and carbon dioxide continue to absorb IR which retards the cooling of the surface.
In the discussions of the greenhouse effect, there is usually no mention of the absorption of incoming IR light by the greenhouse gases in daytime. Air in the
tropics is hot during the day and night due to the high RH%.
Water is the main greenhouse gas by far and carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse
gas. We really do not have too much about carbon dioxide.
“About 40% of sunlight is IR light.”
About 50% not 40%
“This is why cool morning air warm ups quickly after sunrise.”
The coldest part of a day is usually 1/2 hour after sunrise. Shortwave solar radiation that’s absorbed by Earth’s surface or atmosphere is re-radiated it as longwave, infrared radiation, also known as heat. The more solar radiation is absorbed, the more heat is re-radiated and the temperature of the atmosphere goes up.
On average, about 15% of incoming solar radiation is absorbed by atmospheric molecules such as water vapor, oxygen and small particulates (aerosols).
“Air in the tropics is hot during the day and night due to the high RH%.”
Tropics Daytime
The curve of the planet leads to the tropics receiving more direct solar radiation than the rest of the Earth and more than the region re-radiates back to space.
Tropics Nighttime
Strong greenhouse effect from high percentage of water vapor. The heat is naturally transported by air and oceans toward the poles where the greenhouse effect is much weaker.
Tropics in general:
Because of the humidity, the tropics will always feel warmer to people than the actual temperature suggests.
IR is not heat. IR is electromagnetic. Heat is kinetic based on exchange of momentum.
Heat is defined as the transfer of thermal energy from a high temperature to a lower temperature.
“After sunset, water and carbon dioxide continue to absorb IR which retards the cooling of the surface.”
Water vapor and CO2 absorbing IR warms the *atmosphere”. The Earth’s surface continues to radiate based on its temperature regardless of what the temperature of the atmosphere is. What will change is the amount of conduction from the soil to the atmosphere. Conduction is usually considered to be minor compared to IR radiation so how much retardation of conduction is generated by a warmer atmosphere is probably also minor.
It is not obvious that climate models handle soil temperature, soil radiation, and soil-atmosphere conduction correctly just like they don’t handle cloud cover correctly. It’s just one more failure of climate science in addressing the entire biosphere on a holistic basis.
If they can’t lump them into “global” averages, they just ignore them.
The blackbody model is based on a surface with no thickness.
Use of it requires heat capacity, thermal latency, and specific heat. A 6-inch thick concrete slab is not merely the surface.
If the surface is at 15 C and the underlying matter is not in thermal equilibrium, the emitted EM is less. Energy transferred by convection, conduction, advection, fluid mechanics, water phase change (aka evaporation), etc. also has to be debited from the EM emissions.
To do otherwise introduces errors into the calculations based on the real world.
Good post. I’ve been preparing a look at soil temps from around the U.S. As you say, conduction into the soil is significant. How do I know? Farmers! Farmers watch soil temps to know the best time to get good germination. Soil stores heat for release in fall and winter. It is probably one reason winter temps are rising. Long term averages used in radiation calculation don’t address how this affects temperature.
Any body radiates based on its temperature, whether it is a black body or not. I didn’t mention either Planck or “black body’. Treating something as a black body only allows a calculation of what the amount of radiation will be.
Atmospheric gases absorbing IR can’t keep the Earth from radiating based on its temperature.
Again, conduction from the surface to the atmosphere is typically considered to be minor. Convection only applies to a gas or water, it is the transfer of heat via fluid movement. Not much fluid movement from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere, it is just as minor as is conduction (evaporation is a phase change and is usually considered to be different than convection).
I’ll repeat, absorption of IR by gases in the atmosphere can *NOT* keep the Earth from radiating based on its temperature. If you take a CO2 free atmosphere over a surface and suddenly inject CO2 into the atmosphere over the surface, the surface will keep right on radiating the same as it did before the injection.
CO2 can only change the amount of radiation from the surface if it changes the temperature of the surface. I’ve never seen any hypothesis on how that happens from “back radiation”.
Climate science never seems to make the distinction between the atmosphere and the earth’s surface.
So when there are more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, we can expect warming, right? At least we can fix this point, I suppose. Can we regard this as the official position of WUWT, coming straight from you? I’m asking this ‘cos at least some of the various denier species flatly denies even this. If only this site weighted on this more often whenever they talked about this…
Furthermore, in Figure 1, you show a graph that’s very obviously increasing, and you used that as evidence for what you wanted to deliver. Again, this is supposed to be official WUWT, straight from the front W himself. So we can say that WUWT officially claims Global Surface Temperature is increasing. Again, this is something that some species of science deniers flatly denies. They must surely be nutjobs, right?
So, as a summary, according to the front W from WUWT, there’s warming and greenhouse gasses can do considerable warming.
Well of course global surface temperature is increasing. It has been doing so since the Nadir of the LIA back about 1770. This happened before about 125,000 years ago and then the temperature rose to almost 4°C higher then current temperatures
And 240,000 years ago it was at least 1°C warmer than today
And 330,000 years ago it was at least 3°C warmer
All without extra CO2
Soooo what drove those temperatures to be warmer than today…without feedbacks and tipping points and hothouse earth???
1.5°C is nothing compared to prior interglacial periods.
If CO2 were driving temperatures (see lower graph)
why aren’t we 8-10°C warmer to match current CO2 levels?
Currently were at 421ppm which is above the top of the chart and should put us above 10°C warming
“If CO2 were driving temperatures (see lower graph)”
It wasn’t. But it is now. We are putting the CO2 directly into the air.
” It wasn’t. But it is now.”
Arrant BS.. !!
That is pure supposition with absolutely zero measured evidence.
“why aren’t we 8-10°C warmer to match current CO2 levels?”
All that lovely extra CO2, and temperatures haven’t barely budged
The whole CO2 warming conjecture is a complete FARCE. !!
“”“If CO2 were driving temperatures (see lower graph)”
It wasn’t. But it is now. “”
It wasn’t but it is now?
Kindly explain the state change, Nick.
CO2 is now a climate forcing, a climate feedback and part of the annual seasonal carbon cycle.
Three CO2 related processes at the same time confuses some conservatives.
But then you also have some conservatives who are perpetually confused about numerous subjects, like BeNasty2000.
CO2 has also been significantly higher than today again without a perpetual hothouse earth or thermogeddon
Force requires infusion of energy.
CO2 does not create energy.
CO2 is not a climate forcing.
I will not debate feedback as that term has been hijacked and repurposed with constantly changing definitions in the discussion. That would be akin to trying to hit a gnat from 5 miles with a 16 inch shell from the Missouri forward turret..
There is an annual carbon cycle. Yes. There are also decadal and millenial cycles and cycles extending in epic proportions.
“CO2 is now a climate forcing,”
AGW-cultist mantra BS !
You have zero empirical scientific evidence of that.
Being stuck with the AGW-mantra is making you ignore “science”..
… which you always keep saying, “requires evidence”.
Yet you never produce any evidence.
And it has still been far warmer than today during prior interglacials with no runaway catastrophes and no hothouse earth
And no 7 billion people to feed
Then thank goodness we have at least a small amount of available CO2 now, hey Nick !
And the warmer temperature to provide enhanced crop growth.
If you think there are too many people.. feel free to leave. !
And yet, somehow we still produce significantly more food today than we did last year or 50 years ago in part thanks to CO2 enrichment
Many growers now get 2 crops (sowing to reaping) in a single growing season
“It wasn’t. But it is now. We are putting the CO2 directly into the air.”
So nothing else in nature does that?
Then where did all the CO2 come from?
Nothing in nature puts new CO2 into the air, except the odd volcano. The rest is just recycling.
That is absolute BS.
Any warming will open up new sources of natural CO2, and space for life and the carbon cycle.
Your fellow AGW-zealots go on about methane from permafrost etc.. you can’t have it both ways. !
Are Humans NOT part of Nature? I don’t think ET created us and dropped us here.
Last time I checked Nature directed Human Evolution and humans, intelligent creatures they are, figured out where to find energy that nature had stored from past plant life (coal and Peat) and animal life (oil)
All part of nature and thereby all natural
Sorry dude but plant respiration puts sequestered CO2 into the air. The only question is the length of time of sequestation. If you are against oxidation of compounds that sequester CO2, then let’s start killing flora.
He was talking about new CO2, not carbon already in circulation. He even said that so: The rest is just recycling.
I have asked you many times already to try to understand first what you are answering to. Please consider this.
Your preoccupation with CO2 is admirable for a CAGW advocate, however misplaced it is.
Until you can provide some measurable evidence of a functional relationship between CO2 and increased warming of the atmosphere, you are just blowing in the wind.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? BTW I’m not a CAGW advocate. I’m a science advocate. Unlike you.
I don’t have to provide it just as I don’t have to provide evidence for anything. There are experts for that, please read them. Reading improves your knowledge and skills in general, and help you understand why calling it “CAGW” is bsing in particular.
You may consider that a good answer, but it only means you only use Appeal to Anonymous Authority as your argument. A real troll!
Yeap, exactly. ‘Cos they are the Authority, not some random guys in an obscure blog. For that matter, they are not even anonymous, I can name some of them like Michael Mann. Actually, Nick Stokes is one of them.
LOL! Why do you never provide any of their work with perhaps photons or radiation of heat calculations? BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE ANY PUBLISHED WORK IN PHYSICS.
Mann and Stokes are mathematicians/statisticians who don’t know or study the physics of heat transfer. Heat transfer involves things like mass, specific heat, sources, sinks, conduction, convection, and yes radiation. It also requires gradients to equate all the components. Show us a paper from Mann lor Stokes that has this kind of research. 99.9% of climate research has to do with trending not-fit-for-purppose temperature data and proxy information just as those you reference.
Lastly, I can quote names also. Andrew Watts, Dr. Happer, Dr. van Wijngaarden, Dr. Frank, Dr. Soon, and many others who have university lecture notes on the web about climate, physics, chemistry, and metrology. I have a bibliography the size of a book from these web references.
For that matter they have. Climate science is a branch of Physics.
Why is that? I wonder… ‘Cos it’s not like a pendulum or whatever. At least there’s no evidence for that, and no one has offered any so far. So what? BTW, now we should experience a very slight cooling due to the Milankovic cycles.
more mindless speculation. from little nikky !
Due to Milankovic cycles we should be approaching the next 100,000 year glaciation cycle
So I was right. Expected cooling, observed warming. And not for “coming out of the LIA” like a pendulum swing.
More gibberish.
What we are fortunate enough to be having at the moment are very minor variations.
Neither you nor I can say with any certainty exactly when the next glaciation will commence. We only know, looking at past cycles, that it is definitely looming on the horizon. That horizon could be a century away or it could be a Millennium away. Or it could be no farther than a decade.
No one was talking about the next glaciation.
According to the Milankovich cycles, we currently have more ice on the planet than in any of the prior dozen or so cycles.
You are correct. It is not like a single pendulum. A pendulum is a simple sinusoidal oscillation.
It is more akin to an FM radio signal.
Or wave interference patterns aka Fresnel diffraction theory from which holography was derived.
We have not yet eeked out the native signal for all of the cycles we know about, let alone the ones we have not yet discovered.
And where is the evidence? We should see energy storage in the scale of centuries of years. Where is that? I help you with the answer: nowhere. The evidence is clear.
You have zero clue what we “should” be seeing.
You are totally clueless… The evidence is clear.
100+
CO2 was only a climate feedback in the ice core era, and then a climate forcing mainly after the 1960s.
Your comment is silly.
The 100,000 year cycles in the ice core era were from changes in planetary geometry
CO2 as a feedback:
Ocean temperature changes of +5 to +6 degrees C, caused a lagging100 ppm changes of atmospheric CO2, as the ratio of atmospheric CO2 to ocean CO2 very gradually changed.
That’s true, the glaciation/inter glacial cycles are natural cycles but.still temperatures 4°C warmer than today didn’t cause any chaos or H2O vapor feedbacks causing thermogeddon
CO2 is not a feedback. CO2 plays its part in the ocean, land, biomass, and atmosphere, but not as a feedback.
That is a term that has been hijacked and repurposed with an ever changing definition.
CO2 is a total non-entity when it comes to climate and weather.
It is just part of the gaseous atmosphere controlled by the gas laws.
The only real “greenhouse gas” is H2O.
It is the only one that affects convection and the lapse rate.
There is no measured evidence anywhere that CO2 has any effect on “climate” or weather”
Global surface temperatures are totally and utterly unfit-for-purpose when it comes to global temperature change.
They are massively affected by urban heat, site change, in-filling using pseudo-science, and just basic data fabrication and manipulation.
No-one denies the urban and airport surface readings are increasing. With the massive urban expansion and densification and massive airport expansions, it would be miraculous if they weren’t.
But there is zero chance the fabrications even remotely represent real global temperatures.
You most surely are an ignorant zealot and nutjob.
Oops, I didn’t know the professor of the green-green house would be with us… 😉
Do you have any evidence that CO2 acts like a greenhouse, and blocks convective cooling?
Why name a gas by something it clearly DOES NOT DO… that’s just dumb AGW mantra.
Is there any other gas apart from H2O that measurably affects the rate of convection?
Try not to make yourself look like a moron every time you post. !
CO2 is a radiatively active gas essential for plant life and life on Earth..
… and that aids plant growth in greenhouses.
That is the only way it can be referred to as a “greenhouse gas”
FFS learn some science, fool !!
CO2 concentration affects the thermal resistance of air which in turn affect thermal conductance in the atmosphere.
Convective cooling and thermal conductance are used as if they have identical definitions. The actual difference is a nuance and really unimportant.
noted that you backed up my sentence,
“There is no measured evidence anywhere that CO2 has any effect on “climate” or weather””
… by not producing any evidence… just yapping mindlessly instead.
The pattern continues.
Hale and Stephen Law state that the phrase “you cannot prove a negative”.
Without evidence it can not be proven.
The pattern continues.
Yeah, really… You won 😉
🤡
BeNasty is an expert on hot air, verbal flatulence and climate baloney. He is on a leftist payroll and gets $1 for each science denying comment that makes conservatives seem dumb.
Poor little RG has another mindless little tantrum.
So funny, 🙂 and so pathetic !
““There is no measured evidence anywhere that CO2 has any effect on “climate” or weather”””
Perhaps you can provide some evidence, RG..
… so far you have been a COMPLETE FAILURE.
What “science” am I denying.???
You have NEVER produced any.
How can I be denying something that doesn’t exist !
CO2 concentration has a trivial effect on the heat capacity (Cp) of the atmosphere and has a trivial affect on local temperature. Specific heat is the temperature rise of a mol of matter given the injection of 1 joule.
Increased CO2 actually increases the dry lapse rate by a tiny, tiny amount, according to the dry lapse rate formula…
… hence aids cooling by a tiny, tiny amount.
All immeasurable.
Dr. Happer says the feedback-free ECS for CO2 is about 0.75C.
If there happened to be a negative feedback in connection with CO2, then this number would be smaller. How small, nobody knows.
So how much warmth does CO2 add to the Earth’s atmosphere after feedbacks are included? Nobody knows that, either.
Does this make me a Denier?
Well Tom it’s a pretty low bar to be categorized as a “d-word”, so I’d say yes.
See, if you even raise a rational question that demonstrates that a particular tropical storm was not actually “unprecedented” in its ferocity, you get the big “D” tattooed on your forehead.
I think you are right.
Considering that CO2 cannot create energy, any affect on atmospheric temperature would not be a change in enthalpy.
Warmth is a term requiring definition.
Do you “believe” in the Easter Bunny?
If not… does that make you a “denier”
Yes. Feedback mechanism are actively researched and we know a lot about them. Most of them are positive.
🤡
The basic problem is oversimplification.
A blanket does not trap heat, but the answer is sufficient to explain to a child why a blanket keeps the child warm.
CO2 has an effect on the atmosphere. The specific heat (Cp) of air changes based on CO2 concentration. The effect is minor. If one were to apply the threshold for leaving out details as is commonly done, that minor effect would be omitted.
Greenhouse effect, likewise is an unscientific simplification. Almost all of the 1800s experiments were in glass enclosures, so those were akin to a hot house / green house. The atmosphere is not a green house.
There are many contributions to ever changing weather. Note that climate is defined as the 30-year average of weather usually within a region.
The earth’s biosphere is chaotic, dynamic, and many of the pieces are not understood or have even been discovered. The point is, blaming everything on CO2 is pure nonsense. Taking a position that humans can control the climate is the epitome of hubris.
The earth system is basically a thermal engine. Water is primarily responsible for most of the energy flow. Clouds, simply put, are the governor.
I will stop and I hope you get the point. Most of us are not denying anything except the political agendae that is abusing science for purposes other than stated.
What’s also “hubris” is the belief that with our scant understanding of the planet’s hundreds / thousands of coupled non-linear chaotic regional climate systems, we can concoct some numeric values that purportedly accurately and precisely represent the machinations of said coupled non-linear chaotic regional climate systems, put them all in an “averaging blender”, and pour out a single numeric construct that’s supposed to be the be-all / end-all “global climate” status.
Please be aware that now you are denying Physics.
It’s not the 1800s experiments why science knows this effect. Those were the first to give a hint. Now we know why this is working that way.
Another troll answer! No information included just a claim “we” (that includes you too) know how the physics works in a coupled non-linear system. Why have you not received the Nobel Prize after deciphering such a complicated subject?
Elucidate on the evidence that you know!
Not again, Jim… You really have a talent to get things wrong.
Sparta was talking about the greenhouse effect. Our knowledge about that is not based on some experiments in the 1800s. We have since quantum mechanics, you moron, that’s why we are sure about this thing.
Another troll answer. No information, just claim something about quantum phyics.
Do you know where the word quantum originated in terms of heat radiation? You should read and study Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation. We’ve known about quanta and its effects on heat transfer by radiation for over 100 years. Then maybe you could provide some proper answers to physics questions.
To those psuedo-scientists like nyolci heat is a photon that acts like a bullet. They have no understanding at all that in quantum physics, IR is an electromagnetic wave that is subject to the inverse square law.
🙂 And photons are the quanta of this field. You know CO2 can only absorb photons as a whole. In this strict sense the inverse square law doesn’t work here.
The inverse square law applies to all non-polarized (lasers) electromagnetic radiation.
Read these:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zh4qscw/revision/1
https://radiologykey.com/the-inverse-square-law/
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Inverse_square_law
You’ve really never studied electromagnetic waves have you?
Here is another resource.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/29%3A_Introduction_to_Quantum_Physics/29.03%3A_Photon_Energies_and_the_Electromagnetic_Spectrum
At these frequencies, EM waves are the fundamental carrier of photons. The higher the power of the EM wave, the more photons are carried.
Here is something useful to educate yourself. Sunlight carries a large energy per photon. That energy is translated to Far IR frequencies. Can you equate the photonic energy of sunlight into something coherent for IR photons?
Yes, and actually it is independent of polarization, you idiot. But the inverse square law is a “continuous” approximation, ie. it has the intensity continuously approaching zero as we move out from the source. But light is not continuous, it is traveling in packets called photons, or rather whenever it interacts it always interacts as a (or multiple) photon(s), this is due to the weirdness of the quantum world. On average and over a long time we have the inverse square law far away where we expect much lower energy that is carried by even a single photon but the occasional impacts always have that big energy. This is why I said that the inverse square law in this strict sense didn’t apply.
Tim has this preoccupation with the inverse square law and he always comes up with even if it’s irrelevant to the discussion. Well, especially if it’s irrelevant.
Photon’s energy is a function of the wavelength. Sun’s surface is cc 6000K, so you can check the corresponding thermal radiation spectrum for wavelengths.
I think your garbled question shows your mostly unsuccessful struggle with this subject. Sun’s radiation is mostly absorbed by the surface, and that radiates IR.
You don’t understand even basic physics.
The inverse square law is based on the fact that the surface area of a sphere increases as its radius increases!
If a point source sends out 100 packets covering a sphere of radius 1meter (surface area = 4π) then you have 100packets/4π packetsw/m^2 (about 8 packets per square meter). As that sphere of energy grows to 2 meter radius the energy per square meter becomes 100/(4π2^2) or about 2 packets per square meter.
Those packets of energy don’t *gain* energy as they disperse. So the energy per square meter *decreases*.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with quantum mechanics. NOTHING.
“where we expect much lower energy that is carried by even a single photon “
The photons don’t lose energy. You just have fewer photons per square meter of the wave front!
You simply don’t know enough to be on here lecturing people about basic physics.
Tom, I really seriously ask you to first try to understand what you are “answering” to.
I was referring to a distance where this becomes less than a packet. Or even when it’s much less than a packet. Energy is only detected in packets so when there’s an impact the photon will carry much more energy than the surface is supposed to get. The inverse square law is of course upheld in a statistical way over a long period of time with a very low number of impacts. But a single occasional impact will have much more energy than what the surface is supposed to get (per time period).
And no one has claimed that, you idiot. Your ability to misunderstand even the simplest thing is amusing.
You are dissembling. This has nothing to do with “a packet”. It has to do with how many packets are sent and how the wavefront expands.
“so when there’s an impact the photon will carry much more energy than the surface is supposed to get. “
you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
“The inverse square law is of course upheld in a statistical way over a long period of time with a very low number of impacts.”
Pure malarky!
Do you understand why large antenna’s are used in weak signal work? It’s not obvious from your assertions.
“And no one has claimed that. Your ability to misunderstand even the simplest thing is amusing.”
ROFL!! “But a single occasional impact will have much more energy than what the surface is supposed to get ” How does this happen if the photon doesn’t GAIN energy?
you have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about, and this is clear from your reaction. I’m kinda at loss how you could misunderstand literally everything.
Okay. Let’s use your example. At 100 meters you have 0.0008 packets per square meters. You have detector that has a surface of one square meter. Kind of a problem ‘cos you can only receive a whole number of packets, right? Okay, you repeat the experiment a lot of times. Most of the time you get nothing. Very rarely you get a photon. On average you get 0.0008 photons, and you get the 0.0008 part of the total energy of a photon if you calculate the energy_received/number_of_tries. But anytime you actually receive energy you get the total energy of the photon which is much much larger than 0.0008, for obvious reasons.
I’m kinda tired of explaining these absolutely trivial and for the original point, absolutely marginal things.
“You have detector that has a surface of one square meter. Kind of a problem ‘cos you can only receive a whole number of packets, right?”
You *still* don’t know what you are talking about. Each packet can have multiple photons in it. That’s why the wave front from a 100watt transmitter contains more energy per square meter than the wave front from a 1watt transmitter.
Weak signal antennas are larger, i.e. more square meters, in order to capture more energy from the wave front, i.e. more photons. Enough energy to be useful in receiving a comprehensible signal.
Otherwise a drop of copper attached to a receiver antenna would be as useful as a 10meter diameter dish.
You aren’t explaining anything. All you are doing is demonstrating your absolute ignorance of physics.
Tim, not again… You are fantastically stupid. There’s a limit after which you can’t split these packets. One pulse of light is a whole number of photons, a great but finite number. Each photon has a fixed amount of energy that is the function of its frequency (h*f where h is the Planck constant). The sum gives you the total in the pulse. This is the whole thing. You can’t split light infinitely.
“The sum gives you the total in the pulse. This is the whole thing. You can’t split light infinitely.”
So what? Now you are down to making up strawmen. Where did I ever even imply that you could split light infinitely?
You’ve basically be reduced to incoherence. You are in a hole of your own making from ignorance of basic physics. Stop digging would be your best course of action.
You couldn’t understand the extremely simple (and absolutely non-important) argument I made. The simple thing that a single photon, if you move out far enough, can have a (much-much) greater energy than what you would expect from the inverse square law. This latter is of course statistically, in the long run, holds regardless.
Anyway, you very often come up with the inverse square law, and almost every time it’s completely irrelevant to the subject. CO2 can only absorb whole photons, for that matter, photons are the only way how electromagnetic radiation can interact with other stuff on the quantum level.
At a certain point in the discussion of radiation you started bsing about the inverse square law and photons not being bullets. Well, they are kinda bullets. And the inverse square laws is almost irrelevant even on its own right, the source being the surface, and we are talking about heights of a few kms to a few tens of kms from the surface. The stretching of area is not negligible but almost at those heights. The radius of Earth is 6000 km by comparison.
“The simple thing that a single photon, if you move out far enough, can have a (much-much) greater energy than what you would expect from the inverse square law. “
Not if it exists at the same frequency that it started with. You are confusing “tunneling”, i.e. location, with energy. In a transistor, electrons can appear on the other side of an energy barrier that is higher than their intrinsic energy because the location of an electron is a statistical definition. The same thing applies to a photon.
“he stretching of area is not negligible but almost at those heights.”
Bulls**t. Pure malarky. The surface area goes up by the SQUARE of radius. It doesn’t matter if the radius is in meters or kilometers. If the radius changes from 2km to 3km the surface area goes up from 50 km^2 to 113 km^2. That’s more than a doubling of surface area for a mere 1km change in altitude. So the same energy flux per meter goes down by 1/2. At 20km the energy flux per square meter goes down by a factor of 100.
It isn’t a matter of the energy level of a single photon. It’s a matter of how many photons are available per unit area to impose an energy change on a receiver.
You just keep digging your hole deeper. Be my guest!
I think we are getting into crackpot territory 🙂 You are parody level ignorant. Okay, photons don’t change their frequency (well, cosmic redshift is a thing but that’s due to the expansion of space and only measurable on really astronomical scales). A photon has the same frequency and, consequently, the same energy from its inception to its next interaction, regardless of the distance traveled.
It has nothing to do with tunneling, and again, I want to emphasize the parody level here.
Again, the parody level of stupidity here. The radius of the Earth is 6000 km, and that’s the relevant radius in this case ‘cos the whole surface is radiating. The radius goes from 6000 km to 6100 km, the a surface of 50km2 goes to 51.7 km2. And this is the full relevant height of the atmosphere here, 100kms, around 55 nautical miles for the brain dead people who don’t use metric. For a 10 km height this the difference is just 0.17km2. Should I put the (now traditional) phrase “you idiot” here?
At 20 km the energy flux is 99.33%, you genius.
If you go out far enough this number goes below 1. I was talking about that. An absolutely marginal point, and an easy to understand thing. You couldn’t understand it.
“I think we are getting into crackpot territory”
No, we are getting into basic physics. Which you refuse to learn about.
” A photon has the same frequency and, consequently, the same energy from its inception to its next interaction, regardless of the distance traveled.”
That’s what I said.
“The radius of the Earth is 6000 km”
Surface radiation from the earth doesn’t start at the center of the earth.
“nd that’s the relevant radius in this case ‘cos the whole surface is radiating.”
Nope. The surface is ground zero, not the center of the earth. You don’t even understand geometry let alone physics.
“The radius goes from 6000 km to 6100 km, the a surface of 50km2 goes to 51.7 km2.”
Only if the radiation starts at the center of the earth instead of at the surface.
“At 20 km the energy flux is 99.33%, you genius.”
You still don’t understand basic physics and geometry. Do you *really* think that IR radiation from the earth starts at the center of the earth instead of from a grain of sand at the surface of the earth?
“If you go out far enough this number goes below 1”
It *always* goes below one! 1/4 is below 1. 1/16 is below one. Decimals are always below one!
It never goes to ZERO, it just becomes unmeasurable.
He looked up gravity which by convention is measured from the center of astronomical objects.
However I would point out that isn’t exactly how Einstein’s view of gravity works where space-time is warped.
I’ve already explained to your husband or who the f that surface is not pointlike and if you do the proper integration it behaves like there’s a point source in the center of the earth. I’m talking about radiation. Please read that.
And this is very likely another thing that you are ignorant of.
“I’ve already explained to your husband or who the f that surface is not pointlike and if you do the proper integration it behaves like there’s a point source in the center of the earth. I’m talking about radiation. Please read that.”
Pure malarky. Pure word salad.
The POINT doing the radiating is a grain of sand on the beach at the New Jersey shore. It is not some piece of magma at the center of the earth. Therefore the spherical wavefront of the EM wave has a 3D zero point AT THE GRAIN OF SAND.
The inverse square law is calculated from the 3D zero point. It has nothing to do with integration of anything!
Yep, and no one has claimed that. It’s amusing how you are unable to get this very simple point.
Do you need to be reminded that YOU were the person that disagreed with the assertion that the center of the earth was a convention used to calculate the force of gravity. That very much means that your understanding was that some piece of mass at the center of the earth is where gravity originates.
You made the statement, you live with it or admit you were mistaken.
It’s not a convention.
Your ad hominems are simply flailing around in an attempt to justify your incorrect understanding of heat radiation and gravity.
Gravity does not originate at the center of the earth. It is a cumulative effect based on the distribution of mass in the earth. According to you, if a hole was drilled into the earth, the gravitational force would be measurably increased as you go deeper and deeper. Note, I’m not talking about the pressure from the mass above, but what would happen if you timed the drop of an object at the bottom of the hole.
The same with heat radiation. Your attempt to justify the distance traveled by heat radiation being detived from the center of the earth, requires all radiation to originate from that point. Please explain why everyone, including your favorite climate scientists, reject the heat originating from from the center of the earth as being a major influence on surface temperature.
Jim, you really suck at understanding things. I said: you can prove that you can substitute a celestial body with a pointlike equivalent mass in its center of mass for gravity calculations. This is it. The actual conditions are kinda lax, this is true even in the case of various inhomogenities.
No, I didn’t claim that. You have to be outside of the object for that, and we are talking about stuff that are outside.
This is tiring… No one claimed the heat actually came from the center of the earth. I only claimed for calculating the inverse square law for the surface radiation the whole thing behaved like it was a point source in the center of the Earth (idealized, in reality the situation is more complicated but I foresee a potential line of bsing from you…). A virtual source if you wish.
Then you move to:
It is a convention. Funny how you can just jump from being wrong to claiming you are right. I don’t know what you call a convention but assuming a central point from which gravity originates is damn close. I also note that you uses the term “celestial body”. That is hilarious. The sun, other planets, asteroids, etc. are celestial bodies that are distant enough that the convention of using a point source is justified.
Gravity within the near field associated with a celestial body is doesn’t allow for that assumption except in broadbrush back of the envelope calculation. I pointed out that gravity varies at points around the earth. That means the point source doesn’t exist.
You still haven’t addressed how and why you would treat radiation by the inverse square law based upon the center of the earth rather than from the center of the earth. You make assertions with no sources as if you are Professor Knowitall.
As I pointed out to Phil. yesterday.
If a CO2 molecule emits in the atmosphere, then a silica molecule on the surface can emit also. That CO2 molecule is where the EM wave originates, not the center of the earth. That silica molecule is where the EM wave originates, not at the center of the earth. The point of origination is where one must begin calculating the reduction of power/square meter as the EM wave expands in distance.
Here is a picture. Please note that the source is where the radiation starts and not some reference point at a distance from the source.
“I only claimed for calculating the inverse square law for the surface radiation the whole thing behaved like it was a point source in the center of the Earth (idealized, in reality the situation is more complicated but I foresee a potential line of bsing from you…). A virtual source if you wish.”
And that claim is utterly and totally wrong. You may as well say that all radiation originates at the center of the universe so the inverse square law becomes insignificant between anything.
As I tried to tell you earlier, which you ignored as so many in climate science do, a radiation source coordinate is the zero point for calculating the inverse square law, not some hokey “virtual source” no where near the object where the heat exists.
The radiation from my cell phone begins at my cell phone, not at the center of the earth! The signal strength at the cell tower is a combination of path loss and the inverse square law and depends on the distance from my cell phone to the tower and not from the center of the earth to the cell tower.
Now come back and tell us how you’ve been so mis-understood.
If you have problems with abstractions and substitutions you should avoid science.
The surface is a fcukin big thing, you idiot. Your cell phone and a cell tower are not comparable.
In other words you have no actual refutation to offer at all. I didn’t think you would.
If you are going to do an abstraction or substitution then you must also understand all the assumptions and ramifications of doing so. *YOU* don’t. You can’t just move the point of origin of radiation without considering what that does to the signal strength at *all* points.
The surface of the earth being a big thing is *NOT* a refutation of the physics of radiation. Columbus understood this. But you don’t.
I have actually refuted your bs. You somehow are unable understand that the surface of the earth and an antenna are kinda different here.
Oops, I’ve just noticed the word “convention” here 😉 Yet another comical Gorman failure. This is not a convention. At least in the Newtonian model (which is surprisingly accurate even if it’s been falsified) you can prove that you can substitute a celestial body with a pointlike equivalent mass in its center of mass for gravity calculations. (We actually proved it in high school.) The funny thing is that this is essentially the same procedure of proof that you can use for the inverse square law for radiation ‘cos Newtonian gravity is inverse square law too, just the constants are different.
It is by convention because the earth is not an homogenous body of one standard radius. That means the gravitational force varies as you progress around the surface of the earth.
You probably don’t realize that satellite orbits vary in terms of multiple meters due to gravity changes as they orbit. It makes distance measurements like sea level inaccurate. Study the Jason satellites and how distance is adjusted.
Even the earth being an ablate sphere makes the center hard to place with a constant radius to the surface. So it is by convention that the center is defined with a constant radius.
I must say your education seems to be lacking any depth beyond high school.
It’s not a convention in any sense. It’s the level of approximation. When you wanna calculate satellite orbits you use a more accurate model.
I always say bsing won’t get you far in a debate. This applies here too. You and Tim are making elementary and frankly ridiculous errors all the time.
This is what you said.
Now you are trying to say convention is different that approximation.
Geez, the approximation IS THE CONVENTION!
You are a troll clown that can’t stand up and say “you were right and I was wrong”!
Convention is a custom or some generally agreed upon thing. I don’t understand why you are pushing this clearly wrong bs.
It is agreed upon because otherwise you would need to use more complicated calculus to derive the gravity using integrals of the mass distribution in the earth. If you are located in London, does the mass that exerts gravitational force on you stop at the center of the earth or does the entire mass of the whole earth exert that force? Why is the center used to calculate force at a distance above the earth? Asteroids aren’t spheres, what point is used to deal with their gravity?
Convention is when in the general case you can use it multiple ways and you agree with others that we use it this way. Choosing an acceptable error is not here, this is very much dependent on the problem. Convention is more like terminology or directions in Physics (what we regard as positive when we move in the so called normal direction etc), etc. These are things you can have many ways and to simplify matters you come up with one certain way.
Did you examine the diagram I posted? See that light bulb? Is that at the center of the earth? It is radiating just like a small volume of soil at the surface. How do you reconcile that with your approximation that the inverse square law should be applied from the center of the earth?
Good example. One m2 of the surface is radiating with comparable energy. It means either one light bulb that is one m2 in size in every m2 of the earth or all the light bulbs are in the center of the earth while the earth is substituted with vacuum (that’s why “virtual center”). You get the same flux. And how do I know that? Imagine I move out 20 kms from the surface. There the total flux that is hitting that imaginary surface of a (r+20km) ball should be the same as coming from the surface since there’s no absorption (ideal case, thought experiment). But if we substitute the whole earth with one pointlike source of x million light bulbs in the center, the total energy (flux) is the same, for obvious reasons, we use the same number of light bulbs, no absorption, so the total flux should be the same at 20 kms.
I know in advance that you are too stupid to comprehend even this simple example. One counterargument will sure be that the center of the earth is 6000 kms away, how can that be. But the surface light bulbs are already spread out to 1 sq m. In the center they are assumed really pointlike.
It truly saddens me to consider the level of un-education of those in climate science or those who are trying to defend CAGW. What is being taught in the universities over the past 50 years?
I knew you and Jim were stupid but I wouldn’t imagine you would be this stupid. The inverse square law is about a pointlike source. The surface is not pointlike. Or rather every point of it is a source. In other words, you have to integrate all over the surface to get the total flux 20 km away from the surface. If you generalize this it turns out that it behaves exactly like just as if we had a pointlike source in the center of the earth.
This is really frightening. If you don’t understand even this extremely simple thing it’s no wonder you are so lost in the sauce regarding climate that is not quite trivial. Idiots like you give the mass base to these bs blogs like WUWT.
Okay. A question. Is there a 1/4 photon? Remember, a photon keeps its energy, so you surely know the answer is NO. And it’s an all or nothing story when it interacts, there’s no partial interaction. Do you understand at last what I wanted to say?
“The inverse square law is about a pointlike source.”
The heat radiation begins at the point where the heat exists!
That is a grain of sand on the beach at the New Jersey shore, not a piece of magma at the center of the earth!
The surface is made up of points. Jeesh, do you know calculus at all? The surface of the earth is a continuous (sort of) curve made up of a set of points designated as “dx” in an integration!
“n other words, you have to integrate all over the surface to get the total flux 20 km away from the surface.”
I wasn’t trying to calculate the total flux at a point in the atmosphere. I was calculating the energy hitting a CO2 molecule from a spherical wavefront emitted by a grain of sand on the beach at the New Jersey shore. The total flux is only useful in estimating how often that CO2 molecule will encounter a photon that excites it, not the strength of the wavefront emitted by a grain of sand at the surface. The energy reflected back from that molecule *will* follow the inverse square law. The higher the altitude of the molecule the less energy per unit area will hit the earth – i.e. the less the impact will be on the earth’s temperature.
A photon is an elementary particle. Why would you want to split it into fourths?
The energy level of one photon can be 1/4 the energy of another photon or 4x the energy of another photon. Is that what you are really trying to ask?
You don’t even understand what you are trying to say. That’s why you have to keep making up strawmen to argue with.
The inverse square law applies to *all* EM waves, even laser beams although the spread is modulated by its spread angle, It’s a basic physics fact. It doesn’t matter what the energy level of the EM wave is. As a spherical wavefront it’s energy density, if you will, gets less and less because the initial energy gets spread over a larger area as it travels. The photons don’t disappear or change energy levels, they just get spread out more and more over a larger and larger area.
It’s why, when I was designing microwave links for the telephone company, the inverse square law was very important for determining things like transmitter power requirements, antenna aperture, fade margins, etc.
I kinda feel it a bit hopeless… Okay. How many grains of sand do you have in sight? What is the total result? We are interested in the total flux. Okay, let’s try another way while I fully know you won’t get that either. The total flux of the earth’s surface is X. If you measure flux at 20 km, and there’s no absorption in between, the result should be X Watts. At 20 km the imaginary surface of the sphere centered at the center of the Earth is 4*pi*6020^2. The reduction in unit area flux is 6000^2/6020^2, and this is just 99.33%.
The basic mechanism is not reflection but absorption. That gives kinetic energy to the molecule, effectively increasing the temperature at that level. Of course it means higher thermal radiation from that layer so in this indirect sense it’s like reflection.
I again feel hopelessness. I said you couldn’t split it. I wrote that a certain distance the total expected energy per unit area (like one square meter) would be 1/4 of a photon. What do you expect to measure there with a one square meter detector? You expect X/4 where X is the energy of a photon. You actually measure either zero or X. In other words sometimes you measure four times the expected energy, sometimes you measure zero. If you repeat the experiment multiple times, on average you get X/4 per try. This was the whole point, an extremely marginal thing, and I still have the bad feeling that you don’t get it.
Red herring by a troll.
Red herring by a troll.
I wrote that a certain distance the total expected energy per unit area (like one square meter) would be 1/4 of a photon.
If you take the time to study Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation you would understand that dealing with a single photon is not the proper way to deal with heat radiation. He says,
Max Planck. The Theory of Heat Radiation by Max Planck (English Edition) – Unraveling the Mysteries of Heat Radiation: Max Planck’s Groundbreaking Theory in English (pp. 6-7). Prabhat Prakashan. Kindle Edition.
From this you should derive the fact that one must deal with small homogenous volumes, not the whole damn beach when calculating the losses.
Hilarious bsing about a thing that you clearly don’t understand.
The last hurrah from an internet troll who has lost the argument.
The saddest thing is that you don’t even understand that you do not understand these (otherwise extremely simple) things.
“I kinda feel it a bit hopeless… Okay. How many grains of sand do you have in sight?”
Strawman alert!
I already explained this. The spherical wave front from each point is separate. A CO2 molecule gets excited by a photon from one spherical wave front, it isn’t additive. And the impact on the temperature at the surface from one excited CO2 molecule’s spherical wave front is a result of that single wave front. And the impact at any point on the Earth’s surface from that spherical wave front will get less as it travels – based on the inverse square law.
“The total flux of the earth’s surface is X. If you measure flux at 20 km, and there’s no absorption in between, the result should be X Watts”
You don’t seem to be able to grasp even basic 3D geometry. The impact at any point is *NOT* based on total flux but on the flux hitting that point. The further away that point is the the less impact it will see.
You can’t seem to grasp the very basic concept that antenna size is based on being able to capture enough energy to be measured. *YOU* want to claim that the antenna size is irrelevant, that if the transmitter puts out 100 watts then the antenna will get 100watts no matter how far away it is from the transmitter. Path loss is certainly a factor but so is the inverse square law.
Does *ANYONE* on wuwt defending climate science have ANY real world experience at all? Are they all just blackboard geniuses?
We are interested in the flux at a given height not the fate of a single molecule. You are bsing about how at 20 km the flux would be 1/100th of the flux emitted by the surface. This is clearly wrong but you are unable to understand it.
You actually had a claim about flux at 20 km of height. Please stop deflecting and talking about that.
I’m unable to understand how you can misunderstand what I say. Of course I have never claimed anything like this. I only claimed flux at 20 km was 99,33% of the flux at the surface. BTW the “antenna size” at 20 km is so great that it’s bigger than the surface, it actually encompasses it completely in an imaginary sphere, you idiot.
“We are interested in the flux at a given height not the fate of a single molecule.”
The flux is an additive from *all* of the point sources.
Again, you are trying to say that if a transmitter sends out 100 watts of signal that any and all receivers will see 100watts of power hitting it.
It just doesn’t work that way.
Every CO2 molecule at 20km of height will see its IR wave front headed toward the earth be subject to the inverse square law. EVERY ONE.
Thus the impact at a single point on the Earths surface will see 1/20km^2 from each and every wave front beginning at 20km above the Earth.
Do the math. What does that point on the Earth see for returned IR?
At last! So what is the flux at 20kms? Remember, the inverse square law, the thing what we are ostensibly talking about is about flux at distance.
“We are interested in the flux at a given height not the fate of a single molecule. You are bsing about how at 20 km the flux would be 1/100th of the flux emitted by the surface. This is clearly wrong but you are unable to understand it.”
Flux is measured at a surface. Heat is a radiative flux, just like the 100.6Mzh FM signal on your radio. That flux follows the inverse square law. The fact that you can’t accept that basic physics truth is *YOUR* problem, not my lack of understanding.
“You actually had a claim about flux at 20 km of height. Please stop deflecting and talking about that.”
You don’t even understand about normality. The flux is measured at a surface, i.e. a plane. If that plane is not normal to the radiation vector then the “viewing” size of the plane decreases, meaning less “power” can be intercepted. That is why integrating the entire flux emitted by the earth’s surface and assuming that is the same power seen at a point source at a large distance away are *not* the same.
” only claimed flux at 20 km was 99,33% of the flux at the surface.”
Because you assumed that the radiation began at the center of the earth. I had hoped you had been disabused of that idiocy by now but apparently not. Using your view I could say the originating point for *all* radiation is the center of the universe and therefore the radiation flux at 20km is the same as at the surface, 100%.
You can’t even accept the fact that FM stations fade out of reception on your car radio as you travel away from the station transmitter. If that radio signal originated at the center of the earth that wouldn’t happen.
If you don’t like the terminology, we can call it *fcuk or whatever else, but the thing is the same regarding the inverse square law, where the *fcuk at an imaginary surface x meters away is proportional to the surface_area/x^2.
Yep. A sphere that has a radius of (r+20km) has an imaginary surface that is “normal”. For that matter, this is exactly how the inverse square law is presented, furthermore you yourself used this exact example, I quote your words: the surface area of a sphere grows by the square of the radius.
No, I didn’t assume. I said it could be substituted with a pointlike source placed in the center (and vacuum).
“A sphere that has a radius of (r+20km) has an imaginary surface that is “normal”. For that matter”
Actually this isn’t the case. That’s why the sun’s insolation follows a sine curve as it tracks across the sky. If the surface of the earth was a flat normal to the sun then the insolation would be a constant as the sun travels across the sky.
In fact, I don’t understand why climate science doesn’t do a better job of actually studying how radiation works with CO2. Heat transfer is always calculated using a normal vector to a plane. If the heat radiation doesn’t strike that plane at 90deg then you have to calculate the heat transfer as a vector (i.e. using the cosine of the angle of incidence).
Since CO2 is *not* a spherical molecule, but rather a linear one not all radiation passing by the molecule will be absorbed. The shape is O-C-O atoms in a line, i.e. each O is 180deg from the other because of the repelling force.
In a volume of gas like CO2 not all molecules will be “flat” to the incoming radiation spherical front at that point. So not all radiation is susceptible to being absorbed by any and all of the molecules. That’s probably why the absorption of heat by CO2 is a logarithmic function.
I’ve never studied the literature to see if this is the case but if it isn’t then it should be.
“No, I didn’t assume. I said it could be substituted with a pointlike source placed in the center (and vacuum).”
If you change the point of origination in order to increase the distance from the receiver then you must also change the flux that is being emitted from that point, i.e. the flux must be higher at the new origination point so that the same flux exists at the actual point of origination.
You simply can’t just change the point of origination without considering *all* of the ramifications of doing so.
Why gravity can be assumed to be a point source for *some things” has been explained to you several times. Yet you insist on ignoring when and how that assumption works. Willful ignorance is a character flaw. Do better.
No one is talking about insolation here. We are talking about surface radiation. You’re again deflecting…
This is a well known territory, it’s actually independent of climate science, it’s coming from quantum mechanics.
Plainly false. Always remember, the fact that you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Hilarious bsing 😉 about a field you are clearly ignorant of. Again, this is quantum mechanics, and these aspects are well known and they can calculate them.
This is pretty evident.
You don’t have to change anything, the total flux is the same, you idiot. If you surround your source with an imaginary sphere, the total flux at the imaginary surface of that imaginary sphere would be the same as with another imaginary sphere with a double radius. There’s no absorption in between. BTW the source doesn’t have to be pointlike here. The only requirement is to surround it completely with your spheres. This is such a simple thing and you are unable to understand it.
I haven’t seen any explanation 😉 I’ve only seen bsing about “convention” etc.
“No one is talking about insolation here. We are talking about surface radiation. You’re again deflecting…”
So insolation is not radiation? ROFL!!
“Plainly false. Always remember, the fact that you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”
For radiation from a point source to a non-normal surface the fraction of the radiation seen by the receiving surface is:
f_2 = cos(Θ_1) cos(Θ_2) dA_2 / 2πr^2
where f_2 is the fraction of received radiation
Θ_1 is the angle of the radiation sent from normal at the sender
Θ_2 is the angle of the radiation from normal at the receiver
dA_2 is the surface area at the receiver
Get an education!
“Hilarious bsing 😉 about a field you are clearly ignorant of. Again, this is quantum mechanics, and these aspects are well known and they can calculate them.”
But *YOU* can’t calculate them. I know what a CO2 molecule looks like. It’s obvious you don’t have a clue. Tell me how my description of the CO2 molecule is incorrect. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting. You are just a troll that has nothing to offer but statements that people are wrong.
“You don’t have to change anything, the total flux is the same, you idiot.”
The total flux is the integral around the sphere. Since the sphere grows as it propagates the flux per unit area goes down because the surface area of the sphere increases by the radius squared. It’s called the inverse square law. The *total* flux doesn’t hit a point in the atmosphere or the CO2 molecule at 90deg. So not all radiation arriving at a receiving point is absorbed. Since the earth is a sphere a point in the atmosphere can’t even “see” the totality of the surface area of the sphere. Do I need to give you the equations for calculating the horizon based on altitude? It’s pretty obvious that you don’t know those either.
“If you surround your source with an imaginary sphere, the total flux at the imaginary surface of that imaginary sphere would be the same as with another imaginary sphere with a double radius. “
It isn’t an issue of total flux. It’s an issue that as the radius of the sphere increases the flux gets spread thinner and thinner because the total flux *does* remain the same and is spread over a larger area.
A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere doesn’t intercept the “total flux”. It can’t even *see* half of the total flux. And the part that it does see has much of it at a non-normal vector.
My guess that you have no more than a high school algebra class behind you.
Insolation is not the surface radiation of Earth, you idiot.
Here I quoted the wrong sentence.
Well, I only calculated similar things to H atoms, and it was long ago. But this is the topic of absorption bands, and it has nothing to do with angles of incidence or molecule shape. The relevant energy levels of electron bands that count. This is the weirdness of the quantum world.
You again couldn’t grasp this thing…
Yep. And how does it get thinner and thinner? I mean what is the relevant radius for the inverse square law? Because we are talking about this. Why do you think that at 20 kms, at an imaginary surface that is parallel to the surface, the flux to one sq meter is 100th the flux of one sq meter of the surface radiation? I’m now talking about surfaces, and I assume a homogeneous surface radiation. Can you answer this question at last, and stop bsing? As far as I can see you eventually understood the thing with the photon. At least you stopped bsing about it. Please at last do it for the flux now.
Again, bsing won’t get you far. Your husband, Jim, thinks I’m a mathematician. Please at least synchronize your bs.
“The relevant energy levels of electron bands that count.”
The energy levels have to match. The flux that matches is dependent on the angle of incidence. You can’t seem to understand that.
“Why do you think that at 20 kms, at an imaginary surface that is parallel to the surface, the flux to one sq meter is 100th the flux of one sq meter of the surface radiation?”
If I give you a gallon of paint and tell you to use all the paint on a fence with 100 m^2 surface area that paint will go on the fence with a thickness th1. If I then give you a gallon of paint and tell you to use all the paint on a fence with 200 m^2 surface area will the thickness of the paint be th1? Or will it be th1/2?
The same thing applies with radiation. The EM wave is an expanding spherical wavefront. If integrating the total power around the surface of the sphere at 1m distance gives 100 W total that will be spread over a surface area of 4π(1)^2 = 4π. So you will have an energy density of 100W /4πm^2 or about 8W/m^2. When that spherical wave wave front has expanded to a radius of 2m what will be the energy density at any point on the sphere. You will still only have 100W of power in the wavefront but it will be spread over an area of 4π(2)^2 = 4π4 = 16π. So at any point the W/m^2 becomes 100/16π W/m^2 or about 2 W/m^2.
So the power incident at any point on the 2m radius sphere will be 4 times less than on the 1m radius sphere.
It’s why a radio signal gets weaker and weaker as you travel away from the source. If you want to intercept the same amount of power your antenna has to be 4 times larger!
I think I asked you once before and never got an answer. Why do you think they made the antenna at Aricebo so large? If the inverse square law doesn’t apply to radiation then the same size antenna will work no matter the distance from source.
Think about this. If the inverse square law works for radio stations on the surface of the earth for when you travel away from the source then why wouldn’t it apply to heat radiation from a point source on the surface of the earth?
If all RF frequency EM waves can be considered to start at the center of the earth then why do radio stations being received at the surface of the earth not come in equally well no matter where on the surface you might be?
So what are the relevant radii here? The surface of the earth is the surface of a sphere with a radius of 6000km. The surface area at 20 km is the surface of an imaginary sphere with a radius of 6020 km. The surface difference is 99,33%. You claimed 1% not realizing what the relevant surfaces here.
“So what are the relevant radii here?”
“2m radius” ” “1m radius”
Maybe you should learn to read?
I notice that you didn’t address why FM signals fade away as you move along the surface of the earth away from the transmitter.
Using *YOUR* logic, since the receiver would be on the same radius sphere based on using the center of the earth for all radiation origination, you would never see any fading at all.
So be brave, stand up and tell us why FM signals shouldn’t fade as you drive away from the source.
“You claimed 1% not realizing what the relevant surfaces here.”
The relative surfaces are those defined by a sphere radiating from the source, not from a “virtual” center thousands of km distant from the originating source.
Again, tell us why FM signals don’t fade as you drive away from the station.
What are the relevant radii for the flux calculation at the height of 20 km, you idiot?
Because of the inverse square law. No fcukin one has disputed that, you moron. But you know what? Try to imagine a transmitter that is completely covering the surface of the Earth. And then, please, tell me the flux 20 km away.
The inverse square law is calculated from the radiation source. Not a “virtual” point 6000km distant.
If the FM signal fades because of the inverse square law as calculated from its antenna then the heat radiation from a grain of sand at the base of the antenna will follow the exact same inverse square law loss.
The heat radiation from that grain of sand will be 1/(20km)^2 as strong at a point 20km away from the grain of sand if the point is directly above the point source of the radiation.
That point at 20km away can’t even see half of the surface of the earth. The radiation from the half it can see will be modulated by the cosine of the angles from normal at both the source and the receiver at the point 20km away. It’s what is called the “viewing angle”.
Therefore the total radiation strength seen at the point of interest will *not* be a direct sum of the radiating sources. This is not only because of the viewing angles involved but because the maximum strength of the heat radiation will be modulated in time and by latitude due to the path the sun follows along the surface of the earth.
You’ve been given the proper method of calculation, INCUDING PICTURES, but you can’t seem to grasp the intricacies of 3D coordinates and radiation sources. All you are doing is digging your hole deeper. Stop digging would be your best bet.
Okay. The radiation source is the surface of the Earth, the complete surface.
The radiation is x W per sq meter, homogeneous both in time and space. What is the flux at a 1 sq m surface that is parallel to the Earth’s surface at the height of y km (y>=0)? The radius of the Earth is r. I claim that the formula is x*r^2/(r+y)^2. The sanity check here is the y=0 case where the formula correctly gives the expected result, x.
You claimed that at 20 km the total flux would be less than x/100. You must’ve based this “result” on some calculations. What’s your formula?
Can *YOU* see the entire surface of the earth from the point represented by your eyes while standing on the surface of the earth?
If not then why would you assume that a CO2 molecule can?
“You claimed that at 20 km the total flux would be less than x/100. You must’ve based this “result” on some calculations. What’s your formula?”
Nope. You are as bad at reading comprehension as most of the CAGW defenders on here. *I* said that the flux at a point in the atmosphere from a radiating source on the surface of the earth is dependent on the inverse square law.
*YOU* then tried to deflect the issue to the total heat flux radiated by the earth.
Which is meaningless because a point in the atmosphere can’t *see* the entire surface of the earth. It doesn’t even see the total heat flux from *half* of the earth’s surface because of viewing angle.
from wikepedia:
———————————————
In science, an inverse-square law is any scientific law stating that the observed “intensity” of a specified physical quantity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. The fundamental cause for this can be understood as geometric dilution corresponding to point-source radiation into three-dimensional space.
Radar energy expands during both the signal transmission and the reflected return, so the inverse square for both paths means that the radar will receive energy according to the inverse fourth power of the range.
————————————————
Radar energy is no different than heat energy, they are both radiative energy and obey the inverse square law. They also obey the viewing angle law, how do you think “stealth” planes are made stealthy?
Again, the inverse square law is based on the surface area of an expanding sphere. The surface area of an expanding sphere is inversely proportional to square of the radius, specifically 4πr^2. If “r” doubles, i.e. r2 = 2r1 then the intensity goes down by (2r1)^2 = 4r1.
Going from 1m distance to 2m distance sees the flux go down by 1/4. Going from 2m to 4m sees the flux go down by another 1/4 or 1/16 total.
Going from 1m to 20000m sees the intensity of the flux go down by 1/(20000)^2 = 1/(4×10^7)
Just ask yourself why you get far more toasty when standing 3 feet from a campfire than you do at 6 feet or even 30feet.
No one claimed you could see the entire surface. I said the entire surface was radiating. That’s a different statement.
“Flux at a point” is a gormanism. Flux is about a surface (here: energy flow through surface). The inverse square law is actually based on the second order increase of the surface as the distance increases. (To be correct, in classical Physics pointlike sources and sinks do exist, they are understood as the limit of calculating the flux hitting an ever decreasing surface around a point, and concerns sources and sinks, in our case a CO2 molecule is not a sink in the classical sense before you start bsing, this is maths, Jim thinks I’m a mathematician. BTW The virtual source in the centre of the Earth is an abstraction but if you create smaller and small spheres around it you would get the same total flux as with the surface.)
Wrong. This is from a pointlike source. The surface is not pointlike.
The point is from where does radiation begin to disperse. You think it is from the center of the earth. I’ll make two points.
One, if I place a 1 cm³ block in the vacuum of space and away from all astronomical bodies, that is heated internally, it will radiate in all directions.
If I draw a unit sphere around the block, that is at 1 meter, that will be the base flux (1/1²). At 2 meters the flux will be 1/4th (1/2²). At 3 meters the flux will be 1/9th (1/3²).
This is standard geometry for a cone or for concentric spheres. The surface area of a sphere is 4πr². In other words the surface area expands exponentially.
Two, I examine a 1 cm³ of the surface at a given temperature.
We call this block dτ. Here is what Planck says.
The emission from dτ is from the surface of the earth not the center of the earth. Therefore, the diminishment of radiation by the inverse square law is from a volume element at the surface.
Lastly, you should recognize that the inverse square law really only applies to gravity when masses are far enough apart to assume a planet, sun, or asteroid is a point source.
Have you heard of “viewing area”?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_factor
Notice those vectors called n-1 and N2? Those are the normal vectors. If the surfaces don’t intercept the radiation from the other surface perpendicularly, then each can have different amounts of absorption from the other.
Don’t make assertions about things you have no knowledge about because it WILL be wrong.
No, I simply quoted the wrong sentence, sorry.
Yea, sure. Show the sentence you intended to say was “plainly false”. Otherwise you are trying to pull a Clinton. “The definition of is, is what I say it is”!
It was the previous sentence.
I started to write my answer, and then I had other things to do, and when I got back I messed it up. This is it.
Which explains nothing.
You still haven’t explained why a point source in the atmosphere can see heat radiation from the entire surface of the earth and have it impinge on the molecule at 90deg angle no matter where it originates from.
You haven’t refuted the equations for heat radiation impinging on a surface at an angle.
You haven’t refuted why radiation, be it heat or RF, doesn’t follow the inverse square law with the source as the center of the radiating sphere instead your “virtual” center some where in the universe.
All you’ve done here is provide argumentative fallacies with no relevant reference links and no mathematical reasoning. Beating your gums isn’t a coherent argument.
“Sunlight carries a large energy per photon. That energy is translated to Far IR frequencies. Can you equate the photonic energy of sunlight into something coherent for IR photons?”
In English?
Basically sunlight is refracted, scattered, and absorbed into the “hard” surface of the earth. This heats the surface. Think about grass. It absorbs all colors of sunlight except green which is reflected, which we perceive. That creates warmth, but since the chemicals involved in grass don’t have individual energy levels to radiate wavelengths of color, they radiate IR.
Here is an experiment. Take a fairly thick black sheet of paper and shine a very bright white light on it. Now look at the other side. Do you see light going on to illuminate something else? Where did all the light frequencies go? They were absorbed through many different processes. Same with earth. The energy from the light will heat the black paper and cause it to radiate IR.
ROFL!! I see you got a downcheck for stating a simple truth. Not unsurprising. Religious fanatics can’t accept heresy – even if the heresy is the truth.
Yes.
Well, you don’t, that’s why you show hair raising ignorance in these matters.
The only one with hair raising ignorance is you – the fella that doesn’t understand that the surface area of a sphere grows by the square of the radius.
It’s very hard to debate with people like you who tend to misunderstand the simplest things.
GHG’s hypothesis is that more GHG’s cause more warming of the surface due to “back radiation”. Here is an easy question. What do you define the surface to be? Is it the soil, rocks, sand, etc. Or, is it the lower atmosphere, let’s say <1 km?
It is a major distinction.
Not just the surface.
Typical troll answer. You would fail any high school course with that answer.
More GHGs cause the entire system to warm, so your attempt at a gotcha doesn’t work.
You still haven’t given an answer. What is the process whereby GHG’s warm everything in the system? A flowchart would be nice.
While you are at it show us how large a change in temperature of CO2 must be to raise N2/O2 by 3°C. A formula that is pertinent is Q = mCₚΔT. Set the Q’s equal and see what you find.
I feel as though the greenhouse effect has been explained to you before. The atmosphere near the earth’s surface is largely opaque to outgoing infrared radiation because of the presence of greenhouse gases. As you move to higher altitudes in the troposphere, the atmosphere becomes more optically thin, and more and more radiation is able to escape from the atmosphere to space. Increasing the concentration of GHGs raises the altitude at which the atmosphere is optically thin enough for radiation to pass freely to space without being reabsorbed.
The intensity of outgoing radiation is determined by the temperature of the altitude of emission, which must, according to the laws of physics, be around 255 degrees K in order to balance the intensity of incoming sunlight. Because of the lapse rate, the temperature of the troposphere decreases with increasing altitude, thus, raising the altitude of emission by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases reduces the outgoing flux of terrestrial radiation. In order to regain equilibrium with incoming sunlight, the entire system must warm.
To visualize the process, think of a diagram of the atmospheric lapse rate, and imagine translating the entire thing to the right or left along the x-axis. That is what adding or removing GHGs does. Figure 16 from Manabe and Wetherald, 1967 is illustrative:
The figure also captures neatly the predicted cooling of the stratosphere expected to occur under GHG driven warming, the observation of which is a key piece of evidence proving that the ongoing warming trend is caused by GHG emissions.
You keep forgetting the important point that as the number of CO2 molecules go up the total radiation goes up as well! You are using the same “averaging” that climate science is infamous for. “The amount of radiation from each molecule goes down, on average”. While leaving off the fact that there are more molecules involved!
The total radiation where? The total outgoing radiation from the earth as seen from space temporarily is reduced, then returns to what it was prior to adding the additional concentration of GHGs.
You do realize that you are describing saturation as concluded by Dr. Happer and Dr. Wijngaarden. That is, more CO2, radiation returns to what it was before.
That is not at all what I am describing. H&W are describing the process by which CO2 forcing is logarithmic. They derive the same no-feedback warming as everybody else for CO2.
I am describing equilibrium – the state at which incoming energy and outgoing energy are again equal, so no further warming occurs. At this state, the effective emitting altitude will have attained a temperature of 255 K, and the entire atmosphere will have warmed (the lapse rate will have shifted to the right on the diagram above).
“the entire atmosphere will have warmed”
Huh? The *entire* atmosphere? Then why is the emitting altitude at a *colder* point (meaning each molecule radiates less)?
You can’t have it both ways, either the entire atmosphere is warmer or it isn’t. If the *entire* atmosphere is warmer then CO2 at altitude should be radiating *more* per molecule, not less.
The effective radiating layer will only be colder initially (imagine it as the instantaneous reaction to a single, sudden pulse of CO2 and it will be easier to conceptualize the process). Once equilibrium is regained, it will be warmer than it was before – in fact it will be exactly as warm as the previous, lower, effective altitude of emission. The previous, lower altitude of emission will thus be even warmer, all the way down to the surface following the lapse rate.
And it doesn’t matter what temperature the lower parts of the atmosphere are – the earth as “seen” from space will always be radiating as an object at 255 K (unless it is thrust out of equilibrium), just as the sun is radiating as an object of about 5600 K, even though the internal temperature reaches as high as 15,000,000 degrees K. What the greenhouse gases change is the altitude at which the earth is “visible” in the IR.
When you look at a curve of terrestrial radiant intensity, like this one:
What you are effectively seeing as the blue curve is the temperature of the atmosphere at which light in the various wavelengths is being emitted. Where the blue curve dips to the 220 curve, that is light that is being emitted from very high altitude, where the atmosphere is very cold. Where the curve crosses the 280+ curve, it is light emitted near the surface because there are no gases that strongly absorb in those wavelengths.
You are still flailing around hoping some of the crap you are throwing will stick to the wall.
A warmer atmosphere RADIATES MORE! Meaning it cools faster!
That “more” radiation will continue until the energy in balances the energy out. The only way to increase the energy out (i.e. the temperature) on a permanent basis is to increase the energy in.
If you insulate an iron rod so its radiation rate is restricted IT WON’T RAISE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ROD.
“If you insulate an iron rod so its radiation rate is restricted IT WON’T RAISE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ROD.
Absolutely it will! That’s why when you use a thermocouple in a gas turbine exhaust to measure the temperature you have to use a radiation screen around it otherwise the temperature will be about 200ºC low.
For example: “Obtaining accurate temperature measurements with thermocouples in flame environments is challenging due to the effects of radiative heat losses, as these losses are difficult to quantify. Efforts to minimize radiative losses by, for example, suction pyrometry often result in a significant sacrifice in spatial resolution.”
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00071
https://www.epe.ed.tum.de/en/es/research/measurement-technology/suction-pyrometer/#:~:text=Suction%20pyrometers%20consist%20of%20a,passes%20a%20type%20B%20thermocouple.
Heat your rod to 200F. Then wrap it in insulation and see if the temp goes above 200F
That’s not we’re talking about, we’re talking about steady states. Heat your rod so it reaches a steady state of 200º, then wrap insulation around it and keep heating at the same rate and the temperature will go up.
Think about what you are saying. If you wrap yourself in a blanket while watching TV does your body temp keep going up while your internal metabolic engine keeps adding heat to your body? How do you keep from going up in smoke eventually?
Actually I do think about what I am saying, clearly you do not! Note the phrase I used ‘Steady State’, what happens is that a new higher steady state is reached. Unlike you I have carried out the experiments and designed equipment using the phenomenon.
The average temperature at the South Pole is about -30C in summer. Exactly what will an anomaly of +2C do at the South pole?
The average summer temp at the North Pole is about 0C. Will an anomaly of +2C actually generate anything of concern there?
Again, it is MINIMUM temps that get affected by the “blanket”, not maximum temps. The anomalies can’t tell you that. But rising minimum temps don’t generate the “scary” climate science needs to exist at present funding levels.
“The average summer temp at the North Pole is about 0C. Will an anomaly of +2C actually generate anything of concern there?”
Well it will mean all the ice has melted!
Nope. The surface melt will insulate the ice below for one thing. And did you read the word “summer”? If you get 3″ of snow in your yard does it all melt at once or does some remain even if the sun melts the snow on top? Why doesn’t it all melt at once?
The average arctic sea temperature in the summer is about 0ºC (see DMI), it stays at that temperature because that is the melting point of ice, if the temperature is 2ºC that implies the ice is melted.
You didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask it again.
“If you get 3″ of snow in your yard does it all melt at once or does some remain even if the sun melts the snow on top? Why doesn’t it all melt at once?”
That’s not the point, when it melts, no matter how long it takes then the temperature can go above 0ºC, until it’s melted it can not.
Of course it’s the point! Why are so many defending climate science on here so ignorant of basic science?
Is water an insulator? Why do you think fruit trees sometimes et sprayed with water when temps approach freezing?
Do you think an AVERAGE of 2C means the temp is always above 0C? What do you think an average is?
There *is* a reason why snow doesn’t melt all at once when the temp goes above freezing! You apparently just don’t want to admit it!
You’re the one who is ignorant of basic science as you keep proving here.
Here’s the result of an experiment on melting ice.
Note that the temperature of the ice doesn’t increase while it’s melting, once it’s melted the temperature of the water increases.
Again, why do you think farmers spray water on fruit trees when it gets close to freezing?
Why do you think the horizontal line of temperature exists between 25 seconds and 100seconds?
It’s because the ice doesn’t all melt at once!
That’s exactly what I said, on that graph how much ice is left when the temperature is 2ºC?
It is logarithmic until saturation occurs. Show us a paper from the sources you mentioned that predicts when saturation will occur based upon a deep dive into physics of the atmosphere.
I’ll give you a reference.
This review also says the following.
Saturation is nearly impossible in the upper atmosphere, where the air is thin and where adding greenhouse gases will always increase the opacity. W&H use (perhaps intentionally) confusing language in their paper, but they are not referring to a saturation of the CO2 greenhouse effect, but a “per molecule attenuation” of forcing. They themselves calculate a “no-feedback” sensitivity that is exactly in line with what he IPCC reports. So W&H claim that a doubling of the CO2 concentration will always produce warming, logarithmically.
To extend the popular dam anology that you seem to love, this would be like saying that the reservoir behind the dam is conical, so that each new layer of the dam requires twice as much material as the layer below it to reach the same height. You can always keep building the dam higher because the sky is literally the limit, you just might run out of material to keep raising the water level.
You are dissembling. Do you even understand what you are saying?
If the radiation returns to what it was then exactly what did the CO2 increase cause to happen? A temporary spike in temps? “Temporary” being the operative word.
Radiation has to return to what it was – outgoing IR has to balance incoming sunlight, that is condition imposed by equilibrium. But the spike in temps is not temporary, because the entire atmosphere is now warmer.
Let’s see:
Do you somehow not see the problem with your logic here? If the entire atmosphere is warmer then it should be radiating *MORE*, meaning there is not a balance between radiation in and radiation out.
You, like so many other so-called climate scientists, seem to have no real-world experience at all.
Let’s say you are heating an iron rod (the earth) with an oxy-acetylene torch (the sun). What is the maximum temperature that iron rod will assume based on?
The sun is much hotter in its core than we observe the spectral emission of the surface to be from space. Why is this? Well it’s because the light we see from the sun isn’t coming from the core, it’s light that has managed to move through the layers of the stellar atmosphere and into space, so it’s light being emitted very “high up” in the stellar atmosphere.
You haven’t answered the question I asked. Why?
You said:
“More GHGs cause the entire system to warm, so your attempt at a gotcha doesn’t work.”
And I asked:
Your long-winded answer deals only with radiation. How does the GHG’s warm N2 and O2? They don’t absorb but little IR if any.
There lots o processes in the atmosphere other than radiation. You mention lapse rate. Do you think GHG’s cause the lapse rate?
Yes, because radiation is how they warm everything in the system. There are many process in the atmosphere, but the earth exchanges energy with space only via radiation, because it is surrounded by vacuum. So processes that control the incoming and outgoing fluxes of radiation necessarily control the planetary temperature.
There is more energy in the entire system as a result.
“There is more energy in the entire system as a result.”
ROFL!!!
So CO2 *creates* energy, eh?
Exactly how is the current interglacial gong to ever end? Or are you are the belief that we’ve put enough human-caused CO2 into the atmosphere that we’ll never have another glacial period?
Not any more than a dam across a river creates water.
Does water behind a dam follow the inverse square law? Does CO2 *block* the flow of energy or merely divert it like a rock in a river?
CO2 does not block energy – all of the energy that arrives at earth from the sun eventually finds its way back to space. CO2 affects where in the atmosphere that can occur. In exactly the same way that a dam determines the height at which water can flow downstream, and therefore deepens the stream behind it.
Your analogy is a mess. A dam works by BLOCKING the flow of water. CO2 is far more like a rock in a river DIVERTYING the flow of the water. CO2 does the same. It DIVERTS the flow of energy into a different path.
I would also note that a dam has a “saturation” limit. Once the water gets high enough it flows over the dam. Something climate science refuses to believe can happen with CO2, i.e. saturation.
My guess is that you don’t even understand that the earth radiates to space EVEN DURING THE DAY. As the daytime temp goes up so does the amount of outgoing radiation it produces. It’s a self-limiting process in that at some point the rate of energy in causes enough of a rate of energy flow out to create a balance. Since the rate in is limited so is the max temp.
It’s why the maximum temps are limited – something that is not obvious by climate science because it focuses solely on a mid-range daily temp to generate its averages and anomalies.
When you try to explain to people that the GAT is going up because of higher minimum temps they all of a sudden become far less concerned about “global warming”! Guess what that causes!
The analogy is a fair one, in fact I’m paraphrasing words spoken by John Tyndall more than 100 years ago:
Understanding the analogy will greatly improve your understanding of the GHE, whether you come away believing it exists or not. A dam doesn’t block water, it impedes the flow until the water behind the dam has risen high enough to flow over the top, and then streamflow resumes. This is exactly analogous to the situation wherein adding CO2 causes outgoing radiation to drop until the atmosphere has warmed enough that the emitting layer is at the 255 K needed to balance incoming sunlight.
Building the dam higher – adding CO2 – causes the water level (temperature) to increase until the water is flowing over the new top at the same rate it was prior.
Wrong analogy. Water/dam is an example of conduction/convection rather than radiation.
A better example is a torch heating a rod. You show how “back radiation” from the rod makes the torch hotter and we can discuss how that happens.
Or maybe put a filament in a glass chamber that has two chambers and that has been evacuated and have it heat something in the other chamber then show that “back radiation” makes the filament warmer.
Don’t you think it funny that climate science has NEVER proposed, designed, or built a proper experiment to show that “back radiation” can heat a source above what the source’s equilibrium temperature is? What I’m describing is basically a large vacuum tube. With trillions being spent on models, you would think a few million could be spent to quantify the theory.
This too is quite conceptually straightforward, if we strip away some of the complexity and focus on the core concept you are missing.
Take an orb of steel heated to 1000K and suspend it in a vacuum. Will the orb cool at the same rate, more slowly, or more quickly, if a second orb with a temperature of 200 K is placed at some distance away in the vacuum?
Imagine then that the 1000K orb has a heating element inserted into it that keeps supplying energy so that it doesn’t cool at all. Will its steady state temperature be high or lower if a second orb is placed at some distance in the vacuum?
This is the radiative relationship between the earth, its atmosphere, and the sun.
Is all you can do is provide flawed analogies?
You have inserted mass into the thermodynamic system with the additional orb, an orb that is an energy *source*.
The mass added to the system by the growth in CO2 is negligible. Nor is the CO2 a *source* of energy. It can only return energy that has already been lost.
Keep trying. Or better yet, take a basic engineering thermodynamics course.
Your “system” is missing one large assumption that is needed to properly answer your question. The inverse square law comes into play and is needed to know the actual amount of radiation exchanged. In general, a gradient equation would need to account for absorption from the second body and it would show a diminished rate of cooling. Making a choice between more slowly or more quickly needs more information. Perhaps you could provide the gradient equation you have determined for the 1000K orb after the second body is inserted.
A body radiates at its temperature regardless of other bodies in the system. If you want to know the exact temperature at any point in time you will need to write a gradient equation defining other variables such as mass and specific heat.
What one should note is that you have added additional energy into the system. Due to entropy, the final thermodynamic equilibrium temperature between the two orbs will be higher than if the orb had been inserted at 0K.
This is not how the earth’s system works. There is no “additional energy” supplied to the system. There is only the energy that the sun supplies. That means the second orb would need to have been heated with energy absorbed from the 1000°C orb in order to properly emulate the earth.
What would the thermodynamic equilibrium temperature be if the second body was inserted at 0°C?
What you are describing is making the 1000K orb a source. A source does not cool, it radiates at its temperature continually. The 200K orb is not warm enough to EVER heat the 1000k beyond that temperature. At thermodynamic equilibrium, where absorption and emission are equal between the two orbs, both orbs will be at 1000K.
Planck explains this succinctly.
You are trying to argue back to me what I have been trying to tell you. Here is another little jewel from Planck.
Please note. The absorbed rays do not need to be reflected. They can come from another body. But, if they have less entropy radiation than the first body, then the total emission will not be “compensated” and colling will result.
Unless the atmosphere is at least as warm as the surface, the emission by the surface will not have compensation and will cool. That is why you can’t add the fluxes together as climate science does. Emission and absorption are two different processes and must be treated as such.
Bottom line? What this means is that MINIMUM temps may increase in the system because the rate of cooling is slowed in a time series with a periodic introduction of a heat source. But MAXIMUM temps will not.
But if climate science were to start telling people that global warming is because of higher minimum temps would that scare *anyone*?
Alan just can’t accept this. CAGW dogma is that the earth is going to turn into a cinder and the human race will be extinct. He will deny that but it *is* the ultimate projection of the climate models!
At equilibrium, the inputs have to balance the outputs. Otherwise the temperature changes until equilibrium is reached. The “source” orb has to balance the energy from the heating element and the energy supplied by the second orb.
The emission need not be exactly compensated by absorption for the net outgoing flux to be reduced. If I spend ten dollars and get five back in change, I have spent more than zero dollars, but less than ten.
You simply do not understand heat radiation.
Read this quote from Plnck again.
This complies exactly with Stefan-Boltzmann. The net radiation between a hot body and a cold body is toward the cold body. Since the hot body is radiating more than the cold body, energy received from the cold body is compensated by radiation already being emitted by the hot body. This compensation is defined by the two body Stefan-Boltzmann equation where net radiation is reduced. Planck also says:
Read this carefully. It means energy absorbed by the hot body does not remain in the hot body where it raises the temperature of the hot body, i.e., it must be emitted. This is what compensation means.
I will also point out that this allows thermodynamic equilibrium at the point where the cold body reaches the same temperature as the source. Any assumption that “reflected” energy creates more heat into the hot body without compensation results in a process whereby the temperature of both bodies rise to infinity.
You need to show some references that refute what I have shown and not just tell us what you think. Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation would be a good place to find information that might refute what I have posted.
I’m not trying to refute everything you’ve posted, I’m pointing out that the things you’re posting don’t contradict anything I’ve said. In the two-orb problem, the hotter orb is always radiating more intensely than the cooler orb (Stefan-Boltzmann law), the cooler orb can never return as much energy to the warmer orb as the warmer orb is losing by emission. It can only offset some of the loss of energy from the warmer orb.
This is completely, perfectly consistent with Plank as you’ve quoted above, and is in fact the only possible conclusion to draw from it.
You’ve just shoehorned in the part about temperature, that is not a implication of the quoted passage. The equilibrium temperature of the body will be determined by the temperature (following from Stefan-Boltzmann) needed to balance all energy inputs. Increase an input and the temperature needed to balance all of the inputs increases.
The implication of your claim is that somehow the warmer body can simply increase its radiant intensity without increasing its temperature, which violates the laws of physics.
“It can only offset some of the loss of energy from the warmer orb.”
If the hotter orb is radiating at its own temperature then how does the cooler orb “offset” anything? The term “offset” implies that it is making the warmer orb radiate less!
“The implication of your claim is that somehow the warmer body can simply increase its radiant intensity without increasing its temperature, which violates the laws of physics.”
That’s not what he said at all! Does everyone supporting CAGW have reading comprehension problems?
Did you not read the part about compensation at all?
No, the warmer orb has to radiate more at equilibrium than it would if the cooler orb weren’t there. I.e it has to be warmer than it otherwise would be.
You are full of crap and are just throwing stuff out to see if something sticks.
Show some math or sources that will verify what you are asserting. If you can’t, then you have lost.
You are full of crap. There is no “balancing”. If you look at S/B in its simplist form it is.
Inet = σT1⁴ – σT2⁴
You made an example of an orb at 10³K. That orb will radiate at (5.17×10⁻⁸)(10³)⁴ = 5.17×10² W/m² and will continue to do so even when the second orb reaches 10³K.
Energy received by the 1st orb from the second orb is compensated by the fact it is radiating more than it receives, however the net toward orb2 is consequently reduced.
If you would take the time to set up some gradient equations you would see that the net radiation approaches zero as equilibrium is reached.
There is indeed balancing. Systems tend toward thermodynamic equilibrium where the same amount of energy exits the system per unit time as enters.
The warmer orb compensates for the additional radiation it receives from the cooler orb by radiating more intensely, which it does by attaining a higher temperature.
To affect yet another analogy to help understand equilibrium, because I know you adore them, imagine a bucket being filled at the top by a running faucet and emptied from the bottom by a hole. The water level in the bucket will rise until the pressure forcing water from the hole at the bottom is great enough to cause the water to drain at the same rate that the faucet is adding more. Increase the diameter of the hole and the water level will drop. Decrease it and the water level will rise.
This is exactly analogous to the relationship between the net radiative flux and planetary temperature, with the greenhouse gases being the putty used to set the diameter of the drain hole.
**Crickets**
You are attempting to discredit Planck’s theories of heat radiation. You are going to need more proof than just your assertion that the temperature of the warm body increases.
Let’s assume your assertion is true. Then the following fake numbers are indicative of an infinite series ending in infinity. That is the definition of a perpetual motion machine. God I wish that were true.
t₀ => Th = 1000 and Tc = 100
t₁ => Th = 1100 and Tc = 200
t₂ => Th = 1200 and Tc = 300
As long as Tc can raise the temperature of Th, then Th will always be warmer than Tc. That is a perpetual motion machine that ends up with both orbs being infinitely warm.
Even if you make Th cool 1°C while Tc absorbs and warms by 1°C, Tc will then emit and cool by 1°C, while Th warms by 1°C from Tc. The result? No warming at all. That violates the second law of thermodynamics which says heat will spontaneously flow from hot to cold.
You obviously do not understand what Planck is attempting to tell you about compensation. But, rather than outright calling Planck wrong, you make up your own explanation that makes no sense.. Have you ever studied, really studied, his thesis?
You can contrive a series that grows to infinity, but that is not a conclusion of the scenario I’ve presented. In fact the temperature of both orbs will asymptotically approach a steady state where energy fluxes are balanced, which you can pretty easily draw out for yourself using some “made up” numbers. This is simply because the orbs do not reradiate the energy they absorb only from the absorbing face, but from the entire body of the orb, i.e. they emit radially in all directions.
I’m not discrediting Plank’s theories at all, I am conforming exactly to them.
You are the one that asserted the warm orb must increase its temperature to radiate the cold bodies radiation away. That means at the next iteration, the cold body absorbs a larger value and radiates more back to the hot body so the hot body must warm further and sends even more to the cold body that then sends more back to the hot body, and on and on in an ever increasing series.
It is up to you show the numbers that support your assertion, not me. If you can’t provide the math that supports your assertion then give up the argument.
Typical troll red herring. Only the radiation shared between the two bodies matter. Do you know what viewing area is in terms of heat radiation? That doesn’t change in this scenario so is immaterial.
It’s entirely material because both objects only re-emit a fraction of what they receive back in the direction of the source, and only a fraction of that emission is received and absorbed again by the source. You can use simple illustrative numbers and work through the arithmetic yourself to see how this produces an asymptotic limit.
Say at time zero, orb 1 emits 100 W/m^2, and orb two receives 100 W/m2 on its hemisphere facing orb 1 (so is receiving a net irradiance of 50 W/m^2. Orb 2 thus must warm until it is emitting 50 W/m^2, and we will say for simplicity’s sake that orb 1 receives the full 50W/m^2 at its distance from orb 2. Orb 1 is thus absorbing a net irradiance of 125W/m^2 and must warm until it is emitting the same. Orb 2 will then be receiving a net irradiance of 62.5W/m^2. And so on and son on.
The warming of the spheres will not be infinite, it will rapidly approach a limit, even in this wildly generous hypothetical case where we allow all of the radiation emitted from the facing hemisphere of the other orb to be absorbed.
“That means at the next iteration, the cold body absorbs a larger value and radiates more back to the hot body so the hot body must warm further and sends even more to the cold body that then sends more back to the hot body, and on and on in an ever increasing series.”
It’s a finite series so equilibrium is reached.
Only if the result is a decreasing series based upon a decreasing net radiation
That is not what occurs according to AlanJ. His point is that the warm body increases in temperature in order to “compensate” for the radiation received from the cold body. That means there will be increased radiation to the cold body that warms the cold body more than the original and then the cold body sends more back to the warm body that gets even warmer, and on and on.
The compensation term that Planck uses means that the radiation absorbed from the cold body becomes part of what is already being radiated. One way to look at is that the radiation from the cold body replaces some of the radiation originating from the warm body. In other terms the net radiation decreases ala S-B. That is a decreasing series that has an asymptote of the equilibrium temperature.
I think you’re having trouble connecting two related pieces. If you imagine that we “switch on” the incident flux from the cooler orb, the immediate response of the warmer orb is a decrease in the net (outgoing) flux. In order to regain equilibrium (incoming and outgoing fluxes in balance), the warmer orb has to increase its temperature.
By increasing its temperature, the outgoing flux increases, and consequently the flux incident upon the second orb increases, but only by a fraction of the previous increment. And so on. So you have a sort of Zeno’s paradox where a new, higher, equilibrium temperature is approached by both orbs asymptotically.
If you could set up an experimental apparatus that somehow focused most or all of the radiant energy from the orbs onto each other, you would indeed find them heating up until they glowed red hot and perhaps even changed phase. And that should quite obviously be the result since you’re continually putting energy into the two orb system and never allowing any to leave.
What bulls**t. “but only by a fraction of the previous increment” totally eviscerates the law of conservation of energy. Where exactly does the remaining fraction go? Never, never land to join Peter Pan?
You have now reached the point where you are simply making stuff up. If you can’t show either some math to justify this or some reliable source you HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT.
If I heat up a pan on the stove, the pan will radiate the energy it absorbs from all faces, not just the face opposite the heat source. Thus the heat source will receive only a fraction of the energy it emitted back (and that fraction will be spread out over space following the inverse square law).
Start off with a heated body that reaches a stable temperature when radiating to outer space (4K), place a similar unheated body near it. The second body will heat up in response to the heat radiated from the first body. The second body will now emit more radiation than it did when at 4K, some of that radiation will reach the first body and warm up it slightly. This process will continue until equilibrium is reached, it’s a stable process which depends on the properties of the bodies.
Ok, we have a stable body that is a source.
Now we add a second, colder body.
No, it will not warm it up slightly. That is what Planck calls compensation. Compensation is entirely agreeable with Stefan-Boltzmann two body equation. If it did warm slightly, as you say, it would warm each time the cold body radiated more as it warmed. You have no basis for showing that the “slight” warming grows smaller and smaller as the cold body warms. If you do, I would like to see your proof.
Stefan-Boltzmann defines the net radiation between a hot and and cold body. There is no term that ADDS heat to the hot body. A cold body warming a hot body violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold. It does not allow the other direction.
Here is a statement from Planck.
This describes your scenario except for Body A being a constant source. Planck is not known for making halfhearted statements. When he says “the body A is cooled by B” he isn’t making an unproven assertion. You can believe that the body is cooled, and not “slightly” warmed. The only difference here is that difference is that a source is not warmed either.
I have taught students like you who refuse to read the proper material and attempt to understand it. I tire of trying to educate you.
You keep making assertions with no sources at all. That tells me you have not studied thermodynamics and consequently have no background material to draw from. You won’t even create a simple table of values to show what you believe to occur.
The thought that you actually teach students is quite scary!
Stefan-Boltzmann defines the net radiation between a hot and and cold body, the positive term is the loss from the hot body the second term is the heat from the cold body!
Take the example I quoted earlier of a hot body in a vaccuum in equilibrium with outer space at 4K.
Consider an electrically heated plate area A at 1000K steady state:
Q1-2=𝛼A(1000^4-4^4)
Now put a thin metal sheet of the same area between the plate and space, the incoming heat from the plate, 𝛼A*1000^4, will heat the sheet to a temperature T2. Instead of the term 𝛼A*4^4 we now have 𝛼A*T2^4 thus given the same electrical input the plate will increase in temperature and as a result so will T2.
Given the non-linear nature of the equation it will equilibrate at a higher T1 than 1000K depending on heat capacities, emissivities etc.
This is a simplified case of the thermocouple shielding design I mentioned earlier, a prototype for which was described by NACA in the 50s.
“That tells me you have not studied thermodynamics and consequently have no background material to draw from.”
Not only have I studied Thermodynamics but I’ve taught it to the postgraduate level and published numerous papers involving the subject.
First I would rewrite this into a more understandable form. If I have misunderstood what you wrote, you need to show it in a more conventional form.
Q1 – Q2 = 𝛼A(1000 – 4)⁴
The equation you are using is not familiar to me when using T⁴. I could not find a formula where Q is calculated from (T1 – T2)⁴. T⁴ is normally used to find radiance. Q is usually calculated from a simple ΔT.
The usual equation is as follows from:
https://sciencenotes.org/heat-transfer-conduction-convection-radiation/
From this, net radiation is exchanged from hot to cold. Knowing T1 and net P, one can calculate what temperature T2 can be.
Equilibrate means reaching thermodynamic equilibrium.
You are moving the goal posts into a completely different scenario when you have different heat capacities, emissivities, masses, whatever.
You also must explain how, with math, at equilibrium, the system can generate the additional energy to result in an equibrium temperature higher than 1000K. S-B just doesn’t allow that. It means the cold body must become warmer than the hot body. That, or you would need an emissivity higher than the absorptivity. Planck says that is impossible. Maybe you have discovered something new.
OK, formatting equations on here not easy and apparently you are not familiar with my notation.
For black bodies, the rate of energy transfer from surface 1 to surface 2 is given by:
Q1-2 = 𝛂A1(T14 – T24)
Usually, has a dot above it to indicate a rate of change, I couldn’t work out how to do that on here.
For the example I quoted earlier of a hot body in a vaccuum in equilibrium with outer space at 4K.
Consider an electrically heated plate area A at 1000K steady state:
Q1-2 = 𝛂A1(10004 – 44)
Now put a thin metal sheet of the same area between the plate and space, the incoming heat from the plate, 𝛂A110004 , will heat the sheet to a temperature T2. Instead of the term 𝛂A144 we now have 𝛂A1T24 thus given the same electrical input the plate will increase in temperature and as a result so will T2.
The thin metal sheet will be radiating both to space and back towards the plate so it will be losing 2𝛂A1T24
So a first iteration would be T2 = 841K
The additional 𝛂A1*8414 would result in a T1
of 1,107K, a further iteration will give a further small increase.
Since you seem to like references check out
Çengel, Yunus A.; Ghajar, Afshin J. (2011). Heat and mass transfer: fundamentals & applications (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-339812-9.
Crap after it posted it changed the format and lost all the subscripts and superscripts!
This is not the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Your source is wrong (and misspelled Štefan’s name, too). The fourth exponent is misplaced. The correct formula is:
P = e ∙ σ ∙ A· (Tr^4 – Tc^4)
BTW Phil uses the correct one.
“From this, net radiation is exchanged from hot to cold.”
As nyolci has pointed out your equation is incorrect, the version I use is correct, I have informed your source, hopefully they’ll fix it.
“Knowing T1 and net P, one can calculate what temperature T2 can be.
Equilibrate means reaching thermodynamic equilibrium.”
Yes so in the example I gave the equilibrium means that the thin sheet would reach 1000K so the system would be losing the same quantity of heat as before it was added. That means that the sheet would be emitting the same amount of heat back to the original plate so its temperature will increase to 1189K.
Unless you have some reference showing something different, IR radiation is determined by temperature alone. The appropriate equation is:
Q/t = σεAT⁴
You say the sheet would reach 1000K and radiate the same quantity of heat as before., which means “ε” equals a value of one. That means the sheet would be radiating:
Q/t = (5.67×10-⁸)(1000⁴) = 5.67×10⁴ W/m²
This value would be the same for both bodies and S-B would show zero net radiation.
Show how what you assert can occur with the S-B two body equation.
Differing temperatures usually require an ongoing net radiation, hot to cold. What is going on here.
If the hot body was radiating at 1189K the sheet would be absorbing at:
Q/t = (5.67×10-⁸)(1189⁴) = 1.13×10⁵ W/m
That is a net flux of hot to cold amounting to;
(11.3×10⁴ – 5.67×10⁴) = 5.63×10⁴ W/m²
Is the absorpivity/emissivity lower than the hot body? That means it could not reach 1000K.
You are attempting to show that back radiation adds to the temperature of the hot body. I’ve shown you what Planck says about compensation and you showed nothing but to say Planck meant that the hot body warms to compensate.
Again, from Planck:
Read this over and over. It does not say that compensation is a rise in temperature so that more rays are emitted. It says that at the same time of absorbing new rays, new rays will be emitted compensating for the new absorbed rays. This is what the S-B two body equation shows. S-B does not have a term where the hot body raises its temperature. That would allow something you deny also, a series that goes to infinity.
Unfortunately you misunderstand Planck’s position, hopefully you now realize that the source you quoted in the previous post was in error, I suggest you read the textbook I referenced.
“You say the sheet would reach 1000K and radiate the same quantity of heat as before., which means “ε” equals a value of one. That means the sheet would be radiating:
Q/t = (5.67×10-⁸)(1000⁴) = 5.67×10⁴ W/m²
This value would be the same for both bodies and S-B would show zero net radiation.”
Yes I simplified things by using blackbodies.
It will not be the same for both bodies that’s your error.
“Show how what you assert can occur with the S-B two body equation”.
First of all the system must emit the same to space when the thin sheet is added, so the sheet will be the same temperature as the original plate. However, the inner surface also emits the same amount back towards the plate which doubles the heating of the plate, hence the temperature of 1,189K (hint 4th root of 2).
Explain which part of this you don’t understand.
I swear that everyone in climate science must believe in perpetual motion machines and disbelieve in the ultimate heat death of the universe.
The sun is not an infinite source of energy, but on human timescales it might as well be. Thus we have infinite energy to power our perpetual climate machine.
I don’t care who first proposed the analogy, it is a mess.
Build a dam and it does far more than raise the height of the stream, it also floods all the surrounding land area creating a larger system.
Our atmosphere doesn’t do that.
Nor is CO2 a “barrier” totally blocking the stream. CO2 is like a rock in the middle of a flowing stream. The rock doesn’t raise the height of the stream sufficiently to be able to measure it. CO2 is the same.
As someone else pointed out to you, you are overloading the term “warmer” in order to try and fool people.
The temperature that gets raised is the MINIMUM temperature, not the maximum temperature. Just like the minimum height of the stream gets raised but not its maximum height.
Tell people that minimum temps are going up but not maximum temps and what do you suppose will happen to the CAGW scary scenarios? Can you be honest enough with yourself to figure that out?
If radiation warms everything in the system, yet N2 and O2 don’t absorb radiation how do they warm?
Since warm air rises, even N2 and O2, those components rise as the warm. As they rise what happens? What happens to the heat they gained which caused the rising?
They are warmed via kinetic or vibrational interactions with other molecules, who got their energy ultimately from solar radiation. If there were no radiatively active gases into the atmosphere, the effective altitude of emission would be the surface, and the surface temperature would be about 255K.
Obviously you have never heard of conduction and convection from the surface. If you’ve never stood on an asphalt highway for 8 hours, or worked in the top of a barn stacking hay you’ve never experienced either.
I used to install hot-tar roofing in central Texas in the summer, so I’m well familiar with the concepts you describe. But it is a moot point, because the earth cannot exchange energy with the vacuum of space via conduction. Convection can only move energy around within the system, it can neither create nor destroy it.
In your universe I guess latent heat doesn’t exist. That explains a lot!
Well each vibrationally excited CO2 molecule will have a vibrational temperature of about 1000K, will that do?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/10/media-reports-earths-1-5c-temperature-limit-was-breached-for-12-months-in-a-row-nothing-bad-happened/#comment-3941085
Something doesn’t quite add up…
0.2°C per decade over 170 years … 170 years is 17 decades. 0.2 x 17 = 3.4°C. At 1.63°C as of 5/2024, over 17 decades, the average is less than 0.1°C/decade.
But the simple fact that 1.5°C has been breached for over a year certainly indicates their idiotic catastrophic predictions and more hooey than WHOI and WHOI is Hooey
Where’s the apociclipse??
It hasn’t been warming at 0.2°C per decade for 170 years. It’s been close to that for the last 50 years, but the overall warming rate since 1850 is only about 0.05°C per decade.
Then the IUF attributed statement quoted is erroneous
Well, we all know 1.5 and 2 degrees is an arbitrary number. The various alarmist adjectives attached ditto. To be clear: we are NOT talking science here. We (or they) are talking scientists speculating based on dubious conjecture and uncertain parameters ie, not science. Unscientific arguments are disqualified. And if they want to use the ‘precautionairy principle’ i point to the adjacent room ‘unintended consequences’. Crunch the numbers and you get to Lomborg and Currie ie, the ( flawed) cure is worse than the (assumed) decease..
Ouch!
The truth – it burns!
“But the simple fact that 1.5°C has been breached for over a year certainly indicates their idiotic catastrophic predictions and more hooey than WHOI and WHOI is Hooey”
Why is this impression even possible to be contemplated, never mind stated.
Oh, that’s it its the rabbit-hole of Interweb AGW denial.
Common-sense isn’t a thing here.
Err – Now considering actual common sense.
The 1.5C warming is stated as a target at which (given that there’s very much warming still to come after) that is likely that feedbacks will come into play that make the warming very much harder to counter.
Never was it the case that magically at + 1.5C the Earth would suddenly fall apart.
“ likely that feedbacks will come into play that make the warming very much harder to counter.”
So what? Climate science does *NOT* do a holistic analysis of the “warming”. The “warming” also means fewer cold deaths, more food, more arable land, fewer deserts, more greening, and on and on.
If you can’t do a holistic view of the biosphere then you are only fooling yourself into being an “end of the world” kind of person.
There is no such thing as “Climate Science.” Climate is an long-term, running average of weather.
There are many true sciences that are involved in studying the dynamics of the atmosphere and all of the other phenomena of interest. There are no individuals who are degreed in all of the disciplines needed to study the atmosphere, environment, etc.
That some are called climate scientists is only an effort to increase the perceived credibility based on a title. This is akin to NASA buying a doctorate for von Braun.
UN Sec.Gen. last summer (August, I think) issued a dire warning that we are (again) in CODE RED and added that we are at the precipice.
Yes, the stated threshold currently is 1.5 C but it has varied over time. We fell off the precipice with having exceeded that threshold by a significant length of time.
Did we enjoy the fall?
All the leading Climate Oracles disagree with that statement otherwise the press wouldn’t be expounding on it at truthful
” + 1.5C the Earth would suddenly fall apart.”
Actually , the warming has been HIGHLY BENEFICIAL.
So why the idiotic waste of money and destruction of the environment to stop something which is INHERENTLY BENEFICIAL.
Ok , with the help of the El Nino, we have reached our first target.
What is the next one to aim for !? 🙂
“The 1.5C warming is stated as a target at which (given that there’s very much warming still to come after) that is likely that feedbacks will come into play”
What a load of anti-science speculative GARBAGE. !!
You don’t know there is “very much warming still to come”
You don’t know anything real about these “feedbacks“, they are just made up.
It is all just mindless speculation. !!
It’s been breached…for over a year…where is the catastrophe???
Trend of the equatorial central Pacific sea surface temperature has been flat since before 1981.
That’s not fair. You are supposed to look where the warming is, focus on that, ringfence it and use to spread alarm.😄
thank you Dan.
Another example that demonstrates that the hundreds / thousands of climatic elements all around the planet DO NOT act in concert to provide a convenient pool of numbers for pointy-heads disconnected from the real world to plug into their conjecture spreadsheets (a.k.a. “models”), in order to satisfy their delusions that ONE number can be conjured that faithfully represents the past, present and future behaviors of ALL the climates we experience all around the world.
Charles Mackay wrote about Popular Delusions quite a while ago now.
I don’t think even old Charlie could have imagined the scale of the current AGW popular delusion.
“ to satisfy their delusions that ONE number can be conjured that faithfully represents the past, present and future behaviors of ALL the climates we experience all around the world.”
Yep. They believe that statistical descriptors are actual physical measurements and can tell you the actual state of the globe.
1.5C Temperature limit’ was ‘breached for 12 months in a row’
Why July has been so cold and rainy, and when UK summer will improvehttps://inews.co.uk/news/why-july-cold-rainy-uk-summer-improve-3159660?ico=most_popular
It isn’t global
Was a pretty “ordinary” and rather wet summer down here in Eastern Australia…
.. and an “ordinary” and rather wet autumn,
…and so far a cool and rather wet winter.
Apart from the rain.. NO-ONE would notice any “weather change”… because there hasn’t been any. !
“But despite 12 months of the globe being above the so-called temperature limit, nothing bad happened on a global scale.”
Do people here really not get the difference between one hot year being above 1.5, and the average being above 1.5?
If the average is 1.5 then this is a typical year, and a hot year will be much warmer.
It was 16C this morning, now it’s 20C
That’s 4 degrees, not 1.5. And… it’s not a crisis, emergency or even a worry.
Chill out Bell boy.
Is this comment tongue-in-cheek?
Just checking.
Otherwise someone need to send for the medics for you.
Now you can make up some suitably insulting name for me.
Are your insults peer-reviewed Anthony, or are you just freebasing?
I agree. We need to avoid all name calling and just discuss and debate the science.
As I recall, the cry should be, “I do not agree with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.”
Flame wars are pointless.
1 year out of 30 is ~3%. Given a year ago the UN Sec.Gen. stated we were on the precipice and code red seems to indicate a year is all we had to course correct the “climate.”
‘Do people here really not get the difference between one hot year being above 1.5, and the average being above 1.5?’
SO one year being above 1.5 is just weather, and not climate change? Some people here really don’t get the difference between weather and climate change, do they?
“SO one year being above 1.5 is just weather, and not climate change?”
Yes. But not the point I’m making
Yes, the peak we are just coming out of is just the El Nino.
Nothing else you said has any point whatsoever.
Try learning to read.
Here’s what I said if it will help you understand:
Poor Bellboy doesn’t understand the difference between reality and model based speculation.
Still ignoring the fact that this last year has been the effect of a strong El Nino..
.. with absolutely ZERO evidence of any human causation.
Therefore it is NOT AGW.
Zero to do with my point.
You didn’t make a “point”, you just yapped. !
At least you now admit it is NOT AGW.
Just like the other spike + step El Ninos.
Not AGW.
So… point us to some AGW in the UAH data.
Sorry if you had trouble understanding my comment. You could ask for me to explain the more difficult words to you.
You say that nothing happened but don’t forget it was a bumper year for renewables – the hotter the planet gets and the more extreme the weather, the “better” the renewables are …. apparently.
We need more warming so that renewables can save us from the warming 😉
“This completely natural volcanic event created the spike in temperature to 1.63°C…”
AW, this ongoing false HT-HH story has lasted as long as it has because it’s advocate(s) refuse to be held accountable for their claims. It is falsified below. Javier Vinos argued here yesterday dismissing the significance of the El Niño and it’s strength and affect on temperature.
The following data indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the strong El Niño was responsible for the global SST spike, similar to previous ENSO events (using 12-month-average-change).
Let this be the day when everyone here and elsewhere realize they’ve been taken for a ride.
This is “falsification”?
It is falsified because Javier claimed the El Niño wasn’t responsible for the spike and HT-HH was, which I directly refuted by showing the El Niño and global SST acted in 2023-24 as they have before, irregardless of HTHH. But I repeat myself.
The HTHH advocates resort to special pleading like undervaluing the sun and El Niño.
You might be able to say HTHH caused a temporary down jag, right after, but that sort of jag has happened before too, so there is no valid reason to credit or blame HT-HH for something that happened before without a stratospheric water vapor injection, is there?
There was an ongoing La Nina in 2021-2022. El Nino didn’t get going to June of 2023.
What is the significance of 2021.208? Why didn’t 2022 drop to almost the same low value?
Looks to me like the HTE cut off the La Nina cooling and you are attributing it to a non- existent El Nino.
Richard,
I computed the 12-month-average-change for both indices before cross-correlating, as it removes the seasonal signal and acts to detrend the SST – and no data is lost or ignored.
The change in direction of the RONI 12ma∆ started after 2021.208 as indicated; I was not talking about the start of the El Niño, or a low point of the La Niña in 2022. It didn’t drop to the same level in 2022 because of the nature of this function and the data. Try it.
If I was going to do that I wouldn’t have used this 12ma∆ function and would’ve instead used the data directly, but that leaves the global SST trend(s) to deal with.
The El Niño started after the RONI 12ma∆ attained sufficient strength and duration when it was in the positive, just as the nominal RONI has to do so for an El Niño to be declared.
“Looks to me like the HTE cut off the La Nina cooling and you are attributing it to a non- existent El Nino.”
You just showed everyone the pernicious influence of Javier’s brainwashing, as you have to personally actually deny the reality of the 2023/24 El Niño in order to believe his theory.
There was a strong El Niño in 2023/24 and you are gaslighting me over it now.
Solar irradiance cut off the La Niña as I predicted in May 2022 for after SC25 365d SN>95.
I didn’t particularly agree with Javier’s analysis which stressed water vapor as the cause. As I tried to indicate, I think the warming is due to increased solar energy from cloud reductions.
From my comment … “El Nino didn’t get going to June of 2023” … what did I “deny”?
I think the big difference in our views is you think this is all related to the sun. I think it is driven by cloud changes. We agree that the energy comes from the sun.
You said “…and you are attributing it to a non- existent El Nino.”
Why did you say that? There was an El Niño was my point, it was not some figment of my imagination, ie “non-existent” as you said.
Javier has been working overtime trying to minimize the El Niño.
The El Nino was “non-existent” from 2021.208 until June of 2023. Sorry I wasn’t more explicit. I thought my other words would make that obvious.
Richard, I didn’t say the El Niño started in 2021.208! Try to read more closely.
Look at the UAH response.
How can anyone possible “minimise” the El Nino effect. !
There is a case that something has compounded the El Nino, it has certain had a very early strong and prolonged effect.
Clouds definitely seem to have played a role, as does the unexpectedly strong Solar Cycle 25.
Hard to say if HT also had an effect, but the possibility does exist.
Whatever added to the El Nino…. there is absolutely no evidence of anything “human caused” about it at all.
You are right. It is driven by cloud changes.
Excellent graph. We can see the El Nino events of 2016 and 2020 along with the much warmer ocean temperatures during the 2023 El Nino. The added warming is very likely the result of the decreased clouds you show.
In addition, cloud changes started in 2013 which is most likely why the 2016 and 2020 El Nino events were warmer than previous ones.
The cloud reductions (increasing absorbed solar energy) can easily be seen as the cause of ocean warming. It explains everything, including …
Although CERES data does not go back to the 1990s, here’s a nice graph of the cloud changes.
This explains the strength of the warming in the early 20th century. That’s about 30 years of warming completely explained by clouds.
Thanks, but that cloud graph looks odd. After 2003 in the opposite direction of what Ceres is showing.
Anyway, the problem is, if Ceres is right, why does the cloud cover keep decreasing over time?
The two graphs use opposite scales. The CERES graph is showing increases in shortwave which occurs when clouds decrease. Just flip it over to compare. It’s also not just clouds which may explain some of the differences.
The first cloud decrease occurred when the AMO cycle moved into it warm phase. That’s probably what drives the warming.
While there are lots of ups and downs in the CERES graph, there appears to be two key changes. The last one started right after the Hunga-Tonga eruption in 2022. The first one occurred from 2014-16. That was when the Bardarbunga eruption took place. Both of those eruptions dumped a lot of chlorine into the stratosphere.
Your graph shows increasing cloudiness after 2003. Where is it from?
The high cloudiness in the first half was caused by large volcanic eruptions. AMO is a temperature, a response, not a cause.
I don’t think the “cloudiness” data is considered accurate other than providing a general view. That’s why the dashed lines were added. I just use it to indicate a big change around the time of the AMO phase change.
I agree the AMO index is not the cause. My own view is the Arctic sea ice decrease is the root cause and hence the warming.
That graphic indicates a 2% reduction in cloud fraction after the 1998 El Niño ended, during a longish La Niña, after higher 1980-90s levels.
I tend to think the stronger solar cycles #21 & #22 added more energy to the ocean driving more cloud cover that couldn’t be sustained at as high a level with slightly less solar energy.
Note the SST was in “pause” mode after the ’98 El Niño until ~2014, indicating the 2% cloud fraction reduction to 2003 was very not effective at raising the ocean temperature during the next decade.
A lot of the water in the stratosphere due to the Tonga eruption, its concentration, and its duration time are published by NASA.
Yes, and I’ve seen and used the data indirectly. It looks as though the upward wv trend is set by the upward ocean temperature trend, ie it normally lagged the ocean before HT-HH erupted.
If water vapor could amplify ocean temperature and the rising ocean temperature amplifies the water vapor, wouldn’t there be perpetual warming? Can it really happen?
Tough sell to call those trends “similar”.
They had similar upward trends up until the HT-HH eruption.
In the lower 48, June 2021 was about 1C hotter.
The 1.5 degree limit needs to be exceeded consistently for a period of several years before scientists will say we have breached it, a single record warm year isn’t enough.
But more importantly, 1.5 degrees isn’t some kind of global kill switch at which point the world is going to end. It’s nothing more than a target that we should aim to keep warming below, because a lot of negative impacts will be mostly “locked in” at that point (even though it might be many years before we see those bad effects).
And you know this, how, exactly?
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Politicians, this is all you got?
roflmao. now that is funny
Computer games prognostications from the AGW-cabal.
Poor chap… You really are brain-dead, aren’t you !
Brain-washing with a high-pressure hose has turned what brain you might once had had to oozing sludge.
“because a lot of negative impacts will be mostly “locked in” at that point “
So will a LOT OF POSITIVE IMPACTS! Fewer deaths from cold. More food. Less starvation. Fewer deserts. More greening. More arable land.
Unless, of course, you believe in the CAGW religious dogma that global warming means the Earth is going to turn into a cinder.
I’m still waiting for climate science to take seriously Freeman Dyson’s criticism of the climate models as not being holistic.
Seldom is reality black and white, and there are both positive and negative outcomes of climate change. What we have to do is decide whether, on balance, the negatives outweigh the positives. Research indicates that they do, within the bounds of uncertainty, so the choice is then whether and how to act.
My point is that the people who say 1.5 degrees is a limit are not saying that it is a world-ending kill switch that will turn the planet into a cinder, they are saying it a good target to aim for. If we could limit warming to below 1.4 degrees, that would be even better. If we fail to hit 1.5 degrees, limiting warming to below 1.6 is still better than warming of 1.7, and so on. This website acts as though scientists have said 1.5 degrees is a physical limit of the climate system, when they have not.
I think I saw this same reply from an AI bot not long ago, Alan.
(well, I guess it’s just as accurate what that IPCC bot puts out.
It is after all self-declared, fully-fledged, card-carrying political body rather than a source of unbiased science.)
UN Sec.Gen. said it. Code Red. Precipice. Last summer.
Legacy media says it, constantly.
The scientists themselves are not forthcoming claiming the media reports are wrong, so they are indirectly complicit with the media.
“What we have to do is decide whether, on balance, the negatives outweigh the positives. Research indicates that they do, within the bounds of uncertainty, so the choice is then whether and how to act.”
What research? Certainly not the research on consecutive record grain harvests over the past 30 years. Certainty not the research on the greening of the Earth. Certainly not the research on the number of annual deaths from cold temps over the past 30 years. Certainly not the research on the decrease in energy demand for heating. Certainly not the research on the decrease in damage from extreme weather events, e.g. fewer tornadoes.
“they are saying it a good target to aim for”
Why is it a good target? Corn puts on more leaves and therefore more corn as ground temperatures go up during the growth period. Same for wheat. Ask any farmer if their pastures produce better (for both grazing and haying) with higher spring and early summer ground temperatures.
Most of the negatives (that you never list out) involve assumptions that have never panned out over the past 40 years. Assumptions like crops will be burning up in the fields, the arctic will be ice free, polar bears will go extinct, mass starvation and migration because of rising temps instead of failing socialist economies. etc. All of which are based on the assumption that the Earth is going to turn into a cinder from everything burning up due to higher maximum temps. When it appears the truth is that minimum temps going up are the main driver of the GAT going up, not maximum temps.
The climate today is BETTER than it has been for 100 years. And it’s getting better, not worse. Why anyone would want to limit how much better it can get is beyond me.
The research that you try to remain purposely ignorant of so that you can continue blithely insisting that the climate can only get better and better. It is quite pointless to engage in stupid arguments that require climate change to either be the end of planet earth or a panacea. Read the latest IPCC report, cover to cover, make sure you understand what you’re reading, follow up with the cited references as often as you feel necessary, and when you come back ready to engaged in informed, nuanced discussion, I’ll be waiting.
The IPCC is organized to show that rising CO2 is detrimental to humans. They are not organized to determine agricultural pros/cons of higher CO2.
One only needs to study seed catalogs to see there are varieties that cover all kinds of climate/soil conditions. The proof is the ever increasing worldwide grain harvests. Not even you and the IPCC can deny this.
I know, I know, there are studies that show a drop in nutritional value at high temps. They ignore the 20% increase in quantity.
If you really, really want to know about grain harvests, why don’t you give up on the “global average ΔT” that uses a midrange temperature and ignores what is really occuring. How about calculating a global average Tmax and a separate Tmin to see if growing seasons are increasing.
“The research that you try to remain purposely ignorant of so that you can continue blithely insisting that the climate can only get better and better.”
Typical for you. Not one answer, not a single one.
You mean like this from the IPCC report: “Coastal communities in the tropics, for example, have seen entire coral reef systems that once supported their livelihoods and food security experience widespread mortality, while rising sea levels have forced other low-lying neighborhoods to move to higher ground and abandon cultural sites. “
A claim that has been disproved.
I can’t find a single mention of consecutive record grain harvests over the past 40 years or a single mention of the significant greening of the earth.
Tell me again who is remaining purposely ignorant?
“The research that you try to remain purposely ignorant of so that you can continue blithely insisting that the climate can only get better and better.”
Typical for you. Not one answer, not a single one.
You mean like this from the IPCC report: “Coastal communities in the tropics, for example, have seen entire coral reef systems that once supported their livelihoods and food security experience widespread mortality, while rising sea levels have forced other low-lying neighborhoods to move to higher ground and abandon cultural sites. “
A claim that has been disproved.
I can’t find a single mention of grain harvests over the past 40 years or a single mention of the significant greening of the earth.
Tell me again who is remaining purposely ignorant?
Where is the above-quoted passage found in any IPCC report?
go here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg2/chapter-6-coastal-zones-and-marine-ecosystems/
Read the executive summary
Is your google broken?
The quote is not found in the chapter at all, nor the executive summary. Did you post the wrong link?
The IPCC reports is composed of META ANALYSIS process which means they chose specific papers and presentations that meets their criterial of a human induced climate crisis and to support the irrational anti CO2 programs that are hurting the environment but making governments more power in the process.
Report after report pushes the same tired emission scenarios that doesn’t make its case at all after 34 years of this scamming it is time to disband the bullshit and get back to independent research that was so great for America in the past.
Yippee.
With the help of a strong El Nino, we have reached our first target. 🙂
Well done nature, the sun, the clouds… et al.. !!
The warming and the increased atmospheric CO2 have been massively beneficial to nearly all life on the planet.
So… What do we need to aim for next ! 🙂
“My point is”
Your point is complete AGW-mantra and anti-science gibberish.
But we expect nothing else from you.
Show why the targets you are listing, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, are goals to shoot for. All you have really said is that some scientists got together and decided on a goal. You show no information about why the goal was chosen. Tell us why those temps even exist as a goal.
You can’t just ignore the fact that you and others have made it plain that baaaad things will happen if we exceed 1.5. Well, what happened dude? Don’t change the goal posts now after convincing politicians to spend trillions for NetZero.
Exactly what is going to happen if we bust thru 2.0?
The demarcation latitude for growing hard red winter wheat will move a few miles further north!
We easily can handle a 35-40 degree F rise from morning to evening then cools back 35-40 F, but terrible danger lurks when it warms up 2 degrees F…… globally……. but right now 1.5C hath been crossed and the world goes on… not noticing the red line…..
AGW is a pile of crap since 98% of CO2 warm forcing was created 600 million years ago has been the same ever since it has probably been above 150 ppm in all that time thus impossible for CO2 to drive anything.
Surely you realize that the diurnal temperature range is not a relevant comparison to the magnitude of global climate changes. Ice ages occur at global temperatures around 6-7 degrees C lower than today.
If the absolute temperature is important to know then why doesn’t climate science report absolute temperature projections? Why do they concentrate so much on ΔT?
“6-7 degrees lower than today” is a relative temperature.
Scientists don’t decide on the goals, they report the likely outcomes for different levels of warming, and provide estimates of what level of emissions reductions would be required to keep warming at or below those levels. It’s up to society to decide what goals to pursue, and how to pursue them.
The Paris Agreement is a treaty amongst world governments to try to limit global warming to much less than 2 degrees, and preferably below 1.5 degrees. But these are goals, not physical limits within the climate system. Dangerous outcomes are likely before 1.5 degrees, so the goal is a measured effort to weigh impact with feasibility (well-posed goals should also be ambitious).
The lie presented on WUWT and other contrarian platforms is that scientists have said that 1.5 degrees is some kind of physical limit for the climate system, beyond which some catastrophic apocalypse will immediately take place. No scientist has ever said anything like this.
“Scientists don’t decide on the goals, they report the likely outcomes for different levels of warming”
” It’s up to society to decide what goals to pursue”
Where has “society” set a goal of 1.5C?
What “outcomes” has science predicted/projected that have come to pass? Be specific.
What level of warming has science predicted/projected that has come to pass? Be specific!
“Dangerous outcomes are likely before 1.5 degrees”
EXACTLY what dangerous outcomes are you speaking of? Be specific! An ice free Artic? Polar bear extinction? Mass starvation? Crops burning up all over the globe? More frequent tornadoes? More frequent hurricanes? Coral reefs disappearing? New York city and Miami being inundated from sea level rise? Again, be specific!
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
What bull crap. “Scientists don’t decide on the goals.” If scientists don’t decide on the goal posts, tell who does and what reasoning they use!
We decide the goals, based on the information provided by the experts. If you doctor tells you that continuing to smoke a pack a day puts you at increased risk for lung cancer in the next ten years, it’s up to you to decide what goal you are going to pursue based on that information.
Who is we? You and who else?
What experts and what information?
You just keep dancing around who set the 1.5°C goal and why!
You are using the typical troll argument of Appeal to Anonymous Authority.
“We” are the voting public, who elect officials to enact policies aligned with our values. The experts are the world’s scientists, the information is the research that they do into the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, collated in the IPCC reports. The 1.5 degree goal was set by the members of the UNFCC.
I think I’m just being overly generous in my assumptions about how well informed you are.
So the scientists were the ones that set 1.5°C as the point where we would see lots of bad things occurring. Why was that so hard to drag out of you?
Do us a favor and list the coral reefs that are destroyed. Or, perhaps the grain harvests that have failed. Maybe the islands that have disappeared.
Scientists told us what would happen if global warming surpasses 1.5 degrees, and world governments decided they should agree to try to prevent that from happening and set a goal of doing so. I feel like this is a simple concept and you are struggling terribly with it.
refer to the latest IPCC report to learn about what impacts are already being felt and the impacts likely to be felt in the coming years.
LOL, you have failed in this already as the myriad prediction failures makes clear it is YOU and other climate cultists who pushing Pseudoscience all over the place making stupid claims that doesn’t pan out.
FACT: NO Hotspot exists.
FACT: NO Positive Feedback Loop exist.
FACT: NO evidence that CO2 increases in the atmosphere is driving weather, temperature and storminess.
You have NOTHING Alan…… nothing….
There are positive impacts at temperatures above 1.5 degrees.
Yes.
Especially for the billions of people who live in climatic regions where they need heated shelter for more than half the year.
Just imagine how much less fuel will be used around the world if heating requirements could be significantly reduced.
(and solar & wind ain’t gonna git ‘er done)
Most of those in climate science never actually read any agricultural science literature. Grain puts on more with higher ground temps during growth periods. Consecutive record grain harvests over the past 40 years are not due only to better seed but are also due to better growing conditions.
Climate science would rather see people starve than admit their religion is not based on a holistic view of the Earth’s biosphere.
You have no way to know this as fact. It’s your opinion, and it is rubbish.
Yep.
‘The 1.5 degree limit needs to be exceeded consistently for a period of several years….’
How many?
Enough time that you can statistically rule out internal variability as the reason for being about the 1.5 degree mark.
The 1.5ºC number is totally and utterly MEANINGLESS.
It is a politically based number plucked from someone’s nether region. !
It has absolutely zero scientific rationale.
So you need enough time for something bad to happen? Until that does happen, you will simply say that you need more time for your end of the world prediction to come true.
It’s exactly like the fanatic on the street corner every day holding a sign that says “The World Ends Tomorrow”.
That’s been climate science’s mantra every year for 40 years!
Classic Goalpost moving since it was never stated that way in the beginning of this made-up number.
While the effects of Hunga-T on the of-dubious-value GAT indices are debatable, what has been well established is how CO2 causes abject stupidity in those of the marxist mindset that otherwise might be intelligent. Lots of examples in this very thread of comments.
While the official claims are for a large step up of recent heat, there have been plenty of references from outside the mainstream about extreme, even record cold around the northern hemisphere during last winter and spring, especially from local reports in comments here at WUWT. Now there are similar reports from Australia’s ongoing winter. If the cold reports are true then the extra hot records must be partially offset by the cold ones in the calculated averages – or the cold is being left out of the calculations. It seems to me that deletion is unlikely with UAH data, which also shows a (relatively) large warm step, so the greater hot, whether destructive or not, is likely true.
The question here is
Are there any presentations of world data that can answer the question
–Are there any particular places that are consistently or frequently hotter than their norm lately?–
We can probably leave extreme urban heat island factors like Phoenix out of the question unless UHI locations are the only answers.
The process of averaging of delta-Ts throws all this information away.
Of course a single calculated number doesn’t provide any information about any of the parts of what created that number but, in general, the data still exists and can be displayed in multiple ways. The question was about whatever parts might be presented somewhere, anywhere.
UAH does not report any absolute temperatures, only the results of their averaging.
The global average ΔT is essentially an average of the monthly ΔT’s from stations all over the globe. A global baseline temperature nor a monthly average global temperature is calculated
So, in essence they are averaging rates of change from different hemispheres, seasons, latitudes, altitudes, what have you.
So the rate of change in Antarctica is averaged with the rate of change in Jamaica. That’s like averaging the acceleration of a Ferrari from 60 – 120 mph with the acceleration of a Yugo from 30 – 60 mph, and saying the average acceleration is some number. One really needs a common baseline temperature.
What occurs at any given station is hidden thru the use of a daily midpoint temperature. Who knows what Tmax is doing or what Tmin is doing.
It’s why I’ve said for a long time they shouldn’t even report a number. If the anomaly at a location is positive then assign it a “+”. If it’s negative then give it a “-“. If it is stagnant then give it a “0” (zero). Then just report the number of each. You’d actually have just as much information as you have now.
Not sure what point that serves, but it got me interested.
Here’s me calculation using UAH and the 1991 – 2020 base period. This shows the proportion of the globe that has an annual positive anomaly for each year.
Except, as usual, you don’t show the measurement uncertainty of the data you post. What is the measurement uncertainty?
Yes! You can’t even divine what is increasing, i.e., Tmax or Tmin or some combination, summer or winter, let alone where it is taking place. What a great index for globalists and marxists.
At best, a global ΔT could be used to show something is changing but you have to ask yourself why climate scientists continually ignore the details of when, where, and how much at regional and local communities.
Certainly, if less stratospheric ozone allows the troposphere to experience higher UV levels leading to surface warming, it should be quantifiable, if the claim is to hold up. It doesn’t.
Since 2019 I have developed an application to quantify changes in tropospheric ozone and UV, it is based on the ESA TEMIS daily data published since 2002 for the current 248 stations.
Through the recent La Niña years, ozone was markedly less, and UV inversely higher, but that all changed after the El Niño, where now many stations like San Diego show positive ozone and negative UVI cumulative anomalies this year, but otherwise very few differences since HTHH.
The supposed HTHH impact on ozone and UV didn’t noticeably change anything in TEMIS data.
There is a pattern in the TEMIS station data. Cumulative UV/ozone anomalies track the ENSO evolution, alternating between periods of more or less clouds, with floods or droughts.
Yes, everything makes sense if you simply attribute some warming to the after effects of the HTE. I’m glad Anthony mention the effect on ozone as I believe that is the major factor. This was mostly due to the effect on clouds. Cloud cover started decreasing immediately after the HTE which of course allows more solar energy to reach the surface.
It is likely this cloud based warming was initially countered by the cooling from the ongoing La Nina and the SO2 increase from the HTE. Once these cooling effects started dwindling, the warming effect became noticeable.
Finally, the El Nino took off a year ago which has now enhanced the warmth even more and that led to the 1.5 C limit being surpassed.
We should be able to see the current HTE warming effect as the El Nino is now fading away. I’m looking to the August/September UAH data as a good reference.
It would be nice to have an ongoing cloud reference to track as well. Does anyone know if cloud effects are tracked on a monthly basis?
“Cloud cover started decreasing immediately after the HTE which of course allows more solar energy to reach the surface.”
Where is your data for this claim?
“It would be nice to have an ongoing cloud reference to track as well.”
Why did you make the cloud claim in the first place if you didn’t have the data?
About a year ago, the head of IPCC publicly stated there is no need for alarmism. The IPPC summary report listed all of the potential consequences of a warming world as low probability, except a modest probability of warming.
Two months later the UN Sec.Gen. declared (again) the world is in CODE RED and we are at a precipice.
Funny how the UN ignored the IPCC. Politics ignored science again.
The Biden’s Climate report, a glossy piece of propaganda tracked the UN declaration.
segue
When I was a kid, my parents taught me to do arithmetic in my head. Why, so I could count my change and not be cheated (either by accident or intentionally). The number of times I gave money back to cashiers due to their error is non-trivial and the expressions on their faces, when confronted with honesty, astonishing.
segue back
Does JRB have any science or does he take those reports on faith? Has anyone asked him if he can define specific heat, thermal capacity, or thermal latency?
It would seem a requirement that the person approving such a report would have some minimal skills to spot check for reasonableness.
Apply that thought to the legacy media.
So my question to all of you is, did you enjoy the fall when we crossed the precipice?
The whole idea that carbon dioxide traps outgoing heat is scientifically false. Carbon dioxide absorbs UV heat from ozone and releases it to space. This happens in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere. UV is strongest in December over Antarctic when 10hpa gets as high as -6C.
There were differences in the last 3 years in the stratosphere around the equator.
2022 averaged -75C 27.3C
2023 averaged -77C 26.7C
2024 averaged -79C 27.5C
Antarctic was the warmest in 2022 than 2023, 2024. Winters in the polar regions have been warmer and summers have been cooler since this eruption.
This is what happens when water vapor is increased in the atmosphere.
The 1.5C comes from reducing the modeled average from 14C to 13.5C. EU agency reported 14.98C 1.48C for 2023.
All of the governments global temperature statistics are modeled not observed. Reason they call it temperature reanalysis.
Story tip: Earth absorbs 67% of sunlight that spread over 67% of the earth. Earth has internal storage of heat and the atmosphere has energy that forms heat (58.3C) through fast moving particles.
58.3 cubed makes up the total kinetic energy (198kj). 58.3 squared divided by (1.0207 pascal x gravity 9.81 squared) equals 339 watts per second. Internal energy is claimed to be the greenhouse effect, where less than 1% of atmosphere heats earth by over 300 watts (DWLWIR).
Only in models and programmed equipment can make this observation.
198kj comes this self balancing equation:
1.4 x (101325/(287*Kelvin)) x SQRT(1.4*287*Kelvin)^2.
Most temperatures in Kelvin will equal = 198kj.
SQRT value / 111 = heat capacity.
1004 matches 278.3K
“The whole idea that carbon dioxide traps outgoing heat is scientifically false.”
CO2 deflects some upwelling OLR which impedes cooling. Your junk science is from la la land.
How does the atmosphere intercepting IR impede cooling of the surface? The primary source of cooling of the surface, be it land or ocean, is radiation. The amount of radiation is based on the temp of the surface. A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere warming from intercepting a photon doesn’t warm the surface. In fact that energy being sent skyward from the earth is electromagnetic and therefore obeys the inverse square law. The energy intercepted by the CO2 molecule will be less than that sent toward it and by the time any “back radiation” gets to the surface it will decrease by the inverse square law as well. If that molecule is 2m above the surface it will get only 2^2 or 1/4 of the energy originally emitted by the earth. The back radiation will go down by 2^2 as well. So the earth will only get 1/16 of the original energy back. It won’t even be noticed!
If you’re going to use the inverse square law you need to be aware that the Earth’s radius is ~6,400km!
The bulk of the atmosphere is below 20km. The boundary between the atmosphere and space is at about 100km. Radiation from the surface will propagate throughout the atmosphere. If you assume the bulk of the CO2 is at 2m from the surface of the earth then the W/m^2 at 2m will be at least 1/4 of that emitted at the surface. It will be 1/16 of the original W/m^2 by the time it gets back to the surface. And only a part of the re-emitted flux from the CO2 actually intercepts the surface. If it is as high as 50% (probably way too high since part of the re-emitted radiation will hit another unexcited CO2 molecule before it reaches the surface and that probability goes up as the angle moves away from normal) then only about 1/32 of the flux gets back to the surface.
This post indicates that you don’t have the slightest idea how the inverse square law works! For a start the altitude at which the surface radiation has dropped to 1/4 of its original value is at 6400km for the Earth. I assume you didn’t mean 2m for the bulk of the CO2, presumably 20km, well at 20km the radiation will have dropped to 99.7% of its original value!
Judas Priest. At one point in my telephone career I was involved in engineering microwave links for long distance telephone circuits. Do you *really* think the inverse square law didn’t come into play in calculating the power needed at the transmitter to complete the link to a distant receiver?
The earh’s radius is irrelevant. The radiation from the surface starts at the surface, not the center of the earth!
I said “ If you assume the bulk of the CO2 is at 2m “. I guess you missed the word “assume”. I was using this to demonstrate how the inverse square law.
CO2 *is* affected by gravity. It’s density *is* higher at the surface than at 20km of altitude. But that doesn’t matter. The CO2 at 2m will result in a back radiation that becomes 1/16 of the initial radiation emitted by the surface. The path length of radiation from CO2 at 20km will be 40km. That means the back radiation received at the surface of the earth will be 1/(40,000^2) of the original.
That *is* how the inverse square law works.
No, that is how the inverse square law works for a point source! The Earth’s surface is not a point source. The Earth’s surface emits IR in all directions from a surface of radius ~6,400 km, and expands with distance, when it reaches an altitude of 6,400 km it is spread out over 4 times the area. That’s how the inverse square law works in this context.
If a can CO2 molecule emits then a silica molecule on the surface can emit also. That silica molecule is where the EM wave originates, not at the center of the earth. That CO2 molecule is where the EM wave originates, not the center of the earth.
Now, a single molecule does not radiate in all directions at once. Planck discusses this.
A volume of dτ on the surface is the vertex of a pencil of rays diverging in all directions. A volume of air containing a sufficient amount of CO2 to be called dτ is the vertex of a pencil of rays diverging in all directions. Those locations of volume dτ is where the EM waves originate. The inverse square law starts from the originating location of the dτ volumes.
For a point source but that’s not what’s being discussed. All that light being emitted from the surface (assuming no absorption) spreads out as it rises, when it reaches an altitude of 6400km it is now spread out over 4 times the area. The idea that by 2m above the Earth’s surface “it will get only 2^2 or 1/4 of the energy originally emitted by the earth” is absurd.
I’m sorry you think it is absurd, but that is just revelatory of your education in physical science.
You are attempting to refute Planck. Good luck with that.
Here are questions for you to answer. Does CO2 emitted radiation originate above the earth or at the center? Does the EM wave propagating from that emission suffer diminishing power as it traverses to space?
Look at this and you define the measurements used as radii for each sphere. Then tell us how absurd it is. Remember, you can use any square area.
“I’m sorry you think it is absurd, but that is just revelatory of your education in physical science.”
Yes it is, I have a very good one! And I’m not refuting Planck just the Gorman brothers’ nonsense.
For the nth time we’re not talking about a point source.
Surround your point source with 1000 similar sources in close proximity, will your square at distance 3 still have 1/9th the light emitted by a single point?
Of course you are talking about a point source!
That grain of sand on the New Jersey shore is radiating IR from where it exists, not some virtual point at the center of the earth.
The microwave EM signal emitted from an old AT&T microwave long haul system site did *NOT* originate from the center of the earth.
The heat from my oxy-acetylene torch does *NOT* originate from the center of the earth.
The EM wave from both of those originate where the source exists, not the center of the earth. The EM wave from both follows the inverse-square law as it propagates.
As I’ve pointed out before, if what you are claiming is true then lets just set the “virtual” origination point for all radiation at the center of the universe. Then we wouldn’t need cell towers with large aperture antennas to receive signals from our cell phones since the inverse-square law would be insignificant.
Yes you’re talking about a point source, when I’m talking about the emission by the Earth’s surface I am not! For example 320W/m^2 leaving the surface how much reaches your altitude of 2m?
From Planck.
Look at the bold part from Planck. Every point of dτ will be a vertex of a pencil of rays. In order to evaluate the total emission from a surface one must integrate the, i.e., sum the dτ’s over the surface. If every dτ’s emission is subject to the inverse square law, then the entire surface is also subject to the inverse square law.
I don’t know why this is a surprise. Look at this diagram. Do you believe this is incorrect and should be removed from the lecture it was taken from? Light is an EM radiation just as IR is an EM radiation. Why should they be treated differently?
You have never discussed this image from my previous posts. You have never provided any math or images or other resource that refutes what this image shows. Why is that?
Here is another quote from Planck.
This means the image I have shown using a light bulb is similar to what lower temperature EM waves would be.
Now as to the center of radiation, Planck describes it in this fashion.
Any point in dτ is a vertex of a cone and a sphere of unit radius around that vertex describes the solid angle of the cone. Note, the vertex is not the center of the earth.
Show us a resource that agrees with what you are asserting or give it up! I want to see why radiation from a point on the surface of the earth should have its inverse square law reduction calculated using radii measured from the center of the earth.
Wikipedia also gives a good discussion of why gravity can be approximated as point sources.
Inverse-square law – Wikipedia
As one can see, there are differences between gravity and EM waves.
So answer the question: “For example 320W/m^2 leaving the surface how much reaches your altitude of 2m?”
“Every point of dτ will be a vertex of a pencil of rays. In order to evaluate the total emission from a surface one must integrate the, i.e., sum the dτ’s over the surface.”
And what happens when every such point lies on the surface of a sphere of radius 6400km?
“I want to see why radiation from a point on the surface of the earth should have its inverse square law reduction calculated using radii measured from the center of the earth.”
I’m not talking about ‘a point’ on the surface of the Earth, I’m talking about the surface of the Earth.
Each point is the vertex of an emission pencil of rays diverging in all directions.
You need to show why a point on the surface of a sphere can not be the originating point of radiation.
You keep ignoring this image. Why do you think that a light bulb at 6400.002 km isn’t a point source of radiation?
I have attempted to answer each of your questions and and show why your assertions are incorrect by using quotes from Planck and other web sites. You have refused to even mention the image I have shown you multiple times. There are literally thousands of these type of images on the Internet, many from textbooks and lecture notes from university lectures.
You appear to be unable to to address why these examples NEVER show the need to calculate the inverse square law using the center of the earth from a radiation source on the surface of the earth.
If you are unable to deal with these and show why they are in error using sources available on the internet, you have lost the argument. Good luck!
I ignore that image because I agree that it represents a point source but not the Earth’s surface.
I’ll try to explain it to you! Take a point on the surface of the earth it will emit as shown in that diagram with the axis of the light perpendicular to the surface and passing through the centre of the Earth, move over to a neighboring point and the axis of that light is also perpendicular to the surface at that point and crosses the other axis at the centre of the earth. Continue doing that for the whole hemisphere and you’ll have a uniform light field with an apparent origin at the centre of the earth. This will obey an inverse square law with a characteristic dimension of the earth’s radius, so by the time it reaches an altitude of 6400km it will be spread out over an area four times the original surface.
QED
ROTFLMAO! That is a POINT SOURCE? You truly are a troll.
Do you understand what Planck means by dτ? It doesn’t appear so. How many points do you reckon are on a filament or an LED in a light bulb? It is funny that the radiation value is defined as W/m². Is a square meter of soil a point source?
If I shine 10,000 LED’s all glued together so I have a surface of one square meter does the emitted light not reduce to 1/4th until the distance from the center of the earth is doubled (about 4000 mi or 21 million feet above the surface)? You must be joking! We could just modulate a square meter of LED’S pointing at the ISS to communicate with them.
Why would a square meter of soil radiating be any different than a square meter of LED’S radiating?
You haven’t bothered to discuss how light rays and heat rays are substantially different.
Your “apparent” origin is nice geometry but it doesn’t change where the radiation originates. The origination point, i.e., dτ, is where the center of concentric spheres of radiation is placed.
Unless you can refute Planck, a volume of dτ radiates in all directions, that is, in a sphere. That makes dτ the center for inverse square calculations.
Let me make use a different source. Remember what Planck said about a volume-element of dτ.
Then from:
Practical Meteorology: An Algebra-based Survey of Atmospheric Science.
Version 1.02b Copyright © 2017 by Roland Stull
“Radiation emitted from a spherical source decreases with the square of the distance from the center of the sphere: E₂ = E₁ (R₁/R₂)² •(2.16) where R is the radius from the center of the sphere, and the subscripts denote two different distances from the center.”
Congratulations, you’ve just supported my point!
The next paragraph explicitly supports my point by reference to the radiation from the sun:
“From eq. (2.16) we expect that the radiative flux reaching the Earth’s orbit is greatly reduced from that at the surface of the sun. The solar emissions of Fig. 2.8 must be reduced by a factor of 2.167×10–5, based on the square of the ratio of solar radius to Earth-orbital radius from eq. (2.16).”
So I’ve won the argument, thanks!
Sample application
Estimate the value of the solar irradiance reaching the orbit of the Earth, given a sun surface temperature (5780 K), sun radius (6.96×10^5 km), and orbital radius (1.495×10^8 km) of the Earth from the sun.
find the answer
Given: Tsun = 5780 K 5
Rsun = 6.96×10^5 km = solar radius
REarth = 1.495×10^8 km = Earth orbit radius
Find: So = ? W·m–2
First, use eq. (2.15):
E1* = (5.67×10–8 W·m–2·K–4)·(5780 K)4
= 6.328×10^7 W·m–2.
Next, use eq. (2.16), with R1 = Rsun & R2 = REarth So = E2*=(6.328×10^7 W·m–2)·
(6.96×10^5 km/1.495×10^8 km)2 = 1372 W·m–2.
Check: Units OK, Sketch OK. Physics OK. exposition: Answer is nearly equal to that measured by satellites, as given in eq. (2.17). The error is due to a poor estimate of effective sun-surface temperature.
You read nothing do you!
From Wikipedia.
You are stuck on using the earth as a unit sphere you learned about gravity.
Here is the deal. Gravity is based on mass. That means every atom in the earth can be considered a point source since each atom has a mass. Each atom is a vertex of a pencil that emanates gravitational waves in all directions. That is exactly what Planck called dτ where each point is the vertex of a cone. So the entire mass of the earth is one unit volume designated dτ when viewed from a large distance.
Every atom in the earth does not emit EM waves due to the absorption of SW or IR energy. Only those dτ on the surface of the sphere emit IR due to absorption of insolation or IR. The dτ’s become the source point and the radiation from that point follows the inverse square law.
Here is a thought experiment.
1) Take a softball ball and weigh it to obtain the mass. Now open it and rip out the guts. Now weigh just the shell to obtain its mass. Which one generates a higher gravitational field?
2) Take an iron ball and heat it to some temperature. Use an IR thermometer to measure the surface temperature, in other words the amount it is radiating. Use a thermopile to measure the IR power at 1m, 2m, 3m, and 4m. Now take a matching size sphere made of a thin iron shell. Heat it to the same temperature as measured by the IR thermometer. Now use a thermopile to measure the IR power at 1m, 2m, 3m, and 4m.
Why do the two spheres, one solid and one hollow, radiate the same?
Why does the inverse square law apply?
LOL. The sphere is a unit sphere surrounding the emission-volume dτ, not the whole earth.
You’ve won nothing other than another exclamation about that which you know nothing about.
No, you are apparently incapable of understanding the source you quoted which agrees with me! What a surprise.
Note they scale by the square of the distance in units of solar radius.
E2*=(6.328×10^7 W·m–2).
(6.96×10^5 km/1.495×10^8 km)2 = 1372 W·m–2.
How can you be so dumb?
You REALLY think that all heat being radiated from the Earth STARTS at the center of the Earth?
It’s the grain of sand on the beach that is the spherical source of heat radiation, not the magma at the center of the Earth!
I didn’t say that.
“ Take a point on the surface of the earth it will emit as shown in that diagram with the axis of the light perpendicular to the surface and passing through the centre of the Earth, move over to a neighboring point and the axis of that light is also perpendicular to the surface at that point and crosses the other axis at the centre of the earth. Continue doing that for the whole hemisphere and you’ll have a uniform light field with an apparent origin at the centre of the earth. This will obey an inverse square law with a characteristic dimension of the earth’s radius, so by the time it reaches an altitude of 6400km it will be spread out over an area four times the original surface.”
Put your 10,000 LEDs on the surface of a hemisphere of radius R and the emitted light will reduce to a quarter at double the radius.
It was dam hot in June and hotter so far in July, here in Wokeachusetts. But nature is enjoying it if we naked apes are not. My trees, lawns, gardens are doing great. The environment around here is looking tropical. Usually by now, the lawns are drying out- turning brown and yellow. Not now. They’re as green as the Emerald Island of Ireland.
”Global warming caused by human activities reached approximately 1°C over the past 170 years, increasing at 0.2°C per decade.”
Anybody else wondering why global warming caused by human activities didn’t reach 3.4 C?
There was not enough CO2 emissions to cause much warming before the 1970s. After the 1970s some warming was caused by CO2. But not all the warming.
170 years is meaningless
+0.2 degrees C. per decade refers to total warming (+0.15 degrees C. per decade for UAH) per surface numbers, not the effect of CO2 alone. Which is only an educated guess based on evidence of greenhouse warming.
The range of guesses for CO2 x 2 is from about +0.5 degrees C. to +5.5 degrees C. It’s very obvious one knows. And no policies should be based on wild guess climate predictions.
Even worse is the claim that warming is bad news, after 48 years of pleasant global warming.
Inquiring minds want to know why 1.5C and what is the ideal temperature especially since there will never be a uniform temperature at all locations.
“… what is the ideal temperature…”
Whatever it isn’t right now.
Otherwise there’d be no excuse for the efforts to change “Climate Change”.
If and when global temperature start dropping, even by a miniscule amount, the media will revert to its refrain from the Sixties that we’re seeing the onset of the next Ice Age brought on by what else than carbon emissions from excessive fossil fuel use. So bring on the carbon taxes, get the gas/diesel vehicles off the road, restrict air travel, install heat pumps, stop red meat consumption, etc. And just as during that decade, people will continue living their lives as it suited them while ignoring the alarmism.
Why the +1.5 degrees C. is junk science
1.5 was a number pulled out of a hat
An economist’s hat
Not a climate scientist’s hat.
1.5 assumes knowledge of the global average temperature in 1850 or 1880, which is just a wild guess of the Norther Hemisphere based mainly on European and US land measurements. The margin of error, which is unknown due to excessive infilling, is probably huge
We also know that real science requires at least three decimal places
+1.5 is baloney
+1.538 would be real science
Another problem was no list of exactly what would happen above +1.5. Above +1.5 was called bad news, but we are still waiting for any bad news to happen.
“Above +1.5 was called bad news, but we are still waiting for any bad news to happen.”
Yep. But there is lots of *good* news!
“The EPA says, “The ozone layer in the stratosphere absorbs a portion of the radiation from the sun, preventing it from reaching the planet’s surface.” So, with less ozone, more sunlight reached the surface of the planet than it usually does, and the extra energy hangs around in the atmosphere due to the increased water vapor in the role of a greenhouse gas. The eruption had a double-whammy effect on Earth’s atmosphere, you could have bet your bottom dollar that the planet would get warmer as a result.”
While the Ozone concentration may have dropped immediately after the eruption there’s no indication of low levels now.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov