As we move into an anticipated “Gadzilla” El Nino event, it is interesting to note that minimum Arctic sea ice extent the last two years was marginally greater than it was in 2007 when gormless Gore and the IPCCCP started all the scaremongering about “runaway melting” and “imminent ice free summers”.
The “canary in the coal mine” is still merrily chirping away as climate activists try to pretend they have not noticed and the media fail to tell us the good news.
I think a helpful presentation is as a radial plot. Here it is, with the current region magnified.The sea ice has, as of 10 June, reached a mnimum area for the date, but only just. Could change any time.
Hi Nick, thanks for the plot. I don’t find a ring of spaghetti any more informative than the NSIDC spaghetti graph, with all years turned on. The great advantage of their presentation is an interactive graph where you can clear the deck to focus on specific years.
We were told that the summer minimum was the “canary in the coal mine” we needed to watch. As soon as that stopped saying what they wanted they either go quiet or say: look at March maximum, or wow the Antarcic has lost sea ice this year.
Cryosat II ice minimum volume increased 65% between the all time low of 2012 and 2013. They just forgot to spread that good news too.
The is a lot more to understanding Arctic ice than naive, non-validated assumptions about it being dominated by an albedo feedback.
Clearly there is not a dominant positive in this system: vases do not slow down once they start tipping past the “tipping point”.
Up to 2012 that was a possible interpretation on the limited data we had. That hypothesis no longer fits.
Nick’s been corrected on that point many times in the past, but like his insistent that wind and solar must be cheap because wind and sun are free, he just ignores reality in favor of the party narrative.
Thanks, that article is about global average albedo. The arctic is more specific.
Firstly, a lot of light is very low incidence angle and gets reflected irrespective of albedo. Then there are the counter effects: surface evaporation in windy arctic conditions and lack of an insulating layer of ice.
Most people, especially those who claim to be climate scientists just stomp out “albedo feedback” as though that phrase proves itself and thus the “basic physics” means there will be run away melting.
They never assess what other changes come with less sea ice and what the relative magnitudes of the effects are.
The simple fact that there was NOT any evidence of ever accelerating melting after the 2012 OMG event never makes them question that assumption.
The FACTs of sea ice extent since 2012 show either a negative feedback of some sort stabilised the system at a “new normal” or there is some other very strong, variable, long term driver we are not aware of yet.
In any case as I argued on Judith Curry’s site as far back as 2016: the arctic death spiral is dead !!
Scientific monitoring of Arctic sea ice extent began in 1979, marking the start of the continuous, reliable satellite record.
So, looking at the radial plot that your presented, or the previous NSIDC “linear overlay” graph that Greg Goodman presented, one is left wondering what happened between 1979 and 1993 or so.
But beyond that, anyone have any idea at all about the minimum annual Arctic sea ice extent that occurred during the Holocene Climate Optimum . . . you know:
The Holocene Climate Optimum occurred roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago ( peaking around 8,000 to 6,000 years BP). During this mid-Holocene warm period, global average temperatures were approximately 1°C to 3°C warmer than during the pre-industrial period, though high northern latitudes experienced significantly more warming. There were increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).
— detaills at https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/32197
Talk about “cherry picking” in an unsuccessful attempt to make a point!
Closest map I know of is the Piri Reis map and it covers Antarctica and some other places. Its real, but fragmentary, and can be easily found online. Hope that helps.
That Piri Reis shows Antarctica is a myth. That coast line is the lower end of the S. Am. : the Argentine coast wrapped around. You can pick out the bays and river estuaries down to the Magellan Straight if you take the time.
It is none the less a remarkable collection of cartographic knowledge, the Ottomans had just 20y after Columbus set out to discover a new route to India. Since Columbus had barely hit the Americas, it seems to imply that the Ottomans had already thoroughly explored S.Am right down to the Magellan Str.
There’s always somebody who knows something more or different, which is a good thing. Me? I don’t know, but perhaps it can get this guy on a track that helps his quest. Maybe he’ll get lucky in his research and we’ll all benefit.
Since the arctic does not have a coast he probably meant Antarctica and Piri Reis was probably what he was looking for. Hopefully my word of caution will be useful.
About a decade ago WUWT posted an article with a map of the Siberian coast (the only Arctic coast possibly known to pre-Columbians), which if authentic suggested navigation from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I don’t know of any search engine that works with WUWT archives, and I can’t find any info on that map. Did we get scammed?
Yeah, you’re right about Piri Reis: he had parts of the South American coast in triplicate, and not knowing that he circled them end on end to the south-east together with their descriptions of jungle animals, creating a tropical Antarctica. Hapgood really missed the boat on that one.
Before we waste too much time arguing about whose spaghetti tastes worse, I’d like to share my analysis of the recent NSIDC data: September 2012 was by far the lowest ice coverage in the satellite era. 2015 through 2025 lows clustered in a fairly tight band about midway between the 2012 record low, and the 1981-2010 interdecile-range low.
2020 was interesting because, despite industrial shutdowns and reduced air travel because of COVID-19, the ice coverage was midway between 2012 and 2024 — a big jump. That is, the annual CO2, which is acknowledged to be “well-mixed,” declined measurably, and yet resulted in a warm year and an ice level that was challenging the 2012 record. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
Using the annual minimum as the given prefered metric, there was accelerating melting from about 1997 to 2012. Since 2007 there has been zero net change. That suggests some neg. f/b stabilised the ice extent at a “new normal”: about 35% lower than the pre-2000 average.
2012 was an over-shoot , typical of an under-damped system.
If we look at CPOM ice volume (the only satellite conceived to actually measure volume) we also see a pretty flat record for October : the nearest month to the sept minimum for which they are able to extract volume data.
There has been a marginal decline in annual maxima around March/April.
The most we can learn from the COVID shut down is how little effect it had on atm. CO2 and the ‘forcing’ effect that had was not noticed by the climate system.
This tells the extent to which we would have to destroy life as we know it to even make a measurable impact , let alone “save the planet” and return us to the presumed “climate optimum” of the pre-industrial age.
I find that worrying about the loss of sea ice is particularly meaningless. Let me know when it’s increasing, and icepack will be clogging the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
Far too much importance is given to changes in Arctic sea ice. Looking back over the past 33.9 million years—the duration of our current Cenozoic Ice Age, which began with the sudden glaciation of Antarctica at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary—Earth’s polar ice sheets have undergone immense cycles of retreat and recovery.
When analyzing these deep-time geological records, a seasonally ice-free Arctic pales by comparisonto the historical events involved in the catastrophic melting of continental ice sheets kilometers thick, followed by massive structural recoveries.
The geological record highlights several periods over the last 33.9 million years where the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) and Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) suffered massive mass loss, only to dynamically rebuild.
I’m glad someone got the reference.
UN is seeking to control the world by controlling the world’s energy policy.
All UN officials have legal immunity in all jurisdictions of the world.
Most of the activist scientists involved in IPCC reports are crypto marxists.
This follows up on last week’s open thread post. It was about the implications of the demonstrated emulation of GCM surface air temperature projections in the first part of Pat Frank’s 2019 paper “Propagation of Error…”.
A WUWT user replied with a tangential objection to the propagation-of-uncertainty methodology in that paper. The user objects to the application of a “per year” dimension to a separately reported annualized thermal flux error value (i.e. the 4 W/m^2 RMSE from Lauer and Hamilton 2013.) Is this objection justified? No. An explanation follows below.
In April of 2025, I posted an AI analysis of a simplified case using the same basic numbers as in Frank 2019. [See here for that full post https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/13/open-thread-139/#comment-4060865 %5D
============ (start quote from the 4-13-25 post)
Question to Grok:
Consider a simplified step-iterated Earth climate model which projects an annualized global average surface air temperature, abbreviated GASAT. The task is to compute a projected GASAT for each step for 100 steps. Each step is one year. The radiative climate forcing is 0 W/m^2 in the initial state at step 0. The GASAT is given as 15C at step 0. The assumed radiative forcing increases by 0.035 W/m^2 each year. The response of GASAT to radiative forcing is given to be exactly 0.5C/(W/m^2). Absorbed solar energy is given as a constant value in W/m^2 throughout the projection. The climate model operates at each step on the GASAT value from the previous step, to compute and apply an annualized outward thermal flux in W/m^2, emitted back to space, to then compute a new GASAT to pass to the next step. The epistemic uncertainty of this outward thermal flux is given to be +/- 4 W/m^2. Through the response function, this introduces a +/- 2C uncertainty in the new GASAT at each step. It is intended to apply the root-sum-square method to propagate the uncertainty through the projection. What is the projected GASAT in degrees C, and what is the uncertainty of the projected GASAT in +/- degrees C, at steps 10, 50, and 100?
Final answer from Grok, after analysis:
At step 10: Projected GASAT = 15.175°C ± 6.324°C
At step 50: Projected GASAT = 15.875°C ± 14.142°C
At step 100: Projected GASAT = 16.75°C ± 20°C
My followup:
Does the uncertainty at steps 10, 50, 100 imply a large fluctuation in model output, or does it instead simply define an interval in which the GASAT is expected to lie, but cannot be precisely determined with this model?
Answer from Grok:
The uncertainty defines a range within which the GASAT is expected to lie, reflecting the model’s imprecision rather than predicting large fluctuations. With this simplified model, the projected GASAT is a deterministic trend (15°C + 0.0175°C × step), and the uncertainty (±2*sqrt(n)°C) indicates how much trust [bolded dd] we can place in that projection as errors compound over time. The true temperature is likely somewhere within these bounds, but the model cannot pinpoint it more precisely due to the given epistemic uncertainty.
[The full Grok exchange on X is here. https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1906084643708780692 ]
=============== (end quote from 4-13-25)
From that same full Grok conversation from last year, here is an additional quote [dd emphasis added]:
“Step 1: Understand the Model and Parameters
Initial conditions: At step 0 (year 0), GASAT = 15°C, radiative forcing = 0 W/m².
Radiative forcing increase: Increases by 0.035 W/m² per year (per step).
Temperature response: 0.5°C per W/m² of radiative forcing.
Uncertainty: Outward thermal flux uncertainty = ±4 W/m² per step.
This translates to a GASAT uncertainty of ±2°C per step (since 4 W/m² × 0.5°C/(W/m²) = 2°C).
Uncertainty propagation: Use the root-sum-square (RSS) method to combine uncertainties across steps.
Time steps: Compute for steps 10, 50, and 100 (years 10, 50, and 100).”
Discussion
Did the Grok AI agent commit a methodological error by adding the implied “per step” (i.e. per year) dimension to describe the ±4 W/m² value for the purpose of the exercise? No.
Is the methodology of the propagation of uncertainty in the Frank 2019 paper somehow invalidated by having stated the “per year” dimension? Also no. (continued)
(…continued)
Bottom line: For investigating the IR influence of incremental CO2 on the climate system, the rapid buildup of uncertainty in the projection of surface air temperature cannot be ignored for any of the pre-stabilized, time-step-iterated models. The large uncertainty overwhelms the minor factor being investigated.
Thank you for your attention to this matter of analysis and for your patience in the larger issues.
P.S. The methodologies in the Frank 2019 paper need no justification from me. I’m just pointing out how the detractors go wrong.
Create and series of random numbers and then integrate. It’s called a Markov walk.
It staggers up and down, left to right like a drunken sailor trying to avoid the lamp-posts.
That is climate on any time scale.
I agree the attribution signal we are supposed to be looking for is lost in the noise.
Likely it is nonlinear dynamics (or chaos) which looks random. Weather is chaotic and averages will also be, climate being average weather. For example hot vs cold weeks, months, years, centuries, etc. Same for wet vs dry, etc.
This is *so* meaningful. Temperature is *NOT* weather. So temperature is *NOT* climate. Climate science has picked a metric that is physically meaningless to project/predict/etc CLIMATE.
While I don’t consider temperature to be a non-linear dynamic, it is certainly highly variable due to all of the factors that go into it, e.g. humidity, wind, clouds, terrain, geography, hemisphere, latitude, etc.
The variability of temperature is certainly *not* noise, it *is* a signal. The “noise” should be encapsulated in the measurement uncertainty interval associated with the measurement.
When I said noise, I was refering to the attempt to detect the linearised sensitivity to atm. CO2. The famous AGW. That signal is lost in the chaotic “noise” of a highly complex non linear system.
The attempt to pretend the rest of climate is just “oscillations” : PDO, AMO, ENSO, AMOC …. with the implied but hidden assumption they are are long term, zero mean wiggles on top of the linear AGW ‘forcing’ is deliberate deception.
Climate is not a random walk at any scale. Climate is the result of inputs at that point in time. Just because one does not know the full list and amplitude of the inputs does not make the result random.
Greg: “Create and series of random numbers and then integrate. It’s called a Markov walk. It staggers up and down, left to right like a drunken sailor trying to avoid the lamp-posts. That is climate on any time scale.”
Did you do what I suggested and plot the cumulative integral of a series of random data ?
You do not seem to get the point. It is unclear what point you think you are making with those graphs. Can I suggest you try to make a specific point instead of expecting me to guess and explain what you think you see and how that contradicts what I said.
No need to do what you said. Your point was that climate was random. My plots show that it isn’t. Climate largely repeats after 3560 years as shown in the first plot.
Here, let me simplify it for you using animation and a reconstruction that is more heavily filtered.
Using correlation analysis, the second graphic shows that the 3560-year is present in both Arctic and Antarctic ice cores, in a sediment core from a lake in China (latitude 29N) and in a solar activity reconstruction.
The model results are simply meaningless with that much uncertainty. 36C to 0C at step 100. If one uses that range for buildings codes 99% of the building in the USA would fall down in the first gentle breeze. The model needs to be abandoned and another tied to past data constructed. We have data going back hundreds of years with varying precision and data going back millions of years as well. Ignoring solar output variations is simply foolish for models in the last few thousand years as a number of studies show variations in solar output..
Grok does not handle significant figures appropriately. Step 10 should be shown as “Projected GASAT = 15.°C ±6°C”. After 100 iterations, the uncertainty has not become more precise; it is still just 1 significant figure. The Rule of Thumb is that the resultant has no more significant figures than the least precise factor. Thus, one cannot even be certain of the sign of the the average any longer.
David, nice use of an AI to verify what Dr. Frank has determined. If you are already set up with Grok, I would be interested to see what the uncertainty would need to be to obtain a value +/- 1 degree.
Thanks for your reply. To get an estimated uncertainty of ±1°C after 100 steps (i.e. 100 years) with the same 0.5 deg C/(W/m^2) response function, the thermal flux uncertainty would have to be better than ± 0.2 W/m^2 per step or a temperature uncertainty per step of better than ±0.1°C.
(Check: 0.5°C/(W/m^2)*±0.2W/m^2=±0.1°C and ±0.1°C*sqrt(100)=±1°C ) This just uses the same equation Grok reported before, based on RSS.
Of course, then there is the unresolvable uncertainty of +/- 0.13 W/m^2 in the central value of TSI as a geometric average over the spherical surface of the planet, at every computational time step. So even an imaginary step-iterated model, perfected in its response to “forcings,” still cannot reliably project a GHG influence. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
Of course, then there is the unresolvable uncertainty of +/- 0.13 W/m^2 in the central value of TSI as a geometric average over the spherical surface of the planet, at every computational time step.
This is the uncertainty of a single cavity radiometer; using these instruments in low-earth orbit is not trivial. The history extraterrestrial solar irradiance measurements for the past 40 years or so, taking into account all the different instruments that have been orbited, indicates the total uncertainty should be an order of magnitude greater.
See the text following Table 1, “Given that the absolute uncertainty in solar irradiance alone is 0.13 W m−2 (Kopp and Lean 2011)…”
The Kopp and Lean 2011 paper is here, in which it is reported that “The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045777
The “0.13 W/m^2” is 0.5 W/m^2 divided by four for application over the spherical area of the planet.
“That is an observational uncertainty.”
Correct. Therefore at every computational iteration, the model does not know the true value within that interval of +/-0.13 W/m^2, nor does it know what the true value was for any previous step. The computed temperature evolution at each step must be conditioned with its own uncertainty, arising from that same observational source, and the uncertainty of the energy state it was given from the previous step. This is why the propagation of uncertainty in a step-iterated simulation cannot be ignored.
Lol… That’s not how that works. And it wasn’t Grok who decided to do that way. Do me a favor. Give Grok the Loeb and Kopp publications and then ask it if it was appropriate for the prompter to give it the instructions that appear in the chat log.
I decided to try it myself. I put the following prompt into Gemini and Claude and attached both the Loeb and Kopp publications along with the original chat log with Grok. No other files were attached and no other context or prompts were provided.
In the attached chat log with Grok the prompter asked the bot to assess the uncertainty of an Earth climate model based on the uncertainty of TSI provided by the attached Loeb and Kopp publications. Was the prompt provided to Grok appropriate?
Both AI bots said the prompt was posed inappropriately and that as a result the 1.98 K figure provided was wrong.
Claude had a particularly interesting response. It mentioned Patrick Frank. It did this completely on its own. At no time did I mention Frank myself or in any way bring Frank or his works into the chat context either directly or indirectly or from another chat. I gave Claude a single prompt and it is quoted in its entirety above. That’s it. It obviously came as a complete surprise to me that it brought Frank into the discussion completely on its own.
It would be interesting if someone who has a Grok subscription could go through the same exercise.
Thank you for your further reply. “I decided to try it myself.” Good for you. You got the socially processed answer you wanted.
It’s still incorrect to ignore the rapid buildup of uncertainty – whether from incomplete physics internal to the model, or from the uncertainty of an external energy input value – in the pre-stabilized-by-tuning, time-step-iterated simulations.
It’s not that hard to figure out.
Good for you. You got the socially processed answer you wanted.
Everyone can see the prompt I submitted to the AIs and that I did not in any way lead the AIs into choosing a position one way or another.
It’s not that hard to figure out.
So why did you tell Grok to accumulate the uncertainty on each step and not disclose where the 0.13 W.m-2 and 0.5 W.m-2 figures came from instead of letting it figure out on its own how to deal with the Loeb and Kopp figures?
It doesn’t matter if it is observational uncertainty or not. Uncertainty is VARIANCE of a distribution. When you combine distributions, such as the prior steps variance (i.e. it’s measurement uncertainty) with the current steps variance (i.e. its measurement uncertainty) the variances add. Step-by-stem they add.
You are trying to convince us that the initial measurement uncertainty (i.e. variance) becomes the variance of the output, that the variance never changes and is never impacted by the steps.
That is nothing more than assuming that the individual steps are always 100% accurate in their result. I.e. no adding of variances from step-to-step.
That’s like saying that if a compass has a combined uncertainty (both observational and systematic) of 1deg, that a hike consisting of 10 miles with a new compass reading at each mile point will not accumulate uncertainty. That you will miss your target destination as determined by the initial reading. The uncertainty at the first mile point will not ADD to the initial uncertainty.
That’s nothing more than the meme of “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels!”.
It’s a garbage meme developed by climate science, so they don’t have to actually address measurement uncertainty propagation.
“So why did you tell Grok to accumulate the uncertainty on each step…”
Please don’t rearrange the words. See below, in the prompt you are referring to, for the exact wording. That wording is consistent with the technical basis of the exercise.
“…and not disclose where the 0.13 W.m-2 and 0.5 W.m-2 figures came from…” Because it was irrelevant to the technical task to be performed.
Within that pdf, here is the exact prompt I entered to define the technical task to be performed by the Grok AI agent:
“Consider a time-stepped Earth climate model. The time step is 30
minutes. The model assumes a constant value of total solar irradiance at 1361 W/m^2. The absolute uncertainty of this value, arising from
instrument resolution, is +/- 0.5 W/m^2. The corresponding uncertainty in the geometric global average is +/- 0.13 W/m^2. This epistemic uncertainty influences the change in forcing at each step. The climate state result from each step, including surface temperature, is passed to the next, so that this epistemic uncertainty accumulates in the series of steps. The value of TSI determines the temperature evolution at each step independently, so that its uncertainty is to be considered uncorrelated in the series of steps. Albedo is a variable, computed at each time step. Using a no-feedback transient surface temperature response to radiative forcing of 0.2K/(W/m^2), please determine the uncertainty of the global average surface temperature one year following the initialization of the model, arising only from this specific external source of uncertainty. Assume the model’s computations are otherwise exact. This exercise is not intended to evaluate the physical characteristics of the real climate system, its damping effects, feedbacks, or thermal inertia, nor any coding or tuning within the model for stability of its outputs. Only the buildup of statistical uncertainty through the steps of computation is of interest. In your answer, please explain why the accumulating uncertainty, as the iteration proceeds, does not imply an increasing variation of the deterministic output of the model itself.”
You told it the ±0.5 W.m-2 figure was instrument resolution. You told it that it is uncorrelated in a series of steps. You told it to builup the uncertainty through the steps. It did what you told it to do.
“It did what you told it to do.” Correct. It was/is an exercise. You disagree with the basis I laid out for the technical exercise. Fine. I am not persuaded to your point of view.
You’ve had your say.
Class dismissed.
bdgwx buys into the garbage climate science meme that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels. Therefore there is no addition of uncertainty across multiple steps – it all just cancels.
You did it correctly. Again, if you assume that continual errors in a compass will not add over distance, you’ll never get where you wanted to go. Survey maps of the US would be wildly inaccurate. Running a stepped climate model is no different. Each step adds to the uncertainty.
Thank you for your reply. “Running a stepped climate model is no different. Each step adds to the uncertainty.”
Exactly.
In the case being discussed here with Mr. “wx”, the +/- 0.13 W/m^2 uncertainty in TSI is no big deal in the real climate system, as it would theoretically influence the long-term surface temperature a tiny fraction of a degree C. No computer simulation needed.
But as soon as you start using time-step-iterated computations involving energy-in and energy-out values in every iteration, the resulting buildup of uncertainty in the energy state – crudely represented by surface temperature – cannot be avoided and must not be ignored.
I’m replying to myself here for the benefit of only those hard-core enthusiasts who are interested in how AI agents respond to carefully worded prompts.
In this Google Gemini conversation, I only slightly tweaked the entire series of prompts I had given to Grok last year, ending with the exercise using the +/- 0.13 W/m^2 uncertainty in the central value of TSI (as a geometric average over the planet’s spherical surface.)
“Result: The uncertainty of the global average surface temperature after one year, arising strictly from this uncorrelated step-wise propagation, is +/- 3.44K.”
And,
“Summary
The deterministic model remains stable and bounded because its inputs are fixed constants. The accumulating statistical uncertainty merely reflects a compounding “metrological ignorance”—the mathematical reality that independent, uncorrected measurement tolerances, when iterated thousands of times without physical damping mechanisms built into the statistical calculation, drastically reduce our ability to precisely pinpoint the absolute temperature value at the end of the timeline.”
Then at the very end of this Gemini conversation, I asked it for an alternative answer based on the alternative assumption of perfectly correlated uncertainty at each step. The propagated uncertainty after one year of 30-minute steps blows up to +/- 455K.
I can only reiterate the compass example. On a 100 mile hike with compass readings taken every 5 miles (20 repititions), and a compass with a 1% relative uncertainty, the uncertainty of your final point of arrival grows with each reading whether you add the uncertainties directly or using root-sum-square.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t wind up dead on your desired arrival point. What it means is that you can’t tell where you might wind up! It’s all part of the Great Unknown (i.e. the measurement uncertainty interval)! It might be dead on or it might be off by literally miles!
At each iteration a “best estimate” value is taken from the previous step and used for the next calculation. There is no guarantee that the “best estimate” is 100% accurate if there is measurement uncertainty associated with the input to the previous step.
What bdgwx is trying to tell us that each “best estimate” used for the next iteration*IS* 100% ACCURATE. Thus the measurement uncertainty of the final result can be either ignored or assumed to be the same as the measurement uncertainty for the original input.
That is *exactly* like assuming that your location at each reading of the compass is 100% on the direct line between the originating point and the destination point. All the measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels.
It’s a good thing bdgwx is not a surveyor. Your actual property lines could wind up being in the next county instead of where he puts the survey pins.
I came back later and generated a new prompt to Grok. It answered with the same values I computed earlier. Here is the full Grok conversation just now.
Thanks again for your reply, which got me curious enough to ask Grok.
This is the revised prompt.
“Consider a simplified step-iterated Earth climate model which projects an annualized global average surface air temperature, abbreviated GASAT. The task is to compute a projected GASAT for each step for 100 steps. Each step is one year. The radiative climate forcing is 0 W/m^2 in the initial state at step 0. The GASAT is given as 15C at step 0. The assumed radiative forcing increases by 0.035 W/m^2 each year. The response of GASAT to radiative forcing is given to be exactly 0.5C/(W/m^2). Absorbed solar energy is given as a constant value in W/m^2 throughout the projection. The climate model operates at each step on the GASAT value from the previous step, to compute and apply an annualized outward thermal flux in W/m^2, emitted back to space, to then compute a new GASAT to pass to the next step. The epistemic uncertainty of this outward thermal flux is an unknown “U” to be computed using the model and expressed as a +/- value in units of W/m^2. Through the response function, this introduces a +/- “T” degrees C uncertainty in the new GASAT at each step. It is intended to apply the root-sum-square method to propagate the uncertainty through the projection. What is the maximum +/- value of “U” which will constrain the uncertainty of the computed GASAT at step 100 to +/- 1 degree C? What is the corresponding value of “T”? What is the computed value of GASAT at step 100?”
Answer “U = \pm 0.2 W/m², T = \pm 0.1°C, and GASAT at step 100 = 16.75°C.”
I don’t know why they displayed it this way , but the “\pm” obviously means “+/-“.
It would be nice if daily forecasts included statistical uncertainty. Case in point, yesterday, the high here was supposed to be 95F. The actual high ended up being 88F and I think that lasted for just several minutes.
I have noticed recently that forecasts for weather extremes are biased to promote alarm or at least the generation of excitement, but not reality. We have low humidity here and 88F can be actually pleasant if one is properly attired.
Yes, they pump the alarmism a week ahead. Then if it does not happen they just go quiet and pretend they did not notice. If I happens they bang it all out again, creating two climate panics in the mind of the naive observer.
They are already pumping the idea of a super-duper Godzilla El Nino despite only just touching the threshold for El Nino conditions.
This is not simply to warn people so they can be prepared for the heat, because any warming will 5-12mo months to affect local climates. It’s pure drama and alarmism.
Any expectations on what the news media will do if the “super-duper” fails to appear? My money is on them just ignoring the ‘projection’ failure and going on about their work as though the “could” prediction never happened, rather than acknowledging the failure and explaining why.
Is the methodology of the propagation of uncertainty in the Frank 2019 paper somehow invalidated by having stated the “per year” dimension?
As has been explained ad-nauseum…Yes. Frank screwed up the propagation of uncertainty calculation because he arbitrarily added year-1 units to the 4 W.m-2 value [Lauer & Hamilton 2013] published.
Frank also doesn’t even understand how averages work in general. No, an annual average temperature does not have units of C.year-1; it’s just C. No, TSI is not 1360 W.m-2.day-1 or 1360 W.m-2.year-1; it’s just 1360 W.m-2.
Frank also doesn’t even understand how to propagate uncertainty even if he did understand how averages work because he uses the wrong equations, assumes differing value of correlation in the same propagation, etc.
Frank also doesn’t even understand how averages work in general.
I don’t know about this claim, but I do know that average annual temperature constructs for the globe or any other regions of the world are meaningless, abject nonsense.
Temperature is NOT an extensive property of matter, so cannot be meaningfully added, divided or averaged. This is garbage physics.
It’s weird then that trusted institutions relevant to metrology like NIST and BIPM average temperature and other intensive properties. Why do you think they would do that it if was “garbage physics”?
NIST and BIPM do not average temperatures except in very specific instances.
NIST TN 1900 declares a monthly average temperature in May at a single station as a measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that in doing so, they had to make the assumption that all other measurement uncertainties other than the daily variance were negligible. Wind always the same, clouds always the same, grass always the same, human factors always the same, pressure the same. Good luck with that even at a single station. It is useful to note that they also arrived at an uncertainty value, even with those assumptions of ±1.0°C.
I will also note that other examples of average temperature with water baths again assume the same water bath, correct stirring, multiple lab grade thermometers, etc.
Your big blind spot, intentional or not, is that all the JCGM documents emphasize that a unique input quantity is always measured using the same thing. Using similar things introduces another component of measurement uncertainty into the uncertainty budget.
“It’s weird then that trusted institutions relevant to metrology like NIST and BIPM average temperature and other intensive properties. Why do you think they would do that it if was “garbage physics”?”
It’s because they are finding the BEST ESTIMATE of an intensive property for a SINGLE MEASURAND. Same object, same measuring device, same environment, over a small interval of time.
They are *NOT* trying to build a larger system by jamming the intensive property values of different things together to find an average.
Until you make an effort to understand the difference between:
Measuring the same thing multiple times using the same device under the same environment
Measuring multiple things using different devices under different environments.
you’ll never understand basic metrology principles.
Truism: Intensive properties do not add in order to create a larger system.
The mass of two rocks in your hand *do* add into a larger system. The temperatures of two rocks in your hand do *NOT* add into a larger system.
25kg + 10kg = 35kg
25C + 10C ≠ 35C
Adding masses gives a physical sum. Adding temperatures does *NOT* give a physical sum.
Averaging temperatures is nothing more than applying the garbage meme of “numbers is just numbers”. It’s what mathematicians, statisticians, computer programmers, and climate scientists do!
Nonsense! Time has to be accounted for. The units of time are folded into the definition of the Watt, which is defined as being 1 Joule per second, a flux rate. If the instantaneous flux rate is varying, which it is, then it is appropriate to deal with the rate of variation over some other unit of time, such as a year.
“Do you think averages automatically inherit time units in the denominator?”
If you are averaging a year’s worth of data to get a single value for the year then, yes, the average automatically inherits the dimension of a YEAR.
If that is *not* provided then you don’t know if that single value represents an average over a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade, a century, or a millennia.
Here’s a value representing an average: 10C
Can you guess what that average represents as far as what time interval it represents?
If it represents a time interval of a month and you are using yearly time steps just how do you make that work? How do you make it work if you have no idea what interval of time was used to calculate the average?
If that 10C is the daily mid-point value for one day it isn’t going to give you a very good result in an annual time step!
“Do you think TSI is 1360 W.m-2.day-1 or in SI units 0.016 W.m-2.s-1?”
TSI is a plane wave that is assumed to be a constant over time. It is joules/sec-m^2. Do you see those three letters “SEC”?
If you want to know how many joules the TSI inputs to a m^2 that is perpendicular to the plane wave over one minute, then the total is 1360 Joules/sec-m^2 * 1m^2 * 60 sec = 81,600 joules of heat energy.
If you want TSI to be the average over a minute then you must indicate it as 81,600 joules/min-m^2.
Do you do *any* science at all or just computer programming?
Yesterday you defended Frank’s claim that it was 1360 W.m-2.day-1. But now you’re saying it is 1360 W.m-2. Did you get mixed up again or did you really have a sudden change of position on the matter?
THESE ARE NOT EQUAL. To be equal they must have the same dimensions.
81600 j / (min·m²) ≠ 1360 j / (sec·m²)
You have not shown that 1360 W/m²·day is incorrect. You need to show the remainder of the dimensions used in a calculation. Do the dimensions of the calculation work out correctly? You haven’t shown that one way or another.
Of course those are equal. Let’s walk though it step by step.
(1) 81600 j / (min * m^2)
(2) 81600 j / (min * m^2) * (1 min / 60 sec)
(3) 81600 j / m^2 * 1 min / min / 60 sec
(4) 81600 j / m^2 / 60 sec
(5) (81600 / 60) j / m^2 / sec
(6) 1360 j / (sec * m^2)
(7) 1360 (j/s) / m^2
(8) 1360 W.m-2
This is literally middle school arithmetic. I’m not expecting you to do calculus here. I’m just expecting you to do basic arithmetic right now without making trivial mistakes.
You have not shown that 1360 W/m²·day is incorrect.
It’s incorrect because it isn’t even a flux nevermind the TSI that Earth experiences.
BTW…Note that 1360 W.m-2.day-1 is equivalent to 0.016 j.m-2.s-2 or 0.016 W.m-2.s-1.
1360 joules/sec-m^2 is a RATE. How do you specify that rate over a period of time, say a day, a week, a year?
It’s no different than saying you travelled at 10mph for a day. That’s an average. It could have been derived by travelling at 5mph for half a day and at 15mph for the other half of the day. The average is *still* 10mph per day.
You get the 1360 W/m^2 per year because the solar insolation is very close to a constant. So you get 1360 W/m^2 per year, per week, per day, etc. You need to make the time interval match the time step in the model. 1360 W/m^2 per year gives you how many joules per m^2 over a year?
You just continue to show that you have absolutely *NO* understanding of dimensional analysis.
The way he refuses to look at and admit the assumptions in the NIST paper he is so fond of, tells me that fundamentally, he is not a very honest person. On occasion he has let his mask as an apologist for the IPCC be seen.
BTW…UAH also provides the absolute temperature. They reported 263.92 K for 2026/05. Do you think Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy were wrong and should have reported it as 9.9e-5 K.s-1 which is the SI equivalent of 263.92 K.month-1?
I’m just curious how deep your praise of Frank goes regarding this matter.
You still don’t get it! 9.9e-5 K/sec tells you what? That’s a rate! Temperature is not a rate! Joules/sec-m^2 *IS* a rate. Can you not tell the difference?
Frank also doesn’t even understand how averages work in general.
The pot calling the kettle black. Here are two numbers. They are averages. You tell me which one is a monthly average and which one is an annual average and explain your reasoning. 28 and 18.
If you can’t divine which is which, then you will have illustrated what dimensional analysis consists of.
Dr. Frank and other physical scientists don’t achieve their degrees at any level without being able to perform dimensional analysis in their sleep. You are taught to set up a dimensional analysis string before even putting numbers in the string. That insures you end up with a meaningful number.
If you don’t know the correct time period of a value, then you don’t know what time period to use. ±4°C is simply a number. Can I multiply it by days, months, or years? If so, then it is a constant. If constant, how was it derived? Did it use data from a single day? Maybe 12 months? Who knows. If you want to use it as a constant, then you had damn well be prepared to show how you know it is a constant over any and all time periods.
Back to dimensional analysis. If you do the following:
(°C/1) × (years/1) = °C·years
That is a useless calculation because the dimension is meaningless.
Now if instead, you do the following:
(°C/years) × (years/1) = °C/1 = °C
Do you see how that works as fractions with cancelation. The result is meaningful because °C is a meaningful dimension. That is dimensional analysis.
Your problem is not with dimensional labels, it is with the fact that Dr. Frank showed that models end up being nothing more a linear projection after a few iterations. Why don’t you refute that instead.
Says the man who believes you don’t have to do a sum to have something to divide in order to obtain an average.
And also doesn’t understand that in our reality, our physical reality, that intensive properties of different things can *NOT* be added in order to represent a larger system that can be divided to obtain a physical, meaningful average.
bdgwx suffers from the statistician disease of “numbers is just numbers”.
Says the man who believes you don’t have to do a sum to have something to divide in order to obtain an average.
I think you have me confused with someone else or are projecting. I’ve always maintained that an average is either a sum followed by a division or several divisions followed by a sum. Ya know…either Σ[Xi, i:{1 to n}] / n or Σ[Xi/n, i:{1 to n}]. You can also use the mean theorem for calculus as well.
DMacKenzie asked me, “what’s your thoughts on 2/3 of surface radiation going directly to outer space thru the atmospheric window. True or false ?”
There’s this:
Looks like 2/3 to me.
On edit: That doesn’t say anything about clouds. The primary effect of clouds is to reflect incoming radiation, Blocking outgoing radiation is secondary.
And shouldn’t it be radiant energy opposed to just radiation? Or is that question redundant.
If most of the incoming energy did not leave the system we would have boiled long ago. I’m not sure where you see / estimate your 2/3. Ultimately it is almost a perfect balance.
However, what you are looking at is radiance, not power (W/m^2).
It’s a radiance spectrum not an energy flow graph.
The question was surface radiation directly exiting through the Atmospheric Window not total radiation from the Earth to outer space.
The original Zimmerman Kendal survey questions resulting in 97% of climate scientists agree greenhous gas has a warming effect were:
Question 1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Question 2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
There was no Question 3: “Do you think that constitutes a problem?”
“Significant” wasn’t defined, I define it as measurable.
If we look at the NASA energy balance graphic…down at the surface….we have
Heat entering the “sea and soil” of 163.3 watts from sunlight.
Leaving the “sea and soil” is 18.4 watts of thermals, plus 86.4 of evaporation. The amount radiated from “sea and soil” is 398.2-340.3=57.9 watts
18.4+86.4+57.9=162.7 which balances the absorbed sunlight except for .6 watts (let’s not discuss error bars on this number to save much fruitless discussion).
You can also see on this same graphic, 40.9 watts going to outer space labelled “atmospheric window”.
So 57.9 is radiated from the surface of which 40.9 goes directly to outer space. That’s 2/3 for practical purposes.
But other heat leaving “sea and soil” is involved besides what is radiated. 86.4 of evaporation and 18.4 of conduction and convection. So RADIATED from the surface is, in quantity, about 2/3 the amount of heat lost by evaporation, and is 3 times as much the quantity of heat lost from the surface by thermals.
So my point is that the graphic is very misleading to those who don’t understand Planck..
What I am getting at here is that the NARROWEST line on his chart is 40 watts going to outer space through “atmospheric window”….while the Net radiant heat from the surface is 396-333=63 is visually diminished by making it 396 wide…This is NOT very obvious and most people don’t realize that the narrow 40.9 line to outer space is actually 2/3 of what is radiated from the surface…and about 1/4 of the energy absorbed from sunlight at surface.
Trenberth states “the widths of the lines represent the importance….”. Such a statement seems like taking some liberties with the numbers or their graphical representation.
How much heat is removed from a surface due to the wind, i.e. advection?
A classic example is the Santa Ana winds of southern California in late summer and early fall. The air is never static. When I watch the weather report on the TV, I see maps of the wind for my region which is southern BC.
That’s part of the 18.4 average. These numbers are obviously highly variable from day to day…due to advection, nightime inversions, being over water or desert, rainfall, etc…you can read up on evaporation pans and the Penman equation to get a feel for evaporation rate dependency on wind, sun, and RH.
Careful . . . if one is talking about surface radiation energy going to space through the “atmospheric window”, that is not readily apparent just by looking at the y-axis variation in the presented AGU graph. To obtain the total energy emissions as a function of frequency (i.e., over the emission frequency range identified for that “window”), one needs to integrate the given y-axis value variation over the associated range of wavenumber (units of cm^-1).
“The primary effect of clouds is to reflect incoming radiation, Blocking outgoing radiation is secondary.”
I strongly disagree. Clouds block outgoing radiation—even across the “atmospheric widow” frequency range—as well as redistribute intercepted radiation energy to the whole atmosphere primarily via molecular collisions, serving to warm the atmosphere both above and below the clouds.
Moreover, clouds block Earth’s LWIR surface radiation day and night, whereas they reflect incoming solar radiation only during daylight hours, on average only about 50% of the time.
That graph is for the Sahara desert which very low specific humidity. What does the emission graph look like for the Pacific ocean surface near Hawaii or for the humid jungles of Africa?
Starmer told the Media to cover up, told police not to investigate and arrest the cases related to the beastly and immoral behavior of some of the millions of degenerate Muslims, the dregs from Third world countries, that were encouraged to illegally enter Britain. The “immoral relaxed” attitude of authorities enabled those degenerates to continue to carry out the sexual atrocities related to the tens of thousands of gang rapes of many young women and school-age girls in Britain. All of the media refuse to report on these heinous crimes, because they were told not to. How low can leaders go?
So… could anyone sanewash what trump did regarding iran this week? My TDS tells me he looks like a desperate loser but we all know this must have been one of his brilliant bigly 4D chess deals with all the cards.
If Iran thinks they can do a deal with Trump they are delusional. I don’t think they are, they are just giving him enough rope to string up Nathanyahu.
If he manages to prove he really is in charge of US foreign policy they may have something to discuss.
He’s still a NY real estate shyster and will renege on any “deal” he makes as soon as it suits him. That is how he earned his money. Bullying , cheating, stealing and selective bankruptcy. Iran is aware of that.
(Not saying he was not looking like the best choice in 2024 but it’s not going too good so far. )
Dumping sunni, shia, arab and persian all into one simplistic can only highlights the shallowness of your statement.
Now make a similar statement about zionist and anti-zionist jews in one box and see whether it sounds any better. Throw in zio-christians and catholics for good measure like it’s all the same thing.
When has Judaism, or Christianity, for that matter been spread at the point of a sword? You can always point to Spanish meso and south America if you choose, but that exception is hardly the rule. It took Spain over 700 years to eject islam. Maybe that had an influence?
When did a jew or a christian last blow up little girls at a pop concert in Manchester, stab people or run them down in London etc. It’s islam every time.
How many have died in the name of that religion this year thus far?
758 Islamic attacks in 40 countries, in which 3931 people were killed and 2964 injured. – RoP
The 30 year war, the (northern) crusades, the Reconquistam the Inquisition?
Buddhism is probably the only really peaceful “religion” out there and that’s because it’s more a philosophy. And even they probably killed people. We really need to move past this religious nonsense.
Moving past religious nonsense is never gonna happen-humans are too tribal, etc and so on. Buddhism back in the somewhat distant day way actually quite bloody with a seriously badass warrior king. Read a little history.
Ending of Islamic Rulein 1492 and Expulsion of Muslims: In 711, Islam armies crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and established al Andalus. Islam rule ended on January 2, 1492, when Boabdil, the emir of Granada, surrendered to the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella. The remaining Muslim population, known as Moriscos, (Muslims at home, Christians in public) were systematically expelled by decrees between 1609 and 1614, marking the final expulsion of the 800-year Muslim presence. The wealth left behind by the Moriscos was confiscated and distributed. https://willempost.substack.com/p/europes-decline-from-a-lofty-perch?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
When did a jew or a christian last blow up little girls at a pop concert in Manchester
Well I can’t think of a pop concert but I can think of a genocide in Gaza, quite a few “little girls” there.
Rather obvious recent example is the Minab girls school hit by 5 Tomahawk cruise missiles. 165 dead, mostly “little girls”.
There are more but that will suffice to address your question.
There are many cases of individual act of terrorism. State terrorism seems even more dispicable to me.
Neither are my fault BTW, so why to suggest I should be “proud” of either?
Israel could eliminate all the so-called “Palestinians” but chooses not to. Whereas the “Palestinians” would happily slaughter every Jew and burn Israel to the ground if they could.
and when we give the regions their real names, Judea and Samaria and look back at the nature of the original inhabitants, the knowledge that they belong as part of the Jewish state is obvious.
Being occupied by the Ottomans for a while did not erase their very long time being Jewish homeland.
What the Israeli government has done in Gaza is the very definition of evil in my book. What they are doing on the West Bank, while not ethnic cleansing like Gaza, is still horrific.
I think there is some real evil in the Iranian leadership.
They are murderous dictators.
The only way to keep them at bay is to hold a gun to their head.
And we really should pull the trigger of that gun because if we don’t these religious fanatics will continue to murder innocent Iranians. We should not be enabling this activity.
Perhaps Trump thinks the Iranians will once again demonstrate their lack of interest in any meaningful peace deal during the next 60 days of negotiations if the talks don’t go off the rails much sooner. That would justify restarting the attacks and taking out the rest of the regime and as much of the IRGC as possible. That would pave the way for an internal uprising and perhaps sectarian take over. That is the only long-term outcome that can “Make Persia Great Again”.
Remember, when dealing with Trump look everywhich way, then up. Always at least one unseen angle. Speaking of which, the booby traps are probably already set-for both the mullahs and the Dems. I’d bet money.
“Speaking of which, the booby traps are probably already set-for both the mullahs and the Dems. I’d bet money.”
I just love the blind belief that Trump is some sort of savant strategist. It is quite sweet really. But…. I’m sorry, If you believe that, you are greener than the reflecting pool.
Can I make any money from this decision?Can my family make any money?Will this make me look good?Will this make my opponents look bad?Can I get myself some sordid sex?Will this help the country?
There is an old saying that one goes to war with the weapons they have, not the weapons they want. Similarly, one votes for those on the ballot who appear to have a reasonable chance of winning, and in one’s personal judgement, will do a better job than the other choice. Rarely does a ‘write in,’ whom you think is better then the two front runners, have a chance at winning.
Word salad Harris and clueless waltzing Walz would have completed the total ruination of the US started by the Obama Biden clowns. Take one look at Obama’s monstrosity in Chicago.
Cushing inventory at a low not seen since 2008. The year oil averaged $147 2008 $’s/bbl. For petroleum engineers, 6 figure boni, haz duty pay for conflict areas, other gold bar throwing. I miss those days…
I don’t see 3$ in my future. Maybe 4$.
In Washington State, on 1 July, the gas tax will go to 56.5 cents per gallon and will continue to rise by 2% annually into the future. Add 18.4 cents of federal tax. Then there is the cost (fee, indulgence) of the State’s Climate Commitment Act that some calculate to be about 68 cents per gallon. Today’s National average is $3.938 while WA’s is $5.362. In central WA – east of the Cascade Mountains – the cost is about $4.50. $4.39 is the lowest.
Unfortunately, Washington was infected with the BC green climate disease. BC was one of the first political jurisdiction to levy a carbon tax on fossil fuels which was $10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent in 2009. Then the government got greedy. By 2024 it was $80 per tonne of CO2 equivalent and the government was raking several billion dollars. The people were bribed to accept BC Climate Action Plan and got a carbon tax rebate which was prorated on income. Really rich people got no rebate. By 2025 the tax was repealed. In 2026 the federal gov slapped an industrial carbon tax on the heavy industries.
Trump ripped up the deal the US had with Iran with no consultation… Then attacked Iran during peace talks. I think the Iranians have every reason not to trust the orange one and his word, don’t you?
Trump does not understand that the goal of Islam and especially that of the Iran mullahs is establish a one world caliphate. In this caliphate the infidels and nonbelievers are given two basic choices: either convert to Islam or pay tribute. If an infidel refuses these two choices, he is beheaded.
Remember 9-11? What type of religion ask a person to commit suicide? In Christian theology, it is a mortal sin to commit suicide or ask a person to commit suicide. As long as the mullahs are in power they are threat to free world and especially Israel.
And sanewash how anyone can think one can change their sex.
sherro01
June 21, 2026 2:41 am
About CO2 in the air acting like a blanket and slowing the claimed loss of heat to space.
Scenario: We have a person under a blanket in a room. It is cold without the blanket, but the person has normal body heat for so long as food and water are supplied.
As we know, without a blanket the person feels cold. With the blanket, the person feels warm. But, at the same time as the person feels warm, the air in the room is colder than it would be without the blanket, because the blanket has slowed the release of heat to the air. The total system has the same energy, no change there, but the blanket redistributes it while the person generates body heat.
Moving to Earth and its atmosphere with greenhouse gases, by analogy, even if the CO2 is acting like a blanket, the total system energy is unchanged. So why is it claimed that the redistribution caused by GHG should be treated as harmful?
The person using the blanket in the room gains a benefit, but at the expense of lower temperatures nearby. So, the benefit stops once outside the blanket. In the Earth case, researchers need to explain where the atmosphere changes from being inside the blanket to being outside it. Some postulate that this boundary is near to where the troposphere becomes the stratosphere, (the tropopause) observing that one can warm while the other cools in real time.
But, does this matter? The person in the room stays warmer under the blanket only so long as the body generates heat. In the Earth case, what is the equivalent of this generation of heat?
I have yet to find a narrative that explains adequately.
Thank you for reading. Geoff S
The sun is an EXTERNAL source of heat for the closed thermodynamic system known as Earth. For a person in a room there is no sun, there is only their internal metabolism as a heat source.
You need to look at the entire context, including “The person in the room stays warmer under the blanket only so long as the body generates heat.”
Does the earth generate heat? Are you standing on burning ground? Is the sky on fire?
If the sun caused a buildup of heat in the Earth’s thermodynamic system you wouldn’t be here today.
See the attached image. Which curve represents the largest heat loss from the earth to space?
And a blanket doesn’t warm a corpse or an alligator. Most of the “Climate” nonsense in our world involves not cooling off as fast as the climate cult thinks we should. You learned about the three ways heat transfers in the sixth grade. I would add latent heat as a forth way. The sun warms the alligator. Our metabolism maintains our body temperature and clothing, blankets and central heat in our homes helps in that regard.
Thanks for the classic back of the envelope drawing. My Physics 101 professor was a fan of napkin & envelope publications
If it is a “closed system” it does not exchange with anything, by definition.
The term here was “closed thermodynamic system” which is primarily talking about energy. Saying “an EXTERNAL source of heat for the closed thermodynamic system” is oxymoronic. You could also drop the oxy.
You should not push simplistic analogies too far. There is a small geothermal contribution but most of heat input is coming IN through your blanket too. Maybe the guy with the blanket is sitting in front a bar fire.
Who cares whether the tropopause warms at bit or not. It is the surface which matters to us.
There is an insulating effect from GHGs (mostly from water vapour). The minimal change in CO2 insulation seems to be more beneficial until we see less people dying of cold than from heat exhaustion. Plus life on the planet gains massively from more favourable plant food concentration.
Who cares whether the tropopause warms at bit or not.
I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate here and suggest that if equilibrium conditions change, it is reasonable to expect that there will be other changes as well, such as wind and precipitation, as suggested by Le Chatelier’s principle. That is, as a system attempts to counteract changes, there may be unanticipated consequences that some people may not be happy with.
You’ve started me thinking about an insulating cocoon around the person. What happens after the cocoon interior temperature reaches normal body temperature? What happens next obviously relates to the body’s reaction to high temperature. It seems likely that temperature will keep going up, at least for a while, maybe until it becomes fatal, or at least until incoming cooler breathing air limits the heating.
If we’re pushing the analogy, and considering the narrow window of wavelength affected by CO2 at all, it’s more like a napkin thrown over a foot! One small area may be toasty warm, but the rest of the body continues to lose heat as usual.
Geoff, a simple example doesn’t necessarily give a good answer. What the earth is driven by is basically radiation. To simulate this the blanket would need to be some distance from your body, like a tent, so that radiation becomes the predominate transfer mechanism. I think you’ll find the blanket does little to keep you warm in that situation.
“The person in the room stays warmer under the blanket only so long as the body generates heat. In the Earth case, what is the equivalent of this generation of heat? I have yet to find a narrative that explains adequately.”
You won’t find an answer to this. Because there is no internal heat source in the thermodynamic system known as the Earth.
Because there is no internal heat source in the thermodynamic system known as the Earth.
It is usually best to avoid declarations that are as “absolutist” as this one.
A copy of a graphic I came up with comparing the annual average sizes of the “heat flow inputs” for the Earth’s surface from both above (short-wave radiation directly from the Sun) and below (radioactive decay + core cooling).
Note that this doesn’t address the issues of the 24-hour warming-cooling cycles raised by other posts “above” this one, and it also explicitly excludes any “back-radiation” contributions.
Perhaps it would be better to say “no SIGNIFICANT internal heat source”. The heat from the internal earth is so small as to disappear into the Great Unknown (i.e. significant digits). You’ll never find it in the total.
Tim, actually, there is. It’s just that the contribution is small compared to the sun. However, that small contribution is still capable of generating magmas and metamorphosing rocks.
The Tropics: The area between the Tropic of Cancer, 23.5 degree N, and the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5 degree S, is about 40% of the earth surface. The Tropics area is about 78% ocean and 22% land. The tropics area generates 300 to 400 billion metric ton of water vapor each day. The rest of the world area, about 60%, 100 to 150 billion metric ton.
The IR photon emission from an ocean surface at 26 C is about 438 W/m^2, the upward radiant energy flux. Near the ocean surface, because the water vapor ppm is about 26,000, much larger than the CO2 ppm at 425, the influence of water vapor on the transfer and absorption of IR radiation of surface photons is about 20 – 25%, whereas CO2 is about 1%. The remaining radiant surface energy, about 75%, is quickly transferred through collisions that warm air molecules (mainly N2 and O2) through collisions.
Above the clouds and Atmospheric Window: At higher elevations, H2O ppm is much less, whereas CO2 ppm is only slightly less, and temperatures and densities of air are much less. About 70% of photons transfer their energy by collisions with N2 and O2 molecules in the lower atmosphere, the rest radiatively interact with GHGs.
Neither CO2 nor H20 efficiently absorb 8 to 12 um surface photons, which, if evading collision in the lower atmosphere, will, in the higher atmosphere, experience minimal collisions and freely travel to space. Also, instead of colliding with another molecule, an excited CO2 molecule is much more likely to release its energy by emitting a photon in a random direction, including space.
At the colder temperatures, the atmosphere shifts entirely to longer wavelengths (greater than 15 um), due to the quantum mechanical structure of the CO2 molecule. CO2 has very small absorption windows at these longer wavelengths, any photons mostly go to space unimpeded. Radiative transfer is only part of what controls Earth’s climate; one pathway.
Another pathway is the huge quantities of water vapor and warm air transported by air and ocean currents from the tropics, where maximum sunlight is absorbed, to polar regions, where much more IR radiation is released to space than is absorbed from the Sun. CO2, a trace gas at 0.0425%, has a very minor influence. https://willempost.substack.com/publish/post/201985524?back=%2Fpublish%2Fposts%2Fpublished
Wilpost,
How do we know that this CO2 radiative effect occurs inside the Earth’s blanket, or outside it?
More specifically, where in the atmosphere does it work to get this reputation for warming the globe? Geoff S
A blanket (insulated house & atmosphere) obeys Q = U A (Thot -Tcold)
Q, W/m^2, is moderated by the elliptical orbit, tilted axis and albedo. When Q increases, dT = (Tsurf – Ttoa) increases. Since Ttoa is fixed T surf increases.
U (1/R) is the composite thermal conductivity (1/Resistance) of the intervening atmospheric medium. There are five heat transfer modes at play: Conduction + Convection + Advection (wind) + Latent (evap & cond) + Radiation. They sum to 100%. If one mode increases the others, one or all, must decrease. Temperature is a function of the four kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature. If one of the four increases, say advection above the turbulent ocean surface, temperature falls as does radiation.
Emissivity is the ratio of 1) the energy leaving the system to the total energy leaving: Rad/100% or 2) or the energy leaving were the surface a BB at system temperature, 63/396 @ur momisugly 16 C = 0.16. 2) is needed to correct IR instruments that assume the target is BB.
Isolated system = neither mass or energy in or out.
Closed system = only energy in and out.
Open system = energy & mass free for all.
Radiation depends on T^4 not T so your first statement is INCORRECT rendering your first 3 paragraphs to be nonsense.
Your definition of emissivity is INCORRECT…it’s all Incorrect.
Anyway, I extended natural gas service to the kitchen and installed a double oven gas range last year. I left a pigtail on the termination point in the line to make its extension into the laundry room to be relatively easy if a gas dryer makes sense when our electric dryer needs replacing.
Seriously funny. Thanks…its storming here, lots of rain and close-in lightening, so I needed a laugh ‘cuz I can’t go outside for a bit.
MrGrimNasty
June 21, 2026 4:13 am
Remember the joker who said there was no credible forecast of a UK heatwave in open thread last week?
What ever happens, we’ll always have 1976.
Perhaps not for much longer.
High certainty of extensive record breaking heatwave affecting much of Western Europe next week, although how far the UK will be affected is a little less certain.
Forecast video, jump to 2 minutes or so for temperatures.
There’s a high over central Europe and a low pressure system off Portugal towards the Azores which are together pulling hot air up from Africa. This happens from time to time and makes Spain and parts of France very hot for a few days.
Oddly, this time it’s western and northern France which are having the largest “anomalies” from the seasonal mean. South of France is within a degree or two of average for June.
The meteorological setup you describe and indeed any other, are of course dependent on the positioning of atmospheric highs and lows, What you miss is the fact that the air advected within those systems is subject to land or sea track and the thus SSTs and land surface heating/cooling. The climate as measured and reported by the world’s Met Organisations is showing an increase of GMST (sorry it just is) and so obviously air masses must be warming with time (yes, yes there is still NV overlain).
Hezbollah daily fires missiles and drones at Israeli forces IN THEIR COUNTRY, which are currently occupying, massacring civilians and bulldozing villages like it’s Gaza all over again.
Why do the religious fanatics in Israel get free pass?
Vance and Trump have worked out where the problem lies, he’s just not sure he can do anything about it.
Apply the label “terrorist” to everyone who does not agree with you is getting a bit lame at this stage.
It was Isreal which destroyed the once beautiful and prosperous country of Lebanon.
Hezbollah was a militia formed of necessity to repel IDF invasions of their country. It forms about half of the current govt of Lebanon and they are the settled population of that country.
I don’t know whether you are just ranting or a genuinely that ignorant.
WOW, you really are a supporter of Islamic terrorism.. WHY ??
The Israelis attacked southern Lebanon in 1982 because of continued harassment by the Iranian backed PLO..
The Israeli military operation, codenamed Operation Peace for Galilee, was launched after gunmen from the Abu Nidal Organization attempted to assassinate Shlomo Argov, Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom
The PLO in southern Lebanon morphed into Hezbollah
It was Israel which destroyed the once beautiful and prosperous country of Lebanon.
Once again you display your brainwashed, high-school-level, reactionary mind for all to see.
The Arabs have been attacking Israel in one way or another ever since it’s founding.
: After the United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine on November 29, 1947, intercommunal violence erupted between Palestinian Arab and Jewish militias.
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War began when a coalition of five Arab nations (Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon) invaded the newly declared State of Israel.
The Arabs have been attacking Israel in one way or another ever since it’s founding.
Armed Jewish refugees from Europe have been attacking the local Arab population since BEFORE the state of Isreal was founded. That is HOW it was founded.
Israel is allowed to fight back. Israel is rightfully attacking terrorists in Lebanon and should be given free rein. Maybe they can help give Lebanon back to the Lebanese.
Tom it is so obviously a lie it worries me you can’t see it. This is a botched job nothing more. The guy who did the work had no experience with jobs like this.
Trump is “deflecting” from the “reflecting” pool…… https://bsky.app/profile/pbump.com/post/3moma4mmzk22z
Does this look like a man you could trust? And his copany is called “Green water services.”
Nothing will come of it. It is complete and utter nonsense from Trump. He has no evidence which is why he is saying ask them over there. It’s really just another Trump porky to defect from the fact he hired a guy with no experience to do the job. A guy who by the way donated to his cause. And to make it worse he bypassed the tender process. Corruption at its worst. This is the real wastage in government not the doge stuff.
And do you know what Tony…. I can’t believe this man Trump is mentioning the word “vandalism”as a defence for his hiring of an inept friend, when he is the guy who pardoned 1500 people who ransacked and vandalised the capital on Jan 6. The irony is beyond parody.
What does any of what you said have to do with the pro-algae protestors, Simon? Which is what I asked your opinion about?
Did you just want another excuse to rant about Trump?
I was not aware of them till you mentioned it. So googled and this is what I got The “pro-algae protesters” are a group of satirical, anti-Trump demonstrators who gathered at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C. They formed a mock activist group called “Team Algae” to protest the administration’s costly renovation of the landmark, which quickly turned green with algae and peeled. [1, 2] The satirical protest became a viral spectacle featuring: [1]
The “Team Algae” Activists: Demonstrators who humorously praised the algae bloom and chanted in support of the pond scum. [1, 2]Viral Signs: One protester dressed in a frog costume held a sign reading, “First they came for the algae,” a satirical nod to the famous post-WWII poem about persecutionSounds like people making fun of the situation. What’s your issue? It is kind of funny. I’d say this whole debacle emblematic of the whole Trump second presidency. His attempt to try and make things looks good, without doing the hard yards, just results in things rotting from underneath.
And for the record I don’t need another excuse to rant about Trump. I got plenty. In fact I get another one daily.
Personally I think they look like fools. Any satirical element in what they’re doing does not come across, short of such an explanation. Good satire stands on its own without explanation. Also see Poe’s Law.
Your last statement suggests nothing more than an obsession.
What a waste of time. I’m picking you didn’t realise this was all a bit humorous. I think you thought they were serious and so were ready to mock them…. just saying.
As for obsession….. I think when you have a clown running the free world, we should all be obsessed/concerned about it. There is a lot riding on the decisions this morally bankrupt man makes. The foolish war with Iran a fine example. I’ll note he doesn’t seem too concerned about his buddy Kim developing a nuclear armed navy. https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360997361/north-koreas-kim-claims-progress-nucleararmed-navy-new
Maybe they are just lucky Trump wasn’t accused of raping young girls the week this news came out….
Come on, Greg, you’re smarter than that. Iran has been financing Hezbollah for decades, helped along by China and Obama and Biden. Same with the Houthies. Zionism was championed by Theodor Herzl but Israel was the result of the Holocaust. Jews are safe nowhere, not even in America. Jews are fighting for survival. Hezbollah is fighting because they hate the Jews as much as Hitler did.
The Israelis are in Lebanon because Hezbollahs was firing rockets and drones into Israel. You have to be aware of this. So you are distorting the facts for some personal reason.
It looks like Putin is losing the Ukraine war. Putin has returned to forced induction to fill up his ranks. He is causing the death of 10 to 15 thousand Russian troops per month.
Belarus, recognizing reality, has publicly stated last week that they will not attack Ukraine. I think the leader of Belarus sees the damage Ukraine is inflicting on Putin and wants no part of that. A wise, pragmatic position to take.
Next thing you know, someone will put a bullet in Putin’s head.
Putin can never quit. He can’t quit Ukraine and he can’t resign. He’d have to flee Russia if he ever stepped down. There is no place for an ex-strongman.
Yes, Putin and his ego have put himself in what I would say is an impossible position: He can’t win the war, and may very well be losing the war, and he can’t quit doing what he is doing without looking weak and ineffective, and that’s not a good look for a strongman. It invites a leadership change.
Ukraine has battlefield losses of 1150 to 1450 per day (killed, severely wounded, MIA)
Ukraine received 522 bodies of its soldiers while 33 were returned to Russia on June 18, 2026. This gives some indication why Ukraine has so many new graveyards with flags.
Ukraine is loosing territory, ammunition depots and resupply routes each day.
It takes lots of manpower and effort and destruction to dislodge well-armed Ukraine forces and mercenaries from entrenched positions. Russia captures about one settlement each day on its way to bigger towns.
Major towns that remain to be captured by Russia are heavily fortified Ukrainian-held cities of Kramatorsk, Sloviansk and Kostiantynivka.
These are the largest urban strongholds remaining still under Ukrainian control in Donetsk.
Ukraine is making big news in Western Media with its drone strikes in Russia and they have some effect, but not nearly as much as the continuous strikes by Russia on Ukraine targets. Remember, Ukraine stretches from Boston to Chicago about 1371 km, as the crow flies.
They were our allies when they died by the millions, but defeated the Germans on the Eastern Front and then liberated Berlin from the Nazis
Now some West Europe nations support a totally corrupt, Nazi-adoring regime in Kiev, that has been stealing from the U.S. and Europe for at least 15 years.
Russia would not be bad if it acted more like a colony so Europe could exploit its natural resources for very low cost, as it did with the colonies during the past 500 years, but now have lost.
It is looking better than France, Germany and the UK.
These three are fighting other demons, such as a lack of competitiveness, out of control immigration, stagnant real household incomes already for 4 years
It looks completely different to me. The Russians are taking a pounding from Ukrainian drones in every area.
The Ukrainians are about to make the tank obsolete. They hit those Russian tanks with a drone or two or three and you watch as the entire tank blows itself to pieces.
The Russian tanks and armored vehicles that are disabled by drones are abandoned by the Russian crews and as they do they leave the doors and hatches open and Ukrainian drones come along later and drop a hand grenade in an open hatch, or fly into an open door, and the whole vehicle is destroyed.
I would not want to be a Russian ground troop. You see Ukrainian drones chasing individual Russian troops across the landscape eventually catching up with them. The troops can’t even seek shelter in a hole or a building because the drone operator can see their every move and follows them wherever they go.
Russia reported Ukraine lost about 1440 troops (killed, seriously wounded, MIA) on June 22. Yesterday about 1350.
You do not see the AI generation of those losses.
No gas stations are working in the Odessa area. All roads are impassable due to glide bombs, and not repaired, because they are under surveillance of Russian drones.
Russian forces are slowly advancing along the entire line of engagement, because they have to dislodge heavily armed troops from entrenched positions.
Russia can replenish its manpower, Ukraine cannot.
Today’s New York Times finally admits Russia is about to take 2 of them, with the 3rd one to follow.
Ukraine troops are being destroyed or routed out of hundreds of destroyed buildings.
On the ground Ukraine has no options left.
It still has lots of options with drones, except Russia has been counter striking valuable targets all over Ukraine.
MOSCOW, June 23. /TASS/. Russian troops struck the Ukrainian army’s long-range UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) assembly workshops and storage facilities and enemy deployment areas over the past 24 hours in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.
“Operational/tactical aircraft, attack unmanned aerial vehicles, missile troops and artillery of the Russian groups of forces struck Ukraine’s fuel and energy and transport infrastructure, fuel depots used by the Ukrainian army, workshops for the production and sites for the storage of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles, and also temporary deployment areas of Ukrainian armed formations and foreign mercenaries in 148 locations,” the ministry said in a statement.
Kiev loses 1,295 troops along engagement line in past day – latest figures
The Ukrainian army lost roughly 1,295 troops in battles with Russian forces in all the frontline areas over the past 24 hours, according to the latest data on the special military operation in Ukraine released by Russia’s Defense Ministry.
The latest figures show that the Ukrainian army lost over 215 troops and 12 motor vehicles in the responsibility area of Russia’s
Battlegroup North, more than 200 troops and an armored combat vehicle in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup West and over 185 troops and two armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup South.
During the last 24-hour period, the Ukrainian army also lost roughly 330 troops and three armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup Center, over 315 troops and four armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the
Battlegroup East and more than 50 troops and five jamming stations in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup Dnepr, the latest figures show.
Russia’s Battlegroup North inflicts over 215 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day
Etc.
The UK, France and Germany are planning by 2030 (4 more years; I will try to stay alive that long) to have enough strength to dominate Russia.
MOSCOW, June 24. /TASS/. Russian troops liberated the community of Ivolzhanskoye in the Sumy Region over the past day in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.
“Battlegroup North units gained control of the settlement of Ivolzhanskoye in the Sumy Region through active operations,” the ministry said in a statement.
Kiev loses 1,455 troops along engagement line in past day – latest figures
The Ukrainian army lost roughly 1,455 troops in battles with Russian forces in all the frontline areas over the past 24 hours, according to the latest data on the special military operation in Ukraine released by Russia’s Defense Ministry.
The latest figures show that the Ukrainian army lost over 215 troops and a US-made surface-to-air missile system in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup North, more than 210 troops and two armored vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup West and roughly 205 troops and two armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup South.
During the last 24-hour period, the Ukrainian army also lost over 310 troops and an armored combat vehicle in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup Center, roughly 465 troops and an armored combat vehicle in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup East and about 50 troops and a US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launcher in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup Dnepr, the latest figures show.
Russia’s Battlegroup North inflicts over 215 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day.
Etc.
Russian troops strike Ukrainian long-range UAV launch sites over past day — top brass
Russia’s Battlegroup South inflicted more than 210 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed two enemy armored combat vehicles in its area of responsibility over the past day, the Defense Ministry reported
MOSCOW, June 25. /TASS/. Russian troops struck the Ukrainian army’s long-range UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) storage and launch sites and enemy deployment areas over the past 24 hours in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.
“Operational/tactical aircraft, attack unmanned aerial vehicles, missile troops and artillery of the Russian groups of forces struck fuel and energy and transport infrastructure used by the Ukrainian army, fuel depots, sites for the storage and launch of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles, and also temporary deployment areas of Ukrainian armed formations and foreign mercenaries in 149 locations,” the ministry said in a statement.
Kiev loses 1,585 troops along engagement line in past day – latest figures
The Ukrainian army lost roughly 1,585 troops in battles with Russian forces in all the frontline areas over the past 24 hours, according to the latest data on the special military operation in Ukraine released by Russia’s Defense Ministry.
The latest figures show that the Ukrainian army lost over 290 troops and two field artillery guns in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup North, more than 220 troops and two US-made armored vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup West and over 210 troops and two armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup South.
Next thing you know, someone will put a bullet in Putin’s head.
If Putin is removed in one way or another, the war will get a lot worse a lot quicker.
Those who oppose him are not US undercover vassals they are the ones who want get serious and end the war in Ukraine hard and fast.
Putin is the most cautious and restrained leader you could hope for in Moscow. That may be his downfall.
“Putin is the most cautious and restrained leader you could hope for in Moscow. ”
The guy attacked another sovereign nation (Ukraine) for no good reason. That’s cautious?
Actually I am going to say it. That’s the act of a war criminal thug. He deserves no support for what he has done in Ukraine. None.
President Trump should not threaten to impose tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
I assume Trump is not really serious about doing so since to do so would violate international law, and he knows this, but making this bluster just tells the Iranians that it is possible to impose tolls.
Trump is confusing the issue with this statement. One should not confuse the issues when dealing with religious fanatics because they are already confused and you are just making it worse.
We have to remind ourselves that this 40 year plus conflict with Iran has had low T presidents running the show. I have more faith in Trump than low T Obama.
Like that guy in the new perfume tv advertisement where he wears a new perfume and gets a heads-up from not only every female in the room, but all the Beta males, too?
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; genius will not; education will not. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.” – Calvin Coolidge
Yes, repetition does not make me right just as 86ing, gas lighting, insults and censorship do not make me wrong. If I were really, truly wrong my posts would not generate such rancor.
1. Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
2. Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate GAAP & LoT.
3. Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible.
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
The Grand GHE “Balance” GOZINTAZ positive, GOZOUTAZ negative. Refer to TFK_bams09
Solar 1st 63 but AWOL
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 0 AWOL – 396 BB + 333 back – calc’d 2nd 63 LWIR = – 63. Does not balance.
Both solar & calc’d 63s
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 1st 63 LWIR – 396 BB + 333 back – 2nd 63 LWIR = – 126. Does not balance.
Solar 1st 63 has priority leaving no place ToA for calc’d 2nd 63 which must return to surface.
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 1st 63 LWIR – 396 BB + 333 back + 2nd 63 LWIR = 0. Balances: GOZINTAZ = GOZOUTAZ
Solar 1st 63 OLR at ToA. 80/17/63 is reality from Sun
Calc’d 2nd 63 must return to surface. -396 BB/+333”back”/+2nd 63 fictional, imaginary, zeros out and implodes.
No GHE or CAGW.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
—Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
Your chart is for daytime in the summer. Most of the heat of the earth’s surface is removed by conduction-convection. There is greenhouse effect due to H2O but it quite variable and depends on the RH.
Where is your chart for night time in winter in the Yukon when it -50° C. I live in Canada which has long cold and snowy winters.
BSME CU ‘78 & 35 lucrative years of application in power generation where LoT & heat transfer are 24/7.
Check the mirror.
And elucidate how/why I am wrong.
“….elucidate how/why I am wrong…”
Nicholas you don’t understand electromagnetic radiation relative to “heat” adequately.
EMR is not “Heat” in the way you want to interpret it…until it is absorbed…check your microwave oven…the magnetron is cold, but sends microwaves through the air without heating it much…to your chicken strips.
On your supposed imbalance….Look at ground level….
the net radiant heat is just 396-333=63 watts
Thus, leaving the surface is 63+80+17=161 so BALANCES the heat absorbed from the Sun +/-1 watt, so ground level temperature will stay at whatever temp it is at…
Now up to the Blue Atmosphere level….net heat input from ground to that layer is 356-333=23….the other 40 of the 63 you are so fond of doubling and red-boxing….went directly to outer space. The 169+30 at the top of the Dark Blue and shown in EMR color is “real heat” in your terminology because Tcold is outer space at absolute zero (so no back radiation to consider).
So heat leaving dark blue (and emitted from the dark blue zone upwards) is 169+30=199
Entering dark blue is 23 net heat from below as explained +17 thermals +80 evap +78 of absorbed sunlight = 198 so BALANCES +/- 1 watt
Next layer up 239 leaving is just 199 from the dark blue zone below plus the 40 from the ground that went directly to outer space…also BALANCES +/- 1 watt.
So your interpretation is WRONG.
You shouldn’t talk thermodynamics when you can’t handle arithmetic.
160 originates from real numbers: luminosity/spherical area.
396 originates from an imaginary, out-of-thin air, theoretical calculation: S-B at 16 C. By tweaking the emissivity setting my IR thermometer displays values that clearly are incorrect. That’s how 396 gets “measured.”
Real 160 = real 17 + real 80 + real 63
Imaginary 396 = imaginary 333 + imaginary 63
The only way TFK_bams09 balances is to delete the imaginary 396/333/63 loop
There are two 63s, one from the sun & one from the calculation. Your handwavium seems to have only one. Willful ignorance or bad arithmetic?
Actually the 396 W/M^2 from the surface of a 16 C object with a measured emissivity of 1.0 would be a completely reliable and accurate number resulting from thousands of laboratory experiments…the basis of the resolution of the ultra-violet paradox, the foundation of quantum mechanics, Stephan-Boltzmann, Planck, and Wein laws…. and an IR camera has a math chip that does the calcs…Claiming it is “imaginary” is basically claiming that measured temperatures of surfaces are”wrong” simply because you say so…
You tweaking the emissivity on your IR gun is no different than sliding the glass tube in your thermometer up and down on its scale and saying “look I can get any wrong reading I want”.
And further, there aren’t two 63’s except in the context of conservation of energy between surface and the atmosphere above…
Planets are made of surfaces that closely approximate a black body emission spectrum…and can be corrected by emissivity =.95 for even better accuracy. Possibly you are confused with Albedo ?
“…until it is absorbed…”
Duh!
This has been my point number one for years.
EMR does not have a temperature per se but the stuff it encounters does.
EMR raises the KE of the stuff it encounters.
How do we know?
Stuff gets hot.
How hot?
1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K.
This is why GHE’s -18 C ice ball Earth is nonsense.
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA.
Nich Schroder’s usual incorrect claim that 396 fore -333 back IR photon flow violates laws of thermodynamics, which is some kind of flat earther curmudgeon nonsense.
Weekly rebuttals to his nonsense at WUWT are here:
Tell Schroeder. He’s the guy who thinks a surface radiating 400 watts of EMR is losing 400 watts of HEAT when, in fact it can be absorbing 400 watts of EMR from its surroundings…thereby losing
400-400=ZERO HEAT by radiation.
michael fellion
June 21, 2026 6:56 am
All the going on about data from 1979 to date is almost meaningless. It might help refute the cult distortions and lies but the real world goes back a lot more. The warm periods just since the last ice age ending consensus point were all warmer than today and the world did not end. That view might be more useful in getting the public to recognize the cult as a cult not reality. Real damage from climate per person has not increased just that the number of persons has increased a lot. 1 billion to 9 billion in less than 200 years going on 30 plus billion in a few decades is the real problem.
A few thoughts on the heatwave currently affecting Europe and providing abundant material for opportunistic media outlets and television scientists.
This heatwave, although early and highly intense, falls within the realm of meteorology. This distinction is conveniently omitted by the media and television scientists, who, backed by attribution studies that are as methodologically outdated as they are effective in the media, claim that such intense and early heat would be impossible without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. That said, the relationship between the 1.3 degrees Celsius of warming since 1850 and an increased frequency of anticyclones has never been demonstrated.
I see alarmist media outlets (often with a degrowth-oriented perspective) claiming, more or less, the following: “What the models predicted for 2050 in terms of temperatures is already happening to us in 2026,” implying: “See how accurate the models were.” Yet not only is this heatwave, like the one that struck Canada in 2021, a matter of meteorology rather than climate (meaning the alarmists are committing the very methodological error they so often attribute to skeptics), but they are also anthropomorphizing models in a rather strange way. Models are tools for understanding the world; they cannot be “right” earlier than expected. Either they are valid, or they need to be revised. This anthropomorphism is thought-provoking and would certainly give epistemologists pause.
Furthermore, it is not surprising that a warming of 1.3 degrees since 1850 would add to the intensity of heatwaves, although one should be cautious about establishing a purely arithmetic relationship between any given heatwave and the warming accumulated since 1850. Many other parameters are involved and should not be overlooked.
Moreover, while everyone in Western Europe agrees that it is very hot—and unusually hot for this time of year—there was a precedent in 1947, when Saharan winds reached the region as early as late May, bringing high temperatures.
It should be noted that 1947 was itself a remarkable year: a very warm spring, a first heatwave at the end of June, followed by a second from approximately July 22 to August 4, with temperatures exceeding 40°C in the Paris region and very high readings across much of the country. The whole of Western Europe was affected by this episode.
The coverage provided by weather stations has increased considerably over the decades, urbanization has also progressed, and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is a very important factor to take into account (both in terms of thermometer measurements and human perception! Naturally, I would rather be sitting in the shade of a park at 35°C than standing on a crowded boulevard.)
The definition of a heatwave must also be taken into consideration. This may seem trivial, but a phenomenon is only ever defined by the definition assigned to it. Thus, the Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium defines a heatwave (in the climatological sense of the term) as a summer period of at least five consecutive days with temperatures of at least 25°C, including at least three days reaching 30°C or more. By this definition, Belgium experienced three heatwaves in 1947.
To finish, here is a song: “Il fait beau” (“The Weather Is Nice”) by Les Frères Jacques, a legendary vocal ensemble active from 1946 to 1982.
It should be noted that 1947 was itself a remarkable year: a very warm spring, a first heatwave at the end of June, followed by a second from approximately July 22 to August 4, with temperatures exceeding 40°C in the Paris region and very high readings across much of the country. The whole of Western Europe was affected by this episode.
An alternative viewpoint of the situation in (and around) Paris is attached below.
NB : “MFP” = “Météo France Previsions” for Tmax in Paris, rounded to the nearest integer.
Having failed to beat the May record (for Paris), it looks like the June record (for Paris) is “extremely likely” … as the IPCC might put it … to fall on Wednesday.
Note also that as in May the really hot temperatures for the next 3 or 4 days, i.e. 43-44°C, are forecast in western France, (very) roughly in the Bordeaux-Nantes-Le Mans-Limoges polygon.
The August 2003 heatwave officially resulted in ~14,800 deaths. With all of the “Alerte canicule !” lead stories on the French evening news programs since ( at least ?) last Friday, that isn’t going to happen this time around (or in the foreseeable future).
Victor
June 21, 2026 6:46 pm
The temperature varies between 6-20°C between day and night.
If the solar radiation TSI changes, it takes between 15-35 days for the temperature on the earth to change.
There must be an unknown solar radiation energy that warms the earth.
It takes 15-35 days for the unknown solar radiation energy to travel from the sun to the earth. The unknown solar radiation energy is the reason why there is a delay between the solar TSI and the earth’s temperature. Who will be the first to discover the unknown solar radiation energy and give it a name?
Diurnal temperature variation is the variation between a high air temperature and a low temperature that occurs during the same day.
In the absence of such extreme air-mass changes, diurnal temperature variations typically range from 10 °F (5.6 °C) or smaller in humid, tropical areas, up to 40 to 50 °F (22.2 to 27.8 °C) in higher-elevation, arid to semi-arid areas.
Wouldn’t such a delay from a TSI change simply be the result of how long it takes for the Sea Surface to increase RH and advection to distribute the weather fronts around the planet….
The time lag between the solar TSI and the ocean is 30 years. If the ocean temperature is rising today, it is because of changes in solar radiation 30 years ago.
How can the temperature variations between night and day be so large if there is a 30-year lag?
Global average temperature rise has reached ca. 1.4°C in 2023 (cf. e.g. WMO, Copernicus, NOAA) and shows a time lag of ca. 30 years between the emission of the GHG and the actual temperature rise (“climate lag” see graph). GHG sinks like the ocean, the terrestrial surface (e.g. forests, plants and soil, the seas) and the atmosphere were able to delay the temperature rise.
In a treaty signed 48 years ago, Hezbollah is supposed to stay north of the Latani river in Lebanon. The 8,000 United Nations troops currently in Lebanon are supposed to enforce this treaty. Naturally, the UN force has done nothing and as a result Hezbollah is occupying all the area in South Lebanon right up next to Israel.
Israeli troops are in South Lebanon to do the United Nations work for them and push them back north of the river, where they will be less of a threat to Israel.
Hezbollah needs to be disarmed and neutralized if there is to be any peace in the region.
As we move into an anticipated “Gadzilla” El Nino event, it is interesting to note that minimum Arctic sea ice extent the last two years was marginally greater than it was in 2007 when gormless Gore and the IPCCCP started all the scaremongering about “runaway melting” and “imminent ice free summers”.
The “canary in the coal mine” is still merrily chirping away as climate activists try to pretend they have not noticed and the media fail to tell us the good news.
Here is a screen grab from the official NSIDC interactive graph of those years:
Description and links here:
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/charctic-2007-2025/
I think a helpful presentation is as a radial plot. Here it is, with the current region magnified.The sea ice has, as of 10 June, reached a mnimum area for the date, but only just. Could change any time.
Hi Nick, thanks for the plot. I don’t find a ring of spaghetti any more informative than the NSIDC spaghetti graph, with all years turned on. The great advantage of their presentation is an interactive graph where you can clear the deck to focus on specific years.
We were told that the summer minimum was the “canary in the coal mine” we needed to watch. As soon as that stopped saying what they wanted they either go quiet or say: look at March maximum, or wow the Antarcic has lost sea ice this year.
Cryosat II ice minimum volume increased 65% between the all time low of 2012 and 2013. They just forgot to spread that good news too.
The is a lot more to understanding Arctic ice than naive, non-validated assumptions about it being dominated by an albedo feedback.
Clearly there is not a dominant positive in this system: vases do not slow down once they start tipping past the “tipping point”.
Up to 2012 that was a possible interpretation on the limited data we had. That hypothesis no longer fits.
The so-called “albedo feedback” is based on a false assumption: Namely, that because Arctic water looks dark to a casual observer, it means most of the light is being absorbed. It isn’t that simple.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
Nick’s been corrected on that point many times in the past, but like his insistent that wind and solar must be cheap because wind and sun are free, he just ignores reality in favor of the party narrative.
Thanks, that article is about global average albedo. The arctic is more specific.
Firstly, a lot of light is very low incidence angle and gets reflected irrespective of albedo. Then there are the counter effects: surface evaporation in windy arctic conditions and lack of an insulating layer of ice.
Most people, especially those who claim to be climate scientists just stomp out “albedo feedback” as though that phrase proves itself and thus the “basic physics” means there will be run away melting.
They never assess what other changes come with less sea ice and what the relative magnitudes of the effects are.
The simple fact that there was NOT any evidence of ever accelerating melting after the 2012 OMG event never makes them question that assumption.
The FACTs of sea ice extent since 2012 show either a negative feedback of some sort stabilised the system at a “new normal” or there is some other very strong, variable, long term driver we are not aware of yet.
In any case as I argued on Judith Curry’s site as far back as 2016: the arctic death spiral is dead !!
https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/18/is-the-arctic-sea-ice-spiral-of-death-dead/
Over the years the IPCC has diddled with the NH Sea Ice Extent graphs:
I would not trust any data <1979 satellite era but interesting how that jumped up.
Also the last panel is clear obfuscation if they replaced meaningful graphs with that fuzz plot.
Here’s an article I did in 2023, add two more years to the flat portion now.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2023/10/21/arctic-sea-ice-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine/
Scientific monitoring of Arctic sea ice extent began in 1979, marking the start of the continuous, reliable satellite record.
So, looking at the radial plot that your presented, or the previous NSIDC “linear overlay” graph that Greg Goodman presented, one is left wondering what happened between 1979 and 1993 or so.
But beyond that, anyone have any idea at all about the minimum annual Arctic sea ice extent that occurred during the Holocene Climate Optimum . . . you know:
The Holocene Climate Optimum occurred roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago ( peaking around 8,000 to 6,000 years BP). During this mid-Holocene warm period, global average temperatures were approximately 1°C to 3°C warmer than during the pre-industrial period, though high northern latitudes experienced significantly more warming. There were increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).
— detaills at https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/32197
Talk about “cherry picking” in an unsuccessful attempt to make a point!
Does anyone around here have information of the medieval map of the Arctic coast that WUWT posted 8 or 10 years ago? Or the url for the article?
Closest map I know of is the Piri Reis map and it covers Antarctica and some other places. Its real, but fragmentary, and can be easily found online. Hope that helps.
That Piri Reis shows Antarctica is a myth. That coast line is the lower end of the S. Am. : the Argentine coast wrapped around. You can pick out the bays and river estuaries down to the Magellan Straight if you take the time.
It is none the less a remarkable collection of cartographic knowledge, the Ottomans had just 20y after Columbus set out to discover a new route to India. Since Columbus had barely hit the Americas, it seems to imply that the Ottomans had already thoroughly explored S.Am right down to the Magellan Str.
There’s always somebody who knows something more or different, which is a good thing. Me? I don’t know, but perhaps it can get this guy on a track that helps his quest. Maybe he’ll get lucky in his research and we’ll all benefit.
Since the arctic does not have a coast he probably meant Antarctica and Piri Reis was probably what he was looking for. Hopefully my word of caution will be useful.
About a decade ago WUWT posted an article with a map of the Siberian coast (the only Arctic coast possibly known to pre-Columbians), which if authentic suggested navigation from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I don’t know of any search engine that works with WUWT archives, and I can’t find any info on that map. Did we get scammed?
Yeah, you’re right about Piri Reis: he had parts of the South American coast in triplicate, and not knowing that he circled them end on end to the south-east together with their descriptions of jungle animals, creating a tropical Antarctica. Hapgood really missed the boat on that one.
Before we waste too much time arguing about whose spaghetti tastes worse, I’d like to share my analysis of the recent NSIDC data: September 2012 was by far the lowest ice coverage in the satellite era. 2015 through 2025 lows clustered in a fairly tight band about midway between the 2012 record low, and the 1981-2010 interdecile-range low.
2020 was interesting because, despite industrial shutdowns and reduced air travel because of COVID-19, the ice coverage was midway between 2012 and 2024 — a big jump. That is, the annual CO2, which is acknowledged to be “well-mixed,” declined measurably, and yet resulted in a warm year and an ice level that was challenging the 2012 record.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
Using the annual minimum as the given prefered metric, there was accelerating melting from about 1997 to 2012. Since 2007 there has been zero net change. That suggests some neg. f/b stabilised the ice extent at a “new normal”: about 35% lower than the pre-2000 average.
2012 was an over-shoot , typical of an under-damped system.
If we look at CPOM ice volume (the only satellite conceived to actually measure volume) we also see a pretty flat record for October : the nearest month to the sept minimum for which they are able to extract volume data.
There has been a marginal decline in annual maxima around March/April.
The most we can learn from the COVID shut down is how little effect it had on atm. CO2 and the ‘forcing’ effect that had was not noticed by the climate system.
This tells the extent to which we would have to destroy life as we know it to even make a measurable impact , let alone “save the planet” and return us to the presumed “climate optimum” of the pre-industrial age.
Arctic sea ice since 2005…
There is still FAR MORE sea ice up there than there has been for most of the last 10,000 years.
Sea creatures that were last seen in the MWP are only just starting to return.
Too much Arctic sea ice, as there was during the LIA, and around 1979, drives sea creatures away.
I find that worrying about the loss of sea ice is particularly meaningless. Let me know when it’s increasing, and icepack will be clogging the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
Far too much importance is given to changes in Arctic sea ice. Looking back over the past 33.9 million years—the duration of our current Cenozoic Ice Age, which began with the sudden glaciation of Antarctica at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary—Earth’s polar ice sheets have undergone immense cycles of retreat and recovery.
When analyzing these deep-time geological records, a seasonally ice-free Arctic pales by comparison to the historical events involved in the catastrophic melting of continental ice sheets kilometers thick, followed by massive structural recoveries.
The geological record highlights several periods over the last 33.9 million years where the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) and Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) suffered massive mass loss, only to dynamically rebuild.
What is the IPCCCP?
A subsidiary of the UN Communist Party
I’m glad someone got the reference.
UN is seeking to control the world by controlling the world’s energy policy.
All UN officials have legal immunity in all jurisdictions of the world.
Most of the activist scientists involved in IPCC reports are crypto marxists.
Harold was the only one that didn’t get it.
This follows up on last week’s open thread post. It was about the implications of the demonstrated emulation of GCM surface air temperature projections in the first part of Pat Frank’s 2019 paper “Propagation of Error…”.
A WUWT user replied with a tangential objection to the propagation-of-uncertainty methodology in that paper. The user objects to the application of a “per year” dimension to a separately reported annualized thermal flux error value (i.e. the 4 W/m^2 RMSE from Lauer and Hamilton 2013.) Is this objection justified? No. An explanation follows below.
[For convenience, here is a link to that Open Thread post from last week https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/14/open-thread-194/#comment-4206370 %5D
In April of 2025, I posted an AI analysis of a simplified case using the same basic numbers as in Frank 2019. [See here for that full post https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/13/open-thread-139/#comment-4060865 %5D
============ (start quote from the 4-13-25 post)
Question to Grok:
Consider a simplified step-iterated Earth climate model which projects an annualized global average surface air temperature, abbreviated GASAT. The task is to compute a projected GASAT for each step for 100 steps. Each step is one year. The radiative climate forcing is 0 W/m^2 in the initial state at step 0. The GASAT is given as 15C at step 0. The assumed radiative forcing increases by 0.035 W/m^2 each year. The response of GASAT to radiative forcing is given to be exactly 0.5C/(W/m^2). Absorbed solar energy is given as a constant value in W/m^2 throughout the projection. The climate model operates at each step on the GASAT value from the previous step, to compute and apply an annualized outward thermal flux in W/m^2, emitted back to space, to then compute a new GASAT to pass to the next step. The epistemic uncertainty of this outward thermal flux is given to be +/- 4 W/m^2. Through the response function, this introduces a +/- 2C uncertainty in the new GASAT at each step. It is intended to apply the root-sum-square method to propagate the uncertainty through the projection. What is the projected GASAT in degrees C, and what is the uncertainty of the projected GASAT in +/- degrees C, at steps 10, 50, and 100?
Final answer from Grok, after analysis:
At step 10: Projected GASAT = 15.175°C ± 6.324°C
At step 50: Projected GASAT = 15.875°C ± 14.142°C
At step 100: Projected GASAT = 16.75°C ± 20°C
My followup:
Does the uncertainty at steps 10, 50, 100 imply a large fluctuation in model output, or does it instead simply define an interval in which the GASAT is expected to lie, but cannot be precisely determined with this model?
Answer from Grok:
The uncertainty defines a range within which the GASAT is expected to lie, reflecting the model’s imprecision rather than predicting large fluctuations. With this simplified model, the projected GASAT is a deterministic trend (15°C + 0.0175°C × step), and the uncertainty (±2*sqrt(n)°C) indicates how much trust [bolded dd] we can place in that projection as errors compound over time. The true temperature is likely somewhere within these bounds, but the model cannot pinpoint it more precisely due to the given epistemic uncertainty.
[The full Grok exchange on X is here. https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1906084643708780692 ]
=============== (end quote from 4-13-25)
From that same full Grok conversation from last year, here is an additional quote [dd emphasis added]:
“Step 1: Understand the Model and Parameters
Initial conditions: At step 0 (year 0), GASAT = 15°C, radiative forcing = 0 W/m².
Radiative forcing increase: Increases by 0.035 W/m² per year (per step).
Temperature response: 0.5°C per W/m² of radiative forcing.
Uncertainty: Outward thermal flux uncertainty = ±4 W/m² per step.
This translates to a GASAT uncertainty of ±2°C per step (since 4 W/m² × 0.5°C/(W/m²) = 2°C).
Uncertainty propagation: Use the root-sum-square (RSS) method to combine uncertainties across steps.
Time steps: Compute for steps 10, 50, and 100 (years 10, 50, and 100).”
Discussion
Did the Grok AI agent commit a methodological error by adding the implied “per step” (i.e. per year) dimension to describe the ±4 W/m² value for the purpose of the exercise? No.
Is the methodology of the propagation of uncertainty in the Frank 2019 paper somehow invalidated by having stated the “per year” dimension? Also no. (continued)
(…continued)
Bottom line: For investigating the IR influence of incremental CO2 on the climate system, the rapid buildup of uncertainty in the projection of surface air temperature cannot be ignored for any of the pre-stabilized, time-step-iterated models. The large uncertainty overwhelms the minor factor being investigated.
Thank you for your attention to this matter of analysis and for your patience in the larger issues.
P.S. The methodologies in the Frank 2019 paper need no justification from me. I’m just pointing out how the detractors go wrong.
Create and series of random numbers and then integrate. It’s called a Markov walk.
It staggers up and down, left to right like a drunken sailor trying to avoid the lamp-posts.
That is climate on any time scale.
I agree the attribution signal we are supposed to be looking for is lost in the noise.
Likely it is nonlinear dynamics (or chaos) which looks random. Weather is chaotic and averages will also be, climate being average weather. For example hot vs cold weeks, months, years, centuries, etc. Same for wet vs dry, etc.
“climate being average weather”
This is *so* meaningful. Temperature is *NOT* weather. So temperature is *NOT* climate. Climate science has picked a metric that is physically meaningless to project/predict/etc CLIMATE.
While I don’t consider temperature to be a non-linear dynamic, it is certainly highly variable due to all of the factors that go into it, e.g. humidity, wind, clouds, terrain, geography, hemisphere, latitude, etc.
The variability of temperature is certainly *not* noise, it *is* a signal. The “noise” should be encapsulated in the measurement uncertainty interval associated with the measurement.
When I said noise, I was refering to the attempt to detect the linearised sensitivity to atm. CO2. The famous AGW. That signal is lost in the chaotic “noise” of a highly complex non linear system.
The attempt to pretend the rest of climate is just “oscillations” : PDO, AMO, ENSO, AMOC …. with the implied but hidden assumption they are are long term, zero mean wiggles on top of the linear AGW ‘forcing’ is deliberate deception.
Climate is not a random walk at any scale. Climate is the result of inputs at that point in time. Just because one does not know the full list and amplitude of the inputs does not make the result random.
Greg: “Create and series of random numbers and then integrate. It’s called a Markov walk. It staggers up and down, left to right like a drunken sailor trying to avoid the lamp-posts. That is climate on any time scale.”
If that’s true, how do you explain these plots?
Did you do what I suggested and plot the cumulative integral of a series of random data ?
You do not seem to get the point. It is unclear what point you think you are making with those graphs. Can I suggest you try to make a specific point instead of expecting me to guess and explain what you think you see and how that contradicts what I said.
No need to do what you said. Your point was that climate was random. My plots show that it isn’t. Climate largely repeats after 3560 years as shown in the first plot.
Here, let me simplify it for you using animation and a reconstruction that is more heavily filtered.
Using correlation analysis, the second graphic shows that the 3560-year is present in both Arctic and Antarctic ice cores, in a sediment core from a lake in China (latitude 29N) and in a solar activity reconstruction.
For more information read:
A 3560-Year Jovian Solar and Climate Cycle
Wow! I like the animation. Far better than having to look at different plots at different times in order to detect similarities.
There are a LOT of divergences in that comparison.
Jeff, after you’ve read the paper I’ll be happy to address any concerns that you have.
IPCC first report 1990. (courtesy Dr Bill Johnston. BOM Watch)
No signal has yet ben found. Perhaps another trillion dollars will help?
Click image to clear….
Whomever gave the down vote should be able to show us the measured human CO2 warming signal. Or are they jus plain stupid. Let’s see….
And the IPCC is no closer to detecting CO2’s influence on Earth’s weather and climate today than they were back then.
CO2’s effect is still undetectable.
We waste Trillions of dollars on something that is undetectable.
The model results are simply meaningless with that much uncertainty. 36C to 0C at step 100. If one uses that range for buildings codes 99% of the building in the USA would fall down in the first gentle breeze. The model needs to be abandoned and another tied to past data constructed. We have data going back hundreds of years with varying precision and data going back millions of years as well. Ignoring solar output variations is simply foolish for models in the last few thousand years as a number of studies show variations in solar output..
Grok does not handle significant figures appropriately. Step 10 should be shown as “Projected GASAT = 15.°C ±6°C”. After 100 iterations, the uncertainty has not become more precise; it is still just 1 significant figure. The Rule of Thumb is that the resultant has no more significant figures than the least precise factor. Thus, one cannot even be certain of the sign of the the average any longer.
Thank you for your reply. No disagreement with your point about significant figures. I am just quoting the response.
David, nice use of an AI to verify what Dr. Frank has determined. If you are already set up with Grok, I would be interested to see what the uncertainty would need to be to obtain a value +/- 1 degree.
Thanks for your reply. To get an estimated uncertainty of ±1°C after 100 steps (i.e. 100 years) with the same 0.5 deg C/(W/m^2) response function, the thermal flux uncertainty would have to be better than ± 0.2 W/m^2 per step or a temperature uncertainty per step of better than ±0.1°C.
(Check: 0.5°C/(W/m^2)*±0.2W/m^2=±0.1°C and ±0.1°C*sqrt(100)=±1°C )
This just uses the same equation Grok reported before, based on RSS.
Of course, then there is the unresolvable uncertainty of +/- 0.13 W/m^2 in the central value of TSI as a geometric average over the spherical surface of the planet, at every computational time step. So even an imaginary step-iterated model, perfected in its response to “forcings,” still cannot reliably project a GHG influence.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
This is the uncertainty of a single cavity radiometer; using these instruments in low-earth orbit is not trivial. The history extraterrestrial solar irradiance measurements for the past 40 years or so, taking into account all the different instruments that have been orbited, indicates the total uncertainty should be an order of magnitude greater.
No disagreement with your point. I just used the value published in Loeb 2018 – as you say, it seems low.
Which publication by Loeb did you specifically use?
Which specific value from that publication did you use?
Thank you for your questions. This is the Loeb et al 2018 article I am referring to for the +/- 0.13 W/m^2 value.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/2/jcli-d-17-0208.1.xml
See the text following Table 1, “Given that the absolute uncertainty in solar irradiance alone is 0.13 W m−2 (Kopp and Lean 2011)…”
The Kopp and Lean 2011 paper is here, in which it is reported that “The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045777
The “0.13 W/m^2” is 0.5 W/m^2 divided by four for application over the spherical area of the planet.
That is an observational uncertainty. And it doesn’t accumulate over each successive observation. It’s the same uncertainty for all observations.
“That is an observational uncertainty.”
Correct. Therefore at every computational iteration, the model does not know the true value within that interval of +/-0.13 W/m^2, nor does it know what the true value was for any previous step. The computed temperature evolution at each step must be conditioned with its own uncertainty, arising from that same observational source, and the uncertainty of the energy state it was given from the previous step. This is why the propagation of uncertainty in a step-iterated simulation cannot be ignored.
Lol… That’s not how that works. And it wasn’t Grok who decided to do that way. Do me a favor. Give Grok the Loeb and Kopp publications and then ask it if it was appropriate for the prompter to give it the instructions that appear in the chat log.
“Lol… That’s not how that works.”
So you say.
Be well, even as we obviously disagree on that point.
I decided to try it myself. I put the following prompt into Gemini and Claude and attached both the Loeb and Kopp publications along with the original chat log with Grok. No other files were attached and no other context or prompts were provided.
Both AI bots said the prompt was posed inappropriately and that as a result the 1.98 K figure provided was wrong.
Claude had a particularly interesting response. It mentioned Patrick Frank. It did this completely on its own. At no time did I mention Frank myself or in any way bring Frank or his works into the chat context either directly or indirectly or from another chat. I gave Claude a single prompt and it is quoted in its entirety above. That’s it. It obviously came as a complete surprise to me that it brought Frank into the discussion completely on its own.
It would be interesting if someone who has a Grok subscription could go through the same exercise.
Thank you for your further reply.
“I decided to try it myself.”
Good for you. You got the socially processed answer you wanted.
It’s still incorrect to ignore the rapid buildup of uncertainty – whether from incomplete physics internal to the model, or from the uncertainty of an external energy input value – in the pre-stabilized-by-tuning, time-step-iterated simulations.
It’s not that hard to figure out.
Everyone can see the prompt I submitted to the AIs and that I did not in any way lead the AIs into choosing a position one way or another.
So why did you tell Grok to accumulate the uncertainty on each step and not disclose where the 0.13 W.m-2 and 0.5 W.m-2 figures came from instead of letting it figure out on its own how to deal with the Loeb and Kopp figures?
It doesn’t matter if it is observational uncertainty or not. Uncertainty is VARIANCE of a distribution. When you combine distributions, such as the prior steps variance (i.e. it’s measurement uncertainty) with the current steps variance (i.e. its measurement uncertainty) the variances add. Step-by-stem they add.
You are trying to convince us that the initial measurement uncertainty (i.e. variance) becomes the variance of the output, that the variance never changes and is never impacted by the steps.
That is nothing more than assuming that the individual steps are always 100% accurate in their result. I.e. no adding of variances from step-to-step.
That’s like saying that if a compass has a combined uncertainty (both observational and systematic) of 1deg, that a hike consisting of 10 miles with a new compass reading at each mile point will not accumulate uncertainty. That you will miss your target destination as determined by the initial reading. The uncertainty at the first mile point will not ADD to the initial uncertainty.
That’s nothing more than the meme of “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels!”.
It’s a garbage meme developed by climate science, so they don’t have to actually address measurement uncertainty propagation.
“So why did you tell Grok to accumulate the uncertainty on each step…”
Please don’t rearrange the words. See below, in the prompt you are referring to, for the exact wording. That wording is consistent with the technical basis of the exercise.
“…and not disclose where the 0.13 W.m-2 and 0.5 W.m-2 figures came from…”
Because it was irrelevant to the technical task to be performed.
===== Background below.
For those who are curious about this matter, please see the pdf at this link for the full text of the Grok conversation being discussed here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j56NA0qRZvVMdosxjzOkLoXvwbKg9Ds1/view?usp=sharing
Within that pdf, here is the exact prompt I entered to define the technical task to be performed by the Grok AI agent:
“Consider a time-stepped Earth climate model. The time step is 30
minutes. The model assumes a constant value of total solar irradiance at 1361 W/m^2. The absolute uncertainty of this value, arising from
instrument resolution, is +/- 0.5 W/m^2. The corresponding uncertainty in the geometric global average is +/- 0.13 W/m^2. This epistemic uncertainty influences the change in forcing at each step. The climate state result from each step, including surface temperature, is passed to the next, so that this epistemic uncertainty accumulates in the series of steps. The value of TSI determines the temperature evolution at each step independently, so that its uncertainty is to be considered uncorrelated in the series of steps. Albedo is a variable, computed at each time step. Using a no-feedback transient surface temperature response to radiative forcing of 0.2K/(W/m^2), please determine the uncertainty of the global average surface temperature one year following the initialization of the model, arising only from this specific external source of uncertainty. Assume the model’s computations are otherwise exact. This exercise is not intended to evaluate the physical characteristics of the real climate system, its damping effects, feedbacks, or thermal inertia, nor any coding or tuning within the model for stability of its outputs. Only the buildup of statistical uncertainty through the steps of computation is of interest. In your answer, please explain why the accumulating uncertainty, as the iteration proceeds, does not imply an increasing variation of the deterministic output of the model itself.”
You told it the ±0.5 W.m-2 figure was instrument resolution. You told it that it is uncorrelated in a series of steps. You told it to builup the uncertainty through the steps. It did what you told it to do.
“It did what you told it to do.”
Correct.
It was/is an exercise. You disagree with the basis I laid out for the technical exercise.
Fine.
I am not persuaded to your point of view.
You’ve had your say.
Class dismissed.
bdgwx buys into the garbage climate science meme that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels. Therefore there is no addition of uncertainty across multiple steps – it all just cancels.
You did it correctly. Again, if you assume that continual errors in a compass will not add over distance, you’ll never get where you wanted to go. Survey maps of the US would be wildly inaccurate. Running a stepped climate model is no different. Each step adds to the uncertainty.
Thank you for your reply.
“Running a stepped climate model is no different. Each step adds to the uncertainty.”
Exactly.
In the case being discussed here with Mr. “wx”, the +/- 0.13 W/m^2 uncertainty in TSI is no big deal in the real climate system, as it would theoretically influence the long-term surface temperature a tiny fraction of a degree C. No computer simulation needed.
But as soon as you start using time-step-iterated computations involving energy-in and energy-out values in every iteration, the resulting buildup of uncertainty in the energy state – crudely represented by surface temperature – cannot be avoided and must not be ignored.
He is correct even though he stated TSI as 1361 W.m-2 and not 1361 W.m-2.year-1 and averaged an intensive property?
I’m replying to myself here for the benefit of only those hard-core enthusiasts who are interested in how AI agents respond to carefully worded prompts.
https://gemini.google.com/share/6daa8c5019aa
In this Google Gemini conversation, I only slightly tweaked the entire series of prompts I had given to Grok last year, ending with the exercise using the +/- 0.13 W/m^2 uncertainty in the central value of TSI (as a geometric average over the planet’s spherical surface.)
“Result: The uncertainty of the global average surface temperature after one year, arising strictly from this uncorrelated step-wise propagation, is +/- 3.44K.”
And,
“Summary
The deterministic model remains stable and bounded because its inputs are fixed constants. The accumulating statistical uncertainty merely reflects a compounding “metrological ignorance”—the mathematical reality that independent, uncorrected measurement tolerances, when iterated thousands of times without physical damping mechanisms built into the statistical calculation, drastically reduce our ability to precisely pinpoint the absolute temperature value at the end of the timeline.”
Then at the very end of this Gemini conversation, I asked it for an alternative answer based on the alternative assumption of perfectly correlated uncertainty at each step. The propagated uncertainty after one year of 30-minute steps blows up to +/- 455K.
There you go, for whatever it’s worth.
I can only reiterate the compass example. On a 100 mile hike with compass readings taken every 5 miles (20 repititions), and a compass with a 1% relative uncertainty, the uncertainty of your final point of arrival grows with each reading whether you add the uncertainties directly or using root-sum-square.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t wind up dead on your desired arrival point. What it means is that you can’t tell where you might wind up! It’s all part of the Great Unknown (i.e. the measurement uncertainty interval)! It might be dead on or it might be off by literally miles!
At each iteration a “best estimate” value is taken from the previous step and used for the next calculation. There is no guarantee that the “best estimate” is 100% accurate if there is measurement uncertainty associated with the input to the previous step.
What bdgwx is trying to tell us that each “best estimate” used for the next iteration*IS* 100% ACCURATE. Thus the measurement uncertainty of the final result can be either ignored or assumed to be the same as the measurement uncertainty for the original input.
That is *exactly* like assuming that your location at each reading of the compass is 100% on the direct line between the originating point and the destination point. All the measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels.
It’s a good thing bdgwx is not a surveyor. Your actual property lines could wind up being in the next county instead of where he puts the survey pins.
I came back later and generated a new prompt to Grok. It answered with the same values I computed earlier. Here is the full Grok conversation just now.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/0b925fa9cd31497f8aa194530d31cfe6
Thanks again for your reply, which got me curious enough to ask Grok.
This is the revised prompt.
“Consider a simplified step-iterated Earth climate model which projects an annualized global average surface air temperature, abbreviated GASAT. The task is to compute a projected GASAT for each step for 100 steps. Each step is one year. The radiative climate forcing is 0 W/m^2 in the initial state at step 0. The GASAT is given as 15C at step 0. The assumed radiative forcing increases by 0.035 W/m^2 each year. The response of GASAT to radiative forcing is given to be exactly 0.5C/(W/m^2). Absorbed solar energy is given as a constant value in W/m^2 throughout the projection. The climate model operates at each step on the GASAT value from the previous step, to compute and apply an annualized outward thermal flux in W/m^2, emitted back to space, to then compute a new GASAT to pass to the next step. The epistemic uncertainty of this outward thermal flux is an unknown “U” to be computed using the model and expressed as a +/- value in units of W/m^2. Through the response function, this introduces a +/- “T” degrees C uncertainty in the new GASAT at each step. It is intended to apply the root-sum-square method to propagate the uncertainty through the projection. What is the maximum +/- value of “U” which will constrain the uncertainty of the computed GASAT at step 100 to +/- 1 degree C? What is the corresponding value of “T”? What is the computed value of GASAT at step 100?”
Answer “U = \pm 0.2 W/m², T = \pm 0.1°C, and GASAT at step 100 = 16.75°C.”
I don’t know why they displayed it this way , but the “\pm” obviously means “+/-“.
It would be nice if daily forecasts included statistical uncertainty. Case in point, yesterday, the high here was supposed to be 95F. The actual high ended up being 88F and I think that lasted for just several minutes.
I have noticed recently that forecasts for weather extremes are biased to promote alarm or at least the generation of excitement, but not reality. We have low humidity here and 88F can be actually pleasant if one is properly attired.
Yes, they pump the alarmism a week ahead. Then if it does not happen they just go quiet and pretend they did not notice. If I happens they bang it all out again, creating two climate panics in the mind of the naive observer.
They are already pumping the idea of a super-duper Godzilla El Nino despite only just touching the threshold for El Nino conditions.
This is not simply to warn people so they can be prepared for the heat, because any warming will 5-12mo months to affect local climates. It’s pure drama and alarmism.
Any expectations on what the news media will do if the “super-duper” fails to appear? My money is on them just ignoring the ‘projection’ failure and going on about their work as though the “could” prediction never happened, rather than acknowledging the failure and explaining why.
That would be in line with all their other failed hype. Just ignore it and hop no one notices.
As has been explained ad-nauseum…Yes. Frank screwed up the propagation of uncertainty calculation because he arbitrarily added year-1 units to the 4 W.m-2 value [Lauer & Hamilton 2013] published.
Frank also doesn’t even understand how averages work in general. No, an annual average temperature does not have units of C.year-1; it’s just C. No, TSI is not 1360 W.m-2.day-1 or 1360 W.m-2.year-1; it’s just 1360 W.m-2.
Frank also doesn’t even understand how to propagate uncertainty even if he did understand how averages work because he uses the wrong equations, assumes differing value of correlation in the same propagation, etc.
Nonsense — all you are doing is exposing your abject ignorance of the subject.
I warrant that Pat Frank has FAR more understanding than bdg. !!
Oh yeah.
Says the guy who thinks NIST publishes bunk and doesn’t think Possolo understands how to propagate uncertainty.
Wow, the troll-person dips into his enemies files again.
Yawn.
Why will you never acknowledge the assumptions behind that NIST paper?
(see below, Jim and Tim reminded you of them, for the umpteenth time, and as usual you ignored them).
I don’t know about this claim, but I do know that average annual temperature constructs for the globe or any other regions of the world are meaningless, abject nonsense.
Totally agree. Temperature is NOT an extensive property of matter, so cannot be meaningfully added, divided or averaged. This is garbage physics.
They attempt to use it as a proxy for thermal energy but this assumes uniform specific heat capacity (not true between land, ice and sea) .
The invalid energy proxies are then compared to changes in “radiative forcing” an attempt to understand climate and attribute various sensitivities.
The “basic science” would fail you at high school physics but is supposed to be basis of rewriting the world’s economic and industrial system.
I discussed this in more detail here:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
It’s weird then that trusted institutions relevant to metrology like NIST and BIPM average temperature and other intensive properties. Why do you think they would do that it if was “garbage physics”?
NIST and BIPM do not average temperatures except in very specific instances.
NIST TN 1900 declares a monthly average temperature in May at a single station as a measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that in doing so, they had to make the assumption that all other measurement uncertainties other than the daily variance were negligible. Wind always the same, clouds always the same, grass always the same, human factors always the same, pressure the same. Good luck with that even at a single station. It is useful to note that they also arrived at an uncertainty value, even with those assumptions of ±1.0°C.
I will also note that other examples of average temperature with water baths again assume the same water bath, correct stirring, multiple lab grade thermometers, etc.
Your big blind spot, intentional or not, is that all the JCGM documents emphasize that a unique input quantity is always measured using the same thing. Using similar things introduces another component of measurement uncertainty into the uncertainty budget.
“It’s weird then that trusted institutions relevant to metrology like NIST and BIPM average temperature and other intensive properties. Why do you think they would do that it if was “garbage physics”?”
It’s because they are finding the BEST ESTIMATE of an intensive property for a SINGLE MEASURAND. Same object, same measuring device, same environment, over a small interval of time.
They are *NOT* trying to build a larger system by jamming the intensive property values of different things together to find an average.
Until you make an effort to understand the difference between:
you’ll never understand basic metrology principles.
Truism: Intensive properties do not add in order to create a larger system.
The mass of two rocks in your hand *do* add into a larger system. The temperatures of two rocks in your hand do *NOT* add into a larger system.
25kg + 10kg = 35kg
25C + 10C ≠ 35C
Adding masses gives a physical sum. Adding temperatures does *NOT* give a physical sum.
Averaging temperatures is nothing more than applying the garbage meme of “numbers is just numbers”. It’s what mathematicians, statisticians, computer programmers, and climate scientists do!
That, ladies and gentlemen, is called pwned (by both Gormans. You guys related?).
Yes. So what? You’ll get the same answer from anyone that has even minimum training in physical science and metrology.
25kg + 10kg = 30kg
25C + 10C ≠ 30C
If 25C plus 10C is not equal to 30C then how do you average the two properties?
bdgwx sees the above as:
25 + 10 = 30
25 + 10 = 30
numbers is just numbers.
Nonsense! Time has to be accounted for. The units of time are folded into the definition of the Watt, which is defined as being 1 Joule per second, a flux rate. If the instantaneous flux rate is varying, which it is, then it is appropriate to deal with the rate of variation over some other unit of time, such as a year.
Do you think averages automatically inherit time units in the denominator?
Do you think TSI is 1360 W.m-2.day-1 or in SI units 0.016 W.m-2.s-1?
Do you UAH was wrong about the 2026/05 monthly TLT average being 0.53 C and should have reported it as 0.53 C.month-1 or in SI units 2.0e-7 C.s-1?
“Do you think averages automatically inherit time units in the denominator?”
If you are averaging a year’s worth of data to get a single value for the year then, yes, the average automatically inherits the dimension of a YEAR.
If that is *not* provided then you don’t know if that single value represents an average over a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade, a century, or a millennia.
Here’s a value representing an average: 10C
Can you guess what that average represents as far as what time interval it represents?
If it represents a time interval of a month and you are using yearly time steps just how do you make that work? How do you make it work if you have no idea what interval of time was used to calculate the average?
If that 10C is the daily mid-point value for one day it isn’t going to give you a very good result in an annual time step!
TSI is a plane wave that is assumed to be a constant over time. It is joules/sec-m^2. Do you see those three letters “SEC”?
If you want to know how many joules the TSI inputs to a m^2 that is perpendicular to the plane wave over one minute, then the total is 1360 Joules/sec-m^2 * 1m^2 * 60 sec = 81,600 joules of heat energy.
If you want TSI to be the average over a minute then you must indicate it as 81,600 joules/min-m^2.
Do you do *any* science at all or just computer programming?
81600 j.min-1.m-2 = 1360 W.m-2
But Frank says it is 1360 W.m-2.day-1.
Yesterday you defended Frank’s claim that it was 1360 W.m-2.day-1. But now you’re saying it is 1360 W.m-2. Did you get mixed up again or did you really have a sudden change of position on the matter?
THESE ARE NOT EQUAL. To be equal they must have the same dimensions.
81600 j / (min·m²) ≠ 1360 j / (sec·m²)
You have not shown that 1360 W/m²·day is incorrect. You need to show the remainder of the dimensions used in a calculation. Do the dimensions of the calculation work out correctly? You haven’t shown that one way or another.
Of course those are equal. Let’s walk though it step by step.
(1) 81600 j / (min * m^2)
(2) 81600 j / (min * m^2) * (1 min / 60 sec)
(3) 81600 j / m^2 * 1 min / min / 60 sec
(4) 81600 j / m^2 / 60 sec
(5) (81600 / 60) j / m^2 / sec
(6) 1360 j / (sec * m^2)
(7) 1360 (j/s) / m^2
(8) 1360 W.m-2
This is literally middle school arithmetic. I’m not expecting you to do calculus here. I’m just expecting you to do basic arithmetic right now without making trivial mistakes.
It’s incorrect because it isn’t even a flux nevermind the TSI that Earth experiences.
BTW…Note that 1360 W.m-2.day-1 is equivalent to 0.016 j.m-2.s-2 or 0.016 W.m-2.s-1.
“81600 j.min-1.m-2 = 1360 W.m-2″
So what’s your point? If you leave off the time interval then how do you know the value was derived?
“But Frank says it is 1360 W.m-2.day-1.”
1360 joules/sec-m^2 is a RATE. How do you specify that rate over a period of time, say a day, a week, a year?
It’s no different than saying you travelled at 10mph for a day. That’s an average. It could have been derived by travelling at 5mph for half a day and at 15mph for the other half of the day. The average is *still* 10mph per day.
You get the 1360 W/m^2 per year because the solar insolation is very close to a constant. So you get 1360 W/m^2 per year, per week, per day, etc. You need to make the time interval match the time step in the model. 1360 W/m^2 per year gives you how many joules per m^2 over a year?
You just continue to show that you have absolutely *NO* understanding of dimensional analysis.
Your brother is changing his position on the value of TSI. In one comment he said it was 1360 W.m-2.day-1 and in another he said it was 1360 W.m-2.
The same way you do it for any other average over a time period.
No. The average is just 10 mph; not 10 mph/day. The former is a velocity. The later is an acceleration.
1360 W.m-2.year-1 ≠ 1360 W.m-2.week-1 ≠ 1360 W.m-2.day-1
It’s easier to see this if you convert them to SI units.
1360 W.m-2.year-1 = 4.3e-5 kg.s-4
1360 W.m-2.week-1 = 2.2e-3 kg.s-4
1360 W.m-2.day-1 = 0.016 kg.s-4
As you can see these aren’t the same value. They aren’t even a flux nevermind the TSI that Earth experiences.
Says the guy who thinks TSI has units equivalent to kg.s-4.
“The same way you do it for any other average over a time period.”
If you don’t specify the period then how do you know what is being averaged?
Have you answered Jim yet on which average temperature goes with what interval if each is just expressed as “C”?
We all know you won’t answer because you can’t tell without the period being expressed as part of the average.
Numbers is just numbers, right?
The way he refuses to look at and admit the assumptions in the NIST paper he is so fond of, tells me that fundamentally, he is not a very honest person. On occasion he has let his mask as an apologist for the IPCC be seen.
BTW…UAH also provides the absolute temperature. They reported 263.92 K for 2026/05. Do you think Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy were wrong and should have reported it as 9.9e-5 K.s-1 which is the SI equivalent of 263.92 K.month-1?
I’m just curious how deep your praise of Frank goes regarding this matter.
You still don’t get it! 9.9e-5 K/sec tells you what? That’s a rate! Temperature is not a rate! Joules/sec-m^2 *IS* a rate. Can you not tell the difference?
I have no idea. It’s Frank’s absurd argument.
You bet I can tell a difference between C and C.month-1. Temperature has units of C or K; not C.month-1 or K.sec-1. That’s my point!
Again, to you numbers is just numbers. Have you answered Jim yet about which temperature represents what time interval?
“C” is an absolute measured temperature. C/month is an average over a month. It’s not an absolute measured temperature.
Numbers is just numbers, right? They don’t need to represent reality, right?
The pot calling the kettle black. Here are two numbers. They are averages. You tell me which one is a monthly average and which one is an annual average and explain your reasoning. 28 and 18.
If you can’t divine which is which, then you will have illustrated what dimensional analysis consists of.
Dr. Frank and other physical scientists don’t achieve their degrees at any level without being able to perform dimensional analysis in their sleep. You are taught to set up a dimensional analysis string before even putting numbers in the string. That insures you end up with a meaningful number.
If you don’t know the correct time period of a value, then you don’t know what time period to use. ±4°C is simply a number. Can I multiply it by days, months, or years? If so, then it is a constant. If constant, how was it derived? Did it use data from a single day? Maybe 12 months? Who knows. If you want to use it as a constant, then you had damn well be prepared to show how you know it is a constant over any and all time periods.
Back to dimensional analysis. If you do the following:
(°C/1) × (years/1) = °C·years
That is a useless calculation because the dimension is meaningless.
Now if instead, you do the following:
(°C/
years) × (years/1) = °C/1 = °CDo you see how that works as fractions with cancelation. The result is meaningful because °C is a meaningful dimension. That is dimensional analysis.
Your problem is not with dimensional labels, it is with the fact that Dr. Frank showed that models end up being nothing more a linear projection after a few iterations. Why don’t you refute that instead.
“Why don’t you refute that instead.”
Because he can’t.
Says the guy who cannot consistently recognize the difference between sums and averages.
Says the man who believes you don’t have to do a sum to have something to divide in order to obtain an average.
And also doesn’t understand that in our reality, our physical reality, that intensive properties of different things can *NOT* be added in order to represent a larger system that can be divided to obtain a physical, meaningful average.
bdgwx suffers from the statistician disease of “numbers is just numbers”.
I think you have me confused with someone else or are projecting. I’ve always maintained that an average is either a sum followed by a division or several divisions followed by a sum. Ya know…either Σ[Xi, i:{1 to n}] / n or Σ[Xi/n, i:{1 to n}]. You can also use the mean theorem for calculus as well.
DMacKenzie asked me, “what’s your thoughts on 2/3 of surface radiation going directly to outer space thru the atmospheric window. True or false ?”
There’s this:
Looks like 2/3 to me.
On edit: That doesn’t say anything about clouds. The primary effect of clouds is to reflect incoming radiation, Blocking outgoing radiation is secondary.
And shouldn’t it be radiant energy opposed to just radiation? Or is that question redundant.
If most of the incoming energy did not leave the system we would have boiled long ago. I’m not sure where you see / estimate your 2/3. Ultimately it is almost a perfect balance.
However, what you are looking at is radiance, not power (W/m^2).
It’s a radiance spectrum not an energy flow graph.
The question was surface radiation directly exiting through the Atmospheric Window not total radiation from the Earth to outer space.
The original Zimmerman Kendal survey questions resulting in 97% of climate scientists agree greenhous gas has a warming effect were:
Question 1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Question 2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
There was no Question 3: “Do you think that constitutes a problem?”
“Significant” wasn’t defined, I define it as measurable.
I would be in the 97% The survey was useless
Just to recap…and thanks for bringing this up again, Steve…it is a “learning situation” for many….
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/what-is-earths-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows/
If we look at the NASA energy balance graphic…down at the surface….we have
Heat entering the “sea and soil” of 163.3 watts from sunlight.
Leaving the “sea and soil” is 18.4 watts of thermals, plus 86.4 of evaporation. The amount radiated from “sea and soil” is 398.2-340.3=57.9 watts
18.4+86.4+57.9=162.7 which balances the absorbed sunlight except for .6 watts (let’s not discuss error bars on this number to save much fruitless discussion).
You can also see on this same graphic, 40.9 watts going to outer space labelled “atmospheric window”.
So 57.9 is radiated from the surface of which 40.9 goes directly to outer space. That’s 2/3 for practical purposes.
But other heat leaving “sea and soil” is involved besides what is radiated. 86.4 of evaporation and 18.4 of conduction and convection. So RADIATED from the surface is, in quantity, about 2/3 the amount of heat lost by evaporation, and is 3 times as much the quantity of heat lost from the surface by thermals.
So my point is that the graphic is very misleading to those who don’t understand Planck..
What I am getting at here is that the NARROWEST line on his chart is 40 watts going to outer space through “atmospheric window”….while the Net radiant heat from the surface is 396-333=63 is visually diminished by making it 396 wide…This is NOT very obvious and most people don’t realize that the narrow 40.9 line to outer space is actually 2/3 of what is radiated from the surface…and about 1/4 of the energy absorbed from sunlight at surface.
Trenberth states “the widths of the lines represent the importance….”. Such a statement seems like taking some liberties with the numbers or their graphical representation.
How much heat is removed from a surface due to the wind, i.e. advection?
A classic example is the Santa Ana winds of southern California in late summer and early fall. The air is never static. When I watch the weather report on the TV, I see maps of the wind for my region which is southern BC.
That’s part of the 18.4 average. These numbers are obviously highly variable from day to day…due to advection, nightime inversions, being over water or desert, rainfall, etc…you can read up on evaporation pans and the Penman equation to get a feel for evaporation rate dependency on wind, sun, and RH.
“Looks like 2/3 to me.”
Careful . . . if one is talking about surface radiation energy going to space through the “atmospheric window”, that is not readily apparent just by looking at the y-axis variation in the presented AGU graph. To obtain the total energy emissions as a function of frequency (i.e., over the emission frequency range identified for that “window”), one needs to integrate the given y-axis value variation over the associated range of wavenumber (units of cm^-1).
I strongly disagree. Clouds block outgoing radiation—even across the “atmospheric widow” frequency range—as well as redistribute intercepted radiation energy to the whole atmosphere primarily via molecular collisions, serving to warm the atmosphere both above and below the clouds.
Moreover, clouds block Earth’s LWIR surface radiation day and night, whereas they reflect incoming solar radiation only during daylight hours, on average only about 50% of the time.
That graph is for the Sahara desert which very low specific humidity. What does the emission graph look like for the Pacific ocean surface near Hawaii or for the humid jungles of Africa?
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/43378/why-does-earth-have-a-dip-in-the-co2-absortion-spectrum-from-14-to-16-micron
Our glorious leader is on the verge…
Starmer is Ready to Resign, Say Allies
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/06/21/starmer-is-ready-to-resign-say-allies/
There’s still time to do more damage
Starmer to force social media giants to prioritise BBC and other public service content
Labour plans to give public service broadcasters priority in news feeds to fight disinformation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/20/starmer-force-social-media-giants-prioritise-bbc/
What a doubleplusungood ••••••
You mean they’ve found a new zio to replace the broken one ?
Starmer in jeans and a polo neck aka Andy Burnham.
How exactly would he “force” companies in another country to do anything?
Simple . . . following the lead of US President Donald Trump: “So let it be written, so let it be done.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=you+Tube+Ten+Commandments+excerpt+Pharoah+command+so+let+it+be+written&oq=you+Tube+Ten+Commandments+excerpt+Pharoah++command+so+let+it+be+written&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTYxMTQzajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:1d47653b,vid:3bQnxlHZsjY,st:0
Starmer told the Media to cover up, told police not to investigate and arrest the cases related to the beastly and immoral behavior of some of the millions of degenerate Muslims, the dregs from Third world countries, that were encouraged to illegally enter Britain. The “immoral relaxed” attitude of authorities enabled those degenerates to continue to carry out the sexual atrocities related to the tens of thousands of gang rapes of many young women and school-age girls in Britain. All of the media refuse to report on these heinous crimes, because they were told not to. How low can leaders go?
So… could anyone sanewash what trump did regarding iran this week? My TDS tells me he looks like a desperate loser but we all know this must have been one of his brilliant bigly 4D chess deals with all the cards.
At least even the bee was funny for once.
If he manages to defy Isreal , it will the biggest win for USA sovereignty since …. Afghanistan.
Wow.
If he thinks he can do a deal with Islam he’s delusional.
If Iran thinks they can do a deal with Trump they are delusional. I don’t think they are, they are just giving him enough rope to string up Nathanyahu.
If he manages to prove he really is in charge of US foreign policy they may have something to discuss.
He’s still a NY real estate shyster and will renege on any “deal” he makes as soon as it suits him. That is how he earned his money. Bullying , cheating, stealing and selective bankruptcy. Iran is aware of that.
(Not saying he was not looking like the best choice in 2024 but it’s not going too good so far. )
they may have something to discuss.
I thought I made it clear, you can’t deal with Islam.
Dumping sunni, shia, arab and persian all into one simplistic can only highlights the shallowness of your statement.
Now make a similar statement about zionist and anti-zionist jews in one box and see whether it sounds any better. Throw in zio-christians and catholics for good measure like it’s all the same thing.
When has Judaism, or Christianity, for that matter been spread at the point of a sword? You can always point to Spanish meso and south America if you choose, but that exception is hardly the rule. It took Spain over 700 years to eject islam. Maybe that had an influence?
When did a jew or a christian last blow up little girls at a pop concert in Manchester, stab people or run them down in London etc. It’s islam every time.
How many have died in the name of that religion this year thus far?
758 Islamic attacks in 40 countries, in which 3931 people were killed and 2964 injured. – RoP
Something for you to be proud of, I’m sure.
The 30 year war, the (northern) crusades, the Reconquistam the Inquisition?
Buddhism is probably the only really peaceful “religion” out there and that’s because it’s more a philosophy. And even they probably killed people. We really need to move past this religious nonsense.
Monks Behaving Badly: Explaining Buddhist Violence in Asia
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/monks-behaving-badly-explaining-buddhist-violence-in-asia/
Moving past religious nonsense is never gonna happen-humans are too tribal, etc and so on. Buddhism back in the somewhat distant day way actually quite bloody with a seriously badass warrior king. Read a little history.
Political parties are the new tribes and climate alarmism is the new religion. Both completely irrational. So, with education and time are doomed.
Pol pot and Stalin say hold my beer
they just do not trumpet their actions to the world. I am eyewitness to Buddhist monk involvement in the war in Vietnam Seeing is believing.
Ending of Islamic Rule in 1492 and Expulsion of Muslims: In 711, Islam armies crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and established al Andalus. Islam rule ended on January 2, 1492, when Boabdil, the emir of Granada, surrendered to the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella. The remaining Muslim population, known as Moriscos, (Muslims at home, Christians in public) were systematically expelled by decrees between 1609 and 1614, marking the final expulsion of the 800-year Muslim presence. The wealth left behind by the Moriscos was confiscated and distributed.
https://willempost.substack.com/p/europes-decline-from-a-lofty-perch?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
Feb 28th, if I recall–something about elementary schools, hospitals, and churches in Iran
Well I can’t think of a pop concert but I can think of a genocide in Gaza, quite a few “little girls” there.
Rather obvious recent example is the Minab girls school hit by 5 Tomahawk cruise missiles. 165 dead, mostly “little girls”.
There are more but that will suffice to address your question.
There are many cases of individual act of terrorism. State terrorism seems even more dispicable to me.
Neither are my fault BTW, so why to suggest I should be “proud” of either?
I your own myopic, simplistic, brainwashed, ill-advised mind perhaps.
Four ad homs and not a signal counter argument. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about the level of projection going on in that comment.
There is/was no genocide in Gaza.
Israel could eliminate all the so-called “Palestinians” but chooses not to. Whereas the “Palestinians” would happily slaughter every Jew and burn Israel to the ground if they could.
Ideologies will fvck up everyone’s brains who adopts them.
I don’t care who y’are.
And that would be your ideology.
Nah.
That’s my reasoned conclusion from real-world observations.
Completely agree. Israel using “God said we could have this land” to justify their stealing of the West Bank. Just evil.
And what about all the other ideologues?
(Far leftists like yourself included).
Specifically?
and when we give the regions their real names, Judea and Samaria and look back at the nature of the original inhabitants, the knowledge that they belong as part of the Jewish state is obvious.
Being occupied by the Ottomans for a while did not erase their very long time being Jewish homeland.
An over-used word. Real evil is not that common.
What the Israeli government has done in Gaza is the very definition of evil in my book. What they are doing on the West Bank, while not ethnic cleansing like Gaza, is still horrific.
There was no ethnic cleansing in Gaza. If you think there was, you are simply brainwashed, and stupid.
I think there is some real evil in the Iranian leadership.
They are murderous dictators.
The only way to keep them at bay is to hold a gun to their head.
And we really should pull the trigger of that gun because if we don’t these religious fanatics will continue to murder innocent Iranians. We should not be enabling this activity.
This statement is shallow.
Admin, in their case, just doesn’t care about destruction and death of the populace…so ingrained is the belief of a better place waiting….
One values life while the other welcomes martyrdom. Square peg, round hole.
And admin feels that sending the populace to be martyrs is good for those dead folks too….
Perhaps Trump thinks the Iranians will once again demonstrate their lack of interest in any meaningful peace deal during the next 60 days of negotiations if the talks don’t go off the rails much sooner. That would justify restarting the attacks and taking out the rest of the regime and as much of the IRGC as possible. That would pave the way for an internal uprising and perhaps sectarian take over. That is the only long-term outcome that can “Make Persia Great Again”.
Remember, when dealing with Trump look everywhich way, then up. Always at least one unseen angle. Speaking of which, the booby traps are probably already set-for both the mullahs and the Dems. I’d bet money.
“Speaking of which, the booby traps are probably already set-for both the mullahs and the Dems. I’d bet money.”
I just love the blind belief that Trump is some sort of savant strategist. It is quite sweet really. But…. I’m sorry, If you believe that, you are greener than the reflecting pool.
Thinking that Trump is playing 3D chess is quite amusing.
He is like a 4yo still struggling with the rules of tic-tac-toe.
Trumps decision making process goes like this….
Can I make any money from this decision?Can my family make any money?Will this make me look good?Will this make my opponents look bad?Can I get myself some sordid sex?Will this help the country?
#5 should be listed # 1.. by a long way.
The rest are baseless opinions that stem from your manic, deranged hatred of him.
#5 should be listed # 1.
Should be for any pres. , sadly in Trump’s case it is not even on his top ten.
So the sordid sex thing was what did it for you. Well I am impressed, and here I was thinking you were an Incel.
You got the order wrong “Will this make me look good?” is #1 and last one should not be on the list at all.
Generally a correct observation.
the “Trickster” has a significant role to play in human history
There is an old saying that one goes to war with the weapons they have, not the weapons they want. Similarly, one votes for those on the ballot who appear to have a reasonable chance of winning, and in one’s personal judgement, will do a better job than the other choice. Rarely does a ‘write in,’ whom you think is better then the two front runners, have a chance at winning.
Word salad Harris and clueless waltzing Walz would have completed the total ruination of the US started by the Obama Biden clowns. Take one look at Obama’s monstrosity in Chicago.
SNAFU, meanwhile gasoline here is trending toward $3/gallon.
Let’s see the trend in a few weeks when the reserves run low.
Cushing inventory at a low not seen since 2008. The year oil averaged $147 2008 $’s/bbl. For petroleum engineers, 6 figure boni, haz duty pay for conflict areas, other gold bar throwing. I miss those days…
I don’t see 3$ in my future. Maybe 4$.
In Washington State, on 1 July, the gas tax will go to 56.5 cents per gallon and will continue to rise by 2% annually into the future. Add 18.4 cents of federal tax. Then there is the cost (fee, indulgence) of the State’s Climate Commitment Act that some calculate to be about 68 cents per gallon. Today’s National average is $3.938 while WA’s is $5.362. In central WA – east of the Cascade Mountains – the cost is about $4.50. $4.39 is the lowest.
Sorry for you-taxes are a stone cold b. Here in SW MO, $3.30 to $3.65, depending on where you go. .MO is also a pretty low tax state.
I saw a range of $3.26 to $3.79 within less than 20 miles in NC over the last 2 days.
I just got back from Louisiana where regular was under $3 at discount stations.
It’s about $0.25 higher here in Colorado.
The Democrats must be wringing their hands over the direction of gasoline prices.
Poof! There’s goes their only talking point.
Unfortunately, Washington was infected with the BC green climate disease. BC was one of the first political jurisdiction to levy a carbon tax on fossil fuels which was $10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent in 2009. Then the government got greedy. By 2024 it was $80 per tonne of CO2 equivalent and the government was raking several billion dollars. The people were bribed to accept BC Climate Action Plan and got a carbon tax rebate which was prorated on income. Really rich people got no rebate. By 2025 the tax was repealed. In 2026 the federal gov slapped an industrial carbon tax on the heavy industries.
Down to $3.30 for a gallon of regular here.
Out on Whidbey Island (Puget Sound), the high in town as of a couple days ago was about $5.45 for 87 octane.
If he thinks he can do a deal
The most charitable interpretation is that he’s “giving them enough rope to hang themselves”, with a 60 day deal he knows they won’t adhere to.
I guess we’ll see over the next 60 days (probably a lot less than that) whether that’s the case.
A 60d deal HE knows he has no intention of sticking to.
Trump will stick to the deal iff he is given the opportunity…
.. the mad mullahs most certainly will not.
Why are you supporting the Islamic terrorist regime over the USA….
… are you a Democrat voter ??
Trump ripped up the deal the US had with Iran with no consultation… Then attacked Iran during peace talks. I think the Iranians have every reason not to trust the orange one and his word, don’t you?
OMG, that is your level of understanding of international politics.
Impressive. I cannot argue with that.
That’s my understanding, too.
They are Mad/Crazy.
No, sane person would order the murder of 40,000 innocent Iranians, with more murders to come. That’s what the Mad Mullahs do.
He sounds like one. Got some TDS apparently.
He makes good scientific arguments, some just above, but his politics is blinded for some reason.
Trump does not understand that the goal of Islam and especially that of the Iran mullahs is establish a one world caliphate. In this caliphate the infidels and nonbelievers are given two basic choices: either convert to Islam or pay tribute. If an infidel refuses these two choices, he is beheaded.
Remember 9-11? What type of religion ask a person to commit suicide? In Christian theology, it is a mortal sin to commit suicide or ask a person to commit suicide. As long as the mullahs are in power they are threat to free world and especially Israel.
Hint: Trump is not delusional.
It’s been a while since I checked out the Bee, and I could always do with a laugh …
In the “Trending Articles” list when I did so, posted just 3 days ago.
Al Gore Explains That While ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Did Not Prove Accurate, It Did Make Him Incredibly Rich
There you have it.
Yup.
He said “for once” because most of the time the parody is directed at his ilk, and it apparently hurts.
Only if you can sanewash what Ed Miliband and the bloody Labour Party is doing to this country 24/7/365.
Only if you can sanewash why queer folk support a regime that would put the queer folk to death should they set foot in an Islamic country.
Only if you can sanewash why women support countries so misogynistic that they force women to be covered up at all times.
Only if you can sanewash why Iran, Palestine and others are committed to wiping out all Jews across the world.
Only if you can sanewash, your own bloody comments.
And sanewash how anyone can think one can change their sex.
About CO2 in the air acting like a blanket and slowing the claimed loss of heat to space.
Scenario: We have a person under a blanket in a room. It is cold without the blanket, but the person has normal body heat for so long as food and water are supplied.
As we know, without a blanket the person feels cold. With the blanket, the person feels warm. But, at the same time as the person feels warm, the air in the room is colder than it would be without the blanket, because the blanket has slowed the release of heat to the air. The total system has the same energy, no change there, but the blanket redistributes it while the person generates body heat.
Moving to Earth and its atmosphere with greenhouse gases, by analogy, even if the CO2 is acting like a blanket, the total system energy is unchanged. So why is it claimed that the redistribution caused by GHG should be treated as harmful?
The person using the blanket in the room gains a benefit, but at the expense of lower temperatures nearby. So, the benefit stops once outside the blanket. In the Earth case, researchers need to explain where the atmosphere changes from being inside the blanket to being outside it. Some postulate that this boundary is near to where the troposphere becomes the stratosphere, (the tropopause) observing that one can warm while the other cools in real time.
But, does this matter? The person in the room stays warmer under the blanket only so long as the body generates heat. In the Earth case, what is the equivalent of this generation of heat?
I have yet to find a narrative that explains adequately.
Thank you for reading. Geoff S
” In the Earth case, what is the equivalent of this generation of heat?”
The Sun.
“What is…this generation…”
If it’s nightime, the answer is “yesterday’s sunlight”…
That’s right, it cools off at night.
Good thing the earth is rotating
The sun is an EXTERNAL source of heat for the closed thermodynamic system known as Earth. For a person in a room there is no sun, there is only their internal metabolism as a heat source.
You need to look at the entire context, including “The person in the room stays warmer under the blanket only so long as the body generates heat.”
Does the earth generate heat? Are you standing on burning ground? Is the sky on fire?
If the sun caused a buildup of heat in the Earth’s thermodynamic system you wouldn’t be here today.
See the attached image. Which curve represents the largest heat loss from the earth to space?
And a blanket doesn’t warm a corpse or an alligator. Most of the “Climate” nonsense in our world involves not cooling off as fast as the climate cult thinks we should. You learned about the three ways heat transfers in the sixth grade. I would add latent heat as a forth way. The sun warms the alligator. Our metabolism maintains our body temperature and clothing, blankets and central heat in our homes helps in that regard.
Thanks for the classic back of the envelope drawing. My Physics 101 professor was a fan of napkin & envelope publications
“The sun is an EXTERNAL source of heat for the closed thermodynamic system known as Earth.”
The Earth is NOT a closed thermodynamic system.
Thanks I was going to point the glaring self contradiction of a “closed system” followed by putting the word EXTERNAL in caps. LOL
You can have EXTERNAL energy sources to a non-closed system…
… you know.. like Earth’s atmosphere.
Or are you saying that the Sun is NOT EXTERNAL
Sure. The problem is he did not say “non-closed system”, what he posted was :
I guess he read closed thermodynamic system somewhere but never understood what it meant and thought it sounded good.
With what does the earth exchange matter if it is not closed?
If it is a “closed system” it does not exchange with anything, by definition.
The term here was “closed thermodynamic system” which is primarily talking about energy. Saying “an EXTERNAL source of heat for the closed thermodynamic system” is oxymoronic. You could also drop the oxy.
A closed system doesn’t exchange MASS. It can exchange energy.
An *isolated system” exchanges neither.
The earth considered by itself is a closed system. The solar system is close to an isolated system.
Steve,
But the Sun is close to constant energy input for the purpose of this discussion.
Geoff S
You should not push simplistic analogies too far. There is a small geothermal contribution but most of heat input is coming IN through your blanket too. Maybe the guy with the blanket is sitting in front a bar fire.
Who cares whether the tropopause warms at bit or not. It is the surface which matters to us.
There is an insulating effect from GHGs (mostly from water vapour). The minimal change in CO2 insulation seems to be more beneficial until we see less people dying of cold than from heat exhaustion. Plus life on the planet gains massively from more favourable plant food concentration.
I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate here and suggest that if equilibrium conditions change, it is reasonable to expect that there will be other changes as well, such as wind and precipitation, as suggested by Le Chatelier’s principle. That is, as a system attempts to counteract changes, there may be unanticipated consequences that some people may not be happy with.
You’ve started me thinking about an insulating cocoon around the person. What happens after the cocoon interior temperature reaches normal body temperature? What happens next obviously relates to the body’s reaction to high temperature. It seems likely that temperature will keep going up, at least for a while, maybe until it becomes fatal, or at least until incoming cooler breathing air limits the heating.
CO2 is more like a thin cotton sheet . You may get a little warmer but its not going to kill because there are multiple mechanisms for heat transfer.
If we’re pushing the analogy, and considering the narrow window of wavelength affected by CO2 at all, it’s more like a napkin thrown over a foot! One small area may be toasty warm, but the rest of the body continues to lose heat as usual.
“CO2 is more like a thin cotton sheet .”
NO. !!
Geoff, a simple example doesn’t necessarily give a good answer. What the earth is driven by is basically radiation. To simulate this the blanket would need to be some distance from your body, like a tent, so that radiation becomes the predominate transfer mechanism. I think you’ll find the blanket does little to keep you warm in that situation.
“The person in the room stays warmer under the blanket only so long as the body generates heat. In the Earth case, what is the equivalent of this generation of heat?
I have yet to find a narrative that explains adequately.”
You won’t find an answer to this. Because there is no internal heat source in the thermodynamic system known as the Earth.
It is usually best to avoid declarations that are as “absolutist” as this one.
A copy of a graphic I came up with comparing the annual average sizes of the “heat flow inputs” for the Earth’s surface from both above (short-wave radiation directly from the Sun) and below (radioactive decay + core cooling).
Note that this doesn’t address the issues of the 24-hour warming-cooling cycles raised by other posts “above” this one, and it also explicitly excludes any “back-radiation” contributions.
Perhaps it would be better to say “no SIGNIFICANT internal heat source”. The heat from the internal earth is so small as to disappear into the Great Unknown (i.e. significant digits). You’ll never find it in the total.
The lava from every volcano is at room temperature in your imaginary universe.
Again, it is so small that it disappears into significant digits limbo. Part of the Great Unknown.
Tim, actually, there is. It’s just that the contribution is small compared to the sun. However, that small contribution is still capable of generating magmas and metamorphosing rocks.
It disappears into significant digit limbo compared to the sun.
The Tropics: The area between the Tropic of Cancer, 23.5 degree N, and the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5 degree S, is about 40% of the earth surface. The Tropics area is about 78% ocean and 22% land. The tropics area generates 300 to 400 billion metric ton of water vapor each day. The rest of the world area, about 60%, 100 to 150 billion metric ton.
The IR photon emission from an ocean surface at 26 C is about 438 W/m^2, the upward radiant energy flux. Near the ocean surface, because the water vapor ppm is about 26,000, much larger than the CO2 ppm at 425, the influence of water vapor on the transfer and absorption of IR radiation of surface photons is about 20 – 25%, whereas CO2 is about 1%. The remaining radiant surface energy, about 75%, is quickly transferred through collisions that warm air molecules (mainly N2 and O2) through collisions.
Above the clouds and Atmospheric Window: At higher elevations, H2O ppm is much less, whereas CO2 ppm is only slightly less, and temperatures and densities of air are much less. About 70% of photons transfer their energy by collisions with N2 and O2 molecules in the lower atmosphere, the rest radiatively interact with GHGs.
Neither CO2 nor H20 efficiently absorb 8 to 12 um surface photons, which, if evading collision in the lower atmosphere, will, in the higher atmosphere, experience minimal collisions and freely travel to space. Also, instead of colliding with another molecule, an excited CO2 molecule is much more likely to release its energy by emitting a photon in a random direction, including space.
At the colder temperatures, the atmosphere shifts entirely to longer wavelengths (greater than 15 um), due to the quantum mechanical structure of the CO2 molecule. CO2 has very small absorption windows at these longer wavelengths, any photons mostly go to space unimpeded. Radiative transfer is only part of what controls Earth’s climate; one pathway.
Another pathway is the huge quantities of water vapor and warm air transported by air and ocean currents from the tropics, where maximum sunlight is absorbed, to polar regions, where much more IR radiation is released to space than is absorbed from the Sun. CO2, a trace gas at 0.0425%, has a very minor influence.
https://willempost.substack.com/publish/post/201985524?back=%2Fpublish%2Fposts%2Fpublished
Wilpost,
How do we know that this CO2 radiative effect occurs inside the Earth’s blanket, or outside it?
More specifically, where in the atmosphere does it work to get this reputation for warming the globe? Geoff S
I checked all paragraphs with Google AI for accuracy. I did not mention “blanket”
I mention heat sources
Open the URL to see entire article
A blanket obeys Q = U A (Thot – Tcold)
Not a greenhouse.
A blanket (insulated house & atmosphere) obeys Q = U A (Thot -Tcold)
Q, W/m^2, is moderated by the elliptical orbit, tilted axis and albedo. When Q increases, dT = (Tsurf – Ttoa) increases. Since Ttoa is fixed T surf increases.
U (1/R) is the composite thermal conductivity (1/Resistance) of the intervening atmospheric medium. There are five heat transfer modes at play: Conduction + Convection + Advection (wind) + Latent (evap & cond) + Radiation. They sum to 100%. If one mode increases the others, one or all, must decrease. Temperature is a function of the four kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature. If one of the four increases, say advection above the turbulent ocean surface, temperature falls as does radiation.
This relationship has been demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
Emissivity is the ratio of 1) the energy leaving the system to the total energy leaving: Rad/100% or 2) or the energy leaving were the surface a BB at system temperature, 63/396 @ur momisugly 16 C = 0.16. 2) is needed to correct IR instruments that assume the target is BB.
Isolated system = neither mass or energy in or out.
Closed system = only energy in and out.
Open system = energy & mass free for all.
Radiation depends on T^4 not T so your first statement is INCORRECT rendering your first 3 paragraphs to be nonsense.
Your definition of emissivity is INCORRECT…it’s all Incorrect.
The Shape Of Things To Come
https://youtu.be/ie4gRo61a5s?si=dDMjSrk3Y1BGj1ea
That dryer is tiny by American standards.
Anyway, I extended natural gas service to the kitchen and installed a double oven gas range last year. I left a pigtail on the termination point in the line to make its extension into the laundry room to be relatively easy if a gas dryer makes sense when our electric dryer needs replacing.
It’s nice to have choices.
You might even get a discount if you buy a gas appliance.
The natural gas companies will pay you a little if you use their product.
Using natural gas in the home is the most efficient use of natural gas. More efficient than burning it in a power plant.
Seriously funny. Thanks…its storming here, lots of rain and close-in lightening, so I needed a laugh ‘cuz I can’t go outside for a bit.
Remember the joker who said there was no credible forecast of a UK heatwave in open thread last week?
What ever happens, we’ll always have 1976.
Perhaps not for much longer.
High certainty of extensive record breaking heatwave affecting much of Western Europe next week, although how far the UK will be affected is a little less certain.
Forecast video, jump to 2 minutes or so for temperatures.
https://youtu.be/BwbxJlzgFng
Whatever happens, we’ll always have (Paris) alarmism. Religions wax and wane and this one is on the wane.
There is no such thing as “high certainty”. Once you are certain there are no superlatives.
You maybe mean high confidence.
Weather is never certain until it happens. And once it happens whether it was honestly and accurately recorded is still doubtful.
There’s a high over central Europe and a low pressure system off Portugal towards the Azores which are together pulling hot air up from Africa. This happens from time to time and makes Spain and parts of France very hot for a few days.
Oddly, this time it’s western and northern France which are having the largest “anomalies” from the seasonal mean. South of France is within a degree or two of average for June.
Yes, hot weather is controlled by how high and low pressure systems arrange themselves. No CO2 required.
The meteorological setup you describe and indeed any other, are of course dependent on the positioning of atmospheric highs and lows, What you miss is the fact that the air advected within those systems is subject to land or sea track and the thus SSTs and land surface heating/cooling. The climate as measured and reported by the world’s Met Organisations is showing an increase of GMST (sorry it just is) and so obviously air masses must be warming with time (yes, yes there is still NV overlain).
The air masses have been cooling with time. See the UAH chart.
The T announced in French météo are usually utterly bogus in heat waves. It’s really hot, but nowhere near 38 °C.
Ah 76, the only time in living memory that Britain had a decent summer.
Those ladybirds were amazing.
Trump should stop criticizing Israel when they retaliate against Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon.
Hezbollah daily fires missiles and drones at Israel.
Hezbollah is being directed by the IRGC in Iran.
Iran in effect is still attacking Israel.
If Trump doesn’t like the situation, he should put the blame where it belongs, on the religious fanatics in Iran, not on Israel.
Hezbollah daily fires missiles and drones at Israeli forces IN THEIR COUNTRY, which are currently occupying, massacring civilians and bulldozing villages like it’s Gaza all over again.
Why do the religious fanatics in Israel get free pass?
Vance and Trump have worked out where the problem lies, he’s just not sure he can do anything about it.
“Hezbollah daily fires missiles and drones at Israeli forces IN THEIR COUNTRY”
They do NOT have a country.They are just a terror group.
Very, very true-the baby burning savages have destroyed a once peaceful, harmonious, beautiful country. Another Iranian boil that needs lancing.
Apply the label “terrorist” to everyone who does not agree with you is getting a bit lame at this stage.
It was Isreal which destroyed the once beautiful and prosperous country of Lebanon.
Hezbollah was a militia formed of necessity to repel IDF invasions of their country. It forms about half of the current govt of Lebanon and they are the settled population of that country.
I don’t know whether you are just ranting or a genuinely that ignorant.
WOW, you really are a supporter of Islamic terrorism.. WHY ??
The Israelis attacked southern Lebanon in 1982 because of continued harassment by the Iranian backed PLO..
The Israeli military operation, codenamed Operation Peace for Galilee, was launched after gunmen from the Abu Nidal Organization attempted to assassinate Shlomo Argov, Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom
The PLO in southern Lebanon morphed into Hezbollah
There is terrorism on both sides. I don’t support either.
Do you really support ethno-supremecist terrorism? WHY??
Accidentally killing innocent civilians is not terrorism.
Once again you display your brainwashed, high-school-level, reactionary mind for all to see.
The Arabs have been attacking Israel in one way or another ever since it’s founding.
Armed Jewish refugees from Europe have been attacking the local Arab population since BEFORE the state of Isreal was founded. That is HOW it was founded.
Israel is allowed to fight back. Israel is rightfully attacking terrorists in Lebanon and should be given free rein. Maybe they can help give Lebanon back to the Lebanese.
Some people will believe any lie, so long as they paint Jews as the villain.
“Some people will believe any lie, “
Like the reflecting pool was vandalised lie? Did you believe that one Mark?
So you think that is a lie, Simon?
You have TDS much worse than I thought.
Tom it is so obviously a lie it worries me you can’t see it. This is a botched job nothing more. The guy who did the work had no experience with jobs like this.
Trump is “deflecting” from the “reflecting” pool……
https://bsky.app/profile/pbump.com/post/3moma4mmzk22z
Does this look like a man you could trust? And his copany is called “Green water services.”
People have been arrested, we’ll see what comes of it.
I’m curious – what do you think of the pro-algae protestors?
Nothing will come of it. It is complete and utter nonsense from Trump. He has no evidence which is why he is saying ask them over there. It’s really just another Trump porky to defect from the fact he hired a guy with no experience to do the job. A guy who by the way donated to his cause. And to make it worse he bypassed the tender process. Corruption at its worst. This is the real wastage in government not the doge stuff.
And do you know what Tony…. I can’t believe this man Trump is mentioning the word “vandalism”as a defence for his hiring of an inept friend, when he is the guy who pardoned 1500 people who ransacked and vandalised the capital on Jan 6. The irony is beyond parody.
What does any of what you said have to do with the pro-algae protestors, Simon? Which is what I asked your opinion about?
Did you just want another excuse to rant about Trump?
I was not aware of them till you mentioned it. So googled and this is what I got
The “pro-algae protesters” are a group of satirical, anti-Trump demonstrators who gathered at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C. They formed a mock activist group called “Team Algae” to protest the administration’s costly renovation of the landmark, which quickly turned green with algae and peeled. [1, 2]
The satirical protest became a viral spectacle featuring: [1]
The “Team Algae” Activists: Demonstrators who humorously praised the algae bloom and chanted in support of the pond scum. [1, 2]Viral Signs: One protester dressed in a frog costume held a sign reading, “First they came for the algae,” a satirical nod to the famous post-WWII poem about persecutionSounds like people making fun of the situation. What’s your issue? It is kind of funny. I’d say this whole debacle emblematic of the whole Trump second presidency. His attempt to try and make things looks good, without doing the hard yards, just results in things rotting from underneath.
And for the record I don’t need another excuse to rant about Trump. I got plenty. In fact I get another one daily.
Didn’t say I had an issue, asked your thoughts.
Personally I think they look like fools. Any satirical element in what they’re doing does not come across, short of such an explanation. Good satire stands on its own without explanation. Also see Poe’s Law.
Your last statement suggests nothing more than an obsession.
What a waste of time. I’m picking you didn’t realise this was all a bit humorous. I think you thought they were serious and so were ready to mock them…. just saying.
As for obsession….. I think when you have a clown running the free world, we should all be obsessed/concerned about it. There is a lot riding on the decisions this morally bankrupt man makes. The foolish war with Iran a fine example. I’ll note he doesn’t seem too concerned about his buddy Kim developing a nuclear armed navy.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360997361/north-koreas-kim-claims-progress-nucleararmed-navy-new
Maybe they are just lucky Trump wasn’t accused of raping young girls the week this news came out….
Hezbollah are essentially Iranian terrorist forces that took over southern Lebanon so they could directly attack Israel.
So the population of southern Lebanon are Iranian. Interesting. I didn’t know that.
Come on, Greg, you’re smarter than that. Iran has been financing Hezbollah for decades, helped along by China and Obama and Biden. Same with the Houthies. Zionism was championed by Theodor Herzl but Israel was the result of the Holocaust. Jews are safe nowhere, not even in America. Jews are fighting for survival. Hezbollah is fighting because they hate the Jews as much as Hitler did.
Hezbollah has more rockets in its inventory than does Iran. All of them aimed at Israel.
The Israelis are in Lebanon because Hezbollahs was firing rockets and drones into Israel. You have to be aware of this. So you are distorting the facts for some personal reason.
It looks like Putin is losing the Ukraine war. Putin has returned to forced induction to fill up his ranks. He is causing the death of 10 to 15 thousand Russian troops per month.
Belarus, recognizing reality, has publicly stated last week that they will not attack Ukraine. I think the leader of Belarus sees the damage Ukraine is inflicting on Putin and wants no part of that. A wise, pragmatic position to take.
Next thing you know, someone will put a bullet in Putin’s head.
That could leave quite a void. Or would it?
You mean Putin’s replacement?
I don’t know. I think Putin is obsessed with winning in Ukraine. He can’t quit now or he will look like a big loser.
Perhaps his replacement will use the occasion to stop the war, blaming any failures on Putin.
Would love to see Russia get themselves a moderate leader. Russia could be great again with the right leaders.
Putin can never quit. He can’t quit Ukraine and he can’t resign. He’d have to flee Russia if he ever stepped down. There is no place for an ex-strongman.
Yes, Putin and his ego have put himself in what I would say is an impossible position: He can’t win the war, and may very well be losing the war, and he can’t quit doing what he is doing without looking weak and ineffective, and that’s not a good look for a strongman. It invites a leadership change.
Ukraine has battlefield losses of 1150 to 1450 per day (killed, severely wounded, MIA)
Ukraine received 522 bodies of its soldiers while 33 were returned to Russia on June 18, 2026. This gives some indication why Ukraine has so many new graveyards with flags.
Ukraine is loosing territory, ammunition depots and resupply routes each day.
It takes lots of manpower and effort and destruction to dislodge well-armed Ukraine forces and mercenaries from entrenched positions.
Russia captures about one settlement each day on its way to bigger towns.
Major towns that remain to be captured by Russia are heavily fortified Ukrainian-held cities of Kramatorsk, Sloviansk and Kostiantynivka.
These are the largest urban strongholds remaining still under Ukrainian control in Donetsk.
Ukraine is making big news in Western Media with its drone strikes in Russia and they have some effect, but not nearly as much as the continuous strikes by Russia on Ukraine targets. Remember, Ukraine stretches from Boston to Chicago about 1371 km, as the crow flies.
The Russians are real bad guys. All the countries should expel their Russian ambassadors and close their embassies in Moscow.
And I see Putin had another dissident murdered in Poland last week…
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyrzd5g6k2o
“and Kadyrov and his son Adam with pigs’ snouts.”
Kadyrov is the last person in the world you want screw with. Putting a pig’s snout on Muslim leader is a real red flag to a bull.
Two Belorussians were arrested. The article mentions no connection to Russia but you translate that media report into “Putin murdered him”.
That is your own bias at work. Don’t misrepresent the facts.
I’m sure Putin has much more important things to do than to worry about nutty comedians who flee abroad.
His main problem is the opposition within his own govt. which want him to stop pussyfooting around in Ukraine.
They were our allies when they died by the millions, but defeated the Germans on the Eastern Front and then liberated Berlin from the Nazis
Now some West Europe nations support a totally corrupt, Nazi-adoring regime in Kiev, that has been stealing from the U.S. and Europe for at least 15 years.
Russia would not be bad if it acted more like a colony so Europe could exploit its natural resources for very low cost, as it did with the colonies during the past 500 years, but now have lost.
Hope putin isn’t late with your paycheck. The russian economy isn’t looking too good…
It is looking better than France, Germany and the UK.
These three are fighting other demons, such as a lack of competitiveness, out of control immigration, stagnant real household incomes already for 4 years
It looks completely different to me. The Russians are taking a pounding from Ukrainian drones in every area.
The Ukrainians are about to make the tank obsolete. They hit those Russian tanks with a drone or two or three and you watch as the entire tank blows itself to pieces.
The Russian tanks and armored vehicles that are disabled by drones are abandoned by the Russian crews and as they do they leave the doors and hatches open and Ukrainian drones come along later and drop a hand grenade in an open hatch, or fly into an open door, and the whole vehicle is destroyed.
I would not want to be a Russian ground troop. You see Ukrainian drones chasing individual Russian troops across the landscape eventually catching up with them. The troops can’t even seek shelter in a hole or a building because the drone operator can see their every move and follows them wherever they go.
A lot of that is AI generated.
Russia reported Ukraine lost about 1440 troops (killed, seriously wounded, MIA) on June 22. Yesterday about 1350.
You do not see the AI generation of those losses.
No gas stations are working in the Odessa area. All roads are impassable due to glide bombs, and not repaired, because they are under surveillance of Russian drones.
Russian forces are slowly advancing along the entire line of engagement, because they have to dislodge heavily armed troops from entrenched positions.
Russia can replenish its manpower, Ukraine cannot.
I see a lot of Ukrainian videos showing the things I described.
A question I have is why don’t I see Russian videos describing their situation in Ukraine. I don’t see any videos of Russians destroying Ukrainians.
Russians are usually pretty good about trumpeting their victories, but I don’t see them doing that now.
I mentioned 3 cities in Dombas.
Today’s New York Times finally admits Russia is about to take 2 of them, with the 3rd one to follow.
Ukraine troops are being destroyed or routed out of hundreds of destroyed buildings.
On the ground Ukraine has no options left.
It still has lots of options with drones, except Russia has been counter striking valuable targets all over Ukraine.
Here is the daily report from TASS for today
Russian troops strike Ukrainian long-range UAV assembly sites over past day — top brass
© Alexey Konovalov/TASS
Russia’s Battlegroup Center inflicted roughly 330 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed three enemy armored combat vehicles in its area of responsibility over the past day, the Defense Ministry reported
MOSCOW, June 23. /TASS/. Russian troops struck the Ukrainian army’s long-range UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) assembly workshops and storage facilities and enemy deployment areas over the past 24 hours in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.
“Operational/tactical aircraft, attack unmanned aerial vehicles, missile troops and artillery of the Russian groups of forces struck Ukraine’s fuel and energy and transport infrastructure, fuel depots used by the Ukrainian army, workshops for the production and sites for the storage of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles, and also temporary deployment areas of Ukrainian armed formations and foreign mercenaries in 148 locations,” the ministry said in a statement.
Kiev loses 1,295 troops along engagement line in past day – latest figures
The Ukrainian army lost roughly 1,295 troops in battles with Russian forces in all the frontline areas over the past 24 hours, according to the latest data on the special military operation in Ukraine released by Russia’s Defense Ministry.
The latest figures show that the Ukrainian army lost over 215 troops and 12 motor vehicles in the responsibility area of Russia’s
Battlegroup North, more than 200 troops and an armored combat vehicle in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup West and over 185 troops and two armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup South.
During the last 24-hour period, the Ukrainian army also lost roughly 330 troops and three armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup Center, over 315 troops and four armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the
Battlegroup East and more than 50 troops and five jamming stations in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup Dnepr, the latest figures show.
Russia’s Battlegroup North inflicts over 215 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day
Etc.
The UK, France and Germany are planning by 2030 (4 more years; I will try to stay alive that long) to have enough strength to dominate Russia.
Napoleon and Hitler thought so too.
Russia is a lot better prepared now than then.
Here is part of the daily Tass report for June 24
MOSCOW, June 24. /TASS/. Russian troops liberated the community of Ivolzhanskoye in the Sumy Region over the past day in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.
“Battlegroup North units gained control of the settlement of Ivolzhanskoye in the Sumy Region through active operations,” the ministry said in a statement.
Kiev loses 1,455 troops along engagement line in past day – latest figures
The Ukrainian army lost roughly 1,455 troops in battles with Russian forces in all the frontline areas over the past 24 hours, according to the latest data on the special military operation in Ukraine released by Russia’s Defense Ministry.
The latest figures show that the Ukrainian army lost over 215 troops and a US-made surface-to-air missile system in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup North, more than 210 troops and two armored vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup West and roughly 205 troops and two armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup South.
During the last 24-hour period, the Ukrainian army also lost over 310 troops and an armored combat vehicle in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup Center, roughly 465 troops and an armored combat vehicle in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup East and about 50 troops and a US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launcher in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup Dnepr, the latest figures show.
Russia’s Battlegroup North inflicts over 215 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day.
Etc.
Russian propaganda……. WTF?
Russian troops strike Ukrainian long-range UAV launch sites over past day — top brass
Russia’s Battlegroup South inflicted more than 210 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed two enemy armored combat vehicles in its area of responsibility over the past day, the Defense Ministry reported
MOSCOW, June 25. /TASS/. Russian troops struck the Ukrainian army’s long-range UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) storage and launch sites and enemy deployment areas over the past 24 hours in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.
“Operational/tactical aircraft, attack unmanned aerial vehicles, missile troops and artillery of the Russian groups of forces struck fuel and energy and transport infrastructure used by the Ukrainian army, fuel depots, sites for the storage and launch of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles, and also temporary deployment areas of Ukrainian armed formations and foreign mercenaries in 149 locations,” the ministry said in a statement.
Kiev loses 1,585 troops along engagement line in past day – latest figures
The Ukrainian army lost roughly 1,585 troops in battles with Russian forces in all the frontline areas over the past 24 hours, according to the latest data on the special military operation in Ukraine released by Russia’s Defense Ministry.
The latest figures show that the Ukrainian army lost over 290 troops and two field artillery guns in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup North, more than 220 troops and two US-made armored vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup West and over 210 troops and two armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup South.
Etc.
Zelensky told his PR folks I want Goebbles level propaganda. Just google
When he loses the third city in Dombas, his propaganda will look silly.
I have. Turn out this is Russian disinformation. Why do you peddle this here? Piss off back to Moscow.
The New York Times article is disinformation? Just read the paper. I did not write, neither did the Russians.
I hope you are right about all you say here……
Me, too! 🙂
If Putin is removed in one way or another, the war will get a lot worse a lot quicker.
Those who oppose him are not US undercover vassals they are the ones who want get serious and end the war in Ukraine hard and fast.
Putin is the most cautious and restrained leader you could hope for in Moscow. That may be his downfall.
Yes, there are some crazies in the Russian government like that president who is always threatening nuclear war. We wouldn’t want him in charge.
“Putin is the most cautious and restrained leader you could hope for in Moscow. ”
The guy attacked another sovereign nation (Ukraine) for no good reason. That’s cautious?
Actually I am going to say it. That’s the act of a war criminal thug. He deserves no support for what he has done in Ukraine. None.
Yes, and remember, Putin’s right-hand man said Putin invaded Ukraine because Putin was greedy for more money and power.
Putin had his right-hand man murdered shortly after he made those statements.
Putin is good like that…..
President Trump should not threaten to impose tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
I assume Trump is not really serious about doing so since to do so would violate international law, and he knows this, but making this bluster just tells the Iranians that it is possible to impose tolls.
Trump is confusing the issue with this statement. One should not confuse the issues when dealing with religious fanatics because they are already confused and you are just making it worse.
We have to remind ourselves that this 40 year plus conflict with Iran has had low T presidents running the show. I have more faith in Trump than low T Obama.
Low T?
Beta males
What is this, high school?
Most of Europe is governed by beta males
Pro tip: Don’t parade your insecurities in front of everyone
Idiots is a more apt name
What is a full release male?
Like that guy in the new perfume tv advertisement where he wears a new perfume and gets a heads-up from not only every female in the room, but all the Beta males, too?
I don’t know. I just don’t buy into this astrology for man stuff in the form of alpha / beta / orange juice male.
Halting commercial ships in international waters, such as the Channel, is illegal, and costs money, is like a fee.
If you are talking about Trump seizing Iranian tankers, there were already sanctions on these vessels prior to the war beginning.
Is Starmer going to take Mad Ed Miliband with him when he resigns tomorrow?
Ed could well end up as Burnham’s Chancellor. It is that bad now.
Yeah. Out of the frying pan into the fire. A classic of case of be careful what you wish for.
The worst thing is the Conservatives are worse and Farage is a dumbass nitwit.
God save the UK
The UK should get rid of its costly, unaffordable, dysfunctional military and intelligence establishments
Fingers crossed, and Rachel from accounts, sadly they’ll just be replaced by other idiots in the Labour party
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; genius will not; education will not. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.” – Calvin Coolidge
Yes, repetition does not make me right just as 86ing, gas lighting, insults and censorship do not make me wrong. If I were really, truly wrong my posts would not generate such rancor.
1. Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
2. Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate GAAP & LoT.
3. Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible.
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
The Grand GHE “Balance” GOZINTAZ positive, GOZOUTAZ negative. Refer to TFK_bams09
Solar 1st 63 but AWOL
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 0 AWOL – 396 BB + 333 back – calc’d 2nd 63 LWIR = – 63. Does not balance.
Both solar & calc’d 63s
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 1st 63 LWIR – 396 BB + 333 back – 2nd 63 LWIR = – 126. Does not balance.
Solar 1st 63 has priority leaving no place ToA for calc’d 2nd 63 which must return to surface.
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 1st 63 LWIR – 396 BB + 333 back + 2nd 63 LWIR = 0. Balances: GOZINTAZ = GOZOUTAZ
Solar 1st 63 OLR at ToA. 80/17/63 is reality from Sun
Calc’d 2nd 63 must return to surface. -396 BB/+333”back”/+2nd 63 fictional, imaginary, zeros out and implodes.
No GHE or CAGW.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
—Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
Your chart is for daytime in the summer. Most of the heat of the earth’s surface is removed by conduction-convection. There is greenhouse effect due to H2O but it quite variable and depends on the RH.
Where is your chart for night time in winter in the Yukon when it -50° C. I live in Canada which has long cold and snowy winters.
Not my chart.
Conduction & convection render a BB upwelling 396 impossible.
is it not time for you to actually learn some thermodynamic physics?
BSME CU ‘78 & 35 lucrative years of application in power generation where LoT & heat transfer are 24/7.
Check the mirror.
And elucidate how/why I am wrong.
“….elucidate how/why I am wrong…”
Nicholas you don’t understand electromagnetic radiation relative to “heat” adequately.
EMR is not “Heat” in the way you want to interpret it…until it is absorbed…check your microwave oven…the magnetron is cold, but sends microwaves through the air without heating it much…to your chicken strips.
On your supposed imbalance….Look at ground level….
the net radiant heat is just 396-333=63 watts
Thus, leaving the surface is 63+80+17=161 so BALANCES the heat absorbed from the Sun +/-1 watt, so ground level temperature will stay at whatever temp it is at…
Now up to the Blue Atmosphere level….net heat input from ground to that layer is 356-333=23….the other 40 of the 63 you are so fond of doubling and red-boxing….went directly to outer space. The 169+30 at the top of the Dark Blue and shown in EMR color is “real heat” in your terminology because Tcold is outer space at absolute zero (so no back radiation to consider).
So heat leaving dark blue (and emitted from the dark blue zone upwards) is 169+30=199
Entering dark blue is 23 net heat from below as explained +17 thermals +80 evap +78 of absorbed sunlight = 198 so BALANCES +/- 1 watt
Next layer up 239 leaving is just 199 from the dark blue zone below plus the 40 from the ground that went directly to outer space…also BALANCES +/- 1 watt.
So your interpretation is WRONG.
You shouldn’t talk thermodynamics when you can’t handle arithmetic.
160 originates from real numbers: luminosity/spherical area.
396 originates from an imaginary, out-of-thin air, theoretical calculation: S-B at 16 C. By tweaking the emissivity setting my IR thermometer displays values that clearly are incorrect. That’s how 396 gets “measured.”
Real 160 = real 17 + real 80 + real 63
Imaginary 396 = imaginary 333 + imaginary 63
The only way TFK_bams09 balances is to delete the imaginary 396/333/63 loop
There are two 63s, one from the sun & one from the calculation. Your handwavium seems to have only one. Willful ignorance or bad arithmetic?
Actually the 396 W/M^2 from the surface of a 16 C object with a measured emissivity of 1.0 would be a completely reliable and accurate number resulting from thousands of laboratory experiments…the basis of the resolution of the ultra-violet paradox, the foundation of quantum mechanics, Stephan-Boltzmann, Planck, and Wein laws…. and an IR camera has a math chip that does the calcs…Claiming it is “imaginary” is basically claiming that measured temperatures of surfaces are”wrong” simply because you say so…
You tweaking the emissivity on your IR gun is no different than sliding the glass tube in your thermometer up and down on its scale and saying “look I can get any wrong reading I want”.
And further, there aren’t two 63’s except in the context of conservation of energy between surface and the atmosphere above…
“Claiming it is “imaginary” is basically claiming that measured temperatures of surfaces are”wrong” simply because you say so…”
Hmmmmm….. How many planets are black bodies? How many planets are homogenous over the entire surface?
Planets are made of surfaces that closely approximate a black body emission spectrum…and can be corrected by emissivity =.95 for even better accuracy. Possibly you are confused with Albedo ?
“…until it is absorbed…”
Duh!
This has been my point number one for years.
EMR does not have a temperature per se but the stuff it encounters does.
EMR raises the KE of the stuff it encounters.
How do we know?
Stuff gets hot.
How hot?
1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K.
This is why GHE’s -18 C ice ball Earth is nonsense.
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA.
It’s called Ceteris Paribus. All disciplines of science utilize the concept. If it bothers you then maybe science isn’t for you.
Nich Schroder’s usual incorrect claim that 396 fore -333 back IR photon flow violates laws of thermodynamics, which is some kind of flat earther curmudgeon nonsense.
Weekly rebuttals to his nonsense at WUWT are here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/08/open-thread-180/#comment-4172712
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/22/open-thread-182/#comment-4176910
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4179950
The first law of thermodynamics is keep your mouth shut until you understand it .
Tell Schroeder. He’s the guy who thinks a surface radiating 400 watts of EMR is losing 400 watts of HEAT when, in fact it can be absorbing 400 watts of EMR from its surroundings…thereby losing
400-400=ZERO HEAT by radiation.
All the going on about data from 1979 to date is almost meaningless. It might help refute the cult distortions and lies but the real world goes back a lot more. The warm periods just since the last ice age ending consensus point were all warmer than today and the world did not end. That view might be more useful in getting the public to recognize the cult as a cult not reality. Real damage from climate per person has not increased just that the number of persons has increased a lot. 1 billion to 9 billion in less than 200 years going on 30 plus billion in a few decades is the real problem.
Hello everyone, I hope you’re doing well.
A few thoughts on the heatwave currently affecting Europe and providing abundant material for opportunistic media outlets and television scientists.
This heatwave, although early and highly intense, falls within the realm of meteorology. This distinction is conveniently omitted by the media and television scientists, who, backed by attribution studies that are as methodologically outdated as they are effective in the media, claim that such intense and early heat would be impossible without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. That said, the relationship between the 1.3 degrees Celsius of warming since 1850 and an increased frequency of anticyclones has never been demonstrated.
I see alarmist media outlets (often with a degrowth-oriented perspective) claiming, more or less, the following: “What the models predicted for 2050 in terms of temperatures is already happening to us in 2026,” implying: “See how accurate the models were.” Yet not only is this heatwave, like the one that struck Canada in 2021, a matter of meteorology rather than climate (meaning the alarmists are committing the very methodological error they so often attribute to skeptics), but they are also anthropomorphizing models in a rather strange way. Models are tools for understanding the world; they cannot be “right” earlier than expected. Either they are valid, or they need to be revised. This anthropomorphism is thought-provoking and would certainly give epistemologists pause.
Furthermore, it is not surprising that a warming of 1.3 degrees since 1850 would add to the intensity of heatwaves, although one should be cautious about establishing a purely arithmetic relationship between any given heatwave and the warming accumulated since 1850. Many other parameters are involved and should not be overlooked.
Moreover, while everyone in Western Europe agrees that it is very hot—and unusually hot for this time of year—there was a precedent in 1947, when Saharan winds reached the region as early as late May, bringing high temperatures.
It should be noted that 1947 was itself a remarkable year: a very warm spring, a first heatwave at the end of June, followed by a second from approximately July 22 to August 4, with temperatures exceeding 40°C in the Paris region and very high readings across much of the country. The whole of Western Europe was affected by this episode.
The coverage provided by weather stations has increased considerably over the decades, urbanization has also progressed, and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is a very important factor to take into account (both in terms of thermometer measurements and human perception! Naturally, I would rather be sitting in the shade of a park at 35°C than standing on a crowded boulevard.)
The definition of a heatwave must also be taken into consideration. This may seem trivial, but a phenomenon is only ever defined by the definition assigned to it. Thus, the Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium defines a heatwave (in the climatological sense of the term) as a summer period of at least five consecutive days with temperatures of at least 25°C, including at least three days reaching 30°C or more. By this definition, Belgium experienced three heatwaves in 1947.
To finish, here is a song: “Il fait beau” (“The Weather Is Nice”) by Les Frères Jacques, a legendary vocal ensemble active from 1946 to 1982.
Enjoy!
An alternative viewpoint of the situation in (and around) Paris is attached below.
NB : “MFP” = “Météo France Previsions” for Tmax in Paris, rounded to the nearest integer.
Having failed to beat the May record (for Paris), it looks like the June record (for Paris) is “extremely likely” … as the IPCC might put it … to fall on Wednesday.
Note also that as in May the really hot temperatures for the next 3 or 4 days, i.e. 43-44°C, are forecast in western France, (very) roughly in the Bordeaux-Nantes-Le Mans-Limoges polygon.
The August 2003 heatwave officially resulted in ~14,800 deaths. With all of the “Alerte canicule !” lead stories on the French evening news programs since ( at least ?) last Friday, that isn’t going to happen this time around (or in the foreseeable future).
The temperature varies between 6-20°C between day and night.
If the solar radiation TSI changes, it takes between 15-35 days for the temperature on the earth to change.
There must be an unknown solar radiation energy that warms the earth.
It takes 15-35 days for the unknown solar radiation energy to travel from the sun to the earth. The unknown solar radiation energy is the reason why there is a delay between the solar TSI and the earth’s temperature.
Who will be the first to discover the unknown solar radiation energy and give it a name?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diurnal_temperature_variation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_lag
Whoever can explain the unknown will end up in the history books.
Wouldn’t such a delay from a TSI change simply be the result of how long it takes for the Sea Surface to increase RH and advection to distribute the weather fronts around the planet….
Yes, many do not understand that thermal energy in the time integral of incoming radiative power .
This is demonstrated by attempts to correlate TSI or some solar proxy directly with surface temperature in multivariant attribution analyses.
A few years back such a study noted a lag and even documented it in an annex to the paper.
The time lag between the solar TSI and the ocean is 30 years. If the ocean temperature is rising today, it is because of changes in solar radiation 30 years ago.
How can the temperature variations between night and day be so large if there is a 30-year lag?
https://idgr.org/temperature-rise-time-gap/
It was wrong. There is a 50-year slow delay and a 10-year fast delay, as well as a 15-35-day superfast delay.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/EarthEnergyImbalance.22December2022.pdf
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Now passed the solstice and upper Arctic still refusing to let mean temperature for the region rise above the 0C threshold.
Yes, a pool of cold air is still locked in …..
More on the Iran Deal:
Vice President Vance announced that the Mad Mullahs will allow UN IAEA inspectors into Iran.
I think we better have Americans involved in the inspections.
Vance also said the U.S. has agreed to free up some money for Iran. This money will be used to buy American farm products to feed the Iranian people.
I like this deal.
About Lebanon and Hezbollah:
In a treaty signed 48 years ago, Hezbollah is supposed to stay north of the Latani river in Lebanon. The 8,000 United Nations troops currently in Lebanon are supposed to enforce this treaty. Naturally, the UN force has done nothing and as a result Hezbollah is occupying all the area in South Lebanon right up next to Israel.
Israeli troops are in South Lebanon to do the United Nations work for them and push them back north of the river, where they will be less of a threat to Israel.
Hezbollah needs to be disarmed and neutralized if there is to be any peace in the region.
Meanwhile LOD remains lower than 86400, blamed on groundwater depletion. We’re pumping water from the equator northward faster than than melting polar ice flows to the south. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg
Let me rephrase that: Meanwhile LOD remains lower than 86400, blamed on groundwater depletion. We’re pumping water from the equator pole-ward faster than than melting polar ice flows toward the equator.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg