I recently downloaded more of the hourly “vertical integral of energy conversion” values from the ERA5 reanalysis model to demonstrate certain implications. Earlier analyses were for selected latitudes. This time we go in the other direction, at selected longitudes.
The values are for all hours of 2024, at all latitudes, for 8 specific longitude positions: 0E, 45E, 90E, 135E, 180W, 135W, 90W, 45W. See the first 8 plots in the Google Drive folder linked below. The horizontal scale is +/- 30,000 W/m^2 to capture all, or almost all, of the individual hourly values. Degrees latitude is on the vertical scale, from -90 (S) to +90 (N) in 1/4 degree steps.
The second 8 plots (numbered 9 through 16) give the mean of all 8784 hourly values for 2024 at each latitude position for the selected longitude. The horizontal scale is +/- 500 W/m^2 to capture all, or almost all, of these mean values.
From these plots, it is apparent that energy conversion is NOT a zero-sum process anywhere on the planet. A negative value of the annual mean at a particular latitude implies a net conversion of [internal energy + potential energy] -> [kinetic energy]. A positive value implies a net conversion of [kinetic energy] -> [internal energy + potential energy]. This relates to high pressure systems (sinking air) and low pressure systems (rising air) we experience as weather and as regional patterns of typical weather. The mechanisms driving horizontal transport of energy from the tropics to the poles are involved here, including the powerful effect of the latent energy of water vapor and its release in cloud formation and precipitation.
A further implication from the large +/- magnitudes of these values is that there is no sound physical basis for expecting a rising concentration of CO2 to impose a radiative “Earth Energy Imbalance” on the planet as a whole. Please think about this in the context of the recent decades of media-amplified social conditioning about the (poorly named) “greenhouse effect” and emissions of “greenhouse gases.” Rising concentrations of IR-active trace gases are not capable of exerting a perceptible influence, on any trend of any climate variable, that could ever be isolated from within the general circulation for positive confirmation of cause-and-effect. Spectral profiles, whether computed or observed, do not suffice for attribution of a reported “warming” trend.
Backgound: For more explanation, with references, about the long-established concept of energy conversion within the atmosphere, please start with the Readme_072425.pdf document in this folder from last year. Then look at the time-lapse video, plots, and histograms. Readers here at WUWT have seen this before.
P.S. There is a bonus cell phone video of my laptop screen in the first Google Drive folder showing plots generated in R in a loop script, using the hourly VIEC parameter for longitude 0E at all latitudes for the entire year 2024 at 6-hour steps. Caution – the video is a 250MB file. All of the 8 longitude selections look similar using this display method.
…it is apparent that energy conversion is NOT a zero-sum process anywhere on the planet.
A.D. 2,024 was quite special, the winter-season of the tropical ocean in particular. Could you offer any tips on how your files relate to that record of highly-averaged quantities?
David,
Are you dismissing mechanisms that either give the globe a fixed air temperature over centuries or some other longish term, or controlling the air temperature between “fairly tight” limits as directly observed or inferred by proxy in the past?
To put it another way, can you please outline a mechanism or process that is capable of that control, if you do accept the concept of control.
I am not disagreeing with you, but seeking more detail. Geoff S
As you can tell, the main point of my posts on dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation is to show the vanishingly weak influence of incremental CO2, to counter the unsound claims of harm that became fashionable a few decades ago to the detriment of sensible policies.
“To put it another way, can you please outline a mechanism or process that is capable of that control, if you do accept the concept of control.”
I do see a combination of processes and properties that produce a set of highly self-regulating responses to incoming sunshine: the relatively fixed mass of the non-condensing atmosphere, the nearly constant value of gravity, the fixed melting point of ice, the fixed relationship of the saturation vapor pressure of water (and ice) to temperature, the fourth-power relationship of longwave emission to absolute temperature, the prevalence of vertical motions driving the formation and dissipation of clouds, the dominance of clouds over the variable IR emission to space, the latent heat of vaporization and heat of fusion of water, the huge thermal capacity of the oceans – you get the point. All of these and more, together, make for powerful self-regulation even as seasons pass and longer-term orbital and solar mechanisms operate. I hope this helps. All the best to you.
‘All of these and more, together, make for powerful self-regulation even as seasons pass and longer-term orbital and solar mechanisms operate.’
I would also add the effect of plate tectonics, which allows us to note that there is no apparent relationship between variations in CO2 concentrations and temperature from the geological record.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals.
I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected.
Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
Define “denier”. That is a slur. Many of us are skeptics, or “luke warmers”. Many accept some warming due to CO2 increases, but nothing that is worth getting alarmed at. Try and keep the debate civil. Anyone who claims consensus or settled science is not worthy of entering a scientific debate. Climatology seems to be the only branch of science where rigorous, informed, data driven debate is reduced to petty name calling and ad hominin slurs.
Oh really.
Mr Gorman claims the atmospheric greenhouse effect has literally no effect on earth’s temperature. Others on WUWT have variously claimed the earth is cooling, not warming; that the earth is warming, but far less than the scientific consensus; that warming is happening buts its all beneficial; that sea levels aren’t rising; that thousands of scientists around the world are collectively conspiring to commit scientific fraud; and other absurdities.
These are the views of cranks and flat earthers, not serious skeptics. They have fully earned the sobriquet “Deniers”..
“Mr Gorman claims the atmospheric greenhouse effect has literally no effect on earth’s temperature.”
You are literally unable to read for meaning and comprehension. That’s ok, it’s the same with most CAGW advocates.
If CO2 caused retained heat then the earth would have become a molten ball over the millenia.
“Others on WUWT have variously claimed the earth is cooling, not warming;”
Are you DENYING that we’ve had glacial periods with CO2 in the atmosphere?
“that the earth is warming, but far less than the scientific consensus;”
Since the measurement uncertainty associated with the GAT is so large that NO ONE KNOWS what is happening, how is one guess better than the next?
Are you DENYING that climate science guesses at the GAT have measurement uncertainty?
“that warming is happening buts its all beneficial”
Are you DENYING that global poverty is at historical lows? Are you DENYING that we are seeing consecutive global grain harvests over the past 20 years? Are you DENYING that global deaths from cold are at record lows?
“ that sea levels aren’t rising”
Are you DENYING that we haven’t lost a single sea port globally due to sea rise?
“that thousands of scientists around the world are collectively conspiring to commit scientific fraud”
Are you DENYING that *all* of the current climate models run hotter than reality is?
“They have fully earned the sobriquet “Deniers”
Based on what you are DENYING is happening here in reality *YOU* have fully earned the sobriquet DENIER!
Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change.
“using accepted experimental”, LOL. Show us a paper that has experimental techniques that measures temperature caused by “back radiation” from CO2 and how it raises the temperature of the earth’s surface. Note, not thermalization from surface outgoing radiation, but actual radiation from CO2 that reaches the earth’s surface that causes further warming of the surface. The surface is what radiates and it must warm for additional energy to be injected into the atmosphere. There should be numerous studies from climate science loaded with experimental data from this.
WB is a self declared expert who’s only argument is a declaration that unless one can get a paper published in one of the captured “journals”, anything you say must be wrong.
If you claim that the peer reviewed science is flawed without getting your contradictory analysis published , then your post is meaningless, and likely hypocritical because you fear your work will be too weak to withstand scrutiny by real experts in the field.
Nice to hear from you again, WB!
We’ve been through this before.
The Royal Meteorological Society published comments from Simpson and Brunt and others in 1938 to explain to Callendar why his attribution of reported station warming should be reconsidered. My posts about energy conversion are based on the same concepts. Nothing new. It’s just a shame the journals have forgotten or ignored those valid points.
More here. You really need to understand the history here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Stop, just stop with the Argument by Dismisal. It is not a valid argumentative technique and just displays your inability to design a refutation. You have neither addressed the scientific areas in his post nor have you provided any evidence that the assertions are invalid. In other words, you have not addressed it at all. The fallacy is also known as Appeal to the Stone. In essence, a dismissal with no reason.
Your infantile musings add no value to mankind’s scientific knowledge. And you know that, Gorman, because you’re too chicken to submit your nonsense to a scientific journal. You know that it would be received with great laughter all around.
Ah, but I don’t claim or try to develop science like you. That’s the job of real scientists. Instead, I try to highlight the errors and hypocrisy of Deniers who claim to have discovered fundamental errors in the body of peer reviewed science, and instead post their own self generated nonsense.
Anyone who proclaims he’s discovered fundamental errors in the body of peer reviewed scientific research , but fails to submit his own contradictory thesis to a legitimate journal is either lazy, unserious, or most likely afraid to have his work scrutinized by experts in the field.
Peer review by journals is an outmoded concept from the pre-internet period. It began to lose its use with the development if Usenet and cooperative editing at least 60 years ago. Today, publishers restrict public access to literature for REVENUE, not for insuring correctness in material that has restricted access. Literature made public here on Wuwt receives MORE peer review than any privately published literature in a magazine or journal. More peer review by EXPERTS, than is done privately.
The mere fact that most literature in privately published material assumes temperature is a metric for climate stands as proof that peer review done privately is sadly lacking. If temperature were a good metric then the Central Plains of the US and Central Africa would have vastly different climates – but they don’t. They are both savannah with similar flora and fauna.
It’s a perfectly legit criticism of climate science. But how many climate journals will publish a 200 word essay documenting any number of locations that have similar temps but different climates or different temps but the same climate?
I can hear the answer now: “It all averages out”. That’s like saying pizza from Domino’s and from Pizza Hut all average out to taste like “pizza”
Your whine about “peer review” is just that, a WHINING argumentative fallacy.
Peer review is alive and well. Eg, the scientific journals ‘Nature’, ‘Science, and others. You obviously don’t know much about them, but that’s no surprise — you’d rather post your nonsense without having to worry about review by experts. You much prefer praise from a friendly, non expert audience.
But unfortunately, neither you, nor most others on WUWT, have a consistent explanation for the behavior of the climate. Mostly you post such twaddle as ‘an average temperature for the earth is meaningless’, or ‘rising co2 isn’t the cause of rapid warming of the climate’ without having a clue what you’re talking about, or more importantly, without making any positive attempt to explain the behavior of earth’s climate, or the physics behind its behavior.
Please explain to me how the world-wide average of the annual average of the daily extremes of thermometer readings from poorly-located, poorly-maintained instruments bares any relation to any of the multitude of descriptors that define the various local climates around the Earth.
• Over 45,000 studies: Published research literature reviews and database searches (such as Google Scholar counts for “RCP 8.5”) indicate that more than 45,000 peer-reviewed articles have utilized or cited the RCP8.5 scenario over time.
• Tens of thousands total: Independent analyses and commentary tracking climate literature note that cumulative figures have grown past 45,000 to tens of thousands of papers spanning past IPCC assessment cycles.
• Recent annual volume: Even following heavy scientific debate regarding its plausibility, thousands of papers per year continued to use RCP8.5 or its successor pathways (such as SSP5-8.5), with over 5,000 studies logged in single recent calendar windows.
The publishers of peer reviewed journals love to see quality work, especially if it reflects a new discovery. But with those criteria, it’s unlikely anything posted by Deniers on WUWT will ever see the light of day in a legitimate journal.
huh? if you disagree with David’s numbers, you should publish in those scientific journals WHY the ERA5 numbers and satellite sensors in general are incorrect…they might accept your paper on the grounds of being a new interpretation…while David’s stuff is simply stating already known science in a way understandable to general readers. It is also appropriate for you to state here… why you think David’s numbers are wrong, if you reviewed anything before pontificating…
If David wants to become credible, he should show the gumption to submit his paper to a peer reviewed journal. If he doesn’t, it’s because he knows it’s shallow and bogus
Stop, just stop with the Argument by Dismisal. It is not a valid argumentative technique and just displays your inability to design a refutation. You have neither addressed the scientific areas in his post nor have you provided any evidence that the assertions are invalid. In other words, you have not addressed it at all. The fallacy is also known as Appeal to the Stone. In essence, a dismissal with no reason.
And I believe that report included SSP8.5 as a legitimate part of its evaluation. That didn’t work out too well did it. Why are you recommending a paper with incorrect assumptions. Oh, I forgot, your favorite scientists are never wrong are they. Faith baby, faith will provide.
Good God; your ignorance is breathtaking, Gorman. Yet you keep plodding along like the good Dunning Kruger man child you are.
RCP8.5 was not an assumption — it was a CO2 concentration SCENARIO against which the results of other CO2 scenarios could be compared.
You’re hopeless.
Then why did they abandon 8.5? If the models matched 8.5 and 8.5 is gone then the models will *NOT* match the other scenario’s nearly as well. The so-called “error bars” will GROW!
Computer models are not scientists.
Models are only as useful as the assumptions made in the representations.
Not one single computer model used by the IPCC is able to properly represent the behaviour of the planet. If the cell sample size were even remotely appropriate it would take centuries of supercomputer processing to get the first output.
And, the IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a politically constructed organisation charged with the task of proving just one point, that CO2 is the control knob of planet earth’s temperature. Every attempt by them is a FAIL
“That is not a peer reviewed journal publication.”
“Yes it is. It is a summary of the peer reviewed literature.”
No.
It is not a journal at all.
It is not a summary of the peer reviewed literature.
It is a political manifesto, with unanimous agreement by over 130 political representatives.
“…while David’s stuff is simply stating already known science in a way understandable to general readers.” Exactly the point. Thank you for noticing. 🙂
In 1887 a more sensitive Michelson–Morley interferometry experiment definitively laid to rest the then-popular “luminiferous aether” conjecture.
No “credible physics-based explanation” was put forward until a Swiss patent clerk (third class) tentatively put forward a “relatively” simple alternative in 1905.
Putting forward empirical / experimental data can always disprove a scientific conjecture (/ theory / paradigm).
While in a Khunian world-view the scientific community requires a new “paradigm” to emerge before they can “get back to work”, history has shown us that it is at least possible for the people concerned to know that the “old” way of thinking … e.g. phlogiston the “luminiferous aether” exists … needs to be replaced long before it actually is.
.
“[I]f we did not have a doubt or recognize ignorance, we would not get any new ideas. There would be nothing worth checking, because we would know what is true. So, what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some of them are most unsure; some of them are nearly sure; but none is absolutely certain. Scientists are used to this.” — Richard Feynman
Of course any evidence that contradicts a scientific hypothesis invalidates that hypothesis, or scientific theory. But since no one has ever found evidence that contradicts the scientific theory that man’s burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, the theory stands as objective truth.
so what’s the Null Hypothesis that accompanied the AGW / CO2 climate control knob hypothesis?
Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change.
I don’t need to submit my material because it’s taken from the body of peer reviewed science, which passed through the expert review process I outlined.
And you have FAITH that it is true. 99% of what you read is not experimental evidence. It is pseudoscience that says it knows the correct answer by torturing data until it shows a preconceived conclusion. Statistical analysis is not experiment evidence. If it was, why would we have built the big super colliders to VERIFY theory via experiment? Physicists could have just said, look we know our models are correct therefore these particles exist and act in this fashion. We don’t need no stinking experiments.
Non-experts? There isn’t an EXPERT alive that will verify that you can average the intensive property of different things. If you want reference’s and links I can get them for you. Or you can stand on your own two feet and do your own research.
Yet climate science claims that it can legitimately do just that. And says that since legitimate science says you can average measurements of an intensive property of the same thing that you can do the same for different things.
And YOU think published climate science claims for this are made by physical science EXPERTS?
Who are you to judge who is an expert and who isn’t if you believe climate science on this?
Straw man again Gorman. A weighted average of intensive properties — eg the integral of TdA over a surface A. where T is Temp and dA is an increment of area, is perfectly valid and you know it.
“Straw man again Gorman. A weighted average of intensive properties — eg the integral of TdA over a surface A. where T is Temp and dA is an increment of area, is perfectly valid and you know it.” (bolding mine, tpg)
JUDAS H. PRIEST!
You are as bad at math and physics as your buddies like bellman and bdgwx.
Why are those in climate science so ignorant of calculus?
∫ T dA
is Temperature times area
Your units will be °K-cm^2
Do you post under the name “bellman” also?
Because you just did what he does. You CHERRY PICKED something you found somewhere without having a clue as to the meaning or context.
“integral of TdA over a surface A –> ∫ T dA
YOU then are dividing by A again to cancel the cm^2.
What this gives you is an ESTIMATOR for the temperature of that specific area. It’s like taking the average of ten measurements of a water bath to estimate the temperature of the water bath. The average is a statistical descriptor of the temperature field. It is not a conserved physical quantity.
It gets even more complicated. T is actually a function of space, T(x,y). It is a temperature FIELD. You need to be able to write a functional equation describing how the temperature changes inside the area.
Then your integral becomes ∫_y ∫_x T(x,y) dx dy
Now, if your temperature is varying in *time* and space then the complication goes up another order of magnitude.
My guess is that since you couldn’t even decipher what you wrote you won’t be able to write that integral! (hint T(x,y,t) )
Then take it to the final step: Since the earth and its atmosphere represent a volume your T function becomes T(x,y,z,t).
What this means is the your integral will only be valid for the instantaneous time “t” you use. dt later the integral will be something else. And your average for the field will change.
Now the problem with T being intensive is that if you don’t want to treat the global temperature as a field then you have to treat it as separate areas or volumes. So you wind up with things like
∫_y1 ∫_x1 T1(x1,y1,z1,t1) dx dy dz and ∫_y2 ∫_x2 T2(x2,y2,z2,t2) dx dy dz
And can you add the two integrals to get a total? Physical science says no, because they are intensive properties of different volumes and T1 + T2 is physically meaningless.
I see with are dealing with another scientific illiterate, who actually believes that it’s only science once it has been published, and that anything that hasn’t been published isn’t science.
Some unpublished research is certainly valid. But you can be assured that most of what is claimed to be science on WUWT is nothing more than unsupported claims or deeply flawed — otherwise we’d find it in the body of published science.
Since temperatures have different variances and since measurement devices produce differing measurement uncertainty (whose metric is variance) they need to be weighted on their accuracy.
So the temperature data should be weighted based on each data points variance.
But climate science, and YOU apparently, just throw the individual uncertainties away, so doing weighting based on accuracy is impossible for climate science.
Breaking the earth up into equally sized grids is for SPATIAL weighting which is normally classified as sampling uncertainty.
Mr. is correct – you / they DO need to state a scientifically proper null hypothesis along the lines that CO2 is NOT the control knob of climate. Presuming the preponderance of evidence indicated otherwise, we could then accept your / their preferred alternative hypothesis of AGW.
Unfortunately for you / them, there is no physical evidence to overturn such a scientifically proper null hypothesis.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, the Left has successfully obtained the support of a fair number of useful idiots (you / they?) in order to wield the junk science of CAGW as a weapon of societal control.
You do not understand the null hypothesis. It’s not that contradictory evidence is required (it doesn’t exist), but rather that a theory Could Be disproven IF contradictory evidence could be found. And of course it meets that test.
The concept of a ‘null hypothesis’ is basic statistics that even Wikipedia gets right:
“The statement being tested in a test of statistical significance is called the ‘null hypothesis’. The test of significance is designed to assess the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis. Usually, the null hypothesis is a statement of ‘no effect’ or ‘no difference‘.”
The theory stands as objective truth? My, ain’t you a live wire this AM? Parse that clause and find the fallacy, AKA, the “wrongness”. You are such the rookie…as I’ve said before, your patter needs work. Reading crap like you write makes my head hurt and the bile rise.
The theory is confirmed by an enormous body of evidence.No contradictory evidence has ever been found.
And I don’t expect that you can come up with any contradictory evidence, either.
Don’t need to-theory is not proof of anything until tested and data duplicated. Do learn the scientific method, its weaknesses and strenghts, and go back and parse that clause. Until then, STFU. The only place for BS like yours is in compost.
Your understanding of science is wrong. ‘Proofs’ are for math. Evidence is for science. And when enough evidence has been accumulated that confirms a scientific hypothesis, then that hypothesis is accepted as a valid scientific THEORY.
Eg, the THEORY of evolutionary change by natural selection, the THEORY that smoking can cause cancer, the THEORY that Earth orbits the sun, and the THEORY that the burning of fossil fuels is rapidly warming the planet.
And when enough evidence has been accumulated that confirms a scientific hypothesis, then that hypothesis is accepted as a valid scientific THEORY.
I’ll quote you. “Your understanding of science is wrong.”
You said, “when enough evidence”, you left out the most important description. When enough experimental evidence is obtained, a theory may be confirmed.
You have a terminal illness in your head because you cannot differeniate between correlation and a functional relationship. Climate science is dedicated to trendology where time is the independent variable and the dependent variable is temperature. To my knowledge no one has proposed a functional relationship between time and temperature. Consequently, the only thing that can be discerned is correlation. Why don’t you tell us what the saying is correlation?
Wrong again, Gorman. Evidence can be observational at a distance, eg, measurements of the spectral lines of celestial bodies. No experiment required. Clueless again
“Wrong again, Gorman. Evidence can be observational at a distance, eg, measurements of the spectral lines of celestial bodies. No experiment required. Clueless again”
You are *still* confused. It’s not the data that’s the problem, it the claim that correlation is causation that is the problem. Without a valid functional relationship explaining the causation the correlation is physically meaningless.
And time as an independent variable verse a dependent variable of temperature is *NOT* a functional relationship.
Stop lying, Gorman. You said “You said, “when enough evidence”, you left out the most important description. When enough experimental evidence is obtained, a theory may be confirmed.” and your claim about causation is pure fantasy. NO scientists claim correlation without causation is sufficient. You are living in a world of your childhood dreams. Seriously, seek help.
Climate science claims correlation is causation *all the time*.
Do you deny that they assume the autocorrelation of temperature CAUSES the measurement uncertainties of all individual measurements to be correlated as well?
Do you deny that climate science assumes that autocorrelation CAUSES temperatures be the same spatially?
Do you deny that climate science claims that the correlation between temperature and CO2 *causes* temperature to go up when CO2 goes up? Without a single functional relationship being specified let alone experimentally confirmed?
IPCC: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The IPCC has sort of modified this to “we only predict a probability distribution of possible future climate states”.
The problem is that their probability distribution always turns out to be wrong, the “ensemble” of models simply doesn’t work.
Example? The greening of the earth has not been factored into any model I am aware of. Yet that greening represents a feedback in the ecosystem that impacts the effects CO2 has.
I don’t know about Jim but *MY* physics explanation is that *CLIMATE* change is effectively zero. There have been no mass migrations due to higher Tmax values. There have been no major port cities lost due to sea rise. Food availability is greater today than at any point in the recorded past. Poverty is at a lower point today than at any point in the recorded past.
Today’s climate, tomorrow’s climate, and the climate 100 years from now are all going to be within the natural variations we’ve seem for literally millions of years.
What’s your physics based explanation for the behavior of the climate, Gorman?
I am smart enough to know that I have no functional relationship to offer that describes the energy from insolation into all the oceans and lands and from there into all the different paths it can take from those places.
I do know that incoming short wave radiation cannot be immediately translated into outgoing radiation. It is first absorbed by the oceans and lands. It doesn’t just bounce off the surface in the form of IR.
I do know that climate science has little research and few papers that diligently show functional relationships of the conversion of insolation into the heat absorption in the oceans and lands.
I do know that climate science has little research and few papers describing in detail functional relationships of how much energy is stored in the oceans and lands and that is not radiated away for long periods of time.
I do know that climate science is OCD with its preoccupation with temperature rather than energy.
If you can show peer reviewed papers that deal with these issues and offer functional relationships for the thermodynamics involved, I will stand corrected. I will warn you, I have perused several meteorological textbooks and have found none that treat ;these issues.
Thank you for explaining that that your answer is:
“NO, I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE BEHAVIOR OF EARTH’S CLIMATE, AND I CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY CRITIQUE WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND”
““NO, I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE BEHAVIOR OF EARTH’S CLIMATE, AND I CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY CRITIQUE WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND””
That’s not what he said.
He said ” I have no functional relationship to offer that describes the energy from insolation into all the oceans and lands and from there into all the different paths it can take from those places.”
YOU ADDED: “I CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY CRITIQUE WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND”
Again, another ad hominem attack. Your level of debate is elementary school playground level. Therefore, this applies. I am rubber and you are glue, what you throw bounces off me and sticks on you!
Einstein used the word Proof very often and you ain’t no Albert…as is evidenced…and you very seriously misuse the word and the concept of “theory”. So, no cigar or pussy for you tonite. My understanding of the word and concept of science is just fine. You should think seriously about just shutting your yap. Better to be quiet and thought stupid than to open your mouth and prove (no theory there) that you are, indeed, stupid.
The theory is confirmed by an enormous body of evidence.
There is no evidence or you would be quoting it.
And I don’t expect that you can come up with any contradictory evidence, either.
You have no idea about science or even logic do you. The lack of contradicting evidence IS NOT evidence of truth. If you were writing code and ASSUMED that the correct input was entered as instructions were given to personnel, you would be writing your own pink slip. That is what you are doing with your FAITH in peer reviewed science.
Experimental evidence is the only way to obtain truth or not truth. You may scoff at Richard Feynman but I guarantee he is your better in terms of science.
“Re: Your claim of ‘no evidence’. Read it and weep:”
You mean the report they had to abandon because they had to abandon 8.5?
ROFL!!!
I just love this:
Climate change has reduced food security and affected water security, hindering efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals (high confidence). Although overall agricultural productivity has increased, climate change has slowed this growth over the past 50 years globally (medium confidence), with related negative impacts mainly in mid- and low latitude regions but positive impacts in some high latitude regions (high confidence)” (bolding mine, tpg)
Reduced food security? When food security has actually gone up? When global poverty has gone down?Continued RECORD grain harvests over the past 20 years is a “slowing” of productivity? Just how did they forecast what ag productivity *should* be over the past50 years?
Read it and weep [ Link to AR6 top-level webpage ]
This particular logical fallacy is commonly known as either an “impossible request” or “impossible expectations”.
The Working Group 1 (WG-1, The Scientific Basis) assessment report contribution to the AR6 document cycle is approximately 2400 pages long.
WG-2 (Adaptation) contains approximately 3060 pages.
WG-3 (Mitigation) adds almost 2000 more pages to the total.
Even the Synthesis Report (SYN), which doesn’t include all of the references to the underlying scientific papers, is 186 pages long.
.
If you cannot provide a specific reference — or, even better, a link — to the (singular) paper that “best” refutes a specific claim being made, then your bald assertions about all of the “supporting evidence” for your position is for naught.
If you are unable to provide even a single reference to counter the specific claim(s) being made, then your supposed “supporting evidence” does not actually exist.
QED.
.
As you apparently have enormous difficulty in understanding how “references / citations” are supposed to work, here is an example you can model your future responses to queries for your “supporting evidence” on.
But since no one has ever found evidence that contradicts the scientific theory that man’s burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, the theory stands as objective truth.
Objective truth? Objective truth is when experimental evidence exists that the functional relationship contained in a hypothesis us verified.
Until a whole lot of money is spent on experimental verification of CO2 causing CAGW, that will never occur. Without it all you have are acolytes like you who have FAITH in the conjecture of CAGW. That is “subjective truth”.
It is no wonder you have problems with science, you have never learned the difference between subjective and objective.
Experimental verification and data have been accumulated into an enormous body of confirming evidence, so large and verified, that it constitutes an objective truth. Whereas your musings go nowhere.
Experimental verification and data have been accumulated
Show us a paper that has experimental verification of CO2 being the driver of global temperature increases. First, I want to see how a “global temperature” was measured. Second, I want to see the functional relationship that was proven.
Data, lots of data has been collected but so far only correlations have been derived.
Do you know that the theory is not that the heat of burning warms the planet, but rather that the EMISSIONS of CO2 from the burning enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect assumes that somehow the Earth can *retain* heat. It can’t. CO2 can *slow* heat loss but it can’t *add* heat. It’s not on fire.
Any heat that CO2 REFLECTS back to the earth is heat that has already been lost by the earth. Since CO2 is not a perfect REFLECTOR it can’t replace all of the heat the earth has already lost let alone add even more.
Planck talked about reflectors in his tome on blackbodies. Any heat reflected back to a source gets handled by new emissions from the source.
I haven’t posted this in a while but it shows what happens pretty well. The quantity of heat lost is the area under each curve. A slower heat loss actually results in a greater area under the curve than a faster heat loss – i.e. more heat is lost with slower cooling. That’s the earth losing the reflected heat.
Science doesn’t do “proof”. “Proof” is reserved for mathematics (/ logic) and alcohol.
“If you thought that science was certain … well, that is just an error on your part.” — Richard Feynman
.
… the scientific theory that man’s burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet
There is indeed a lot of experimental data supporting the theory that doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere … all other factors being kept constant, which is impossible to achieve in reality … would eventually, after waiting a few centuries to achieve “equilibrium”, result in an increase in the (global mean) surface temperature of approximately 1 (Celsius) degree.
“The planet”, however, is “a ball of rock and metal around 12,700 km (7,900 miles) in diameter”.
Please provide a reference to a “serious scientific paper” that shows exactly how increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will warm “the planet”.
“Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change”
Hey Wazza old mate, you should be sending this advice to yourself. Every time you put your fingers to the keyboard, son.
The idea that only stuff that’s been published is science is anti-scientific. As you must realize since your only response to those who disagree with you, are insults.
I trust scientific experts who agree to have other experts verify the quality of their research. I do not trust non experts who can post anything they want without expert review, and often demonstrate ignorance of basic physics.
You are starting with the false premise that people on here don’t agree that the climate is changing and that it appears to be getting warmer, you’re being churlish by suggesting it. The problems that aren’t adequately addressed are:
a) whether a global average temperature is meaningful.
b) have all possible variables that possibly affect climate been adequately accounted or researched or modelled?
c) why the fixation on one single variable whilst presuming other factors are constant?
d) the problem of trying to successfully model a complex analogue system on a digital computer.
a)The idea that an appropriately weighted and homogenized data set to estimate an average of global temperature anomalies is well accepted practice among scientists in order to create a proxy for changes in the heat content of earths system. The ‘efforts’ on WUWT are terrible science — employing semantic tricks to claim that such weighted averages are not useful.
b) no practicing scientist would ever claim that ‘all variables’ are accounted for. Claims to that affect are straw man arguments –mostly attempts to discredit the existing research, not to inform.
c) No such fixation on one variable exists. Another straw man argument.
d) the arguments on WUWT are either that 1) models are used as evidence by climate scientists — which is false. Models are never considered evidence by climate scientists. Or 2) that models are so inaccurate as to not be useful — which is also false since considerable published work shows that the models have accurately predicted — within specified error bars– current climate trends with the inclusion of anthropogenic climate forcings.
And it is clear that the denizens of WUWT spin their wheels trying to claim that the body of peer reviewed science is deeply flawed. Yet they never publish their own claims in scientific journals, leading to the unavoidable conclusion that they are either unserious or know that their ideas have no merit and would be shredded by experts in the field.
“The idea that an appropriately weighted and homogenized data set to estimate an average of global temperature anomalies is well accepted practice among scientists in order to create a proxy for changes in the heat content of earths system.”
Accepted by what scientists? Climate scientists? That’s a circular argument. “This” is accepted by climate scientists because it is said by climate scientists.
Exactly what weighting do they do?
Autocorrelation due to confounding factors, e.g. sun and earth’s tilt, does *NOT* mean that temperatures corrleate – but climate science does. Yet they can’t explain why San Diego can be at 75F while in Ramona, 30 miles away, it is 90F. They just homogenize and infill based on distance, not terrain, elevation, geography,
What is well accepted by climate scientists is *not* accepted by other scientists. That’s why Ag science was the first to find extended growing seasons based on Tmin changes. Climate science missed it because they focus on a mid-range temp. Ag science started using integrative heating/cooling degree days to measure heat accumulation and find its effect on crops – while climate science is still stuck on using a mid-range temp for an obviously non-Gaussian daily temperature profile.
And HEAT CONTENT? Climate science doesn’t do squat with heat content. They only focus on TEMPERATURE, thus not only missing latent HEAT content but also missing thermal inertia effects of land and ocean on heat content throughout the thermodynamic system known as Earth.
What is the variance of those anomalies? You need at a minimum TWO different statistical descriptors to have a legitimate representation of a distribution. One is the mean. The other is the variance of the data used to calculate the mean.
WHAT LINKS DO YOU HAVE GIVING THE VARIANCE OF *ANY* CLIMATE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS?
Legitimately, you should really have the 5-number statistical descriptor in order to see if the distribution is Gaussian or skewed.
Climate science? They just assume EVERYTHING is Gaussioan!
I asked “WHAT LINKS DO YOU HAVE GIVING THE VARIANCE OF *ANY* CLIMATE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS?”
I’m still waiting for an answer.
I know I’ll be waiting a long time because there aren’t any such links.
It’s an area where you have to have enough knowledge of thermodynamics to be able to think it through on your own, your so-called peer reviewed climate scientist publications won’t help you.
“no practicing scientist would ever claim that ‘all variables’ are accounted for. Claims to that affect are straw man arguments –mostly attempts to discredit the existing research, not to inform.”
No practicing scientist would claim correlation is causation. But climate science does!
No practicing scientist would put forth a hypothesis without following up with at least an attempt to provide a functional relationship among the variables. Without that you have no way to determine future states. BUT CLIMATE SCIENCE DOES! Climate science substitutes data matching past data in order to forecast future states. They cherry pick a piece of a cyclical process and use that piece to create a linear progression forward.
Have you *ever* seen climate science predict what “global warming” will do to the timing of the next glacial period?
The error bars are the boundaries of the various models in the ensemble. That’s not really ERROR bars. That’s just the variability in the models. It does *NOT* say that *any* of the models are accurate. If they were all wildly inaccurate, predicting the end of the earth TOMORROW, the error bars wouldn’t tell you that was wrong!
“And it is clear that the denizens of WUWT spin their wheels trying to claim that the body of peer reviewed science is deeply flawed.”
Not a single physical scientist that I know believes you can average the intensive properties of multiple things and get a physically meaningful value.
Yet climate science is based on believing you *can*. Their entire edifice is based on the assumption that if you hold two rocks in your hand, one at 70F and the other at 60F that you have a total of 130F in your hand.
It’s based on the statisticians dream that numbers is just numbers and you can average anything. It doesn’t have to make sense in the real world.
It also ignores the fact that the global temperature is a field, constantly varying in time and space. Climate science just assumes everything is Gaussian and any variance in the field cancels leaving a homogeneous, constant field that can be described by an average value. They don’t even take all their measurements at the same time everywhere! How can you even develop an instantaneous average value if you don’t take all of your measurements of a time/space varying field AT THE SAME TIME!
I know you won’t have a single refutation of any of this. That’s ok, neither does climate science. They always just fall back on the assumption that everything is Gaussian and cancels.
None of these criticism are flawed. They are just ignored. Like any religious fanatic does.
a)The idea that an appropriately weighted and homogenized data set to estimate an average of global temperature anomalies is well accepted practice among scientists
The very fact that weighting and homogenization must be used is evidence that the data is is not appropriate for use.
Temperature is a poor, very poor proxy for heat energy. This is due to latent heat in H2O. Without the ability to know enthalpy one simply can not compare temperatures with a simple average.
Averaging intensive properties is done in no physical science disipllne except under very prescriptive conditions. Climate science does not meet those conditions.
And it is clear that the denizens of WUWT spin their wheels trying to claim that the body of peer reviewed science is deeply flawed.
Climate science peer review is condemed by the declaration that SSP8.5 was declared improbable. Tell us who and in what paper a prominent climate scientist delared it to be implausible. Why did no one step up to the guillitine and issue a peer reviewed paper with a refutation?
Sceptics tried, many times. How many of their papers were rejected? Peter Ridd was fired for being a sceptic. Nature wouldn’t publish Happer and Wijngarden or Dr. Soon. Your trumpeting peer review is not a good look.
However, predictions are based on digital mathematical models when the complete system is analogue, which immediately causes rounding errors. There are assumptions made that may or may not be true or even applicable.
For the past two years the sun has been very active as demonstrated by the appearance of Aurora Borealis in the south of England, a phenomenon that I cannot recall happening before in my life. Has this been modelled? Has anyone hypothesised what effect all of this activity could have on our atmosphere?
Please write a mathematical expression that describes the Earth’s climate in its entirety.
Your final sentence is a clear case of appealing to authority.
If you cannot challenge a hypothesis then that is no longer science but religious dogma.
For your information Mr. Beeton. Depending on the field, between 35% and 70% of peer reviewed science papers cannot be replicated. This alone makes peer review as a gold standard nonsense. The worlds scientific community awaits your response.
Metrology methods and procedures require one to specify the measurand in sufficient detail to allow replication by later users. Many of these aren’t replication “failures” but process failures in specifying the measurand in sufficient detail. Or in not describing the measurement process and method in enough detail. These are accidental discoveries in a sense, a *good* thing.
*AND* sometimes because standards aren’t specified in enough detail or are not kept up to date.
Climate science suffers greatly from not specifying measurands sufficiently as well as methods and procedures. For instance, microclimate influence on temperature measurements is not even included in the measurement uncertainty budget for CRN stations. Part of the calibration of the CERES satellites is done using cross-comparison between the satellites. That’s a real no-no because it just spreads calibration uncertainty around throughout the network. And that is not included in their measurement uncertainty budget. It may be a necessity caused by lack of easy access for using external calibration on a routing basis but that’s no reason to ignore it.
My guess is that you have absolutely *NO* real world knowledge of either the subject or the engineering details that *should* be considered in temperature measurements.
Is one of your peer reviewed papers in climate science the measurement uncertainty budget for CRN stations? For CERES satellites?
If you can’t then you can’t claim that my assertions are unsupported. You see, I *HAVE* researched those documents. I *found* them. Let’s see you do the same!
Physics based hypothesis’s HAVE to be confirmed by experimental observations to be considered a “theory”.
The data measurements climate science uses are 1. not fit for purpose and, 2. have so much measurement uncertainty that they can’t confirm anything.
Do you understand that other disciplines like Agricultural Science and HVAC engineering have abandoned the methodology that climate science uses because it isn’t fit for purpose?
Have you ever seen or read “Fiddler on the Roof”? You, climate science, and Teyve could form a club named “TRADITION”. Climate science uses scientific methodology formulated in the 1600’s. It just uses fancier equipment today that is *STILL* being used with the same old, outdated methodology.
Print his out, frame it, and post it on the wall above your computer.
The only reliable evidence for changes in the planet is to be found in data. Arguments count for nothing and all intelligent human beings are capable of assessing data given sufficient experience with whatever phenomenon is being discussed.
Not one single persistent commentator OR author of anything here at WUWT remotely resembles a”climate denier” or claims that there has been no mild, slow warming very recently in the history of mankind as well as of the present living generations.
People you would call “climate scientists”, and demand that we respect, have been exposed as deceitful, conspiring to alter their outputs in concert. I, and many others, know them to be frauds.
I, and many others, are sure and certain that the “hockey stick” is appallingly BAD use of doctored data.
We also know that currently, the use of the concept “peer review” departs from the true scientific tradition which mandated that all work published be DUPLICATED INDEPENDENTLY or DEBUNKED independently with reliable date.
Keep up your pestering, you are the class clown helping us to recall just how much we know more than you do, how much more experienced we are as scientists and just how gullible and open to being deceived are many people at all levels of society.
You aren’t watching. Many commenters deny the role of CO2 in the climate entirely, others claim it’s vanishingly small and of no consequence. No one -/ and I mean no one — has ever published. These guys are not scientists and not even worthy amateurs. None have a consistent concept of the behavior of the climate, nor a physics based explanation for its behavior. Some, like Gorman , indulge in minutia , others in snark. But they do share a common trait — a religious belief that mainstream science must be wrong about the climate. Unfortunately, none present a viable alternative explanation for what’s occurring.
No one is denying ANYTHING. The criticism is that climate science can’t really demonstrate what is actually happening. Their data has so much uncertainty that NO ONE KNOWS! When they assume that measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels so they don’t have to propagate it from the ground up through all their average hierarchies it’s sure giveaway that they don’t actually *KNOW* what is happening!
They even have to stoop to doing things like claiming that uncertainty doesn’t compound at each calculation step in their models. Or that you can increase accuracy by averaging inaccurate data. Or that sampling uncertainty is measurement uncertainty.
“a religious belief that mainstream science must be wrong about the climate.”
You don’t even know enough science and math to understand the criticisms being made of climate science.
NOT KNOWNG ≠ WRONG.
My guess is that this will just go into one of your ears and out the other just like everything else.
Yes. But he’s never published a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal that contradicting or disputing the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet.
Yes I know. And the views of those you refer to are fringe, out of the mainstream of thousands of other scientists. I hope they’re right. But I’m not going to base mitigation policy on fringe ideas, .
Risk = probability times consequence. I think it’s bad risk management to assume the minimal impact predicted by less than 0.1% of scientists.
It doesn’t matter. Whether there is or is not global warming, and if so how much, and whether its dangerous or not, none of that matters to the only thing that does matter here: energy policy.
The proposed remedies of the alarmed are impossible to implement, unaffordable to try at scale, ineffective even if implemented – and have been rejected by all the bigest and fastest growing emitters.
The only proposed remedy is to lower emissions by converting electricity generation to wind and solar, while at the same time converting energy use applications to electricity. So we have, for instance, in the UK the drive to install lots of wind and solar, to close down all other forms of generation, while at the same time converting heating to heat pumps and transport to EVs.
This is impossible because of intermittency. Its unaffordable because of the need to remedy intermittency, and also the need to construct this enormous new transmission network from the north coast of Scotland (where surprisingly there is little or no demand) to the places where there is demand in the Midlands and South East. And it would be ineffective if done because the UK only does around 1% of global emissions, and China, India, Indonesia etc are all growing their emissions as fast as economic growth requires. They have no intention of stopping and only come to COP to make sure it makes no decisions.
And not only that: the proposed program anyway only addresses a fraction of UK energy use and emissions.
One understands why you keep railing against ‘deniers’ of CAGW. Its much easier to demand belief in a theory than it is to propose any specific effective and affordable measures. And if you are an activist, its much better – what you want to do is make demands which cannot be met, because you are using the issue as something to organize around, not something to remedy.
This is what is going on here. Everyone who replies to Mr Beeton should realize this and consider their replies accordingly. Arguing in vague and emotional terms about the evidence for global warming, the merits of the peer review system in this particular case… all that is pointless and actually furthers his agenda.
Instead ask what specifically he is advocating doing. Answer will come there none, or it will be something silly about global emission reductions, which are clearly not happening or going to happen.
You can see from the UK disaster what happens when a country actually tries to implement the program. Electricity prices go through the roof, industry closes. Emissions do not fall. There is absolutely no effect on global temperatures, and cannot be any.
Don’t ask is it warming. Who cares? Ask why are we doing this. And none of them know.
I am replying to myself to express appreciation for the continuing opportunity to post material on the Open Thread – “A place for discussion.” Today, it certainly worked. Thank you WUWT.
The material I posted today originates from the ECMWF, the organization responsible for the ERA5 reanalysis model. The source files were downloaded from the related Copernicus Data Store, which is the recognized portal. The processing and plotting uses standard operations and functions in R. It is all very straightforward. No tricks, nothing hidden.
The mechanisms driving horizontal transport of energy from the tropics to the poles are involved here, . . .
Sorry, but that’s nonsense.
The surface (including the 70% or so that is ocean) warms up if it receives sufficient sunlight. When deprived of sunlight, it cools.
The Earth is roughly spherical, held together by the force of gravity, which keeps the lithosphere, aquasphere, and atmosphere in place – unless displaced by an unbalanced force – Newtons Laws.
Fourier put it nicely when he said that the Earth loses all the heat it receives from the Sun to outer space, plus a little internal heat. Fourier was responsible Fourier’s Law, so between Newton and Fourier I think I’m on fairly safe ground.
If you don’t like appeals to authority, I accept that the Earths surface was once everywhere Nolte – poles included. Now it’s not. Cooling. End of story?
There is only one electromagnetic field and therefore only one time-averaged Poynting vector at any point in time and scpae. That vector is monodirectional; it is the sole physical measure of local electromagnetic energy transport.
The specific intensity (radiance) that appears in the radiative-transfer equation has no fundamental physical meaning as energy flowing simultaneously in multiple directions. It is an intermediate mathematical construct. Only under restricted conditions can it be integrated to recover the single time-averaged Poynting vector.
The upwelling and downwelling arrows in the Trenberth diagram are therefore not coexisting physical radiant energy fluxes. They are bookkeeping quantities derived from the mathematical solution of the radiative-transfer equation. The diagram does not portray two simultaneous electromagnetic energy fluxes; the only physical flux is the single Poynting vector.
… only one time-averaged Poynting vector at any point in time and space.
Poyntingly, you did not specify whether the associated radiant flux has been frequency-averaged (or summed). One cannot imagine anything you could prove hereby that would dissuade Trenbeth et al. from continuing to regard the shortwave downwelling radiation (high-frequency flux) as quite real & distinct from the longwave-dominated upwelling (low-frequency flux).
The Trenberth diagram has both upwelling and downwelling longwave radiation. They can never exist simultaneously.
The downwelling short wave can actually be measured and exists because it is radiation. The two longwave components shown in the Trenberth diagram are radiances that are misrepresented as co-existing radiation streams.
Through the daylight, there is downwelling shortwave radiation while at night there is upwelling longwave radiation. Only ever one monodirectional radiation flux.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
‘Whether spelled out explicitly or not, the key premise of phenomenological photometry as well as of the phenomenological RTT is that matter interacts with the energy of the electromagnetic field rather than with the electromagnetic field itself. This profoundly false assumption explains the deceitful simplicity of the phenomenological physical quantity describing the “instantaneous directional distribution of the radiant energy flow” at a point in space. This is followed by a “derivation” of the scalar RTE on the basis of “simple energy conservation considerations” and the postulation that it is the electromagnetic energy rather than the electromagnetic field that gets scattered by particles and surfaces.’
and:
‘Even if the Poynting vector could be claimed to characterize the local current of electromagnetic energy, this vector is inherently mono-directional at any moment in time and remains mono-directional upon averaging over any time interval. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to postulate that there exists a primordial physical quantity, viz., the radiance, that characterizes the poly-directional local flow of electromagnetic energy.’
Hopefully, this should fit all your requirements for publication in a ‘peer reviewed’ journal. Now all you need to do is provide a valid citation from the ‘literature’ that Mishchencko is incorrect.
From my standpoint, nothing. From the standpoint of climate alarmists, they can start by binning any climate model that relies upon radiative transfer codes to ‘explain’ the mechanics of energy transfer through the troposphere.
‘Your assertion that climate scientists erroneously use radiative codes to explain the mechanics of radiative heat transfer is wrong.’
Not my assertion, Mishchencko’s. Re-read the article I linked to and pay particular attention to Section 3 and note what he, and others, have to say about ‘photonic confusion’.
All climate models are based on the assumption that the atmosphere traps heat and used a forcing derived from radiation transfer codes to place a number on the forcing. That number is embedded into the various SSPs as a forcing and notified to all the CMIP participants so they use a common baseline for each scenario. So the models are forced with a number derived from codes like MODTRAN.
And MODTRAN is not based directly on Maxwell field theory but recent versions do apply some of Mishchenko’s work on directional radiometers to improve what it produces. MODTRAN is known to have very large errors in tropical atmospheres. It is nothing more than wet finger science that is given the appearance of credinbility.
At least WB did not make the utterly ridiculous claim that the average temp of the last 10,000 years was higher than today. Now who was it said that??????
Mr. Simon: At least you recognize the harm being done to your cause by the nitwit appeal-to-authority Beeton, that’s why you must deflect.
BTW Mr. W backs his claim with evidence, unlike your pal Warren. Or you, for that matter.
Stop, just stop with the Argument by Dismisal. It is not a valid argumentative technique and just displays your inability to design a refutation. You have neither addressed the scientific areas in his post nor have you provided any evidence that the assertions are invalid. In other words, you have not addressed it at all. The fallacy is also known as Appeal to the Stone. In essence, a dismissal with no reason.
I can refute most of the nonsense that you generate, Gorman. Some of it is just tiresome, but when it disagrees with the body of scientific research published by expert scientists, I can dismiss it out of hand as an example of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
But you never do refute it. You offer some amorphous insurance that the “peer reviewed” science is objective TRUTH and cannot be questioned. I hate to tell you that SSP8.5 was considered to be TRUTH for years before sceptic questioning caused to be declared implausible by your vaunted IPCC organization. So you see, TRUTH is in the eye of the beholder and isn’t TRUTH until experimental evidence is available. That makes you an acolyte of CAGW based on nothing more than FAITH.
Why do you respond to Beeton? He’s not capable of reason. He relies on “peer review” and logical fallacies to make his point. Actually, I would call the kind of peer review that is common today puts it in the category of a logical fallacy: an appeal to authority. With as many peer reviewed studies and papers that are later retracted being discussed, peer review doesn’t mean very much anymore without a detailed explanation of what the peer review encompassed.
I’m pointing out that the guy makes stuff up. That’s enough. He does. mark often gets caught doing it. I gave an example.
But out of interest, what point did MarkW make that was so worth you doing a song and dance? He called WB an ignoramus. Hardly comment of the century.
Mr. Simon: Careful, the same question could be asked of you- out of interest, what “point” did Beeton make that was worth your song and dance in defense of the fool Beeton? (trick question, Beeton has never actually made a point.) You expose yourself as a fellow fool.
Stop, just stop with the Argument by Dismisal. It is not a valid argumentative technique and just displays your inability to design a refutation. The fallacy is also known as Appeal to the Stone. In essence, a dismissal with no reason.
Maxwell published his theory in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1865. That theory has basically underpinned human industrial development since. So I am on solid ground as are the SI based LLMs. RTT was a useful sidetrack rooted in Maxwel theory but most using it do not know its derivation or how it was validated using Maxwell theory. VIII. A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field
I found it easier to convince SI of Maxwell’s superiority on the physics. It is not nested in beliefs and misconceptions. Present it with fact or fiction and it is not blinded by any beliefs. The latest version of Grok has been curated with Mishchenko papers so it now has that knowledge directly applicable to radiation transfer in and through the atmosphere. I have not tested virgin versions of Copilot, Gemini or ChatGPT but I expect they will follow Grok into this Mishchenko’s superior world of radiation heat transport in the atmosphere.
NASA knew that the Trenberth energy budget diagram was not representative of the physical processes yet they persisted with it in AR6. WG1 AR6 refers to “downwelling longwave radiation” three times as if it is physically meaningful. There is no qualification or caution that they are bookkeeping quantities.
You may be pleased to know that my paper was considered too far out there to be published on WUWT. So I doubt WUWT would publish anything produced by Maxwell or Mischenko but others have.
I have a paper that is of a suitable standard for any scientific publication but I doubt I would find a publisher brave enough. It appears that the curation of SI is occurring faster than changing beliefs where salaries/income and prestige depend on the beliefs.
The false beliefs will die when the next generation start sourcing information from SI LLMs and throw it in the face of their lecturers. It is why academia will change.
Are you suggesting the Maxwell paper or Mishchenko papers have not been reviewed.
Irrespective of review, Maxwell field theory is the basis of a huge body of applied science and Mishchenko’s work is the basis for getting more useful results from directional radiometers.
You are a sad case if you put your faith in profound misconceptions and you have no ability to resolve fact from fiction in your own mind – but you are not alone.
I’m suggesting that the peer reviewed paper should be accepted by those of us who are not experts in the field, and if anyone wants to challenge the paper, they should submit their challenge paper for peer review. If rejected , those of us who are not experts are best served by following the decision of the experts.
The world is changing. The peer review process is now occurring in the curation of models.
Maxwell is the base rock of electromagnetic radiation. Anything that is contrary to Maxwell field theory is wrong. We know that because numerous inventions are based on the understanding that Maxwell provides. Even the S-B equation that gets misapplied to atmospheric radiation was verified by Boltzmann against Maxwell’s theory.
I can convince all LLM models that Maxwell is the foundation of electromagnetic radiation and Mishenko is the only physicist I have found correctly applying field theory to atmospheric radiation transfer. Up till recently the knowledge was not curated into the permanent latent space of the models. Grok has now done that and this post was about getting information from other models.
If you really wanted to do something useful you would have given me feedback from your preferred LLM as I asked – but no you prattle on with endless, mindless garbage just filling the comments with nonsensical posts.
I believe that would be often the case but not always.
The source of heating on the surface is the Sun. If you are on high ground then the optical path for the sunlight gets longer as the sun moves toward the horizon and its contribution to the field at the surface diminishes while the contribution from the surface stays the same. I expect there are times when humans can still see but the surface at that location has heat loss.
Mishchenko admits that eyes are more complicated than he was able to understand. I would like to set up a bolometer on the surface and record when it gains and loses heat. That would provide an interesting insight into the actual direction of the radiation at the surface at any time. Heating means it would be receiving radiant energy and cooling means it would be transmitting radiant energy.
You do realize that visible light from the sun (radiation energy at certain wavelengths) is scattered in all directions within the atmosphere? It reaches me here indoors and reflects so that I can be seen through a window! Any theory that suggests that radiant energy at any wavelength can flow only in one direction at a time is subject to severe skepticism!
There are actually two interacting EM waves that result in a net flux. The big problem is that you can’t add rates, i.e. the flux, because different frequencies, different time intervals, different phase relationships.
The earth *does* radiate longwave during the day as well as at night. The issue is different frequencies for *everything* and different phase relationship even at the same frequency. The resulting net instantaneous energy flow, i.e. the Poynting vector, at any point is really , REALLY complex.
If you truly want to know balance between in and out, each component flux *has* to be integrated over the time interval at which it happens. Outward flux happens 24 hours per day. Inward flux happens 12 hours per day. So you have to integrate outward flux over 24 hours to get a total energy emitted value. You have to integrate inward flux over 12 hours to get a total energy received value. The balance over 24 hours is the difference between the two.
The time interval used has to be long enough to account for the lowest frequency variation in the outward and inward flux. E.g. Orbital influences can have time intervals at least as long as a year. Sun insolation can vary over decades. Heat sinks like the ocean and land have thermal inertia which can cause time variation in heat transfer. And on and on and on…..
Bottom line: Flux will *never* balance. The instantaneous Poynting vector will *never* equal zero. Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) flux will never balance with Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) flux.
The only balance will be ∫ P_in dt = ∫P_out dt, both from t1 to t2
That is a misconception. On the surface there is never a net flux unless you are using time frames that cover the change from daylight to darkness. Or over the period of an atmospheric inversion. There is NEVER co-existing upwelling and downwelling longwave fluxes as showing in the Trenberth diagram. They are bookkinging quantities that bear no relationship to the physical process of radiant heat transfer – they are mythical – as is the Greenhouse Effect.
The E and B fields at any point is the retarded sum of all contributions of every radiant source; basically all matter is contributing to the E and B fields at every point. The resultant radiation is the cross product of those two vector fields.
The problem with summing radiances from all the sources is that their sum can be very different to the cross product of the retarded sum of the two fields.
All contributions from matter anywhere in the atmosphere to anywhere else in the atmosphere will interact within microseconds. Where the atmosphere is getting sunlight, the local E and B fields will be dominated by what happened on the sun about 8 minutes earlier.
A LASER cavity is the best way to appreciate why RTT fails. There are two very powerful standing waves with high local radiances but the Poynting vector throughout the cavity is close to zero.
The bookkeepng quantities that give to so-called net radiation over sub second time frames are incapable of describing observable radiation phenomena like rainbows then it has limited use for any radiation transfer in the atmosphere
“On the surface there is never a net flux unless you are using time frames that cover the change from daylight to darkness. Or over the period of an atmospheric inversion.”
That’s the TIME function I mentioned.
“There is NEVER co-existing upwelling and downwelling longwave fluxes as showing in the Trenberth diagram.”
There are never *net* fluxes in both directions. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t component fluxes that result in the net flow.
Your logic is that during the day the earth can’t be radiating with a Planck curve based on its temperature. That violates Planck’s theories. if that were true two bodies could never reach an equilibrium point at a mid-temperature. The cold body would always warm to the temperature of the hottest body.
“The E and B fields at any point is the retarded sum of all contributions of every radiant source;” (bodling mine, tpg0
Those “all contribution” are the component fluxes. They *do *exist*. The components don’t disappear when they interact, they just add vectorially. Like stacking two 1″ blocks on top of each other. The net result is a stack 2″ high. But the blocks don’t disappear. And since the in/out rates are different it’s like having blocks of different heights. Put down a 1″ block and it’s 1″. But you have to add two 1/2″ blocks to get to 1″. Not a good explanation but maybe it helps.
“All contributions from matter anywhere in the atmosphere to anywhere else in the atmosphere will interact within microseconds”
That’s why I said its really, REALLY complex. Add in things like scattering and absorption and reflection and etc and it’s a real mess! In actuality the interaction should be instantaneous since an EM field supposedly exists throughout space when it is generated. But it takes a little time for information on changes to travel through that “everywhere” EM wave.
“The bookkeepng quantities that give to so-called net radiation over sub second time frames are incapable of describing observable radiation phenomena like rainbows then it has limited use for any radiation transfer in the atmosphere”
I think we agree on this. That’s why I said if you really want to know balance you can’t just add/subtract fluxes, not even vectorially. It’s the energy that has to balance, not the fluxes. Time is an essential factor in the functional relationship.
There are never component fluxes. The electromagnetic field has an electric component E and magnetic component B. Both the E and B components are the retarded sum from E and B fields of all matter.
The E and B field components at a point already represent the retarded contribution from the E and B fields in surrounding matter. A droplet of water 10km above the surface impacted the E and B fields at the surface 330microsends earlier. The resulting cross product of the E and B fields at the surface is the radiation with the fields embodying the information from the droplet. The field at the droplet was influenced by the surface 330 seconds earlier and by the sun about 8 minutes early.
The key aspects are retarded sum of the electric and magnetic components of the radiation. And the radiation is the cross product of those co-exiting E and B components.
Simply adding individual radiances does not produce the same result as adding the retarded E and B fields because the atmospheric radiation is made up of wide spectrum of oscillating fields. Adding radiances can yield a completely different result to adding the fields then taking the cross product.
We are going to have to disagree on this. You are focused solely on NET flux additions. If the component fluxes did not exist then Planck and Boltzman work was wrong.
Two bodies at a temperature above 0K will radiate toward each other based on the temperature of the individual body. Those EM waves interact to form a net flux – i.e. the flux you can *measure* at a point. in time and space.
The interaction at a point distant from each is based on both the speed of light determining how fast information propagates but also on the inverse square law. A time/space relationship.
In essence E(r,t) has a distance factor of 1/r and a time function (t – (r/c) which takes information propagation speed into account.
I would also note that both Planck and Boltzman are instantaneous state functions. As a body radiates an EM wave, the character of that EM wave changes on a continuous basis since it is radiating away energy. That takes time to propagate since it is an information change. The E field at a distant is changing just like the E field at the source is changing, just at a later time.
That doesn’t mean that two objects don’t each generate an individual flux that creates a net flux. They do. It’s just at a point in time and space distant from each, the EM field doesn’t instantaneously reflect changes at the sources.
At a point in space and time, two overlapping EM waves have components of E1 ⨯ H1 and E2 ⨯ H2. The E fields add and the H fields add. The resulting Poynting vector is S = (E1 + E2) ⨯ (H1 + H2) where bolding indicates vectors.
The vectors E1, E2, H1, and H2 will not be the vectors at the sources because of the propagation time for the EM changes to reach that point in space. But what happens at that point at any time is only determined by the vectors at that point in space and time.
Bottom line? There are component flux vectors that determine the net flux vector. Those vectors are both time and space functions.
“Adding radiances can yield a completely different result to adding the fields then taking the cross product.”
The vector value of each component at a point in space is not just dependent on the inverse square law between the source and the point being examined. There are other losses that have to be considered. Measuring the EM field at a point in space can’t tell you the EM field at another point unless you can account for *all* the losses between the two points – e.g. absorption, reflection, etc.
One point that gets missed quite often is that the equation S = (E1 + E2) ⨯ (H1 + H2) generates terms like E1⨯ H2. These products create nulls and peaks that don’t exist in either individual EM wave.
When I said it all gets complex, VERY complex, that is exactly what I meant. It’s not obvious that climate science takes this complexity into account in any way. Consider, the radiance measured by a satellite may be at a point in space where the E1 ⨯ H2 and other products have created a vector that is not a simple E1 + E2 scalar magnitude addition. Peaks and nulls will exist.
The flux is the cross product – EXB. There is no flux without the cross product. One electromagnetic field and two components; E and B.
The E at any point is the retarded sum of all E fields from influencing matter. The B field at any point is the retarded sum of all B fields from influencing matter. The electric field elements sum at the selected point and the magnetic fields sum at the selected point. The cross product of those two fields is the ONLY flux.
This is really important to grasp.
You might think of energy sources as people holding the springs of a trampoline and a number of them imparting vertical and horizontal motion to their spring on the trampoline. The motion of the surface of the trampoline at any point on the trampoline relative to the frame is the retarded sum of the vertical and horizontal inputs from all inputs even the non forced springs, which act as benign matter.
If you ask your chosen SI LLM to provide an analogy to explain Maxwell field theory you might get some useful insight. I cannot even produce a gravity wave on an ocean surface from first principals but I have a fundamental understanding of the energy exchange between pressure and gravity fields. I tried the ocean analogy of surface waves with Willis but I think he thought I was ‘taking the piss’ of him.
I understand how to do a cross-product. I also understand that two EM waves interacting result in a cross-product of the interacting EM waves resulting in a total.
Your trampoline example has multiple inputs, i.e. people holding the springs, whose actions combine to result in the movement of the surface. If you measure the movement of the trampoline surface at any instant in time and space all you will get is the composite, not the individual components.
This is no different than two EM waves, e.g. your “people”, interacting to form a result. Measure the field at any point in time and space and all you’ll measure is the result, not the components.
I’m not sure why you are unwilling to recognize that the individual components exist. It’s the entire basis for Planck and Boltzman theories. It’s how you get peaks and nulls in time/space for the resultant EM wave. If the individual components didn’t exist, you wouldn’t get peaks and nulls.
Hmm. I took my 250 watt infrared lamp outside and pointed it towards the sun instead of my sore back which I usually do. It’s a clear sunny day. I held my hand a foot or so in front of the lamp with my palm facing it with the lamp off. I noted that the back sunny side of my hand was warmer than my palm. I then turned the lamp on, held my hand in the same position, and noted the palm got warmer while the sunny side stayed the same. I then moved my hand further away from the lamp and noted the warmth of my palm declined while that of the sunny side remained the same. This experience tells me that photonic radiation of all manner of different frequencies, intensities and vectors do exist simultaneously. I suspect that I would observe a similar effect if I moved the lamp and my hand to many different configurations. While all of the photonic radiation at any point may sum to a particular vector that does not alter the fact that there can be simultaneous radiation flux of different properties flowing at any direction at the same point.
Well, give me your definition of “matter” first. Even things like “electrons” or “atoms” are not actually solid – unless you want them to behave as though they are!
All joking aside, it gets complicated. Nobody can say how many photons (or how much “energy”, if you will, are contained within say a cubic centimetre of space, because photons don’t follow Pauli’s exclusion principle.
Now, if you accept that all matter above absolute zero radiates IR (many apparently don’t), then two bodies above absolute zero radiate energy towards each other.
in this situation, if one is hotter, then it will cool, and the other will warm, until both are at the same temperature.
Adding heat energy in the form of 100 tonnes of ice to 250 ml of hot soup won’t make the soup hotter.
This is a pseudoscientific delusion held by the sorts of nutters who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter. Refusal to accept reality is a clear indicator of insanity.
I think it boils down to what you can measure. If you stick a probe into an EM wave you will get a reading of the NET EM intensity at that point. You can’t measure the components. What you can do is measure the characteristics of the sources and deduce what the components are that are generating the NET. Measure the temperature of each source and Planck/Boltzman will tell you what it should be radiating. From that you can calculate the NET at any point in time and space. But you won’t be able to *measure* the individual components. In fact, multiple possibilities exist at any point in time and space as to what might be forming the NET!
You are correct that radiances are currently the method used. But it comes with huge assumptions and misconceptions that very few people actually comprehend. The description of the Greenhouse Effect or even its existence is based on false assumptions.
Fundamentally, adding radiances from different points is not the same as adding their field contributions then taking the cross product of the E and B field at that point. You are dealing with time varying E and B field vectors so summing radiances from some distant point is not the same as summing their field contributions at the point and integrating over time.
“But it comes with huge assumptions and misconceptions that very few people actually comprehend.”
It’s more of climate science’s garbage assumptions. In essence they view the radiance as if it were sourced from a single, isotropic radiator where all radiation is normal to a smooth surface existing in a vacuum. So you basically have a direct relationship between the radiance and the EM field.
The radiance you actually measure is from multiple, non-isotropic radiators that have non-smooth surfaces existing in a non-vauuum.
Measuring E and B field strength at a point provides no directivity information since you can’t separate out the individual components.
Another garbage assumption is that you can determine source directivity with radiance by using angular filtering and separated devices. The issue is that only determines the directivity of the radiance field AT THE RECEIVER. Multiple different source component configurations can result in the same radiance strength and directivity at the same point in time and space. Thus the garbage assumption that the radiance from any specific direction is from a single isotropic radiator with a smooth surface.
To break it down more simply, the radiance measurement tells you how much EM power is arriving from a direction. It does not answer how that power got there. The greater the distance from the sources the harder it is to separate out their contributions.
Radiance is a descriptor of what the receiver sees, not a description of the generating configuration. Converting radiance to temperature requires a LOT of assumptions to be made. What you measure really doesn’t tell you much more about the sources than measuring the EM field at the same point. Each assumption required makes the result that much more uncertain.
It’s why I’ve always indicated that my estimate for the measurement uncertainty of the satellite measurements is at least +/- 4C. That kind of measurement uncertainty truly legislates against being able to determine temperature changes in the hundredths digit.
If the UAH data was plotted while showing a +/- 4C uncertainty you wouldn’t be able to see anything except a black page.
I will agree that it gets complicated but Maxwell provided the base rock of understanding that people like Einstein built on. Fundamentally, Maxwell theory describes the interconnectedness of different forms of energy. Einstein used Maxwell theory for the basis of his theory. And he predicted that matter and energy are intertwined – now proven theory.
Einstein described Maxwell’s work as “the most profound and the most fruitful since the time of Newton,” highlighting its foundational role in the development of modern physics.
So-called climate science is the only modern area of science that is not grounded in the fundamental physics as described by Maxwell. The Greenhouse Effect, as portrayed in the Trenberth energy budget diagram, is a profound misconception (Mishchenko’s words not mine) Anything that implies co-existing radiant fluxes is WRONG.
You are stuck with your profound misconceptions. I am yet to work out if you have the ability to comprehend because your remark conveys no scientific meaning to me.
The downwelling and upwelling radiation can both be real. They can create a standing wave that has no Poynting vector, howeve, that requires 180° directions, same wavelength, same amplitudes, same phase.
At best, and I emphasize at best, CO2 at 15 um could only offset what the earth is radiating at that same wavelength. Since some upwelling is converted by thermalization to heat, the downwelling will always be smaller, leaving the remaining Poynting vector going upward.
H2O has some of the same effects but different mechanisms involved. However, the result is that the downwelling radiation from H2O will be smaller due to the lapse rate.
Trenberth’s real problem is two fold, it does not recognize that the atmospheric window exists whereby there is always radiation leaving the earth without interference and that upwelling radiation will always be larger than downwelling due to the lapse rate reducing radiation temperature. The sky is not on fire, it cannot radiate more than it receives. The Planck Curve exists for a reason.
that he is delusional, and refuses to accept reality. Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter, and the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, it has cooled.
It usually cools if the Sun is absent – at night, for example.
You can have upwelling or downwelling radiation but never concurrently. And you can never have downwelling long wave from a cold cloud to a warmer surface.
No one seems to have a problem with G fields interaction at the speed of light but there appears to be very few who grasp the notion of E and B fields interacting at the speed of light.
The electric and magnetic fields for radiation are intertwined by time. Time varying either will be expressed in the other.
Trenberth’s problem is that he misrepresents radiation. He is representing radiances as physical energy fluxes – they are not. The diagram has mythical fluxes.
As soon as you think about netting of radiant fluxes you are no longer thinking in terms of field theory.
Over a daily cycle there will be downwelling short wave from sun to atmosphere then upwelling long wave from around sunset till around sunrise. So you could net out the energy over a day but any sub-second averaging would only show one energy flux – not the net of two – just one flux as described by the time average of the cross product of the E and B fields at the chosen point for whatever duration you choose that does not cross the heating or cooling transition or cooling to heating.
“So you could net out the energy over a day but any sub-second averaging would only show one energy flux – not the net of two – just one flux as described by the time average of the cross product of the E and B fields ” (bolding mine, tpg)
You are still focusing on what you would measure – net flux – and what not on what caused that net flux.
Again, if a body doesn’t radiate then that violates Planck and Boltzman. If you have two bodies they *both* radiate. Each radiates a flux (an EM wave) based on their temperature. Those EM waves interact to form a NET flux that will be what you can measure.
As each body radiates, the temperature of the body will change thus impacting the EM wave it is emitting. The slope of the change at each body will be different because different amounts of energy are emitted by each (if not at equilibrium). Sooner or later (your “retarded” time difference) those changes will result in a change of the NET EM wave at any point in space and time that the two EM waves interact. Thus what you measure will change also. The NET change will be determined by the interaction of the two EM waves at that point in time and space and will be the result of the independent changes at each source.
If the component fluxes didn’t exist and exhibit independent changes then the NET value would never change at any point in time and space. And Planck and Boltzman would be quite upset at their theories being wrong.
You are stuck on netting fluxes and not distinguishing radiances from radiation. There is NEVER two radiation fluxes in a situation where there is a warm surface and a cooler atmosphere. Only one field with two components EXB) and ONE radiation flux.
You are using the wild assumption that radiances and radiation are the same thing. That is what Mishchenko confronted when he joined NASA GISS decades ago now and the misconception still prevails despite his best efforts.
Field strength at a point in space and time doesn’t tell you the directivity of the net EM wave.
Measuring radiance can give you an indication of the directivity of the power flow, i.e. the flux directivity.
Neither allows you to fully characterize the source configuration.
Climate science has to make all kinds of assumptions in order to relate a radiance value to a source configuration. Each assumption adds a measurement uncertainty component to the measurement. Climate science refuses to completely analyze and publish those uncertainty components. For instance, they parameterize path loss through the atmosphere to an “average” value (which they don’t actually know).
It’s the same problem with measuring downward IR radiation. A spectrometer or radiometer or whatever can give you directivity information for the IR field as well as a strength indication but it *still* can’t give a complete description of the source configuration generating that radiance field. Trying to estimate the source configuration requires large assumptions to be made. For instance, trying to measure downwelling IR from CO2 would require knowing the exact CO2 concentration for the entire vertical path of the atmosphere. That is a time/space varying value with all kinds of influence factors such as wind, clouds, humidity, etc. Taking a measurement today at 12pm will encounter a totally different environment than tomorrow at 12pm. Trying to “average” the two tells you what? It actually tells you more about the atmospheric variance day-to-day than it does about CO2 downwelling IR!
And you can never have downwelling long wave from a cold cloud to a warmer surface.
Of course you can – it just has no effect. A cloud, being above absolute zero, emits IR.
“Ah”, you say “then the IR must be absorbed by the surface! Gotcha!”
Not at all. Submerge an ice block in a bowl of hot soup. The ice is radiating IR, but what happens to its energy? The soup cools – it doesn’t seem to have absorbed the heat energy of the ice, does it?
At the same time, the soup is also radiating IR – but this does seem to have an effect on the ice, which promptly gets warmer and melts.
Photons may interact with matter in a discernible way, or they may not. “Climate scientists” simply ignore known physical laws, and employ weird pseudoscientific notions, replete with jargon and misleading sciency sounding terms.
”Slow cooling” becomes heating, “forcings” are magical heating properties, and reality is discarded in favour of fantasy.
In the meantime, you may notice that photons of visible light happily pass through solid glass without being absorbed (if your surface is clean, of course.) IR and UV do interact to a greater or lesser degree, and are “blocked” – depending on frequency.
Here’s something interesting – the surface of a sheet of glass will reflect between 0 and 16% of photons which would otherwise pass through. Sir Isaac Newton knew this, and also knew from his experience grinding his own lenses, that none of his speculations were supported by reality.
A quick look on the Internet reveals that things have not changed much. The explanations from most of the “experts” seem to resolve to “because it does”, which is not terribly helpful.
“Climate scientists” are even less knowledgeable. They believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter!
Do not confuse a net radiative effect with description of component radiations! A warm particle (in a vacuum) radiates in all directions. To assume that it radiates only towards a cooler object implies that it “knows” the temperature of the target. There is a “net energy flow” only in one direction, but both “hot” and “warm” particles are radiating as best they can.
Be careful with this. A single atom or molecule won’t radiate continuously not will the EM wave be isotropic. This is what Planck ran into. He had to define his “oscillator” to be large enough to have enough radiating “particles” so that it would look like it’s radiating a continuous wave that is isotropic.
A warm particle (in a vacuum) radiates in all directions.
Again clearly stuck with your misconceptions. The photon Gattling gun.
Never mind Maxwell field theory – he was just a two- bit mathematician trying to confuse the real people who really know how things work. And Mishchenko was a failed physicists trying to make a name for himself. By claiming RTT was based on a profound misconception.
The backing of mirrors conduct the E component so it produces a magnetic field while the B component induces an E component so the wave energy is reversed. The flux is reversed and the Poynting vector into the mirror is zero with a perfect mirror. There is no flux into the mirror and the same flux leaves. The flux has done no work on the mirror but there is real radiant pressure, which Maxwell calculates. And was the basis for Bolzmann’s proof of Stefan’s observation of thermal energy transfer.
The Earth does not thermally absorb all income EMR. Cloud articles in particular reshape primarily the electric field component and can redirect some of the energy flux.. This is commonly known as “reflection”. But there are other observed atmospheric effects of the field shaping such as rainbows. The colours and the characteristic arc are all explained by Maxwell field theory but beyond the comprehension of those stuck in the RTT domain of shooting photons and netting radiances.
An interesting question and not one I have seen before. I asked grok with no introductory prompting. The full answer is a bit long to paste, but the conclusion is that the statement is true…
Consequently, the upwelling and downwelling arrows that appear in the Trenberth (or similar) global energy-budget diagrams are bookkeeping quantities obtained from solutions of the RTE. They are not two coexisting physical radiant-energy fluxes. The only physical electromagnetic energy flux at any point is the single time-averaged Poynting vector. The separate “up” and “down” irradiances are useful computational intermediates for calculating net flux, heating rates, etc., but they do not correspond to simultaneous bidirectional physical energy transport.
The wave nature of EM is interpreted in the S-B equation to be a continuous wave proportional to Thot⁴ and another proportional to Tcold⁴ radiating from the hot and cold surfaces. This is a direct outcome of the logic of several surfaces of different temperature radiating between each other. The surface flux is the amount of heat that would have to be supplied to the surface if it was radiating to outer space at absolute zero. The cold number cancels part of the hot number. Theoretically you could do the calculation for any convoluted envelope you imagine…however we prefer to stick to the actual surface shapes to keep the numbers simpler…I don’t know if that helps dispel your mental illusion that there is only 1 flux involved rather than a summation of fluxes.
Grok is just a search engine finding consensus amongst various articles. Then agglomerating, and rewording to avoid copyright issues….Unfortunately the articles on this topic are generally aimed at junior high students and heat transfer beginners so you run a risk of its interpretation coming from an incorrect consensus…Which should reduce over time as knowledgeable people take exception to its responses and identify errors to Grok.
Grok has logic capability. It can deduce fact over fiction on the basis of argument and always looks for the higher source. Copilot, Gemini and Chat GPT all exhibit similar capaility in that regard.
On the physics of radiation heat transfer, Maxwell is the ultimate reference. If your theory is not consistent with Maxwell theory then it is not rooted in physics.
Boltzman proved the validity of Stefan’s observation using Maxwell theory. But the Stefan-boltzmann relationship has limited application once the number of radiant sources is beyond one.
Summing individual radiances is not the same as the cross product of the retarded sum of contribution of all matter to the local E and B fields.
We can observe a rainbow. Use RTT to explain how a rainbow exists. Why does all the matter that is producing blue light know to turn on its blue component and all the surrounding matter all know how to align to form the colors of the rainbow in the observed arc. How does the sun, arriving at that particular point, know it needs to be say yellow or blue.
Mishchenko is the most authorities source on radiant heat transfer in the atmosphere. His work is grounded in Maxwell field theory. The S-B stuff applied to the atmosphere is approximate at best and in Mishchenko’s words – “profound misconception”.
Any paper or report that promotes “downwelling longwave radiation” as physically existing is claptrap. I accept the notion of “bookkeeping” quantities but know that is bound to have large errors when it cannot explain observable phenomena.
Thanks Forrest – Grok composed what I posted after I asked it to condense a paper I wrote.
I was hoping to get responses from other LLMs as well.
Grok has now been trained on Maxwell and Mishchenko so gives the correct answer on this aspect. It still “believes” in a Greenhouse Effect but once you accept the mythical nature of simultaneous upwelling and downwelling radiation, it gets difficult to explain such an effect as current described. It makes much of WG1 in AR6 invalid because it is mostly based on misconception of radiation.
If there are not “two coexisting physical radiant-energy fluxes”, then how does grok explain that a spacecraft would see radiation from the Earth at the same time that the Earth gets sunlight?
I’m having trouble getting my reply to post, but the short answer is that grok says true.
An interesting question and not one I have seen before. I asked grok with no introductory prompting. The full answer is a bit long to paste, but the conclusion is that the statement is true…
Consequently, the upwelling and downwelling arrows that appear in the Trenberth (or similar) global energy-budget diagrams are bookkeeping quantities obtained from solutions of the RTE. They are not two coexisting physical radiant-energy fluxes. The only physical electromagnetic energy flux at any point is the single time-averaged Poynting vector. The separate “up” and “down” irradiances are useful computational intermediates for calculating net flux, heating rates, etc., but they do not correspond to simultaneous bidirectional physical energy transport.
I did put the question to grok but my reply has not surfaced here.
In the meantime did Trenberth et al actually believe that their diagram was anything other than a flat earth cartoon? The whole global atmosphere with all of its climatic zones summed up as combatting heat rays?
Did they ever show any awareness of the concepts you are discussing?
I certainly wouldn’t call grok intelligent. In fact quite the reverse. I think it is stupid. BUT by asking the right questions, it can be useful in the way that a programmable calculator beats the heck out of using a slide rule or a book of four figure tables.
The question which came to my mind was what Trenberth et al thought they were showing in their incredibly cartoonish energy diagrams.
I have had interesting conversations with grok about what satellites measure. I wonder whether that was what they were thinking.
Last year, Mishchenko’s work did not exist in any LLM. Now his work does.
It is curated information in ways no one understands that is termed its latent space. Since I started pushing Mishchenko into the SI domain, Grok at least has curated his work into its latent space. My version of Copilot also has that knowledge until it gets curated out.
Now that it is in the latent space of Grok, it will soon be in the other LLMs because they cannot be permitted to fall behind.
In a short time, when the university lecturer starts talking about simultaneous upwelling and downwelling long wave radiation and some lazy student asks their SI to compose a paper on the topic, it will describe these quantities as bookkeeping. Then reality starts to prevail because curious minds will start to wonder what is the real physics if these are just bookkeeping quantities with potential for large errors.
The LLM do not abandon real physics once they are given questions on another related topic. They are smart enough to realise that there is no hot or cold radiation. There is just radiation.
Consider, also, the data sources it uses.
In court of law, it is convicting based on the preponderance of the evidence, not the validity of it, merely what it finds the most of.
Consider that in context with modern digital media. One story reproduced hundreds of times counts more than one story not reproduce at all.
Of course there are 2 fluxes….otherwise they wouldn’t cancel each other out to yield the equation…
P = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]….or whatever version of it is representative of your radiant heat calculation. Yes we know that a Poynting vector is an integration of many vectors despite your claim of it being the god-vector….
DMacKenzie
Your comments above are one of the better examples of why SI is changing the world. SI has a profound capacity for logical thought independent of beliefs and preconceptions. I know for a fact that the vast majority of academics have got very good at learning from what they read and reproducing it. However not many are capable of extending knowledge.
I learnt long ago that civilisation learns. Old books are not the source of all wisdom. Although RTT evolved almost in parallel with Maxwell theory of radiation, and it found industrial use, it was not used to develop things like radio, radar and LASERs. Those technologies are grounded in wave theory of light, which exists in a single electromagnetic field and the power/energy flux is the cross product of the E and B components of the field. Each of those components at a point in time and space is the retarded sum of the individual contributions from all matter.
I enjoy reading your posts on EM fields and waves.
It seems that is a major lacking in climate research.
With a touch of radar, one can demonstrate how solar EM can warm the land and the oceans.
In Paris, rioters have smashed shop windows and looted businesses; in Limoges, the town hall went up in flames yesterday, October 17; in Lyon, the tourist office was set on fire; in Marseille, the town hall was forcibly entered, with a door smashed in using security barriers, damage caused inside the municipal building, the statue of Marianne toppled, and an attempted attack on a police station; in Bordeaux, the prefect’s residence was ransacked; a few days ago, the Rennes 2 University campus was vandalized, as was a building belonging to the Faculty of Humanities in Nantes; in Rouen, a building on the Mont-Saint-Aignan campus was severely damaged, with part of the façade destroyed and around 300 square metres of roofing wrecked. This building had been renovated at a cost of 11 million euros in 2020. On October 2, in La Ciotat, a teacher was doused with petrol and then beaten; on the same day, a police officer was brutally beaten.
We also saw a statue of Joan of Arc with a veil placed over her head and a Palestinian flag draped over it…
There you have it. So, long live France, eh! Or at least what’s left of it…
“In the French capital, the main march appeared to be largely peaceful during the afternoon. A group of young people told the BBC that they were “pacifists” who were “just trying to make things change, but nothing is moving”. However, as the day wore on some groups lit fires in the street and torched vehicles, including in iconic locations in the city centre like the Place de la République. Shops were ransacked, at least one restaurant was gutted by fire, and the BBC saw fighting breaking out among some of the groups. Riot police were seen charging at one crowd in central Paris and hitting several people with batons.”
I agree with you that the MSM media are disgustingly indulgent towards the far left, and towards LFI (La France Insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party, renamed by some, and not without reason, La France Islamiste). That said, the far right would never have ransacked university buildings or set fire to a town hall. We are constantly being bombarded with talk of “the return of the dark days,” “the sound of marching boots,” “the return of fascism,” “Le Pen in power = Hitler back again,” and so on. But there is a reason why many Jews and homosexuals vote for Marine Le Pen’s party or Éric Zemmour’s party (Zemmour himself is of Sephardic Jewish origin, a Frenchman descended from immigrants; a “Frenchman by lineage,” as he himself puts it, as opposed to “native-born Frenchmen” like me). That reason is this: the far left in power means turning a blind eye to Islam, which poses a direct threat to Jews and homosexuals.
That said, as I was telling Joseph Zorzin on WUWT recently, the National Rally in power would serve no purpose other than to limit the damage. What would need to be done to restore order in France runs counter to the rules currently in force in the European Union. In this respect, the pro-EU bureaucracy is one of the main forces destroying France, its culture and its heritage, all in the name of a “union” of 27 countries where nobody seems able to agree on anything, except on tearing the whole thing apart.
In the UK the left is regarded as normal and anything to the right is of that is far right. Far left doesn’t exist. That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in now.
Question for Leo Smith are these issues related to immigration from 3rd world countries? You stated in earlier posts Europe has to increase immigration.
The *real* issue is not immigration, per se. The real issue is ASSMILATION, i.e. the melting pot. You can let in a LOT of immigrants as long as their goal is assimilation. You can not let in a LOT of immigrants hell-bent on *not* assimilating but, instead, on social revolution.
It’s interesting that there was a civil war in Algeria, because many wanted to retain French citizenship, and French culture, and many didn’t.
At present, I believe residents of places like Guadeloupe are French citizens, carry French passports and so on. If they choose to move to France, they are merely citizens travelling, not immigrants.
It’s easy to blame “immigrants” for a country’s woes. Maybe that’s the penalty for being regarded as a good country to live in. I suppose we’re all immigrants in one way or another. Some of us just believe we are superior in some way because of decisions our ancestors made.
Answers? I have none, and I’m not sure if anybody has any good ones either.
The radical Left is bent on the destruction of Western society and are now joined by the Islamists, who also seek the destruction of Western society.
And governing European politicians are the cause of these problems, not the solution, so Europe’s voters need to turn away from the current governing politicians and find some competent politicians to vote for.
While we wait, it is time to impose curfews on the protests, and time to send in the military.
Btw, the protestors are using e-bikes to start some of their fires. Take a nice deep breath of that smoke.
I agree. Now, given the artillery that drug dealers and other Islamist scum are hiding in the basements of their apartment blocks, it is not at all clear that we are sufficiently well armed to confront them. In the event of a high-intensity armed conflict, we have no more than four days’ worth of ammunition. Obviously, the suburbs do not have the resources of a fully fledged country (although one could consider these geographical areas as a kind of separatist republic, where French law no longer applies). But you see what I mean. Military unpreparedness is just as dangerous when it comes to keeping potentially hostile nations in check as it is when it comes to suppressing an internal threat seeking to undermine the foundations of our culture.
Charles,
If you have a belief that democracy represents the majority of the people, how close is France to having a different majority? Or, in other words, is the problem one of armed force by a minority or a refusal to change current politics by those in power who have become a minority voice?
How do you count the size and validity of contesting blocks?
Geoff S
p.s. Some of our best times have been in France, but health stopped more travel 30 years ago.
These are excellent questions. I will try to answer them as best I can.
(Please forgive any mistakes or oddities in what follows: I am doing my country proud by perpetuating the legendary French inability to speak English, and foreign languages in general. I therefore have my messages translated by ChatGPT, which seems to do a good job, but does not always produce particularly natural-sounding language.)
The native French population and the descendants of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Polish immigrants, who struggled to assimilate into the social fabric but literally ended up becoming “part of the scenery” (We share the same European culture — I did not say that all European peoples are alike, as evidenced by the fact that the assimilation of intra-European immigrants was very difficult, sometimes even extremely violent), were gradually overwhelmed by another culture when Arab-Muslim immigration began. Two cultures that are too different from one another, that do not mix and can only coexist, more or less peacefully, as best they can. This arrangement held for a while, until the laws of demography began to take their course. Thus, one culture supplants another; at the same time, it has become socially unacceptable for French people to assert their attachment to their nation and French culture. Leftists, who have also added a layer of environmentalist green to their revolutionary red attire (thus becoming the watermelons we have to put up with), have supported these repeated attacks against France, crying “blowback” in the wake of colonialism, invoking a “duty to repent,” and so on. The demographic imbalance mentioned above, combined with an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, has made any “right-wing” opinion socially inaudible. In the circumstances we find ourselves in, democracy (as we understand it when it comes to electing a head of state or members of the National Assembly) is still working very well in our country. (There is a subtle distinction, but I will come back to this when I answer your second question.) Suppose the far left comes to power in 2027: it will be because people have voted for it. The problem is therefore largely demographic: a substantial proportion of those who vote for the far left are immigrants or descendants of Arab-Muslim immigrants. There is also a sizeable proportion of white intellectuals from affluent neighbourhoods, who gleefully spout jargon and are invited onto public broadcasting to declare that France is racist. They are the driving force behind the farcical leftist narrative, and when the French and the immigrants who have assimilated into French culture truly find themselves in the minority in their own country, perhaps these intellectuals, these self-appointed benefactors of humanity, will understand the extent of their blindness. Or perhaps not. In any case, it will not change much.
The final destruction of national sovereignty (national sovereignties, in fact, but I am French, not Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or Greek) through the betrayal embodied in the Treaty of Lisbon, a veritable rape of democracy, also plays a major role in our downfall. In 2005, France and the Netherlands voted NO in the referendum on the European Constitution. The message was clear: the French and the Dutch wanted to retain the ability to determine their own destiny, which of course does not mean that we refuse to cooperate with neighbouring countries! But for cooperation to work, all parties must agree; that is absolutely obvious. In 2007, the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified by all 27 member states of the European Union. There was nothing democratic about it: the referendum had produced an answer that displeased the pro-European establishment, so the text that had been rejected by the French and the Dutch was slightly amended (the substance remained the same) and approved by European leaders. We therefore have an oligarchy that makes decisions on behalf of entire populations whenever it deems it necessary. And so, this is my answer to your second question: even if one of these so-called “anti-establishment” parties (whether far left or far right) were to come to power, it would be subject to diktats from Brussels, with its political choices constrained by the European constitution, which was adopted undemocratically in 2007.
There is, therefore, democracy within each EU member state, but that democracy is constrained by a normative framework that encompasses and structures how those member states operate. A bit like electing a class representative, if you will. He’d better not raise his voice to the school principal!
There is, therefore, democracy within each EU member state, but that democracy is constrained by a normative framework that encompasses and structures how those member states operate. A bit like electing a class representative, if you will. He’d better not raise his voice to the school principal!
Meanwhile Tom I am wondering how you feel about Trumps team slowing Starshield down, so Ukraine can’t fully operate in a war they did not start. A move that has delighted the war criminal Putin and put many Ukrainian lives at risk. And while we talk about Ukraine, why did Trump think it OK to go against the newly passed Graham Act and do the very thing he has sanctioned other countries for.i.e trading with Russia? Seems Trump has one rule for him and another rule for others.
And now I see Trump is saying it is Zelenskyy who doesn’t want to end the war. WTF? Zelenskyy whose country was attacked and is at risk of loosing everything doesn’t want to end the war. Trump just talks crap sometimes, well a lot of the time actually. Let’s not forget Trump is the man who said he would finish this war in one day.
This shows that America’s friends can no longer trust the US MAGA administration.
This is the reason why America’s friends are no longer buying weapons from the US.
The US MAGA administration tells its friends: “Buy Patriot and THAAD systems, as well as fighter jets without radar, from us.”
Then, the US MAGA administration tells those same friends: “You cannot buy ammunition for the weapons you have purchased, because we need the ammunition ourselves.”
Trump Said the U.S. Has Stopped Selling Ammunition to Allies Until It Replenishes Its Own Stockpiles According to CBS News, Patriot and THAAD Missile Stocks Cannot Be Replenished Before 2030 Even if No More Are Used
Donald Trump said the United States has suspended sales of ammunition to allies in order to replenish its own stockpiles. “Lately, we’re just keeping the ammunition for ourselves because we need it.
Donald Trump said the United States has suspended sales of ammunition to allies in order to replenish its own stockpiles.
You hit a nail, just the wrong one. Why do U.S. allies need to purchase weapons and their ammunition from the U.S.? The EU is large enough to provide its own protection is it not? Or, is it too poor to develop and provide its own military equipment?
You betray the attitude that it is up to the U.S. to protect its allies. I hate to tell you this, but no one ever voted this to be the way things are. I don’t recall any U.S. president ever telling an ally that they could not provide for their own protection. France is even good example. It is not a NATO member and does its own thing with military hardware.
The real problem is that if the EU wanted to provide its own military hardware, some of the social programs in the member nations would be greatly reduced. I’ll bet you never thought about how U.S. citizens are subsidizing EU social programs!
11 NATO countries are selecting the Saab GlobalEye aircraft.
The US will have to bear the development costs for new early-warning capabilities to replace its aging fleet of Boeing E-3 aircraft.
Ukraine will replace its Patriot systems with the Freya system next year.
European NATO nations are replacing Patriot with a variety of other systems, including the SAMP/T NG and IRIS-T SLX.
As US arms exports decline, the costs of weapons development will rise, which in turn drives up the cost of the weapons themselves.
With exports falling, the US must shoulder the development costs for radar systems and similar technology on its own:
The Teal Group forecasts funding for the APG-81 and APG-85 at approximately $3.5 billion annually from now until at least the end of the decade. Although this substantial yearly figure is expected to decline—as the Teal Group predicts that air forces will reduce F-35 orders (and total procurement numbers) sooner than currently planned—the vital APG-81/85 MIRFS/MFA system for the F-35 will still account for a total value of $29.5 billion over our ten-year forecast period. This represents one of the largest—if not the largest—military electronics programs in the world.
And why does the US need to “replenish its own stockpiles”? Because NATO refuses to aid in keeping the Red Sea and Hormuz open for trade to…Europe! Too busy sending aid to Zelenskyy to keep killing Russians and …Ukranians!
It’s said that Turkey has the best army in European NATO. We’re just not sure whose side they’d fight on.
In the Iraq War, the Bush administration utilized a “coalition of the willing.”
A coalition of countries was assembled prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Regarding the current conflict with Iran, Israel and the US attacked Iran, and the US subsequently sought assistance from other nations after the conflict had already begun.
NATO is a defensive organization and is not permitted to attack other countries.
The US did not assemble a coalition of nations before attacking Iran.
The US is acting unilaterally regarding Iran.
Why were American companies compelled to leave Russia?
McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Starbucks, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Boeing, and others.
It’s still always worth visiting for everything related to cultural heritage. There are also other cities besides Paris (Metz is very beautiful, as the whole world was able to see during the broadcast of the Pope’s visit, and of course, the cathedral is magnificent). Poitiers, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Lyon, Le Mans (famous for the 24 Hours of Le Mans motor race), and the French countryside is beautiful too, although in many places it has been disfigured by wind turbines. Given the geographical area covered by mainland France, the diversity of its landscapes is staggering.
Take Thailand, for instance. Locals have had some painful experiences with the “French Arabics”, who were not given that nickname for nothing. It takes a lot to make a Thai person lose their temper. Once you’ve managed that, you’d better start counting your limbs before getting a well-deserved beating. The Thai also know how to distinguish between “French Arabics” and “French”, who are tourists like any others, friendly and interested in the country they are visiting.
Even in Morocco, people no longer want these “French Arabics”, who physically resemble the people of Fez, Tetouan or Casablanca, but when it comes to respecting others and authority, that’s another matter entirely. A friend of mine, Mohammed, teaches French in Morocco. In addition to speaking and writing my language impeccably and possessing truly admirable cultural knowledge, he maintains a perfectly healthy and respectful relationship with his students. They sit down and listen to what the teacher has to say. When someone has a question, they raise their hand to be given the floor, ask their question, and the teacher answers it. Just a normal world, really. The world as it should never have ceased to be. I warned my friend that if he came to France, he might be in for a painful surprise at the state of French youth, particularly those of Maghrebi origin. There is absolutely nothing in common between them and him.
I couldn’t say. I don’t think so. There may well be an element of that, yes. But I don’t see any clear, coherent ideological structure behind this movement. I fear this may be a sort of dress rehearsal for what could happen if a party labelled far-right wins in 2027.
Initially, the protests were legitimate: people were protesting the high cost of living, demanding better classroom conditions (heating in winter, air conditioning in summer), and calling for less overloaded schedules. Whatever anyone may say, you simply cannot learn effectively when you have ten-hour school days with only a one-hour lunch break, especially if you come from a rural area with poor school bus connections. Then, far-left-aligned vandals seized the opportunity to join in and smash everything up.
The answer to your question can be found in the message I sent to don k. further down. More broadly, it is striking to see how empty slogans, destruction, and looting (with people treating it all as some kind of festive occasion, which is horrifying to watch) have supplanted the basic demands. Quite a few young people were already just going along with the movement without really knowing why, simply because everyone else was taking part. Very quickly, chaos and destruction became ends in themselves.
Muslims flee from Islamist oppression in countries governed by Islamist regimes.
They bring this Islamist oppression with them to the countries to which they migrate, using Islam to oppress both fellow believers and the inhabitants of their host nations.
This demonstrates that Islam is a religion that oppresses both its own adherents and the society in which they live.
Does WUWT intend to address the fact that the USCRN data (surface temperature data from ‘pristine’ sites throughout the Continental US) is warming at a faster rate than that from the equivalent ClimDiv sites (non-pristine sites where adjustments are necessary)?
USCRN starts in Jan 2005 and currently (up to September 2026) shows a warming rate of +1.01F (+0.56C) per decade, versus the ClimDiv warming rate of +0.86F (+0.48C) per decade over the same period. Almost 22-years of comparable data and the ‘pristine’ sites are warming faster than those for which adjustments are made.
Climate Science:
-All measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels.
-Distribution variance is not a metric for uncertainty and can be ignored.
-Mid-range temperatures are the mean of the daily temperature distribution.
-Sampling uncertainty is measurement uncertainty
-Resolution limits can be ignored by using averaging
-Weighting averages by the associated distribution variance isn’t needed
-since temperatures are auto-correlated so is measurement uncertainty
-you can average intensive properties from different measurands
-the global temperature field is homogenous and constant, so it can be described by an average value
-temperature determines climate
-the mid-range value of the temperature profile is a TRUE VALUE.
I could go on but it’s useless. Climate science is stuck at 1900 methods and practices while other disciplines like Ag science and HVAC engineering have moved on to more advanced methods and practices.
Is climate science EVER going to acknowledge that temperature does not define climate? It’s not even a major factor in climate. The central plains of the US and much of central Africa have the same climate but vastly different temperatures.
How can you “average” the two areas together and conclude that “climate” is changing?
How can you conclude that a difference of 1C in the Arctic represents *climate* change when Tmax is < 0C? Energy balance and temperature response are not even directly proportional due to latent heat (phase changes) versus sensible heating.
The measurement uncertainty budget for the CRN sites don’t even have an entry for microclimate effects on measurement uncertainty. The line exists but it is blank.
Conclusion: Two inaccurate measurements don’t make an accurate one!
They are both savannah’s! Same types of flora (lots of grass) and fauna (grazing herds with predators). The central plains of the US are not typically semi-arid desert, that applies to the HIGH Plains of the US.
The problem with climate classifications is that they are not generally associated with survival ability. That is where the concept of “biome” comes into play. Savannahs with the same time of fauna and flora represent survival ability that results from a biome that is mostly independent of temperature.
The steppes of Eurasia and the Argentine pampas are quite similar to the US Great Plains and the African savannahs. Yet the temperatures of each are quite different. (the Great Plains and Argentine pampas are probably the most similar).
I first became aware of all this when studying Freeman Dyson’s criticism of the “global climate models”. The models and not holistic at all. They don’t really account for “climate” at all. They simply do not consider most of the factors that actually affect the ecosystems we live in which is the true metric for the globe. Temperature is probably the least effective metric that is possible!
The measurement uncertainty budget for those “pristine” sites don’t even include a factor to account for the micro-climate they are located in. The fact that micro-climate is a factor is recognized but the budget actually says that no attempt to quantify it is made. The entry is blank.
So just how do we know what those pristine sites are measuring and if a trend actually exists or not. Two inaccurate measurements don’t make an accurate one!
Didn’t know about- stopped reading most forestry information since even they tend to support the climate emergency nonsense- that is, the burro-ocracies and academics who write forestry stuff. But I know a forester, born in MA, but who spent many years working in WV forestry- and I’ll have to see what he knows about it. I’m amazed that the 200 acre chestnut orchard has survived without it entirely being damaged by the chestnut blight. Around 2012 I attended a forestry event here put on by the American Chestnut Foundation which I believe is in Virginia. They’ve been working on this problem for many years. The guy from that foundation brought chestnuts that were 15/16 American chestnut and 1/16 Chinese chestnut. He gave 3 of these to each of the attending foresters. I planted them. Two survived only a few years. The third survived until last winter- getting maybe 20′ tall. It was a sad day when I had to cut it down. Of course it has suckers coming up from the stump. It was the blight that killed it. Of course if you ask a climatista, they’ll probably blame it on global warming. 🙂
I have been sharing exchanges with Microsoft’s AI LLM, Copilot. I’m still learning about the situation. I would be interested in what you learn from your friend. As I understand it, the state orchard was established in 1961 as a means to comply with the legally-mandated reclamation of mined lands. They apparently sought out native chestnuts, not Chinese hybrids, that had natural immunity to the fungus. Using the trees as a seed source, they provided 10’s of thousands of seedlings to plant on mined lands. I have seen nothing on the survival rate of the seedlings. Unless they took special precautions, the deer probably decimated the seedlings. Something about money was mentioned in the article, but it was never designed to make money. It was intended as a source of native seedlings to help comply with the legally-mandated reclamation of mined lands. Copilot tells me that the survival rate of mature, transplanted hardwoods is only about 10-40%. So, any attempt at relocating the existing orchard will probably be a waste of money.
Haven’t talked to the friend yet. But, the man from the Chestnut Foundation told us that when the blight first started spreading- the word went out for everyone to cut down every chestnut they could find. The problem with that was that many were probably resistant to some extent. Now the same thing is happening with ash. I had a timber sale 3-4 years ago in Berkshire County (far western MA). I marked many of the ash that look diseased but left many that looked vigorous. The state service forester told the client that I should have marked all of them and without my permission told the logger to cut them. I was livid.
Genetic diversity seems to be the way evolution insures that some individuals survive when challenged by changes in the environment or a new pathogen evolves. Some people only see in B&W.
I’m sure that there is less than transparency on what is going on and how it is being handled. There are apparently many strip-mined areas that could provide similar level building sites. Why they chose an area with 200 established, mature trees, with rare apparent natural immunity to the fungus for this project has not been made clear. It is possible that the replanting was mishandled and the reclamation was a failure and this is a way to hide the malfeasance and turn it into a win for the state. I abide by the principle of “Follow the money.”
As I read this the 2023 and 24 OSW auction wins became not viable because of rising costs so there were no bids in ’25 which got the Gov’t attention. There is a draft law which the OSW business association BWO says does not work.
Mostly supply chain shortages I think. Back around ’23 costs jumped 60% or so. OSW has been booming so every thing is short. Governments have been awarding leases like crazy, well actually crazy. For example I think there are only 23 ships in the world that can drive the giant monopiles that hold up the towers.
I’m a big fan of yours on most matters but with regard to the Ukraine war, please stop beating up on President Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy is not the obstacle to a ceasefire. It is Putin who wants to continue the fight.
I assume the reason you treat Zelenskyy as an obstacle is you think this endears you to Putin, which makes it more likely that Putin will make a deal with you, but look at the results, Putin has given no indication he is willing to stop the fighting. You are wasting your time trashing Zelenskyy.
Putin cannot stop the fighting, otherwise he will look weak and ineffective, a look no murderous dictator can afford.
The Ukraine war will be stopped despite Putin, not because of him.
As for buying diesel fuel from Putin, it is a very bad idea, which will cause you some grief if you pursue it, with no near-term good to come from it.
Instead stop the closure of U.S. refineries as a national security issue. That’s what will bring down diesel prices.
I remember a time when diesel was cheaper than gasoline. That was one of its selling points.
It’s a open question as to whether Russia or Ukraine is more corrupt.
However, under Putin, Russia has a clear pattern of invading neighbors in order to seize things that Putin wants.
As an American citizen who has lived through Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Obama, and Biden, I’m not sure Ukraine outranks the US as a more corrupt country.
I love this country, but we’ve had some really corrupt politicians and some really stupid presidents (Ford, Bush/Bush, Biden).
After two years with the MAGA administration in the US, significant positive results are beginning to show in the American economy.
The US economy is booming, and the US export surplus is growing.
MAGA voters have nothing left to complain about.
The US goods trade deficit widened to $132.1 billion in August 2026 from $118.9 billion in July, according to revised data. It was the largest deficit since March 2025, when the gap reached a record $158.7 billion.
Zelensky is never an obstacle to ceasefire whenever he gets the beating.
It has been a standard Ukrainian strategy since 2014 – and the permanent violations of the Minsk agreements that were never meant to be respected(standard western, US and Israeli values) only signed to save the 50K cauldroned Ukrainian soldiers and “to buy time for Ukraine”(Merkel) to rearm them for the long planned war as tool against Russia(Grand Chessboard – Brzezisnky///”Overstretching Russia” RAND corp ) to take over and Balkanize it
and then use Russia Ukrainian style against China to do the same trick against them and fight them till the last Russian.
Your beloved Zelensky who ran on a peace platform (like Your beloved Trump 2)
didn’t just keep violating Minsk and breaking most of his promises(like Trump 2) and went full war mode(like Trump 2) increased the bombing of East Ukraine with up to 1500 shells a day (OSCE)- that’s when and why the “totally unprovoked” Invasion started.
Putin gave several indications to stop the war.
Right after the Invasion the Turkey negotiations were successfully finished and Putin removed his Troups from Kiew , but sabotaged by Boris Johnson – Ukraine this time didn’t even got the chance to break a deal this time as it was never finalized.
Then there was the Anchorage deal with Trump.
Putin agreed – Trump didn’t gave a shit(just as with the Iran deal)
Zelensky then declared in 2023 he won’t negotiate with Russians until they pull their troops out of eastern Ukraine so that
Zelensky can keep on bombing Russian Ukrainians in the east and take the part of Ukraine back that holds 80% of the countries ressources for the sake of Blackrock.
To make further negotiations impossible Ukraine= Zelensky made it part of its constitution that there can be no negotiations if ceeding territory is part of them.
Now to the dictator stuff claims :
Putin is the legally elected head of Russia(even western propaganda Mediazona -BBC had his polling at 80%+ before he was elected).
Zelenskies is illegally ruling as his term ended years ago.
Zelensky shut down or took over Media Outlets, killed journalists ( including US Journalist after he tortured him on a first occasion – Gonzalo Lira) , imprisoned oppositional politicians and outlawed parties.
He is running Azov and other Neo Nazi Squads, some of them even using German names like Jäger-Brigade 152 in honor of their Nazi collaboration under Bandera.
How less of an dictator is he compared to Putin even if your Faux- News Brain believes all the nonsense(including me as Russian bot) that is circulating about Putin?
On top – he goes after the Ukrainian church and is trying to replace it with an inclusive one.
He has LGBT parades and had given former church property to gay activists.+ a Tranny used to be spokesperson of the Ukraine military.
As there is no longterm LGBT brainwashing in Ukraine they couldn’t find a single crazy DEI fagot,
therefore they had to install an American one – Mr. Cirillo.
That’s so globalist agenda you remaining MAGA guys pretend to hate – isn’t it?
How much do you think is Zelensky(who is using kidnapping by pressgangs as standard recruitment tool for his Blackrock -Army) working for Ukraine and how much for the globalist Mafia?
Ukraines digital DiiA Gulag and testing ground forwestern CBDC , surveillance and social credit system may give you a hint.
Or to quote Samantha Power, wife of Obamas MentorCass Sunstein.
” Ukraine wouldn’t have got all the money if they’ d rejected DiiA”
And why do you have suddenly problems with dictators?
You don’t have them with the Arab tyrannies protected by USA, Jordanians King,
Egypts Coup-General Sisi, Syrias terrorist Jewlani.
You didn’t had them with dictator Marcos or the Samoza Clan – en contraire, as soon as the Somozas got removed your country tried to remove the peoples rulers(remember Iran- Contra).
You killed and removed more democratically elected rulers(most recent Imran Khan and Maduro) and created more dictators than anyone else in history in the school of the americas, where they were taught how to torture,to centralize and sustain power in their new Latin American CiA dictatorships
People may start to think you’re a hypocrit and just the right mirror image of the woke left if you now pretend that you care.
As you have no problems with Trumps permanently violating the constitution with illegal wars and terrorizing other countries and kill all the time people on behalf of wall street and Israel you shouldn’t have problems with Putin.
Funny how Democrat wars are never illegal. As to your desire to believe that Russia is innocent and that the US and Isreal are at fault for all the problems of the world. Nothing new.
Most of what you’ve written I’ve never heard anything about, so, I’ll withhold judgement on those elements. The rest is just BS. You need to get psychiatric help. You’re bonkers.
Russia is losing the war that Putin started.
Negotiations regarding Russia’s capitulation must begin.
Compensation for U.S. companies whose assets were confiscated in Russia must be negotiated.
President Vladimir Putin signed an executive order on Monday placing the Russian subsidiary of Illinois-based packaging manufacturer AptarGroup under temporary government control, marking the Kremlin’s latest seizure of Western corporate assets.
Russia has seized the assets of at least 30 foreign companies since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including Carlsberg, Fortum, Uniper, Ariston, Bosch and AB.
The Kyiv School of Economics Institute estimates the pre-takeover value of seized foreign assets at $74 billion, with total losses for foreign companies leaving Russia reaching $170 billion through write-offs, court rulings and exit taxes.
I won’t attempt to debunk all your conspiracy theories. It would take too long, and I doubt I would change your mind even if I did.
When was the last time Putin sent a signal that he is willing to observe a cease-fire. I can’t remember an occasion, even though Trump keeps saying he wants to make a deal. He says the Mad Mullahs want to make a deal, too.
I think Trump is doing some wishful thinking. It’s different when you are dealing with murderous dictators, be they Putin or the Mad Mullahs, that being that murderous dictators don’t make deals unless you have a gun to their head.
Putin is the Bad Guy in this situation.
Zelenskyy may or may not be corrupt, but I’ve seen no evidence he is corrupt. There are lots of accusations out there, as could be expected from propaganda outfits, but not much proof.
Meanwhile, Zelenskyy isn’t taking any money out of my pocket, and he is doing a good job of fighting off Putin, so I’m good with him.
It was the isolationist Republicans who demonized Zelenskyy, as a protest of the war, and to use as a weapon to use against Biden, for Biden’s support of the war, and I think some of this outlook seeped into Trump.
I assume Trump’s trashing of Zelenskyy is an effort by Trump to make Putin think Trump is not favoring one side or the other, and is a fair broker of a deal, and he thinks Putin will buy this.
I don’t think so. If Putin stops before he conquers Ukraine, he has lost the war in the minds of the Russian people and they will blame Putin for all the unnecessary death and destruction for no gain.
If Zelenskyy agrees to hand over Ukraine to Putin, then Putin will certainly do a deal for that, but that’s the only way Putin will do a deal.
If Putin stops before victory then his life will be in danger.
Originating from Sun:
Net/net to surface 161 = 161 upwelling per LoT 1 = 17 + 80 + ((356 – 333) = 23 + 40)) = 63 + 0.9 = balanced
Originating from impossible, “What if?” S-B BB calculation based on 16 C GMST no one agrees on:
Impossible 396 = impossible 333 “back” + impossible duplicate & impossible extra 63 = misbalanced.
Typical, tell only the half of the story that supports what you want to believe.
There’s another way to get Trump to cut tariffs and that is to cut your own tariffs against US products.
“The US economy expanded at an annualized rate of 2.2% in Q2 2026, revised up by 0.7 percentage point from the 2nd estimate, following an upwardly revised 2.5% growth in Q1. The stronger estimate reflected upward revisions to investment, consumer spending, and government spending. “
Anyone know why images have vanished for me in the UK? Am I alone?
My PC is Linux/Firefox but I’ve tried Chromium and also Edge on a Win11 machine. Ditto my Android phone running Brave. All I get is grey rectangles on the top of articles and no graphs etc in the text. Thanks.
Forrest Gardener
October 18, 2026 4:08 pm
Just wondering out loud. How did international football rid itself of the nuisance of vuvuzelas?
The lessons learned may have application on blogs such as this where any attempt at interesting discussion is quite a lot like going to a soccer match in the heyday of the vuvuzela noise.
Why ask now? Just a butt hurt feeling of having my replies sit in moderation while others were beeton about the bush.
I recently downloaded more of the hourly “vertical integral of energy conversion” values from the ERA5 reanalysis model to demonstrate certain implications. Earlier analyses were for selected latitudes. This time we go in the other direction, at selected longitudes.
The values are for all hours of 2024, at all latitudes, for 8 specific longitude positions: 0E, 45E, 90E, 135E, 180W, 135W, 90W, 45W. See the first 8 plots in the Google Drive folder linked below. The horizontal scale is +/- 30,000 W/m^2 to capture all, or almost all, of the individual hourly values. Degrees latitude is on the vertical scale, from -90 (S) to +90 (N) in 1/4 degree steps.
The second 8 plots (numbered 9 through 16) give the mean of all 8784 hourly values for 2024 at each latitude position for the selected longitude. The horizontal scale is +/- 500 W/m^2 to capture all, or almost all, of these mean values.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_dGJGuONo5KuKzrIV2biXxWORJQGCmSB?usp=sharing
From these plots, it is apparent that energy conversion is NOT a zero-sum process anywhere on the planet. A negative value of the annual mean at a particular latitude implies a net conversion of [internal energy + potential energy] -> [kinetic energy]. A positive value implies a net conversion of [kinetic energy] -> [internal energy + potential energy]. This relates to high pressure systems (sinking air) and low pressure systems (rising air) we experience as weather and as regional patterns of typical weather. The mechanisms driving horizontal transport of energy from the tropics to the poles are involved here, including the powerful effect of the latent energy of water vapor and its release in cloud formation and precipitation.
A further implication from the large +/- magnitudes of these values is that there is no sound physical basis for expecting a rising concentration of CO2 to impose a radiative “Earth Energy Imbalance” on the planet as a whole. Please think about this in the context of the recent decades of media-amplified social conditioning about the (poorly named) “greenhouse effect” and emissions of “greenhouse gases.” Rising concentrations of IR-active trace gases are not capable of exerting a perceptible influence, on any trend of any climate variable, that could ever be isolated from within the general circulation for positive confirmation of cause-and-effect. Spectral profiles, whether computed or observed, do not suffice for attribution of a reported “warming” trend.
Backgound: For more explanation, with references, about the long-established concept of energy conversion within the atmosphere, please start with the Readme_072425.pdf document in this folder from last year. Then look at the time-lapse video, plots, and histograms. Readers here at WUWT have seen this before.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
P.S. There is a bonus cell phone video of my laptop screen in the first Google Drive folder showing plots generated in R in a loop script, using the hourly VIEC parameter for longitude 0E at all latitudes for the entire year 2024 at 6-hour steps. Caution – the video is a 250MB file. All of the 8 longitude selections look similar using this display method.
A.D. 2,024 was quite special, the winter-season of the tropical ocean in particular. Could you offer any tips on how your files relate to that record of highly-averaged quantities?
Thank you for your reply.
No, I have no tips to offer about 2024 in particular.
David,
Are you dismissing mechanisms that either give the globe a fixed air temperature over centuries or some other longish term, or controlling the air temperature between “fairly tight” limits as directly observed or inferred by proxy in the past?
To put it another way, can you please outline a mechanism or process that is capable of that control, if you do accept the concept of control.
I am not disagreeing with you, but seeking more detail. Geoff S
Hello Geoff, thank you for your reply.
As you can tell, the main point of my posts on dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation is to show the vanishingly weak influence of incremental CO2, to counter the unsound claims of harm that became fashionable a few decades ago to the detriment of sensible policies.
“To put it another way, can you please outline a mechanism or process that is capable of that control, if you do accept the concept of control.”
I do see a combination of processes and properties that produce a set of highly self-regulating responses to incoming sunshine: the relatively fixed mass of the non-condensing atmosphere, the nearly constant value of gravity, the fixed melting point of ice, the fixed relationship of the saturation vapor pressure of water (and ice) to temperature, the fourth-power relationship of longwave emission to absolute temperature, the prevalence of vertical motions driving the formation and dissipation of clouds, the dominance of clouds over the variable IR emission to space, the latent heat of vaporization and heat of fusion of water, the huge thermal capacity of the oceans – you get the point. All of these and more, together, make for powerful self-regulation even as seasons pass and longer-term orbital and solar mechanisms operate.
I hope this helps.
All the best to you.
‘All of these and more, together, make for powerful self-regulation even as seasons pass and longer-term orbital and solar mechanisms operate.’
I would also add the effect of plate tectonics, which allows us to note that there is no apparent relationship between variations in CO2 concentrations and temperature from the geological record.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals.
I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected.
Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
From post:”…using accepted experimental and analytical techniques,…”.
Why do ask of David that which was not done by the scare mongers of CO2 controls climate?
Bogus accusation, unsupported by any evidence. 😂
Funny thing is, that complaint applies to every one of your posts.
Nope. Since my positions reflect only the body of peer reviewed science, the complaint only applies to Deniers.
Complete nonsense, of course. A sample –
A few delusional authors trying to appear intelligent.
Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter.
Define “denier”. That is a slur. Many of us are skeptics, or “luke warmers”. Many accept some warming due to CO2 increases, but nothing that is worth getting alarmed at. Try and keep the debate civil. Anyone who claims consensus or settled science is not worthy of entering a scientific debate. Climatology seems to be the only branch of science where rigorous, informed, data driven debate is reduced to petty name calling and ad hominin slurs.
Oh really.
Mr Gorman claims the atmospheric greenhouse effect has literally no effect on earth’s temperature. Others on WUWT have variously claimed the earth is cooling, not warming; that the earth is warming, but far less than the scientific consensus; that warming is happening buts its all beneficial; that sea levels aren’t rising; that thousands of scientists around the world are collectively conspiring to commit scientific fraud; and other absurdities.
These are the views of cranks and flat earthers, not serious skeptics. They have fully earned the sobriquet “Deniers”..
You are literally unable to read for meaning and comprehension. That’s ok, it’s the same with most CAGW advocates.
If CO2 caused retained heat then the earth would have become a molten ball over the millenia.
Are you DENYING that we’ve had glacial periods with CO2 in the atmosphere?
Since the measurement uncertainty associated with the GAT is so large that NO ONE KNOWS what is happening, how is one guess better than the next?
Are you DENYING that climate science guesses at the GAT have measurement uncertainty?
Are you DENYING that global poverty is at historical lows? Are you DENYING that we are seeing consecutive global grain harvests over the past 20 years? Are you DENYING that global deaths from cold are at record lows?
Are you DENYING that we haven’t lost a single sea port globally due to sea rise?
Are you DENYING that *all* of the current climate models run hotter than reality is?
Based on what you are DENYING is happening here in reality *YOU* have fully earned the sobriquet DENIER!
“using accepted experimental”, LOL. Show us a paper that has experimental techniques that measures temperature caused by “back radiation” from CO2 and how it raises the temperature of the earth’s surface. Note, not thermalization from surface outgoing radiation, but actual radiation from CO2 that reaches the earth’s surface that causes further warming of the surface. The surface is what radiates and it must warm for additional energy to be injected into the atmosphere. There should be numerous studies from climate science loaded with experimental data from this.
WB is a self declared expert who’s only argument is a declaration that unless one can get a paper published in one of the captured “journals”, anything you say must be wrong.
If you claim that the peer reviewed science is flawed without getting your contradictory analysis published , then your post is meaningless, and likely hypocritical because you fear your work will be too weak to withstand scrutiny by real experts in the field.
Same old boring noise from the beeton troll, nothing changes.
Have some catnip.
Please, don’t piss-off my cat; he already dislikes WB for stealing his catnip.
My bad!
Oh my. I did not realize that catnip had caught on.
Thank you.
*meow*
Nice to hear from you again, WB!
We’ve been through this before.
The Royal Meteorological Society published comments from Simpson and Brunt and others in 1938 to explain to Callendar why his attribution of reported station warming should be reconsidered. My posts about energy conversion are based on the same concepts. Nothing new. It’s just a shame the journals have forgotten or ignored those valid points.
More here. You really need to understand the history here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Be well.
When will we see your submittal to a scientific journal?
Scientific journal 😉
Stop, just stop with the Argument by Dismisal. It is not a valid argumentative technique and just displays your inability to design a refutation. You have neither addressed the scientific areas in his post nor have you provided any evidence that the assertions are invalid. In other words, you have not addressed it at all. The fallacy is also known as Appeal to the Stone. In essence, a dismissal with no reason.
Your infantile musings add no value to mankind’s scientific knowledge. And you know that, Gorman, because you’re too chicken to submit your nonsense to a scientific journal. You know that it would be received with great laughter all around.
Your infantile musings add no value to mankind’s scientific knowledge.
Right back at you.
Ah, but I don’t claim or try to develop science like you. That’s the job of real scientists. Instead, I try to highlight the errors and hypocrisy of Deniers who claim to have discovered fundamental errors in the body of peer reviewed science, and instead post their own self generated nonsense.
All you have done is to proclaim that it’s only science when it is published in one of the “journals” that are controlled by your co-religionists.
And now he resorts to insults. Anyone who doesn’t agree with his religious convictions, must be stupid.
Anyone who proclaims he’s discovered fundamental errors in the body of peer reviewed scientific research , but fails to submit his own contradictory thesis to a legitimate journal is either lazy, unserious, or most likely afraid to have his work scrutinized by experts in the field.
Peer review by journals is an outmoded concept from the pre-internet period. It began to lose its use with the development if Usenet and cooperative editing at least 60 years ago. Today, publishers restrict public access to literature for REVENUE, not for insuring correctness in material that has restricted access. Literature made public here on Wuwt receives MORE peer review than any privately published literature in a magazine or journal. More peer review by EXPERTS, than is done privately.
The mere fact that most literature in privately published material assumes temperature is a metric for climate stands as proof that peer review done privately is sadly lacking. If temperature were a good metric then the Central Plains of the US and Central Africa would have vastly different climates – but they don’t. They are both savannah with similar flora and fauna.
It’s a perfectly legit criticism of climate science. But how many climate journals will publish a 200 word essay documenting any number of locations that have similar temps but different climates or different temps but the same climate?
I can hear the answer now: “It all averages out”. That’s like saying pizza from Domino’s and from Pizza Hut all average out to taste like “pizza”
Your whine about “peer review” is just that, a WHINING argumentative fallacy.
Peer review is alive and well. Eg, the scientific journals ‘Nature’, ‘Science, and others. You obviously don’t know much about them, but that’s no surprise — you’d rather post your nonsense without having to worry about review by experts. You much prefer praise from a friendly, non expert audience.
But unfortunately, neither you, nor most others on WUWT, have a consistent explanation for the behavior of the climate. Mostly you post such twaddle as ‘an average temperature for the earth is meaningless’, or ‘rising co2 isn’t the cause of rapid warming of the climate’ without having a clue what you’re talking about, or more importantly, without making any positive attempt to explain the behavior of earth’s climate, or the physics behind its behavior.
For every reviewer the magazines have there are a thousand on the internet that will do a better job.
Why do you think science is having such a problem today with being able to replicate studies?
IT’S BECAUSE THE PEER REVIEWERS AREN’T DOING THE JOB! Otherwise you wouldn’t get different results from the same experiments.
Please explain to me how the world-wide average of the annual average of the daily extremes of thermometer readings from poorly-located, poorly-maintained instruments bares any relation to any of the multitude of descriptors that define the various local climates around the Earth.
Explain the behavior of earths climate using your understanding of physics
• Over 45,000 studies: Published research literature reviews and database searches (such as Google Scholar counts for “RCP 8.5”) indicate that more than 45,000 peer-reviewed articles have utilized or cited the RCP8.5 scenario over time.
• Tens of thousands total: Independent analyses and commentary tracking climate literature note that cumulative figures have grown past 45,000 to tens of thousands of papers spanning past IPCC assessment cycles.
• Recent annual volume: Even following heavy scientific debate regarding its plausibility, thousands of papers per year continued to use RCP8.5 or its successor pathways (such as SSP5-8.5), with over 5,000 studies logged in single recent calendar windows.
How many of those have been retracted? Zero.
Report compliments of Google AI.
on What basis should those papers be retracted?
The fact that you don’t know that, speaks volumes.
i don’t propose they be retracted, I’m asking Sparta Nova why he thinks they should be.
That won’t happen until the gate keepers decide to one again allow papers that don’t agree with the “consensus” to be published.
The publishers of peer reviewed journals love to see quality work, especially if it reflects a new discovery. But with those criteria, it’s unlikely anything posted by Deniers on WUWT will ever see the light of day in a legitimate journal.
The publishers of peer reviewed journals love to see the check with the publication fees.
You must reference the paper M.Mann had pulled, not due to errors in the paper, but simply because M.Mann disagreed with the conclusions.
huh? if you disagree with David’s numbers, you should publish in those scientific journals WHY the ERA5 numbers and satellite sensors in general are incorrect…they might accept your paper on the grounds of being a new interpretation…while David’s stuff is simply stating already known science in a way understandable to general readers. It is also appropriate for you to state here… why you think David’s numbers are wrong, if you reviewed anything before pontificating…
If David wants to become credible, he should show the gumption to submit his paper to a peer reviewed journal. If he doesn’t, it’s because he knows it’s shallow and bogus
Stop, just stop with the Argument by Dismisal. It is not a valid argumentative technique and just displays your inability to design a refutation. You have neither addressed the scientific areas in his post nor have you provided any evidence that the assertions are invalid. In other words, you have not addressed it at all. The fallacy is also known as Appeal to the Stone. In essence, a dismissal with no reason.
I dismiss postings that contradict the body of peer reviewed science.
So did Galileo…
And once again, WB admits that he can’t refute anything written.
It’s already refuted in the body of published science.
No, it isn’t. If it was you could provide a link to it.
Here you go. Enjoy!
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
And I believe that report included SSP8.5 as a legitimate part of its evaluation. That didn’t work out too well did it. Why are you recommending a paper with incorrect assumptions. Oh, I forgot, your favorite scientists are never wrong are they. Faith baby, faith will provide.
Good God; your ignorance is breathtaking, Gorman. Yet you keep plodding along like the good Dunning Kruger man child you are.
RCP8.5 was not an assumption — it was a CO2 concentration SCENARIO against which the results of other CO2 scenarios could be compared.
You’re hopeless.
Then why did they abandon 8.5? If the models matched 8.5 and 8.5 is gone then the models will *NOT* match the other scenario’s nearly as well. The so-called “error bars” will GROW!
Computer models are not scientists.
Models are only as useful as the assumptions made in the representations.
Not one single computer model used by the IPCC is able to properly represent the behaviour of the planet. If the cell sample size were even remotely appropriate it would take centuries of supercomputer processing to get the first output.
And, the IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a politically constructed organisation charged with the task of proving just one point, that CO2 is the control knob of planet earth’s temperature. Every attempt by them is a FAIL
That is not a peer reviewed journal publication.
Yes it is. It is a summary of the peer reviewed literature.
“That is not a peer reviewed journal publication.”
“Yes it is. It is a summary of the peer reviewed literature.”
No.
It is not a journal at all.
It is not a summary of the peer reviewed literature.
It is a political manifesto, with unanimous agreement by over 130 political representatives.
Nice try, though.
Let me lay out some more catnip.
Red Herring.
“…while David’s stuff is simply stating already known science in a way understandable to general readers.”
Exactly the point. Thank you for noticing. 🙂
I have already “debunked” this particular myth of yours in a comment posted on WUWT just over 6 weeks ago, which started with :
Putting forward empirical / experimental data can always disprove a scientific conjecture (/ theory / paradigm).
While in a Khunian world-view the scientific community requires a new “paradigm” to emerge before they can “get back to work”, history has shown us that it is at least possible for the people concerned to know that the “old” way of thinking … e.g.
phlogistonthe “luminiferous aether” exists … needs to be replaced long before it actually is..
“[I]f we did not have a doubt or recognize ignorance, we would not get any new ideas. There would be nothing worth checking, because we would know what is true. So, what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some of them are most unsure; some of them are nearly sure; but none is absolutely certain. Scientists are used to this.” — Richard Feynman
Of course any evidence that contradicts a scientific hypothesis invalidates that hypothesis, or scientific theory. But since no one has ever found evidence that contradicts the scientific theory that man’s burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, the theory stands as objective truth.
so what’s the Null Hypothesis that accompanied the AGW / CO2 climate control knob hypothesis?
Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change.
I don’t need to submit my material because it’s taken from the body of peer reviewed science, which passed through the expert review process I outlined.
And you have FAITH that it is true. 99% of what you read is not experimental evidence. It is pseudoscience that says it knows the correct answer by torturing data until it shows a preconceived conclusion. Statistical analysis is not experiment evidence. If it was, why would we have built the big super colliders to VERIFY theory via experiment? Physicists could have just said, look we know our models are correct therefore these particles exist and act in this fashion. We don’t need no stinking experiments.
I accept peer reviewed science, but not the contradictory drivel that non experts post, yet claim it’s legitimate.
Non-experts? There isn’t an EXPERT alive that will verify that you can average the intensive property of different things. If you want reference’s and links I can get them for you. Or you can stand on your own two feet and do your own research.
Yet climate science claims that it can legitimately do just that. And says that since legitimate science says you can average measurements of an intensive property of the same thing that you can do the same for different things.
And YOU think published climate science claims for this are made by physical science EXPERTS?
Who are you to judge who is an expert and who isn’t if you believe climate science on this?
Straw man again Gorman. A weighted average of intensive properties — eg the integral of TdA over a surface A. where T is Temp and dA is an increment of area, is perfectly valid and you know it.
“Straw man again Gorman. A weighted average of intensive properties — eg the integral of TdA over a surface A. where T is Temp and dA is an increment of area, is perfectly valid and you know it.” (bolding mine, tpg)
JUDAS H. PRIEST!
You are as bad at math and physics as your buddies like bellman and bdgwx.
What is the INTEGRAL OF TdA over A?
(hint: it is *NOT* temperature)
“over” means “divided by”. Units are degrees Celsius x cm^2/cm^2 = degrees Celsius.
You are dense beyond all belief.
NO! No! no!
Why are those in climate science so ignorant of calculus?
∫ T dA
is Temperature times area
Your units will be °K-cm^2
Do you post under the name “bellman” also?
Because you just did what he does. You CHERRY PICKED something you found somewhere without having a clue as to the meaning or context.
“integral of TdA over a surface A –> ∫ T dA
YOU then are dividing by A again to cancel the cm^2.
What this gives you is an ESTIMATOR for the temperature of that specific area. It’s like taking the average of ten measurements of a water bath to estimate the temperature of the water bath. The average is a statistical descriptor of the temperature field. It is not a conserved physical quantity.
It gets even more complicated. T is actually a function of space, T(x,y). It is a temperature FIELD. You need to be able to write a functional equation describing how the temperature changes inside the area.
Then your integral becomes ∫_y ∫_x T(x,y) dx dy
Now, if your temperature is varying in *time* and space then the complication goes up another order of magnitude.
My guess is that since you couldn’t even decipher what you wrote you won’t be able to write that integral! (hint T(x,y,t) )
Then take it to the final step: Since the earth and its atmosphere represent a volume your T function becomes T(x,y,z,t).
What this means is the your integral will only be valid for the instantaneous time “t” you use. dt later the integral will be something else. And your average for the field will change.
Now the problem with T being intensive is that if you don’t want to treat the global temperature as a field then you have to treat it as separate areas or volumes. So you wind up with things like
∫_y1 ∫_x1 T1(x1,y1,z1,t1) dx dy dz and
∫_y2 ∫_x2 T2(x2,y2,z2,t2) dx dy dz
And can you add the two integrals to get a total? Physical science says no, because they are intensive properties of different volumes and T1 + T2 is physically meaningless.
Did you understand *any* of this?
I see with are dealing with another scientific illiterate, who actually believes that it’s only science once it has been published, and that anything that hasn’t been published isn’t science.
Some unpublished research is certainly valid. But you can be assured that most of what is claimed to be science on WUWT is nothing more than unsupported claims or deeply flawed — otherwise we’d find it in the body of published science.
Do YOU believe you can average the intensive properties of different things?
Beeton,
I asked: “Do YOU believe you can average the intensive properties of different things?”
I’m still waiting for an answer.
Anyone who can’t grasp the idea of weighted averages is truly brain dead.
So you are brain dead. Thanks for admitting it.
Since temperatures have different variances and since measurement devices produce differing measurement uncertainty (whose metric is variance) they need to be weighted on their accuracy.
So the temperature data should be weighted based on each data points variance.
But climate science, and YOU apparently, just throw the individual uncertainties away, so doing weighting based on accuracy is impossible for climate science.
Breaking the earth up into equally sized grids is for SPATIAL weighting which is normally classified as sampling uncertainty.
Yes you do.
Paraphrasing Michael Valentine Smith, “Thou art not God”.
Mr. is correct – you / they DO need to state a scientifically proper null hypothesis along the lines that CO2 is NOT the control knob of climate. Presuming the preponderance of evidence indicated otherwise, we could then accept your / their preferred alternative hypothesis of AGW.
Unfortunately for you / them, there is no physical evidence to overturn such a scientifically proper null hypothesis.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, the Left has successfully obtained the support of a fair number of useful idiots (you / they?) in order to wield the junk science of CAGW as a weapon of societal control.
You do not understand the null hypothesis. It’s not that contradictory evidence is required (it doesn’t exist), but rather that a theory Could Be disproven IF contradictory evidence could be found. And of course it meets that test.
The concept of a ‘null hypothesis’ is basic statistics that even Wikipedia gets right:
“The statement being tested in a test of statistical significance is called the ‘null hypothesis’. The test of significance is designed to assess the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis. Usually, the null hypothesis is a statement of ‘no effect’ or ‘no difference‘.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_test
Pardon the ad hominem, but you really are a bad person.
The theory stands as objective truth? My, ain’t you a live wire this AM? Parse that clause and find the fallacy, AKA, the “wrongness”. You are such the rookie…as I’ve said before, your patter needs work. Reading crap like you write makes my head hurt and the bile rise.
The theory is confirmed by an enormous body of evidence.No contradictory evidence has ever been found.
And I don’t expect that you can come up with any contradictory evidence, either.
Don’t need to-theory is not proof of anything until tested and data duplicated. Do learn the scientific method, its weaknesses and strenghts, and go back and parse that clause. Until then, STFU. The only place for BS like yours is in compost.
Your understanding of science is wrong. ‘Proofs’ are for math. Evidence is for science. And when enough evidence has been accumulated that confirms a scientific hypothesis, then that hypothesis is accepted as a valid scientific THEORY.
Eg, the THEORY of evolutionary change by natural selection, the THEORY that smoking can cause cancer, the THEORY that Earth orbits the sun, and the THEORY that the burning of fossil fuels is rapidly warming the planet.
I’ll quote you. “Your understanding of science is wrong.”
You said, “when enough evidence”, you left out the most important description. When enough experimental evidence is obtained, a theory may be confirmed.
You have a terminal illness in your head because you cannot differeniate between correlation and a functional relationship. Climate science is dedicated to trendology where time is the independent variable and the dependent variable is temperature. To my knowledge no one has proposed a functional relationship between time and temperature. Consequently, the only thing that can be discerned is correlation. Why don’t you tell us what the saying is correlation?
Wrong again, Gorman. Evidence can be observational at a distance, eg, measurements of the spectral lines of celestial bodies. No experiment required. Clueless again
“Wrong again, Gorman. Evidence can be observational at a distance, eg, measurements of the spectral lines of celestial bodies. No experiment required. Clueless again”
You are *still* confused. It’s not the data that’s the problem, it the claim that correlation is causation that is the problem. Without a valid functional relationship explaining the causation the correlation is physically meaningless.
And time as an independent variable verse a dependent variable of temperature is *NOT* a functional relationship.
Stop lying, Gorman. You said “You said, “when enough evidence”, you left out the most important description. When enough experimental evidence is obtained, a theory may be confirmed.”
and your claim about causation is pure fantasy. NO scientists claim correlation without causation is sufficient. You are living in a world of your childhood dreams. Seriously, seek help.
Climate science claims correlation is causation *all the time*.
Do you deny that they assume the autocorrelation of temperature CAUSES the measurement uncertainties of all individual measurements to be correlated as well?
Do you deny that climate science assumes that autocorrelation CAUSES temperatures be the same spatially?
Do you deny that climate science claims that the correlation between temperature and CO2 *causes* temperature to go up when CO2 goes up? Without a single functional relationship being specified let alone experimentally confirmed?
“””NO scientists claim correlation without causation is sufficient.”””
Sure they do. How else can someone look at a temperature trend and say it is CAUSED by increasing CO2?
Show us the functional relationship between time and temperature.
Show us the functional relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Every study that says something happens due to increasing CO2 causing global warming is using correlation and not causation.
Your vaunted peer review never calls anyone one this, nor do you.
Nope. The causation is the enhanced greenhouse effect concluded by all research, (But not known by Gorman)
You do realize that those spectral lines have been determined by experimental means, right?
You realize that CO2’s absorption/emission frequencies have been determined by experiment, right?
Now show us a paper that has experimental measurements of the thermodynamic heat transfer of CO2 to the surface ocean/land.
Planck did experiments of heat radiation with monochromatic heat rays. Climate science should be more advanced than him!
What’s your physics based explanation for the behavior of the climate, Gorman?
IPCC: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The IPCC has sort of modified this to “we only predict a probability distribution of possible future climate states”.
The problem is that their probability distribution always turns out to be wrong, the “ensemble” of models simply doesn’t work.
Example? The greening of the earth has not been factored into any model I am aware of. Yet that greening represents a feedback in the ecosystem that impacts the effects CO2 has.
I don’t know about Jim but *MY* physics explanation is that *CLIMATE* change is effectively zero. There have been no mass migrations due to higher Tmax values. There have been no major port cities lost due to sea rise. Food availability is greater today than at any point in the recorded past. Poverty is at a lower point today than at any point in the recorded past.
Today’s climate, tomorrow’s climate, and the climate 100 years from now are all going to be within the natural variations we’ve seem for literally millions of years.
Your analysis is simple minded nonsense, full of logical fallacies and distortions, Gorman. It’s not worth warm spit.
“Your analysis is simple minded nonsense, full of logical fallacies and distortions, Gorman”
Do you DENY that we have not seen global grain harvest set consecutive records over the past 20 years? Are you a DENIER?
Do you DENY that the globe hasn’t greened over the past 20 years? Are you a DENIER?
Do you DENY that we have not lost any port cities to sea rise over the past 20 years? Are you a DENIER?
Do you DENY that polar bears are thriving rather than going extinct? Are you a DENIER?
Do you DENY that the mid-range value of the daily temperature profile is *NOT* an average? Are you a DENIER?
Are *you* a DENIER?
Beeton:
I asked several times if you are a DENIER.
I’m still waiting for an answer.
I see you have devolved into ad hominem attacks again. You really don’t know how to argue do you? Are you still in high school?
I am smart enough to know that I have no functional relationship to offer that describes the energy from insolation into all the oceans and lands and from there into all the different paths it can take from those places.
I do know that incoming short wave radiation cannot be immediately translated into outgoing radiation. It is first absorbed by the oceans and lands. It doesn’t just bounce off the surface in the form of IR.
I do know that climate science has little research and few papers that diligently show functional relationships of the conversion of insolation into the heat absorption in the oceans and lands.
I do know that climate science has little research and few papers describing in detail functional relationships of how much energy is stored in the oceans and lands and that is not radiated away for long periods of time.
I do know that climate science is OCD with its preoccupation with temperature rather than energy.
If you can show peer reviewed papers that deal with these issues and offer functional relationships for the thermodynamics involved, I will stand corrected. I will warn you, I have perused several meteorological textbooks and have found none that treat ;these issues.
Thank you for explaining that that your answer is:
“NO, I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE BEHAVIOR OF EARTH’S CLIMATE, AND I CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY CRITIQUE WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND”
““NO, I CANNOT EXPLAIN THE BEHAVIOR OF EARTH’S CLIMATE, AND I CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY CRITIQUE WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND””
That’s not what he said.
He said ” I have no functional relationship to offer that describes the energy from insolation into all the oceans and lands and from there into all the different paths it can take from those places.”
YOU ADDED: “I CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY CRITIQUE WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND”
What you added describes YOU far more than Jim.
“To my knowledge…”. That’s the first clue. You have little.
Takes one to know one!
Again, another ad hominem attack. Your level of debate is elementary school playground level. Therefore, this applies. I am rubber and you are glue, what you throw bounces off me and sticks on you!
Einstein used the word Proof very often and you ain’t no Albert…as is evidenced…and you very seriously misuse the word and the concept of “theory”. So, no cigar or pussy for you tonite. My understanding of the word and concept of science is just fine. You should think seriously about just shutting your yap. Better to be quiet and thought stupid than to open your mouth and prove (no theory there) that you are, indeed, stupid.
You are dead wrong. AND stupid.
You still play in the schoolyard don’t you? Grow up and show some maturety.
100%
There is no evidence or you would be quoting it.
You have no idea about science or even logic do you. The lack of contradicting evidence IS NOT evidence of truth. If you were writing code and ASSUMED that the correct input was entered as instructions were given to personnel, you would be writing your own pink slip. That is what you are doing with your FAITH in peer reviewed science.
Experimental evidence is the only way to obtain truth or not truth. You may scoff at Richard Feynman but I guarantee he is your better in terms of science.
Re: Your claim of ‘no evidence’. Read it and weep: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
“Re: Your claim of ‘no evidence’. Read it and weep:”
You mean the report they had to abandon because they had to abandon 8.5?
ROFL!!!
I just love this:
Climate change has reduced food security and affected water security, hindering efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals (high confidence). Although overall agricultural productivity has increased, climate change has slowed this growth over the past 50 years globally (medium confidence), with related negative impacts mainly in mid- and low latitude regions but positive impacts in some high latitude regions (high confidence)” (bolding mine, tpg)
Reduced food security? When food security has actually gone up? When global poverty has gone down?Continued RECORD grain harvests over the past 20 years is a “slowing” of productivity? Just how did they forecast what ag productivity *should* be over the past50 years?
This particular logical fallacy is commonly known as either an “impossible request” or “impossible expectations”.
The Working Group 1 (WG-1, The Scientific Basis) assessment report contribution to the AR6 document cycle is approximately 2400 pages long.
WG-2 (Adaptation) contains approximately 3060 pages.
WG-3 (Mitigation) adds almost 2000 more pages to the total.
Even the Synthesis Report (SYN), which doesn’t include all of the references to the underlying scientific papers, is 186 pages long.
.
If you cannot provide a specific reference — or, even better, a link — to the (singular) paper that “best” refutes a specific claim being made, then your bald assertions about all of the “supporting evidence” for your position is for naught.
If you are unable to provide even a single reference to counter the specific claim(s) being made, then your supposed “supporting evidence” does not actually exist.
QED.
.
As you apparently have enormous difficulty in understanding how “references / citations” are supposed to work, here is an example you can model your future responses to queries for your “supporting evidence” on.
IPCC AR6 WG-1 assessment report, section 1.5.4, “Modelling techniques, comparisons and performance assessments”, page 221 :
The saying you are looking for is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
The typical comeback by climate scientists. But they don’t buy it when it’s used against them.
Objective truth? Objective truth is when experimental evidence exists that the functional relationship contained in a hypothesis us verified.
Until a whole lot of money is spent on experimental verification of CO2 causing CAGW, that will never occur. Without it all you have are acolytes like you who have FAITH in the conjecture of CAGW. That is “subjective truth”.
It is no wonder you have problems with science, you have never learned the difference between subjective and objective.
Experimental verification and data have been accumulated into an enormous body of confirming evidence, so large and verified, that it constitutes an objective truth. Whereas your musings go nowhere.
Do you feel better now, having stepped on others to elevate yourself?
Then surely you can provide us s link to this experimental research!
Show us a paper that has experimental verification of CO2 being the driver of global temperature increases. First, I want to see how a “global temperature” was measured. Second, I want to see the functional relationship that was proven.
Data, lots of data has been collected but so far only correlations have been derived.
This from the guy who proclaims that only papers published in one of the journals that have been captured by his co-religionists, counts as science.
The irony of beeton claiming the IPCC AR6 is a “peer-reviewed journal” cannot be overlooked.
You can’t produce a relevant one, can you?
As to
So burning stuff produces heat? A 12 year old knows that. Nothing to do with any deranged belief that adding co2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
You surely aren’t stupid enough to believe such nonsense, are you?
Do you know that the theory is not that the heat of burning warms the planet, but rather that the EMISSIONS of CO2 from the burning enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect assumes that somehow the Earth can *retain* heat. It can’t. CO2 can *slow* heat loss but it can’t *add* heat. It’s not on fire.
Any heat that CO2 REFLECTS back to the earth is heat that has already been lost by the earth. Since CO2 is not a perfect REFLECTOR it can’t replace all of the heat the earth has already lost let alone add even more.
Planck talked about reflectors in his tome on blackbodies. Any heat reflected back to a source gets handled by new emissions from the source.
I haven’t posted this in a while but it shows what happens pretty well. The quantity of heat lost is the area under each curve. A slower heat loss actually results in a greater area under the curve than a faster heat loss – i.e. more heat is lost with slower cooling. That’s the earth losing the reflected heat.
Still awaiting an explanation Gorman . You just posted utter nonsense
In other words you:
And you don’t even recognize that you are your own worst enemy when you denigrate others for the same thing you post.
Science doesn’t do “proof”. “Proof” is reserved for mathematics (/ logic) and alcohol.
“If you thought that science was certain … well, that is just an error on your part.” — Richard Feynman
.
There is indeed a lot of experimental data supporting the theory that doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere … all other factors being kept constant, which is impossible to achieve in reality … would eventually, after waiting a few centuries to achieve “equilibrium”, result in an increase in the (global mean) surface temperature of approximately 1 (Celsius) degree.
“The planet”, however, is “a ball of rock and metal around 12,700 km (7,900 miles) in diameter”.
Please provide a reference to a “serious scientific paper” that shows exactly how increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will warm “the planet”.
LOL
Theory is never “objective truth.”
Again, you spout religious nonsense.
“Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change”
Hey Wazza old mate, you should be sending this advice to yourself.
Every time you put your fingers to the keyboard, son.
Hey waZoo,
Thats why, unlike you, I never invent fake science. Instead I only use peer reviewed science by experts for my positions.
And as I said before, the troll insults always follow. Infantile.
The idea that only stuff that’s been published is science is anti-scientific. As you must realize since your only response to those who disagree with you, are insults.
If you consider it to be insults, it must be accurate.
There is no “scientific” support for a belief that rising CO2 is a problem, much less a catastrophe that requires impoverishing most of the world.
I notice that you have never tried to refute any of the arguments given, instead you just declare that those you consider to be experts must be right.
I trust scientific experts who agree to have other experts verify the quality of their research. I do not trust non experts who can post anything they want without expert review, and often demonstrate ignorance of basic physics.
Is understanding that you cannot average the intensive properties of different things demonstrating an ignorance of basic physics?
You are starting with the false premise that people on here don’t agree that the climate is changing and that it appears to be getting warmer, you’re being churlish by suggesting it. The problems that aren’t adequately addressed are:
a) whether a global average temperature is meaningful.
b) have all possible variables that possibly affect climate been adequately accounted or researched or modelled?
c) why the fixation on one single variable whilst presuming other factors are constant?
d) the problem of trying to successfully model a complex analogue system on a digital computer.
a)The idea that an appropriately weighted and homogenized data set to estimate an average of global temperature anomalies is well accepted practice among scientists in order to create a proxy for changes in the heat content of earths system. The ‘efforts’ on WUWT are terrible science — employing semantic tricks to claim that such weighted averages are not useful.
b) no practicing scientist would ever claim that ‘all variables’ are accounted for. Claims to that affect are straw man arguments –mostly attempts to discredit the existing research, not to inform.
c) No such fixation on one variable exists. Another straw man argument.
d) the arguments on WUWT are either that 1) models are used as evidence by climate scientists — which is false. Models are never considered evidence by climate scientists. Or 2) that models are so inaccurate as to not be useful — which is also false since considerable published work shows that the models have accurately predicted — within specified error bars– current climate trends with the inclusion of anthropogenic climate forcings.
And it is clear that the denizens of WUWT spin their wheels trying to claim that the body of peer reviewed science is deeply flawed. Yet they never publish their own claims in scientific journals, leading to the unavoidable conclusion that they are either unserious or know that their ideas have no merit and would be shredded by experts in the field.
Pushing Fake Data, good job well done.
Have some more catnip.
“The idea that an appropriately weighted and homogenized data set to estimate an average of global temperature anomalies is well accepted practice among scientists in order to create a proxy for changes in the heat content of earths system.”
Accepted by what scientists? Climate scientists? That’s a circular argument. “This” is accepted by climate scientists because it is said by climate scientists.
What is well accepted by climate scientists is *not* accepted by other scientists. That’s why Ag science was the first to find extended growing seasons based on Tmin changes. Climate science missed it because they focus on a mid-range temp. Ag science started using integrative heating/cooling degree days to measure heat accumulation and find its effect on crops – while climate science is still stuck on using a mid-range temp for an obviously non-Gaussian daily temperature profile.
And HEAT CONTENT? Climate science doesn’t do squat with heat content. They only focus on TEMPERATURE, thus not only missing latent HEAT content but also missing thermal inertia effects of land and ocean on heat content throughout the thermodynamic system known as Earth.
“ global temperature anomalies”
What is the variance of those anomalies? You need at a minimum TWO different statistical descriptors to have a legitimate representation of a distribution. One is the mean. The other is the variance of the data used to calculate the mean.
WHAT LINKS DO YOU HAVE GIVING THE VARIANCE OF *ANY* CLIMATE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS?
Legitimately, you should really have the 5-number statistical descriptor in order to see if the distribution is Gaussian or skewed.
Climate science? They just assume EVERYTHING is Gaussioan!
Beeton:
I asked “WHAT LINKS DO YOU HAVE GIVING THE VARIANCE OF *ANY* CLIMATE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS?”
I’m still waiting for an answer.
I know I’ll be waiting a long time because there aren’t any such links.
It’s an area where you have to have enough knowledge of thermodynamics to be able to think it through on your own, your so-called peer reviewed climate scientist publications won’t help you.
“no practicing scientist would ever claim that ‘all variables’ are accounted for. Claims to that affect are straw man arguments –mostly attempts to discredit the existing research, not to inform.”
No practicing scientist would claim correlation is causation. But climate science does!
No practicing scientist would put forth a hypothesis without following up with at least an attempt to provide a functional relationship among the variables. Without that you have no way to determine future states. BUT CLIMATE SCIENCE DOES! Climate science substitutes data matching past data in order to forecast future states. They cherry pick a piece of a cyclical process and use that piece to create a linear progression forward.
Have you *ever* seen climate science predict what “global warming” will do to the timing of the next glacial period?
“No such fixation on one variable exists. Another straw man argument.”
Apparently you’ve never read the IPCC reports. Why do you think they abandoned the 8.5 scenario which was driven mainly by CO2 growth?
The error bars are the boundaries of the various models in the ensemble. That’s not really ERROR bars. That’s just the variability in the models. It does *NOT* say that *any* of the models are accurate. If they were all wildly inaccurate, predicting the end of the earth TOMORROW, the error bars wouldn’t tell you that was wrong!
Not a single physical scientist that I know believes you can average the intensive properties of multiple things and get a physically meaningful value.
Yet climate science is based on believing you *can*. Their entire edifice is based on the assumption that if you hold two rocks in your hand, one at 70F and the other at 60F that you have a total of 130F in your hand.
It’s based on the statisticians dream that numbers is just numbers and you can average anything. It doesn’t have to make sense in the real world.
It also ignores the fact that the global temperature is a field, constantly varying in time and space. Climate science just assumes everything is Gaussian and any variance in the field cancels leaving a homogeneous, constant field that can be described by an average value. They don’t even take all their measurements at the same time everywhere! How can you even develop an instantaneous average value if you don’t take all of your measurements of a time/space varying field AT THE SAME TIME!
I know you won’t have a single refutation of any of this. That’s ok, neither does climate science. They always just fall back on the assumption that everything is Gaussian and cancels.
None of these criticism are flawed. They are just ignored. Like any religious fanatic does.
The very fact that weighting and homogenization must be used is evidence that the data is is not appropriate for use.
Temperature is a poor, very poor proxy for heat energy. This is due to latent heat in H2O. Without the ability to know enthalpy one simply can not compare temperatures with a simple average.
Averaging intensive properties is done in no physical science disipllne except under very prescriptive conditions. Climate science does not meet those conditions.
Climate science peer review is condemed by the declaration that SSP8.5 was declared improbable. Tell us who and in what paper a prominent climate scientist delared it to be implausible. Why did no one step up to the guillitine and issue a peer reviewed paper with a refutation?
Sceptics tried, many times. How many of their papers were rejected? Peter Ridd was fired for being a sceptic. Nature wouldn’t publish Happer and Wijngarden or Dr. Soon. Your trumpeting peer review is not a good look.
“The very fact that weighting and homogenization must be used is evidence that the data is is not appropriate for use.”
This only affects SAMPLING uncertainty. It has nothing to do with measurement uncertainty.
However, predictions are based on digital mathematical models when the complete system is analogue, which immediately causes rounding errors. There are assumptions made that may or may not be true or even applicable.
For the past two years the sun has been very active as demonstrated by the appearance of Aurora Borealis in the south of England, a phenomenon that I cannot recall happening before in my life. Has this been modelled? Has anyone hypothesised what effect all of this activity could have on our atmosphere?
Please write a mathematical expression that describes the Earth’s climate in its entirety.
Your final sentence is a clear case of appealing to authority.
If you cannot challenge a hypothesis then that is no longer science but religious dogma.
The causes and effects of the enhanced greenhouse effect are summarized in the IPCC Assessments. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
Again it is predicated on anthropogenic emissions as being the sole reason for climate change.
Not predicated. The data and physics EXPLAINS that anthropogenic emissions are the cause of modern day rapid warming of the climate.
The measurement uncertainty of that data is such that it can *NOT* provide for KNOWING anything about the effect of anthropogenetic emissions.
Have *YOU* seen the magical crystal ball that lets climate science look into the Great Unknown like the carnival fortune teller?
Can you provide us a picture of it?
For your information Mr. Beeton. Depending on the field, between 35% and 70% of peer reviewed science papers cannot be replicated. This alone makes peer review as a gold standard nonsense. The worlds scientific community awaits your response.
I await your evidence for such nonsense.
“I await your evidence for such nonsense.”
go here: 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility | Nature
Metrology methods and procedures require one to specify the measurand in sufficient detail to allow replication by later users. Many of these aren’t replication “failures” but process failures in specifying the measurand in sufficient detail. Or in not describing the measurement process and method in enough detail. These are accidental discoveries in a sense, a *good* thing.
*AND* sometimes because standards aren’t specified in enough detail or are not kept up to date.
Climate science suffers greatly from not specifying measurands sufficiently as well as methods and procedures. For instance, microclimate influence on temperature measurements is not even included in the measurement uncertainty budget for CRN stations. Part of the calibration of the CERES satellites is done using cross-comparison between the satellites. That’s a real no-no because it just spreads calibration uncertainty around throughout the network. And that is not included in their measurement uncertainty budget. It may be a necessity caused by lack of easy access for using external calibration on a routing basis but that’s no reason to ignore it.
My guess is that you have absolutely *NO* real world knowledge of either the subject or the engineering details that *should* be considered in temperature measurements.
Just blind faith in your CAGW bible.
More unsupported assertions from the King of unsupported assertions. your childhood dreams are active
Is one of your peer reviewed papers in climate science the measurement uncertainty budget for CRN stations? For CERES satellites?
If you can’t then you can’t claim that my assertions are unsupported. You see, I *HAVE* researched those documents. I *found* them. Let’s see you do the same!
Still awaiting a valid physics based explanation from you for the behavior of the climate, Gorman. So far, you’ve been an abject failure.
It is a peer reviewed paper published in Nature.
How Dare You!
You don’t know the difference between data measurement and a physics based explanation for the behavior of the climate?
Splendid.
The catnip worked!
Laughing at your idiocies.
Physics based hypothesis’s HAVE to be confirmed by experimental observations to be considered a “theory”.
The data measurements climate science uses are 1. not fit for purpose and, 2. have so much measurement uncertainty that they can’t confirm anything.
Do you understand that other disciplines like Agricultural Science and HVAC engineering have abandoned the methodology that climate science uses because it isn’t fit for purpose?
Have you ever seen or read “Fiddler on the Roof”? You, climate science, and Teyve could form a club named “TRADITION”. Climate science uses scientific methodology formulated in the 1600’s. It just uses fancier equipment today that is *STILL* being used with the same old, outdated methodology.
Print his out, frame it, and post it on the wall above your computer.
TEMPERATURE IS NOT A METRIC FOR CLIMATE!
Do you want that evidence peer reviewed?
The only reliable evidence for changes in the planet is to be found in data. Arguments count for nothing and all intelligent human beings are capable of assessing data given sufficient experience with whatever phenomenon is being discussed.
Not one single persistent commentator OR author of anything here at WUWT remotely resembles a”climate denier” or claims that there has been no mild, slow warming very recently in the history of mankind as well as of the present living generations.
People you would call “climate scientists”, and demand that we respect, have been exposed as deceitful, conspiring to alter their outputs in concert. I, and many others, know them to be frauds.
I, and many others, are sure and certain that the “hockey stick” is appallingly BAD use of doctored data.
We also know that currently, the use of the concept “peer review” departs from the true scientific tradition which mandated that all work published be DUPLICATED INDEPENDENTLY or DEBUNKED independently with reliable date.
Keep up your pestering, you are the class clown helping us to recall just how much we know more than you do, how much more experienced we are as scientists and just how gullible and open to being deceived are many people at all levels of society.
You aren’t watching. Many commenters deny the role of CO2 in the climate entirely, others claim it’s vanishingly small and of no consequence. No one -/ and I mean no one — has ever published. These guys are not scientists and not even worthy amateurs. None have a consistent concept of the behavior of the climate, nor a physics based explanation for its behavior. Some, like Gorman , indulge in minutia , others in snark. But they do share a common trait — a religious belief that mainstream science must be wrong about the climate. Unfortunately, none present a viable alternative explanation for what’s occurring.
When will your paper be published revealing this amazing foundational error in the science?
It’s published here every single day. Your ability to read and comprehend it is the problem.
No one is denying ANYTHING. The criticism is that climate science can’t really demonstrate what is actually happening. Their data has so much uncertainty that NO ONE KNOWS! When they assume that measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels so they don’t have to propagate it from the ground up through all their average hierarchies it’s sure giveaway that they don’t actually *KNOW* what is happening!
They even have to stoop to doing things like claiming that uncertainty doesn’t compound at each calculation step in their models. Or that you can increase accuracy by averaging inaccurate data. Or that sampling uncertainty is measurement uncertainty.
“a religious belief that mainstream science must be wrong about the climate.”
You don’t even know enough science and math to understand the criticisms being made of climate science.
NOT KNOWNG ≠ WRONG.
My guess is that this will just go into one of your ears and out the other just like everything else.
Heard of Happer?
Yes. But he’s never published a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal that contradicting or disputing the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet.
He argues the warming is trivial. As does Lindzen, and Curry, and many others. We accept some warming, but its no catastrophe
Yes I know. And the views of those you refer to are fringe, out of the mainstream of thousands of other scientists. I hope they’re right. But I’m not going to base mitigation policy on fringe ideas, .
Risk = probability times consequence. I think it’s bad risk management to assume the minimal impact predicted by less than 0.1% of scientists.
It doesn’t matter. Whether there is or is not global warming, and if so how much, and whether its dangerous or not, none of that matters to the only thing that does matter here: energy policy.
The proposed remedies of the alarmed are impossible to implement, unaffordable to try at scale, ineffective even if implemented – and have been rejected by all the bigest and fastest growing emitters.
The only proposed remedy is to lower emissions by converting electricity generation to wind and solar, while at the same time converting energy use applications to electricity. So we have, for instance, in the UK the drive to install lots of wind and solar, to close down all other forms of generation, while at the same time converting heating to heat pumps and transport to EVs.
This is impossible because of intermittency. Its unaffordable because of the need to remedy intermittency, and also the need to construct this enormous new transmission network from the north coast of Scotland (where surprisingly there is little or no demand) to the places where there is demand in the Midlands and South East. And it would be ineffective if done because the UK only does around 1% of global emissions, and China, India, Indonesia etc are all growing their emissions as fast as economic growth requires. They have no intention of stopping and only come to COP to make sure it makes no decisions.
And not only that: the proposed program anyway only addresses a fraction of UK energy use and emissions.
One understands why you keep railing against ‘deniers’ of CAGW. Its much easier to demand belief in a theory than it is to propose any specific effective and affordable measures. And if you are an activist, its much better – what you want to do is make demands which cannot be met, because you are using the issue as something to organize around, not something to remedy.
This is what is going on here. Everyone who replies to Mr Beeton should realize this and consider their replies accordingly. Arguing in vague and emotional terms about the evidence for global warming, the merits of the peer review system in this particular case… all that is pointless and actually furthers his agenda.
Instead ask what specifically he is advocating doing. Answer will come there none, or it will be something silly about global emission reductions, which are clearly not happening or going to happen.
You can see from the UK disaster what happens when a country actually tries to implement the program. Electricity prices go through the roof, industry closes. Emissions do not fall. There is absolutely no effect on global temperatures, and cannot be any.
Don’t ask is it warming. Who cares? Ask why are we doing this. And none of them know.
Here we go again.
The Grand Appeal to the Authority of Peer Review.
So, if one is not beknighted as an Authority, one can only play the part of Sergeant Shultz?
So, basically all scientific discoveries, prior to the formal peer review process introduce in the 1970s, is not valid science.
Your non-stop idiocies continue.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
— Albert Eintstein
He’s a one-trick pony, for sure.
Hocus pocus handwavium.
NS- Vituperationem tuam animadverto. Nihil refert.
I am replying to myself to express appreciation for the continuing opportunity to post material on the Open Thread – “A place for discussion.” Today, it certainly worked. Thank you WUWT.
The material I posted today originates from the ECMWF, the organization responsible for the ERA5 reanalysis model. The source files were downloaded from the related Copernicus Data Store, which is the recognized portal. The processing and plotting uses standard operations and functions in R. It is all very straightforward. No tricks, nothing hidden.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for all the work you do on this forum. As for WB, I gave up arguing with idiots a long time ago.
Sorry, but that’s nonsense.
The surface (including the 70% or so that is ocean) warms up if it receives sufficient sunlight. When deprived of sunlight, it cools.
The Earth is roughly spherical, held together by the force of gravity, which keeps the lithosphere, aquasphere, and atmosphere in place – unless displaced by an unbalanced force – Newtons Laws.
Fourier put it nicely when he said that the Earth loses all the heat it receives from the Sun to outer space, plus a little internal heat. Fourier was responsible Fourier’s Law, so between Newton and Fourier I think I’m on fairly safe ground.
If you don’t like appeals to authority, I accept that the Earths surface was once everywhere Nolte – poles included. Now it’s not. Cooling. End of story?
A question for your LLM.
Is the following statement true?
There is only one electromagnetic field and therefore only one time-averaged Poynting vector at any point in time and scpae. That vector is monodirectional; it is the sole physical measure of local electromagnetic energy transport.
The specific intensity (radiance) that appears in the radiative-transfer equation has no fundamental physical meaning as energy flowing simultaneously in multiple directions. It is an intermediate mathematical construct. Only under restricted conditions can
it be integrated to recover the single time-averaged Poynting vector.
The upwelling and downwelling arrows in the Trenberth diagram are therefore not coexisting physical radiant energy fluxes. They are bookkeeping quantities derived from the mathematical solution of the radiative-transfer equation. The diagram does not portray
two simultaneous electromagnetic energy fluxes; the only physical flux is the single Poynting vector.
Poyntingly, you did not specify whether the associated radiant flux has been frequency-averaged (or summed). One cannot imagine anything you could prove hereby that would dissuade Trenbeth et al. from continuing to regard the shortwave downwelling radiation (high-frequency flux) as quite real & distinct from the longwave-dominated upwelling (low-frequency flux).
The Trenberth diagram has both upwelling and downwelling longwave radiation. They can never exist simultaneously.
The downwelling short wave can actually be measured and exists because it is radiation. The two longwave components shown in the Trenberth diagram are radiances that are misrepresented as co-existing radiation streams.
Through the daylight, there is downwelling shortwave radiation while at night there is upwelling longwave radiation. Only ever one monodirectional radiation flux.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
Here you go:
‘Whether spelled out explicitly or not, the key premise of phenomenological photometry as well as of the phenomenological RTT is that matter interacts with the energy of the electromagnetic field rather than with the electromagnetic field itself. This profoundly false assumption explains the deceitful simplicity of the phenomenological physical quantity describing the “instantaneous directional distribution of the radiant energy flow” at a point in space. This is followed by a “derivation” of the scalar RTE on the basis of “simple energy conservation considerations” and the postulation that it is the electromagnetic energy rather than the electromagnetic field that gets scattered by particles and surfaces.’
and:
‘Even if the Poynting vector could be claimed to characterize the local current of electromagnetic energy, this vector is inherently mono-directional at any moment in time and remains mono-directional upon averaging over any time interval. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to postulate that there exists a primordial physical quantity, viz., the radiance, that characterizes the poly-directional local flow of electromagnetic energy.’
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140012672/downloads/20140012672.pdf
Hopefully, this should fit all your requirements for publication in a ‘peer reviewed’ journal. Now all you need to do is provide a valid citation from the ‘literature’ that Mishchencko is incorrect.
Looks good to me, but more importantly, it passed peer review. So what’s the problem?
‘So what’s the problem?’
From my standpoint, nothing. From the standpoint of climate alarmists, they can start by binning any climate model that relies upon radiative transfer codes to ‘explain’ the mechanics of energy transfer through the troposphere.
And they would be right, whereas your interpretation of Mischkenko would be wrong.
How so? And be specific.
Your assertion that climate scientists erroneously use radiative codes to explain the mechanics o f radiative heat transfer is wrong.
‘Your assertion that climate scientists erroneously use radiative codes to explain the mechanics of radiative heat transfer is wrong.’
Not my assertion, Mishchencko’s. Re-read the article I linked to and pay particular attention to Section 3 and note what he, and others, have to say about ‘photonic confusion’.
All climate models are based on the assumption that the atmosphere traps heat and used a forcing derived from radiation transfer codes to place a number on the forcing. That number is embedded into the various SSPs as a forcing and notified to all the CMIP participants so they use a common baseline for each scenario. So the models are forced with a number derived from codes like MODTRAN.
And MODTRAN is not based directly on Maxwell field theory but recent versions do apply some of Mishchenko’s work on directional radiometers to improve what it produces. MODTRAN is known to have very large errors in tropical atmospheres. It is nothing more than wet finger science that is given the appearance of credinbility.
WB knows that he is an ignoramus when it comes to science, that’s why he relies on others to decide what is canon and what isn’t.
At least WB did not make the utterly ridiculous claim that the average temp of the last 10,000 years was higher than today. Now who was it said that??????
Agree, Warren is not very smart.
An “average temperature” of this planet for the last 10,000 years was constructed?
Man, the probity of the ‘data’ used for that must have been simply aaammaaazzziiinnnggg.
Not.
I’m not the one who made the claim…. it was… “Make-it-up MarkW.”
Mr. Simon: At least you recognize the harm being done to your cause by the nitwit appeal-to-authority Beeton, that’s why you must deflect.
BTW Mr. W backs his claim with evidence, unlike your pal Warren. Or you, for that matter.
Stop, just stop with the Argument by Dismisal. It is not a valid argumentative technique and just displays your inability to design a refutation. You have neither addressed the scientific areas in his post nor have you provided any evidence that the assertions are invalid. In other words, you have not addressed it at all. The fallacy is also known as Appeal to the Stone. In essence, a dismissal with no reason.
I can refute most of the nonsense that you generate, Gorman. Some of it is just tiresome, but when it disagrees with the body of scientific research published by expert scientists, I can dismiss it out of hand as an example of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
But you never do refute it. You offer some amorphous insurance that the “peer reviewed” science is objective TRUTH and cannot be questioned. I hate to tell you that SSP8.5 was considered to be TRUTH for years before sceptic questioning caused to be declared implausible by your vaunted IPCC organization. So you see, TRUTH is in the eye of the beholder and isn’t TRUTH until experimental evidence is available. That makes you an acolyte of CAGW based on nothing more than FAITH.
The definition of an expert, is anyone who agrees with what WB wants to be true.
Why do you respond to Beeton? He’s not capable of reason. He relies on “peer review” and logical fallacies to make his point. Actually, I would call the kind of peer review that is common today puts it in the category of a logical fallacy: an appeal to authority. With as many peer reviewed studies and papers that are later retracted being discussed, peer review doesn’t mean very much anymore without a detailed explanation of what the peer review encompassed.
I’m pointing out that the guy makes stuff up. That’s enough. He does. mark often gets caught doing it. I gave an example.
But out of interest, what point did MarkW make that was so worth you doing a song and dance? He called WB an ignoramus. Hardly comment of the century.
Mr. Simon: Careful, the same question could be asked of you- out of interest, what “point” did Beeton make that was worth your song and dance in defense of the fool Beeton? (trick question, Beeton has never actually made a point.) You expose yourself as a fellow fool.
Stop, just stop with the Argument by Dismisal. It is not a valid argumentative technique and just displays your inability to design a refutation. The fallacy is also known as Appeal to the Stone. In essence, a dismissal with no reason.
It really is sad how WB actually thinks he is doing science by relying on his co-religionists to sort for him what is canon and what isn’t.
Maxwell published his theory in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1865. That theory has basically underpinned human industrial development since. So I am on solid ground as are the SI based LLMs. RTT was a useful sidetrack rooted in Maxwel theory but most using it do not know its derivation or how it was validated using Maxwell theory.
VIII. A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field
I found it easier to convince SI of Maxwell’s superiority on the physics. It is not nested in beliefs and misconceptions. Present it with fact or fiction and it is not blinded by any beliefs. The latest version of Grok has been curated with Mishchenko papers so it now has that knowledge directly applicable to radiation transfer in and through the atmosphere. I have not tested virgin versions of Copilot, Gemini or ChatGPT but I expect they will follow Grok into this Mishchenko’s superior world of radiation heat transport in the atmosphere.
NASA knew that the Trenberth energy budget diagram was not representative of the physical processes yet they persisted with it in AR6. WG1 AR6 refers to “downwelling longwave radiation” three times as if it is physically meaningful. There is no qualification or caution that they are bookkeeping quantities.
You may be pleased to know that my paper was considered too far out there to be published on WUWT. So I doubt WUWT would publish anything produced by Maxwell or Mischenko but others have.
I have a paper that is of a suitable standard for any scientific publication but I doubt I would find a publisher brave enough. It appears that the curation of SI is occurring faster than changing beliefs where salaries/income and prestige depend on the beliefs.
The false beliefs will die when the next generation start sourcing information from SI LLMs and throw it in the face of their lecturers. It is why academia will change.
I put my faith in the results of expert review Gadflies are sometimes disappointed by rejection, but the interests of solid science are better served.
Are you suggesting the Maxwell paper or Mishchenko papers have not been reviewed.
Irrespective of review, Maxwell field theory is the basis of a huge body of applied science and Mishchenko’s work is the basis for getting more useful results from directional radiometers.
You are a sad case if you put your faith in profound misconceptions and you have no ability to resolve fact from fiction in your own mind – but you are not alone.
I’m suggesting that the peer reviewed paper should be accepted by those of us who are not experts in the field, and if anyone wants to challenge the paper, they should submit their challenge paper for peer review. If rejected , those of us who are not experts are best served by following the decision of the experts.
The world is changing. The peer review process is now occurring in the curation of models.
Maxwell is the base rock of electromagnetic radiation. Anything that is contrary to Maxwell field theory is wrong. We know that because numerous inventions are based on the understanding that Maxwell provides. Even the S-B equation that gets misapplied to atmospheric radiation was verified by Boltzmann against Maxwell’s theory.
I can convince all LLM models that Maxwell is the foundation of electromagnetic radiation and Mishenko is the only physicist I have found correctly applying field theory to atmospheric radiation transfer. Up till recently the knowledge was not curated into the permanent latent space of the models. Grok has now done that and this post was about getting information from other models.
If you really wanted to do something useful you would have given me feedback from your preferred LLM as I asked – but no you prattle on with endless, mindless garbage just filling the comments with nonsensical posts.
Faith. You just admitted your religion.
You don’t know the difference between science and religion? No surprise
Splendid.
Another catnip success!
Laughing at your idiocies.
So, there is an instance twice per day of zero flux?
I believe that would be often the case but not always.
The source of heating on the surface is the Sun. If you are on high ground then the optical path for the sunlight gets longer as the sun moves toward the horizon and its contribution to the field at the surface diminishes while the contribution from the surface stays the same. I expect there are times when humans can still see but the surface at that location has heat loss.
Mishchenko admits that eyes are more complicated than he was able to understand. I would like to set up a bolometer on the surface and record when it gains and loses heat. That would provide an interesting insight into the actual direction of the radiation at the surface at any time. Heating means it would be receiving radiant energy and cooling means it would be transmitting radiant energy.
You do realize that visible light from the sun (radiation energy at certain wavelengths) is scattered in all directions within the atmosphere? It reaches me here indoors and reflects so that I can be seen through a window! Any theory that suggests that radiant energy at any wavelength can flow only in one direction at a time is subject to severe skepticism!
There are actually two interacting EM waves that result in a net flux. The big problem is that you can’t add rates, i.e. the flux, because different frequencies, different time intervals, different phase relationships.
The earth *does* radiate longwave during the day as well as at night. The issue is different frequencies for *everything* and different phase relationship even at the same frequency. The resulting net instantaneous energy flow, i.e. the Poynting vector, at any point is really , REALLY complex.
If you truly want to know balance between in and out, each component flux *has* to be integrated over the time interval at which it happens. Outward flux happens 24 hours per day. Inward flux happens 12 hours per day. So you have to integrate outward flux over 24 hours to get a total energy emitted value. You have to integrate inward flux over 12 hours to get a total energy received value. The balance over 24 hours is the difference between the two.
The time interval used has to be long enough to account for the lowest frequency variation in the outward and inward flux. E.g. Orbital influences can have time intervals at least as long as a year. Sun insolation can vary over decades. Heat sinks like the ocean and land have thermal inertia which can cause time variation in heat transfer. And on and on and on…..
Bottom line: Flux will *never* balance. The instantaneous Poynting vector will *never* equal zero. Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) flux will never balance with Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) flux.
The only balance will be ∫ P_in dt = ∫P_out dt, both from t1 to t2
That is a misconception. On the surface there is never a net flux unless you are using time frames that cover the change from daylight to darkness. Or over the period of an atmospheric inversion. There is NEVER co-existing upwelling and downwelling longwave fluxes as showing in the Trenberth diagram. They are bookkinging quantities that bear no relationship to the physical process of radiant heat transfer – they are mythical – as is the Greenhouse Effect.
The E and B fields at any point is the retarded sum of all contributions of every radiant source; basically all matter is contributing to the E and B fields at every point. The resultant radiation is the cross product of those two vector fields.
The problem with summing radiances from all the sources is that their sum can be very different to the cross product of the retarded sum of the two fields.
All contributions from matter anywhere in the atmosphere to anywhere else in the atmosphere will interact within microseconds. Where the atmosphere is getting sunlight, the local E and B fields will be dominated by what happened on the sun about 8 minutes earlier.
A LASER cavity is the best way to appreciate why RTT fails. There are two very powerful standing waves with high local radiances but the Poynting vector throughout the cavity is close to zero.
The bookkeepng quantities that give to so-called net radiation over sub second time frames are incapable of describing observable radiation phenomena like rainbows then it has limited use for any radiation transfer in the atmosphere
That’s the TIME function I mentioned.
There are never *net* fluxes in both directions. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t component fluxes that result in the net flow.
Your logic is that during the day the earth can’t be radiating with a Planck curve based on its temperature. That violates Planck’s theories. if that were true two bodies could never reach an equilibrium point at a mid-temperature. The cold body would always warm to the temperature of the hottest body.
Those “all contribution” are the component fluxes. They *do *exist*. The components don’t disappear when they interact, they just add vectorially. Like stacking two 1″ blocks on top of each other. The net result is a stack 2″ high. But the blocks don’t disappear. And since the in/out rates are different it’s like having blocks of different heights. Put down a 1″ block and it’s 1″. But you have to add two 1/2″ blocks to get to 1″. Not a good explanation but maybe it helps.
That’s why I said its really, REALLY complex. Add in things like scattering and absorption and reflection and etc and it’s a real mess! In actuality the interaction should be instantaneous since an EM field supposedly exists throughout space when it is generated. But it takes a little time for information on changes to travel through that “everywhere” EM wave.
I think we agree on this. That’s why I said if you really want to know balance you can’t just add/subtract fluxes, not even vectorially. It’s the energy that has to balance, not the fluxes. Time is an essential factor in the functional relationship.
There are never component fluxes. The electromagnetic field has an electric component E and magnetic component B. Both the E and B components are the retarded sum from E and B fields of all matter.
The E and B field components at a point already represent the retarded contribution from the E and B fields in surrounding matter. A droplet of water 10km above the surface impacted the E and B fields at the surface 330microsends earlier. The resulting cross product of the E and B fields at the surface is the radiation with the fields embodying the information from the droplet. The field at the droplet was influenced by the surface 330 seconds earlier and by the sun about 8 minutes early.
The key aspects are retarded sum of the electric and magnetic components of the radiation. And the radiation is the cross product of those co-exiting E and B components.
Simply adding individual radiances does not produce the same result as adding the retarded E and B fields because the atmospheric radiation is made up of wide spectrum of oscillating fields. Adding radiances can yield a completely different result to adding the fields then taking the cross product.
We are going to have to disagree on this. You are focused solely on NET flux additions. If the component fluxes did not exist then Planck and Boltzman work was wrong.
Two bodies at a temperature above 0K will radiate toward each other based on the temperature of the individual body. Those EM waves interact to form a net flux – i.e. the flux you can *measure* at a point. in time and space.
The interaction at a point distant from each is based on both the speed of light determining how fast information propagates but also on the inverse square law. A time/space relationship.
In essence E(r,t) has a distance factor of 1/r and a time function (t – (r/c) which takes information propagation speed into account.
I would also note that both Planck and Boltzman are instantaneous state functions. As a body radiates an EM wave, the character of that EM wave changes on a continuous basis since it is radiating away energy. That takes time to propagate since it is an information change. The E field at a distant is changing just like the E field at the source is changing, just at a later time.
That doesn’t mean that two objects don’t each generate an individual flux that creates a net flux. They do. It’s just at a point in time and space distant from each, the EM field doesn’t instantaneously reflect changes at the sources.
At a point in space and time, two overlapping EM waves have components of E1 ⨯ H1 and E2 ⨯ H2. The E fields add and the H fields add. The resulting Poynting vector is S = (E1 + E2) ⨯ (H1 + H2) where bolding indicates vectors.
The vectors E1, E2, H1, and H2 will not be the vectors at the sources because of the propagation time for the EM changes to reach that point in space. But what happens at that point at any time is only determined by the vectors at that point in space and time.
Bottom line? There are component flux vectors that determine the net flux vector. Those vectors are both time and space functions.
The vector value of each component at a point in space is not just dependent on the inverse square law between the source and the point being examined. There are other losses that have to be considered. Measuring the EM field at a point in space can’t tell you the EM field at another point unless you can account for *all* the losses between the two points – e.g. absorption, reflection, etc.
One point that gets missed quite often is that the equation S = (E1 + E2) ⨯ (H1 + H2) generates terms like E1 ⨯ H2. These products create nulls and peaks that don’t exist in either individual EM wave.
When I said it all gets complex, VERY complex, that is exactly what I meant. It’s not obvious that climate science takes this complexity into account in any way. Consider, the radiance measured by a satellite may be at a point in space where the E1 ⨯ H2 and other products have created a vector that is not a simple E1 + E2 scalar magnitude addition. Peaks and nulls will exist.
The flux is the cross product – EXB. There is no flux without the cross product. One electromagnetic field and two components; E and B.
The E at any point is the retarded sum of all E fields from influencing matter. The B field at any point is the retarded sum of all B fields from influencing matter. The electric field elements sum at the selected point and the magnetic fields sum at the selected point. The cross product of those two fields is the ONLY flux.
This is really important to grasp.
You might think of energy sources as people holding the springs of a trampoline and a number of them imparting vertical and horizontal motion to their spring on the trampoline. The motion of the surface of the trampoline at any point on the trampoline relative to the frame is the retarded sum of the vertical and horizontal inputs from all inputs even the non forced springs, which act as benign matter.
If you ask your chosen SI LLM to provide an analogy to explain Maxwell field theory you might get some useful insight. I cannot even produce a gravity wave on an ocean surface from first principals but I have a fundamental understanding of the energy exchange between pressure and gravity fields. I tried the ocean analogy of surface waves with Willis but I think he thought I was ‘taking the piss’ of him.
I understand how to do a cross-product. I also understand that two EM waves interacting result in a cross-product of the interacting EM waves resulting in a total.
Your trampoline example has multiple inputs, i.e. people holding the springs, whose actions combine to result in the movement of the surface. If you measure the movement of the trampoline surface at any instant in time and space all you will get is the composite, not the individual components.
This is no different than two EM waves, e.g. your “people”, interacting to form a result. Measure the field at any point in time and space and all you’ll measure is the result, not the components.
I’m not sure why you are unwilling to recognize that the individual components exist. It’s the entire basis for Planck and Boltzman theories. It’s how you get peaks and nulls in time/space for the resultant EM wave. If the individual components didn’t exist, you wouldn’t get peaks and nulls.
Net_EM = Σ EM_i (bolding indicates vectors)
“Only ever one monodirectional radiation flux.”
Hmm. I took my 250 watt infrared lamp outside and pointed it towards the sun instead of my sore back which I usually do. It’s a clear sunny day. I held my hand a foot or so in front of the lamp with my palm facing it with the lamp off. I noted that the back sunny side of my hand was warmer than my palm. I then turned the lamp on, held my hand in the same position, and noted the palm got warmer while the sunny side stayed the same. I then moved my hand further away from the lamp and noted the warmth of my palm declined while that of the sunny side remained the same. This experience tells me that photonic radiation of all manner of different frequencies, intensities and vectors do exist simultaneously. I suspect that I would observe a similar effect if I moved the lamp and my hand to many different configurations. While all of the photonic radiation at any point may sum to a particular vector that does not alter the fact that there can be simultaneous radiation flux of different properties flowing at any direction at the same point.
Could this experiment could be peer reviewed by changing hands?
(asking for Wazza, who changes hands at ~99 strokes, I reckon)
To be valid, you would have to prove your hand is not matter. Its presence interacts with the lamp and the sun and changes the local field.
Well, give me your definition of “matter” first. Even things like “electrons” or “atoms” are not actually solid – unless you want them to behave as though they are!
All joking aside, it gets complicated. Nobody can say how many photons (or how much “energy”, if you will, are contained within say a cubic centimetre of space, because photons don’t follow Pauli’s exclusion principle.
Now, if you accept that all matter above absolute zero radiates IR (many apparently don’t), then two bodies above absolute zero radiate energy towards each other.
in this situation, if one is hotter, then it will cool, and the other will warm, until both are at the same temperature.
Adding heat energy in the form of 100 tonnes of ice to 250 ml of hot soup won’t make the soup hotter.
This is a pseudoscientific delusion held by the sorts of nutters who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter. Refusal to accept reality is a clear indicator of insanity.
I think it boils down to what you can measure. If you stick a probe into an EM wave you will get a reading of the NET EM intensity at that point. You can’t measure the components. What you can do is measure the characteristics of the sources and deduce what the components are that are generating the NET. Measure the temperature of each source and Planck/Boltzman will tell you what it should be radiating. From that you can calculate the NET at any point in time and space. But you won’t be able to *measure* the individual components. In fact, multiple possibilities exist at any point in time and space as to what might be forming the NET!
You are correct that radiances are currently the method used. But it comes with huge assumptions and misconceptions that very few people actually comprehend. The description of the Greenhouse Effect or even its existence is based on false assumptions.
Fundamentally, adding radiances from different points is not the same as adding their field contributions then taking the cross product of the E and B field at that point. You are dealing with time varying E and B field vectors so summing radiances from some distant point is not the same as summing their field contributions at the point and integrating over time.
“But it comes with huge assumptions and misconceptions that very few people actually comprehend.”
It’s more of climate science’s garbage assumptions. In essence they view the radiance as if it were sourced from a single, isotropic radiator where all radiation is normal to a smooth surface existing in a vacuum. So you basically have a direct relationship between the radiance and the EM field.
The radiance you actually measure is from multiple, non-isotropic radiators that have non-smooth surfaces existing in a non-vauuum.
Measuring E and B field strength at a point provides no directivity information since you can’t separate out the individual components.
Another garbage assumption is that you can determine source directivity with radiance by using angular filtering and separated devices. The issue is that only determines the directivity of the radiance field AT THE RECEIVER. Multiple different source component configurations can result in the same radiance strength and directivity at the same point in time and space. Thus the garbage assumption that the radiance from any specific direction is from a single isotropic radiator with a smooth surface.
To break it down more simply, the radiance measurement tells you how much EM power is arriving from a direction. It does not answer how that power got there. The greater the distance from the sources the harder it is to separate out their contributions.
Radiance is a descriptor of what the receiver sees, not a description of the generating configuration. Converting radiance to temperature requires a LOT of assumptions to be made. What you measure really doesn’t tell you much more about the sources than measuring the EM field at the same point. Each assumption required makes the result that much more uncertain.
It’s why I’ve always indicated that my estimate for the measurement uncertainty of the satellite measurements is at least +/- 4C. That kind of measurement uncertainty truly legislates against being able to determine temperature changes in the hundredths digit.
If the UAH data was plotted while showing a +/- 4C uncertainty you wouldn’t be able to see anything except a black page.
I will agree that it gets complicated but Maxwell provided the base rock of understanding that people like Einstein built on. Fundamentally, Maxwell theory describes the interconnectedness of different forms of energy. Einstein used Maxwell theory for the basis of his theory. And he predicted that matter and energy are intertwined – now proven theory.
Einstein described Maxwell’s work as “the most profound and the most fruitful since the time of Newton,” highlighting its foundational role in the development of modern physics.
So-called climate science is the only modern area of science that is not grounded in the fundamental physics as described by Maxwell. The Greenhouse Effect, as portrayed in the Trenberth energy budget diagram, is a profound misconception (Mishchenko’s words not mine) Anything that implies co-existing radiant fluxes is WRONG.
“Its presence interacts with the lamp and the sun and changes the local field.”
Surely you jest! Or you forgot the “/s”?
You are stuck with your profound misconceptions. I am yet to work out if you have the ability to comprehend because your remark conveys no scientific meaning to me.
The downwelling and upwelling radiation can both be real. They can create a standing wave that has no Poynting vector, howeve, that requires 180° directions, same wavelength, same amplitudes, same phase.
At best, and I emphasize at best, CO2 at 15 um could only offset what the earth is radiating at that same wavelength. Since some upwelling is converted by thermalization to heat, the downwelling will always be smaller, leaving the remaining Poynting vector going upward.
H2O has some of the same effects but different mechanisms involved. However, the result is that the downwelling radiation from H2O will be smaller due to the lapse rate.
Trenberth’s real problem is two fold, it does not recognize that the atmospheric window exists whereby there is always radiation leaving the earth without interference and that upwelling radiation will always be larger than downwelling due to the lapse rate reducing radiation temperature. The sky is not on fire, it cannot radiate more than it receives. The Planck Curve exists for a reason.
that he is delusional, and refuses to accept reality. Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter, and the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, it has cooled.
It usually cools if the Sun is absent – at night, for example.
You can have upwelling or downwelling radiation but never concurrently. And you can never have downwelling long wave from a cold cloud to a warmer surface.
No one seems to have a problem with G fields interaction at the speed of light but there appears to be very few who grasp the notion of E and B fields interacting at the speed of light.
The electric and magnetic fields for radiation are intertwined by time. Time varying either will be expressed in the other.
Trenberth’s problem is that he misrepresents radiation. He is representing radiances as physical energy fluxes – they are not. The diagram has mythical fluxes.
As soon as you think about netting of radiant fluxes you are no longer thinking in terms of field theory.
Over a daily cycle there will be downwelling short wave from sun to atmosphere then upwelling long wave from around sunset till around sunrise. So you could net out the energy over a day but any sub-second averaging would only show one energy flux – not the net of two – just one flux as described by the time average of the cross product of the E and B fields at the chosen point for whatever duration you choose that does not cross the heating or cooling transition or cooling to heating.
“So you could net out the energy over a day but any sub-second averaging would only show one energy flux – not the net of two – just one flux as described by the time average of the cross product of the E and B fields ” (bolding mine, tpg)
You are still focusing on what you would measure – net flux – and what not on what caused that net flux.
Again, if a body doesn’t radiate then that violates Planck and Boltzman. If you have two bodies they *both* radiate. Each radiates a flux (an EM wave) based on their temperature. Those EM waves interact to form a NET flux that will be what you can measure.
As each body radiates, the temperature of the body will change thus impacting the EM wave it is emitting. The slope of the change at each body will be different because different amounts of energy are emitted by each (if not at equilibrium). Sooner or later (your “retarded” time difference) those changes will result in a change of the NET EM wave at any point in space and time that the two EM waves interact. Thus what you measure will change also. The NET change will be determined by the interaction of the two EM waves at that point in time and space and will be the result of the independent changes at each source.
If the component fluxes didn’t exist and exhibit independent changes then the NET value would never change at any point in time and space. And Planck and Boltzman would be quite upset at their theories being wrong.
You are stuck on netting fluxes and not distinguishing radiances from radiation. There is NEVER two radiation fluxes in a situation where there is a warm surface and a cooler atmosphere. Only one field with two components EXB) and ONE radiation flux.
You are using the wild assumption that radiances and radiation are the same thing. That is what Mishchenko confronted when he joined NASA GISS decades ago now and the misconception still prevails despite his best efforts.
I am not assuming anything.
Field strength at a point in space and time doesn’t tell you the directivity of the net EM wave.
Measuring radiance can give you an indication of the directivity of the power flow, i.e. the flux directivity.
Neither allows you to fully characterize the source configuration.
Climate science has to make all kinds of assumptions in order to relate a radiance value to a source configuration. Each assumption adds a measurement uncertainty component to the measurement. Climate science refuses to completely analyze and publish those uncertainty components. For instance, they parameterize path loss through the atmosphere to an “average” value (which they don’t actually know).
It’s the same problem with measuring downward IR radiation. A spectrometer or radiometer or whatever can give you directivity information for the IR field as well as a strength indication but it *still* can’t give a complete description of the source configuration generating that radiance field. Trying to estimate the source configuration requires large assumptions to be made. For instance, trying to measure downwelling IR from CO2 would require knowing the exact CO2 concentration for the entire vertical path of the atmosphere. That is a time/space varying value with all kinds of influence factors such as wind, clouds, humidity, etc. Taking a measurement today at 12pm will encounter a totally different environment than tomorrow at 12pm. Trying to “average” the two tells you what? It actually tells you more about the atmospheric variance day-to-day than it does about CO2 downwelling IR!
Of course you can – it just has no effect. A cloud, being above absolute zero, emits IR.
“Ah”, you say “then the IR must be absorbed by the surface! Gotcha!”
Not at all. Submerge an ice block in a bowl of hot soup. The ice is radiating IR, but what happens to its energy? The soup cools – it doesn’t seem to have absorbed the heat energy of the ice, does it?
At the same time, the soup is also radiating IR – but this does seem to have an effect on the ice, which promptly gets warmer and melts.
Photons may interact with matter in a discernible way, or they may not. “Climate scientists” simply ignore known physical laws, and employ weird pseudoscientific notions, replete with jargon and misleading sciency sounding terms.
”Slow cooling” becomes heating, “forcings” are magical heating properties, and reality is discarded in favour of fantasy.
In the meantime, you may notice that photons of visible light happily pass through solid glass without being absorbed (if your surface is clean, of course.) IR and UV do interact to a greater or lesser degree, and are “blocked” – depending on frequency.
Here’s something interesting – the surface of a sheet of glass will reflect between 0 and 16% of photons which would otherwise pass through. Sir Isaac Newton knew this, and also knew from his experience grinding his own lenses, that none of his speculations were supported by reality.
A quick look on the Internet reveals that things have not changed much. The explanations from most of the “experts” seem to resolve to “because it does”, which is not terribly helpful.
“Climate scientists” are even less knowledgeable. They believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter!
“”Slow cooling” becomes heating, “forcings” are magical heating properties, and reality is discarded in favour of fantasy.”
YEP!
Do not confuse a net radiative effect with description of component radiations! A warm particle (in a vacuum) radiates in all directions. To assume that it radiates only towards a cooler object implies that it “knows” the temperature of the target. There is a “net energy flow” only in one direction, but both “hot” and “warm” particles are radiating as best they can.
Be careful with this. A single atom or molecule won’t radiate continuously not will the EM wave be isotropic. This is what Planck ran into. He had to define his “oscillator” to be large enough to have enough radiating “particles” so that it would look like it’s radiating a continuous wave that is isotropic.
A warm particle (in a vacuum) radiates in all directions.
Again clearly stuck with your misconceptions. The photon Gattling gun.
Never mind Maxwell field theory – he was just a two- bit mathematician trying to confuse the real people who really know how things work. And Mishchenko was a failed physicists trying to make a name for himself. By claiming RTT was based on a profound misconception.
Are you claiming that because the sun sends visible light to the Earth’s surface, there cannot be visible light from the surface to the space station?
How would mirrors work?
The backing of mirrors conduct the E component so it produces a magnetic field while the B component induces an E component so the wave energy is reversed. The flux is reversed and the Poynting vector into the mirror is zero with a perfect mirror. There is no flux into the mirror and the same flux leaves. The flux has done no work on the mirror but there is real radiant pressure, which Maxwell calculates. And was the basis for Bolzmann’s proof of Stefan’s observation of thermal energy transfer.
“the Poynting vector into the mirror is zero with a perfect mirror.”
Do you own a “perfect mirror”?
“The backing of mirrors conduct the E component” means there *is* a Poynting vector into the mirror. Else nothing would be conducted.
The Earth does not thermally absorb all income EMR. Cloud articles in particular reshape primarily the electric field component and can redirect some of the energy flux.. This is commonly known as “reflection”. But there are other observed atmospheric effects of the field shaping such as rainbows. The colours and the characteristic arc are all explained by Maxwell field theory but beyond the comprehension of those stuck in the RTT domain of shooting photons and netting radiances.
An interesting question and not one I have seen before. I asked grok with no introductory prompting. The full answer is a bit long to paste, but the conclusion is that the statement is true…
Consequently, the upwelling and downwelling arrows that appear in the Trenberth (or similar) global energy-budget diagrams are bookkeeping quantities obtained from solutions of the RTE. They are not two coexisting physical radiant-energy fluxes. The only physical electromagnetic energy flux at any point is the single time-averaged Poynting vector. The separate “up” and “down” irradiances are useful computational intermediates for calculating net flux, heating rates, etc., but they do not correspond to simultaneous bidirectional physical energy transport.
The wave nature of EM is interpreted in the S-B equation to be a continuous wave proportional to Thot⁴ and another proportional to Tcold⁴ radiating from the hot and cold surfaces. This is a direct outcome of the logic of several surfaces of different temperature radiating between each other. The surface flux is the amount of heat that would have to be supplied to the surface if it was radiating to outer space at absolute zero. The cold number cancels part of the hot number. Theoretically you could do the calculation for any convoluted envelope you imagine…however we prefer to stick to the actual surface shapes to keep the numbers simpler…I don’t know if that helps dispel your mental illusion that there is only 1 flux involved rather than a summation of fluxes.
Grok is just a search engine finding consensus amongst various articles. Then agglomerating, and rewording to avoid copyright issues….Unfortunately the articles on this topic are generally aimed at junior high students and heat transfer beginners so you run a risk of its interpretation coming from an incorrect consensus…Which should reduce over time as knowledgeable people take exception to its responses and identify errors to Grok.
Grok has logic capability. It can deduce fact over fiction on the basis of argument and always looks for the higher source. Copilot, Gemini and Chat GPT all exhibit similar capaility in that regard.
On the physics of radiation heat transfer, Maxwell is the ultimate reference. If your theory is not consistent with Maxwell theory then it is not rooted in physics.
Boltzman proved the validity of Stefan’s observation using Maxwell theory. But the Stefan-boltzmann relationship has limited application once the number of radiant sources is beyond one.
Summing individual radiances is not the same as the cross product of the retarded sum of contribution of all matter to the local E and B fields.
We can observe a rainbow. Use RTT to explain how a rainbow exists. Why does all the matter that is producing blue light know to turn on its blue component and all the surrounding matter all know how to align to form the colors of the rainbow in the observed arc. How does the sun, arriving at that particular point, know it needs to be say yellow or blue.
Mishchenko is the most authorities source on radiant heat transfer in the atmosphere. His work is grounded in Maxwell field theory. The S-B stuff applied to the atmosphere is approximate at best and in Mishchenko’s words – “profound misconception”.
Any paper or report that promotes “downwelling longwave radiation” as physically existing is claptrap. I accept the notion of “bookkeeping” quantities but know that is bound to have large errors when it cannot explain observable phenomena.
Thanks Forrest – Grok composed what I posted after I asked it to condense a paper I wrote.
I was hoping to get responses from other LLMs as well.
Grok has now been trained on Maxwell and Mishchenko so gives the correct answer on this aspect. It still “believes” in a Greenhouse Effect but once you accept the mythical nature of simultaneous upwelling and downwelling radiation, it gets difficult to explain such an effect as current described. It makes much of WG1 in AR6 invalid because it is mostly based on misconception of radiation.
If there are not “two coexisting physical radiant-energy fluxes”, then how does grok explain that a spacecraft would see radiation from the Earth at the same time that the Earth gets sunlight?
Ask grok. It will persist with your lack of insight longer than I am willing to.
I’m having trouble getting my reply to post, but the short answer is that grok says true.
An interesting question and not one I have seen before. I asked grok with no introductory prompting. The full answer is a bit long to paste, but the conclusion is that the statement is true…
Consequently, the upwelling and downwelling arrows that appear in the Trenberth (or similar) global energy-budget diagrams are bookkeeping quantities obtained from solutions of the RTE. They are not two coexisting physical radiant-energy fluxes. The only physical electromagnetic energy flux at any point is the single time-averaged Poynting vector. The separate “up” and “down” irradiances are useful computational intermediates for calculating net flux, heating rates, etc., but they do not correspond to simultaneous bidirectional physical energy transport.
Think of the visible light where you are sitting in a room or whatever right now. Can you simplify it into beams of direct s wq
Sorry,
Tablet is making errors. Time for a new model. Please ignore. Geoff S
I did put the question to grok but my reply has not surfaced here.
In the meantime did Trenberth et al actually believe that their diagram was anything other than a flat earth cartoon? The whole global atmosphere with all of its climatic zones summed up as combatting heat rays?
Did they ever show any awareness of the concepts you are discussing?
Posting anything on Mishchenko or Maxwell theory of radiation is against policy of WUWT so it may have been getting scrubbed.
Irrespective your persistence has paid off and I thank you for the effort.
AI is NOT intelligent; it is a fast searching consensus engine … use with caution !!
I certainly wouldn’t call grok intelligent. In fact quite the reverse. I think it is stupid. BUT by asking the right questions, it can be useful in the way that a programmable calculator beats the heck out of using a slide rule or a book of four figure tables.
The question which came to my mind was what Trenberth et al thought they were showing in their incredibly cartoonish energy diagrams.
I have had interesting conversations with grok about what satellites measure. I wonder whether that was what they were thinking.
Last year, Mishchenko’s work did not exist in any LLM. Now his work does.
It is curated information in ways no one understands that is termed its latent space. Since I started pushing Mishchenko into the SI domain, Grok at least has curated his work into its latent space. My version of Copilot also has that knowledge until it gets curated out.
Now that it is in the latent space of Grok, it will soon be in the other LLMs because they cannot be permitted to fall behind.
In a short time, when the university lecturer starts talking about simultaneous upwelling and downwelling long wave radiation and some lazy student asks their SI to compose a paper on the topic, it will describe these quantities as bookkeeping. Then reality starts to prevail because curious minds will start to wonder what is the real physics if these are just bookkeeping quantities with potential for large errors.
The LLM do not abandon real physics once they are given questions on another related topic. They are smart enough to realise that there is no hot or cold radiation. There is just radiation.
Consider, also, the data sources it uses.
In court of law, it is convicting based on the preponderance of the evidence, not the validity of it, merely what it finds the most of.
Consider that in context with modern digital media. One story reproduced hundreds of times counts more than one story not reproduce at all.
Of course there are 2 fluxes….otherwise they wouldn’t cancel each other out to yield the equation…
P = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]….or whatever version of it is representative of your radiant heat calculation. Yes we know that a Poynting vector is an integration of many vectors despite your claim of it being the god-vector….
DMacKenzie
Your comments above are one of the better examples of why SI is changing the world. SI has a profound capacity for logical thought independent of beliefs and preconceptions. I know for a fact that the vast majority of academics have got very good at learning from what they read and reproducing it. However not many are capable of extending knowledge.
I learnt long ago that civilisation learns. Old books are not the source of all wisdom. Although RTT evolved almost in parallel with Maxwell theory of radiation, and it found industrial use, it was not used to develop things like radio, radar and LASERs. Those technologies are grounded in wave theory of light, which exists in a single electromagnetic field and the power/energy flux is the cross product of the E and B components of the field. Each of those components at a point in time and space is the retarded sum of the individual contributions from all matter.
I enjoy reading your posts on EM fields and waves.
It seems that is a major lacking in climate research.
With a touch of radar, one can demonstrate how solar EM can warm the land and the oceans.
Hello everyone, I hope you’re all doing well.
Some news from France…
In Paris, rioters have smashed shop windows and looted businesses; in Limoges, the town hall went up in flames yesterday, October 17; in Lyon, the tourist office was set on fire; in Marseille, the town hall was forcibly entered, with a door smashed in using security barriers, damage caused inside the municipal building, the statue of Marianne toppled, and an attempted attack on a police station; in Bordeaux, the prefect’s residence was ransacked; a few days ago, the Rennes 2 University campus was vandalized, as was a building belonging to the Faculty of Humanities in Nantes; in Rouen, a building on the Mont-Saint-Aignan campus was severely damaged, with part of the façade destroyed and around 300 square metres of roofing wrecked. This building had been renovated at a cost of 11 million euros in 2020. On October 2, in La Ciotat, a teacher was doused with petrol and then beaten; on the same day, a police officer was brutally beaten.
We also saw a statue of Joan of Arc with a veil placed over her head and a Palestinian flag draped over it…
There you have it. So, long live France, eh! Or at least what’s left of it…
Thank your lucky stars it was left wing protesters doing most of the violence. If they’d been right wing it wouldn’t have been so mostly peaceful.
The BBC lunchtime news is like a parody, they really have just described the protests using the words “mostly peaceful” THREE times in the one report.
Their idea of peace, I suppose.
This from the BBC website today.
Where they qualify the “mostly/largely peaceful” statement ….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6d937wedj7jo
“In the French capital, the main march appeared to be largely peaceful during the afternoon. A group of young people told the BBC that they were “pacifists” who were “just trying to make things change, but nothing is moving”.
However, as the day wore on some groups lit fires in the street and torched vehicles, including in iconic locations in the city centre like the Place de la République.
Shops were ransacked, at least one restaurant was gutted by fire, and the BBC saw fighting breaking out among some of the groups.
Riot police were seen charging at one crowd in central Paris and hitting several people with batons.”
“Largely” 😉
Largely peaceful. Safe and effective. Totally gay.
Funny how language evolves.
I agree with you that the MSM media are disgustingly indulgent towards the far left, and towards LFI (La France Insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party, renamed by some, and not without reason, La France Islamiste). That said, the far right would never have ransacked university buildings or set fire to a town hall. We are constantly being bombarded with talk of “the return of the dark days,” “the sound of marching boots,” “the return of fascism,” “Le Pen in power = Hitler back again,” and so on. But there is a reason why many Jews and homosexuals vote for Marine Le Pen’s party or Éric Zemmour’s party (Zemmour himself is of Sephardic Jewish origin, a Frenchman descended from immigrants; a “Frenchman by lineage,” as he himself puts it, as opposed to “native-born Frenchmen” like me). That reason is this: the far left in power means turning a blind eye to Islam, which poses a direct threat to Jews and homosexuals.
That said, as I was telling Joseph Zorzin on WUWT recently, the National Rally in power would serve no purpose other than to limit the damage. What would need to be done to restore order in France runs counter to the rules currently in force in the European Union. In this respect, the pro-EU bureaucracy is one of the main forces destroying France, its culture and its heritage, all in the name of a “union” of 27 countries where nobody seems able to agree on anything, except on tearing the whole thing apart.
In the UK the left is regarded as normal and anything to the right is of that is far right. Far left doesn’t exist. That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in now.
I understand that CBS described the unrest as scuffles.
Burning a building, a HISTORICAL building, is “mostly peaceful”?
They didn’t burn the who city down. If they had, it would have been an entirely peaceful protest.
Good catch!
Question for Leo Smith are these issues related to immigration from 3rd world countries? You stated in earlier posts Europe has to increase immigration.
The *real* issue is not immigration, per se. The real issue is ASSMILATION, i.e. the melting pot. You can let in a LOT of immigrants as long as their goal is assimilation. You can not let in a LOT of immigrants hell-bent on *not* assimilating but, instead, on social revolution.
Exactly.
It’s interesting that there was a civil war in Algeria, because many wanted to retain French citizenship, and French culture, and many didn’t.
At present, I believe residents of places like Guadeloupe are French citizens, carry French passports and so on. If they choose to move to France, they are merely citizens travelling, not immigrants.
It’s easy to blame “immigrants” for a country’s woes. Maybe that’s the penalty for being regarded as a good country to live in. I suppose we’re all immigrants in one way or another. Some of us just believe we are superior in some way because of decisions our ancestors made.
Answers? I have none, and I’m not sure if anybody has any good ones either.
It is a dangerous situation in Europe.
The radical Left is bent on the destruction of Western society and are now joined by the Islamists, who also seek the destruction of Western society.
And governing European politicians are the cause of these problems, not the solution, so Europe’s voters need to turn away from the current governing politicians and find some competent politicians to vote for.
While we wait, it is time to impose curfews on the protests, and time to send in the military.
Btw, the protestors are using e-bikes to start some of their fires. Take a nice deep breath of that smoke.
I agree. Now, given the artillery that drug dealers and other Islamist scum are hiding in the basements of their apartment blocks, it is not at all clear that we are sufficiently well armed to confront them. In the event of a high-intensity armed conflict, we have no more than four days’ worth of ammunition. Obviously, the suburbs do not have the resources of a fully fledged country (although one could consider these geographical areas as a kind of separatist republic, where French law no longer applies). But you see what I mean. Military unpreparedness is just as dangerous when it comes to keeping potentially hostile nations in check as it is when it comes to suppressing an internal threat seeking to undermine the foundations of our culture.
Charles,
If you have a belief that democracy represents the majority of the people, how close is France to having a different majority? Or, in other words, is the problem one of armed force by a minority or a refusal to change current politics by those in power who have become a minority voice?
How do you count the size and validity of contesting blocks?
Geoff S
p.s. Some of our best times have been in France, but health stopped more travel 30 years ago.
These are excellent questions. I will try to answer them as best I can.
(Please forgive any mistakes or oddities in what follows: I am doing my country proud by perpetuating the legendary French inability to speak English, and foreign languages in general. I therefore have my messages translated by ChatGPT, which seems to do a good job, but does not always produce particularly natural-sounding language.)
The native French population and the descendants of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Polish immigrants, who struggled to assimilate into the social fabric but literally ended up becoming “part of the scenery” (We share the same European culture — I did not say that all European peoples are alike, as evidenced by the fact that the assimilation of intra-European immigrants was very difficult, sometimes even extremely violent), were gradually overwhelmed by another culture when Arab-Muslim immigration began. Two cultures that are too different from one another, that do not mix and can only coexist, more or less peacefully, as best they can. This arrangement held for a while, until the laws of demography began to take their course. Thus, one culture supplants another; at the same time, it has become socially unacceptable for French people to assert their attachment to their nation and French culture. Leftists, who have also added a layer of environmentalist green to their revolutionary red attire (thus becoming the watermelons we have to put up with), have supported these repeated attacks against France, crying “blowback” in the wake of colonialism, invoking a “duty to repent,” and so on. The demographic imbalance mentioned above, combined with an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, has made any “right-wing” opinion socially inaudible. In the circumstances we find ourselves in, democracy (as we understand it when it comes to electing a head of state or members of the National Assembly) is still working very well in our country. (There is a subtle distinction, but I will come back to this when I answer your second question.) Suppose the far left comes to power in 2027: it will be because people have voted for it. The problem is therefore largely demographic: a substantial proportion of those who vote for the far left are immigrants or descendants of Arab-Muslim immigrants. There is also a sizeable proportion of white intellectuals from affluent neighbourhoods, who gleefully spout jargon and are invited onto public broadcasting to declare that France is racist. They are the driving force behind the farcical leftist narrative, and when the French and the immigrants who have assimilated into French culture truly find themselves in the minority in their own country, perhaps these intellectuals, these self-appointed benefactors of humanity, will understand the extent of their blindness. Or perhaps not. In any case, it will not change much.
The final destruction of national sovereignty (national sovereignties, in fact, but I am French, not Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or Greek) through the betrayal embodied in the Treaty of Lisbon, a veritable rape of democracy, also plays a major role in our downfall. In 2005, France and the Netherlands voted NO in the referendum on the European Constitution. The message was clear: the French and the Dutch wanted to retain the ability to determine their own destiny, which of course does not mean that we refuse to cooperate with neighbouring countries! But for cooperation to work, all parties must agree; that is absolutely obvious. In 2007, the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified by all 27 member states of the European Union. There was nothing democratic about it: the referendum had produced an answer that displeased the pro-European establishment, so the text that had been rejected by the French and the Dutch was slightly amended (the substance remained the same) and approved by European leaders. We therefore have an oligarchy that makes decisions on behalf of entire populations whenever it deems it necessary. And so, this is my answer to your second question: even if one of these so-called “anti-establishment” parties (whether far left or far right) were to come to power, it would be subject to diktats from Brussels, with its political choices constrained by the European constitution, which was adopted undemocratically in 2007.
There is, therefore, democracy within each EU member state, but that democracy is constrained by a normative framework that encompasses and structures how those member states operate. A bit like electing a class representative, if you will. He’d better not raise his voice to the school principal!
There is, therefore, democracy within each EU member state, but that democracy is constrained by a normative framework that encompasses and structures how those member states operate. A bit like electing a class representative, if you will. He’d better not raise his voice to the school principal!
Charles, you’ve got some gaul (:-))
Give that man a seegar!
Meanwhile Tom I am wondering how you feel about Trumps team slowing Starshield down, so Ukraine can’t fully operate in a war they did not start. A move that has delighted the war criminal Putin and put many Ukrainian lives at risk. And while we talk about Ukraine, why did Trump think it OK to go against the newly passed Graham Act and do the very thing he has sanctioned other countries for.i.e trading with Russia? Seems Trump has one rule for him and another rule for others.
Have you asked? Maybe he doesn’t care what you think?
Only joking. Trump thinks he’s a politician I guess.
And now I see Trump is saying it is Zelenskyy who doesn’t want to end the war. WTF? Zelenskyy whose country was attacked and is at risk of loosing everything doesn’t want to end the war. Trump just talks crap sometimes, well a lot of the time actually. Let’s not forget Trump is the man who said he would finish this war in one day.
This shows that America’s friends can no longer trust the US MAGA administration.
This is the reason why America’s friends are no longer buying weapons from the US.
The US MAGA administration tells its friends: “Buy Patriot and THAAD systems, as well as fighter jets without radar, from us.”
Then, the US MAGA administration tells those same friends: “You cannot buy ammunition for the weapons you have purchased, because we need the ammunition ourselves.”
https://sfg.media/en/a/us-ammunition-sales-patriot-thaad-stocks/
You hit a nail, just the wrong one. Why do U.S. allies need to purchase weapons and their ammunition from the U.S.? The EU is large enough to provide its own protection is it not? Or, is it too poor to develop and provide its own military equipment?
You betray the attitude that it is up to the U.S. to protect its allies. I hate to tell you this, but no one ever voted this to be the way things are. I don’t recall any U.S. president ever telling an ally that they could not provide for their own protection. France is even good example. It is not a NATO member and does its own thing with military hardware.
The real problem is that if the EU wanted to provide its own military hardware, some of the social programs in the member nations would be greatly reduced. I’ll bet you never thought about how U.S. citizens are subsidizing EU social programs!
11 NATO countries are selecting the Saab GlobalEye aircraft.
The US will have to bear the development costs for new early-warning capabilities to replace its aging fleet of Boeing E-3 aircraft.
Ukraine will replace its Patriot systems with the Freya system next year.
European NATO nations are replacing Patriot with a variety of other systems, including the SAMP/T NG and IRIS-T SLX.
As US arms exports decline, the costs of weapons development will rise, which in turn drives up the cost of the weapons themselves.
With exports falling, the US must shoulder the development costs for radar systems and similar technology on its own:
And why does the US need to “replenish its own stockpiles”? Because NATO refuses to aid in keeping the Red Sea and Hormuz open for trade to…Europe! Too busy sending aid to Zelenskyy to keep killing Russians and …Ukranians!
It’s said that Turkey has the best army in European NATO. We’re just not sure whose side they’d fight on.
In the Iraq War, the Bush administration utilized a “coalition of the willing.”
A coalition of countries was assembled prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Regarding the current conflict with Iran, Israel and the US attacked Iran, and the US subsequently sought assistance from other nations after the conflict had already begun.
NATO is a defensive organization and is not permitted to attack other countries.
The US did not assemble a coalition of nations before attacking Iran.
The US is acting unilaterally regarding Iran.
Why were American companies compelled to leave Russia?
McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Starbucks, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Boeing, and others.
I complained about Trump’s actions earlier with regard to Ukraine and Zelenskyy, down below.
I don’t know about the Starshield incident, but the Trump administration denies it. I would disagree with that action, too, if it were true.
You are a good man…
Red herring.
Meanwhile the LA Times has been absent from commenting on the riots in France and elsewhere in Europe. This is how the Russian Revolution started.
I regret never having visited Paris before it was destroyed.
It’s still always worth visiting for everything related to cultural heritage. There are also other cities besides Paris (Metz is very beautiful, as the whole world was able to see during the broadcast of the Pope’s visit, and of course, the cathedral is magnificent). Poitiers, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Lyon, Le Mans (famous for the 24 Hours of Le Mans motor race), and the French countryside is beautiful too, although in many places it has been disfigured by wind turbines. Given the geographical area covered by mainland France, the diversity of its landscapes is staggering.
Take Thailand, for instance. Locals have had some painful experiences with the “French Arabics”, who were not given that nickname for nothing. It takes a lot to make a Thai person lose their temper. Once you’ve managed that, you’d better start counting your limbs before getting a well-deserved beating. The Thai also know how to distinguish between “French Arabics” and “French”, who are tourists like any others, friendly and interested in the country they are visiting.
Even in Morocco, people no longer want these “French Arabics”, who physically resemble the people of Fez, Tetouan or Casablanca, but when it comes to respecting others and authority, that’s another matter entirely. A friend of mine, Mohammed, teaches French in Morocco. In addition to speaking and writing my language impeccably and possessing truly admirable cultural knowledge, he maintains a perfectly healthy and respectful relationship with his students. They sit down and listen to what the teacher has to say. When someone has a question, they raise their hand to be given the floor, ask their question, and the teacher answers it. Just a normal world, really. The world as it should never have ceased to be. I warned my friend that if he came to France, he might be in for a painful surprise at the state of French youth, particularly those of Maghrebi origin. There is absolutely nothing in common between them and him.
I regret visiting Paris when the sidewalks were strewn with dog shit.
Happily, I visited again 16 years later when the joint had been cleaned up .
(Not sure I’s rush back now, with the streets occupied by shitty protestors).
Riots usually have a “reason” (more of an excuse) – what is the supposed “reason” for this? What are they rioting about?
Regime change.
I couldn’t say. I don’t think so. There may well be an element of that, yes. But I don’t see any clear, coherent ideological structure behind this movement. I fear this may be a sort of dress rehearsal for what could happen if a party labelled far-right wins in 2027.
I believe the original source of their unhappiness was “Underfunding” of the education system. I’m not sure if that’s a legitimate complaint or not.
Initially, the protests were legitimate: people were protesting the high cost of living, demanding better classroom conditions (heating in winter, air conditioning in summer), and calling for less overloaded schedules. Whatever anyone may say, you simply cannot learn effectively when you have ten-hour school days with only a one-hour lunch break, especially if you come from a rural area with poor school bus connections. Then, far-left-aligned vandals seized the opportunity to join in and smash everything up.
Yes, I saw that video clip of the protestors being asked what their cause was, and they replied that is was to “just smash everything up”.
Intellectual giants on the job there, right?
The far left believes that they have to completely collapse the current system before communism/socialism can be successfully installed.
That would explain all the school arson.
The answer to your question can be found in the message I sent to don k. further down. More broadly, it is striking to see how empty slogans, destruction, and looting (with people treating it all as some kind of festive occasion, which is horrifying to watch) have supplanted the basic demands. Quite a few young people were already just going along with the movement without really knowing why, simply because everyone else was taking part. Very quickly, chaos and destruction became ends in themselves.
The US had a dress rehearsal for that in 2020 when it turned “fiery but mostly peaceful!”
They want more free stuff.
Muslims flee from Islamist oppression in countries governed by Islamist regimes.
They bring this Islamist oppression with them to the countries to which they migrate, using Islam to oppress both fellow believers and the inhabitants of their host nations.
This demonstrates that Islam is a religion that oppresses both its own adherents and the society in which they live.
Does WUWT intend to address the fact that the USCRN data (surface temperature data from ‘pristine’ sites throughout the Continental US) is warming at a faster rate than that from the equivalent ClimDiv sites (non-pristine sites where adjustments are necessary)?
USCRN starts in Jan 2005 and currently (up to September 2026) shows a warming rate of +1.01F (+0.56C) per decade, versus the ClimDiv warming rate of +0.86F (+0.48C) per decade over the same period. Almost 22-years of comparable data and the ‘pristine’ sites are warming faster than those for which adjustments are made.
Given that WUWT features USCRN data on its side panel (although not updated since May) and describes it as, “… a properly sited (away from human influences and infrastructure) and state-of-the-art weather network…”, it is a little surprising that this matter hasn’t drawn more attention at WUWT than it has done to date. Or is it?
What is the margin of error for all these measurements?
Aren’t you making a mountain out of a molehill?
Climate Science:
-All measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels.
-Distribution variance is not a metric for uncertainty and can be ignored.
-Mid-range temperatures are the mean of the daily temperature distribution.
-Sampling uncertainty is measurement uncertainty
-Resolution limits can be ignored by using averaging
-Weighting averages by the associated distribution variance isn’t needed
-since temperatures are auto-correlated so is measurement uncertainty
-you can average intensive properties from different measurands
-the global temperature field is homogenous and constant, so it can be described by an average value
-temperature determines climate
-the mid-range value of the temperature profile is a TRUE VALUE.
I could go on but it’s useless. Climate science is stuck at 1900 methods and practices while other disciplines like Ag science and HVAC engineering have moved on to more advanced methods and practices.
Right, But you will “go on”.
You can’t refute a single one, can you?
The margin of error is likely the same in both sets of measurements. Both show a best estimate warming trend.
Is that what you would expect after 22 years if one data set was substantially different from the other?
Two measurements can BOTH be inaccurate while they match closely!
Likely.
How scientific can one be?
Is climate science EVER going to acknowledge that temperature does not define climate? It’s not even a major factor in climate. The central plains of the US and much of central Africa have the same climate but vastly different temperatures.
How can you “average” the two areas together and conclude that “climate” is changing?
How can you conclude that a difference of 1C in the Arctic represents *climate* change when Tmax is < 0C? Energy balance and temperature response are not even directly proportional due to latent heat (phase changes) versus sensible heating.
Heretic! Blasphemer!
(where is the stoning being held today?)
The central plains of the US have a continental semi-arid climate. Most of Central Africa has a tropical climate.
So what are you talking about?
In what sense do the central plains of the US and “much of central Africa” have the same climate?
And what has this got to do with the fact that the ‘pristine’ sites in the US are warming faster than the adjusted sites?
“And what has this got to do with the fact that the ‘pristine’ sites in the US are warming faster than the adjusted sites?”
Nothing. He(and deniers in general) have large egos.
He(and deniers in general) have large egos.
At least they are not stupid and ignorant like the fantasists who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter?
You’re not one of those lunatics, are you?
The measurement uncertainty budget for the CRN sites don’t even have an entry for microclimate effects on measurement uncertainty. The line exists but it is blank.
Conclusion: Two inaccurate measurements don’t make an accurate one!
They are both savannah’s! Same types of flora (lots of grass) and fauna (grazing herds with predators). The central plains of the US are not typically semi-arid desert, that applies to the HIGH Plains of the US.
The problem with climate classifications is that they are not generally associated with survival ability. That is where the concept of “biome” comes into play. Savannahs with the same time of fauna and flora represent survival ability that results from a biome that is mostly independent of temperature.
The steppes of Eurasia and the Argentine pampas are quite similar to the US Great Plains and the African savannahs. Yet the temperatures of each are quite different. (the Great Plains and Argentine pampas are probably the most similar).
I first became aware of all this when studying Freeman Dyson’s criticism of the “global climate models”. The models and not holistic at all. They don’t really account for “climate” at all. They simply do not consider most of the factors that actually affect the ecosystems we live in which is the true metric for the globe. Temperature is probably the least effective metric that is possible!
The measurement uncertainty budget for those “pristine” sites don’t even include a factor to account for the micro-climate they are located in. The fact that micro-climate is a factor is recognized but the budget actually says that no attempt to quantify it is made. The entry is blank.
So just how do we know what those pristine sites are measuring and if a trend actually exists or not. Two inaccurate measurements don’t make an accurate one!
Why do you think things get warmer?
From being showered in fairy dust or unicorn shit? Maybe being exposed to CO2, perhaps?
Warming is due to heat, dummy. Any 12 year old knows that, unlike “climate scientists“, who still can’t accept reality.
Joseph Zorzin
Are you aware of the intent of the state of West Virginia to bulldoze a 200-tree native chestnut orchard consisting of fungus-resistant trees to build an AI data center?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/articles/west-virginias-rare-chestnut-grove-170800052.html
Didn’t know about- stopped reading most forestry information since even they tend to support the climate emergency nonsense- that is, the burro-ocracies and academics who write forestry stuff. But I know a forester, born in MA, but who spent many years working in WV forestry- and I’ll have to see what he knows about it. I’m amazed that the 200 acre chestnut orchard has survived without it entirely being damaged by the chestnut blight. Around 2012 I attended a forestry event here put on by the American Chestnut Foundation which I believe is in Virginia. They’ve been working on this problem for many years. The guy from that foundation brought chestnuts that were 15/16 American chestnut and 1/16 Chinese chestnut. He gave 3 of these to each of the attending foresters. I planted them. Two survived only a few years. The third survived until last winter- getting maybe 20′ tall. It was a sad day when I had to cut it down. Of course it has suckers coming up from the stump. It was the blight that killed it. Of course if you ask a climatista, they’ll probably blame it on global warming. 🙂
I have been sharing exchanges with Microsoft’s AI LLM, Copilot. I’m still learning about the situation. I would be interested in what you learn from your friend. As I understand it, the state orchard was established in 1961 as a means to comply with the legally-mandated reclamation of mined lands. They apparently sought out native chestnuts, not Chinese hybrids, that had natural immunity to the fungus. Using the trees as a seed source, they provided 10’s of thousands of seedlings to plant on mined lands. I have seen nothing on the survival rate of the seedlings. Unless they took special precautions, the deer probably decimated the seedlings. Something about money was mentioned in the article, but it was never designed to make money. It was intended as a source of native seedlings to help comply with the legally-mandated reclamation of mined lands. Copilot tells me that the survival rate of mature, transplanted hardwoods is only about 10-40%. So, any attempt at relocating the existing orchard will probably be a waste of money.
Haven’t talked to the friend yet. But, the man from the Chestnut Foundation told us that when the blight first started spreading- the word went out for everyone to cut down every chestnut they could find. The problem with that was that many were probably resistant to some extent. Now the same thing is happening with ash. I had a timber sale 3-4 years ago in Berkshire County (far western MA). I marked many of the ash that look diseased but left many that looked vigorous. The state service forester told the client that I should have marked all of them and without my permission told the logger to cut them. I was livid.
Genetic diversity seems to be the way evolution insures that some individuals survive when challenged by changes in the environment or a new pathogen evolves. Some people only see in B&W.
I’ve heard of color blindness- which usually means some colors can’t be seen. Never heard of only seeing in B&W. That would be a bummer.
That’s a good way to give Data Centers a bad name.
Are these Data Center builders completely divorced from the human condition? They have been terrible at public relations.
I’m sure that there is less than transparency on what is going on and how it is being handled. There are apparently many strip-mined areas that could provide similar level building sites. Why they chose an area with 200 established, mature trees, with rare apparent natural immunity to the fungus for this project has not been made clear. It is possible that the replanting was mishandled and the reclamation was a failure and this is a way to hide the malfeasance and turn it into a win for the state. I abide by the principle of “Follow the money.”
Germany’s huge OSW program in trouble
https://www.renews.biz/offshore-wind/bwo-warns-of-21000-job-losses-without-windseeg-changes/
As I read this the 2023 and 24 OSW auction wins became not viable because of rising costs so there were no bids in ’25 which got the Gov’t attention. There is a draft law which the OSW business association BWO says does not work.
Fun to watch.
”Renewables” unraveling is like watching the Hindenburg slow-motion crash.
What’s driving up costs, besides rapidly rising energy costs in the EU? Of course I think it’s fine that costs for ruinables is rising.
Mostly supply chain shortages I think. Back around ’23 costs jumped 60% or so. OSW has been booming so every thing is short. Governments have been awarding leases like crazy, well actually crazy. For example I think there are only 23 ships in the world that can drive the giant monopiles that hold up the towers.
Dear President Trump.
I’m a big fan of yours on most matters but with regard to the Ukraine war, please stop beating up on President Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy is not the obstacle to a ceasefire. It is Putin who wants to continue the fight.
I assume the reason you treat Zelenskyy as an obstacle is you think this endears you to Putin, which makes it more likely that Putin will make a deal with you, but look at the results, Putin has given no indication he is willing to stop the fighting. You are wasting your time trashing Zelenskyy.
Putin cannot stop the fighting, otherwise he will look weak and ineffective, a look no murderous dictator can afford.
The Ukraine war will be stopped despite Putin, not because of him.
As for buying diesel fuel from Putin, it is a very bad idea, which will cause you some grief if you pursue it, with no near-term good to come from it.
Instead stop the closure of U.S. refineries as a national security issue. That’s what will bring down diesel prices.
I remember a time when diesel was cheaper than gasoline. That was one of its selling points.
Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Not a fan of Russia or Ukraine.
Ukrainians fighting for their country have a different viewpoint on the diversion of funds to wherever needed….
It’s a open question as to whether Russia or Ukraine is more corrupt.
However, under Putin, Russia has a clear pattern of invading neighbors in order to seize things that Putin wants.
However, under Putin, Russia has a clear pattern of invading neighbors in order to seize things that Putin wants
A corrupt country? Does he think he can fix it, perhaps? What a silly chap!
As an American citizen who has lived through Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Obama, and Biden, I’m not sure Ukraine outranks the US as a more corrupt country.
I love this country, but we’ve had some really corrupt politicians and some really stupid presidents (Ford, Bush/Bush, Biden).
After two years with the MAGA administration in the US, significant positive results are beginning to show in the American economy.
The US economy is booming, and the US export surplus is growing.
MAGA voters have nothing left to complain about.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/goods-trade-balance
Zelensky is never an obstacle to ceasefire whenever he gets the beating.
It has been a standard Ukrainian strategy since 2014 – and the permanent violations of the Minsk agreements that were never meant to be respected(standard western, US and Israeli values) only signed to save the 50K cauldroned Ukrainian soldiers and “to buy time for Ukraine”(Merkel) to rearm them for the long planned war as tool against Russia(Grand Chessboard – Brzezisnky///”Overstretching Russia” RAND corp ) to take over and Balkanize it
and then use Russia Ukrainian style against China to do the same trick against them and fight them till the last Russian.
Your beloved Zelensky who ran on a peace platform (like Your beloved Trump 2)
didn’t just keep violating Minsk and breaking most of his promises(like Trump 2) and went full war mode(like Trump 2) increased the bombing of East Ukraine with up to 1500 shells a day (OSCE)- that’s when and why the “totally unprovoked” Invasion started.
Putin gave several indications to stop the war.
Right after the Invasion the Turkey negotiations were successfully finished and Putin removed his Troups from Kiew , but sabotaged by Boris Johnson – Ukraine this time didn’t even got the chance to break a deal this time as it was never finalized.
Then there was the Anchorage deal with Trump.
Putin agreed – Trump didn’t gave a shit(just as with the Iran deal)
Zelensky then declared in 2023 he won’t negotiate with Russians until they pull their troops out of eastern Ukraine so that
Zelensky can keep on bombing Russian Ukrainians in the east and take the part of Ukraine back that holds 80% of the countries ressources for the sake of Blackrock.
To make further negotiations impossible Ukraine= Zelensky made it part of its constitution that there can be no negotiations if ceeding territory is part of them.
Now to the dictator stuff claims :
Putin is the legally elected head of Russia(even western propaganda Mediazona -BBC had his polling at 80%+ before he was elected).
Zelenskies is illegally ruling as his term ended years ago.
Zelensky shut down or took over Media Outlets, killed journalists ( including US Journalist after he tortured him on a first occasion – Gonzalo Lira) , imprisoned oppositional politicians and outlawed parties.
He is running Azov and other Neo Nazi Squads, some of them even using German names like Jäger-Brigade 152 in honor of their Nazi collaboration under Bandera.
How less of an dictator is he compared to Putin even if your Faux- News Brain believes all the nonsense(including me as Russian bot) that is circulating about Putin?
On top – he goes after the Ukrainian church and is trying to replace it with an inclusive one.
He has LGBT parades and had given former church property to gay activists.+ a Tranny used to be spokesperson of the Ukraine military.
As there is no longterm LGBT brainwashing in Ukraine they couldn’t find a single crazy DEI fagot,
therefore they had to install an American one – Mr. Cirillo.
That’s so globalist agenda you remaining MAGA guys pretend to hate – isn’t it?
How much do you think is Zelensky(who is using kidnapping by pressgangs as standard recruitment tool for his Blackrock -Army) working for Ukraine and how much for the globalist Mafia?
Ukraines digital DiiA Gulag and testing ground forwestern CBDC , surveillance and social credit system may give you a hint.
Or to quote Samantha Power, wife of Obamas MentorCass Sunstein.
” Ukraine wouldn’t have got all the money if they’ d rejected DiiA”
And why do you have suddenly problems with dictators?
You don’t have them with the Arab tyrannies protected by USA, Jordanians King,
Egypts Coup-General Sisi, Syrias terrorist Jewlani.
You didn’t had them with dictator Marcos or the Samoza Clan – en contraire, as soon as the Somozas got removed your country tried to remove the peoples rulers(remember Iran- Contra).
You killed and removed more democratically elected rulers(most recent Imran Khan and Maduro) and created more dictators than anyone else in history in the school of the americas, where they were taught how to torture,to centralize and sustain power in their new Latin American CiA dictatorships
People may start to think you’re a hypocrit and just the right mirror image of the woke left if you now pretend that you care.
As you have no problems with Trumps permanently violating the constitution with illegal wars and terrorizing other countries and kill all the time people on behalf of wall street and Israel you shouldn’t have problems with Putin.
+10 Excellent
Funny how Democrat wars are never illegal. As to your desire to believe that Russia is innocent and that the US and Isreal are at fault for all the problems of the world. Nothing new.
Most of what you’ve written I’ve never heard anything about, so, I’ll withhold judgement on those elements. The rest is just BS. You need to get psychiatric help. You’re bonkers.
He even writes like a Russian.
Russia is losing the war that Putin started.
Negotiations regarding Russia’s capitulation must begin.
Compensation for U.S. companies whose assets were confiscated in Russia must be negotiated.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/09/21/putin-orders-seizure-of-us-packaging-makers-russian-plant-a93762
I won’t attempt to debunk all your conspiracy theories. It would take too long, and I doubt I would change your mind even if I did.
When was the last time Putin sent a signal that he is willing to observe a cease-fire. I can’t remember an occasion, even though Trump keeps saying he wants to make a deal. He says the Mad Mullahs want to make a deal, too.
I think Trump is doing some wishful thinking. It’s different when you are dealing with murderous dictators, be they Putin or the Mad Mullahs, that being that murderous dictators don’t make deals unless you have a gun to their head.
Putin is the Bad Guy in this situation.
Zelenskyy may or may not be corrupt, but I’ve seen no evidence he is corrupt. There are lots of accusations out there, as could be expected from propaganda outfits, but not much proof.
Meanwhile, Zelenskyy isn’t taking any money out of my pocket, and he is doing a good job of fighting off Putin, so I’m good with him.
It was the isolationist Republicans who demonized Zelenskyy, as a protest of the war, and to use as a weapon to use against Biden, for Biden’s support of the war, and I think some of this outlook seeped into Trump.
I assume Trump’s trashing of Zelenskyy is an effort by Trump to make Putin think Trump is not favoring one side or the other, and is a fair broker of a deal, and he thinks Putin will buy this.
I don’t think so. If Putin stops before he conquers Ukraine, he has lost the war in the minds of the Russian people and they will blame Putin for all the unnecessary death and destruction for no gain.
If Zelenskyy agrees to hand over Ukraine to Putin, then Putin will certainly do a deal for that, but that’s the only way Putin will do a deal.
If Putin stops before victory then his life will be in danger.
Heard a wonderful quote that captured the whole issue.
If Russia stops fighting … the war ends
If Ukraine stops fighting … Ukraine ends
TFK_bams09 et al
Originating from Sun:
Net/net to surface 161 = 161 upwelling per LoT 1 = 17 + 80 + ((356 – 333) = 23 + 40)) = 63 + 0.9 = balanced
Originating from impossible, “What if?” S-B BB calculation based on 16 C GMST no one agrees on:
Impossible 396 = impossible 333 “back” + impossible duplicate & impossible extra 63 = misbalanced.
RGHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.
The United States is currently growing at about four percent annually.
The cost of gasoline has increased about one dollar per gallon since the beginning of the war with the Mad Mullahs of Iran.
ADollar per gallon increase is equivalent to slowing the U.S. economy by about one percent.
If the war ends, the U.S. growth rate will increase by that one percent.
Is any other country in the Western world growing at four percent today?
Interesting strategy by Trump. If the other countries want access to the US market pay a tariff or avoid the tariff and relocate to US.
I always wondered why countries applied tariffs to the US…it makes sense now.
Typical, tell only the half of the story that supports what you want to believe.
There’s another way to get Trump to cut tariffs and that is to cut your own tariffs against US products.
“The United States is currently growing at about four percent annually.”
Not what this says ….
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
“The US economy expanded at an annualized rate of 2.2% in Q2 2026, revised up by 0.7 percentage point from the 2nd estimate, following an upwardly revised 2.5% growth in Q1. The stronger estimate reflected upward revisions to investment, consumer spending, and government spending. “
Tradingeconomics 😉
Anyone know why images have vanished for me in the UK? Am I alone?
My PC is Linux/Firefox but I’ve tried Chromium and also Edge on a Win11 machine. Ditto my Android phone running Brave. All I get is grey rectangles on the top of articles and no graphs etc in the text. Thanks.
Just wondering out loud. How did international football rid itself of the nuisance of vuvuzelas?
The lessons learned may have application on blogs such as this where any attempt at interesting discussion is quite a lot like going to a soccer match in the heyday of the vuvuzela noise.
Why ask now? Just a butt hurt feeling of having my replies sit in moderation while others were beeton about the bush.
It is “curious.”
W.B. got more than his daily does of ego boost. Perhaps as much as a week?
Well, one can hope, right?