[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

I asked you to provide evidence.

And I did.

Your explanation about what you believe is happening is not evidence.

It most certainly is when, as in this case, my explanation identifies what actually is happening.

Since you are not providing evidence,

I have provided ample evidence; you merely deny that it is evidence because that is your only form of "argument."

there is every possibility that you are simply incorrect.

No, there is no possibility that I am incorrect.

Now, do you agree that Angstrom did not account for convection?

Yes or no.

Yes; he did not account for any of the irrelevancies you have disingenuously tried, are still trying, and will in the future continue trying to divert attention from the relevant physics of radiative energy transfer in the lower troposphere.

[BeesKnee5]

The combination of a strong El Nino and extremely -- and very unexpectedly -- high solar activity over the last year and a half pushed temperature fractionally higher than the El Nino peaks of 1998 and 2016. As solar activity was at a sustained, multi-millennial high in the 20th century, it is not surprising that temperatures have recovered to something more like the normal Holocene level following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- which disingenuous anti-fossil-fuel propagandists deceitfully call the "pre-industrial" temperature level.

There are a few issues here.

There is a 3-6 month lag on El Nino effects on global temps and with El Nino conditons prevailing in Jun 2023 then we are only just starting to see the effects.

Solar activity is lower than 1998, 2016 occurred during solar minimum which tells us solar irradiance variation is very small at 0.05%, if it wasn't we'd see cooling during solar minima. Unexpectedly high for some, not all and in line with the average cycle since 1750
https://helioforecast.space/solarcycle


The normal Holocene level is for continued cooling as we go though a pretty average interglacial as a result of the milankovitch cycles. The coldest 500 year period in the last 10,000 years is exactly what we would expect and we would expect it to continue cooling for a while yet.


What is true is the recent La Niña has suppressed the warming trend for a few years and gave those who do not accept the evidence of the earth's energy balance showing how the earth is retaining more energy.

[Truth To Power]

There are a few issues here.

Yes. The main one is the constant, dishonest gaslighting by those who claim there is some sort of climate "crisis" or "emergency" when anyone can look out their window and confirm that there is not.

There is a 3-6 month lag on El Nino effects on global temps and with El Nino conditons prevailing in Jun 2023 then we are only just starting to see the effects.

No. El Nino is only considered to have started when temperatures have already risen, and the September high is already three months after the June confirmation of El Nino.

Solar activity is lower than 1998,

Which was a huge spike clearly visible in the temperature record.

2016 occurred during solar minimum

There are many factors involved, including both regular and chaotic cycles and non-cyclical effects. If it was just a matter of consulting solar activity, there would be no mystery.

which tells us solar irradiance variation is very small at 0.05%, if it wasn't we'd see cooling during solar minima.

Irradiance does not vary enough to cause significant effects on global surface temperature, which is why proponents of the CO2 narrative always insist that it is the only permissible index of the sun's effect on climate.

We do not actually know in detail how the sun affects climate, and sunspots are merely a proxy, not the actual causal factor. Some people can find a willingness to know the fact that the sun was extremely inactive during the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years but has experienced a sustained, multi-millennial high in activity during the period of modern warming, while others cannot find a willingness to know such facts because they contradict the CO2 narrative.

Unexpectedly high for some,

Like NASA/NOAA...

not all and in line with the average cycle since 1750
https://helioforecast.space/solarcycle

True, a handful of astrophysicists dissented from the consensus, and have done better in their predictions. The fact that it is similar to the average post-LIA cycle just confirms how much solar activity has increased since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, especially during the sustained, multi-millennial high of the 20th century.

The normal Holocene level is for continued cooling as we go though a pretty average interglacial as a result of the milankovitch cycles.

No. That is what some people expect to happen. But it is not what actually has happened in the Holocene, which has been generally -- and very fortunately for humanity -- warmer than the modern climate.

The coldest 500 year period in the last 10,000 years is exactly what we would expect

It is exactly what we would expect if we could find a willingness to know the fact that the sun's effect on climate is not limited to irradiance.

and we would expect it to continue cooling for a while yet.

Only if the sun continued to be as inactive as it was when the temperature was low. Which it definitely has not.

What is true is the recent La Niña has suppressed the warming trend for a few years and gave those who do not accept the evidence of the earth's energy balance showing how the earth is retaining more energy.

Nonscience. The undoubted substantial effects of additional CO2 on radiative energy transfer above the altitude where water vapor condenses out do not and cannot propagate back down to the surface, so the CO2 climate narrative is false.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, that is correct.

So, we know that convection happens in the atmosphere but not in Angstrom’s experiment.

Now, please define convection. In my profession, we use it to refer to the movement of the heat itself, using a fluid. You may use the word slightly differently and I would like to use your exact words to avoid pedantic criticism.

[BeesKnee5]

" No. El Nino is only considered to have started when temperatures have already risen, and the September high is already three months after the June confirmation of El Nino"

The key here is El Niño is based on SST in ENSO 3.4 region of the Pacific and not global temps.

This SST rise takes 3-6 months to feed into global temperatures and so the largest impact will be in 2024, it's why the peak in global temperature comes as the El Niño is weakening.

[BeesKnee5]

" No. That is what some people expect to happen. But it is not what actually has happened in the Holocene, which has been generally -- and very fortunately for humanity -- warmer than the modern climate."

They expect it to happen because it matches events in previous cycles, more importantly we know why it happened in previous cycles

Ruddiman has a good research paper on it.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 15RG000503

[Truth To Power]

So, we know that convection happens in the atmosphere but not in Angstrom’s experiment.

Because it is indisputably irrelevant to IR absorption.

Now, please define convection. In my profession, we use it to refer to the movement of the heat itself, using a fluid. You may use the word slightly differently and I would like to use your exact words to avoid pedantic criticism.

Convection is the circulating movement of a fluid heated from below that is driven by differences in density caused by temperature differentials.

[Pants-of-dog]

Convection is the circulating movement of a fluid heated from below that is driven by differences in density caused by temperature differentials.

That is a weird definition. A fluid can be heated from any direction.

So you define the movement itself as convection. Okay.

Now, what happens after the CO2 and water vapour absorb energy from the ground and sunlight?

They warm up, right?

Yes or no?

[Truth To Power]

They expect it to happen because it matches events in previous cycles, more importantly we know why it happened in previous cycles

Actually, previous interglacials have been quite variable. There are broad patterns of cyclical warming and cooling, but sometimes the warm peak is very sharp, other times it is quite sustained. There is also a large difference between early Pleistocene and late Pleistocene glaciation cycles whose causes are not well understood.

Ruddiman has a good research paper on it.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 15RG000503

No, that is not a good research paper. It is stupid, disingenuous nonscience because it is based on a blatant false dichotomy fallacy: global surface temperature changes can only be driven by orbital (Milankovitch) cycles or human emissions of greenhouse gases. The massive increase in solar activity from the LIA to the modern period is merely assumed to have no effect on climate whatsoever.

[Truth To Power]

That is a weird definition. A fluid can be heated from any direction.

But if it is heated from above, like O3 in the stratosphere, that will not cause convection.

So you define the movement itself as convection. Okay.

Now, what happens after the CO2 and water vapour absorb energy from the ground and sunlight?

They warm up, right?

Yes or no?

Of course. But wrt convection, they transfer heat kinetically to surrounding air (N2 and O2) molecules, and that is what drives convection. The CO2 and water vapor molecules do not undergo convective circulation except as part of the atmosphere.

[BeesKnee5]

"Actually, previous interglacials have been quite variable."

They have varied based on the three overlapping cycles. Which is why we see this pattern I have just photographed from Ruddimans book Plows, Plagues and Petroleum

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course. But wrt convection, they transfer heat kinetically to surrounding air (N2 and O2) molecules, and that is what drives convection. The CO2 and water vapor molecules do not undergo convective circulation except as part of the atmosphere.

Okay.

So the CO2 and water vapour heat up, they transfer heat to the surrounding air, and the air moves by convection.

This heated air goes upwards?

yes or no?

And cooler air moves in to take its place?

And the heated, rising air ends up losing its heat to the surrounding air as well, right?

[Truth To Power]

The key here is El Niño is based on SST in ENSO 3.4 region of the Pacific and not global temps.

"Global temps" measured how?

This SST rise takes 3-6 months to feed into global temperatures and so the largest impact will be in 2024, it's why the peak in global temperature comes as the El Niño is weakening.

YOUR OWN GRAPH shows there is no discernible upward trend in SST. The "global" temperature based on the surface instrument record is far too contaminated by local land use changes, when it hasn't been outright falsified through biased "adjustments."

[BeesKnee5]

[]
"Global temps" measured how?

YOUR OWN GRAPH shows there is no discernible upward trend in SST. The "global" temperature based on the surface instrument record is far too contaminated by local land use changes, when it hasn't been outright falsified through biased "adjustments."

All the global records both satellite and ground show the same pattern of delay .

ENSO is a variation from a moving average. It isn't SST directly.

There is a clear trend in SST.

[Truth To Power]

This heated air goes upwards?

Right.

And cooler air moves in to take its place?

Of course.

And the heated, rising air ends up losing its heat to the surrounding air as well, right?

It mostly just cools according to the lapse rate, but also loses some heat to outer space as it nears the emission altitude. It can also gain heat from condensation of water vapor, which is one way the convection is sustained.

[Pants-of-dog]

Right.

Of course.

And then this new air gets heated snd the cycle begins again.

It mostly just cools according to the lapse rate, but also loses some heat to outer space as it nears the emission altitude. It can also gain heat from condensation of water vapor, which is one way the convection is sustained.

And after it cools, it drops, gets more heat, and the cycle begins again.

All this to say that the heat energy moves around and gets mixed together as heat moves from where there is. more heat to where there less heat.

Do you agree?

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

I know CO2 occurs naturally throughout Earth's atmosphere and is the primary radiative cooling agent in the energy balance of the mesosphere (~50-90 km altitude) and thermosphere (>90 km).

But at what height is it a 'heating' agent?

It is giving back heat because otherwise, the Earth would be an iceball. So, if you have the CO2 jiggling about, surely any extra CO2 is also jiggling, and at greater concentrations higher up but not so high, that is more heat radiating back to the surface and more radiating off into space.

[Truth To Power]

And then this new air gets heated snd the cycle begins again.

And after it cools, it drops, gets more heat, and the cycle begins again.

All this to say that the heat energy moves around and gets mixed together as heat moves from where there is. more heat to where there less heat.

Do you agree?

This is all obvious. So where are you going wrong?

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

I know CO2 occurs naturally throughout Earth's atmosphere and is the primary radiative cooling agent in the energy balance of the mesosphere (~50-90 km altitude) and thermosphere (>90 km).

But at what height is it a 'heating' agent?

It is a "heating agent" (much in the same sense a blanket is) at all altitudes. In order to radiate energy to space, it must first absorb that energy from (on average) lower down. But it is just as likely to re-radiate energy back down as to radiate it out to space. The top blanket in a stack of 20 blankets is the "cooling agent" in the sense that heat from below is lost from that top layer, but its effect is still to warm all the layers below. We know that adding a blanket to a stack of 20 blankets has some warming effect, but we also know that effect is not discernible to the guy in the bed. That is the gravamen of Angstrom's experiment.

It is giving back heat because otherwise, the Earth would be an iceball. So, if you have the CO2 jiggling about, surely any extra CO2 is also jiggling, and at greater concentrations higher up but not so high, that is more heat radiating back to the surface and more radiating off into space.

It doesn't get back down to the surface because there is too much water vapor in the way as well as CO2. Think of the top blanket's effect on the guy in the bed.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is all obvious.

So the absorption rate (and the effects thereof) of an isolated part of this does not matter, since the heat, CO2, water vapour, et cetera is being moved around and new air can come in and absorb more.

Instead, we should be looking at the total heat balance of this entire layer of air.