Scientists developed a very high resolution dataset that goes back 6 decades: TerraClimate (Nature link). I am continuing my examination of their data (with model stuffing). Today I will look at their swe series from 1958 to 2021 (inclusive).
swe stands for Snow Water Equivalent.
Let’s see what the data shows …
I expected an increase given my previous article on global snow trend.
SWE ranges from 46 to 1196 mm. That would be 1150 mm over 64 years, or ~18mm/yr. Amazing!
We got an extra 1.15 meters of snow water equivalent, or 11.5 meters of snow over land in 6 decades, and all that extra man-made carbon dioxide failed to melt it. lol
Let’s look at month to month changes …
That spike is very interesting. What could it be? An error in the data? or maybe this? It is exactly in January 2016. I’m too lazy to investigate this further.
Let’s take a look now at the annualized trend …
1981 is the only year when SWE declined.
The trend clearly shows a growth in the accumulation of Snow Water Equivalent. To be more exact:
1959 to 2021 (Inclusive)
Annualized Linear Regression Trend: 1.308 to 1.607: +22.845%Definite Conclusion: Carbon Dioxide radiative forcing doesn’t work at all in the arctic regions where the bulk of SWE is.
Warmists still have a way out by claiming that warming drives more water vapor to the poles. That’s fine. But please, could you not at the same time tell us that CO2 will melt snow and ice in the arctic directly via the radiative greenhouse effect? Thank you.
Enjoy 🙂 -Zoe
Code
# Zoe Phin, 2022/06/14
# File: swe.sh
# Run: source swe.sh; require; download; extract; plot
require() { sudo apt-get install -y gmt nco gnuplot python3-xarray python3-netcdf4; }
download() {
for y in {1958..2021}; do
wget -cO $y.nc "http://thredds.northwestknowledge.net:8080/thredds/fileServer/TERRACLIMATE_ALL/data/TerraClimate_swe_$y.nc"
done
}
extract() { echo "import xarray as x; import numpy as n
a=6378.137; e=1-6356.752**2/a**2; r=n.pi/180
d = x.open_dataset('1958.nc')['swe']
by_lat=(a*r/24)**2*(1-e)*n.cos(r*d.lat)/(1-e*n.sin(r*d.lat)**2)**2/59035.372
for y in range(2021,2022):
for m in x.open_dataset(str(y)+'.nc')['swe'].weighted(by_lat).mean({'lon','lat'}).values:
print(y,m)
" | sed 's/\t//1' | python3 -u | tee swe.tmp
}
parse.orig() { awk 'NR==1 { L=$2 } NR>1 { printf "%.3f %.6f\n", 1958+NR/12-1/24, $2 }' swe.tmp; }
parse() { awk 'NR==1 { L=$2 } NR>1 { printf "%.3f %+10.6f\n", 1958+NR/12-1/24, $2-L; L=$2 }' swe.tmp; }
annual() { awk '{S[substr($0,1,4)]+=$2/12} END {for (y in S) printf "%d %.6f\n",y,S[y]}'; }
yoy() { awk '{printf "%s ",$2}' | awk -vp=$1 '{
for (i=0;i<p/2;i++) print ""
for (i=p/2;i<=NF-p/2;i++) { s=0
for (j=i-p/2+1;j<i+p/2;j++) s+=$j/p
printf "%8.6f\n", s
} }'
}
plot() {
# parse.orig > swe.csv
# parse > swe; parse | yoy 240 > swe.yoy
# paste -d ' ' swe swe.yoy > swe.csv
echo -n "Annualized Linear Regression Trend: "
parse | annual | gmt gmtregress | awk 'NR==2{S=$3}END{printf "%.3f to %.3f: %+.3f%\n", S, $3, 100*($3-S)/S}'
parse | annual | gmt gmtregress > swe.csv
echo "set term png size 740,540
set key outside top center horizontal
set xtics out; set ytics out
set mxtics 10; set mytics 2
set grid xtics ytics
set ytics format '%.1f'
# set yrange [-21:41]
set xrange [1959:2021]
plot 'swe.csv' u 1:2 t 'Snow Water Equivalent (mm)' w lines lw 1 lc rgb 'blue',\\
'swe.csv' u 1:3 t 'Linear Regression Trend' w lines lw 2 lc rgb '#000044'
"| gnuplot > swe.png
}
Zoe's Insights 
Huh. Ain’t it funny how the increased oxidation of hydrocarbons causes increase in oxides of carbon and of hydrogen?
LikeLike
You saying we are making more snow? And SWE includes “dry ice”?
LikeLike
“The trend clearly shows a growth in the accumulation of Snow Water Equivalent”
Aren’t you saying that there is more SWE?
“And SWE includes “dry ice”?”
No, CO2 in all its phases is blamed for enough mischief – I don’t care to pile on.
Its just I’ve always wondered why such a small quantative increase in such a benign organic trace element as CO2 can have such disasterous result but an even greater increase of another substance (in the form of what is arguably a greater GHG — water vapor — if I was to believe in all I’ve been told) can have no effect whatsoever.
I’ve always felt that “megadroughts” were half imaginary or hyperbole, and half caused by ~5ky of increasingly competent civil engineering in parallel with ~25ky of increasingly effective freshwater habitat destruction, at least more so than recent CO2 emissions. Increased SWE seems like it might be evidence for the imaginary half.
Just spitballing, it seems like one (cooling) effect of having a little more available water, as vapor, might conceivably be a little more precipitation, but having garnered little but ridicule for asking the question, I won’t propose any answers.
I just found your analysis interesting. I hope that there’s more to come.
LikeLike
The atmospheric theory is that CO2’s and H2O’s spectral overlaps make them partners in crime.
The surface theory is that CO2->Warming Surface->More Evaporation->More water vapor transported to Poles
The problem is that they want have their cake and eat it too on every front.
Thanks. I’m still not sure this is a good dataset. I just picked it because of the high resolution (1/24th of a degree!). The fact that it’s land only is concerning.
We’ll see.
LikeLike
“have their cake and eat it,too”
Yes. As our friend Willis points out, tropical rain is a net cooling event that occurs regularly. I would go further and say that every sort of precipitation is a cooling event — even in the arctic. Putting twice as much (mole average) water into the hydrologic cycle as CO2 into the atmosphere has a net COOLING effect. Not having the knowledge, intelligence or skill to prove it, however, it is embarassingly more a matter of blind faith belief than fact,
But you (and Willis) sometimes give me hope.
LikeLike
Zoe, a couple of things.
First, you say that “Scientists developed a very high resolution dataset that goes back 6 decades.” This is not true. The JMA-55 is just the output of a reanalysis climate model …
Second, I greatly suspect that you’ve made an error somewhere in your code. Unfortunately, I don’t speak whatever computer language you are using …
However, there’s a general rule of thumb that snow has about a 10:1 snow to liquid ratio, meaning that 10 inches/cm of snow will yield one inch/cm of water. Given that, your claim of a 1,150 mm increase in snow water equivalent would mean an average increase of 11.5 meters (38 feet) of snow globally … and I don’t believe that for one minute.
Finally, here’s another reality check. This is the snow water equivalent from another reanalysis model, the ERA5 model. As you can see, over the period of 1960 – present they say that snow water equivalent has increased by about 7 mm. Not 1150 mm as you claim.
Please check your math.
w.
LikeLike
Willis, there is nothing wrong with my code or math.
You are free to download my source data yourself and see. You can download first and last files for quick comparison. I take it you know how to process netcdf files? So why didn’t you already do that?
My first chart is exactly what the data shows.
The issue is that the data is in some sort of CUMULATIVE form. Because of that, comparing it to ERA5 chart is meaningless.
I agree that TerraClimate really confused things by making it cumulative. Also, it’s land only. Is ERA5 land only? I doubt it.
I’m actually using 3 programming languages here: Bash, Awk, Python.
Python is used for speed. If there was any coding problems it would be in the black-box Python code. I can’t even tell you what it does outside what the API says it does.
Anyway, just look at the scale of first and last files in a visual netcdf viewer (such as ncview), and you’ll quickly understand.
LikeLike
1150 mm is 1.15m not 11.5m. Off by a factor of 10. Does this ease your concern? The Finns and Canadians do a Norhthern Hemisphere snow mass and they are way above the +/- SD for the past three years.
LikeLike
Don Ready
August 2, 2022 at 6:44 PM
Don, both you and Zoe miss my point. SWE is NOT snow. It is snow water equivalent, the depth of water you’d get if you melted the snow.
While different snow has different water content, a rule of thumb is that 1 unit of SWE is equal to 10 units of snow.
So yes, 1,150 mm of SWE is indeed 11.5 meters of SNOW. Thus, I am NOT “off by a factor of 10”. YOU are. And no, I don’t owe Zoe an apology, as she made exactly the same mistake you are making—confusing SWE with snow.
w.
LikeLike
I never disagreed on this, Willis. I ommited “water equivalent” in my original post. That was my mistake.
LikeLike
Thanks, Zoe. You say:
“The problem that the data is in some sort of CUMULATIVE form. Because of that, comparing it to ERA5 chart is meaningless. That 7mm will be almost 500mm over that time period.”
I don’t understand this. The graph I gave you shows an increase in SWE of about 7 mm over the entire time period, NOT annually.
Your graph shows an increase in SWE of about 1,150 mm over the entire time period. As I said, that would be an increase in snow on the order of 11 meters … you sure you want to go with that claim?
What am I missing?
w.
LikeLike
lol, well, what does your graph show? An additional monthly swe or some sort of annual moving average of additional swe?
71 × 12 × 0.007 = 5.964 m
71 × 0.007 = 0.497 m
Latter makes more sense. Is the Python code doing an average over land only, not the entire globe? We can fix that.
71 × 0.007 / (0.29/0.71) = ~ 1.22 m
OK, mine is 1.15 meters. No big deal.
You confused total swe with an addition.
LikeLike
You’re still not getting it. The ERA5 chart shows the SWE of all of the snow on the ground, month by month. It shows an increase of 7 mm over the ENTIRE PERIOD.
Not “additional monthly SWE”. Not “annual moving average”. Increase in SWE over the entire period. 7 mm. That converts to an increase of 70 mm (~3″) of snow in six decated.
In addition, you say “We got an extra 1.15 meters of snow over land in 6 decades”. But your graph is not in snow, it’s in snow water equivalent. As I mentioned, the rule of thumb is 10:1 snow:SWE.
So that would mean we got an extra 11.5 metres of snow … sorry, not happening.
w.
LikeLike
OK, Willis, I shouldn’t trust my lying eyes. I used to live in NYC. Average annual snowfall ~ 0.75 meters. That’s over 53 meters of snow in 71 years for a city at ~40 latitude. That would be 5325 mm of SWE.
LikeLike
Here’s a quick sanity check:
We recovered “800,000 years” record from 3.2 km of ice.
We should expect, over 71 years …
3200 / 800000 * 71 = 0.284 m = 284 mm
What’s the water equivalent of ice? Don’t know, but very close to 1:1? No?
Well, you see, the 7mm figure flies out the door. You were looking at an addition, not an accumulated stack.
LikeLike
Here’s a quick sanity check. Ice accumulates. Snow doesn’t. In general, annual melt equals annual snowfall.
w.
LikeLike
Brilliant comment, Willis. Where did this ice come from? Railfall in the arctic? lmao
LikeLike
Protip. Stop with the snark. It just makes you look uncertain and vindictive.
The overwhelming majority of snow melts every year. If it didn’t we’d be in an ice age.
w.
LikeLike
Not really. It makes me look baffled, by what I consider to be, a silly comment, and I can’t help but laugh. If you can answer:
Where did the ice for the ice cores come from?
If not from snowfall, then I’ll stop laughing right away.
LikeLike
Here. This will help:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores
Search for “Snow”
I don’t know about all the ice core records, but I know the data in Law Dome goes to 1978, and they didn’t start at the top.
If accumulating “ice” means we’re in an ice age, then we never left the ice age for 800,000 years. But we did. Your definition is just not appropriate.
LikeLike
And please don’t make public accusations about my work, unless I ACTUALLY made a mistake.
If my source has problems, or it’s different from other sources, YOU KNOW that’s not my fault.
I didn’t go out of my way to find some SWE source that looks different from the rest. I just found very high resolution (1/24th deg.) source of “data” and thought it would be neat to go through it.
So please check my source first.
Do you think TerraClimate is no good?
Thanks -Z
LikeLike
Right now, I’m in the process of checking your TerraClimate solar data … I’ll get to the SWE next.
And yes, I think you ACTUALLY made a mistake.
w.
LikeLike
OK. I took a preliminary look at the data. It’s strange. It claims to be “Snow Water Equivalent at End of Month”, but it keeps increasing as you said. So it must be showing, not monthly snowfall, but total global frozen water. Curious.
So I threw it up on a global map, and the answer became clear. The accumulation is all in Greenland and Antarctica.
What’s happening must be that they are not accounting for ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland. As a result, the SWE number just keeps increasing. Here’s the global map.
As you can see, my data agrees basically with yours, an increase of 1085 mm of SWE. However … that’s mostly Greenland and Antarctica. They show Greenland increasing by from 30 up to 80 meters of ice over that time … and meanwhile, the best data that we have shows that Greenland is LOSING ice. So clearly, they’re not accounting for ice loss from the great ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.
I see no easy way to remove that anomaly from the data, although it can be done. As a rough cut, here’s the data from 60°N to 60°S:
Note that without those two, the SWE increased, not by 1,085 mm, but by a mere 22 mm … much more in agreement with the ERA5 data I show above.
Best regards,
w.
LikeLike
Willis,
If you look closely, your ERA5 data is not “swe”, but “snld”.
Quite frankly none of the data makes sense to me.
Let’s take a look at your ERA5 data for just New York City:
It’s never actually zero, even in the summer.
So what are we looking at here?
Let’s do Atlanta:
It’s never zero, even in the summer. Has the same peaks as NYC. Yet more frequent? Total nonsense.
An ignorant foreigner looking at this data would conclude that Atlanta can be snowier than NYC. Total nonsense.
Since your data is some kind of crap, I doubt you can judge TerraClimate’s swe.
What do you think?
LikeLike
Yes, Willis, “The accumulation is all in Greenland and Antarctica.”
That’s why we take ice cores there.
“the best data that we have shows that Greenland is LOSING ice.”
I can’t remember if I knew that or its opposite as a fact. You sure? Are you talking about ice loss at its water edges? or the top as well?
LikeLike
“Note that without those two, the SWE increased, not by 1,085 mm, but by a mere 22 mm”
Which is funny because you essentially left only the northern hemisphere in place, and snowfall actually declined in NH, as my previous post showed.
But how can you leave out Antarctica and Greenland?
The “ice” core record shows we got an average of 4 millimeters of water equivalent every year in one of those places. That would be 284 millimeters if that trend is extended over the last 71 years.
Please address the “ice” core record. I’d love to hear what you think about this in relation to swe.
LikeLike
Willis, where did you go?
I didn’t get a chance to show you the best ERA5 data.
This is Miami.
Despite the fact that there were only snow flurries in 1977, this shows Miami as a snowy place.
32 centimeters in September 1960!
I’d show you Riyadh as well, but I think you got the point.
How’s the downwelling solar going?
Best regards, -Z
LikeLike
I believe calving of icebergs is a factor here. Not captured in the data I suppose? GRACE satellites show development of ice. Doesn’t go back six decades though. For all I know, the data can be fake.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Undeniable truth:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a22575917/wwii-p-38-discovered-under-300-feet-of-ice-in-greenland/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Willis and Zoe
Greenland is weird. The surface mass balance is always positive. You never see a year when Greenland doesn’t gain surface mass. If not for glacier caving, the surface of Greenland would rise dramatically. Who knows what would happen as the process unfolded. It’s no surprise to see the results Willis posted.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s gaining a lot of SWE, mainly on its east side. GRACE gravity project also shows some mass gain on the east side. It’s the west side that is mostly losing mass.
Don’t know. I can admit that maybe this data is problematic ??? But I also see that Willis data is even weirder. Snow in Miami? Riyadh?
BTW, GRACE has terrible resolution, like 3 degrees. Coastal melting can be smeared like 200 miles inland.
Don’t necessarily knock this TerraClimate data because you are predisposed to something else.
LikeLike
Zoe, I hope everybody reading this accepts that Wills having agreed with your data DID NOT APOLOGISE for accusing you of making a mistake in your calculations without having first looked at the actual data.
Instead, to hide his embarrassing faux pas when he did look at the actual data he tried to conflate amount of Snow fall with Ice levels which has different control characteristics to simple snow fall.
He just disappeared, very bad manners indeed.
If you haven’t guessed Willis and I have a debating “history”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I see.
I hate to cast judgment. I’m not upset. I don’t need an apology, and I’d hate someone to demand one from me. I let it go
LikeLike
Since it seems I’m not the only one interested in this long-format discussion,
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
Northern Hemisphere snow extent shown decreasing slightly.
If ice equivalent goes up, but snow extent and coastal glacier mass decreases, what might this mean?
Could it be that not all winter precip contributes to coastal glacier melt?
Is it possible to have more precip in a smaller physical area?
Would either, or both, necessarily be due to insignificant, measured, day time, summer high temp warming?
I only have questions, like John Banner (Sgt Schultz character), “I know nothing!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Warm water currents are bringing warm air to the poles that will precipitate more snow and ice cover, while melting the coasts. Ice mostly forms in shallower water and can cover a lot of that area. I don’t think there is ice growth in these warm ocean current areas, but elsewhere.
LikeLike
Zoe,
Perhaps of interest: Jim Steele video on snowfall just dropped. Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8udmYbXiOI . First look, seems to at least ‘splain some of the issues that make SWE complicated.
LikeLike
Just discovered this piece while searching for something else entirely. Offered with no additional comment
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/11/gotta-admire-the-chutzpah/
LikeLike
lol yeah nothing unprecedented. I love skiing. Never noticed any problems on the east coast in 20 years.
LikeLike
We approve of home schooling. Best option for some school districts and many situations. Not easy.
“Socialization” is an overused buzzword.
LikeLike
I like your laser example Zoe. It’s a perfect example of a system where the radiation in is NEVER balanced by the radiation out.
Nice own goal.
LikeLike
According to just your say so, and not even knowing the depth available in my example. Pat yourself on the back, moron.
LikeLike
“and not even knowing the depth available in my example”
Makes no difference Zoe. Some of the laser energy goes to heat adjacent water and some may even go to boiling or evaporating water. ALL of it will never be going to outgoing radiation.
Do try to stay away from the childish name-calling. It’s a tell. It tells everyone that you know you are being proven wrong.
LikeLike
Actually, insults are appropriate for obvious trolls.
Ya and that adjascent water can be heated. Heated so that the T difference shrinks and conductive flux goes to zero.
And it’s going to evaporate as if it was ~364K, and then so will the next layer, and the next layer, and the next layer …
LikeLike
Funny that you do not recognize that you are the troll here.
“Ya and that adjascent water can be heated.”
Indeed. And heating tht adjacent water requires ENERGY that is not available to RADIATE.
Again, nice own-goal Zoe.
“conductive flux goes to zero”
When does the conductive flux go to zero Zoe? Provide your governing equations and show your work.
“And it’s going to evaporate as if it was ~364K, and then so will the next layer, and the next layer, and the next layer …”
Again, MORE ENERGY that is not available for outgoing radiation.
You really are losing, and not graciously.
LikeLike
Zoe, this Chinese bot is just argument driven software. Doesn’t even realize that it is posting on the wrong thread on your blog. Delete it.
LikeLike
It’s amusing me. I think there’s a thread limit. Maybe I will later.
LikeLike
You can tell by the way it argues. Like the Black Knight in Monty Python, find a phrase, then deny it without any real reason. Move on to another phrase, eventually circulating around to the first one. Mostly attack text base sources. Simpleton freeware from back in the 90’s did something similar. Also poor command of English and reliance on a short database of accusatory phrase, as well as an ignorant, and inaccurate, understanding of what ad hominem means. Can’t follow blog conversation threads.
I suppose it might really be a 10 year old with a dictionary, but those lose interest soon enough.
You might be right on the thread limit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah 🙂 It also wants to constantly act like a teacher without learning a single darn thing.
LikeLike
Those are very shallow and stupid arguments, for I never suggested that the skin would radiate exactly what it receives right away, just that it WILL be ~364K very quickly. To radiate out what it receives will take some time, but not as much time as you think.
The deeper we go with this conduction the less relavent it becomes at the top. You seem to think 50m deep is all that matters, but you know it’s not a 100% accurate. For that we need to go deeper. So why the arbitrary cut off?
LikeLike
Why do you think I am a bot dk_?
I did realize that I posted on the wrong thread, but that was after the fact. After a refresh of Zoe’s blog I meant to post at the bottom of the thread and did not realize that I was on the wrong one.
Do bot’s make that kind of error?
LikeLike
I don’t think Zoe is so fragile that so would resort to deleting comments that challenge her. I do have to give her credit for her persistence and strong will.
Do you think everyone that challenges your worldview is a “bot”?
LikeLike
“Those are very shallow and stupid arguments, for I never suggested that the skin would radiate exactly what it receives right away,”
Well, that’s MORE progress for you Zoe given that you DID claim that the 1.2 from ASR and the 0.8 for CO2 should result in 2.0 from the surface. Would you care to revise you answer now?
” just that it WILL be ~364K very quickly. ”
How quickly Zoe? How much of the laser energy going to latent heat, how much to sensible heat, and how much to emitting radiation?
“To radiate out what it receives will take some time, but not as much time as you think.”
Provide your governing equations and show your work Zoe. So long as evaporation is occurring the radiation in from the laser CANNOT be balanced by radiation out. This is DICTATED by the first law of thermodynamics.
“The deeper we go with this conduction the less relavent it becomes at the top.”
So long as there is a temperature gradient in the system heat conduction will be occurring.
“You seem to think 50m deep is all that matters, but you know it’s not a 100% accurate.”
You seem to think that the large heat capacity and the heat conduction to water deeper than a few meters does not matter. You are wrong.
“For that we need to go deeper. So why the arbitrary cut off?”
I’ve already explained the principle to you. Go as deep as you like and include all of the effects at those depths if you like. Doing so will not change the quantitative answers to the significant figures that we are throwing around.
LikeLike
“Well, that’s MORE progress for you Zoe given that you DID claim that the 1.2 from ASR and the 0.8 for CO2 should result in 2.0 from the surface.”
It does, moron. There was NO time in my example. You brought up time because you couldn’t solve the problem correctly. You forgot? Go back and check. NO TIME. Why can’t you follow instructions?
“radiation in from the laser CANNOT be balanced by radiation out.”
That wasn’t my claim. Why can’t you read? :
“If I shine a laser onto the ground such that the surface receives 1000 W/m^2, how long will it take for an thermometer to measure ~364K ?”
You can’t even read, and you want me to do all the work? Get out of here
LikeLike
“It does, moron. There was NO time in my example.”
More name calling Zoe? How chilidsh of you. It makes no difference if there is time in your example Zoe. Even at steady state a system with changes in sensible and latent heat will not have changes in radiation in equal to the changes in radiation out. Furthermore, a system that is warming or cooling will not have energy in balanced by energy out.
You are WRONG Zoe. Deal with it.
“That wasn’t my claim. Why can’t you read? ”
Indeed. That’s why it was an own-goal. That system PROVES that your implication that radiation in should be balanced by radiation out is WRONG. Admit your error Zoe.
““If I shine a laser onto the ground such that the surface receives 1000 W/m^2, how long will it take for an thermometer to measure ~364K ?””
It will never happen. You can NEVER get the surface to emit the same amount of radiation that it is receiving because some of the energy is going into evaporation and some is going into conduction. I have explained this to you already. You should be intelligent enough to understand it.
You’ve been proven wrong Zoe.
LikeLike
It just repeats itself.
So I’m wrong about a claim I never made. OK. If it doesn’t get to ~364K, what does it get to? Please enlighten us.
Funny you had no problem solving the problem wrong when you attempted it, but now time is a factor and I need to fill in more blanks. Why couldn’t you just do it right, so we could move onto the next step?
LikeLike
Zoe,
It still looks to me like
“I’ve cut your legs off!”
“No you didn’t”
“Black Knight” argument. Small list of pat response phrases. Circles around through selected phrase list to original “argument.” Never offers cited or referenced reasoning or backup.
Thing is, they self reward engagement points based on number of responses. I think I’ll call the unit of reward “Zucks” since Faceypages was really filled up with them, as were Twitterpated and Gettard when it started. A single operator can monitor a lot of them running, then sort through transcripts afterward for PI or triggers, and link and reuse those later.
They get loosed on wordpress sites alot. The good (?) ones will start up two instances with different logins to reinforce, or if need be, argue with each other.
It is to me amazing how they slowed down when the Ukraine war started, but I think those IPs are back up again. I’ve been seeing an awful lot of troll farm spam come back lately. Maybe they’ve run up the bot server?
You must be bored to play with it. But you must have said something that got you the attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But you must have said something that got you the attention.”
Actually, it was something that I said that got Zoe’s attention.
You seem to be quite taken by conspiracy theories. Is everyone you argue with on the internet a “bot”?
LikeLike
Yes, your mind’s eye is incapable of producing a Donohoe Fig 1A equivalent for the surface. Because you couldn’t do it, you couldn’t move on to the next step. So I let you talk and talk to expose yourself as a crank.
It was fun for a while, and I was hoping you’d catch yourself. But a true crank will continue to crank.
LikeLike
So long as the Black Night has his teeth, he’ll continue to bite.
LikeLike
“So I’m wrong about a claim I never made. OK”
Jesus Christ Zoe, you implied that the radiation in is balance by the radiation out. You never stated those EXACT words but THAT is what you are trying to argue here. If not then make yourself crystal clear. Does the radiation into a system always have to balance the radiation out of the system? Yes or no?
“If it doesn’t get to ~364K, what does it get to? Please enlighten us.”
That’s a complicated heat transfer problem to solve which would require detailed numerical calculations. However, THERE IS NOT DOUBT that the water CANNOT get to ~364K (which you arrived at by assuming it could emit 1000 W/m^2) due to a 1000 W/m^2 laser input. The FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS proves that this is impossible so long as ANY of the energy from the laser is going into the latent heat of the water and heat conduction to cooler regions of the water.
“Funny you had no problem solving the problem wrong when you attempted it,”
I have not provided any incorrect solutions Zoe. I have proven that you have.
“but now time is a factor”
Time is always a factor in a system that is warming or cooling Zoe. That should be obvious to you.
“and I need to fill in more blanks”
If you want to define your system as the skin then yes, you need to fill in all of the blanks. Why are you avoiding it.
“Why couldn’t you just do it right”
I did. Apparently you are not intelligent to understand why.
“so we could move onto the next step”
We can move on to the next step as soon as you fill in the blanks. You refuse because you know that doing so will require you to either give nonsensical values or the values that you give will prove yoour point to be wrong.
LikeLike
The funniest thing about you is you are even wrong by mainstream standards.
So you don’t think that without the atmosphere the surface would be ~255K? That’s good to know.
LikeLike
“The funniest thing about you is you are even wrong by mainstream standards.”
Nope. Nothing I have stated is incorrect. Your misrepresentations of what I have stated have been incorrect, but that is on you.
“So you don’t think that without the atmosphere the surface would be ~255K? That’s good to know.”
At some idealized steady state and assuming that albedo would somehow be the same as it is now, yes. So yet AGAIN you either are not intelligent enough to understand my statements, or you are just dishonestly misrepresenting them.
Which is it?
LikeLike
“At some idealized steady state and assuming that albedo would somehow be the same as it is now, yes.”
Why yes? You don’t think equilbrium is possible. Be consistent.
Since you’re so smart, you can easily come up with a model for a non-“idealized” situation and come up with an alternative ballpark figure. Why don’t you do that? That would be a great contribution to science.
LikeLike
“So you don’t think that without the atmosphere the surface would be ~255K? That’s good to know.”
Well you said:
“As you can see the time-averaged whole moon goes from a nightly low of 99.42 K to a daily high of 302.743 K, with a 24 moon-hour average of 201.082 K.”
So without atmosphere it can be 201.082 K or about 255 K or about 270 K at earth’s distance from the the sun.
These average temperatures are also possible at Mercury distance from the sun.
Mercury surface is both very hot and very cold but most of it’s surface is cold.
You can increase Mercury average temperature by adding gas to it. Any gas to it.
There other ways to increase it’s average temperature.
But it also matter what you calling a surface.
One could call skin surface to 2 meter depth as the surface.
Why call the top few inches of surface, the surface.
Because human eyes can not see thru a few inches of surface?
A human foot could kick a few inches of the surface away.
And human to live, should get under the surface where it’s not so hot and
few inches of surface is not so cold.
Though without atmosphere the very hot surface can be shaded and vacuum is not
hot or cold. One could say but whatever shade you use will heat up and than radiate
it heat at you. Yeah if you make the wrong kind shade. And if had a coolant, liquid is good,
you could make the hot sun do work.
So you could stay above the few inches of surface.
But there are other reasons like solar flares, which are why don’t want to live on the surface.
Anyhow, if you were a fish, what is Earth’s surface temperature?
LikeLike
Or a pretty important question is, how much surface do you got
And in terms of climate, how much surface does climate got.
On earth the entire ocean is part of Earth climate.
The average ocean temperature of entire ocean determines our climate.
And Earth global climate is currently what is called ice house global climate
because our ocean is cold, and most of earth long history has had a much warmer
ocean.
In terms of climate, how surface does Venus have?
well I going to see down to few inches below rocky surface.
Mainly because we know very little about Venus and when we know little
we can say a few inches below the rocky surface.
So, Venus would get very cold at Earth distance from the sun.
Though less cold if Venus had a lot of “geothermal heat”
We don’t know how geothermal heat Venus has, but we also don’t
know how much geothermal heat earth has. We suspect that more
80% of all geothermal heat is at the bottom of very, very deep ocean
which we also have not really explored.
They say ocean is less explored than our Moon. But I think our ocean
has more explored than the rocky surface of Venus. And we really only pictures
of the moon which is higher resolution then our ocean floor. So basically, we know
more of the top couple inches of the Moon as compared to couple inches of the ocean’s
rocky surface. Both are not explored, much. But if ignore Earth’s ocean, we have not even
explored much of our land surface.
I hope if we explore the Moon and then Mars, we will then explore Earth a lot more.
Or exploring space is not stopping us from exploring, Earth, it will instead enable more
exploration of Earth. It’s basically it is the only way to explore Earth.
LikeLike
Well, the skin is what the satellite sees. And I doubt it even goes past a millimeter. And this millimeter has a small heat capacity. True that this skin has to conduct to the millimeter below, and that one to a millimeter below, etc. But we can see there is NEGLIGIBLE difference in temperature between subsequent millimeters as we go down. At some depth, there is essentially a stable temperature. Of course if we add more gases, this depth becomes more and more the surface. Venus’ surface temperature is extrmely stable with what? like a degree difference between day and night?
LikeLike
“Well, the skin is what the satellite sees. ”
Satellites can see with radar. It’s how we see Venus rocky surface and most of Earth rocky surface
under the surface of the ocean.
We can see by counting neutrons, we don’t see well with neutrons, we think there could water ice
a meter or 2 below it’s dusty surface. We going to go there in few years and find out, I think should go there is less than 2 years with humans [first female to land on moon} but maybe robots will help
before we put humans once again on the Moon.
Last time we went there, it changed so much. Most would say we just got computers, but it’s a lot more than that.
LikeLike
Well, that would be an active satellite originating its own radiation, not a paasive one.
LikeLike
“Yeah 🙂 It”
I am a human man. No need for you to imply otherwise.
“also wants to constantly act like a teacher”
It’s not an act. I am a teacher. I’ve won multiple awards for that activity.
“without learning a single darn thing”
I’ve learned quite a bit about you Zoe. You are very confused about one of the most fundamental concepts in thermodynamics, the first law.
LikeLike
“Yes, your mind’s eye is incapable of producing a Donohoe Fig 1A equivalent for the surface.”
You are the one who is incapable Zoe. You continue to avoid and deflect. Why can’t you fill in the blanks Zoe? Why are you stalling?
“Because you couldn’t do it, you couldn’t move on to the next step.”
I have no need to do it. My point has been proven. If you want to make a point then go ahead. Your problem is that you don’t even understand the first law of thermodynamics.
“So I let you talk and talk to expose yourself as a crank.”
You’re the one that refuses to admit your errors Zoe. You refuse to admit that energy in is NOT equal to energy out in a system that is warming or cooling.
“It was fun for a while, and I was hoping you’d catch yourself.”
There’s nothing for me to catch. Everything that I have stated hereon is correct. I’ve caught yoou multiple times now and have shown that you don’t even have a firm grasp of thermo 101.
“But a true crank will continue to crank.”
Indeed, you just keep on going and never reflect on your errors even after they have been explained to you in a manner that even an undergrad could understand.
LikeLike
When it comes to TOA, you don’t seem botheree by the fact that part of TOA is the surface (thru atmo window) or that atmo gas water vapor also has latent heat properties. Nope, not bothered at all. Here you have zero problems doing math. But when it comes to the surface … my my do you have objections and complications. What do you think this looks like to my audience?
LikeLike
“When it comes to TOA, you don’t seem botheree by the fact that part of TOA is the surface (thru atmo window)”
Why should that bother anyone?
“or that atmo gas water vapor also has latent heat properties”
Again, why should that bother anyone?
“Nope, not bothered at all.”
You seem to be bothered by my multiple demonstrations of your incompetence.
“Here you have zero problems doing math.”
The math we are discussing here is rather trivial. If you had the courage to tackle the sphere-shell problem I proposed then we would at least have to solve a differential equation.
“But when it comes to the surface … my my do you have objections and complications.”
Again, I have no objections. If we want to discuss the simple energy balance for the skin, then you have to fill in the blanks. Why haven’t you filled in the blanks Zoe? Do you know how?
“What do you think this looks like to my audience?”
It looks like you have evaded filling in the blanks for dozens of comments. We all waiting. Do you have an ETA on that information?
LikeLike
So for TOA, latent heat is no issue, but for the surface you throw your hands up. You really lack self awareness.
I already told you, you can fill the blanks with ZERO for values I don’t give. Why is that so hard for you?
LikeLike
“Why yes? You don’t think equilbrium is possible. Be consistent.”
Steady state heat transfer is not thermal equilibrium. Yet another concept that you reveal you do not understand. Perhaps it’s just a language barrier for you again.
Given that the Earth is rotating, steady state is impossible.
When are you going to fill in the blanks Zoe?
LikeLike
My my you are so smart. Please enlighten the world with your alternative solution. This will be a great contribution to science.
LikeLike
Alternative solution?
Is it not clear to you that the sun shines on one side of the Earth, and that the Earth rotates one time per day, and that there is a yearly seasonal cycle?
Is it possible for a point on the Earth to have a temperature that does not depend on time under those conditions? Are you just trolling here?
LikeLike
Come on now. You can surely think of more excuses for not doing the math than that. Don’t stop, keep it going.
LikeLike
So you agree that there is no steady state solution for that system.
That proves my point. No math needed.
LikeLike
“Is it not clear to you that the sun shines on one side of the Earth, and that the Earth rotates one time per day, and that there is a yearly seasonal cycle?”
This fact doesn’t prevent mainstream scientists from calculating an AVERAGE value … ~255K.
You seem to agree with it without all your complications. And with your complications you can’t do the math necessary to get an alternative value – which would be very useful to science.
LikeLike
“This fact doesn’t prevent mainstream scientists from calculating an AVERAGE value … ~255K.”
Indeed. That value is a good pedagogical tool to illustrate some basic behavior. However, those same scientists know what the limitations of that simplified calculation are. In fact, it can be proven that the average temperature of the surface can be no higher than the effective radiating temperature and that any temperature variation actually cause the average to be less than the effective radiating temperature. That result requires more math than those in the general public like you are able to grasp.
“You seem to agree with it without all your complications.”
I agree that is the result for a simplified model of the system. However, I am also aware of the approximations used to obtain that result. I’m not sure that you are.
“And with your complications you can’t do the math necessary to get an alternative value”
I can do the math. Again, it would require numerical calculations and so I am not going to do that. I don’t see the point as it is not required to continue to demonstrate that you are not competent.
“which would be very useful to science”
Arthur Smith has already done some of this. Science does not need me to repeat it. Why do you think it would be useful?
LikeLike
What value does Arthur Smith get? Is that correct? If not, why have you not done it better?
“In fact, it can be proven that the average temperature of the surface can be no higher than the effective radiating temperature and that any temperature variation actually cause the average to be less than the effective radiating temperature.”
Surely, if that’s the case, then the “greenhouse effect” would be much greater than suggested. But scientists want to hide this fact because the public is too stupid?
LikeLike
“What value does Arthur Smith get? Is that correct? If not, why have you not done it better?”
Why do I need to do it better? Why are you trolling? Here is a link to Smith’s work:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
“This fact doesn’t prevent mainstream scientists from calculating an AVERAGE value … ~255K.”
It’s funny that you think this is an important number. It’s an approximation. Use it accordingly. Climate scientists do.
“Surely, if that’s the case, then the “greenhouse effect” would be much greater than suggested.”
Not that much greater. Read the paper.
I’m off to a pool party. I will be back to continue your education later.
LikeLike
What does Arthur Smith get? Why do you need to link a paper when a simple value can be given?
“Climate scientists do.”
But you argue Smith’s value is the best and you can’t do no better. So why don’t climate scientists switch to Smith?
LikeLike
“So for TOA, latent heat is no issue, but for the surface you throw your hands up. You really lack self awareness.”
For any system we need to know the energy in and the energy out. There is no latent heat in or out of the TOA.
There is latent and sensible heat in/out of the surface.
This is really not a difficult concept. That you don’t already understand it demonstrates the lack of self-awareness is your own.
LikeLike
TOA is partly surface and water vapor in the air, which still has latent heat property. Your TOA is some kind of a magical abstract layer actually on top, and not the approximate middle of atmosphere and partly surface that it is.
LikeLike
“TOA is partly surface and water vapor in the air”
The satellites are in outer space. There is no latent heat being transferred to or from outer space.
You really are clueless on climate science Zoe. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with you.
Well, I’m off to the pool. Until later.
LikeLike
Now you are saying that if all the water vapor rained out or more was added that this would not change the TOA flux.
Did you also forget that the TOA is actually a multi layer ensemble that mostly represents averaged middle of the atmosphere, and that there is still higher atmosphere? And this higher atmosphere still has clouds and therefore water.
The distribution of water vapor with height greatly effects TOA.
Of course you forgot all this because you’re a moron that believes the TOA is some abstract single layer in the atmosphere. Or at least you have to be now … to be consistent with your hypocrisy regarding the surface.
LikeLike
“Well, that would be an active satellite originating its own radiation, not a passive one.”
I sort of said we see ocean with radar, but it actually sonar used to map entire ocean floor. Dolphins have act together in terms of living in ocean.
Ocean water can’t seen thru with radar. But how you see thru water, is kind of important to national security, but because radar does not work well thru water, subs are hard to find.
But we can now see Venus surface by shortwave passive radiating thru massive atmosphere into space. Or it wasn’t considered possible, then the Solar Probe detected at different wavelength [then normally used- I guess]. So, something exploring our sun which also used Venus to to get very close to Sun.
Did you know it’s hard to hit or get very close to sun? So using gravity assists from Venus, and since it there, look at Venus [what the heck, got nothing else to do]. And saw glowing Venus mountainous
surface. Probably can improve in seeing Venus rocky surface, now that know it can be done,
LikeLike
And in terms Earth climate, we could also looking at earth with this portion shortwave spectrum,
also.
Climate is run on shoestring budget- in terms science. It the junk science which is involved the trillion dollar wasted on it.
Or books are written that we going all die from over population and other glamor which makes money.
The fact that under population is actually serious problem and will the death of China {partially due to their one child policy [but all due to this. Or Japan faces similar problem- as does Europe, US is only saved because it allows immigration]}. It a global problem caused by women {who of course blame it on men, as though men actually control anything- talk any husband {in private}}.
LikeLike
“What does Arthur Smith get?”
Read the paper Zoe. That way you can see all of the equations and all of the cases that he studied.
“Why do you need to link a paper when a simple value can be given?”
Because I am attempting to get you to educate yourself. He also looks at multiple cases. Read the paper and stop trolling.
“But you argue Smith’s value is the best and you can’t do no better.”
Is that what I said, or are you attempting to put words in my mouth again? Read the paper. Educate yourself.
“So why don’t climate scientists switch to Smith?”
Why should they. The 255K number is unimportant. The fact that you are fixated on it is rather pathetic. You need to get beyond it. Learn something new.
LikeLike
So it’s unimportant that there’s tons of scientific papers that aren’t stating the correct “greenhouse effect”?
Well you know I read this paper a long time ago. I commented on it at another blog.
Why was it hard for you to just give the answer, and then I could’ve shown you the flaws?
You seem to be impressed that his lambda is calculated by parameters not shown, his “y” is an approximation based on an assumption, he can’t predict any planetary temperature that doesn’t end up in a contradiction, and his result is just ~2 K below the standard value.
LikeLike
“So it’s unimportant that there’s tons of scientific papers that aren’t stating the correct “greenhouse effect”?”
Your lack of understanding of scientific papers is of no consequence to mainstream science. It’s your own problem to remedy. You need to take responsibility for your own education. To date you are failing miserably in that task.
“Well you know I read this paper a long time ago. I commented on it at another blog.”
Reading it and understanding it are two different things. You failed at the latter.
“Why was it hard for you to just give the answer, and then I could’ve shown you the flaws?”
I gave you the paper. It discusses the multiple calculations therein. Simple answers on a discussion forum are not always appropriate. In this case I have provided you with the full paper. Hence you will have more difficulty misrepresenting my statements about it.
“You seem to be impressed that his lambda is calculated by parameters not shown, his “y” is an approximation based on an assumption, he can’t predict any planetary temperature that doesn’t end up in a contradiction, and his result is just ~2 K below the standard value.”
His model is what it is. The irrefutable result is what I stated. The average temperature cannot be higher than the effective radiating temperature for the conditions specified in the paper.
LikeLike
“It discusses the multiple calculations there”
You know which one we are interested in.
“The irrefutable result is what I stated.”
You didn’t state a result. Remember? You just stated that it’s a tad lower.
Now again:
You seem to be impressed that his lambda is calculated by parameters not shown, his “y” is an approximation based on an assumption.
What result would we get if knew his parameters and they were incorrect and he didn’t use an approximation technique?
What if it was just 0.1K difference? To me this is negligible.
What if it was the same?
We can’t know. And yet YOU are impressed. You have low standards.
LikeLike
“Now you are saying that if all the water vapor rained out or more was added that this would not change the TOA flux.”
I don’t recall saying that. Oh right, I never said that. What’s the point of your straw man arguments Zoe?
“Did you also forget that the TOA is actually a multi layer ensemble that mostly represents averaged middle of the atmosphere, and that there is still higher atmosphere?”
I’m sorry to have to inform you Zoe, but the TOA is not the middle of the atmosphere. Satellites are in space. There is no latent heat being transferred to space. Why can’t you admit to this fact?
“And this higher atmosphere still has clouds and therefore water.”
There are no clouds in outer space.
“The distribution of water vapor with height greatly effects TOA.”
This statements makes no sense. I guess we can chalk that up to English being your third language. If you mean that the distribution of water vapor affects the radiation balance at the TOA, that is correct. It does have an effect. GCM’s model such distributions.
“Of course you forgot all this because you’re a moron that believes the TOA is some abstract single layer in the atmosphere.”
More childish name-calling Zoe? What a shame. You just demonstrate that you know you have no refutation of my demonstrations that you are incompetent.
Grow up Zoe and educate yourself.
LikeLike
What do satellites see, Rocky?
One imaginary layer on top or a whole multi-layer ensemble that will be typified by the average found in the middle of the atmosphere?
You doth protest too much, and make yourself look ridiculous.
LikeLike
“What do satellites see, Rocky?”
We’ve been over this. You are flailing.
“You doth protest too much, and make yourself look ridiculous.”
You are the one protesting Zoe, and I have been making you look ridiculous for days now.
LikeLike
“Well, the skin is what the satellite sees. And I doubt it even goes past a millimeter.”
I’ve already educated you on what satellites “see”. Your ignorance is becoming tiresome.
“And this millimeter has a small heat capacity.”
So what? You still need to do a proper energy balance of the skin to determine how its temperature changes. This is basic first law analysis. Again, your ignorance of thermodynamics is becoming tiresome.
“True that this skin has to conduct to the millimeter below, and that one to a millimeter below, etc.”
Indeed, and the molecules in the skin also emit radiation that travels to molecules below. Did you know that, or is that a new fact for you too?
“But we can see there is NEGLIGIBLE difference in temperature between subsequent millimeters as we go down.”
You don’t seem to understand the definition of negligible. There is a temperature gradient near the ocean surface. Hence there is heat being conducted near the ocean surface. There is also evaporation occurring at the ocean surface. These facts mean that the radiation into and out from the skin are not equal. The fact that you are still trying to argue that they are equal only acts to add additional evidence that you are incompetent.
“At some depth, there is essentially a stable temperature.”
Yes, deeper than the skin.
“Of course if we add more gases, this depth becomes more and more the surface. Venus’ surface temperature is extrmely stable with what? like a degree difference between day and night?”
You’re rambling now Zoe.
It is an irrefutable fact that the radiation incident on the surface is NOT equal to the radiation emitted out from the surface. If you think otherwise then you are wrong.
LikeLike
You’re so mad at being wrong you need to invade conversations I’m having with other people. What’s the matter? Not confident they will read your garbage?
LikeLike
I’m not mad at all Zoe, and I am not wrong. There is no need for you to project your emotional reactions on to me.
LikeLike
“These facts mean that the radiation into and out from the skin are not equal.”
Sure, but let’s take a look at the ocean in the tropics …
The albedo there is ~0.31
The incoming radiation averaged over 24 hrs averaged over a year:
1361 × (1 – 0.31) / 2 = 469.545 W/m^2
The broadband emissivitty of water is about 0.98
469.545 = 0.98 * sigma * T^4
T = 303.19 K = 30.04 C
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/temp-vary.html
“the ocean surface … a warm 30°C (86°F) in the tropics”
Wow an impressive match.
Of course we did it without GHGs!
Yes the water will evaporate and will be transported to the poles.
As I said before, what is left under this evaporated water will still be the predicted temperature.
Notice I didn’t use any subsurface layers as you keep insisting on?
“The fact that you are still trying to argue that they are equal only acts to add additional evidence that you are incompetent.”
It’s true that radiation in is not equal to radiation out, but that is merely because water doesn’t have an emissivity equal to 1, but 0.98.
But flux in certainly equals flux out.
Notice I talked about fluxes and never “radiation” ?
YOU brought in the “radiation” term, I only used fluxes.
Stop debunking your own stupid strawmen!
LikeLike
““These facts mean that the radiation into and out from the skin are not equal.”
Sure”
VERY GOOD ZOE. You’ve FINALLY admitted to your error.
“but let’s take a look at the ocean in the tropics …
The albedo there is ~0.31
The incoming radiation averaged over 24 hrs averaged over a year:
1361 × (1 – 0.31) / 2 = 469.545 W/m^2”
That’s the incoming radiation to the SURFACE. The MAJORITY of that passes THROUGH the skin.
“The broadband emissivitty of water is about 0.98
469.545 = 0.98 * sigma * T^4
T = 303.19 K = 30.04 C
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/temp-vary.html
“the ocean surface … a warm 30°C (86°F) in the tropics”
Wow an impressive match.
Of course we did it without GHGs!”
What’s even more impressive is that you still are unable to understand the first law of thermodynamics.
“Yes the water will evaporate and will be transported to the poles.”
Indeed. How’s that cognitive dissonance going?
“Notice I didn’t use any subsurface layers as you keep insisting on?”
Which of course means that your calculation is meaningless since 1) it is cherry-picking a single great circle on the Earth, and more importantly 2) it does not respect the first law of thermodynamics. You really should be embarrassed by how poor your understanding of scientific principles is, but I guess your Dunning-Kruger affliction is insulating you from that.
““The fact that you are still trying to argue that they are equal only acts to add additional evidence that you are incompetent.”
It’s true that radiation in is not equal to radiation out”
EXACTLY. Again, thank you for admitting your error.
‘but that is merely because water doesn’t have an emissivity equal to 1, but 0.98.”
Oh my, you should have quite while you finally got something right. Radiation in does not equal radiation out because there are OTHER modes of heat transfer occurring to and from the skin. Learn how to use the first law Zoe.
“But flux in certainly equals flux out.”
WRONG.
“Notice I talked about fluxes and never “radiation” ?”
Oh my, do you want a gold star? Everything that we have been talking about and quantifying with W/m^2 are fluxes.
“YOU brought in the “radiation” term, I only used fluxes.”
I’m sorry, I did not realize that you were so scientifically illiterate.
“Stop debunking your own stupid strawmen!”
You really are a piece of work. It’s good you’ve admitted to your error on radiation balance, but now you’ve just added several more. It will obviously take you quite some time to learn thermodynamics properly. I suggest you try to solve some simple problems.
LikeLike
My penultimate comment to you …
“The MAJORITY of that passes THROUGH the skin.”
The skin IS the surface. It’s the top millimeter or so of the surface. Weird you didn’t know that. We are interested in the surface.
“it is cherry-picking a single great circle on the Earth”
It’s HALF the Earth, idiot.
It’s the place where most energy comes in from the sun. Energy travels from hot to cold. This is the place to start. I can’t evaluate other places strictly from the sun alone because energy will be transported horizontally from the tropics, dumb dumb. The sun alone comes up short, OBVIOUSLY.
You said it doesn’t work anywhere. You were WRONG.
LikeLike
“The skin IS the surface. It’s the top millimeter or so of the surface.”
Last night there was zero solar radiation being absorbed by the surface of my pool.
Why didn’t it freeze?
LikeLike
It’s always hot in hell, even without the sun 😝
So don’t make accusations of what I never suggested.
LikeLike
““it is cherry-picking a single great circle on the Earth”
It’s HALF the Earth, idiot.”
Poor Zoe, more childish name-calling. I’m sorry to have to inform you but half the earth does not receive 1361 × (1 – 0.31) / 2 = 469.545 W/m^2 averaged over 24 hours.
Try again sweetheart.
LikeLike
My bad. Summertime. Half the Earth, half the time. Quarter all the time.
A quarter is not small. Much more than the “circle” you said.
You can be more exact and do it by latitude. And you will see the sun alone explains the tropics quite nicely.
LikeLike
Can a blogger actually troll (not a verb in context) a rudely programmed bot commenter on the blog?
Still can’t detect it is on the wrong thread. Lazy or poor programming? Script kitty stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for noticing. My admin wordpress interface is very different from viewers. I don’t even see threads. I just respond to a queue of comments whichever article or thread they’re in.
I’m too scared to even load the site as a viewer. How awful is the mess?
LikeLike
“How bad is the mess”
I don’t think it is terribly bad. I usually have script and ad blockers in place by default that make the view very plain.
All your blog comments and responses come in on the same page view (similar to what you probably see) unless I select the specific thread that I was commenting on. I think that because your response to me immediately preceded the flying squirrel bot’s response, all the comments and responses since have come in on my email because I was following that thread, specifically.
As the view comes out in the mail, every comment I’ve received shows the SWE thread header, even though the text is obviously about your thermal body thread.
I could easily unfollow that thread, but much easier to simply cause the email software to delete comments specifically posted from the squirrel.
I reckoned that this may be the standard word press behavior for anyone (or anything) responding to the main page, instead of the page for the specific thread. Maybe it is a bug.
I’m not worried about it. But I expect your other commenters, human and otherwise, are viewing and commenting on the discussion on the blog “main” page today. From my thread email view, they are merely out of context. To hazard a guess, if other users are following the entire blog, their e-mails are showing a similar context for each comment.
I was only following that thread because I’d sent comments to you on it, but I try to read all of your posts, I just don’t follow all, but browse to the page “manually.” I don’t necessarily read all comments on other threads. Likely my quirky usage and browser settings have determined my own view of the blog today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
Still don’t know how it is that you are entertained by argumentum ad ignorami, although I’d guess that the reason is somewhere between your “smarty pants” persona and residence in New York.
“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” — Heinlein
Probably applies to squirrels, too. But arguing with (good as) script kitty software doesn’t affect the programmer at all.
LikeLike
Nah I’m done with it. I let it talk to discredit itself.
Not in New York. Moved to Georgia 4 years ago. I felt NY was going to hell. Moved my small children to a safe place. I can breathe freely here.
LikeLike
Yes. My family is more recently from upstate NY, although a bunch of them on both sides have lived or worked in the city. Hardly anyone I’m related to lives there now. Over the last century or so, almost all have left, first NYC, then the state.
Lived near Augusta, Georgia when I was little and Dad was called up by the Army for one or the other emergency. I remember only walking to a nice little old grocery store, and a rattlesnake some neighbor kids found. Compared to even Utica of today, Georgia is a whole lot safer.
Saw the post where you kicked the troll. Good job. No upside.
I imagine your family is back to school? My grandkids are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always enjoyed visiting upstate. Hiking, Skiing, Boating. Always wanted to go Cananda thru the channels. Never made it past Troy. Niagra Falls was nice. Only drove nearby Utica.
I love Georgia now, except the messed up political situation. Literally today: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/breaking-37500-affidavits-delivered-gwinnett-county-georgia-election-board-20000-challenging-2020-election-results-enough/
My county is corrupt. Good thing I have a 2nd place in the mountains.
I’m going to continue home schooling my kids till high school. A good high school. No worries, they are well socialized.
NY is doomed unless they change course. Sad to happen to a very pretty and previously successful state.
Glad I called it early. COVID was hell in NYC, I heard.
LikeLike
““It discusses the multiple calculations there”
You know which one we are interested in.”
As do you. Do your homework.
““The irrefutable result is what I stated.”
You didn’t state a result. Remember?”
I did state a result. I stated that it can be proven that the average surface temperature cannot be higher than the effective radiating temperature … Do try to pay attention Zoe.
“You just stated that it’s a tad lower.”
Why don’t you quote what I wrote? You really are dishonest.
“Now again:
You seem to be impressed that his lambda is calculated by parameters not shown, his “y” is an approximation based on an assumption.”
Why do you say that? I made no mention of “lambda”. Are you insane?
“What result would we get if knew his parameters and they were incorrect and he didn’t use an approximation technique?”
You’d get a value that is LOWER than the effective radiating temperature. THAT is the irrefutable result.
“What if it was just 0.1K difference? To me this is negligible.”
That would mean that the temperature is nearly uniform. Why don’t you use the assumption that you are so taken by that the radiation flux emitted at every point on the planet must be equal to the radiation flux absorbed at every point and see what average temperature you get? Arthur might have already done this for you.
“What if it was the same?”
We know it won’t be if there is any variation in temperature on the surface.
“We can’t know.”
Of course we can know that it is not the same. It’s a mathematically irrefutable fact that it is not the same unless the temperature of the surface is the same at ALL points.
“And yet YOU are impressed.”
I am impressed that you are so incompetent and yet so confident that you are right.
“You have low standards.”
Perhaps, but you have not met them.
LikeLike
That was your last comment. You have nothing of value to contribute to this blog.
Good bye, troll
LikeLike
Last comment …
‘I made no mention of “lambda”. Are you insane?’
It’s in Smith’s paper, you pathetic troll. Thanks for proving you don’t even read what you link.
We’re done. Hope you enjoyed your brief stay.
LikeLike