NOAA Satellite records second largest 2-month temperature drop in history

[ReinyDays]

Your graph very clearly shows 1,360 (± 5) W/m^2 ... your entire temperature plot is within instrumentation error ...

No. Not even close to being within instrumentation error. These instruments are very, very good.

I know we have thermometers that are very accurate ... but the ones we have in wide distribution measure to the nearest whole degree ... and this is the NOAA standard for their thermometers ... ± 0.5ºC ... I know you're not familiar with meteorological data, but if you'd ever look you'd see that indeed all temperatures are recorded to the nearest whole degree ...

You're speaking nonsense ... the solar constant is called a constant for a very good reason ...

You are the only person I've ever encountered who says that TSI is perfectly constant. Nobody else on either side says such a thing. No science anywhere says such a thing. You are essentially alone in the universe with that claim.

I understand you only listen to nonsense ... any solar scientist would agree with me ... solar output to three significant digits is 1,360 W/m^2 ... not 1,370 or 1,350 but 1,360 ...

Tell me how your average value can be more accurate than your original data ... and how would we know if we don't measure it ...

 

[mamooth]

The Russian scientists are correct. The solar minimum is going to turn earth into an icebox for at least a couple of decades, maybe as long as 50 years.

Because you have faith?

They've been saying that for a long time. When is your HolyIceAge ever going to arrive?

Oh, that's right. You're a fanatical acolyte of a doomsday Ice Age cult. Like all doomsday cultists, whenever doomsday fails to arrive, you push back the date again.

 

[mamooth]

I know we have thermometers that are very accurate ... but the ones we have in wide distribution measure to the nearest whole degree ... and this is the NOAA standard for their thermometers ... ± 0.5ºC ... I know you're not familiar with meteorological data, but if you'd ever look you'd see that indeed all temperatures are recorded to the nearest whole degree ...

The topic was solar output. Solar output isn't measured with thermometers, so none of that has any bearing on the topic.

I understand you only listen to nonsense ... any solar scientist would agree with me ... solar output to three significant digits is 1,360 W/m^2 ... not 1,370 or 1,350 but 1,360 ...

If you're not just making that up, please quote those solar scientists.

But since you did just make that up, you won't be able to, therefore proceed with some weird evasion instead.

Tell me how your average value can be more accurate than your original data ... and how would we know if we don't measure it ...

The error of a mean is much lower that the error of the individual measurements. That's basic statistics. You know so little about the topic of statistics, you're unaware of how little you know

 

[Flash]

The Russian scientists are correct. The solar minimum is going to turn earth into an icebox for at least a couple of decades, maybe as long as 50 years.

Because you have faith?

They've been saying that for a long time. When is your HolyIceAge ever going to arrive?

Oh, that's right. You're a fanatical acolyte of a doomsday Ice Age cult. Like all doomsday cultists, whenever doomsday fails to arrive, you push back the date again.

The Russians and other scientists did their homework on this one and you stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats don't want to hear the science. Science deniers!

The solar minimum is going to put us into a mini ice age age just like we have had many times before. You are not going to get your beloved earth hothouse like you were so much looking forward to.

You stupid Moon Bats don't know anymore about Climate Science than you know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

A couple of nights ago it was in the 40s here in Central Florida in May. That is like January lows for us. Global warming my ass.

 

[mamooth]

El-Nino phases is when you have warm surface waters accumulate that goes in the atmosphere, never said land. Tropical Storms, Hurricanes also cools the ocean surface due to accelerated outflow of energy.

That's nice. The oceans have still been warming strongly and continue to warm strongly. We know because we measure ocean temperatures in great detail with very precise thermometers on many thousands of floats and buoys.

Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Not all of that heating is detectable yet at the surface

www.climate.gov

Already posted this once

And none of in any way refutes the fact that the oceans have been warming strongly and continue to warm strongly. So why do you keep posting it? It's totally irrelevant.

It is clear YOU never read the math on it, versus the oceans capacity to absorb energy. Only the SUN contributes the necessary energy flow to heat up the surface waters, the inflow many times greater than the postulated CO2 inflow contribution.

Not according to the hard data, which measures backradiation as having about twice the power of direct sunlight.

Here is a detailed comment posted by Dr. Clark:

A WUWT groupie? Seriously? That's your science source now?

He failed at understanding the thermodynamics of the ocean. He didn't understand that backradiation slows heat loss from the ocean as opposed to heating the skin, making all of his numbers pointless handwaving.

CO2 warming up the ocean waters claim is pure stupidity.

And flat earthers say that round earth claims are pure stupidity. Religious cultists usually say that everyone outside the cult is stupid.

 

[mamooth]

The Russians and other scientists did their homework on this one

Then why do their predictions fail every time?

Your ice age cult has been screaming "NEW ICE AGE TOMORROW!" non-stop for the past 40+ years. Your HolyIceAge never arrives, yet your belief in it is undimmed. You possess the fanaticism of the true believer.

In stark contrast, the AGW people have an excellent record with their predictions over that same time span.

AGW theory has credibility because it's earned it through success. Your side lacks credibility due to your chronic failing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I see that Mamooth is confused, writes what I am not disputing:

That's nice. The oceans have still been warming strongly and continue to warm strongly. We know because we measure ocean temperatures in great detail with very precise thermometers on many thousands of floats and buoys.

I haven't argued against ocean warming itself, what I keep pointing out is something else, something warmist/alarmists continually misunderstand, the El-Nino and Modoki phases accelerated the upwelling of energy transfer from the waters into the atmosphere, it is why the air temperature increases rapidly for half a year or so, then it drops off because the main transfer has dropped off to a much lower rate.

The surface of the main El-Nino region cools down after a few months, the same way when Tropical storms and Hurricanes cools down a strip of the ocean surface where the storms had travelled over.

This is something warmists have a difficult time distinguishing the difference between an El-nino phase and SUN/ Albedo/ Cloudiness changes to the energy levels of the ocean waters.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see that Mamooth is confused, writes what I am not disputing:

That's nice. The oceans have still been warming strongly and continue to warm strongly. We know because we measure ocean temperatures in great detail with very precise thermometers on many thousands of floats and buoys.

I haven't argued against ocean warming itself, what I keep pointing out is something else, something warmist/alarmists continually misunderstand, the El-Nino and Modoki phases accelerated the upwelling of energy transfer from the waters into the atmosphere, it is why the air temperature increases rapidly for half a year or so, then it drops off because the main transfer has dropped off to a much lower rate.

The surface of the main El-Nino region cools down after a few months, the same way when Tropical storms and Hurricanes cools down a strip of the ocean surface where the storms had travelled over.

This is something warmists have a difficult time distinguishing the difference between an El-nino phase and SUN/ Albedo/ Cloudiness changes to the energy levels of the ocean waters.

Your trying to explain heat transfer to an idiot. IT cant understand simple thermodynamics so its a lost cause. We are leaving the Madoki pattern and going La Niña. Its going to be a bad couple of years for the alarmists...

IF WE FOLLOW PREVIOUS HISTORY.. We are about to go negative for the next three to five years. We are already dropping in the Northern Hemisphere temperature. Most areas in the NH will be colder than the 30 year average. Its looking to be a cool summer in the US.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I see that Mamooth is confused, writes what I am not disputing:

That's nice. The oceans have still been warming strongly and continue to warm strongly. We know because we measure ocean temperatures in great detail with very precise thermometers on many thousands of floats and buoys.

I haven't argued against ocean warming itself, what I keep pointing out is something else, something warmist/alarmists continually misunderstand, the El-Nino and Modoki phases accelerated the upwelling of energy transfer from the waters into the atmosphere, it is why the air temperature increases rapidly for half a year or so, then it drops off because the main transfer has dropped off to a much lower rate.

The surface of the main El-Nino region cools down after a few months, the same way when Tropical storms and Hurricanes cools down a strip of the ocean surface where the storms had travelled over.

This is something warmists have a difficult time distinguishing the difference between an El-nino phase and SUN/ Albedo/ Cloudiness changes to the energy levels of the ocean waters.

Your trying to explain heat transfer to an idiot. IT cant understand simple thermodynamics so its a lost cause. We are leaving the Madoki pattern and going La Niña. Its going to be a bad couple of years for the alarmists...

View attachment 334553

IF WE FOLLOW PREVIOUS HISTORY.. We are about to go negative for the next three to five years. We are already dropping in the Northern Hemisphere temperature. Most areas in the NH will be colder than the 30 year average. Its looking to be a cool summer in the US.

View attachment 334555

Yeah he is an idiot, heck he proved it convincingly with this statement, from post 105:

Not according to the hard data, which measures backradiation as having about twice the power of direct sunlight.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see that Mamooth is confused, writes what I am not disputing:

That's nice. The oceans have still been warming strongly and continue to warm strongly. We know because we measure ocean temperatures in great detail with very precise thermometers on many thousands of floats and buoys.

I haven't argued against ocean warming itself, what I keep pointing out is something else, something warmist/alarmists continually misunderstand, the El-Nino and Modoki phases accelerated the upwelling of energy transfer from the waters into the atmosphere, it is why the air temperature increases rapidly for half a year or so, then it drops off because the main transfer has dropped off to a much lower rate.

The surface of the main El-Nino region cools down after a few months, the same way when Tropical storms and Hurricanes cools down a strip of the ocean surface where the storms had travelled over.

This is something warmists have a difficult time distinguishing the difference between an El-nino phase and SUN/ Albedo/ Cloudiness changes to the energy levels of the ocean waters.

Your trying to explain heat transfer to an idiot. IT cant understand simple thermodynamics so its a lost cause. We are leaving the Madoki pattern and going La Niña. Its going to be a bad couple of years for the alarmists...

View attachment 334553

IF WE FOLLOW PREVIOUS HISTORY.. We are about to go negative for the next three to five years. We are already dropping in the Northern Hemisphere temperature. Most areas in the NH will be colder than the 30 year average. Its looking to be a cool summer in the US.

View attachment 334555

Yeah he is an idiot, heck he proved it convincingly with this statement, from post 105:

Not according to the hard data, which measures backradiation as having about twice the power of direct sunlight.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I wonder where his perpetual motion machine is and if that's where he is getting his numbers.... OMFG Now reflected or re-emitted radiation from CO2 has TWICE THE ENERGY than incoming solar radiation... I want to know how that's done...

Its way beyond being a fucking idiot....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Look at the cooling of the sea surface globally. The mottled look is cold surface water.

This is today's image.. The amount of surface cold is massive.

And the cold at depth is stunning. Its taken just five years for all the stored heat to be gone. This goes on three to five more years and we will see cold records we haven't seen in 180 years or longer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Both the northern and southern oscillations are entering their cold phases and the sun is inactive. The drop will continue into next month, maybe longer by 3-9 years if we look at the 1970's progression. I'm betting by July we are at Zero anomaly or below.

Billy, you've been predicting "NEW RECORD COLD LA NINA REAL SOON NOW" non-stop for at least the past 5 years.

Due to the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" rule, you get a La Nina prediction right on rare occasions. But you're almost always dead wrong.

And meanwhile, the actual prediction is for a near-neutral ENSO for the next 6 months. And for 2020 to be possibly the warmest year ever, and definitely at least very close to the warmest year ever.

...warmest, once you hide the decline by adding in the "heat trapped in the deep ocean"

 

[ReinyDays]

The topic was solar output. Solar output isn't measured with thermometers, so none of that has any bearing on the topic.

You must be confused ... read the OP again ... see ... the subject is Earth temperatures ... 0.0001% changes in solar output cause (0.0001%)^0.25 changes in Earth's temperature ... a level of precision not practiced over the past 100 years ...

If you're not just making that up, please quote those solar scientists.
But since you did just make that up, you won't be able to, therefore proceed with some weird evasion instead.

Ah ... the "three significant digits" tripped you up ... I was taught that in high school biology ... and every other science class I've taken since ...

The error of a mean is much lower that the error of the individual measurements. That's basic statistics.

No ... that's basic fraud ...
2 (±0.5) + 3 (±0.5) + 6 (±0.5) = 11 (±1.5)
11 (±1.5) ÷ 3 = 3.67 (±0.5)
See how the average carrys the same margin of error ... same with average temperature ...

It would be fraudulent to say the average is 3.67 (±0.005) ...

We can't average out instrumentation error ...

=====

You're down to the "you're not a solar astronomer" and "you're not a statistician" arguments ... meaning you've lost ... thank you ...

 

[mamooth]

You must be confused ... read the OP again ... see ... the subject is Earth temperatures ... 0.0001% changes in solar output

Running the numbers, you're claiming TSI has only varied by .001 watt/m^2 out of about 1360 watt/m^2. You're only off by a factor of 1000 or so, as TSI actually varies about 1 watt/m^2. Being off by a factor of 1000 is not an insubstantial error on your part, wouldn't you agree?

Up until about 1970, earth average temperature tracked closely with solar output. The variability of the sun certainly does have an effect. That effect was just swamped by the contribution of greenhouse gases after 1970.

Ah ... the "three significant digits" tripped you up ... I was taught that in high school biology ... and every other science class I've taken since ...

Best I can tell, you're now retreating from "All solar scientists say solar output is perfectly constant". to "All solar scientists say solar output is constant to 3 signficant figures". That is, you're now saying that you were wrong, that solar scientists don't say output is constant, but you don't want to admit to being wrong.

No ... that's basic fraud ...

2 (±0.5) + 3 (±0.5) + 6 (±0.5) = 11 (±1.5)
11 (±1.5) ÷ 3 = 3.67 (±0.5)

No, not correct. The correct answer there would be 3.67 (+/- 0.29).

You're assuming that the very rudimentary statistics you learned in high school biology was correct. It wasn't. It was only taught that way because the correct version is too complicated for high school freshmen.

See how the average carrys the same margin of error ... same with average temperature ...

No, completely wrong. Read. Learn.

Standard error - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you don't understand what that all means, then you have no business bothering the grownups. Back to the kiddie table with you, until you learn some basic statistics.

It would be fraudulent to say the average is 3.67 (±0.005) ...

We can't average out instrumentation error ...

Sure we can., when we're calculating a mean. If you had learned any statistics past the high school freshman level, you'd know that.

You're down to the "you're not a solar astronomer" and "you're not a statistician" arguments ... meaning you've lost ...

What I've demonstrated is that you're too clueless about these topics to understand how clueless you are. You? You're sulking and yelling "I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!", even though you're demonstrably wrong. Learn from this. Next time, when I take the time out to educate you, thank me for it.

 

[mamooth]

[I wonder where his perpetual motion machine is and if that's where he is getting his numbers.... OMFG Now reflected or re-emitted radiation from CO2 has TWICE THE ENERGY than incoming solar radiation... I want to know how that's done...

Billy, it's okay to be stupid, but it's not okay to be belligerently stupid. You and Tommy are proudly and belligerently stupid.

Let me explain this in terms so simple that even you and Tommy might be able to grasp it.

Imagine two nearly identical rooms, each lit by a single 100-watt light bulb. The only difference is that one room is painted white, the other black.

Which room is brighter? I'm hoping that even you will say that the white room is brighter.

And why is the white room brighter? Because the light flux going through the air is much higher.

According to your loopy cult beliefs, that proves that the white paint creates energy, and that white paint is a perpetual motion machine. That's one reason why the whole world laughs so hard at you.

Energy flux internal to a system can vary. It doesn't matter. It's only the energy going into and out of the system that has to be balanced in an equilibrium system.

 

[mamooth]

I haven't argued against ocean warming itself, what I keep pointing out is something else, something warmist/alarmists continually misunderstand, the El-Nino and Modoki phases accelerated the upwelling of energy transfer from the waters into the atmosphere,

In local areas, yet.

On the global scale, the oceans are warming strongly, not cooling, completely destroying your theory that old heat stored in the oceans is causing the current warming.

Given that you're so completely confounded by the concept of "global", why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

 

[ReinyDays]

Since when has the "%" symbol meant "W/m^2"? ... which impoverished third world nation did you learn English-as-a-second-language ... Mississippi? ...

If I was talking about standard error, I'd have said standard error ... I see the confusion on your part, the relative Wikipedia article is titled:

Observational error - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You have a reasonably good knowledge base in these matters ... I'll give you credit for that ... but there's some holes in your studies as though you've not gone through the formal educational process ... see if your local community college offers a lower division class on astrophysics ... not many do ... but at least read a textbook ... temperature on Earth is proportional to the fourth root of input energy ... SB's Law ... small changes in solar output make teeny tiny changes in temperature here ... that's the law ... proof of any violation gets you a meeting with the Queen of Sweden ...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Of course things are getting better. Humans aren't running around and crapping up the planet.

In India, they can again see the Himalaya's. In Venice, the water has cleared and the fish are starting to come back. LA has the best air quality they have ever had.

Climate is not weather you goof ball, the CO2 level does not disappeared overnight.

 

[mamooth]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Flat-earthers act just like you. They also claim that any hard evidence that contradicts their loopy claims has to be faked, and that anyone who believes the hard evidence is crazy and evil.

This isn't a debate. If you point a pyrgeometer at the sky, you measure the backradiation being around twice as strong as the direct sunlight. That varies with geography and time, but it's about the average for the whole earth.

The fact that flat-earthers reject reality doesn't make the earth flat, no matter how fervent their beliefs are. It's the same with your reality-defying beliefs.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[I wonder where his perpetual motion machine is and if that's where he is getting his numbers.... OMFG Now reflected or re-emitted radiation from CO2 has TWICE THE ENERGY than incoming solar radiation... I want to know how that's done...

Billy, it's okay to be stupid, but it's not okay to be belligerently stupid. You and Tommy are proudly and belligerently stupid.

Let me explain this in terms so simple that even you and Tommy might be able to grasp it.

Imagine two nearly identical rooms, each lit by a single 100-watt light bulb. The only difference is that one room is painted white, the other black.

Which room is brighter? I'm hoping that even you will say that the white room is brighter.

And why is the white room brighter? Because the light flux going through the air is much higher.

According to your loopy cult beliefs, that proves that the white paint creates energy, and that white paint is a perpetual motion machine. That's one reason why the whole world laughs so hard at you.

Energy flux internal to a system can vary. It doesn't matter. It's only the energy going into and out of the system that has to be balanced in an equilibrium system.

LOL

If you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with Bull Shit... and you have it down.

Your assertions are so wrong, on so many levels, that its useless to even try to show you, again, how wrong you are.