Observation is the key to scientific study. When you observe that a released apple falls to the ground, this observation has more meaning than any theory of spontaneous levitation that ever existed. Such observations have led us to recognize and attempt to quantify the laws of physics in the forms of mathematical equations. These equations are not really perfect reflections of reality, but rather are our best match of understanding to observation. I will give an unquestioned and well observed effect that I think most people can understand.
Two cars crashing head on, each going 30 mph. Car 1 is moving at speed v (30mph), car 2 is moving head on, at speed u (30mph).
Speed of closure between two cars (S) = v + u which is 30 +30 = 60 mph of closure speed.
In the early 1900’s relativity was discovered and it was found that at very high velocities, the Galilean physics did not match observation. This caused a change in the expression of physics, resulting in a different (looking) equation.
This equation looks different and at first glance appears over-complicated. It is not. S in this equation is the closure rate between cars based on current physics, rather than the S of the olden days. Then you realize, the speed of light squared, c^2 is a really really huge number and it is at the bottom of the equation. What makes this interesting is that when v times u (vu at the bottom of the equation), is usually very small compared to the speed of light squared c^2 (the vu/c^2 in equation is effectively a zero at 30 miles per hour) and the equation actually converges to the Galilean standard of previous observation.
S = v + u / (1+0) = v + u
So the result is that relativistic equations of physics, now MATCH a wider range of OBSERVATION. Both the low speed, two cars at 30 miles per hour, and the high speed 80% of the speed of light match within our ability to observe. The Galilean equation is imperfect and fails to represent the high speed observations – only.
Observation:
In much of science (not most anymore), observation is the unpolluted king of the research department. However, money is the thing which pays for the observation. This causes problems much more often than most people will ever realize (my unsolicited but free opinion).
A long time ago now, “scientists” being well paid for global warming research, intentionally switched the narrative from Global Warming to Climate Change. The reason for this is political, but from a scientific standpoint, it had a first level of theoretical justification. The energy movement in the climate system is what drives the variation in weather patterns. If you have more energy moving in the system, it is perfectly rational and even necessary to conclude with absolute certainty, that you will see more extreme weather patterns. Hurricanes must become stronger because they are heat pumps moving heat from the ocean to upper layers of the atmosphere. More heat equals bigger hurricanes. Rain will become more common as the atmosphere has more warmth allowing more differential. However, science knows that measurements are imperfect as there is always noise in the data – and the size of the expected signal matters.
More telling, is that you can observe the truth of those statements on other planets. Jupiter’s red-spot is large and continuous because it is moving a tremendous amount of heat from the lower atmosphere to the upper. The wind speeds and size are beyond any form of observation we will ever see on Earth and this is a known fact. Venus is hot enough at its surface to melt solder, this is caused in huge part by its thick CO2 atmosphere. These are real world examples (some pun intended), but they cannot be denied as they are OBSERVATION.
But all science, including “Climate Science™“, is all about math, and it suffers from the same problems as Galilean velocity equations — size actually matters.
Global warming is real:
Global warming is an effect caused by a radiative emission from a visual spectrum (sunlight) being absorbed into the surface of Earth and then a perfectly equal amount of energy being re-emitted back to space at much longer wavelengths. In generalities, this is characterized by the also imperfect Planck blackbody equations. There is literally zero scientific controversy about global warming at this level. Zero is a small number. Again, a first level science review proves beyond a doubt that the global warming effect is real and completely uncontroversial.
Again, size matters. Tay appension people!!! You still with me?
If the car is not traveling well over 1000 Miles per SECOND (pretty fast), Galileo’s equations are perfectly correct within our ability to observe velocity. If you are bored, you can figure out that the relativistic equation results equal Galilean equation results to a large number of significant figures. Therefore, relativistic equations are correct and it is impossible to say Galilean equations are wrong. After all, we all used the same Galilean equations to get through high school.
What I’m saying is that these two different equations reduce to the same number through most of human observation, because SIZE MATTERS in science.
So… bullet points for us chicken brain humans
- Global warming is unquestionably real
- Climate change also exists
- Size matters
Time for a couple of graphs. It is science after all.
The below graph is from Dr. Roy Spencer’s fantastic blog – linked here and on the right.
The rate of “Global Warming” as measured by satellites in the lower part of the atmosphere. These values are basically unpolluted by ground effect that surface stations include but much more importantly, they include the bulk of the heat energy in the gaseous atmosphere. This means that global warming since 1979 is visually about 0.5 degrees Celsius. We humans don’t have any scientific idea how much of that is caused by CO2.
In total, this is a very SMALL amount of warming.
Much smaller than any climate models predicted, and the graph above is actually humanities best data on atmospheric temperature.
This next graph compares OBSERVATION of temperature changes to climate models of temperature changes as predicted. The blue bar on the left is observation.
As we all can now OBSERVE, the key to all of Real Climate™ observation, are lower than all of climate models. ALL of the climate models have predicted more warming than we observe. What folks don’t know, is that the HIGHER model trends are the ones being politically represented as the CORRECT models and the LOWER models on the left side of the graph above are typically the ones being represented as models if we do something to fix the alleged, but as yet UNOBSERVED, climate “problem”.
Now, I have repeatedly stated with links and evidence from government and even my own science, the following equally true OBSERVED facts:
No trend in hurricanes
No trend in drought
No trend in rain
No the fish are not shrinking
No butterflies are going extinct
Polar bears are doing great
Antarctic ice is not shrinking away
Sea level rise is a dead straight line for 150 years
Penguins are doing great too.
So the chicken-brain in the human body says, JEFF, you just told me this stuff was real. I ALSO TOLD YOU THAT IN SCIENCE, —– SIZE MATTERS.
Energy flow:
Power is the flow of energy, horsepower, Watts — energy per time.
Energy is Joules, BTU’s.
A little arcane for this post but many here understand what I wrote.
Energy is what you get when the power of sunlight is temporally retarded by the increased global warming effect of carbon dioxide. Try again? Global warming energy is a buildup of temperature when the sunlight energy takes a smidge longer to escape to space.
The real scientific question then becomes, how much more heat buildup can we expect with the change in CO2 and what would that do to our weather patterns. How big will hurricanes be? How bad will droughts be? How hot will we get.
Unfortunately for the sandwich board, government funded, doom sooth, end-of-the-world class, the answer is very simple and very understandable. Unfortunately for you, it comes in the form of a graph.
The Earth’s emission temperature is something close to 285 degrees Kelvin. Space is very close to zero, like 3 degrees kelvin. We should use Kelvin when determining how much CHANGE in the flow of energy will occur, with absolute zero (no molecular temperature) being equal to zero Kevlin. The Kelvin scale doesn’t use negative numbers (don’t get all techie on this).
Now the ORANGE block on the bar on the left is NOT what global warming is. Global warming is the Gray bar – that you cannot see – on top of the orange bar on the left.
Size matters- Don’t know if I’ve mentioned that.
The CO2 warming forcing us to use untenable electric vehicles and endless global regulation is NOT visible on this graph. The gray bar you cannot see is also the reason that we cannot measure ANY change in weather patterns on earth caused by human based global warming. Like the relativistic effect of a 30mph car crash, global warming is simply way too small to cause big changes in weather, even when exaggerated by climate models.
It is also why we never will measure change the following items caused by CO2:
hurricanes
drought
rain
fish size
butterflies
Polar bears
Antarctic ice
Sea level rise
Penguins
Per OBSERVATION, and per the basic first-level physics of Climate science, the effect is TOO SMALL to cause harm or even a microscopically observable change in most of the values I’ve written. FOREVER. Keep in mind, that however small global warming is, it is real and that scientific fact does not ever change.
Atmospheric mixing:
Final point I need to make is that when CO2 based warming occurs in the atmosphere, it is a well-mixed phenomenon. Imagine over 10 years trying to have a measurable change in the temperature difference between Germany and France caused by a super small change in energy movement as represented in the Kelvin graph above. It boggles the mind that “Climate Science™” would even suggest such a thing, but that is what the fake-news “Climate Change” term is meant to express. Extremes of weather caused by the mobility of the extra energy — the gray bar that nobody can actually see in the graph above.
And there it is:
Climate change is a complete, government funded HOAX of the greatest magnitude of almost any scientific hoax AND Global warming is very real, and very small. This is a scientific FACT, proven by all available observations of science.
It is also embarrassingly obvious. Humanity needs to improve intellectually or we will never achieve the best of our imagination.
the Air Vent 
[[Global warming energy is a buildup of temperature when the sunlight energy takes a smidge longer to escape to space.]]
This is so bonkers. IT wouldn’t be sunlight energy but Earth surface radiation energy. Global warming would be an increase in the temp of Earth’s surface, but that can only be caused by new solar energy the next day, not by the atmosphere, which contains no heat, any more than does a blanket, which doesn’t cause your body temperature to rise just because it slows cooling.
Slowing cooling doesn’t equal heating.
The bottom line is that unlike the surfaces of the Sun and the Earth, Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a black body radiator, hence it can’s slow the cooling of Earth’s surface of solar heat one iota. The evil global Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC has long been pushing the circus trick of double-counting of photons, by making you think CO2’s “back radiation” hits the Earth’s surface before it even starts cooling, when those photons are recycled from this cooling radiation.
They switch to the “slowing cooling” nonsense to keep you confused, knowing they’re trying to keep their money train rolling and few can think for themselves any more. If you do, ditch that train completely before it goes off the tracks into a ravine.
Here is one of the biggest IPCC lies swallowed whole by the author:
[[Global warming is an effect caused by a radiative emission from a visual spectrum (sunlight) being absorbed into the surface of Earth and then a perfectly equal amount of energy being re-emitted back to space at much longer wavelengths. In generalities, this is characterized by the also imperfect Planck blackbody equations. There is literally zero scientific controversy about global warming at this level.]]
Zonk! The Planck black body equations are perfect, a miraculous explanation of the transition from the quantum world where heat and temperature don’t exist to the macro world of heat and temperature, which are statistical not quantum quantities. The quantum world ceases to exist at the macro world, where heat and temperature live, which is one of the greatest source of confusion that the IPCC makes use of to keep going.
A perfectly equal amount of energy is reemitted back to space at longer wavelengths? Way wrong. All heat transfer processes in Nature must obey its ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics AKA Entropy based on the Arrow of Time, increasing entropy by dispersing some heat energy into the Heat Death of the Univese forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(energy_dispersal)
The IPCC octopus of fake physicists doesn’t even acknowledge entropy, because their whole CO2-driven global warming hoax is an attempt to deny that the Second Law applies to CO2. Entropy dispersion and the desperate need to deny it explains why the IPCC tries to prove global warming by claiming an upset in the Sun-Earth energy balance, not at Earth’s surface but at the edge of space, because this energy balance doesn’t and can’t exist, and they’re in charge of all the data, allowing them to make the final numbers come out to anything they want to sell their highway robbery program.
Here is the real physics, from an IPCC-suppressed 2017 Nature article:
“Blackbody radiation… is defined as radiation with the maximum possible amount of entropy for a given energy.” – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
Why do so many duck my years of work with pure sweet thermal physics to play footsie with the IPCC lie machine?
See every IPCC lie exploded definitively right here in this free article. They’re not going to spread the word. We have to. It’s not easy reading, more like a graduate seminar, but you have all the time in the world to educate yourself to fight their gravy train and help derail it.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-U-N-IPCCs-biggest-lies-about-CO2-causing-global-warming-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
Energy cannot be created or destroyed Doug. I teach you that every time you come here.
No, energy can’t be created or destroyed, but on every heat exchange some gets dispersed by entropy to the heat death of the Universe, decreasing the amount of FREE ENERGY that can be used to do work or generate heat. Every star in the sky is dispersing vast quantities of energy to the ever-approaching heat death, as is every solid and liquid object on Earth, which are all black body radiators.
The total energy emitted by a black body is proportional to its absolute temperature T to the 4th power. The entropy increase is proportion to T to the 3rd power. Thus the higher the temperature, the sharper is the black body radiation curve peak, and the smaller percentage is dispersed. The peak radiation wavelength is Nature’s way of encoding temperature in black body radiation, setting the max temperature another black body absorbing its radiation can reach before leveling off and equalizing with it. The lying IPCC octopus pretends there is no dispersion, and that every Joule of solar energy gets reemitted by the Earth and returned to space, which is pure moose hockey. And that doesn’t count more energy dispersion from convection, which turns the atmosphere into a heat engine capable of enormous storms, all of which use surface solar energy as the fuel.
If you don’t consider entropy dispersion in your climate science theories, you’re never going to get out of the starting gate. When it comes to the U.N. IPCC, they ignore it on purpose because they know they’re pushing scam to score a V for their team.
Only IPCC critics break out of the mind control system of their kept professors, forcing them to be self-taught, but also permanently unfunded. Too bad, self-taught people often suffer from huge gaps in their knowledge, making it easy for IPCC shills to lampoon them as crackpots. This is one gap you should erase now or you’re forfeiting one of the main theoretical weapons against the IPCC.
As to the IPCC: They too shall pass. The question is how much damage they will do first. The rebel army is YOU, so you must arm your mind for the battle if you hope to prevail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
I take pride in knowing how much I’ve changed your story over time.
You are still self-contradictory.
Want another lesson?
Phew !!
I think I could pass the quiz after reading that !!
Teach Doug
Heh !!!
I’d have a better chance of teaching voter fraud to Josh
Hehehehe.
I like science:
Hey Jeff, got here via the link in your comment to Jim Steele’s article on WUWT. (And I agree with Jim, I miss your comments over there.)
While I agree with almost all of your post, I’m struggling with your global warming definition that has zero scientific controversy.
[Global warming is an effect caused by a radiative emission from a visual spectrum (sunlight) being absorbed into the surface of Earth and then a perfectly equal amount of energy being re-emitted back to space at much longer wavelengths.]
How can any warming take place if the the energy re-emitted to space “perfectly equals” the energy absorbed at the surface? There will be no “warming” in my bank account if the amount of money I deposit in dollars “perfectly equals” the amount of money remitted to me in yen. (I’m not including Doug’s entropy, i.e. bank fees).
It has to do with a delay of release of the photon as it has a higher probability of being reabsorbed if more h20 or co2 is in the atmosphere.
And there I was convinced that atmospheric potential energy (temperature difference between the polar and equitorial regions) along with the coriolis effect was what drove Earth’s weather!
Has the modern warming period seen an increase in potential energy? Observations would suggest the opposite…
I tend to look to the sun or oceanic currents for bigger changes.
I’m chuffed for partially inspiring this rant. I agree with most of it.
I still quibble about which of the two major terms — “global warming” versus “climate change” is more accurate in general discussion. I think you’re, perhaps, overly technical here.
We do know that, in technical terms, that as CO2 and CH4 and GHG compete with clear or cloudy H2O and particulate SiO2 and the monstrous carboniferous colloids we call “soot” to reflect or retain insolation, we know that we think we might be able to determine what may be happening, at the margins, in the long run, on average, over the whole planet.
If so, the grey line you show above the larger bars about greenhouse gases is real. It’s difficult to measure precisely. It’s the difference between clean ideal air and actual air. It’s a difference impossible to use, meaningfully and accurately. It’s a measure from chemistry, designed by Earth-bound astronomers studying planets — “globes” — for which we can’t take direct physical on-the-scene measurements. We can see Mars or Jupiter or Pluto (Yeah, Pluto is a planet. Grandfathered in.) and take spectrum data to see what gasses are circulating. We can take data about what wavelengths are coming off. We know what the cube-distance relationship does to the radiation going in. So we can make inferences about the whole planet — Mars. Or Jupiter. And the planetary, global, information we’ve so painstakingly gathered immediately proves itself to have very little predictive value. It’s precise, but not “accurate” in the sense of truthful, useful, and a good conceptual model of what happens. If we had accurate understanding of the globe called Jupiter, we wouldn’t still wonder why the “Red Spot” weather pattern has persisted for centuries. We would be able to model the ebb and flow of Martian ice caps, and explain why they don’t both ebb, or grow simultaneously when the solar influx is (on average, over a decade or so) stable and the atmospheric chemistry is unchanged. But we can’t do that. The planetary global average temperature we precisely measure from (precisely on average) 5 AU tells us very little more than we knew from the start of the science of astronomy. Mars is colder than Earth. Venus is hotter. Jupiter is a wind-swept mess. And Pluto is WAAAY out there in icy circles of Hell better suited to comets and damned souls than anything we want to even know about.
The technical measure has nothing to do with the idea that, everywhere on Earth, every year, every place, every ecosystem, is gradually getting a little bit warmer. “Global Warming”. The poles are warming. The tropics are warming. The Africanized South American Killer Bees are warming and so migrating from hot drying dying jungle lands of the isthmus to cross the Rio Grande and take honey from our loyal domestic clover-pasture bees. Warming! Warming, Will Robinson! Bad! Every jurisdiction running a weather station, all over the globe, is warmer than average. Lake Woebegone. Every year is a new record. THAT’S how the term was used to scare us in the 2000s. And when it lost frightening power, it was abandoned. As “climate change” is about to be abandoned in favor of “climate crisis” or “climate catastrophe” or “climate collapse.”
Of all the options in use, I am most willing to discuss “change” because it happens, willy nilly. We can then talk about costs and policies and adaptation and corrections.
But not sustainability. You know WIND is not sustainable, right?
https://e360.yale.edu/features/global-stilling-is-climate-change-slowing-the-worlds-wind
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts slowing winds for the coming decades. By 2100, that body says, average annual wind speeds could drop by up to 10 percent “
Better build up the coal bunkers.
Well, sometimes you feel inspired I guess. It feels like the same message I’ve been attempting to communicate for 15 years but you definitely caused it to come out!
Exists but small. Some call it lukewarmer, i see it as sub-lukewarmer and actually beneficial.lindzen style.
Maybe that’s the next rant you get me on ;D
That kelvin graph possibly doesn’t mean the same thing to you as it does to me. There is no change in wind by agw either. It literally cannot happen. Too small.
Wind can slow for other reasons, like fake data of continually high winds funding a project or sea surface temps.
Agw- nope. Cannot happen.
The “wind” issue is as changeable as the wind itself. Wind, globally, on average, was reported to be “stilling” in the 00s to 20-teens. In the more recent late teens to now, it had, allegedly, reversed. But according to 2022 peer-reviewed official IPCC modeled how-DARE-YOU-DENY the science, the wind is decreasing 10% per …. well, per decade or century or something. Anyhow, wind now is not as fast, blows not as often, is not found as widely dispersed. It’s “stilling.”
Which, as you say, probably is not connected to Anthopogenic Greenhouse Gas Driven Global Warming. Or Urban Wind Corridors. Or De-forestation. Or the de-population of butterflies…
BUT, if the wind is going to quit on us, why would we invest in more wind-driven turbines?
Either the IPCC and its scientists are offering us good models and scenarios which we must take seriously and so we must do something OTHER than build wind turbines; — not PV solar panels, either, which don’t produce any electricity at night — OR the IPCC and its scientists are scare-mongering grant-chasing politically-motivated loud mouths who can be, and should be, ignored.
I vote for ignore the IPCC.
It literally cannot be attributed to AGW is what I’m saying. I believe you implicitly that the observation exists. AGW is way too small an effect to do anything observable in weather extremes. The energy change isn’t sufficient.
I hate turbines, because like the “smart car”, they are stupid. The wind will continue, wind projects will continue to exaggerate available wind and I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if the IPCC was changing the wind story my small bits like 10% as an excuse for more money for IPCC nonsense.
Also, for your amusement:
Suppose it’s not humans doing the climate change. Suppose it’s beavers. Not Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, but Sudden Castorinogenic Arctic De-Albedoization. The beavers move into the frozen icy (reflective) Arctic Tundra, build dams, create wet dark (heat absorbing) ponds, warming the tundra, creating new marginal territory, into which the 2nd generation of beavers move, building new dams, melting more ice, absorbing more heat …
Castorine Catastrophe!
It’s all John F Kennedy’s fault. Until 1960, men wore hats. Most often, felt hats. BEAVER-felt hats. When JFK ended the fashion for men’s hats, the hat industry collapsed. The beaver harvest collapsed. The beaver population soared. The beavers spread in all directions — but north has the most impact on the global climate. Beavers, the dam things, are ruining the planet for everybody.
https://www.sciencealert.com/satellite-images-reveal-beavers-are-transforming-the-arctic-like-wildfire
hahhahaha. That’s awesome too.
Penguin scat melting the Antarctic.
http://www.getipm.com/personal/dam.htm
They just know its the right thing to do.
Stupid humans not helping.
A dam disaster, but it’s not the beaver’s fault…
https://www.dailyitem.com/wire/minnesota-paper-company-sues-feds-over-beaver-dam-removal/article_e7afc3c6-14ef-5de2-ab15-b46fd925e56d.html?ICID=ref_fark
A paper company in northern Minnesota is suing the federal government over what it said was a bungled beaver dam removal that flooded two roads and a campground and left a lake clogged with debris.
Our federal government hasn’t learned anything from the 2015 Gold King Mine dam disaster…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Gold_King_Mine_waste_water_spill
Back to the Beavers:
Once the two USDA contractors blew up the first dam, a second one downstream was overwhelmed, which “caused a tremendous flash flood of water and sediment,” according to the suit. Water gushed downstream on the creek bed, uprooting trees and boulders, clogging the culvert under Sugar Hills Road, then washing over that road and Sherry’s Arm Road beyond it. The water flooded private property and parts of Fishing Springs Campground, then finally deposited dirt, rock and debris across 19,000 square feet of Pokegama Lake.
USDA declined to comment through a spokesperson and has not filed an answer in court.
You said the imperfect Planck blackbody equations, care to elaborate?
I don’t think it’s anything Earth shattering, if that is what you are looking for. The blackbody equation assumes a perfect black body. It cannot even represent the sun but instead is a probabilistic relationship of common factors.
Other areas of failure, single element bodies like a block of pure gold. Single atoms, like hydrogen etc…
Math is an imperfect representation of observation.
I thought you may have come across some controversy about the equations themselves. People use methods and equations inappropriately.
The sun is not a blackbody, nor is an individual atom.
I can calculate the Planck emission of a piece of gold to 288 micron if you like. I can also calculate the curve for 6000 substances using Johns Hopkins reflectance data (only to 14 microns).
All of that utilising the Planck equation. Appropriate use.
Different equations than blackbody emissivity and that is the point i was trying to make. People don’t understand that the equations often change for different situations and many equations and laws are probability based
As an example. The first law of thermodynamics is something very confusing for people. For large objects, it is a probability based result that doesn’t preclude energy flow from a cold to hot body, just the net is in a single direction.
A difference in thinking. I will leave it at that.
Everything I wrote is factual. You can “think” how you want of course.