Meanwhile ……. As Alarmists Attack Warmists Bi-Polar Temp Anomaly!!!!!

Well, Alarmists and Warmists both told us that the poles would be the fastest hottingest places on earth!  This is because the polar regions, both north and south, didn’t have very much atmospheric CO2 above them.  (Atmospheric CO2 is not now, and will never be “well mixed”.)  But, because of the logarithmic expression of hotting via CO2 as a GHG, the polar regions were expected to go super nova!  Well, just heat much faster than the rest of the globe. 

I thought it would be interesting to average the satellite read anomalies of both.  Let’s see if the last 15 years of empirical data agree with this notion …….


Now, mind you, this temperature anomaly graph will not agree with the graphs based upon imaginary thermometers, extrapolated and interpolated.  The above graph is based only on actual readings from satellites.   

If this is an expression of the alarming increase of temperatures caused by CO2 emissions, then, I think we’ll be okay for the next few thousand years or so. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Meanwhile ……. As Alarmists Attack Warmists Bi-Polar Temp Anomaly!!!!!

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    What can I say but…

    How long before you can WALK to Brooklyn? Manhattan is encased in the worst ice for a decade as river freezes

    The first pic is so cool I’ve made it my desktop wallpaper.

  2. Jim Masterson says:

    This is because the polar regions, both north and south, didn’t have very much atmospheric CO2 above them.

    I think you got your GHGs mixed up. The poles and deserts are very dry and do not have the moderating effects of water vapor. Therefore, there should be a direct correlation between increasing CO2 (supposedly well-mixed) and warming in these regions. Unfortunately (for the warmists/alarmists), there doesn’t seem to be any correlation. Alas, when did a lack of correlation ever disprove a GH theory?


    • suyts says:

      Thanks, Jim. You’re correct in the notion about the H2O, and the fact that they thought the CO2 would become better mixed. But, as I recollect, (depending upon the story they were telling us), what I related is what they were telling us at one point.

    • cdquarles says:

      That’s the theory, from Arrhenius to Callendar to the politicos at the IPCC. It is based on how carbon dioxide in a bottle in a lab acts when you shine IR light on it with temperature, pressure, and mixture composition all controlled.

      Guess what, in the open atmosphere, were you can have vertical expansion, adsorption, desorption, solvation, buffering, phase changes, bulk horizontal movement, bulk vertical movement, photochemical reactions, surface chemical reaction on dust particles or soot, regular gas phase chemical reactions, chemical reactions mediated by biological organisms, and things I have not thought of to list all happening and none properly studied, is it any wonder that ‘Mother Nature’ is not playing their game?

  3. geran says:

    Warming at the Poles was “supposed” to be the canary-in-the-coal-mine, remember? Back a few years ago, the Arctic was losing sea ice. The Warmists pounced on that, preaching that once the ice was lost, it could not come back. Only, they forgot to mention that, at the same time, the sea ice at the South Pole was gaining more than the Arctic was losing.

    Oh, and then they forgot to tell us that the Arctic came back with a fury, setting records for fastest ice accumulation rate. Not to be outdone, Antarctica set a new record for low temp, -135.8 ºF (-93.2 ºC).

    As you indicate, the “bi-polar” satellite temps are “normal”. And, I just checked latest sea ice. The Arctic is slightly below average, the Antarctic is slightly above average, and the total is “boringly” average.

    So, the canary is doing just fine, except he just bought another fleece lined parka from Walmart….

  4. DirkH says:

    The reason the arctic regions were expected to warm faster is simply that at very low temperatures, it takes far less energy to cause a 1 deg C temperature rise – as a body that you heat up wants to cool radiatively, and that radiation rises with the 4th power of temperature.

    So, if the coldest place in Antarctica is 200 K cold, and the tropics 300 K, the ratio of the 4th power of the temperatures is 16/27. So the same amount of extra energy would heat the antarctic spot up 2 times as much as the spot in the tropics; of course ignoring all other effects like humidity, conduction etc.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, ” logarithmic expression of hotting via CO2 as a GHG”

    • geran says:

      “…at very low temperatures, it takes far less energy to cause a 1 deg C temperature rise…”

      I wonder if that does not violate the 1st Law of Thermo. Or did something get lost in the translation?

      Was ist los?

      • DirkH says:

        Blackbody radiation is a negative feedback.

      • suyts says:

        Dirk’s right, but, here’s a different way to think about it …..

        Cold water put on top of a stove ……. moving it from 40 deg F to 50 deg F takes much less energy than moving it from 120 deg F to 130 deg F.

        This is because the closer the temp of the water comes to the temp of the fire, the longer it takes to move the water the same amount of temperature. …… assuming the fire heat is at a constant.

        Or, a better example …. how much energy does it take to warm you house in the winter? Well, much of that depends on the temp you keep in your house. It’s 20 deg F outside …. how much energy does it take to keep it 40 deg F inside? How much more to 80 deg? The amount to keep it 80 deg is much more than double the 40 deg. Heck, for a small house, a few light bulbs and a couple of warm bodies and you can easily get it 40 …… assuming insulation and whatnot. But, 20 light-bulbs and 8 warm bodies isn’t going to get the house to 80 when there’s 20 deg weather outside.

      • geran says:

        “Cold water put on top of a stove ……. moving it from 40 deg F to 50 deg F takes much less energy than moving it from 120 deg F to 130 deg F.”

        Gents, I think you have discovered some new theories here. There are opportunities for “free” energy. We can make millions! I want in. (No one will know we are violating the laws of physics.)

        Amount of Heat Required to Rise Temperature
        The amount of heat needed to heat a subject from one temperature level to an other can be expressed as:

        Q = cp m dT (2
        Q = amount of heat (kJ)
        cp = specific heat (kJ/kg.K)
        m = mass (kg)
        dT = temperature difference between hot and cold side (K)

        • DirkH says:

          The energy delivered to a body is delivered over time, as a flow. The blackbody radiation emanating from the body is a flow in the opposite direction.

          It follows that you need a higher energy delivered to the body to raise its temperature by x degrees if the body is already hotter, as the energy loss by blackbody radiation is higher.

          I hope this clears things up.

        • suyts says:

          geran, I love the engineeringtoolbox, and use it often. But, this is the wrong application. I used the example I used, specifically for this issue. Try it at your house. Use your Bunsen burner. I promise you, it’s true.

          The reason for this difficulty often resides in the inconsistent concepts of temperature. Kelvins are not to be equated with Celsius or Fahrenheit. While some do try to equate them, it simply doesn’t work because C and F don’t have absolute zero.

          But, consider absolute zero (Kelvin) for a minute. Let’s say, there is a body which is zero. Let’s say there’s another body of 1 Kelvin (constant) which comes in contact with the zero body. Certainly, the 1 Kelvin body will warm the zero Kelvin body. But, regardless of the time/energy spent the zero Kelvin body will never warm to above the 1 Kelvin body assuming no other heat source is introduced.

          Going further, still, the 1 Kelvin body continues to emit energy/heat. The more time, the more energy.

          Still further …. when the 1K body comes in contact with the 0K body, it would take the 0K body almost no time to raise it’s temp some percentage of the 1K being imposed upon it. But, yet, it would take a mathematical eternity to have the 0K body become equal in Kelvins to the 1K body.

          All of this to say that things of heat, warming other things is logarithmic, always. And, if the energy is constant for the heat source, then the total energy necessary for each degree or Kelvin is then more, and more, for each successive degree/Kelvin.

          Another way of saying time is a SOB.

        • suyts says:

          Well, I started writing before I read Dirk’s response. ….. his is more direct.

        • cdquarles says:

          Dirk’s correct, in terms of *time*, which your formula does not take into account.

          Dirk’s not quite correct about the emission, though, but correct enough by using the T^4 (on the absolute scale, but a degree C is the same change as a degree K (same for the F and Rankine) at typical environmental conditions). The blackbody term usually discussed is an idealized limit. Real bodies do not emit radiation in the manner that the ‘cavity radiation’ thought experiment was created to show. The thing that we need to know is that energy is always flowing from a source to a sink, doing work in the process and being dissipated over time. On the other hand, though, matter and energy are interchangeable at the level of the very small, which makes it hard for us to visualize (which is one way to make concepts understandable).

  5. geran says:

    Seriously, this will make us billions. $$$$$. $$$$$$$$$$.

    Don’t leave me out!

    (Plus, this means my freezer no longer has to work as hard. I will let it know.)

    Have you figured out how to turn sand into gold yet? I want in on that one also.

    • suyts says:

      Well, if I’ve stated something in error, I wish you’d point it out.

      But, of course, your freezer never has to work as hard … just send it out to space and it will never have to work again!!!! ………. assuming it doesn’t come in contact with some thing hotter than it’s temp settings. Or, easier, yet, just put in on the South Pole! There’s millions of joules constantly bombarding the SP, but, again, your freezer would never again have to work if it’s there!

  6. Jim Masterson says:

    Oh good grief! People need to take a course in thermodynamics.

    The first law (the way I learned it) is : dU = δQ – δW, where U is the internal energy of a closed system, Q is the heat added to the system and W is the work done by the system. Another form is: dU = δQ + δW, where work and heat are done on and added to the system. It doesn’t matter which form is used as long as you’re consistent. The “δ” means those variables are path variables, it matters how you get to various Q1, Q2, . . . , and W1, W2, . . . . U is a state variable, as it doesn’t matter how you get to various U1, U2, etc. (But in practice, it does matter.)

    An adiabatic system change is where Q remains constant or δQ = 0. An adynamic system change is where W remains constant or δW = 0.

    There’s no time factor involved in the first law. It’s just a balancing equation–conservation law. The equation uses energy values: joules, calories, newton-meters, watt-seconds, and so on. If you want time dependence, then you take the time derivative of the terms in the equation. Then the units change to power units such as watts, calories/second, etc.

    James is trying to warm a house that leaks energy. The higher the internal temperature compared to the external temperature, the greater the leakage. That’s why it takes more energy input to create a bigger temperature differential.

    The house problem is similar to the calculation of the junction temperature of a transistor knowing the thermal resistance of the junction and its power dissipation. I’d have to look it up to be sure–I haven’t engineered transistor designs for a long time.


    • DirkH says:

      “There’s no time factor involved in the first law.”

      But the warming of the arctic according to the CO2AGW theory is caused by a continuous radiative “forcing”. So we have to look at the system evolution over time.

    • cdquarles says:

      That’s true and we can and do use these laws when doing calorimetry. However, when I look at the time recording of the temperature change, the laws of thermo don’t help me much directly. For that, I need time domain functions.

  7. geran says:

    “Well, if I’ve stated something in error, I wish you’d point it out.”

    1) “Cold water put on top of a stove ……. moving it from 40 deg F to 50 deg F takes much less energy than moving it from 120 deg F to 130 deg F.”
    WRONG. It takes the same amount of energy. You may be confusing energy with heating rate. Energy is NOT time dependent, it is a quantity.

    2) “geran, I love the engineeringtoolbox, and use it often. But, this is the wrong application.”
    WRONG. The equation is specific for your example of heating a pan of water. “The amount of heat needed to heat a subject from one temperature level to another can be expressed as…” In fact, a BTU is specifically defined as “the amount of energy required to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit”.

    Or, if you prefer calories:

    The small calorie or gram calorie (symbol: cal) is the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere.[1]
    The large calorie, kilogram calorie, dietary calorie, nutritionist’s calorie, nutritional calorie, Calorie (capital C)[2] or food calorie (symbol: Cal) is approximately the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius. The large calorie is thus equal to 1000 small calories or one kilocalorie (symbol: kcal).[1]

    Here’s another source, but same equation:

    Relating the Quantity of Heat to the Temperature Change
    Specific heat capacities provide a means of mathematically relating the amount of thermal energy gained (or lost) by a sample of any substance to the sample’s mass and its resulting temperature change. The relationship between these four quantities is often expressed by the following equation.

    Q = m•C•ΔT

    But, as I put this together, and re-read Dirk’s original statement, this is more about the “semantics” of science that about the actual science. It’s like we are all correct, but I am just being picky about the wording. So, this is not a BIG deal, but my concern was someone reading it that might get confused. I see so much “confused” science these days, maybe I am just overly sensitive!

    • suyts says:

      Geran, no worries. Yes, much of this discussion is of semantics, as I’ve had it on occasion. I failed in trying to put the notion into practical experienced wording. As I see it, the semantic confusion lays with the different backgrounds people have. Perhaps I should use the word “work”, or perhaps used electricity terminology, or, acknowledging the many open and closed systems we have in the example I used. It is the time consideration in which I was trying to convey. Well, pretty much what Dirk said, except poorly and more wordy.

      Sorry about the long wait in moderation, I wasn’t at my PC much this weekend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s