2014 a Record Warm Year? Probably Not.

December 4th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

As continual fiddling with the global surface thermometer data leads to an ever-warmer present and an ever-cooler past, many of us are increasingly skeptical that beating a previous “warmest” year by hundredths of a degree has any real-world meaning. Yet, the current UN climate meeting in Lima, Peru, is setting the stage for some very real changes in energy policy that will inevitably make energy more expensive for everyone, no matter their economic status.

But there are some very good reasons to be skeptical of the claim that 2014 will be the “hottest year ever”…at the very least from the standpoint of it having any real impact on peoples’ lives.

No One Has Ever Felt “Global Warming”

If you turn up your thermostat by 1 deg. F, you might feel slightly warmer in the few minutes it takes for the warming to occur. But no one has felt the 1 deg. F rise in global average temperature in the last 50 to 100 years. It is too small to notice, when we are routinely experiencing day-night, day-to-day, and seasonal swings of tens of degrees.

The Urban Heat Island Effect Has Hopelessly Corrupted the Land Thermometer Data
Most thermometers measure temperature where people live, and people tend to build stuff that warms the local environment around the thermometer.

Called the urban heat island (UHI) effect, most of the warming occurs long before the thermometer site actually becomes “urban”. For instance, if you compare neighboring thermometers around the world, and also compare their population densities (as a rough indication of UHI influence), it can be easily demonstrated that substantial average UHI warming occurs even at low population densities, about ~1 deg. F at only 10 persons per sq. km!

This effect, which has been studied and published for many decades, has not been adequately addressed in the global temperature datasets, partly because there is no good way to apply it to individual thermometer sites.

2014 Won’t Be Statistically Different from 2010
For a “record” temperature to be statistically significant, it has to rise above its level of measurement error, of which there are many for thermometers: relating to changes in location, instrumentation, measurement times of day, inadequate coverage of the Earth, etc. Oh…and that pesky urban heat island effect.

A couple hundredths of a degree warmer than a previous year (which 2014 will likely be) should be considered a “tie”, not a record.

Our Best Technology, Satellites, Say 2014 Will Not be the Warmest

Our satellite estimates of global temperature, which have much more complete geographic coverage than thermometers, reveal that 2014 won’t be even close to a record warm year.

In fact, the satellite and thermometer technologies seem to be diverging in what they are telling us in recent years, with the thermometers continuing to warm, and the satellite temperatures essentially flat-lining.

So, why have world governments chosen to rely on surface thermometers, which were never designed for high accuracy, and yet ignore their own high-tech satellite network of calibrated sensors, especially when the satellites also agree with weather balloon data?

I will leave it to the reader to answer that one.


159 Responses to “2014 a Record Warm Year? Probably Not.”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. ossqss says:

    C’mon doc, the gov knows how good those surface stations and subsequent adjustments are for their agenda.

    Here, see the quality for yourselves……Wattsupwiththat?

    http://surfacestations.org/

    http://surfacestations.org/images/MarysvilleCA_USHCN_Site_small.jpg

    When will we see the websites filtered for CRN stations only?

    • John Finn says:

      I’m not sure I buy this nonsense that poor siting and UHI are significantly influencing the surface temperature record.

      I’ve just checked the GISS surface data for 2014 (end Oct) using the 1981-2010 anomaly baseline. This means it can be compared directly with the UAH satellite record. For Jan-Oct the mean anomalies are

      GISS 0.27 deg
      UAH 0.27 deg

      They are virtually identical. It is true that 2014 may be a record warm year for GISS but not for UAH but I think this might have something to do with the greater response to El Nino in the Lower Troposphere. It is less likely that the satellite record will record a warmest year in a non El Nino year.

  2. Slipstick says:

    The remarks at the end of the post are a straw-man argument. The satellite data is not ignored, just one of many datasets used in making a determination of global temperature. Consider this wording,
    So, why has a blog author chosen to ignore sea temperature, glacial melt rates, energy dissipation in storm activity, etc., etc., and rely only on atmospheric temperature?

    For ossqss, even if all your instruments are uncalibrated, if they all show the same relative change, the change is real, whether the absolute value is accurate or not.

    • ossqss says:

      Perhaps you could deconstruct the adjustment algorithms used to modify the published terrestrial temperature records for us? There is a definitive anthropogenic fingerprint there by those who coded it. Just ignore that Arctic ice is currently at the 35 year mean and the ACE for this year is at 63% of normal. Let alone Antarctic Ice levels, 10% increase in CO2 over the last 20 years with no statistically significant change in temp over the same time, Satellite data and millions of weather balloon data points in agreement with each other and diverging significantly from GISS, 3 years running of record low numbers of tornado’s etc, etc, etc.

      Calibration isn’t the issue at all.

        • Fonzarelli says:

          ossqss, and don’t forget that UAH tracks with carbon growth. If either data set (carbon growth or UAH) were wrong then this would not be so…

      • Joel Shore says:

        There are plenty of adjustments in the satellite data analysis too. In fact, since the late 1990s, the UAH LT data (since the beginning of the record) has gone from about -0.05 C per decade cooling to about +0.14 C per decade. That’s a big change, about half of which is due to having a longer data record and half is due to corrections in the algorithm. And, some papers have made arguments that it is still biased low.

        As for the claim that “UAH tracks with carbon growth” shows that it is fine, that is a red herring. The problem is with artifacts that can contaminate the multidecadal trends. There is little doubt that the satellite record does a good job with the shorter timescale fluctuations.

        As for your other claims, like arctic sea ice: You are just cherry-picking, the equivalent of saying, “We can’t be heading toward winter; it’s been warmer this week in Rochester than it was the week of Thanksgiving”. The long term trend in arctic sea ice over the last several decades is very clear (as is the trend in global sea ice)..

        • James Strom says:

          “As for your other claims, like arctic sea ice: You are just cherry-picking,…”

          Please. The decline of Arctic sea ice has been the occasion of warmist panic for years and years, or perhaps you have never heard of a polar bear. Now that Arctic sea ice has started to expand, it has become cherry-picking to mention the fact.

          It is probably useful to look at a collection of non-temperature indicia every once in a while so as to have a back up to assess the reliability of temperature records. Polar ice, northern hemisphere snowfall, breakup dates for ice on rivers are all quite interesting, and unless devious climatologists have figured a way to tamper with the melting point, they are reliable in a way. Dates of sowing and ripening of crops could be another example, but farmers are capable of changing varieties to accommodate changes in weather; so dates of blossoming and seed production of wild plants could be a better substitute. Many of these indicators point to a cooler climate, or at least a climate not warming in recent years. Steve Goddard has produced dozens of posts on these topics.

          • geran says:

            James, the evidence you allude to is enough, but mentioning a phony like “Goddard” lessens your argument.

          • Joel Shore says:

            “Now that Arctic sea ice has started to expand, it has become cherry-picking to mention the fact.”

            Well, I guess by your logic that Rochester must be headed towards summer then. Look, there is a difference between a statistically-significant trend and the normal ups-and-downs. Here is the actual graph of sea ice volume: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

            After the minimum in 2007 and then the few years of higher values (2008 and 2009), the usual suspects like yourself were crowing about how the arctic sea ice was increasing. How did that all work out for you?

          • Gerald Machnee says:

            Joel, it is obvious that you are only looking at the sloping line for the volume. Look at the last few years and you will see that it is increasing just as the area has been.

          • Joel Shore says:

            Yes, Gerald. I am looking at the statistically-significant trend, not the noise. I also believe that here is Rochester we are headed for winter, not summer, despite the fact that the temperature in the last week or so has been considerably warmer than in the week before that.

          • Mark Luhman says:

            geram You sound to me that you are a good leftist, ignore the facts create you own, Your comment about Steve only lesson you argument, look at the data he produces and the history he produces, his argument and mine is not that the climate is not changing, we are just looking for the evidence on how much, which direction and why. So far all the data out there look to me like so much noise, there is no signal, it you believe there is signal fine after all fools have to hook their wagon to something since original thought is generally devion in such people.

            Lastly let me put it this way, we have no ability at this day and age to tell what direction the climate is going, our measurement methods are far too crude, the satellite record is the best but it far too short, land base measurement are far to short and suffer from too much measurement error coming from any number of issue from UHI, instrument change and site change.

            As to CO2 sensitivity in the latest papers are peg it to be at about 1.6 to 2 degrees celsius per doubling, at the present rate we will get to 560 at some time in the late this century, and to double it again may not be possible even if we burned every piece of carbon that will burn and we can get our hands on so to put it bluntly if you believe in global warming and think that CO2 will increase the temperature fine, but even if all of that is true it in all probably a non issue.

            As to the models don’t tell me what the models say you could just as well use astrology or a weegie board for what they are capable of telling you about climate since they are totally based on someone assumption on what controls what. If a climate modeler was any good he would not be modeling climate, he would be modeling the stock market, the payout for that model would be much bigger.

            Oh by the way a 2 degree temperature rise would put us back to the temperatures were about 8 thousand years ago. You know befor the lands in the north were savanna, not tundra.

        • Fonzarelli says:

          How long will UAH have to track with carbon growth, then, for you to admit that it IS fine?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          @Joel Shore…”…the UAH LT data (since the beginning of the record) has gone from about -0.05 C per decade cooling to about +0.14 C per decade”.

          John Christy has explained that if you care to read the 33 year UAH report.

          I have tried to explain to alarmists that the 0.14 C/decade warming is not true warming but related to a recovery from cooling. If you look at Roy’s graph on this site that is plain, but alarmists are so hung up on numbers without context that they can’t get over their propaganda.

          Stats without a context are meaningless. The context of the 0.14 C/decade trend is mainly a NEGATIVE ANOMALY REGION on the UAH graph. Even NOAA understands that negative anomalies are cooling wrt to a baseline.

          When you use 0.14 C/decade warming you MUST specify the context or you are talking through your hat. John Christy explained that TRUE warming did not occur over the range of the UAH data sets till the late 1997 El Nino. That’s where the significant part of the graph crossed the baseline.

          Since crossing the baseline, there has been no trend to speak of. The graph here on Roy’s sight shows that visually. In engineering we learn how to read graphs by inspection, I don’t know what they do where you studied.

          According to the 33 year UAH report, the warming trend when corrected for cooling is about 0.09 C/decade and over 3.3 decades that leaves the warming sitting right about where it is, between 0.25 C and 0.3 C above the baseline.

          • Joel Shore says:

            Gordon Robertson said: “In engineering we learn how to read graphs by inspection, I don’t know what they do where you studied.”

            Well, you apparently learned to read them incorrectly. First off, your whole argument about recovery from cooling is complete nonsense. The baseline is arbitrary, so there is absolutely no significance to whether the temperature anomaly is negative or not. I believe that UAH set their baseline to be the average over the 1st 20 years of the record, so by necessity if we are in a warming world, the anomaly is going to start out negative but that does not mean that numbers below zero represent a cooling and that you can somehow dismiss warming below this as a “recovery from cooling”. That has to be one of the most bizarre arguments I have seen in quite some time.

            Second, in noisy data that has a linear trend, you can often play the game that you have played about finding a breakpoint and saying that the warming occurred in a single step. That doesn’t make it so. In fact, I think tamino showed how he could do that with artificial “data” he knows is a steady linear trend + noise because he produced the data that way. And, even if it were the case that the warming tends to occur in jumps when there are El Ninos, that doesn’t disprove the cause is AGW; El Nino’s could serve the role of releasing heat from the upper ocean that is accumulating due to AGW. However, at this point, I don’t really think there is convincing evidence that such an explanation is necessary…It is quite likely that the perception of jumps in the data is a “canals on Mars” effect: We humans have a strong tendency to see order even in random noise (such as that about a steadily warming trend).

          • Fonzarelli says:

            Joel, i believe the baseline is the average of the last 30 years of record…

        • An Inquirer says:

          To pick 1979 as your starting point is cherry picking. You would get quite a different answer if you started in 1974. Or if you go back to reports of ice extent in the 1920s. There is no doubt that the minimum Arctic Ice extent is less now than 1979 and the early 80s, but it is quite possible — and available evidence supports the possibility that — ice extent was abnormally high during that time period.

          Global sea ice does not show an persistent and overwhelming decreasing trend. Also, if one considers how far toward the equator that Antarctic ice reaches, global sea ice is doing just fine.

          • Joel Shore says:

            It is not “cherry picking” to use all the data available. I used that starting point because that is where the data started.

            There are some reconstructions that go back further. For example, this one goes back to the 1880s: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/walsh.jpg?w=500 and this one goes back almost 1500 years: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/kinnard1450.jpg and, alas, they do not support your wishful thinking.

          • An Inquirer says:

            Joel,
            It is cherry picking when you know that the starting point of data collection is abnormally low or abnormally high. Let’s have some intellectual integrity here.

            Also, satellite data of polar ice did not start in 1979. It may be that the analyst were not satisfied with the algorithms until then. But there is enough satellite data to suggest that 1979 had much more ice higher than earlier in that decade.

            Regarding the reconstructions you mentioned, you should be aware of the disclaimers that they put on their work — warning us that their reconstruction may not be reliable. Also, their reconstruction does not match contemporaneous research / analysis / news during the time in question.

            It is good idea to understand the data on which you rely.

          • Joel Shore says:

            “But there is enough satellite data to suggest that 1979 had much more ice higher than earlier in that decade.”

            Pray tell, where is that evidence? You certainly haven’t presented any. And, this page has ANOTHER reconstruction of arctic sea ice since 1953, which doesn confirm your wild claims either: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

            “Regarding the reconstructions you mentioned, you should be aware of the disclaimers that they put on their work — warning us that their reconstruction may not be reliable. Also, their reconstruction does not match contemporaneous research / analysis / news during the time in question.”

            At least I am presenting data, whether it be satellite data or reconstructions. All you are presenting is hot air to justify your wishful thinking.

        • Sun Spot says:

          @Joel; in science there must be independent verification on a hypothesis and/or measurement. Where is that second set of surface thermometers that validate this contrived surface warming? The satellite measurements are validated by independent balloon measurements.

          • Fonzarelli says:

            Sun Spot (luv that name), not only is UAH verified by balloon data, it also tracks with carbon growth. (see my link at the top of the page) If either UAH or MLO were in error this would not be so…

    • “The remarks at the end of the post are a straw-man argument. The satellite data is not ignored…”

      It is ignored by the media. Of every news report I’ve heard about 2014 being a record year, not one has mentioned that the claim is controversial and highly likely to be untrue.

      • Lewis says:

        Will, one of the purposes of the media is to excite or frighten people. Yesterday’s “Non-sequitur” had it right.
        “So what new manufactured crisis is going to paralyze us with fear today?”

        Yet the expectation is for the mainstream media to report the truth. (insert smiley face here)

    • An Inquirer says:

      I do not read every mainstream vehicle, but I do read a lot of them. I do not remember one time that they have mentioned the satellite data in describing 2014. Nor have I have ever heard the administration or NGOs mention the satellite record.

      Rest assured that neither the blog author nor I ignore sea temperature, glacial melt rates, storm activity, growing seasons, snow cover, ice extent, etc. etc. The bulk of other data undermine the rhetoric that 2014 is the “hottest year ever.”

    • TedM says:

      “if they all show the same relative change, the change is real, whether the absolute value is accurate or not.”

      Yes for any “pre adjustment” change that occurs at the point that the measurement is made.

  3. John F. Hultquist says:

    Much current policy at national levels, and internationally via the UN and NGOs, is based on the “settled science” of CAGW. There is tremendous effort to maintain this movement by using the warming shown by models. The surface-station temperatures can be adjusted to show warming (and UHI) and by loudly and repeatedly directing attention to “the warmest ever” the divergence between theory (model output) and facts can be made to look questionable – then ignored. At current count the number of excuses for the facts not supporting the model output is somewhere above 50. Yesterday someone reported 70. Confusion reigns. That helps in the redistributive purpose of embracing CAGW. Facts no longer matter.

  4. Ron C. says:

    I did a study of the CRN top rated US surface stations. Most remarkable about them is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources. 35% (8 of 23) of the stations reported cooling over the century. Indeed, if we remove the 8 warmest records, the rate flips from +0.16°C to -0.14°C.

    The report is here:
    http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/20/analysis-of-23-top-qualty-us-surface-stations-shows-insignificant-warming-only-0-16c-rise-per-century/

  5. Fiddling data?

    Why not visit the site that automatically itself adjusts second by second to take account of this adjustments to provide a 97% accurate climate forecast for the next century.

    uburns.com/

    Disclaimer: not be relied on for any commercial, industrial, military, medical, governmental, agricultural, marine, fictional, crossword, scrabble or any other form of intellectual use.

    • andrew says:

      You can see the UHI effect for yourself if you live in a rural area like me. Park your car next to the house on a cold night and then watch how the temperature falls as you drive to work in the morning. The HHI (House heat Island) effect is normally 1 to 1.5 degrees. And my house has 2 ft thick walls.
      Not very scientific I know, but the principal is the same.

  6. Ken Gregory says:

    Commenting on the urban heat island warming, Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels published a paper in 2004 in which they analyse the pattern of warming over the Earth’s land surface compared to local economic conditions. They conclude “If the contamination were removed, we estimated the average measured warming rate over land would decline by about half.” McKitrick and Michaels published an updated paper in December 2007 using a larger data set with a more complete set of socioeconomic indicators. They conclude “The average trend at the surface in the post-1980 interval would fall from about 0.30 degrees Celsius per decade to about 0.17 degrees.” Removing the net warming bias due to urban heat effects in surface temperature data could explain as much as half the recent warming over land. Land is about 30% of the global area.

  7. paai says:

    Roy, the thermometers measure the temperature where it matters: in the layer where human ecology is based. Temperatures in the troposphere, or even in the arctics are very important to create models and to increase understanding of the mechanisms. Both are indispensable. But for now I prefer that decisions are taken based on the temperatures in the ecology.

    BTW: your header “No One Has Ever Felt “Global Warming”” applies to the proverbial frog in the ecological pan of warming water.

    Paai

    • jimc says:

      Choose whichever you want. His point was you don’t make global CO2 policy based on an inapplicable choice.

      • paai says:

        Still I do not understand why temperatures on the place where it really matters are to be dispensed with. Also, I get a bit uneasy where Roy suggests that the satellite sensors are superior to the ground-based measurements. If I am not mistaken, they have rather a long list of upward adjustments and Roy Spencer himself has in 2011 expressed reservations on the accuracy of RSS.

    • Ron C. says:

      Proverbial, but not actual frog.

      In real life, frogs get more and more active as the water warms, and will jump out before boiling.

      http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

    • poker says:

      you gotta be kidding, right?

  8. ren says:

    Where is the “warm duvet”?
    The current temperature in the north.
    http://oi57.tinypic.com/nprwya.jpg

  9. Alarmists and the media ignore sat data because it runs colder. But they love sat data when it attempts to measure sea level rise, and cite nothing else, because it runs higher. They never cite tide gauges because tide gauges give the ‘wrong’ answer.

  10. Don says:

    Dr. S. How do data from the U.S. Climate Reference Network stations across the US compare to the traditional network? They presumably were intended to avoid things like urban heat islands, etc.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/us-climate-reference-network-uscrn

  11. Alan says:

    In many fields, if you don’t strictly adhere to conservation of energy in modeling, people will not take you seriously, and in many cases they may be very rude to you.

    Given that we currently have all those ARGO buoys measuring the upper 2000 meters in the ocean (with NASA claiming that there is no significant change below 2000 meters), and given that the ocean is the dominant energy storage location for the planet, It seems like it should be possible to calculate how much energy the oceans are gaining over time using the collected data. Since this gives an integration of the energy in the oceans, it should be a better, i.e. less noisy measurement tool than anything that is based on an instantaneous snapshot. The accuracy should also improve with time since a longer baseline reduces the significance of any error in the earliest verses latest measurements.

    As an outside observer, I took it as a given that ‘consensus’ climate science was based on evidence showing that the climate models were consistent with measurement based estimates of the Earth’s net energy from the sun, but the NASA article seemed to indicate that there was a discrepancy and only 1/4 of the net energy was explained. Is this really possible?

    • Mark Luhman says:

      As an outside observer you gave them too much credit, within their ranks are very large con men, the proclaim to have knowledge which the human race does not possess, the human race knowledge level about the world climate is very limited, since we only occupy 3% of the earth surface yet that where the 99% of the thermometer record and human observation comes from and yet NASA wants us to believe they have the answer, that outfit lost all credibility with me when the flew the shuttle outside it design limitations and again where they knew it had a real problem with the foam covering, they killed 14 people due to gross incompetence, yet they did it only to keep the politician and the media happy, yea politicians and the media the two of the three dumbest groups in this country the people in those groups with the addition of government employees often go into those fields because that are not capable of doing anything else and are not willing to do manual labor. I will take a good plumber any of those people any day of the week. After all an incompetent plumber will not remain a plumber for long, you can not say that about the media, government worker or a politician after all the politician that was concerned about Guam capsizing do too many troops still retained his job, same for the idiot that gave the ok to launch Challenger, and numerous Media people that actually invented stories.

      • Mark Luhman says:

        Oh Roy that was no a shot at you! There are some that have been in government that a competent, but like you, are driven out since you made that others look bad. I do not know if that was true in you case, but I do know those who are competent and are not will to swim with the flow do make the rest look like the incompetent boobs that are and that just cannot stand.

    • Eli Rabett says:

      Problem is that it only goes back a decade or so, and the precision is not infinite. This was Roger Pielke Sr.’s hobby horse till it turned and bit him.

  12. “Why have world governments chosen to rely on surface thermometers, which were never designed for high accuracy, and yet ignore their own high-tech satellite network of calibrated sensors, especially when the satellites also agree with weather balloon data?”
    I think governments tend to be rent-seeking systems and CO2 causing global warming provides a rationale for taxing even the air we breathe.
    Thanks, Dr. Spencer for the good article.

  13. wyoskeptic says:

    Yes sir, doc, I do not see any signs of overly warm year.

    I just updated my ongoing graph about local temperatures. This looks like a pretty close to average temp year here where I am.

    http://wp.me/p4MyHW-4X

    Up a little for OCT, down a little for NOV. Up a little, down a little, just normal weather variations.

    Plus, a year ago at this time, the temp was -11F. Then -20s and lower for three or four days. Right now, it is 40F.

    Just like Joe Bastardi always says, enjoy the weather, it is the only weather you’ve got.

  14. Aaron S says:

    I am just curious what will happen if and when we go into a substantial La Nina (exagerated normal conditions with a net impact of global cooling). They tend to occur more commonly in a negative PDO than positive one. Everyone was banking on the big El Nino this year to catch us up to the models, and that didn’t work out and at best we slightly increase temp in some data sets. However, don’t forget the otherside of the coin: La Nina cooling.

    • nigel says:

      “…what will happen…”

      The evidence will be told to undergo adjustment treatment for its “false consciousness tendencies”.

      If it refuses, there will be a short notice:

      “Evidence shot by guards while trying to escape.”

  15. Werner Kohl says:

    Hello,
    Whenever I write that satellite data give the best temperature record I get the answer

    e.g. from Rahmstorf:
    http://www.scilogs.de/klimalounge/neuer-schwung-beim-klimaschutz/#comment-63708

    that “satellites don’t measure the temperature at the surface of the Earth”. UAH and RSS are obviously rejected by those persons.
    What can I tell them why satellite data are a good/better replacement for surface measurements? Do they represent surface temperatures? Are they an equivalent measure for climate change?

    Thanks and greetings from Germany
    Werner Kohl

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Werner, Dr. Spencer has oft said that the satellite data is our first TRULY global data set and this may well trump the fact that it isn’t surface data. If you look at my link (near the top of this page) you can see that UAH tracks with carbon growth. This vouches for the accuracy of UAH as the two data sets would deviate from one another were it not the case. Also, carbon growth DOES happen at the surface and thus represents temps at the surface. Therefor, LT readings are equivalent to surface readings. (it’s my understanding that LT has strong convection with the surface) Lastly, there is a Hadley data set that looks remarkably like the satellite data so there actually is a good corroboration with at least one surface data set…

    • jimc says:

      I don’t claim to know the answer, but Wikipedia talks about SST measurement in the “Weather satellites” section.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

    • Ron C. says:

      Hi Werner,
      On your question, here is an answer from Lord Moncton:

      Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/03/onward-marches-the-great-pause/

    • MarkB says:

      “UAH and RSS are obviously rejected by those persons.”
      That’s clearly not what he said.

      “What can I tell them why satellite data are a good/better replacement for surface measurements?”
      Satellite and surface measurements complement each other. The question you should ask is “In what context is one better than the other?” Before I go out the door for my morning jog, I don’t look at either HadCrut or UAH data, I look at the cheap outdoor thermometer outside my kitchen window not because it is absolutely better than the UAH data but because it is more suited in the context of determining how to dress in my locality.

      “Do they represent surface temperatures?”
      No they represent the temperature of a large volume of the atmosphere beyond the surface. It is correlated with the surface temperature but not perfectly. For that matter TLT measurements are not entirely insensitive to contamination from other atmospheric layers.

      “Are they an equivalent measure for climate change?”
      Climate is a three dimensional problem. One can not ignore atmospheric temperatures, surface temperatures, or ocean temperatures.

      • I want to add that the RSS and probably the UAH TLT datasets have some contamination from the middle and upper troposphere, which are warmed less by increase of greenhouse gases than the lower troposphere and the surface. Furthermore, increase of GHGs causes cooling of the stratosphere and the part of the upper troposphere above something like the 350-400 mb level.

        As a result, I expect greater warming in an honest surface dataset than in TLT datasets.

        However, I see GISS and HadCRUT4 as somewhat significantly overreporting the warming due to multiple specific issues I have seen presented to me, and that I found on my own. The overreporting appears to me as barely or almost enough to have 2014 being reported as a record warm year.

        Meanwhile, my favorite surface dataset is HadCRUT3, where I suspect overreporting of the warming, but only to a minimal extent. Its methodology was published in a 2006 paper, so I suspect its methodology was created during or shortly before 2005. Back then, the global warming trend had not yet made itself obviously turning a corner. So, I see much less need to overreport warming then than now to get a continuing series of record warm years.

    • Werner Kohl says:

      @all:
      Thanks for the answers.

    • Eli Rabett says:

      There is an interesting point here. The UAH and RSS measurements are not surface measurements, but they parallel them with one important exception, the lower troposphere series appear to exaggerate the effect of an El Nino, as compared to the surface records.

      If you go to Wood for Trees or a similar site and overlay the various temperature records you will see this effect. Each type of measurement has its advantages and disadvantages. Right now there is a conundrum that RSS is diverging from all of the others.

  16. Mike Flynn says:

    The loud clanging you hear is the sound of the penny finally dropping.

    Nobody has figured out a way to stop this big blob of molten rock cooling, as it has been doing for the last four and a half billion years. Sitting in the close to absolute zero of outer space, with the Sun warming only one side from about 150 million kilometres away, it’s not surprising that raising the temperature of the Earth would be a magic trick of some standing.

    For a bit of light relief, try to warm something without an internal heat source by surrounding it with CO2, another gas, a delicious blancmange, or the finest insulator known to man. The results will be identical. Your carefully chosen corpse – for example – will warm not one jot!

    Apply heat, it warms – remove heat, it cools. Heat warms things, if applied in sufficient amount, but four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has failed to stop the Earth cooling, let alone heat it up.

    Sad but true.

    • paai says:

      Mike Flynn, Wikipedia tells us that much of the earth 4.5 billion years ago was molten because of frequent collisions with other bodies which led to extreme volcanism. Let us assume that its average temperature then was in the order of 1000-2000 degrees centigrade, give or take a few hundred degrees.

      Now break out your calculator and compute the yearly amount of cooling needed to go from 2000 degrees to 14 degrees in that time.

      Do you see room for year-to-year or century-to-century variability that temporarily may mask that cooling?

      Paai (PhD, like Roy Himself)

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Palau,

        You may be placing too much confidence in Wikipedia, or not. I don’t know.

        However, here is a quote from your authoritative Wikipedia, relating to the Earth’s geothermal gradient – I assume that your possession of a PhD will enable you to understand the relevance. If not, please let me know. I will be more than glad to help you understand.

        “Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with respect to increasing depth in the Earth’s interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is about 25 °C per km of depth (1 °F per 70 feet of depth) in most of the world.[1]Strictly speaking, geo-thermal necessarily refers to the Earth but the concept may be applied to other planets. The Earth’s internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion, heat produced through radioactive decay, and possibly heat from other sources. The major heat-producing isotopes in the Earth are potassium-40, uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232.[2] At the center of the planet, the temperature may be up to 7,000 K and the pressure could reach 360 GPa(3.6 million atm).[3] Because much of the heat is provided by radioactive decay, scientists believe that early in Earth history, before isotopes with short half-lives had been depleted, Earth’s heat production would have been much higher. Heat production was twice that of present-day at approximately 3 billion years ago,[4] resulting in larger temperature gradients within the Earth, larger rates of mantle convection and plate tectonics, allowing the production of igneous rocks such as komatiites that are not formed anymore today.[5]”

        It is also accepted by real scientists of the geophysical persuasion, that the surface was originally in a molten state, and cooled to its present temperature, forming rocks, atmosphere, and oceans etc along the way. You will note that the oceans have cooled to well below boiling point – apart from undersea vents continuously injecting water at up to 400C into the oceans – and there is even a fair amount of frozen water visible here and there. As a matter of interest, I believe a surface temperature of some -90C or thereabouts was remotely sensed at the height of the Antarctic summer. We therefore have a range of temperatures at the surface from the hottest volcanic ejects – maybe 3000C – and a temperature below the freezing point of CO2.

        Now you have absorbed that, you will note that, if we assume a core temperature as conservatively 6,000K, and outer space at a nominal 4K, the surface must lie somewhere between those extremes. Dr Spencer’s data will probably give as accurate a measurement as anything of the nominal global average surface temperature, which I will assume is in the order of 288K, although this is more or less irrelevant. It is what it is at any given time, and is dependent on a raft of variables, from time of day to whether the crop has just been harvested or not.

        As to your exhortation that I should perform some quite useless calculation at your behest, I would be quite happy to do so, if I thought your demand resulted from a genuine thirst for knowledge. Alas, I feel this is not so. I assume you are a Warmist, of the Wandering Woefully Witless variety, although you might adduce some relevant facts that would smartly cause me to change my mind.

        If I am wrong I apologise. To believe that CO2 can warm anything at all is about as realistic as believing Lord Kelvin’s calculations which put the age of the Earth at 40,000,000 years. He later decided he was a bit optimistic, and reduced his estimate to 20,000,000 years. But even he accepted the notion that the Earth originally was molten right through, even though his calculations were woefully incorrect. He was unaware of radioactivity at the time.

        The point is that Kelvin was undoubtably brilliant. I don’t know whether he had a PhD, but he had a degree named in his honour – the Kelvin – as well as coining the term kinetic energy, as I recollect. Maybe you are brilliant and lucky enough to be recognised with a Nobel Prize like Michael Mann, or a unit of measurement. Lord Kelvin, with his belief in caloric, the existence of the universal ether, and a few other oddities, proves that you can be both brilliant and utterly mistaken.

        I do not know whether you are brilliant, but I see no evidence to convince me you are not utterly mistaken in your belief that the surface temperature of the Earth increases as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rise. It never has, and it never will. If you are interested, best geophysical science estimates of the rate of cooling of the Earth put the figure in the order of around one millionth of a degree per annum. This is backed up by measurements of the rate of energy loss.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Paai,

        Sorry. My autocorrect mutilated your name. Many apologies for noticing it sooner.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Mike Flynn,

      It also seems rather odd to me that tri-atomic gas compounds like CO2 ( euphemistically and erroneously labeled green house gasses (?) ) should be viewed as INSULATORS when in fact they act as vastly more efficient and effective RADIATORS/EMITTERS than their di-atomic neighbors like O2 and N2. GHG’s in fact help radiate energy to space more rapidly and COOL the planet. While a small band of CO2 does absorb a few narrow bandwidths of IR radiation it also emits absorbed energy much faster than the di-atomic neighbors. Imagine if no tri-atomic gas compounds existed, only di-atomic gas compounds like Oxygen. The only way excess molecular energy could be radiated away to space at current temperatures would be in the long-wave, low energy microwave band. How much longer would it take to radiate extra heat? How much WARMER would the atmosphere become as a result? An acquaintance once claimed when it came to wealth it isn’t what you make that counts it’s what you keep. Likewise, the ability of our atmosphere to unburden itself of excess energy to space proves imperative for out atmosphere to maintain a livable temperature range.

      Thanks and have a great day!

      • Joel Shore says:

        JohnKl: The part that you are missing is that the role of the GHG’s in the atmosphere is to absorb infrared radiation from the surface and then subsequently emit radiation out into space. However, the surface is warmer and hence the amount it emits is larger than the amount that is emitted by the GHGs in the cooler mid- and upper-troposphere. All you have to do to see this is look at the spectral emission of the Earth as seen from space: http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/38/722d8552a9cbc163ecc372b97b57026d6b794ea6.png

        Hence, the net effect of GHGs on the radiative balance of the Earth is warming, i.e., of decreasing the rate at which the Earth loses energy to space. This is, coincidentally, the result that climate scientists and other physicists besides myself also find. (And, as the plot I have shown illustrates, the numerical modeling of this radiative transfer agrees well with what the satellites see.)

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Joel Shore,

          And yet the Earth stubbornly refuses to heat up! Maybe the Warmists should dance naked around a bonfire, and demand Mother Nature appear. They can then administer a good whipping, and the Earth will stop its four and a half billion years of cooling, and start Warming, as the Warmists ever pray!

          Good for a laugh, although some have expected more for the billions of dollars wasted pursuing this particular chimera.

          Live well and prosper,

          Mike Flynn.

        • Kristian says:

          Joel Shore says, December 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM:

          “(…) the role of the GHG’s in the atmosphere is to absorb infrared radiation from the surface and then subsequently emit radiation out into space.”

          Actually, no. Their only task of importance is to let the Earth system cool to space, your “subsequently emit radiation out into space” part. Their absorption of IR radiation from the surface is not a necessary part of the solar heat’s route through the Earth system. Only the final emitting part is.

          Why?

          Because energy would’ve easily made it from the solar-heated surface into the atmosphere as heat, warming it, even with no gases capable of absorbing radiation present. Most of the heat from the surface to the atmosphere is transferred through mechanisms other than radiation: 32-33 W/m^2 by radiation (22.5%), 112 W/m^2 by conduction and evaporation (77.5%).

          However, energy would NOT easily have made it OUT of the atmosphere (and thus the Earth system as a whole) as heat, cooling it, without substances present capable of releasing it as radiation.

          The role of the so-called ‘GHGs’ is to let the Earth system COOL, not warm.

          • Pierre-Normand says:

            Kristian wrote: “However, energy would NOT easily have made it OUT of the atmosphere (and thus the Earth system as a whole) as heat, cooling it, without substances present capable of releasing it as radiation.”

            If the atmosphere were not radiatively active, then there would be no need for the received solar energy to to make it out from the atmosphere to space. The solar energy received to the surface would radiate back out to space with no impediment, since there would be no compensating back-radiation to offset the upwelling radiation and thereby reduce the net radiative heat loss. An atmosphere with a convective lapse rate can only reduce the rate of outgoing radiation from the whole climate system (for any fixed surface temperature).

          • Kristian says:

            Here’s the gist, Pierre-Normand:

            Convection is the ultimate cooling mechanism of a heated surface in a gravity field immersed in a fluid, like our solar-heated global surface beneath our massive, gaseous atmosphere. Somehow suppressing convective energy loss from such a surface, removing the possibility of that surface to cool through convection, will cause swift and considerable warming, not cooling. The IR-active gases in our atmosphere tend to strengthen convective cooling of the surface by cooling air masses aloft to space via radiation, a process that occurs continuously and concurrently with solar surface heating and corresponding surface air layer buoyancy by the transfer of heat through conduction, radiation and evaporation. Between the heating end down low and the cooling end up high, convection carries the energy through bulk air movement, naturally transferring the heat from hot to cold to bring back down the gradient which the radiative processes relentlessly work towards steepening.

            If you take out the IR active gases, efficient convective cooling of the (still) solar-heated surface would be impeded, and solar energy would thus automatically accumulate, making the surface warmer to reestablish (maintain) the temperature gradient.

            If you remove the atmospheric ability to cool to space, that doesn’t mean you’ve removed the atmosphere too. You simply pretend that the mass of the atmosphere, the fluid surrounding the heated surface, is no longer there, that the surface all of a sudden finds itself in a purely radiative situation. It doesn’t, Pierre-Normand.

            The world doesn’t work like a mathematical equation. You can’t just block conductive/convective energy loss from a constantly heated surface surrounded by a fluid and expect to be rid of it, simply set it to zero and say “Now it’s gone, out of business, only radiation left.”

            No, if you block convective heat loss, you effectively choke the natural cooling of the surface. And it will start warming. Accumulating the incoming heat from its heat source. The fluid is still there. The heat is still coming in to the surface. This is not a purely radiative situation. Neither is it a stable one. Conductive/convective/(evaporative) loss from a surface immersed in a fluid can only be neglected at the point where the surface itself has become so hot as to take full advantage of the T^4 relation. At a temperature of a mere 288K (not to mention a chilly 255K), this is faaar from reality.

            This ongoing nonsense about blocking for convection, the ultimate cooling mechanism of a heated surface surrounded by a fluid, and then get this surface to COOL (not heat) by just switching to radiation through the fluid instead, no more convection needed, is quite frankly sad to behold. It’s the perfect radiative delusion.

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Joel Shore,

          You stated:

          “However, the surface is warmer and hence the amount it emits is larger than the amount that is emitted by the GHGs in the cooler mid- and upper-troposphere. All you have to do to see this is look at the spectral emission of the Earth as seen from space:…”

          Who would ever claim otherwise? Reread my post, I certainly never did. The atmosphere doesn’t even absorb all the IR radiation emitted by the earth so it seems impossible that atmospheric emissions could ever equal surface emissions, let alone the reflected spectrum. You go on:

          “Hence, the net effect of GHGs on the radiative balance of the Earth is warming, i.e., of decreasing the rate at which the Earth loses energy to space.”

          How does that conclusion follow from the previous statement? Much of the energy emitted by the surface isn’t absorbed by the atmosphere at all!!! As to the seemingly counter-factual conclusion GHG’s decrease the rate at which the Earth loses energy to space compare microwave and infra-red radiation. The higher energy frequency, higher energy content of infrared by definition means that in any finite period of time infrared energy emissions must exceed microwave emissions probably by around 10-100 times. Again by definition and the Law of Identity IR emitters radiate energy from the atmosphere much faster than microwave radiation. Please explain your argument.

          Thanks and have a great day!

          • Kristian says:

            JohnKl says, December 5, 2014 at 6:48 PM:

            “The atmosphere doesn’t even absorb all the IR radiation emitted by the earth so it seems impossible that atmospheric emissions could ever equal surface emissions”

            Listen, the surface of the Earth on a global average emits 52-53 W/m^2 worth of heat through radiation (according to Stephens et al. 2012). 32-33 of these are absorbed by the atmosphere for energy gain. The rest goes straight to space. However, the mean global radiative heat flux ultimately emitted from the atmosphere to space is 220 W/m^2. How come? Because ALL of the energy continuously brought into the atmosphere as heat and absorbed by it for energy gain (and thus warming) is also eventually (in practical terms meaning just as continuously) expelled from it, to space via radiation. Courtesy of the so-called ‘GHGs’ (and clouds). All that enters exits. Over a certain cycle. That’s a prerequisite for a dynamic thermal equilibrium.

            All the 32-33 W/m^2 worth of radiative heat (energy originally from the Sun) transferred from the surface to the atmosphere are absorbed and subsequently emitted out of the system to space. All the 112 W/m^2 worth of conductive and latent heat (energy originally from the Sun) transferred from the surface to the atmosphere are absorbed and subsequently emitted out of the system to space. And all of the 75 W/m^2 worth of radiative heat from the Sun absorbed directly by the atmosphere on its way down from the ToA (thus never reaching the surface) is subsequently emitted out of the system again, to space.

            That’s [33+112+75=] 220 W/m^2. Add to that flux the 20 W/m^2 of radiative heat straight from the surface to space and you get the full Earth LW flux to space: 240 W/m^2.

            There is no holding back of energy in the atmosphere by any radiatively active gases or liquids. Quite the contrary. They’re absolutely necessary to get it out of the system and to prevent overheating and dangerous instability.

          • Joel Shore says:

            John,

            Substances that emit more radiation also absorb more radiation (Kirkhoff’s Law). The role of the greenhouse gases is to absorb radiation and emit radiation. However, in an atmosphere with a temperature that decreases with height, the emission occurs at colder temperatures and hence less is emitted than is absorbed from the surface. The net effect is that greenhouse gases reduce the radiation emitted back out into space (for a given fixed temperature structure…What happens in practice, of course, is the temperature increases until the emission equals the absorption of radiation form the sun.)

          • Kristian says:

            Joel Shore says, December 7, 2014 at 12:28 PM:

            “(…) in an atmosphere with a temperature that decreases with height, the emission occurs at colder temperatures and hence less is emitted than is absorbed from the surface. The net effect is that greenhouse gases reduce the radiation emitted back out into space (…)”

            You’re seemingly desperate to perpetuate this particular rGHE myth, Joel.

            It is so very easy to see and show how it is just that, a myth. I did it in my comment just above yours. Perhaps you didn’t read it. Or just went lalalalala.

            Look, when investigating system temperatures (corresponding to ‘internal energies’) and how they are maintained and/or change by energy inputs and outputs, you enter the domain of Thermodynamics. And to see whether a thermodynamic system temperature (internal energy [U]) changes or not, the energy inputs and outputs you follow are the HEAT [Q] and the WORK [W] transfers.

            It is not your purely S-B-calculated ‘potential surface radiative flux’ term of 398 W/m^2 that warms the atmosphere, Joel. You know that as well as I. Even if it existed as a real, separate flux of energy, it would not constitute a HEAT flux. It is only the radiative HEAT that makes a difference to system internal energies and thus temperatures. It is the energy that is actually transferred by radiation from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere. That is, ~33 W/m^2.

            So, the IR-active gases in the atmosphere absorb down low a mean global radiative HEAT flux from the surface of 33 W/m^2. At the same time, they (+ clouds) emit up high a mean global radiative HEAT flux to space of 220 W/m^2! A total flux 6.67 times as intense! In between, the (heat) energy is carried up by bulk air movement (convection).

            It’s pretty obvious that the IR-active substances in our atmosphere in no way inhibit the escape of surface heat to space. They facilitate and effectuate it. Whatever is brought in and up is released. From wherever. Simple as that. The more energy brought in, the more is released, and the less energy brought in, the less is released. This is what we observe in the Earth system, Joel. It is what we see happen. Your hypothetical assertions have no bearing on reality.

            ===

            The thermodynamic (temperature-relevant) energy budget for the surface system looks like this:

            INPUT (Q_in): 165 W/m^2 (radiative HEAT in from the Sun)

            OUTPUT (Q_out): 33 W/m^2 (radiative HEAT from sfc to atm) + 20 W/m^2 (radiative HEAT from sfc to space) + 112 W/m^2 (conductive & evaporative (latent) HEAT from sfc to atm) = 165 W/m^2 (total HEAT out)

            Balance.

            The thermodynamic (temperature-relevant) energy budget for the atmosphere system looks like this:

            INPUT (Q_in): 145 W/m^2 (radiative, conductive and evaporative (latent) HEAT from the sfc) + 75 W/m^2 (radiative HEAT from the Sun) = 220 W/m^2 (total HEAT in, from below and from above)

            OUTPUT (Q_out): 220 W/m^2 (radiative HEAT out to space)

            Balance.

            For each cycle, all that enters exits.

            Figures above from Stephens et al. 2012.
            http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Joel Shore,

            You stated:

            “Substances that emit more radiation also absorb more radiation (Kirkhoff’s Law). The role of the greenhouse gases is to absorb radiation and emit radiation. ”

            Thanks for repeating what has been discussed several times on this site. You go on:

            “However, in an atmosphere with a temperature that decreases with height, the emission occurs at colder temperatures and hence less is emitted than is absorbed from the surface. The net effect is that greenhouse gases reduce the radiation emitted back out into space (for a given fixed temperature structure…”

            You forget that different molecules do not emit the same radiation at the same temperature. For example, Oxygen emits in the micro-wave range at normal earth surface temps or the UAH data feed would be impossible! CO2 emits in IR at extremely low temperatures. Wikipedia once listed -23 deg centigrade as CO2 emission temperature in the 15 micron range. In fact, JPL satellites record upper-atmosphere Martian CO2 emissions quite robustly in that range(gee what happened to that supposed CO2 bite? Doesn’t exist so much on Mars, does it!). Please note the link below.

            http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/pia08030.html

            You may further note that Martian polar surface temperatures fall to as low as -123 deg centigrade. So the JPL satellite thermal images of the Martian upper atmosphere in the 15 micron range give substantial evidence that in fact they emit IR at extremely LOW temperatures!

            Thanks and have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Joel Shore,

            Just an additional note. I’m quite aware of the atmospheric aborption dips of IR emissions you provided evidence for and do not deny that the atmosphere absorbs the few narrow IR bands with the help of CO2. However, as explained you’ve made far too much of it and imo fail to accept empirical data regarding gas emissions and the categorical differences between gas compounds/elements.

            Have a great day!

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Joel Shore,

          One other point. The graph you present has been seen by all of us many times. Keep in mind a few things about the big CO2 dip in the 15 micron range you like to illustrate. As Doug and others have noted, much of the CO2 energy absorbed gets conveyed to other gas molecules including water vapor, O3 and others and emitted over an even broader and often higher energy IR band. The graph alone seems to prove little or nothing. Thanks again and…

          Have a great day!

          • Joel Shore says:

            John:

            Emissions are required to satisfy the known laws of physics. The emissions in those other bands are also determined by the temperature of the location in the atmosphere where they are emitted. The spectra show that there are also dips in the water vapor bands and so on.

            Radiative physics of the atmosphere is a solved problem as the close agreement between the empirical data and theory show…and all your denial of basic physics just shows the degree to which people will deny science that they don’t like.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Joel Shore,

            You state:

            “The spectra show that there are also dips in the water vapor bands and so on.”

            No one denies that the atmosphere absorbs IR! Nevertheless, it also emits in that range as well. Undaunted you go on:

            “Radiative physics of the atmosphere is a solved problem as the close agreement between the empirical data and theory show…and all your denial of basic physics just shows the degree to which people will deny science that they don’t like.”

            If you state a scientific FACT, why would I deny it. Explain where I denied empirical data, or the facts or laws of nature and I will re-examine my argument. Making unsupported statements seems like the actions of the desperate not the cognizant.

            Have a great day!

      • Fonzarelli says:

        John, our little “energizer bunny” over there keeps on going and going and going… I must admit that i am beginning to forget about it, not consciously, rather just the passage of time and the mentality of simply moving on into other posts. I’m going to make a conscious effort to keep at it though. It’s been a worth while mental exercise and has helped me hone my debating skills. I’m even trying to incorporate being more objective about things into my comments going forward. So it’s been fun AND worth while. (I think that Bart would be amazed to see what he started!)

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Fonzarelli,

          Facts act like Kryptonite against the SPECULATAVE PSUEDO-SCIENCE CONSENSUS of CAGW. Keep at it, there exists so much evidence and however large the supposed consensus reality will always win!

          Have a great day!

          • Geoff wood says:

            This is directed to, in no particular order, Mike, John, Fonzy, Kristian, and possibly Pierre.

            We quite often find ourselves disagreeing over trivia without openly conveying that we agree or disagree over more basic and essential physics.

            I would be most grateful if you would care to comment on these issues;

            1) At equilibrium, the Earth will radiate to space in the long wave the same as the absorbed portion in the solar short wave. In emitting the long wave to space, around 80% comes from the atmosphere whereby so called ‘greenhouse gases’ become working fluids ensuring that near equilibrium is achieved.

            2) The essence of the popular premise of the ‘greenhouse effect’ requires a reduction in the effective surface emissivity (via a wavelength dependent semi opaque screen) from around 0.95 to between 0.77 to 0.65 to provide 288K from albidos of 0.12 to 0.29. In reality we see an effective working emissivity of around 0.17 (66Wm-2 from a surface that in vacuo would emit around 390Wm-2) illustrating the severe non linearity of surface temperatures to reduction of effective emissivity. ie the surface and lower troposphere is not in pure radiative balance, nor anywhere near it.

            3) Given sufficient information, the Earth’s effective grey body temperature can be assigned to an effective mean radiative height given an effective weighted mean of the emissivities of the bodies that answer to space. This temperature and altitude is coupled to the surface temperature through the appropriate, gravitationally driven lapse rate, as an isentropic equilibrium temperature.

            4) As the atmosphere is of lower emissivity than the liquid or solid surface of this planet, and the atmosphere in its present guise has effectively ‘killed’ radiation as either a major cooling effect for the surface or a major heating effect for the atmosphere, radiative effects in controlling surface temperatures are rendered irrelevant. Increasing GHGs is now increasing the upper atmospheric emissivity which means the effective mean radiative height can crawl up the lapse and still emit ‘the required’ from a lower temperature without requiring deviation from the preset lapse or any response in surface temperature.

            Regards, Geoff.

  17. 2014 Does not look like the warmest to me according to Weather bell data.

  18. Ron C. says:

    With one more month to come, RSS has the 2014 anomaly at 0.253, less than half of 1998 at 0.550.

    At the moment, RSS ranks 2014 #7, exceeded also by 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010.

  19. Ron C. says:

    UAH right now has 2014 anomaly at 0.271, ranked # 3 behind 1998 at 0.42 and 2010 at 0.40.

    • John Finn says:

      Using the 1981-2010 baseline, the GISS anomaly for 2014 to date is 0.27 – exactly the same as UAH.

      I suspect the reason that UAH won’t recognise 2014 as a record is because 1998 and 2010 had, relatively speaking, much larger anomalies. It seems the LT responds much more readily to El Nino conditions than does the surface.

  20. The article below is from Joe D’Aleo from Weatherbell.

    Temperatures have flat-lined in all the satellite and ground based data sets for an average of 18 years.

    Using the actual data that goes into the forecast models used for the 7 day forecasts you see on TV and the internet, we find the global anomaly was a mere +0.07C in November and for the year to date a measly +0.11C, far short of the +0.68C warmest ever anomaly that NOAA claimed last month. One modeler told me “It was obvious to me since about April that NOAA had decided that 2014 was going to be the hottest year ever. The White House needed this for their political objectives.” It appears Gruber’s ideas have legs.

    Gordon published an editorial last week and gave

  21. Denis Ables says:

    But Roy, even NASA claimed (some years back) that satellite data was much better than land-based thermometers. (Just another 1 of those 1,983,683 nails in that AGW coffin.)

  22. Willywolfe says:

    I have squandered my resistance
    For a pocketful of mumbles,
    Such are promises
    All lies and jest
    Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
    And disregards the rest.

    Paul Simon- The Boxer

  23. sky says:

    World governments rely upon the unreliable–and highly pliable–surface station record because it gives them the pretext for their ambitions. After all, UHI effects at overwhelmingly urban station sites almost guarantee a continuing rise is “global” average temperatures, despite what the surface temperatures outside of urban areas are actually doing.

  24. Ursus Augustus says:

    There is published data for the city of Melbourne* in Australia putting the UHI at about 5˚C which is enough to put any ‘global’ effect in the shade so to speak. The ‘corrections’ required to data sets to remove UHI are so large that any moest inaccuracy in their application has obvious effects. It seems from our BOM records that virtually the entire ‘global’ warming could redily be caused by UHI effects. many of our raw records indicate cooling through the 20th century.

    * Published by none other than the University of Melbourne home in turn of none other than Professor David Karoly, one of the early users of the ‘denier’ epithet in this country (against a fellow U Mel professor of geology no less). Prof K is also a co author of the dud attempt at the antipodean hockey stick with Gergis et al.

    This is not about science it is about the credit and credibility of evidence and witnesses.

    Truthful and credible witnesses do not resort to personal abuse and pay attention to their reputations.

  25. Buzz B says:

    So, if the terrestrial temp records show a “pause” in warming, then the posters on this site tout that there is no warming. If the terrestrial temp records show warming, then the posters on this site claim that they must be wrong. Got it.

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Not all buzz… I’ve mentioned that UAH shows warming through out the pause based on the five year averages for ’03,’08 & ’13 (and have gotten hammered for it…)

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Not all buzz… I’ve mentioned that UAH shows warming throughout the pause based on the five year averages of ’03, ’08 & ’13 (and have been hammered for it…)

  26. Buzz B says:

    Really? Back to blaming the UHI for temperature anomalies? I thought we were past that? All terrestrial temp records are adjusted to account for anomalous readings at urban sites, just as satellite records are adjusted to account for orbital drift. If there is some serious peer-reviewed recent literature (last few years) showing that the UHI adjustment is insufficient, then I would welcome the citation.

    • rooter says:

      The land thermometers have 2014 as the 4. warmest year so far (NCDC). Isn’t that where anyone would find this fabled UHI-effect?

      Ocean temperatures have 2014 as the warmest. Spencer finds the UHI in the ocean I guess.

      Seems desperate to me.

      And how is it possible to claim the superiority of MSU/AMSU when UAH and RSS diverges more and more?

      Desperation?

      • Fonzarelli says:

        Rooter, Dr Spencer had this to say in the post before this one (monthly update comments):
        December 2 10:35am “yes, the land temperature seems to diverge warmer than the ocean after about 1998-2000. We have been looking at this closely in our new version 6 data (under development) to see if it is an artifact of the newer AMSU instruments starting about the same time. We don’t have an answer yet regarding how much of this is real.”

        • rooter says:

          Ah. Another possible error for MSU/AMSU then. “Our best technology”.

          However: That won’t explain the UHI effect in the ocean.

  27. Andy Edmonds says:

    While these discussions are about the current state of the global climate, they are interesting, but not of any great moment.

    The problem is that we all know that any discussion about the state of the climate now is loaded with meaning for political policy decisions, because of the understandable, but mistaken belief that the climate past is in some way a guide to the climate’s future.

    It Isn’t.

    I know that that is a very controversial thing to type, but it is true for the simple reason that climate is Chaotic.

    This can be shown experimentally, by looking for signs of chaos in climate time series, and also from dynamic systems theory. Climate being nonlinear in many areas with multiple feedback paths, with proven chaos at the micro (weather) level cannot, in reality, not be chaotic.

    The website link I’ve given points to the open source chaos analysis tool I first wrote 20 years ago for my PhD thesis, which is still one of the few tools for analysing time series for Chaos.
    I used to charge quite a hefty fee for a license and this lead to academics sending me data and asking me to analyse this for free. Several of these series have been climate related, long term temperatures and rainfall, and they exhibit pronounced chaos, the lyapunov exponent, which is the rate of loss of predictability in the series measured in bits is around 2 bits per year for temperature series.

    it is implausible that a system would exhibit chaos in a central measurement like temperature, and not be chaotic in every other area.

    If Climate is chaotic, and it cannot really be anything else, then unless the levels of chaos are very low, (they aren’t) then predicting more than a couple of years ahead is impractical. 2 bits per year literally means that the best case errors quadruple each year. It’s this exponential increase of prediction error, rather than the more usual linear, which characterises Chaos, and is the source of the high sensitivity to initial conditions, or butterfly effect, that Chaos became famous for.

    I believe that this is the central reason why the models and the reality of our climate are so wildly at variance. From a chaos theoretic point of view they could only, like a stopped clock, be right by chance.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      I have not every come close to you level of study, yet I understand plainly models cannot predict the future climate, you stated it in terms I cannot. Yet without such an in depth study I can understand why a computer model and the attempts to predict the future climate with said model is impossible just look at the failure a computer would have predicted a dice roll, the variables in a dice roll are far less yet there is no predictive skill in a computer trying to predict a dice roll, what I cannot understand how intelligent person can understand a computer cannot predict something as simple as what a dice roll will be a hundred rolls from now, yet believe somehow a computer and tell what the temperature will be fifty years from now or am I missing something? Or is it I am not, if you had only one set of dice and on table the combination to the two may allow you to predict the tendency of that table and dice, but climate is and infinite number of tables and dice and on each foll we have no idea what dice and table is going to be used so the prediction is worthless from one roll to the other. I assume that what most people miss, am I right or wrong?

      • andy edmonds says:

        Hi Mark,

        Back in the 19th century the mathematician/philosopher Laplace proposed that everything would be predictable if you could get someone to do the calculations for you.

        He didn’t know about quantum theory, the work of Goetel, or the work of Lorenz in discovering chaos (in weather simulations!).

        Basically, everyone outside of climate realises that there are limits to predictability of our world, no matter how much computing power we throw at it.

        For chaotic systems this is because the feedback and non-linearity causes the errors to multiply according to a power law, not linearly as in most other systems.
        So in the case of weather, Lorenz estimated the rate of error growth at 1 bit every four days. This means every time you double the power of your weather simulation computers you don’t get double the accuracy of predictions, you just get 4 days. double the power again, another four days. You’d have to fill the universe with computers to get predictions a year ahead.

        This doesn’t break the laws of cause and effect; chaotic systems aren’t random. Theoretically you could predict their behaviour forever, but in practice it can’t be done.

        Given that many of the parameters in a climate model are estimates, you can see that simulating climate is pointless.

        Andy

      • Buzz B says:

        Interesting analogy Mark. While you are no doubt correct that a computer can’t predict a dice roll, it can predict the percentage of dice rolls that will come up “12” if you roll them enough times. Even more analogously, if you start rolling two dice that each have two 6’s rather than one, then the computer will accurately predict that a greater percentage of future rolls will be “12” than in the past. Still can’t predict with any certainty any particular roll (or any particular temperature for one given year), but it can accurately predict more 12’s (or more hot years) than in the past.

    • MikeB says:

      Let’s say the Sun becomes hotter for some reason and the Total Solar Radiance reaching this planet increases. In these hypothetical circumstances we can easily predict that the Earth will become hotter too. Not difficult. Likewise, it should not be difficult to predict that if the radiative forcing on the surface of the earth increases, for any reason, then the surface will become hotter.

      Increasing CO2 increases the radiative forcing and thus even a simple model should be able to predict that the surface will warm. No matter how ‘chaotic’ the system is, I hope we can all see that such a prediction is not difficult. Of course, a simple model will not be able to predict the weather for a particular day far in the future, but it will predict, correctly, that the surface will warm.

      Similarly for the dice roll. You cannot predict the outcome of a single roll but you do know the probabilities and over a large number of rolls you can expect the outcomes to converge to these probabilities. This is, after all, how casinos make their money.

      • Chris says:

        One can’t argue with what MikeB says. What he is not saying is much more important.

        We cannot use the fundamental laws of physics to run the simulations – we don’t have the knowledge, computers or the data to do so. Consequently the simulations use gross oversimplifications, and completely omit parameters for things we don’t understand or have no data for.

        There is some evidence the temperature data has been deliberately adjusted to make the early 20th century cooler, and it is likely the later records are contaminated, but on the high side.

        This poor data set is then feed into a simplified model and the unknown parameters (or which there are many) adjusted until it gives a reasonable match to the (contaminated) input data set. The model is then run into the future – and surprise surprise it over estimates the future temperatures.

        That is to say – there is no way to accurately estimate the effect of CO2 on the climate – we have neither the raw data – or the understanding to do so. e.g. The PDO was first described in 1997 – well after the catastrophic AGW rollercoaster was in full flight – and too late to change its direction.

        In the long term the probably of a head or tail is well known – 50% for a fair coin. We don’t really know what drives the climate system – so any such prediction in the future for climate is impossible. The analogy is enticing – but wrong.

        This is why Dr Spencer falls into the 97% consensus – but doesn’t actually in the catastrophic part of AGW.

      • andy edmonds says:

        You are fundamentally wrong. The mistake is to mix apples and pears. Solar radiation is external to the system of climate; CO2 and it’s effects are internal to the system.
        In a system with feedback – and no one denies this is he case in climate, the effect of changing any parameter is unclear unless you consider the entire feedback path.

        A long time ago I designed control systems for ships and missiles, within the feedback loops that controlled direction, or power or whatever there were often elements that in isolation did strange things, but the overall effect was to control the desired quantity.

        To put it another way, the suspension of a car forms a feedback system intended to keep the car level. In this example the sun is the road, and CO2 is just one part of the suspension that has changed due to age or wear. Apparently, based on 18 years of data it’s not having much effect.

        By concentrating on the minutiae you are missing the big picture. Chaos can only occur in systems with non-linearity and feedback, no one denies that these exist in spades in climate.

        • nigel says:

          “…the effect of changing any parameter is unclear unless you consider the entire feedback path…”

          It often stays unclear, even when you do consider the entire [panoply of] feedback path[s].

          cf:

          “The concept of “feedback”, so simple and natural in certain elementary cases, becomes artificial and of little use when the interconnexions between the parts become more complex.
          When there are only two parts joined so that each affects the other, the properties of the feedback give information about the properties of the whole. But when the parts rise to even as few as four, if every one affects the other three, then twenty circuits can be traced through them; and knowing the properties of all the twenty circuits does NOT give complete information about the system.”

          Ashby,R, An Introduction to Cybernetics, 1956.

  28. Oliver Manuel says:

    The Matrix of Deceit

    Roy,

    1. Society has lived for sixty-nine years in “A Matrix of Deceit”.

    2. In 1946, George Orwell started writing a book to warn us that escape from the matrix would be extremely difficult, if not Impossible !

    1. Jon Rappoport, Power Outside the Matrix
    http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/the power-outside-the-matrix-your-victory/#comment-84526

    2. George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

  29. dave says:

    RSS has released its ‘anomaly’ figure for November 2014 for Lower Troposphere:

    Of course, RSS use a slightly different ‘baseline period’ than UAH.

    RSS UAH

    October +0.274 +0.365

    November +0.246 +0.329

  30. ren says:

    “What they discovered was a major weather event, known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming. These events typically occur every other year and at random, they said. Consequently, the cosmic-ray data revealed in this latest study can be used to effectively identify these events.”
    http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/30377_en.html
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2014.gif

  31. stevenson says:

    Dear Roy

    Could you please confirm (or not) that all the IPCC models issue their prevision in terms of athmospheric temperature and not earth

    Thank you

    Jérôme Stevenson
    Paris, France

    PS I write articles on Climate changes in France for a think tank :Liberté Politique

  32. Massimo PORZIO says:

    Hi Joel Shore,
    I read above that you still use the regular transmittance graph for supporting your belief that it is the effective outgoing radiation at the TOA.
    Some month ago I asked you to comment about my opinion that it is not what you think it is, but I missed to read you reply.
    My opinion is that that graph is exactly what a satellite’s spectrometer sees from its narrow field of view, while it could miss a lot of outgoing radiation with angles different from the Nadir one. Radiations which have very different spectral distributions since they span from the Nadir view “bite” to the almost complementary limb view “peak” at 666 cm-1, see here:
    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/328463/filename/acp-6-5025-2006.pdf
    (the limb view is the upper-right graph of page 5027)

    I think that the only way to know the real outgoing LWIR is measuring it through a wide FOV instrument which sees all the Earth dish with its atmospheric layer too.
    I honestly don’t know if the 666 cm-1 “bite” will still be there, but I’m almost sure that it will be quite different in magnitude.

    Have a nice day.

    Massimo

    • Joel Shore says:

      Massimo,

      I guess I don’t really understand what your point is. If there is good agreement between experiment and theory in the nadir direction, why would you expect that not to be true for the limb?

      Also, as I pointed out to you in our previous conversation, the original emission is diffuse and coming from the entire Earth’s surface, so it is not the issue of a point source with radiation getting scattered or emitted into other directions. To the extent that such events occur, they will also occur that light that was not originally headed toward the detector will be absorbed and the subsequent emission WILL be toward the detector.

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Hi Joel,
        I apologize for that, I know that I have many problems to explain my thought in English about this issue, so I try again.
        What I’m arguing is that when you point an IR thermometer onto a surface and the EM medium between the surface and the IR thermometer is transparent, then there is no doubts for me to assert that the radiation seen by the thermometer “eye” is proportional to the surface temperature.
        My problem (just supposed of course) arise when the medium is not fully transparent to the EM field at the wavelengths of the thermometer. In my opinion this introduces an uncertainty of the constant to use to convert the radiation seen by the thermometer “eye” and the real temperature of the surface, because that “constant” is no longer constant since it is a function of the concentration of the non transparent gases in the medium mixture. I know that also any point of the surface emits the EM radiation for angles other than its zenith, but in that case the spectral radiation shape for those angles are always the same, only the amplitudes of the spectral bands are scaled by the Lambertian emission law, so it doesn’t really matter the FOV of the observing thermometer. In case of presence of non transparent gases (with resonance points) in the EM medium instead, the spectra for those angles should be quite different; the limb view case of the link I reported before shows how in that limit condition it is even complementary to the nadir view. For the CO2 this implies that while when its concentration increases, at the nadir view the “bite” at 666 cm-1 increases in magnitude, at the limb view the complementary “peak” increases too, introducing a sort of “negative feedback” to the effective energy “trapped” by the CO2.
        Do you get my point?
        If you look only at the very narrow FOV around the nadir, a doubling of CO2 shows a discrete LWIR outgoing reduction, as Modtran predicts, but that look is completely missing the related LWIR outgoing augmentation.

        I hope I’ve been a little more clear.

        Have a nice day.

        Massimo

    • MikeB says:

      Massimo,
      You seem to be hung up about this ‘narrow field of view’. I have talked to you about this before, but you have some mental block that I cannot help you with. The problem is with you. That is unless you wish to adopt the approach that all scientists and physicists are wrong and you are the only one who has it right, although you are unclear what your own views are. Is this plausible do you think? (Occam’s Razor might be applied here)

      Of course the FT Radiometer misses a lot of outgoing radiation. It is designed exactly to do that! It wants to see only a collimated beam coming in from a particular direction. The challenge is to avoid ‘stray light’, not collect it. From the collimated beam input the radiometer can determine accurately the intensity of the emitting source at any particular wavelength. Compare this to an IR thermometer that you point at a wall. The device doesn’t need to collect all the radiation from the wall in order to ascertain its temperature. A small sample will suffice.

      You have to sort your mental block out for yourself. As my university lecture used to say “I’ve already got my degree, the problem is with you”. You must put the effort in, good luck to you

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Hi MikeB
        I’m not sure you well read my reply to Joel, or maybe my knowledge of English don’t allow me to be sufficiently clear. Anyways, I know what you say. But that’s not that the case I’m arguing about.
        I’m arguing that, for use a narrow IR FOV thermometer to get the temperature of a wider solid object, you need to collect its radiation from wavelengths which you know that they are not influenced by the thickness of the medium between the thermometer and the object otherwise you need to know the behavior of the medium mixture before.

        The limb radiation at the TOA that I linked before, is outgoing to the outer space because the atmosphere is almost spherical, and the satellite’s narrow FOV at nadir doesn’t see it; for this, today that you have calibrated the satellite’s radiometer for the current CO2 concentration, you can precisely compute the ground temperature, but “tomorrow” when the CO2 concentration will double, your satellite’s radiometer must be re-calibrated to get the correct temperature at the ground.
        My point is that a part (if not whole, honestly I don’t know) of the 666 cm-1 energy “bite” is exiting the atmosphere unseen by the satellite because it is scattered in directions different from zenith.

        Please, don’t say that I “adopt the approach that all scientists and physicists are wrong and [I am] the only one who has it right”, I’m just talking about an issue that I think I found and for the moment no one had give me a coherent answer, just that.
        Scientists and scientists are humans like me, so I’m not arguing that they are wrong and I’m right, they (like me) could be wrong for me.
        I’ve just enough of people how say that I’m wrong just because they are right.
        So tell me how you take account of the increasing of the limb “peak” per CO2 doubling, just measuring only the nadir “bite”, and I’m ready to dismiss this argument.
        By the way, don’t tell me that you take account by modelling, because in that case, you can’t use that Modtran plot for arguing about the consequence of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is why I resumed this boring argument for me.

        Have a nice day.

        Massimo

        P.S.
        I well knew what Modtran does, well before you wrote it few months before. Dr, Spencer told me in a private email those days in 2009.
        I’m a well affirmed engineer, don’t believe I’m a dumb.

        • MikeB says:

          Massimo,
          Well you didn’t put much effort in at all, did you?

          The limb view is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. It’s like adead parrot. It is of no consequence in this context. I don’t need to see the limb view in order to determine the temperature of the ground and the absorption by gases in the atmosphere. It is irrelevant. Read carefully what I said before to see why. Remember, you have the problem, not the scientific community.

          The temperature of the ground, determined from the satellite measured spectrum, in no way depends on the CO2 concentration. From Joel’s graph, I can see that the temperature of the ground is about 47 degree C.
          What happens if the CO2 level increases? I can tell you exactly what will happen. And there is no need to re-calibrate anything because we don’t look in the CO2 absorption band to determine the ground temperature.

          Now, you tell ME what you think will happen if, say, the CO2 concentration were to suddenly double overnight. What would the graph look like the next morning? Notice the word ‘suddenly’.

          What would the graph look like when a new equilibrium was eventually achieved?

          P.S. I didn’t say anything about modelling or ModTran.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi MikeB,
            I’m not sure what you are talking about, Joel used tha Modtran plot to argue that the CO2 is absorbing that “bite” at 666 cm-1, and that all that radiation is sent back to the ground, which is not.
            I know that you get your 47°C from the band between 800 to 1000 cm-1 which is supposed to come from the ground unaffected by the CO2, and it was true if there is no WV indeed, that graph is only about transmittance and radiance of the atmosphere.
            Please note that you know the WV concentration before you get the real temperature at ground, if you don’t know that concentration you don’t know the real temperature at ground from that.
            Anyways, after the very first emails with Dr. Spencer, I never doubted that analyzing the satellite spectra you can establish the ground temperature. Other thing is arguing that those graph can be used to estimate the real influence of changes in concentration of CO2 on the total outgoing LWIR.

            “Now, you tell ME what you think will happen if, say, the CO2 concentration were to suddenly double overnight. What would the graph look like the next morning? Notice the word ‘suddenly’.”
            I don’t know what you are going to say here, because I expect to see the “wings” widen a little, but what I’m arguing is that there is no evidence that the missing measured flux from the spectrometer has been fully back radiated, because at least a part of it has exited tangent the TOA and that radiation has been unseen by the spectrometer.

            “What would the graph look like when a new equilibrium was eventually achieved?”
            I honestly don’t know, because I don’t believe I know the effective outgoing energy at TOA for the issue I explained above.
            If you want, I can tell you what you believe it happens, I can tell you that after the “bite” widen its “wings”, the outgoing radiation seen from the satellite falls of about 7W/m^2, so if you raise the ground temperature to fit this apparent change in outgoing LWIR at TOA, you get about 1.5°C more at ground.
            But that’s all a theory, I would like to see how it really changes the full Earth radiation dish comprising the 10km atmospheric ring around it when the CO2 eventually doubles.
            In my opinion that’s the true outgoing LWIR at TOA.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        By the way and just to inform you (that is, this doesn’t means in any way that I’m right about the issue above):

        “The challenge is to avoid ‘stray light’, not collect it. From the collimated beam input the radiometer can determine accurately the intensity of the emitting source at any particular wavelength.”

        I know that, in my professional career, I successfully designed an optical spectrum analyzer for the UV/Vis/NIR bands with an amplitude dynamic range of 70dB and a spectral resolution better than 0.1nm. It works great and for doing it I had to learn the details of how to make the light beam collimated to allow the self-interference of the different paths of light needed to discriminate its wavelengths.

        The only reason I write this message is because I don’t want you believe I’m an extreme ignorant in this field. What I didn’t like from your previous message is that it seems to me that I wrote something that lead you to believe that I’m that kind of troll who believe that all the scientist in this field are wrong. I never had this belief, the contrary I ask my questions explaining my point of view, just because I fell ignorant in this matter and I would like to find someone who answer my questions to dissipate my doubts. Plausible answers that at least for the moment, didn’t arrive to me.

        Have a nice day.

        Massimo

      • Fonzarelli says:

        “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice”

        Einstein on consensus science…

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi Fonzie 🙂 ,
          what depress me, is that MikeB seems to avoid to address the issue just moving the argument on things that haven’t anything to do with it.
          I’m talking about the use of spectrometers for evaluating the total amount of outgoing energy (which I well know how they work; as said, I also designed one a long time ago) and instead he continue to repeat the obvious.

          MikeB, to be clear: I’m not telling that I know that the scientists use those plots (I don’t know indeed), I’m just arguing against the use of those spectrometer plots to demonstrate the influence of the CO2 concentration on the effective outgoing radiation, and you can say what you want, but if you don’t give a rational explanation on how you take account of that unseen radiation, those plot are useless for that (death parrots or not)

          Have a nice day.

          Massimo

  33. Massimo PORZIO says:

    By the way.
    Joel, I don’t know if JohnKL “denial of basic physics just shows the degree to which people will deny science that they don’t like.”
    For a simple matter, if you take a detailed look to the Modtran plot compared to the IRIS satellite’s view over Sahara that yourself linked above, you should see that there is a clear disagreement of the two plots between 800 an 1000 cm-1. That excess of radiation seen by IRIS could be due to the very same effect which JohnKL was talking about.

    When I played with Modtran in 2009, the Dr. Archer’s application at the University of Chicago web site was quite different from now. That time it had a selection for keeping constant the water vapor or, in alternative, the relative humidity, well Dr. Jerry North of Texas A&M asked the rhetoric question at the end of this document:
    http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo629/Summer_2008/Week%204/ModTran%20games.pdf
    That is: why should it be different?

    Playing more with it I discovered that it happened because Dr. North used a ground temperature below 299.7 K, if he used 299.7 K for ground temperature then the two values matches perfectly; while using a ground temperature above above 299.7 K the behavior of the model reverts giving lower temperature delta for constant WV pressure.
    My opinion is that Modtran is a good model for FLIR devices simulations (it has been designed for that) but it embeds some adjustment factors that are placed to fit the current atmospheric conditions. So it can’t be used to predict what really happen doubling the CO2 concentration, since it has not been calibrated against that evenience.

    Have a nice day.

    Massimo

    • Joel Shore says:

      Massimo,

      First of all, I think the explanation for what discrepancy there is between the Modtran and the empirical data is more likely that we don’t know all the parameters perfectly (surface temperature, emissivity, relative humidity vs. height, …) than that the basic laws of physics are wrong.

      Second of all, the effect that JohnKL is talking about is already understood, at least in the way he expressed it. I.e., it is well-known that the radiative energy absorbed by CO2 is quickly thermalized and so the radiation will then be emitted by all the molecules emitting radiation. However, the net effect at the end of the day is still that more radiation is absorbed from the Earth’s surface than is subsequently emitted by those molecules to space, so for whatever spectral lines you look at for whatever molecules, the net effect is less emission due to the presence of those species in the atmosphere.

      This is, of course, why the Earth’s surface is much warmer than it ever could possibly be if the atmosphere did not absorb some of the radiation from the surface (given what the Earth + atmosphere system absorbs from the sun).

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Hi Joel,
        I’m not convinced by your explanation. Because I don’t find in it the proof that “the net effect is less emission due to the presence of those species in the atmosphere”.
        In fact it was true if those molecules received their energy to convert into EM radiation only by the ground radiation, but this is not the case. They also receive the energy by the molecular bumping from the below, it is the very same reason the molecules stay there up in the sky, without that thermal bumping they all should collapse to the ground.
        So I argue that you can’t simply tell that adding a GHG molecule you get more back energy to the ground.
        You surely can tell that you have more back radiation of course, but you have also more outgoing radiation which otherwise it was absent at that altitude if the GHG molecule wasn’t there. So (as yourself admitted) since the radiation is thermalized, and there is no reason to believe that the GHG energy gate is unidirectional, if the GHG molecule is “precharged” by the surrounding molecular bumping, not only it can’t absorb any thermal photon from the ground, but it also can emit a new “dethermalized” photon toward the outer space.
        To be clear, I’m not telling that you are wrong and Doug is right affirming that the GHG cools the atmosphere, I’m just arguing that I don’t know who is right and who is wrong.

        Have a nice day.

        Massimo

        • Joel Shore says:

          “To be clear, I’m not telling that you are wrong and Doug is right affirming that the GHG cools the atmosphere, I’m just arguing that I don’t know who is right and who is wrong.”

          Well, you may not be able to tell, but that doesn’t mean that it is not known. Look, there are people who can’t tell if the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old but that doesn’t mean we don’t know which is correct.

          The basic issue is that you are so ideologically pre-disposed not to believe the science that you require an impossible amount of evidence to convince you.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Joel,
            I really wonder of your reply.
            Even if I was “so ideologically pre-disposed not to believe the science”, you should answer how the Modtran plot take account of those non nadir outgoing flux which is directly proportional to the CO2 concentration.

            I always believed that making science is the hard job of explain how the things works, not just study what it was simply written on a book.
            Yes, you are right, I proudly don’t want to “believe the science”, I want to understand the the science behind this issue instead.

            Anyways, have a nice day.

            Massimo

          • Kristian says:

            Massimo,

            You really shouldn’t buy into the one-track-mind world view of the fervent radiative greenhousers (like Joel here).

            When they see a spectral plot like this one:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/modtranradiativeforcingdoubleco2.png

            they immediately read ‘warming’ below the bites. Because their blinkered approach to reality is made completely rigid and one-dimensional by their ultimately exclusive radiative outlook on … everything.

            http://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-1/
            http://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/

            These plots are not evidence of warming. The rGHE/AGW proponents just assert they are.

            If energy is not emitted to space as EMR at a certain wavelength, it doesn’t mean there is no way for it to escape to space at all, being rather ‘trapped’ inside the atmosphere, raising the Earth system temperature in the process. It simply means it wasn’t emitted at that wavelength. The total flux is 239 W/m^2 either way. Over the last 30 years, global temps have gone up. And so has OLR through the ToA. In step with the temps. Over the same period, total atmospheric CO2 content has gone up more than 16%.

            Those spectral plots aren’t showing us what they tell us they’re showing us.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Kristian,
            thank you for entering the debate.

            I know that those plots can’t be used for explain any EM energy “trapping”.
            But I’m a “possibilist”, so having found (my guess) an issue I was asking on how the climate science dealt with it, since sometimes I see those plots used to demonstrate the CO2 forcing.
            At this point I doubt that some scientists never imagined that the issue exist.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Kristian, Massimo and Joel,

            The issue arose regarding the so called CO2 “bite” of the electro-magnetic spectral apple of planet surface emissions that supposedly occurs especially in the 15 micron range. Imo, many problems plague this meme.

            1. The claim presumes the planet surface emits copious quantities of IR in the 15 micron range to begin with. In fact, since 71-2% of the earth’s surface is water which emits little if any radiation in that range this seems doubtful. In addition, even assuming the entire terrestrial land surface emits copiously in the 15 micron range that only means less than 30% of the Earth’s surface emits in this range. However, virtually (if not all) the entire quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs/emits in this range the surface area of emission being enormously greater. To expect any kind of equality in per meter EM emissions between terrestrial land emissions and trace gas emissions as a result of this seems problematic especially when you consider that CO2 represents one of the few (if not only) trace gasses that emit in this range. All considered one should not be surprised by the “DIP!” None of this takes away from the fact that many other trace gasses exist to more fully radiate excess molecular energy to space.

            2. As has been mentioned, CO2 is a trace gas that shares/conveys it’s energy with it’s neighbors including water vapor, ozone, methane, etc.. Some of these gasses unlike CO2 are lighter than air & possibly more likely to emit to space.

            http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

            3. A point that should be brought up is the apparent fact that CO2 gasses absorb the entire 15 micron band and a few other narrow bands emitted from the surface within a few meters of the surface. The addition of additional CO2 molecules to the mix should not then raise lower troposphere temperatures since the energy already gets absorbed within the space mentioned. One merely adds additional molecules to process the SAME energy. Conceivably the energy may be absorbed at a slightly lower altitude but the net temp should remain unchanged. However, as I pointed out earlier the speed/rate at which the excess molecular energy radiates away eventually to space would be increased and at LOWER temperatures. Please read my previous reply to Joel excerpted here:

            “You forget that different molecules do not emit the same radiation at the same temperature. For example, Oxygen emits in the micro-wave range at normal earth surface temps or the UAH data feed would be impossible! CO2 emits in IR at extremely low temperatures. Wikipedia once listed -23 deg centigrade as CO2 emission temperature in the 15 micron range. In fact, JPL satellites record upper-atmosphere Martian CO2 emissions quite robustly in that range(gee what happened to that supposed CO2 bite? Doesn’t exist so much on Mars, does it!). Please note the link below.

            http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/pia08030.html

            You may further note that Martian polar surface temperatures fall to as low as -123 deg centigrade. So the JPL satellite thermal images of the Martian upper atmosphere in the 15 micron range give substantial evidence that in fact they emit IR at extremely LOW temperatures!”

            Thanks for your patience. I must rush & will share more later. Have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi JohnKL,
            I don’t want to discuss the mechanism involved in building up that “bite” at 15um (or 666 cm-1), what I continue to ask is if someone has been aware that that “bite” isn’t representative of the trapped energy by CO2.
            I don’t know if taking account of the outgoing LWIR with angles out of the satellite FOV, that “bite” is still there or not (honestly I guess that it will be there anyways because accounting a 10km atmospheric corona around the 12762km diameter of the Earth dish, it’s about 0.3% of the projected area only), but I’m almost sure that it is smaller than the one seen at the nadir view only.

            The use of instruments which need high collimated photons, that is with a very narrow FOV, is not a good practice to estimate the effective quantity of energy passing through one point on an almost spherical surface such as the TOA.
            If I’m not wrong Joel should be an expert in optics, I would ask him why they use the integrating sphere to be sure to capture the whole energy emitted by any non homogeneous and not collimated light source.
            Despite what he believe, any single point of the TOA has non homogeneous spectra as function of the outgoing angle of radiation. The link I reported well shows how those spectra at the nadir and at the limb view have shapes which their integrals are one inversely proportional to the other if considered as a function of the CO2 concentration. So the estimate of the total outgoing radiation using only one of those FOV, without knowing before the weight of the single FOV respect to the whole half spherical outgoing radiation is impossible.
            That’s what I’m insistently trying to highlight, nothing more.
            But it seems that people like Joel Shore and MikeB consider me, who I’m just asking that, “an ideologically corrupted mind” just because I don’t want to accept their “it is not so” or “it’s a death parrot” as a scientific explanation.
            I hope they don’t treat their students the same way, otherwise those students once graduates will be more like “talking parrots” that scientists.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Massimo PORZIO,

            Thanks for the reply. Please re-read my post the 15 micron “DIP” imo is in large part an illusion for the reasons stated. The strong drop in emissions at that range should NOT BE UNEXPECTED!

            Thanks and have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi JohnKL,
            it’s always a pleasure exchange opinions with a polite man like you.

            Honestly, I’m not an atmospheric physicist, so I don’t believe my opinion in this field is worthy to be considered.
            I know that the WV has a consistent influence on that band, but my simulation with Modtran in 2009 showed me that changing the WV concentration it doesn’t influence so much that “bite”, it reduces globally the whole band below 1000 cm-1 (below 10 um).

            Anyways, I believe (it’s just a belief) that the Earth 666 cm-1 atmospheric “bite” has something to do with the mixing of CO2 with WV, because both Venus and Mars which have respectively a more dense and a less dense CO2 only atmosphere, don’t show a so wide absorption pit. So, in my opinion, it is hard to relate that widening of the “wings” to the increase of the CO2 concentration only.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hoops!
            My: “Anyways, I believe (it’s just a belief) that the Earth 666 cm-1 atmospheric “bite” has something to do with the mixing of CO2 with WV,”

            Would be: “Anyways, I believe (it’s just a belief) that the Earth 666 cm-1 atmospheric “bite” has something to do with the mixing of CO2 with other gases such as WV but O2 and N2 too,”

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

          • Joel Shore says:

            John Kl says:

            “1. The claim presumes the planet surface emits copious quantities of IR in the 15 micron range to begin with. In fact, since 71-2% of the earth’s surface is water which emits little if any radiation in that range this seems doubtful.”

            Nonsense. Water has an emissivity extremely close to 1 in the far IR range. See here: http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/html/em.html

            “2. As has been mentioned, CO2 is a trace gas that shares/conveys it’s energy with it’s neighbors including water vapor, ozone, methane, etc.. Some of these gasses unlike CO2 are lighter than air & possibly more likely to emit to space.”

            What does they’re being lighter than air have to do with anything? And, yes, water vapor plays a very important role (and methane, at current concentrations, to a lesser degree)…And, all of this is well-calculated and well-understood.

            “3. A point that should be brought up is the apparent fact that CO2 gasses absorb the entire 15 micron band and a few other narrow bands emitted from the surface within a few meters of the surface. The addition of additional CO2 molecules to the mix should not then raise lower troposphere temperatures since the energy already gets absorbed within the space mentioned. One merely adds additional molecules to process the SAME energy. Conceivably the energy may be absorbed at a slightly lower altitude but the net temp should remain unchanged. ”

            The altitude ***where*** the energy is emitted which can successfully escape to space is what is relevant. And, as the well-understood radiative physics of the atmosphere shows, the presence of greenhouse gases causes the atmosphere to emit from higher, cooler regions of the troposphere where it emits less to space than it absorbs from the surface (as the satellite data clearly shows).

            There is a reason why Roy Spencer has done his best to try to disabuse you deniers of the greenhouse effect from your incorrect claims. And, that is because denying basic physics makes one look very ignorant of the science.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Joel,
            “The altitude ***where*** the energy is emitted which can successfully escape to space is what is relevant. And, as the well-understood radiative physics of the atmosphere shows, the presence of greenhouse gases causes the atmosphere to emit from higher, cooler regions of the troposphere”

            Yes, I fully agree.
            What I don’t agree, or better, for the moment I don’t find any proof that it has been investigated as it should be done is:

            “where it emits less to space than it absorbs from the surface (as the satellite data clearly shows).”

            I’m not telling that it is not completely true, what I’m arguing is the amount of this unbalance between absorption from Earth and emission to the outer space.

            Even limiting the atmospheric corona around the Earth dish to 10km, the influence on the total outgoing radiation is of about 0.3% of the emitting area, where the flux spectra as function of CO2 concentration behave surely the inverse of what it does on the dish area.
            And more, try this simple experiment: take one IR thermometer and go on a hill top in a clear sky day, so you can aim the thermometer upward and horizontally without targeting any solid object; the sky radiation is greater when you aim the thermometer horizontally, this is so also because of the longer atmospheric path of the flux respect to the upward view.
            What I’m arguing is that this phenomena could happen also for the downward view at the TOA, only that in that case the result is a progressive filling of the “bite” at the 666cm-1 as the FOV angle moves from the nadir.
            I repeat, I don’t know if that “bit” will be fully filled, my guess is no, it could be stay there, but until I don’t see it I can tell it for sure. This is how science should be done in my opinion.
            Sorry Joel, at least for what refers to me, it’s not a question of ideology as you wrote. Who professionally knows me also know that I apply this very same approach to myself for every thing I do.
            What I’m asking is just to know if someone already investigated this issue, and what it was the results.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Joel Shore,

        Just a very minor query or two relating to Earth surface temperatures.

        First, do you accept, as I do, that the temperature of the Earth, when created was sufficiently high that it was molten, and has cooled to its present comfortable range?

        Second, in relation to radiation emitted from the surface, absorbed by CO2 and re radiated, after the surface emits radiation of any wavelength, does its temperature fall, rise, or remain the same? My point is that if the temperature falls, unless one hundred percent of the emitted radiation is returned, the result is a drop in temperature.

        I may be mistaken, but I think not. Obviously I do not believe in CO2 warming. I also do not believe in alchemy, caloric, the luminiferous ether, N Rays, or any number of things believed by Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Michael Mann – even though he may be excused as not having a first rate intellect – and many others both great and small.

        I understand if you decline to answer my minor enquiries, but please don’t throw authority at me, particularly if it emanates from a consensus of self appointed examiners of the average derived from weather events which have already occurred. These deluded people call themselves Climatologists, and appear to share the same delusions.

        I’m not really expecting rational answre, but a regurgitation of the same diversionary tactics employed as nauseam by Witless Waffling Warmists.

        I sincerely hope you can prove me wrong.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

        • Fonzarelli says:

          Einstein had the following to say regarding consensus science:
          “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice”

          • Joel Shore says:

            Einstein did not believe that we should accept quackery over science because the quackery better aligns with our ideological pre-conceptions.

          • Fonzarelli says:

            One mans science is another mans quackery… Joel, there has been enough obviously bad science coming out of agw for people to reasonably find some of the more in-obvious suspect as well. That doesn’t mean that every skeptical argument is right. But, some of the more complex paradigms have enough wiggle room that one can’t necessarily be sure who is right and who is wrong. And remember, ideology can cut both ways. (people could reasonably argue that YOU are just another ideologue touting the consensus science) The big concern with the consensus is that, if oft repeated, error seems to crystallize into a subjective version of the truth. And it’s very difficult to break out of that due to the shear gravitas of the consensus. At the end of the day it would appear that the consensus is being upheld by name calling rather than an appeal to reason. I have watch you brilliant folks (of which i am not one…) going back and forth here about the nature of co2’s roll in the warming of the atmosphere. While everyone (including yourself) has presented worthy arguments, it’s not at all clear who is right here and appeals to the “consensus” are not particularly helpful. (neither is name calling…) I would suggest a better and clearer articulation of the arguments rather then resorting to tactical debate. A good example would be the co2 satellite data. You gave a good answer as to why the data is accurate and radiation doesn’t some how miss the satellite. Perhaps that argument could be developed and articulated better. Over at watts’, ferdinand (love him or not) has been an example par excellence of just how to lend crystal clarity to any argument that all should learn to emulate. One may not always agree with him, but one always knows exactly where he stands. So don’t give up and stoop to insolence. Keep at it, do a better job presenting your case and remember that there are other people reading your comments out there for whom what you have to say does resonate…

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Joel Shore,

            You stated:

            “Einstein did not believe that we should accept quackery over science because the quackery better aligns with our ideological pre-conceptions.”

            Agreed! Does that mean you’ve changed your pre-conceptions?

            Have a great day!

        • Joel Shore says:

          “First, do you accept, as I do, that the temperature of the Earth, when created was sufficiently high that it was molten, and has cooled to its present comfortable range?”

          Yes…that is roughly what has happened over billions of years. (Climate-wise there have been lots of ups-and-downs and it seems like you are conflating the temperature of the Earth itself with the temperature of its surface / atmosphere…but at least in a rough sense you are correct.)

          “Second, in relation to radiation emitted from the surface, absorbed by CO2 and re radiated, after the surface emits radiation of any wavelength, does its temperature fall, rise, or remain the same? My point is that if the temperature falls, unless one hundred percent of the emitted radiation is returned, the result is a drop in temperature.”

          Ah, Mike, are you unaware of the small detail that the Earth is heated by the sun? Yes, if the sun stopped shining, the Earth would gradually cool (but less rapidly than if there were no greenhouse elments in the atmosphere).

          “I may be mistaken, but I think not. Obviously I do not believe in CO2 warming. I also do not believe in alchemy, caloric, the luminiferous ether, N Rays, or any number of things believed by Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Michael Mann – even though he may be excused as not having a first rate intellect – and many others both great and small.”

          You really shown zero evidence that you are qualified to judge what is correct science and what is pseudoscience…or incorrect science. You don’t even seem to understand extremely basic points like the distinction between an object that is receiving energy from a source like the sun and one that is not.

          However, in the presence of the sun, the temperature of the Earth is determined by radiative balance, that is, what temperature the Earth has to be at so that it radiates back out into space the same amount of power as it receives from the sun. And, greenhouse gases force the surface to attain a higher temperature in order to radiate that power back out into space.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Joel Shore,

            You wrote –

            “Yes…that is roughly what has happened over billions of years. (Climate-wise there have been lots of ups-and-downs and it seems like you are conflating the temperature of the Earth itself with the temperature of its surface / atmosphere…but at least in a rough sense you are correct.)

            Possibly I need to refine my question, as you point out that there could be dispute about whether there are differences between the average temperature of the Earth, the average temperature of the atmosphere measured close to the surface, the average temperature of the atmosphere as a whole, the average temperature of the oceans, the average temperature of the top x meters of the lithosphere, the average temperature of the detritus covering the solid portion of the Earth, and so on.

            I therefore ask you if you would be so good as to specify the temperatures which so called Climatologists depend when claiming that there have been ups-and-downs. Ups-and-downs of what, precisely?

            When and if you can provide some evidence that you are not simply ignorant, stupid, or merely attempting a puerile attempt at being gratuitously offensive, I will restate my query in a form that might enable you to attempt to provide a cogent and relevant answer.

            In regard to your opinion of my being roughly correct, you might care to specify where I am precisely – as opposed to roughly – incorrect.

            You go on to ask whether I am aware that the Earth is heated by the Sun. Indeed I am. I also note that the parts of the surface exposed to the Sun immediately start to cool, in the absence of sunlight – at night, for example. As to the rest of your response, I seem to have correctly predicted its content.

            Ah well, the same pathetic Warmist diversionary tactics. Their impact is quite possibly reduced on those people under the age of 18 who have never experienced the mysterious Warmist Wonder of Warming in their lifetimes.

            If you need additional tuition in the area of condescending and patronising expression, please feel free to ask. You may assess whether I would be of assistance, based on my writings.

            Live well and prosper,

            Mike Flynn.

          • Joel Shore says:

            Mike,

            If you consider explaining basic concepts like “radiative balance” to be “diversionary tactics” then there is no hope.

            [By the way, the last paragraph in my previous reply was supposed to be part of the reply to the second point of yours that I quoted.]

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Joel Shore,

            You claimed:

            “And, greenhouse gases force the surface to attain a higher temperature in order to radiate that power back out into space.”

            Really?! Since CO2 as has been shown earlier radiates more energy at lower temperatures than their di-atomic gas neighbors like Oxygen, why would that be the case?

            Have a great day!

          • Joel Shore says:

            “Really?! Since CO2 as has been shown earlier radiates more energy at lower temperatures than their di-atomic gas neighbors like Oxygen, why would that be the case?”

            Because CO2 also absorbs more. The role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is to absorb radiation emitted by the surface and emit radiation. However, because the temperature decreases with height in the troposphere, then they emit less radiation back out into space than the terrestrial radiation that they absorb.

  34. Lewis Guignard says:

    Dear Mr. Flynn,

    You express competence in the arena of condescension and patronizing. I graduated high school with too much knowledge of those and decided, only a few years later, that it would be best if I stopped practicing on everyone I met. As years passed I became less capable, due to lack of practice. Then I got involved in politics, at the local level. It seems rude, derogatory, ad hominem statements are normal for many of the participants. And so I, against my better judgment, fell back into old habits. I have since tried to stop, or at least slow down.

    That being said, I can say with assurance to you and your target, neither of you would stand a chance with medium level experts.

    So stick with being polite. As Miss Manners says, and I paraphrase, it is much more effective and very ruthless.
    (Sorry about Ruth)

    Merry Christmas

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Lewis Guignard,

      I stand rightly chastised. Thank you.

      I have indeed been patronised, condescended to, insulted, been subjected to ad hominem attacks, and like matters, in the past, by people I regarded as experts in the field.

      Standards have obviously slipped, if I feel I can offer assistance to raise the standard in these areas. Then again, I believe I have learnt from some of the best, unlike this present crop of amateurs pretending to be professionals.

      I am tempted from time to time to challenge a Warmist to a contest of wits, but my parents instilled in me the credo that it was bad form to engage in a duel with an unarmed opponent.

      Once again, many thanks for your salubrious advice. I shall accept in the manner in which it was intended, I am sure.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn,

  35. Doug. Cotton says:

    Roy there is still some long-term warming of about 0.05 degree per decade and it will continue until about the year 2058. The hiatus will end around 2028 and there will then be 30 years similar to the 30 years at the end of the last century. Only after 2058 will the world experience nearly 500 years of cooling.

    What you need to discuss is the false physics. Water vapour lowers the temperature gradient and that leads to lower supported temperatures at the surface. Likewise carbon dioxide cools, but by less than 0.1 degree.

    Gravity sets up both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. The mean solar intensity entering the surface is only 163W/m^2 and that cannot explain observed temperatures. It is the gravitationally induced temperature gradient (thermodynamic equilibrium) which enables the “heat creep” process as explained with diagrams in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All.”

  36. Matt says:

    No One Has Ever Felt “Global Warming”

    Oh, cont rare. Senator Debbie Stabenow said she feels global warming when she flies.

  37. Scott says:

    While the debate over the data sets and their interpretation in interesting, the larger issue is being missed. Will the 2014 mean temperature Increase/decrease /or whatever, fall within the margin of error for such measurements? If it does than much of the arguing above is angels on pinheads.

  38. pic.twitter.com/0Fxl4xDYUo