UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2017: +0.27 deg. C

May 1st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2017 was +0.27 deg. C, up from the March, 2017 value of +0.19 deg. C (click for full size version):

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21

The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated soon, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


2,683 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2017: +0.27 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Alick says:

    I once said that when IR is absorbed and re-emmitted from a GHG, that 1/6 is redirected toward the Earth and 5/6 is toward space. I was corrected because of the cone shape toward Earth traced out toward Earth is not 1/6. Out of the blue it came to my mind this morning that time is a factor. The shortest distance/time back to Earth is straight down, thus as we trace out the distance/time back to Earth as we move outward along that cone, I’m sure that would trace and arc opposite of the curvature of the Earth, whose volume within might represent the 1/6 I was talking about.

    • RW says:

      Alick,

      It should be about half back towards Earth and half back up towards space, because the probability of re-emission at any discrete layer is (by and large) equal in any direction.

      • Alick says:

        RW,

        The distribution of emission would be a sphere over time. There are six basic directions in 3D space, 5 of which are toward space, or in other words, away from Earth’s surface because of the nature of Earth being a sphere.

        • Alick says:

          IR is vector isn’t it? It has magnitude and direction. Thus it can be broken down into it’s unit vectors along the x,y,z axis. Wouldn’t the distribution pattern of a sphere just breakdown into the 1/6 toward Earth and 5/6 away from Earth?

          • David Appell says:

            You are assuming that the IR emitted by a CO2 molecule travels all the way to the ground. Most do not — they are reabsorbed before they get there.

            The IR that strikes the ground will come from very low altitudes, i.e. half of it will strike the ground.

            Only a detailed calculation, requiring a model, can solve this completely.

          • gbaikie says:

            “The IR that strikes the ground will come from very low altitudes, i.e. half of it will strike the ground. ”

            I would agree. But what is very low altitude?
            One might think 500 meters is very low altitude. Or it could be 100 feet or less.
            As I recall there was some study showing warming from “very low altitude” CO2 concentration. But I don’t have the link to it [or effectively lost in large numbers bookmarks I keep:).
            I think there could warming from low altitude CO2 concentration, but I don’t regard this as related to greenhouse effect theory- or I don’t regard +5 km altitude as “very low altitude”, though someone could consider this is very low.

          • Bob says:

            +gbaikie
            At precisely 15 microns, the mean free path under today’s CO2 concentrations is just over 30 cm.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Applied physics uses the Poynting vector to calculate the net flux ax a single component through a surface. Good enough for industry and real world machines. By vector analysis all horizontal components of surface and atmospheric fluxes cancel leaving a reduced radiative coupling in the purely vertical.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            On line center it is less than 10 meters.

        • 4 of the 5 non-Earthward directions of the 6 perpendicular ones are not all that spaceward, but essentially horizontal. At the altitude of a typical GHG molecule, the horizon is not much below perpendicular to straight up. Have you seen what the horizon looks like from a jetliner at cruising altitude, which is higher than most of the mass of the atmosphere?

          • Alick says:

            Even if it is such a small amount, they are spaceward. They will reach space or achieve a higher altitude upon collision with another object. What happens from there is anyones guess.

            Now maybe other things like Earth’s magnetic field would nullify what I’m talking about. It would be interesting to know if Earth’s magnetic field could influence CO2 molecules orientation that could influence a distribution pattern in which they emit IR or absorb it.

          • Snape says:

            Alick

            I think you’re oversimplifying. Distance above the earth’s surface is critical. Concider a molecule of GHG at 2 feet elevation compared to 2000 feet. At 2 feet, the curvature of the earth would be irrelevant.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Snape, it looks as if someone oversimplified because KT and AER both have the net upward flux from the surface to be 68W/m-2 which is almost exact 1/6th of the in vaccuo radiosity.

          • David Appell says:

            Snape says:
            “I think youre oversimplifying. Distance above the earths surface is critical. Concider a molecule of GHG at 2 feet elevation compared to 2000 feet.”

            The emissions of the molecule at 2000′ is very unlikely to reach the surface.

            So why are you acting like it is??

        • Geoff Wood says:

          Slightly upward paths curve back towards the higher density, in the same way that hot air near the ground produced a mirage.

          • David Appell says:

            Again, most emitted IR does not go far enough to reach the surface. So talking about its path is nonsense….

          • Geoff Wood says:

            On the contrary David, you are talking about opacity, not heat transfer. Over very short distances the temperature difference between emitters is near zero so the subtraction of intensities leaves nearly zero. Over long vertical paths in side bands relative intensity drives heat transfer and produces the small surface to atmospheric ‘net’ of around 17 to 40W/m-2. That’s what LBLRTM reveals.

          • David Appell says:

            Photons have energy.

            Where they do, energy goes.

            Period.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Easily provably incorrect by repeatable experiment.

            Find a source of IR photons and optically condense the radiation onto a smaller area. The theoretical condensation of the energy you think is there, doesn’t heat the target beyond the temperature of the source. Which for a cold object remains cold at the target irrespective of the number of calculated photons carrying ‘energy’. It doesn’t matter how many optical paths (additional photons) you add to focus upon the target. ‘Theoretical’ photons do not add up in heating a warmer target.

            Do the same with sunlight and you can heat a 300K environment. But you couldn’t heat a target already at 5880K.

            If what you are suggesting is true we should all invest in a large terrahertz lens and power our lives with it from downwelling long wave!!!!!

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Classic mistake. What the downwelling radiation does is compensate for some of the upwelling radiation. Net effect is to slow down how fast the surface cools.

            Ask yourself why the temperature decrease at night when is is humid is slower than when it is not (MS vs AZ if you will)

          • gbaikie says:

            ‘Ask yourself why the temperature decrease at night when is is humid is slower than when it is not (MS vs AZ if you will)”

            One reason could be related to humid air having condensed water droplets.

            Warm air holds more H20 in form of a gas, and as air cools it is unable to have as much H2O as gas in the cooler air. When H2O gas become liquid it has latent heat. Or opposite of when liquid water evaporates it requires energy to become a gas.

            So typical actual droplet visible has millions of molecules in it. A rain droplet.
            “Water drops vary dramatically in size, so this starting number defines the calculation. The rest of it is a simple chemistry calculation. Let’s use the volume of a water drop that is used by the medical and scientific community. The accepted average volume of a drop of water is exactly 0.05 mL (20 drops per milliliter). It turns out there are over 1.5 sextillion molecules in a water drop and more than 5 sextillion atoms per droplet.”
            https://www.thoughtco.com/atoms-in-a-drop-of-water-609425

            And sextillion.
            1.
            a cardinal number represented in the U.S. by 1 followed by 21 zeros, and in Great Britain by 1 followed by 36 zeros.

            I will assume US. And a drop of water must begin with a smaller number and a droplet with just 1 million molecules would be small. And at some point of when they get large enough they will more rapidly grow in size and then you get something like dew on the ground or mist in the air. But you have to have smaller droplets in the air before this.
            And in addition to the latent heat, water has higher specific heat than air or H20 gas- or requires more energy per molecule mass to warm or cool down.

      • RW says:

        The so-called ‘plane parallel assumption’ is what’s operative here. I’m not following what you’re saying.

    • Tim S says:

      The Stefan-Boltzmann Law involves area. Clearly the projected area of the earth versus that of the cold outer space is a function of altitude from the standpoint of a greenhouse gas That goes further to explain that the upper atmosphere is cooler than the surface, along with the fact that greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere have more warm neighbors.

    • David Appell says:

      Alick: it will depend on altitude and wavelength. Altitude not just because of the angle to the ground, but because it also determines the density of air (and hence CO2). And wavelength, because CO2 does not absorb (or, hence, emit) all wavelengths equally. Some emitted IR will be reabsorbed within centimeters; some won’t.

      This is one of the problems that climate models solve.

      • crakar24 says:

        Two points David,

        1, Altitude plays a rather large role because the temp of a body dictates its IR emission levels.

        2, All my wine maker friends fill the empty space in the top of the wine barrels with CO2, they do this because the co2 sinks down to the surface of the wine and stops oxygen from reaching the surface. This stops the wine from going off.

        The laws of physics that exist in the wine barrels exists in the atmosphere.

        • David Appell says:

          Re #1: that’s exactly what I said.

          Re #2: utterly irrelevant to the discussion of the gaseous atmosphere or climate change. It’s well known that CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere, as these data show:

          http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/joe-bastardi-idiot-liar-or-both.html

          • richard verney says:

            It is debatable whether CO2 is well mixed at high altitudes, but it is certainly not well mixed at low altitude.

            The IPCC take the position that CO2 is not a well mixed gas at low altitude and it is because of this, that they reject the Beck historical chemical analysis. You may recall that this historic data suggest that CO2 was over 400ppm in the 1940s.

            I recall discussing this with Ferdinand Engelbeen, and he provided me with an example where CO2 levels, at low altitude, varied between about 300 ppm and about 650 ppm (ie, more than double) depending upon the conditions of wind, sun, temperature.

            In one of your comments above, you argue “The IR that strikes the ground will come from very low altitudes, i.e. half of it will strike the ground.” but you fail to take account of the fact that CO2 is anything but a well mixed gas at low altitude.

            This, of course, is one of the problems that models face and do not address well.

          • David Appell says:

            richard:

            The data I cited prove you wrong.

            Read it.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            David, ‘utterly irrelevant’ is a totally appropriate phrase when discussing the effects of ‘back radiation’ upon surface temperature, irrespective of all notions about how short the mean free path is.
            Listen, from altitude where water has precipitated out the total thermodynamic energy per unit mass is exactly the same as the surface layer. In the tropics the surface layer has slightly less energy than the tropospheric cold point (380K isentrope) due to horizontal fluxes poleward.
            That is, within the bulk of the atmosphere there is no evidence of increased thermal energy in the surface layer or at the surface itself, due to ‘heat trapping’ of the gases people obsess about.
            Pyrgeometers measure radiative potential not heat transfer. Back to back units give net surface losses as true sensible fluxes which in a long term sustained gradient do not come back but are transferred to space and are rendered products due to the fact that the efficacy of this heat transfer process does not modify the gradient.

          • richard verney says:

            David

            Naturally, I read the reference before responding, but it does not deal with the issue that I raise.

            At high altitude (circa the height at which Mauna Loa samples are drawn), CO2 varies between about 385 to 415 ppm, ie., approx 400 ppm +/- 3.5% Now it is debatable whether that range constitutes well mixed. My personal view is that for practical purposes CO2 is sufficiently well mixed at high altitude.

            However, at low altitude, ie., below say 1,000 feet, it is a very different story. As I noted, this is the reason that the IPCC reject the Beck historical chemical analysis study, and instead favour ice cores. It is not that there is any problem with equipment or laboratory standards used in the many chemical analyses, merely that the samples are said to be unrepresentative because CO2 fluctuates so widely at low altitudes and at which height the samples were drawn

            I would suggest that you look at the Beck study, and also consider why the IPCC rejected the study. It is illuminating.

            Just to give you one example, see:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/diekirch_diurnal.jpg

            So for example, on 14th July 2005 (at Giessen Germany), CO2 varied between 380ppm and 480ppm. Such a variation is anything but well mixed. As I say, I have ssen data where the variance is more than 100%.

          • David Appell says:

            The observations still show you are wrong.

            Time to give it up.

          • David Appell says:

            richard, in what peer reviewed journal was your study published?

          • David Appell says:

            richard verney says:
            “So for example, on 14th July 2005 (at Giessen Germany), CO2 varied between 380ppm and 480ppm. Such a variation is anything but well mixed. As I say, I have ssen data where the variance is more than 100%.”

            One dumb little stupid day?

            Is that really all you got, Richard??

            Stop wasting my time.

      • Roy,
        It is a darn shame that you can’t call in “Pest Control” to get rid of annoying twerps such as David Appell.

        David has his own blog called “Quark Soup” to promote his weird views but it attracts little attention which explains why he has so much time to make a nuisance of himself here

    • David Appell says:

      Alick: You are assuming that any emitted IR has a clear, uninterrupted path to the surface.

      But you haven’t proved this assumption, in any way. (It is, in fact, not true.)

      • richard verney says:

        And herein lies one of the problems. Once a molecule of CO2 has absorbed a photon, and then re-radiates it in a downward direction, how does the photon get back to the surface?

        CO2 is only a trace gas, and that means that there are very few molecules of CO2 near to one another. In fact in a vertical direction, CO2 is probably separated by about 13 molecules of other non radiating gases.

        This means that when a molecule of CO2 re-radiates a photon in a downward direction, the photon probably will not be absorbed by another molecule of CO2, that could theoretically re-radiate the photon once more in a downward direction, but instead the photon will be absorbed by a molecule of Nitrogen or Oxygen and thereby end its downward travel.

      • David Appell says:

        richard verney says:
        “CO2 is only a trace gas, and that means that there are very few molecules of CO2 near to one another.”

        Calculate dude. Calculate.

        If you are scientifically capable…. (Are you??)

    • wert says:

      Your approximation could be improved and it might help you to think about not only 6 directions, but the 26 directions defined by non-null vectors {[-1..1 -1..1 -1..1]}. Using a randomly oriented base, 13 of those vectors point towards the Earth unless the distance from the ground is large (say > 100 km), in which case still more than 1/6 of the 26 vectors point towards the Earth. If you go beyond the Moon, then less than 1/6 of the vectors points toward the Earth.

      Q: What’s a non-null vector?
      A: Go out to play football.

    • Snape says:

      Test

    • Snape says:

      Testing 123

  2. ren says:

    In the troposphere strictly apply hydrostatic equilibrium. This applies to atmospheres up to a pressure of less than 100 hPa.
    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
    You can see how the cold troposphere shrinks over the south pole.
    Time-height cross section of zonal mean temperature averaged over 60S – 90S (top) and time-series representation of vertical components of E-P flux averaged over 30S – 90S at the 100-hPa level (bottom).
    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/jikei_tep_sh.gif
    The above graphic also shows that practically in winter the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere over the polar circle disappears.

  3. As solar conditions weaken the upshot is going to be for the albedo of the earth to increase, while surface sea surface temperatures cool.

    Albedo will increase due to an increase in global cloud coverage, global snow coverage , an increase in major volcanic activity, a greater meridional atmospheric circulation pattern.

    This in response to very low solar conditions compounded by the weakening geo magnetic field.

    The test is now on as low solar is now in play versus increasing co2. Which way global temperatures go from this point on should shed light as to which side is correct.

    • David Appell says:

      “Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
      – Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257

      • Lewis says:

        The best I can tell, it is cooler now than it was in 2010.
        Further, the AGW predictions are a bit off. Where is that hockey stick David?

        • David Appell says:

          Lewis, is that really your “best?”

          Do you ever look at the data, Lewis?

        • David Appell says:

          average UAH LT v6.0 temperature for 2010 = +0.33 C

          average UAH LT v6.0 temperature for 2016 = +0.50 C

          And, of course, none of this says anything the long-term trend, which is what is important for AGW….

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nice cherry picking there Davie.

            But, that’s what you do best.

            Why didn’t you start your “trend” from same time last year?

            0.71 vs. 0.27.

            Answer: It’s not about science, it’s about agenda.

          • Joel says:

            @g*e*r*a*n:

            David didn’t cherry pick, he responded to Lewis’ comment about 2010 being hotter than now. 2010 was objectively cooler than 2016. Not that difficult to parse…

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nope.

            Lewis used the word “now”, not “2016”.

          • wert says:

            Now is weather.

            2010 is weather.

            None of that above makes any difference.

          • David Appell says:

            No response, Lewis?

            Can’t back up your claim?

            THen withdraw it.

          • Duncan says:

            Why is now weather, and a year weather, and not 10 years, or fifty, according to Nasa climate is a 30 year average. If we use that, they we have very little warming. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html If we took the 30 year average in the graph above it would be flat. How accurate are temperatures before 50 years ago. And before that. When you see climate temperatures over thousands of years, It should be a 30 year average. But why is it 30 and not 50? Who knows. Scientist say man has only played a factor in global warming since the 1960’s well if we do a running average of the data over 30 years, the global tempertures haven’t increased much since the 1960, considering is only 57 years ago, that basically only two samples of data. This is why climate vs weather debate doesn’t make much since, because even the current warming is still technically weather.

          • Nigel Harris says:

            If you plot the 30 year average of this data, it looks like this:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:360

            Most distinctly not flat.

        • Duncan says:

          Look at the scale, looks basically flat, only a 10th of a degree. and again it’s there isn’t enough data to accurately see change over a “climate” period. That’s the whole point we don’t have enough accurate data.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, I’m curious — how do you know there will be an increase in “major volcanic activity?”

      What is this conclusion based on?

      • Lewis says:

        David, you’re paying such close attention to Salvatore, you should go back and read where he talks about volcanos.

        • spalding craft says:

          Why can’t Salvatore simply answer his question?

          I’d like to know what the answer is, but I’m not in the mood for a research project.

        • David Appell says:

          Lewis: what did Salvatore once write about major volcanic eruptions?

          You can provide a link, I’m sure….

          THanks.

    • Bindidon says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      May 1, 2017 at 7:33 AM

      As solar conditions weaken the upshot is going to be for the albedo of the earth to increase…

      Albedo increase? Certainly not in the Arctic! The sea ice extent is on the decline there since years due to high surface temperatures, and even the troposphere is warming above.

      Look at UAH’s 2.5 deg grid data, average the 9,504 grid cell anomalies for 2016, and you will see that the 600 highest anomalies all are located in latitudes between 60N and 82.5N.

      • wert says:

        I always have trouble with this. The December as usually was cloudy here, meaning the ground was wet, low albedo. But, there is no DWSW to use that. The clouds, looking from space, have a high albedo, but the incidence angle is low, so they have little effect.

        Albedo has an effect at low and mid-latitudes, but in the Arctic, it works in a limited manner.

        What comes to Salvatore, I’m not sure there’s any common ground to have exchange at.

  4. Richard M says:

    I see UAH6 is still not being plotted correctly in WoodForTrees. This capability was added to WFT back in August 2016 but now seems stuck with data only through October 2016.

    Did the UAH6 data sets change at that time? Is there a way to pass on the correct data sets to Paul?

  5. RW says:

    Thanks for the report, Roy.

  6. Kevin White says:

    Looks like a couple of months of ENSO neutrality has allowed the atmosphere to stabilize around the 0.20-25 range following the brief La Nia. Should remain stable for several more months of ENSO neutrality which could change depending on rate of El Nio development.

  7. ren says:

    Such a circulation in the lower stratosphere will cause great cooling in northern and central Europe.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/06/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-348.21,59.03,684

  8. Tim S says:

    I am not a scientist, but I do have some experience with the practical aspects of Thermodynamics and heat transfer along with data analysis as it pertains to process control. I notice two important trends. One is that the temperature trend is upward — not nearly as much as the CMIP5 models, but up nonetheless. It very much seems more like a step change in the late 1900s rather than a steady progression. Is this possible, or just a result of the random nature of the data due to various competing forcings both positive and negative?

    The other observation I have is that the 13 month running average is almost never flat except when at the top or bottom a transition. Is this possibly due to the very strong effect of the swings in the ENSO?

    Thanks to anyone who can answer.

    • Snape says:

      Tim

      If we had seen step-ups after the last 4 or 5 strong El Nino’s, then I would predict we’d get one now. In reality, our records are too short, so the step-up you notice after 1998 shouldn’t, by itself, be considered a pattern, and therefore not a predictor. Just my opinion.

      • David Appell says:

        Another term for “step-ups” is “global warming.”

        • Snape says:

          DavidA

          I agree the “step-ups” we’re talking about are the result of global warming. My point was that global warming doesn’t necessarily have to appear in steps.

          • David Appell says:

            I agree with you, Snape. THanks for clarifying.

          • Bob says:

            I don’t really think “step-ups” is the appropriate term. Roughly speaking, what we are seeing is similar to a sinusoidal model of temperatures superimposed upon an increasing trend, eg. the graph of y=x+sinx. The fluctuating cycle seems to correspond quite closely with positive and negative phases of the PDO.

          • Bindidon says:

            Bob says:
            May 2, 2017 at 2:38 AM

            The fluctuating cycle seems to correspond quite closely with positive and negative phases of the PDO.

            Really? I’m not quite sure…
            http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170502/dt44vih6.jpg

        • Tim S says:

          And if the steps occurred three times as often with three times the magnitude, the CMIP5 models might represent reality. But they don’t, so the models don’t either. 🙂

        • richard verney says:

          But as far as AGW is concerned, it should be noted that step changes in temperature are not consistent with CO2 driving temperature, since CO2 is not increasing in steps. Step changes in temperatures suggest some process other than CO2 being involved.

          • wert says:

            The step changes, sirs, are figments of your imagination. You can only call them steps if you have a physical explanation, like qualitative ocean circulation change, that happened at the time.

            I’m not saying such changes did not happen, but you can’t detect them by just looking at the centered 13-month line.

          • David Appell says:

            richard verney says:
            “But as far as AGW is concerned, it should be noted that step changes in temperature are not consistent with CO2 driving temperature, since CO2 is not increasing in steps.”

            Oh, please. There are many factors that influence temperature, not just CO2.

            Long-term trends are what matter.

          • David Appell says:

            But, CO2 emissions *are* the prime variable we have control over.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Tim – In the engineering physics of transient heat transfer, a step change in temperature is not physically possible. They are prevented by the effective thermal capacitance. Any perceived step change is therefore an artifact of measurement.

      • Snape says:

        Dan

        Please explain what you mean by “artifact of measurement”?

        • Snape says:

          Dan

          Maybe you’re talking about how it’s not possible to jump straight up or down from one temperature to the next? Therefore, when it comes to changes in temperature, a perfectly vertical “step-up” (90 deg. angle) is not possible?

          If this is what you mean, I should point out that steps don’t have to be at 90 deg. angles! (flat,diagonal,flat,diagonal,flat….etc.)

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Snape – I think you might grasp the concept but even a step change in forcing (such as turning on the burner under a tea kettle) results in a 1-e^(-kt) shaped transient for temperature.

            The time constant (time to reach 63.21% of the final temperature change after a step change in forcing) for the planet is about 5 years. If you only looked at the beginning and end of the transient it would look like a step. But step changes in a year or less for the planet are not possible.

          • Snape says:

            Dan

            “If you only looked at the beginning and end of the transient it would look like a step.”

            So if you also looked at the middle of the transient, why would it no longer look like a step?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Snape – Of course looking at the beginning and ‘half way’ would look like a step. But the second ‘half’ of the transient would follow the step. The second ‘half’ can not be flat.

            Do you not understand what is meant by ‘time constant’ in thermal analysis? It would take about 11.5 yr to get 90% of the temperature change from a step change in forcing.

            If you measured the temperature at regular time intervals you could graph them and see the shape of the transient.

          • Snape says:

            Dan

            I guess I don’t understand what you’re saying.

            You wrote, “Tim In the engineering physics of transient heat transfer, a step change in temperature is not physically possible. They are prevented by the effective thermal capacitance. Any perceived step change is therefore an artifact of measurement.”

            My understanding is that If temperatures start off relatively stable, rise steeply during an El Nino , and then stabilize again at the higher temperature, we would see a “step-up” on a graph (similar to what is observed around 1997/1998).

            How is this step-up not possible except as an artifact of measurement?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Snape – “If temperatures start off relatively stable, rise steeply during an El Nino , and then stabilize again at the higher temperature, we would see a step-up on a graph” is not physically possible because of the high effective thermal capacitance as corroborated by the time constant.

            Apparently transient heat transfer analysis is not your strong suit.

          • David Appell says:

            What is “transient” about it?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Dav – ‘transient’ heat transfer analysis means to calculate the temperature as a function of time such as the rising temperature of a teapot after you turn the burner on. This is different from ‘steady state’ heat transfer analysis which only calculates the final temperature after it stops changing.

          • David Appell says:

            In what way is climate heating transient?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Dav – The net forcing (causing climate heating/cooling) is essentially always changing. Average global temperature depends on variations of OLR modulated by water vapor and clouds (which appear to be influenced by SSN) and incoming radiation modulated by clouds, solar variations (multiple cycles including the approx. 11 year cycles) and is therefore essentially always in transient.

      • wert says:

        Step changes as fully instantious change don’t exist, but we’re not talking about that.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      step-like behavior can be the result of a linear trend superimposed on a low frequency cycle. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/

      • Snape says:

        Roy

        Thanks for the interesting link. Makes sense.

      • Bob says:

        And the PDO “cycle” explains the “pause” and the subsequent exit from the pause pretty well.

      • Errol says:

        I can see two distinct step-ups there, and three pauses.

        • wert says:

          I can see spaghetti, but science is not about just seeing but quantifying things in a precice manner.

          Like, you calculate a trend line, you don’t draw it just as how you see it.

    • AaronS says:

      TimS. A bit out of my former area of research, but there are ocean circulation patterns that can store and release heat after a lag. One is the ~4 yr El Nino or ENSO, another is the multi-decadal PDO. The two are clearly linked with warm El Nino events dominating cool La Nina events during a positive PDO and visa versa. I think the PDO stores heat then a step ups in global temp occur when PDO flips back to a positive phase. So the flat trend in global temperature during the 50s to 70s was a negative PDO. The warming trend was partially stored heat from the past. This current hiatus in warming is also a mostly negative PDO phase. I am excited to see if the PDO just flipped back to positive and if so if the temp will jump. I evaluate the PDO index at a 5yr running average.

      • Tim S says:

        That was my point.

        • AaronS says:

          TimS.
          Sorry to state the obvious then. One other hypothesis i am excited to have tested is when the PDO does flip back to positive phase- I am curious if the deep ocean heat added to the G..I..S…S and H.A.D.C.R.U.T 4 data will break down. Sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul does not right a wrong. In a complex zero sum game of oscillating currents, scientists adding heat to the surface temperature from deeper in one phase might prove to be a real problem in the counter phase. This is why with every manipulation of the thermometer methods it is really back to uncalibrated estimate to test the new hypothesis. It is also why Dr. John Bates whistle blowing that this most recent set of manipulation should have been a new version and included “Karl’s thumb on the scale, pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation” becomes very interesting. Only time will tell.

          • David Appell says:

            The PDO doesn’t add heat to the Earth system, it just shuffles some around. (And not that much, really, compared to changes in ocean heat content.)

          • AaronS says:

            Dave, I agree that the PDO is one of many ocean circulation patterns that redistribute heat in space and time (a lag) and none create significant heat. AMO, ENSO, Thermohaline etc all contribute as well as the antarctic one that was credited for storing heat and preventing predicted warming there in a Nature paper. The PDO and tropical Pacific are a large source of Earths total warmth because the low latitude and high annual insolation. What data are you using to for ocean heat content to compare? I ask because i dont see it in A.R.G.O. and dont buy the pre instrumental guestimates.

          • David Appell says:

            Apparently links to noaa-dot-gov aren’t allowed to be posted here.

            How stupid is that, for a science blog?

          • AaronS says:

            Dave 100% agree that it is difficult to communicate and discuss.

  9. Snape says:

    I posted this comment near the end of the last thread, so I thought I’d repost it here:

    TLT and surface models are measuring different things (virtually no overlap), so why would we expect them to show the same rates of warming? In other words, maybe both datasets are accurate, even though they produce different results.

    According to Nick Stokes:

    ..The reason is that satellites really cant measure near the surface, because that is itself a big emitter of microwave radiation, which is just noise to this signal. In fact the definition of TLT has been creeping up. UAH V5.6 claimed a peak weight at 2km, but V6 has settled for 4, as does RSS TTT V4. And you may note that John Christy nowadays rarely mentions TLT, but usually TMT. NOAA produces a TMT measure, but not TLT.

    Satellites really have very little ability to discriminate levels. They just have one signal beam coming in, with different channels, and they rely on differential weighting of this channels. Very little depth resolution.

    • Bart says:

      “…so why would we expect them to show the same rates of warming?”

      We don’t. But, according to the AGW hypothesis, we should be seeing the troposphere warming faster than the surface.

      • Greven says:

        Why do you think the troposphere should warm faster than the surface?

        • crakar24 says:

          Because the inventors of the AWG hypothesis said so that’s why.

          Every theory needs to be able to be tested……falsified, the LTL (8K’s up approx.) should warm at three times the rate of the surface if it does not then AGW theory is along way down the road of falsification.

          • Bob says:

            I’m sure you mean UPPER troposphere. Would you please link to an IPCC projection that the upper troposphere would warm faster than the lower troposphere at ALL latitudes.

          • Crakar24 says:

            Its called the missing hotspot Bob you may have heard of it. Google will give you pages of links.

            Cheers

          • Snape says:

            Bob

            We’re talking about the lower troposphere (near surface compared to vast area above).

          • Bindidon says:

            crakar24 says:
            May 2, 2017 at 12:27 AM & May 2, 2017 at 4:05 AM

            Well I’m not a fan of SKS, but… having a tough look at
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
            is really helpful.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bin admits “Well Im not a fan of SKS…”

            Bin, you should have left it at that.

          • wert says:

            Bin admits Well Im not a fan of SKS

            The painful part there is the consistent tendency of the site. If they really wanted to create a useful site, then Cook should have allowed more room for uncertainty and differing opinion. There is always differing opinion, pet theories, conjectures and such in science. Cook tried to create a consensus even where it doesn’t exist and then ridicules people who dare to object. That makes the site stink. It turns me off and makes me feel facts don’t matter in the church of Cook.

            But, if you want to know how the climatariat explains the inconsistency between theory of socialism and real socialism, them Cook’s your restaurant.

        • barry says:

          The ‘hotpspot’ is an expectation that enhanced warming occurs in the tropical mid-troposphere if the atmosphere warms. It’s not a function of any particular cause of warming. A lack of enhanced warming doesn’t say anything about ‘greenhouse’ warming, but it would mean that modeling of heat transfer through the atmosphere is wrong.

          The jury appears to be out on whether the hotspot has been observed, as getting good data for that part of the atmosphere is problematic. It’s an active area of research.

          • Bart says:

            “Its not a function of any particular cause of warming.”

            Yes, it is. The heat aggregates at the point where the outward energy flux is most significantly impeded. Not every warming impetus results in a tropospheric hot spot, but hypothesized “greenhouse” warming from CO2 does result in a tropospheric hot spot. If the hot spot is not there, then the warming is not from CO2.

            “…but it would mean that modeling of heat transfer through the atmosphere is wrong.”

            A.K.A., the hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is wrong. I.e., it is at best incomplete, and it does not provide a sound basis upon which to formulate public policy, allocating trillions of dollars to futile efforts at mitigation, diverting resources from beneficial pursuits, and consigning millions particularly in the Third World to energy poverty and earlier death.

            “Its an active area of research.”

            That’s just playing for time. If the hot spot were there consistent with the AGW hypothesis, it would not be playing hide and seek. It would be unambiguous and readily observable.

          • David Appell says:

            Explain why the stratosphere is cooling — a prediction of aGHG theory.

            BTW, RSS shows a hotspot, UAH doesn’t. Conclusion: we need better data.

          • Bart says:

            “Explain why the stratosphere is cooling a prediction of aGHG theory.”

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy you are looking for here. It is not a unique prediction of the aGHG hypothesis.

            RSS shows no more a hot spot than UAH. They are virtually identical.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy you are looking for here. It is not a unique prediction of the aGHG hypothesis.”

            What other warming hypotheses predict stratospheric cooling?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “RSS shows no more a hot spot than UAH. They are virtually identical.”

            Prove this.

            You can’t. You’re allergic to data.

          • barry says:

            Bart, hotspot isn’t a GHG function. It’s a function of changes in the moist adiabat if the atmosphere warms.

            Or as Roy Spencer puts it:

            Thus, the lack of a hot spot is evidence for a lack of water vapor feedback. I believe this is the physically proper way of looking at the issue.

          • barry says:

            Ross McKitrick:

            “…it is true that amplification would be observed in response also to increased solar forcing…”

            John Christy:

            “it [the hot spot] is broader than just the enhanced greenhouse effect because any thermal forcing should elicit a response such as the ‘expected’ hot spot.”

          • barry says:

            The ‘hotspot’ issue (a term coined by skeptics) came from someone misreading this graph years ago:

            http://tinyurl.com/k5bkcj8

            Panel (c) shows enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere from GHGs. It has the highest amount of amplified warming for that region. Does this mean that the ‘hotspot’ is a signature purely of GHG warming?

            No.

            The panels represent observations of various forcings, all except for which CO2, for the period assessed, have minimal warming/cooling influence.

            Eg, panel a) is solar forcing, which is assessed to have had a relatively small warming influence on the surface. Thus, the warming estimated in the ‘hotspot’ region is also comparatively smaller. But it’s there. Warming at the surface is amplified in the tropical troposphere due to solar forcing.

            For any of the significant forcing panel over the period assessed, there is an amplified response in the tropical troposphere (whether cooling or warming). Thus, the IPCC, like McKitrick, Christy and Spencer, see enhanced warming (or cooling) of the tropical troposphere as a result of changes in the temperature of the whole atmosphere (or, more commonly put, changes at the surface).

            The 6 panels represent these forcings:

            a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) greenhouse gases, (d) ozone, (e) sulfate aerosols and (f) sum of all forcing

            Amplified changes in the tropical troposphere are supposed to occur as a result of changes in surface/atmospheric temps from any cause, due to water vapour amplification. As John Christy, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer (all skeptics) attest.

            The skeptical blogosphere has always gotten this wrong (except this blog).

          • Bart says:

            “Amplified changes in the tropical troposphere are supposed to occur as a result of changes in surface/atmospheric temps from any cause, due to water vapour amplification.”

            Then the cause would be water vapor amplification. But, the troposphere isn’t warming. So, what does that tell you about the hypothesis of water vapor amplification?

            That’s two strikes:

            A) AGW should cause a tropospheric hot spot
            B) Water vapor amplification should amplify the tropospheric hot spot

            Yet, there is no tropospheric warming. This is the point at which non-pathological science would focus on reconsidering the hypotheses before stepping back up to the plate.

          • barry says:

            The hypothesis in doubt is of heat transfer in the atmosphere – water vapour amplification. Not GHG warming.

            I already linked to that graph (in my last post – look above) and explained it. Skeptics misunderstood it, and the whole hotspot = GHG misconception is based on that misunderstanding.

            Roy Spencer, John Christy and Ross McKitrick get it. Skeptic blog ‘scientists’ don’t.

          • Bart says:

            “The hypothesis in doubt is of heat transfer in the atmosphere water vapour amplification. Not GHG warming.”

            Au contraire. It really does not matter if, as you erroneously insist, any warming leads to a tropospheric hot spot. There simply is no significant net tropospheric warming in evidence for the past 20 or so years.

            Ergo, by your claim, there is no warming, period. Yet, you insist there is surface warming. So, it appears your argument is self-refuting.

          • barry says:

            It really does not matter if, as you erroneously insist, any warming leads to a tropospheric hot spot

            The rest of your post deviates from the point.

            I do not insist. I am quoting experts (who are also skeptics), which you are ignoring.

            When skeptic experts agree with their opponents, and the alternative view is unsubstantiated, then only the ideologically stubborn would go with unsubstantiated malarkey I’n arguing that the ‘hotspot’ is is or isn’t there in observations. why change the subject? I think the jury is still out (skeptics appear to have no skepticism on that point).

            There are several hyptohesised ‘fingerprints’ for greenhouse warming. The hotspot isn’t one of them. Just ask Roy Spencer or John Christy – the expert opinion your are ignoring in favour of who knows what.

          • barry says:

            “In arguing that the hotspot is is or isnt there”

            Typos = Im notarguing that the hotspot is is or isnt there – I’m correcting the misapprehension that it is supposed to be a function purely of GHG warming.

            As our host understands.

          • barry says:

            Well predating the term ‘hotspot’ are model experiments underlying the expectation that the tropical troposphere should more than the surface regardless of the cause of warming.

            1997 paper:

            In the troposphere, the vertical structure of the temperature
            response to solar variability (Fig. 5) resembles the one obtained by the greenhouse gas increase experiment, i.e., a general warming with a maximum in the upper tropical troposphere

            That’s very clear. And here is the Fig 5 graph comparing zonal response in the atmosphere from a) solar-forced warming and b) GHG-forced warming.

            Solar vs GHG forcing

            Solar forcing is based on sunspot count for the period 1889-1995, and GHG forcing is for the same period.

            Here’s a graph on sunspot count for that period, in 11-year averages in order to see the signal beneath the 11-year solar cycle.

            Thus, for the period with solar-forced warming, models expect enhanced warming of the mid-troposphere (hotspot).

            Whether or not this has been observed is an interesting but different question. I just want to set the record straight on causes of the hotspot.

          • Bart says:

            “Im correcting the misapprehension that it is supposed to be a function purely of GHG warming.”

            You have misapprehended, and corrupted the syllogism. My syllogism is:

            AGW produces a tropospheric hotspot.
            There is no tropospheric hotspot.
            Therefore, there is no AGW.

            That is a valid syllogism. You are arguing:

            AGW produces a tropospheric hotspot.
            All warming produces a tropospheric hotspot.
            Therefore, one cannot tell if there is or is not AGW merely on the basis of there being a tropospheric hotspot.

            That is not actually valid, because the minor premise is wrong – not all warming mechanisms produce a tropospheric hotspot. But, even if the minor premise were true, it is beside the point. What we have observed is an absence of a tropospheric hotspot.

            You are arguing ad verecundiam that your minor premise is true. I claim it is not. But, in the end, it does not matter. The question is moot, because there is no tropospheric hotspot.

          • Bart says:

            Note well that, when I say there is no tropospheric hotspot, I am speaking in terms of an anomalous hotspot. There is no significant increased warming of the troposphere in the past two decades, at a time when CO2 concentration increased by about 50 ppmv, which is fully 40% of the rise above the purported pre-industrial level.

            AGW demands that the troposphere should have heated in response. It has not. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is wrong, in whole or in part, and projections made on the basis of that hypothesis have no basis at all in observable fact.

          • barry says:

            Your syllogism has two false premises.

            1) The hotspot is not a function purely of CO2. It is also expected from solar warming, for example. Or from any cause that warms the surface.

            Thus, the lack of a hotspot does not mean AGW isn’t valid. It means that the expectation that warming at the surface should be amplified in the tropical troposphere is invalid. AGW may still cause surface warming, but not cause a hotspot (same with any other cause of warming).

            The mistaken assumption is that the hotspot is a unique signature of GHG warming.

            2) The jury is out on whether the hotpot is there. Different data sources and methods give different answers.

            A true skeptic acknowledges this and doesn’t barrack for a preferred conclusion.

          • barry says:

            “Explain why the stratosphere is cooling a prediction of aGHG theory.”

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy you are looking for here. It is not a unique prediction of the aGHG hypothesis.

            Post hoc? The prediction is 50 years old.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

          • Bart says:

            “AGW may still cause surface warming, but not cause a hotspot.”

            No. AGW must cause a hotspot. You have read the material backwards. If you have a hotspot, it may or may not be due to AGW. But, if you have AGW, you must have a hotspot.

            “Different data sources and methods give different answers.”

            According to the AGW hypothesis, it should be strong and unambiguous. This is just rationalization to stall an undesired conclusion.

            “The prediction is 50 years old.”

            But, it is not unique. If AGW, then you must have a cooling stratosphere. But, a cooling stratosphere does not uniquely indicate warming via CO2.

            I don’t know why you are having so much trouble here. You are consistently turning logic on its head, arguing that sufficient conditions are necessary, and necessary conditions are sufficient.

          • barry says:

            If you have a hotspot, it may or may not be due to AGW

            Excellent. We have agreement.

            But, if you have AGW, you must have a hotspot.

            Yes, according to the theory of warming at the surface being amplified in the tropical mid-troposphere. Whether from GHGs or solar or any cause.

            So a missing hotspot doesn’t mean that GHG warming is false, it means that modeled changes in the moist adibiat due to surface warming are wrong. No hotspot doesn’t mean no GHG warming the surface (or surface warming from any cause), it just means that there is no enhanced warming in the tropical mid-troposphere.

            This is just rationalization to stall an undesired conclusion.

            No, your statement there is a rationalization to support a conclusion you’re wedded to.

            I’ve provided plenty of references to support my contentions in this sub-thread thread. Even from astrophysicists on team skeptic.

            You have provided exactly zero corroboration for your views on this topic. You are a serial committer of Bald Assertion fallacy.

          • Bart says:

            “…it means that modeled changes in the moist adibiat due to surface warming are wrong.”

            That’s not a minor thing to have wrong!

          • barry says:

            I’ve seen a bit of debate on the consequences of a lack of a hotspot. Some argue that it implies lower climate sensitivity because the WV amplification is’t happening in a part of the atmosphere where it is expected to. I’m not sure if WV amplification is meant to be located just in the hotspot region or in the atmosphere generally. I don’t know how a lack would affect the surface where we live any differently from warming that has a hotspot. But yes, lack of a hotspot would mean an emergent property of all atmospheric modeling is significantly flawed.

      • Snape says:

        I expect surface temperatures will show a huge drop from March. Was quite surprised to see UAH up.

        • Bob says:

          Because we base our predictions on local weather or parts of the world whose weather makes the headlines. Very few people are aware of the weather over significant portions of the globe for significant portions of a month.

          • Snape says:

            Bob

            “Very few people are aware of the weather over significant portions of the globe for significant portions of a month.”

            This is very true, but weather nuts like me are amoung the exceptions. I check out sites like “climatereanalyzer” and “Moyhu” every couple of days for a quick snapshot of global weather and temperature. Very geeky, I know.

  10. Snape says:

    This is OT, but if you’re a weather nut like me, you might be interested in the wacky weather over Hawaii right now.

    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/05/record-cold-and-unprecedented-trough.html?m=1

    • Bart says:

      And, the usual suspects tell us the record cold is, of course, indicative of AGW. If it is too hot, it is AGW. If it is too cold, it is AGW. If my Aunt Fanny’s bunions ache, it is AGW. It can do anything, just so long as it is bad.

      It is classic unfalsifiable pseudoscience of the sort generally associated with doomsday cults.

      • Snape says:

        Settle down, Bart. Cliff Mass, the guy who posted the blog, doesn’t believe unusual weather is the result of AGW.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Snape,

          I believe that the WMO, the IPCC, and most non delusional people believe that climate is the average of weather.

          Are you saying that climate causes weather? Or is climate, along with AGW not meant to be taken literally?

          Maybe AGW is a metaphor for the apocalypse predicted by delusional doomsayers – death by boiling, roasting, frying, toasting, for unbelievers. I’m not sure, but being able to make things hotter by the judicious use of CO2 seems to be positively beneficial.

          No need to burn coal to heat water to operate steam turbines! Just surround boilers withCO2! Need higher temperatures? Just use more CO2.

          Or is the GHE a product of fanciful imagining, and not meant to be taken literally?

          Not actually anything to do with greenhouses, and of no effect?

          Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        Bart says:
        “And, the usual suspects tell us the record cold is, of course, indicative of AGW.”

        Just wondering — do you know the meaning of the word “global?”
        Do you think CO2 is the only influence on short-term climate?

        • Bart says:

          That’s a cop out. We were assured at the beginning of the circus that CO2 was THE dominant driving force, and it would henceforward be calling the shots. Now, in the face of uncooperative nature to support that meme, proponents have retreated into, “oh, it’s just one influence among many.”

          But, the “pause” at the very least indicates natural variability is at least strong enough to cancel the CO2 effect. And, if natural variability can cancel the CO2 impact now, then it is more than powerful enough to have been responsible for the temperature run-up from 1970-2000, upon which the whole house of cards is founded.

          It means, the proponents have got absolutely nothing more than a gut feeling as to what is going on, and gut feelings are not science. Just because you think something should be happening is no basis upon which to conclude that it is.

          That is science. That is the scientific method. Your hypothesis must be verified, uniquely and unambiguously. Intuition is not enough, because intuition has proved notoriously unreliable time and again in settling questions of a scientific nature.

  11. ren says:

    Possible snowstorm on May 6 in the Great Lakes region.

  12. tonyon says:

    Meanwhile the World looks to elsewhere… Giant HORNETS…are threatening to all Humankind…it is necessary that the human beings, instead of destroy among them, destroy to those dangerous insects of huge exponential growing…seriously beginning already, at present.

    • Snape says:

      I think I saw one of those in my backyard

    • Scott says:

      When 100 ton lizards roamed the planet atmospheric CO2 exceeded today’s level by multiple times. Who’s to say gigantic mutant hornets are not caused by rising CO2?

      Or how about this. In 1982, scientists published research showing that termites produced twice as much CO2 as all the smokestacks in the world. Maybe the termites and the hornets are conspiring to take over the world.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html

      • Errol says:

        Another author of the report, Patrick R. Zimmerman of the atmospheric center in Boulder, said that plant respiration and decay added 10 to 15 times as much carbon dioxide to the air as termites.

        • Errol says:

          While the contribution of fuel burning is even less, it is superimposed on what, until recently, …

          • Errol says:

            had been a balanced cycle …

          • Bart says:

            “…had been a balanced cycle “

            That is an expression of faith. And, completely wrongheaded. Balance in nature does not just happen. It comes about due to the opposition of forcings in equal measure, with each forcing resisting change in its direction. You cannot shift that balance by an amount proportionally greater than the ratio of any added forcing to the existing forcing.

          • Andre says:

            Bart says: “Balance in nature does not just happen.”

            It goes without saying that no state of affairs arises without a reason(s). Without necessarily understanding those reasons it has always struck me as remarkable that the Earth’s mean temperature has only fluctuated within a 15 degree K or so range within the last 500 million years. That’s only a 5% band despite many environmental changes affecting the system.

            I’m not saying that 15 degrees is not significant in terms of environmental change for human beings – merely that Earth’s climate has been relatively tightly bounded even on long geological scales.

        • David Appell says:

          It’s about carbon’s cycle and balance, nothing else.

          Where do termite CO2 emissions come from? The CO2 taken up by trees? If so, there is no net creation of CO2.

          Are there more termites now than in 1982? IF so, why? If so, it’s probably due to man’s building, but their carbon emissions are still coming from natural sources that themselves too up CO2.

      • Errol says:

        The findings concerning carbon dioxide and methane production by termites do not offer much comfort regarding the long-term trend in atmospheric gases. The output from insects does not appear likely to increase greatly, while combustion of fuel is rising steadily as developing nations industrialize.

        • David Appell says:

          Except, with more buildings made of wood, there are more termites.

          • Errol says:

            Still not adding fossil carbon to the cycle though!

            All of the above were quoted from the 1982 NYT article by the way.

          • David Appell says:

            Are termites creating new carbon, or just recycling it?

          • Errol says:

            The article says: “Termite gas production has become particularly high, the researchers say, because widespread clearing of land has offered them abundant food in the debris of felled forests.”

            Wooden buildings could act like a sink if the forest could renew itself.

            Termites are not adding fossil carbon to the “balanced cycle”, so you are in agreement with the article.

          • David Appell says:

            Wooden buildings would act as a *temporary* sink. They are eventually torn down and, usually, burned or left to rot.

      • David Appell says:

        Scott says:
        “Or how about this. In 1982, scientists published research showing that termites produced twice as much CO2 as all the smokestacks in the world.”

        Are termites creating new carbon, or just changing how it cycles around?

        • Bart says:

          There is really no difference. It is an input. For equilibrium, the input balances with the output. If you add to the input, the new equilibrium point shifts by the ratio of the added input to the existing input. That is how dynamic systems work.

          • David Appell says:

            There is a big difference, if input = output.

            For that reason, mammalian respiration does not contribute to atmospheric CO2.

            Look at atmo CO2 over the Holocene — quite level, up until the industrial era when man began transferring fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

          • Bart says:

            “There is a big difference, if input = output.”

            Not in a dynamic system in which outputs self-adjust based on inputs.

            “…quite level, up until the industrial era when man began transferring fossil carbon into the atmosphere.”

            Only according to unverifiable interpretations of ice core analysis. They will be proved wrong in time.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Only according to unverifiable interpretations of ice core analysis.”

            There have been many ice cores drilled. All give the same results.

            “They will be proved wrong in time.”

            Why?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart, the first ice core was drilled in the 1960s.

            How much more time do you need to prove it wrong? Say, to the nearest century?

          • Bart says:

            “There have been many ice cores drilled. All give the same results.”

            That only proves they are consistent. It does not prove they are consistently right.

            “Why?”

            Because they are inconsistent with the changes we have observed in direct readings in the past 60 years, and they are inconsistent with the hypothesis that CO2 levels are extraordinarily sensitive to our puny inputs.

            For CO2 to have remained so stable for such a very long period of time requires high bandwidth regulation. But, high sensitivity to outside perturbations requires low bandwidth regulation. The system cannot be both high and low bandwidth at the same time, ergo there is a contradiction.

          • David Appell says:

            Inconsistent in what way?

          • David Appell says:

            “…and they are inconsistent with the hypothesis that CO2 levels are extraordinarily sensitive to our puny inputs.”

            Inconsistent in what way?

          • Bart says:

            I explained the inconsistency. That you do not understand the explanation says volumes. Why are you engaged in this debate, when you really don’t have the technical chops to engage in it knowledgeably?

          • Nate says:

            ‘They will be proved wrong in time’

            Well ok Bart, then you have much undiscovered brilliance, or just much hubris.

            Why not submit your ideas for publication and proper vetting by the professional scientists? It would obviously turn climate science on its head, and prove many of the experts wrong.

            I know why, because your ideas can’t pass the vetting of professionals, because they are inconsistent with many established facts.

          • Bart says:

            Because I am an outsider, and the odds of my getting something published in a field related to, but not coincident, with my area of expertise are vanishingly small.

            It will take a lot more than a lone voice, or a few isolated voices (there are others, some directly engaged in the field, who agree with me), to break down the entrenched dogma of the climate establishment. Reputations and billions, even trillions, of $$$ are at stake.

            It is going to require a stark change in the evolution of temperatures, that cannot be denied or swept under the rug, to erode the foundation of smug ignorance that has been laid down. Fortunately, nature may have just that outcome in store for us in the near future. The temperatures are falling fast, coming off the still lingering monster El Nino. We are already back to the “pause” level, and are likely to start sinking below it in the near future.

            Stay tuned, and make sure you’ve got plenty of popcorn at hand. We’re getting to the good part.

          • Nate says:

            Outsiders can get published if they present useful ideas that are supported by data. Your ideas are not consistent with the data. You cant just say, trust me, you’ll see, im going to be right, all of the experts will be wrong. Prognostication is not science. Its religion.

          • barry says:

            What would it take to change your mind?

            If temps kept rising to 2030, would that be long enough? To 2040? How long?

            Or would you always find something to maintain your belief?

          • Bart says:

            “Outsiders can get published if they present useful ideas that are supported by data.”

            Dream on! So, so innocent and naive.

            “If temps kept rising to 2030, would that be long enough? To 2040? How long?”

            I expect temperatures to keep rising for some time, Barry. The pattern was laid in over 100 years ago. I do not yet see any indication that it is changing. This is my prediction going forward:

            https://tinyurl.com/ltb3n9v

            But, the pattern was laid in well before CO2 rose appreciably, and CO2 cannot have a significant impact on temperatures in the present climate state. It’s just a natural phenomenon.

          • Nate says:

            A ‘pattern’ seen once in the past is not a good basis for predicting the future, and is certainly not science.

            Going back further, in the available long term records, such as CET, and central European temp, it is clear that the ‘pattern’ does not repeat.

          • Nate says:

            Bart, if your ideas are so easily disproven that they cannot even pass blog review, much less peer review, then they are for you only and are pointless. Mental masterbation.

          • Nate says:

            Bart I notice that your future telling has the temp continuing to rise throughout the century, with oscillation on top. Things dont happen without cause. Science aims to find the causes.

            I also noted that you earlier said, ‘The aggregate climate system responds in a manner to resist change.’

            Yet you now predict endless change without obvious cause.

            Its all just so much nonsense.

          • Bart says:

            “A pattern seen once in the past is not a good basis for predicting the future, and is certainly not science.”

            That is insane. That is precisely how scientific discoveries typically are made. It was by the recognition of order and predictable repeatability in nature that science was born.

            “Yet you now predict endless change without obvious cause.”

            A body in motion tends to stay in motion, though it resists motion via inertial mass.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Body in motion tends to stay in motion’

            Bad analogies will get you nowhere.

            a. Earth is a driven dissipative system.

            b. A warming system tends to keep warming? No. Not without cause.

          • barry says:

            Bart, what is causing the long-term warming in your prediction?

          • barry says:

            I see your chart predicts slightly cooler temps over in the 2020s than the last decade. If temps were warmer in the 2020s, would you think that interferes with your prediction? Or the 2030s?

            I guess I’m asking you to provide a prediction that would falsify your opinion and corroborate AGW. Is there such a thing, or is your model not falsifiable?

          • Bart says:

            “Bart, what is causing the long-term warming in your prediction?”

            A long term cycle in storage and release of heat from the oceans would be my expectation. But, I do not have to know for sure what it is to know that it preceded significant growth in atmospheric CO2.

            “If temps were warmer in the 2020s, would you think that interferes with your prediction? Or the 2030s?”

            Well, obviously it would interfere with my prediction, since my prediction is for cooling through the 20’s. But, would it make me believe that CO2 is controlling the planet’s temperature?

            No. That hypothesis has already been falsified. An alternative would have to be sought that was not already contradicted by the available evidence.

          • Nate says:

            ‘My prediction’.

            Without using a weather model, Bart is predicting it will rain next Tuesday because it rained last Tuesday.

            ‘My prediction’. I would not dignify it that way. Hunch or premonition, maybe. I suggest focusing your predictive skills on lottery numbers.

          • barry says:

            A long term cycle in storage and release of heat from the oceans would be my expectation.

            Seems unlikely when the oceans have been gaining heat, corroborated by sea level rise.

          • Bart says:

            Seems you don’t understand that “storage and release” covers the entire set of possibilities.

          • barry says:

            If ocean release is the cause of warming periods in the global surface record, shouldn’t we have seen a corresponding drop in global ocean heat content and sea level? Instead we see the opposite.

          • Bart says:

            No, you have it backwards. As the ocean goes at the surface, so goes the atmosphere. We have been in an era of storage, not release.

            There are oscillations going on in the oceans at all times, just like water sloshing in a bowl. The patterns exist in 3-dimensions, latitudinal, longitudinal, and depthwise.

            Note, BTW, that the Southern oceans have not been warming. Google “southern oceans cooling” for info.

          • barry says:

            From 1975 to 2016 the Earth’s averaged surface has warmed.
            From 1975 to 2016 the world’s averaged oceans have warmed.
            Global sea level has risen throughout that period.

            If the oceans are supposed to be responsible for the warming of the globally averaged surface by release of thermal energy, then we should see a corresponding drop in thermal energy in the globally averaged oceans when the surface warms.

            We see regional differences (naturally) but globally oceans have warmed. Southern ocean cooling (below 40 lat since 1982) has not been strong enough to offset that. More heat energy has gone into global oceans than out. If it is storing it from the atmosphere, then there should be a corresponding drop in global surface temps.

            If some part of the ocean has released more thermal energy than other parts have gained, leading to warmer surface temps, then sea level should drop correspondingly. We should see evidence that matches what you’re saying as net thermal exchange between oceans and atmosphere.

            Ocean heat content has been rising fairly steadily since the late 1950s, corroborated by sea level rise for the same period. The surface has definitely warmed in that period, corroborated by numerous observations.

            The data we have do not corroborate your perspective.

            If some part of the ocean has released more thermal energy than other parts, leading to warmer surface temps, then average global sea level should drop correspondingly.

            We have been in an era of storage, not release.

            Well that’s vague. Since when? Since about 1998? then you agree with the warmists that the oceans have been taking up atmospheric heat.

            Since 1975? No, oceans and atmosphere are both warmer now.
            Since 1950? No, oceans and atmosphere are both warmer now.
            Since 1900? No, oceans and atmosphere are both warmer now. (Evidence for ocean warming from sea level rise)

            Ocean/atmosphere exchanges can explain short-term global fluctuations (ENSO) and regionally at decadal scale (AMO/PDO etc), but none of those can explain the long-term, global warming. If there is an unmonitored part of the ocean releasing more energy than comes in – for any period – that should correspond to a global sea level drop.

            We’re not seeing any of this.

  13. Tim S says:

    NOAA publishes a product called the Oceanic Nino Index. The correlation with the UAH satellite record is amazing. Clearly, the ENSO affects water in the atmosphere. It seems to me that is the primary effect causing the up and down swings in the 13-month average as I stated in my previous comment.

    • Bindidon says:

      Tim S says:
      May 2, 2017 at 10:27 AM

      The correlation with the UAH satellite record is amazing.

      ONI doesn’t have the precision of their other product called MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index) which is much more complex and elaborated.

      Here is a comparison of UAH6.0 and MEI:
      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170502/ttqdskcb.jpg
      with a little mistake (I forgot to change from OLS to running means).

      The interesting question is: if ENSO is the climate driver you suppose, why were then the 2016 anomalies in comparison so much higher than those of 1998, though the 1998 El Nino was quite a bit stronger than the 2016 edition?
      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170502/i9csreut.png

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Bin, if the atmosphere can “trap heat”, then where is the heat from the 1998 El Nino?

        (Laughing in advance at your answer.)

        • Snape says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          If my sleeping bag can “trap heat”, where is the heat from the time I slept in it in 1998?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Exactly.

            Where did that heat go?

          • Snape says:

            The heat is long gone. So what’s your point?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I understand you and Bin have no knowledge of thermodynamics. But all energy has to be accounted for.

            Where did the heat energy go?

            Bin can explain the heat loss from 1998 El Nino, and you can explain the heat loss from your sleeping bag in the same year.

            What a team!

            &#9786:

          • Snape says:

            By “long gone” I meant it has left the earth’s atmosphere – assumed that was understood. Do you have a point or not?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I was laughing too hard to check for typos….

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Snape: By long gone I meant it has left the earths atmosphere…

            So heat energy leaves Earth’s atmosphere, huh?

            The atmosphere does not “trap heat”, huh?

            Welcome to reality.

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “So heat energy leaves Earths atmosphere, huh?”

            Some does, some doesn’t.

            Is that too complicated for you to deal with?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yeah, there was another pseudoscientist that explained it as “Energy leaves the system, but energy does not leave the system”.

            He was really hilarious, too!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Bindidon,

        Can you tell me how to use CO2 to trap some heat? Can I trap some heat here in the tropics, and sell it to someone in a cold place later on? Every time I heat CO2, it cools down again – paricularly at night!

        Or is this CO2 heat trapping only available to certified climate scientists?

        Is there a special knob you have to turn to get the heat out when you want to release it? I recall Gavin Schmidt referring to a CO2 control knob in a pseudo scientific paper, but I can’t seem to find one anywhere.

        All in all, most unsatisfactory. I hope you can help – maybe I need something “. . . much more complicated and elaborated.”

        Cheers.

        • Ball4 says:

          Mike Flynn asks: “I hope you can help – maybe I need something”

          Ok, I’ll help Mike. The something Mike needs is to become informed in this field.

          “Can you tell me how to use CO2 to trap some heat?”

          You follow Prof. Tyndall’s design. One can trap all the heat allowed by nature using his published test methods.

          “Can I trap some heat here in the tropics, and sell it to someone in a cold place later on?”

          Of course, your price will need to be lower than the local utility.

          Every time I heat CO2, it also cools down again – “paricularly” at night when the SW input has set or one turns off the Bunsen burner or Prof. Tyndall shuts his gas flame petcocks.

          “Or is this CO2 heat trapping only available to certified climate scientists?”

          No, available to anyone wants to do the proper lab experiments or observational work in the wild.

          “Is there a special knob you have to turn to get the heat out when you want to release it?”

          Nothing special about the knobs, Prof. Tyndall simply closed certain valves.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Ball4 believes cabbages emit visible light.

            No one compete with that pseudoscience.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            I’ve read Tyndall quite extensively. He warmed CO2 and other gases. When he removed the heat source, the gas cooled. Is this how you define climatological heat trapping? Seems common heating and cooling to me.

            How much does it cost to trap 1 kilowatt/hour of energy using CO2? How long will it remain trapped? Tyndall doesn’t seem to provide the answer. Why are you refusing to divulge the information you imply you have?

            I was already aware that CO2 cools down when you remove the source of heat involved in raising its temperature. Does this mean that CO2 loses all its trapped heat when it stops being heated above ambient environmental temperature?

            Are you aware that any gas at all can be heated by the simple expedient of compressing it? No particular SW, LW, or other wavelengths involved. On the other hand, CO2 obviously traps cold. Releasing the contents of a CO2 filled fire extinguisher creates frozen CO2 – really cold!

            Maybe you could tell me where I could buy the special CO2 knob that would let me trap and store some heat, rather than cold, in a CO2 cylinder. Just telling me that everyone knows how to do it isn’t much help.

            Maybe you’re confusing CO2 with propane or butane. They trap a lot of heat, and when you use the knob on the gas cylinder, you can release it when you want. All you need is a spark.

            CO2 is relatively inert, and provides no heat at all, unlike CO, which burns, and definitely does produce heat.

            Sorry – no GHE. Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer any hotter at all!

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Is this how you define climatological heat trapping?”

            Yes, just as Mike writes: “(Tyndall) warmed CO2 and other gases”.

            “How much does it cost to trap 1 kilowatt/hour of energy using CO2?”

            Prof. Tyndall paid his lab nat. gas bills, Mike can figure at today’s rates.

            “How long will it remain trapped?”

            Until the power source is extinguished.

            “Why are you refusing to divulge the information you imply you have?”

            My info. is all contained in the extensive reading of Tyndall’s experiments Mike performed.

            “Does this mean that CO2 loses all its trapped heat when it stops being heated above ambient environmental temperature?”

            Yes.

            “Are you aware that any gas at all can be heated by the simple expedient of compressing it?”

            Yes.

            “Maybe you could tell me where I could buy the special CO2 knob that would let me trap and store some heat, rather than cold, in a CO2 cylinder.”

            At your local hardware store like Prof. Tyndall.

            “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer wont make the thermometer any hotter at all!”

            It did for Prof. Tyndall!

          • “Sorry no GHE. Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer wont make the thermometer any hotter at all!”

            As it happens, high schools these days have a standard physics experiment that shows exactly this taking place.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mike Flynn obviously doesn’t understand heat transfer. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is like adding insulation to your house. The extra insulation will slow the flow of thermal energy from inside the house to the outside in winter and similarly will slow the flow from outside to inside in the heat of summer if you use A/C. In winter, the result would be a warmer house with the same rate of input of heating energy or, by setting the thermostat at a fixed point, less heating energy would be needed with the extra insulation.

            In the atmosphere, the heat source is the SW energy which continually flows from the Sun thru the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. Adding CO2 to the blanket of air surounding the Earth will slow the outward flow from the surface to deep space, warming the surface. It’s more complex than that, but one should get the basics of the physics from the analogy.

          • Ball4 says:

            “..but one should get the basics of the physics from the analogy.”

            Mike Flynn won’t “get” even the basic physics as found from tests as he has repeatedly demonstrated. He’s just an amusing poster that likes to sow discord with the intent of provoking emotional responses. Fun to play with & that’s about all.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            When folks believe the atmosphere is a “blanket”, there is not need to try to discuss physics with them. They are lost in pseudoscience.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Actually, I would rather call the atmosphere the “shell of our space craft”, but most people can’t comprehend that the Earth is surrounded by deep space with an effective temperature just above absolute zero (-273 C). That “shell” insulates the surface from the cold of deep space and absorbs the high energy photons from the Sun, as well as stopping most small asteroids and comets from impacting on the surface. Obviously, my point was that the CO2 isn’t the source of the energy, but one component in the complex interactions as the solar energy flows thru the climate system.

          • Ball4 says:

            ES: deep space with a brightness temperature (CMB) just above absolute zero.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            E. Swanson, from above: “Adding CO2 to the blanket of air surounding the Earth will slow the outward flow from the surface to deep space, warming the surface.”

            Then, E. Swanson states: “Obviously, my point was that the CO2 isnt the source of the energy, but one component in the complex interactions as the solar energy flows thru the climate system.”

            So, the atmosphere is NOT a “blanket”, but it is a “complex interaction”.

            When prodded, E. Swanson rapidly abandons his/her pseudoscience.

            Welcome to reality E. Swanson.

          • E. Swanson says:

            g*e*r*a*n, the atmosphere still insulates the surface from the surrounding near vacuum of deep space. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases the effectiveness of that insulation, i.e., it slows the outgoing flow of energy from the surface to deep space. Flynn’s argument is based on his supposition that the CO2 is the source of the energy, which is incorrect.

            What is g*e*r*a*n’s explanation for the fact that the surface of the Earth is warmer than the surface of the moon, which lacks an atmosphere?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            E. Swanson—It you want to understand then you first must give up your “blanket”.

            Earth’s atmosphere is NOT a blanket. That poor analogy has been used for decades (centuries?), but is highly inaccurate. Warmists cling to it because it helps to foster their pseudoscience.

            The atmosphere is a “heat transfer regulator”. It enables excess heat to move to space. It can adjust the rate of heat transfer (regulate), as needed.

          • ren says:

            Hydrostatic Equilibrium Demonstration
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkg1p173TAc

          • E. Swanson says:

            g*e*r*a*n, you had an opportunity to prove that you actually could “discuss physics”, but instead you chose to waffle away with no real reply. Here’s another chance for you to show your vast understanding of atmospheric physics. What’s the physics which explains the fact that the temperature in the stratosphere increases as altitude increases?

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “Earths atmosphere is NOT a blanket.”

            How profound.

            “That poor analogy has been used for decades (centuries?), but is highly inaccurate.”

            Look up the definition of “analogy.”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            E. Swanson queries: “Whats the physics which explains the fact that the temperature in the stratosphere increases as altitude increases?”

            E., look up UV and oxygen/ozone in the stratosphere.

            (Nice attempt to distract for your “blanket analogy”, BTW.)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie whines: “Look up the definition of ‘analogy.'”

            Davie, I have enough trouble explaining physics to you. I’m not going to help you with vocabulary.

        • Bindidon says:

          The best for you, Mike Flynn, is to become informed by people who are not known as warmistas, e.g. Dr Sherwood B. Idso, president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

          Google will have a pleasure to direct you to a so called “CO2Science” page, e.g.
          http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/greenhouse.php

          whenever you ask for things like ‘Can carbon dioxide trap heat ?’.

          It is exactly what many people tried to explain you here since years.

          Of course CO2 does not really ‘trap’ heat, nor does H2O; that’s nonsense, it must be understood as metapher like ‘green house’.

          Trace gases like CO2, H2O, CH4 and some other crazy little boyz simply absorb IR radiation coming from Earth’s surface, and reemit it in all directions.

          A little amount moves back to surface; more of it is absorbed and reemitted again by trace gas molecules.

          The result is that less IR radiation is emitted to space, and that subsequently a bit more heat is kept in the atmosphere.

          C’est tout…

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bin, you were doing fine until you got to the end—-

            “The result is that less IR radiation is emitted to space, and that subsequently a bit more heat is kept in the atmosphere.”

            Then, you had to run back to your pseudoscience. Heat is NOT “kept” in the atmosphere.

          • Bindidon says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            May 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM

            I quote Idso’s CO2Science here:

            Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere’s CO2 molecules back toward earth’s surface, providing an additional source of heat energy.

            You won’t think Idso be a warmista, huh?

            This is what NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory has discovered with the SURFRAD ; but this backradiation directly down to Earth is only a part of what trace gases reemit.

            Maybe you think all these photons manage to come around all molecules and pretty good escape to space?

            It doesn’t matter how you write your pseudonym: the messages’ contents don’t change.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “…providing an additional source of heat energy.”

            “Bzzzzzzz”! (Buzzer sound.)

            Violation of 1st Law of Thermodynamics. CO2 is NOT a “heat source”.

          • Ball4 says:

            angry does comment something decent here (in its own way) and makes a good point I have to admit: the link by Bindidon to CO2Science needs to be corrected. Perhaps angry or Bindidon will contact the Center at the email they provide redacting the unneeded heat term:

            “Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere’s CO2 molecules back toward earth’s surface, providing additional amount of **** energy.”

          • David Appell says:

            Odd — Roy won’t allow a 1-sentence scientific reply from here here.

            I wonder what the problem is.

            I don’t expect him to reply.

          • David Appell says:

            g, no one thinks carbon dioxide is a “heat source.”

            If you’re going to try to criticize an idea, you should at least, as a first step, understand it.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, there are constant references to CO2 as a heat source by pseudoscience types. You have to have a closed mind not to see them.

            Oh….

          • David Appell says:

            Quote a scientist or scientific textbook saying so.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, no scientist would advocate pseudoscience!

          • David Appell says:

            I didn’t think you could cite any science.

            And I was right.

        • ren says:

          As the amount of solar energy increases, the troposphere expands.
          http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2016.png
          The warm air rises and the temperature drops depending on the pressure drop down to the tropopause. The average temperature of tropopause is constant.
          Troposphere has no “roof”.

    • David Appell says:

      So why is heat being added to the atmosphere (and ocean, and land)?

  14. Darwin Wyatt says:

    If 5 degrees cooler than now produces an ice sheet across North America and we’ve had a degree or two of warming… shouldn’t there be a natural climate variability margin of 3 to 4 degrees? Meaning we still need more CO2 to stop the next ice age?

  15. CO2isLife says:

    Why the 13 Month Moving Average on Satellite Data?

    While doing some research I stumbled upon an article on Think Progress that appeared to be mocking Dr. Spencer at the UAH regarding his usage of a 13-month moving average.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/why-the-13-month-moving-average-on-satellite-data/

    • Roy Spencer says:

      as a result of questions like this, I’ve started adding a caption to the monthly plot. Read it. It’s a non-issue.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy, like your “entertaining” third-order polynomial, it’s better to just leave off anything but the simple presentation of your data.

        http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/roy-spencers-entertaining-polynomial.html

      • barry says:

        The polynomial is gone. Other institutes give smoothed profiles for their temp records. Why flog dead horses?

        (Eg, UK Met Office time series and GISS)

        • David Appell says:

          They don’t give projections.

          And they don’t try to fit ridiculous functions that are so easily and laughably debunked.

        • barry says:

          This point has nothing to do with projections.

          Different institutes smooth in different ways. There’s nothing inherently wrong with using a 13-month average. It’s just a smoothing choice and doesn’t suggest anything about the future. A 12-month average gives almost exactly the same result. UK Met Office use a 21 point binomial filter. GISS uses a 5-year lowess smooth (annual values) at the home page, which you can adjust if you like. NOAA have used a 13-term Gaussian filter. There’s no standard way to do it, and any specific choice would depend on the question being asked.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Why not use a 12 month centered moving average? That would also solve the problem — and in a way that should make everyone happy.

        http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section4/pmc422.htm

        • barry says:

          Why not use a lowess smooth? Or a 5-year running mean? Or a 21-point binomial filter? Or a 13-term Gaussian filter?

          They’re all fine. So is a 13-month smooth.

          If anyone wants to complain about a smoothing choice, they need to explain what it is trying to be achieved, and why a certain choice is appropriate/inappropriate.

          This banging on about a 13-month average is a non-starter. Every institute uses a different filter for their smooths. None give reasons. It’s a subjective choice to smooth out the noise and look for the signal, and there is no standard or ‘correct’ way to do it.

          The 4 different smoothing methods I listed at the top of this post have all been used by the major institutes presenting global surface temps. They all do it differently. And that just doesn’t matter.

  16. Lewis says:

    Using a 13 month moving average is only another subjective choice about what to use for relative measurements. The time series, 1979 to 2010 is another. But, unfortunately, we don’t have measurements from the satellite era going back into the 1700’s or whenever so we are limited.

    To make light of those, in view of the limitations we are faced with seems a bit hysterical.

    On a bit of a different note.

    From the graph, without being extraordinarily accurate:
    there are about 28 points on the graph below -.3 and about 36 points above +.3. Combined that is about 14% of, what I will subjectively consider, outliers. Leaving those aside, the measured 38 years has us staying within a .6C variance. Except for the accuracy of the measurements, how would anyone notice?

    Hopefully we will stay on the positive side of this and be without too much snow and ice, despite the best efforts of the AGW religious March Saturday (see previous Dr. Roy blog) to cause more.

    • David Appell says:

      The long-term trend is statistically significant.

      In a science like climate, you rarely get the data you want, so you have to make the most of the data you have.

  17. Mike Flynn says:

    Snape,

    Here’s what the IPCC states –

    “Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands of years. The classical period is 3 decades, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”

    Is it your contention that “months” is a “long term weather trend”? How would you distinguish months from thousands of years? Are the months of winter a different “long term weather trend” compared with the months of summer?

    This is supposed to be science, after all. Definitions need to be rigorous – not subject to an individual’s erratic whims.

    Is the IPCC to be taken literally, do you think?

    As to the heating properties of CO2 (commonly referred to as the GHE, I believe), I sympathise with your desire to avoid any involvement with such a ridiculous notion!

    Having dismissed CO2 as a causative agent of AGW, what might you suggest as an alternative?

    You could always toss out a patronising and dismissive ad hom insult, if you can’t find anything scientific and testable to back up your arguments. I generally decline to feel insulted or offended, but try anyway, if it makes you feel better.

    Cheers.

    • Snape says:

      Flynn

      My description of climate was off the top of my head. Far from perfect. Did you want me to google the definition and send you the link?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Is “off the top of my head” better than ‘pseudoscience”?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Snape,

        Why would I want you to provide another off your head definition? You have admittedly facto that you are sloppy, imprecise, and imperfect, and anything you say should not be taken literally.

        I’ve provided you with the IPCC definition, which in turn refers to the WMO definition. Why do you refuse to accept the IPCC definition? Afraid someone might take it literally?

        Wriggle, wriggle, Warmist worm! Maybe you’ve inadvertently hooked yourself.

        Let me know if you ever find a testable GHE hypothesis, involving CO2. I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.

        Cheers.

        • Ball4 says:

          “Let me know if you ever find a testable GHE hypothesis, involving CO2.”

          Ok, a testable GHE hypothesis involving CO2 has now been found in the lab and in the wild.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            And UAH work indicated the GHE fails in the “wild”.

          • Ball4 says:

            Incorrect anger, the GHE due CO2 has been measured in the wild. UAH v6.0 includes those affects in its total LT measurements.

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “And UAH work indicated the GHE fails in the wild.”

            How so? Provide details.

            🙂

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie,

            1) Look at the chart above.
            2) Note the two big El Ninos (1998 and 2016).
            3) Note the drops after the peaks.

            Pseudoscience tells us the atmosphere can “trap heat”. The UAH values indicate the atmosphere cannot “trap heat”.

            It’s no wonder pseudoscience types do not like UAH results, huh?

        • Ball4 says:

          anger, UAH v.6.0 is measuring LT temperature changes from all ~9+ radiative forcings changing not just the changing GHGs.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            And those measurements indicate the GHE fails, in the “wild”.

          • Ball4 says:

            Incorrect anger, the GHE due CO2 has been measured in the wild. UAH v6.0 includes those affects in its total LT measurements.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            NOPE!

            As always, you confuse DWIR with the GHE.

            But, then what do you NOT confuse?

          • Ball4 says:

            No confusion angry. The case is clear if competent enough to read the relevant published papers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            That’s probably one of your problems. You’ve read too much pseudoscience.

          • Ball4 says:

            No problems either, anger, the published papers are based on proper measured data from well calibrated instrumentation. I have now learned why you are so angry.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Are these “papers” where you learned that cabbages emit visible light?

            Are these “papers” filled with pseudoscience like Davie’s favorite one that states the Sun can raise Earth to 800,000K?

            Climate clowns are so hilarious.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Are these “papers” where you learned that cabbages emit visible light?”

            No.

            “Are these “papers” filled with pseudoscience like Davie’s favorite one that states the Sun can raise Earth to 800,000K?”

            No, anger. Some day the sun will do so.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You are even confused by your own pseudoscience.

            That just adds to the hilarity.

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “Are these papers filled with pseudoscience like Davies favorite one that states the Sun can raise Earth to 800,000K?”

            You constantly and purposely misinterpret for the sake of snark.

            You aren’t an honest debater, you insult others, and you can’t conduct a scientific discussion. There’s no more reason to try with you.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, here is the exact quote, for your reading enjoyment:

            “In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”

            You don’t know enough physics to figure out why that is wrong, so you try to claim I’m “misinterpreting”!

            You clowns are hilarious.

            (What’s even funnier here, is his wording, “if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.” I’m sure that is lost on you also!)

          • David Appell says:

            Did you see the word “if?”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, as I surmised, you do not get it.

            PH is admitting that Earth can cool itself.

            It went right over your head.

        • David Appell says:

          Snape: Try to ignore “Mike Flynn.” He is a troll who isn’t interested in a scientific discussion. He won’t discuss his claims, or answer questions about them. He never has.

    • Nate says:

      MF. You argue like my teenager. Lots of snark, not much logic, ridiculous strawmen.

      Try reading and arguing with what is actually being said. No one is saying co2 is a heat source. Let it go.

  18. The global temperatures are not responding to increasing co2 concentrations as the data shows.

    EL NINO was 100% responsible for last years warmth.

    Now with low solar in play as I have said for years AGW theory will be proven wrong before year 2020.

    Prolonged solar will result in a higher earth albedo even 1/2 of 1% will be significant, while also causing sea surface temperatures to cool overall. The result will be a decline in global temperatures as we move forward.

    • Ball4 says:

      “I have said for years AGW theory will be proven wrong before year 2020.”

      Since there are around 9 radiative global near surface radiative T forcings (RF) identified from observations with some arguably reasonable error bars, the UAH v.6.0 LT chart anomaly declining before year 2020 could be the result of change in any one or a combination of the RFs. Any long term global temperature decline will have no effect on AGW theory, Salvatore, as the theory is developed from lab tests and observed in the wild.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Don’t you just love it?

        Ball4 states “Any long term global temperature decline will have no effect on AGW theory.”

        In his mind, AGW can never be disproved!

        • Ball4 says:

          Correct anger, the AGW theory rests on confirming tests starting prior to 150 years ago. The tests have never been disproved, rather the testing has been improved with even better equipment and more observations.

        • David Appell says:

          g*e*r*a*n says:
          “Ball4 states Any long term global temperature decline will have no effect on AGW theory.
          “In his mind, AGW can never be disproved!”

          AGW has already been proved.

          CO2 warms climates. That’s as solid as any scientific finding out there.

          It won’t be disproved any more than will Euclid’s theorems.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie,

            CO2 does not “warm climates”.

            “Beliefs” are not “proofs”, except in pseudoscience.

          • David Appell says:

            Not sure why you would deny science that is over 100 years old.

            Why?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            It’s NOT science, so easy to “deny”.

          • David Appell says:

            Why it is not science?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The Arrhenius CO2 equation is bogus. There is NO mathematical proof for the equation. It is a “belief system”, not science.

          • David Appell says:

            You think AGW is based on Arrhenius 1896?

            Then you are a fool.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            So are you now in “denial” of the equation?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David Appell,

            You can’t even define what AGW is supposed to be.

            You say silly things such as “CO2 warms climates”. Climate is defined as the average of weather. Saying “CO2 warms the averages of weather” sounds about as silly as it is. Totally meaningless.

            To warm something, ie. to make it hotter, requires heat in excess of that which is lost. CO2 provides no heat, in and of itself.

            Why you continue to deny reality is obvious – you are afflicted with a mental aberration similar to that of Gavin Schmidt, who seems to believe he is a scientist, rather than an undistinguished mathematician. Or possibly Michael Mann, who seemed to be convinced he was a Nobel Laureate – possibly even after the Nobel Committee wrote to him to inform he wasn’t.

            You may continue to demand that others bend to your will. I can’t think of any reason anybody would bother, but I suppose there are people even less capable of rational thought than yourself.

            Maybe you could make your demands even more strident! Have you considered marching, or resisting? Refusing to write about AGW might bring people to their senses (or maybe not).

            If all else fails, a good old tantrum, accompanied by the threat of holding your breath until you turn blue, might work!

            Give us all a laugh, if nothing else. I’m not aware of any peer reviewed research showing that laughter shortens life at all. Give it your best shot – I’ll have a little chuckle while I wait, if you don’t mind too much.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie is in denial. He is trying to distance himself from the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation.

            The equation is the basis of the IPCC/CO2/AGW nonsense. The equation has NO mathematical proof. It was conjured up by Arrhenius. The equation violates the laws of thermodynamics.

            It’s hilarious to see Davie run from his own pseudoscience.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn, you’re clearly a troll. You’re done here, as far as I’m concerned.

          • David Appell says:

            g says:
            “The Arrhenius CO2 equation is bogus.”

            Which specific equation are you referring to?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, why do I have to explain your pseudoscience to you? Don’t you even know what tripe you have been swallowing?

            This is the equation that calculates a “forcing” from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Forcing = 5.35ln(C/Co)

            C = Current CO2 ppm = 405
            Co = CO2 ppm from late 1800s = 280

            Forcing is in units of Watts/sq. meter

          • David Appell says:

            Why is it “bogus?”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You don’t know enough physics to figure it out?

            Hint 1: Where is the mathematical proof?

            Hint 2: 1st Law of Thermo VIOLATION!

            See if you can figure it out with those hints, before the pizza arrives.

          • David Appell says:

            Just more snark.

            I knew you couldn’t prove it.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You lose again.

            How many times is that now?

          • David Appell says:

            Again, why is it bogus?

            A straight answer, please.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Oh, you didn’t flee. You just were gone for a day.

            Okay, you can’t figure it out from my hints, so here it is.

            1) The equation has NO mathematical proof. It is an equation conjured up by Arrhenius. The method, these days, is known as curve fitting!

            2) The equation creates energy out of thin air. That violates the 1st Law of Thermo. The equation basically “says” that if you had CO2 to the atmosphere, you get Watts/sq meter.

            Curve fitting, violating the laws of physics–PSEUDOSCIENCE!

          • Nate says:

            2. The eqn doesnt speak, without context. It doesnt create energy either. In the context of incoming solar flux, it says that co2 impedes outgoing flux. Surface temp rises to bring outgoing up to match incoming.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, the equation “speaks” when the derived value has units of “Watts/sq.m.”

            THAT is creating energy out of thin air!

            You might want to look up the mathematical proof for the [bogus] equation.

            (Hint: There is NO proof. It’s as someone once said, it’s BOGUS!)

          • Nate says:

            if i add another blanket on top of me, i get warmer. You would argue the blanket created heat out of thin air? Just as dumb.

          • g*e*r*an says:

            Nate, trying to use blankets to cover your lack of science just means you have a bunch of blankets over your head.

          • Nate says:

            once again no science answers. So just insults

          • g*e*r*a*n* says:

            Nate, you probably missed the “science”, because you had your eyes closed.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246145

          • Nate says:

            I already adressed your false assertion of 1st law violation. Once again, there is a source of energy known as the sun, which you seem to willfully ignore. No energy created, as you state, from nowhere.

            The eqn of Arrhenius is approximate, has more modern derivations that are well argued, and in any case it has been experimentally tested.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore del Prete wrote:
      “EL NINO was 100% responsible for last years warmth.”

      Prove this, Salvatore.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore del Prete wrote:
      “The result will be a decline in global temperatures as we move forward.”

      Salvatore, how about explaining why your similar prediction of 7 years ago was wrong?

      Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).

      – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010

      http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      “EL NINO was 100% responsible for last years warmth.”

      Prove this.

  19. Hey Dr spencer. Why does your graph only show a brief recovery spike when I got information that the earths temperature dropped 0.5 C for the month of April? Which one can I rely on for the most accurate information?

    • Doesn’t that require Dr. Roy knowing what your other source is?

        • I can make a hazard at answering that myself, based on that source: By-and-large, when asking “Which one can I rely on for the most accurate information?”, if the GWPF is the source then the answer will be “the other one”. But they’re actually providing an interpretation of someone else’s data, so I can be slightly more concrete: Dr. Roy’s figure is the MONTHLY anomaly. The 0.5C figure quoted on that site clearly refers to the daily variation DURING the month of April. The two statements could both be perfectly accurate while referring to the exact same data.

          So you can take either, just so long as you are clear about what either is saying.

          • I would think the one I provided would be the more accurate one because it doesn’t average out the temperatures over a whole month like Spencer’s does but actually takes measurements for each day through the end of the month. It is a more specific measurement since it measures daily not monthly temperature trends like the UAH or RSS do. am I right or wrong?

          • David Appell says:

            The Univ Maine Climate Reanalyzer already does a fine job of this:

            http://cci-reanalyzer.org/

    • David Appell says:

      Define “the Earth’s temperature.”

      Surface? Troposphere? Ocean?

    • barry says:

      Hilariously, the data used by GWPF is from a forecast model. They just hunt around for any data that makes things look cooler. It’s a propaganda unit, not a serious resource.

      This is their data source:
      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2_body.html

      • David Appell says:

        How would you estimate the chance of an El Nino in coming months, without a model?

        • Snape says:

          David

          By looking at a wind anolomy chart I can predict ENSO 3 or 4 months out.

          • David Appell says:

            If it was that easy, why isn’t everyone doing that?

            Can you back up your claim with historical data?

          • Snape says:

            David

            That came across as sounding boastful – it’s actually very easy. Just scroll down to the “zonal, low-level wind anomalies chart. Look to the left of the screen. Deep red (westerly wind burst) and we’re headed for, or strengthening, an el nino . Deep blue, a la nina. Right now it looks warm/neutral.

            I know this is very unscientific, but for the past several years, I’ve had close to 100% accuracy (looking about 3 months out). I’ve found that model forecasts (scroll lower on page) have often lagged this simple “eyeball”

            test.http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

          • Snape says:

            David

            I don’t know why this hasn’t been talked about much…. maybe 3 months out isn’t very helpful?

            I think I could provide evidence but it would be a lot of work. I have caveman computer skills.

            Better, in the coming months/years, the data will either prove me right, or a babbling fool. lol!!

          • Snape says:

            Simple explanation? A “westerly wind burst” initiates the eastward movement (kelvin wave) of warm water towards the ENSO region. Strong easterlies and warm surface water gets driven down into the ocean depths. Near normal winds and you can expect “ENSO neutral”in the next few months.

          • Snape says:

            To clarify, strong “easterlies” drive warm surface waters west towards Indonesia, where it has nowhere to go and so is driven downwards.

            The key driver of all this is, as far as I can tell, the near constant, east-to-west trade winds. They blow sun- warmed surface water towards Indonesia, where a huge “warm pool” hangs out. The eastern tropical pacific, it follows, is much cooler.

            Westerly wind bursts, I should point out, are the infrequent exception to the trade winds. Also, a westerly wind burst near the central or eastern tropical pacific doesn’t do much because that’s not where the warm water is located. That’s the reason for looking at the left side (western pacific) of the chart.

          • David Appell says:

            Snape says:
            “Simple explanation? A westerly wind burst initiates the eastward movement (kelvin wave) of warm water towards the ENSO region.”

            Oh please.

          • Snape says:

            Sounds super goofy, I know.

          • Snape says:

            The “simple explanation” is just a hypothesis for explaining real world observations – it’s my best guess.

          • Snape says:

            I think the problem with ENSO climate models is they can’t predict anomalous wind events, which would be described as “weather”.

          • Snape says:

            I will alert y’all when something interesting happens in the western tropical pacific and provide a link to the chart.

          • Snape says:

            An update is released every Monday morning. Takes about 10 seconds to check out the wind anomalies.

      • Well in that case. I am never relying on them for accurate information

    • barry says:

      This may have got CC4R’s attention:

      As the record 2015/16 El Nino levels off, the global warming hiatus is back with a vengeance

      Except it isn’t. Trends for all global surface/satellite lower trop trends are still positive since 1998.

      I see that they created their first chart by linking to… twitter. Naturally, it goes all the way back to October 2016, and from this they claim the ‘pause’ from 1998 is back.

      (Facepalm)

      CC4R, definitely do not trust the GWPF. It’s snake oil.

      • wert says:

        If you talk about a slowdown, then the slowdown is back. The zero-trend isn’t, but then, who should be picky.

        http://www.thegwpf.com/global-temperatures-plunge-0-5-celsius-in-april/

        I’m not in for the snake oil, because they don’t sell anything. This is just ordinary goofy stuff. Given the general goofiness, I think this is not from the worst end, just mediocry (spell check complains) goofy.

      • barry says:

        who should be picky

        Anyone interested in accuracy.

        I realize that might not be important for talking points…

      • wert says:

        I was slightly sarcastic on who should be picky.

        But still yes, I think this is just ordinary goofy stuff discrediting a bit its author.

  20. I understand that there is a more-than-evens chance of ENSO turning positive again this year. That would be consistent with the slow tailing off after the recent peak shown on Dr. Roy’s graph. One month’s fluctuation doesn’t mean anything useful, and even a double el Nino doesn’t say anything about trends. But there’s nothing surprising about a sustained rising trend over the whole dataset either, is there?

  21. ren says:

    The Temperature 10-Day Departure image shows areas where temperatures are expected to be above, below, or near normal for the next 10 days.
    http://images.intellicast.com/WxImages/CustomGraphic/wg10t.gif

  22. ren says:

    North Sierra Precipitation: 8-Station Index, May 03, 2017
    http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/PLOT_ESI.pdf

  23. Salvatore, how about explaining why your similar prediction of 7 years ago was wrong

    David ask and the answer is solar activity never reached my parameters 7 years ago. Now finally solar activity is reaching my parameters which I had said would be needed to produce global cooling.

    So this time David we will know because the sun is going to be very quiet going forward and how the global temperatures react will tell us if I may or not be correct.

    Again my argument is if solar activity is low enough it will result in increasing the earth’s albedo and lowering overall sea surface temperatures the former due to an increase in volcanic activity ,global cloud/snow coverage the lower sea surface temp due to a decline in UV light.

    A simple concise argument.

  24. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell wrote –

    “Define the Earths temperature.

    Surface? Troposphere? Ocean?”

    An excellent question, which no one has yet managed to answer with any scientific rigour.

    Nobody has even managed to come up with a precise definition of the Earth’s surface, in relation to climatology. Maybe David Appell might like to take a stab.

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      What rigor is missing, specifically?

      In your expert opinion?

    • barry says:

      How can he know when he doesn’t research his own questions? Of course there is a definition for surface temps. But he’s not interested in discovering it, he just wants to be argumentative.

      You should take your own advice and quit trying to help him. That’s not what he really wants.

      • David Appell says:

        barry, Flynn is a troll that has never answered a single question when asked.

        I know you’re trying to the “honest broker,” but you’re learning far too much towards the denier side.

      • barry says:

        Then stop feeding the troll.

    • David Appell says:

      Mike Flynn says:
      “Nobody has even managed to come up with a precise definition of the Earths surface, in relation to climatology.”

      The average of any scalar function is easily defined over any continuous manifold.

      Look it up.

  25. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell,

    Hard to say, when you can’t even provide any definition. Something like asking me to comment on the verification protocols for the non-existent untestable GHE hypothesis.

    Some climatologists apparently claim that something is getting hotter, due to the presence of some gases in the atmosphere, due to some unspecified and unknown mechanism which supposedly depends on a non-testable hypothesis which has never existed in written form.

    Quite obviously, the molten blob we call the Earth must cool, if its internal temperature exceeds 255 K or so, which is the maximum which can be sustained by the Sun – at least according to climatologists.

    Day is generally hotter than night, summer generally hotter than winter, and so on.

    However, these are extremely vague terms, if intended to be applied to a specific part of the Earth. The influence of the Sun is imperceptible at relatively shallow depths into the crust. Should a virtual surface be defined at this level?

    So what’s your definition of the surface? Just cut and paste something if you wish – hopefully it will even define what the surface is, for a start. Climatologists certainly appear rather confused, and refer to different parts of the system as the surface, complaining furiously if someone tries to pin them down.

    I await your definition with bated breath – although I am not hopeful that you can provide anything at all, let alone alone anything useful. Don’t be discouraged – give it your best shot.

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Let me know when you’re ready to answer questions about your claims.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David Appell,

        What claims might those be? If you don’t how how to quote what I wrote by copying and pasting, I’m sure some other GHE supporter might be able to help.

        If you are asking a question in an effort to seek knowledge, I’ll endeavour to assist.

        If I form the opinion that you are just trying for a “gotcha” or otherwise acting in bad faith, why should I waste my time?

        Just let me know what you need help with, and I’ll do my best to present relevant facts, if you can’t find them yourself.

        In the meantime, if you quote exactly what it is with which you disagree, not only I, but other readers, will have the faintest inkling what you’re complaining about!

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          MF, you have always skipped out on relevant questions.

          That’s your calling card.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          MF says: “If you are asking a question in an effort to seek knowledge, Ill endeavour to assist.

          If I form the opinion that you are just trying for a gotcha or otherwise acting in bad faith, why should I waste my time?

          … and that is exactly how we feel when you start in with
          “I had a similar experience trying to sell CO2 house heaters….”

          I’m really not sure if you are 1) trying for a “gotcha” with your CO2 house heater, or 2) so willfully ignorant that you think your example has anything to do with the warming of the earth due to CO2, or 3) simply acting in bad faith to annoy people.

          Given how often you repost similar ideas, I don’t see much chance that you have any intention of learning — but you could always prove me wrong about those intentions.

  26. Mike Flynn says:

    barry,

    Just for fun –

    From RSS (which Dr Spencer no doubt knows about) –

    “Sea surface temperature is a key climate and weather measurement obtained by satellite microwave radiometers, infrared (IR) radiometers, in situ moored and drifting buoys, and ships of opportunity. Different instruments measure the temperature at different depths. For instance, most buoys have sensors located at about 1 meter depth, or placed at regular intervals along a tether line. Sea surface temperatures, when measured from space, represent a depth that is related to the frequency of the satellite instrument. For example, IR instruments measure a depth of about 20 micrometers, while microwave radiometers measure a depth of a few millimeters.”

    I know I’ve provided the following before, but some GHE enthusiasts have a short retention ability, so –

    “Land surface temperature is how hot the surface of the Earth would feel to the touch in a particular location. From a satellites point of view, the surface is whatever it sees when it looks through the atmosphere to the ground. It could be snow and ice, the grass on a lawn, the roof of a building, or the leaves in the canopy of a forest. Thus, land surface temperature is not the same as the air temperature that is included in the daily weather report.” – NASA (which Dr Spencer also knows about, I suspect).

    Of course, climatologists ignore both, and substitute some nonsense claiming air temperatures are actually surface temperatures – which leads some GHE supporters to claim that the term “surface” is not meant to be taken literally.

    To complicate the issue, the Australian Bureau of Meteorolgy scientists decided that air temperatures recorded prior to 1910 were unreliable. Any definition of the surface prior to 1910 is obviously irrelevant in relation to Australia and its Territories, parts of Antarctica, and so on. Oh well.

    David Appell may well be able to provide the secret climatological definition of the Earth’s surface, and the temperature thereof, but it seems that even so called climate scientists have difficulty.

    Only the truly gullible or mentally afflicted would be silly enough to believe that increasing the concentration of CO2 in an atmosphere causes a rise in temperature. Which category do you fall into?

    Cheers.

    • Ball4 says:

      Mike Flynn 8:45pm, then you fall into the truly gullible category.

      The sizes of various CERES radiometers mean it can resolve the snow and ice of say winter in a region of Canada (spatial resolution 1 degree lat. by 1 degree of long.); CERES does not have the spatial resolution to resolve grass on a lawn (or even a lawn!), the roof of a building and especially not the leaves in the canopy of a forest though it can resolve certain forest regions. You will want to double check the expertise at whatever link you used for your -NASA clip label.

      And yes, follow the NASA rec. for checking the daily weather reports for your surface thermometer temperatures.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Ball4,

        If you don’t believe nasa.gov to be reliable, maybe you should demand that the US Govt cut their funding. Have you any facts to contradict the NASA information?

        May I point out, yet again, that daily weather reports, from NASA or anybody else, do not provide temperatures of the surface. GHE supporters have to attempt to deny, divert, and confuse, in an attempt to avoid appearing even more unscientific than they obviously are!

        If you don’t accept definitions provided by RSS, the WMO, the IPCC, or NASA, you’re likely to look a bit silly to readers of the comments here.

        Maybe you could get together with David Appell, and provide your own definitions. Don’t be too surprised if the response doesn’t include people bowing down in awe of your effulgent intellects.

        Have NASA or RSS approached you or David to take up positions as bosses of those organisations? If not, I can’t say I’m surprised!

        Cheers.

        • ren says:

          Air in the troposphere is compressed only by gravity. Therefore, an increase in air temperature must cause its expansion, as pressure increases.

        • Ball4 says:

          Mike appears not to have the ability to check facts on his own, asks others: “Have you any facts to contradict the NASA information?”

          The facts are on NASA dot gov CERES resolution expertise site. Ought to be easy to find for such a gullible commenter as yourself.

          No funding cuts needed, CERES et. al. data is why you are here. Again, follow your own link for the NASA recommendation “the air temperature that is included in the daily weather report.” At least I accept definitions provided by RSS, the WMO, the IPCC, and NASA even if Mike does not.

          “Have NASA or RSS approached you or David to take up positions as bosses of those organisations?”

          No, Mike Flynn is even more gullible than I recently found out and I see now joins the category mentally afflicted.

    • David Appell says:

      MF wrote:
      “David Appell may well be able to provide the secret climatological definition of the Earths surface”

      If you don’t know what the surface of a planet is — or any manifold — you are beyond my help.

  27. ren says:

    Currently increasing the surface temperature of the eastern Pacific, which causes an increase in evaporation of the ocean.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif
    At the same time very slowly increasing the amount of heat accumulated by the ocean.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif

  28. Crakar24 says:

    But you told me earlier co2 is a well mixed gas and drives the climate by trapping heat like a blanket. Now you say it only does this sometimes in random places around the globe……

    By the way I started a new company selling thermos flasks insulated with co2 so as to keep peoples coffee hot. Have sold hundreds but am now gone broke because everyone wanted a refund, turns the co2 could not trap the heat after all 🙂

    • Snape says:

      Crakar

      The atmosphere and a blanket both trap heat, but the atmosphere is way more complicated. Don’t expect too much from a simple analogy.

      • Snape says:

        For example, the atmosphere also has a strong cooling effect. A summer afternoon in Sydney would be HUNDREDS of degrees hotter if there was no atmosphere.

        It’s a wickedly complicated subject.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          It’s not that complicated, unless a person is wicked.

          The atmosphere cannot “trap heat”, or warm the planet. It only cools the planet.

          Nice and simple, not complicated.

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “The atmosphere cannot trap heat, or warm the planet. It only cools the planet.”

            So your hypothesis is that planets with atmospheres are cooler than planets without atmospheres?

            You have proof of this hypothesis?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Planet Earth, Davie. Planet Earth.

            Try to grasp the systems on this planet before blasting off to other planets.

        • Snape says:

          Sorry, I need to retract my last statement:

          Not HUNDREDS of degrees hotter…. I misremembered something. Still think a lot hotter but need to do a little research.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Snape, with no albedo, and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about 1400 W/m^2. That would correspond to about 400K, 127C, 261F.

            I don’t want you to have to do any “research”, you might learn something….

          • Snape says:

            Test

          • Snape says:

            Rude. Irrelevant.

          • Snape says:

            Trade winds (easterlies) are still strong in western to central Pacific. Neutral/la nina continue to be more likely by late summer

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “Snape, with no albedo, and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about 1400 W/m^2. That would correspond to about 400K, 127C, 261F.

            I dont want you to have to do any research, you might learn something.”

            It is painfully obvious that he will not learn anything from your troll posts. You are not very good at reason or rational thought, excellent at annoying fellow posters for no real reason except you enjoy doing it.

            Here is why your logic and reason are poor quality.

            Moon surface:
            https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/diviner_moon_temperatures.png

            The graph is in lunar hours which each hour being equivalent to 1.14 days. If you had even a bit of thought process you would see how little you understand science.

            Look at the linked graph and in 54.6 hours of continuous Sunlight the temperature has risen to 27 C.

            One hour of peak sunlight in the Australian summer would not raise the temperature to this degree. There is an effect of heat capacity of the real world.

            Also with any atmosphere present the surface could not get so hot as convection would remove a vast amount of energy from the surface and spread it to cooler areas.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            In your poor reasoning ability you only consider the hottest temperature to be significant as with the moon. For unknown reasons you do not think the colder part of the moon surface matters.

            Here is something for you to consider (which is beyond your ability since consideration does not annoy anyone and it is unlikely you are able to do anything else but annoy and troll).

            The Moon high is 116 C, the low is -180 C. The average between the two is a cold -32 C

            Look at this graph.
            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_590bfa8d3e1f3.png

            In the hot desert on Earth you have a high of 37 C and a low of 25 C
            with an average of 31 C.

            Now with simple math which number is the greater of the two? Is minus 32 C warmer than plus 31 C??

          • Crakar24 says:

            Max 32 min 25????? Never been to Alice springs have you norman

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norman spouts off: “Also with any atmosphere present the surface could not get so hot as convection would remove a vast amount of energy from the surface and spread it to cooler areas.”

            Norm, my poor lost puppy, the context involved Sydney, Australia, not the Moon. And, the scenario was with NO atmosphere. Translation–NO convection.

            You just can’t get anything right!

          • David Appell says:

            Sydney would receive 1/4th of that, because the Earth is spherical and because it is rotating.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, i’m not averaging energy, I’m talking peak solar intensity.

            Sheesh, do you know anything?

          • David Appell says:

            g: Your assumption is unrealistic. And Sydney’s peak solar energy would still be lower, because of its latitude.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, the solar flux drops off sinusoidally. Sydney is only about 10 degrees from max solar for Southern Hemisphere. That works out to be 98% of peak. I said “about”.

            You are soooo desperate.

  29. Now solar is low going lower so if temperatures do not decline from this point going forward I will be wrong this time. I will not be able to say this time that the sun did not cooperate.

    Game on.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Crakar24,

      I had a similar experience trying to sell CO2 house heaters. As I told my customers, the world’s finest climate scientists vouched for the heating properties of CO2. Even filling a house with 100% CO2 raised the temperature of a house not at all – not to mention the resultant inconvenience of the occupants having to wear external air supplies when in the house!

      I feel quite let down. Maybe the whole GHE industry is a complete scam – the result of seriously deluded pseudo scientists being taken seriously!

      Is it possible CO2 only heats up in the presence of sunlight (or another heat source)? All these climatologists, with their peer reviewed papers, 97% consensus, and super computers couldn’t possibly be wrong, could they?

      Cheers.

      • wert says:

        Is it possible CO2 only heats up in the presence of sunlight

        What did you think? Of course a ‘greenhouse’ needs some sunlight to warm up.

        The Sun is the number one driver. If it wasn’t there, our CO2 would be solid and around 3K.

        The question was: given what the Sun does, does adding up CO2 have an effect. Well, it has an effect. Does it have a catachlysmic anthropogenic global warming effect, or just partly beneficial, partly negative, and mostly indifferent effects?

        I see beneficial effects for far, if any. And I’m not just saying it is plant food, because its effects on plant growth are positive and undeniable. Really. People who deny the positive effects are just wind and solar power funded lobbyists.

        It remains to be seen how much negative effects are in the queue. In any case, I don’t see a realistical cure that would fix CO2 emissions without being worse for us than the expected negative CO2 effects are.

        Like, yes, if you give me 100% nuclear, I go for it, but at the moment, we have NO IDEA WHAT SO EVER how to stop CO2 emissions. The emissions are not only continuing, they are still growing. They are in China already as large as in the dreaded Western countries. They will be in India.

        Stop being silly. CO2 emissions will not stop, because we need food, we need transportation, we need factories, we need steel, aluminium, plastic, science, recreation. THERE IS NO WAY stopping what is going on without killing the patient. So don’t even think about that. Some suggest that, killing the patient to save her!

        Think about how to adapt. That’s cheap and comes in handy should the temps go up in Canadian Arctic. And stop pestering about non-problems like Maldives sinking before some year in the past.

        • Bart says:

          “Does it have a catachlysmic anthropogenic global warming effect, or just partly beneficial, partly negative, and mostly indifferent effects?”

          More to the point, does its effect set in motion a train of compensating effects that tend to reduce the aggregate impact to negligible levels?

          It is a complex, nonlinear feedback system. It does not necessarily behave the same way in every climate state. So, there is no reason that CO2 cannot help warm the surface to its present state, but have diminishing returns as that state is reached. I.e., there is no contradiction inherent in saying that the GHE is real, and CO2 contributes to it, but it has very little additional impact in the current climate state.

          It is said, and I agree, that all things being equal, a decrease in atmospheric emissivity due to accumulation of CO2 should produce an increase in average surface temperatures. But, all things are decidedly not equal. There are hydrological, biological, and mineralogical reactions, just to name a few of the obvious ones. There is no guarantee whatsoever that increasing CO2 today on average has even a non-zero aggregate impact.

          • David Appell says:

            More word salad.

            Do you have any *science*? I’ve never seen an iota of science from you.

          • Bart says:

            Again with the “word salad” meme. I suppose it does appear as such to you. But, if you do not understand technical arguments, why are you engaged in this debate?

          • David Appell says:

            You *never* offer technical explanations — just a bunch of hand waving word salad.

            Did you ever take a college course in physics? (Seriously?)

          • David Appell says:

            Let’s see some real science, Bart.

            So far, you’re demonstrated that you can’t provide anything like it………..

          • Bart says:

            I do, you just do not understand them. I can’t dumb it down for you. You would need the necessary background, which you obviously do not have.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          “What did you think? Of course a greenhouse needs some sunlight to warm up”

          Not according to AGW pseudo-scientists. Backradiation shines at night too and provides warming! LMAO. According to the pseudo-scientists 1 W/m2 of backradiation is the same as 1 W/m2 of solar insolation.

          • barry says:

            Your tag is right. More wild than skeptical.

            99.999% of Earth’s surface and atmospheric energy comes from the sun. The heat of the day takes a long time to dissipate at night. In fact, it never fully dissipates. Hence backradiation occurs night and day.

          • wert says:

            Backradiation shines at night too and provides warming! LMAO.

            In order to get slower night cooling you need (a) daytime sunlight (check) and (b) more CO2 (check). Calling slowed and prematurely ending nighttime cooling as “warming” is an error from your side. The actual warming happens when sun shines the next day.

            Waiting for you to pick up your ass you laughed off.

    • David Appell says:

      You’ll find an excuse, Salvatore. You always do.

      “Also, here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling, DUE TO THE SUN, soi oscillation, volcanic activity, nao,ao oscillations ,pdo/amo ocean
      DAVID I said due to the sun. Seems clear to me.”
      – Salvatore del Prete, 7/5/15
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-216470

  30. Dave if temperature rise despite low solar from this point on you will be right.

  31. To sum up my climate argument in one sentence.

    It is a solar induced increased albedo ,lower sea surface temperatures which should translate to lower global temperatures as we move forward due to very weak solar activity.

  32. Gordon Robertson says:

    Once again, the ideal gas law must be satisfied and until you lot can understand that there’s no point talking theory about GHGs warming the surface.

    PV = nRT

    Keep V and n constant because they are essentially constant in the atmosphere. That means P = T and we all know that to be true. Near the surface, the attraction of gravitational force is greatest and air pressure near the surface is greatest in an ideal environment. We know temperature is generally greatest near the surface.

    Now, let’s talk partial pressures. There are 4 main gases in the atmosphere, N2, O2, Ar, and CO2. Water vapour should be included.

    The contribution of warming in the atmosphere per gas is related to its partial pressure hence its mass. It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to see that N2 and O2 account for nearly 99% of the mass of the universe and nearly 99% of the partial pressure.

    N2 and O2 contribute close to 99% of the warming and CO2 at 0.04% could contribute no more than 1/100ths C.

    QED. CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric warming or surface warming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “It doesnt take a degree in rocket science to see that N2 and O2 account for nearly 99% of the mass of the universe…”

      Brain lock…I obviously meant atmosphere, not universe.

      • Ball4 says:

        “That means P = T and we all know that to be true.”

        Except for nature which doesn’t cooperate with Gordon’s assertions for an atm. A quick glance at Vancouver Airport weather last 24hr.s shows times when pressure goes up and temperature goes down. Thus P .NE. T at times in nature.

        As Dr. Feynman would say, so much for that pet theory.

        https://weather.gc.ca/past_conditions/index_e.html?station=yvr

    • David Appell says:

      GR wrote:
      “CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric warming or surface warming.”

      Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Davie, if all CO2 did was absorb IR, it would be a “heat sink”. It it both absorbed and emitted, it would be a “heat conductor”.

        CO2 is NOT a “heat source”. You must get that worm out of your brain.

        • Norman says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          YOU: “CO2 is NOT a heat source. You must get that worm out of your brain.”

          Or you must rethink your unscientific assertion. You are making a declarative statement with no context and hence demonstrate your poor reasoning skills.

          CO2 can be a “heat source”, it depends upon external conditions. If the CO2 gas is hot and the surroundings are cool it will definitely be a “heat source”

          Currently the atmosphere has temperature so CO2 is an energy source. It is emitting IR energy in all directions based upon the atmospheric temperature where it resides. So CO2 is an energy source. The Downwelling IR given off by CO2 in the atmosphere will be absorbed by the Earth’s surface and hence require less internal kinetic energy to be used in maintaining the upward energy flux (which is only based upon the Earth’s surface temperature). The overall result of this returning energy will keep the Earth’s surface warmer than if the CO2 were not present.

          If the Sun was gone, the Earth’s surface cooling would be slower than the Moon. The poles go 6 months a year with no Sun (far longer than the Moon’s 27+ day night).

          If you dare to care you can look at CERES graphs and look at The South Polar area (-65 North, -90 South).

          You will find that the DWIR in the cold dark winter is around of Antartica is about 165 W/m^2.

          The Upwelling IR is 185 W/m^2.

          So during the dark long night of the Antarctica Winter, because of GHE the region is only losing 20 W/m^2 instead of 185 W/m^2. So in your logical thought process which rate of energy loss is greater? This would clearly mean GHG is warming the Antarctic considerably as it would be much colder without the presence of these gases. Warming is a relative and not an absolute term when comparing two potential states.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, with your lack of understanding of physics, you just can’t get anything right.

            A thermodynamic “heat source” brings NEW heat energy into a system. A mass warmed from within a system is NOT a heat source.

            You’ve never had any course close to thermo, so quit trying to fake it.

          • Ball4 says:

            “A thermodynamic heat source brings NEW heat energy into a system”

            New energy huh? Now anger resorts to creating energy. Next anger will resort to destroying some energy. Hilarious.

            All in a days comments from anger. Actually find energy can only be transformed, anger, once you get some lab work accomplished.

            Now don’t be angry, just calmly study nature in action.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Ball4, your lack of science knowledge puts you in the same category as Norm.

            Strike a match in your apartment. You are converting chemical energy into heat energy. The match is now a “heat source” within the apartment (system). You are adding “new” heat energy to the system.

            Your lack of understanding is hilarious.

          • Ball4 says:

            Sorry anger, the energy was always in the match, the energy is not newly created as you write. Hilarious.

            anger thinks if I extinguish the match flame I’ve destroyed its energy.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            PS Ball4, if you plan to do any “lab” experiments with matches, make sure you have some adult supervision. Matches are NOT toys. You can burn yourself!

        • wert says:

          CO2 is NOT a heat source.

          This is just a boring word game.

          • wert says:

            And yes, I have actually studied physics to extent I know what I talking about.

        • David Appell says:

          “CO2 is NOT a heat source.”

          Nobody thinks it is.

          Stop with the red herrings.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, ever hear of “climate forcing”. It’s a common term used by Warmists/pseudoscientists. The units are “Watts/m^2”.

            If you continue with your pseudoscience, you must believe CO2 is a “heat source”. You don’t want to get kicked out of the AGW cult, do you?

          • wert says:

            Its a common term used by Warmists/pseudoscientists. The units are Watts/m^2.

            W/m is the unit of energy flow density over surface. Nothing to do with heat sources but with energy flow. And components of energy flow are summed up to get the total flow.

          • g*e*r*a*n* says:

            wert is in denial that CO2 warms the planet!

            Welcome to reality wert!

    • David Appell says:

      GR wrote:
      “The contribution of warming in the atmosphere per gas is related to its partial pressure hence its mass.”

      Prove this.

      • wert says:

        Oh that’s just oversimplified BS. And once you see such stuff, usually the people parroting that are not really going to learn something.

        But anyhow, Jupiter is very hot at the bottom, so the size of the gas ball does have an effect on its temperature.

        There is more CO2 in Mars (0.6 mb) than here (0.041 percent). I think Mars needed a thick atmosphere to be warm, thicker than the Earth if the composition was similar. I’m not sure exactly how warm Mars would be with a 1013 mb CO2 gasosphere, perhaps you can provide with a scientific approach? But be very careful, some people would calculate the temperature and want it to be high or low result based on their beliefs, so they’d do a mistake in one direction only. Mars is also described by being a dry planet, so its temperature swing and latitude-specific temperature gradient would be different. As also the thick atmosphere would have a tremendous storm capacity.

        The hard part here is of course the ceteris paribus, which is never applicable. Warm Mars would be wetter with water and gas leaking from the ground, with no polar ice, albedo changed, dust in air, etc.

        • barry says:

          Mass of Martian atmosphere is 200 times less than Earth’s, and surface pressure is 0.6% that of Earth’s. Though CO2 is 95% of the Martian atmosphere, and it is more abundant in the atmosphere (mass) than on Earth, the extremely low density of the gasosphere lets upwelling IR escape to space far more rapidly than through Earth’s atmos. Mass of all GHGs in Earth’s atmos (incl water vapour) is 4 times greater in Earth’s atmos. Water vapour is a stronger absorber of IR than CO2, to, so the ‘greenhouse’ effect on Earth is much stronger than on Mars in several ways.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      The only thing going with your poorly thought out assertion is reality. Empirical evidence. The thing the non-scientists on this thread (g*e*r*a*n and Mike Flynn) will never consider or ignore. It suits there troll behavior and they have no interest in reality or truth, just how much dwarf beard they can pull to get a cheap thrill for the day. Pathetic waste of keyboard time but each to his own.

      Gordon I hope you are not like the trolls who have little interest in the truth.

      Here look at the graph. This is empirical evidence (unless your name is Kristian as he is unable to think what this evidence relates).

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_590bf4ca0c802.png

      The Downwelling IR is a real and measured value. If you want to be a nonscientist you can ignore the reality. The DWIR comes from pointing an instrument up in the sky so the only radiant energy to hit the sensing material is IR radiation coming from the sky which hits the instrument and also the Earth’s surface.

      I would not try to convince the resident trolls since they really do not care and their agenda is to annoy someone with whatever method they can find.

      I try to convince you since I think you might be a person who really wants to know the truth. I can only hope you are such a person.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Gosh Norm, I just can’t get enough of your mindless rambling, attempted insults, and hilarious pseudoscience.

        More, please!

        • Norman says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          YOU: “Gosh Norm, I just cant get enough of your mindless rambling, attempted insults, and hilarious pseudoscience.

          More, please!”

          Yes I know how to make you happy. I have taken care of your needs. When will you actually read a science textbook? It might be even more fun than reading my posts.

      • Kristian says:

        Norman says, May 4, 2017 at 9:47 PM:

        Here look at the graph. This is empirical evidence (unless your name is Kristian as he is unable to think what this evidence relates).

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_590bf4ca0c802.png

        The Downwelling IR is a real and measured value.

        Yeah, that sure didn’t take long, did it? Here he is again, pontificating – on repeat – from his tiny veranda up on his exceedingly snug little bubble mansion about things he evidently doesn’t understand in the least. Well, to each his own.

        I know of course – from a seemingly endless string of empirical observations – that the back of this particular duck is perfectly resistant to all perspectives different from that of its owner. But here goes, for the umpteenth time:

        No. This is NOT empirical evidence of the atmosphere irradiating the surface with a separate incoming macroscopic (thermodynamic) flux of energy, right next to and just like the solar heat flux, directly raising the surface temperature in the process. Plotting things on a piece of paper doesn’t magically turn them into real, detected phenomena. These values are ALL simply CALCULATED!

        Of course there are PHOTONS being exchanged at the surface all the time. But this process is a single and fully integrated one; the exchange happens instantaneously, continuously, simultaneously. There are NO separate macroscopic fluxes of energy (W/m^2) coming in or going out. That is – still – just a mental construct, a highly simplifed mathematical model of reality, and nothing else. There is always a LOSS – and a loss ONLY – in “internal energy” [U] for the surface in its radiative thermal exchange with the atmosphere above. Empirical evidence: It cools during the night.

        • Norman says:

          Kristian

          Have you done any actual testing yet? I didn’t think so. I have done actual tests and you are just wrong. No textbook supports your view, no evidence support your view. You think everyone else is wrong but will do not tests one way or the other.

          Yes there are macroscopic flows of energy toward and away from the surface. Photons are moving away and toward the surface. Photons are bosons and do not exchange energy with each other. They move right on through. They can interfere but do not exchange any energy with each other. The photons moving down from the atmosphere do not exchange energy with those moving upward. You can integrate the energy of all the downwelling photons that strike an area of surface in a given amount of time and that becomes a MACROSCOPIC flow of ENERGY into the surface. Please do some experiments and when you do then tell me what I don’t know. Or read a textbook. I have linked you to several and they ALL say what I do and NOT one says what you do. Why is that? And yet for some reason you think you understand physics correctly.

          The actual physics, which you never seem to read but keep up the posts of your unfounded physics based on nothing but your own opinion. All surfaces emit energy away from their surface based upon their temperature. It is an actual macroscopic flux of real energy. If you have more than one surface each surface radiates away (which can easily be tested with an FLIR that you will never use) energy based only upon its temperature with a macroscopic flow of energy away (integrate the photons leaving, none are returning to the surface that emitted them). The IR from another surface will have a macroscopic flow of energy away from its surface. This energy will move to and be absorbed by the emitting surface, real energy, real macroscopic flow.

          • Ball4 says:

            Kristian: “There are NO separate macroscopic fluxes of energy (W/m^2) coming in or going out. That is still just a mental construct.”

            Not according to nature Kristian, your mental constructs are heat and insulation. Nature’s construct is every object radiates at every other object in its view creating two real macro streams made of incoherent photons (EMR).

            No matter what Kristian calls heat or insulation, nature demonstrates both added solar energy flux and added atm. energy flux result in a higher near surface L&O temperature than without the energy flux.

            Kristian needs to hit the lab. Study lotsa’ results from nature not just read wordsmiting blog sites using heat and insulation mental constructs.

            According to Kristian’s clip above, someone has found an object that does not radiate if there are NOT two separate fluxes. That would need a replicable lab test and Kristian hasn’t gone anywhere near a lab in quite awhile according to his comments.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            I like your post. You are the one who has demonstrated that I should use energy flows and leave the calculated heat flux out of the posts.

            I would like Kristian to explain something.

            If you have a plate at a certain temp in a vacuum (to eliminated conduction or convection) you can measure the rate temperature change on a graph.

            Get the plate back to the same initial temperature and now put another plate (less temperature than your original plate) facing it and relatively close (to minimize field of view considerations). You can see your original plate temperature is not going down as much. Why? What is the other plate doing that lowers the rate of temperature change? If the second plate is not sending a macroscopic energy flux to the original plate why does the rate of temperature drop go down with the other plate. And you could try many various temperatures of the second plate and see how they all affect the rate of temperature drop of the original. Since the plates are not in contact and there is no air between them to conduct energy, what exactly is the second plate doing to the first to slow its cooling rate? If it is not adding energy to the first what exactly is it doing? Does the IR from the second plate have the ability to suppress the rate of emission from the original plate? Describe exactly how this process might work.

            Kristian you call Ball4 the troll. You are just a loud salesman pitching your ego version of reality and the scientists are not buying it. Go sell you wares in your own market (your blog) and see how many scientists come to you for your brilliant revelation that all of them have somehow missed.

          • Ball4 says:

            Norman, your thought experiment reads a lot like Dr. Spencer’s actual plate experiment at 1bar with convection minimized (except for a slight demo) where some of the usual suspects showed up except for Kristian being on vacation.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

          • David Appell says:

            Kristian says:
            “This is NOT empirical evidence of the atmosphere irradiating the surface with a separate incoming macroscopic (thermodynamic) flux of energy, right next to and just like the solar heat flux, directly raising the surface temperature in the process.”

            It’s been measured, by many. As in Norman’s graph, as in the Philipova and Feldman papers I’ve often cited, and in many more.

            Instead of pontificating in bold text, tell us what is the error with these measurements.

          • Kristian says:

            David Appell says, May 5, 2017 at 4:35 PM:

            It’s been measured, by many. As in Norman’s graph, as in the Philipova and Feldman papers I’ve often cited, and in many more.

            Instead of pontificating in bold text, tell us what is the error with these measurements.

            First, David: Rolf Philipona is not a woman, he’s a man, and she’s not Russian, he’s Swiss.

            Secondly, I have no problem with the “measurements” themselves, only with how people like you (and Norman) INTERPRET them.

          • David Appell says:

            Kristian, what is wrong with our interpretations of the measurements of the downward infrared radiation?

        • Errol says:

          Kristian,
          is it because DWLWIR is sort of a reflection that you only want to talk about the net balance here?

          You say that only the difference can be measured, but that does not matter because you acknowledge that there are incoming and outgoing photons (“from all directions” – e.g. from above onto a flat surface).

          Just to clarify, how do you think of the radiation balance with a distant star, which might be gone by the time our photons get there?

          Is it not more reasonable to assume that earth radiates similarly in all directions, instead of calculating a net towards every spot in the sky?

          • Kristian says:

            Errol says, May 6, 2017 at 3:17 AM:

            Kristian,
            is it because DWLWIR is sort of a reflection that you only want to talk about the net balance here?

            No, it’s because the net balance is all there is. The idea of two separate macroscopic fluxes (in/out) to the surface is but a mental construct, a simplified, geometrically constrained model of reality.

            You say that only the difference can be measured, but that does not matter because you acknowledge that there are incoming and outgoing photons (“from all directions” – e.g. from above onto a flat surface).

            Why exactly doesn’t it matter? Acknowledging that there are photons flying in all directions doesn’t mean that one is thereby “admitting” that there are two separate, opposing macroscopic fluxes (W/m^2) occupying the exact same radiation field, like two straight arrows on a piece of paper.

            You should read up on “statistical mechanics”, to get a grasp of the fundamental distinction between quantum (MICRO) realm phenomena and thermodynamic (MACRO) realm phenomena. Should be enlightening …

            Just to clarify, how do you think of the radiation balance with a distant star, which might be gone by the time our photons get there?

            Is it not more reasonable to assume that earth radiates similarly in all directions, instead of calculating a net towards every spot in the sky?

            Don’t worry. There’s no need to calculate “a net towards every spot in the sky”, Errol. You can easily consider the Earth to be a “pure radiator” in space:
            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html

            The Sun is basically the only celestial body that you need to account for radiatively when considering Planet Earth’s thermal exchange with its surroundings (space).

          • Errol says:

            Kristian,

            It doesn’t matter that you think separate fluxes can’t be measured, because you understand and accept all the physics involved, for example that there are photons flying in all directions.

            It is only when you add all incoming photons from above that you get a straight line, so you are right that this arrow is not “real”.

            In your example with the Sun, is it not so much more reasonable to first determine the spectrum of each than to always bundle them up?

          • Kristian says:

            Errol says, May 6, 2017 at 10:59 AM:

            It doesn’t matter that you think separate fluxes can’t be measured, because you understand and accept all the physics involved, for example that there are photons flying in all directions.

            I’m sorry, but I’m still not sure what you’re getting at, Errol.

            I don’t THINK separate fluxes can’t be measured. Two opposing macroscopic fluxes occupying the exact same thermal radiation field CAN’T be measured separately. That’s a physical fact. You will HAVE TO somehow manipulate the set-up to make it SEEM that you’re “measuring” two separate macroscopic fluxes of energy inside the one. What you do is EITHER, 1) calculate two opposing fluxes from actually detected physical inputs like “net LW exchange” (radiative heat flux) at sensor and sensor temperature, OR 2) cool your detector to such a low temperature that the incoming radiation itself comes close to a perfect radiative heat flux.

            You CANNOT physically detect the sfc UWLWIR (-398 W/m^2) and the atm DWLWIR (+345 W/m^2) separately. You can ONLY EVER detect the NET exchange of photons, which equals the sfc radiative heat flux. MATHEMATICALLY, the sfc radiative heat flux is the UWLWIR minus the DWLWIR, [-398+345=] -53 W/m^2, a negative value, which means that there is always a LOSS in sfc U (“internal energy”), and thus a drop in sfc T, resulting from the radiative thermal exchange between the warmer sfc and the cooler atm above.

            So the UWLWIR and DWLWIR “component fluxes” are merely conceptual entities, potential radiative heat fluxes. Mathematically, they’re simply the radiative expressions of opposing system temperatures.

            It is only when you add all incoming photons from above that you get a straight line, so you are right that this arrow is not “real”.

            You can’t “add” all incoming photons without also “subtracting” all outgoing photons at the same time. The IN/OUT-exchange happens simultaneously. It is one single, fully integrated process. The separate “incoming flux” vs. “outgoing flux” concept is just a highly simplified model of reality, all conjured up inside the human mind. In reality, there’s a “photon gas/cloud” filling the entire radiation field, and an instantaneous, continuous exchange of energy throughout. Through this “photon gas/cloud” there’s a probabilistic potential gradient of radiative intensity, from high at the surface (higher T) to progressively lower up through the tropospheric column (lower T). The net (macroscopic) movement of radiant energy, the radiative flux, moves DOWN this gradient and ONLY down. From surface up towards space.

            In your example with the Sun, is it not so much more reasonable to first determine the spectrum of each than to always bundle them up?

            No. Why would you think that?

          • Errol says:

            Kristian, I’m trying to understand.
            So you can only detect net exchange of photons.
            Exchange would imply incoming and outgoing photons.
            Photons carry energy.
            In other words you say it is hard to measure the separate flows, but you believe they exist.

            You say you can measure them separately if you cool the sensor.

          • Kristian says:

            Errol says, May 7, 2017 at 4:17 PM:

            So you can only detect net exchange of photons.
            Exchange would imply incoming and outgoing photons.
            Photons carry energy.
            In other words you say it is hard to measure the separate flows, but you believe they exist.

            No. They DON’T exist. Not as separate macroscopic entities. The photons exist. But they aren’t separate macroscopic entities. They’re MICROscopic entities.

            You say you can measure them separately if you cool the sensor.

            No. That way you can make it SEEM you’re “measuring” them separately. But you’re still only detecting a net exchange of photons. Quantum detectors aren’t really built to detect (let alone quantify) macroscopic fluxes of radiation. They’re built to detect specific photons, normally within rather narrow wavelength ranges. The radiometric instruments most commonly used when “measuring” the atm DWLWIR and the sfc UWLWIR are called pyrgeometers and use sensors of the “thermal” kind – they sense the radiative heat transfer directly at their surface, whether it’s coming in OR going out.

          • Errol says:

            Kristian,
            If there was a photon counter that could produce an incoming spectrum, do you think it would look different to the measurements we already have? In what way?

            Would it look different to the spectrum from a cooled sensor like you proposed, i.e. one with a negligible amount of outgoing photons?

        • Kristian says:

          David,

          Things always have a tendency to go round in circles with you. It’s just upthread, on this very string that you’re posting on right here:
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245700

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon, you’re ignoring quantum effects, which are responsible for the greenhouse effect.

    • Nate says:

      gordon. Why do you think that the different properties of the gases can be ignored?

  33. The UK Ian brown says:

    David says we can control C02. But only 1 percent of the 4 percent.its a bit like steering your car with a piece of string. Also David if you want a no atmosphere model. ,Their is one not to far away.its called the moon.NASA may have temperature records

  34. The UK Ian brown says:

    Has anyone considered cloud cover as a factor in global temperatures.the CERN biosphere experiment suggested that their was much more cloud cover before the industrial revalution .They found that trees can seed clouds by giving off biogenic vapours.and it may be case of a simple lack of trees in our modern world

    • barry says:

      Everyone has considered cloud cover. It’s in every IPCC report, for example.

      Though CERN have not published anything on pre-industrial cloud cover, an article from CERN stated:

      Therefore, the cloudiness in pre-industrial times was more similar to the present situation than previously thought

      https://cds.cern.ch/record/2155296

      • uk ian brown says:

        sorry Barry ,both papers published in nature,state that pre-industrial times may have been much cloudier than first thought,by itself it proves nothing,just another pointer to how little we actually know about what is happening in the atmosphere

        • David Appell says:

          Ian, would you please give links to these papers? Thanks.

          • The UK Ian brown says:

            David best I can do at the minute is http://www.nature.com CERN cloud experiment. There is a link to Jasper Kirby one of the scientists who ran the chamberi can’t give the links .My useless broadband speed won’t let me running less than 2 my.its nothing conclusive. Just interesting

      • barry says:

        Could you link to the papers? I might be looking at different ones.

        by itself it proves nothing,just another pointer to how little we actually know about what is happening in the atmosphere

        Does it not indicate how little we know about pre-industrial atmosphere? We have a much more comprehensive monitoring system of the atmosphere now.

        I’d love to see those papers.

      • barry says:

        I assume Ian couldn’t find such papers, if he looked. I couldn’t. but I did find a paper or two from CERN on which the pre-industrial claim is based. The papers don’t discuss pre-industrial cloudiness at all. The CERN article I linked above mentions pre-industrial cloudiness, but the paper it references does not.

        • The UK Ian brown says:

          Hi Barry. Did you try Jasper Kirby.its interesting but not final.much more to be done.they may run it again if directed to

        • barry says:

          Ok, so I found the 2 papers from a WUWT article. The pre-industrial condition was mentioned in one of them.

          This could raise the baseline aerosol state of the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere and so could reduce the estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing from increased aerosol-cloud albedo over the industrial period.

          In the CERN article I noted above, it is hypothesised from CERN experiments that pre-industrial cloudiness is similar to post-industrial, whereas before it was thought pre-industrial times were less cloudy owing to fewer anthropogenic aerosols.

          The consequence for attribution of forcings on climate is that the historical cloud forcing component is reduced.

          Here are both papers. The first contains the quote.

          https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
          https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature18271.html

          • The UK Ian brown says:

            Hello Barry yes that’s what I found.i think the problem they have it’s all to controlled .But the real world is not.ill have a go at Brian Cox see if he has any !NFO.its a while since he worked at CERN.but may have contacts

  35. Joel says:

    Nope.

    2010 is a whole year.

    The closest comparable data point we have for ‘now’ is 2016.

    • Snape says:

      Test

      • Snape says:

        My posts keep getting lost

        • Snape says:

          my short “test posts” go through. Longer ones get lost?

          • barry says:

            It’s a site glitch. Everyone has the same problem from time to time.

            Usually it’s a particular collection of letters. For instance, these won’t let you post:

            N.S.I.D.C
            H.a.d.C.R.U.t.4
            A.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.v.e

            (if you remove the punctuation)

            If a link is responsible, convert it to a tinyurl.com link and it always gets through.

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            I didn’t have any problems until very recently.

          • Snape says:

            Well, that worked fine. I will try a longer post.

          • Snape says:

            Several knuckleheads on this blog believe the atmosphere only cools the planet. Simple logic to the contrary is labeled “pseudoscience”, with no explanation. Their main tactic when discussing this subject is: insult/evade. They will avoid honest debate.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Snape, you might want to debate this “knucklehead”. He believes the atmosphere has a “strong cooling effect”.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245599

          • Snape says:

            What would the temperature be in Sydney, on a clear summer’s day, if there were no atmosphere and thus no convection?

          • Snape says:

            The albedo from clouds, made possible by our atmosphere, does indeed have a strong cooling effect. On the other hand, cloud cover at night does the opposite. It acts as insulation and traps heat that would otherwise be lost to space.

            The atmosphere is complicated place

          • Snape says:

            The average temperature on earth, which has an atmosphere, is much warmer the the average temperature of the moon, which does not.*

            * (Recent discoveries reveal the moon does have an atmosphere, but it’s so thin as to be insignificant when compared to earth’s)

          • Snape says:

            It has both warming and cooling properties, it’s not one or the other. (but as mentioned above, it turns out the warming wins.)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Snape, you asked above, “What would the temperature be in Sydney, on a clear summers day, if there were no atmosphere and thus no convection?”

            My S/B calculations are good estimates for maximum values. To get any closer wold require so many assumptions that the effort would become guesswork.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245608

          • Snape says:

            Your calculation was irrelevant to the discussion. Atmosphere and albedo are not interchangeable.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Snape opines “The albedo from clouds, made possible by our atmosphere, does indeed have a strong cooling effect. On the other hand, cloud cover at night does the opposite. It acts as insulation and traps heat that would otherwise be lost to space.”

            Snape, you are confused. When I said the atmosphere only cools, I was talking about the atmosphere as a whole. I am not talking about localized weather. I am not talking about a mass of warm air that moves into your ghetto. I am talking about the trillions of Joules being lost to space every second, of every day, of every year. THAT is some serious cooling!

            Localized cloud cover is NOT the entire atmosphere.

          • Snape says:

            If GHG’s were not increasing, rate of heating and cooling would be equal. This does not mean the atmosphere does not trap heat.

            When a person is in a sleeping bag, heat produced by their body and lost to the outside air are equal. Otherwise the person would get too hot (which, yes, is sometimes the case). Does this mean the sleeping bag does not trap heat?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            My advice is to leave the Moon out of the discussion until you learn how Earth’s atmosphere works.

            Keep your feet on the ground, so to speak….

          • Snape says:

            The moon is pertinent to our discussion because it demonstrates the value of our atmosphere by way of contrast. The laws of physics do not apply to the earth alone.

            You just want to keep the moon out of the debate because it destroys your argument.

          • Snape says:

            If your afraid to consider the moon, then consider this:

            On a calm, clear night we can observe the effects of radiative cooling – it gets colder. But where is this cooling most pronounced? At high altitudes and arid deserts – places where the atmosphere is thin. At locations where the atmosphere is more dense, like the tropics, there is also much less radiative cooling.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Your calculation was irrelevant to the discussion. Atmosphere and albedo are not interchangeable.”

            (I feel like I’m talking to Norman!)

            Snape, in your wildest imagination, how did I interchange atmosphere and albedo?

          • Snape says:

            Ok, I misunderstood you. I see you were referring to the albedo from clouds alone, and not from Sydney’s total albedo. There’s a difference.

          • Snape says:

            In my “wildest imagination” I believed you were knucklehead enough to calculate Sydney as a blackbody (no albedo).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Ok, I misunderstood you. I see you were referring to the albedo from clouds alone, and not from Sydneys total albedo.”

            Your scenario did not involve an atmosphere. So, there was NO atmospheric albedo. How could you misunderstand your own scenario?

            Then, you bring out your sleeping bag! Do you not understand the difference between conductive and radiative heat transfer?

            I’m guessing, like Norman, you’ve never has a college-level physics course.

          • Snape says:

            It was understood albedo had nothing to do with the discussion, so why did you bring it up in your calculation?

            “Snape, with no albedo, and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about 1400 W/m^2. That would correspond to about 400K, 127C, 261F.

            I dont want you to have to do any research, you might learn something.”

          • Snape says:

            The sleeping bag analogy is not intended to illustrate the difference between radiation and conduction. It’s a familiar example of insulation.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Besides having no physics background, Snape must be a blond.

            I specify that there is NO albedo in my calculation, and Snape thinks I am bringing it into the calculation!

            (You just can’t make this stuff up!)

          • Snape says:

            There is no grapefruit in your calculation either… thankfully you didn’t point that.

          • Snape says:

            This would have been clear:
            Snape, with no atmosphere , and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about ….”

            Instead you wrote,
            Snape, with no albedo, and peak Australian summer, Sydney would receive about…..”

            The city of Sydney does indeed have albedo. Your wording is makes it sound like you are trying to calculate it’s temperature as if it were instead a “blackbody” (no albedo).

          • Nate says:

            Ger* why the need to belittle? Reflects some deep insecurity, usually..

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “The sleeping bag analogy is not intended to illustrate the difference between radiation and conduction. Its a familiar example of insulation.”

            Oh, I thought you wanted to learn how the atmosphere cools the planet. But now you want to talk about insulation.

            Hilarious.

          • Snape says:

            I guess you prefer one thing at a time.

            In my mind, the two topics are essential to understanding the atmosphere – they combine to create an equilibrium of incoming and outgoing energy in our atmosphere and thus relatively stable temperatures.

  36. Mike Flynn says:

    As to CO2 heat trapping, heating, or other mystical concepts.

    Everything in the known universe can be heated. Everything in the known universe can cool – all the way to 0 K, at the limit.

    Nothing in the known universe is transparent to radiation – except the absence of anything, which is a vacuum.

    Any gas can be heated to, say, 500 C, by the simple expedient of compressing it quickly and sufficiently. Even keeping it at this pressure, it cools. So, compressed gas is no hotter than uncompressed gas, after a period.

    As a test, ask someone of the GHE persuasion to explain the heating of air by compression in a lightless cylinder, to 500 C or so – as in a compression ignition engine (Diesel), for example.

    The description can be expressed using nothing more than the interaction between photons and electrons, but GHE supporters will be unable to give any coherent explanation, able to withstand even the most cursory and elementary queries.

    GHE? A folly foisted by fools upon the gullible!

    Cheers.

  37. My question for Dave is where is the global warming? It seems to be stalled and related to ENSO when it does occur.

    • David Appell says:

      See the graph at the top of this post? That’s your global warming. It’s recently reached record levels, and is anything but “stalled.”

  38. WizGeek says:

    It is *SO* amusing to see Dr. Spencer et al post a number here, then see 380 comments ensue. It’s truly amazing.
    (With liberties: “Lyings and Tryings and Trolls, OH MY!”)

    • barry says:

      Glad to participate for your entertainment. I trust you didn’t read any of them.

      • WizGeek says:

        @barry: I avoid only yours.

      • barry says:

        Yes, you’ve demonstrated that with your reply.

        I notice you’re helping bump the post count higher. Thank you for your donations.

    • uk ian brown says:

      Wiz Geek says, with liberties tryings and trolls oh my, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

      • Dr No says:

        Wiz Geek – ever tried poking an ants’ nest with a stick?
        You see a similar effect here.
        The usual suspects appear and get all excited, running around in circles, at least once a month.

        • WizGeek says:

          @DrNo: Excellent observation! I guess it’s fun for some to argue with conjecture. Maybe it’s cathartic or even therapeutic to do so. I’ll continue to scan these “tomes” hoping science will triumph over conjecture. Until then: Poke with reverence, earnest aplomb, and keen objectivity.

        • Ball4 says:

          Dr. No: Yes, sometimes even no poking is required, the usual suspect roundup ants just jump right out at you. I’m shocked, shocked! to find that science is going on in here!

          • Dr No says:

            I’m sorry. I see very little science going on.
            Apart from my good self and a few other brave souls who attempt to educate them, most of the ants are non-scientists.

          • Ball4 says:

            That’s why I am so shocked. Of all the blog joints, in all the towns, in all the world, the ants walk into this one. I came here for the science in comments. I was misinformed.

            I’ve done a lot of thinking since then, and it all adds up to one thing: can’t educate the ants.

          • Dr No says:

            Sadly, you may be correct.

      • WizGeek says:

        @UK-Ian-Brown: My butchered quote was neither sarcasm nor wit–it was accurate. 😉

  39. ren says:

    The troposphere on Venus contains 99% of the atmosphere by mass. Ninety percent of the atmosphere of Venus is within 28 km of the surface; by comparison, 90% of the atmosphere of Earth is within 10 km of the surface. At a height of 50 km the atmospheric pressure is approximately equal to that at the surface of Earth.[19] On the night side of Venus clouds can still be found at 80 km above the surface.[20]

    The altitude of the troposphere most similar to Earth is near the tropopausethe boundary between troposphere and mesosphere. It is located slightly above 50 km.[17] According to measurements by the Magellan and Venus Express probes, the altitude from 52.5 to 54 km has a temperature between 293 K (20 C) and 310 K (37 C), and the altitude at 49.5 km above the surface is where the pressure becomes the same as Earth at sea level.[17][21] As manned ships sent to Venus would be able to compensate for differences in temperature to a certain extent, anywhere from about 50 to 54 km or so above the surface would be the easiest altitude in which to base an exploration or colony, where the temperature would be in the crucial “liquid water” range of 273 K (0 C) to 323 K (50 C) and the air pressure the same as habitable regions of Earth.[10][22] As CO2 is heavier than air, the colony’s air (nitrogen and oxygen) could keep the structure floating at that altitude like a dirigible.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Venusatmosphere.svg/1024px-Venusatmosphere.svg.png
    Tropopause Venus, just like the Earth, is at about 100 hPa (0.1 bar).
    At the same pressure, the temperature in the troposphere is similar to that of Earth, although Venus is closer to the Sun.

    • barry says:

      Yes, the sulphur clouds have a very high albedo, so the greenhouse warming is what gives such high temperatures nearer the surface.

      Another interesting factoid – the average surface temperature of Venus is higher than that of Mercury, which is much closer to the sun and has no atmosphere.

  40. Norman says:

    g*e*r*a*n

    YOU from somewhere above: “Snape, you are confused. When I said the atmosphere only cools, I was talking about the atmosphere as a whole. I am not talking about localized weather. I am not talking about a mass of warm air that moves into your ghetto. I am talking about the trillions of Joules being lost to space every second, of every day, of every year. THAT is some serious cooling!

    Localized cloud cover is NOT the entire atmosphere.”

    I suppose in your logic that 203 quadrillion is a smaller sum than 123 quadrillion. I know you get your math backwards often.

    Take the Earth’s surface at 510 trillion m^2 and then TOA area of 511 trillion m^2. Now you have the total emitting surface temperatures of Earth surface and TOA. Average emission from the Earth’s surface is given as 398 W/m^2 (derived from CERES) and the TOA average is derived at 240 W/m^2.

    If you multiply the area of Earth’s surface you get around 203 quadrillion joules/sec leaving the entire surface. At the TOA you get around 123 quadrillion joules/sec.

    If you had no atmosphere at current conditions for the surface it would lose considerably more energy than with an atmosphere.

    Not that I expect you to follow this post, you have demonstrated you are completely unable to follow any type of logic or reason. Maybe luck will be with me and you won’t respond to the post, it is not for you anyway but always hope to educated anyone who wants to learn.

    Always remember your math. 123 is a larger value than 203 and the Sun is 120 C and Turkey’s can cook ice.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Well, very good Norman. You were able to understand my comment and do the very basic calculations I hinted at.

      But, you should have stopped there.

      Instead, you ventured off into your pseudoscience, following those worms in your head. Cooling became warming, because you compared the atmosphere to NO atmosphere, tossing out any relevance to the scientific method.

      So, what should have been a “gold star” for you, turned into a rusty pull tab.

      But, I always find your ramblings hilarious, if I bother to read them.

      • Norman says:

        g*e*r*a*n

        Not sure what point you are trying to make with your post. You have the scientific method with the no or very little atmosphere Moon that receives an equivalent amount of solar input flux as the Earth.

        You have actual bodies to compare.

        The Moon’s average temperature (with no atmosphere) is much colder than the Earth’s average temperature.

        Will you accept this statement as fact or do you dispute it?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Norman,

          I don’t know about g* . . . , but you haven’t the faintest idea of the average temperature of the Moon’s surface, otherwise you’d no doubt say what it is.

          You may be interested in this –

          “The moon has an iron-rich core with a radius of about 205 miles (330 km). The temperature in the core is probably about 2,420 to 2,600 F (1,327 to 1,427 C). The core heats an inner layer of molten mantle, but it’s not hot enough to warm the surface of the moon.”

          On the other hand, the Earth’s molten interior actually breaks through the surface continuously, at the mid ocean ridges. The heating effect of the Sun is imperceptible (even on an annual basis) just a few metres below the surface, as the surface is heated from below.

          The temperature increases at about 25 C per kilometre of depth, depending on location.

          So your valiant attempt to compare non existent average temperatures in order to justify a non existent GHE, gets another rusty pull tab from me, as well.

          Don’t squander it!

          Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            A human that posts on a science blog and can’t comprehend the simple concept of averages or why scientists use them does not deserve a response.

            I think nearly all posters understand that when you talk about average temperature it is for the surface of the planets. Only an unthinking and truly dense person would require an explicit explanation for every time one said Earth’s global average temperature.

            g*e*r*a*n is already too dense to discuss ideas with, since he seems to have this mental blindness and only has limited understanding and will intentionally pick out something he believes he understands with purpose to annoy (a troll).

            Since you post on a science blog and can’t understand the averages I consider you to be a troll who posts only to annoy someone and hope for a response to justify your existence.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          (When the pseudoscience types blast off to the Moon, that tells us they know they have lost the debate.)

          You can NOT compare Earth’s climate to the Moon. The Moon doesn’t have water over 70% of its surface.

          Clueless.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “You can NOT compare Earths climate to the Moon. The Moon doesnt have water over 70% of its surface.”

            Wow you really are demonstrating your lack on reason. Who is comparing the Moon and Earth’s Climate??? Climate is what takes place in the atmosphere and effects the Earth. When did I make a claim about “climate” in my post? Climate is average weather over a period of time, Moon has no weather!

            You can compare radiant energy exchange between the two. Energy in vs energy out and surface temperature.

            You ignore the question so I will ask again.

            ME: “The Moons average temperature (with no atmosphere) is much colder than the Earths average temperature.”

            Do you dispute this?

            Note do you see me comparing climate in this question?

            Or in your world temperature=climate?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, my comment referred to “pseudoscience types”. So, obviously you knew to respond!

            And, as to your asking me if I dispute your sentence:

            The Moons average temperature (with no atmosphere) is much colder than the Earths average temperature.

            I just have to fix it for you:

            The Moons average temperature (with no atmosphere, and no oceans) is much colder than the Earths average temperature.

            There, all nice and fixed….

          • Kristian says:

            g*e*r*a*n says, May 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM:

            The Moons average temperature (with no atmosphere, and no oceans) is much colder than the Earths average temperature.

            g*e*r*a*n,

            What is it that holds Earth’s oceans in place? What is it that prevents them from simply boiling off into space?

            It is of course the atmospheric pressure, the weight of the atmosphere on top of them.

            Would there be any oceans on Earth if there were no atmosphere?

          • Ball4 says:

            Water vapor and ice measured spewing from Enceladus shows an ocean exists there with no or minuscule atmosphere. Those that write Earth’s oceans would boil off without an atm. need to catch up on modern science achievements.

            Oh, and there are two way photon fluxes to Enceladus not just a net macro flux as radio communications are possible between Earth and a receiver/transmitter nearby Enceladus.

            Incoherent photons in the radio EMR beams do not interact to make just a net macro flux; just like the diffuse EMR between Earth surface and atm. do not interact to cancel to just a net macro flux.

          • Snape says:

            Ball4

            The ocean on Enceladus is not on the surface. It lies beneath a thick crust of ice.

            https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/cassini-finds-global-ocean-in-saturns-moon-enceladus

          • Snape says:

            Ball4

            It’s interesting to speculate about earth’s ocean if there were no atmosphere. Temperatures would be similar to the moon, so my guess is water vapor during the day, turning to ice crystals at night.

            As for no atmospheric pressure? I think the water vapor/ice crystals would float freely above the planet. Essentially creating a new atmosphere of non-liquid H20.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Exactly, Kristian.

            That’s why the pseudoscience types can NOT compare the Moon to Earth. The conditions are too different.

          • Ball4 says:

            Sure, similar to the ice floating in Earth’s arctic regions. The point is that an ocean is found to exist without atm. pressure.

            Without that 1bar pressure, Earth global surface temperature on avg. would be lower (as Kristian points out demonstrated elsewhere found by the measured moon brightness T), and the oceans could still exist as also demonstrated elsewhere.

          • Snape says:

            Ball

            “The point is that an ocean is found to exist without atm. pressure.”

            I see your point, but to be fair to Kristian, he was talking about a surface ocean and you’re talking about a subterranean ocean.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Would there be any oceans on Earth if there were no atmosphere?”

            My point was the usual answer of no (they’d boil off) has been recently demonstrated less than accurate by the discovery of oceans existing elsewhere w/o atm. pressure, the better thought experiment answer to Kristian’s question is now yes.

          • Snape says:

            Ball

            Now that I’ve thought about it a little more, I think you’re right.

            I first imagined ice crystals floating above earth’s surface but then realized they may not “float”. With no atmosphere to hold them aloft, gravity would pull them to the surface, possibly creating a giant ice sheet.

        • Kristian says:

          Norman says, May 5, 2017 at 9:06 PM:

          The Moon’s average temperature (with no atmosphere) is much colder than the Earths average temperature.

          There are certainly quite a few things we can agree on, Norman.

          We clearly disagree on exactly HOW the atmosphere manages to force Earth’s average global surface temperature up, but we DO agree that it’s a fact that it – somehow – DOES.

          Like you point out, the simplest way for anyone to verify this fact for oneself is by comparing the average global surface temperature of Earth with that of the Moon; both bodies at 1AU, only with the former WITH an atmosphere and the latter WITHOUT one.

          The global surface of the Moon absorbs about 296 W/m^2 of solar heat (“net SW”) on average. That’s almost 80% more solar heat than what the global surface of the Earth absorbs on average (about 165 W/m^2). This huge difference derives from a much lower lunar global albedo (no clouds, no ice) plus the lack of an absorbing intervening atmosphere.

          So the lunar surface on average gets a LOT more heat in from the Sun than what the Earth’s surface does.

          And STILL the average global surface temperature of Earth is about 92K higher than the average global surface temperature of the Moon: 289 vs. 197K (estimated from LRO data).

          So the evidence of an atmospheric “thermal enhancement effect” on a planetary surface is almost ridiculously obvious. Our atmosphere simply INSULATES our solar-heated surface, reducing its heat LOSS at any given surface T. It evidently reduces its heat GAIN as well (Moon vs. Earth), but this appears to have less of an impact all in all.

          Remember now that we’re only talking about “global averages” here … The global average solar heat input and the global average surface temperature. It both gets much hotter AND much colder on the Moon than on Earth.

          • Snape says:

            Kristian

            That was a great argument. Made me realize how little I know about the moon.

    • Dr No says:

      Norman, an excellent response which, judging by the reply, is again wasted on an ant-brain.

  41. Mike Flynn says:

    Somebody seems to under the mistaken impression that sunlit surface temperatures fall as altitude increases. Complete nonsense, of course.

    According to the estimable Professor Tyndall (and verified by myself in the Himalayas), –

    “At 10,000 feet, in December, at 9 a.m., I saw the mercury mount to 132, while the temperature of shaded snow hard by was 22. At 13,100 feet, in January, at 9 a.m., it has stood at 98, with a difference of 68.2, and at 10 a.m. at 114, with a difference of 81.4, whilst the radiating thermometer on the snow had fallen at sunrise to 0.7.'”

    You may read the rest of the book’s chapter at your leisure. No correlation between adjacent surface temperatures, let alone the supposed air temperature above both!

    As Prof Tyndall points out, the less impediment between the Sun and the thermometer, the higher the sunlit temperature. GHE supporters confuse themselves by not making the distinction between surface and air temperatures.

    Combined with an inabilty to understand the differences and relationships between heat, energy, temperature, and power, it is no wonder that even supposedly well educated people dupe themselves into believing the impossible – even possibly believing that sunlit surface temperatures decrease with altitude!

    Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Unsurprising, given the impossibility of raising a thermometer’s temperature by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun.

    Cheers.

    • Snape says:

      Sunlit surface? You need to read more carefully!

      ” On a calm, clear night we can observe the effects of radiative cooling it gets colder. But where is this cooling most pronounced? At high altitudes and arid deserts places where the atmosphere is thin.

      In locations where the atmosphere is more dense, like the tropics, there is much less nighttime cooling.”

      • Snape says:

        Allow me edit the grammar errors:

        “On a calm, clear night we can observe the effects of radiative cooling. It gets colder. Where is this cooling most pronounced? At high altitudes and arid deserts. Places where the atmosphere is thin.

        At locations where the atmosphere is more dense, like the tropics, there is much less nighttime cooling.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Snape,

        A calm clear night at 9 am? Or 10 am? A clam clear night is usually a fair indication that the Sun is absent. That’s what distinguishes night from day, in general.

        In an case, as you point out, at night the cooling is more pronounced in, for example, arid deserts where the atmosphere contains minimal amounts of that most important so-called GHG – H2O!

        And of course, these places have the highest temperatures during sunlit hours, due to less blocking of sunlight – less GHGs to lower the temperature.

        However, you haven’t managed to contradict the observations of Professor Tyndall. He also pointed out that the Earth would be as inhospitable as the Moon, if it lacked atmosphere to the same extent. Surface temperatures on Earth range from around 90 C (properly designed solar heat collector) to around -90 C.

        The Moon gets both hotter and colder. Furious pretend averaging doesn’t make this inconvenient fact go away.

        Of course, foolish organisations, like NASA, still publish brightly coloured diagrams showing the Earth as flat, with all the continents sunlit at the same time. No night at all – too inconvenient! Just search for “trenberth budget” images, if you don’t believe me.

        Still no GHE. Not even a tiny bit.

        Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Whoops. Of course I meant “calm” rather than “clam”, and “any” instead of “an” . . .

          It might not matter to a Warmist – anything can really mean anything else, and none of it is to be taken literally, anyway!

          Great science, this climatology! Very flexible – a perfect refuge for the incompetent, the delusional, and the dim. Competent scientists are slowly exiting the field, as the inconsistencies become ever more visible.

          Cheers.

          • Snape says:

            Yes, Flynn, in a desert like the Sahara, there is very little water vapor (an important GHG), and almost constant high pressure. These conditions combine to inhibit convection during the day, so less hot air is carried away from the sun baked ground.

            At night, no clouds and very ltitle water vapor means there’s not much to get in the way of radiant cooling.
            This produces a huge drop in temperature.

            In places where it’s very humid, pretty much the opposite is true.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Snape,

            Pressure has precious little to do with it. Nor has convection. The surface heats by absorbing radiative energy. It cools by emitting energy.

            Less GHGs – less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.

            Taken to extremes, as on the Moon, much higher temperatures during daylight, much lower temperatures at night. I can’t see why basic radiative theory, backed up by experiment and observation, is denied in favour of a bizarre GHE, which is not even expressed as a testable hypothesis. The GHE supporters cannot even clearly express what this obviously mis-named so-called effect is supposed to do!

            As you point out, less GHG results in higher temperatures during the day, and lower temperatures at night.

            So far, you haven’t managed to contradict anything I’ve written – flying off at a tangent in an effort to avoid addressing the obvious deficiencies in the supposed GHE won’t win more recruits to the Cult.

            Can you bring any new facts to support your fantasy?

            Cheers.

          • Snape says:

            Flynn

            I can only comment on your first two paragraphs because I don’t have the patience to read more.

            Atmospheric pressure influences convection. Less convection means less of the surface warmed air is lifted to higher levels of the atmosphere.

            GHG’s are mostly transparent to solar radiation.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Less GHGs – less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”

            Thus Mike Flynn concedes Earth GHE does exist.

          • Snape says:

            😊

          • ren says:

            Air over Sahara does not accumulate heat. This clearly shows the satellite.
            http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gd19_prd.gif
            Product shows the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) and High Resolution Infrared Sounder (HIRS). The AVHRR and HIRS OLR products are divided into day and night (ascending and descending) products.
            http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/swar19_prd.gif
            Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. It is derived from AVHRR Channels 1 and 2. The mean is displayed on a one degree equal area map on a seasonal basis. This product is also referred to as Shortwave Absorbed Radiation (SWAR). Absorbed solar radiation is the difference between the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the outgoing reflected flux at the top of the atmosphere.

          • Snape says:

            Interesting, thanks for that ren.

          • David Appell says:

            Good catch, Ball4.

            Game over.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn admits there is a greenhouse effect:

            May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
            “Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860

        • ren says:

          Is stronger ocean evaporation during El Nino increasing the mass of gases in the troposphere?
          Is the increase in total gas mass in the troposphere can increase the temperature of the air at the surface?

          • Snape says:

            Ren

            I think that’s a tough question to answer, probably being studied.

            Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but unlike the others, it produces clouds (and thus albedo) and has a tremendous influence on weather.

          • David Appell says:

            More importantly, the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere only changes when the temperature first changes. (See the Clausius-Claperyon equation.)

            This is why climate scientists say “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.”

    • David Appell says:

      “Still no testable GHE hypothesis.”

      Proof of the GHE hypothesis:

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

    • David Appell says:

      Hypothesis: If there is no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s outgoing spectrum should approximate that of a blackbody.

      Fact: False

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

  42. ren says:

    The average height of the troposphere over the equator is constant. What happens with excess water vapor during El Nino?
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2016.png

  43. Mike Flynn says:

    Ball4 wrote –

    “Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.

    Thus Mike Flynn concedes Earth GHE does exist.”

    Ball4 obviously needs to upgrade both his logic and mind reading skills.

    Ball4 apparently believes in something that has no testable hypothesis, that cannot be defined or demonstrated, but which can produce contradictory miracles, which defy rational explanation.

    Sounds more like religion than science, to me. Faith is faith. Facts are facts.

    Sorry, but GHE is faith. Not fact.

    Cheers.

    • Ball4 says:

      No use denying it Mike, it is recorded for all to read, you’ve shown us you now agree Earth GHE does exist no matter your protestations, the cat will not go back in the bag. The internet does not forget.

      Mike Flynn concedes: “Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Ball4 is not exactly the best monitor of reality.

        He believes cabbages glow in the dark.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Ad hom attacks are rarely effective.

          Was Ball4 wrong when he quoted Mike saying Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.

          Was he wrong concluding that this statement does, indeed,describe how the greenhouse effect works?

          If he was not wrong, then what is the purpose of your comment?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim Folkerts,

            He wasn’t wrong quoting me. An example is the Moon, with virtually no GHGs – the surface heats rapidly, and cools rapidly, as I pointed out. Its maximum temperature exceeds that of the Earth’s surface due to a lack of GHGs. The low temperature is likewise lower, due to a lack of GHGs.

            If this is supposed to demonstrate the action of the non-existent GHE on the Earth, then no wonder you can’t actually state what the GHE is!

            I assume you are not saying that conditions on the Moon are responsible for some 30% of the Sun’s incident radiation not even reaching the surface of the Earth? Are you really implying that a thermometer’s temperature can be raised by placing CO2 between it and a heat source?

            Anyone who believes this is quite simply deluded. CO2 doesn’t provide heat, nor does it somehow multiply heat through some arcane but unspecified feedback mechanism!

            As to glowing cabbages, I asked Ball4 whether he really believed in such a thing. I can’t see where he has denied it, but maybe I missed it.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, I’m glad to see you have given up trying to fake physics, and have started your own ministry.

            Where can folks send donations?

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn admits there is a greenhouse effect:

            May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
            “Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike says: “An example is the Moon, with virtually no GHGs the surface heats rapidly, and cools rapidly, as I pointed out. Its maximum temperature exceeds that of the Earths surface due to a lack of GHGs. The low temperature is likewise lower, due to a lack of GHGs.”

            No. These effects you state are due to no *ATMOSPHERE* at all, not to no *GHGs* specifically. Also, the looooong lunar day plays a role. If you put a pure nitrogen atmosphere on the moon, the temperature swings on the moon would be smaller than they are now. And if you also made the moon rotate every 24 hr, the temperature swings would be quite similar to earth. Well, except that the surface would be MUCH colder than the earth.

            Basically, you are attributing the interesting effects on the moon to the WRONG CAUSES.

        • Norman says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          From reading the various posts I would conclude that Ball4 is much more knowledgeable than you in the field of science. That does not mean you could not gain more knowledge but currently you seem to posses a lack in many areas which I have not found so lacking in Ball4’s comments.

          When you make statements at least you should learn to tell the truth. Your post: “He believes cabbages glow in the dark.”

          That is a complete dishonest comment. The claim made by Ball4 was that a cabbage at room temperature would emit a tiny amount of EMR in the visible range (since some surface molecules would have enough energy to move electrons to higher orbitals) that could be detected by a sensitive spectrometer.

          The “glow in the dark” is your own misunderstanding of what someone else posted. It seems you do this a lot, have you considered going to a specialist to find out why you have such a lack of ability at understanding other people? It might help your posting ability if you properly understood what someone actually posts and not your strange and delusional twisting of someone else’s content.

      • David Appell says:

        +1 Ball4. Good catch.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Ball4,

        Do you really believe cabbages glow in the dark? Is that also part of the non-existent GHE hypothesis?

        As to your “Earth GHE”, if you could actually specify what you are talking about, it might help. Just stringing letters together in an attempt to sound sciency doesn’t impart much information, other than to emphasise the depth of your delusion.

        Maybe you don’t believe the Earth no longer has a molten crust, due to cooling, rather than the heating which occurs only in your febrile imagination, but your beliefs are irrelevant to those of us who manage to walk on the cooled surface.

        Nature doesn’t seem to care what I think. Do you think that Nature is more likely to bend to your will?

        Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        Ball4 says:
        “Mike Flynn concedes: Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”

        Mike Flynn just admitted there is a greenhouse effect.

        Game over.

        Good going, Ball4.

  44. ren says:

    The course of the jet stream determines the temperature distribution in the middle and high latitudes. As shown in the temperature of the North Pacific winter jet stream pattern is very durable.
    http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium/n_pole/ch_tlt_2017_04_anom_v03_3.png

  45. ren says:

    Heavy weather in eastern Canada. After spring floods will return frost.
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r10_Hudson_Bay_ts_4km.png

  46. The UK Ian brown says:

    What holds the atmosphere and oceans in place ?.Any chance it could be something simple like gravity.or is that another myth . Although Tesla was convinced it was magnetism. Newton Tesla.and maybe Tyndall in the same room.now that would be some discussion.

    • David Appell says:

      I doubt Tesla thought the ocean was held in by magnetism.

      • Snape says:

        How is it possible we even have an atmosphere? Nitrogen , oxygen, etc, are somehow able to rise above the surface. This seems to defy gravity.

          • Snape says:

            Winds? How is there wind without an atmosphere?

          • Snape says:

            20 minutes on google and still can’t find the answer. Here is another way to pose my question:

            Imagine earth with no atmosphere (no air). Hold a nitrogen or oxygen molecule, say, 100 feet off the ground and let go. They each have mass and are affected by gravity, so why don’t they fall to the ground?

            Why are these molecules dispersed above earth’s surface as air instead of lying in a big pile on the ground?

          • David Appell says:

            There *IS* an atmosphere.
            Hence, winds.

          • Snape says:

            David

            I posed my question a different way (directly above your last comment).

          • barry says:

            Atmospheric turbulence keeps gases aloft.

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            I wrote, “Imagine earth with no atmosphere (no air).”

          • barry says:

            You did, but I’m not sure why. The Earth has had an atmosphere of various kinds since it was born. You may want to look up planetary formation and then the geologic history of Earth’s atmosphere. Volcanic outgassing was the initiator of Earth-formed atmosphere when this planet was in the crib.

            If there were no atmosphere there would be no gases to be affected by gravity. I’m not sure where you’re going with this?

        • Norman says:

          Snape

          YOU ASK: “Imagine earth with no atmosphere (no air). Hold a nitrogen or oxygen molecule, say, 100 feet off the ground and let go. They each have mass and are affected by gravity, so why dont they fall to the ground?

          Why are these molecules dispersed above earths surface as air instead of lying in a big pile on the ground?”

          The answer would be perfectly elastic collisions. The nitrogen molecule would be pulled down by gravity bu convert it potential energy to kinetic energy. When it hits the surface it bounces back up with no loss of internal energy to the surface so it goes back to its original height.

          In our atmosphere the molecules all have considerable kinetic energy and when they collide with other molecules all the collisions are perfectly elastic. The molecules can exchange energy (some get faster, others slower) but the total energy is not lost as with larger groupings of molecules (such as a bouncing ball, it does not have a perfectly elastic collision, some of the energy of deformation turns into internal energy).

          Does that help?

          • Snape says:

            Thank you, Norman!

            I read a more complicated description of this and didn’t quite get it. Your’s was much easier to understand.

            I guess this “bouncing” also explains why the moleculules in our atmosphere are all mixed up instead of in layers according to density. Barry used the term, “atmospheric turbulence”.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Snape,

            At absolute zero, all the gas will lie on a big heap on the ground.

            Look up Brownian motion for an explanation of why CO2, for example, doesn’t settle out – nor do small particles of pollen or dust.

            You might care to read Feynman – The strange theory of light and matter. This will set you straight on so called perfectly elastic collisions (nonsense), total atmospheric kinetic energy being conserved (also nonsense), and a few other things.

            If you think Feynmans grip on physics and QED is rubbish, fair enough. If you choose to heap abuse on me, I’ll ignore it unless you can convince me that you at least have made some effort to understand the ohysics involved.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            I am reading some of the Feynman book you talk about. If the link works this should lead to the book.

            http://www.academia.edu/8507721/QED_The_strange_theory_of_light_and_matter_by_Richard_Feynman

            It is a most interesting book to read. I have not read through the whole thing but would like you to inform me what part of this book rejects the notion of perfectly elastic collisions?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            I’m pleased you are taking the trouble to read Feynman’s little book.

            As to your question – the whole of the book? Photons interact with electrons. The notion of atoms colliding is an old one, and not correct.

            For a start, you might care to look up “collisions” or “atoms” or “elastic”, and take it from there. I could always be wrong, you know. If you find I am incorrect, please let me know.

            You might even find that many things parroted by scientists about photons and their interaction with matter are wrong (at least according to Feynman). I’m happy to believe Feynman, until something better comes along.

            Cheers.

      • The UK Ian brown says:

        David. Tesla stated he believed magnetism and not gravity held the universe together.my point was it is easy to be blinded by theories at the expense of everything else no matter how unlikely it may be.its textbook detective work.you look at all possibilities disregard what it can’t be.and what is left no matter how unlikely must be the answer.i was just trying to broaden the debate.

    • Snape says:

      Ian

      No gravity and everything goes flying into space. Still, the atmosphere exerts tremendous pressure on the oceans. What would happen if that pressure was suddenly gone?

  47. Russ says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    Warmists admit that anthropogenically generated CO2 does not directly cause sufficient warming for mankind to be alarmed (even if it doubled or even tripled in concentration). However, they claim a positive feedback mechanism is at work where the additional heat “trapped” by the anthropogenic CO2 causes just a little more H2O to evaporate from earth’s surface, and because H2O absorbs a much broader range of IR wavelengths, it causes the added warming that we should all be alarmed about. If I have this wrong, please tell me so.

    Question 1: Assuming we accept such an arguement, and if the concentration of atmospheric H20 is already a magnitude or 2 greater than that of CO2, and because it absorbs IR energy at more and broader ranges of IR wavelengths, then why doesn’t any warming at all (be it for whatever reason) cause an unending (like a perpetual motion machine) evaporation of more water from the oceans, a resultant higher concentration of atmospheric H2O, a resultant entrapment of yet more IR energy, resulting in a higher global temperature, and repeat, repeat, repeat? How do the warmist explain this? What am I missing?

    Question 2: Rain is always mildly acidic because upon condensation into liquid droplets, and while falling through the atmosphere, it dissolves CO2 in accordance with Henry’s Law, returning CO2 to earth’s surface. So how is it possible for the nominal retention time of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere to be measured in decades? The portion of the continuous flux of the natural CO2 cycle returning CO2 to the surface of the earth (photosynthesis, precipitation) should result in a much shorter retention period than decades shouldn’t it? Where does this decades-long nominal rentention period come from?

    Any one is more than welcome to answer my questions, so long as the answer is science-based, not political in nature, nor a personal assault on my character for asking the dumb questions.

    • Snape says:

      Russ

      El ninos release a lot of extra water vapor into the atmosphere and we don’t get this runaway warming you’re talking about. It’s a good question though. Maybe a meteorologist could explain why.

    • David Appell says:

      “So how is it possible for the nominal retention time of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere to be measured in decades?”

      A particular, individual CO2 molecules doesn’t last in the atmosphere for decades.

      But it is (almost always) replaced by a different individual CO2 molecular, via the climate cycle seeking equilibrium.

      This is a very long cycle, and it takes 10s of thousands of years for all the “added CO2” to decline back to its baseline level. (see the work of David Archer, U Chicago). Perhaps as long as a million years.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Davie believes every pseudoscience paper he reads. His favorite pseudoscience paper indicates the the Sun can radiatively warm the Earth to 800,000K!

        (If you’ve studied quantum physics, thermo, and heat transfer, try reading that last sentence again, without laughing.)

      • Russ says:

        Dave,
        Do you even have a clue as to what I’m asking? Anyway, I specified only scientifically based answers. Yours doesn’t qualify. No need for you to respond to this comment either. Thanks.

      • alphagruis says:

        As to question 1:

        Positive feedback doesn’t necessarily mean runaway of the phenomenon in question as you seem to believe. It depends on the amplitude of the feedback. If in your reasoning first step results in an effect A which in turn adds a further amount rA (r times A) where r is a factor that measures the magnitude of the feedback, which in turn adds a further amount rrA (r times r times A)..etc, repeating the process one gets eventually a total effect T = A + rA + rrA + rrrA +

        This is mathematically the sum the well known geometric series namely T= a / ( 1- r) which is a finite number provided r < 1. Runaway only takes place when r is approaches 1 or becomes larger than 1 i.e. at large enough feedbacks.

        No trouble with the AGW theory at this level.

        • Russ says:

          I’m happy to hear that AGW is not reliant upon the creation of a perpetual motion machine. Maybe we should be spending a lot more time and energy on determining what the value of “r” is then, instead of picking a number out of the air and flying with it to make the case…… AGW should concern us, or AGW should not concern us. I appreciate your mathematical explanation Alphagruis.
          Thanks.

          • alphagruis says:

            Russ, you indeed point precisely to the main trouble with AGW theory, namely it’s inability to provide a quantitatively accurate and reliable enough estimation of the effect. Uncertainty is huge.
            There are in fact other feedbacks besides the water vapor one you mentioned above. So there are various “r” values to consider and it’s the overall effect of them that matters of course. As pointed out elsewhere by Dr. Spencer there is always the strong “Planck feedback” that is definitely negative and prevents in principle runaway.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Good questions, Russ.

    • Crakar24 says:

      In answer to question 1,

      The theory states if you add co2 you raise the height of the co2 column thus cooling the emission layer causing the surface to raise its temp in order to emit the same amount of ir lost at the top of the co2 emission layer

      This increase in surface temp increases wv, wv then generates the catastrophic temps rises predicted.

      Ergo yes you are right it should be a perpetual warming but in reality the ir simply leaves via another emission layer whether it be h2o, methane cloud tops.

      Problem is people still believe co2 traps “heat’

    • barry says:

      1) If there are limiters on the gain the amplification is stable. Limiting factos include logarithmic effect of CO2 and some other negative feedbacks (lapse rate changes provide negative feedback). Supposedly the sum of all feedbacks is positive, but not enough to make the gain unstable.

      2) Where does this decades-long nominal rentention period come from?

      Not from the lifetime of a single CO2 molecule. It’s an estimate of the time it takes for the system to re-absorb CO2 from a large pulse of that increases the level from the background.

      It’s based on the question – how long would it take the added CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere if anthro emissions stopped completely?

      Analogy: imagine a large tank of water half filled with a small hole at the water level. The water is constantly mixed by some device. Now start filling it at a rate that exceeds the rate at which water pours out through the hole. When the water reaches the top, stop filling it, and then…

      Calculate the time it takes for the water to get back to its original level. That is the analogy for the ‘residence time’ of CO2 that you refer to.

      Mixing spreads the water (CO2) around, so that in a given mass in the tank (atmosphere) going through the hole (carbon sink), some of the water molecules will be the ones from the hose. Thus, average residence time for a single water molecule from the hose is much shorter than the time it takes for all the excess water to drain.

      When you read about residence time WRT CO2 emissions, this is what they’re talking about. Whereas the average residence time of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmos is about 5 years, I’ve read.

      • Russ says:

        Excellent analogy Barry. Thanks for that. I still have a problem though with the very long retention time that the warmists claim. Let’s call it “mean” retention time, since that’s probably a better description. It seems to me that the “hole” in your tank is likely bigger than we are imagining. The size of the hole is analagous to the flux of CO2 returning to earth’s surface, which is due mainly to photosynthesis and precipitation. These are relatively big numbers in the natural CO2 cycle are they not? I further suggest that your hole is significantly below the surface of the tank contents, since both photosythesis and precipitation still occur at high rates when the atmosphere contains much less CO2 than it does now.

        I’d like you to consider that the rising atmospheric CO2 level in the atmosphere we’re currently seeing is at least partly due to currently warming ocean surfaces and Henry’s Law. I suggest “largely due to”. When the ocean surfaces begin cooling, we should expect to see atmospheric CO2 concentrations start to fall. The net flux of CO2 will reverse in direction. Wish I could be around to see this, but I doubt that I will. Apparently this cycle is about 800 years in duration.

      • Snape says:

        Barry

        Really interesting. I had never heard the term “resIdense time” but

      • Snape says:

        Barry

        Really interesting. I had never heard that analogy before.

        I was actually really confused by your last paragraph. The term “residence time” is used for two very different things:

        1. The time is takes “a certain quantity of extra Co2” to leave the atmosphere.
        2. the time it takes an individual molecule to leave the atmosphere.

        It took me a while to figure out what was going on.

      • barry says:

        Russ,

        Before the industrial revolution average concentration atmospheric CO2 was about 280ppm. It is now about 404 ppm. The increase is thus about 124 ppm.

        Human activities have released roughly twice as much as the increase. It’s then a mater of arithmetic. If anthro emissions account for twice the increase, then the increase is definitely from anthro. If anthro emissions were half the increase, then we would have to other sources for the rest.

        Because the increase is only half what we pumped out, there is then a ‘fast’ hole that operates to absorb half emissions. It is reckoned the oceans’ capacity for extra CO2 absorbs most of that. There’s been a bit of greening of the planet recently, so that would absorb some, but there’s also been a lot of foliage clearing since the industrial revolution, meaning slightly less of a sink for CO2.

        But we know the oceans are absorbing about the excess (above background levels) because we measure CO2 in seawater and find it has increased over time (hence interest in the de-alkanization of the oceans).

        It’s also how we know that the oceans are not responsible for the long-term rise of CO2.

        We have many other lines of evidence that converge on anthropogenic contribution to virtually all the rise since the indstrial revolution. But we don’t even have to rely on them, because the emissions/atmospheric increase arithmetic makes it very straightforward.

        At short time scales atmospheric CO2 responds to global temp fluctuations, particularly ENSO events. CO2 goes up a wee bit with el Ninos and down a little bit with la Ninas. This is reckoned to be because of the short-term influence of ENSO on plants.

        But these factors in no way can explain the long-term rise.

        Consider – when the globe warmed out of the last ice age, the temperature change was 5 – 6C over 5 thousand years. The change in CO2 concentration was from 180 – 280 ppm over 4000 years. But in the space of 250 years the concentration of atmos CO2 has risen even more than out of the last ice age, much more quickly, and when the globe has warmed by about 1C at most.

        Where is the 5 – 6C warming preceding the >100 ppm CO2 rise in the modern age? How has it happened 200 times faster than the last time the planet warmed significantly?

        Because human activity is digging up carbon stored in the ground and pumping it into the air at a rate of nearly 3 ppm per year (currently).

        • gbaikie says:

          “….
          Where is the 5 6C warming preceding the >100 ppm CO2 rise in the modern age? How has it happened 200 times faster than the last time the planet warmed significantly?

          Because human activity is digging up carbon stored in the ground and pumping it into the air at a rate of nearly 3 ppm per year (currently).”

          For millions of years, earth has had low global levels of CO2. Or for last 500 million years, Earth has had dips in CO2 levels but most of the time the CO2 levels have been higher than compared to the present.
          Cf:
          http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
          From goggle search; “geology last millions of year CO2 levels” and above is one link I picked- because it roughly matched what had read about [elsewhere].
          Or one could say we in a geological age in which “there should be” low levels of CO2. And all the new mountain building, could give you this clue.

          So I would say/guess that over the time frame of +10,000 years of your interglacial period, the entire ocean has warmed by 1 or 2 degree and has outgased a lot of CO2 but it’s had a large amount of time for weathering and other processes which remove the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
          The Ocean is vast and will always take more than 1 thousand years to warm or cool it by 1 C, but this not to say that upper levels of the ocean or other portions of the ocean can’t warm or cool at faster rates. So picking something like the top 700 meter of the ocean, it may warm or cool at faster rate. Or say pick the ocean near Antarctic or top levels of Arctic Ocean.
          Now I would say that we know very little about Earth’s carbon cycle, but what we know, is that this natural cycle dwarfs the amount of human CO2 emission [on yearly basis]- eg some claim +100 billion ton emitted and absorbed. Also once upon time human activity in general was thought to cause more CO2 emission than merely the burning of fossil fuels. And would add that because fossil fuel burning can be account for, that it’s sort of like a drunk looking for his keys under the street lamp- because that is where the light is.
          But one explanation or at least one factor of explanation is that the fast rate in which CO2 is added to atmosphere by human activity explains the bump up in CO2 levels.

          But in been fashionable to talk about how nature would rapidly disappear our cities, if humans weren’t around. Likewise, I believe our geological age would disappear the added CO2 if humans disappeared. Also were we to return to glacial period, likewise the CO2 would also lower. Though neither of these seem likely any time soon.

      • barry says:

        The time it would take for the excess CO2 be completely absorbed is reckoned in hundreds to thousands of years because the ‘fast’ hole (sink) becomes less efficient when a new, higher equilibrium is reached (differently to the tank analogy). CO2 *a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n is then done by rock weathering (rocks absorb CO2 through erosion over very long time scales) and ocean turnover, which takes about a thousand years for a full turnover cycle.

        An active area of research is concerned with whether the ocean uptake of excess CO2 will diminish in the future. Colder sea water holds more CO2 – the CO2 rise during the last transition out of the ice age caused outgassing of CO2 from warmer oceans. The oceans are warming now, but still able to offset some of the anthro emissions due to changing partial pressure at sea surface and wind cycling of ocean waters taking CO2 down to depths. That may change in the future as the ocean buffer becomes more ‘filled’ and less efficient.

        In the carbon budget there are multiple factors at play, and feedbacks, too, mostly negative for now.

        (* Had to put full stops in that word because this site rejects posts with that word in it)

      • barry says:

        Russ,

        It seems to me that the “hole” in your tank is likely bigger than we are imagining. The size of the hole is analagous to the flux of CO2 returning to earths surface, which is due mainly to photosynthesis and precipitation. These are relatively big numbers in the natural CO2 cycle are they not? I further suggest that your hole is significantly below the surface of the tank contents, since both photosythesis and precipitation still occur at high rates when the atmosphere contains much less CO2 than it does now.

        That is one side of the ledger, and it is an annual cycle.

        The other side of the ledger is plant die-off in the Autumn/Winter months, when trees shed their leaves. As the leaves decay they release CO2. This is evident globally in the CO2 record from many locations around the world. The Northern Hemisphere contains the vast majority of the world’s foliage (much more land surface). So the annual cycle we see in the global record matches the seasonal cycle in the NH.

        This cycle had been in equilibrium for the last few thousand years, then came the CO2 spike from anthro emissions (abetted by land clearing).

        So the ‘hole’ in the tank (of the atmosphere) for excesses CO2 is not plants. Otherwise atmos CO2 should have been on a significant downward trajectory prior to the industrial revolution. Instead, it was always replenished seasonally.

        The hole in the tank is the longer term processes, like rock weathering. These slow processes are what will mainly take up excess CO2, reckoned to occur over hundreds to tens of thousands of years.

        The ocean won’t absorb CO2 at the same rate should we cease emitting, as the oceans are trying to stay in equilibrium with atmos CO2. They shouldn’t be absorbing now, as you note, because a warmer ocean should outgas CO2. Even if they did immediately start absorbing, it takes a thousand years for complete hydrological turnover of the oceans. That’s the soonest possible we could expect excess CO2 levels to drop and the system return to equilibrium. But it will take longer than that.

  48. g*e*r*a*n says:

    Horse racing fans will know that today’s Kentucky Derby was held in very cold temperatures.

    Pseudoscientists believe the atmosphere is “trapping heat”.

    Today, they have to also believe Churchill Downs is “trapping cold”!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-derby-churchill-downs-begins-cold-wet-conditions/

    • David Appell says:

      And you wonder why people are rejecting you as a clown.

    • gbaikie says:

      If Earth had no global ocean, it would have a lower average global temperature.
      The atmosphere can retain some heat and it can also ‘trap cold”.

      • David Appell says:

        What does “trap cold” mean?

        • Snape says:

          I think he’s talking about a temperature inversion. Warm air aloft trapping colder surface air.

          • Snape says:

            This description is inaccurate though. The cold air isn’t really trapped. It’s heavier than the air above and won’t budge.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Snape,

            Seriously –

            “A large-scale katabatic wind that descends too rapidly to warm up is called a fall wind. In areas where fall winds occur, homes and orchards are situated on hillslopes above the lowlands where the cold air accumulates.”

            Additionally, low level inversions form typically at night, under clear skies. In a depression or concavity, the air will tend to sit there. This could be referred to as “trapping cold”, I suppose.

            I prefer the use of normal physical or meteorological terms. Heat and cold are fairly imprecise terms. Somebody will probably tell you they prefer to slip their feet into their warm slippers, rather than stand on the cold stone floor, when arising. In fact, both the slippers and the stone are the same temperature.

            Personal preference, of course.

            Cheers.

          • Snape says:

            Flynn

            That’s why I explained (referring to an inversion):

            “The cold air isnt really trapped. Its heavier than the air above and wont budge.”

          • Snape says:

            Weird. Somehow the apostrophes disappeared from my quote.

          • barry says:

            If you copy and paste apostrophes and quotation marks, they turn into a different font when you paste them and this site doesn’t recognize them. If you want them there, you have to delete and rekey them, and then this site recognizes the font.

            Just of one of quite a few glitches on this site.

            Further evidence that no one is deleting posts or trying to kill certain words deliberately.

            Although, Roy has made a few words spam words, particularly to do with a certain (skeptic) poster who spammed this board with CO2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas rubbish.

  49. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell wrote –

    “But it is (almost always) replaced by a different individual CO2 molecular, via the climate cycle seeking equilibrium.”

    Climate is the average of weather. An average “seeks” nothing.

    Maybe you would care to rephrase your confusing and incorrect assertion, and try to express what you are trying to say? Are you trying to claim that CO2 levels do not change? Or does “almost always” really mean “almost never”?

    Very confusing. Sad.

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Mike Flynn admits there is a greenhouse effect:
      May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
      Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Your mind reading abilities are on par with your scientific knowledge.

        What is this wondrous “greenhouse effect” to which you refer?

        It seems to be preying on your mind to an unhealthy degree. Maybe if you could write down what you think this “greenhouse effect” represents, you might be able to communicate more clearly.

        Or you could just tell anybody asking inconvenient questions to “get lost”. I’m sure people will appreciate your lucid and logical explanation.

        Cheers.

  50. ren says:

    Solar activity very low. No coronal holes.
    Solar minimum to about 2 years?
    http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20170505_hres.png

    • Mike Flynn says:

      According to Michael Mann 2015 –

      “That study similarly concludes that there is growing risk of unprecedented drought in the western United States driven primarily by rising temperatures, regardless of whether or not there is a clear trend in precipitation.”

      Unprecedented drought . . . whether or not there is . . . precipitation.

      Interesting. Where I live, the Dry season is characterised by lower temperatures. Temperatures are higher during the Wet.

      Maybe things are different in Mannland.

      Cheers.

  51. ren says:

    BACA COUNTY, Colo.
    Thousands of cattle died or wandered off earlier this week when more than two feet of snow blanketed Southeastern Colorado.
    http://www.ajc.com/news/national/thousands-cattle-killed-colorado-spring-snowstorm/NUrVl1w7m0CPglinx8r7FL/

  52. ren says:

    “Part of the reason the precipitation levels have been so high is due to the meandering nature of the jet stream, a path of air in the upper atmosphere. Often storm systems are influenced by it. It’s normally somewhat smooth, but recently it’s had more “kinks” in it, resulting in wetter systems and sometimes allowing storms to linger where they’d normally just pass through. While it’s too early to definitively link this weather system with climate change, recent studies have suggested it could be a sign of things to come.”
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/flood-quebec-ontario-1.4098915
    https://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/snow_model/images/full/National/nsm_depth/201704/nsm_depth_2017042005_National.jpg

  53. Entropic man says:

    Russ

    Regarding Question 1.

    The positive feedback to which you refer has a different meaning for an engineer and a scientist.

    An engineer thinks of positive feedback as a self-amplifying change which continues to the limit of the system. The classic example is the feedback squeal a sound system can produce if the microphone picks up too much noise from the loudspeakers.

    In science positive feedback usually continues until limiting factors kick in to slow and eventually stop further change.

    With respect to increasing water vapour leads there are two limiting factors.

    Increased water vapour leads to increased precipitation. Increased evaporation from the surface is balanced by increased rainfall removing extra water vapour.

    Increased water vapour also leads to increased cloud cover. More energy is reflected back to space. This partially cancels out the increased H2O greenhouse effect.

    Eventually a brighter Sun may trigger the runaway H2O greenhouse effect you describe, but this is not expected for another billion years.

    Regarding Question 2

    Retention time is a bit misleading. Rather than thinking of an indvidual molecule staying in the atmosphere longer, think of the change in concentration persisting longer.

    Our CO2 emissions have upset the dynamic balance between the atmosphere and the existing carbon sinks. The further the system gets out of balance, the longer it will take to stabilise.

    • Russ says:

      Entropic Man,

      Great answer to my question 1. I guess I like it because it’s what makes sense to me too. But it sure doesn’t support an ever increasing positive feedback that will result in catastrophic global warming. Refer to the exchange between Alphagruis and me. Alphagruis pointed out some useful math that offers a sensible explanation of the positive feedback that warmists hang their hats on too. I found it quite meaningful, and you might too.

      As for your answer to my question 2, thanks but I see the concentration of CO2 being in a constant state of flux (always tending towards stability, but rarely being there), and although mankind is partly responsible for the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 we’re currently seeing, another source is the warming oceans. Because of Henry’s Law, I suggest that the warming oceans have the bigger impact of the two. If it was just anthropogenic CO2 that was adding to the atmosphere, I expect that natural flux forces (like photosynthesis, rain, even cooling oceans in the future) would cause the net flux to change directions more more quickly and at at a greater rate than the warmists tell us it has to be.

      I suggest that if man was to suddenly stop burning hydrocarbons, the atmospheric level of CO2 would not suddenly start dropping at a high rate, and might even keep on rising. NOT because of the very long mean retention time that warmists warn us about, but because the warming ocean surfaces will continue to release CO2 as per Henry’s Law, maintaining a net flux in the same direction.

      Appreciate your response. Thanks.

      • Entropic man says:

        Russ

        Regrettably the equilibrium between CO2 in the air and in the ocean is complicated.

        Henry’s Law identifies two relevant variables.

        All else being equal, as the water temperature rises less CO2 can be dissolved . Thus global warming would cause CO2 to come out of solution and move from the oceans to the atmosphere.

        All else being equal, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the ocean increases with the concentration of CO2 in the air above it. Thus our CO2 emissions would cause more CO2 to move from the air into the ocean.

        At present the second effect is the larger, so the oceans are taking up CO2, though as the oceans warm they will take up less.

        There is an extra effect. CO2 does not spend long in solution.

        It reacts with water to form carbonic acid.

        CO2 + H2O H2CO3

        This then dissociates to hydrogen ions and bicarbonate ions.

        H2CO3 H+ + HCO3-

        The H+ ions reduce pH. This makes the oceans less alkaline/more acid.(Doesn’t matter which term you use, they mean the same)

        This chain is reversible. Higher temperatures, lower pH and lower atmospheric CO2 favour turning HCO3- into CO2. Lower temperatures, higher pH and higher atmospheric CO2 favour HCO3- formation.

        In the short term the news is good, The oceans continue to take up CO2. In the long term the news is bad. As the ocean pH drops,(known in the trade as ocean acidification) their capacity for CO2 decreases. Eventually they will stop absorbing. Atmospheric CO2 and it’s warming effect will increase more rapidly.

  54. CO2isLife says:

    Hate to Say I Told You So, But I Told You So

    Here on CO2isLife weve been making a couple of predictions. The first was that the record high temperatures that the climate alarmists were celebrating as proof of their theory, were, in fact, an anomaly caused by a natural phenomenon called an El Nino, and that once that natural event ended, temperatures would plummet. That is in fact what has been happening.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/hate-to-say-i-told-you-so-but-i-told-you-so/

    • barry says:

      What amusing arrogance. Everybody knows that el Ninos increase average global surface temps while in effect. And everyone acknowledged that el Nino contributed to warmer temps in 2015/16.

      What’s a good term for a particularly shabby straw man? A scarecrow?

      So I read one of your links – oh my goodness.

      The climate alarmists simply seem to start with the conclusion that CO2 is the cause, and never bother to look for any natural causes.

      This kind of guff is so obviously, demonstrably, wildly wrong it’s hard to believe someone is still saying it.

      IPCC have entire sections on paleoclimate, for example. Climate studies (which support IPCC reports) include the sun, volcanism, ENSO effects (which you’ve just mentioned), ocean/atmosphere oscillations, monsoons, tropical storms, clouds, and a host of other natural factors. The climate literature is jam-packed with this stuff.

      I’m going to take a wild guess that you have not even looked at the chapters of IPCC reports to see if maybe you’re wrong. Even the laziest skeptic should do that little.

      IPCC 2007 – Ch 6 – Paleoclimate

      For example.

      …never bother to look for any natural causes.

      Good grief.

      • h r cummings says:

        Barry

        the whole point of IPCC is prove/confirm man made global warming (note not climate change) and its dangers so can one really expect a fair call.

        HC

    • barry says:

      That’s pretty much irrelevant to the point. CO2isLife says that climate scientists never look at natural causes. That is patently, gob-smackingly wrong. How else do they do attribution studies?

      This point is irrelevant to whatever is concluded by looking at such studies. The fact is natural causes are a major feature of climate science. That’s why we have large numbers of researchers examining paleoclimate, solar fluctuations, ocean/atmosphere oscillations, volcanism, clouds etc, whose work is relied on by climate science, including the IPCC. I can literally cite thousands of papers that examine natural causes of climate change that have nothing to do with AGW. The first few thousand would come from papers examining climate change before the birth of humankind. No AGW there.

  55. Mike Flynn says:

    barry,

    You wrote –

    “Everybody knows that el Ninos increase average global surface temps while in effect.”

    Oh well, that’s settled then. Hopefully, it’s a little more reliable than everybody knowing that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    Do you think everybody knows that the greenhouse has precisely nothing to do with greenhouses?

    Cheers.

  56. Dan Pangburn says:

    When you understand this:

    1) Essentially all absorbed outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy is thermalized.
    2) Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
    3) Emission from a gas is quantized and depends on the energy of individual molecules.
    4) This energy is determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
    5) The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution favors lower energy (longer wavelength) photons.
    6) Water vapor exhibits many (170+) of these longer wavelength bands.
    7) The Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution in atmospheric gas molecules effectively shifts the OLR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to the lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor.
    8) As altitude increases (to about 10 km) the temperature declines, magnifying the effect.

    You should realize why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.

    Further discussion of this with graphs and links to source data are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com which also identifies the factors which do cause climate change (98% match 1895-2016).

    • Norman says:

      Dan Pangburn

      I am reading your material but I do have one question. Why would not reverse thermalization work on CO2 as well as H2O.

      If you look at this link:
      http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

      You can put in water vapor and carbon dioxide and plot a graph based upon the abundance of each gas in the atmosphere over any wavelength you want to examine. The plot show that carbon dioxide intensity is in the range of H2O. Try your own and see what you think.

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest854685413.png

      • Norman says:

        Dan Pangburn

        This graph shows the emissivity of each gas based upon partial pressure and path length.

        http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf

        The next link is an article that shows how much each gas contributes to atmospheric emission.

        http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Nor – That 1971 paper appears to perceive that radiation from a gas is in accordance with Planck spectrum and Stephan-Boltzmann (T^4) law. Gas molecules radiate according to their absorb/emit bands and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy of individual molecules.

      • Norman says:

        Dan Pangburn

        This graph might be a good one to show the contribution of CO2 and H2O

        http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest269923029.png

        H2O does emit considerably more than CO2 but CO2 is not rendered insignificant. The AGW may not be that great. But it certainly would look more than insignificant.

        It can be swamped by other effects.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Nor – That link did not work for me.

          I intentionally us the weasel word ‘insignificant’ because I cannot be certain that it is zero. Whatever it is, I am certain that it does no harm and there is substantial evidence that it is doing a lot of good (more food). The planet is still impoverished for CO2 as shown graphically in Fig 7 of my analysis.

          So why has average global temperature (AGT) been increasing? The top-down approach as used in my analysis (strongly influenced by Dr. Roy and Lord M although Im not so sure they like the idea) identifies the three factors that matter and matches reported measurements 98% 1895-2016.

          Water vapor molecules have more than 170 absorb/emit bands at lower energy levels than the single OLR band for CO2 and there are about 35 times as many WV molecules as CO2 molecules.

          NASA/RSS has been measuring & reporting WV content of the atmosphere (Total Precipitable Water, TPW) since about 1987. It is increasing at about 1.5% per decade. With my extrapolation, that amounts to about 8% increase since the more rapid increase began, about 1960 (Fig. 3). This is more than 2.5 times what it would be based on temperature increase alone (feedback). This WV increase is countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring. Declining net effect of ocean cycles since 2005, declining solar activity dropping below ‘breakeven’ in early 2016.

          Preventing the temperature decline is a good thing but the added WV is certainly exacerbating the risk of flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dykes, etc.) should be upgraded from 100 yr floods to 10,000 yr floods.

          My analysis has Links to this stuff.

  57. ren says:

    These charts represent forecasts of Mean Sea Level Pressure (MSLP) and Wind speed at 850 hPa all from the ECMWF high resolution forecast (HRES).
    http://stream.ecmwf.int/data/atls12/data/data03/scratch/render-atls12-98f536083ae965b31b0d04811be6f4c6-xGO7dE.png

  58. CO2isLife says:

    Congress Should Investigate the Peer Review and Publication Process

    It is almost unfathomable to believe that a survey performed through a simple search of journal article performed by a researcher with an Anti-Trump book in the works can be justification for spending TRILLIONS of US taxpayers dollars.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/congress-should-investigate-the-peer-review-and-publication-process/

  59. barry says:

    It is almost unfathomable to believe that a survey performed through a simple search of journal article performed by a researcher with an Anti-Trump book in the works can be justification for spending TRILLIONS of US taxpayers dollars.

    So unfathomable it’s not even true.

    Points 2 and 3 in your article are simply not true. There are a few skeptics around who don’t believe in the enhanced GHG effect. They are concentrated in but hardly limited to the Principia Scientific website.

    “When it comes to temperatures or CO2, the future research should be to treat the two as a completely different and not connected topics.”

    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-DARKO-Virtual_vs_Reality.pdf

    • Mike Flynn says:

      barry,

      I believe most scientists believed in the luminiferous ether. It didn’t make any difference. The luminiferous ether still doesn’t exist.

      Many climatologists (and their supporters) believe in the GHE. Whether the percentage is 1% or 100% is irrelevant. Just as the luminiferous ether, the GHE doesn’t exist. No amount of religious fervour can make the non-existent become real.

      Just look at comments here. It seems that the claim is that increasing the amount of CO2 between a surface thermometer and the Sun, will cause the temperature of the thermometer to rise. Nonsensical, I know, but nobody seems to be able to express precisely what the GHE hypothesis is – in testable terms.

      I understand why GHE believers attack so-called skeptics, in ways ranging – from implying opponents are racist, politically incorrect, and part of some conspiracy funded by invisible manipulators, to calls for imprisonment or even perhaps discharging firearms in their direction.

      Surely a reproducible scientific experiment would be more effective in silencing non believers?

      Claiming that the GHE hypothesis cannot be experimentally supported merely shows that the GHE hypothesis is poorly framed – if indeed it can be framed in any way that does not appear completely nonsensical.

      Many people believe Uri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind, but I don’t.

      I don’t believe in unicorns either.

      Cheers.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “I believe most scientists believed in the luminiferous ether.”

        Ah but there is a difference. Many things have been believed at various times (like ether, stationary continents, flat earth …). But they were ‘believed’ because they were a simple answer that fit with the available data of the time (or ‘lack of data’ as the case may be).

        The basic physics of the greenhouse effect can be stated easily. For example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246083

        This is ‘believed’ not due to any lack of data or lack of better hypothesis. It is ‘believed’ because it is 100% compatible with all of the accepted laws of thermodynamics.

    • barry says:

      Well there you go, CO2isLife. You have a skeptic that doesn’t believe in the enhanced GHE right above this post.

      They are numerous.

      So the point on your website:

      Strawman #4: Skeptics deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas effect and its ability to cause global warming. No one, not even the most skeptical skeptic denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can cause some warming.

      Needs amending.

      Will you please talk to Mike Flynn? He might listen to you.

    • barry says:

      He doesn’t even believe in the GHE effect. Any chance you’ll correct him CO2isLife?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        It’s not a matter of who agrees with whom. There is no GHE. There is not even a GHE effect, let alone an enhanced GHE effect.

        It doesn’t matter whether you believe that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or even if Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate. Facts are facts.

        Facts are not determined by vote. Science is not a matter of consensus. Either you can make a thermometer hotter by putting CO2 between it and the Sun, or you can’t. And of course you can’t!

        Telling people that fantasy is a satisfactory substitute for fact appeals to the gullible, the deluded, and the mentally deficient. Keep trying. Even former supporters are starting to question the reason that nobody can even produce a testable GHE hypothesis!

        Cheers.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          To turn the tables, Mike, you are now definitely claiming there is NOT greenhouse effect. To make such a claim, you must have tested some hypothesis and found it to be incorrect.

          So what is the hypothesis that you considered, and what convinced you that it is wrong?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            TIm, the GHE “hypothesis” is debunked by the UAH graph above of global anomalies. And, by the “unadjusted” surface temps.

            No, you can’t see it. That’s why you need to get those worms out of your head.

            (Didn’t the ministry work out for you? Back so soon?)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            For what its worth, here is my (approximate, non-mathematical) statement of “the greenhouse effect”.

            Suppose you have a surface (like the earth) that is exposed to EM radiation from a hot source (like the sun). That surface in turn can radiate EM radiation to cool surroundings (like space). Further suppose you have a material that is (relatively) transparent to the incoming EM radiation and is (relatively) opaque to the outgoing EM radiation (like H2O & CO2).

            If such a material were placed between the surface and the surroundings (like the atmosphere), then the equilibrium surface temperature would be higher than it would be without the material.

            PS g*e*r*a*n, you are describing a much more complex issue of how the greenhouse effect COMBINES with OTHER effects to produce the actual climate on earth. No one claims the greenhouse effect is the ONLY factor affecting global climate. But no one should claim it is not a factor at all!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, you “arrange” your scenario to fit your belief system. You build a simple model that approximates the Earth/atmosphere system, but you neglect the realities. You are correct about the warming effect of the Sun in this model, but you seem to confuse “transient” with “equilibrium”. Of course the Sun can warm the Earth system. And, of course heat transfer occurs in the atmosphere.

            But, such a weak model can easily promote pseudoscience. It is important that people understand:

            “cold” does not warm “hot”;
            ice can not bake a turkey;
            the atmosphere does not “trap heat”;
            a hand held IR thermometer reading sky temperatures does not prove the sky is heating the planet;
            photons of differing wavelengths do not add;
            the atmosphere is not a “blanket”;
            the Sun’s irradiance can not raise Earth’s temperature to 800,000K;
            etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G*, I am proposing a simple bit of physics. A rather undeniable bit of physics. Greenhouse gases warm the earth. I suppose that means “physics” is my “belief system” for understanding global warming.

            Yes, simplified models can cause misunderstanding. But denying the physics of simple models leads to even greater misunderstanding.

            Yes, reality is more complicated. But none of your “clarifications” are about reality. They are about semantics. they are about the twisted misunderstandings of pseudoscientists.

            * cool can *help* warm hot (when it replaces something even colder)
            * only deluded anti-scientists make claims about ice cooking turkeys.
            * the atmosphere DOES absorb IR from the ground that would otherwise escape to space. “Trapping” is not the ideal word, but it s not actually that bad.
            * the IR thermometer DOES show the air helps keep the planet warm.

            Etc.

            Your objections sometimes are reasonable when narrowly interpreted. But (IMHO) your list of objections are much more confusing and misleading than my simplified greenhouse effect model.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “But (IMHO) your list of objections are much more confusing and misleading than my simplified greenhouse effect model.’

            Exactly Tim, it is your opinion. And, in pseudoscience, opinions outweigh facts every time.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “And, in pseudoscience, opinions outweigh facts every time.”

            Again, you miss the mark badly. In discussions, opinions are interesting. In discussions, you learn by considering the opinions of others and seeing what you can learn. You seem to be arguing that YOUR opinions should outweigh MY opinions. That my opinions are pseudoscience, but your opinions are science — illogical and inconsistent!

            When I consider your ‘opinions’ as presented in your list, I find it interesting mostly because it is misleading in a very specific way. Your whole list encourages the idea that the atmosphere does not help warm the ground. This is simply false.

            In fact, it seems that you agree with the basic physics of my “greenhouse effect hypothesis” — that in the simple scenario adding the ‘cool material’ above the ‘warm surface’ can and does lead to the surface becoming warmer than before.

            Or “cool warms warm”. There are lots of more technical ways to say this and lots of details that could be added, but there is absolutely nothing incorrect or misleading about this statement with regards to the impact of the cool atmosphere on the warm earth. This is not pseudoscience.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim states: Your whole list encourages the idea that the atmosphere does not help warm the ground. This is simply false.

            No, it’s true. The atmosphere does NOT warm the planet. Consider the atmosphere as a thermodynamic control volume (CVA). Consider the planet itself as a thermodynamic control volume (CVE). If you believe CVA can warm CVE, then you do not understand physics.

            Tim states: In fact, it seems that you agree with the basic physics of my greenhouse effect hypothesis that in the simple scenario adding the cool material above the warm surface can and does lead to the surface becoming warmer than before.

            No, that is your “rewrite” of what I wrote. It is your “confirmation bias” speaking for you. The “worm” in your head. You read what you want to read.

            Tim states: Or cool warms warm. There are lots of more technical ways to say this and lots of details that could be added, but there is absolutely nothing incorrect or misleading about this statement with regards to the impact of the cool atmosphere on the warm earth. This is not pseudoscience.

            No Tim, sadly it is pseudoscience. It is absolutely incorrect and misleading to claim that a cool atmosphere can warm the Earth.

          • Ball4 says:

            “No Tim, sadly it is pseudoscience. It is absolutely incorrect and misleading to claim that a cool atmosphere can warm the Earth.”

            Only if the tests presented by Dr. Spencer are ignored or not well understood, as in your case anger.

            If not, show us a test supporting your opinion anger, not just assertion.

            The brightness T of the planet is observed as ~255K from orbit, the planet surface T is observed as ~288K by thermometer. The only thing in between is the atm.

            The physics demonstrated for this in the actual tests Dr. Spencer performed.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Ball4, you talk in circles.

            The “test” Dr. Roy presents is revealed in the graph at the start of his post here. If you had any appreciation for the scientific method, you could study the graph and find some significant flaws in the AGW hoax.

          • gbaikie says:

            It seems the hypothesis to consider is the idea that the existence or addition of greenhouse house gases to an atmosphere will cause the average temperature of a planet which is warmed by a star to have a higher average temperature.
            Or the removal of greenhouse gases from such a planet would cause a lower global average temperature.

            To make such a claim, you must be able to measure the average temperature of a planet so as to be able to determine if it’s temperature has increased or decreased.

            One must also have some means of isolating the effects of any warming or cooling influences which not due to greenhouse gases. Though some believers might consider that all warming and cooling of Earth average temperature is caused by greenhouse gases. Or it’s known to me that a small group claim that without CO2, Earth would have average temperature of -18 C.
            And it seems to me that a simple greenhouse which could not have any greenhouse gases involved with it, can be used to disprove this idea. Not by measurably warm the planet, but rather measurably warm the air within the greenhouse.

            And I should note in passing that greenhouse effect {GHE or enhanced GHE] is not the same as the effect of an actual greenhouse.

            And there other factor which can cause warming or cooling.
            For instance glacial ice building up in region is considered to be a cooling effect- and ice is not a gas. Erupted volcanic dust is also considered to have a global cooling effect- also not a gas.

            But Tim I don’t want to put words in your mouth, since you appear to advocate this rather old idea, why don’t you provide the exact and modern hypothesis which in your opinion must be proven or disproven.

            [[Or the person known to have began the idea had hypothesis regarding what caused the geologically recent glacial and interracial periods- ie, he thought it had to do with the trace gas, CO2, and also expressed the idea that a warming world would obviously be a better world. [I guess he knew something about history. And not fan of living under a mile if ice] ]]

          • Ball4 says:

            anger asserts: “you could study the graph and find some significant flaws in the AGW hoax.”

            Well, then fill us in anger. Cite testing. Cite numbers from top post.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Ball4, you want numbers? You want numbers when you adhere, without questioning, to the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation?

            Okay, here’s some numbers for you to play with, in your pseudoscience:

            7.2 degrees
            92.734 Watts/sq.m.
            2 ppm
            134.225 qt
            107 Sieverts

            Want more?

          • Ball4 says:

            “You want numbers when you adhere, without questioning, to the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation?”

            No, I want your numbers that you could study the graph and find. The ones that show significant flaws in the AGW hoax. Like anger wrote. Numbers from testing that anger can cite showing us nature’s results.

            When we all know anger really has nothing or would lay out the case.

            Should be pretty simple for such an accomplished commenter as anger. And there is no bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation either, anger just makes that up, asserts without cite, a common useless anger practice.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I tried to get Davie to own up to the bogus CO2 equation, but he fled.

            Are you a believer in the equation?

            (That question is formatted for a straight-forward “yes or no” answer. Let’s see how much spin you can add.)

          • Ball4 says:

            I’m a believer in proper test and observation of nature anger, show me those. What eqn. are you trying to discuss?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            (BTW, if Davie is watching, I just checked and he did not really flee. He was just a day late answering. But, his “answer” was just another “red herring” questions.

            Ball4, well, that’s not as much spin as usual.

            The equation is the same one Entropic Man has presented down thread.

            ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co)

            So, I will ask again. Do you believe that equation is correct?

          • Ball4 says:

            You are misinformed anger, as usual, that eqn. is not from Arrhenius time, that eqn, is correctly from Myhre 1998 from Earth atm. test data Table 3, only for CO2 not the other well mixed gases which are also listed.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, you’re somewhat correct, but largely uninformed.

            The form of the equation was introduced by Arrhenius.

            ∆f = Kln(C/Co)

            He used the constant instead of the current 5.35. He knew the equation had no scientific value, so he put in the “fudge factor”. To get to the next step, the temperature increase, another fudge factor is introduced.

            With all the fudge factors, you can make the equation work for any temperature!

            It’s called “pseudoscience”.

          • Ball4 says:

            anger, what you write means nothing, useless unless you cite what Arrhenius actually wrote. Myhre 1998 is developed from atm. test data existing at the time, does not even directly cite Arrhenius.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I just wanted you to admit how confused and uninformed you really are Ball4.

            I mean, anyone that believes cabbages glow in the dark…sheeesh!

            Go to the link and scroll down to find the equation. (I think you just got promoted to Pseudoscientist of the Month!)

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

          • Ball4 says:

            Sorry, anger, you are just another victim of a wiki page.

            Don’t feel bad though, this happens all the time. Even in text books. You always have to check the original author writings. Sometimes a trip to the local college library is necessary.

            Arrhenius did not write that formula in his work (you know, go read the original Arrhenius paper on the subject), ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co) originated from atm. test data of the time as I cited below from Myhre et. al. 1998. At which the ref. link on your wiki page points.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Ball4, do you really believe you are fooling anyone but yourself?

            As I explained, the original equation, with the constant, was from Arrhenius. The equation with the value “5.35” was from Myhre.

            You’re wrong again. And now you have to find some way to spin yourself out of your own mess.

            Hilarious!

          • Ball4 says:

            “..the original equation, with the constant, was from Arrhenius.”

            Again, those are angry words not those of Arrhenius. Show us Arrhenius words, angry words are useless.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Ball4, can’t you do anything for yourself?

            I gave you the link. I told you to scroll down. Now, I have to copy/paste for the little puppy?

            In its original form, Arrhenius’ rule reads as follows:

            if the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

            Wrong again, pup!

          • Ball4 says:

            No mention of ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co) anger, you will have to do better and actually find Arrhenius first writing the formula.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, as usual with the pseudoscience types, Ball4 cannot answer a simple “yes or no” question. He has to resort to “red herrings”, obfuscation, and innuendos to mask his ignorance.

            Hilarious!

          • Ball4 says:

            anger asks 4:17pm about: the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation.

            When asked which eqn. 5:27pm, anger claims Arrhenius wrote eqn: ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co)

            When correctly shown that really is a Myhre et. al. eqn. from 1998 atm. test data published about 100 years after Arrhenius, anger obfuscates, dodges to a wiki page that actually correctly references the Myhre 1998 eqn. origination which shows anger actually didnt bother to check his red herring.

            anger flees tossing off innuendo.

            Hilarious, but sad. Turned red by his smoke (& mirrors). Try hand waving too next time anger maybe some other magic will work.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Talking colloquially for a moment, suppose I have a little shed with a heater. On a cold winter night (-30 C air temperature), the heater can only manage to keep the interior of the shed at 5C. A “warm front” move through (-10 C air) and the interior of the shed increase to 15 C. The only change was the exterior air temperature. It is not at all inappropriate to say the warm front ’caused’ the rise from 5C to 15C. Or to say that the changing exterior conditions caused the changing interior temperatures.

            Or I could leave the air @ -30 C and add some insulation. It would be perfectly understandable to say that adding the insulation was the cause of the warmer interior temperatures.

            Sure, the shed would be even colder without the heater. Sure, the shed would not warm from 5C to 15 C without the heater. But the heater is a given. A steady input of heat from the electric heating elements is part of the assumed conditions. In such a situation, the factors affecting the heat OUTflow ’cause’ the temperature to change.

            Similarly, I have no problem saying the atmosphere causes the earth’s surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise. Of course, a continued input from the sun is required.

            [I do have a bit of a problem saying the atmosphere “heated” the ground, because “heat” (“Q”) has a specific technical meaning in thermodynamics. The air is part of ‘warming’ the ground, but it does not technically ‘heat’ the ground — it restricts the heat that is leaving.]

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Ball4, aka “Trick”, tries to trick us again.

            The comments are here for everyone to see.

            Ball4 cannot answer a simple question, but hides behind word tricks.

            Hilarious.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, you are still hung up on “insulation”. You believe that the atmosphere is a “blanket”. You have been deceived.

            To correct your scenario, the shed walls are “active”. They maintain the interior temperature. If the interior temp rises, the walls do whatever it takes to release more heat.

            You need to study how the atmosphere handles heat.

            Hint: The atmosphere does NOT trap heat.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “To correct your scenario, the shed walls are active. They maintain the interior temperature. If the interior temp rises, the walls do whatever it takes to release more heat.”

            So G*, what temperature does the atmosphere try to maintain? 20C? 30C? 0C? 255 K?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim inquires: “So G*, what temperature does the atmosphere try to maintain? 20C? 30C? 0C? 255 K?”

            Tim, don’t try to act like Davie with a bunch of questions that are easily available online.

            Move away from pseudoscience. The atmosphere is NOT a blanket. People that try to foist that concept only reveal that they do not understand quantum physics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, and the gas laws.

            The atmosphere is an amazing system that displays many laws of physics. You should learn to appreciate it.

        • Norman says:

          Mike Flynn

          You ask for evidence of a GHE. Have you looked at Hottel’s empirical study of H2O and CO2 and found there emissivity based upon path length and partial pressure of the gas involved?

          Fossil fuel power plants use his empirical data to calculate heat exchange in boiler furnaces.

          You can deny science but it is only your opinion. I think you have one strong supporter g*e*r*a*n but he is not very logical and twists what people say and reaches false conclusions all the time about science and what posters post so I would think he is a very poor supporter.

          Not sure why you hate science so much Mike. The evidence is all around but you ignore and deny it. Why? You have actual empirical measurements of downwelling IR. You have empirical measurements of IR emitted from the surface that is much larger value than what is leaving the atmosphere above (what is happening to this energy with your understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics).

          You can find all the information you want if you go to the CERES web site and look at their many graphs of radiant energy. I can not make you look but if you like science at all you will and you will open your mind to a reality you seem to deny no matter what evidence is presented to you.

          Why are you so obsessed with denying reality and empirical data? I know g*e*r*a*n will always deny reality because he is just a troll that gains pleasure from annoying posters. I am hoping you are a little different, not sure if you are yet or not. I hope you are not like the troll g*e*r*a*n.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nice ramble, Norm.

            I’m glad you never had a course in physics. Your pseudoscience is much more hilarious that way.

            Norm’s pseudoscience: “The energy leaves the system, but the energy does not leave the system”.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            As always and predictably you are wrong and clueless with only purpose in life to annoy.

            I did take college physics for one semester and also was top student in High School physics. What led you to a false conclusion that I never took a physics course?? Oh I forgot it is you and you always twist and distort reality to try an annoy. I guess you figure if you make up an untrue statement it will annoy me.

            Like I said in another post, I think there are Specialists that can help resolve your issues that make you want to annoy people. I do not have enough training to help you, sorry. I did take a Semester of Psychology and Sociology but I don’t have enough knowledge to help you overcome your inner demons.

            Like I stated in my post to Mike Flynn. I hope he does not suffer from your delusions of grandeur and your uncontrollable need to twist and distort what people post.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I think I spent about 20 useless posts explaining how you got what I stated wrong and then correcting what I was saying.

            YOU: “Norms pseudoscience: The energy leaves the system, but the energy does not leave the system.

            Kind of pointless to spend another 30 posts explaining this to you when you really do not care and have these mental issues that thankfully not many other posters suffer. I think you might be about the only one that is such an intentionally annoying poster. I see how you respond to others and it is all the same. You provide no information, just twist and distort someone’s posts and try and annoy them.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, was that “college” physics course at the same school you got a chemistry degree from that does not offer a chemistry degree?

            Did you take a physics course from a school that does not offer a physics course?

            That might explain your addition to pseudoscience.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You never did check on Midland Lutheran College in the 1980’s with what degrees they offered. I don’t need to convince you of anything. If you want to lie and deceive, fine, that is your nature. If you want the truth spend some time, do some real research, email them and ask if they offered a BA in Chemistry in the 1980’s. You can also ask them if they had a Chemistry Professor at that time that went by the name Dr. Bunck. Believe what you need to, it is what you do with science.

            In your fantasy world that you dwell in pseudo-science is empirical data. Things that are actually measured are not real to you.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, as usual, you entirely miss the point. How many people have a “meaningful” degree from an institution that no longer offers that degree?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            No I do not understand your point. Can you elaborate?

            YOU: “How many people have a meaningful degree from an institution that no longer offers that degree?”

            I don’t follow your point at all. But you do accuse me of making up phony information about myself. Not sure why you make such accusations.

            Here is a picture of the Chemistry Instructor I had.
            http://fremonttribune.com/fremont-area-united-way-kick-off/image_a78fbe8c-03f0-11e2-92df-0019bb2963f4.html

            Steve Bunck

            And here is an article that confirms for you he was an instructor at Midland Lutheran College (the name it had when I attended).

            http://fremonttribune.com/midland-college-to-observe-th-anniversary-of-man-s-first/article_bf0811d0-8e3a-5c87-8df2-be372d75b34a.html

            From article: “Three other Midland instructors, Steve Bunck, Greg Clements and Ronald Johnson will be on campus Tuesday to help with the viewing.”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm asks: “Can you elaborate?”

            Hint–A person with a weak academic background should not be quick to judge the qualifications of others.

      • gbaikie says:

        So Mike Flynn does not believe in GHE effect or the enhanced GHE effect. And is there any way to encourage him in having such a faith?

        Is the GHE effect equal in all places on Earth?
        For example is there more GHE effect in the tropics as compared to Temperate zones.

        And related to above, does enhanced GHE effect and/or GHE effect make the ground surface or water surface warmer. Or Does *more* GHE effect or more enhanced GHE effect make the surface [not “air surface”] hotter.
        Different question, does more GHE effect or enhanced GHE effect make surface air temperature hotter than compared when there is less GHE effect or enhanced GHE effect?
        Or if there were places with more enhanced GHE effect are they also typically the hottest places on Earth?

  60. ren says:

    The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it is already built into the computer models that are used to try and forecast our climate.
    But there are still some uncertainties. Changes in the ultraviolet portion of the Sun’s output over a solar cycle can be much greater and can deposit energy in the stratosphere – at altitudes above 10km. How this energy influences our weather and climate in the lower atmosphere is still not clear, but there is growing evidence that during periods of low solar activity, atmospheric “blocking” events are more prevalent. These blocking episodes comprise extensive and almost stationary anti-cyclones in the eastern Atlantic that can last for several weeks, hindering the flow of the jet stream and leading to colder winters in the UK and Europe.

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-iceage.html#jCp

    • ren says:

      Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.
      “We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.
      Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.
      Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

      Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html#jCp

      • gbaikie says:

        “Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.”

        Hmm, loosely or metaphorically, the Sun’s dynamo is the Sun and one call a second dynamo it’s moon.
        Of course moons don’t travel within an atmosphere or ocean and it might be [metaphorically] like drops of water on hot frying pan- skittering across frying pan in what appear a friction less movement. And how fast does the second dynamo travel within the sun’s atmosphere/ocean/mantel.
        I guess I look at the link and see what they claim.
        Reminds of wild idea of the sun [or stars] spitting out planets, but anyhow, I personally, have “always wondered” what happen when the larger [largest] space rocks hit the Sun.

  61. The global cooling is now starting to take place as solar values continue to weaken.

    Look for a more -AO especially this next winter ,look for sea surface temperatures to fall overall, look for an increase in major volcanic activity, and an increase in global cloud coverage, snow coverage ,and sea ice coverage.

    Upshot higher albedo ,cooler global temperatures coming on.

    Finally the moment of truth is upon us.

  62. GHE is real but I maintain it is the result of the climate in contrast to mainstream saying the climate is the result of the GHE.

    We will soon find out.

    • Snape says:

      Salvatore

      We will no nothing because, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is what your doing.

      • SNAPE -if the temp. fall to below the 30 year means at the very least do you not think that would prove AGW is false?

        Forget about if I am correct or not.

        • Snape says:

          Salvatore

          There is natural variation in global temperatures. If a monthly anomaly value is -0.08 , how do we know it would not have been -0.48 in the absence of rising GHG’s?

          This is why we look at *long term trends*!!! When the long term trend becomes nearly flat or negative, I will trade in my Prius for a Suburban.

          • Snape says:

            If my cat kept predicting a cool down, eventually he would be right.

          • I say let’s see what happens and go from there.

          • according to AGW theory temperatures are suppose to keep rising, no cool downs.

          • Snape says:

            Salvatore

            Nonsense!

            AGW theory predicts a LONG TERM WARMING TREND of the surface/lower troposphere. We will always have periods of ups, downs and sideways.

            This is expected. It is predicted. It is inevitable. The planet could warm 5 deg.C and there would still be short term cooling trends.

          • Snape says:

            Salvatore

            When you say, “let’s see what happens?” Do you mean, “let’s see what happens to the long term trend”?

            If that’s the case, I totally agree.

          • Ball4 says:

            “AGW theory predicts a LONG TERM WARMING TREND of the surface/lower troposphere.”

            Due to one component CO2 ppm with the 8+ others held ~steady. For that one RF component, results decline logarithmically with +ppm.

            Overall TLT could show long term cooling attributed to any one or combination of 8+ other radiative forcings. AGW theory & test not shown wrong in any way if that happens.

            Salvatore’s long history is to just write he hadn’t counted on the other _____ factor (fill in the blank) and/or _____ natural cycle (fill in the blank). Undoubtedly he will ignore any other factor changing the trend down. As do many.

      • Snape says:

        Oops. Know not no

  63. barry says:

    Its not a matter of who agrees with whom.

    That’s right, it;s a matter of disagreement between skeptics and thei true motivations.

    As CO2isLife believes in the GHE and you don’t, I know it is good as a fact that that CO2isLife won’t debate the point with you, because their take is based on politics, not truth.

    So CO2isLife will say nothing because your view helps the political cause.

    Skeptics rarely argue with each other because they are not interested in the truth, only in winning the politics.

    I like to test whether ‘skeptics’ will debate their disagreements, and they never disappoint. Ever. Truth doesn’t matter to them.

    • Snape says:

      Barry

      If liberals were skeptical of climate change, Rush Limbaugh would be a “warmist”.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Warmists rarely argue with each other because they are not interested in the truth, only in winning the politics.

      I like to test whether Warmists will debate their disagreements, and they never disappoint. Ever. Truth doesnt matter to them.

      There barry, I fixed it for you.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        People rarely argue with people who agree with them.

        There … fixed it for everyone.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Indeed!

        • barry says:

          Not only do I argue with people who agree with me on other stuff, I also sometimes argue for the opposite of my own perspective, because that is what a skeptic does – challenges their own opinions by fully understanding counter arguments. If you can’t accurately articulate the converse, then you do not understand it.

          In a dialog where comprehension and truth is the driving force rather than ‘winning,’ intellectually rigorous and honest participants should be able to fearlessly and accurately argue the opposite case. What usually happens in the semi-popular climate debates is that the counter-proposition is caricatured and otherwise misrepresented by opponents. Because winning is more important than truth.

          Extracting a logical signal from all the fallacious noise takes a fair bit of discipline. Disciplining oneself to contribute more of the former takes even more discipline, it seems.

    • Snape says:

      Barry,

      I’m not sure if you saw this but Norman was able to help with my question.

      I asked:
      “Why are these molecules (nitrogen/oxygen) dispersed above earths surface as air instead of lying in a big pile on the ground?

      Norman replied:
      “The answer would be perfectly elastic collisions. The nitrogen molecule would be pulled down by gravity bu convert it potential energy to kinetic energy. When it hits the surface it bounces back up with no loss of internal energy to the surface so it goes back to its original height.

      In our atmosphere the molecules all have considerable kinetic energy and when they collide with other molecules all the collisions are perfectly elastic. The molecules can exchange energy (some get faster, others slower) but the total energy is not lost as with larger groupings of molecules (such as a bouncing ball, it does not have a perfectly elastic collision, some of the energy of deformation turns into internal energy).”

      Reply

      • barry says:

        Yes, I saw that. I’ve read in many places that atmospheric turbulence is what keeps gases aloft. Our different points of view may not be mutually exclusive. Norman knows more about physics than I.

        • Snape says:

          Right. There was lots of information about how a nitrogen molecule behaves in the atmosphere, but almost nothing about how it would behave in the absence of an atmosphere. David replied, “wind”. You replied, “turbulence”. It was very annoying! Lol!

          • barry says:

            I find this confusing. The atmosphere is gases. In the absence of an atmosphere there are no gases. Your question appears to me to be straightly self-contradictory.

            Do you mean, for example – what would a single nitrogen atom do on the moon?

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            Yes. That’s what I meant. You wouldn’t call just one or two molecules an “atmosphere”.

            – In my thought experiment, I didn’t want the individual molecule to bump into other molecules on the way to the ground.

            – the question I originally asked myself was, “if air keeps a balloon aloft, what keeps air aloft?”

            – your answer, “atmospheric turbulence” didn’t make sense because it seemed to defy gravity. After all, would a trillion tennis balls remain aloft just because they were bouncing against each other?

            -The clue I was missing was “perfect elasticity”. If, in a vacuum, you let go a nitrogen molecule, it would fall to the ground and bounce all the way back up to where it started. It would never come to rest.

            *in our atmosphere, nitrogen atoms are bound together in pairs (Na). That’s why I used the term “nitrogen molecule”.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Not to overly complicate things, but a better model would have the molecules rebounding from the ground with varying energies as they collided with the “thermal reservoir” of the ground. The N2 molecules would leave a distribution of energies — the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.

            This extra detail is important for more detailed calculations with kinetic theory.

          • Snape says:

            Tim

            Thanks. Unfortunately my understanding of physics and chemistry could be described as “science for kids”. I couldn’t do a detailed calculation if my life depended on it.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Tim Folkerts says:
            May 9, 2017 at 10:37 AM

            Not to overly complicate things,…–

            That is what I am thinking.

            On Earth the average velocity of air molecules is a bit faster
            than the speed of sound. One could say the average velocity of air molecules controls the speed of sound.
            The temperature of the air affects/controls the speed of sound- cooler air slower speed of sound, warmer air temperature, the faster speed of sound.

            And the average velocity of air molecules is the temperature of the air. Or the kinetic energy of gas molecule is the temperature of the air. Or Kinetic energy = 1/2 Mass x velocity squared.
            Air molecules are perfectly elastic collisions- unless they doing things which use/need energy- such as chemical reactions or changing from gas to liquid or solid [or plasma].
            Or water vapor does change from gas to liquid or solid in our atmosphere and can’t be said the always involved in perfectly elastic collisions.
            Or one can say according to Idea Gas Law air molecules are perfectly elastic collisions. And according the Idea Gas Law
            water gas molecules can be sticky- the kinetic energy of water vapor can added to or removed. But gas molecules of Nitrogen or Oxygen don’t condense within normal temperature and pressure of Earth’s atmosphere- or in Earth atmosphere they are Ideal gases and water vapor isn’t.

            All atoms/molecules have perfectly elastic collisions but with gases the atoms/molecule are moving, whereas in comparison with solids and liquid atoms/molecules are held together by molecular structures. If gas molecule hits a brick, it has a perfectly elastic collision.

            Now at sea level elevation [or in entire troposphere of earth] one has a lot of molecules within 1 centimeter cube volume of air- roughly ^19 [billions of billions] and they have average velocity of about 500 m/s [faster than speed of sound]. And a or any molecule can’t go anywhere- because billion of billions of other molecule have a chance to hit it.
            If there was a lot less gas molecules in a cube cm, or if a gas molecule was travel a lot faster, it could have a chance of moving say 1 cm distance, before being hit by another gas molecule. And hitting another gas molecule will change the direction it is traveling.
            So, a or any gas molecule at sea level elevation is changing the direction it’s traveling, somewhere around billion times per second, on average. Or it do not travel someplace, though it does travel someplace if a crowd of molecules are going somewhere.

            Now all these collisions have an average velocity AND they average the velocity of the molecule in terms of their kinetic energy. Or less massive molecule “needs” to travel at higher velocity than a more massive molecule to have same average kinetic energy. So H2 is less massive as compared to N2, so Nitrogen gas has lower average velocity and Hydrogen gas has higher average velocity.

          • Snape says:

            Gbaikie

            Interesting. I’m not sure how much of that relates to the question, “if air keeps a balloon aloft, what keeps air aloft? , but interesting nonetheless.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m wrong, it’s not wind — it’s pressure, counterbalancing gravity, at least hydrostatically.

            “Why Doesn’t the Atmosphere Fall to the Ground?”
            http://www.pdas.com/nofall.html

          • Snape says:

            David

            I read your link about air molecules and hydrostatic pressure, but am not sure how that relates to what I wrote:

            “The clue I was missing was perfect elasticity. If, in a vacuum, you let go a nitrogen molecule, it would fall to the ground and bounce all the way back up to where it started. It would never come to rest.”

            *(This was based on an earlier explanation by Norman.)

          • Snape says:

            No need to reply, I think I’ll let it go.

          • gbaikie says:

            “.. Im not sure how much of that relates to the question, if air keeps a balloon aloft, what keeps air aloft? , but interesting nonetheless.”

            Same way a boat floats- buoyancy.
            A boat made from steel can float if it displaces the same amount of weight of water as the boat [and cargo].

            Gas can resemble a liquid. One pour cooler pure CO2 gas. You can pour it into say a cup and it would “fill” the cup.
            Eventually, it mixes with the air but it could take a while.

            In order for a balloon to float it needs to displace enough air so it’s gross weight equals the weight of volume of the surrounding air.
            Air at sea level and say 20 C weighs about 1.2 kg per cubic
            meter. Trapped [by the balloom] warm air is less dense than cooler surrounding air. It could be say, .9 kg per cubic meter. So if had 1000 cubic meter displaced by balloon, it can lift 300 Kg.
            And as said before with hydrogen [or helium] molecules travel faster than N2. Or the kinetic energy of surrounding air of balloon [mostly N2] atmosphere in order to equaled it term of kinetic must “make up for it” by having higher velocity- or takes up same volume but is much lighter.
            Or a vacuum balloon doesn’t work because the pressure of atmosphere would crush it,
            And you can also heat up the helium or hydrogen so it displaces more air- or need less of the gas to displace same amount of atmosphere.

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh, what keeps the air up is same as what keeps surface of ocean up- the water below it- and earth crust below the water keep ocean “up”.
            one could say the molecular structure of the water keeps water “up” likewise with air, heat [or the massive amount of kinetic energy] keeps it up. [cool the entire atmosphere and it will drop, like a rock]

          • Snape says:

            Gbaikie

            I thought I had asked a simple question, but the answers I’ve received have included: atmospheric turbulence, kinetic energy, thermal reservoir, perfect elasticity, and hydrostatic pressure.

            Now my head hurts.

  64. Entropic man says:

    Ball4

    “Due to one component CO2 ppm with the 8+ others held ~steady. For that one RF component, results decline logarithmically with +ppm.”

    I have noticed a tendency for sceptics to overestimate the reduction in rate due to the logarithmic effect.

    When you run the numbers you find that each doubling of CO2 concentration produces 15% less warming than the one before.

    Thus the doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm is expected to produce 3C warming. A second doubling to 1120ppm would produce a further 2.55C, a total change for two doubling a of 5.55C.

    Courtesy of WFTT you can see the long term trend of GISTEMP from 1970 on (the red line).

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2018/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2018/every/trend/offset:0.09/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2018/every/trend/offset:-0.09/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2018/every

    The blue and green lines show the uncertainty in the long term trend, +/-0.1C

    Looking at the monthly values (the purple line) you can see that on a timescale of a few months or a year individual measurements can be up to 0.4C above or below the warming trend, but they are temporary and always return to the trend.

    These temporary variations cannot be used to infer that the trend has accelerated or slowed without a longer baseline.

  65. Ball4 says:

    “Thus the doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm is expected to produce 3C warming.”

    Due only to CO2 RF component. Other RF components and natural cycles could make that 0 in overall T (“the pause”) or even negative acting together.

    This sort of est. is all over the place, imo think some predictive value but not at all thoroughly. The Myhre 1998 paper is concise first read on the subject going over the reasons for your numbers and the other IR active gas contributions. The Feldman 2015 paper puts some observed atm. numbers on the CO2 RF component over a decade at 2 observation sites.

  66. Entropic man says:

    Ball4

    The direct impact of doubling CO2 to 560ppm is a forcing equivalent to about 1C. To reach 3C you include another 2C from secondary forcings such as increased water vapour.

    My own calculation for the effect of doubling CO2 to 560ppm uses the Myhre et all 1998 forcing equation ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co).

    I converted this to a temperature change using the IPCC mid-range climate sensitivity of 3.0 and their estimate that 3.7W of forcing produces 1C warming. The direct warming contribution of CO2, ignoring climate sensitivity, is thus

    5.35ln(560/280)/3.7 = 1.002C

    Including climate sensitivity the temperature change for the first doubling is thus

    5.35ln(560/280)3/3.7 = 3.006C

    For two doubling to 1120ppm

    5.35ln(1120/280)3/3.7 = 6.01C

    • Ball4 says:

      Still, you leave out the other 8+ forcings as did Myhre et. al. (“Only the direct forcing from (well mixed greenhouse gas) concentration is considered here.”).

      Not too many (none?) discuss the predictive effects those other 8 or so along with natural cycles will have on global T at the same time. As Snape implies, a cooling trend forced from those others will generate lotsa’ discussion that forgets CO2/wv is not the only game in town.

  67. Entropic man says:

    Ball4

    Excluding CO2 and its secondary forcings there are about eight other natural drivers of climate. These include variations in solar insolation, volcanoes, orbital cycles and ENSO.

    When you add up their combined effect, they almost cancel out, leaving a very slow cooking tendency.

    This leaves increasing CO2 as the only significant current driver of temperature change.

    For a summary graph of the data go to

    http://globalwarmingindex.org

    The blue line is the temperature effect of the combined natural forcings.Orange is the effect of human activity, mostly CO2, and the red line is the combined total for all forcings.The black line is the observed temperature.

    • Ball4 says:

      “We note that the monthly index uncertainty range is +/-0.0013K (95% confidence level).”

      Well, your link must have nailed all of them, I was misinformed.

      Actually, if you want to read up on an author mentioned in the ref. to that index, P. Forster, he was lead author for AR4 discussion of all the RF factors not just CO2 of Myhre, from some 700+ ref.s. To become knowledgeable about the sum total not just Myhre’s focus on one RF, there is a lot of reading ahead:

      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

      Commenters here like to forgo the work involved in what they comment on, and not just the work went into developing the top post graph

  68. Entropic man says:

    Ball4

    Regrettably the suggestion that natural forcings have been ignored is a straw man.

    You can get more detailed values for individual natural and human forcings from Bloomberg here.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

    • Ball4 says:

      The other radiative forcings are not ignored in the literature EM, my point is they are ignored by certain commenters here including you in quoting just the limited Myhre formula.

      It is just too much work to read all the literature for overall global T forcings before commenting. One look at the top post and anyone should be able to see there is way more to the global TLT story than your 5.35ln(560/280)3/3.7 = 3.006C.

    • Bart says:

      Unfortunately, process of elimination only works if you have a closed set of known alternatives from which to choose. Obviously, they haven’t neglected some natural forcings. The question is, what have they neglected?

      • Ball4 says:

        Appears they left off some knowns 1) substantial warming bias from halocarbons and 2) black carbon on snow. Not clear if aerosols included the 3) substantial cooling bias on cloud albedo or just the direct affect, and 4) slight warming of linear contrails.

        As you write, certainly left off the unknown unknowns (Rumsfeld term).

      • David Appell says:

        “The question is, what have they neglected?”

        Ah, yes, the science of unicorns.

      • David Appell says:

        Even if there are overlooked natural forcings (unlikely), CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and it still traps heat and it still warms the atmosphere. That science is rock solid. So any additional forcing has to be evaluated in that climate system.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Even if there are overlooked natural forcings (unlikely), CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and it still traps heat and it still warms the atmosphere. That is rock solid PSEUDOSCIENCE.

          Fixed it fer ya, Davie!

  69. richard varney,
    David Appell believes that CO2 produced by humans dominates “Climate Change”. If that were true the temperature would be rising like Mike Mann’s fraudulent “Hockey Stick.

    Reality is quite different given that global temperature has flatlined for almost 20 years while CO2 has soared. David Appell can’t explain the “Pause” so he quotes fraudulent papers authored by acolytes of Trofim Lysenko. Even the Lame Stream Media could not apply enough lipstick to make this ugly pig attractive:
    http://www.powermag.com/blog/pausebuster-did-noaas-tom-karl-cook-climate-data/

    • Snape says:

      Camel

      The oceans are a giant heat sink. Far more so than the atmosphere. A 20 year uptake in OCH is all that’s needed to explain the pause in atmospheric warming. Do we have a comprehensive (the entire ocean, top to bottom), reliable, monthly, 40 year record for OCH like we do for the lower troposphere?

      Nevertheless, do you understand that this long, “unexplainable” pause is included in the long term trend? And that the long term trend shows significant warming?

      • David Appell says:

        Here are the data on ocean heat content.

        http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco

        Some go back to the late ’50s.

      • gbaikie says:

        Snape, the ocean can cool the atmosphere [by a lot] and the ocean can warm the atmosphere [by a lot].

        The average temperature of the ocean is about 3 C. If mixed the ocean so it has uniform temperature, the surface of the ocean would be 3 C.
        Merely because the ocean covers 70% of the surface area of Earth, if the ocean surface was 3 C, the average global temperature would be about 3 C.
        But that would be the simple version and Earth would [or could] be colder than an average temperature of 3 C.
        For simple reason that the warmth of world’s ocean surface, warms the entire world.
        One might find people [experts”] saying the tropics warms the rest of the world, but it more precise to say the tropical ocean warms the rest of the world. Or deserts in tropics, don’t. Nor do other tropical land masses. And 80% of the tropics is ocean area.
        So if cause the surface of world’s ocean to have uniform temperature of 3 C, than ocean are inhibited in terms warming land area.
        Other factors include inhibting global generation of water evaporation. Though there would be a lot strange stuff happen- or you made the polar waters warmer, and it matter what season it was. A polar winter ocean water would be significantly warmer.

        One could make less complicated if instead of mixing the entire ocean, one had only the tropical ocean mixed- again it’s surface waters would still be around 3 C. And one still would have average global temperature being around 3 C – though perhaps, 4 C. And it still would have very dramatic affects on global weather.

        And if the average temperature of the entire ocean was warmer, than global temperature would be higher. Or world would be more tropical. And Earth in the past has had much higher average ocean temperature than we have now- and had much higher average temperature {and more of the world had tropical conditions]

        • Snape says:

          Gbaikie

          You may have misunderstood me. It’s my opinion that the “hiatus” can be explained by the oceans releasing less heat that usual into the atmosphere. Less heat released means more heat retained, thus greater OHC.

          I thought scientists lacked evidence for this idea because the data on OHC was inadequate. David Appell’s link makes me think I might be wrong about this.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Snape says:
            May 9, 2017 at 10:18 PM

            Gbaikie

            You may have misunderstood me. Its my opinion that the hiatus can be explained by the oceans releasing less heat that usual into the atmosphere. Less heat released means more heat retained, thus greater OHC. —

            Definitely- in the long term. And I mean many centuries.
            Or it would require the ocean to retain more heat for centuries in order to warm the entire ocean [by a small amount].
            But if you are referring retaining more ocean heat in the top 100 meter layer of surface waters- this by itself is something with much shorter term effects [years, decades]

            There is no reason not to expect that Earth’s ocean with not warm in next few thousands years- that is, if the interglacial period continues. Or in the interglacial before this one [Eemian**], the average ocean temperature was a few degrees warmer [and sea level was about 5 meters higher]

            ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

          • Snape says:

            Gbaikie

            Very helpful. Let me make sure I understand you.

            – during a la nina, for example, the Pacific Ocean releases less heat into the atmosphere and the planet cools a little. This produces a noticeable warming in the top 100 meters of the ocean ( more heat is being retained), but the amount is too small to show up in the ocean as a whole (OHC). Is that right?

          • gbaikie says:

            “…but the amount is too small to show up in the ocean as a whole (OHC). Is that right?”

            Correct.

            Adding say, a couple of degrees temperature to top 100 meters is too small- or more precisely, not measurable, yet, to show up in the entire ocean.

            [ There is an ongoing effort to measure the oceanic temperature more accurately- called, Argo.
            “Argo is an international program that uses profiling floats to observe temperature, salinity, currents, and, recently, bio-optical properties in the Earth’s oceans; it has been operational since the early 2000s.” wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography) ]

            The average depth of ocean is ‘3,688 meters” [wiki, Ocean]
            100 meter is about 1/36th- if entire surface water of earth were warmed.
            And limited to the surface ocean in the tropics- it’s about 1/2 of the area [or say, 1/70th of the ocean waters].

            I would say if you mix the ocean, you are increasing global temperature- long term.
            Global climate is a long term process and so in terms of global climate, mixing the entire ocean would be a warming mechanism.
            Though if you are expecting the Earth to warm up a lot in next few centuries, it could be viewed as a massive cooling mechanism.

            One thing I have considered is that volcanic heat added to the ocean [and there is a lot of volcanic activity under the ocean] may be insignificant, but one can also view as another factor involved with mixing the ocean.

            And similar to our lack data on global ocean temperature, we have not enough data regarding the volcanic activity on the Ocean floor.

          • Snape says:

            Like they used to say, we know more about the moon than our own oceans.

            I’ve always thought that adding GHG’s to the atmosphere is a giant science experiment. Wish I could live to 2100 if only to see what happens.

      • As you say, the oceans are a great heat sink and that accounts for the the fact that [CO2] lags temperature by 500 to 1,000 years. There is “Hard Science” to back this up but the EPICA researchers (e.g.Thomas F. Stocker) dare not admit it!
        https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/

        It takes hundreds of years to distribute heat throughout the oceans so over shorter periods only the upper layers are warming or cooling and this is being tracked by the ARGO buoys.
        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/study-finds-argo-buoys-show-no-evidence-of-missing-heat/

        My advice is read the scientific papers yourself, stop listening to people who tell you what to think and then make up your own mind.

        The public has lost interest in climate catastrophes. You can’t keep crying “Wolf” while nothing shows up but puppies or kittens.

    • David Appell says:

      The temperature is increasing. Ice is melting. Sea level is rising. The ocean is gaining heat fast.

      Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature, Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        “The temperature is increasing. Ice is melting. Sea level is rising. The ocean is gaining heat fast.”

        Don’t stop there, Davie.

        Birds are dying
        Planes are falling out of the sky
        Coral reefs are ablaze
        The last whale just ate the last polar bear
        The oceans are boiling
        Mountains are melting
        The canary-in-the-coal-mine has just filed a worker’s comp lawsuit
        The atmospheric temperatures have exceeded 800,000K

        Just wait until the “feedback” kicks in….

  70. Dr No says:

    In the meantime, it has just been reported:
    “Dutch officials have opened what is being billed as one of the worlds largest offshore wind farms, with 150 turbines spinning far out in the North Sea.
    Over the next 15 years the Gemini windpark, which lies some 85km (53 miles) off the northern coast of the Netherlands, will meet the energy needs of about 1.5 million people.
    Gemini would contribute about 13% of the countrys total renewable energy supply and about 25% of its wind power, he added.
    It would help reduce emissions of carbon-dioxide emissions, among the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, by 1.25m tonnes, the company says.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/09/full-tilt-giant-offshore-wind-farm-opens-in-north-sea

  71. Dr No says:

    And, in another bit of good news, I have just read that:
    “India ..has unveiled the world’s largest-ever solar farm at Kamuthi, in Tamil Nadu.
    It stretches across 2,500 acres, and its 2.5 million solar modules are cleaned each day by a team of robots, themselves solar-powered.
    .. India and China are ramping up their installations.
    India quadrupled its capacity in the last three years to 12GW (gigawatts) – 1GW can power about 725,000 homes.
    This will almost double again this year, with India adding 10GW in 2017; another 20GW is in the pipeline.
    China is installing solar panels at a similar clip; its capacity leapt to 77GW last year, up from 43GW.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39844446

    Bye bye coal.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      On the other hand (same source) –

      “Even with costs of solar cells dropping, there are pretty large leaps forward in efficiency needed before solar energy can broadly supplant fossil sources, says Dr Ross Hatton, an associate professor of physical chemistry at Warwick University.”

      Like everything else to do with renewables, all that is needed is another 10 years, and just a little more research and ongoing Government subsidies!

      Cheers

      • Lewis says:

        Wind and solar may be a way to go. Solar, especially, is nice around the house and, if you want to tie up farmland, it is nice in large arrays – very PC.

        For long term industrial applications, which are still necessary to our economy, nuclear seems the best option.

        In the meantime, fossil fuels will be necessary for years. What will be interesting is if some young chemist can figure out how to convert cellulose to liquid fuel, without exorbitant costs.

        Hopefully, with enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the climate will stay warmer and we won’t need to use too much energy on keeping us warm.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          It’s UFO that have caused “global warming”. As Dr. Roy’s research indicates, as UFO sightings rose last century, global temperatures rose. The last 20 years, UFO sightings are down, and we have a “pause” in “global warming”.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi g*e*r*a*n

            You are great!

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi g*e*r*a*n,

            I missed that thread, I’m not sure what I was doing that time because I usually read this blog on a daily basis.

            Anyways, that’s a very nice example of how correlation not always means causation.

            These days I’m a little busy, so I can’t intervene in the discussions, but I still read here and there.

            I’m very interested in how Tyndall’s experiment should have demonstrated the GHGe.

            I also read above that someone finally asked hisself how could the atmosphere stay up there, and I read the idiocy of an answer like “winds”.

            Hey, does somebody admit that the atmosphere without the ground temperature does’t exist at all?
            Any gas molecule at 0K collapse aiming the single point at the gravitational barycentre of the system.

            Have a grat day.

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Ok, I missed the “e” of “great”.

            It’s around midnight and I’m tired this night.

            Sorry.

        • David Appell says:

          Lewis wrote:
          “Hopefully, with enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the climate will stay warmer and we wont need to use too much energy on keeping us warm.”

          You’ve written this before. Again you seem not to care about anyone but yourself. What about the 3B people who live in the tropics. For example, Lagos, at 6 degrees N latitude. Do you think people there want or need more warming? Or Ethiopia? Chad? Mexico? India?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, did you send all your savings to Lagos this year? Can you provide the proof?

            Are you only thinking of yourself?

            I think the pizza delivery guy is at your door….

          • David Appell says:

            You’re just trying to divert attention from your lack of concern for how anyone else might be affected by climate change.

            Wishing for warming because (you seem to think) it’s good for you is selfish.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, deep breaths!

            It’s okay.

            I know you don’t understand the science, so let’s try some humor:

            “AGW is a hoax, started by the Chinese!”

            Feel better now?

      • David Appell says:

        Mike Flynn says:
        “Like everything else to do with renewables, all that is needed is another 10 years, and just a little more research and ongoing Government subsidies!”

        In developing countries, solar is now the cheapest way to add capacity:

        World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar Thats Cheaper Than Wind:
        Emerging markets are leapfrogging the developed world thanks to cheap panels.
        Bloomberg News, 12/14/16
        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind

        PS: How do you feel about the huge subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry?

    • uk ian brown says:

      at least it will still be in the ground for use when the oil and gas runs out,it will be like CHRISTMAS for the next generation

  72. Yes the long term trend

  73. Entropic man says:

    Ball4

    The present overall forcing is 0.7W/M2. It can be derived from direct measurement from orbit, from the rate of change in ocean heat content or from sea level rise. With three independent lines of evidence it is quite a reliable measure of energy uptake by the earth system.

    O.7W is producing a long term warming trend of 0.18C/decade.

    Both are close to the values projected for the observed change in CO2.

    Show me numbers. Your hypothesis is that non-CO2 natural forcings are sufficient to explain the observed energy imbalance and the observed temperature change. You should be able to produce a forcing budget from the available data.

    • Ball4 says:

      10:22 am EM: “Your hypothesis is that non-CO2 natural forcings are sufficient to explain the observed energy imbalance”

      I don’t understand how you got that impression, if you clip my actual words I might see how I could have been clearer. My point is that there are more forcings to consider on the top post TLT graph than just CO2 after your discussion 4:35pm of only CO2.

      “Show me numbers.”

      The magnitude with current confidence intervals of the 9 or so radiative forcings chart is available from many sources on the internet, choose the one you like.

      Your 0.7 W/m^2 imbalance is not given a cite, a time period, nor error bars, it implies much too precise a number.

      Stephens 2012 indicates don’t have enough precision in all the energy budget numbers to know with any confidence whether it is even net cooling or net warming over the decade of satellite observations 2000-2010, they report 0.6 W/m^2 +/- 17 !! Fig. B1.

      L’Ecuyer 2015, a great survey paper, uses the same time period and seeks to improve on Stephens et. al. energy balance using improved methods to come up with much more precise net absorbed 0.45 W/m^2 +/-0.4 in Fig. 4. So at least that shows confidence in a warming signal and if you eyeball top post chart there was arguably bias to the warm side in that decade around ~0.1C global T departure from 1981 to 2010 avg.

  74. Entropic man says:

    The Pastafarians explain that piracy causes global temperature change. There is a strong inverse correlation between them. More piracy produces cooler temperatures.

    https://www.venganza.org/2008/04/pirates-temperature/

  75. ren says:

    The question then arises what controls cloud cover? This is an area of intense research at the moment, but the available evidence thus far indicates that the global cloud cover is affected by the Suns magnetic activity high solar activity creates conditions for fewer clouds (causing warming), while a low activity promotes more clouds (causing cooling). According to the above figure, the appreciable slowdown of global warming after year 2000 is likely the result of increased low-level clouds. The Suns influence on Earths cloud cover and albedo, although small in absolute terms, is sufficient to cause global temperature variations in the order of 0.7 C, which is the size of climatic change we have observed since 1850. The good news is that solar induced changes in cloud cover are buffered by negative feedbacks within the Earths climate system making it impossible for the global temperature to deviate more than 0.7 C around a central mean.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/ned-nikolov-in-science-new-messages-mean-more-than-the-messengers-names/comment-page-1/

    • ren says:

      We started our quest by asking What controls the long-term average surface temperature of a planet?. Instead of looking at theoretical explanations, we decided to answer this question by analyzing data from a broad range of planetary environments in the Solar System. Our initial premise was that factors controlling Earths mean global temperature must also be responsible for determining the temperature on other planetary bodies. After an extensive query of the peer-reviewed literature we selected 6 bodies for analysis: Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn) and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Our selection was based on 3 criteria: a) presence of a solid surface; b) availability of high-quality data on near-surface temperature, atmospheric composition, and total air pressure/density preferably from direct observations; and c) representation of a wide range of physical environments defined in terms of solar irradiance and atmospheric properties. Using vetted NASA measurements from numerous published sources, we assembled a dataset of incoming solar radiation, surface temperature, near-surface atmospheric composition, pressure, density, and a few other parameters for the selected planetary bodies. We then applied DA to group the available data into fewer non-dimensional variables (ratios) forming 12 prospective models that describe the average planetary surface temperature as a function of solar radiation reaching the orbit of a planet, atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations, greenhouse-gas partial pressures, total atmospheric pressure and total atmospheric density. Next, we performed a series of regression analyses to find the best mathematical model capable of describing the non-dimensional data. One non-linear model outperformed the rest by a wide margin. This model describes the atmospheric greenhouse effect only as a function of total atmospheric pressure. In our study, we call the Greenhouse Effect an Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) quantified as a ratio of the planets actual surface temperature (Ts) to a temperature that the planet would have in the absence of atmosphere (Tna). ATE = Ts/Tna. The no-atmosphere temperature, Tna, depends on solar irradiance and is computed from the physical model of Volokin and ReLlez (2014). The figure below illustrates the final pressure-temperature relationship emerging from the data and its success in reproducing the relative atmospheric thermal effects of the 6 planetary bodies.
      https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ate-v-p.png?w=614

      • David Appell says:

        Those models can’t right, because they can’t explain this observation:

        https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

        • bilybob says:

          Which observation are your referring too? In the article it states…

          This is more of a “thought experiment” than an observable state

          If we assume no change in albedo from changes in cloud cover does it reflect reality? Just curious, when I have visited these places (just south of equator), it was always a bit cooler on cloudy days.

          • David Appell says:

            The observations represented by the big graph near the top of the page…. This same graph appears throughout the scientific literature.

            The term “thought experiment” does not refer to these data or the graph, but to a theoretical measurement of the GHE’s warming of 33 C.

        • bilybob says:

          Thanks David, could you explain how that graph would invalidate the models that Ren is referring to? If cloud cover reduces sunlight to the earth surface and also reduces infrared leaving the earth it still would be possible that the result is a lower surface temperature even with less infrared leaving. Thus on days with partial cloud cover, it is cooler for me when the sun is blocked by clouds versus in direct sunlight. I am really just trying to understand the dynamic of that graph that would be invalidated by Ren’s comment. In my experience, clouds in day meant for a cooler day and in the evening slightly warmer, but what is the overall net affect?

  76. Mike Flynn says:

    Norman,

    You wrote –

    Mike Flynn

    “You ask for evidence of a GHE. Have you looked at Hottels empirical study of H2O and CO2 and found there emissivity based upon path length and partial pressure of the gas involved?”

    You’re just making stuff up now,

    I don’t bother asking for evidence of something that doesn’t exist. You cannot even provide a GHE hypothesis which refers to CO2.

    The reason you cannot find anybody silly enough to propose a GHE hypothesis in testable scientific terms, is that it would have to include something to the effect that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earth’s surface causes the thermometer to become hotter!

    If a testable GHE hypothesis existed, don’t you think some GHE supporter might have triumphantly waved it in my face by now? I’m hardly the most popular commenter with the GHE believers, am I?

    Raising the temperature of a thermometer requires an increase in heat, however defined. Go for it. Multiply some heat by using CO2. Record your reproducible results, along with your experimental setup. Tyndall demonstrated precisely the opposite, but don’t let that stop you. Tyndall was wrong about the meteoric origin of the Sun’s heat, wasn’t he?

    Cheers.

    • Dr No says:

      “he reason you cannot find anybody silly enough to propose a GHE hypothesis in testable scientific terms, is that it would have to include something to the effect that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earths surface causes the thermometer to become hotter!”

      ok,ok,ok, I will take the bait (for the umpteenth time mind you):

      (1) put yourself and your thermometer on the far side of the moon.
      (2) pretty cold yes?
      (3) imagine that we now flood the moon with a co2 atmosphere
      (4) do you get colder, stay the same, or get warmer?

      Alternatively,
      go outside on a clear calm dry night here on Earth
      getting cold yes?
      What happens if you could inject more co2 into the atmosphere above your head?
      Would the rate of cooling drop, stay the same or reverse?
      What would happen if we injected a non radiative active gas instead of co2?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        In both situations, it would depend on the temperature of the CO2 added to the system. Bringing enough heat energy into a system would raise temperatures. Bringing CO2 that is colder than ambient would tend to lower temperatures.

        IOW, your “tests” are inconclusive and meaningless, just like the AGW hoax.

        • wert says:

          In both situations, it would depend on the temperature of the CO2 added to the system. Bringing enough heat energy into a system would raise temperatures. Bringing CO2 that is colder than ambient would tend to lower temperatures.

          The test above implicitly includes rough balance or waiting long enough that the balance is reached.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr No,

        For the umpteenth time, rather than ask silly questions, can you produce a testable GHE hypothesis?

        In this respect, climatology bears a close resemblance to parapsychology, also called a science by its supporters. Claims, supposed evidence – and just like climatology, never ending excuses and justifications to avoid the scientific scrutiny that accompanies experimental results.

        As Feynman famously said of ESP “experiments” –

        “And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?”

        But to answer your Foolish questions (yes, I know, you’re not seeking knowledge, just a “gotcha”) –

        The far side of the Moon is colder than -150 C. Unless you are using imaginary climatological CO2, any CO2 will freeze. No heating at all. Temperature will remain what it was.

        Second question, just as silly.

        As you point out, at night the surface cools. No heating to be found. Slowing the rate of cooling still leads to – cooling! Throwing a blanket over the thermometer at night will still result in – cooling!

        Your furious and febrile attempts to avoid providing an essential part of the scientific process – an hypothesis – demonstrate the intellectual paucity of your ideas.

        No GHE. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun, and a thermometer on the Earth’s surface, does not cause the thermometer to get hotter.

        The Earth has cooled. It continues to do so. Ask any competent geophysicist to explain why – I’m assuming you have a grasp of basic high school physics, and the laws of thermodynamics.

        Cheers.

        • wert says:

          The Earth has cooled. It continues to do so. Ask any competent geophysicist to explain why Im assuming you have a grasp of basic high school physics, and the laws of thermodynamics.

          This is a red herring from your side. The molten core cools down at some speed, although Lord Kelvin was wrong on the timetable because he didn’t know about radioactivity. This is not related to our topic.

          This internal cooling has nothing to do with weather and climate, which are 99.9% ran by the sun.

          When I say “ran by the sun”, I don’t mean the surface of the Earth had no effect – the oceans, atmosphere and life all have an effect on climate.

          What you claim is that CO2 does not have an effect called GHE, and of course you are right that the effect of CO2 is not similar to what happens in a greenhouse. As youngster, I was mislead as many others in thinking that CO2 causes something similar to what glass walls do. I was wrong. But that has little to do with how so called greenhouse gases work in atmosphere. Don’t play a word game.

          • wert says:

            Barry already mentioned equilibrium. No answer from you.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Wert,

            As you rightly say, the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses.

            As a matter of fact, nobody can actually state what it is, in any consistent form.

            The confusion is compounded by referring to greenhouse gases. Once again, no relation to greenhouses.

            Maybe you can produce a testable hypothesis, specifying the the mechanism by which CO2 causes thermometers to become hotter? At least you realise that neither greenhouse gases nor the greenhouse effect have anything to do with greenhouses.

            I’m not sure why you think I need to answer questions which nobody has asked me. Barry may, indeed, have mentioned equilibrium. GHE positively refuse to acknowledge that the Earth’s surface has cooled, because this demonstrates that the surface has emitted more energy than it has received from all sources. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have cooled, would it? No equilibrium to be seen!

            Still no GHE, even if you can think of something different to call it. The CO2 thermometer heating effect, possibly?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            wert, MikeF is just toying with you. He showed the other day that he grasps the GHE quite well:

            May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
            “Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860

      • barry says:

        Add time to the equation and answer what the temperature is at equilibrium.

        Add CO2 (of any temperature) to an atmosphere and the atmosphere warms, which is why the surface of the Earth is warmer after 4 hours of night than the surface of the moon 4 hours after total darkness (lunar surface temperature drops by about 200C during an eclipse). The Earth’s atmosphere slows the rate at which infrared radiation escapes.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          “Add CO2 (of any temperature) to an atmosphere and the atmosphere warms…”

          See, Warmists believe CO2 is a “heat source”.

          (They just won’t admit it!)

          • barry says:

            Add a blanket to your body and the skin warms. Is the blanket a heat source?

            No, the chemical processes in your body is the heat source. The blanket merely slows down the rate at which heat escapes the air adjacent to your skin.

            I don’t consider CO2 a heat source. It is part of the radiative properties of the atmosphere that slows the rate at which infrared radiation escapes from the surface to space. But one could, semantically, describe it as a source of heat. Just a few posts above you yourself gave it a thermal property (of coldness). Atmospheric CO2 is not at absolute zero, so it is a thermally emitting gas. But it is not the heat engine – that’s the sun.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry rambles: “I dont consider CO2 a heat source.”

            barry contradicts his own rambling: “But one could, semantically, describe it as a source of heat.”

            barry rambles: Just a few posts above you yourself gave it a thermal property (of coldness). Atmospheric CO2 is not at absolute zero, so it is a thermally emitting gas. But it is not the heat engine thats the sun.

            barry, a “thermodynamic heat source” brings new heat energy into a system. A mass warmed by heat energy already in the system is NOT a “heat source”.

            Thermodynamics is hard for many folks to understand.

      • gbaikie says:

        – Dr No says:
        May 9, 2017 at 7:16 PM

        he reason you cannot find anybody silly enough to propose a GHE hypothesis in testable scientific terms, is that it would have to include something to the effect that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earths surface causes the thermometer to become hotter!

        ok,ok,ok, I will take the bait (for the umpteenth time mind you):

        (1) put yourself and your thermometer on the far side of the moon.

        (2) pretty cold yes?-
        No.

        It not any colder [or hotter] than near side of the Moon.
        Or the rotates relative to the sun, and does not rotate relative to Earth [it’s tidally locked with Earth].

        -(3) imagine that we now flood the moon with a co2 atmosphere
        (4) do you get colder, stay the same, or get warmer?-

        If flood the Moon with CO2, the CO2 will freeze out at the lunar polar region [where surface temperature can be 50 K].

        But how many trillions of tonnes of CO2 do you want to use?

        Also if use say few billion tonnes of nitrogen, it will not freeze out at the poles- because at a low pressure, N2 is still a gas at 50 K. Same is true of O2 gas.
        A few billion tonnes of O2 or N2 would have slight warming effect- it will warm the night and polar region a bit. A one might detectable wind on the Moon. And more N2 or O2 will definitely cause there to be wind and cause atmosphere to have dust in it. One probably need somewhere around trillion tonnes to get the kind of dusty conditions, one gets on Mars. [Some have determined that the Mars dust can cause some warming. And immediate result of CO2 gas becoming CO2 ice will add heat- just as it does on Mars.]

  77. Norman says:

    Mike Flynn

    No I am not making stuff up.

    Here is a link for you.
    http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf

    I do think you are wrong when you state “The reason you cannot find anybody silly enough to propose a GHE hypothesis in testable scientific terms, is that it would have to include something to the effect that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the Earths surface causes the thermometer to become hotter!”

    Since you do not do well with the concept of average and seem to be totally focused on peak temperatures you would have to run your idea on a planet that only had one side continuously facing the Sun (like the Moon has the same side facing Earth).

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      You said that I asked for evidence of the GHE. I have never asked for evidence of the GHE – the GHE does not exist. Your claim is based on nothing at all except your imagining. Providing a link to a graph relating to emittance of gases is just nonsensical. Completely irrelevant.

      You might like to indicate how your link relates to the ability of CO2 to make thermometers hotter, given a constant heat source. GHE supporters go to all sorts of lengths to avoid admitting that a testable GHE hypothesis does not exist!

      If you claim that the GHE hypothesis relates to average temperature rise, it would help if you could provide a copy of the GHE hypothesis, so that others may establish this for themselves.

      I’m not running any idea. I’m just saying that no GHE supporter can actually provide a copy of the GHE hypothesis, which obviously supports my contention that a testable GHE hypothesis does not exist.

      Maybe you could just admit that you have never actually seen a testable GHE hypothesis, and just had faith that it must exist. Or not, and keep believing in the non-existent!

      Cheers.

      Cheers.

  78. Norman says:

    Sorry Mike Flynn

    I am unable to get my post to go through. Not sure what is offending the site I do not have any links in it.

  79. Norman says:

    If you have two planets at the same distance from the Sun and both have a day the same length as their year. One with a CO2 atmosphere and one without, the thermometer on the planet with the CO2 would be at a higher temperature. The surface would warm the CO2 via a*b*s*o*b*t*i*o*n.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      And if the surface warms the atmosphere, it has to provide heat. It loses energy. The surface cools as a result.

      Precisely what happens on Earth at night!

      Maybe you have an alternative explanation – cold rays from outer space, perhaps? Or a negative greenhouse effect of some sort?

      Cheers.

      • wert says:

        And if the surface warms the atmosphere, it has to provide heat. It loses energy. The surface cools as a result.

        This we agree on. The surface cools at night, if the day-time temperature has been locally high enough and the atmosphere is clear enough. If not, the cooling is minimal. Examples of non-cooling can be found a lot in the Arctic night, where temperatures depend heavily on water vapour and water droplets in air. Air reaches dew point and refuses to cool down. Or clouds shield from the cold background sky.

        Now you add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the surface then radiates little less to space and warms more the CO2, which then thermalizes the energy.

        Now when you seem to deny that this can result in warmer air temperature at 2 meters, I just wonder how your logic goes. I mean, Spencer says there is some warming, but it appears you call it fairy tales. Am I right?

        I’m just wondering what on earth makes you so certain you understand the processes of energy transfer so well when there is no expert knowledge in your comments. More insults instead.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Wert,

        Still no testable GHE hypothesis.

        Minimal cooling is still cooling – otherwise it would be called heating.

        I’m not sure what you mean about warmer temperatures at 2 meters – warmer than what? Low level inversions result in warmer air at 2m than at the surface. This has precisely nothing to do with the non-existent GHE hypothesis, by definition.

        No you’re not right. Heat increases the temperature of thermometers – CO2 neither provides, enhances, or multiplies heat. In the absence of a testable GHE hypothesis, maybe another reason for historically recent higher recorded temperatures needs to be sought.

        I can think of at least three reasons which don’t involve a GHE.

        If you feel insulted by inconvenient facts, you have my condolences. No sympathy, however. It’s your choice to feel insulted.

        Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sheeesh Davie, I count three times you’ve thrown out this link.

            And, you believe it is evidence of the GHE.

            Of course, in your pseudoscience, EVERYTHING is evidence of the GHE!

        • Nate says:

          mike, want a testable hypothesis? Ok heres one. Put an earth size planet with only a nitrogen atmosphere, in Earths orbit. What will its temperature be?

          Hypothesis: that you, mike flynn, will not be able to demonstrate that the surface temp of said planet will be > 260 K.

          In other words, without ghe, said planet will have no way to warm beyond a simple stephan boltzmann calc.

          Roy has discussed calc here:

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/

          • g*e*r*an says:

            “In other words, without ghe, said planet will have no way to warm beyond a simple stephan boltzmann calc.”

            But, Nate believes that CO2 can warm above the S/B temp!

            Welcome to pseudoscience.

          • Nate says:

            Again no science in your answer. Just repetitive insults. You remind me of middle school playground bullies….

          • wert says:

            You remind me of middle school playground bullies.

            Playground bullies are often quite advanced, while this one is just assertive…

            It is past 1300 comments here and reloading the page is too slow. I’m not complaining though, I’ll just note that there is no point explaining greenhouse ‘theory’ to people who assert with stressfully CO2 is not a ‘heat source’. This is pre-school stuff.

            I maintain my rather lukewarmist approach: there is not case for mitigation, but there must be a small initial CO2 warming effect. What the feedbacks make of it is rather difficult to say if you ask me. No need to ask me, if you don’t want.

            That the GHE was named GHE is unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that the backradiation was taken as a central concept when you could well talk about just outgoing long-wave IR and how it reaches atmospheric window or not.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        I have already posted evidence that the surface does not have to cool at night. I think you ignore evidence that does not fit with you view of reality. So why do you ask for it?

        On really cloudy nights the night temperature may not drop at all (which I have provided you with links on other threads). I think your hero Feynman would accept empirical data as evidence. You do not.

        Why does not the surface temperature drop some cloudy nights? What are the clouds doing? Why can instruments measure an increase in downwelling IR that matches upwelling IR on cloudy nights and the temperature does not drop. What is going on here to cause this observed effect. A GHE explains it quite well, how do you explain this observed reality?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Norman, you are trying to use localized evidence (cloudy nights) to apply to the atmosphere as a whole. “Pseudoscience” allows such nonsense. “Science” does not.

          The atmosphere, considered as a system, moves heat energy to space. It does NOT “trap heat”. It does NOT heat the surface.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “The atmosphere, considered as a system, moves heat energy to space. It does NOT trap heat. It does NOT heat the surface”

            On another post you asked me how much energy the surface of the Earth emits total vs the atmosphere.

            If you just go by the meter^2 value (a little smaller number).

            The Earth’s surface averages an emission of 398 W/m^2. Over the same meter at the TOA the measured value of energy leaving the Earth is 240 W/m^2.

            It is not possible for the atmosphere to be moving more energy to space than the surface is emitting. So what is happening to this energy? First Law says it does not just vanish it is somewhere, it is being directed back to the surface making the surface considerably warmer than it would be with no atmosphere.

            The warmer is a relative state, a comparison between different conditions. If the Earth had no atmosphere its average temperature would be much lower. Do you agree with this statement? That means the atmosphere warms the surface since the surface is at a higher temperature with and atmosphere than without. Now the question is why does the atmosphere cause a warmer surface? Kristian has ideas I disagree with but he still accepts an atmosphere creates a warmer surface than in a condition without.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Too much purposeless rambling here, Norm.

            Maybe if you could get it down to just one question, with 50 words or less?

          • David Appell says:

            Condensin Norman:

            “The Earths surface averages an emission of 398 W/m^2. Over the same meter at the TOA the measured value of energy leaving the Earth is 240 W/m^2….So what is happening to this energy”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            There would appear to be something amiss with how the “measurements” are taken, huh Davie?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        wert states: “Now you add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the surface then radiates little less to space and warms more the CO2, which then thermalizes the energy.”

        wert, you left out the next step—“and the CO2 then radiates more heat energy to space”.

        CO2 does NOT “trap heat”. It re-emits as it absorbs.

        • Norman says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          YOU: “wert, you left out the next stepand the CO2 then radiates more heat energy to space.”

          No it does not. Do you accept empirical data or is that pseudoscience to you? The TOA emission is much less than the surface emission. CO2 radiates less heat space than the surface would if no CO2 were present.

          YOU: “CO2 does NOT trap heat. It re-emits as it absorbs.”

          Yes but in what direction? wert is also correct, it also thermalizes surrounding N2 and O2 which in turn collide with CO2 causing it to emit. But the question is what direction does the energy re-emit?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, you are a pseudoscience addict. You refuse to see “truth”. This is just one more example.

            You quote me, but then you (purposely) mis-interpret my words. Your “less” is comparing surface to TOA. My “more” is comparing “warmed” CO2 to “cooler” CO2. You are trying to confuse my words, as always.

            You, like all pseudoscience addicts, do not seek truth. If you did, you would be curious about the UAH global chart at the very top of this thread. You would notice the two big El Nino events. You would see the global anomalies rise quickly, then fall quickly. The rise was caused by all the heat energy being released form the Pacific Ocean.

            But, what caused the rapid fall, after the peak? No pseudoscience addict wants to talk about the rapid drop. The rapid drop shows that the atmosphere does NOT “trap heat”.

            Oh, I know you have some amusing spin to explain the rapid drop. That’s what you do.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            The graph above states nothing about the GHE. If you were talking about an enhanced GHE caused by mankind’s emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel burning you might have a point.

            Are you claiming there is NO GHE keeping the Earth’s surface warmer than its effective temperature?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            It is most obvious why you are scientifically illiterate. You must have ADD as you can’t read a post longer than 50 words. Since you have extreme problems paying attention to anything but a quick bite it is obvious you lack the ability to read a science textbook and become educated.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well Norm, I see you chose to dodge the question: “But, what caused the rapid fall, after the peak?”

            I was hoping for some of your rambling, hilarious pseudoscience trying to explain why the atmosphere cannot “trap” the El Nino heat energy.

            But, you proved me right again.

            “No pseudoscience addict wants to talk about the rapid drop.”

        • wert says:

          CO2 does NOT trap heat. It re-emits as it absorbs.

          Well it can re-emit, but how soon, at to what direction and at what wavelength? This is going nowhere, it is like alt.religion.creationism without an FAQ.

      • Nate says:

        Mike, ok you agree that the atmosphere warms. If so then the surface, will see a warm atmosphere rather than the cold of space, and must lose less heat by radiation. Correct?

  80. Norman says:

    Okay for all posters, the blog does not like the word

    a-b-s-o-r-p-t-i-o-n

  81. Norman says:

    The thermometer temperature would keep going up with more CO2 until a saturation point was reached.

  82. Mike Flynn says:

    Round and round and round we go, and still no testable GHE hypothesis to be found.

    Just like ESP and parapsychology!

    Not to mention astrology. Anyone for climatology?

    Cheers.

    • Kristian says:

      Here’s your testable hypothesis, Mike:

      – The Earth and the Moon are equidistant from the Sun, at 1AU, which means they receive equal amounts of solar radiation each year.

      – However, the Earth has a massive atmosphere resting on top of its global surface, while the Moon does not.

      The claim is then, based on the two facts above:

      # The (global, annual) AVERAGE T_sfc of the Earth will be significantly HIGHER than the (global, annual) average T_sfc of the Moon.

      And guess what, Mike? This hypothesis has been tested. And what was found? The average T_sfc of the Earth IS significantly higher than the average T_sfc of the Moon. In fact, it is 92 Kelvin higher! 289K (Earth) vs. 197K (Moon).

      And this is in spite of the fact that Earth’s atmosphere actually deprives our planet’s solid/liquid surface of almost 80% of its potential solar heat input as compared to the Moon.*

      *
      Global/annual average solar heat input (net SW) to the surface of the Earth:
      340 W/m^2 – 100 W/m^2 – 75 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2

      Global/annual average solar heat input (net SW) to the surface of the Moon:
      340 W/m^2 – 44 W/m^2 = 296 W/m^2

      • Dr No says:

        Excellent Kristian.
        But guess what? It is like “casting pearls before swine”.
        You and I are wasting our time trying to educate neanderthals.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Kristian, you omit the fact that 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by water. And much of the 70% is deep ocean.

        You might want to look up “heat capacity”.

        • Kristian says:

          g*e*r*a*n says, May 10, 2017 at 6:35 AM:

          Kristian, you omit the fact that 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by water. And much of the 70% is deep ocean.

          And?

          “Heat capacity”. Yes. OK. Then what?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Then, revise your attempt to explain Earth’s temp warmer than Moon as caused by the atmosphere. Earth being warmer is caused by the amazing “heat trapping” capability of WATER.

          • Kristian says:

            g*e*r*a*n says, May 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM:

            Then, revise your attempt to explain Earth’s temp warmer than Moon as caused by the atmosphere. Earth being warmer is caused by the amazing “heat trapping” capability of WATER.

            So WATER traps heat, but not AIR?

            The ocean, whatever its heat capacity, can only rid itself of its energy through its surface. So you think that, if there were no atmosphere resting on top of the ocean surface, the Earth’s average global T_sfc would STILL be 289K? That is, with a liquid global ocean surface? Because of water’s “amazing “heat trapping” capability”?

            I think YOU’RE the one who needs to revise your thought process here, g*e*r*a*n.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Kristian–I thought you would like my phraseology—“heat trapping” capability of WATER”.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Kristian,

        I’m not sure what your supposed hypothesis is.

        What is the hypothesis you claim to be testing?

        Are you trying to say that the Earth’s atmosphere is causing the Earth hotter each year?

        This appears to be the claim of the GHE supporters, but they cannot provide a testable GHE hypothesis.

        There are a couple of problems with your assumptions. The first is that nobody at all has any idea how much heat escapes from the core into the lithosphere, aquasphere and atmosphere. Another is that the Moon has lost far more internal heat than the Earth proportionally, given its greater surface/volume ratio.

        As to your pointless power calculations, nobody has yet managed to measure the total radiation intercepted by the Earth at any point in time. Nor the total emitted at a similar point in time.

        Just as a matter of interest, ice emits a minimum of 300 W/m^2. One might think that 10 m^2 of ice, emitting some 3000 watts, would be sufficient to warm at least a thimble full of water. Unfortunately, no.

        You still haven’t managed to state a testable GHE hypothesis. You can’t even say what this supposed GHE is supposed to do, let alone propose a non-magical method by which this unstated state might be presumed to come about.

        It’s complete nonsense, if in some fashion you are trying to implicitly claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, raises the temperature of the thermometer. If you are making some other claim, it needs to be specified, and supplied in scientific testable form.

        And this you cannot do.

        Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          It’s amazing how much tosh the ignorant can generate.

        • Kristian says:

          Mike Flynn says, May 10, 2017 at 7:00 AM:

          I’m not sure what your supposed hypothesis is.

          What is the hypothesis you claim to be testing?

          Uhm, it’s right there for you to read. You want it repeated? Here goes:

          – The Earth and the Moon are equidistant from the Sun, at 1AU, which means they receive equal amounts of solar radiation each year.

          – However, the Earth has a massive atmosphere resting on top of its global surface, while the Moon does not.

          The claim is then, based on the two facts above:

          # The (global, annual) AVERAGE T_sfc of the Earth will be significantly HIGHER than the (global, annual) average T_sfc of the Moon.

          Are you trying to say that the Earth’s atmosphere is causing the Earth hotter each year?

          I’m not trying to say anything. I’m POINTING OUT to you that the Moon – WITHOUT an atmosphere, but with MORE heat in from the Sun – has an average T_sfc that is 92K LOWER than the average T_sfc of the Earth – WITH an atmosphere, but with LESS heat in from the Sun.

          There are a couple of problems with your assumptions. The first is that nobody at all has any idea how much heat escapes from the core into the lithosphere, aquasphere and atmosphere. Another is that the Moon has lost far more internal heat than the Earth proportionally, given its greater surface/volume ratio.

          Are you saying geothermal heat is what makes Earth’s global surface so much warmer on average than the Moon’s? If so, any empirical evidence to back it up?

          You still haven’t managed to state a testable GHE hypothesis.

          Yes, I have. It’s stated just above (for the second time). And it’s tested.

          You can’t even say what this supposed GHE is supposed to do (…)

          Yes, I can. And I have. Twice. It is supposed to make Earth’s T_sfc higher on average than the lunar T_sfc.

          It’s complete nonsense, if in some fashion you are trying to implicitly claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, raises the temperature of the thermometer.

          I haven’t mentioned CO2 at all. You have.

          If you are making some other claim, it needs to be specified, and supplied in scientific testable form.

          And this you cannot do.

          The claim is made (above), specified, and tested scientifically (through observation).

          • bilybob says:

            Would not Mars and Phobos be a better test since Mars does not have an ocean? It would remove the water argument as a heat sink for the Earth/moon comparison. Does anyone know the average temperatures for these?

          • gbaikie says:

            –The claim is then, based on the two facts above:

            # The (global, annual) AVERAGE T_sfc of the Earth will be significantly HIGHER than the (global, annual) average T_sfc of the Moon.–

            But there are more differences between the Moon and Earth then the Earth has atmosphere and Moon doesn’t.

            I would say a large difference is the rotational rate of the Moon as compared to the Earth.

            And this difference is “amplified” by the nature of the lunar surface.
            That is that the Moon is completely covered by a fine powdery layer of dust. And this fluffy dust in a vacuum make the lunar surface have a very high insulative property.
            Or if the the Moon were bare rock, it would have a higher average temperature, even if the rotational rate remained the same.
            Plus the Earth is mostly covered by a substance which absorbs the energy of sunlight very well- ocean water.

            I propose one could mimic the effect of ocean water on the Moon.
            It’s not practical [or vaguely cheap].
            But can describe it very quickly. Cover the Moon with solid spheres of copper. Say, zillions of 2 meter diameter spheres.

            Silver sphere or diamond spheres might also work, but copper should be cheaper and might work better.
            Any metal conducts heat pretty good [unlike rock] and copper per volume has high heat capacity. It’s 0.39 kJ/(kg K)
            And is quite dense: 8.96 g per cubic cm.
            Water heat capacity is 4.184 kJ/(kg K) but has comparatively low mass: 1 g per cubic cm.
            Or in terms of volume, copper heat capacity vs water is
            8.96 times 0.39, which is 3.49 per cubic cm.
            Copper doesn’t have as much per volume heat capacity as water, but it’s close enough.
            But main thing is it’s simple to describe.

        • Nate says:

          Lets be more clear what is happening. The thermometer is normally not in the sunshine. Put Co2 between sun and earth surface. I claim the air temp will be raised. Now put the thermometer in contact with the air to measure.

        • Nate says:

          ‘No one knows how much heat escapes from corr to lithosphere yada yada’

          Total BS. That is well measured. And it is tiny, < < 1 w/m^2

      • To bad the GHE is the result of the environment /climate which makes your argument of little use.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Davie, such a graph is NOT evidence of the GHE!

        It’s like saying because someone in Peru turns on a blue light, you can receive music on your AM radio!

  83. ren says:

    Another low from the north is approaching the Great Lakes.

  84. Tim Folkerts says:

    Mike, you seem to have presented your own testable hypothesis for the “greenhouse effect” numerous times in this thread. It comes in various slightly different forms like:

    “… that a thermometers temperature can be raised by placing CO2 between it and a heat source?”
    or
    “… the ability of CO2 to make thermometers hotter, given a constant heat source.”

    1). Since you categorically state this is impossible, you have already told yourself there can be no answer. This is quite unscientific.

    2) No matter how many experiments you may have seen where CO2 did not warm a thermometer, it only takes 1 experiment where CO2 *does* make the thermometer warmer to invalidate your conclusion. That is how science works.

    3) There was an example given — the earth. You ignored it.

    4) there are numerous other examples of a material that absorbs IR causing a heated object to get warmer than without the IR blocking material. You choose to ignore these.

    5) There are clear theoretical derivations consistent with all the laws of thermodynamics that show that the GHE should work. You ignore these.

    ************************************

    Until you abandon your a priori assumption that the GHE is impossible, there is really no chance that you will consider the massive evidence that, yes, CO2 can and does cause thermometers on the earths surface to be warmer than they would be with no CO2.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Tim’s “a priori assumption”: “CO2 can and does cause thermometers on the earths surface to be warmer than they would be with no CO2.”

      • David Appell says:

        Evidence:

        “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          But Davie, upthread you implied that no Warmists believed CO2 was a “heat source”. Now, you present your “evidence” that CO2 is a “heat source”.

          See what pseudoscience does to your mind?

          • Kristian says:

            So true, g*e*r*a*n. This is exactly the point that they cannot seem to understand and/or get themselves to admit to …

            They ferociously maintain that they absolutely do NOT in any way claim the atmosphere (or, really, the atmospheric “back radiation”) causes the gl avg T_sfc to rise by directly heating the surface, when this is in fact EXACTLY what they do; for the most part implicitly (like Appell just above), but at times even explicitly. Which is rather astonishing to behold, how they just REFUSE to see it themselves …

            Even Folkerts here, who understands perfectly well why this simply physically cannot be, pretends that this is merely some kind of semantic issue.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Kristian, why do you ferociously maintain “when this is in fact EXACTLY what they do”?

            You know perfectly well that no one [who understand thermodynamics and who is speaking carefully] says that the atmosphere is directly heating (supplying net thermal energy = Q) the surface? Yet you continue to beat this dead horse.

            So … please show even one example of someone [who understand thermodynamics and who is speaking carefully] who “claim[s] the atmosphere (or, really, the atmospheric back radiation) causes the gl avg T_sfc to rise by directly heating the surface.”

            Or admit that this is NOT ‘exactly what we do’.

          • David Appell says:

            Kristian – yes, the surface is directed heated by the energy of downwelling infrared radiation.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim demands: “So please show even one example of someone [who understand thermodynamics and who is speaking carefully] who claim[s] the atmosphere (or, really, the atmospheric back radiation) causes the gl avg T_sfc to rise by directly heating the surface.

            Tim, there are NOT ANY pseudoscientists that “understand thermodynamics”.

            Case in point, you keep claiming that you are not really claiming that CO2 is not a “heat source”. But, the “climate forcing” you keep claiming is in units of…wait for it…WATTS/m^2!!!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            David says : “the surface is directed heated by the energy of downwelling infrared radiation”

            David! Don’t say that!

            The surface is directly ‘receiving’ energy from downwelling infrared radiation (ie it absorbs photon from the atmosphere).

            The surface is even directly ‘warmed’ by downwelling infrared radiation (ie it is warmer due to the presence of the atmospheric radiation).

            But the atmosphere is not directly ‘heated’ by downwelling infrared radiation (ie there is not a net Q of thermal IR from the atmosphere to the surface).

            ********************************

            I know this might sound pedantic, but it such situations it is important. There is no reason to be sloppy when the whole discussion hinges on careful communication. In some cases I would let something like this slide in an informal discussion. But not when we are specifically discussing the words.

            Alas — you are proving Kristian right!

          • Kristian says:

            Tim Folkerts says, May 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM:

            Kristian, why do you ferociously maintain “when this is in fact EXACTLY what they do”?

            Because it is, Tim. You will of course CLAIM it’s not really heat. But you still TREAT it as an additional incoming heat flux and expect it to produce a direct effect as if it were. Completely equivalent to the incoming solar heat flux. It doesn’t work that way.

            It’s not enough to just NOT call it “heat” and then you’re somehow off the hook.

            I’ve asked you this question several times, Tim:

            How does the Earth gl surface get from an avg T of 232K (max at solar equilibrium) to the ‘observed’ 289K according to your “back radiation” explanation? What is it specifically that lifts Earth’s T_sfc those final 57K? Directly and all by itself? What macroscopic flux (W/m^2) of incoming energy – thermodynamically independent and effective – is it that increases the sfc U and thus its T in absolute terms?
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Tim, there are NOT ANY pseudoscientists that understand thermodynamics.”

            That is true pretty much by definition. Pseudoscientists are defined as people who don’t understand and/or accept standard science. But there are plenty of *scientist* (including plenty of climate scientists) who DO understand thermodynamics.

            “you keep claiming that you are not really claiming that CO2 is not a heat source. But, the climate forcing you keep claiming is in units ofwait for itWATTS/m^2!!!”

            And … ?

            Surely you know that just because two things have the same units does not mean they are the same thing. Kinetic energy, potential energy, work, heat, and even TORQUE all have the units of N*m. But they are not remotely the same thing. Heck, I could measure a bulldozer pushing a pile of dirt in W/m^2, but that doesn’t make it heat.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim tries to back away from AGW nonsense: “Heck, I could measure a bulldozer pushing a pile of dirt in W/m^2, but that doesnt make it heat.”

            Okay Tim, you need to explain that to the Warmists. They believe that their “climate forcing” nonsense will heat the planet.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Tim tries to back away from AGW nonsense …

            Yes! I try to stay back from ALL nonsense!

            There is certainly all sorts of nonsense promoted by by all sorts people on all sorts of topics related to global warming. (Hence 100’s of posts on threads like this!)

            My experience has been that the worst (and loudest) thermodynamic nonsense comes from people questioning the “greenhouse effect” (eg that materials that allow sunlight in but don’t allow IR out can impact the temperature of a surface). So this is where I tend to focus.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “They believe that their climate forcing nonsense will heat the planet.”

            No. They believe that their climate forcing nonsense will ‘warm’ the planet (if they are being careful about the definition of ‘heat’ = Q = net thermal energy transfer).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim continues to back away: “No. They believe that their climate forcing nonsense will warm the planet…”

            Tim, they say “heat the planet”, you say “warm the planet”. When does “warming” not become “heating”.

            Tim is lost in his pseudoscience again.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “What … is it that increases the sfc U and thus its T in absolute terms?

            You know the answer, Kristian. And you know there are two (both perfectly acceptable) ways to look at this.

            1) You prefer a classical, macroscopic, 19th century model for thermodynamics. In this model, there is one inward net flow to the surface from the sun, Q_in, and one net outward flow from the surface, Q_out. In this view Q_out gets reduced by the presence of the warm atmosphere, leading to a net gain in energy and a rise in temperature.

            2) Others prefer a quantum, microscopic, 20th century model for thermodynamics (also called statistical mechanics). In this model, there is inward net flow to the surface from the sun, E_in, and one net outward flow from the surface, E_out. There is also a possible second E_in_2 from the atmosphere (ie photons emitted by the atmosphere and absorbed by the surface).

            Both views lead to exactly the same equations and exactly the same answers. Its fine to PREFER one over the other, but it is not fine to call the other one incorrect. (If anything, the modern view is preferable. Classical 19th century thermodynamics can be derived from 20th century statistical mechanics, but statistical mechanics cannot be derived from classical thermodynamics.)

          • David Appell says:

            Tim, I didn’t say the atmosphere is directly heated, I wrote the surface is.

            I don’t buy this forced distinction between “heating” and “warming” — I see it as a semantic argument.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            That would be hilarious!

            Davie and Tim debate when “warming” becomes “heating”.

            Pseudoscience at its best.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            David,

            Informally I have no problem just trying to understand what people intend when they say “heat” or “warm” or “heat flow” or any number of similar words in discussions like this. It is usually pretty easy to figure out what people mean.

            But in formal discussions of classical thermodynamics, “heat” has a very specific meaning and is associated with the letter Q. For example, when a piston is compressed, the gas inside warms (T increases) but it was definitely not heated (Q=0). Rather work (W) was done to change the internal energy (U). In classical thermodynamics, Q always and only goes from from warmer objects to cooler objects. In this formalism, there can be no heat (no Q) from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.

          • Kristian says:

            Tim,

            I’ll respond by replying to a recent comment of yours from upthread:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246194

            Tim Folkerts says, May 9, 2017 at 9:43 AM:

            (…) suppose I have a little shed with a heater. On a cold winter night (-30 C air temperature), the heater can only manage to keep the interior of the shed at 5C. A “warm front” move through (-10 C air) and the interior of the shed increase to 15 C. The only change was the exterior air temperature. It is not at all inappropriate to say the warm front ’caused’ the rise from 5C to 15C.

            Yes, but HOW did it “cause” it? That is the question.

            Or I could leave the air [at] -30 C and add some insulation. It would be perfectly understandable to say that adding the insulation was the cause of the warmer interior temperatures.

            Yes, but HOW did it “cause” it? That is the question.

            Sure, the shed would be even colder without the heater. Sure, the shed would not warm from 5C to 15 C without the heater. But the heater is a given. A steady input of heat from the electric heating elements is part of the assumed conditions. In such a situation, the factors affecting the heat OUTflow ’cause’ the temperature to change.

            Yes, but HOW do they “cause” it? That is the question.

            (…) I have no problem saying the atmosphere causes the earth’s surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise. Of course, a continued input from the sun is required.

            Yes, but HOW does it “cause” it? That is the question.

            In the end, you provide the answer yourself:

            “The air is part of ‘warming’ the ground, but it does not technically ‘heat’ the ground – it restricts the heat that is leaving.”

            And that’s it. It reduces the net energy ESCAPING the surface at any given temperature. By exchanging energy with it. It provides no additional INPUT equivalent to the solar flux. It doesn’t ADD any energy to it like the solar flux does. There is no GAIN in sfc U (thus no rise in T) resulting from the particular thermal exchange between the surface and the atmosphere above. What it does is simply making it harder for the net flow/movement of energy to move away from the surface.

          • Nate says:

            Lets start a drinking game, take a shot every time ger*an says ‘pseudoscience’

          • g*e*r*an says:

            I’m always ready for a drinking game.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        G*,

        At this point, you basically have two choices.

        1) Learn the science well enough to decide for yourself what the theories conclude and what the experiments show. (In particular regarding CO2 gas, IR light, and heat).

        2) Lacking that, you must decide whom you trust. On the one hand are (all modern engineering and physics textbooks on thermodynamics + climate scientist + astrophysicists + many people in this discussion). On the other hand are (several people in this discussion + a few others around the internet).

        If your position is “I don’t understand the physics, but I trust the few random people around the internet who say CO2 can’t warm the planet” — well, that is your choice. But be upfront about your position. Be upfront that you haven’t studied any advanced physics and that you are just espousing your own opinions.

        (This is further evidenced by your next comment where you demonstrate a terribly jumbled understanding of “heat” and of the paper that was linked.)

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Tim, lost in your pseudoscience, you have resorted to Norm-like rambling.

          Maybe, if you have only one question, in 50 words or less, I can help you.

        • ren says:

          The atmospheric center of mass assumption in step 2 above also appears to be applicable to Titan, the closest Earth analog with a thick atmosphere in our solar system. For Titan, the surface temperature is 94K, equilibrium temperature with the Sun is 82K, and surface pressure is 1.47 bar.
          Thus, the center of mass of the atmosphere is located at ~1.47/2 = ~0.74 bar, which observations show is where Titan’s atmospheric temperature is ~82K, the same as the equilibrium temperature with the Sun. I have added the notations in red to Robinson and Catling’s graph below:
          http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html

  85. Greg says:

    Roy –

    I really appreciate the graph of the anomilies for the last 38 years. And this tells us the variations from the average. BUT what is the actual average temperature of the globe in C and F? Also, WHO knows what the “ideal” average should be?
    Thanks –

    Greg Rowe

    • David Appell says:

      UAH and RSS don’t measure temperature directly — they measure microwaves emitted by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, and use a computer model to convert those to temperatures. Anomalies can be calculated with much lower uncertainties than can the absolute temperatures.

      GISS has more on this question here, at least for surface temperatures:

      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

      There is no “ideal” temperature for the planet — only, from the point of view of life, the temperature a species has adapted to. Change — especially at the large rate we’re now causing — stresses their well-being and survival.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Davie panics: “Change especially at the large rate were now causing stresses their well-being and survival.”

        Davie, a pair of birds made a nest on my patio about 3 weeks ago. The offspring have now hatched. The parents are bringing in insects every 2-3 minutes. (Hope that doesn’t shatter your other pseudoscience of “survival of the fittest”).

        You have so many things to be afraid of tonight, but I will sleep well.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          g,

          Coincidentally, I have the same thing. Two hatchlings, mouths agape!

          At present, nighttime temperatures drop to 22 C, day is around 32 C. The birds cope nicely with this 10 C range.

          I see temperatures are forecast to increase by a couple of degrees C over the next week. More than temperature increases over the last century, I believe, I predict the birds will survive nicely, on the basis they have managed to do so for quite a long time.

          I slept well last night. I predict that I will sleep just as well tonight.

          Like you, I leave David to his fears and phantasms. It must be uncomfortable to exist in such a self induced stressful environment.

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Address the evidence, for once.

          • Nate says:

            Mike, Ger*

            How do weather models work? I mean predictions out to a week! Much better than when I was a lad.

            How do they work so well if the atmospheric physics they are using is all wrong?

          • g*e*r*an says:

            Nate, why have the IPCC\GHE\CO2 models been so wrong?

            Did they predict warming that has not happened?

          • Nate says:

            you never actually have an answer do you?

          • Nate says:

            Since you dont seem to have an answer, I’ll tell you the answer. Weather models dont work at all without GHE. No weather models, no predictions, nada.

            So you guys who are denying GHE: you are denying the validity of weather prediction.

            Actually you are denying the physics behind weather, as Roy pointed has pointed out.

  86. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim Folkerts –

    You wrote –

    “Mike, you seem to have presented your own testable hypothesis for the greenhouse effect numerous times in this thread. It comes in various slightly different forms like:

    that a thermometers temperature can be raised by placing CO2 between it and a heat source?
    or
    the ability of CO2 to make thermometers hotter, given a constant heat source.”

    As I say, I cannot find anywhere a testable hypothesis relating to the GHE. Neither can you, I surmise, otherwise you would no doubt have produced it by now.

    You go on to say –

    “2) No matter how many experiments you may have seen where CO2 did not warm a thermometer, it only takes 1 experiment where CO2 *does* make the thermometer warmer to invalidate your conclusion. That is how science works.”

    No it doesn’t. Albert Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” I choose to agree with Einstein, rather than you.

    In any case, I have produced no testable GHE hypothesis because it would appear to impossible on the face of it. This probably explains why no GHE supporter has ever managed to write down any scientific explanation of the non-existent greenhouse effect.

    Finally, you wrote –

    “Until you abandon your a priori assumption that the GHE is impossible, there is really no chance that you will consider the massive evidence that, yes, CO2 can and does cause thermometers on the earths surface to be warmer than they would be with no CO2.”

    You have no hypothesis, just a poorly stated and meaningless claim that ” . .
    CO2 can and does . . . ” Your claim is not testable by any reproducible experiment, and does not even propose a mechanism to explain how your claim might be true.

    Heat makes thermometers hotter. CO2 does not produce, multiply, or otherwise increase heat. Your non-existent GHE hypothesis remains non-existent for good reason – it would have to invoke magic in its statement!

    Cheers.

    • Dr No says:

      “Heat makes thermometers hotter. CO2 does not produce, multiply, or otherwise increase heat. Your non-existent GHE hypothesis remains non-existent for good reason it would have to invoke magic in its statement!”

      The addition of a blanket increases the warmth of my bed at night.
      It gets even warmer with the addition of more blankets, yet they do not produce any heat! How strange! How magic! Tell this to your children!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr No,

        Put a blanket over a thermometer. No change at all. Put a blanket on your bed at night. Your bed is no hotter than it was before.

        Put 50 blankets on your bed – still no heating!

        Put a heat source in your bed – a live human body, a hot rock, a heated water bottle – temperature rises!

        Your defective and misleading analogies might appeal to the gullible, the slow, or the ignorant, but they don’t stand up to examination, do they?

        Deny, divert, confuse – and still no testable GHE hypothesis. Sad.

        Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          Mike, Mike, poor old Mike – you are totally confused.

          You forgot that the earth’s surface is a heat source!
          It radiates like a black body!
          – like a hot rock even !!
          – even like a hot water bottle !!!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr No,

            So?

            Your bed is radiating furiously. At 0 C, its radiating more than 300 W/m2.

            If the Earth’s surface is radiating so much heat, why do you bother with blankets?

            What has any of this got to do with the non-existent GHE?

            Can you even describe the magical GHE in any way that stands up to scientific examination? If you truly believe the atmosphere acts as an insulator (according to Pierrehumbert, equivalent to one seventh of an inch of polystyrene), why all the mystery?

            Or is it really a magic insulator – letting more energy one way, than the other! Perpetual motion – free energy for all!

            Sign me up for one. I’ll pay when you get it working. How hard can it be?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Get lost, Flynn. You’re not willing to answer basic questions. You’re nothing but lame excuses. You’re just trolling. Enough of you.

  87. Mike Flynn says:

    Norman,

    You wrote –

    Mike Flynn

    “I have already posted evidence that the surface does not have to cool at night. I think you ignore evidence that does not fit with you view of reality. So why do you ask for it?”

    Unless you can quote me asking for evidence of anything except a testable GHE hypothesis, others might think you are just making things up, and deeply ensconced in your fantasy.

    What you think or don’t think is irrelevant to me, and almost certainly irrelevant to Nature.

    No testable GHE hypothesis exists. No unicorns exist.

    If you can produce a genuine example of either, I will smartly change my mind. Mere claims of existence do not count.

    As the supposed GHE apparently has nothing to do with the operation of greenhouses, and greenhouse gases likewise are unrelated, maybe you need to look for another hypothesis?

    Or you could just give up, and take solace in your religious fervour. Not much difference either way, as far as Nature is concerned. The Earth continues to cool. Seven billion or so humans manage to generate far more heat than one billion did, over a century ago. It seems strange that thermometers don’t record any temperature increases as a result, doesn’t it?

    Here’s your cue to deny, divert and confuse. Go for it!

    Cheers.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Is that it, Davie? Is that all you’ve got?

        5-6 times with the same link?

        You’re that pathetic?

        Norm is not even so devoid (but close).

        I guess that is the end result of pseudoscience.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David Appell,

        You can’t even define the GHE, except to say it has nothing to do with greenhouses.

        What is this wondrous GHE? If it doesn’t work in an room at night, how does it affect a meteorological observation thermometer purposely situated in a room (Stevenson Screen), at night? Of course if doesn’t! It’s nonsense!

        CO2 does not increase the amount of heat available to a thermometer when placed between the thermometer and a heat source. Mad assertions that it does, in some unexplained fashion, does no credit to the Warmist cause.

        How about producing a GHE hypothesis for examination? How hard can it be?

        Cheers,

        • David Appell says:

          How about addressing the evidence?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David Appell,

            Evidence of what? You can’t even say what the mythical GHE is!

            Maybe if you could state what the GHE does, and how it does it, in some scientifically testable way. It might further your cause.

            Otherwise, you’re just another rambling Warmist, uttering ever more ridiculous unsubstantiated assertions.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, the evidence suggests that you are a troll.

          • David Appell says:

            MF, anything to avoid confronting the evidence, huh?

            The GHE effect is easily defined. If you don’t what that is, you are woefully unprepared to comment on it existence.

  88. CO2isLife says:

    CO2 Cant Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

    In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isnt a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesnt mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.

    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/co2-cant-cause-the-warming-alarmists-claim-it-does/

  89. Bored Scroller says:

    Roy

    Could you possibly reverse the comments so that the most recent come first? I like to open posts and scan the most recent comments, but scrolling through 950 of them each time is a P.I.T.A..

    • David Appell says:

      Agreed. And/or send email notifications of new comments.

      • lewis says:

        Dear Bored,

        It’s really not that difficult. Use your slide bar, it’s on the right of the screen, click and hold the part that slides, take it to the bottom and then come up a bit to where you want to be.

        Dear David,

        I realize the above is probably a bit difficult for you to comprehend, but give it a go. – So far as emails. I don’t see why Dr. S would want to do anything to assist you in your meanderings considering how rude you are to most everyone, including him, that you disagree with.

        Lewis

        • David Appell says:

          I’m direct, Lewis. People like you take umbrage when someone bluntly refuses to accept your BS.

          I”d still like a decent commenting system like most blogs have — some temporal order, and email notifications.

  90. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote –

    “For example, when a piston is compressed, the gas inside warms (T increases) but it was definitely not heated (Q=0).”

    This seems odd, as usually an increase in the temperature of a thermometer results from the application of heat. Are you claiming that air compressed in a Diesel engine, reaching a measured temperature in excess of 500 C, has not been heated?

    Even Wikipedia states –

    “Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done on it by its surroundings, e.g., a piston compressing a gas contained within an adiabatic cylinder. This finds practical application in diesel engines which rely on the lack of quick heat dissipation during their compression stroke to elevate the fuel vapor temperature sufficiently to ignite it.”

    A bit rough, but more or less correct.

    Maybe you consider the high temperatures experienced by a space shuttle on re entry – 1650 C, or higher, as not resulting from heat generated by compression or friction. Just warming, perhaps?

    Or Gavin Schmidt’s breathless declaration of “Hottest year EVAH!” as being due to warmth, rather than heat.

    Still no GHE. Not even a description of what the GHE is, or how it’s supposed to work, let alone a testable GHE hypothesis!

    How hard can it be?

    Cheers.

    • Norman says:

      Mike Flynn

      Roy Spencer has already done the work for you and explained the GHE in detail, showed easy to follow graphics and built and actual model you can play with to demonstrate the effect.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

      So please quit with the posts such as this: “Still no GHE. Not even a description of what the GHE is, or how its supposed to work, let alone a testable GHE hypothesis!”

      It is right in the link LOOK!

      I fell for the phony messed up physics of PSI but thankfully Roy Spencer helped get me out of that garbage dump of horrible physics. You and g*e*r*a*n are deep in the crap fest of horrible physics and so far you show little desire to learn or study.

      Get over yourself and read from a textbook! That is what I
      started to do. g*e*r*a*n cannot read a textbook, he can’t read text that has more than 50 words and he considers such posts as rambles. Poor fellow, medication is available to help the condition. If you do not suffer ADD then start to read some real physics and don’t get your information from PSI.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        I do not know if you will look at Roy Spencer link or even spend 10 seconds thinking about what he is saying.

        I will try to explain the process of GHE since you claim no one has given a description.

        Solar energy hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The temperature goes up and it emits more IR towards a GHG containing atmosphere. The GHG will absorb a large amount of the Upwelling IR from the Earth surface. Only about 40 W/m^2 of 398 W/m^2 will directly leave the surface and go directly to space (atmospheric window).

        So far so good?

        The GHG that absorb the upwelling IR can transfer some of this energy to surrounding nonGHG molecules (mostly N2 and O2) raising their kinetic energy and temperature and the GHG can also re-emit the energy as IR in any random direction including back down to the surface.

        Nothing will stop the surface from absorbing the downwelling IR. It is measured and averages globally at 340 W/m^2 (more in some places, less in others). The IR reaching the surface from the GHG above will add energy to the surface that would not have been there if the GHG were not present. It alone will not heat or warm the surface. The surface is doing two things at the same time with radiant energy (it is described as such in all textbooks I have read on the subject, if you want textbook links I will gladly link you up). The surface emits IR away from it and it absorbs energy hitting it. The energy it emits is 398 W/m^2 the energy it receives from the atmosphere is 340 W/m^2. The energy received is less than what is emitted but the difference between having GHG atmosphere and not having one is 340 W/m^2 of energy that would not be absorbed by the surface, it would radiate away at 398 W/m^2 and be much cooler.

        So if the surface of Earth would average 255 K without GHG present would you not admit correctly that the having GHG present caused a warming effect to sustain a surface at 288 K? Isn’t 288 K warmer than 255 K so does not that logically follow GHG warm the surface??

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Norman,

          I’ll start with the simple things.

          No solar energy hits the surface at night, so I assume your GHE only operates while the Sun is shining. I already know about the difference between night and day.

          You say the surface emits IR. True. Unfortunately, it’s also true that the surface temperature drops as a consequence of emitting energy. If less than 100% of this emitted energy returns to the emitting surface, the temperature drops. This why the temperature drops at night, or even after local solar noon, or when cloudy, or hazy, and so on. No miraculous GHE to be seen.

          The rest of your comment demonstrates the same type of misunderstanding, so I’ll let you rephrase your comment to acknowledge that all matter emits energy continuously, and except in circumstances such as a phase change, this will result in a lowering of temperature. In the absence of an external,heat source, all matter will cool to absolute zero. Even CO2!

          Your last para is just completely nonsensical. I might just as easily say that when the Earth’s surface was molten, it was hotter than 288 K. Does it not follow logically that GHGs cool the surface?

          As to your link – not helpful, I’m afraid.

          For instance –

          “1) make the Earths surface warmer than it would otherwise be, and . . . ”

          No it doesn’t, not in the presence of sunlight. The arid tropical deserts, for example, have the least amounts of that most important greenhouse gas, H2O, above them. Also the hottest places on Earth.

          Or ascend. As Tyndall observed, the less atmosphere of any sort between a thermometer and the Sun, the more energy it can absorb, and the hotter it gets,

          Or look at the Moon – no atmosphere to speak of, and far hotter surface temperatures after equivalent exposure time. LRO Diviner data is there, if you want to verify for your self.

          So still no testable GHE hypothesis. Just continuing attempts to deny, divert, and confuse. Maybe you can figure out a way to make a thermometer hotter using CO2. Nobody else has managed so far.

          Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Please answer one question. What do you think the GHE is?

            I really cannot discuss with you points that are not being made about GHE.

            I think your false and incorrect understanding of GHE is that the atmosphere alone will warm the surface.

            That is nothing I have claimed. Kristian disagrees with me but the way the GHE works is that you have two incoming energy fluxes (I will not call them heat fluxes). Solar IN and DWIR In. The two combined add energy to the surface.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1280px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

            The solar input adds 163.3 joules/sec-m^2 and the Downwelling IR adds 340.3 joules/sec-m^2. That means the Earth is gaining 503.6 joules/sec-m^2.

            The surface emits away 398.2 joules/sec-m^2. The surface would warm considerably but there are two other processes that carry energy away from the surface and move it to the atmosphere where they become part of the GHE in DWIR.

            Do you yet see how it works?

            The DWIR alone will not warm the surface. Alone it is only slows cooling. Solar energy alone will warm the Earth to a certain temperature but that is all it will do. The GHE is a combination of energy inputs.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            You wrote –

            “Please answer one question. What do you think the GHE is?”

            The GHE is non-existent, obviously, I have tried for some time to obtain a copy of a testable hypothesis relating to the GHE, but all I get are evasions and irrelevant links.

            You obviously don’t know what the GHE is, or if you do, you are unable to clearly state what it is. I believe it has nothing to do with greenhouses, but I am not even sure about that.

            You write –

            “The GHE is a combination of energy inputs.”, which is completely pointless on the face of it. Sounds sciency, but imparts no useful information whatsoever! How does it increase thermometer temperatures more than direct sunlight?

            The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. This fact alone makes a mockery of your claims.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            MF wrote:
            “The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.”

            Prove this. Cite the source or data.

      • g*e*r*an says:

        Norm, here is your chance to redeem yourself.

        Go to the link you mentioned above. See if you can find the flaw.

        If you need a hint, get back to me.

        Best of luck.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Mike says: “This seems odd …
      Then clearly you don’t understand thermodynamics. There is nothing odd about it.

      “Are you claiming that air compressed in a Diesel engine, reaching a measured temperature in excess of 500 C, has not been heated?”
      Yes. Go ask any physics prof or read any thermodynamics text or ask any engineer who designs engines.

      “Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done“.
      From work done, W. not from heat, Q. It’s right there in the very lines you quoted!

      “Still no GHE. Not even a description of what the GHE is”
      Really? You accurately described the GHE. I quoted your statements. I re-stated your statement. Twice. And yet you STILL can’t find it?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Tim Folkerts,

        Ah well, Tim. We might have to disagree about whether a gas being heated to a temperature of 500 C has been heated. The gas cares not, and you can’t tell tell how it was heated, by examining the gas.

        You may be aware that according to Feynman, all physics, with the exception of nuclear processes and gravity, can be explained in the following terms –

        – An electron moves from place to place.
        – A photon moves from place to place.
        – An electron absorbs and emits a photon.

        Just because you are unable to describe heat (or indeed work) in terms of the above, doesn’t mean Feynman was wrong. I apologise if I have confused you by trying to use imprecise terms such as heat, or heated. My mistake.

        If that’s a big modern for you, a chap named John Tyndall wrote a book titled “Heat – a mode of motion” over a century ago. Energy is energy. Tricky concepts. E = mc2, but photons have no rest mass! And yet Einstein is still right! Photons have momentum. If momentum = mass x velocity, and photons have no mass, do they have momentum, or even energy, for that matter?

        Only playing with you. Sorry.

        But all this is beside the point.

        You are now saying I have accurately described the GHE. Excellent! Now you have accepted my description of the GHE, you can now use it to propose a testable GHE hypothesis.

        I freely admit that I cannot perform such a miracle. Neither can you.

        Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Even the name “greenhouse effect” is pointless. Nothing to do with greenhouses, apparently. No wonder nobody can propose a testable hypothesis for such a bizarrely named nothing,

        At least I’m pleased that you accept my assumption as to what might be contained in the supposed GHE. It’s a bit surprising that nobody in the climatological field seems to be as clever as me! I might even be cleverer than you – you can’t come up with a better explanation of the magical GHE than I can, it might seem.

        No GHE. CO2 neither warms nor heats anything. It doesn’t do any work, either. No “Hottest year EVAH!” due to CO2 in the atmosphere. Complete nonsense.

        Cheers.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Mike says: “I apologise if I have confused you by trying to use imprecise terms such as heat, or heated. My mistake.”

        No. You are confusing everyone by trying to use PRECISE terms in an imprecise way. And more specifically, by using precise terms in an imprecise way AND acting as if you have used them in a precise way.

        In a casual conversation, I don’t get concerned about phrases like “We might have to disagree about whether a gas being heated to a temperature of 500 C has been heated.” But this is not a casual conversation. You want to discuss details about thermodynamics and the GHE, but this will continue to be impossible if you can’t use the basic vocabulary of thermodynamics correctly.

        “Now you have accepted my description of the GHE, you can now use it to propose a testable GHE hypothesis.

        I freely admit that I cannot perform such a miracle. “
        Again you have confused yourself. “Testable” simply means capable of being tested. Checking a thermometer with and without CO2 is certainly testable. The experiment might be difficult or expensive or time-consuming. It might even provide evidence against the hypothesis, but it is most certainly able to be tested. No miracle required!

        “Its a bit surprising that nobody in the climatological field seems to be as clever as me!”
        You are STILL confusing yourself. Explanations of the basic physic of the greenhouse effect are all over the internet. Some are better than others. But it is easy to find.

        Now, being able to accurately APPLY the greenhouse effect to the earths actual atmosphere is tough. There are LOTS of factors involved with global temperatures that must be included IN ADDITION TO the GHE.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Tim Folkerts,

          I am sorry that you cannot bring yourself to copy and paste a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis which you claim is easily found.

          If there are more than one – competing hypotheses, that is – I can understand why you cannot find the time. You are obviously too busy telling me that I’m too stupid to find details of a testable GHE hypothesis for myself.

          If you don’t know how to copy and paste, I’ll try to help.

          Here’s what Dr Spencer wrote a few years ago –

          “The 5th possibility (increasing GHGs dont really cause warming) is total anathema to the IPCC. Without GHG warming, the whole AGW movement collapses. This kind of scientific finding would normally be Nobel Prize territoryexcept that the Nobel Prize has become more of a socio-political award in recent years, with only politically correct recipients. The self-flagellating elites dont like the idea humans might not be destroying the Earth.

          The longer we go without significant warming, the more obvious it will become that there is something seriously wrong with current AGW theory. I dont think there is a certain number of years 5, 10, 20, etc. which will disprove the science of AGW.unless the climate system cools for the next 10 years. Eek! But I personally doubt that will happen.”

          Obviously no hypothesis here. Otherwise it could have been tested, and the results of the experiments recorded. The IPCC dispensed with the normal scientific process, and proclaimed a “theory” which doesn’t seem to be working. Of course GHE and AGW supporters claim that their assertions cannot be tested by experiment! Just like astrology or parapsychology!

          Maybe you could provide the name of the scientist who proposed the testable GHE hypothesis (not
          Including the speculations of people like Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius et al., who had no knowledge of modern physics, brilliant though they were), and where it might be found. I really can’t understand why it’s so well hidden.

          I’m sure you can be helpful, if you try really hard! Or you can be evasive and obstructive, if that makes you happier.

          Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike, much of the reason these discussion go round and round is that that there are related but distinct issues about which we could make hypotheses.

            At the one extreme — the pure physics extreme — is a very generic greenhouse effect hypothesis like this.
            THERMODYNAMIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT HYPOTHESIS: Everything else being equal, a layer of IR absorbing material added between an actively heated surface and the cooler surroundings will lead to an increased temperature of the actively heated surface.
            This is testable.
            This has been tested.
            This conforms with the laws of thermodynamics.
            This is not at all controversial.
            This is about physics, not about climate per se.
            This is what I try to focus on (mostly because a few very vocal people disagree with even this very basic idea).
            This is what I mean when I say “the greenhouse effect”.
            I *think* this is what most scientists would mean by “the greenhouse effect” (but I haven’t done such a poll).

            At another extreme — a social/political/economic extreme — is a very different greenhouse effect hypothesis like this.
            CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC GLOBAL WARMING GREENHOUSE EFFECT HYPOTHESIS: The IR absorbing gases added to the atmosphere by human activity will lead to increased temperature which will cause large increases in temperature that will have catastrophic effects on the world ecologically, economically, and/or politically.
            This is not really testable.
            This involves all sorts of science in addition to the basic thermodynamic GHE.
            This involves all sort of non-science, such as social and economic impacts.
            I tend to avoid this side of the issue.

            ******************************************

            If you truly want a discussion about the Thermodynamic-GHE, great. The T-GHE is an important *part* of climate. It is a *step* toward being able to discuss climate.

            If you want to discuss possible geopolitical ramifications, that cool too. It is important and interesting.

            If you want to talk about houses filled with CO2 or thermos bottles filled with CO2 — well — those are red herrings that no one (who understand the basic thermodynamics) would equate to the T-GHE. Every time you bring up something like this, it mere shows you don’t know the core thermodynamic issues involved.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nice attempt at spin, Tim.

            Your first scenario is NOT the Earth system. So, it has no bearing here, except to confuse folks.

            You wisely back away from the second scenario, but you fail to clearly label it a “pseudoscience”.

            That makes your whole comment an attempt to spin.

            Why do you do that to yourself?

          • David Appell says:

            “The T-GHE is an important *part* of climate.”

            T = thermodynamic?

            If so, the GHE isn’t a consequence of thermodynamics — it arises from quantum, nonclassical, radiative properties of the system.

            It comes from radiative physics, not classical physics.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Mike wonders: “How hard can it be?”
      Apparently its harder than you realize.

      “This seems odd, as usually an increase in the temperature of a thermometer results from the application of heat.”
      Usually, but not always. Both heat (Q) and work (W) can change the temperature and the internal energy (U). That’s the First law of Thermodynamics — and it should not seem odd to anyone discussing thermodynamics.

      “Are you claiming that air compressed in a Diesel engine, reaching a measured temperature in excess of 500 C, has not been heated?”
      Yep. Ask any physic prof. Read any thermodynamics textbook.

      “Even Wikipedia states Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done on it by its surroundings, e.g., a piston”
      Its right there — W, not Q. Heck, the very word “adiabatic” means “no Q”. The gas in the piston increases in temperature due to work done.

  91. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell’s complete post –

    “Address the evidence, for once.”

    The evidence clearly points to David Appell making the usual pointless Warmist demands, in an effort to avoid admitting that they cannot even describe what the GHE is – in words – or how it’s supposed to work – in words.

    I prefer to address facts, however David Appell’s definition of a fact seems to be as rigorous as his definition of the GHE.

    Cue another pointless Warmist demand from David Appell!

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      MF, I knew you would find some excuse to try to avoid confronting the evidence, even though you say “I prefer to address facts….”

      But not all the facts, clearly.

    • David Appell says:

      GHE = (a planet’s actual mean global surface temperature) – (the planet’s brightness temperature.)

      Happy now?

  92. Norman says:

    Mike Flynn and g*e*r*a*n

    This seems to be the source of your material. The most illogical Joe Postma. I do not know why you salivate over this twisted unscientific goofball and act like he knows something. I have read through a lot of his material and it is really bad physics not supported by anything but the strength of his personality. Cult of Personality. He can sway people who have limited physics backgrounds.

    http://principia-scientific.org/tag/roy-spencer/

    Postma is like a cultist leader and the two of you hold tight to every word he writes as if it unquestionable truth.

    Mike Flynn you should really read your posts you seem like a cult minded follower of this moron. If you read him okay, but look at a textbook from time to time and you will see how phony he is even if he has a little pet word he uses “sophistry”

    If anyone wants to know the personality of Postma you can read this link. A foul mouthed idiot with very poor reasoning.

    http://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-defender-roy-spencer-asle-language-warning/

    • David Appell says:

      I agree with you, Norman, except I think Postma is being genuine. I think Flynn and g* are not — just jokers trying to trolling everyone.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Norm, you really get “imaginative” when you get desperate.

      Your pseudoscience is falling in on your head. You remind me of a wounded animal, writhing in pain and fear.

      Hilarious.

  93. g*e*r*a*n says:

    Norm vomits again: “g*e*r*a*n cannot read a textbook, he cant read text that has more than 50 words and he considers such posts as rambles.”

    Norm, care to put your money where your mouth is?

    It could be arranged, all legal, attorneys, signed documents. Interested?

    $10,000, winner take all?

    You don’t want to be just another Internet phony, do you?

    • Norman says:

      g*e*r*a*n

      No I am not the least bit interested in your challenge. You are the one who can’t read posts longer than 50 words and your lack of knowledge of physics is obvious in everyone of your posts.

      Here is a link for you.

      http://dl1.ponato.com/eb1/1149__64dd22f.pdf

      Reading through this material will do you a lot more good than some $10,000 dollar bet of some nature.

      Help yourself and save the blog from your unscientific posts.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Norm is unable to stand by his own words.

        No surprise.

        • Norman says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          They never were my own words. They are the words that come out of textbooks on the subject which I was thoughtful and kind enough to link you too. Will you take the time to read through it? It will help you for sure!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm lies again.

            “They never were my own words.”

            “g*e*r*a*n cannot read a textbook, he cant read text that has more than 50 words and he considers such posts as rambles.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246388

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Here is one of yours: “Tim, lost in your pseudoscience, you have resorted to Norm-like rambling.

            Maybe, if you have only one question, in 50 words or less, I can help you.”

            And This one: “Too much purposeless rambling here, Norm.

            Maybe if you could get it down to just one question, with 50 words or less?”

            I am sure there are more but I am not that interested in making you feel bad so I will leave it with these two examples of your limited attention span and lack of concentration.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, you can’t stand by your words, so why should anyone read your rambling nonsense?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “Norm, you cant stand by your words, so why should anyone read your rambling nonsense”

            Then don’t read them, wonderful. I will be most glad not to have you interject your babble troll garbage on a science blog.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, folks that appreciate and understand science don’t say things like “The energy does not leave the system, but the energy leaves the system.”

            You are about as far from actual science, as you are from having a degree from a college that still offers that degree!

            But, I never tire of your hilarious pseudoscience.

  94. Norman says:

    Mike Flynn

    Here is another GHE model by Roy Spencer. Before you reject it think about what he is saying and what it means. Think of the physics involved. Reason it through your mind.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      More links. More demands.

      Might it not be easier to just cut and paste the consensus testable GHE hypothesis for scientific examination? Why are you hiding it? Does it blind anybody who looks at it?

      Only joking of course. The GHE doesn’t exist. Fooled a lot of people, though.

      Cheers.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        So basically you are saying that “thinking” and “reasoning” are demands? Yup you are a cult-minded broken record.

        • Norman says:

          Mike Flynn

          You have your cult mantra “There is not GHE, there is not GHE, there is not GHE, there is no GHE” The more you repeat it I guess the more real it becomes to you. Really sad. I guess you are on this blog to try and recruit fellow believers.

          I think you have been explained exactly how the GHE works by many posters then you go on and say nobody can explain the GHE or how it works. Roy Spencer has provided examples of testable GHE but you will not accept the links.

          There is one obvious fact. Thinking will not be a problem for you since you consider it a “demand” and it might upset the cult programming you are into.

          Either you are in a cult or just a troll out to annoy people and you put “cheers” in your posts to pretend you are not one.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            Maybe be if you could provide a copy of a testable GHE hypothesis, it might save the time you spend in fruitless attempts to avoid admitting that no such thing exists.

            You wrote –

            “I think you have been explained exactly how the GHE works by many posters then you go on and say nobody can explain the GHE or how it works. Roy Spencer has provided examples of testable GHE but you will not accept the links.”

            Quite apart from your execrable grammar and your unsubstantiated assertions, you fail to even pay the courtesy of quoting my words, preferring instead to refer to the figments of your own imagination!

            Maybe you are simply too incompetent to copy and paste – let me know if you suffer from a mental impediment, and I’ll type more slowly for you. Only joking. I know you can’t prove you are not a gullible Warmist of limited intelligence. That’s fine, neither can David Appell.

            Maybe I’m wrong, but wouldn’t it be easier to provide a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis, if you have one? What do you hope to achieve by refusing to let me look at it? The most effective way to convince me (and maybe others) that a testable GHE hypothesis exists, might be to produce it for interested parties to examine.

            Just in case you really don’t know what a hypothesis is, I’ll help you out –

            “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.”

            Please let me know if Warmists have a different definition – they often have flexible definitions which change minute to minute.

            I’m happy with the definition I have provided. I’m sure you will reject it. I’d be interested in your reasoning, more for the humour content than any particular insight into the convoluted pathways of your fantasies.

            Alas, still no testable GHE hypothesis. Just more time wasted trying to deny, divert, and confuse. Keep trying. It might work one day.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            It is impossible to comprehend what you ask. I read your definition of a hypothesis. It has been given to you many times by many posters.

            YOU: “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.”

            That has been done several times by several posters. Above g*e*r*a*n sent a link to Dave Appell covering the hypothesis in detail, scroll up an look.

            The proposed explanation. Carbon Dioxide absorbs and emits IR at certain wavelengths of IR (primarily 4 and 15 microns). The atmosphere has temperature therefore Carbon Dioxide is emitting IR energy in all directions. Some of this energy reaches the Earth’s surface adding energy to it based upon the amount of downwelling IR.

            So that is the explanation satisfying your definition of hypothesis.

            The test is to put an IR sensor pointing up to the sky and measuring the Downwelling IR. You measure it exists and the hypothesis is scientific and established. I am not sure what more you are asking. What exactly are you wanting when you ask for a “testable GHE hypothesis” when many people have given you exactly that in many words in many ways and many have provided you direct links to the hypothesis yet you continue to claim no one has provided it for you. Are you dense beyond a neutron star core??? Wow it is almost unreal to keep trying to reason with you!

            Cherries! And Peaches.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Another example of Norm’s pseudoscience: “The test is to put an IR sensor pointing up to the sky and measuring the Downwelling IR.”

            Norm believes because something has a temperature, it is a “heat source”. Norm believe ice can bake a turkey.

            Norm believes the Earth is flat because the horizon appears flat.

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “Norm believes because something has a temperature, it is a heat source.”

            Ever heard of the Planck Law?

          • David Appell says:

            MF, when are you going to address the evidence?

            https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

            or, simply, explain T(GMST)-T(brightness) appx equal 33 C, for the Earth.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David Appell,

            So the undistinguished mathematician and wannabe scientist Gavin Schmidt can use an image manipulating program to amalgamate two unrelated images into one.

            If this is your version of intellectual brilliance, good for you!

            I’m not sure why you think image manipulation is evidence of anything except itself, but I’m sure you’ll try and browbeat me into something! Go for it!

            Cheers

          • David Appell says:

            Wow, you’re really afraid of that data, aren’t you.

  95. Norman says:

    Mike Flynn

    Roy Spencer has also done experiments showing the GHE in action, not sure