Diagnosing Climate Sensitivity Assuming Some Natural Warming

February 16th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Climate sensitivity has been diagnosed based upon energy budget considerations by several authors in recent years using observational data combined with estimates of anthropogenic radiative forcing (e.g. Otto et al., 2013; Lewis & Curry, 2014).

Significantly, they generally calculate a lower equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) than the average of the IPCC AR5 climate models. Whereas the IPCC models average about 3.4 deg. C of warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (2XCO2), these diagnostic studies get ECS from about 1.6 to 2.0 deg. C. Nic Lewis has provided detailed analysis over at Judith Curry’s blog about what goes into these estimates and the uncertainties of each observational variable.

The ECS estimate is based upon conservation of energy, and uses four variables in a single equation that uses differences in the climate system at two different times (say, two different decades) sufficiently separated in time where there has been a large climate reponse in surface temperature to an assumed radiative forcing. Note that the climate response is assumed to be a response to anthropogenic radiative forcing, plus volcanoes, and analysis is usually restricted to the oceans (where heat storage can be more accurately estimated):

ECS = F2XCO2[ ΔT/(ΔF – ΔQ)],

where:

F2XCO2 = 3.7 W/m2, the assumed radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2,

ΔT = the change in global average surface temperature between two periods (deg. C);

ΔF = the change in radiative forcing (imposed energy imbalance on the climate system at top of atmosphere) between two time periods (W/m2);

ΔQ = the change in ocean heat storage between two time periods(W/m2).

In the aforementioned papers, the earlier time period has been chosen to be in the mid- to late- 1800s, while the second has been some subset of the period 1970-2011.

I have verified the above equation using a time-dependent energy balance model of a 2-layer ocean extending to 2,000m depth using either the RCP6.0 radiative forcing history, or an instantaneously imposed doubling of CO2 back in the 1800s, and I get the same ECS calculated from the model output as I prescribed as input to the model. The equation works.

What if a Portion of Recent Warming Was Natural?

As you might recall, the IPCC is quite certain that the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th Century was due to anthropogenic forcings.

What does “dominant” mean? Well, I’m sure it means over 50%. This implies that they are leaving the door open to the possibility that some of the recent warming has been natural, right?

Well, we can use the above equation to do a first-cut estimate of what the diagnosed climate sensitivity would be if some fraction of the surface and deep-ocean warming was natural.

All we have to do is replace ΔQ with fΔQ, where f is the fraction of ocean warming which is human-caused. We also do the same thing for the surface warming term: fΔT.

When we do this for anthropogenic fractions from 0% to 100%, here’s what we get:

How the data-diagnosed equilibrium climate sensitivity changes assuming different fractions of the warming due to humans (and the rest natural).

Note that even assuming 70% of recent ocean warming is due to humans (consistent with their claim that humans “dominate” warming), that the diagnosed climate sensitivity is only 1.3 deg. C. which is below the range even the IPCC (AR5) considers likely (1.5 to 4.5 deg. C).

Now, this raises an interesting issue… almost a dichotomy. I have heard some IPCC-type folks claim that recent anthropogenic warming could have been damped by some natural cooling mechanism. After all, the models are warming (on average) about twice as fast as the measurements of the lower troposphere. If they really believe the models, and also believe there has been some natural cooling mechanism going on suppressing anthropogenic warming, why doesn’t the IPCC simply claim ALL recent warming was due to human causation? That would be the logical conclusion.

But the way the AR5 was written, they are suggesting that a portion of recent warming could be natural, which is the basis for my analysis, above, which produces a very low climate sensitivity number.

They can’t have it both ways.


686 Responses to “Diagnosing Climate Sensitivity Assuming Some Natural Warming”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RickA says:

    Very interesting! Thank you.

    Yes – the IPCC very confusingly said > 50% anthro.

    However, on blogs many scientists say more than 100% is caused by humans (aerosols actually mask some warming they say).

    So I think many are saying that 100% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans.

    Of course, el nino caused .2C of warming and now we seem to have .2C of cooling caused by la nina – but that doesn’t count (apparently).

    • David Appell says:

      The surface and LT responses to El Ninos keep getting warmer, and to La Ninas, and to neutral years.

      That wouldn’t be happening without an underlying background warming.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Dont say I never help you out. This from the Australian BOM (not at all a hotbed of denial, it appears. They can adjust figures just as well as any foolish Warmist) –

        El Nio and La Nia events are a natural part of the global climate system. They occur when the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere above it change from their neutral (‘normal’) state for several seasons. El Nio events are associated with a warming of the central and eastern tropical Pacific, while La Nia events are the reverse, with a sustained cooling of these same areas.

        No mention of CO2, nor of the phenomena providing any additional energy not derived from natural causes. Do you think CO2 is responsible for both the warming and cooling mentioned?

        You may present your bizarre assumptions as fact, and Im sure that at least some foolish Warmists will believe you.

        Cheers.

      • Bill_W_1984 says:

        And that underlying background warming could be natural or man-made or some combination. Most variables measured don’t distinguish between the two.

      • Randall Cornwell says:

        David, is it possible the past few El Ninos have been stronger and last longer that the past few La Ninas to cause warming?

        • David Appell says:

          Why would that be?

          El Nino years keep getting warmer.
          La Nina years keep getting warmer.
          Neutral years keep getting warmer.

          Why is this happening?

          • NP-Hard says:

            Could long ocean cycles influence ENSO over hundreds or thousands of years? Rosenthal et al., 2017 seems to show some long and chaotic cycles for the eastern Pacific. It also shows that the eastern Pacific has been warming for the last thousand years. This seems to support that ENSO could keep getting warmer and warmer for a long period of time.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”El Nino years keep getting warmer.
            La Nina years keep getting warmer.
            Neutral years keep getting warmer.

            Why is this happening?”

            Exactly…why is it happening?

            I think it’s an on-going recovery from the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850. CO2 in the amount we have in the atmosphere lacks that kind of warming potential. Warming from CO2 based on its mass should be a few hundredths of a degree max.

          • AaronS says:

            Dave

            Confused? U say La Nina years getting warmer. Do you mean in L troposphere or pacific (Nino 3.4)?

          • Jake says:

            A gaunt Viking, overheard in 1612 …..

            “El Nino years keep getting cooler.
            La Nina years keep getting cooler.
            Neutral years keep getting cooler.

            Why is this happening?”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      RickA…”Of course, el nino caused .2C of warming and now we seem to have .2C of cooling caused by la nina but that doesnt count (apparently)”.

      Let’s not forget the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977 when the global average suddenly leaped 0.2C. Currently, your 0.2C warming makes it 0.4C due to natural causes and I have pointed out an apparent nearly 0.2C shift following the 1998 El Nino.

      Post 1998, the global average declined to below the baseline and it should have stayed there based on what preceded it from 1979 onward. However, the UAH graph provided by Roy shows an unexplained leap circa 2002 back above the baseline of about 0.2C, where it leveled off till 2008.

      You have to look at the red running average curve to see it.

      That amounts to nearly 0.6C of unexplained warming since 1977 and all of it has been related to natural events.

      • Des says:

        Hey Gordon,

        Why are you avoiding the other thread? Something to do with your nonsense claim that an AC current through a resister can somehow dissipate zero power? I understand why you’d run away after that one.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          des…”Why are you avoiding the other thread? Something to do with your nonsense claim that an AC current through a resister can somehow dissipate zero power? ”

          What on Earth are you raving about?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            des…”Something to do with your nonsense claim that an AC current through a resister can somehow dissipate zero power? ”

            Went back to see what you are ranting about. I did not say anything about power in a resistor related to alternating current. I said the average power of a sine wave over a full cycle is zero. You interpreted that as me claiming a resistor connected to an AC supply does not dissipate power.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            You should learn to stay away from commenting on things you obviously know nothing about. The heating power from an AC wave is based on the D.C equivalent of the peaks of each half wave of the sine wave and not the full cycle.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            WordPress doesn’t like D.C….without the dot.

            If you could replace each instantaneous amplitude of a sine wave by a vector, be it a current vector or a voltage vector, the vectors would point in a positive direction during the positive cycle and in the other way during the negative cycle. The average over a full cycle would be zero.

            However, during each half cycle, power is generated into a resistive load. The power is based on the equivalent D.C of the AC voltage, which is determined from half wave and not the peak to peak of the entire cycle.

            If you have a 120 volts AC voltage, the 120 volts is the RMS value of one peak, which is the D.C equivalent. It is calculated at 0.707 of the peak value, therefore a 120 volt common North American home outlet has a peak value of 120 volts x 1.414 = 169.68 volts.

            The voltage rating has nothing to do with the full cycle, it is based only on the half cycle amplitude. Therefore power being EI, is also based on the half cycle.

            I said nothing about those half cycles cancelling power-wise when applied to a resis.tive load, I was talking about the areas under the curves cancelling.

          • Des says:

            “I said the average power of a sine wave over a full cycle is zero”</em?

            Because of course a sine wave "has power" … facepalm

            The heating power from an AC wave is based on the D.C equivalent of the peaks of each half wave of the sine wave and not the full cycle.

            If the period of one cycle is t=T seconds, the power dissipated is
            R*(integral from 0 to T of I(t)^2 dt) / T

            You are integrating I^2, not just I. That integral over the FULL cycle gives a NON-zero value.

            When (IF) you get half way through your final year, you will know more than me about EE. Until then, my level of knowledge is far superior than yours. Please don’t deign to talk to me about phasors, while calling them vectors.

  2. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “ΔF = the change in radiative forcing (imposed energy imbalance on the climate system at top of atmosphere)”

    Actually radiative forcing is calculated at the tropopause, not the TOA.

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Granted.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      davie, since you appear to be an expert on that ECS equation, maybe you could show us its derivation. The equation seems to be “home-brewed”, attempting alchemy to dissolve estimates and assumptions, ending with something that sounds “science-y”.

      For example, in the denominator (ΔF ΔQ), as ΔF approaches ΔQ, then ECS approaches infinity!

      (Hope the “deltas” work. I just copy/pasted.)

    • Nic Lewis says:

      “Actually radiative forcing is calculated at the tropopause, not the TOA.”

      Instantaneous forcing is often measured at the tropopause, in climate models, but only because doing so provides an approximation to stratospherically-adjusted top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcing – the usual meaning of radiative forcing.

      However, for use in the energy balance equation (ECS = F_2XCO2[ ΔT/(ΔF – ΔQ)]) one should measure “effective radiative forcing” (ERF), being that after all rapid adjustments have taken place, in particular tropospheric adjsutments (to clouds, etc.) as well as stratospheric adjustments.

      Once the atmosphere has adjusted, it makes essentially no difference whether forcing is measured at the tropopause or TOA. Satellite measurements (CERES EBAF) are of TOA radiation.

      • David Appell says:

        Fine, but then be sure to call “effective radiative forcing” the “energy imbalance,” and do it consistently, and keep “radiative forcing” as its scientific definition, defined at the tropopause, so as to avoid the stratospheric cooling that is the hallmark of CO2 troposphere warming.

        Once the atmosphere has adjusted, it makes essentially no difference whether forcing is measured at the tropopause or TOA. Satellite measurements (CERES EBAF) are of TOA radiation.

        But the atmosphere is currently no where near adjustment, so using present and historical data-to-date does *not* mean you can assume adjustment or that RF = TOA energy imbalance.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          So many forcings. So much nonsense. Just more climatological nonsense words with infinitely variable meanings.

          One might as well refer to foolish Warmist terms such as climate sensitivity, in its various forms. Non quantifiable, of course, so no one can be held to account for the nonsense.

          Climate is the average of weather, calculated arithmetically from weather observations. It is a number.

          Neither the atmosphere, nor the lithosphere or aquasphere are in balance, nor have they ever been. The Earth has cooled for four and half billion years, atmospheric CO2 notwithstanding.

          Keep issuing commands and demands, if you think it will help. If it doesnt, you can pose interminable gotchas, either pretending you dont know the answer and trying to make someone look foolish, or not knowing the answer, but refusing to believe facts.

          You dont need my assistance to look foolish, so I wont offer any.

          Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Ha!

            “So many forcings. So much nonsense. Just more climatological nonsense words”

            Mike, you dont understand science, which can get complicated, and does use jargon. Ok. Not a big deal. You might know other stuff.

            But then maybe you shouldnt trash what you dont understand!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nic…”Once the atmosphere has adjusted, it makes essentially no difference whether forcing is measured at the tropopause or TOA. Satellite measurements (CERES EBAF) are of TOA radiation”.

        Thanks for explanation but it is wasted on David. He has not the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”Roy wrote:
      ΔF = the change in radiative forcing (imposed energy imbalance on the climate system at top of atmosphere)

      Actually radiative forcing is calculated at the tropopause, not the TOA.”

      It’s a moot point for several reasons.

      1)the equation is speculatively based on unvalidated models, not proved.

      2)solar input affects the surface for calculations, not the tropopause.

      3)You looked it up on Google.

      4)You claim to be a science writer yet you interview only climate alarmists. That means you are an alarmist yourself. Your Google-derived point here is presented only to counter Roy’s opinion that much of the warming could come from natural sources. You are not debating him on that you are raising red-herring arguments that have nothing to do with the points made by Roy.

  3. Christopher Hanley says:

    The extent of natural v anthropogenic forcing contributions to the global surface temperature record since mid-1800s, such as it is, is a riddle insoluble this side of the pearly gates IMHO.
    However if the anthropogenic effect due to fossil fuel use with the abundance of attendant benefits has also dampened or masked a natural cooling from say 1850, I say that’s even better.

    • David Appell says:

      Why “insoluble?” What natural forcings exist? How have they changed?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Because its impossible to solve. Im surprised that your 15 hours of journalistic training, plus your PhD, didnt alert you to the possibility that you might find a definition of insoluble in a dictionary.

        On the other hand, the only definition of forcing I could locate in the Oxford Dictionary US edition, was –

        . . . requiring by convention a response from one’s partner, no matter how weak their hand may be. . .

        Slightly relevant, I guess. Maybe you dont like the Oxford dictionary much. There doesnt seem to be a definition of *forcing* at all in the Merriam Webster web version.

        Heres a thought, though. Maybe its a made up sciency sounding word, used by Warmist fools, trying to sound knowledgeable! What do you reckon? If it is, it might make your gotcha look pretty stupid.

        Cheers.

      • Christopher Hanley says:

        “What natural forcings exist? How have they changed?…”.
        Cloud cover particularly over the tropics 15N – 15S that is mostly ocean has a marked effect on solar, as Prof Humlum mentions at climate4you:
        “Within the still short period of satellite cloud cover observations, the total global cloud cover reached a maximum of about 69 percent in 1987 and a minimum of about 64 percent in 2000 , a decrease of about 5 percent. This decrease roughly corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. These observations leave little doubt that cloud cover variations may have a profound effect on global climate and meteorology on almost any time scale considered”.

        • David Appell says:

          Something peer reviewed would be much more convincing…. as would citations to the data.

          • Christopher Hanley says:

            Citations are found at climate4you, peer review of what?
            Peer review of unknown cloud cover 1850 – 1980?

          • David Appell says:

            Peer review of the presentation of the data.

          • DMA says:

            Check https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215300349?via%3Dihub

            which concludes:solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881. We discuss the significance of this apparent correlation, and its implications for previous studies which have instead suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the dominant influence.

            This is one of many papers with similar conclusions. I have not seen one empirical analysis that concludes anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant cause of recent warming.

          • lewis says:

            David,

            To remind you: this is Dr. Spencer’s blog, not yours. He makes the rules; few they are.

            Make your demands on your own blog. Here, enjoy the give and take. If you don’t care for something someone writes, skip it. This is what I usually do when you get on your horse with Flynn and his.

            Lewis

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Something peer reviewed would be much more convincing. as would citations to the data”.

            The only things peer reviewed these days in climate science are papers from climate alarmists. They run the PR system.

            And why do you need peer review, it’s not a requirement of the scientific method? Can you not read for yourself and commented on the science?

          • Des says:

            That’s because deniers don’t produce science.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Christopher…”However if the anthropogenic effect due to fossil fuel use with the abundance of attendant benefits has also dampened or masked a natural cooling from say 1850, I say thats even better”.

      It’s far more likely that CO2 had little or no effect at all and that the warming is the result of the Little Ice Age ending circa 1850.

      At 0.04% of the mass of the atmosphere, CO2 could not be expected to contribute warming any more than several hundredths C.

  4. RW says:

    But Roy, the IPCC gets their sensitivity numbers from net positive feedback (primarily from water vapor and clouds). What does this have to do with ocean heat storage? I’m not sure I understand what you’re doing here.

    • David Appell says:

      Positive feedbacks exist.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Maybe you dont realise it, but you may have lapsed into the foolish Warmist habit of meaningless three word utterances. Maybe you could follow it up with Wow. Just wow!, or, even more pointless yet cryptic – Duh! or Huh!

        You dont need to thank me for the advice.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Mike Flynn says:
          “CO2, like any other matter, can absorb and emit energy of any wavelength.”
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251611

          This is wrong, and obviously so.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Just for others, of course –

            What wavelengths do you think CO2 is emitting at the following temperatures –

            0 K, 50 K, 100 K, 273 K, 2000 K, and so on.

            Different to another gas at the same temperature? Possibly you believe CO2 has no temperature at all if not exposed to certain specific energy levels?

            Or maybe CO2 is the only gas which cannot be heated by the simple expedient of compressing it. In that case, you should be able to extract the CO2 at absolute zero from air compressed to 500 C in a Diesel engine, shouldnt you? On the other hand, foolish Warmists might claim that O2 and N2 cannot be heated by infrared radiation, so the air coming from an electrical heat gun must be due purely due to CO2 heating. What a crock!

            Maybe you would like to nominate a temperature to which CO2 cannot be heated, or allowed to cool to. Foolish Warmist. Breathe out, and tell me what wavelengths heated your expired CO2. If your core temperature rises a little due to a fever or strenuous exercise, does your expired air not change its temperature?

            Good luck with promoting your Warmist fool version of physics. I hope it works for you – disregard the laughter you might hear around you.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            “What wavelengths do you think CO2 is emitting at the following temperature”

            Another gotcha question.

            Fool.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Deny, divert, and confuse.

            As I pointed out, others can make their own decisions. They might care as much for your opinion as I do, which is to say a number absolutely indistinguishable from zero.

            Heigh ho, and off we go, on the Warmist fool bad apple train.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            GHE.
            As if I care what you think.
            Delusional deniers.
            [insert Feynman quote here.]
            Fool.

          • Nate says:

            Wow Mike,

            Why do you insist on making fun of nonsense that nobody is saying, except you?

            So many strawmen packed into one comment, must be a record!

            “N2 heated by IR in heat gun”

            Nobody is denying heating can occur by convection or conduction, which it clearly does in a heat gun, idiot!

            ‘Compression in a diesel engine”

            Im sorry how is gravity continuously compressing and expanding air, as in an engine?

            And Mike, you clearly dont understand that different gases DO have different wavelengths at which they emit. Are you trying to deny that that this is a fact?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Nate,

            If you imagine that you can distinguish gases at normal temperatures by examining the frequencies which they are emitting, youve got rocks in your head. If you can point to an example of this, I will humbly apologise.

            Computer models, statements by Warmist fools and so on, are not examples.

            Maybe you could show some sort of instrument which can distinguish the composition of gas from a distance at room temperature.

            Maybe a special climatological frequency meter, based on secret Warmist technology might help. If you cant find one, it might be with Trenberths missing heat, or Michael Manns Nobel Prize.

            Let me know how you get on.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Look up at the sky Mike with your IR spectrometer, to see what gases are between you and space. See IR emitted at various wavelenths and not others, such as the atmospheric window! Ya think it has to do with what the gases in the atmosphere are?

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “If you imagine that you can distinguish gases at normal temperatures by examining the frequencies which they are emitting, youve got rocks in your head.”

            Spectroscopy is how astronomers determine the elements present in stars, dust, etc.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You must have rocks in your head if you cannot accept that I mean normal temperatures on Earth when I mention normal temperatures. I know more about spectroscopy than you are ever likely to.

            The temperatures in stars are not normal on Earth. You refer to dust in interstellar space, which is more likely to totally obscure radiation from a stellar source, as even your mainly irrelevant link points out.

            Be that as it may, you havent managed to provide any actual Earthly examples of how one might determine the composition of gaseous mixtures with a temperature of less than 95 C (about the highest sea level surface temperature achievable by the action of the unconcentrated rays of the Sun), by examining the radiative emissions of such mixture. Ill specify darkness as well, in case you want to use a light source of more than 95 C, in a foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse.

            You claim to have a PhD. You should have no trouble coming up with numerous verifiable examples of that which you assert is possible.

            Over to you.

            Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          I know more about spectroscopy than you are ever likely to.

          That is why I made the statement I did. You seem to be responding, as usual, to a statement that I didnt make.

          Keep trying if you wish.

          If you cant comprehend what I said, maybe you are mentally deficient. Can you prove otherwise?

          Cheers.

    • gammacrux says:

      Feedbacks are a concept that is involved in theory, “first principles” calculations and modeling of sensitivity.

      What’s done here is an attempt to estimate or constrain the climate sensitivity to CO2 from observed changes in mean surface temperatures and estimated forcings up to now.

      Ocean heat storage is either deducted or not deducted from radiative forcing in the case of ECS or TCS, namely Equilibrium or Transient Climate Sensitivity, respectively.

      The reason is that huge amounts of heat only goes into the ocean at equilibrium not transiently. ,

      • David Appell says:

        Changes in ocean heat content are measured, not deduced.

        It’s then used in the calculation of the planetary energy imbalance, as in

        “Improving estimates of Earths energy imbalance,”
        Johnson, G.C., J.M. Lyman, and N.G. Loeb
        Nature Clim. Change, 6, 639640, doi: 10.1038/nclimate3043 (2016).
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html

        • gammacrux says:

          David Appel

          Before you once more idiotically and laughably pontificate as you do so often in this blog why not read carefully and try to grasp what I posted ?

          Do you know the difference in meaning between deducted and deduced ?

          Do you really understand what the equation in the article means ?

          Obviously not, because you are an as idiotic AGW alarmist as other here are idiotic denialists of GHE.

          So I repeat it again:

          To evaluate the ECS the ocean heat content is deducted or subtracted from radiative forcing as can be seen in denominator of equation.

          To evaluate the TCS the ocean heat content is not deducted or not subtracted from radiative forcing in denominator of equation.

          Period.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gamma…”Obviously not, because you are an as idiotic AGW alarmist as other here are idiotic denialists of GHE”.

            That will be ‘Mr.’ Idiotic Denialist’ to you.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David states that certain quantities are measured, not deduced. In support re provides a link to a paper *Improving estimates of Earths energy imbalance*, which is Warmist foolishness writ large on the face of it.

        The point being that to a Warmist fool, a measurement is apparently defined to be an estimate, albeit one subject to improvement.

        Just more nonsensical wishful thinking.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Whoops again.

          Any one who thinks that ocean heat content has been measured is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Probably about as deluded as anyone who thinks that sea levels can be measured to 0.01 mm – about one eighth of the thickness of a human hair! Good luck with either.

          Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      RW…”But Roy, the IPCC gets their sensitivity numbers from net positive feedback (primarily from water vapor and clouds)”.

      No such thing in the atmosphere as positive feedback, unless you are referring to the re-definition used by certain climate types that positive feedback is a not-so-negative negative feedback.

      PF requires amplification, as defined in physics, unless the PF refers to a voltage sign in a servo system.

  5. Mike Flynn says:

    The formula ECS = F2XCO2[ ΔT/(ΔF ΔQ)], looks very sciency. So does the Drake equation.

    The CO2 *forcing* is an assumption, and no one has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer using CO2 anyway. Even the assumed W/m2 figure of 3.7 is completely without meaning, if used in reference to temperature. Solid ice can emit over 300 W/m2. So can liquid water – well over 300 W/m2. Pointless measurement, and even more so in view of the fact that no place on the natural Earth is in energy balance. Every part of the surface exposed to the Sun is either increasing or decreasing in temperature, except at inflection point – generally twice per 24 hr period.

    Delta T is impossible to measure. A figment.

    Delta F is also a figment of the foolish Warmist imagination. Forcing is a sciency sounding term coined by self styled climatologists, without scientific meaning. Impossible to demonstrate by reproducible experiment, cannot be measured, as there are no instruments capable of responding to all frequencies contained in radiation from the Sun, and the definition of the tropopause is so vague and variable as to be nothing more than a distraction.

    Delta Q is likewise not quantifiable. No one has the faintest idea of the amount of heat being injected into the ocean depths. The number of thermal vents is unknown, and so is the heat from them. Likewise, the amount of heat emanating from the magma constantly fording its way through the mid ocean ridges is completely unknown. Add to that the erratic nature of sub crustal hotspots, constantly wandering and varying in intensity, and anybody claiming be able to accurately calculate Delta Q is off with the fairies, in all likelihood.

    If there is no GHE, there is no *forcing* anyway.

    If nobody can actually produce a rigorous description of the GHE, then no testable GHE hypothesis can be proposed. The null hypothesis might be that a thing that cannot be properly describe can be assumed not to exist, until the contrary can be demonstrated by repeatable scientific experiment. Computer models and strident assertions are not experiments. Neither are endless reanalyses of past history.

    If people get excited by a thermometer showing a rise in temperature, maybe they could look for a source of increased heat affecting the thermometer! Seriously.

    People need heat for survival and comfort. If the atmosphere is chaotic, the human activities may trigger completely unsuspected outcomes of arbitrary size. Lorenz was aware of this, and Feynman pointed out in one of his lectures that even classical mechanics leads to the same conclusion in practice, and given Heisenbergs Uncertaintly Principle, in theory as well.

    No GHE. Not even necessary. The future is unknowable. Even the IPCC admits that prediction of future climate states is impossible. Reluctantly, of course.

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      “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

      Press release:
      “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

    • David Appell says:

      Mike Flynn wrote:
      “No one has the faintest idea of the amount of heat being injected into the ocean depths”

      Here are the measurements:

      https://is.gd/H9wXag

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Thats not a measurement. Thats a foolish Warmist figment of imagination presented in bright colours, to impress the gullible and feeble minded. It seems to have had the desired effect on you.

        If you have any questions, you might be better off directing them to the originators of the graphics.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          There are about 3,000 ARGO buoys bobbing up and down in the ocean, right now, reporting their measurements to satellites when they get to the surface.

          How are those not measurements?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            If youre stupid enough to believe that 3000 untethered floating buoys (even spread throughout the upper levels of the oceans and moving with the water they float in) are measuring the heat content of the oceans, you are definitely an excellent prospect to join the society of Warmist fools.

            I understand the floats are only useful where there is no ice cover, and drift at 1000 m depth, with regular but brief forays to 2000 m. Not all of them make it, of course.

            Given that average ocean depth exceeds 3500 m, and the oceans occupy over 350,000,000 km2, then you are as delusional as an average Warmist fool, if you believe the Argo floats accurately reflect the total heat content of the oceans. Another fantasy, of the foolish Warmist type.

            Whats your point? Do you still believe that CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter?

            Maybe you could adopt the practice of the Clueless Inept Agency, and neither confirm nor deny. That might save you having to say something really, really, witless.

            Ill understand if you choose not to commit yourself to a foolish Warmist position. I wouldnt either.

            Cheers.

          • Bart says:

            For perspective, 3000 floats measuring 360 million square miles of ocean is one float for every 120,000 square miles, which is a circular patch of radius 200 miles, which is the distance from NYC to the nation’s capital.

            As I write this, it is 67 F in NYC, and 77 F at the White House.

          • Nate says:

            So Bart, 3000 not enough? How do you know? Political polls are less people. Do they need to ask everyone or its bogus?

          • Bart says:

            So, you believe NYC and Wash. have the same climate?

            And, that’s only a radius. Diameter is twice as distant.

          • Nate says:

            The have some correlation in their deviation from average, such as this week, both are quite warmer than normal.

          • Bart says:

            Every spot in each hemisphere is correlated that way. That does not mean we can glean average temperature from two readings.

          • Nate says:

            “Every spot in each hemisphere is correlated that way.”

            No I wouldnt go that far, there is some correlation length, maybe ~ 500 mi, the size of weather highs and low,but clearly not the whole hemisphere.

            In any case there is no weather 500 feet below the ocean surface.

          • Nate says:

            You can clearly see the spatial correlations in the monthly T anomalies here:

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

    • Nate says:

      Mike, no GHE? Explain how weather models work so well, given that they definitely incororate GHE terms in the models, which get the weather right a week out.

  6. Mike Flynn says:

    David,

    Although youve cleverly provided a first link to a paywalled article, the abstract indicates that the article is defective at best, and shockingly inept at worst.

    The Berkeley press release (nothing to do UC Berkeley as far as I know) is a misleading puff piece.

    As to the press release, it is written in such a way as to assume that correlation is causation, and baldly stating nonsense in the form of *it is well known . . . *, when referring to an unsubstantiated assertion, and saying really stupid things like *. . . theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect . . . * when nobody has yet managed to describe the supposed effect.

    The release states –

    *Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. *

    This would be a nifty trick, if anybody could figure out a way to do it! Free energy for ever! Just absorb all the energy you want, run your steam turbines with water youve heated to several hundred degrees C. After absorbing solar radiation for four and a half billion years, the Earth has managed to cool. Even in spite of the enormous quantities of radiogenic heat generated over that time, the Earth has managed emit far more energy than it received from the Sun.

    You may have tried to deny, divert, and confuse in your usual inept fashion. Maybe you could repetitively quote some of my factual statements again, to save me the effort!

    Off you go, David, theres a good boy. Maybe you could find the time to address my points next time? The world isnt really wondering about you any more, I suspect.

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      For someone who has written time and again that the atmosphere is an insulator, I’m surprised at how little of the basic science you understand.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Dang me! Im soooo hurt. Your surprise cuts me to the quick – not really, Im jesting.

        Keep doing those foolish Warmist mind reading exercises. How are you going with reading the minds of dead people? Are you still channeling Richard Feynman?

        Being such a well known journalist and all, maybe you could collaborate with dead scientists and try to sell up to date autobiographies from beyond the grave. Do you think anyone would believe you? I wouldnt, but maybe millions of foolish Warmists would.

        Good luck – seems like a good way of avoiding admitting the non existence of the GHE.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          I don’t think you could give a genuine response even if you tried.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You wrote –

            I don’t think . . .

            Youre sure?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            I think you choose to be flippant because it’s safe and it means you can’t be found wrong.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You wrote –

            I think . . .

            Youre sure?

            Can you prove it?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            It’s also why you hide your identity. I don’t, and you choose to use that to try to harass and degrade me. All the while protecting yourself from the same and pretending not to be serious, so no one can ever judge your ideas or point out their errors.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            If you say so David, if you say so.

            You may not believe me if I tell you that you have possibly wasted your money if you paid for foolish Warmist mind reading classes.

            Oh well, I already knew that the probability of a Warmist fool being able to point out where I made an error would be very, very, small indeed. Thanks for reminding me.

            On the other hand, when facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Do you want to discuss science here, and the evidence, or not?

            So far, I think you don’t.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You wrote –

            Do you want to discuss science here, and the evidence, or not?

            So far, I think you dont.

            Well, blow me down! Seriously, what makes you think I give a flying fig about what you think? Do you think anyone else gives even a non flying fig for your thoughts?

            If you find someone that does, maybe you could tell me who he or she is. If they are aware I intend to have good laugh at their gullibility, you might find supporters a within on the ground.

            Nature doesnt care about your thoughts. The force of gravity doesnt give a fig how many Warmist fools claim it has magical effects at times. Reality is a hard task master. Just try heating a thermometer with CO2 – how many Warmist fools do you think youll need to do it?

            Good luck with avoiding reality.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, clearly you’re not here to discuss science, but to just beat your hollow chest.

  7. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “Note that the climate response is assumed to be a response to anthropogenic radiative forcing, plus volcanoes….”

    No, you have to include anthropogenic aerosol emissions. These are a big factor, up to perhaps half (and of opposite sign) of the foring of GHGs.

    If Otto et al and Lewis & Curry are leaving aerosols out, then their calculation of ECS is clearly going to be too low….

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      “anthropogenic radiative forcing” includes aerosol emissions

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”No, you have to include anthropogenic aerosol emissions. These are a big factor, up to perhaps half (and of opposite sign) of the foring of GHGs”.

      Here’s David the biased science writer ‘TELLING’ a climate expert who has a degree in the field, plus 38 years of data.

  8. Gbaikie says:

    If doubling of Co2 is 1.3 c, then Co2 level had little to do with glacial and interglacial periods.
    But, we already knew that.

    • David Appell says:

      No one says CO2 is primarily responsible for the Pleistocene ice ages. But it does contribute to them as a feedback — the temperature difference would only be about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of what it is observed to be without it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Gbaikkie…”If doubling of Co2 is 1.3 ”

      Based on its mass it’s more like to be 0.0013

      • bobdroege says:

        But it’s not based on the mass of CO2

        It’s based on the mass of active IR gases in the atmosphere.

  9. Walter Dnes says:

    A couple of questions…

    1) 20,000 years ago, with CO2 at half its current value, 2 km of ice sheets covered much of Canada, Europe, and Asia. *NOTWITHSTANDING THAT CO2 LEVELS WERE HALF OF TODAY’S LEVELS AND TOTAL HOMO SPIENS SAPIENS PLANETWIDE POPULATION WAS APPROX 1 MILLION*, temperatures rose and the ice sheets melted, and there were major pulses of meltwater when trapped metwater accumulations broke through ice dams and flowed into the oceans. These precipitous rises probably account for flood stories across the globe. Temperatures have continued to rise ever since, with a few speed bumps along the way (Little Ice Age, etc). According to the CAGW crowd, the first 19,600 years of rise was natural, but the last 400 years was human induced. What proof do they have for “the switchover”?

    2) The “reverse-Trenberth” scenario. Dr Trenberth claims that global warming “is worse than we thought”, but it’s “hidden in the oceans”. Let’s look in the other direction, namely up. As we know here, satellites can see heat radiating upwards from earth’s surface, which is how RSS and UAH get their monthly numbers. According to the StefanBoltzmann law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law heat loss is proportional to the 4th power of temperature in degrees K. With lower ice cover in the winter, sections of the arctic ocean that were normally ice-covered with surface temps at -30 or -40 C, are now open water, approx 0 C. This should be radiating away a lot more heat skywards. The atmosphere is *NOT* a “closed system”. Has anyone considered the heat losses from the warmer winter polar regions, and how that affects the energy budget?

    • David Appell says:

      1) Milankovitch factors
      2) Only the troposphere is warming. The stratosphere is cooling.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Reduced to foolish Warmist meaningless cryptic two word *almost* sentences, I see, followed immediately by unsubstantiated assertion masquerading as fact.

        If you cant produce the amazing missing GHE description, maybe you can claim that the GHE is really a secret foolish Warmist redefinition of an insulator, designed to deny, divert, and confuse.

        CO2 heats nothing. Not even a single thermometer. Never has, never will, and now Im getting nearly as bad as you with two word expressions. Dang me!

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          No need to response. You’re afraid to reply to them anyway.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          You wrote-

          No need to response. Youre afraid to reply to them anyway.

          Im not sure what sort of science and evidence you imagine your comment contains.

          Maybe you want to discuss fake foolish Warmist *science* – the sort that doesnt need to follow the normal scientific method? I suppose your *evidence* would be claims by Warmist fools that there is no need to actually propose things like a testable GHE hypothesis.

          Warmist fools just redefine terms to suit themselves – a reduction in the rate of cooling becomes heating, global warming becomes climate change, weather is dictated by its average, climate, and so on.

          So the evidence is clear – what Warmist fools laughingly refer to as *scienc* is a foolish Warmist fantasy unrelated to reality. Just as Michael Manns claim to be a Nobel Laureate, or Gavin Schmidts claim to be a climate scientist! What a joke!

          Hers your chance to post a factual verbatim quote from me, if you wish. I appreciate your assistance.

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Anything I bring up, you will just reply that you don’t answer “Gotcha” questions.

            You have walled yourself off and created a perfect cocoon, impervious to any outside information or any challenges to your thinking. You simply avoid all of it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      walter…” 20,000 years ago, with CO2 at half its current value, 2 km of ice sheets covered much of Canada, Europe, and Asia”.

      The question I have in that capacity is who was there to witness it? How do they estimate it using proxy data?

      “Dr Trenberth claims that global warming is worse than we thought, but its hidden in the oceans.

      That came after he was caught in the Climategate emails whining about being unable to find any warming, calling it a travesty that no one could explain. Then he made up the ludicrous theory about the oceans hiding the heat.

      “Has anyone considered the heat losses from the warmer winter polar regions, and how that affects the energy budget?”

      How does one get heat loss from -45C as opposed to -50C, and only in locales that move around month to month?

      Why do we need an energy budget? The planet does what it does and it’s thermodynamics can be explained without a budget. In the Kiehle-Trenberth budget, which they admitted fabricating, not measuring, they claimed almost as much down-dwelling energy from 1% of the atmosphere (as GHG) as what was emitted from the entire surface.

      I mean, this is pseudo-science at its best.

  10. ren says:

    The temperature in the stratosphere depends only on solar activity and ultraviolet radiation. The amount of ozone drops during low solar activity. It may be the cause of increased UV radiation on the surface, in the range of electromagnetic waves absorbed by ozone.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2017.png
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
    As you can see, the temperature drop in the stratosphere over the equator does not increase the temperature above the equator in troposphere.

    • ren says:

      In order for a large change in the amount of ozone in the stratosphere to occur, a sufficiently long period of low solar activity, calculated in years, is necessary.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        ren,

        An interesting aside is that part of NASA doesnt actually seem to have the faintest idea of how ozone is created, at least on the Goddard Space Flight Centre section. In another area, NASA acknowledges that ozone is created by high energy UV interaction with O2, and that no short wave UV at all reaches the surface.

        Unfortunately for Warmist fools, the facts dont fit the Warmist propaganda, so the facts are seemingly deleted from the Goddard pages, as they dont support the the destruction of the ozone layer by evil chemicals narrative!

        Cheers.

        • ren says:

          The shortest UV radiation will be used to break O2. At the same time, the shortest radiation is the most sensitive to changes in solar activity.
          http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

        • ren says:

          “Oxygen molecules, O2, in the upper stratosphere absorb short wavelength ultraviolet radiation (<200 nm) and dissociate into highly reactive oxygen atoms.

          Ozone, O3 ,is a strong absorber of longer wavelength (200-340 nm) UV radiation."

        • Des says:

          It is funny seeing a denier acknowledge (correctly) that a few ppm of ozone at its PEAK LEVEL in the stratosphere (and less than 0.1 ppm in the troposphere) can block MOST radiation in a certain band, while elsewhere claiming that 400 ppm of CO2 is far too small to have any effect. Confirmation bias at its worst.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            Its more sad than funny, to see a Warmist fool trying to deny the facts by presenting an irrelevant and pointless analogy. Standard fare for foolish Warmists, it would seem.

            The atmosphere blocks all, not just, some UV of particular energy levels (or frequencies if you prefer) from reaching the Earths surface. It is energetic enough to break O2 bonds, thus creating O3 as a consequence. There is a lot of O2 in the atmosphere. Ozone creation stops the UV responsible from getting very far – theres just none left. It all got used!

            Your reference to CO2 is just complete nonsense. CO2, after being heated by radiation, emits radiation at energy levels commensurate with its temperature. If allowed to do so, it will cool all the way to absolute zero, in theory.

            You should be aware of solid CO2, and maybe Warmist fools believe it is created by subjecting gaseous CO2 to *cold rays* of some sort. Alas, not so at all.

            If you cant even describe the GHE in scientific terms, then blathering on in an obscure fashion on the evils of CO2 is pointless, except in religious terms. If the atmosphere acts chaotically, then an arbitrarily small change to the inputs at any time, may result in arbitrarily large changes to output at a specific time in the future. This is why the IPCC admits, and states, that the prediction of future climate states is not possible!

            More CO2, on current knowledge, seems to be more advantageous to humanity than less. CO2 is essential plant food. Deprived of CO2, plants die. The planet seems to be greening, in response to increased supply of plant food in the atmosphere. Only loonies and warmest fools contemplate the extermination of all human life with glee.

            Press on, foolish Warmist. Practise your faith – if you are concerned about the US Govt reducing pointless funding to Warmist fools, maybe you could attire yourself in sackcloth and ashes (a hair shirt might be a nice addition), and roam the streets, crying *Woe! Woe! Thrice woe!*

            Might get few laughs, but still wont create a testable GHE hypothesis, or enable CO2 to make thermometers hotter!

            Keep praying – maybe that will achieve what physics cant.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            CO2, after being heated by radiation, emits radiation at energy levels commensurate with its temperature. If allowed to do so, it will cool all the way to absolute zero, in theory.

            Higher temperature is from the more kinetic energy of molecules, not changes in their molecular/atomic structure. CO2’s molecular & atomic energy levels don’t change (much of anything) just because the molecule itself has slightly higher kinetic energy. The changes are very small, 2nd-order effects at best….

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            So youre not actually challenging anything I said, just flying off at your usual tangent of deny, divert, and confuse.

            It seems that Warmist fools cant even erect good straw men.

            You might have overlooked the fact that you havent actually contradicted anything I said, preferring to rush off into your foolish Warmist pseudo science fact avoidance fantasy.

            Still no GHE. Still no way of distinguishing one gas from another,(in a mixture) by radiated wavelengths at room temperature. Just another foolish Warmist climatological pseudo scientific fantasy.

            If you want to to appeal to climatological authority, how about –

            Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature, even if it is a piece of creative fiction. Gavin Schmidt is one of the authors. Complete nonsense, but fervently believed by the more pious Warmist fools.

            The NASA posting by another author, A Lacis, contains the usual irrelevant analogies – furnaces, thermostats, and so on. Unsubstantiated assertions abound.

            If this is your scientific standard, no wonder US Govt funding is being reduced. Maybe you could volunteer raising funds to keep the self appointed climatologists playing their very expensive computer games?

            Dont bother asking me for a donation.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Read harder.

            This is wrong:

            CO2, after being heated by radiation, emits radiation at energy levels commensurate with its temperature.

            Tell us how the energy levels of, say, hydrogen atoms depend on temperature.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You state that my statement is wrong, then fly off into irrelevancies. I mention CO2, so you immediately wander off into some completely different diversion attempt involving irrelevant properties of the hydrogen atom. I assume you know they are different.

            Maybe you could tell me what you find wrong with my statement, and why?

            Of course you cant, because you follow the Warmist fool style of pseudo physics, where CO2 has magical heating powers, and slowerr cooling is heating!

            Do you think youd do better diverting to matchsticks, grapes, and why firemen wear insulated garments to keep cool?

            You never know your luck.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn wrote:
            “CO2, after being heated by radiation, emits radiation at energy levels commensurate with its temperature.”

            How do the emissions of CO2 depend on temperature?

            Give us the function Emission(energy level, T).

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You wrote –

            How do the emissions of CO2 depend on temperature?

            Give us the function Emission(energy level, T).

            You demand that I give you something. Why should I? For a guy with a PhD, youre apparently not terribly bright. A bit like Michael Mann, who couldnt figure out whether he was a Nobel Laureate or not.

            Ill give you nothing, as usual. Demand an answer to an irrelevant foolish Warmist gotcha from me all you want. I refuse. My choice.

            Foolish Warmist.

            You dont disagree with what I say, but you demand answers to irrelevant foolish Warmist gotchas.

            In the best foolish Warmist tradition, heres a hint –

            The temperature of an object is related to the wavelength at which the object gives out the most light./em>

            Thats from NASA, but is true in spite of it. You might need to consider the circumstances. For example, matter as plasma, or a gas in a state of excitation, may lead you astray. Just as in the thermosphere, or at the quantum level, everyday concepts of temperature are inadequate.

            You may not believe that H2O, (the most important so called greenhouse gas), for example, can be heated by microwave radiation, as well as visible light. So can the lesser so called greenhouse gas CO2 at equivalent density. Warmist fools consistently make erroneous comparisons, and silly assumptions relating to heat trapping and heat accumulation – even attempting to relate units of irradiance in Watts/m2 to temperature in some peculiar relationship.

            Im guessing that you havent the faintest idea what im talking about, which is why youll probably just make the same pointless and irrelevant demand over and over, hoping for a different result.

            Keep at it.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Again afraid to answer questions.

            I’m done with your crap, Flynn. You’re a waste of time.

          • ren says:

            The stratosphere is transparent to infrared radiation.

          • bobdroege says:

            Please Mike do get with the science

            “CO2, after being heated by radiation, emits radiation at energy levels commensurate with its temperature.”

            CO2 as a gas is not a blackbody, nor a greybody.

            It emits radiation at energy levels determined by the energy levels of the vibrational states of the CO2 molecule.

            Just look it up

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          You are just pretending to be stupid, I hope.

          The worn out foolish Warmist tactics of trying to deny, divert and confuse by changing the subject are no more capable of changing reality than the pseudo science of Warmist fools.

          Your dribble about energy levels (and I dont necessarily assume you havent the faintest idea of what you are talking about) is nonsensical. What state is the hydrogen – gaseous, liquid, solid, superfluid, plasma? What is its pressure? What is its temperature?

          Youre doing a pretty fair imitation of a Witless Warmist fool! Full of sciency talk, but you can provide no substance, even to back up your straw man gotchas.

          Maybe you could bring yourself to say what part of my statement you actually disagree with, and why, rather than flying off at some foolish Warmist tangent.

          I trust that doesnt answer your completely irrelevant and extremely poorly posed question.

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You really don’t know the definitions of pressure and temperature?

            Show how the energy levels of the hydrogen atom depend on the temperature of the substance they are immersed in.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Your mind reading skills are down to their usual defective standard.

            You dont provide me with any compelling reasons to follow your commands or accede to your demands. Foolish Warmist. You might mistakenly be thinking that I care about your foolish Warmist ill consider opinions.

            You are obviously confused about the interaction between light and matter. What specifically, is it that you do not know? I will point you in the right direction, if I cannot fill your knowledge gap immediately.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Again we see how you avoid all questions about the science and evidence.

            Why do you do this? What does it do for you? Do you honestly think calling others “Foolish” does anything all, when you won’t and can’t provide convincing arguments?

          • David Appell says:

            Again, show how the energy levels of the hydrogen atom depend on the temperature of the substance they are immersed in.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          mike…”so the facts are seemingly deleted from the Goddard pages,”

          GISS, NOAA, and DOE….all of them have any facts related to the atmosphere weeded out that does not fit the eco-alarmist POV.

          DOE (Department of Energy) had a nifty table that translated the IPCC carbon cycle. Using the table, one could easily calculate the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere and break it down to the small fraction of natural CO2 represented by ACO2.

          Gone.

          NOAA had a page on which they admitted to slashing over 75% of the data they received globally.

          Gone.

          Rather, one has to dig extensively to learn that NOAA now uses less than 25% of it’s available global data in a climate model to fabricate the data they have slashed.

          Makes it convenient for them to slash predominantly stations showing cooling while emphasizing stations showing warming.

  11. ren says:

    If we compare the extent of sea ice in Antarctica in the seventies and from 2010, we can see a clear signal of solar activity.
    The melting of a large amount of antarctic ice had to reduce the amount of heat in the ocean.
    https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/ice_minmax_s.png
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/onlinequery.cgi?station=OULU&startday=17&startmonth=01&startyear=1968&starttime=00%3A00&endday=17&endmonth=02&endyear=2018&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

  12. CAOYUFEI says:

    Roy, wish you have a good health,global warming may be caused by interest guidance, is in the interests of some countries seek to lead , environmental protection is different with climate change, environmental damage is very serious, we should focus on protecting the environment, to restore the nature ecosystem, it is much more useful than only focusing on carbon dioxide emissions

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      caoy…”environmental damage is very serious, we should focus on protecting the environment, to restore the nature ecosystem, it is much more useful than only focusing on carbon dioxide emissions…”

      It’s much easier to tax carbon emissions.

  13. Des says:

    “Whereas the IPCC models average about 3.4 deg. C of warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2”

    How sly of you … “forgetting” to apply their probability distribution to these models, and pretending that they give each model an equal weighting/likelihood. Are you being deliberately deceitful, or are you really ignorant of this?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      des…”How sly of you forgetting to apply their probability distribution to these models, and pretending that they give each model an equal weighting/likelihood. Are you being deliberately deceitful, or are you really ignorant of this?”

      From my experience with you the ignorant party is you. Models are expensive toys, there is not one worth its weight with regard to what they cost.

      How do you take a probability distribution of unvalidated models. Do you ever think about what you’re saying?

      • Des says:

        Models are expensive toys, there is not one worth its weight with regard to what they cost

        I guess you are referring to Stormy Daniels.

  14. ren says:

    Circulation in the stratosphere is also unusual.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00959/8f3mld47f6c0.png

  15. gbaikie says:

    The average temperature of all Earth’s oceans is about 3.5 C.
    And it’s been this average of about 3.5 C for thousands of years.
    “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.”- wiki

    And I would contend that during this Holocene Climate Optimum
    earth’s oceans were warmer than 3.5 C and around 4 C.
    And presently if Earth average temperature continues to rise for thousands of years our ocean will increase from 3.5 to about 4 C.
    Earth might not continue to warm for thousands of years, but it does, it will become like Holocene Climate Optimum, again.
    But a difference could that Earth’s average sea level could be
    a few meter higher than they are presently and more than 5 meters higher then they ware doing the Holocene Climate Optimum.

    The average surface temperature of Earth oceans is currently
    about 17 C.
    [And total land surface have average temperature of about 10 C, which gives an average global temperature of about 15 C-
    as about 70% of earth surface is ocean and and 30% is land.]

    And it seems that average ocean surface temperature has been
    about 17 C for thousands of years and during the Holocene Climate Optimum, the average ocean surface temperature was significantly warmer than 17 C.
    And if our entire ocean to warm to about 4 C, our ocean average surface temperature would be significantly warmer than 17 C, which cause the global average temperature to increase significantly as was the case during the Holocene Climate Optimum.

    What is known is that recently [last century or so] is that land temperature has increased significantly, or it warmed from about 9 to about 10 C. It has been a measurable increase and it was measured.
    And it’s likely the average ocean temperature has increased a tiny amount and only measurable in that sea levels have risen about 8 inches and considered likely that about 1/3 of this rise in sea level is due to the entire ocean warming and causing thermal expansion.
    And it’s likely that in last hundreds or so, the ocean surface temperature has increase a bit [though that by itself doesn’t cause any significant thermal expansion].
    The average ocean surface temperature has not been adequately measured. It’s about 17 C just like Earth average temperature is about 15 C and just like volume of all ocean ocean is about 3.5 C.
    But roughly the average ocean surface temperature might risen by about .5 C over last hundred year and it seems land surface temperature have risen about twice as much.
    Or said differently the Little Ice Age could have had average ocean surface temperatures of around 16 1/2 C.
    Or in terms the last thousands of years, the little ice age was one of coldest periods and had sea levels lowering, and would have colder ocean surface than the average of about 17 C.

    It should be noted that average temperature of entire ocean could warm by say 5 C and the energy radiated into space could remain about the same.
    Or one mix the surface water with rest of the ocean and cause there to be less energy radiated into space.
    Or if entire ocean was mixed so ocean surface temperature was about 4 C Earth’s average temperature would lower significantly.
    Or being stupidly simple, ocean surface at 4 C and keeping land average at 10 C is 70% at 4 and 30% at 10 C, giving average global surface temperature of about 5 C, as compared to 15 C.
    And Earth at 5 C would radiate less energy to space. So if one doesn’t consider mixing ocean as warming or cooling- no energy added or not added by the sun.
    But being less stupidly simple, if ocean surface was 4 C, then land surface average temperature would decrease- or Europe would not be warmed by the ocean and Europe would have lower average temperature [and this applies to all land surfaces].
    And if you mixed the ocean, one is increasing the deeper water temperature and after this the surface water warm back up- within a century or two, the net result is warmer ocean which radiate the same amount of energy into space as did before.
    Or saying another stupid thing, the heat can be “lost” in the oceans.

    But this “lost energy” does things. And one thing is less surface water are cooled by it- and surface water is constantly mixing with deeper water- the heat can be “lost”, but less is “lost”.
    Now one might ask where is the most surface water “lost” to deeper ocean.
    One area is called Antarctic Circumpolar Current or generally near polar regions.
    And also big mixer is related to tropics with it’s El Nino and La Nina.
    And tropics warms rest of the world with El Nino & La Nina
    have greater effect upon global weather or air temperature.
    One could say Antarctic Circumpolar Current is quite small in comparison to tropics, but it’s quite potent for it’s size.
    Anyhow, enough words for moment.

    • David Appell says:

      And it seems that average ocean surface temperature has been
      about 17 C for thousands of years and during the Holocene Climate Optimum, the average ocean surface temperature was significantly warmer than 17 C.

      How can that be? HadSST3 shows a SST rise of about 0.75 C since 1850….

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        If you believe the HadSST3 to be other than a figment of foolish Warmist imagination, good for you.

        You cant even define the so called sea surface, let alone even take a guess as to how its temperature might have been measured in 1850!

        Just the self serving dreams of Warmist fools. Maybe they used a computer model, and tweaked it until they got the answers they wanted? That would be in character, I suppose.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          If you don’t know how the average value of a scalar field over a manifold is defined, you need to go learn it right away.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Im probably more knowledgeable than you about such things, so you might use your time more effectively trying to impress a Warmist fool.

            Averaging nonsense just produces more nonsense. One might just as well average the numbers in a telephone directory, and claim it means something.

            Keep trying to deny, divert and confuse. You might achieve a different outcome by repeating the same action over and over. I assume you dont like me quoting Feynman, so heres one from Albert Einstein –

            Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

            Of course , Einstein was wrong about many things, but I agree with his sentiments here. Maybe you could repeat posting an identical verbatim quote from me? You never know, it might come out differently, what?

            Keep believing!

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Temperature measurements are “nonsense?”

            How so?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Yet again, a completely irrelevant and nonsensical attempt at diversion, in the form a of a question that only a Warmist fool would pose.

            Nonsense is nonsense. You refer to *temperature measurements* in some foolish Warmist metaphysical sense, I suppose. As I pointed out, if you cant even define what you are claiming is measured, then you are asserting an unsubstantiated assumption as fact. That could explain why you cant bring yourself to stick to the subject.

            Not even a good attempt at misdirection. Maybe you could repeat posting one of my factual quotes, if it would make you feel better.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You didn’t reply — how are temperature measurements “nonsense?”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Any supposed temperature measurement emanating from a Warmist fool is nonsense by definition. The definition of a nonsensical temperature measurement is one processed by a Warmist fool.

            If you dont like my definition, create your own. Warmist fools do it all the time. Why should you be any different?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Look at you, playing the clown to get out of having to post a serious reply.

            Par for your course.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            if you say so, David, if you say so.

            Cheers.

      • gbaikie says:

        –How can that be? HadSST3 shows a SST rise of about 0.75 C since 1850.–

        I am certain there could some kind error bar given for the “about 0.75” C.

        And I said:
        “And it seems that average ocean surface temperature has been about 17 C ”
        It might be 17 -/+ .5 C, instead, but I have no basis to use such an accurate number- instead I rather say it’s about 17 C.

        Same goes for the current average global temperature- I seen various numbers but not sure whether, 14.7 is accurate as compared to a number like 15.6 C.

        I do think Berkley Best does give fairly accurate global land temperature, and Best also provides some guesses about ocean average temperature- and also they admit the ocean do not have accurate record of global ocean temperature. So it’s possible that current average ocean surface temperature are close to 17.5 [or warmer or perhaps much cooler, such as close to 16.5 C.

        Also I said ocean temperature was probably about .5 C cooler during LIA:
        “Or said differently the Little Ice Age could have had average ocean surface temperatures of around 16 1/2 C.
        Or in terms the last thousands of years, the little ice age was one of coldest periods and had sea levels lowering, and would have colder ocean surface than the average of about 17 C.”
        And 1850 is said to be at end of LIA. I don’t think one argue in terms of .25 C accuracy whether in it’s LIA or currently. Though it could be that an missing that it’s your style of agreeing with me.

        And I of course, would like to shown to be wrong about this- I mean about the global ocean surface temperature or global average temperature, but not trends of temperature anomalies.
        I was using temperature anomaly when said it was about .5 C cooler during LIA and I am not at moment arguing about merit of using temperature anomalies- or some time it’s a better way of describing temperature changes. And it’s possible that LIA global ocean surface is .75 or even about 1 C cooler than the present time- and say, a year ago, even more so.

        Meanwhile, I am going to stick with about 17 C for ocean surface and global average temperature of about 15 C at the present time, until such time as get information that I think provides a more precise number.

        • David Appell says:

          gbaikie says:
          “I am certain there could some kind error bar given for the about 0.75 C.”

          Of course there is.

          Here is all the HadSST3 data and their associated uncertainties:

          https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt

          Here is a description of each column of the data:

          https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/global_ts_format.txt

          Using this, you can calculate all the uncertainties you want. Let us know what you get.

          Hint: Over many decades, the statistical uncertainty dominates over measurement uncertainty. Be sure to include autocorrelation.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Hint: be less gullible. Be sure to engage brain before putting fingers to keyboard. Keep taking the medication. Pray harder. Purported measurements of global sea surface temperatures in 1850 involving 3 decimal places are suspect. Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday Sun. 95% confidence levels are a foolish Warmist confidence trick. Like Mikes Nature trick, perhaps?

            Really big hint : Some Warmist fools seem to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter.

            Youre welcome.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            1850 numbers have values.

            They also have (large) uncertainties.

            But discard them if you want. The SST trend since Jan 1970 is still an alarming +0.14 C/decade.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “Some Warmist fools seem to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter.”

            You’re afraid to discuss the evidence, so there’s no point in replying to this with a real comment.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You wrote –

            1850 numbers have values.

            Well, shiver me timbers and call me hornswoggled! What an astonishing revelation. Numbers have values. Next youll be telling me that values can be expressed in numbers! Have you communicated your discovery to other Warmist fools?

            So the trend of temperature of the yet undefined sea surface, arrived at by secret climatological magic, has been established to the nearest 0.01 C. A foolish Warmist miracle, yet again!

            Warmist fools love a good trend – and seem convinced it can be used to determine the future – so lets see where it takes us. Hmmm, applying the finest climatological mathematical principles (or those of a 12 year child, if you prefer), it might appear that after 1000 decades, at an alarming rate of 0.14 C per decade, the sea surface temperature will have increased by some 140 C. Shock! Horrror! Foolish Warmist stupidity! Well all die unless we adopt the faith of the Warmist fools!

            Be as silly as you like,David. Nature doesnt care, and neither do I.

            Cheers.

          • gbaikie says:

            –gbaikie says:
            I am certain there could some kind error bar given for the about 0.75 C.

            Of course there is.

            Here is all the HadSST3 data and their associated uncertainties:

            https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt

            Here is a description of each column of the data:

            https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/global_ts_format.txt

            Using this, you can calculate all the uncertainties you want. Let us know what you get.–

            First it’s 95% confidence. And roughly they think that around 1850 there was a bit more then twice as error as they think the possible error is, currently.

          • David Appell says:

            balkie:

            Please indicate what you’re quoting and what you’re reply is.

            I can’t tell what your point is. Please try again.

          • David Appell says:

            FLynn,

            If you have something to say, then say it.

            Leave all the ridiculous insults out of it.

            If you can’t do that I’m not interested.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You wrote –

            FLynn,

            If you have something to say, then say it.

            Leave all the ridiculous insults out of it.

            If you cant do that Im not interested.

            You still havent given me any reason why I should acceed to your demands, and I dont believe you have the power to strike me dead if I dont obey. So I wont. Tough.

            Whether you perceive my comments as insulting is your affair. You dont have to feel insulted if you dont want to, I suppose. Your choice. As to your decision to become disinterested, you have my support. I wish you every success in your endeavour, and look forward to your continued disinterest. Based on your past performance, Im not prepared to bet on your future performance.

            Time will tell. All the best.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You still havent given me any reason why I should acceed to your demands

            Do you want to discuss the science and evidence, or not?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            You keep demanding answers to your gotchas. I keep refusing.

            Guess who will prevail?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You clearly arent interested in debating the science. I have no idea why youre here then, but this is a waste of time.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            So you say, David, so you say.

            And yet, you seem to be prepared to keep wasting your time. I suppose you have a reason, but Im far too polite to ask.

            Cheers.

          • gbaikie says:

            The files contain 12 columns

            1. Date, either year or year/month
            2. Median global average sea-surface temperature anomaly (relative to 1961-1990)
            3 and 4. define the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence range associated with uncertainties of the bias adjustments
            5 and 6. define the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence range associated with uncertainties of measurement and sampling error.
            7 and 8. define the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence range associated with coverage uncertainties
            9 and 10. define the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence range associated with combined bias adjustment and measurement and sampling errors
            11 and 12. define the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence range associated with combined bias adjustment and measurement and sampling errors and coverage.
            https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/global_ts_format.txt

          • Toneb says:

            “You clearly arent interested in debating the science. I have no idea why youre here then, but this is a waste of time.”

            David:
            He is here because peeps engage him.
            He’s given up on CE because he is ignored for the Troll that he is.
            Why the likes such as you both to feed him is beyond me.
            He is far, far down in the rabbit-hole.
            Never to surface and never to be reached.
            He just gets off in annoying people.

  16. m d mill says:

    You almost got it correct.
    There has probably been a natural cooling trend since the last half of the 20’th century.
    This has caused the sensitivity calculations of Otto,Lewis and Curry, to be too small. This is the weakness of all methods that use long term trends to determine sensitivity.
    …m d mill

    • David Appell says:

      +1

      solar illuminance, + (slightly) Milankovitch factors.

      • Des says:

        Almost no Milankovitch influence. Of the two cycles with a significant, one (eccentricity) is heading in the warming direction. The other cycle is indeed heading in the cooling direction, but 40 years is only 0.1% of the period. And given that most of the effect of these cycles is due to the feedback effects of albedo changes and this has been heading in the wrong direction due to AGW, any effects on forcing would not be measurable.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Des,

          You mention AGW. I assume (possibly incorrectly) that you think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter.

          If not, then more CO2 (plant food) would appear to be preferable to less, unless you opposed to more food, and delight in imposing slow death from starvation on others. That would be the conventional foolish Warmist thinking, as evidenced by the lunatic insistence on reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

          Maybe you would like to state whether you believe that CO2 levels in the atmosphere should be reduced. Ill state my well grounded belief that CO2 levels should not be reduced at all, but rather rather the opposite.

          Over to you.

          Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike, as has been explained to you multiple times, your understanding of the GHE is backwards.

            People who understand the physics of the GHE …
            * do NOT think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a the surface of the earth will make the the surface of the earth hotter. (Your oft-repeated but inaccurate statement)
            * do think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the the surface of the earth and outer space will make the the surface of the earth hotter.

            For the earth, it happens that the CO2 is between the sun and the surface of the earth, but this is not what causes warming. If you want understand, the subtle but important distinction, consider a Dyson Sphere.
            * CO2 on the INSIDE of the sphere (between the star and the sphere) would have no effect on the sphere’s temperature.
            * CO2 on the OUTSIDE of the sphere (between the sphere and outer space) would cause warming of the sphere.

          • gbaikie says:

            “For the earth, it happens that the CO2 is between the sun and the surface of the earth, but this is not what causes warming. If you want understand, the subtle but important distinction, consider a Dyson Sphere.
            * CO2 on the INSIDE of the sphere (between the star and the sphere) would have no effect on the spheres temperature.
            * CO2 on the OUTSIDE of the sphere (between the sphere and outer space) would cause warming of the sphere.”

            I think I get the direction of the analogy, but I don’t think it’s true. You are saying CO2 prevents energy from leaving the sphere therefore it makes sphere hotter, but I think CO2 or any gas inside the sphere could increase sphere’s temperature.

            With Earth a trace gas doesn’t increase the temperature, and nor does 1 atm of N2 and O2.
            And with Dyson sphere it doesn’t increase the temperature whether trace of bulk of earth’s atmosphere is on the inside or outside.

            One could start with what is the temperature of Dyson sphere- without adding any gas.
            The Dyson sphere’s temperature depends upon how far it is from the sun. And I would say Dyson sphere temperature depends upon whether it’s in the inside or outside of sphere.
            And then you have complicated factor of what effect if anything of sphere upon the sun.

            I would say Dyson sphere is mostly about “predicting” advance civilizations in our galaxy. Why don’t we see them and why are they here. And it’s about idea of how could civilization get all the energy it needs- using solar energy- using the massive fusion reactor [a sun].

            In terms of temperature of Dyson sphere, what’s coldest one could make one at 1 AU distance from the Sun?
            If you had the magic of a ideal thermal conductive blackbody, it seems to me, that would the coldest. And that would be 120 C on inside and outside.
            And the hottest with be reflective surface- hot in inside and hot on outside. And it’s a bit questionable about how hot it would get- and you might alter the sun, which adds another complication.
            One could make up an arbitrary rule, the dyson sphere doesn’t alter the Sun [or not address issue of if and how it could]. And I would say one needs this rule, if not using the magical ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
            Or magic is involved in either case- unless you want the complication.

          • gbaikie says:

            Now if one had Dyson sphere and it was at 1 AU distance and didn’t change the sun and it’s surfaces were over 120 C, can humans live on it.

            Well the Moon has surface of 120 C, and people could live on the Moon- so yes, humans could live either inside and/or outside of a Dyson sphere.
            And one could have greenhouses on the Moon and likewise could had greenhouse on sphere- for natural sunlight- the inside- though you pipe natural sunlight anywhere.

          • gbaikie says:

            Now humans are living on surface which has surface temperature of about 70 C- or as warm as it gets is about 70 C and can get to about -70 C.

            Now what climate tends to be concerned about is air temperature.
            And 70% of planet is ocean and global air temperature is mostly about ocean surface temperature and it’s air temperature.
            And highest air temperature in terms of natural conditions and following all the rules about how to measure air temperature is was in Death Valley California:
            “On 13 September 2012 the World Meteorological Organisation disqualified the record for the highest recorded temperature, exactly 90 years after it had been established at El Azizia, Libya, with a measurement of 58C. The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7C (134F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.”
            http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature/

            So on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch we had highest air temperature ever recorded and it was 56.7 C.
            Now CO2 had nothing to do with causing such a high temperature. Or when Earth had much higher levels of Co2, it wouldn’t cause Greenland Ranch to have a higher air temperature.
            Though there have been “natural conditions” on Earth which would cause higher air temperature [and have nothing to do with greenhouse gases].
            And if cared about water temperature. then there are natural places on earth with higher temperature of water than 56.7 C- heated by sun, so not volcanic heated. Volcanic heated water [natural] of over 200 C. So sun heated water over 60 C.
            But as I said the concern is air temperature, particularly 5 feet above ground in white box- not solar ponds.

            Dyson spheres aren’t natural and if one wants air for humans to breathe one needs to add it. So space one might have dome containing the air, and then you could have air temperature.

          • gbaikie says:

            So Dyson sphere and air temperature.
            Tim said:
            * CO2 on the INSIDE of the sphere (between the star and the sphere) would have no effect on the spheres temperature.”

            And this made think that one could have air inside a Dyson sphere- without bothering with dome- or you already have a very large spherical dome- the Dyson sphere.

            Such an idea, has many problems- but anyhow. A biggest problem is air pressure and the strength of dome.
            Next problem is the massive amount of air which would be needed. And last major problem is the air could get very
            hot, though it doesn’t need to get very hot.
            Oh also another thing is if Dyson sphere was sealed, it would inflate with solar wind- part of reason it could get very hot, and solar wind average velocity at the moment is:
            speed: 587.7 km/sec
            density: 6.6 protons/cm
            http://www.spaceweather.com/
            That’s very hot gas, but not hot in terms of air temperature because it’s got 6.6 protons/cm which are traveling out to the stars- and the Dyson would prevent them going out to the stars.
            Or one doesn’t need to add air to Dyson Sphere, as the sun is doing this. And question could be, do you want to somehow stop the sun from adding it’s very hot air- which isn’t CO2, it’s hydrogen plasma and some Oxygen plasma.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            You claim to understand the physics of something which you cannot even describe, which is typical of delusional Warmist fools.

            Ill point out that the Sun shines continuously, and is commonly accepted as being responsible for the increases in surface temperatures which occur in its presence.

            Your comment is complete nonsense. You seem to be repeating the foolish Warmist redefinition of cooling as heating. In the absence of Sunlight, the surface cools. You may be attempting to say that the surface would cool faster in the absence of an atmosphere – as on the Moon.

            This is not *making the surface of the Earth hotter*, except in the fevered imaginations of foolish Warmists. The surface does not increase its temperature at night, regardless of how you might appeal to Dyson spheres, and other imaginary artefacts, in an attempt to deny, divert, and confuse. There is still no GHE, and therefore, pretending that you can describe its properties is pure silliness.

            If I understand you correctly, you are stating that additional CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will not raise the temperature of a thermometer. On the other hand, at night, increased CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature of thermometers on the surface (that is the commonly accepted usage of *hotter*, obviously not the foolish Warmist usage.

            Faced with facts, you start waffling about Dyson spheres, knowing that your assertions cannot be disproven by experiment, and hoping that nobody will notice. Your implied statement that CO2 heats in the absence of sunlight is pure fantasy. The stuff of Warmist fool delusional thinking.

            Still no GHE. Maybe if you could describe it, you could go on and develop a testable GHE theory. Of course, foolish Warmists have no time for the scientific method, proclaim that their assertions are too grand to be subject to experimental disproof, and that facts are established by consensus of self styled foolish Warmist experts.

            Sounds more like Cargo Cult Scientism to me.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            Now if one had Dyson sphere and it was at 1 AU distance and didnt change the sun and its surfaces were over 120 C, can humans live on it.

            Why would humans build a structure whose surface was 120 C?

            Dyson sphere builders would live on the inside surface, if only to avoid the damaging effects of solar radiation. And with all the energy they’re collecting, they’d easily be able to climate-control their environment.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          gbaikie,

          Dyson spheres are fascinating, but I am not really interested in going off on that tangent. This is simply an example trying to pin-point Mike’s misunderstanding.

          Mike keeps worrying about the effect of CO2 between the sun and the ground (which would have a very slight cooling effect because it would scatter a tiny bit of in coming solar IR before it hit the ground). He seems to completely miss the larger and more important effect due to the presence of CO2 between the ground and space. Here the CO2 absorbs IR from the warm ground and later emits IR from the cool upper atmosphere. This is where the GHE occurs.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, you are the one that mentioned “Dyson spheres”. So don’t try to make it sound like gbaikie is the one off on a tangent.

            You tried your tricks, and you got caught, AGAIN.

            And, CO2 is NOT a “heat source”, so it can NOT raise temperatures.

            You got caught, AGAIN.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            I dont worry all about the effect of CO2 between the Sun and the ground. Your mind reading abilities are on par with your physical knowledge – not very good.

            I miss very little. You, on the hand, might miss the not inconsequential matter of the energy absorbed by CO2 coming from the ground. As energy is emitted from the ground, the grounds temperature drops – it doesnt increase.

            The CO2 can never emit enough energy back to the ground to stop it cooling. This is why the surface cools at night – net energy loss.

            At this point, you may try to invoke some foolish Warmist heating mechanism which involves magic at at least one point, or call on the magic of the Warmist average which converts falling temperatures into rising ones, or simply redefine a reduction in the rate of cooling to be an increase it temperature.

            Bad luck. Still no GHE. Maybe you can wish one into existence, if you can get enough Warmist fools to form a consensus – possibly sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya really, really loudly!

            I know, I know, Im attempting to be humorous at the expense of Warmist fools! Why not?

            Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            This is why I don’t like to get started …

            Mike says
            “I assume (possibly incorrectly) that you think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter.”

            and also “I dont worry all about the effect of CO2 between the Sun and the ground.

            Mike, you clearly and repeatedly introduce this idea — CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer. And it is the wrong idea. It neither supports nor disproves the GHE.

            And G says “CO2 is NOT a heat source, so it can NOT raise temperatures.”
            Of course CO2 is not an independent heat source for the earth. No one (that I know) claims it is!

            But your conclusion does not follow. Change the word “CO2” to “Insulation”. Adding insulation to my house (while keeping the furnace power constant) will raise the temperature. Closing windows (while keeping the furnace power constant) will raise the temperature.

            Unless you are will to state that closing windows or adding insulation ‘can NOT raise temperatures”, then you needed a stronger argument. (And no, I am NOT claiming CO2 is the same as insulation.)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, I love your pseudoscience logic: CO2 is “insolation”, but CO2 is not “insolation”.

            This is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “insulation, of course!

            (That always happens when I’m laughing too hard.)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            Are you trying to say CO2 is not insulation, but CO2 is insulation?

            You wrote –

            Change the word CO2 to Insulation.

            Now it appears that you are saying that insulation is insulation, but insulation is not insulation, I guess. I have to guess, because you keep flying off a a foolish Warmist tangent, and talking about anything else except the delusional assertion that temperatures can be raised by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the converse of that proposition.

            Raymond Pierrehumbert (noted foolish Warmist) claims that the atmosphere is an insulator, and has calculated its insulating property in terms of fractional inches of polystyrene. A little odd, I agree, but there you are.

            As a matter of fact, if you replace *insulation* with *CO2*, you will find yourself in a great deal of bother. I will let you count the ways.

            I live in the tropics – and without insulation, I would be exposed to the direct rays of the midday Sun. Even mad dogs and Englishmen prefer insulation between them and the Sun – it results in lower temperatures. You dont like the Sun, and I dont blame you.

            It seems odd then, that the Trenberth *energy balance* graphics, in all their brightly coloured magnificence, seem to show the Sun shining brightly, through generally clear skies, and illuminating all the continents simultaneously!

            I cannot reconcile the views of one Warmist fool with another Warmist fool! Maybe this is because they cant actually agree on a written GHE, much less a testable GHE hypothesis. Hansen has Venusian runaway tipping points, and a rain of giant boulders, Michael Mann has treemometers and Mikes Nature trick, Schmidt throws Mann under the bus while simultaneously declaiming that a 38% probability ensures that 2014 was The Hottest Year EVAH!, and the dog ate Phil Jones spreadsheets, and his desk was so untidy that no data could be located due to commercial intellectual property concerns.

            Oh dear – not much objective science flying around in Warmist fool circles, is there?

            If I understand you correctly, the GHE doesnt work in the presence of sunlight, but works in the absence of sunlight, where it results in steadily falling temperatures called warming, due to CO2 being either an insulator, or not being an insulator.

            Maybe you need to talk about grapes or matchsticks, door and windows, or that good old Appell standby – overcoats on corpses!

            Keep at it. If you ever manage to find a testable GHE hypothesis, dont show it to a Warmist fool. They much prefer fantasy to fact.

            Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            A short discussion of basic logic.

            G* makes a statement of the general form “P implies Q”. Specifically, “P” = “‘X’ is not a heat source” and Q = ” ‘X’ cannot raise temperatures.”

            If I an find even a single counter-example, then the original statement is false. I found two. insulation is not a heat source. Closing a window is not a heat source. Either can raise temperatures in the systems I described. Therefore the original universal statement P implies Q is wrong.

            Now, G* could change the conclusion to ” ‘X’ cannot raise temperatures of unheated systems.” Then I would have no objection. My counterexamples don’t disprove this conclusion. But then the statement would not apply to the earth (which is continuously heated by the sun), so it is not germane to the discussion.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Or if you like set theory …
            P = “set of all things that are not heat sources”
            Q = “set of all things that can raise temperatures”

            G’s claim is that that P ∩ Q = empty set. And this is still incorrect in this different language.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, your attempt at “logic” is funny. But, combining it with your confusion about physics brings you to a new level in climate comedy.

            Please continue.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            Your logic is of the Warmist fool variety. Looks and sounds sciencey, mathy, and logicy, but merely serves to confuse the issue, as is the foolish Warmist way.

            Reduce the temperature to absolute zero, and you might try to tell me how the presence of insulation increases temperature, but such a universal proposition is quite obviously delusional.

            As you say, even a single counter example proves your assertion wrong.

            Still no GHE. No one seems to be able to describe the GHE, measure it, or agree on what it is or how it might be supposed to work.

            Some science.

            Foolish Warmism writ large.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, I don’t mean to laugh at you, if you are sincerely confused. So let me see if you will respond rationally to reality.

            1) The atmosphere is NOT an insulator. CO2 can NOT make it an insulator.

            If that confuses you, I’m willing to answer responsible questions.

            2) If you apply thermodynamic principles correctly, you can consider Earth a “closed system”. (It’s called a “control volume”.) So, with that properly identified system, CO2 can NOT raise the system temperature..

            Again, if that confuses you, I’m willing to answer responsible questions.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G*, my ‘funny logic’ is called a “syllogism” and it is one of the most ancient (and most basic) forms of deductive reasoning. [Look it up.]

            You propose a “major premise” that ‘if something is not a heat source, then it cannot raise the temperature of anything else.”

            You propose a “minor premise” that ‘CO2 is not a heat source’.

            You make the conclusion ‘CO2 cannot raise the temperature of something else’

            If we accept your premises, then the conclusion automatically follows.

            ——————————-

            I proposed a new minor the minor premise ‘adding insulation is not a source of heat’

            If we accept your major premise, then then the conclusion automatically follows that adding insulation cannot raise the temperature of a room with an active heater.

            So either you must
            1) agree that insulation does not make a house with a furnace warmer in the winter (so as you save your ‘major premise’
            or
            2) agree that your ‘major premise’ as presented is wrong.

          • Bart says:

            Tim –

            “Here the CO2 absorbs IR from the warm ground and later emits IR from the cool upper atmosphere. This is where the GHE occurs.”

            It is not so simple. CO2 absorbs IR from the ground, and almost immediately passes the intercepted energy along to other atmospheric molecules, as the mean time to collision is much less than the mean time to emission. Those CO2 molecules are, in turn, excited by collisions with other atmospheric molecules, accepting their energy and radiating it away.

            So, what you have is a balance between all these processes:

            – Atmospheric molecules convecting heat from the surface
            – IR from the surface intercepted by LW absorbing molecules
            – Interchange of energy between atmospheric molecules
            – Radiation of energy from LW absorbing molecules in all directions

            The important point is that radiative flux from the surface is not the only means of exciting LW absorbing and emitting molecules, these molecules have both a warming and a cooling potential, and increasing concentration increases both potentials. The net impact is not in 1:1 correspondence with concentration.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G* says: “Im willing to answer responsible questions.”
            Great! Go for it!

            “you can consider Earth a closed system.”
            OK. For all practical purposes, no matter arrives at nor leaves from the earth as a whole, so this is a perfectly legitimate approximation.

            “with that properly identified system, CO2 can NOT raise the system temperature.”
            Why??? What physic principles is this based on?

            You seem to be assuming something like “changes within a closed system cannot raise the temperature within that closed system. “ (Then based on that assumption, you conclude more specifically that changes in CO2 within the closed earth system cannot raise the earth’s temperature.)
            * If that is NOT what you are assuming, please tell us specifically what your assumption is. What general, universal claim are you making about closed systems?
            * If that IS what you are assuming, I can give any number of changes within any number of completely closed systems that lead to changes in temperature within the closed system.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bart says: “It is not so simple.”
            If it were simple, we would not need these long discussions. [grin]

            “CO2 absorbs IR from the ground, and almost immediately passes the intercepted energy along to other atmospheric molecules …”
            Yes — that is all true.

            “So, what you have is a balance between all these processes …
            Also true.

            None of that disagrees with my point. Let me repeat (and slightly expnad) my lines that you quoted.

            the CO2 [near the ground] absorbs [upward traveling] IR from the warm ground and later [other CO2 near the tropopause] emits IR [upward toward space] from the cool upper atmosphere [cool due to the various the interactions of the various process you mentioned — but especially convection]. This [decrease in IR to space within the 15 um bad caused by the presence of CO2 and by the natural lapse rate within the atmosphere] is where the GHE occurs.

            I really don’t think we disagree on any fundamental physics in anything you said or I said.

          • Bart says:

            The point is simply this: there is no guarantee that increasing concentration will necessarily increase surface temperatures.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, your “logic” is illogical. Hence, the humor.

            You seem confused about both insulation, and a “closed system”. But, I can not make sense out of where you are exactly confused, because you keep trying to duck the issues.

            Take one of the two issues at a time. Try to identify where you are confused. Then, try to construct a responsible question.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bart says: “The point is simply this: there is no guarantee that increasing concentration will necessarily increase surface temperatures.”

            EXACTLY!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Since you missed it, here you are once again …

            with that properly identified system, CO2 can NOT raise the system temperature.
            Why??? What physic principles is this based on?

            Further, you state: You seem confused about both insulation, and a closed system.
            Hmmm … I completely agreed with you about the definition of “closed system” and with the idea that earth is a closed system. Apparently agreeing with you is a sign that I am confused.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Thanks for clearing up your position on the “closed system”.

            And thanks for the responsible question: Why??? What physic principles is this based on?”

            Your question is about my statement that adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot raise Earth temperatures. CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source, as you recognize. It is only a “heat transfer agent”. So, for it to add heat energy to Earth’s system would be a violation of 1LoT and 2LoT. And since it is not adding heat energy, it cannot cause temperatures to increase.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “And since it is not adding heat energy, it cannot cause temperatures to increase.”

            Temperature holds steady when the heat out of a system equals the heat into a system. Temperature rises if EITHER more heat is added to a system OR less heat is removed.

            I agree that adding CO2 does not add heat to the system. So we are left with the question “Does more CO2 reduce the heat that is being removed?” If CO2 causes a reduction in the heat outflow, then it will cause the temperature to rise.

            I (and every other competent scientists) agrees that the IR properties of CO2 cause a reduction in heat outflow. Theoretical and experimental evidence strongly supports this conclusion. If you seriously doubt that CO2 can impact the heat flowing OUT from a system, then that is the one an only issue to address moving forward.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, your comments are in bold:

            If CO2 causes a reduction in the heat outflow, then it will cause the temperature to rise.

            That is a common belief, but it is incorrect. Just because CO2 absorbs low energy photons, that does not imply CO2 can then heat the surface. A 14.7 µ photon cannot “heat” a mass that is above -100F.

            I (and every other competent scientists) agrees that the IR properties of CO2 cause a reduction in heat outflow.

            Well Tim, I certainly hope that you are competent. But competency is often measured by results. I don’t see much results from the “97% consensus”.

            Theoretical and experimental evidence strongly supports this conclusion.

            Tim, your bias may be clouding your perception. There is NO such “strong” evidence.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            T>> If “x” causes a reduction in the heat outflow, then it will cause the temperature to rise.

            G> That is a common belief, but it is incorrect.

            A very simple example. I have an oven in my house. I turn the heating element on and let the oven come to some steady temperature — say 350F with 200W of steady heating (and of course 200 W of steady heat flow out from the oven into the cool kitchen). I decide I want the oven warmer. Which of these would accomplish the task.

            a) turning up the power to increase the heat input to 250W?
            b) adding insulation to the walls to decrease the loss to 150 W?
            c) either
            d) neither

            If you agree that (c) is the correct answer, then you agree that my ‘common belief’ is indeed correct. (Or you have to find some convoluted way to argue that creating a heat imbalance SOME ways (for example, insulation) will affect temperature, but creating a heat imbalance OTHER ways (for example, blocking some outward radiation) does NOT affect temperature.

            You must tell us which forms of Q get counted in Q = mcΔT and which ones we must ignore. Which forms of Q get counted in ΔU = Q – W and which should be left out.

            *******************************************’

            G> that does not imply CO2 can then heat the surface.

            This seems to be the root of your entire misunderstanding. CO2 does NOT add heat the surface (ie add extra heat). This makes your statement a “strawman” — a misstatement of the proper physics.

            On the other hand, CO2 *does* limit the heat flow FROM the surface. So unless you want to disagree with (c) being the correct answer before, then you have to accept that CO2 can affect temperatures.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, the “oven example” is misleading. If you want to “model” the bogus GHE, put some dry ice in the cold oven. As the dry ice sublimates, pseudoscience indicates that the added CO2 should trap the IR in the oven. If the bogus GHE effect were real, you could get some warming in the oven. But, if you understand physics, you don’t even have to do the experiment. You know it would not work.

            CO2 does NOT raise temperatures. CO2 does NOT “trap heat”. CO2 does NOT force higher temperatures. Believing otherwise is pseudoscience.

            You went on to state: “This seems to be the root of your entire misunderstanding. CO2 does NOT add heat the surface (ie add extra heat). This makes your statement a “straw man” a misstatement of the proper physics.”

            Tim, I have to correct YOUR misunderstanding of your own pseudoscience. The bogus GHE nonsense most certainly requires surface heating by CO2. Here’s just one example:

            “As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface.

            The IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense is pseudoscience. You would not get on an airplane that had been designed with pseudoscience. So, I do NOT have to accept that CO2 can affect temperatures.

          • Bart says:

            Just want to make clear, I am in no way in agreement with G’s rationalizations. My input is entirely separate from his.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bart, don’t be ashamed when you get it right. Even though you don’t understand physics, you can often stumble onto the right direction. It’s a learning experience.

            I don’t mind telling you when you’re wrong, so I’m happy to tell you when you get it right.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G — very briefly

            1) People who understand the science know that adding CO2 inside the oven will have no impact on the final steady-state temperature inside the oven.

            2) People who understand the science know that this example has nothing to do with the ‘greenhouse effect”.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Exactly, Tim. The GHE is NOT science. It is “pseudoscience”.

            CO2 can NOT raise temperatures. People that do not understand the science keep trying to peddle falsehoods. That’s why clear, brief, easily verifiable, examples are best.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G! You say “exactly” and then go on to state something that is basically the opposite of what I said!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, where did I lose you?

            My interpretations of your numbered points:

            1) “CO2 can NOT raise temperatures.”

            2) “CO2 can NOT raise temperatures.”

            If you meant something else, please expound.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            1) CO2 cannot raise temperatures in some specific sets of circumstances.

            2) CO2 CAN raise temperatures in some completely different sets of circumstances.

            You completely misread (2). There are LOTS of circumstances where CO2 can raise temperatures. The greenhouse effect is one of them. The circumstances for the GHE to work include:
            A) the presence of CO2 (or other IR absorber)
            B) an object with some input of power
            C) cool surroundings.
            D) The CO2 situated between the heated object and the cool surroundings.
            This leads to an effect on the temperature, T. If you change one of these conditions — like D’ = CO2 situated INSIDE the heated object.

            Basically I said:
            (A and B and C and D) implies (T)

            You said:
            (A and B and C and D’) implies (not T)

            The two are different and both are correct.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Okay Tim, if you’ve been taught CO2 can raise temperatures, try this experiment:

            * Two well-insulated containers, both equipped with remote thermometer probes.
            * Both equipped with 25 Watt incandescent light bulbs.
            * Fill one container with argon gas. Fill the other with CO2.
            * Turn on the bulbs and record the temperatures.

            When you determine you’ve been taught pseudoscience, sue to get your money back.

            Hope you get a full refund. Glad to help.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            My gracious! I don’t know how many times I can say the same thing and yet have you completely misunderstand my point!

            No matter how many times you say
            “(A and B and C and D) implies (not T)”

            that does not prove or disprove anything about
            “(A and B and C and D) implies (T)”

            Just like …
            Saying radiation can cause cancer in some circumstances does not disprove that radiation can kill cancer in other circumstances.
            Saying water can kill a person drowning in the ocean does not disprove that water can save a person parched in the dessert.
            Saying a LED doesn’t light up when the battery is connected in one polarity does not prove it can’t light up when connected with the opposite polarity.

            No matter now many times you give an example where CO2 would not raise temperatures, that does not prove or disprove what CO2 would do in a different situation. For the GHE, the IR-absorbing materials must be OUTSIDE the object being heated — not INSIDE.

            Do you TRULY not understand that different circumstances can lead to different results???

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            My gracious, Tim.

            You ran away from your own conditions!

            A) the presence of CO2 (or other IR absorber)
            B) an object with some input of power
            C) cool surroundings.
            D) The CO2 situated between the heated object and the cool surroundings.

            Do you not understand how that makes you a “climate clown”?

            More, please.

  17. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell wrote –

    Again afraid to answer questions.

    Im done with your crap, Flynn. Youre a waste of time.

    Promises, promises.

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      If you don’t want to debate the science, what are you doing here?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      David,

      I thought you were done with my crap, as you so elegantly and politely put it.

      Whats the matter – can’t control yourself?

      If you had some science to offer, that would be one thing. If all you can offer is foolish Warmist nonsense, your talk of debating science is as meaningless as the notion that facts can be established by debate. A notion of Warmist fools, who believe consensus overwhelms fact.

      Keep demanding David, Ill keep writing precisely what I want.

      Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        Does this kind of response make you feel better?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          It has no effect on me. Why should it? I appreciate your concern – I thought you didnt care.

          Cheers

          • Des says:

            Hey Mikey …. you seem to have gone AWOL from the other thread.
            Was it something I said? Hahaha

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            You possibly overrate your importance, as far as I am concerned. I cant think of a single reason why your opinion matters to me in particular.

            You may say what you wish – my care factor remains firmly equivalent to zero.

            Is your *Hahaha* the maniacal cackle of the mentally deranged, accompanied by rolling eyes and drooling?

            Or is there some deep climatological foolish Warmist significance? I appreciate your concern that I moved on., and I didnt realise you were so interested in my welfare. You dont need to apologise for being a Warmist fool. I understand.

            Keep at it. Maybe you can discover a good description of the GHE. Maybe you could even develop a testable GHE hypothesis – nobody else has managed so far. When you were studying for your BSc, did you learn that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer make the thermometer hotter? Or did you miss that lesson for some reason?

            Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Whatever climatology purports to be, its definitely not science, is it. It might be a form of Cargo Cult Scientism at best. Consumes vast amounts of funding, but has provided precisely nothing of benefit to humanity.

            Apart from continuing predictions of disaster, of course, accompanied by continuing demands for the extermination of humanity by removing CO2 from the atmosphere! Maybe humanity really loves to live in fear, and will embrace the extermination so desired by Warmist fools. Not me, of course.

            The idea that additional CO2 in the atmosphere can heat the Earth is plainly ridiculous, based on the Earths progressive cooling since its creation. Keep praying. Maybe that will provide more heat than CO2 – who knows?

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            Mike,
            It is now 19 consecutive days of negative SOI values.
            The 30-day average value is close to minus 4.

            Just in case you did’nt catch the explanation I gave previously and still think this is too “sciency” let me help you one more time:

            The Southern Oscillation Index, or SOI, gives an indication of the development and intensity of El Nino or La Nina events in the Pacific Ocean. The SOI is calculated using the pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin.

            Sustained negative values of the SOI below −7 often indicate El Nio episodes. These negative values are usually accompanied by sustained warming of the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, a decrease in the strength of the Pacific Trade Winds.
            Sustainted positive values of the SOI above +7 are typical of a La Nia episode. They are associated with stronger Pacific trade winds.

            A simple thank you will suffice.

          • professorP says:

            Des, can you please call Mike’s nurse?
            He must have forgotten to take his pills and is becoming even more repetitive than usual.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Maybe you are confused. Why do you think that copying and pasting an SOI description from the BOM site (amongst others) has any relation to the nonexistent GHE? Should I be impressed?

            More sciency sounding, but quite useless and irrelevant information.

            Have you a point? The SOI is variable in intensity and timing. Not much in predicting the future, is it?

            If you can dig up something useful – say a scientific description of a reproducible GHE, that would be appreciated.

            All very diverting, Im sure – your infatuation with the SOI, I mean. As a means of deny, divert and confuse, trying to avoid the reality that the GHE doesnt actually exist, maybe not so good.

            The IPCC stated quite clearly that the prediction of future climate states is not possible. Even if you dont agree, you cannot explain why, can you? On the other hand hand, if you agree with the IPCC, trying to convince people that a GHE exists would be a colossal waste of time, wouldnt it?

            So whos right – you or the foolish Warmists forming the IPCC?

            Have fun deciding.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            Mike,
            in case you did’nt know, El Nino events are associated with higher (than otherwise) global average temperatures. Another El Nino event this year, on top of the inexorable upward trend, could bump values to new records.( I say could, because nothing is for certain.)
            Don’t you find that prospect exciting?

          • Des says:

            Hi Mike/g*e*r*a*n,

            “You possibly overrate your importance, as far as I am concerned. I cant think of a single reason why your opinion matters to me in particular.”

            And yet you DID go looking for me on the other thread, and spent an inordinate amount of time typing up rants both there and here. I’m touched.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Maybe you have missed a couple of points

            The index to which you refer appears to oscillate unpredictably and possibly chaotically. Useless for prediction. You point out that sometimes it is hotter than the average, and by definition, sometimes colder.

            Interesting to a foolish Warmist no doubt, but hardly to any scientist with better things to do than compulsively analyse and reanalyse temperature records, hoping to divine the future.

            Since the creation of the Earth, the temperature trend has been inexorably downwards, despite historically far higher atmospheric CO2 levels. Warmist fools invariably cherry pick silly shorter periods trying to shore up their bizarre CO2 heating beliefs.

            I dont become particularly excited about the unknown future. So far, so good. It doesnt seem to have disturbed my quiet enjoyment of life so far.

            You may become as excitable as you wish on my behalf. It will say me wasting time worrying about things which may never occur.

            Happy worrying.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            Thank you for your concern. Your mind reading abilities are sorely lacking, as usual.

            I did not spend an inordinate amount of time responding to your Warmist foolishness. I took precisely as long as I felt like.

            Your opinion is your opinion. It is of no particular concern to me, no matter how much your supposed mind reading abilities tell you otherwise.

            Do you think that your efforts might be more dedicated to unearthing the missing description of the GHE, or, even better, a testable GHE hypothesis? I understand your frustration at being forced to proceed on the basis of the consensus belief of a ragtag bunch of Warmist fools.

            Go for it Des. Deny, divert, and confuse. Maybe you can convince enough fellow travellers that the scientific method is old fashioned, and that fantasy is the new fact. Maybe you can even convince the US Govt to restore funding to the promoters of the GHE belief.

            I wish you luck – just in case you need some.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            “I dont become particularly excited about the unknown future. So far, so good. It doesnt seem to have disturbed my quiet enjoyment of life so far.”

            Mike, you may enjoy life a bit more if you gave up spending all your remaining time repeating drivel on this site.

            And, you may learn how to be grateful to those of us who have spent time trying (in vain) to educate you.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Ill endeavour to ignore your unsolicited advice as hard as I can. Feel free to take as much offence as you like.

            As to your implication that I should be grateful to Warmist fools for subjecting me to their delusional thinking, Im not at all sure what part of your fantasy might lead you to that conclusion.

            I have no desire to become more contented than I am. Your attempt to convince me that I should discommode myself at your behest, to achieve some unstated and indefinable benefit in the future has failed. Tough.

            I am content. How do you imagine contentment may be increased? Whether you imagine that I do not know what I am feeling (or not), is unlikely to change my contentment.

            All part of the rich tapestry of life.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            Mike, the word “discommode” is one I have’nt come across before.
            Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

            (You may like to thank me for my thank you)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Of course I am pleased to have contributed to the broadening your vocabulary.

            I accept your thanks. Im not sure why I should thank you for providing you with knowledge you did not previously possess. Am I supposed to feel grateful because you know less than I do?

            Have you considered that some of the other information I provide might also be unknown to yourself (and the foolish Warmists)?

            I apologise if you have considered the possibility, but discarded it as it conflicts with the climatological consensus that CO2 raises the temperature of the planet, that the normal scientific method is irrelevant, that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize, and that the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt is a actually a brilliant climatologist.

            I know Im laying out on bit thick. Nobody could possibly believe the climatological consensus, could they? They would appear to be Warmist fools if they did, I warrant!

            Cheers.

          • Des says:

            “Maybe you can even convince the US Govt to restore funding to the promoters of the GHE belief.”

            Why would I want to communicate with a foreign government?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            I havent got the faintest idea whether you would want to or not, let alone why. Unlike some Warmist fools, I make no claim to mind reading abilities.

            Maybe you didnt comprehend the word maybe, or maybe you are trying to emulate a Warmist fool by strenuously attempting to avoid admitting that there is no actual scientific description of the GHE. How would I know?

            Hence your presumed (by me,) attempt to deny, divert and confuse by posing a foolish Warmist gotcha. You might have asked a question which had some relevance, rather than responding to something you thought I wrote, rather than what I did. Oh well, typical of foolish Warmism, I suppose.

            Maybe you could try to describe the GHE in useful terms yourself. I completely understand if you dont want to attempt such a thing – you probably know its an impossible task (or maybe you dont).

            Care to try for another gotcha?

            Cheers.

          • Des says:

            You really should try to introduce some variety into your responses. Your well-rehearsed unthinking mantra becomes somewhat passe over time.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            Thank you for your interest and support, but I have no intention of f acceding to your foolish Warmist suggestions.

            Do you suffer some form of delusional psychosis which might have you seriously believing that Im likely to welcome your unsolicited and quite pointless advice?

            Offer it it you are unable to stop yourself. I dont mind. Ill just refuse to do what I dont want to do.

            In regard to the non-existence of the GHE, the standard foolish Warmist tactic of deny, divert, and confuse doesnt seem to be working as well as it used to, but feel free to use it if you cant come up with anything more intelligent.

            I leave it to you.

            Cheers.

  18. ren says:

    The lowest temperature in the tropopause indicates that the stratosphere is transparent to infrared radiation, because there are more gas particles in the lower stratosphere than in higher layers.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png

  19. NP-Hard says:

    I have a question about how CO2 causes long term warming. I have researched my question a bit and have not found anything covering it. I question the 5.35 Watts in the equation F = 5.35 ln(C1/C0).

    I understand that CO2 is IR reactive and absorbs IR of some wavelengths. When an IR photon of the right wavelength(s) hits a CO2 molecule then the CO2 is excited to a higher energy state. Some of that energy is transferred to surrounding molecules (mostly N2 and O2) and some is that energy is then reemitted as IR in some random direction, and about half of that is returned to the ground and re-absorbed (some is reflected, but lets assume all is absorbed). I accept that when the IR photon is absorbed by the ground that it adds heat back to the ground (reduces the rate of cooling).

    Once CO2 returns IR energy to the ground, then ground will then emit the energy again per the earths radiation spectrum. This forms an energy cycle with CO2 in the loop causing a delay. In looking at NASA GISS spectral flux at the top of the atmosphere, it appears there is only a 15% chance (plus or minus) of emitting IR in a band that CO2 will accept. This means there is a significant chance the loop is broken each time around the loop.

    Looking at the odds that energy escapes to space, there is an 85% that it does given that the earth emits the energy in a wavelength NOT acceptable to CO2. The other 15% hits a CO2 molecule and only half of that (at most) will be reemitted back to the ground. This means that 92.5% of the energy escapes to space on the first photon emission from the ground. Of the 7.5% that is returned to the ground and absorbed, then that energy is then reemitted per the earths radiation spectrum and the cycle repeats.

    Every time the earth emits a photon, 92.5% of that energy leaves the earth system and is gone forever (assuming the amount that reflects off the *rotating* moon back to the earth is miniscule). After two cycles there is a 99.52% chance (1 (0.075^2)) that the energy has left the earth system. After three cycles a 99.96% chance it is gone, and so on.

    To me, it does not appear that any energy is trapped by CO2 — it is only delayed be some amount time. Given that the speed of light is quite fast and the distance to space is short, and that there are a bunch of molecules in between the ground and space, it doesnt seem likely that the time of a cycle is very large. I have read that it takes something like 250,000 years for a photon from the center of the sun to make it to the surface of the sun, but the sun is very dense and very large. It seems unlikely that energy is trapped rattling around in the earths atmosphere for hours, much less days or years, but I could be wrong. Given that the earth cools quite quickly at night, it seems like the cycle time is seconds or minutes.

    I have four questions: 1) where have I gone wrong, if I have, 2) how long is the average cycle in this scenario, and 3) how is *any* IR trapped for any length of time to cause warming, and 4) where did someone get 5.35 W/m2 in the equation in my first paragraph?

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      NP-Hard, you are correct in questioning the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE.

      The equation you mentioned is sometimes called the “Arrhenius CO2” equation. It is bogus pseudoscience, long discredited. The equation tries to claim you can heat the atmosphere by adding CO2. So, you add CO2, and you magically get “Watts/square meter”? You add CO2 and you make energy? A clear violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

      You were lenient in accepting that any appreciable IR from CO2 would be absorbed by the surface. A 14.7 micron photon from CO2 has less energy than the peak wavelength from an ice cube! How much “warming” can be done with ice cubes? It’s even less with atmospheric CO2.

      You’ve correctly identified some of the major flaws in the AGW nonsense. (Otherwise known as the “AGW Hoax”.)

      • Crakar24 says:

        NP…..now you know why Flynns disassenbly of David Appell has been so much fun to watch.

        This is the warmist foolishness they speak about.

        Also consider the “back radiation” does not penetrate the oceans so thats 70% of the surface that plays no role.

        Thanks for the comment you summed up the foolishness very well

        • David Appell says:

          Also consider the back radiation does not penetrate the oceans so thats 70% of the surface that plays no role.

          Why doesn’t it?

          And, if the IR warms the air layer just above the sea surface, why doesn’t that heat penetrate into the ocean?

          If you place a heat lamp above a pot of water, will the water warm?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, compare the photon energies of a heat lamp to photons from atmospheric CO2.

            But, then you would be involved in physics, instead of your pseudoscience.

            Never mind.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            As g points out, the answers to your gotchas require that you understand basic physics. Can you adduce any facts to support such a proposition?

            Maybe you should just post some of my comments verbatim.

            Cheers.

          • Bart says:

            “If you place a heat lamp above a pot of water, will the water warm?”

            I very much doubt it would, as it would only heat the skin, which would then evaporate.

            Perhaps you could get warming to a little depth if you stirred it, but probably not much.

            Do you have a link to an experiment that could help resolve the question?

          • David Appell says:

            Why do restaurants put buffet and cafeteria-line food under heat lamps?

          • Bart says:

            They don’t immerse them in water.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      NP,

      Ill add a little, if I may.

      Foolish Warmists totally ignore the fact that any photons emitted from the surface reduce the temperature of the surface by definition. If they did not, the surface temperature would not drop, and an inexhaustible supply of emitted free energy would be available.

      As I think you point out, not all of this energy is returned to the surface, and as a result, it will cool more slowly. The temperature is still going down, not up.

      At this point, Warmist fools generally attempt to deny, divert, and confuse by calling on the magical properties of the climatological averaging procedure, which apparently creates heating from cooling.

      Until someone produces a description of a reproducible GHE, at least, CO2 related heating of the planet remains a speculation at best, and a delusional fantasy at worst – to me, at least.

      Cheers.

    • gbaikie says:

      ” NP-Hard says:
      February 18, 2018 at 9:34 AM

      I have a question about how CO2 causes long term warming. I have researched my question a bit and have not found anything covering it. I question the 5.35 Watts in the equation F = 5.35 ln(C1/C0).”

      It’s probably 1/2 that or less.

      “I understand that CO2 is IR reactive and absorbs IR of some wavelengths. When an IR photon of the right wavelength(s) hits a CO2 molecule then the CO2 is excited to a higher energy state. Some of that energy is transferred to surrounding molecules (mostly N2 and O2) and some is that energy is then reemitted as IR in some random direction, and about half of that is returned to the ground and re-absorbed (some is reflected, but lets assume all is absorbed). I accept that when the IR photon is absorbed by the ground that it adds heat back to the ground (reduces the rate of cooling).”

      For mostly N2 and O2 to absorb energy, one is basically saying N2 and O2 would have their average molecules velocity increased- which might be possible, but I also would say it’s not significant.
      Reducing rate of cooling might be possible, but I would say it must occur mostly at low elevations. And so would CO2 increasing the average molecular speed. Or roughly you have to pick one or the other. And increasing molecular velocity also is about “reducing the rate of cooling” and both or either isn’t particularly significant.
      There no evidence of CO2 causing much “warming” of earth at anytime in Earth history. Though if Earth warms, one will tend to get more Co2 in atmosphere- and increased levels of co2 in atmosphere doesn’t prevent earth from becoming cooler- as is shown in ice cores indicate, ice core say higher co2 level are associated cooling- or cooling follows from higher average temperature and higher Co2 levels. But I would say this correlation rather causation- one gets higher Co2 levels with warmer climate, and what gets warm, will eventually cool. And also don’t think higher Co2 would prevent another Little Ice Age which could then lead to a glacial period. My view is we continuing to recover from LIA and see no evidence of us returning to it [anytime soon].

      “Once CO2 returns IR energy to the ground, then ground will then emit the energy again per the earths radiation spectrum. This forms an energy cycle with CO2 in the loop causing a delay”
      I tend to think the only thing warming the ground is direct sunlight.
      And I think the ocean is warmed by direct and indirect sunlight.

      • David Appell says:

        There no evidence of CO2 causing much warming of earth at anytime in Earth history.

        Study the PETM.

        I tend to think the only thing warming the ground is direct sunlight.

        You can’t explain the Earth’s average surface temperature based on sunlight alone.

        You have to include the downwelling IR from the greenhouse effect to do that.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          No you don’t davie.

          You just have to understand physics.

        • gbaikie says:

          — David Appell says:
          February 19, 2018 at 4:40 PM

          There no evidence of CO2 causing much warming of earth at anytime in Earth history.

          Study the PETM. —

          We are in icebox climate, PETM occurred when Earth wasn’t in icebox climate.

          –I tend to think the only thing warming the ground is direct sunlight.

          You cant explain the Earths average surface temperature based on sunlight alone.–

          You can. Earth distance from the sun determines Earth’s global climate, it’s called the habitable zone.

          The average temperature of Earth is mostly related to ocean surface temperature and sunlight warms the oceans.

          The ground being warmed by sunlight- does not determine Earth’s average temperature. Land surfaces are cooling effect- land surface is a cooling effect and oceans are a warming effect. Land surfaces affect global temperature in the degree that it lower global temperature- in that sense land has effect, but it a cooling effect [and believe you are asking about why it’s warm].

          In regards to the warmth of Earth. An average global temperature of 15 C is pretty cold.
          And it’s even colder than number 15 C suggests.
          Or only place on Earth which is actually warm is the tropics. This particularly salient for humans which are tropical creatures.
          The tropics have average temperature of about 26 C and because the tropics is about 40% of surface area, this large part of earth surface, raises the average temperature to 15 C.
          And 80% of tropics is ocean- and humans mostly don’t live on the ocean. So India and Africa are warm, China, US, Europe, Japan, Canada and Russia, average fairly close to a refrigerator’s temperature.
          Humans live in the cold, because they have developed the technology to survive such conditions.

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh, and if Earth ever warms up, it will be because the ocean warm up.
            And for ocean to warm up, both the Entire ocean and the surface of the entire ocean must warm up.
            Currently entire ocean is about 3.5 C [cold]
            Surface of ocean is about 17 C [almost warm- and seems almost warm because a large region [tropics] is about 26 C which helps increase the global average of 17 C.

            So icebox climate is the entire ocean having average temperature of about 5 C to bout 1 C.
            And PETM was over 10 C- or not an icebox climate climate.
            And when one has entire ocean about 10 C, this increase amount
            of area of Earth with gets tropical like conditions- less cold winters and more rainfall [and less deserts conditions]
            So tropics at sea level don’t reach freezing- unless in a desert] though gets freezing at higher elevations- and one can get snowfall. So PETM would still have snowfall in regions- one could still ski in the winter.
            But generally there should less “waste lands” of deserts and near lifeless glacial areas- which in our ice box occupy more than 1/3 of our land areas.
            So other than massive volcanic activity PETM would been more comfortable and a better Earth, then our icebox Earth. Though there would be less white furred animals- or less area covered in snow. And even in the mountains the permanent snow would be rare.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “We are in icebox climate, PETM occurred when Earth wasnt in icebox climate.”

            Irrelevant. The PETM shows a great deal of warming after the (volcanic) release of a great deal of CO2.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “In regards to the warmth of Earth. An average global temperature of 15 C is pretty cold.
            And its even colder than number 15 C suggests.”

            SURE….. 15 C doesn’t *ACTUALLY* mean 15 C.

            Right?

          • gbaikie says:

            “David Appell says:
            February 23, 2018 at 2:58 AM

            gbaikie says:
            In regards to the warmth of Earth. An average global temperature of 15 C is pretty cold.
            And its even colder than number 15 C suggests.

            SURE.. 15 C doesnt *ACTUALLY* mean 15 C.

            Right?”

            Most Humans don’t live on the ocean. And oceans have average of 17 C. If most people lived on the ocean then, Humans would live in region warmer then earth average temperature of 15 C.

            Human live in Canada and Russia, and those countries have average temperature of -4 C. There is not many Canadians and Russians in comparison to 7 billion people and Canadian and Russians would tend to live in the warmer region’s of their countries- so say warmer than average of 0 C.
            Europe is about 12 C- and likewise Europeans tend to live in warmer regions, but few would live where it’s 15 C or warmer.
            China about 10 C- but large part of population probably lives in warmer region or 15 C or warmer,
            US is about 12 C, but probably less than 1/2 live in regions
            warmer than 15 C.
            India with 1/3rd of China land area, has as many people as China and has growing population, and they do live mostly in regions warmer than 15 C [and much warmer]. Likewise with southeast Asian countries- warmer [much warmer] than 15 C and likewise with fast growing populations.

            The regions which has warmed the most are regions which cooler, and it’s accepted that most of warming is not due to human caused warming- occurred before 1950.

            A lot warming which isn’t counted as global temperature, is due to Urban Heat island effects, such warming is not related to the greenhouse effect theory- nothing to due with global conditions or CO2 levels.

            Another aspect is large number of people live in higher elevation- or regions 5 to 15 C cooler. So for most people
            their average temperature is less than 15 C.
            Though due to UHI effects [and of course living heated homes and not living outside] it warmer “where they live” than 15 C.

        • Bart says:

          “Study the PETM.”

          CO2 lagged the warming event.

          “You have to include the downwelling IR from the greenhouse effect to do that.”

          This does not, however, establish that the GHE is monotonic with concentration.

    • Crakar24 says:

      Also dont forget the second half of the hypothesis. When the back radiation re warms the surface H2O is released (or at least more…perhaps) the H2O is far more powerful than CO2 and this is where the catastrophic warming comes from (Hot Spot etc).

      For some reason that i never understood the H2O would not fall back down as rain, this process will continue until the oceans are suspended above our heads.

      This hypothesis has been modified over the years to suit the situation so now it all falls back down as floods or sometimes it does not and we get droughts.

      It was not supposed to fall down as snow (snow droughts) but now it does (snow floods).

      I believe (and just my personal opinion here) the predictions made are based on computer models in that a software programme cannot model the atmosphere (too complex) so they dumb it down so we now have “columns” of CO2 etc which do not exist except in a computer.

      In fact the IR bounces from one GHG to another, to and from N2/O2 etc it can start with CO2, then be absorbed by H2O and then leave the TOA via the CH4 emission layer or maybe the cloud top emission layer.

      Its junk science from start to finish.

      • David Appell says:

        Crakar24 says:
        “When the back radiation re warms the surface H2O is released (or at least moreperhaps) the H2O is far more powerful than CO2 and this is where the catastrophic warming comes from (Hot Spot etc).”

        A hot spot develops with any warming, not just GHG warming. But the stratosphere cools with GHG warming and not just any warming (in particular, solar warming).

        “For some reason that i never understood the H2O would not fall back down as rain, this process will continue until the oceans are suspended above our heads.”

        Because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor without it condensing out. Study the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.

  20. ren says:

    Very low temperature in Manitoba, Canada.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00959/4d9z872t374n.png

  21. ren says:

    From 23 February, very cold air masses from northern Siberia will flow into Poland and Western Europe.

  22. m d mill says:

    Dr. Spencer:

    But…
    Similarly, if one assumes there has been a natural cooling trend component(outside the model simulations) in effect since the last half of the 20th century (which I believe is probable), then the observation based sensitivity calculations of Otto,Lewis and Curry, are too small.

    This is the weakness of all observation based methods that use long term trends to determine sensitivity. It gets us nowhere, unless we accept the models as absolutely correct. The roman and middle ages warming periods, and the “little ice age” have been verified by multiple proxy records, but are all outside the model simulations…the models are inadequate to simulate real world long term trending.

    But I do believe a water vapor feedback multiplier, as predicted by the models, is none the less in effect, with a most likely value of 3…and this is based on an independent observation based analysis, not based on long term
    (>50 YEAR)trends.

    m d mill

    • David Appell says:

      m d mill says:
      “The roman and middle ages warming periods, and the little ice age have been verified by multiple proxy records”

      These weren’t global warmings, just regional….

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        davie, that is what you want to believe.

        Substituting beliefs for actual data is called “pseudoscience”.

      • m d mill says:

        Most proxy record global analysis reveal that they were in fact global, without doubt. Further, the models do not predict the regional trends either.

  23. gbaikie says:

    My Firefox tab says:
    Diagnosing Climate Sensitivity Ass…

    I wanted to share that.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      gbaikie,

      Maybe it is clogged because the ass . . has its foolish Warmist owners head jammed firmly into it. No room left for David Appells nose.

      Thats my diagnosis, anyway.

      Thanks for sharing (not the ass . . , though. Climate sensitivity is on the nose enough, all by itself!).

      Cheers.

  24. The overall ocean temperature trend is down and so to will be global temperatures.

  25. professorP says:

    “But it looks like the record for lowest Global Sea Ice Extent minimum has been broken (yet again).”
    http://neven1.typepad.com

  26. Christopher Hanley says:

    “If they really believe the models, and also believe there has been some natural cooling mechanism going on suppressing anthropogenic warming, why doesnt the IPCC simply claim ALL recent warming was due to human causation?”.
    They may as well, they have an ad hoc hypothesis on hand to cover any eventuality.

  27. ren says:

    The current range of arctic air in North America. The temperature around Hudson Bay drops below -40 C.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00959/mdpwm2hpwdje.png

  28. Werner Kohl says:

    Jesus Christ, has this David Appell nothing else to do?
    Is it necessary that every 2nd post comes from him? This is boring and wasting time.
    Why doesn’t he operate his own blog?

    @Roy:
    Thanks for this article! I’ve wondered all the time why it has almost never been explicitely said that those estimates assume that (except for vulcanos) ALL temperature variations come from anthropogenic influence.

  29. Dr. Strangelove says:

    Looking at that graph of Dr. Spencer, I say the realistic ECS is between 0.2 to 0.8 C. This is the range of previous studies independently by Idso, Lindzen and Spencer indicating strong negative feedback.

    • Des says:

      Deniers choose to believe what they want to believe. They have no science knowledge to base their choices on.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Des,

        You are correct. Foolish Warmists furiously deny that the a properly described GHE does not exist. Some deny that air can be heated, cooled, or emit IR. They also deny that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be scientifically shown to have any adverse effects.

        Deny, divert, confuse. Youre right. Warmist fools cannot produce any science at all to support their delusional claims – to them , cooling is heating, undistinguished mathematicians are climate scientists, and climate controls weather, rather than being its average!

        How crazy is that?

        Warmist fools seem to prefer fantasy to fact! CO2 is supposedly responsible for flood, drought, heat waves, cold snaps, too much snow, not enough snow, water levels rising, land rising – except when it isnt. This is science?

        Cheers.

      • Christopher Hanley says:

        “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations …”(IPCC AR4).
        That is not a statement of fact let alone a Principia-style axiom, its essentially a guess purporting to be incontrovertible truth.

        • David Appell says:

          “My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

          – Richard Muller, New York Times, 7/28/12
          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, perhaps you and dick should put out a “paper” on how the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K.

            That would be hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            dT = dQ/mc

            Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.

            m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
            c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
            => dT = 760,000 K

            Q.E.D.

          • professorP says:

            David, you lost “anger” as soon as you wrote “dT=”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Do you have any concerns about the words *it appears likely*, and *essentially all*?

            Opinions are not fact. Consensus does not create. There is no testable GHE hypothesis. According to Richard Muller, Steven Mosher is a scientist.

            Dreams piled on fantasy, sitting on the bedrock of delusion.

            Keep wishing, David.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Poor davie, he keeps pasting the same nonsense every time.

            It’s like some clown stating that he can run 5000 miles/hr. Someone else says “Thats’ impossible!”

            Then the clown says: “If I cover a distance of 5000 miles in 1 hour, then the rate is 5000 mph.”

            And, the clown believes his math transfers to reality.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            But . . but . . .

            The Earth might be four and a half billion years old.

            Should your very mathy formula not show the Earths temperature to be much higher than you say?

            In line with the millions of degrees asserted by Al Gore. Or was it billions?

            Does this go some way to explaining why no testable GHE hypothesis exists? Maybe Warmist fools spend all their time counting degrees, or Watts, or something.

            Very interesting, if you are involved in the study of shared delusional behaviour.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            No mathematics at all is required to understand the testable GHE hypothesis, beacause such a fantasy doesnt exist.

            Maybe you could have a go at creating a testable GHE hypothesis – after you properly describe the GHE, of course.

            Let me know how you get on. I cant see any adverse effects to a good bout of laughter.

            Cheers.

    • gammacrux says:

      Maybe.

      Yet, Lindzen and Spencer are still “foolish warmists” who furiously believe that “a properly described GHE does exist.”

      Hilarious !

      • Mike Flynn says:

        gammacrux,

        Are you agreeing that a properly described GHE does not exist?

        What has belief got to do with it? Any number of Warmist fools can share a delusional belief, but it still wont make it fact, will it?

        You may have noticed that even foolish Warmists find the proposition (that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter) ludicrous.

        On the other hand, nighttime shows that temperatures drop – no CO2 heating there!

        So what are Warmist fools left with? Predictions of doom based on fervent faith!

        Cultist beliefs, rather than science.

        Ah, climatology – the gift of laughter which keeps on giving!

        Cheers.

        • professorP says:

          Take your pills and dial down the level of repetition please.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            It’s only repletion to people that do not want to hear Flynn’s hilarious debunks of pseudoscience.

            Reality is not a closed club, p. You’re welcome to join at any time.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            P,

            I see no reason whatever to take any actions whatsoever at your behest.

            Only a Warmist fool, or someone suffering from a severe mental deficit, would imagine otherwise.

            Cheers.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      The horizontal axis is labeled “Assumed Fraction of Warming due to Humans”.

      If you assume, correctly, a value of zero, then the corresponding ECS is also zero.

      That’s not hard to understand, is it?

  30. ren says:

    The temperature at Thompson, Manitoba dropped to -45 C.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00959/imuufj4041t8.png

  31. ren says:

    ‘It hurts your lungs’: 58 in Churchill, Man. as north under extreme cold warning
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/extreme-cold-warning-northern-manitoba-1.4541174

    • ren says:

      Sorry,should be: -58.

    • Des says:

      Last month you cherry picked Florida. Why have you abandoned them this month? Tell me – how are temperatures in Tallahassee right now?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        des, Florida is where people flee to get away from frigid temps.

        A century ago, orange trees could grow there without risk of freezing temps. With all this “global warming”, the orange plantation owners must struggle during winter, to keep the trees safe.

        For them, it’s NOT fun to watch.

  32. Climate sensitivity to CO2,I say nada.

    • David Appell says:

      Why? Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared energy, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit it?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        davie, the lettuce in your grocery store absorbs IR.

        Do you stay awake at nights fearing “big lettuce”?

        (This is turning out to be a great year in climate comedy.)

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Instead of posing foolish Warmist gotchas, have you considered the obvious wisdom of quoting some of my remarks verbatim?

        You would save me time, and possibly impart some knowledge to the more dim witted foolish Warmists.

        Or, if you prefer, you could keep posting foolish Warmist gotchas, in an attempt to deny, divert, and confuse the issue of the non science that is climatology.

        Your choice, of course.

        Cheers.

        • professorP says:

          Now 20 successive days of negative SOI values. 30-day average now -5.
          Getting excited yet?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Please feel free to exercise the allotment of excitement which you apparently believe I might possess.

            Ill point out that 10 is larger than 3, and that pi is irrational.

            How exciting is that! You dont need to thank me for filling your excitement cup to overflowing – its the most Im prepared to do!

            Cheers.

  33. Crakar24 says:

    DA wrote:

    Why? Do you think CO2 doesnt absorb infrared energy, or do you think the Earth doesnt emit it?

    DA what are the ramifications if CO2 does absorb and emit IR energy?

    Before you answer remember electromagnetic energy and heat energy are two different things

    • David Appell says:

      Cracker, you tell me — is there any doubt that CO2 absorbs and emits IR?

      PS: You’re wrong — EM energy is a form of heat. Like other types of heat, it can do work, and the ability to do work is the true definition of “heat.”

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        Is there any doubt that cabbages absorb and emit IR? (g used all the lettuces).

        Im intrigued about your *true* definition of heat. Are you saying that any other definition of heat that differs from yours is untrue?

        How do you put the cabbages to work? If CO2 can raise thermometer temperatures by absorbing IR, wouldnt cabbages be even better?

        Surely a cabbage at 20C is far hotter than CO2 at 20 C? Or maybe CO2 at 20 C is hotter than cabbages at 20C. All very mysterious, I guess. It obviously takes a highly trained climatologist to cook a turkey using the heat energ extracted from large blocks of ice – normal physicists cant seem to do it.

        Cheers.

      • Crakar24 says:

        Ah the linguistic gymnastics continue from DA.

        Da you sarcastically asked if CO2 can absorb and emit IR which even you know everyone would agree. I asked you what are the ramifications to this?

        Your response was….well as expected, dont you ever question why Flynn treats you the way they do again, you deserve every bit of it

        • David Appell says:

          Crakar – again, you tell me — if CO2 absorbs infrared energy, and the Earth emits it, what are the ramifications?

          This is climate science 101….

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            climate clown davie, there are no ramifications.

            Proceed with your daily routine of avoiding a real job.

          • Crakar24 says:

            So DA if a CO2/CH4/H2O absorbs and re emits LWIR what are the ramifications?

          • David Appell says:

            Crakar24 says:
            “So DA if a CO2/CH4/H2O absorbs and re emits LWIR what are the ramifications?”

            I’m asking you to think here, and tell us what you have concluded.

            Have you ever read the first few chapters of a climate science textbook, or any introductory papers? If not, why not?

          • Crakar24 says:

            Where is Flynn……………what do they say? Ah yes warmist foolishness in all its glory.

            DA has no idea what if any the ramifications are because his authoritive figure only told him about blankets.

            What a fool you are DA “oh Flynn please lets talk about the science” so you hand DA an opportunity to talk about the science and he suddenly has nothing to say.

            The answer DA is there are NO RAMIFICATIONS, the IR energy simply bounces around at the speed of light from one GHG molecule to another.

            At some point in time (perhaps a few micro seconds) it leaves the atmosphere via various emission layers.

            So now you can move onto your next topic of discussion about the newly discovered “warming holes”.

            What a joke you are.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Still with the never ending gotchas, I see.

            It doesnt matter what someone answers, youll just keep veering off at every increasing angles of fantasy, trying to convince someone, anyone, the the indescribable GHE exists.

            Good luck with that.

            Ill just point out that climate science is an oxymoron. Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less.

            Keep at ti David. You might yet snare someone in your sophisticated semantic web, as puerile and infantile as it might appear on the surface.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Crakar: are you really claiming that none of this IR impacts the surface?

          • David Appell says:

            And is IR in the atmosphere not heat?

            Heat seeking missiles think its heat….

          • Crakar24 says:

            Questions, questions but nary an answer is the DA way.

            You obviously have no clue otherwise you would have produced a detailed explanation of how the GHE works instead you attempt to retrieve explanations from others and then state they are wrong, on what grounds no one knows.

            Let me ask you a question DA, does a heat lamp produce the heat to boil your pot of water or is the heat a product of the IR interacting with the water.

            Whilst you are contemplating this my life continues so i will check back in later.

          • Crakar24 says:

            Heat seeking missiles think its heat….careful there DA you are treading close to my area of expertise just a heads up to back away slowly and stick to your non commital gibberish

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          If cabbages absorb IR energy, and bananas emit it, what are the ramifications?

          Definitely climate science. Climatology – created for those who couldnt cope with the rigours of phrenology or astrology. Dont have a science degree? It doesnt matter – you too can be a climate scientist like Gavin Schmidt. Want a Nobel Prize? Just claim to be a Nobel Prize winner like Michael Mann. Nobody will object.

          No need to to follow the scientific method, all you need is faith – and the arithmetcal ability to average the same numbers over and over again, world without end.

          The ability to draw creative pictures with brightly coloured crayons will be highly regarded.

          Maybe you could demand answers to your stupid foolish Warmist gotchas. Do you think that might work, David?

          Cheers.

  34. ren says:

    Very low temperatures still on the Hudson Bay.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00959/snuubiusrvaa.png

    • E. Swanson says:

      ren, Hows the weather in Poland these days? Looks like it’s going to be above freezing this afternoon…

  35. barry says:

    It’s useful to look up the cite lists of given papers and to search for more recent related work by the authors.

    Searching under Curry, J didn’t bring any updates from 2015, so I looked further back. Seems she has published only one paper on climate sensitivity.

    There were more results under Otto, A. These are two more recent papers on or near the topic.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2716

    http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/85098/7/millaretal2015_untypeset.pdf

    I also looked in the cite lists for review papers, which summarize recent knowledge across a range of studies. This was the closest I found.

    https://tinyurl.com/y9qzu5s3

    But there are likely better ones out there.

    It’s good practice to get updated thoughts and context on highlighted papers.

  36. barry says:

    Here are the results from google scholar under the heading “equilibrium climate sensitivity” for the years 2016-2017.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7mprauu

    And searching under “transient climate response” for the same period…

    https://tinyurl.com/y9ntt44l

  37. Mike Flynn says:

    barry,

    Unfortunately, the term equilibrium climate sensitivity is just a sciency sounding climatological nonsense phrase, created by Warmist fools for the gullible.

    Climate is the average of weather. An average of what, you might well ask. Whatever it is, its a number. The number is an average of past records – no more, no less.

    If you are trying to imply that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and anything, has any predictable effect on any of the parameters which are averaged to produce the number known as climate, then you are deluded.

    Warmist fools attempt to get round this by redefining climate to mean something which is completely immeasurable – that is the supposed global average surface temperature. You will note that this is actually another foolish Warmist redefinition of surface. As usual, it is anything but, rather a hodge lodge of guesses, assumptions, and prevarications. The actual measured surface temperature is specifically excluded from their considerations, you will also note.

    Complete nonsense. No GHE, no climate sensitivity, nothing.

    Appeals to the authority of self proclaimed experts of the Warmist fool variety will lead you nowhere but into the dark recesses of their fantasy. Be my guest, if you prefer fantasy to fact.

    Cheers.

    • ren says:

      The temperature gradient in dry air is a constant size.

    • barry says:

      Unfortunately, the term equilibrium climate sensitivity is just a sciency sounding climatological nonsense phrase, created by Warmist fools for the gullible.

      As ECS is the topic posted by Roy Spencer above, referring to work by ‘skeptics’ Nic Lewis and Judith Curry on the subject, it seems that ‘skeptics’ are gullible, too.

      Did you post a similar reply to the OP, or were you triggered to diss the topic just because I mentioned it?

    • professorP says:

      Now 21 days of negativeSOI values and an average of -6 !
      El Nino here we come!
      Record warm global average temperature here we come !

    • professorP says:

      Come on Mike. Get a life and stop complaining so much.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      barry,

      Thanks for quoting me directly.

      It appears that you are not disagreeing with anything I wrote.

      Are you instead, attempting the usual foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert, and confuse? Appealing to authorit,y, in lieu of actually justifying your unstated disagreement, combined with some illogical reference to ill-defined skeptics, (whatever you consider them to be), is the sort of thing that a Warmist fool would do.

      What part of my quoted statement are you disagreeing with? Can you support your view with any factual information?

      Something scientific perhaps?

      Cheers.

    • barry says:

      Yes, I quoted you and asked you if you think Roy Spencer and the other ‘skeptics’ he refers to are also gullible because they do not disagree with the notion of ECS. I hoped for a direct answer. I don’t see anything confusing about the question.

      Happy to answer your questions when you’ve answered mine.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Отправка вашего сообщения в более чем 500 000 форм обратной связи(Россия и СНГ) только до 25 февраля – 3000р

    Заявки и вопросы писать только сюда: form2018form @ yandex.ru (убрать пробелы)

  39. Crakar24 says:

    Oh BTW our vapid premier here in South Australia not content with destroying our economy and power grid through his puruit of a 50% RET now wants to push that to 75% in the next years thereby further cementing our stranglehold on the title of worlds most expensive electricity. We now lay claim to the worlds largest battery, largets solar plant (being constructed) and the worlds largets virtual power plant along with its virtual power production.

    This 75% statement is of course timed to the elections in March but i wonder what his assumed fraction of warming is as per the graph above.

    What if like G said it is zero, does the premiers drive for renewables become an ideology?

    • professorP says:

      I hear that the battery got you through summer and is already driving down prices. Especially during peak demand.
      If you are so skeptical, go and try to find some coal to dig up and burn there – good luck!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        P,

        Your hearing may be as defective as your mind reading ability.

        A taste for you –

        The $50 million battery which stores energy from the nearby Hornsdale wind farm has been billed as a stopgap for the states energy supply, and can power up to 30,000 homes for over an hour in the event of a major blackout. . .

        . . .Parts of Jamestown, where the Tesla battery is located, and around a dozen surrounding communities including Hornsdale, Caltowie, Canowie Belt are without power, with the network operator putting the outages down to storm activity and equipment breakages. . . .

        A spokesman for the Premier told The Australian that the nature of the storm damage to the transmission lines meant that the battery wouldnt be able to power homes because equipment needed to be repaired to reconnect the homes to the grid.

        The battery needs to be charged, is not 100% efficient, cost $50,000,000, and can power 30,000 homes for one hour (providing they turn major appliances off). It wont last forever, either, so I hear.

        Wonderful, I suppose. Youll notice that if you live in the vicinity of the battery, you are preferentially deprived of power. How clever is that?

        Colour me unconvinced as to the incomparable brilliance of big batteries for anything other than niche applications. Things such as fossil fuel keep our civilization running. Warmist fools advocate all sorts of bizarre solutions, always at considerable cost to someone else, of course.

        The Chinese must be pretty skeptical. they appear to be planning and building coal fired power plants about as fast as they can. They sell lots of solar cells to other countries, no doubt to fund their coal fired power plants.

        Carry on with your foolish Warmist renewable power fixation. How many big batteries do you own? How have your opportunity cost calculations worked out?

        Cheers.

        • barry says:

          The Chinese must be pretty skeptical. they appear to be planning and building coal fired power plants about as fast as they can.

          They are also increasing renewables at a fairly impressive rate, particularly hydro, which now accounts for about 20% of energy. There’s a bar on coal power plants being built in the 3 major cities, although they’re still constructing them at a clip in other places. Overall, renewable energy growth is eclipsing fossil fuel energy growth. Nearly a quarter of China’s energy is renewable now. I thought it would be less than that (around 10%) when I went to check.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

          • Steve Case says:

            China has a smog problem. Might have something to do with their ban [bar?] on coal plants. Why they don’t require bag houses and electrostatic scrubbers is a mystery to me. Maybe they do and I don’t know it. Whatever the reason, the air is so bad there you can taste it when you go outside.

      • Crakar24 says:

        Another laugh in just seconds thanks again Prof.

        Not sure where you live but obviously you are not familiar with the inner workings of the AEMO or the South Australian energy market.

        What follows is a quick and dirty crash course and in the end i will ask you a simple question….you ready?

        The first concept you need to grapple with is the big battery does not generate electricity, it simply charges from an external source and then discharges at an appropriate time.

        The big battery is about 120MW/H that means it can produce 120 mega watts for one hour where then it will be completely flat, SA’s peak demand during summer is about 2,200 mega watts so the big battery cannot, will not and never will “get us through summer”.

        The second concept you need to grapple with is it cannot and never will drive down prices. Why is this so?

        The AEMO rules state prices in Australia can vary between – (thats a negative) $1 a kilowatt & +$14 a kilowatt.

        The main purpose of the big battery is to generate revenue for Tesla obviously so what they do is they charge the battery at night from the grid at -$1 (ergo we pay them to charge up) and when demand is high they discharge the battery at $14.

        Question: Using this business model Prof how is it possible the big battery can effect a drop in power prices?

        Supplementary:

        We have plenty of coal to dig, unfortunately our vapid premier stuffed it full of dynamite and blew it up………….like i said actions based on ideology

        • professorP says:

          “Using this business model Prof how is it possible the big battery can effect a drop in power prices?”
          Let me answer that:
          In January, Tesla’s big battery, officially known as the Hornsdale Power Reserve, bid into the market to ensure that prices stayed reasonable, as predicted last year.

          Rather than jumping up to prices of around $11,500 and $14,000/MW, the bidding of the Tesla big battery and, in a major new development, the adjoining Hornsdale windfarm helped (after an initial spike) to keep them at around $270/MW.

          This saved several million dollars in frequency control and ancillary services (FCAS) charges, which are paid by other generators and big energy users, in a single day.

          And thats not the only impact. According to state governments advisor, Frontier Economics, the average price of FCAS fell by around 75% in December from the same month the previous year. Market players are delighted, and consumers should be too, because they will ultimately benefit.

          Ed McManus, the CEO of Meridian Australia and Powershop Australia, which operates the Mt Millar windfarm in South Australia, says the Tesla big battery is already having a phenomenal impact.

          If you look at FCAS the costs traditionally in South Australia have been high . and our costs in the last couple of years have gone from low five-figures annually to low six-figures annually. Its a hell of a jump,

          Its a little early to tell, but it looks like from preliminary data that the Tesla big battery is having an impact on FCAS costs, bringing them down that is a very, very significant development for generation investment and generation competition in South Australia, McManus said.

          There is no doubt that the actions of the Tesla big battery in the FCAS market will please the state government, which signed a contract with Tesla to address just this issue. And it may be able to repeat the dose with the newly announced 250MW virtual power plant, also to be built by Tesla.

          If it can keep a lid on FCAS prices like it did in January, then it will likely pay back the cost of the battery in a single year from this service alone, let alone the value of its trading in the wholesale market, and the value of its emergency backup capabilities.

          Its just another string in the bow of the Tesla big battery, following its devastatingly fast response to trips of major coal-fired generators (it was in the market again on Saturday night after Vales Point in New South Wales tripped), its ability to go to capacity from a standing start in milliseconds, and its smoothing of wind output and trading in the wholesale market.

          • Crakar24 says:

            Prof,

            One simply cannot “cut & paste” and claim to be an expert or in this case correct.

            Like all alarmist trolls you cannot be convinced of anything which i find acceptable because as with all religions you could never convince the Pope Mohammed was onto a good thing.

            Firstly to FCAS:

            Please explain (in detail, not that hand waving thing you guys do) how an inverter on a battery can provide synchronised spinning inertia to maintain the grid frequency at 50Hz +/- 0.1Hz?

            Tripping coal fired generators:

            We had one 300MW generator trip, this generator produces 300MW all day every day, how is it possible the battery could “save the day” at 120MW for one hour?

            Trading:

            What could this battery trade in the market? It does not generate any power. This takes us back to its ability or lack thereof at lowering prices.

            Bidding within the AEMO:

            It works like this the highest bid gets the nod and all lower bids get paid at the highest bid price.

            Therefore this statement below is a bald face lie

            In January, Teslas big battery, officially known as the Hornsdale Power Reserve, bid into the market to ensure that prices stayed reasonable, as predicted last year.

            I hope now you understand how important it is to take the time to understand what you are cut and pasting rather than just doing it. I hope this is the last time you put yourself in such a foolish position.

            And once again i ask as per the graph if the assumed warming by humans is to be assumed as zero is the SA experiment driven by ideology? I think we all know the answer to that question.

          • professorP says:

            C, where did I claim to be an expert?
            My response is to indicate how the battery saves money.
            It is really very simple. The other generators in the game have ripped users off whenever there is s spike in the prices. This is now more difficult to do with another player in the game who can supply power at short notice and underbid them. The article merely provides evidence that this is the case.

            If the battery makes money and reduces prices, how can this be dismissed as ideology?
            It has nothing to do with global warming.

          • professorP says:

            C, I seriously doubt your statement:
            “It works like this the highest bid gets the nod and all lower bids get paid at the highest bid price.”
            It strains credulity. Who in their right mind would devise such a system?

          • Crakar24 says:

            Of course you do doubt me because you read something on line that appeals to you so you latch onto it and die in a ditch defending it.

            As Flynn says foolish, foolish alarmist

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            It doesnt matter how seriously you doubt, nor how strained your credulity feels.

            Facts are either facts, or they arent. It may well be that things assumed to be fact, are later established not to be facts at all – phlogiston, caloric, and the luminiferous ether are examples.

            You may fervently believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will increase the temperature of the thermometer, but it may not in fact, be a fact.

            The scientific method, with reliance on reproducible experiments, probably helps to separate fact from invalid consensus opinions, as seductive as those may appear.

            I prefer facts to fantasy. And you?

            Cheers.

  40. professorP says:

    “Ms Crooks is among 19 women who have accused Mr Trump of past inappropriate behaviour that they say occurred over a span of decades.”
    19 and counting.

    Latest negative SOI is number 21 and also still counting!

    • Mike Flynn says:

      p,

      I support you in your counting endeavor . A reasonably intelligent 5 year old child can count, but I suppose your counting is of a much, much, higher, climatological standard.

      It seems as though you have mastered negative numbers. Good for you! They also go all the way to infinity, in case you didnt know. This particular infinite set is referred to as aleph null, (but you can use nought or zero if you dont like German).

      How sciency is that? Do I win?

      Warmist fools love counting. They count temperatures endlessly, changing figures when they dont like the totals. Have you considered a career in climatology? You dont need a science degree, you know. Just how to count and adjust the totals.

      Cheers.

      • professorP says:

        M,
        I am dumbing down my comments so you can follow them.
        Now, who do you think will win with the biggest tally, Donald Trump or the SOI?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          p,

          Im not sure why you believe you can make your comments dumber (or even more irrelevant).

          I would never bet on a number adjudicated by foolish Warmist. It seems that conflating items such as the US President and observations of temperature, and then asking who will win, is, yet again, a foolish Warmist attempt to avoid the issue of having to justify the mad assertion that temperatures can be raised by adding CO2 to a mixture of gases.

          I note you seem to be currently infatuated with the SOI. Is there a particular reason, or was it just the latest thing to catch your eye? Has it special significance, or do you think it will divert peoples attention away from the non-existent GHE.

          Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            M,
            You are a very difficult student. I have explained to you at least 3 times why the SOI is important.
            (Thick as a brick)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Maybe you are confusing opinion with fact. This confusion is shared by many Warmist fools.

            Do you think Nature shares your sense of importance? Do you think anybody apart from a foolish Warmist has a care factor greater than zero, about your opinion of the importance of past temperature and pressure records?

            Maybe you believe you can predict the future by intense scrutiny of the past. Warmist fools might share such a sentiment. I dont.

            It might even be possible that your view of the importance of the SOI is not shared by others to the level you might wish.

            Cheers.

        • Crakar24 says:

          I like to count as well.

          Currently counting how many companies has Trump stopped from moving to mexico etc compared to how many Turnball has shoved out the door with his economy destroying green utopian dream policies

          • professorP says:

            How many days till Trump is impeached or resigns? (or is assassinated?).
            How many days before the US deficit causes an economic catastrophe?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            How many Warmist fools does it take to devise a testable GHE hypothesis?

            Would that number be greater or less than the number required to create an explanation of the non-existent Greenhouse Effect?

            How many Nobel Prizes was Michael Mann awarded? How many did he not realize he didnt actually receive?

            Numbers, numbers. So many, and yet so few.

            Cheers.

          • PhilJ says:

            I feel for you … We have an idiot for a leader in Canada who will bend over for the UN and do anything to further the advance of ‘peoplekind’…at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer of course…

            Liberals have no clue what the fable of the goose that laid the golden egg means…

            (For you libtards… The goose is cheap energy..)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        re NOAA and their fudging:

        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/

        “These wholesale changes cannot be explained away changes to individual stations. It may be that homogenisation procedures, infilling of missing data and urban heat islands have contributed.

        Under the new nClimDiv system, introduced in 2014, NOAAs methodology is extremely opaque. They dont, to the best of my knowledge, publish the data and adjustments used.

        In essence, we are asked to accept NOAAs version without being able to check or verify it.

        Whatever the reason for the adjustments, the climate record for New York State has been changed out of all recognition, and bears no resemblance to the actual official data”.

      • professorP says:

        “Is this the same guy who back in 2001 denied that smoking causes lung cancer? Could it possibly be the $2,500 a day he has received for his frequent consulting services rendered to oil and gas interests for him to officially deny anthropogenic global warming? “

        • Mike Flynn says:

          p,

          I presume you have a point, but it escapes me. You seem to be indicating that Newtons Laws of Motion and Cooling should be disregarded, because Newton was an alchemist. Or maybe that Tyndalls experimental work is of no value, because he believed in the existence of the luminiferous ether.

          Or maybe Kelvin and Einstein are not worthy of note because of their belief in things which have since been shown to be untrue. And so it goes.

          A Warmist fool might believe that ad hominem attacks would make inconvenient facts disappear, or create that which doesnt exist – the GHE!

          Press on.

          Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            “I presume you have a point, but it escapes me.”
            How many times did you tell your teachers this?
            “You seem to be indicating that ..”
            No. I am reminding everyone that most skeptics are crazy non-scientists.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            For a person who cannot explain the GHE, much less find a testable GHE hypothesis, your opinion appears as valid as that of any other delusional Warmist fool.

            You cannot rigorously define the skeptics you refer to in any meaningful fashion. Therefore your characterization of most of them as crazy non-scientists might be seen as being the opinion of Warmist fool.

            I point out that Gavin Schmidt may not be a scientist in the strict sense of the word, and it hasnt been objectively established that Michael Mann does not suffer from delusional psychosis. Non-scientist. Crazy?

            Foolish Warmist – more fact, less fantasy might help your cause, whatever that is.

            Cheers.

        • Bart says:

          “Is this the same guy who back in 2001 denied that smoking causes lung cancer?”

          Is this one of those switcheroos with the valid question regarding the impact of second hand smoke?

          • Crakar24 says:

            Latest research shows viruses cause cancer, sure smoking, alcohol, processed foods etc may be triggers but your immune system suppresses the viruses.

            I know, I know its hard to keep up when your authoritive figure remains silent.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            crakar…”Latest research shows viruses cause cancer…”

            That dodge was already tried pre-1983. Robert Gallo claimed it back then and was proved wrong. Then he took his virus causal theory intact to HIV, claiming it causes AIDS. His theory was accepted carte blanche by the Reagan administration, without David Appell’s required peer review. Appell seems to support the HIV/AIDS paradigm even though it was never peer reviewed.

            Recently, the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, has claimed HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The data backs that, AIDS has been confined since 1983 to high risk groups like male homosexuals and intravenous drug users.

          • David Appell says:

            “The Discovery of HIV as the Cause of AIDS,”
            Robert C. Gallo, M.D., and Luc Montagnier, M.D.
            December 11, 2003.
            N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2283-2285
            DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp038194

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            The data backs that, AIDS has been confined since 1983 to high risk groups like male homosexuals and intravenous drug users.

            “Straight, Needle-Free Populations Are Becoming HIV’s Biggest Movers,” Motherboard, June 28, 2014.
            https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nze7qb/hivs-biggest-moves-are-hetero-and-needle-free

          • David Appell says:

            “In 2016, 39,782 people were diagnosed with HIV infection in the United States….

            * Heterosexual contact accounted for 24% (9,578) of HIV diagnoses.
            * Women accounted for 19% (7,529) of HIV diagnoses. Diagnoses among women are primarily attributed to heterosexual contact (87%, or 6,541) or injection drug use (12%, or 939).
            * People who inject drugs accounted for 9% (3,425) of HIV diagnoses (includes 1,201 diagnoses among gay and bisexual men who inject drugs).”

            https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics

      • tonyM says:

        Seeing how the good Prof P…PeePee has told us about his version of how important the daily SOI is I will let BOM have the final say:

        The SOI is usually computed on a monthly basis, with values over longer periods such a year being sometimes used. Daily or weekly values of the SOI do not convey much in the way of useful information about the current state of the climate, and accordingly the Bureau of Meteorology does not issue them. Daily values in particular can fluctuate markedly because of daily weather patterns, and should not be used for climate purposes.

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/soi.shtml

        PeePee,
        Put that in your Pipe and Puff Puff all you like.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jimc…”Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence”

      I have been complaining about NOAA’s fudging for some time. It comes as no surprise that they have missed the cold, in fact, I predicted it recently in a comment. I have claimed further that they are fudging the sat temps upward before they hand them over to UAH.

      All NOAA has to do is drop the reporting stations from cold regions. They are already slashing over 75% of global temperature data and re-manufacturing it using interpolation and homogenization of less than 25% of the data in a climate model.

      NOAA are blatantly biased toward climate alarmists.

  41. Year 2018 the year AGW ends. Oceanic global temperatures only +.15c or so above means will be going lower and albedo is going to increase slightly all due to very low sustained solar activity.

    Very confident.

  42. Eli Rabett says:

    The problem with this calculation is that it assumes that the natural variation is positive.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Eli,

      The main problem with calculation is that assumes that the climatological claptrap peddled by Warmist fools has some connection to reality. There is precisely no scientific reason to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter.

      Conversely, reducing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, thus allowing more radiation to reach the thermometer, will not make the thermometers temperature drop.

      Complete nonsense. But of course, Warmist fools might turn around and claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter by some undisclosed climatological magic, which is kept secret.

      Hence, the foolish Warmist deny, divert, and confuse tactics, whenever somebody might enquire as to where a proper explanation of the GHE might be found. This also cunnngly avoids the possibility that the Warmist fools might ever have to supply a testable GHE hypothesis!

      Warmist fools are foolish, but this doesnt prevent them from being highly educated, extremely intelligent, and endowed with more than their fair share of rat cunning, gullibility, or even delusional psychosis!

      Maybe natural variation varies, and is variable. This might lead to someone thinking that your comment was the sort that would be uttered by a Warmist fool.

      Cheers.

      • professorP says:

        M – your usual rubbish which misses the point entirely.
        However, I love this bit:
        “Maybe natural variation varies, and is variable. ”
        YES – you said it and it is hilarious!

        • professorP says:

          Much funnier than: “Warmist fools are foolish”
          Look up the meaning of the word “tautology” if you can discommode yourself.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          p,

          Im heartened indeed to see that you cannot find anything with which to disagree.

          Im glad Im providing reason for you to laugh. There dont seem to be too many adverse affects from laughter, and Warmist fools are generally a sour and miserable bunch.

          I had to explicitly state that Warmist fools are foolish, purely because they sometimes appear to be too foolish to appreciate how foolish they appear.

          Ill diregard your admonition to look up the meaning of tautology. As you have admitted, I use words you havent even heard of! What could possibly lead you to think that you might know the definition of a word that I dont?

          If you are a Warmist, you might be seen to be of the foolish variety, which might then make you a foolish Warmist fool, as opposed to another type.

          Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            “If you are a Warmist,
            you might be seen to be of the foolish variety,
            which might then make you a foolish Warmist fool,
            as opposed to another type.”
            Why not make a song out of this rubbish. Go on, make yourself useful.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Once again, you cannot find anything with which to disagree. Thanks for the implicit support.

            All the opinion in the world, plus five dollars, is generally enough to pay for a cup of coffee.

            Maybe your opinions have additional value, maybe not.

            As to your exhortation, Ill ignore it. Please feel free to take offense if you so,desire.

            Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          profp…”M your usual rubbish which misses the point entirely”.

          I’m wondering if you are ever going to contribute something of use scientifically, if not to show us you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

          • professorP says:

            m and g,
            Mr Rabett’s point is (since you both have avoided it) is
            “The problem with this calculation is that it assumes that the natural variation is positive.”
            Do you agree this is a problem?
            Show us you can deal with a simple mathematical issue.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            As is usual with foolish Warmists, you may have overlooked the fact that as far as I can see, Dr Spencers post does not even contain the word calculation.

            I was too polite to mention this salient fact to Eli, of course, and gave him some leeway.

            Im not sure what you are trying to say by asking whether I agree that some that some poorly defined reference to an unspecified matter is in some way a problem.

            What is the problem that you consider problematic? You have no idea, have you? Foolish Warmist.

            You go on to demand that I show you something, presumably because you too dim to work it out for yourself. The short answer is no. The long answer is also no, if you dont like the short answer.

            Press on. Maybe you could get advice from David Appell on how to appear like a Warmist fool, by posing badly framed gotchas. In the meantime, maybe you could propose a scientific description of the Greenhouse Effect. Or you could concentrate on appearing as though you were avoiding the scientific method by adopting the tactics of the devout Warmist fool.

            Choices, choices!

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            As I thought.
            Cannot understand a simple problem that involves mathematics.
            Fail (again)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            If you say so.

            Cheers.

        • Christopher Hanley says:

          I think the IPCC settled on a minimum of 50% of the post-1950 warming was due to human GHG emissions because any percentage less could be shrugged off as inconsequential.
          100% seems to be the assumption anyway.
          However assuming a natural cooling trajectory post-1950 invites the attitude that human emissions are beneficial for counteracting a disastrous cooling trend, as was apparent in the ’70s — since adjusted away.

          • barry says:

            Most data sets still have a slight cooling trend from 1940 to 1970.

            It wasn’t adjustments that flattened it out. In the 1980s land station data was mostly limited to Europe and the US, which still have a stronger cooling trend than global over that period if you pick just those regions. Adding more data from around the world flattened the trend.

  43. Mike Flynn says:

    For anyone who feels like pursuing some interesting but quite relevant numbers, maybe someone might indicate how many photons can simultaneously occupy one milliliter of volume – vacuum or nominally occupied by matter, as you wish.

    Im happy to pose follow up numerical questions, but foolish Warmists may not be happy with the eventual outcome.

    I completely understand if any Warmist fool doesnt wish to discuss objective physics, expressed in numerical form where possible.

    So once again, how many photons can simultaneously occupy one milliliter of volume? This is not a gotcha – no tricks.

    Cheers.

    • Crakar24 says:

      Infinite…..dont ask me to produce the math i used to arrive at this point 🙂

      • Mike Flynn says:

        C,

        Many thanks for shoewing that it is possible to provide a definite answer to a straight forward question. I hope you wont mind if I dont express my view until you have been contradicted.

        I await some Warmist fool to chime in in with some diversionary remarks about lung cancer! Or something equally foolish and irrelevant.

        I wont ask you about your maths. It might be wasted on the average foolish Warmist. I very much doubt that most are capable of responding to my query in any cogent fashion, and the few that are will realize what might be coming. As I said before, some foolish Warmists are both intelligent and cunning.

        Maybe there are still some foolish Warmists interested in real physics, as opposed to the fake fantasy type adopted by Warmist fools who probably should know better. Time will tell.

        Cheers.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Infinity” is a very challenging concept — both mathematically and practically. Consider this — since each photon has some energy, then an infinite number of photons would require infinite energy to create. Where are you going to get the infinite energy? The infinite energy in the infinite photons would interact and create an infinite number of protons and anti-protons. This is anything BUT a straightforward question if you want anything more than a superficial answer!

      Much more interesting to me would be to ask “how many photons are there in 1 m^3 in my office now?” or “how many photons are there in 1 m^3 in the core of the sun?”

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Tim,

        I dont care what you consider would be interesting, or not, of course.

        I asked a question. You choose not to answer, but instead try to divert and confuse.

        A Warmist fool would try to avoid giving an answer, in all likelihood. Rather than admit ignorance, he would no doubt try and convince others that the question was unnecessary, not straight forward, or anything else which would disguise his inability to provide a straightforward answer.

        Why you seem to be claiming that you could provide an answer for a volume of a million milliliters, but not for one milliliter, seems like an attempt at misdirection.

        Oh well, if you decide that you cant or wont provide an answer to a straightforward physics question for the benefit of people who may not be nearly as smart as you, that is your decision.

        Cheers.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          If you decide you don’t want a subtle, challenging answer to a your rather interesting question, that is your decision. You are free to stick with your simplistic answer.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Response from a definitely foolish Warmist

      https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/287369/how-many-photons-can-exist-in-a-cubic-box-of-unit-volume-simultaneously/287372#287372

      – the comment ends with ‘For a 1m box I make that about 3 x 10^68 photons’

      – one square meter should be equivalent to 10^9 milliliters

      That gives thus 3 x 10^59 photons per milliliter.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        LaP,

        Are you sure that one square meter is 10^9 milliliters? Is this a magical climatological measure, or just climatological sloppiness?

        Maybe you could read and comprehend your link properly, and adjust your answer accordingly. I assume you don’t actually understand what you linked to – typical for a foolish Warmist, I suggest.

        Ah, the dangers of not comprehending that to which you link!

        Cheers.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Jesus Flynn what are you an arrogant person.

          We Germans name people like you ‘arroganter Fatzke’.
          Perfect fit.

          You are right, I was a bit too quick.
          One really feels you enjoying other people’s mistakes.

          An intelligent commenter would instead
          – quietfully propose a correction;
          – explain what is wrong in the link wrt what s/he asked.

          Form that you stay lightyears away.
          Why did I reply to such a person? Why?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Pang, you comment as if Mike Flynn made you make that mistake.

            I guess you have to have someone to blame. ..

          • Mike Flynn says:

            LaP,

            You ask why.

            Uncontrollable foolish Warmism? Delusional psychosis? Unrequited passion?

            You did it. I hope you can figure out why, all by yourself!

            I can’t read your mind, so don’t ask me.

            Cheers.

  44. ren says:

    Why the cold air does not mix with the warm one?
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00959/pvslbtya19oh.png

    • E. Swanson says:

      The two air masses ARE mixing. The result is the storm front seen in satellite and radar images. Now that it’s almost Spring, the warm, moist air masses pushing toward the N. Pole must meet the returning cold, dry air masses which tend to flow toward the south to complete the circulation loop. These flows are hundreds of km wide, but half the mass is below about 5 km height. As the result of the Coriolis effect, the two flows rotate in clockwise directions and where they meet, there is a strong change in the flow direction, which results in turbulent mixing and storms.

      • ren says:

        The front is the result of convection.

        • E. Swanson says:

          The front is the boundary between the two air masses. “Weather” occurs along the front as the colder air is overridden by the warmer air. Today’s US radar map is a fine example.

          http://www.intellicast.com/National/Radar/Current.aspx

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”The front is the boundary between the two air masses”.

            Is that not what ren just said, the fronts are convective air flows?

          • E. Swanson says:

            GR, I don’t know what ren meant to say, but the air mass flows are horizontal, not vertical. Where they collide, gravity pulls the denser cold, dry air flows below the warmer, wetter air, lifting the warm air, resulting in condensation and then precipitation. This isn’t convection as in vertical flow within an air mass, such as summer thunderstorms.

  45. Mike Flynn says:

    The latest climatological nonsense phrase is the warming hole.

    It seems to be the preferred explanation for global warming that isnt happening.

    This obviously requires billions of dollars to establish the reasons for the inexplicable failure of Nature to comply with the models.

    Maybe the GHE doesnt exist?

    No need for more research, in that case. Is it a possibility that the science is unsettled? That admission might allow the continuing depredations of the public purse by the somewhat diminished ravening hordes of Warmist fools masquerading as climatologists.

    Aint life grand?

    Cheers.

    • Crakar24 says:

      Its worse than we thought Flynn.

      Gore said record breaking cold and snow is what you would expect in a climate crisis.

      My immediate thought was “its over” the scam has run its course blogs like this one and many others would shutting down…….but no I check today and the same old ‘tards are still ranting on about magic ghe’s.

      I then realised this will never end because these people suffer from a mental condition which causes the brain to block sections of reality to ensure it can still function be it at a very low level.

      Unfortunately this is not my area of expertise so I cannot give a proper diagnosis

      Regards

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        My opinion is that the GHE nonsense will not go away for a generation. The current Warmists will never change. But the next generation will likely laugh at the nonsense, just as we now laugh at “phlogiston”.

  46. professorP says:

    Now 22 days of negative SOI.

    • tonyM says:

      Seems you need repetition PeePee.
      From BOM:

      The SOI is usually computed on a monthly basis, with values over longer periods such a year being sometimes used. Daily or weekly values of the SOI do not convey much in the way of useful information about the current state of the climate, and accordingly the Bureau of Meteorology does not issue them. Daily values in particular can fluctuate markedly because of daily weather patterns, and should not be used for climate purposes.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/soi.shtml

      PeePee,
      Put that in your Pipe and Puff Puff all you like.

      With your knowledge of SOI it may be prudent to apply for the position of office boy at BOM. Just don’t mention SOI or you will be unemployable.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        tonyM,

        Given the BOMs brilliant method of ensuring warming (just declare all official temperature records prior to 1910 to be unreliable, thus getting rid of inconvenient well documented heat waves), maybe you should suggest that professorP be placed in charge of the BOM.

        By concentrating on something as pointless as the SOI, public attention might be diverted away from inconvenient predictive failures promoted or supported by the BOM.

        Cheers.

        • professorP says:

          Boring!.
          How many times have we heard how everybody is fudging the data.
          Did you know they faked the moon landing!
          As for landing explorers on Mars – the biggest con of all!
          The Hubble space telescope and all its images – faked and photoshopped!
          Vaccination – purely money making!
          etc
          etc
          etc

  47. professorP says:

    “The Arctic Ocean once froze reliably every year. Those days are over.

    Arctic sea ice extent has been measured by satellites since the 1970s. And scientists can sample ice cores, permafrost records, and tree rings to make some assumptions about the sea ice extent going back 1,500 years. And when you put that all on a chart, well, it looks a little scary.

    In December, NOAA released its latest annual Arctic Report Card, which analyzes the state of the frozen ocean at the top of our world. Overall, its not good.

    The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history, Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAAs Arctic research program, said at a press conference. This years observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago.

    The report compiles trends that scientists have been seeing for years. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. And 2017 saw a new record low for the maximum sea ice extent (i.e., how much of the Arctic ocean freezes in the coldest depths of winter). “

    • Mike Flynn says:

      p,

      Complete nonsense, if NOAA is claiming it can see into the future, based on the past.

      Only Warmist fools would be so stupid as to believe that trends predict the future. The longer a trend persists, the closer it is to the next inflection point.

      Keep it up. When will Antarctica return to its previous flora and fauna – verdant plant life, animals large and small running around, and so on, do you think? The trend from that time to now seems to indicate that icy conditions will continue.

      Or are only warming trends useful for predicting the future?

      Foolish Warmist. Try to explain the GHE. Trend following is for climatologists who have no scientific basis for their mad ideas.

      Cheers.

    • professor P you do not know what you are talking about.

      Arctic ice is alive and well.

    • tonyM says:

      There, there PeePee we don’t want you to wet your pants.

      Just rest assured it won’t affect you. The polar bears seem to thrive contrary to the warmistae predictions. The Russians are not complaining as they have been looking forward to a return of a clear north west passage. They planted a flag at the bottom of the ocean and may seek to exploit any mineral rights. I’m sure the fishermen won’t mind either.

      So sleep easy. Don’t worry you have a trump card in Chris Turney of the Ship of Fools fame to go fix the ice for you. He was unprecedented too!

      • professorP says:

        It’s amazing how facts upset some people.

        • tonyM says:

          There, there Pee Pee no need to get upset by facts. You get overly upset just like you do with the SOI. Go reread the BOM notes on the latter. Stop listening to Gore on the Arctic as it has survived for a long time.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      profp…”In December, NOAA released its latest annual Arctic Report Card, which analyzes the state of the frozen ocean at the top of our world. Overall, its not good”.

      More propaganda from Down Under, straight from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The Arctic, which has temperature in the range of -40C for 5 months of the year, which freezes the Arctic Ocean salt water to a depth of 10 feet on average, is endangered???

      Only if you are a diehard eco-loonie.

  48. In addition Arctic summers all have been at or below average.

    • David Appell says:

      That’s because the additional heat goes into melting ice and not raising air temperatures.

      A warming glass of ice water will reach 0 C, and then stay at 0 C until all the ice melts. Only then will any additional heat raise the water’s temperature past 0 C.

  49. ren says:

    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.
    2/20/2018
    241,400 W/m^2
    Product shows the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It is derived from the AVHRR instrument. The available solar energy only varies with the solar zenith angle.
    2/20/2018
    347,500 W/m^2
    Loss of energy:
    106,100 W/m^2
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/rad_budget.html#ABS

    • ren says:

      https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
      “The Natural Greenhouse Effect
      Just as the major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight, they are also transparent to outgoing thermal infrared. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy. Remember that the surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy.”

      Only 12 percent?
      106.100/347,500>0,30

      • E. Swanson says:

        ren, You are conflating short wave solar with long wave IR from the surface.

        • ren says:

          I think that this is the difference of shortwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere (albedo).
          “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).”
          http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/rad_budget.html#ABS

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ren…”However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy.

        Only 12 percent?”

        Based on bad science, ren. By the time surface radiation reached TOA it would be too weak to measure. NOAA is making this up from models and a whole lot of bad science. The graphics they show at your links are averages, meaning they have been run through a NOAA filter similar to the one they used to hide the recent cold in North America.

        It’s obvious that 0.3% of the atmosphere by mass, represented by all GHGs, including WV, could not account for the absorp-tion of 5% of surface radiation.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Based on bad science, ren. By the time surface radiation reached TOA it would be too weak to measure.”

          No, not at all — its magnitude is very near, or equal to, the amount of radiation coming in. This amount is measured routinely by satellites; this paper contains a review:

          “Measurement of the Earth Radiation Budget at the Top of the Atmosphere A Review,” Steven Dewitte * and Nicolas Clerbaux, Remote Sensing 2017.
          file:///C:/Users/david/Downloads/remotesensing-09-01143-v2.pdf

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Its obvious that 0.3% of the atmosphere by mass, represented by all GHGs, including WV, could not account for the absorp-tion of 5% of surface radiation.”

          Why is that obvious?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            It is obvious because that is the answer that fits his conclusion.

          • Des says:

            Gordon supplies 0.3% of the brain matter in these comments by mass, yet he manages to account for far more than 5% of the BS.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, you should ask davie for his “proof” that the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.

            It’s hilarious.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G — I know the point you are trying to make. If you can quote the ACTUAL statements you are referring to, then I will tell you where either:
            1) you are misunderstanding the statement of the problem or
            2) DA misstated the problem.

            Go for it. Quote DA’s exact “hilarious” statement.

          • David Appell says:

            Pierrehumberts claim: “In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22e17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
            – Physics Today, January 2011, pg 33
            https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

            Proof:

            dT = dQ/mc

            Given: (dQ/dt)_net = 1.22e17 J/s in => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.

            m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
            c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).

            => dT = 760,000 K

            Q.E.D.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, you’ve already outdone yourself!

            You only allow two possibilities:

            1) you are misunderstanding the statement of the problem or
            2) DA misstated the problem.

            How about:

            3) davie, and his hero, are COMPLETELY wrong!

            No possibility in your closed world, huh?

            Hilarious.

            So, for more humor, your defense of this nonsense, please:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-288056

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Thanks David. I knew that the actual statement was more nuanced than G* implied with his glib “the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K”. The original statement could probably have been stated a little more clearly — for example saying “that amount of absorbed energy” rather than “the absorbed energy”. It is a minor difference, but enough to derail some people from the point being made.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            C’mon Tim, you can do better than that.

            The original statement could probably have been stated a little more clearly for example saying that amount of absorbed energy rather than the absorbed energy.

            That’s weak. Get that “Tim spin” working. Show us how 960 Watt/m^2 can heat this planet to 800,000K.

            (Is this a great year in climate comedy, or what?)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Show us how 960 Watt/m^2 can heat this planet to 800,000K.”

            The bemusing thing here is that David has just posted the calculations. The doubly bemusing thing is that G’s statement of the problem actually removes the one (minor) objection I had made.

            A professor did the calculations, wrote an article, had it checked by scientific reviewers and/or editors. If G* actually had some understanding rather than bluster, he would be able to tell us which number was incorrect and why. But as usual, there is no substance to his posts.

            Go for it, G. What number in the original article do you think is wrong, and why? What number in David’s calculation above do you disagree with?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, thanks for fully committing to this pseudoscience. Your contribution is important for future generations to see. Everyone needs to know the ineptitude and incompetence manifested by “institutionalized science”.

            The Sun, radiating at an effective temperature of 5800K, could NEVER heat the Earth beyond that temperature. And, that’s not even taking into account the inverse-square law.

            So, thanks for the hilarity. You and davie could form a climate comedy team.

            Oh, maybe you already have. ..

          • Mike Flynn says:

            g,

            You may not have allowed for the climatological 12 step program which explains why everything is the result of CO2 .

            I won’t bore you with the details, except to mention step 5 – this reads *this is where the magic occurs*.

            This ensures that anything becomes any temperature you desire. CO2 can heat anything to any temperature (or not, depending on how you use the 12 step plan).

            I hope this helps.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yup, they have their own “program”, for sure.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G, you are holding your own and making some good points — so kudos to you. Your “spin” and my “spin” both have merit here.

            The article opens with a hypothetical calculation. It is a thought experiment — “What would happen if … “. This hypothetical calculation clearly is not meant to represent a real situation since it explicitly includes an impossible condition — “if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.” Since he is temporarily suspending the rules for getting rid of energy, it is not a big leap to also suspend the rules for absorbing energy.

            I am willing to suspend both rules in the context of the hypothetical situation. You are apparently willing to suspend one rule but not the other. Since we have both agreed to suspend some bits of physics, neither of us can truly have the correct answer to what would happen to a real planet.

            (Frankly I think the opening lines of the article are weak and/or silly and contribute nothing of substance to the article. He would have been much better off (IMHO) skipping this rather contrived thought experiment and just getting to his main points without the drama.)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            May I gently remind you that a real planet, the one we occupy, is not molten.

            No suspension of physics required, nor any spin. Just a thermometer, or your own eyes.

            Good enough for me, but obviously not good enough for Warmist fools.

            They live in a fantasy world, where dreams come true, and faith supersedes fact.

            Just like you.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry Tim, but you are the only one “spinning”.

            Trying to claim that is “science”, as the author was, and davie has been, is “pseudoscience”. Your “spin” is that it is just an innocent “thought experiment”. But, there is nothing innocent about it. It is a blatant attempt to push the fraudulent GHE hoax.

            You try to keep one foot in science, and the other foot in pseudoscience. Maybe you have a reason. But, my advice is never go down a path that will only cause you trouble. “Institutionalized science” needs to clean up its act, ESPECIALLY where public funds are involved.

    • La Pangolina says:

      ren

      Przepraszamy: porównujesz nieprawidłowe liczby tutaj.

      The SWAR (about 71 non reflected % of incoming solar energy) is subdivided into

      – 23 % absorbed by the atmosphere
      – 48 % absorbed by the planet’s surface.

      Thus about 160 W/m^2 arrive at Earth’s surface and are absorbed.

      Of these 160 W/m^2 which must be returned to space to contribute to thermal equilibrium, about 63 % are absorbed by the atmosphere via evaporation and convection.

      Only the remaining 37 %, i.e. about 60 W/m^2, are reemitted as IR.

      But about 17 W/m^2 of this IR radiation are absorbed by the atmosphere again; the rest, i.e. about 43 W/m^2, are directly reemitted to space via the so called atmospheric window.

      43 / 347.5 = 12.3 %

      Czy jesteśmy zgodni, ren?

  50. Snape says:

    Gordon wonders,
    “how does anyone measure Arctic sea ice extent when powerful winds and oceans currents are pushing it around and piling ice on top of ice at many locations? At other times, the same forces are driving the ice into the Atlantic?”

    Here’s the answer:

    “Arctic Sea ice extent is virtually impossible to accurately measure from the Earth’s surface. The edges of the ice are ever changing and the sheer size of the ice mass (averaging two and half times the size of Canada) makes it difficult to measure directly on short time scales. To overcome the shortcomings of in situ observations, polar orbiting satellites began collecting data over the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) in the 1970s. Scientists use radiometry data and visible imagery collected from the satellites to determine the sea ice extent. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages, and more information can be found through the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Today a suite of NASA, NOAA, and Department of Defense satellites provide the data which is needed to accurately monitor sea ice extent on a daily, monthly, and annual basis.

    The transition from icecovered to icefree ocean can occur over a large distance. When measuring the Arctic Sea ice extent from satellites, a threshold of minimum ice concentration is defined to mark where the ice sheet ends. NOAA uses a threshold of 15 percent ice concentration over an areal extent, because it provides the most consistent agreement between satellite and ground observations. At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships, one of the earliest motivations for better understanding changes in Arctic ice.”

  51. La Pangolina says:

    For the allround genius

    ‘You forgot the small print in the one month of summer.’

    The following lists are sorts of monthly Arctic sea ice extent (data source: University of Colorado).

    The first list shows absolute extent values:

    2012 | 9 | 3.57
    2007 | 9 | 4.27
    2016 | 9 | 4.51
    2011 | 9 | 4.56
    2015 | 9 | 4.62
    2008 | 9 | 4.69
    2012 | 8 | 4.72
    2010 | 9 | 4.87
    2013 | 9 | 5.21
    2014 | 9 | 5.22
    2009 | 9 | 5.26
    2007 | 8 | 5.34
    2016 | 8 | 5.39
    2011 | 8 | 5.50
    2005 | 9 | 5.50
    2015 | 8 | 5.60
    2002 | 9 | 5.83
    2006 | 9 | 5.86
    2010 | 8 | 5.88
    2012 | 10 | 5.89

    The second list shows anomalies wrt 1981-2010, i.e. departures from the monthly means:

    2016 | 12 | -1.43
    2017 | 1 | -1.26
    2017 | 2 | -1.19
    2017 | 3 | -1.16
    2016 | 2 | -1.10
    2015 | 3 | -1.06
    2016 | 3 | -1.02
    2006 | 3 | -1.01
    2010 | 12 | -1.00
    2006 | 2 | -0.98
    2011 | 1 | -0.97
    2006 | 1 | -0.97
    2016 | 1 | -0.96
    2011 | 2 | -0.94
    2005 | 2 | -0.93
    2015 | 2 | -0.90
    2012 | 12 | -0.89
    2007 | 3 | -0.89
    2014 | 2 | -0.88
    2011 | 3 | -0.88

    *

    Of interest is here
    – that all lowest absolute values and all lowest anomalies were mesured since the year 2000;
    – that while all lowest absolute values of course were measured at summer end, all lowest anomalies were measured during winter.

    *

    Yes: we had earlier warming phases in the Arctic (in the 1940’s and above all in the 1890’s).

    • Mike Flynn says:

      LaP,

      What is the point of all this? is it supposed to relate in some way to the non-existent GHE?

      Weather changes. The average of weather (climate) changes as a result.

      Blathering about historical records of temperature, ice, desert, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire – all have precisely no discernible benefit to mankind.

      You are free to believe otherwise, of course. I ask most kindly that you do not ask me to pay to support what I consider to be a pernicious delusion.

      Carry on the pointless and irrelevant posting of historical observations of whatever you wish. I understand if you feel an obsessive compulsion to provide numbers, adjusted, falsified, created, modeled, or of any other type.

      If it keeps you away from interfering with anyones quiet enjoyment of life, there is a net benefit to the rest of the world.

      Cheers.

      • La Pangolina says:

        Woooah woooah woooah.
        What a boring, egocentric, redundant stuff.

        How nice would this site be without people like you.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        LaP,

        All the opinions in the world plus a few dollars will get you cup of coffee – even Germany, I presume. If you think your opinions represent more value than one seven billionth of the world’s total opinion, maybe you could explain your reasoning?

        My care factor remains stuck on zero.

        Maybe you could have your own blog, and ban anyone who disagreed with you?

        You don’t need to thank me – I’m here to help.

        Cheers.

  52. Mike Flynn says:

    The farce continues.

    Someone calculated that the Sun should have heated the Earth to 760,000 K after a billion years. Someone else points out that the Earths temperature is demonstrably less than this.

    Tim Folkerts wrote the following, attempting to defend the indefensible –

    A professor did the calculations, wrote an article, had it checked by scientific reviewers and/or editors. If G* actually had some understanding rather than bluster, he would be able to tell us which number was incorrect and why. But as usual, there is no substance to his posts.

    Typical Warmist fool thinking. The Earths temperature is less than 760,000K. The professor, the reviewers, the editors, and all the rest are wrong. Wrong. Maybe they are all Warmist fools, or just one, not unusual, example of the thousands of published peer reviewed papers which are so bad that they have to be retracted, often in spite of vigorous opposition from the publishers of prestigious journals.

    Facts are facts. The Earths temperature is not 760,000 K.

    Warmist fools prefer peer reviewed fantasy, written by professors, and checked by editors, to readily observable objective, measurable fact.

    Pity.

    Cheers.

  53. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote –

    “If you decide you dont want a subtle, challenging answer to a your rather interesting question, that is your decision. You are free to stick with your simplistic answer.

    I asked a simple question, seeking a numerical answer. Tim couldnt provide one, of course, and suggested I should have asked a different question – one more to his liking.

    I pointed out that Tim had chosen not to provide an answer. Tim went on as I quoted him above.

    Ask a simple question of a Warmist fool who claims to have expertise in the area (otherwise he wouldnt have commented in the fashion he did, would he?), and the evasions and dodging starts.

    The question was wrong, a *subtle challenging answer* is to be preferred to a simple one, and all the rest of the foolish Warmist folderol trotted out to appear sciency and authoritative.

    Still no GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis. Adding CO2 to a sample of air does not raise tis temperature. Removing CO2 from the air does not lower its temperature.

    Expect mass claims of the dangers of incipient climate change from the mainstream media as Government funding for pointless unscientific research dries up.

    Doom! Doom! The End is Nigh!

    Not.

    Cheers.

  54. La Pangolina says:

    WhereRoyGetsItWrong says:
    February 21, 2018 at 5:49 PM

    Incredible but true: Do.ug Cot.ton is back again!

    But better that guy than Flynn, Robertson or g*… he is so pretty harmless compared with this trio infernal.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      LaP,

      Awww. And here I thought you were in love with me. Is it true that Hell hath no fury like a pangolin spurned?

      Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        W,

        Dont be silly. Of course I can explain the Earths surface temperature.

        What do you want to know? Nominate your favorite temperature (you have to have one, in order for me to explain it to you, of course).

        Tell me why you cant explain it using ordinary physics – say the sort that can explain why the surface temperature of a hot potato is what it is – and Ill set you straight.

        No magic or new theories needed.

        Cheers.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Pang, did you want to order a T-shirt?

      Special rates available. This week only.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Incredible but true: Do.ug Cot.ton is back again!

      But better that guy than Flynn, Robertson or g* he is so pretty harmless compared with this trio infernal”.

      ************

      And not nearly as much an idiot as you. Do.ug actually understands science and doesn’t push ridiculous nonsense like you do time after time.

      He also has never come back claiming to be someone else and he definitely does not have an authority fetish.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        He also has never come back claiming to be someone else and he definitely does not have an authority fetish.

        He certainly does regarding his own purported authority.

  55. professorP says:

    Now 22 negative SOI values in a row!
    Now, this is getting exciting.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      p,

      Wow. Just wow! Imagine how exciting it will be if it gets to 23, or even 1007! The world would be absolutely amazed, and fall at your feet!

      Have you a reason for reporting this observation? Do we all vanish in a puff of smoke when the number reaches a certain value? I detect a strong odor of foolish Warmism, but maybe Im wrong.

      Keep up the good work. It will prevent you from finding a testable GHE hypothesis of course, but im sure you are prepared to make that sacrifice.

      Cheers.

    • tonyM says:

      Pee Pee says:
      “Now 22 negative SOI values in a row!
      Now, this is getting exciting.”

      Sounds as if you are going to wet yourself again. The SOI is above -4 which is neutral territory. Have you ever bothered to read the BOM explanation of SOI.

      Read it and you won’t ever need get excited to the point of bed wetting again.

  56. professorP says:

    And,
    “Among the nearly 400 academics, scientists, policy makers and politicians at the conference in the New Zealand capital is American climatologist Michael Mann.

    Dr Mann told the conference that climate change was happening at a rate that outstripped the predictions of many climate models.

    “We’re talking about a substantial increase in the risk of catastrophic coastal flooding and nowhere is that more apparent than here in the Pacific,” he said.

    “Climate change is no longer a theoretical problem, it’s no longer some far-off distant threat.”

    • Crakar24 says:

      That’s rather ironic prof as New Zealand glaciers have been advancing for over a decade.

      Is your worship of Mann an error on your part PR is there some magically extension to the ghe I am not aware of

    • Mike Flynn says:

      p,

      Another Warmist fool. Not bright enough to figure out whether he got a Nobel Prize or not. Apparently a tree whisperer – they tell him the temperatures he wants to hear. Immortalised for his manufacture of hockey sticks, and legal delaying tactics, brought about because he is sensitive and easily hurt, possibly.

      I hope you arent depending on some bizarre appeal to authority. More likely an appeal to fantasy.

      Cheers.

    • tonyM says:

      Pee Pee, don’t wet your pants again.

      Is that the same Mann as in the Mickey Mouse Mann of the Nobel Prize recipient in waiting fame, the grand Hockey Stick player (got his direction wrong; Korea is where the action is taking place) and winner of the Best Warmistae Climate Propaganda award for 2018?

      If so, then do yourself a favour and stop wetting yourself. Safe to ignore him as he is out to collect money on behalf of State Penn being their biggest clown act. Heavens even Joe Bastardi had to pull him up and suggest he go learn some Meteorology. Sleep easy, Pee Pee.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      profp….”is American climatologist Michael Mann”.

      He’s a geologist for cripes sake, a disgraced one at that.

      1)claimed the 1990s as the warmest decade in the past 1000 years. McIntyre and McKittrick exposed his statistical analysis as so bogus, white noise would create a hockey stick when run through it.

      That set of a US government enquiry in which the National Academy of Science investigated along with a statistics expert. The statistician agreed with M&M and NAS concluded he could not claim unprecedented warming over that range or use pine bristlecone as a proxy for the 20th century, effectively axing his study.

      The IPCC disowned him. They withdrew his hockey stick graph, replacing it with one representing 1850 onward with the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming period re-instituted, both of which Mann had eliminated to get a straight handle on his graph.

      2)Revealed in Climategate emails as a cheater who clipped off proxy data that was cooling and spliced in real data showing warming.

      3)Revealed in Climategate emails interfering with peer review.

      4)When Dr. Judith Curry became skeptical about AGW, he made sexist remarks about her.

      5)in a study of Antarctica with Stieg, he claimed Antarctica had warmed since the 1950s. Turned out the authors of the study had interpolated warming on the Antarctic Peninsula to the entire continent.

      • professorP says:

        “Hes a geologist for cripes sake, a disgraced one at that.”
        Almost as bad as a retired electronics engineer in my book.

        Any way, the inconvenient truth is that:
        “Michael is an American climatologist and geophysicist, currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on the temperature record of the past thousand years.”

      • professorP says:

        Judith Curry? Give me a break!
        Climate myths by Curry:
        “Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????”

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon can’t understand or critique Mann’s science, so he tries to attack him personally.

        This is a frequent tactic of Gordon’s, who himself has no qualifications whatsoever to speak about climate science.

      • David Appell says:

        By the way, every single point Gordon wrote above about Mann is wrong. But there’s no point in providing that evidence, since Gordon never responds to evidence showing he’s wrong (see the discussion on HIV/AIDS above), and often keeps writing the same wrong thing time and time again. (He’s not alone in the latter.)

  57. Crakar24 says:

    How could the surface temp be 700 WTF ever k? Suggest you are mis using the formula or something. Its like I can show you rf energy travels down a wave guide faster than the speed if light even though physics states it cannot……. Get a grip people

  58. Snape says:

    Test 2

  59. Harry Cummings says:

    Wellington…..green centre of NZ, the only place that has cycle lanes running up and down cliff faces

    Regards
    Harry

  60. ren says:

    25 February temperatures in France will be as now in Poland.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00959/iv4rbadzoon2.png
    All you need is dry Siberian air and a high gradient of temperature.

  61. Peter Langlee says:

    If you put CO2 between a thermometer and the sun, the temperature will increase. I have tested this myself.

    • Flynn Mike says:

      And if you put Mike Flynn between a thermometer and the sun, the temperature will decrease. I have tested this myself.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      P,

      Absolutely. The CO2 increases in temperature. Of course, the thermometer cools, as less radiation reaches it.

      Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        W,

        I presume you are trying to disagree with something wrote? Maybe you could say what, why.

        Addressing things I didn’t write is all well and good, but quite pointless to me.

        Maybe you can’t find anything with which to disagree? Have you managed to find the hypothesis which explains things which you assert don’t need explaining anyway?

        All very mysterious.

        Cheers.

    • Crakar says:

      Peter

      How does ir energy create heat in a co2 molecule

      • La Pangolina says:

        Crakar says:
        February 22, 2018 at 3:20 AM

        It doesn’t, Crakar. And the Flynn guy for example perfectly knows that.

        So when he writes

        … just look at all the foolish Warmists and journalists who claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!

        he has nothing else in mind than to provoke.

        CO2 has one role only in the atmosphere: to prevent, in tiny amounts, IR emitted at surface from reaching outer space, by absorbing that IR and reemitting it in all directions.

        That is done pretty good by H2O as well, and even in bigger amounts as there is more of it, but… only where it is present.

        CO2 is uniformly distributed in the atmospheric layers. See for example:

        Carbon dioxide atmospheric vertical profiles retrieved from space observation using ACE-FTS solar occultation instrument

        Foucher et al. 2011

        • Crakar says:

          So why do people make such ludicrous statements La P…

          • La Pangolina says:

            Oh, please don’t ask ME, Crakar! No idea.

            Your ‘ludicrous’ quoting is perfect. But what you might consider as ‘serious’, e.g.

            You need a little correction. CO2 does not prevent any radiation from reaching outer space. That would just be impossible. At night, the surface cools. No heating at all.

            (see below) is for me exactly as ludicrous as what alarmists write.

            Perfect pseudoscience blathering.

            Didn’t he understand what I wrote to you? Or did he very well? No se :-))

            Maybe Flynn shows here what he all the time claims others to do: confuse, divert, deny.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            La P,

            You are correct. You have no idea.

            Maybe you are unable to support any dispute with what I say, so instead you fly off at some bizarre foolish Warmist tangent.

            Do you not agree the surface cools at night? Possibly you have redefined cooling to mean heating, but Nature will ignore you. I won’t, of course.

            Maybe you can come up with a testable GHE hypothesis in between trying to think up more pointless attempts at insults. I suppose I should mention that I generally decline to take offence, feel insulted or annoyed, or get upset. I can’t see any benefit.

            Keep trying, if it makes you happy. Good luck.

            Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          La P,

          It seems that we are in agreement. CO2 does not heat the surface, and therefore does not creat global warming, climate change, or any other foolish Warmist fantasy.

          You need a little correction. CO2 does not prevent any radiation from reaching outer space. That would just be impossible. At night, the surface cools. No heating at all.

          Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mike F. repeats endless streams of falsehoods. If one lives outside the tropics in an area which requires heating during Winter, one’s house cools at night if the heating system is turned off, as energy stored as thermal mass flows thru the walls and roof. The cooling is slowed by insulation and the more insulation in one’s house, the slower the cooling takes place. In the atmosphere, CO2 and water vapor provide the same insulating effect, retarding the cooling of the surface. In desert regions, the dry conditions result in more rapid cooling at night than in areas with greater atmospheric moisture, which is one of the most obvious examples of the Greenhouse Effect.

          • ren says:

            E. Swanson CO2 in the insulation will not raise the temperature in the apartment. The air in isolation is closed, in the atmosphere it is not. This only shows that the air is a poor conductor of heat.

          • E. Swanson says:

            The house analogy is a closed system, that is, no external source of energy. The atmosphere is part of an open system, which is constantly being supplied with energy from an external source called the Sun. Your comment fails to address the difference in cooling rate between dry air over a desert at night and another situation location in which the air above contains more moisture. Yes, air is a good insulator, so what would that explain the different rates of cooling as both situations would have the same air above, except for the water vapor?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            E,

            Warmist fool. I said the surface cools at night.

            What part of that statement are you disagree with?

            Are you saying the surface warms at night? I assume not. Maybe you are gullible enough to assert that a slower rate of cooling of the Earths surface results in thermometers becoming hotter. I point out that thermometers of one sort or another are used to measure temperatures.

            Your only option seems to be to adopt the tactics of the foolish Warmist, and immediately try to divert the discussion to something quite irrelevant and pointless, such as an analogy.
            about furnaces, houses, overcoats, or anything which avoids having to explain why the surface cools at night, and why the Earths surface has demonstrably cooled since it was molten.

            Deny, divert, and confuse. So sad, too bad.

            Foolish Warmist. Maybe you could stick to the point, instead of wandering off at ever more erratic foolish Warmist tangents?

            Now, what part of my statement that Earths surface cools at night are you disagreeing with?

            Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mike F, I disagree with your implication that the night time cooling disproves the effects of greenhouse gases. Again, in a desert when the humidity is very low, the night time cooling is greater than is it during other nights with more humidity. This reality is the result of the greenhouse gas called water vapor and the fact that moist nights end up being warmer the next morning than drier nights proves that an addition of more greenhouse gas can result in warmer low temperatures.

            In other words, a higher concentration of a greenhouse gas has “warmed” the thermometer compared to dry conditions. Turns out that increasing increasing CO2 operates in a similar fashion and also warms those thermometers, raising the daily low and high temperature readings.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            E,

            As I said, Warmist fools are convinced that a reduction in the rate of cooling results in heating, Otherwise, their claims of harm from ncreased temperatures would be even more ludicrous than they are at present.

            You can disagree as much as you like. What you can’t do is show how increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter.

            You can’t even come up with a testable GHE hypothesis, How pathetically sad is that? Cargo Cult Scientism writ large! No amount of declaring that getting colder really means warming will alter fact.

            No GHE. You can’t even describe it sensibly. Nor can anybody else. Dream on.

            Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mike F. spouts his usual drivel, failing to notice the obvious flaw in my comment. That is, the lowest temperature in the morning may be due to the fact that cooling has hit the dew point temperature, which results in condensation, aka, fog. Once the dew point is reached, the cooling rate slows. To produce a proper comparison, one would need to measure the rate of cooling, not just the end point. I suspect that such comparisons have already been made, though I confess I’m not familiar with the literature on the subject.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          La P,

          You obviously cannot read my mind, can you?

          What part of my statement do you consider to be wrong? No part at all?

          Maybe you just want to lurch off in another foolish Warmist direction, and avoid facing facts.

          Neither CO2 nor anything else, can prevent the surface from cooling. It happens every night. Some Warmist fools believe that an object on the surface will heat up year on year, due to GHGs in the atmosphere. What nonsense!

          If this were true, old objects would be hotter than newer objects on the surface – they have absorbed more sunlight havent they?

          Foolish Warmist. If Warmist fools dont claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter, then there is no CO2 induced global warming, is there? No rise in temperature due to CO2?

          No GHE. Inconvenient truth, I know.

          Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            W,

            The reason I write is none of your business, and I have no intention of following your link. No point at all, is there?

            Maybe you believe that I enjoy wasting my time at the behest of every passing stranger. I don’t.

            Cheers.

    • barry says:

      Mike may know the answer, seeing as he agrees with that statement.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        Indeed I do, although I dont know statement you claim I am agreeing with. Thanks for the support.

        Cheers.

  62. La Pangolina says:

    Wow! Now the page is getting really funny.

    Wissenschaft: 1 %, theatralische Egozentrik: 99 %.

  63. professorP says:

    Sadly, I must report that the sequence of negative SOI values just ended at 22.
    I will report back when next there is some exciting news.

    • Crakar says:

      Firstly in fly na absence I would like to congratulate you on counting to 22 by ones by my I ask why do you find the end of the sequence to be sad?

      • tonyM says:

        Pee Pee is an extreme warmista that anything which may hint at warming makes him excited, I suggest. Either that or he simply likes wetting his pants or bed at such hints.

        Average for the month below -7 is indicative of potential el Nino but only after months not simply one month.

        So with the reading today of +14.6 it suddenly diminished his prospects. Yesterday it was -3.7 but it was not enough to subdue his excitement.

        He has been advised but does not listen. Typical of some warmista types. I’m sure he will find other ways to compensate.

        What he does not do is read BOM instructions from the same page:
        ** Daily values are not the SOI but contribute to the calculation of the monthly SOI. Daily values are presented for research purposes only. 30 day (or larger) average SOI values are the key indices for forecast purposes.

        https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/

        • La Pangolina says:

          Thanks tonyM…

          • professorP says:

            and yet the 30 day average is close to minus 7.
            Don’t give up on an El Nino just yet.

          • tonyM says:

            Pee Pee:
            Here we go again.
            What do you think will happen when it hits -7? Something magical? Drum rolls? Fire and brimstone?

            Nothing! Absolutely nothing! It likely will hit -7. Most of us will not be aware of it! But you had better buy extra diapers.

    • professorP says:

      However, much more exciting news just in:
      “While the Eastern United States simmers in some of its warmest February weather ever recorded, the Arctic is also stewing in temperatures more than 45 degrees above normal. This latest huge temperature spike in the Arctic is another striking indicator of its rapidly transforming climate.

      The warmth over Alaska occurred as almost one-third of the ice covering the Bering Sea off Alaskas West Coast vanished in just over a week during the middle of February.

      Temperatures over the entire Arctic north of 80 degrees latitude have averaged about 10 degrees (6 Celsius) above normal since the beginning of the calendar year, sometimes spiking over 25 degrees (14 Celsius) above normal (the normal temperature is around minus-22, or minus-30 Celsius).”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/02/21/arctic-temperatures-soar-45-degrees-above-normal-flooded-by-extremely-mild-air-on-all-sides/?utm_term=.278fdaf32851

      • tonyM says:

        Pee Pee

        Wow! Do I take it that you suggest a North West passage in a few weeks? That should make Wadhams happy; he predicted an ice free Arctic by 2012. We can all go on an exciting boat trip. Bring all the diapers you want.

        Some seem to define climate as existing only in the lifespan of a single human and is not supposed to vary!

  64. ren says:

    Still strong frost in the north-central US.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00959/4gbhey0q3xx3.png

  65. tonyM says:

    Interesting and likely a coincidence, two articles cover somewhat similar ground: the Irving Janis concept of Groupthink

    At Jonova leading to :
    https://www.thegwpf.com/christopher-booker-groupthink-on-climate-change-ignores-inconvenient-facts/

    At WUWT, Dr Tim Ball dissects some of the climate history in this framework.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/21/previous-identification-of-groupthink-part-of-why-the-public-doesnt-believe-in-global-warming/

    • professorP says:

      Joanne “Jo” Nova is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional wingnut. She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths.
      The site also has on its header the highly ironic phrase “Tackling tribalist groupthink.” She has also written a handbook called “The Skeptic’s Handbook,” a brief pamphlet that reads like it was copy-pasted from another denialist site without the slightest whiff of actual research and peppered with pretty pictures. The handbook concentrates on a few of the greatest hits, including: Satellites and weather balloons showing no warming (they do); the Oregon Petition “debunking” the scientific consensus (it doesn’t); carbon dioxide lagging, not leading temperature change (ignoring Milankovitch cycles and feedbacks); the carbon dioxide effect being saturated (it isn’t); and bad weather station siting (relying on the self-debunked work of Anthony Watts).

      In between regurgitating debunked climate myths, she often posts non-sensical fiscal arguments; then breaks into a general bitching session about anything including the denial crowd pleaser, the Gore bash fest.

      She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute.

      • professorP says:

        As for WUWT:
        “In March of 2011, Anthony Watts appeared to stake his entire stance on the reliability of surface temperature data on a single upcoming study: the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST), an independent temperature record to be constructed using over 39,000 unique stations. On March 6th, Watts said on his blog:

        … Im prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. Im taking this bold step because the method has promise. So lets not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.
        However, when BEST’s results confirmed the reliability of preexisting surface temperature records, Watts backpedaled. Apparently, he was only willing to stake his claims on an independent study if it came to the conclusion he wanted.

        This is where Judith Curry comes in. She was the only climatologist who worked on the BEST project and has a long history of making statements against mainstream AGW science which she proceeded to do again after BEST finished its results. She said that BEST’s results were “way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion.” (Why she accepted the results beforehand, don’t ask us.)

        Lately Watts has degenerated into boringness, repeating the same tired arguments

        • Mike Flynn says:

          p,

          I assume your comment is in some way related to the inability of Warmist fools to produce a testable GHE hypothesis, or even describe the supposed Greenhouse Effect meaningfully, but I cant see any relevant facts.

          Maybe trying to deny, divert, and confuse, by expressing your unhappiness with the failure of Nature to obey climatological computer games, might not achieve all that much.

          What do you think?

          Have you found a testable GHE hypothesis anywhere? Maybe its with Michael Manns Nobel Prize, or his climatological qualifications? Both seem to be conspicuous by their absence. Michael Mann certainly makes no claim to either at present. Maybe hes finally realized that the climate changes whether he approves or not.

          Carry on.

          Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            “I assume your comment is in some way related to the inability of Warmist fools to produce a testable GHE hypothesis”
            No.
            If you cannot follow the current debate please keep quiet.

          • tonyM says:

            Fundamentally the current debate is and always has been about the lack of a testable hypothesis.

            This was pointed out by Gerlich et al and even directly admonished Halpern et al over this issue. (Halpern is Eli Rabbett of the green plate in the sky).

            Its called “science” as in the Scientific Method, something which goes right over your head.

      • tonyM says:

        Unless you can show that either Jo Nova or Anthony Watts had any influence over Irving Janis’s work your drivel is irrelevant.

        I’m puzzled why anyone, other than yourself or vested players, should expect Judith Curry to sign off on something she believed was substandard.

        As for funding I suggest Michael Mann raises more in one campaign than all the money ever given to all skeptics.

        As appropriately put by Mike Flynn,
        “Have you found a testable GHE hypothesis anywhere?”

        That would leave no room for your waffle.

  66. Peter Langlee says:

    Look up thermal resistance. With CO2 between earth and space the cooling rate slows down during night. CO2 can’t raise the temperature from a purely radiating body, but it can slow down the cooling rate.
    E.g, let’s say it is 20C at sunset, without CO2 temperature drops to 0C by morning, with CO2 it only drops to 10C, global temperature is higher. That’s really basic stuff that even a Mike can understand.

    • professorP says:

      “Thats really basic stuff that even a Mike can understand.”
      Sorry Peter, I am afraid this will go over his head.

    • gbaikie says:

      If air temperature is 20 C at sunset- you have about 10,000 kg of air which has to cool before the morning.
      And 1 kg of air needs about 1000 joules of heat to change by 1 K Or 10,000 kg air needs about 10,000 kilojoules of heat loss
      to cool by 1.
      As comparison 10 Cm thick per meter square of concrete is 1/10th of cubic meter and concrete about 2500 kg per cubic meter, so is 240 kg of concrete per square meter.
      And specific heat of concrete about 750 joules per kg.
      240 times 750 is 180,000 joules of heat per K or 180 kilojoules per K
      Air above a sidewalk is 10,000 KJ and the sidewalk is 180 KJ
      per K.

      CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas, the radiant properties of water vapor makes it earth’s most significant greenhouse gas.
      Other aspect of H20 is it condenses from gas to liquid, and from liquid to solid.
      When 1 kg of water vapor condenses into droplets of water the latent heat is 2,230,000 joules per kg. And when becomes ice the heat released is 334,000 joules per kg.

      So a square meter of sidewalk has 180 KJ, the air about it
      is 10,000 Kj per K and each kg of water vapor in air above
      sidewalk which becomes a liquid is 2340 KJ and if 1 kg freezes adds 334 KJ of heat.

      Now if it’s 20 C at sunset, 2000 meter higher it’s about 7 C and it’s close to freezing 3000 meters higher than a sidewalk.

      At 20 C at sunset how water vapor is there in the 10,000 kg of air above a square meter?

      Half of atmosphere is below about 5.5 km.
      And at 20 C, at 5500 meter elevation higher is about 36 K cooler. If during warmer part of the day it didn’t warm to 36 C [96 F and 20 C = 68 F], then at 5.5 km higher it didn’t rise above freezing.
      Half atmosphere is 5000 kg of air and most of the water vapor is within the lower half of the atmosphere.

      The tropics can have about 4 cm of water in it- or 40 Kg of water vapor above 1 square meter. Outside the tropics it could around 10 kg of water, and depending on conditions one have around 10% of condensing and/or freezing.

      Other factor is that clouds can also reduces cooling at the night- in terms of radiant heat loss, and the latent of heat of the water of clouds.

      CO2 is about 400 ppm or 400 parts per million. Or 4 parts per 10,000. Or of 10,000 kg of air about 4 kg of kg.
      And CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas- a kg of water has more radiant effect than 1 kg of CO2.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Or of 10,000 kg of air about 4 kg of kg.”
        I Meant: “Or of 10,000 kg of air about 4 kg of CO2”.

        Anyhow, of a 10 K of cooling, CO2 at most is couple of degrees- in terms of a rough look at it, and if one assumes the Greenhouse effect theory has some validity.
        Though idea that only greenhouse gases cause warming is where the greenhouse effect theory is pseudoscience.
        Another thing which proves the greenhouse effect theory is pseudoscience is one can have “scientists” claiming that CO2
        causes all warming and plus that CO2 actually warms the ground or ocean surface. And plus vast amount of perversion the theory elicits in it’s believers is also quite telling.
        Anyhow, greenhouse gases might reduce the amount of cooling, but so far even Earth’s strongest greenhouse gas, water vapor has yet to be actual measured in terms of it’s “insulative effect”.
        The region of Earth with most amount of water vapor is in the tropics. How much “insulative effect” does the water vapor of tropics, cause in terms of increasing temperatures or average temperatures?
        The tropics is mostly ocean and the tropical ocean has a high average temperature, but does not have a high daytime temperature. Deserts in the tropics can have high day time temperatures and wide swings in temperatures of day and night temperature.
        So can have desert sand warm i daylight by 50 K, and desert air by about 30 K, but ocean surfaces warms by few degrees during the day, but the ocean is absorbing more energy than a desert- because desert sand absorbs very little energy with the 10 tons of air above the sand being much more significant. With ocean, the ocean absorbs more energy than 10 tons air above it- the sunlight warms tens of meters [tons] of water [which has 4 times specific heat as air per ton], and oceans in tropics are evaporating tens kg of water per square meter. And because tropics is warmer than rest of world, the tropical ocean is heating the rest of the world- with warmed air and a lot water vapor. Though warmed water transported poleward is a more significant amount of heat as compared to the atmospheric heat.
        So tropical deserts aren’t like the tropical oceans in terms of heating the rest of the world

        • David Appell says:

          gbaikie says:
          Though idea that only greenhouse gases cause warming is where the greenhouse effect theory is pseudoscience.

          Nobody at all thinks that.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            If nobody at all believes that *greenhouse gases* cause warming, then AGW as a result of CO2 in the atmosphere is a crock. Nonsensical in the extreme.

            I dont believe you are denying that the Earth is heating due to the presence of climatologically invented GHGs, but it seems that way.

            Maybe you could describe the nonsensical GHE in English words, including the phenomenon it is formulated to explain, how it may be reproduced, and all the other scientific stuff that foolish Warmists find too difficult.

            Or maybe not.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            Mike.
            You obviously cannot follow the debate.
            Please keep quiet and stop repeating ad nauseum your drivel.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            As usual, I will ignore your desire. I think what I think. I write what I write.

            Why should I take any notice at all of what you think?

            Are you perhaps more important than I think?

            Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        gbaikie says:
        CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas, the radiant properties of water vapor makes it earths most significant greenhouse gas.

        Everyone knows about the importance of water vapor. But do YOU know that its amount in the atmosphere increases ONLY when the atmosphere first warms from some other forcing (like CO2, orbital factors, sunlight, etc)?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          Gee. What a revelation! Next youll be telling people that heat melts ice, and turns it into water! Heat the water even more, and it becomes a gas, becoming a part of the atmosphere, if unconstrained!

          Can you actually come up with something novel?

          Cheers.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Everyone knows about the importance of water vapor. But do YOU know that its amount in the atmosphere increases ONLY when the atmosphere first warms from some other forcing (like CO2, orbital factors, sunlight, etc)?”

          Earth starts as molten ball of rock, in what mythology does earth “first warms”?

          Does a mars size “rock” hitting a proto-Earth count as “first warms”. Or does the mythology not include this possibility?

          Even a proto-Earth not being impacted planet size rock which then formed the Moon, it’s generally regarded that all planets begin very hot and have cooled since formation and I am not aware of any theory which begins with planets being cold or one tend to talk of when a planet first cools, rather than when first warms.
          Another aspect of Earth is the lack of CO2 it’s atmosphere which due to the biological activity of earth- the creation limestone, etc.

          But if “first warms” is only in modeling realm, it seems even if Earth started with a cold average temperature, the tropical region would be quite warm.
          And even if the tropics was say -30 C [making rest of planet a lot colder] one still would water vapor in the atmosphere.

          Earth is covered with lots of water and Mars isn’t and Mars has 210 ppm of water vapor.
          And also Mars lacks any active volcano.
          It’s extremely unreasonable to assume any water planet within the orbit of Mars or even further than mars orbit would not have more than 400 ppm of water vapor- even if it was volcanically inactive.

          • David Appell says:

            Water vapor is condensible. CO2 is not. The atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor, a function of its temperature. Anymore and the water vapor will rain out. The temperature of the atmosphere must increase for it to hold more water vapor. See the Clausius Claperyon equatin.

          • gbaikie says:

            Mars average temperature is about -60 C and has about 210 ppm of water vapor.

            If Mars had average temperature of -20 C, how water vapor would it have?

            Mars is very cold and very dry desert.
            If keep Mars at same temperature and add water- say 1 trillion tonnes of water/ice to Mars tropics, how much would the added water increase Mars water vapor?

            Adding 1 trillion tonnes of water would still have Mars being dry- just less very dry.

            Mars has 144.8 million square km.
            40% of 144.8 is 59.5 million square km
            1 million tonnes / 59.5 is 16806 tonnes per square km
            Per square meter:
            16806 tonnes / 1 million square meters = .016 tonnes
            or 16.8 kg per square meter, which depth of 16.5 mm or
            1.65 cm or bit more than 1/2 inch. Or let’s say 3/4″ of clear ice at -50 C covers entire tropics of Mars.

            Or dry desert on Earth get about 10 inches of rainfall per
            year, so one can say that 1/2″ per year is very dry.

            How long do you think the ice would remain on the ground on Mars.
            Do think it could last 1 year?
            I think it wouldn’t last a month- even the ice not getting much sunlight- in the shaded areas.

            In terms sunlight on Mars one get about 600 watts per square meter or in day about 7 kw hours. And Germany gets about 2 Kw hours of sunlight per day on average per year.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Peter,

      You sound like a Warmist fool. Why should anybody bother to comply with your suggestion? Did you assume that people such as I have never come across the term thermal resistance?

      As you point out, at night the presence of an atmosphere somewhat reduces the rate of cooling of the surface. Temperatures on the surface have not been measured to drop below -90 C, whereas temperatures on the Moon fall below this in the almost complete absence of atmosphere.

      Of course, there are other factors involved which are rejected by foolish Warmists, as they undercut the mad assertion that global warming of some 33 C or so, is due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      Warmist fools claim that the reduction in the rate of cooling that you have mentioned results in heating. They claim that global temperatures are rising due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, although they disavow their madness when directly questioned. This leads to the question – If temperatures are not rising due to CO2, what is all this GHE nonsense about?

      The Warmist fools cannot produce a reproducible GHE hypothesis, let alone a testable GHE hypothesis. This is the refuge of Warmist fools – they have nothing objective which can be tested scientifically. Pretty cunning, eh? You cant disprove that which does not exist. How clever!

      Still no GHE. By the way, the atmosphere prevents around 30% of the Suns energy from reaching the surface. What do you imagine happens to this energy? No, it doesnt eventually reach the surface by re radiation, back radiation, or any other magical action. It doesnt reach the surface at all. Just saying its due to thermal resistance is a facile foolish Warmist answer – sounding very sciency, but providing no useful information.

      Cheers.

  67. Overall oceanic temperatures +.150c trending down. As goes the oceanic temperatures so will go the temperatures for the entire globe.

    • ren says:

      Neutrons in Oulu exceed 3,700 counts.
      http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

      • ren says:

        Sorry, neutrons in Oulu exceed 6,700 counts.

        • Snape says:

          “There have been nearly as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it.

           Philosopher / Physicist P.W. Bridgman, (1941)”

          Here is my novice interpretation:

          “If an object is not being heated by a third party, and is not producing its own heat, then: it will always cool in the presence of a colder object.”

    • La Pangolina says:

      Oooops ?! …trending down?

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      February 15, 2018 at 6:57 AM

      Here we are with overall oceanic temperatures only +.115c.

      In just one week an incredible, terrific increase of 0.035 C!
      That’s 1.82 C per year, 182 per century!

      Salvatore, we can’t help you anymore…

      • Mike Flynn says:

        La P,

        Warmist fools are great trend followers, I believe.

        Are you now going to run around shrieking *Doom! Doom! We are going to be roasted, fried, boiled, and toasted! *- just like the bizarre IMF personage, Christine Lagarde. Shes the managing director, so she must be pretty smart.

        Or are trends capable of changing, even unpredictably?

        That might make predicting the future a bit difficult, wouldnt you say?

        Cheers.

        • professorP says:

          Why comment on a correction of fact? – you should take your complaints to salvatore and ren.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            No complaint at all. I find the prospect of 182 C temperature increase in the next 100 years quite exciting! Dont you?

            Cheers.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Your comments are becoming more and more stupid.
          Bark bark bark, says schaeferhund Flynn.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            La P,

            Generally calling someone a dog is considered uncouth in polite society.

            Warmist fools care nothing for convention, or the conventions of civilized discourse.

            For myself, having been a show winning German Shepherd owner (both conformation and obedience to Utility standard), I am flattered.

            However, flattery will get you nowhere. A Warmist fool remains a Warmist fool, useless to society as a whole.

            A well trained German Shepherd dog, on the other hand can be a source of delight to its owner, quite unlike a Warmist fool – who is quite useless, yaps continuously, and befouls everything in sight as it madly runs off in this direction, then that, uncontrollably.

            Warmist fools deny, divert, and confuse, doing everything possible to avoid facing the inconvenient truth that they cannot even properly explain what they are talking about.

            So thanks for the comparison to something useful.
            Unlike comparing me to a a Warmist fool.

            Cheers.

          • La Pangolina says:

            Stop barking your arrogant peeudoscience all the time, Flynn, and I will immediately stop calling you a dog.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            LaP,

            What mad delusion would convince you that I give a fig for what you think , or dont think?

            Call me whatever names you like. Do you imagine I care?

            I might be impressed if you could provide a testable GHE hypothesis.

            I wont hold my breath while Im waiting.

            Woof woof.

            Cheers.

      • La Pangolina says:

        How is it possible to fall for such a comment?

        I thought nobody here would be dumb enough for that, but I manifestly underestimated the barking specialist :-))

        • Mike Flynn says:

          La P,

          Why is it that you seem to believe that anybody particularly cares what you think?

          Have you a higher opinion of your importance than I do? Or anyone else?

          Maybe a fact or two might raise you in the opinion of others, if thats what you desire.

          Carry on.

          Cheers.

  68. La Pangolina says:

    A nice picture of today’s temperature departures from whichever baseline, doesn’t matter much here:

    https://tinyurl.com/y8tfs43w

    The NOAA had predicted during last fall a mild winter in Western Europe and so far it has been!

    Now we will experience temps around -10 C for a little while.

    But here it’s a bit warm for february I guess:

    https://www.wetteronline.de/?daytime=day&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20180223&iid=GL&pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram

    • Mike Flynn says:

      La P,

      I’m not sure what your point is. Is present weather somehow amazing? Is the ability to read a thermometer now considered a rare intellectual feat by Warmist fools?

      Amazing predictive powers exhibited by NOAA! Better than a 12 year old child? I’ll take bets. You’ll lose.

      Every foolish Warmist who has thought about it, has demonstrated an astonishing reluctance to back their nonsense with cash. Give it a try. How hard can it be?

      Cheers.

      • La Pangolina says:

        Bark bark bark bark bark

        What about barking at WUWT, Flynn? But to do that you aren’t courageous enough.

        You perfectly know that Anthony Watts wouldn’t tolerate your stupid pseudoscientific nonsense for longer than one or two days, and would ban you if you happened to continue barking after a few of his well known snip warnings.

        ‘Hombre sin cojones’ my previous husband would have said about people like you.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        La P,

        I hope you are better at predicting the future than the past.

        Maybe Anthony Watts has taken as much notice of you as I do, which is to say none at all. I can’t remember being treated less than courteously, but you may know better than I. What are these snip warnings to which you refer?

        You may say what you like about me, in the language of your choice. Maybe your pointless and ineffective attempts at being gratuitously insulting will create a testable GHE hypothesis, but I doubt it.

        Still no GHE. Just more Warmist fools pretending to be scientists.

        Cheers.