The Weakness of Tropospheric Warming as Confirmed by AIRS

May 1st, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I present comparisons between both the UAH and RSS global lower troposphere (LT) temperature variations and LT computed from the vertical temperature profiles retrieved from the NASA AIRS instrument flying on the Aqua satellite. This follows up on the recent newsworthy announcement by NASA researchers, Recent Global Warming as Confirmed by AIRS published in Environmental Research Letters in which it was claimed the AIRS surface skin temperature retrievals validated the GISTEMP record of surface air temperatures during 2003-2017.

The data I use are the AIRS Version 6 monthly average gridpoint retrievals covering September 2002 through March 2019 (16.6 years, NASA registration required). To compute LT from the AIRS profiles I have taken into account the somewhat different vertical profiles of sensitivity in the UAH and RSS LT weighting functions, as well as the different southern extent of the “global” domains (UAH extends to 82.5 deg. S, while RSS is to 70 deg. S) in the global averages.

First up is the comparison of UAH LT versus LT computed from the AIRS profiles:

Fig. 1. Global (82.5N-82.5S) lower tropospheric temperature variations (deg. C) about the 2003-2018 mean annual cycle for UAH Version 6 LT and Version 6 LT computed from the NASA AIRS temperature profiles over the same region.

Note that El Nino and La Nina variations dominate this short period of record, and much of the warming trend (+0.15 C/decade) is due to this activity. The agreement is very good, with nearly identical trends in UAH and AIRS and an explained variance of 88.9%.

The agreement is rather remarkable given that the AIRS is an infrared instrument with much more serious cloud contamination effects than the UAH LT which is totally microwave-based from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Units (AMSUs) flying on 5 different satellites during this period. The AIRS cloud effects are removed in processing through a “cloud clearing” algorithm when scattered clouds are present, but temperatures in the lower troposphere cannot be measured in extensive cloud regions.

Next let’s look at a similar comparison for the RSS LT product. It also shows very good agreement with AIRS (87.3% explained variance), but with a somewhat greater trend compared to AIRS (by 0.07 C/decade). Again, the record is rather short (16.6 years) and so this trend difference should not be assumed to apply to the whole 40-year satellite record of RSS LT:


Fig. 2. Global (82.5N-70.0S) lower tropospheric temperature variations (deg. C) about the 2003-2018 mean annual cycle for RSS Version 4 LT and Version 4 LT computed from the NASA AIRS temperature profiles over the same region.

Again, the LT layers measured by UAH and RSS are somewhat different. The UAH LT layer is deeper, and so it picks up more of the enhanced warming in the 250-300 mb layer, as seen in the vertical profile of AIRS global temperature trends:

Fig. 3. AIRS global temperature trends (gray) as a function of height, during the period Sept. 2002 through March 2019. The solid point at the bottom is the surface skin temperature, while the open circle is the surface air temperature. Also shown are the different weighting profiles of the UAH and RSS “lower tropospheric” (LT) products which are applied to the AIRS temperature profile to obtain LT estimates from AIRS.

Given the rather high level of agreement between the microwave and infrared measures of global-average tropospheric temperatures, I see no reason why the AIRS data should not be used as a way to do periodic checks on the UAH and RSS LT global temperature variations.

Finally, since J. Susskind and Gavin Schmidt have proclaimed AIRS as confirming the GISTEMP record of substantial surface warming (“Recent Global Warming as Confirmed by AIRS”), I am similarly going to proclaim Fig. 1 as evidence that AIRS also validates the UAH LT record of only modest tropospheric warming.

So there.


249 Responses to “The Weakness of Tropospheric Warming as Confirmed by AIRS”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Curt Covey says:

    Agreed, this is nice work, which I hope to see it published soon in a peer-reviewed journal (perhaps GRL).

    If Gavin says his in-situ data’s strong tropospheric warming is confirmed by AIRs, and you say the satellite data’s weaker tropospheric warming is confirmed by AIRs, what do all three datasets (or four if you include RSS) look like plotted together?

    • Svante says:

      Different?
      Because they measure different things.

    • Craig T says:

      And if the AIRS surface data matches GISTEMP and LT data matches UAH LT data is that evidence that the lower troposphere, at least how measured by UAH and RSS, is warming at a slower rate than surface temperatures?

      I’m also curious about the 250 – 300 mb temperature. It seems to match the ground warming in the AIRS data. Is that the “missing tropospheric hotspot”?

  2. Turbulent Eddie says:

    Roy, thanx for the analysis.

    I’m trying to play along at home, but not making much sense of the NASA file naming and structures.

    AIRS files include things such as:

    Shortname: AIRX3STM

    Longname: AIRS/Aqua L3 Monthly Standard Physical Retrieval (AIRS+AMSU) 1 degree x 1 degree V006

    What Shortname and Longname files did you use?

  3. E. Swanson says:

    Dr. Spencer, Did you apply the same weighting functions to the AIRS data during all seasons and for all latitudes? Have you provided your TMT (MSU 2) and TTP (MSU 3) weighting functions on some web location for all to see? I presume these are usually defined in pressure coordinates, instead of altitude, as your graph in Figure 3 displays.

  4. Olof R says:

    Something must be wrong with the AIRS temperature trends. The very low 850 mbar value seemed suspicious so I compared with ERA5 data (2003-2018) which is 0.23 C/decade and JRA-55 0.21 C/decade. Even the most lowtrending of all reanalyses, MERRA2, had 0.19 C/decade.

    Here’s the temperature trend profile for the “King of Reanalyses” ERA5 (data from KNMI climate explorer):

    http://postmyimage.com/img2/196_ERA52003_20018.png

    • Kristian says:

      Olof R says, May 2, 2019 at 3:59 AM:

      Something must be wrong with the AIRS temperature trends.

      Yes, its surface trend is most likely way too high.

      Compare it to the equivalent product from CERES EBAF Ed4 (gl UWLWIR divided by 5.5):
      https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/airs-t-b.png

      Its tropospheric trends are most likely much closer to the truth.

      • Olof R says:

        I would take CERES data with a large pinch of salt. CERES EBAF is outgoing LW at TOA, not surface temperature.

        It is not a simple task to transform radiation to temperature by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The ^4 relationship is not linear, so its wrong to do it with monthly averages. It has to be done with every single reading to catch the diurnal variation.
        Furthermore, the CERES surface products are not directly measured, rather modelled, and all assumptions have to be right; changes in cloud cover, change in greenhouse effect, variation of surface emissivity in space and time, etc, etc..

        • Mike Flynn says:

          OR,

          Yup. Throw in as many extra etc. etc. as you like. There will always be a few to spare, eh?

          Cheers.

  5. Kristian says:

    And the surface warming faster than the troposphere above it is a clear indicator that the latter is NOT the driver of the warming of the former.

    What drives the warming of the surface is of course … the SUN:
    https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/asr.png

    • Christopher Game says:

      Kristian writes: “And the surface warming faster than the troposphere above it …”

      This is interesting. Will Kristian kindly spell out in detail the content of his words?

      • Christopher Game says:

        I am guessing that Kristian is referring to the above Figure 3. There are two points on the horizontal axis. “The solid point at the bottom is the surface skin temperature, while the open circle is the surface air temperature.” I guess these are interpreted as close to the average temperature trend of the condensed matter (land and sea) of the earth? They are about 0.23 and 0.20 C/decade. The air at altitude 0.1 km has trend 0.32 C/decade. The lower troposphere is warming more slowly. The air at 0.8 km has trend 0.1 C/decade. At 1.5 km the trend is 0.025 C/decade.

        Is that a comparison of trends of surface with lower troposphere? If so, it seems to me that the condensed matter (land and sea) warming trend is faster than the lower troposphere trend.

        Is that a correct interpretation of the graph of Figure 3 ?

        Or does the 0.1 km trend outweigh the the trends at 0.8 km and at 1.5 km ?

    • Craig T says:

      Yes, but that doesn’t say anything about changes in forcings. A cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere/surface fits expectations of increased CO2 returning more of the outward longwave radiation.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        CT,

        “Forcings” are just pseudoscientific climatological gibberish. Likewise, ” . . .increased CO2 returning more of the outward longwave radiation.” is just more delusionary diversion.

        Regardless of the GHE associated gibberish, the hottest places on Earth are the ones with the least GHGs in the atmosphere – the arid tropical deserts. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and the atmosphere cools in the absence of sunlight!

        So much for your pseudoscientific silliness. You seem to be as deluded as people like Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth.

        No wonder nobody can actually describe the GHE in any meaningful way – it is literally too silly a concept to be expressed in words!

        Carry on dreaming.

        Cheers.

        • Craig T says:

          Just because you refuse to understand GHE doesn’t mean no one can explain it.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            If nobody can usefully describe the GHE, then it may be assumed not to exist. Even if you can describe it, it still may not exist – like unicorns or the Celestial Teapot!

            Obviously, there are many pseudoscientific GHE fanatics who believe they can provide “explanations” for something they cannot describe – fools or frauds all. I understand that you cannot describe the GHE in such a way that a testable GHE hypothesis may be proposed, so your comment stamps you as being stupid, ignorant, – and gullible into the bargain.

            Care to try describing the GHE, anyway? If it is a real effect, how hard can it be? The Seebeck effect can be adequately stated in a couple of lines Even Newton’s law of universal gravitation can be usefully described in less than 40 words, without requiring any mathematical symbols!

            Here’s your chance – use 100 words if you really need to. Get back to me when you come up with something worthwhile. Take all the time you want.

            Cheers.

          • Craig T says:

            You’re welcome to claim GHE doesn’t happen. You might even start offering evidence against it. But the theory has been thoroughly explained at laymen’s level as well as academic detail.

          • Entropic man says:

            Craig T

            Ignore Mike Flynn when he’s like this.

            He’s just trolling.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            You wrote –

            “But the theory has been thoroughly explained at laymens level as well as academic detail.”, in relation to the GHE.

            Nope. Not even a GHE description leading to a testable GHE hypothesis. Have a look for yourself, if you don’t believe me.

            Feel free to believe and say whatever you like. You can believe Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate, if you like. If you think the Earth’s surface has not cooled from a molten state, bully for you! You might even believe the increasing the amount of GHGs between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, if you wish.

            Pseudoscientific climate cultists have no trouble believing all sorts of impossible and non-existent things. Have you considered becoming a cultist, yourself? You seem to have the necessary qualities of stupidity, ignorance and extreme gullibility. Good luck.

            Cheers.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Craig T writes: “A cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere/surface fits expectations of increased CO2 returning more of the outward longwave radiation.” This seems to be a reasonable argument. Perhaps it doesn’t give enough weight to “feedbacks” and other “forcings”?

        The next question is as to differences, between warmings of lower and of upper troposphere, and between warmings of the lower troposphere and of the condensed matter (land and sea) surface. How to assess the warming of the condensed matter (land and sea) surface?

        Is the comparison of rates of warming of contiguous layers a valid indicator of causal antecedence? Would this be sharpened by cross-correlation plots? Have cross-correlation plots been displayed? Where?

    • David Appell says:

      Kristian says:
      What drives the warming of the surface is of course … the SUN:

      Except — oops! — solar energy delivery has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s:

      https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png

      • Aaron S says:

        David,

        Of course a simple lag would disregard what you are saying because the solar max existed for 50 years. If you turn on the stove and it takes time to boil water then I ask: Cherry pick much? Look at longer reconstructions from Be Isotopes and C14 isotopes, and it is apparent 20th century warming was coeval to a significant solar max from 1950 to 2000.

        Currently, there is very little doubt CO2 is driving recent warming, but I suspect that the ultimate bust between model predictions and measured data will be to much sensitivity from CO2 and to little sensitivity to solar activity. Both of which could have been driving warming from 1950 to 2000.

        Also, it has to be asked, what location and elevation did that data come from? I am curious how it accounts for cloud variability, which is also caused by solar activity.

        • Nate says:

          “to little sensitivity to solar activity. ‘

          Well, except it seems the obvious way to determine solar sensitivity, the response to the 11 year cycle in the temperature data, is so small, its hard to detect.

          • Aaron S says:

            Nate,

            1. There are many many records of both the 11 yr and 22 yr (or a closely related frequency) forcing climate in paleoclimate and even instrumental records. That is where the solar denial for both TSI and cosmic rays gets alarming. Prior to the shift to model based climate research this was commonly known and accepted.
            2. There are certainly many times when 11yr does not influence climate. A person can imagine a simple experiment where a pot of water is on an oven and a stove temperature is oscilated at too high a frequency for the water to respond because there is a lag. So no 11yr freq does not disprove 90 year periodicity in solar focing

            3. Or if water is oscillating temperature then a resonate frequency could develop with a stove forcing temperature at a suitable harmonic.

          • Nate says:

            Aaron,

            Ive looked at papers on this from instrumental era, and it is hard to detect, ie not large.

            Yes, 11 y will not capture full equilibrium response, but given successful modeling of Pinatubo response, we know that 11 y is long enough to capture a significant fraction of equil response.

          • Aaron S says:

            Nate:

            Are you experienced in spectral analysis? There are dozens and dozens of papers describing solar periodicity forcing regional climate at all sorts of frequencies in precipitation, cloud cover, and even temperature. I think you are perhaps unclear about how Signal to Noise Ratios (SNR) work, and how real signals can be overwhelmed by large systems with abundant noise. I base this statement on your claims above. If globally one system is in phase with solar activity and another system has a 15 month lag, another region is opposite phase and a bunch of systems have loud noise from an internal dynamic like El Nino and PDO, AMO etc., then the “global” composite data would not include a strong signal because the SNR would be low. That does not mean the forcing is not there. So your logic is not valid because very real signals can be lost to noise.

          • Nate says:

            Aaron, when I say the response to 11 y cycle is hard to detect, Im implicitly saying SNR is low, and it has big uncertainty.

            But, in principle, the response to a periodic forcing should be easier to detect, because one can filter out noise at all other periods.

            The response to aperiodic forcing of last 60 y is thus even harder to determine.

    • bdgwx says:

      If changes in solar radiation were driving temperature changes then one would expect the stratosphere to warm in tandem (at least in terms of timing and sign) with the surface. But that’s not what is observed. The troposphere and hydrosphere are warming while the stratosphere cools. In fact, the UAH TLT – TLS trend increased to +0.43C/decade as of the March 2019 update.

      • Norman says:

        bdgwx

        A poster who goes by PhilJ has suggested the theory that Ozone depletion is a possible cause of Global Warming. I am considering this and looking into it.

        This idea would satisfy a cooling stratosphere and warming surface and can even explain the AIRS increased surface warming over tropospheric warming.

        Here is the idea.

        https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/why-warming-stopped.html

        • Craig T says:

          Ozone is another greenhouse gas. I’ve wondered if the ozone hole is part of why Antarctica’s temps went south (so to speak) while the Earth as a whole warmed.

          If ozone depletion caused warming wouldn’t the impact have been greatest at the ozone hole?

          • Norman says:

            Craig T

            I believe it would be similar to the IR GHE. The energy is distributed around by the atmosphere. Wind patterns, convection, it would not be such a huge amount of watts/m^2 that it would produce a significant warming like the hundreds of W/m^2 provided by sunlight during the day. The poles have warmed faster and they have been the areas with the greatest ozone depletion. It is an idea to consider. It would not mean it is the cause but it has a similar signature to what is seen in the data. What is lacking is actual measured valued of UV reaching the surface. One could than have the data to see if this explained the AIRS data. The increased surface temperature.

        • bdgwx says:

          Yep. It’s definitely a sound hypothesis. One caveat that is sometimes overlooked is that since ozone is a polyatomic molecule (O3) it is also active in the IR channels thus making it a GHG as well. And it’s IR effect ends up being more pronounced than the UV effect. But the GHE shuts off rapidly as the GHG layer moves above the tropopause so at the end of the day the net effect of stratospheric ozone depletion ends up being mostly a wash. However, what is also often overlooked is that ozone is increasing in the troposphere where the GHE has no such impediments at surface forcing. The IPCC officially recognizes the combined troposphere and stratosphere ozone effect as about +0.3 W/m^2.

          • Norman says:

            bdgwx

            Thanks for the information. The Ozone effect is noted but less than the CO2 GHE. Hopefully PhilJ will read about this.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Just one paragraph, with blatant pseudoscience like this “And it’s IR effect ends up being more pronounced than the UV effect”, and Norman swallows it without questioning.

            Nothing new.

  6. Aaron S says:

    I just read the ERL paper. What it shows to me is that GIS temp data is extreme for the el nino peak and AIRS about 30% less warming that GIS. What is invalid is when researchers “stop and publish” or go to media during peak El Nino warming and sell that as part of long term global warming. GIS woupd be the worst data to do that with and it was done oftern during the last el nino.

  7. Kevin Hearle says:

    Dr Spencer I suspect therefore if you started the comparison around the 97/98 El Nino we have no warming.
    A graphic to show this would be instructive especially if it compared it with Gavins claim.

  8. Aaron S says:

    Craig T, i get your point that media hype increases during el nino and research is constant and usually with a lag behind submission, but dont forget exceptions like: 1. Karl et al pause buster paper was rushed into publication against standard practice to the point John Bates blew the whistle, 2. The Karl et al paper might be incorrect based on a later paper and exaggerate warming in 21st century. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3274.

    So this last major 2016 el nino had academic bias (rushed for a 2015 political conference) plus the uncontrollable media hype of “hottest year on record” by stackong el nino warmong with long term global warming. So academia bias plays a role also even though obviously karl et al did know the major el nino increase would come like it did when they submitted.

    • bdgwx says:

      It turns out that the Karl 2015 paper wasn’t rushed through publication at all. And all of the review blunders Bates accused Karl of were actually committed under Bates’ authority; not Karl’s. The official investigation wrapped up only a few months ago so this may be news to many people on here.

      https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/MITRE-DoC-NOAA-Assessment-Report.pdf

    • Nate says:

      “Finding 1: After carefully reviewing internal NOAA email correspondence, the MITRE Committee found no evidence that the Karl Study falsified, or intentionally distorted climate
      data. The Karl Study data were subsequently used in multiple peer-reviewed scientific
      publications.

      Finding 7: At the time of publication, the Karl Study data were available to the public and were
      in full compliance with Science and community standards.

      Finding 8: The Science peer review was thorough, not expedited, and exceeded the average
      Science review time.

      Finding 9: After review of the evidence, the MITRE Committee found the Administration did
      not apply pressure on the Karl Study team, or on NOAA, to influence national and international
      deliberations on climate policy.”

      Looks like all the conspiracy theories about this paper were just theories.

    • bdgwx says:

      It is important to note that the investigation was tasked to…

      “Assess the merits to Dr. John Bates’ complaints regarding the data and conclusions made in the Karl Study.”

      …of which they discovered that…

      “The MITRE Committee learned that the internal review, later criticized by Bates, was conducted and approved under his own authority. The MITRE Committee found no evidence that Bates ever mentioned this fact in his blog, email, or anywhere else in his discussion of the matter in public.”

      • AaronS says:

        bdgwx,
        I had not seen that so thanks for sharing. I gave it a quick read before commenting about the contents. I was initially skeptical of a biased panel, but after looking at the names and roles at the given affiliations on the author list there seem to be sufficient external people in fields like signal processing and engineering to avoid bias. As someone who acknowledges my own bias because I felt it shift as my career shifted out of academia, I think there is a bit of bias in the interpretation of this report. The report included mixed conclusions, and it also says there were some errors with the submission process. In the biggest conclusion there was no evidence for data misuse in the emails read, which is good for Karl et al. However, the OMB exemption was applied without stringent agency IQA review, which should have mandated a disclaimer in the paper to indicate that the views expressed represented the opinions of the authors, and that it did not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or the Department of Commerce. So they created a false sense of credibility of an organization and not the views of a friend of President Obama and the political organization of the IPCC. I can see why this would upset Bates, whom never got the opportunity to express his views through internal review. When you represent a credible organization, then you can not push past internal review with one internal reviewer. Science and Nature publish science fiction sometimes (A recent example is the Carbon Capture Air Conditioner as a viable way to reduce CO2). So their credibility is on a slippery slope on some issues with some highly educated people outside academia. Part of the credibility of this paper was derived from the organization that produced it- and it was not internally reviewed.

        • David Appell says:

          Aaron, you think Nature’s credibility is in doubt because they have a science fiction department?

          How so?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ooooh, look! A gotcha!

            What a surprise!

            Cheers.

          • Aaron S says:

            Dave,
            As always a rational comment and fair challenge.
            1.
            Papers like this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09685-x are outside the realm of science. They are not as bad as free energy machines but are reckless to publish as science.

            Crowd oil not crude oil
            Roland Dittmeyer, Michael Klumpp, Paul Kant & Geoffrey Ozin
            Nature Communicationsvolume 10, Article number: 1818 (2019)

            2. At a bigger scale: Science is in near crisis and prone to bias. This is particularly a problem in a hotbed field like climate change with polarized political views, and an academic population almost exclusively one side of the academic spectrum.
            https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970.

            Global warming from CO2 is a rational near consensus, but the models indicating catastrophic outcomes remain inconsistent with satellite empirical data and need disregarded. How many papers build on these models to frame irrational logic that leads to irrational policy and environmental impacts? IMHO, This is a systemic anchoring and confirmation bias and it is only a matter of time until it gains support. Model outputs are not empirical data and are extremely prone to error.

          • Nate says:

            Aaron,

            You said it well “Global warming from CO2 is a rational near consensus” and Nature correctly reflects this, just as it does other established science.

            As far as ‘catostrophic outcomes’ there is no consensus. Nature publishes many papers trying to investigate these possible outcomes, as it should.

            If you claim that it cherry picks only worst outcomes, show us the evidence.

          • Nate says:

            As your surveys show, the reproducibility problems are more serious in medicine, and ‘other’, not surprising when human subjects involved.

          • Aaron S says:

            Nate, do you think climate change as one of the most political reasearch topics is immune from bias? then I have to disagree. This is where the strong left bias in academia has hurt science. Science denial has become a bipartisan issue. And for the record I lean left on values and views. I would argue about half the papers published in Science and Nature that build on climate model outputs are biased and should not be published. The models have almost certainly exaggerated warming from CO2 when evaluated from a statistical perspective relative to UAH or RSS satellite data. Until that is resolved they are not valid.

          • bdgwx says:

            Aaron, I totally hear what you’re saying. Models aren’t perfect and never will be. And a healthy level of skepticism should always be at the forefront when drawing conclusions based on models. But to say they aren’t valid just because they don’t reproduce reality perfectly is an overreach IMHO. Sure, they overestimate mid troposphere tropical warming and underestimate (severely I might add) Arctic sea ice decline, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t valid or useful.

            Speaking of modeling…Willeit, et. al. 2019 successfully modeled the last 3 million years of climate change. I believe this is the furthest back anyone has gone thusfar. Again, it’s not anywhere close to being perfect, but it is useful and demonstrates that progress is still being made.

            https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337

          • Nate says:

            “I would argue about half the papers published in Science and Nature that build on climate model outputs are biased and should not be published.”

            Interesting, what is that opinion based on?

            I think it would be hard, unless one is an expert on the specific topic in a paper and its deep background, to judge what is done correctly and what is not on so many papers.

            That job is generally left up to the competitors and experts, whose role in keeping scientists honest should not be diminished.

            When one publishes a high-profile paper, the work is opened up to criticism from all sides. The desire to not be proven wrong by your peers is one of the strongest motivators.

            Just take the highly politicized ‘hockey stick’. Ultimately, the intense critique from Mann’s dozen or so competitors of the methods was most important, and caused some revisions of the original methods. But the principle findings have held up.

            Does politicization matter?

            We can go back to when climate science was not politicized ~ 1980. The Hansen Science 1981 paper said “detailed analyses are needed before one can predict whether the net long-term impact will be beneficial or detrimental.”

            But the paper predicted remarkably accurately the warming and its spatial pattern that actually occurred over the next 4 decades.

            The 1979 Charney report estimate of climate sensitivity, 1.5 – 4.5 has remained largely unchanged, through this politicized era.

          • Aaron S says:

            Nate:

            My statement is based on the RSS and/or UAH satellite data being outside the valid range for IPCC climate models. I believe P50 output of the assemblage should be kept within 1 SD on a long term average of satellite data (or AIRS) by adjusting sensitivity via inclusion and exclusion of models that match the data. This requires a lowering of climate sensitivity, which has not been done. Thus, many science and nature papers are built on a flawed foundation that would not be accepted in other fields like physics that theory must be connected to empirical observations. So the statement “If models are correct, then the environmental impact would be….” is not currently valid from a statistical perspective. Perfect lead into my next point.

            BDGWX:
            Thanks for sharing: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337

            My concern about this paper is that it relies on CO2 sensitivity not consistent with empirical data. There is a viable alternative view that the tectonic closure of the Isthmus of Panama and the origination of NADW oceanic mega circulation increased Northern Hemisphere precipitation and snow pack. Then ultimately the albedo of Earth decreased and over millions of years we cooled in a negative feedback loop (More cooling, More albedo). (This is from an old 2004 Hauge and Tiddleman (or something like that) and Cerling paper). As Earth cooled CO2 equilibrated in ocean water and lowered temperature even more as a minor feedback- also starving forests and promoting C4 vegetation grassland. This level of CO2 sensitivity is consistent with the passive driver of glacial cycles, whereby forcing is orbital and the feedback is CO2, but not so dominant where during the Eemian when Earth warmed enough for 6m to 8m of sea level rise but CO2 could not take off and send Earth out of the glacial phase. So for me CO2 appears a rather weak climate driver. In essence the model paper is using CO2 theory to drive down global temperature, and the alternative of albedo feedback is also viable. So I accept it as a viable hypothesis, but reject that CO2 has sufficient evidence to drive climate that much.

            What scares me about the young bucks is the political bias of University has removed the unbiased flow of information, and all these old theories are no longer taught. I am passionate for education, but modern University is about as dogmatic as a religion.

          • Nate says:

            Aaron,

            “should be kept within 1 SD on a long term average of satellite data (or AIRS) by adjusting sensitivity via inclusion and exclusion of models that match the data.”

            I don’t know that climate sensitivity is a single adjustable parameter in models. Nor do I think models should be arbitrarily adjusted just to match satellite T-trend data, which has its own imperfections and large systematic errors.

            The models have some guessed and empirically determined parameters that are improved over time, by looking at how well they capture atmospheric history, not JUST lower troposphere temperature trends. Over time they get more realistic by incorporated models of ocean, ice sheets, carbon cycle, clouds, etc.

            The parameters chosen in models need to have valid scientific justification. Unless you understand well these scientific reasons, to assume that they are selected for non-science reasons is not convincing.

            You’ll have to show us some example papers showing ‘liberal biases’ in their choices of parameters.

            “Thus, many science and nature papers are built on a flawed foundation that would not be accepted in other fields like physics that theory must be connected to empirical observations.”

            Everyone in physics (my field) understands that simulations are not perfect, not reality, and not observational data.

            As long as methods and uncertainties are described, and model results are not misrepresented as real data, I don’t see the problem with publishing papers showing model simulations.

  9. Aaron S says:

    Also. It is looking like the hiatus is over. Im now curious if the stair step pattern (i will check what is statistcally the best pattern for correlation with uah) where jumps occur after major el nino has any bigger meaning. Like a short term energy sink in climate energy budget. I prefer a 5yr running average to reduce el nino variability on lower troposphere temperatures. I think that is the view patterns emerge related to global warming rates. Higher frequency analysis can be ENSO noise.

    • Craig T says:

      Temperature data does have bit of a stairstep pattern, and there’s a logic to it. If the Earth has a warm – cool rhythm with no trend it would look like a triangle wave. Add a warming trend and cooling look more flat than downward.

      • David Appell says:

        Craig T says:
        May 3, 2019 at 11:14 PM
        Temperature data does have bit of a stairstep pattern, and theres a logic to it. If the Earth has a warm cool rhythm with no trend it would look like a triangle wave. Add a warming trend and cooling look more flat than downward.

        Meaningless numerology.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Begone, meaningless troll!

        • bdgwx says:

          I don’t know. It’s actually an interesting topic. There are studies that show some people have a cognitive bias that prevents them from seeing trends in noisy data even when the trend may be obvious to you and I. The Skeptical Science blog has a gif that shows how “contrarians” view global warming and how “realists” view global warming. I thought it was derogatory at first until I realized that there really are people out there that truly believe there is no warming because they only see the pause periods in the data due to myopic interpretation of it.

          Anyway, if you plot the function y = sin(x) you’ll see the rhythmic up and down pattern. But, if you add a linear term such that y = x + sin(x) you now see the pause-up-pause-up pattern. The analogy is that the sin(x) term is like natural variation and the x term is like the secular long term warming force. The stairstep pattern Craig is talking about is evident when plotting y = x + sin(x). But, if you remove the x term the stairstep pattern goes away.

          • Aaron S says:

            bdgwx,

            But if Y= sin(x) + x described the data, then a FFT would identify the periodic component. Also, such a function does not match (r2 or correlation coefficient) the satellite data as well as step functions. This seems to be a blog myth but perhaps you can share significant FFT or CWT analysis showing it is in fact periodic? And I am well aware that adding a sin curve with a 4 yr periodicity with an amplitude of about 0.5 C to a line with a slope of 0.1 to 0.2C per decade looks visually similar.

            El Nino is quasi periodic (I have published FFT that discovered what appeared to be a time series sensitive to climate that recoreded periodic El Nino), but modern el nino seem to be aperiodic.

            I spent some time on this problem after Dave Appel previously challenged my statement that a stair step matches function matches the UAH or RSS data better. Basically, I set a function with periodic component and random frequency and stair step functions with random step length and height. Then ran the experiment hundreds of times and documented the highest correlation coefficients. I also have ran FFT on the data many times- it simply is not periodic plus linear.

            Aaron

          • Bart says:

            There is a very definite T = a*t + b*sin(c*t+d) pattern featured in the temperature record. The problem is: that pattern was laid in well before rising CO2 could have been responsible for it, and shows no signs of acceleration after the post WWII rapid acceleration in CO2 emissions.

          • Aaron S says:

            Notice no one shows: 1. the global L trop data to include periodic (sinusoidal) component, or 2. that a Sin plus Line trend is the best fit to the data.

            Relative to the skeptical science blog about the escalator I see one very long step from 97 98 until probably now in 2019. This pattern also corresponds to when solar activity (88yr cycle with max from 1950 to 2000) decreased. So I see this long step as significant for future warming where CO2 and solar activity are now out of phase. Exciting times to learn from a great natural experiment of turning down the sun flux to a trough after the highest max in 2000 years.

            https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

      • Aaron S says:

        Craig.

        I agree there is a clear stair step pattern. If you smooth the data with a 49 month filter to eliminate El Nino noise then you can really see it.

        For all the Line plus Sine crew.
        I did a simple FFT to the up-to-date monthly UAH global L Trop data. I removed the linear trend (global warming) and ran the data. I then calculated the 95th percentile for a significance cut off. I then ranked the most significant periodicities from the data.

        By far the most significant period is the annual cycle, which is interesting to think about itself. The next is significantly less periodic at about 20 yrs and in a short data set probably to short for much meaning (I like to have data number 3x the cycle length), then comes a cluster at 8,9.5,14.4, and 16.5 yrs. I don’t know these, but if you take an average for the cluster it is around the 11 yr sun cycle, but that is highly speculative. So not much periodic component and nothing that explains the step pattern. I can see the ~20 yr cycle being the PDO and contributing to the stair pattern, but its signal is way to weak to make a difference as large as observed in the 29month smoothed time series.

        Months >95th Year
        12 0.6465 1

        238 0.177 19.83333333

        96 0.12615 8

        114 0.1215 9.5

        173 0.06825 14.41666667

        198 0.0561 16.5

    • ren says:

      The break continues. The global temperature of the sea surface is not increasing.
      https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png

    • Richard M says:

      Aaron S, I can see no evidence the hiatus is over. All you have is ENSO produced warming. Even running means are useless in very noisy data that could take decades to even out.

      • Craig T says:

        “Aaron S, I can see no evidence the hiatus is over. All you have is ENSO produced warming. Even running means are useless in very noisy data that could take decades to even out.”

        The hiatus is noise. It starts after an incredible El Nino and ends on two la Ninas.

  10. Eben says:

    Little while ago somebody asked how accurate government experts were about last solar cycle predictions
    I have seen reports about their predictions being exactly opposite to what happened but didn’t know where it was , this just got posted
    This will show in the global temperature – on about a ten year delay time-frame.
    https://bit.ly/2Y6Ho3H

    • ren says:

      Why were there so severe winters in the Northern Hemisphere during Dalton Minimum? The answer is simple – it’s the changes in the circulation and the advantage of the northern jetstream. The wind rules the weather.

      • David Appell says:

        ren says:
        May 4, 2019 at 10:58 AM
        Why were there so severe winters in the Northern Hemisphere during Dalton Minimum?

        Where does it say there were?

        Data? Evidence?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Are you really interested, or just trying for another stupid gotcha?

          Show us your data and evidence if you disagree with ren’s statement. Maybe you could flap it in his face (metaphorically speaking, of course).

          Where’s your data? Where’s your evidence? Where’s your useful description of the GHE?

          Carry on.

          Cheers.

        • Richard Greene says:

          Central England real time temperature measurements.

          Much anecdotal evidence of extreme cold and famines in Europe, roughly in the 1690’s the coldest portion of the Maunder Minimum period.

          Here is one example:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Estonia_%281695%E2%80%9397%29

          Of course all evidence based on past (real) climate change, that disagrees with your bizarre Climate Alarmist scaremongering (about future climate change that has not happened yet) is automatically wrong, and must be ridiculed and attacked.

          You challenge the past climate (reality) to defend the future climate (fantasy) in your mind — if that’s not the definition of a men-tal case, I don’t know what is !

    • Craig T says:

      In 2006, our top government experts issued an unprecedented, breakthrough forecast that the next solar cycle would be 30-50% stronger than the previous one.

      They had it exactly backwards. The current solar cycle is down nearly 50% from the previous one, and is the weakest in over a century.

      It will be interesting to look back in 5 years and see who is more right – National Center for Atmospheric Research or Heller/Goddard.

      Tony/Steve didn’t do as well in 2012 at predictions.

      Joe [Bastardi] has been telling us for several years that we were headed for a huge dive in temperatures. It is here.

      The eight coldest days of the last decade have all occurred in the first seven weeks of 2012. Temperatures are currently 0.4 degrees colder for the date than any other year in the past decade. Temperatures have dropped almost a full degree since 2010.

      I found mentions of Steve Goddard’s announcement that the cooling was here on other Skeptic sites but not his. I had to fish it out of the Internet Archives.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20121016060315/http://www.real-science.com/joe-bastardi-nailed

      • Eben says:

        Somebody asked a question I answered it as nobody nobody else did.
        You attaching your climate derangement tantrum to it is totally redundant. Go sleep it off.

        • Craig T says:

          On what scale? The last 5 years shows a cooling trend. Not surprising since we had a strong El Nino 3 years ago. The trend for the last 10 years is warming. Same for the last 20, 30 and 80 years.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Craig, it’s kind of amazing how the ocean has cooled in the last 5 years with all your GHE nonsense, huh?

            And why are you running from your pseudoscience? You should be proud to explain the “33K”.

            It almost seems as if you’re embarrassed by such nonsense….

          • Mike Flynn says:

            CT,

            Too much cherry picking. Take the long term average – from the time the first liquid water formed. Average temperature 100 C or so, obviously.

            Now, not so high. This is called “cooling ” by scientists.

            If this doesn’t suit you, by all means cherry pick and resort to imaginary estimates, fantasy computer models, and all the rest.

            If that seems too complicated, waste your time looking for a “theory” of the GHE. You could look for Trenberth’s “missing heat” while you’re at it, but if it was in in the ocean, it would have floated to the surface and cooled by now, wouldn’t you think?

            Maybe you ask the fake Nobel Laureate Michael Mann to peer at a piece of wood, and tell you why the GHE couldn’t even stop the oceans forming?

            Back to your fantasy, laddie.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            How many of today’s species were adapted to avg(T)=100 C?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I’m sure I don’t know. Why do you ask? Are you just posing stupid gotchas because you can?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            I already know you’re terrified of questions. But thanks.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Begone, delusional troll!

      • David Appell says:

        “Steve Goddard” (Tony Heller) was wrong and had to retract:

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

      • Richard Greene says:

        Nas-T
        If there is one thing I have learned about climate science in 21 years of reading as a hobby, it is to NOT take climate forecasts seriously.

        The climate scaremongering consists of wild guess, always wrong, predictions of a coming climate change catastrophe … that never comes.

        Past climate change has been mild, intermittent, and beneficial for our planet, for over 300 years.

        So you have a choice:
        Believe in the scary climate fantasies of the future, which started in the late 1950’s and morphed to epic proportions in the 1980s
        .
        or
        .
        Believe in climate reality, and try to enjoy the best climate for humans and animals in hundreds of years — it will most likely end when the current Holocene inter-glacial ends,
        assuming anyone even knows that !
        .
        Hope you enjoyed your hammer and sickle-shaped cookies at the local marxist pot luck dinner!

  11. Crakar24 says:

    The BOM are up to old tricks again Albany (what is it with this town and BOM) recorded a max temp of 10.4 (raw) however the BOM did not like this new cold record and changed it to 25.1 the airport had its temp deleted. This is the quality or lack thereof of data used by the cultists to prop up their beliefs. Junk science nothing more.

    • Entropic man says:

      Crakar24

      http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDW60801/IDW60801.94802.shtml

      This is the current temperatures for Albany.

      A max temp for Albany of 10.4C seems unlikely for ths time of year. Sounds like a measurement or software error.

      • Crakar24 says:

        Ah yes always the believer no matter how corrupt or incompetent the show must go on.

        • Entropic man says:

          Crakar24

          Why do you assume that error correction routines kicking in as designed are a conspiracy?

          • JDHuffman says:

            E-man, there are people stating they can stick their arm in a rotating airplane prop, as they desperately try to cling to the Moon rotating nonsense. Others are willing to continually insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.

            You just wouldn’t believe the extremes some extremists are capable of.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Em,

            Why do you assume that removing a record is an error correction routine kicking in? You have no reason for making such an imputation, have you?

            Just more blinkered faith in pseudoscientific climate cult propaganda.

            Cheers.

          • Crakar24 says:

            EM why do you assume I assume that what a wonderful example of projection. The fact is this increase of 15c has raised the monthly average by 0.9c won’t be long now before the BOM declare hottest month evah…..the BOM database is riddled with errors but you wave this away and continue to believe. Leave it to adults to sort this mess out.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Leave it to adults to sort this mess out.’

            Well, most conspiracy theories turn out to be just that, theories, with no empirical evidence.

            IMO, if they require many independent operators to have the same nefarious agenda, and to keep quiet about it, it is less likely to be true.

          • JDHuffman says:

            The Climategate emails revealed the conspiracy. The “investigation” by insiders proved the conspiracy.

          • Svante says:

            And yet, at the top of this page, both UAH and the surface record are independently verified by AIRS.

          • JDHuffman says:

            And yet the hoax continues, promoted by adherents to a false religion that won’t refrain from using any indecency.

          • Svante says:

            You mean Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D.

          • JDHuffman says:

            No, I mean trolls like you that hide in the shadows, waiting to stab people in the back. You can’t deal with the relevant physics, so you must misrepresent others.

          • Svante says:

            AIRS == UAH.
            AIRS == GISTEMP.
            => UAH == GISTEMP.
            => UAH is in the conspiracy.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Clowns misrepresent facts.

            Svante misrepresents facts.

            Svante is a clown.

          • Craig T says:

            Socrates eats fish.
            Cats eat fish.
            Socrates is a cat.

          • Svante says:

            Well done JD, you spotted my sarcasm.

            Yes, conspiracy theories are for crazy people.
            The kind of people that think NASA faked the moon landings.

            The sensible interpretation is that all three (UAH, GISTEMP and AMSU) are quite reasonable.

    • Craig T says:

      Looks like a serious cold front moved through Western Australia April 19. Rocky Gully reported the April 19 high as 9.2 C so it doesn’t seem that BOM is editing out cold temperatures. Both Albany and Albany Airport had missing data as if they had technical difficulties.

    • Richard Greene says:

      I wrote a summary of the Albany, Australia “lost data” for the record cold April 2019 day at the Albany airport — wonder if the BOM ever “loses” record warm days?

      https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/albany-australia-weather-station-fraud.html

  12. ren says:

    Circulation in the Northeast Pacific is blocked. It will still rain heavily in the Mississippi basin.
    http://oi68.tinypic.com/2dmcd9h.jpg
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.201905.gif

  13. ren says:

    Upper low visible in the Southwest, it will lead to flooding on the Mississippi River.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=us&product=wv-mid

  14. ren says:

    During periods of very low solar activity there will be neither strong El Nino nor strong La Nina. Therefore, the global temperature will change slowly. The meridional jetstream will interfere with the typical ENSO cycle.

  15. ren says:

    Circulation over the Northeast Pacific is still blocked.
    http://oi67.tinypic.com/2lmt577.jpg

  16. Eben says:

    I believe ren is really Frankie MacDonald

  17. David Appell says:

    JDHuffman says:
    May 5, 2019 at 3:09 PM
    Craig, its kind of amazing how the ocean has cooled in the last 5 years with all your GHE nonsense, huh?

    False:

    NOAA ocean heat content time series:

    https://is.gd/hNZwbJ

    • Mike Flynn says:

      DA,

      You really are a gullible chappie, aren’t you? Next thing, you’ll be believing Gavin Schmidt is a famous climate scientist!

      Keep it up.

      Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        NOAA ocean heat content time series:

        https://is.gd/hNZwbJ

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Maybe you could post this another 50 or 100 times? Or you could run round flapping a copy in peoples’ faces?

          You obviously believe it. Is it supposed to have something to do with the impossible notion that CO2 makes thermometers hotter?

          It seems a bit of a stretch, but pseudoscientific climate cultists are a gullible lot.

          Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          NOAA ocean heat content time series:

          https://is.gd/hNZwbJ

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            According to Albert Einstein (maybe you have heard of him) –

            “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

            Keep posting your irrelevant link. Maybe you will get a different result, if you do it often enough. Do you think this is likely?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Can only laugh at your problem with real world data

            NOAA ocean heat content time series:
            https://is.gd/hNZwbJ

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Keep laughing. No adverse side effects to being happy.

            Keep posting your irrelevant link while you laugh. Maybe others will get a laugh as well.

            Cheers,

          • David Appell says:

            I’m not laughing at side effects.

            I’m laughing at you.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Keep it up. As I said, there don’t seem to be any negative side effects to laughter – well, maybe a hernia if you laugh too hard, or serious personal injury if you are laughing uncontrollably and put your arm into wood chipper.

            In general, though, most rational people prefer happiness to misery, so keep laughing. Be happy.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Keep stepping in it. Very helpful.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Begone, pointless troll!

          • David Appell says:

            Here’s real world data, for people who realize its importance:

            NOAA ocean heat content time series:
            https://is.gd/hNZwbJ

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Begone, pointlessly repetitive troll!

          • Carbon500 says:

            Meanwhile, a look at how cold it gets in the real world, away from fraction-of-a-degree shock-horror ‘mankind is destroying the planet with CO2’ fairy stories:
            https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/geography/weather/temperatures/
            As an aside, I recall an interview published in ‘National Geographic’ magazine with a meteorologist who was working within the Arctic circle.
            His view was that the dangerous man-made global warming tale was something made up by people who should get out of the office more.

          • Svante says:

            That’s right, enhanced GHGs can lower the surface temperature in Antarctica.

  18. David Appell says:

    Craig T says:
    May 3, 2019 at 11:14 PM
    Temperature data does have bit of a stairstep pattern, and theres a logic to it. If the Earth has a warm cool rhythm with no trend it would look like a triangle wave. Add a warming trend and cooling look more flat than downward.

    Meaningless numerology.

  19. ren says:

    North jetstream generates heavy thunderstorms in the southern US.
    http://oi67.tinypic.com/1zlpurt.jpg

    • ren says:

      When will the corn can be planted in South Dakota?

    • ren says:

      Rainfall totals of 3 to 6 inches fell across southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana during Thursday night.

      Several roads are closed in and around Houston and may continue to be closed into the weekend. Rivers and streams are already near or over their banks.

      Earlier on this day, torrential rain inundated the Greenville, Mississippi, area, which caused significant flooding of businesses and prompted water rescues.

      During Thursday midday, a flash flood emergency was declared in Jackson, Mississippi, where up to 3 inches of rain fell in only a few hours.

  20. ren says:

    The temperature in the tropical Eastern Pacific is still falling.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC002/IDYOC002.201905.gif

  21. Ric Werme says:

    Roy said “I am similarly going to proclaim Fig. 1…”.

    Augh! “See Fig. 1” is a classic reference in the software support annals of Digital Equipment Corp!

    https://www.dourish.com/goodies/see-figure-1.html

    I don’t know if this blog software will mess up this ASCII art too badly. FaceBook will, so don’t repost there!

    —————————
    ! – !
    ! { } !
    ! | | !
    ! | | !
    ! .-.! !.-. !
    ! .-! ! ! !.-. !
    ! ! ! ! ; !
    ! \ ; !
    ! \ ; !
    ! ! : !
    ! ! | !
    ! | | !
    ! !
    —————————
    Figure 1.

  22. Mike Flynn says:

    Svante wrote (irrelevantly) –

    “That’s right, enhanced GHGs can lower the surface temperature in Antarctica.”

    Svante is quite obviously a deluded pseudoscientific climate cultist. He cannot describe the enhanced GHGs he refers to. He cannot even describe the GHE which supposedly refers to his non-describable GHGs.

    What a fool! Reduced to making stupid declarative statements, based on no more than the contents of his cultist fantasy. This type of dimwit would have no problem of also declaring that enhanced GHGs could also raise the surface temperature in Antarctica.

    Powerful stuff, this climatological magic! A flick of the magic wand – temperatures fall. Another flick – temperatures rise!

    The climate clowns continue their merry capering. Nothing changes.

    Cheers.

    • Svante says:

      I thought everyone knew that Mike.

      “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica”:
      https://tinyurl.com/y76vswpx

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Begone, troll.

      • bdgwx says:

        That’s really interesting. I was not aware of this. After reading the paper it totally makes sense why this is though.

        The important thing to remember is that GHGs impede the transport of infrared radiation regardless of which direction it is coming from. It blocks DWIR just as effectively as UWIR. The reason why GHGs lead to surface warming on a global basis is because the DWIR from the stratosphere is significantly less than the UWIR from the surface so more UWIR gets blocked than for DWIR. This is all true except for central Antarctica where the surface is so cold that the stratosphere is often warmer. This means the DWIR is stronger than the UWIR in this isolated region. Therefore the tendency of increasing GHGs is to block more radiation that would act to heat the surface then what the surface is losing.

        • Svante says:

          Yes, the GHE requires a positive lapse rate.

          The skeptic argument that CO2 improves cooling to space is actually correct here.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          b,

          Except at night, obviously, when temperatures drop. Or inside, or when it’s cloudy, rainy, snowing.

          Amazing thing, this GHE. Only seems to make thermometers hotter when the sun is shining brightly enough to make thermometers hotter.

          Do you think that there might be some connection between heat and temperatures?

          I do, but I seem to be in a minority.

          Cheers.

  23. OldManRanting says:

    “Arctic sea ice extent for April 2019 averaged 5.19 million square miles. This was 479,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average extent and 89,000 square miles below the previous record low set in April 2016,”
    AND
    “Almost all of the sea ice older than four years in the Arctic Ocean is gone, according to new data in April from the National Snow & Ice Data Center. The old ice used to make up about 30 percent of the Arctics ice cover.”

    https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-05-08-old-arctic-sea-ice-nearly-gone-vanished-climate-change

    And obviously faked data since we all know here that there has been zero warming.
    And even if it has declined, we all know it is due to solar activity not GHG.
    And, less sea ice is a good thing – no? (less polar bears for a start).
    And, even if it was a bad thing, and due to GHG, it is probably too costly to cut emissions.
    And even if it was cost-effective in the long run, why should I have to make the effort?
    Who really cares about the grand-children? They are already self-centred, brain-washed, vegan greenies! They have had it easy! I have worked hard all my life so they can clean up the mess for once.
    And don’t blame me, blame Gavin Schmidt !
    Nurse!

    • Svante says:

      Yes, CO2 is a tiny fraction so it must have a tiny effect according to the ideal gas law.

      2LOT says the level of coldness around you can not influence your temperature.

      Climate has always changed and the earth was once molten so that proves it.

      Plus, poor people prefer coal power and the Vikings thrived on Greenland.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        S,

        Do you have a point, or are you just being pointless for the sake of it?

        You can always retreat into your fantasy if reality is too intense for you.

        Cheers.

        • Svante says:

          The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state, or even from preventing Antarctica from being buried under kilometres of ice.

          Are you wilfully obtuse, or just stupid, ignorant and gullible? Carry on.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Thanks for the support.

            You can answer your own gotchas, by observing your lips moving in a mirror. I assume you are just mindlessly trolling, but feel free to provide some facts to support any disagreement with anything I wrote.

            If you are, indeed, mindlessly trolling,

            Begone, midnless troll!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Must stop laughing – typos abound. Sorry. Only joking, I’m not sorry at all.

          • Svante says:

            Are you actually able to disagree with something I wrote? No?

            Can you actually bring yourself to directly quote me? No?

            What a pity! What a fool! With a great deal of effort, you may yet aspire to becoming even more wilfully obtuse than you appear to be at present!

            Onwards and upwards, eh?

            Cheerio.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so it is said. Thank you for your interest and support.

            It still won’t do you any good. You will still be as delusional as ever. Why should I quote you? That would be giving aid and comfort to the mentally afflicted.

            If you ever manage to locate a useful GHE description, or if Gavin Schmidt becomes a famous scientist of any stripe, do let me know.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Any more stupid and ignorant gotchas? Im here to help. You dont need to thank me.

            Cheerio.

    • Svante says:

      You actually have two genuine climate scientist in there, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen (correct me if I’m wrong).

      • Mike Flynn says:

        S,

        Consider yourself corrected. You are wrong.

        Appealing to the authority of self styled “climate scientists” is not very helpful. Climate is the average of weather records over an arbitrary period. No science there at all!

        Pseudoscience, sure. Any nutter can claim to be a”climate scientist” and many do.

        If you could actually usefully describe the GHE, and include the action of the GHE in cooling the Earth over four and a half billion years, it might help whatever cause you are pursuing. Of course you can’t, so it won’t.

        Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            s,

            I can’t be bothered with anonymous links. It’s likely to be one of your stupid appeals to the authority of self appointed experts. Let me know if there is anything of interest to me.

            If you have a useful description of the GHE (I doubt it), just paste it, if you wish.

            Stupid videos are stupid videos. I’ve seen enough of them. If your link has anything useful, why not just post it in writing?

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            The GHE was in formula (2), how could you miss it?
            https://tinyurl.com/y76vswpx

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Don’t be stupid! The GHE was in formula (2), you say? Without even describing the GHE, you decide it resides in a formula, which you are too lazy or incompetent to provide. How clever!

            I suppose you have some reason for keeping your nonsense secret. I’m guessing you are trying to avoid looking like a foolish troll.

            I miss very little. I ignore nonsense from obvious foolish trolls. If you wish to appear stupid and ignorant, you have my permission.

            Cheers.

  24. ren says:

    As the Mississippi River continues to rise, officials opened the Bonnet Carré Spillway on Friday. Never before has the spillway been opened twice in the same year.

  25. Conspiracy Guy says:

    Look at the fool Svante trying to poke fun at those who have learned to think for themselves. No doubt still a round Earther.

    Thanks, Mike, for your tireless defense of the truth!

  26. JamesO says:

    I had realized that UAH and RSS had somewhat different algorithms as the results start from the same satellite data, yet differed.
    I had suspected part of that might be that the weightings differed.
    Figure 3 appears to confirm that. UAH is a bit higher in altitude and RSS is a bit lower in altitude. This directionally hints at explaining much of the “difference” that gives everyone such emotional heartburn problems.
    So – Dr Spencer, any rule of thumb thoughts about how much the different weighting approaches account for all of the “difference” everyone goes round and round about?

  27. ren says:

    May 18, another wave of downpours over the Mississippi basin.
    http://oi64.tinypic.com/15mxyx0.jpg

  28. J. Seifert says:

    The graphics are very good: The horizontal PLATEAU (zero-line) is set to the 2003/04 date and the zero-level will again be met or reached at the end of 2019.
    Lord Monckton was wrong with his plateau since 1998, this was then interrupted by the 2016 el Nino and terminated….
    But we can see now in 2019, that the plateau level is Zero in 2003/4 and the Ninas/Ninos must be compensated within the plateau level.
    The physics-dynamics Plateau-calculations in (for German readers in : J. Seifert “Das Ende der globalen Erwärmung” (2010), and empirically in PART 8 of Climate Pattern Recognition in
    http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html

  29. Wait and see time ,not time to talk all arguments pro and con have been made.

  30. Jose Lemieux says:

    Hi there would you mind letting me know
    which hosting company you?re using? I?ve loaded your
    blog in 3 completely different web browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most.

    Can you suggest a good hosting provider at a
    reasonable price? Cheers, I appreciate it! https://www.josee-lemieux.com

Leave a Reply