New 80-Year Deep-Ocean Temperature Dataset Compared to a 1D Climate Model

January 15th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The increasing global ocean heat content (OHC) is often pointed to as the most quantitative way to monitor long-term changes in the global energy balance, which is believed to have been altered by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge is that long-term temperature changes in the ocean below the top hundred meters or so become exceedingly small and difficult to measure. The newer network of Argo floats since the early 2000s has improved global coverage dramatically.

A new Cheng et al. (2020) paper describing record warm ocean temperatures in 2019 has been discussed by Willis Eschenbach who correctly reminds us that such “record setting” changes in the 0-2000 m ocean heat content (reported in Zettajoules, which is 10^^21 Joules) amount to exceedingly small temperature changes. I calculate from their data that 2019 was only 0.004 0.009 deg. C warmer than 2018.

Over the years I have frequently pointed out that the global energy imbalance (less than 1 W/m2) corresponding to such small rates of warming is much smaller than the accuracy with which we know the natural energy flows (1 part in 300 or so), which means Mother Nature could be responsible for the warming and we wouldn’t even know it.

The Cheng (2017) dataset of 0-2000m ocean heat content changes extends the OHC record back to 1940 (with little global coverage) and now up through 2019. The methodology of that dataset uses optimum interpolation techniques to intelligently extend the geographic coverage of limited data. I’m not going to critique that methodology here, and I agree with those who argue creating data where it does not exist is not the same as having real data. Instead I want to answer the question:

If we take the 1940-2019 global OHC data (as well as observed sea surface temperature data) at face value, and assume all of the warming trend was human-caused, what does it imply regarding equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)?

Let’s assume ALL of the warming of the deep oceans since 1940 has been human-caused, and that the Cheng dataset accurately captures that. Furthermore, let’s assume that the HadSST sea surface temperature dataset covering the same period of time is also accurate, and that the RCP radiative forcing scenario used by the CMIP5 climate models also represents reality.

I updated my 1D model of ocean temperature with the Cheng data so that I could match its warming trend over the 80-year period 1940-2019. That model also includes El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) variability to capture year-to-year temperature changes. The resulting fit I get with an assumed equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.85 deg. C is shown in the following figure.

Fig. 1. Deep-ocean temperature variations 1940-2019 explained with a 2-layer energy budget model forced with RCP6 radiative forcing scenario and a model climate sensitivity of 1.85 deg. C. The model also matches the 1940-2019 and 1979-2019 observed sea surface temperature trends to about 0.01 C/decade. If ENSO effects are not included in the model, the ECS is reduced to 1.7 deg. C.

Thus, based upon basic energy budget considerations in a 2-layer ocean model, we can explain the IPCC-sanctioned global temperature datasets with a climate sensitivity of only 1.85 deg. C. And even that assumes that ALL of the warming is due to humans which, as I mentioned before, is not known since the global energy imbalance involved is much smaller than the accuracy with which we know natural energy flows.

If I turn off the ENSO forcing I have in the model, then after readjusting the model free parameters to once again match the observed temperature trends, I get about 1.7 deg. C climate ECS. In that case, there are only 3 model adjustable parameters (ECS, the ocean top layer thickness [18 m], and the assumed rate or energy exchange between the top layer and the rest of the 0-2000m layer, [2.1 W/m2 per deg C difference in layer temperatures away from energy equilibrium]). Otherwise, there are 7 model adjustable parameters in the model with ENSO effects turned on.

For those who claim my model is akin to John von Neumann’s famous claim that with 5 variables he can fit an elephant and make its trunk wiggle, I should point out that none of the model’s adjustable parameters (mostly scaling factors) vary in time. They apply equally to each monthly time step from 1765 through 2019. The long-term behavior of the model in terms of trends is mainly governed by (1) the assumed radiative forcing history (RCP6), (2) the assumed rate of heat storage (or extraction) in the deep ocean as the surface warms (or cools), and (3) the assumed climate sensitivity, all within an energy budget model with physical units.

My conclusion is that the observed trends in both surface and deep-layer temperature in the global oceans correspond to low climate sensitivity, only about 50% of what IPCC climate models produce. This is the same conclusion as Lewis & Curry made using similar energy budget considerations, but applied to two different averaging periods about 100 years apart rather than (as I have done) in a time-dependent forcing-feedback model.

228 Responses to “New 80-Year Deep-Ocean Temperature Dataset Compared to a 1D Climate Model”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Svante says:

    So that’s within the IPCC likely ECS range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C.

    • AZ1971 says:

      Yes, but on the far lower end of the IPCC range.

      It certainly isn’t even remotely close to the presumed 2,5-3,0 C they hang their hats on.

  2. Brad Patton says:

    I am sorry but it all reminds me of cold fusion. We are dealing with such tiny temperature changes and such a fantastically large area.
    Forgive me here but normally the top of ocean warms in summer and we all go swimming it cools in winter by a hell of a lot more than .004 C. I find his results meaningless because it is so tiny and there are a zillion variables at play. But NASA is now D&I (meaning they hire 2nd and 3rd tier candidates) so it must be right. No?

  3. argus says:

    So the deniers just need to get out of here with their denyin’, and the alarmers can quit scolding their parents and focus on gradumating high school with gud grades.

  4. Nate says:

    ‘a climate sensitivity of only 1.85 deg. C.’

    Interesting. Have you tried to put an error range on this number yet?

    It seems that since you are fitting the deep ocean warming that your ECS could very sensitive to your ocean model, 2 layer vs something more complicated like Hansen 1981, where he assumed heat diffuses from the surface down the thermocline with a diffusion constant k.

    • We have used a 20-layer model in the past with heat diffusion. The results are basically the same. What is important is that as the surface warms, heat is pumped (mixed) from the surface layer downward at a rate that provides agreement between the model and the observations for the surface layer and the deep layer. No matter what the physical mechanisms are that accomplish that, there is still an average rate at which it occurs which can be parameterized with a single scaling coefficient time the temperature difference between the top layer and the deep ocean.

  5. bdgwx says:

    Cheng shows a +20e18 kj change from 2018 using the annual means. I estimate (roughly) the top 2000m of the ocean to have a mass of 0.7e21 kg. And ocean water has a specific heat capacity of about 4kj/kg.C. That yields a dT of 0.0071C. Note that I get 0.0035C when using the total mass of the ocean 1.4e21 kg. Obviously if a better estimate of the mass of the top 2000m is different than my rough estimate then it will change my 0.0071C result.

    • yup, I corrected it, I used the wrong data as input to that… I get +0.0089 C for 2019-minus-2018.

      I used a global ocean area of 361 million sq. km (v3 of the Cheng dataset includes the Arctic Ocean); 3850 J/kg C for specific heat of seawater; and 1025 kg/m3 for density of seawater.

      I’ve sent Cheng an email asking what values of these we should use for conversion back to temperature (or, better yet, if he has a v3 temperature dataset). I find it annoying that the OHC dataset providers do not provide the conversion factors they used to get to OHC.

  6. Pathway says:

    I’m just sure we accurately knew what the temperature of the ocean was 80 years ago.

  7. Nate says:

    “Over the years I have frequently pointed out that the global energy imbalance (less than 1 W/m2) corresponding to such small rates of warming is much smaller than the accuracy with which we know the natural energy flows (1 part in 300 or so), which means Mother Nature could be responsible for the warming and we wouldn’t even know it.”

    Well, not really. The total input of 240W/m2 is irrelevant.

    The only important energy flows are imbalances that PERSIST for years or decades.

    We are measuring that persistent imbalance, 0.6 W/m2, extremely well via the trend in ocean heat content over the last 20 y. That trend is very well resolved.

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Yes, the change in OHC is a measure of the long-term average imbalance. My point is that we do not know the *causes* of the imbalance because we do no know the natural energy flow components of the imbalance to that level of accuracy, either from first principles or from observations.

    • Nate says:

      “we do no know the natural energy flow components of the imbalance to that level of accuracy”

      Ok. Still your fit in figure 1, especially to the overall shape is impressive, and same with your fit to SST.

      All without invoking any long-lived natural energy flows other than ENSO..

      Surprising that AMO and PDO dont seem to be needed. Maybe they are just moving the OHC around without much net change?

    • bdgwx says:

      Even ENSO only moves the OHC around the hydrosphere and between the atmosphere and possibly cryosphere. I know of no mechanism by which it can actually materialize a positive global energy imbalance except by possibly a cloud albedo feedback. But then you’d expect cloud forcing to have negative and positive phases as well. Yet that +0.6 W/m^2 OHC imbalance is so persistent. Nevermind that we have little evidence that the cloud forcing is that high. Double nevermind that you would then have to explain where that GHG forcing went if not into the geosphere. There are similar arguments for the AMO and PDO as well…

    • Nate says:

      True. Maybe why we dont see much of ENSO in his OHC fit, fig 1. But we do seem to need it to fit SST, previous posts.

  8. gallopingcamel says:

    Here is what the IPCC said about “Sensitivity” in AR5:

    “Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence)….”

    One hundred and eighteen years after the Arrhenius theory was published the sensitivity constant was known to a precision of +/- 50%! That is SINO (Science In Name Only).

    The fraudsters should admit that the correlation between [CO2] and temperature from 1850 to 1998 is merely a coincidence.

    There is a causal relationship between [CO2] and temperature over the last seven glacial cycles that is evident from the EPICA and Vostok ice cores. However, temperature is driving [CO2] given that CO2 lags by many hundreds of years.

    • Nate says:

      Yes GC, but you know well that is a red herring. The Earth can walk and chew gum at the same time.

      CO2 of course responds to temperature when something else, in this case solar insolation, is forcing the temperature.

      That says zilch about the inverse process of co2 forcing temperature. Though there is evidence of that in the record also.

    • bdgwx says:

      Yes. The fact that CO2 is in a feedback relationship with the temperature in addition its forcing relationship has been known for quite some time. What this means is that CO2 can both lead and lag the temperature change depending on the agent that catalyzed the initial temperature change.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        I think you mean the feedback/forcing relationships have been hypothesized for quite some time. No one has any actually data to verify that CO2 causes anything more than noise.

      • Nate says:

        Chic, this study by the good doctor is more evidence, another piece added to the pile that you’ve been shown. Such evidence accumulates and taken as a whole makes a solid case, even to scientist skeptics like Roy. But you’ve shown no desire to look at evidence objectively.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          You need to re-read the post. This is a “what if” scenario. There is no data or evidence indicating that CO2 had anything to do with ocean temperature increase. Your correlation-is-causation mentality and closed mind has you stuck on brainwashed.

          • Loydo says:

            And you Chic need to read a little more widely. I suggest a good starting point is Grant Fosters most recent post here where he calls out Roy’s “40% of Warming caused by earlier Volcanic cooling” and shows that his “we do no know the natural energy flow components” is pretty dubious.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:


            Does Grant Fosters take Dr. Spencer’s comment out of context like you did?

            “we do no[t] know the natural energy flow components of the imbalance to that level of accuracy, either from first principles or from observations.”

            Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

        • Nate says:

          Chic, “Your correlation-is-causation mentality”

          Wrong. This is: let’s take a theory and try to fit the observations with it.

          I explained this is ONE piece of many pieces of evidence. A test of the hypothesis that no mysterious new forcings need to be invented to account for the historical temperature and OHC records that we have.

          It shows that the physics-derived GHE forcing, plus known natural forcings are sufficient, and even matches pauses in 40-70, and 2000s, and rapid rise in OHC beginning in 80s.

          “and closed mind has you stuck on brainwashed.”

          Obviously projecting your own issues onto others, including Roy.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “This is: let’s take a theory and try to fit the observations with it.”

            That is a pretty good definition of an attempt to show causation by correlation in the vernacular of a lay person. You can manipulate a model to fit data until the cows come home and it won’t make a lick of difference. You need to show the model works on future generations. You are practicing faith-based science.

            From Roy’s post:

            “Let’s assume ALL of the warming of the deep oceans since 1940 has been human-caused, and that the Cheng dataset accurately captures that. Furthermore, let’s assume that the HadSST sea surface temperature dataset covering the same period of time is also accurate, and that the RCP radiative forcing scenario used by the CMIP5 climate models also represents reality.”

            That sounds exactly like what I meant by a “what if” scenario. I’m not projecting anything. You haven’t provided any hard data showing that an increase in CO2 will cause an further affect on global temperature.

          • Nate says:

            ‘This is: let’s take a theory and try to fit the observations with it.’

            “That is a pretty good definition of an attempt to show causation by correlation in the vernacular of a lay person. You can manipulate a model to fit data until the cows come home and it won’t make a lick of difference. You need to show the model works on future generations. You are practicing faith-based science.”

            Well then most of science would not be convincing to you.

            As far as predictions of future trends, we have that also, eg Hansen 1981 did that very well. But that didnt work for you either.

            When Roy says ‘lets assume’ that data is accurate, thats called testing a hypothesis, which is again standard science.

            No his analysis is not definitive, but another useful piece of evidence.

            If you could offer him an alternative natural forcing that could replace the GHE, what would it be? And can you show that it could equally well explain the data?


          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says: “If you could offer him an alternative natural forcing that could replace the GHE, what would it be? And can you show that it could equally well explain the data?”

            That unfortunately has been at the heart of arguments for the effects of CO2 and even more unfortunate that isn’t even a logical argument much less a scientific argument. It is well known as the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam. Yet despite that well known fact it doesn’t hardly stop anybody.

          • Svante says:

            “Process of elimination is a logical method to identify an entity of interest among several ones by excluding all other entities.”


  9. Perfecto says:

    Climate Science – where papers about data fabrication are the cutting edge.

  10. spike5 says:

    OHC was basically model based before ARGO, and still mostly is.

    Models made to comply to the meme.

    Very few measurement anywhere in the Southern oceans before ARGO

    The whole exercise is basically meaningless.

  11. frankclimate says:

    Roy, your calculated ECS ( with adjusting for ENSO) is fairly well corresponding to the found best estimate in LC18 and also my recent blogpost looking at the latest foundings of the Earth energy imbalance during the last 20 years is in this ballpark. IMO we get multiple lines of evidence…

  12. Ftop_t says:


    An unbiased look at the measuring process compared to the derived result for change in temperature clearly shows the perceived change is a fraction of the margin of error.

    Imagine someone professing that the average temperature of their oven for the month is 44C where as last month it was 39.996C and then claiming it was because they had guests over exhaling more this month vs how often they cooked.

    Wind speed, cloud cover, changes in ocean currents have orders of magnitude greater unaccounted for impact than the calculated change.

    • Nate says:

      ‘for change in temperature clearly shows the perceived change is a fraction of the margin of error.’

      Except no one is claiming they can account for the one year change in temperature with AGW alone. That is a strawman.

  13. Stephen P Anderson says:

    Simon Aegerter and Hermann Harde have now commented over at

  14. Ovi says:

    What is the solid blue line? Is it an average of the temperature data or is it the model? This post is over my head and I need clarification.

  15. gallopingcamel says:


    You say that CO2 is forcing temperature and you are probably right.

    However if the effect was as powerful as the IPCC suggests (1.5 to 4.5 K per doubling of [CO2]) the CMIP models would be working.

    Clearly the IPCC’s models don’t work and my contention is that the effect of CO2 is at least an order of magnitude less than the IPCC claims.

    While consensus is irrelevant in science I do get a warm feeling when prominent scientists appear to agree with what I have been saying for many years:

    • bdgwx says:

      CMIP models work pretty well.

      Can you present a model that provides a better match to observations from 1880 through 2019?

      • gallopingcamel says:

        From 1880 to 1998 there is a plausible correlation between average global temperature and the Keeling curve if you ignore the decline from 1933 to 1975.

        After 1998 you are into the “Pause” and it is a “Travesty” that models based on CO2 can’t explain that.

        The CO2 theory is completely demolished by the Greenland and Antarctic ice core studies.

        As to models that do work I am making progress and hope to have something published soon. My model shows a [CO2] sensitivity about 50 times lower than what the IPCC claims. Wish me luck with the peer review process!

        • bdgwx says:

          I’m more interested in the correlation between the net effect of all forcing agents and the global temperature than in any one agent alone.

          I don’t see the travesty during the ‘pause’ that you speak of. There is certainly some divergence relative to CMIP5 that has since been made up. CMIP6 did much better. Neither has experienced an excursion outside the 2-sigma envelop for the last 90 years.

          Ice cores are consistent with the hypothesis that CO2 is a player in the overall climate system. I’m not sure what you think is being demolished here.

          Great. I’m looking forward to seeing your model. Make sure you back test it against the paleoclimate record as well. We need it to be consistent with the PETM, other ETMx periods, magnitude of glacial cycles, transition from 40k to 100k cycles, faint young sun problem, etc. We also need it to be consistent with other contemporary observations like OHC, cryosphere changes, cooling of the stratosphere, etc.

    • Nate says:

      “Clearly the IPCCs models dont work and my contention is that the effect of CO2 is at least an order of magnitude less than the IPCC claims.”

      How can it be an order of magnitude when direct comparisons show the average run is low by AT MOST a factor of 2?

      How can it be an order of magnitude when skeptic analyses find a sensitivity within the IPCC range, like Roy’s 1.85C?

      • wert says:

        The Liberal truth: the range is from 1.5 to 4.5, or worse, and people who endorse anything under 2K, are de nialists when those who speak for 10 degrees at Arctic, are considered some good people.

        So yes, the IPCC is the truth but also it is too conservative and we have only 10 years, even if the AR didn’t say so.

        Did this clarify the difference between oil shills and real scientists (such as Mann, Hansen, Oreskes)?

        /may contain a source of sarcasm

        OoM == factor of ten, usually, sometimes factor of two.

    • bobdroege says:

      I wouldn’t put much stock in that guy, he thinks the Sahara Desert is in Europe.

  16. Scott R says:

    This paper I read made me say wow today. I guess I’m not the only person to see the 60 year cycle in the AMO. I was very surprised to read about how the reconstructed TSI was manipulated. That definitely gives one pause considering it was just adjusted again on the SORCE website. You guys may have heard me complain about that. I’m not fully on board with everything here in this paper, some of the timings were off. I don’t think the author realized that there is also an 84 year component within the AMO and southern ocean.

  17. Ryddegutt says:

    The large worldwide ocean current circulation can have cycle times in the order of 1000 years. Maybe we see a 1000 years old MWP signature in the ocean today.

  18. bdgwx says:

    IPCC AR5 shows +2.30 W/m^2 and maybe +0.1 W/m^2 of anthrop and natural warming respectively through 2011. CO2 to present adds 5.35*ln(411/391) = +0.27 W/m^2. That brings us up to +2.7 W/m^2. The EEI is +0.7 W/m^2. That means about 2.0 W/m^2 has equilibriated. BEST shows 1.0C of warming. This results in a climate sensitivity of 1.0 / 2.0 = 0.50C per W/m^2. We have 5.35*ln(560/411) = 1.6 W/m^2 + 0.7 W/m^2 = 2.3 W/m^2 of unmaterialized and EEI forcing still needing to equilibriate. And 0.50 * 2.3 = 1.15C of future warming. So 1.00C of transient warming + 1.15C of future warming we have 1.00 + 1.15 = +2.15C. That’s my back-of-the-envelop calculation. A bit higher than 1.85C, but still below ~3.0C of warming estimated by the IPCC for 2xCO2. And yes, I’m aware that this is dependent on several assumptions and subject to errors as a result of glossed over details that are all open for debate. The point is that different observation based methods do indeed yield lower amounts of warming than what the IPCC is estimating. But…one important question is will the sensitivity (in C per W/m^2) remain low or increase as is expected?

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Estimates of climate sensitivity have been declining for decades. . Analysis using Hitran data show CS to be not significantly different from zero.

      • Loydo says:

        “Estimates of climate sensitivity have been declining for decades.”

        No they haven’t Dan. You’ve been tricked. This is what that graph looks like when it hasn’t been doctored by removing the recent high results. Its bogus and Scafetti is a Heartland conman. The complete compilation shows it has been steady for decades.

        Your second link it is equally disinforming…try this one.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Loy, A graph without source references is worthless. But never mind, it is wrong anyway. CS is not significantly different from zero.

          Your second link, perhaps intended for children, provides a misleading concept of the GHE, partly because it apparently does not understand that most of the absorbed energy is radiated by water vapor molecules not CO2 molecules.

          Your comment on my second link is also worthless. The analysis at the link might be different from anything that you have encountered before. Do you know what Hitran does? I have yet to see where anyone correctly accounted for water vapor.

          A key result is demonstrating that water vapor has been increasing faster than POSSIBLE from feedback. I suggest you actually study the analysis and try to understand it. I welcome specific comments.

        • Nate says:

          Dan, you show a graph, and some claims of what it shows. Have you shared the details about it with the scientific community via a peer-reviewed publication?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            I show many graphs and analyses and it is all available on-line to the public. I welcome rational challenge.

            The peer reviewers of the top journals are alarmists and reject papers outright which disagree with their perceptions. Thus the plethora of papers agreeing with their perceptions and paucity of papers that do not. The lessor journals are not so much afflicted and might be more receptive. There is a growing number of peer reviewed papers e.g. listed at which support the skeptic position.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The peer reviewers of the top journals are alarmists and reject papers outright which disagree with their perceptions. ‘

            There are a variety of papers published that disagree with IPCC conclusions, that analyze available data and come to different conclusions for example about climate sensitivity.

            Peer review is imperfect, but it is an important filter of junk papers which make unsubstantiated claims, misrepresent or neglect to mention previous findings, fail to understand established facts or physics, or which leave out unfavorable data.

            People who are most likely to have the expertise in the field to judge whether your paper is ‘junk’ or not, are unlikely to seek it out on your blog.

          • Nate says:

            So for example, your paper makes this claim

            “Humanitys contribution to planet warming is from increased atmospheric water vapor resulting nearly all from increased irrigation. The increased CO2 has negligible effect on warming. ”

            Given that your paper focuses on water vapor, but does not actually demonstrate that CO2’s effect and its feedbacks are negligible, this is a good example of what I would call an unsubstantiated claim, and would likely lead to rejection in peer review.

  19. gallopingcamel says:

    Dan Pangburn showed how sensitivities are trending downwards.

    When I tried to respond Dr. Roy’s “Bot” blocked me.

    So I will try sending my comment broken down into parts in the hope of finding out what is causing the problem.

  20. gallopingcamel says:

    PART A:
    Even though the sensitivity estimates are trending downwards they may still be far too high.

    Happer & Wijngaarden have a “Full Physics” model that has yet to be published in a peer reviewed journal but you can find it at the “co2coalition” site.

  21. gallopingcamel says:

    PART B:
    Happer understands the physics of CO2 better than most “Climate Scientist” points out that the effect of all the minor GHGs is minimal owing to “Saturation”.

    The model I use is simpler but it arrives at the same conclusion. My “Sensitivity Constant” is 0.02 K/doubling of CO2 concentration.

    • Loydo says:

      Happer should be ashamed of himself for perpetrating that myth. He would know full well that its at the top of the atmosphere where adding CO2 matters. There is little H2O up there so adding CO2 raises the emission height and that is what raises the temperature at the surface – not CO2 at the surface.

      Another way of putting it:
      For an optically thick atmosphere, it is the TOA budget plus the lapse rate that dominantly control the surface temperature. The surface budget is relatively unimportant. Another way of looking
      at it is that the atmosphere is so opaque to IR that the radiation to space is determined by just the first one optical depth from the top, which, loosely speaking, reaches into the mid trop.

      In pictures:–auq-uToKy0/Xh51G89lsfI/AAAAAAAAErA/ucmk-4QT_YQ5yQ5c-PF0Vd57JMVQaK7yQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Picture1.png

      Surprise, surprise, Heartland again.

    • Nate says:

      80 y old Happer is not a climate expert and is now focused on political advocacy.

      He is unfortunately another in a long line of accomplished scientists who have gone off the rails when they got elderly.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        Clearly you did not bother to read the paper either. At sixty six pages full of equations it is quite challenging.

        Happer is trying to figure out why the IPCC’s model don’t work. If you don’t like Happer’s explanation, do you have a better explanation for why the models fail?

      • Nate says:

        “Clearly you did not bother to read the paper either. At sixty six pages full of equations it is quite challenging.”

        See my comment above on one of their papers.

        Did you understand it? Why do you think its correct?

        • gallopingcamel says:

          “Did you understand it? Why do you think its correct?”

          My expertise is similar to Happer’s (quantum electro-optics) but he knows far more about CO2 than I do. IMHO opinion only a handful of people in the world can match him on that topic.

          I do not say that Happer is correct. Nothing any physicist tells you is “correct” in the sense that it can be called “TRUTH” or a “LAW”. All we have in physics is the ability to represent reality in equations.

          There are two things I like about Happer’s paper. Firstly it is closer to representing what is observed than the IPCC’s GCMs.

          Second, it agrees with my model.

        • Nate says:

          If we admit that we are not expert enough to understand a paper, as I also often have to admit, then IMO we cannot objectively judge who has done it right.

          If one outlier paper disagrees with hundreds of previous papers, then assuming the outlier is the right one is a poor bet.

          Its based on ideological biases, and not facts.

          If it were a life or death medical choice, most of us would not pick the outlier.

          • gallopingcamel says:

            “Its based on ideological biases, and not facts.”

            Not so. Happer’s model is “Full Physics” but that does not mean that it is right.

            My model is much simpler than Happer’s but that does not make it right either.

            The reason to prefer our models is that they come closer to explaining observations than our rivals such as James Hansen and Gary Russell.

            The way to test a model is to compare it against observations as Feynman explains:

            “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

          • Nate says:

            “The reason to prefer our models is that they come closer to explaining observations than our rivals such as James Hansen and Gary Russell.”

            Love to see this oft-mentioned closer fit to observations.

            What observations?

      • Nate says:

        ‘explanation for why the models fail’


        a. the ‘failure’ of the models is highly exaggerated or even nonexistent.

        b. The Earth is complicated, there are still some uncertain parameters, like aerosol and albedo forcings.

        The idea that the models need to show a perfect match to observations, else they are a ‘failure’ is not logical. Black and white thinking.

      • bdgwx says:

        GC, you’re going to need to define “IPCC’s model don’t work” objectively because the GCMs in the CMIP suite, radiative forcing, etc. models seem to work pretty well from my vantage point.

        What is it that you are seeing with CMIP5 and CMIP6 that leads you to believe that they don’t work?

        What is it that you are seeing with paleoclimate models that leads you to believe they don’t work?

        What is it that you seeing with radiative forcing and energy budget models that leads you to believe they don’t work?

  22. gallopingcamel says:

    The problem was in the last part (PART C) that contains a youtube link. I will try again as it is a good one.

  23. gallopingcamel says:

    You have to love the John Nash quote……….”disciplines that include the word “Science” in their titles are not science.”

    • Nate says:

      Sometimes true.

      Christian science.
      Political science.

      Not guaranteed

      Earth science
      Materials science

  24. Snape says:


    So a thicker atmosphere would not increase the GHE…… ours is already so saturated that higher is all that matters? Has this concept been proven, or just hypothetical?

    There is another way of looking at it:

    Chic Bowdrie: All the energy re-radiated from the surface will be absorbed in first km or so and thermalized by inter-molecular collisions. Another 100 ppm CO2 will not alter that phenomenon.

    Me: Yes, so there is a globally averaged altitude at which most of the upwelling surface radiation is absorbed. I would argue that adding another 100 ppm CO2 would result in this altitude being slightly lower.

    Given a lower altitude of emittance, the downwelling LWIR is now coming from a thicker, warmer layer of atmosphere, and is therefore more intense.

    In other words, an increase in radiative forcing to the surface.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      Whether you add 100 ppm of CO2 or take it away won’t change the fact that the troposphere is an adiabatic problem.

      In adiabatic problems what matters most is “Gamma” = Cp/Cv which is ~1.4 for air and 1.3 for CO2.

      Thus CO2 does have an effect but it is much smaller than the IPCC models assume.

  25. Scott R says:

    Not 1 model properly includes natural cycles caused by the orbits of planets. They effect both the barycenter of the sun, and the activity on the sun. Their unique effects on the NH and SH with their very different albedo can explain all the proxy data, all the recorded data from the 100,000 year cycle down to the 60 year cycle yet most mainstream scientists ignore it. 90% of the conversation here should be about fixing this situation and starting with an accurate assessment of natural climate changes due to the sun BEFORE humans started influencing it. Once we do that, we can truly gage our effects, which while grossly overstated, are not 0. Once we have accurately and honestly measured our influence with an open mind, we can try to figure out what has gone wrong in the models.

      • Bindidon says:


        “Here is a link to the horde of relevant papers…”

        Are you serious?

        1. is one of the trickiest pseudoskeptic web sites.

        2. Scafetta? Zharkova?

        Their papers are full of stuff completely debunked by real scientists like Leif Svalgaard.

        Sound skepticism is good, gallopingcamel. But what you show here isn’t.

        • gallopingcamel says:

          Shame on you Bindidon for your vile “Ad Hominem” attack on Nicola Scafetta.

          Nicola occupied the office directly above mine at the Duke university FEL (Free Electron Laser) laboratory.

          He is one of the most honest people I have ever met and one of the most courageous too.

          Nicola may be wrong from time to time but he is head and shoulders above the “Climate Mafia” when it comes to ability and integrity.

          • Nate says:

            GC’s very unhappy with criticisms of his team members, but calls an entire field of scientists ‘fraudsters’ and accuses them of doing ‘SINO (Science In Name Only)’

            Apparently he’s comfortable with his hypocrisy.

          • Nate says:

            Also, Bindidon has only criticized Scarfetta’s published work as having been debunked by another paper.

            Fair, IMO.

            Not technically an ad-hom which is attacking the person.

      • bdgwx says:

        NTZ’s talking points are contradictory. One argument will be “there is no consensus on the amplitude of historical solar forcing” and then the next will be “climate change and TSI variability are strongly correlated through the Holocene”. NTZ is a continual gish gallop of previously debunked talking points, falsified hypothesis, and contradictory statements absent a comprehensive alternative model that can explain and predict reality any better than what we already have.

    • ren says:

      So it is due to Jupiter’s gravity that the Earth has relatively constant living conditions.
      Tidal heating (also known as tidal working or tidal flexing) occurs through the tidal friction processes: orbital energy is dissipated as heat in either the surface ocean or interior of a planet or satellite. When an object is in an elliptical orbit, the tidal forces acting on it are stronger near periapsis than near apoapsis. Thus the deformation of the body due to tidal forces (i.e. the tidal bulge) varies over the course of its orbit, generating internal friction which heats its interior. This energy gained by the object comes from its gravitational energy, so over time in a two-body system, the initial elliptical orbit decays into a circular orbit (tidal circularization). Sustained tidal heating occurs when the elliptical orbit is prevented from circularizing due to additional gravitational forces from other bodies that keep tugging the object back into an elliptical orbit. In this more complex system, gravitational energy still is being converted to thermal energy; however, now the orbit’s semimajor axis would shrink rather than its eccentricity.

      • bdgwx says:

        No. Jupiter’s tidal interaction with the Earth is minuscule.

        • Scott R says:


          As Jupiter moves from it’s perihelion to aphelion, it makes sense that this creates a reoccurring wave of 12 years of solar activity within the sun does it not? A 2nd wave is formed as Jupiter and Saturn conjunct. Because there are 3 different conjunction locations, we have a 60 year cycle. These 2 competing waves create the 11 year solar cycle. Each type of conjunction does something different. The reason is that the earth is better at absorbing energy at certain times of year, and in the NH. Small changes in the earth sun distance do matter on a decadal time scale, especially when you consider that it isn’t the exact conjunction that matters, but where the planets set up for multiple years. Pouring extra energy into the NH summer makes the largest difference to global temperatures. Also both hemisphere’s get a boost during the Yoshimura cycle, when the conjunction occurs close to Jupiter’s perihelion. The only cycle that allows cooling follows the Jupiter Saturn conjunction near earth’s perihelion. That is precisely where we are at! As soon as this conjunction and the 3.6 enso harmonic end, I expect at least 15 years of sharp global cooling.

          • Scott R says:

            The only cycle that allows cooling follows the Jupiter Saturn conjunction near earths APHELION. sorry

          • bdgwx says:

            Sure. Jupiter may influence the solar cycle. But that’s a different topic.

            Jupiter’s tidal dissipation with the Earth releases about 100,000x less energy than that released from the Moon. The Moon’s tidal dissipation amounts to about +0.01 W/m^2.

          • Scott R says:


            I agree with you, Jupiter earth direct interactions are so small they can be completely ignored. If the relationship was direct, we would see a 13-14 month beat as the earth passes Jupiter.

            Clearly, the 3.6 year beat in the global temperature is a 3rd harmonic of the 11 year solar cycle, which surprisingly has an easier signal to detect then the 11 year cycle itself!

            I’d actually like to study the moon sometime, and it’s effects on climate, but I’m working down the list of forcers from most important to least. The moon isn’t in my top 4 that is for sure.

  26. Snape says:


    relating to or denoting a process or condition in which heat does not enter or leave the system concerned.]

    Heat is constantly entering and leaving the troposphere system, hence I was not discussing an adiabatic problem.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      The is an example of what Charles Mackay called the “Madness of Crowds” in 1841.

      This idea has been brought up to date by Irving L. Janis.

      I strongly recommend his book:
      “Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes”

  27. Eben says:

    Debating over climate models is like debating the length of the Unicorns tail .
    I mean dudes are even sirius ???

  28. Snape says:


    Sure, there is constant mixing within the LT, and that is considered an adiabatic process, but to say the troposphere is therefore an [adiabatic problem] is nonsense.

    Along with mixing, a continuous flow of energy is entering and leaving – just the opposite of adiabatic.

  29. Snape says:

    @GC, not GP

    • gallopingcamel says:

      “Nonsense” may be too strong a word.

      Like so many things in modeling it is an approximation that one makes to simplify analysis. The way to test such things is to compare what the equations say against observations.

      In the case of planetary tropospheres the dry adiabat can work very well. For example observations on Saturn fall within 6% of the dry adiabat prediction.

      On Titan and Earth the dry adiabat does not work well because both bodies have oceans. To fix this problem modelers use an “Adabatic Scaling Factor” (aka Alpha).

      When modeling Earth I use McClatchey et al. (1972) as the template. Setting “Alpha” = 0.60 produces an excellent fit in the troposphere.

      When modeling Titan I use the HASI (Huygens probe) data and set “Alpha” = 0.77. See here:

  30. The Earth conducted an experiment over the past three million years that charted climate change against atmospheric CO2. After comparing glacial and interglacial periods to CO2 levels, Earth’s finding was that there was no correlation. Several interglacials were noted that were warmer with much higher sea levels than the Holocene interglacial with atmospheric CO2 levels of 280ppm. Slightly lower CO2 levels were noted during glacial periods which ended before CO2 levels increased moderately. For the past three million years interglacials began when CO2 was low and ended when CO2 was higher.

    The same proved true for shorter periods since 1900; temperature rose rapidly from 1920 to 1940 with littler change in CO2 from 280ppm. Then as CO2 rose rapidly after 1940, global temperature fell rapidly until 1980. The rise in both temperature and CO2 from 1980 to 2000 was followed by a pause in temperature increase that persisted almost twenty years while CO2 continued to steadily rise.

    Looking at just the past 10,000 years, Greenland ice core and lake and ocean sediment cores show we now live in the coldest 1,000-year period of the past 10,000 years, and that the greatest warming and corresponding higher sea levels were found 6,000 to 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The following three warming periods before the present – Minoan, Roman, and Medieval – were each cooler than its predecessor and current warming is the coolest of all.

    Proof of warmer periods in the past 10,000 years are also evidenced by ancient tree lines further north and at higher altitudes, coral mounts several feet above current sea level, and ancient beaches above present ones.

    Thousands of studies exist that prove earlier warming was significantly higher and globally distributed. The Earth gives evidence that none of the models can refute.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      The only correlation I can find between CO2 and temperature extends from 1200 AD to 1998 which corresponds to the part of Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” that follows the Medieval Warm Period that he tried to air-brush from history.

      Even over that period there are temperature declines that occurred while [CO2] was rising. For example the decline you mention from the late 1930s to the mid 1970s.

      There is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature shown in the EPICA and Vostok ice core records but the time resolution is good enough to prove that temperature leads [CO2]. Even in climate science cause precedes effect.

      Going further back in time it is hard to see any correlation between CO2 and temperature and there are several examples of anti-correlation, for example 145 and 435 Mega-years BP (Before Present):

    • Nate says:


      Every spring in each hemisphere solar insolation increases, and the hemisphere warms. Seasonal warming.

      This has nothing to do with CO2 levels, but CO2 sources do respond to warming.

      Same can be said about glacial cycles.

      Neither one disproves that rising CO2 levels can ALSO warm the Earth.

  31. Snape says:

    The drug company Pfizer is one of 30 stocks in the Dow Jones index. If the other 29 are flat over the course of a year, and Pfizer is up, then you would see a perfect correlation between Pfizer and the Dow. Pfizer would have driven the market gain.

    In 2109 the Dow was up 22%, while Pfizer was down 10%. Does this prove the above claim is false? Does this prove there is no correlation between Pfizer and the Dow?

    • bdgwx says:

      Great analogy. Let’s take it further still.

      Merck has a surprise earning announcements. This boosts confidence in the industry causing Pfizer’s stock price to increase as well. The Dow as a whole goes up. Who catalyzed the increase? Merck. Did Pfizer still play a role in the magnitude of the Dow’s increase? Absolutely!

      As we’ve stated before CO2 is like Pfizer in the analogy. It can catalyze changes in temperature on its own thus yielding a lead relationship with the temperature. Or it can respond to a temperature change catalyzed by something else and force the temperature higher from there thus yielding a lag relationship with the temperature.

    • bobdroege says:

      It is easier to prove that someone who makes a claim of no correlation is talking nonsense.

      The only way to have no or zero correlation is if all your data is zero or all your data is the same, ie all data point are (3,4) (3,4) etc.

  32. Snape says:

    Thanks, and I like your additions.

  33. caffeine withdrawals says:

    If observations showed more warming since 1975 than the 1.85C model, wouldn’t that imply a higher sensitivity? Closer to 2-2.5?

    • bdgwx says:

      Yes. It’s pretty easy to see in Dr. Spencer’s graph above that a polynomial regression would result in an ECS > 1.85C. I don’t know how much greater, but certainly 2C and probably closer to 2.5C would be my guess as well.

  34. Dan Pangburn says:

    Lindzen & Spencer, accounting for all feedbacks, find Climate Sensitivity less than 1.5, probably about 0.3 and perhaps even negative.

    Water vapor has been increasing faster than POSSIBLE from water vapor feedback due to average global temperature increase. This indicates that CS is not significantly different from zero.

  35. Snape says:

    Right or wrong, I think your idea is really interesting. Here is a study that comes to a different conclusion:

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Thanks for the link.

      Interestingly the values they used for WV are lower than at present time. Huff estimate for cooling towers in 1971 was about 36% of mine in 2017 ( agrees with the increase) Also, Boucher estimate for all human related emissions in 2004 is 77% of mine in 2017. Given the time differences, IMO the entirely independent estimates are very close to each other.

      On the downside, they used GCMs known to be faulty, which assume CO2 rules. This has been shown to be wrong at ground level by Hitran. They make this statement: ,,Increases in water vapour greenhouse effect are small because additional vapour cannot reach the upper troposphere,, which IMO is a bogus assumption. I did not see where they had accounted for WV increasing 1.5% per decade as measured by NASA/RSS. Also, they do not appear to grasp the mechanism of energy redirection made possible by thermalization. They mention neither.

      Bottom line, they were trying to determine the influence on global warming from WV with models that falsely assumed CO2 increase caused GW. I found that WV increase contributed to GW and CO2 increase tagged along.

      • Nate says:

        ‘are estimated for surface emission using idealised experiments conducted with the CAM5 global atmospheric model at fixed ocean temperatures. Water is introduced in vapour form at rates matching total anthropogenic emissions’

        “additional vapour cannot reach the upper troposphere,, which IMO is a bogus assumption.”

        To assert that their modeling of the movement of water vapor into the atmosphere is bogus, is simply that assertion without evidence.

        Meanwhile Dan, how are you modeling the movement of water vapor from surface into the troposphere?

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          I have no knowledge of how they model the movement of water into the atmosphere and did not comment on that. What makes no sense is their assertion that the added WV cannot reach the upper troposphere. What would prevent it? I suspect that their modeling imposes unrealistic constraints if that is what it determines.

          As I state in Sect 6 of , I ASSUME that the % increase in atmospheric WV varies directly with the % change in vapor pressure. The assumption is implied in the later link. I believe I saw on-line legitimate measurements demonstrating this to be true but have not been able to find it back. The assumption is not used in the demonstration, using Hitran, that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

        • Nate says:

          Well a constraint that seems reasonable is that the atmosphere in middle troposphere can only hold water up to saturation vapor pressure before it forms clouds and this is dependent on temperature.

          They say: “greenhouse-gas warming is outweighed by increases in reflectance from humidity-induced low cloud cover, leading to a near-zero or small cooling effect.”

          That seems plausible, no?

        • Nate says:

          The other key point is they feel they need to use a general circulation model because the irrigation added humidity is near surface on land, and thus it doesnt distribute uniformly throughout the troposphere and everywhere on Earth.

          Its effect is more complicated than your simple model would suggest, and that effect can only be seen in realistic 3D model of the atmosphere.

        • Nate says:


          let me just make one last point. Your discussion in section 8 of the relative increase in GHE due to water vapor vs CO2:

          “8. Hitran [52] using Quantum Mechanics calculates, besides many other things, the relative absorb/emit intensity of water vapor molecules vs CO2 molecules. Comparison at zero altitude is shown in Figure 0.25.”

          I believe this is quite crude compared to the actual calculations of GHE of these molecules that can be found in the literature, which take into account the lapse rate and changes in mean altitude and temperature of the last radiating layer which is CO2-dominated.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            The QM assessment identifies the absorb/emit properties (relative intensity vs wavenumber) of the mole.cules themselves. Lapse rate, etc. dont contribute.

        • Nate says:

          Dan, Just trying to understand what you are claiming and why.

          In your ch 14 calculation of CS for Co2 you find:

          ” This calculation resulted in CS = 1.07 K for doubling CO2 to 550 ppmv from 275 ppmv. ”

          Which seems consistent with what others find.

          Then you state:

          “Assessments in Section 2 have determined that CS is not significantly different from zero.”

          How does this make sense?

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Most agree the planet has been warming. The big mistake by many is what caused it. This works:

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        Wouldn’t warming cause more water vapor?

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Yes. The higher vapor pressure of warmer water drives more moisture into the air. But the amount of WV in the atmosphere is measured by NASA/RSS and reported monthly. Analysis and Fig 7 in the linked paper show that the WV has been increasing faster than POSSIBLE from warming feedback.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Why isn’t the temperature increase just non systematic randomness and this is causing WV to increase? And, that water vapor and CO2 have little effect on temperature. This seems like the most stable scenario.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            The non systematic random increase in temperature is causing both WV and CO2 to increase.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            It is important to understand thermalization and be aware of the steep de.cline (~1200 to 1) in WV mole.cule population. The combination allows energy redire.ction. Much of the energy absorbed by CO2 at low altitude is thermalized making it available to WV mole.cules which, progressively with increasing altitude, emit it to space. This, combined with the increased radiation from CO2 mole.cules in the stratosphere is what has resulted in CS (to CO2) being not significantly different from zero.

            True, there is a lot of apparent randomness in the data. Much of this is likely a result of roiling (at this tiny fluctuation magnitude) of SST as shown in this animation:

            The 30+ year trend looks representative (that is all of the accurate global WV data available) and I have compared the measured WV trend with WV trends calculated from reported average global temperatures for the five reporting agencies. Some showed less separation and one (UAH) more than the example shown in Fig 7.

  36. gallopingcamel says:

    You can find Richard Lindzen’s latest thoughts on the sensitivity of climate to CO2 here:

    Dr. Roy gets an honorable mention. If you can’t be bothered to read the whole 28 pages here are two paragraphs from the summary:

    “Have we then proven that dangerous warming is truly impossible? Not quite. Although current estimates of short-wave feedbacks dont even suggest positive feedback factors in excess of about 0.3 (with the possibility of negative values remaining), we cant preclude that something may someday be discovered that raises this to a value that is significantly larger. Our simple calculation that suggested that sensitivities in excess of 1.5C were precluded depends upon the assumption that models are correct in producing negligible natural internal variability. It is, however, remotely conceivable that there was in reality (as opposed to in models) natural internal variability that was exactly what was needed to cancel the effect of high sensitivity, but that this internal
    variability would eventually be overwhelmed, and allow the high sensitivity to reveal itself.

    This remote possibility is far from settled science, and the thought that multi-trillion dollar policies would be implemented to putatively prevent this, seems far from rational. This is especially so when one considers that for about 95 percent of the time since complex life systems appeared (about 600 million years ago), levels of CO2 were much higher than they are anticipated to become (as much as 10-20 mes todays levels) without evidence
    of a relationship to global mean temperature.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Cam…”You can find Richard Lindzens latest thoughts on the sensitivity of climate to CO2 here:”

      Don’t take my critique of this paper wrongly. I support both Richard and Roy in their work and their stance on catastrophic global warming. I just find the explanations far too simple.

      For example, Richard states in his paper: “When the rest of our atmosphere is added, several things change because our atmosphere contains various substances (water vapor, CO2, clouds and other less important gases) that absorb infrared radiation…”.

      There is no explanation as to how GHGs in the atmosphere that amount to about 0.31% of the atmosphere overall can cause this kind of warming (33C). The theory ignores the effect of the oceans and has never been subjected to the scientific method. Furthermore, it contradicts the Ideal Gas Law which requires gas to contribute heat based on their mass percent (Dalton’s Law).

      In the opening lines of the paper, the theory is related to Arrhenius and Callandar. One of the most important voices of that era has been omitted, that of scientist extraordinaire, R. W. Wood. He was held in high esteem by the likes of Niels Bohr due to his work on gases like CO2. Bohr consulted with him while formulating his quantum model of the atom on the subject of the spectral lines of sodium.

      Wood did not think CO2 could cause such an effect as claimed by Arrhenius et al. In fact, he performed an experiment to prove that heating in a real greenhouse was not due to infrared radiation, but to a lack of convection. Convection alone should keep the Earth’s surface cooler.

      Arrhenius was no lightweight, he was an esteemed scientist in his own right. However, Wood’s proposal that the warming of the atmosphere was due to the majority gases like N2 and O2 absorbing heat directly by conduction then rising into the atmosphere and being unable to release the heat, has my vote as a far better explanation for atmospheric heating. Coupled with the stabilizing and moderating effect of the vast oceans, I think the explanation lies there.

      Neither can I buy the argument that heating of the surface causes the negative temperature gradient in the atmosphere. That theory does not explain why the pressure gradient is also negative whereast the effect of diminishing gravity on tiny air molecules does.

      A negative gravity-induced pressure gradient is explained by gravityt, satisfying the Ideal Gas Law. Furthermore, I think it’s a stretch to claim anything adiabatic in a gaseous atmosphere with no barrier to constrain the gases.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Look, Gordo’s back! did they let you out of the loonie farm? OR did you get a new contract to spread disinformation for more loonies?

        I see that you are repeating your same claims to deny the Green House Effect, pointing to R.W. Wood’s simple experiment as proof that there’s no atmospheric Green House Effect. When will you ever get over the fact that the GHE was poorly named and is NOT a very good analogy for what happens in the atmosphere. Wood didn’t model the effects of CO2, just the effects of changing the emissivity of the cover plates on his boxes. But the effect may have been so small that his apparatus could not detect the change.

        My Ice Plate experiment demonstrated such an effect, showing that even a slab of ice could warm a heated plate more than an IR transparent plastic cover. No, that wasn’t a violation of the 2nd Law. Of course, I expect that you will probably ignore these results, as usual.

        BTW, nobody is arguing that “the pressure gradient is also negative” has nothing to to do with the negative temperature gradient. This fact results in vertical convection within the troposphere which moves sensible and latent heat to higher elevations, etc.

    • Nate says:


      ‘Richard Lindzens latest thoughts on the sensitivity of climate to CO2’

      ‘If you cant be bothered to read the whole 28 pages’

      Given the hundreds of papers analyzing climate sensitivity, not sure why we should spend the time to read only this one?

      Probably better to read a review article like Knutti, 2017.

      It illustrates that the range of sensitivity found in these papers for the transient climate sensitivity, TCR, is at least 1.5 and most likely > 2.

  37. ren says:

    The temperature on the tops of tropical storm clouds in the South Pacific is around -85 degrees C.

  38. Scott R says:

    Have any of you ever thought about the red planet’s strange orbit? It is highly elliptical, and the perihelion location is peculiar. Jupiter seems to have corralled the perihelion of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all to the same side of the solar system, but Mars is an outcast with it’s Aphelion on this side of the solar system. I wonder if the orbit of Mars was disrupted in the past by something which contributed to it’s current state (and also it’s volcanic activity shut down obviously which wasn’t good for it’s magnetic field). Sadly, the planet is energy starved. A more circular orbit probably wouldn’t help it move out of a co2 ice age. Maybe a larger tilt would as the ice at the poles would be limited to seasonal vs long term. It makes you wonder if there is a phase on Mars that can boost the atmospheric pressure enough for liquid water to be found in perhaps the deepest trenches and basins.

    • ren says:

      The loss of water from Mars to space is thought to result from the transport of water to the upper atmosphere, where it is dissociated to hydrogen and escapes the planet. Recent observations have suggested large, rapid seasonal intrusions of water into the upper atmosphere, boosting the hydrogen abundance. We use the Atmospheric Chemistry Suite on the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter to characterize the water distribution by altitude. Water profiles during the 2018–2019 southern spring and summer stormy seasons show that high-altitude water is preferentially supplied close to perihelion, and supersaturation occurs even when clouds are present. This implies that the potential for water to escape from Mars is higher than previously thought.

    • ren says:

      It is likely that the gravity of the moon affects the maintenance of the Earth’s liquid core.
      The Earth’s troposphere is very thin. Its average height is only about 10 km.

      • Scott R says:

        ren interesting. Sad that is the case that water can be stripped away that easily. If only Mars still had it’s active core. I wonder about future terraforming activities for Mars. Yes we are venturing into fiction but just for fun why not?

        The Mars tilt is currently 25 deg, but has varied from 18-48 deg from what I read. If a large moon could be introduced to the planet somehow at the right time, you could stabilize that axial tilt in a range like 42-48 deg, you could end any chance of dry ice carrying over to the next season at the poles. That would increase the atmospheric pressure and perhaps warm the core enough to generate a magnetic field to protect it. Sadly, Ceres is an order of magnitude too small to do the job if we roughly consider that a moon needs to be 1% the mass of the host planet to heat the core. I haven’t run the numbers to see if a closer orbit might make up for that without destroying Ceres. Just for the sake of argument, say it would be enough… we could SLOWLY crash it into Deimos to put it into a stable orbit. lol Perhaps we could crash something into it to slow it’s initial velocity around the sun and just push it into Mars orbit. Probably easier to do this than steal a moon from Jupiter. Good luck with that right?

  39. Snape says:

    A strange coincidence, but WUWT had a post just today on the topic of water vapor from irrigation:

    • bdgwx says:

      This effect has been known for awhile. I’ve seen a few studies related to the effect in the corn belt of the United States as well.

  40. Perfecto says:

    The von Neumann quote is a gem. I bet his five parameters can be constant…

  41. Snape says:


    Agreed the local effects have been known, but I dont understand why Dans idea is not valid to some extent.

    Evaporation from the ocean is thought to enhance global warming. But based on the findings, if the ocean were to rise and cover part of California, the change would result in global cooling or neutral.

    As if the current 70% sea/land ratio is optimum for warming, but an increase to 71% would have no effect.

    • bdgwx says:

      I don’t think Dan’s argument is abjectly invalid. But it does depend on water vapor being a catalyzing agent for temperature change which is not supported by the evidence. Note that catalyzing a temperature change is different than amplifying one.

      Lets assume that WV can catalyze longterm temperature changes though. If you believe that this effect dominates warming trend then you are now left with even more questions. What happened to all of that energy that was trapped by CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc? Given the large reservoir of water and a billion years of opportunity why didn’t a runaway GHE start? And why has no one been able to demonstrate that this model can convincingly explain and predict reality any better than what we already have?

  42. Snape says:

    If the sea level was falling instead of rising, there would obviously be more dry land. Would this result in warming or cooling?

    Take it all the way to no ocean at all. Warmer or cooler?

  43. Gordon Robertson says:


  44. Snape says:


    The study below, and several others, assert that increases in water vapor is a strong feedback to warming. We also know that earth was a humid hot house when oceans covered a much larger land area. Which makes the findings on irrigation somewhat contradictory. Just sayin.

    [If you were living on Earth 60 million years ago, it was a much hotter, wacky world, with no ice at the pole caps, and palm trees and crocodiles in whats now Wyoming, Koll says.]

    • Nate says:

      The hot houses were due to several things, but mainly large amounts of atm CO2 from high tectonic activity, like volcanoes.

      The position of the continent’s was important also.

    • bdgwx says:

      And that hothouse occurred with solar forcing of -1.2 W/m^2 relative today.

    • bdgwx says:

      Super interesting. If I’m interpreting this paper correctly what it is saying is that WV’s temperature feedback effect has a range of 230-300K. The strong feedback they are referring to is with the OLR. As Earth warms OLR increases and H2O provides a strong heat shed avenue that self limits its amplifying effect on the temperature. But this OLR feedback breaks down at around 300K at which point the WV temperature feedback becomes non-linear. At 340K the OLR feedback is turn off and the temperature feedback is no longer self limiting. A runaway GHE begins in earnest. The good news…it would require the Earth hitting 300K before the non-linearity phase begins.

  45. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”I see that you are repeating your same claims to deny the Green House Effect, pointing to R.W. Woods simple experiment as proof that theres no atmospheric Green House Effect”.

    R. W .Wood did not claim there is no warming effect due to an atmosphere he simply explained it differently and better. Neither have I claimed there is no warming effect due to the atmosphere I just don’t think a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can create that much warming. More like 0.04C, in line with its mass percent.

    If you are asking me to consider your experiments in the same class as experiments by Wood, don’t hold your breath.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo, You have again displayed your lack of interest in science, giving no critique of my experiment or Dr. Roy’s experiment. All you offer is an empty comment: “I just dont think a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can create that much warming”. That comment ignores decades of research and measurements which prove otherwise.

      Finally, you add a putdown of my efforts, again without any stated reason for doing so. Don’t worry, your opinion isn’t worth the electrons to display it on the screen, so I won’t “hold my breath”.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”…I just dont think a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can create that much warming. That comment ignores decades of research and measurements which prove otherwise.

        Finally, you add a putdown of my efforts, again without any stated reason for doing so”.

        I have stated my reasons over and over. Your experiments are a blatant contradiction of the 2nd law of thermodynamics AND there is a good alternative explanation for your results. You are confusing an uncompensated heat transfer from cold to hot for the natural effect of heat dissipation. When heat is prevented from naturally dissipating, the temperature of a body will rise.

        To remind you, the words of Clausius when he described the 2nd law is that heat can NEVER be transferred BY ITS OWN MEANS from a colder body to a hotter body. He said nothing about that condition satisfying the dubious ‘net transfer of energy’, the pseudo-science used by alarmists to get around the 2nd law.

        Let me put it even better….you CANNOT transfer any form of energy from a lower potential energy level to a higher potential energy level BY ITS OWN MEANS. Water will not flow uphill BY ITS OWN MEANS and neither will a bolder at the base of a cliff rise up onto the cliff BY ITS OWN MEANS. Naturally, either a bolder at the top of a cliff, or water at the top of a waterfall, has a much higher potential energy than at the bottom, where the PE is zero.

        By the same token, heat can never, BY ITS OWN MEANS, be transferred from a lower potential energy level (ie. cooler) to a higher potential energy level (ie. hotter). Clausius proved it and no one has proved him wrong.

        With regard to an atmosphere with 0.04% CO2, NO ONE has ever proved that CO2 at that level can raise the temperature of air by 33C. It has never been proved by the scientific method, only by consensus related to unvalidated climate models.

        • Ball4 says:

          “With regard to an atmosphere with 0.04% CO2, NO ONE has ever proved that CO2 at that level can raise the temperature of air by 33C.”

          YOU are wrong Gordon, scientific method instrumentally observed Earth global 255K at TOA and 288K near surface which is a difference of 33C for Earth atmosphere with 0.04% CO2. It is your boulder method that is unscientific atm. prose.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”YOU are wrong Gordon, scientific method instrumentally observed Earth global 255K at TOA and 288K near surface which is a difference of 33C…”

            You don’t seem to understand what the 33C is about. It’s the difference between an Earth with and atmosphere, which is more a statistical guess than a measurement, and an Earth without an atmosphere, which is a total guess based on a badly applied Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a gross generalization of its application. Has nothing to do with TOA temperature versus temperature at surface.

            Besides, no warming in the atmosphere related to 0.04% CO2 has ever been measured or observed. It is sheer conjecture provided by modelers, the likes of Gavin Schmidt at GISS, who has claimed a warming effect from CO2 between 9C and 25C depending on the WV content.

            As John Christy of UAH has claimed, the atmosphere is far too complex for us to understand it well.

          • Ball4 says:

            The 33C difference has everything to do with instrumentally measured global TOA temperature versus air temperature near surface at the 95% significance level in real life. WITH the scientific method!

            Nobody knows the global median surface temperature of an Earth without an atmosphere at 95% significance level so no one can use the scientific method to justify 33C difference (or any other difference) for the no atm. scenario over today’s atm. constituents and pressure.

            Gordon just doesn’t know what Gordon is writing about. The warming in the atmosphere related to 0.04% CO2 has been measured so is observed; Gordon simply ignores and/or doesn’t understand the scientific method.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, Yes, you have repeatedly stated your incorrect understanding of the situation, failing to understand that the “MEANS” is the low entropy short wave energy from the Sun. The temperature at the surface is just the result of that sunlight passing thru the climate system and exiting to the 2.7 K sink of deep space. The atmosphere transfers energy from a lower entropy state to a higher one, as the system moves energy from the surface to deep space.

          Clausius was speaking about mechanical devices especially closed cycle devices, such as steam engines, which can not be run in reverse to produce heat from mechanical work without losses. Those losses must be replaced by input from an external energy source, such as the electricity required to run a heat pump. Otherwise, a heat engine could be devised to produce power which could then be used to run a heat pump that then provided the heat as into the heat engine, which would be perpetual motion, a violation of the 2nd Law.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”The atmosphere transfers energy from a lower entropy state to a higher one, as the system moves energy from the surface to deep space”.

            Talk about gish-gallop. Your understanding of entropy is as poor as your understanding of the 2nd law. Entropy was defined by Clausius as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat at a temperature T, at which the differential changes occur, and it has no application to the short wave EM from the Sun, or the long wave IR emitted by the Earth.

            Entropy applies ONLY to heat transfer. It’s not a statement of the condition of a system only to its transfer of heat. There is no such thing as a low/high entropy state unless you are comparing the entropy of a system that generates less heat to one that generates a higher amount of heat.

            You cannot apply entropy in the manner you suggest. The total entropy related to a system is given by S = integral dq/T where dq is the infinitesimal change and T the temperature at which the change takes place. If you draw the heat from a heat bath of constant T, then T can be pulled outside the integral sign and S = T.(integral dq). Therefore entropy is the total amount of heat transferred.

            The significance of entropy is its sign, which can only be positive, for an irreversible process. If the process is reversible, the entropy is always zero. Entropy is a mark of the direction of a process and with heat it signifies that in an irreversible process, the heat transfer is always from a hotter region to a colder region. Of course some transfers can be faster than others therefore the entropies would be measured based on the degree of their positive signs.

            Clausius intended entropy to be a mathematical statement of the 2nd law. It can never be negative, although some scientists state it as a negative due to the sign assigned to heat the direction of heat transfer. If it’s treated as a -ve sign then it can never be +ve.

            Your example is proof that heat transfer can only happen between a hotter body, like the Sun, to a cooler body like the Earth. The IR radiated from the Earth can only be effective if it contacts a mass cooler than the surface. IR from the surface will not warm a human body at a higher temperature.

            Anyone who has tried to survive in snow and ice environments at sub-zero temperatures can tell you that. The human body loses heat to such an environment, as predicted by the 2nd law. And no, it’s not about a net energy balance, the heat is transferred in one direction only.

            “Clausius was speaking about mechanical devices especially closed cycle devices, such as steam engines, which can not be run in reverse to produce heat from mechanical work without losses”.

            When Clausius stated the 2nd law, he did not confine his definition to any specific system. He simply said that “HEAT” can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a colder region to a hotter region.

            Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, the 2nd law suggests that the kinetic energy of atoms can only be transferred to atoms with a lower kinetic energy. It would make no sense if atoms with a certain kinetic energy could transfer that energy to atoms at a higher energy level.

            When heat is transferred via radiation, the same principle applies. Heat cannot be transferred through space directly with any degree of efficiency. That’s why air, with its atoms/molecules far apart wrt the size of an air molecule, is very poor at transferring heat. That’s true even with CO2 at 0.04%.

            Therefore, heat transfer by radiation depends on a conversion of heat to infrared at a higher temperature and the absorp-tion of that infrared by a cooler body. That process cannot be reversed for the same reason I just gave and for an earlier explanation based on potential energy difference.

            The principle of energy transfer between states of different potential/kinetic energy still applies. It makes no sense that radiation from a cooler body could raise the temperature of a hotter body. Such is the case when it is suggested the IR from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere can raise the surface temperature.

            Energy simply cannot be transferred, by its own means,from states of lower potential or kinetic energy to states of higher PE/KE.

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon there is so much that is simply wrong in your discussion of ideal gas entropy and its changes (dS/dt = Q/T) that it would take me several hours to explain. And my efforts would do NO good for you. Except make ME feel better.

            Suffice it to say consult a good beginning thermo. text book on the adiabatic free expansion of an isolated ideal gas – you know like the atm. where the proper integrating of dS/dt = Q/T would give delta S=0 which is clearly wrong.

            Underlying the correct use of of that eqn. for delta S = 0 is the working rate be -p*dV/dt whereas in an adiabatic free expansion W = 0 (which is what is meant by “free” expansion along the lapse rate). That ought to trigger your interest to dig deeper but I doubt it will have any effect on you at all. You will continue your incorrect epistles on Clausius’ term: entropy. These should be simply ignored except to point out they are wrong & consult a text. The correct ideal gas delta S formula (of the universe) is much more complicated in an adiabatic free ideal atm. gas expansion such as along the atm. dry lapse rate.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, You are repeating your usual bad physics again.

            You are ignoring the fact that thermal IR EM emissions of GHG’s occur at discrete wavelengths, with side bands around that wavelength widening due to pressure. Those wavelengths are not temperature dependent, as they are properties of the specific molecular species. The effects of temperature are seen in the spectrum intensity, usually presented as different Planck black body emission curves on graphs of GHG emission or absor_pton intensity vs wavelength.

            Those emitted photons can then be absorbed by other molecules of the same species, whether the aggregate temperature is higher or lower than that of the source. The individual absorbing molecules only respond to the photon wavelength, not the source temperature. And, within a layer of the atmosphere, the photons are emitted in all directions, with the intensity of photons leaving the layer being roughly equal in upward and downward direction. Those downward emissions are the “back radiation” which adds energy to the lower layers. These processes do not violate the 2nd Law, since the net transfer is energy flowing thru many such layers of atmosphere to deep space.

  46. CO2isLife says:

    How does CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron warm the deep oceans? It doesn’t. Fewer clouds and more blue light reaching the oceans does.

  47. CO2isLife says:

    How does the marginal increase in CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron warm cause a dogleg in the chart starting in 1985? It can’t. That is evidence of fewer clouds and more blue light reaching the oceans.

  48. CO2isLife says:

    No one that understands the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron can seriously attribute the warming oceans to CO2. The fact that climate “experts” are attributing the ocean warming to CO2 proves they don’t even understand the basics. CO2 shows a logarithmic decay, there is no way is would ever cause a dogleg or upward acceleration in temperatures.

  49. PhilJ says:


    “Happer is trying to figure out why the IPCCs model dont work. If you dont like Happers explanation, do you have a better explanation for why the models fail?”

    Yes. Because they are based on a fundamentally flawed assuption.

    Just as Copernicus’ model failed despite tweaking with ‘epicycles’, because it was based on the fundamemtal flaw of a circular orbit;
    So ‘ghe’ models fail despite constant tweaking, because they are based on the fundamental flaw that planets have been heated to their current state by the sun, rather than having cooled to their current state despite constant solar input…

    • Nate says:

      “planets have been heated to their current state by the sun, rather than having cooled to their current state despite constant solar input”

      There should be a TV show with all you guys:

      “Climate deniers say the darndest things”

        • Svante says:

          Interesting, 30% weaker Sun and more clouds meant Venus would have been cooler than Earth is today.

          • PhilJ says:

            Are you kidding? The idea that water ever flowed on the surface of Venus is as idiotic as the idea that the Earth is flat.

            Venus’ atmosphere never cooled enough for rain to reach the surface and cool its crust, thus its crust remained thin and outgassing and cooling of the interior has been far more rapid than Earth.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah, “Due to its high albedo the planet [Venus] absorbs only 157 +/- 6 W/m^2 on average, less than that deposited on Earth (~240 W/m^2), despite the fact that Venus is 30% closer to the Sun.”

            So Venus should be colder than Earth if it didn’t have a stronger green house effect.

          • PhilJ says:


            “So Venus should be colder than Earth if it didn’t have a stronger green house effect.”

            hahaha… you realize Venus’ albedo is because there was never rain falling on the surface scrubbing sulpher out of the sky of course… all that heat ‘trappped’ in the bulk of the atmosphere is geothermal…

            rather all that incoming solar energy has been cooking off Venus’ water. There is very little left… I expect the rest of the atmosphere will blow off quite rapidly once there is no h20 left to induce a magnetosphere…

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”So Venus should be colder than Earth if it didnt have a stronger green house effect”.

            The surface temperature of Venus was measured by probes on a space vehicle to be 450C. Based on that, astronomer, Andrew Ingersoll claimed that it would be a contravention of the 2nd law to claim that degree of surface heating could come from a GHE.


            “Pioneer Venus observations of temperatures and radiative fluxes are examined in an attempt to understand the thermal balance of the lower atmosphere. If all observations are correct and the probe sites are typical of the planet, the second law of thermodynamics requires that the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulation. Neither the so‐called greenhouse models nor the mechanical heating models are consistent with this interpretation of the observations. One possible interpretation is that two out of the three probe sites are atypical of the planet. Additional lower atmosphere heat sources provide another possible interpretation. These include a planetary heat flux that is 250 times the earth’s…”

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon that 1980 paper suffered from the as yet unknown error mechanisms in the 3 small probes. Try catching up on your reading, those errors caused the probe data to be inconsistent with actual Venus atm. opacity. For example, gas flow through the window retainers was found in the lab. Find more recent papers that obtain Venus atm. opacity correctly and support the sparse surface thermometer readings due Venus atm. grey absorber total pressure at the surface.

          • Svante says:

            And the GHE works fine on geothermal energy too.
            All you need is a space interface that is colder than the surface.

    • bdgwx says:

      If the context is planetary evolution timescales then understand that solar luminosity increases by 1% every 125 million years.

  50. Eben says:

    CO2 is a thermal conductor not an insulator ,
    The only planet that can be warmed up by CO2 is The Bizarro World.

    • Norman says:


      Please study some actual science. You are getting garbage from bad blogs. CO2 would not be a thermal conductor at all. It is a good insulator for conductive energy flows.

      Maybe look at this list for thermal conductivity. Look at the thermal conductivity of Carbon Dioxide. It is 0.0146 less than asbestos.

      Why are the skeptics that choose to post seem to be so totally ignorant of science and yet so incredibly arrogant? So far the only skeptics I see with any actual science knowledge is gallopingcamel and Dan Pangburn (maybe a few others but it is quite rare to find one). He at least knows some science. The vast majority of skeptics seem to be quite illiterate of science and have gotten all their phony ideas from blogs.

      Good skeptics at least do some work and learn the topic they are skeptical about, they don’t make stupid statements about things they know nothing about.

      • Svante says:

        Norman says:

        So far the only skeptics I see with any actual science knowledge is gallopingcamel and Dan Pangburn (maybe a few others but it is quite rare to find one).

        Kristian has an interesting science based argument, true skeptics like barry had to argue measurement uncertainties.

    • Bindidon says:


      “CO2 is a thermal conductor not an insulator…”

      Even when provocating you behave dumb. Is ‘Eben’ another nickname for ‘Robertson’ ?

  51. Eben says:

    And those images of black holes and gravitational lensing , all made on Photoshop
    The supposed boson discovery – no detector ever detected or observed anything looking like a boson – totally made up.
    the gravitational waves – after running for years detecting nothing – pulled out of thin air just when the funding was about to run out.
    In the future this time will be known as epoch of fake science

    • Nate says:

      Ok, now we know where Eben stands. Against science.

    • Norman says:


      I have to agree with Nate. The video you posted is very stupid in all ways. They take a few clips and add some words and some gullible people go “Oh my a HOAX!” Hope you posted that junk as a joke to show how easy some people can be fooled to believe anything.

      You want to see actual footage of space station material it is available on youtube to watch.

      Here is one.

    • Bindidon says:


      Wow! Is that good!

      I would add that
      – Einstein’s relativity theory is pure nonsense;
      – the speed of light isn’t the highest possible;
      – time dilation is a hoax.


      I personally believe that Earth is flat, that the Universe turns around it, and that it was created 8000 years ago.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binnie…”I would add that
        Einsteins relativity theory is pure nonsense;
        the speed of light isnt the highest possible;
        time dilation is a hoax”.

        Good to see you are still misquoting and misunderstanding.

        I never said Einstein’s theory of relativity is pure nonsense I have claimed that inferences based on the theory are nonsense, like time dilation. Far more qualified people than me have claimed the theory itself is not even a theory. Louis Essen, an expert on time who invented the atomic clock claimed that. He based his POV on the fact the GRT is full of suppositions and inferences from thought experiments.

        Einstein admitted the mathematical portion of his GRT can be worked out with Newtonian physics. In fact, we did some of that in our engineering physics classes. It has only been recently that GRT has been taught in physics classes.

        There is no way to establish that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Dayton Miller claimed that light requires a medium to move through (an aether). No one has found that aether to date but Einstein admitted that if Miller is right his GRT is wrong.

        Very recently, it has been discovered that so-called empty space is teeming with sub-atomic particles. If that’s the aether to which Miller referred, then the speed of light may be limited by it.

        Time dilation is a hoax for the simple reason that time is a human invention. Human’s defined time as a constant therefore it cannot dilate. Otherwise the angular velocity of the Earth, upon which time is defined, must change.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binnie…”I personally believe that Earth is flat, that the Universe turns around it, and that it was created 8000 years ago”.

        If you have ever travelled through the Canadian prairies you might be inclined to believe the Earth is flat. Most people, included astronomers, regard the Earth as the centre of the universe with the Universe moving around it. Most people speak of the Sun as if it orbits the Earth.

        In fact, when time was originally defined, based on one rotation of the Earth, they forgot to take into account that the Earth was in motion around the Sun. Scientists had to invent a newer form of time based on the so-called fixed stars in the universe.

      • Bindidon says:

        Oh Noes… the dumbest commenter this blog ever experienced really seems to be back.

        And he repeats the same nonsense again, ad nauseam.


    • bobdroege says:

      A simple Geiger counter can detect bosons, fermions as well, but you have to know to tell the difference.

      Crystals are more specific to bosons, they can even tell you what color.

  52. Scott R says:

    Someone please explain how the bar connecting the sun to the center of the milky way is possible, yet on the smaller scale of the solar system, this force can be ignored and planets just follow their normal, predicted orbits based on gravity alone? Could this also be related to why the galaxy doesn’t fly apart to begin with?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      scott r…”Someone please explain how the bar connecting the sun to the center of the milky way is possible”

      The only honest answer is that no one knows. Unfortunately, astronomers are not paid to claim they don’t know, so they are inclined to issue a lot of bs. That would not be so bad if the bs was claimed as a theory but astronomers like Carl Sagan made money on TV asserting the bs as fact.

      These days, it is alarmist climate scientists asserting the bs.

  53. Snape says:

    A few years ago I argued here that the amount of energy a given area accumulates, (in the LT for example) is a function of velocity. V = distance/time

    So if the top of the LT is at an altitude of 10 miles, and if on average it takes a joule leaving Earths surface an hour to get there, the velocity I am talking about is 10 miles/hour.

    Faster means less energy will accumulate. Slower, more will accumulate. This is because for every moment a joule remains in the troposphere, that many more joules will have entered the troposphere to join it.

    GHGs act to slow the velocity (defined above) of energy moving from surface to space. If an atmosphere with no GHGs, convection slows the velocity that energy moves from surface to space.

    Here, a slower velocity equals longer RESIDENCE TIME. Residence time being the more familiar way of expressing the same idea.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”So if the top of the LT is at an altitude of 10 miles, and if on average it takes a joule leaving Earths surface an hour to get there, the velocity I am talking about is 10 miles/hour”.

      The energy, called electromagnetic energy, travels at the speed of light. It’s also transmitted like a field with a few CO2 and WV molecules in its way. It’s mass is non-existent therefore its velocity is meaningless as a force.

      However, EM dissipates it’s intensity with the square of the distance it travels so by the time it reaches the LT, it would be weak.

      R.W. Wood claimed it would lose most of its effectiveness a few feet above the surface. That applies to CO2 and WV back-radiation EM as well. By the time it reached the surface it would be effectively non-existent.

      Try it with a 1500 watt ring on an electric stove. Turn it on till it’s red and hold your hand near it. You’ll feel a combination of super-heated air molecules and radiation. Move your hand a few feet above the ring and you’ll feel virtually nothing.

      You cannot roast marshmallows a few feet from a campfire.

      If you’re talking about the velocity of a mass of air molecules, it’s not the velocity of the mass that determines heat energy, it’s the spacing between molecules internally and the velocity of each molecule within the mass.

  54. Snape says:

    How can a bigger, hotter pile of energy in the LT radiate to space at the same rate as a smaller, colder pile? Answer: the bigger pile is moving upward more slowly.

    To see this, picture a bulldozer pushing a small pile of dirt over a cliff, and another dozer pushing a bigger pile of dirt over a cliff. The latter dozer can travel at a slower speed, moving the same volume of dirt as the former.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”How can a bigger, hotter pile of energy in the LT radiate to space at the same rate as a smaller, colder pile?”

      Why are you talking about pile.s of energy? Energy has no mass while a pile of anything has mass. Furthermore, you need to specify the energy in question and how it gets to TOA. Heat cannot reach the TOA because it requires mass to transfer heat. Only EM can reach the TOA and it’s not k.o.s.her to compare piles of EM.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        part 2…

        Lindzen claims energy (presumably heat energy) reaches near to the TOA via convection, by way of thunderclouds, etc. He is not clear on how that energy is transferred to space.

        Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, as the air parcels rise in altitude, they thin out (lose pressure) and the heat is dissipated naturally. The notion that heat can escape the Earth’s atmosphere only by radiation is dubious. If you shoot a parcel of air into a large vacuum like space, the parcel will dissipate into nothingness and the temperature will drop to 0K.

        That obviously does not happen since gravity binds most of our atmosphere. However, an air parcels of high density reaching higher altitudes will dissipate heat naturally as the pressure decreases.

        Energy is clearly not well understood. We have no idea what it is, only how it acts, and the properties of various kinds of energy.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…think of this problem in reverse. You have the vastness of space adjacent to the Earth at nearly 0K. Consider any molecules of air adjacent to that space but still under the influence of Earth’s gravity so they cannot escape. The temperature of those molecules have to be close to 0C. That’s not due to the nearness of space, it’s due to the thinness of the air, which translates to less molecules to create heat.

          As you move into the atmosphere, as the air density increases, things should get warmer. We know the stratosphere is heated somewhat by UV radiation absorbed by O2 molecules. When we reach the upper troposphere, the temperature rises linearly as does the pressure.

          Why can’t we reverse that temperature gradient between Earth and space to explain heat dissipation without radiation? Unfortunately, climate science has obscured that process by explaining it as a lapse rate related to heat rising. I think that is wrong, I think gravity creates the gradient alone and rising heat is a mere anomaly imposed on that steady state.

  55. Snape says:

    Even better, imagine a 40 meter section of conveyor belt, moving south to north. One apple per second is place on the south end. How many apples will be on the conveyor belt at steady state?

    It depends on the velocity of the conveyor. The slower, the more apples.

  56. Snape says:


    Yes, radiation travels at the speed of light, but from surface to space it does not travel in a straight line. The path is torturous, and a longer path takes longer.

    • Ball4 says:

      All at the same speed. Your conveyors and bulldozers need to do so as well.

    • Norman says:


      YOU: “The path is torturous, and a longer path takes longer.”

      I don’t think this is correct. This would only be the case if you had some type of perfect mirror set up and the radiation would make many jumps around before finding a spot to leave the mirrored system.

      The radiation travels a short distance and is destroyed, converted into vibrational energy of molecules in the atmosphere. The process is not one that takes a long time.

      There is really no energy build up as you suggest. What takes place is a atmosphere with temperature and emitting gases emits some energy back to the surface. The surface absorbs this energy and with a constant input from solar, will reach a higher temperture because of this DWIR.

  57. Snape says:

    *Garden hose example

    – Lay a garden hose in a straight line through an ice or snow covered section of your driveway.
    – Turn on the faucet.
    – If the water is warm enough, the snow or ice in contact with the hose will melt.

    – Now, instead of in a straight line, lay the hose in a coiled or twisted shape, so that the water in the hose is taking a tortuous path through the given area.
    – The result brings more heat and melting to the cold surface.


    This is true even though the velocity of water through the hose itself has not changed. And notice the rate of thermal input/output to the area is exactly the same in either case – straight or twisted.

    • Ball4 says:

      A) atm. UWIR that goes straight through has no warming realized
      B) atm. DWIR source flow through is cooler than the surface

      Snape, my point is better to explain the real process; you are pushing analogy too far.

  58. Snape says:


    Norman: [The radiation travels a short distance and is destroyed, converted into vibrational energy of molecules in the atmosphere. The process is not one that takes a long time.]

    Me: There are continuous flows of energy entering the lower troposphere from the surface, moving upwards and eventually exiting into the stratosphere. It takes time to get from a to b.

    In the atmospheric window, energy travels in a straight line and at the speed of light. A to be b is very fast. What you have described is much slower. Energy is absorbed by molecules, and these molecules do not travel upwards at anywhere near the speed of light.
    A slower conveyor belt.

    Norman: [There is really no energy build up as you suggest]

    Me: Of course there is. Atmospheric mass is fairly constant. If at a higher temperature then this mass has more energy. Think OHC, which is measured in joules, but for the LT instead.

    Norman: [What takes place is a atmosphere with temperature and emitting gases emits some energy back to the surface. The surface absorbs this energy and with a constant input from solar, will reach a higher temperture because of this DWIR]

    Me: Yes, of course, and I am not trying to challenge the well established science. Just looking at it in a different way.

  59. Snape says:

    If you placed one apple per second on a conveyor belt that was moving at the speed of light, then 99.9% of the time there would be no apples on the conveyor belt.

    For heat flow, substitute joules for apples.

    • Ball4 says:

      Your apples are also a continuous wave so the conveyor belt is 100% full of wave apples & individual apples at the same time as the surface is not blinking UWIR radiation. Your analogy breaks down quickly.

  60. Snape says:


    The analogy breaks down if you use a continuous wave of light, like from a light bulb. Works if you use the equivalent power but in discrete pulses:

    [A typical commercial strobe light has a flash energy in the region of 10 to 150 joules, and discharge times as short as a few milliseconds…..]


    So each second, a 10 joule pulse of light that lasts only a few milliseconds? You would be in the dark for most of the time (although your eyes might not think so).

  61. Snape says:


    [Why cant we reverse that temperature gradient between Earth and space to explain heat dissipation without radiation? Unfortunately, climate science has obscured that process by explaining it as a lapse rate related to heat rising. I think that is wrong,]

    Heat dissipation to space without radiation??
    Space is a vacuum, Gordon. Read about the problem with your idea here:

  62. Snape says:

    @Svante, Norman, Ball4

    Upthread I wrote,
    [a slower velocity equals longer RESIDENCE TIME. Residence time being the more familiar way of expressing the same idea.]

    You might think it is nutty or inappropriate to try and apply the concept of residence time to energy, but I am not totally alone. This is from a recent paper:

    [We are refering to a measurable and conserved substance. A good example of this type is the parameter defined in atmospheric chemistry as the average residence time of each individual gas, defined as (1). M is the total average mass of a gas in the atmosphere and F the total average influx or outflux. In time the averages for the whole atmosphere Fi and Fo are equal. Another example used in climate studies is the amount of water in a reservoir[1]. In this case, M is the amount of water stored in the reservoir and F is the amount of water that goes in and out of the reservoir.
    In this paper we want to extend the substance that flows from matter to energy, and estimate the average residence time of energy in Earths atmosphere and in the Sun. Obviously, in equation (1) M and F will now represent the total amount of energy in the system and the energy flux -in or out- respectively.]

Leave a Reply