UAH Global Temperature Update for August 2020: +0.43 deg. C

September 1st, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2020 was +0.43 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the July, 2020 value of +0.44 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:

 YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.35 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.53 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.38 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.12 +0.65
2020 02 +0.75 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.47 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for August, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

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


1,065 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for August 2020: +0.43 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Henk says:

    Thanks Dr. Roy

    Appreciate the quick upload ☺️

      • wert says:

        +1. I note also that the hiatus appears to be over, whatever that means. I really wish Dr. Spencer can keep this series coming each month.

        • bill hunter says:

          Things can appear as you wish. No need to go by the mainstream definition of over, but by the official definition a climate length hiatus needs to be over by a climate length excursion from the hiatus because otherwise such an excursion is by definition weather.

          So the issue of the hiatus, if its resolved, should definitely be resolved somewhere near the solar maximum of cycle 26 should the cycle occur.

  2. Midas says:

    I wonder when a certain person here is going to acknowledge the current “La Nina conditions”?

    • Scott R says:

      Midas La Nina hasn’t officially started yet, but many models are predicting it soon. It’s the start of the 11 year la nina down beat. We should get 2 la nina type winters out of this before a small recovery. We have had la nina like temperatures for the last 11 days straight.

      https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

      • Bindidon says:

        Scott R

        The eternal problem with Cooling alarmist people like you, Scott R, is that you (intentionally or by ignorance) persistently ignore that ENSO signals are detected by inspecting alltogether

        – the mean, over many months, of the Nino3+4 SST
        – wind anomalies in the whole ENSO observation region
        – the pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti

        and not by looking at some arbitrary daily data within this small rectangle 5N-5S — 170W-120W.

        Above your somewhat superficial comment, there is one posted by Entropic Man. It contains a link you really should follow.

        J.-P. D.

      • Midas says:

        I know it hasn’t started yet. I am referring to a certain person who continually blames high anomalies on “El Nino conditions”. He invokes a “lag” when he needs it, but “forgets” to invoke it when it doesn’t help his claim. He needs a lag here, so if he is brave enough to respond he will invoke it.

          • Eben says:

            It should be also noted that in last few weeks the bottom trough has steadily dropped from 1 to 1.5 negative on their scale

          • Midas says:

            I’m afraid there is nothing there I don’t already know. My point was only what I stated in my last comment – that a certain person here (not you) keeps claiming that these high anomalies are solely due to “El Nino conditions”, whether or not we are actually in an official El Nino, invoking a lag when it suits him and ignoring it when it doesn’t. We have not had “El Nino conditions since March”, and are currently in “La Nina conditions”. I wonder why he regards one as significant and the other not.

          • bill hunter says:

            I would say its indeterminate why the high anomalies exist. Oceans are a major climate factor that the science surrounding them is just scratching the surface.

            In my area of the world (west coast US) the last El Nino brought huge quantities of warm water into our area that has been very gradually cooling over the past 5 years. And that cooling has not been consistent with subsequent small El Nino events.

            This year is perhaps the most dramatic with warm waters mixing wildly with cool waters. We are getting several degree surface ocean temperature shifts (8degF) in multiple cycles over this summer. However, the warmest its been is about 8degF below the peak in the 2014/5 El Nino where it topped 80F. These are the differences seen in a single offshore buoy that I watch regularly. This is typically the warmest time of the year and the buoy today is at 63F. And we sit around gobsmacked over a couple degrees F change in global mean temperature. LOL!

        • Swenson says:

          Midas,

          Go away troll.

        • Richard M says:

          Midas, high UAH anomalies have been due to warm SSTs, most often related to El Nino conditions. Why do you deny basic science?

          The lag between ENSO (both El Nino and La Nina) and UAH anomalies has been known for years. Why do you deny science? It has always been there. It doesn’t mean other factors cannot also affect the anomalies.

          For the last couple of El Nino events the normal drop in SSTs has been more extended than in previous years. After the El Nino in 2016 ended, there was a small initial drop but then the temperatures held on until they finally dropped in late 2017.

          https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to:2018

          It now appears like the same thing will happen after the end of the latest El Nino in May 2020. SSTs are once again staying higher.

          https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2018/to

          This means the UAH anomaly will also remain a little higher. But, just like the previous El Nino, the anomalies will eventually drop. And, if the current La Nina conditions persist they will drop faster.

          The bottom line is the oceans drive the global temperatures.

          https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.2/trend

          Now, what do you think warms the oceans?

          • Midas says:

            Like all the other deniers, you ignore my clearly stated point, and make your alternate argument.
            Please find where I said where lags don’t exist.
            Then address the actual point I was making, and clarifying and reclarifying for your friends-in-denial.

          • Richard M says:

            You had no point. You spewed nonsense. I have always stated there was a lag and even mentioned it back in May when the El Nino ended. So your claim that I invoke them arbitrarily is pure nonsense.

            You’ve made a complete fool of yourself. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. That’s about the only excuse you could vomit up about now.

            Let hear you deny basic science yet again.

      • bill hunter says:

        We all know climate models are unreliable for the purpose of forecasting beyond a few weeks.

  3. Bindidon says:

    When you compare, e.g. for the Arctic sea ice, a sequence of years using the monthly anomalies, you mostly obtain a plate of colorful spaghetti: the anomaly differences from year to year look, though correlated, quite a bit like generated by random.

    This is why such graphs are based on abolute values instead:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nitky-0HZjMItJo7Qyw0zeM6buancKcf/view

    *
    When you manage to reconstruct absolute UAH temperatures out of anomalies and climatology, you can produce a similar graph for UAH6.0 LT:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JPqaDpG-_PXextMbi1qfMGCOGNpRlHru/view

    It’s another view at the data…

    J.-P. D.

  4. ren says:

    Strong jump in solar wind speed. La Nina will grow stronger now.
    http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/pm_2week.imagemap?342,78

    • Scott R says:

      Yes… few understand… the solar minimum slows down ocean circulation and creates a el nino. This keeps the warm water on the surface, and the water underneath cold. The warm water has a chance to shed energy rather than depositing it to the deep ocean. Finally, when the solar cycle starts, the cold water underneath comes up. The earth has a sense of humor. It’s coldest AS the sun comes back to life. The longer this la nina takes to happen, the more intense it will be when it finally arrives.

  5. Joe r says:

    Thank you for your updates!

  6. Dan Newman says:

    What about the stratosphere? Is it warming like it’s supposed to?

    • Bindidon says:

      Dan Newman

      ” Is it warming like it’s supposed to? ”

      The stratosphere? Warming? Who told you that?

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view

      J.-P. D.

    • bdgwx says:

      It’s cooling. -0.28C/decade. In fact last month was a new record low.

    • Midas says:

      The stratosphere would indeed be supposed to be warming if the warming was caused by the sun. Greenhouse warming of the surface merely redistributes heat altitudinally, warming the surface and cooling the stratosphere.

      So your comment only makes sense if it was a challenge to those who believe the warming has been due to the sun.

      • Swenson says:

        Midas,

        Greenhouse warming is a nonsense term. What do you actually mean?

        • Midas says:

          Come on Mikey! Give your standard cut-and-paste request regarding the greenhouse effect. I have been suffering withdrawals.

        • Swenson says:

          Midas,

          You dont know what you mean? Why am I not surprised? You might be as deluded as you appear.

          • Midas says:

            Ahhh ….. Mikey called me ‘deluded’ ….. I missed you calling me that. Yet another Flynn signature moment.

          • Swenson says:

            Midas is a strange lad. Spouts nonsense in all directions, gets called out, and creates imaginary conspiracies to divert attention from his idiocy.

            Apparently, he has an imaginary playmate named Mikey, upon whom he vents his spleen. Apart from that, he seems to believe that many commenters are actually my creations. He seems to be just another idiotIc deluded alarmist, attempting to avoid facing reality. I look forward to his continued avoidance tactics as a humorous insight into the disordered alarmist mind.

            Midas must also believe the IPCC is a conspiracy cooked up by me to make him look foolish. Midas doesnt need any assistance in that regard. Hes doing a fine job, all by himself.

          • Midas says:

            The typical Mike Flynn 3rd person address.

      • Mark B says:

        Midas: Greenhouse warming of the surface merely redistributes heat altitudinally, warming the surface and cooling the stratosphere.

        Nitpicking, but “redistributes” isn’t the best choice of words. It implies a constant quantity of energy distributed in a different way. The reality is that the total energy in the earth system has increased because of the higher heat capacity of the lower atmosphere never mind the oceans.

  7. Snape says:

    Last winter produced the most boring weather ever recorded in the Pacific NW. Climate change?

    Hoping a la nina will make the coming one more interesting.

  8. Eben says:

    You need some climate shystering update with the new month release

    https://youtu.be/5l31VlPoXvM
    https://youtu.be/k14gdwXXmmI

  9. Galaxie500 says:

    2nd warmest Aug on UAH records for what it’s worth.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      I make it 3rd, behind 1998 and 2016. Those were both El Nino influenced years though. Aug 2020 is certainly the warmest ‘ENSO-neutral’ August in UAH.

    • SAMURAI says:

      Ranking years is for rank amateurs who dont understand science.

      Were currently at the same average global temperature as during the Medieval WP, Roman WP, Minoan WP, Sumerian WP, etc.-Warming Periods happen every 1,000 years…

      The Holocene Maximum 8,000 years ago was substantially warmer than now and there werent many SUVs back then…

      The Little Ice Age lasted from 1250~1850 where global temps fell for 600 years due to 5 Grand Solar Minimum events.. You want to rank those years, too?

      Global temps are very noisy and sinusoidal by nature and the earth is plunged into devastating cold glaciation periods every 20,000 thousand years or so due to Milankovitch cycles.

      During the end of the last Glaciation period 12,000 years ago, NYC was under 1 mile of ice….Would you prefer to be ranked during that time?

      • Midas says:

        So global temps are sinusoidal are they. I’d love you to try to fit a single sine curve to the data and go close to hitting all the data.

      • bdgwx says:

        SAMURAI said: Were currently at the same average global temperature as during the Medieval WP, Roman WP, Minoan WP, Sumerian WP, etc.-Warming Periods happen every 1,000 years…

        Nope. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7#ref-CR5

        The Holocene Maximum 8,000 years ago was substantially warmer than now and there werent many SUVs back then…

        Warmer…maybe. Substantially warmer…probably not. See above.

        The Little Ice Age lasted from 1250~1850 where global temps fell for 600 years due to 5 Grand Solar Minimum events.. You want to rank those years, too?

        Sure. Go ahead.

        Global temps are very noisy and sinusoidal by nature and the earth is plunged into devastating cold glaciation periods every 20,000 thousand years or so due to Milankovitch cycles.

        It was 40k years and then transitioned to 100k years. But yes, orbital cycles are believed to have heavily influenced the timing of the glacial cycles.

        During the end of the last Glaciation period 12,000 years ago, NYC was under 1 mile of ice….Would you prefer to be ranked during that time?

        Sure. Go ahead.

  10. SAMURAI says:

    Both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans seem to be close to entering their respective 30-year cool cycles, which will eventually lead to falling global temps for at least 30 years, which always occurs…

    The ENSO 3.4 Index has also fell below -0.5C last week, so it’s highly likely a La Niña cycle will officially start from December of this year.

    The Southern Ocean, the South Pacific, and the Southern Indian Ocean are all showing huge areas of cooling, which is further evidence the earth may be entering a cooling period.

    It’s also very interesting to see the rapid increase in Antarctic Sea Ice which now exceeds 2 standard deviations above the 40-year mean and is now in the top 10 years in size over the past 40 years, when just a few years ago, it was at its lowest in 40 years….

    Conclusion: The coming La Niña event will soon cause global UAH temps to fall rapidly over the next 2 years, and the PDO & AMO 30-year cool cycles will cause 30-years of additional cooling whenever they finally enter their respective cool cycles

    There is also the possibility that a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum cycle, which we seem to have already entered, may also contribute to further global cooling If the Svensmark hypothesis is correct.

    Regardless, the hilarious Leftist CAGW hypothesis will soon be tossed on the trash heap of failed ideas and will be ridiculed as being the most expensive Leftist hoax in human history.

    • barry says:

      “Conclusion: The coming La Niña event will soon cause global UAH temps to fall rapidly over the next 2 years…”

      Excellent! An actual precition from a ‘skeptic’.

      SAMURAI, I have bookmarked your comment and will return to it in 2 years. Stick around, won’t you?

      Below, I will share other predictions on the blog from ‘skeptics’.

      • bill hunter says:

        barry says:
        Excellent! An actual precition from a skeptic.

        SAMURAI, I have bookmarked your comment and will return to it in 2 years. Stick around, wont you?

        Below, I will share other predictions on the blog from skeptics.

        ======================================

        One who predicts is not a skeptic. They are just another person who thinks they know the answer.

    • Midas says:

      Samurai, Sep 9 2017:
      “The current 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005”

      Samurai, Sep 2 2020:
      “Both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans seem to be close to entering their respective 30-year cool cycles”.

      Oh dear! What is 2020-2005?
      Whatever “facts” are convenient at the moment …

      • Midas says:

        The ACTUAL PDO data:
        Last deep minimum in 2010.

        • SAMURAI says:

          That is correct. The last strong la nina Cycle was in 2010, and on average, there is at least one strong la nina cycle every 10 years, so its highly likely this la nina will be strong one dipping down to -1.5C, which would cause UAH temp anomaly to hit -0.2C following its cold peak.

          • Midas says:

            So you are now going to pretend I was talking about La Nina instead of the PDO.

            If the PDO really follows a 30 year cycle and the last minimum was in 2010, then it can’t be true that the Pacific is “close to entering its 30-year cool cycle”, now can it. Especially when you previously stated that this happened in 2005.

          • bill hunter says:

            obviously you midas doesn’t understand that climate is merely long term mean weather and that the longest climate patterns we can reliably predict are a few weeks.

            now one can use intellectual dishonesty to semantically obfuscate that fact but it should be called out for what it is. if you disagree with that you are certainly welcome to offer the evidence. but the fact is if there were such evidence folks would not be in here arguing about it.

          • Midas says:

            In comes another denier to attempt to save his fellow denier after being caught out.
            Climate is warming, whether you choose to call it “climate” or “average weather”.
            Place ten cards numbered 1 to 10 in a box, and draw one at a time with replacement, 1 million times.
            Can you predict the next draw (weather)?
            Can you predict the average number of 10’s per draw to a reasonable level of accuracy (climate)?
            Now add another 10 to the box and answer the same questions.

          • Swenson says:

            Midas,

            More pointless analogies? What is the climate of New York? Of California? Of Russia? You cant actually define them in any quantifiable way, can you?

            You are a deluded fanatic. Climate is the average of weather. Even your IPCC said *prediction of future climate states is not possible*. What makes you are so much smarter than the res5 of the alarmists?

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            Midas is correct in his view of climate.

            You ask what the climate of California is? It is variable based upon location.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California#/media/File:California_K%C3%B6ppen.svg

            Here is the major climate classifications. They are a product of seasonal temperature and precipitation. They are generally long term patterns which is evident by the type of life that exists in the climate region.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification

            The climate patterns are generally persistent. The concern with climate change is how it will affect the living ecosystems of given climates. If a forest area turns into an arid climate it will greatly change what can live there. If the change is quick it can kill off life forms before new ones can emerge and you can end with massive extinction events (that have happened more than once throughout the history of life). Massive extinctions can be a problem since life depends upon food chains.

            Climate change is not a problem if it occurs slowly. There is evidence the Arctic Ocean was quite warm at one time. If the cooling took place in a slow process the warm water creatures would move away to be replaced by life forms that thrive well in colder water. If the Amazon dried out (major climate change) in a very short period of time it would be devastating to the living systems that now occupy the rain forests. Gradual change would not be such an issue.

            The concern is that some climate scientists believe that the warming will be rapid and intense which might change many climate systems with unknown effects on the current living systems.

            I do not share this view and do not see vast amounts of evidence supporting the hypothesis. It is something to consider and not ignore. The “alarmists” could be correct.

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            Yes, the alarmists may be right. Or they may be wrong. Nobody knows. The IPCC says it is impossible to know. I agree. Midas is a fool, as he demonstrates time after time.

            I make my assumptions. I act accordingly. So far so good.

          • Midas says:

            One has to wonder at the worth of an individual like Mark Flynn / Amazed / Swenson, whose only self-appointed purpose in life is to overtly express denial with every word he speaks, with no rational justification, and without the ability to say anything positive about anyone or anything. I suppose he can claim to be the “perfect denier”.

          • Swenson says:

            Midas has widened his circle of imaginary conspiracy members. Now he includes Mark Flynn. I dont know who he is, either.

            Sigh.

          • Midas says:

            If denial convinces you that it is not damn obvious who you are, Mikey, then so be it. I’m sure you’ve already worked out that people who deny, deny, deny are never regarded as having an opinion worth listening to.

          • bill hunter says:

            Norman says:
            The concern is that some climate scientists believe that the warming will be rapid and intense which might change many climate systems with unknown effects on the current living systems.

            I do not share this view and do not see vast amounts of evidence supporting the hypothesis. It is something to consider and not ignore. The “alarmists” could be correct.
            ===================================

            Thats correct Norman. The fact the warmists could be correct is completely consistent with the notion that no climate models are reliable beyond a few weeks.

          • bill hunter says:

            Midas says:

            If denial convinces you that it is not damn obvious who you are, Mikey, then so be it. Im sure youve already worked out that people who deny, deny, deny are never regarded as having an opinion worth listening to.
            ============================

            It probably would be helpful if the proponents of catastrophic global warming actually spent a little time studying the English language. Then they might be able to make some sense.

            A denier is as much of a non-skeptic as is one who claims something.

            The only position of a skeptic is one of uncertainty. There main role is to ask questions, lots of them. Claimers who don’t have much in the way of answers get upset and call them deniers.

          • Midas says:

            “The only position of a skeptic is one of uncertainty.”

            Then you and Mike Flynn are clearly not skeptics.

          • bill hunter says:

            Midas says:

            The only position of a skeptic is one of uncertainty.

            Then you and Mike Flynn are clearly not skeptics.

            ===============================================

            Based upon what observation? Skeptics need not be skeptics of everything. I would classify Roy, and dozens of other top climate related scientists to be skeptics of climate models.

            there is plenty of room for that as climate models have not performed well. As I have pointed out there are loose cannon sliding around on the climate model deck making a mess of things. Climate modelers would like to think the issue is temporary but they really have no reason to believe that beyond their own biases.

            The name of the cannon is natural variation. Evidence of natural variation of multi-decadal lengths was simply ignored in developing climate models, they cannot replicate those observed changes. . . .instead the masters of deception made a movie of a hockey stick. Evidence of natural variation is all around us. . . .everywhere you look. One has to don blinders and simply handwave it all away in a headlong effort to come to a solution.

          • MikeR says:

            Is Swenson still claiming he is not Mike Flynn?

            My Sock Puppet Detection software says otherwise.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519008

        • SAMURAI says:

          Midas-san:

          PDO and AMO warm and cool cycles are about 30-years in duration.

          Recent PDO Cool Cycles occurred from 1880~1910 and 1945~1978, and we’re still waiting for the next one to actually start. During the last two PDO cool cycles global temps fell.

          Recent PDO Warm Cycles occurred from 1910=1945 and 1978~to the present, and during both of these PDO Warm cycles, global temps increased… So what? CO2 forcing had little to do with warming during PDO warm cycles….

          The next PDO cool cycle hasn’t started yet, but when it does, global temps will start cooling as they ALWAYS do…

          You’re such a troll…

          • Svante says:

            The PDO has a warm and a cool pole.
            How much can the global average change when the poles switch?
            Links to science please!

            The AMO is about +/- 0.2 C and we have four cycles on record here:
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216

          • Midas says:

            So why did you say in 2017 that the current cool cycle began in 2005?
            I am not asking you to make the same claims again as in your last post. I am asking why your claims are so fluid.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            The PDO has a warm and a cool pole.
            How much can the global average change when the poles switch?
            Links to science please!

            ========================================

            One can only get a study published on an event being an explanation for recent warming or even two such events as being a cause for that warming, if and only if it comports with the officially approved method of warming.

            Of course studies comporting with official accepted science are allowed to be published basically for the sake of conversation in advancing the discussion on the officially recognized cause of warming. . . .in reality it’s not being endorsed on its own accord.

            Samurai correctly points out two such events as causing climate change that is in time with historical temperature records that doesn’t comport with officially accepted means of changing climate despite being in excess of 17 years (33 years to be precise).

            This is closely related to my comments about how climate models fail to replicate past “climate”.

            Dr. Judith Curry talks frequently about this disconnect and for that she has earned the label denier. Denier in this case should be worn as a badge of honor (as Anthony Watts did when he saw his name on the list).

            Thats because the dishonor is in the mouth of the person forming that word in the case of climate.

            The fact still remains there is no evidence that ocean oscillation cycles actually create continued warming. You really likely need to look elsewhere. Warmists can’t stand it because making it necessary to look at longer warming trends destroys the message of urgency and impending runaway warming necessary to move the political needle. They really need the warming of the past 40 years to be all CO2 caused to get to that cherished 2C thought necessary for drastic climate action.

            All Samurai is doing is suggesting there is a good chance it won’t get there.

            Now with a strong move toward lower solar activity you may have a double whammy in the making. This stuff moves slowly. It took 20 years to get the warming that started in 1980 to a fever pitch. Whether a cooling cycle started in 2005 or my best guess 2012 (a sine wave based concept of 1980-1997 17 years of warming, 1997-2013 17 years of pause at the top, then 17 years of cooling – temporarily interrupted by a 5 year record level El Nino.

            But I realize that those 33 year patterns isn’t likely to be consistent and has too short of a history of repetition to be reliable – so it could be off by a lot.

            I mean this is like water divining. To get good at it you need to gain a lot of experience about the kind of topography where you are likely to find water. And if somebody wants to know how you do it. . . .you hand him a forked stick and tell him to use it and start digging.

          • bill hunter says:

            svante you asked for links on climate change being brought by the pdo pole switch.

            I don’t have any at my fingertips. But the PDO matches perfectly throughout the instrument temperature record.

            Since there have only been two cycles in that record its rather difficult to do a statistical study. i only study it from a localized effect. speculating on how it might work to change climate is fairly straight forward. Weather systems travel on the jet stream through the Gulf of Alaska. Pole switching changes those patterns and most likely affects how much moisture the polar jet stream weather systems picks up. it does affect rainfall in California with cool periods and La Nina portending low rainfall, thus less water vapor thus lower greenhouse effect.

          • Svante says:

            I asked for science but i got fluff from bill hunter.
            I know you don’t read science, but the reference I gave you factors out ocean cycles.
            The AMO has a strong influence.
            The residual is small so the PDO is not needed in order to explain global temperature.

            Perhaps it’s because the PDO has a warm and cool pole which switch, so the average flat.
            Perhaps it’s because the PDO is synchronized with the AMO.
            I’m ready to be informed by science.
            Perhaps someone like barry or bdgxw has it?

          • barry says:

            How about a graph?

            https://tinyurl.com/y26k3d22

            Correlation PDO/global temps seems to break down just after 1980.

            PDO is a ~30 yr fluctuation. It can’t explain centennial warming.

          • bill hunter says:

            Its needed if the injection of moisture in jet stream driven weather patterns in the Pacific influences the AMO.These are global systems.

            One cannot just wave ones hand and discard something when you are 9 millions miles away from causation. Or perhaps you are too stupid to continue to consider such an idea?

            “For every complex problem, there’s a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” H.L. Mencken

          • bill hunter says:

            barry says:
            Correlation PDO/global temps seems to break down just after 1980.
            PDO is a ~30 yr fluctuation. It can’t explain centennial warming.

            ==============================

            You are right that the PDO doesn’t control the underlying trend. to see the continued correlation better you need to reduce your offset and detrend the temperature data. Then its easier to see how the PDO makes for climate length temporary variability (climate length because the definition of climate 17 years is too short to exclude this mode of variation). IMHO, if you increase it you will eventually find another cyclical variability of an even longer length as suggested back in 2009 by Dr. Syun Akasofu.

          • barry says:

            “But the PDO matches perfectly throughout the instrument temperature record.”

            No, it doesn’t, as is clear in the graph. Temp and PDO move in opposite directions after 1980.

            For AMO, there is divergence with global temps from 2000.

            https://tinyurl.com/yygud33e

            AMO is measured (in the above analysis) by detrended North Atlantic SSTs. It is very difficult to know how if/how much these fluctuations alias global temperatures (same for PDO).

            Both cycles have been going downward + flat for the past 20 years, but global temps have gone upwards.

          • Svante says:

            Brilliant barry.
            The 6th paper links AMO and PDO with a time lag.
            It’s not very obvious here:
            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/offset:-3.7/scale:0.2/mean:120/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/offset:-1/scale:0.7/mean:60

            The paper does say both may be forced by global warming.
            Like it says here:
            https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/32/16/4893/343967/A-Limited-Role-for-Unforced-Internal-Variability

    • barry says:

      Eben says:
      May 5, 2020
      “The temperature will be dropping so fast from now on you will have to wear a parachute just looking at it”

      Every month since that prediction from April anomaly has been warmer than the April anomaly.

      Scott R says:
      July 10, 2019
      “El nino update:….
      Seems to me, the leaders are saying we are going into a La Nina.”

      Nope, next thing that happened was el Nino (or neutral, depending on your metric).

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      August 13, 2017
      “I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010”

      Nope, NH Summer averaged 0.2 C over the 1980-2010 average. In fact, we haven’t yet had even a one month anomaly at or below the baseline since March 2012.

      Here’s a good one:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      July 3, 2018
      “Barry you must understand if the global temperatures rise from this point in time on I will say I am wrong.”

      And what happened next?

      Salvatore stopped posting here a year or so ago…..

      • Midas says:

        If NASA’s forecast of a strong La Nina comes true, we could indeed have our first negative months since 2012. In fact, their forecast is at the upper end of “strong”, so I guess there is an outside chance of our first “very strong” La Nina since the data begins in 1950.

        However the other models are not as strong, with the Met Office forecast making it just above “moderate”.

        If I had to bet based on an average forecast, I would go with a couple of negative months, perhaps even -0.1, but -0.2 is unlikely.

        The only certainty though is that deniers will pretend this wind-assisted data proves their case.

        • Rawandi says:

          The arrival of negative months would undermine the credibility of climate alarmism.

        • barry says:

          … because brain-dead people would think that negative anomaly equals cold.

          • Rawandi says:

            A negative anomaly cannot arrive unless a cooldown occurs. I’m wrong?

          • Midas says:

            It seems you are unaware of the distinction between mean and spread of a data set.
            So yes – you are wrong.

          • Bindidon says:

            Rawandi

            Unfortunately, unless I overlooked it, there is no directly available absolute data for the four atmospheric layers (LT, MT, TP, LS) observed by UAH and processed into the 6.0 time series.

            But you can combine, for these layers, UAH anomalies with the corresponding climatology and by the way obtain back the absolute data:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JPqaDpG-_PXextMbi1qfMGCOGNpRlHru/view

            Though anomalies are much more important when comparing different data sets, and, according to Roy Spencer, eliminate the bias due to the annual cycle, a look at absolute data sometimes is helpful.

            It tells you that it might take some time before LT temperatures move down by about 1 K ( equal to 1 degree Celsius) before anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 become negative.

            As our friend Salvatore del Prete used to say: “Time will tell”.

            J.-P. D.

          • barry says:

            Rawandi, as no one claims that AGW = month on month or year on year inexorable, monotonic rising temps, no a cold dip is not going to spoil the party.

            There’s a statistical possibility that even with underlying AGW, the usual ups and downs may bring some negative anomalies in the UAH data set. I have said so myself in the years following the record warm year of 2016.

            But UAH is only one global data set, and the baseline is semi-arbitrary. A negative anomaly in UAH doesn’t mean other global temp series will also have negative anomalies for the same degree of cooling between one month and another. In this respect, what is ‘cold’ is based on other metrics, mostly qualitative, not on anomalies derived from a baseline.

        • SAMURAI says:

          MIDAS hilariously wrote, “so I guess there is an outside chance of our first “very strong” La Nina since the data begins in 1950.”

          What an idiot…. Since 1950, there have been SEVEN STRONG la nina events: 1973/74, 1975/76, 1988/89. 1998/99, 1999/00, 2007/08 and 2010/11…

          We’re about to have our EiGHTH strong La Nina event 2020/21….

          Read more, post less.

          You’re such a clueless troll…

      • Nate says:

        Nevervsay never, but still, Ill bet the red line, 13 mo ave, will never cross 0 again, in the absence of a Pinatubo size eruption.

        • Midas says:

          I believe that is still a possibility, especially if we have the deep 3-year La Nina of the mid-70s.

        • Rawandi says:

          Obviously, if the red line were to drop below zero, that would be far worse for climate scaremongering than a few negative months.

        • bill hunter says:

          nate i wouldn’t be making any predictions. CO2 emissions are more than an order of magnitude greater than they were in the early 20th Century when the warming rate was very similar to the recent warming rate.

          That strongly suggests an unaccounted for multi-decadal climate variable of large magnitude as an order of magnitude increase in emissions should be showing something like triple the warming rate. Quite simply that hasn’t materialized and until it does or until unaccounted variables are finally accounted for uncertainty will rule the day.

          • Nate says:

            “That strongly suggests an unaccounted for multi-decadal climate variable of large magnitude as an order of magnitude increase in emissions should be showing something like triple the warming rate.”

            Nope. The CO2 forcing is logarithmic Bill.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            I suppose it doesnt concern you that the IPCC itself stated that it was not possible to determine future climate states? You know better? Makes your supposed CO2 forcing (whatever that is) irrelevant.

            Sigh.

          • Nate says:

            When you bet on a sporting event or blackjack, it is not because you KNOW the outcome.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            I dont bet on either one for that very reason. If you choose to do so, I wish you the best of luck. You might need it.

          • bill hunter says:

            nate-Nope. The CO2 forcing is logarithmic Bill.

            —————————

            Thats correct Nate and the log reciprocal of an order of magnitude is 3. So an order of magnitude increase in emissions should create triple the warming rate.

          • Midas says:

            BH

            How did you calculate that without knowing the base of the logarithm??

          • bill hunter says:

            Its been expressed as a base 2 logarithm.

          • bill hunter says:

            The bottom line is that Judith Curry continues to talk about the uncertainty that arises out of the lack of explanation for the early 20th century warming. It’s simply not supported by any CO2 calculation. Or it would already be explained.

            Thus there is a large loose cannon in the popular theory. That is but one thing that gives rise to the the idea of multi-decadal oscillations. There is plenty of more fossil and biological evidence of such.

            What isn’t well established is the timing of the oscillation. The evidence of any set pattern of timing is very weak. For all we know there could be large longterm variability in the length of the these climate cycles. . . .making this cannon really loosey goosey.

          • Nate says:

            “So an order of magnitude increase in emissions should create triple the warming rate.”

            Uggghh. No Bill.

            You need to stop clicking on those ‘How to prove climate science all wrong with this one simple trick’ links.

            The temperature is proportional Forcing which is logarithmic in CO2. The CO2 Forcing has been increasing very close to linearly for a few decades.

            See Radiative Forcing Wiki.

          • Midas says:

            BH

            That is NOT how you calculate climate sensitivity. If that was how it was done, the sensitivity would be the same for every greenhouse gas.

            The calculation is : delta T = K times log(R)

            where R is the ratio of old:new concentrations

            and K is a constant that depends on both the greenhouse gas under consideration and the choice of your base for the logarithm.

            If you know how to manipulate logarithms, the K can be combined into the log provided just the right base is used.

            You have no K, so you need to use the right base for your log that matches the sensitivity of CO2. That base is not 2, and it will not be a nice number like 2.

            Perhaps try to understand the mathematics before posting BS.

          • Midas says:

            Correction:

            New:old concentrations

          • Midas says:

            “Combined into the log” is perhaps misleading.

            I mean that the correct choice of log base for the greenhouse gas under consideration leads to K being 1.

          • barry says:

            “Obviously, if the red line were to drop below zero, that would be far worse for climate scaremongering than a few negative months.”

            Only for people who have a fundamental misunderstanding of what anomalies actually are, ignorance of trends, and basic incompetence in understanding data.

            The only people assigning meaning to a negative anomaly have more of a political than a scientific outlook.

          • Rawandi says:

            Barry, if the red line went into the negative zone for a few years, the alarmist scientists would panic.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Uggghh. No Bill.

            You need to stop clicking on those How to prove climate science all wrong with this one simple trick links.

            The temperature is proportional Forcing which is logarithmic in CO2. The CO2 Forcing has been increasing very close to linearly for a few decades.

            See Radiative Forcing Wiki.
            ======================

            You are one ignorant boob Nate. So you want me to click on a 2 dimensional model of radiative forcing to dispel my 4 dimensional concerns about the Greenhouse Theory?

            And in order to do that either you display your complete ignorance (natural variation doesn’t exist). Dr Judith Curry has spoken at length about the single item I am pointing out. If the early 20th Century warming is solely attributable to increasing anthropogenic emissions. . . .then the climate would already be approaching 3C warming. So how was that obviously incorrect conclusion avoided? The modelers ignored the early 20th century warming. The climate models cannot replicate historical climate.

            If you were in private enterprise and sold product on that you would get sued and lose. But governments and academia can’t be sued for malpractice.

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            When you post something that is obviously completely wrong, when corrected, doubling down and moving the goal posts gets you no cred. You just look foolish.

            Just time to slow down and check your work before posting

          • Nate says:

            Actually, sorry Bill, it could be triple, I misread your post as ‘order of magnitude larger’.

          • Nate says:

            As far as the warming rates, they were .095K/decade from 1900 -1950 and .185K/decade from 1970-2020. About a doubling.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/plot/best/from:1900/to:1950/trend/plot/best-upper/from:1970/to/trend

            Of course, natural variation played a role, and we know about a lot of it.

            For example, in 1900-1920 volcanoes suppressed T. And in the 1940s there was a double strong EL Nino that enhanced T.

          • Midas says:

            Bill Hunter

            Funny how when you get corrected you respond to everyone else but refuse to acknowledge that you didn’t understand the application of logs to climate sensitivity, and just invented that calculation.

          • barry says:

            “Barry, if the red line went into the negative zone for a few years, the alarmist scientists would panic.”

            Panic.

            You are interested in emotional responses. Not the science.

            Politics.

            How about this. I’ll make a prediction that, absent a super massive volcano eruption, there will be no dip into negative territory longer than 6 consecutive months.

            I will bet $1000. You can stump for $100. Bet is called during January 2025, when the anomaly for Dec 2024 is published here.

            That gives us 52 months.

            Sound fair? Want to amend it?

          • Midas says:

            Barry

            Mr Spencer will probably change the baseline at the end of 2020, to increase the illusion for unthinking deniers that there has been less warming than there has actually been. So you had better clarify your bet.

            I also think it is a somewhat dangerous bet. The La Nina of 1974 was much deeper than any La Nina in the satellite period, and the extended MEI data suggests that the La Nina of 1893/94 was much deeper again. We had 6 consecutive negative months in 2011/12, and I don’t think the 0.1 increase in the trend since then would cancel out another 1893/94 event.

          • Nate says:

            Im basing it on the strong and long La Nina of 2011-12. The red line just kissed the 0 line.

            We’ve had a persistent warming increment since then, so a strong La Nina is unlikely to do it. Maybe a super-duper La Nina, but these are rare, and absent one in the next 5 y or so, I think even that wont do it.

          • bill hunter says:

            Midas says:

            Bill Hunter

            Funny how when you get corrected you respond to everyone else but refuse to acknowledge that you didn’t understand the application of logs to climate sensitivity, and just invented that calculation.

            ========================

            Corrected? Nate apologized for misreading my post. Now thats a correction for you. . . .what are you going to do about it?

          • Midas says:

            So you flatly refuse to acknowledge your calculation for climate sensitivity was wrong, and instead come up with some BS about your interaction with another person. When will deniers learn to be honest.

          • bill hunter says:

            Midas says:

            So you flatly refuse to acknowledge your calculation for climate sensitivity was wrong, and instead come up with some BS about your interaction with another person. When will deniers learn to be honest.

            ===========================

            You need to go back and start over. I am not calculating climate sensitivity. I am calculating a warming trend ratio given an emission rate increase. You can plug any sensitivity your heart desires into it. 3.0 1.5 .5 you pick.

          • Midas says:

            ” … the log reciprocal of an order of magnitude is 3. So an order of magnitude increase in emissions should create triple the warming rate.”

            You then confirmed that the base you were using was 2.

            In other words, you were calculating log of 10 base 2.

            Please explain where in this calculation one has the opportunity to plug in a sensitivity.
            And how would one adjust for the different effects of CO2 and methane?

          • bill hunter says:

            its merely expressing how many doublings of co2 concentration occurs in a given period of period of time that results from multiplying emissions.

            then to get the total warming as opposed to that rate increase you can choose a sensitivity number to get total warming
            but that is outside the scope of the issue I was expressing.

          • Midas says:

            You have no idea what you are talking about. Those comments are just a load of gobbledygook designed to obscure the fact that you didn’t understand the calculation. Your calculation connects CO2 doublings neither to temperature nor to the rate of increase of temperature. You said “an order of magnitude increase in emissions should create triple the warming rate”, yet he warming rate is dependent on the climate sensitivity. And even when you factor in the sensitivity, the statement is just wrong. What is important is the rate at which CO2 concentrations grow AS A FRACTION OF TOTAL CO2 CONCENTRATIONS.
            Please learn some basic high school maths.

          • bill hunter says:

            Midas says:

            So you flatly refuse to acknowledge your calculation for climate sensitivity was wrong, and instead come up with some BS about your interaction with another person. When will deniers learn to be honest.

            =====================================

            When will you learn to be honest Midas? My thread on this topic was with Nate. You inserted yourself midway in the conversation. Its up to you to get up to speed on what the topic is rather than guessing thats its about sensitivity. Its not!

          • Midas says:

            How many threads have you “inserted yourself into”?
            You made an incorrect statement, and it deserved to be challenged.

          • bill hunter says:

            Midas says:

            You have no idea what you are talking about. Those comments are just a load of gobbledygook designed to obscure the fact that you didn’t understand the calculation. Your calculation connects CO2 doublings neither to temperature nor to the rate of increase of temperature.

            You said “an order of magnitude increase in emissions should create triple the warming rate”, yet he warming rate is dependent on the climate sensitivity. And even when you factor in the sensitivity, the statement is just wrong. What is important is the rate at which CO2 concentrations grow AS A FRACTION OF TOTAL CO2 CONCENTRATIONS.
            Please learn some basic high school maths.

            ========================================

            You are one ignorant boob Midas. Of course the absolute warming rate is connected to climate sensitivity. But it is not thought that climate sensitivity changed during the 20th century.

            You need to spend a lot more time studying this issue before commenting on it.

          • barry says:

            Thanks for the advice.

            I offered a bet to Rawandi. I’ve been offering bets here for years.

            Not one ‘skeptic’ has ever taken me up.

            Not one ‘skeptic’ has ever had any substance or strength behind their views to take me up.

            They are full of shit.

            Years of offers. No takers. Because they have zero substance backing their views.

          • Midas says:

            So you can’t even explain what your answer of 3 even means.
            In your original comment, you linked it to a 10-fold increase in warming rate.
            But without including climate sensitivity, it is impossible to forge ANY quantitative link with temperature, regardless of whether or not sensitivity has remained constant.

          • bill hunter says:

            Midas says:

            So you cant even explain what your answer of 3 even means.
            In your original comment, you linked it to a 10-fold increase in warming rate.
            But without including climate sensitivity, it is impossible to forge ANY quantitative link with temperature, regardless of whether or not sensitivity has remained constant.

            ======================================

            Wow! You just insist on remaining as dense as a block of granite!

            What I calculated was if say at x emissions you get a doubling of CO2 in 100 years, at 10x emissions you get 3.32 doublings of CO2.

            Thats a proportion.

            Now you can take the sensitivity and figure out what the warming is going to be under both emission scenarios.

            If sensitivity is 3.0 x emissions gets you 3C in 100 years.

            If emissions are 10x you get ~10C in 100 years.

          • Midas says:

            Bill Hunter

            “What I calculated was if say at x emissions you get a doubling of CO2 in 100 years, at 10x emissions you get 3.32 doublings of CO2.”

            Start at 400 ppm.

            Scenario (1)
            Increase at 4 ppm/yr.
            CO2 concentrations increase by 400 ppm after 100 years to 800 ppm.

            Scenario (2)
            Instead increase at 40 ppm/yr.
            CO2 concentrations increase by 4000 ppm after 100 years to 4400 ppm.

            4400/800 = 5.5.
            Is that 3.32 doublings?
            Or do you think perhaps you ignored an important factor?

          • bill hunter says:

            Midas says:
            Start at 400 ppm.

            Scenario (1)
            Increase at 4 ppm/yr.
            CO2 concentrations increase by 400 ppm after 100 years to 800 ppm.

            Scenario (2)
            Instead increase at 40 ppm/yr.
            CO2 concentrations increase by 4000 ppm after 100 years to 4400 ppm.

            4400/800 = 5.5.
            Is that 3.32 doublings?
            Or do you think perhaps you ignored an important factor?

            ====================================

            Some people when they are losing probably ought to stop digging.

            400ppm start
            800ppm 1st doubling
            1600ppm 2nd doubling
            3200ppm 3rd doubling
            6400ppm 4th doubling

          • Midas says:

            You keep deliberately interchanging emissions with concentrations.
            Your original claim was about EMISSIONS.
            Adding 400 ppm takes you to 800 ppm.
            Three more doublings of EMISSIONS means the increase of 400 becomes an increase of 3200, taking the total to 3600.
            Three more doublings of CONCENTRATIONS takes the 800 to 6400.
            The log rule applies only to CONCENTRATIONS.
            You can’t apply it to emissions to determine rates.

          • bill hunter says:

            LMAO! You are in way over your head.

          • bill hunter says:

            I explained this to you yesterday morning:

            “its merely expressing how many doublings of co2 concentration occurs in a given period of period of time that results from multiplying emissions.”

            I don’t see any doubling of emissions discussion there Midas. Whats up is English a 2nd language for you or did you flunk math?

            We are adding 40ppm/year at the 10x emissions.

            400ppm start
            800ppm 1st doubling reached in year 10 (400/40=10)

            1600ppm 2nd doubling reached in year 30 (1200/40=30)

            3200ppm 3rd doubling reached in year 70 (2800/40=70)

            4400ppm ~3.32 doubings reached in year 100 (4000/40=100)

            6400ppm 4th doubling year reached in year 150 (6000/40=150)

          • Midas says:

            So 3.32 doublings has now become “multiply by 11” instead if your original claim of “multiply by 10”.

            It’s easy to see who in in over their head.

          • bill hunter says:

            I said 10x the result was an estimate.

            You are the one that thought it was a sensitivity calculation and then when you figured out your were wrong about that you claimed it was 5.5 doublings. You have been all over the place wrong like a soup sandwich.

            So now you flatly refuse to acknowledge your calculations were all wrong, and instead come up with some BS about the estimate being off a bit. When will you learn to be honest?

          • Nate says:

            Find ln(concentration) for the years 1900 and 1950 and subtract, divide by 50 y. This is the rate of change of forcing.

            Do the same for 1970-2020.

            Find the ratio of these rate of changes. I find ~ 2.5.

            3 is possible.

          • bill hunter says:

            What are you babbling about Nate? World population since 1950 has tripled.

        • Nate says:

          “World population”

          No sequitur, Bill.

          Try to stay on one topic.

          In any case, emissions are not the Forcing, ln(concentration) is

          • bill hunter says:

            so are you in denial that the models can’t replicate the past?

            Can you not grasp the implications of that widely accepted fact?

          • Nate says:

            “in denial that the models cant replicate the past?”

            Not at all. I deny your notion that CO2 needs to explain the temperature record all by itself, and if not, its wrong.

            That is a silly strawman.

            As I argued above, but you ignored, natural variation is accepted as contributor to the record. Solar variation ENSO and volcanoes must be included to account for the 20th century record.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Not at all. I deny your notion that CO2 needs to explain the temperature record all by itself, and if not, its wrong.
            =============================

            I agree completely with you. If you are actually willing to accept that yourself then you can’t just assume everything that is happening, including all the warming recently seen, is any kind of validation of your pet theory.

            You can still hold your theory but evidence of it needs to be obtained from a different place than watching the weather and claiming everything you see that is consistent with warming is a validation of your theory.

            So assuming you are being truthful and forthright above in effect you are agreeing with Richard Lindzen that the entire modeling project should be abandoned as watching the weather and claiming consistency with the models is something you just admitted to as being completely unnecessary for that purpose.

          • Nate says:

            No Bill, stop trying to tell me you know what I think, cuz you fail every time.

            What I say is what I mean.

            Climate models incorporate natural forcings.

          • bill hunter says:

            sure Nate they have natural forcing in them but its trash code because it can’t duplicate the past. Its worthless a complete waste of money and effort. How do you expect it will predict climate change from a new unproven quantity of forcing if they can’t even duplicate the natural system even close?

          • Nate says:

            “but its trash code because it can’t duplicate the past. ”

            Oh? You got some evidence for this?

            Put up or shut up.

          • bill hunter says:

            You apparently already know the evidence Nate when you replied to my question:
            “in denial that the models cant replicate the past?”
            And your reply:
            “Not at all.”

            What is the value of code for natural variation if it can’t duplicate it?

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            “‘in denial that the models cant replicate the past?’”
            And your reply:
            “No, Not at all.”

            Stop playing silly word games, Bill.

            Im am saying I am not ‘in denial’ of anything.

            ‘In denial’ refers to denying an established fact, eg ‘climate denial’.

            Your assertion that ‘its trash code because it can’t duplicate the past.’, is clearly FALSE, since you are unable to provide credible evidence that it is TRUE.

            Just more made-up fake news from you, Bill.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            “‘in denial that the models cant replicate the past?’”
            And your reply:
            “No, Not at all.”

            Stop playing silly word games, Bill.

            Im am saying I am not ‘in denial’ of anything.

            ‘In denial’ refers to denying an established fact, eg ‘climate denial’.

            Your assertion that ‘its trash code because it can’t duplicate the past.’, is clearly FALSE, since you are unable to provide credible evidence that it is TRUE.

            Just more made-up fake news from you, Bill.

            ================================

            well perhaps you should ask somebody you trust who is informed on the issue of whether the models can reproduce the past or better yet provide the model runs that do that.

            Obviously you have your mind made up on zero evidence or you could produce the evidence. Its kind of like the evidence for a multi-layered greenhouse effect. . . .zero evidence.

            That fine I am sure for all the quacks out there and politicians with controlling personalities they never need evidence. How about you. Are you a certified member of one of those groups? If not you can prove it in a few seconds.

          • bill hunter says:

            I am also aware there is a difference of opinion as to whether models can accurately reproduce longterm climate change in excess of 4 decades or longer. However, its clear they cannot do it for less than 4 decades which poses a huge issue with recent warming.

            It may well be the period of 1910 to 1945 began with a La Nina and ended with the an El Nino. Its also true that individual ENSO events are not of a length of time constitute climate.

            However, 1910 to 1945 is considered long enough to constitute climate out of necessity. The warming from 1970 to the present is the only evidence that the warmists have that even hints at there being a problem with CO2 emissions. And it because with a 5 out 6 years of La Nina and ended with 4 out 6 years of El Nino with the largest El Nino on record included.

          • bill hunter says:

            Finally, take the 1910 to 1945 warming that arguably is all natural. Take it and subtract the .575 warming from the current UAH anomaly and what do you end up with for an anomaly? The answer is a minus .145 degrees.

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            Perhaps you should ask somebody you trust who is informed on the issue of whether the models can reproduce the past, or even better, find publications on the topic, BEFORE declaring that they definitely do not.

            It is not my job to disprove your numerous ass emissions.

          • Nate says:

            “It may well be the period of 1910 to 1945 began with a La Nina and ended with the an El Nino. Its also true that individual ENSO events are not of a length of time constitute climate.”

            Why cherry pick those years? Clearly 1910 is selected because it is impacted by volcanic cooling effects, which the models include but you fail to mention.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            It may well be the period of 1910 to 1945 began with a La Nina and ended with the an El Nino. Its also true that individual ENSO events are not of a length of time constitute climate.

            Why cherry pick those years? Clearly 1910 is selected because it is impacted by volcanic cooling effects, which the models include but you fail to mention.

            ===========================================
            Obviously you know very little about data analysis. Almost all the time one picks data snippets to analyze. The pick selected isn’t considered a ‘cherry pick’ unless bias or a lack of rational thought in the selection is present.

            I provided the rationale for the pick, beginning with a deep La Nina and ending with a major El Nino.

            This is actually the most rational selection because we don’t know if a deep La Nina or major El Nino bookended the earlier period but by selecting the most likely data that exemplifies that for comparison to the present where the relationship of a deep La Nina and major El Nino is clearly present we avoid a ‘cherry picking’ another time period that doesn’t likely include those attributes.

            And of course we have nothing else known that would inflate the earlier selection in some way as to bias the conclusion. I mean I could pick say 1880 to 1910 but that would be biased and ‘cherry picked’ period if I were trying to prove that CO2 is the main driver of climate. Of course Ben Santer in his selection for the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming study made the most biased ‘cherry picked’ possible periods of time available to him which he justified simply as being ‘the most recent’.

            But I suppose you are considerably too young, too inexperienced, and too ignorant to be aware of taking such precautions to minimize likely differences in the conditions influencing the data.

            Also, my understanding of the volcanic issue is that the largest volcanic eruption in the 20th century occurred after global average temperature hit its nadir in 1910-1911. Are you claiming that volcanos can cool the climate before the eruption?

          • Nate says:

            Pretty clear by now Bill that you cannot support your claim about models.

            Oh well, as expected.

          • bill hunter says:

            You must be color blind.

      • TheFinalNail says:

        Let’s hope salvatore del prete is fit and well. His relentless predictions of imminent cooling were posted on this MB for almost a decade. Here’s one of him forecasting the continuation of the “trend downward” in a Jan 2011 thread:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/#comment-8571

        And here’s a plot of UAH_TLT since Jan 2011, confirming instead a ‘trend upward’ at a rate of +0.52C per decade.

        https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2011/plot/uah6/from:2011/trend

        As salvatore put it back then: “Man made global CO2 HOAX, is in it’s last days.” How we miss him.

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        Yawn.

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh! How interesting!

      In his last post some months ago, SAMURAI proudly told us about one of his newest ‘discoveries’: the North Atlantic Cold Blob, allegedly since a while subject to lots of cooling.

      Having all HadISST1 data at hand, it was easy to contradict his nonsensical claim based on no more than guessing:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OSMgqD7ZcXBr6ql0dhQf0rHW4_unY4_/view

      *
      And now, he ‘suddenly’ switches to the South:

      ” The Southern Ocean, the South Pacific, and the Southern Indian Ocean are all showing huge areas of cooling, which is further evidence the earth may be entering a cooling period. ”

      But… I’m currently too lazy to look up for these terrific ‘huge areas of cooling’ in the Southern SST data, sorry :-<

      J.-P. D.

    • Nate says:

      Samurai, just another mad scientist promising us fools that global cooling is just around the corner, followed by maniacal laughter.

    • Rob Mitchell says:

      Hey Samurai, as a retired aviation-marine operational weather forecaster, I’ve noticed over the years and decades that climate science has been transformed into a political action committee on a global scale. Policy objectives have become front and center, while atmospheric research on natural climate variation has been ordered to “sit in the back of the bus.”

      The late great Dr. William Gray explained it well. He said that climate research back in the 1980s should have been structured in a way that provided equal funding for atmospheric researchers on human-caused global warming and climate change due to natural variation. Have both camps of scientists study thoroughly the causes of global temperature variation. After a number of years of research, have the AGW camp provide their findings and have the natural climate variation scientists present theirs. That way, as Dr. Gray said, we would have a real dialogue between the two different climate research camps. After both camps work to reconcile their conclusions, then go to the policy makers with their advice.

      Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The UN made an assumption that humans are the primary driver of climate change, and they saw to it that global governments only funded the research that satisfied their premise. Any opposition to the established way would be castigated.

      I am not an atmospheric scientist, but I am interested in the subject, and that is why I like to read the comments here on Dr. Spencer’s blog page. I can’t help but notice what the late great Freeman Dyson noticed about scientists. They are every bit as tribal as anybody else. And they oftentimes resort to emotion as a substitute for reason, just like what all other humans do.

      • Midas says:

        Its always ironic watching political animals insisting that it is someone else playing politics.

        • Rob Mitchell says:

          Midas, is atmospheric research funding equitable between natural and human-caused climate change?

          • bdgwx says:

            I think the amount of money spent on human-only climate change research is essentially zero. I don’t know of any reputable institution or scientist that seriously believes humans are the only means by which the climate can change.

            I think a relatively small amount of money is spent on natural-only climate change research. This benefits the understanding of pre-anthroprocene Earth history, but not so much the anthroprocene. There are a lot of scientists out there that believe that only nature can modulate the climate.

            I think the vast amount of money is spent on human+natural climate change research. This benefits the entirety of Earth’s history including the anthroprocene. Most institutions and scientists embrace they idea that both nature and humans can modulate the climate.

            The interesting thing is that human induced climate forcing is modulated through agents that are also modulated naturally like GHGs and aerosols. So if you’re doing research on human modulated influence then you’re automatically doing research on nature modulated influences as well. Though I will add the caveat that some GHG species (like CFCs) and some aerosol species (like synthetic chemical pollutants) have little if any natural modulation. But it’s important to understand that the work in these areas does not assume that it is only those trace species that have an impact on the climate.

      • SAMURAI says:

        Rob-san:

        You are correct. The CAGW hypothesis has always been a political phenomenon rather than a physical one..

        We’ve enjoyed about 0.85C of beneficial global warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, of which, CO2 forcing has beneficially contributed about 0.3C of the total recovery….

        Moreover, the added CO2 fertilization effect has increased crop yields by 15%, increased global greening by 20%, decreased plant water needs due to shrinking leaf stomata, decreased frost loss, extended the global growing season, increased arable land in Northern latitudes, etc.

        The CAGW hypothesis proposed ECS (global warming per CO2 doubling) will be 3~5C which is absolutely hilarious and unsupported by the empirical evidence, and these projections already exceeded reality by more than 2 standard deviations for 20+ years, so the CAGW hypothesis has already been completely disconfirmed…

        Leftists’ Useful idiots are poorly educated and haven’t a clue about science, and will believe whatever their Leftist teachers and Leftist political hacks tell them to believe…it’s so sad…

        Anyway, in about 10 years, the disparity between hypothetical projections vs. reality will exceed 3~4 standard deviations, at which time, CAGW will become a joke and Leftists will lose their chance to steal $100’s of trillions on this silly CAGW scam…

        Cheers!

        • bdgwx says:

          What natural factor accounts for the remaining 0.55C of warming?

          By the way…Berkeley Earth shows about 1.2C of warming since 1850.

          • bill hunter says:

            the only way Best gets it up to 1.2 is moving the original date back 20 years (accounting for about a 1/10degree, and picks up about 3 tenths a degree on the strength of the 2015 El Nino over the last of the 17 decades. So 4 tenths disappear just by slight adjustments to the dates. And Best has about .725 of the .8ish during the UAH period which has about .46 . . . so if we add .1 to UAH then UAH would have just over 1/2 a degree warming over the last 170 years.

            And even that should be excluded until its verified any of the recent warming is related to the natural causes that caused the early 20th century warming that bests trend line completely misses. So for fun lets limit UAH to 2010 and the reconstructed warming with upgraded satellite over the past 30 years and you get about .48 warming for 160 years.

            Sure for the kiddies they will tinker with the chart scale to make it look like a hockey stick blade like the description of the greenhouse effect that Nate is calling ”grade-school cartoon version” that he now wants to deny has anything to do with science.

            What kind of hog wash are these guys plying our kids with? We need to fire them all as too uneducated or dishonest and look for some Richard Feynman’s to instruct our kids. In fact, Richard Feynman video reruns would at least be an honest education!

          • Svante says:

            We were 1.2 C over the paleo climate base line in 2010.
            See close up at bottom right:
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3

            UAH has added 0.14 C since then.

          • bill hunter says:

            You are talking about only one opinion here. Other reconstructions come up with some very different numbers. Kind of a ouija board choice.

          • Svante says:

            This is the latest and greatest.
            Compare with Marcott et al. to see how science improved.
            Or Michael Mann for an earlier example.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            I’m not the one that picked 1850. We can determine the warming from any starting date you want. Your challenge here is to figure out how that warming came about. SAMURAI believes that only 35% of the warming since 1850 occurred because of CO2 (and I presume other GHGs as well). Where do you think the other 65% came from?

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:
            bill,

            I’m not the one that picked 1850. We can determine the warming from any starting date you want. Your challenge here is to figure out how that warming came about. SAMURAI believes that only 35% of the warming since 1850 occurred because of CO2 (and I presume other GHGs as well). Where do you think the other 65% came from?
            ===============================

            IMO, there is the possibility of numerous causes of recent warming. A partial list might include recovery for a 700 year LIA, the 60 year solar grand maximum, the positive 40 year PDO, the recent 5-6 year super El Nino (adds .3 in one decade to the 170 year record).

            IMO, each of those are associated with recovery periods of the same length or possibly longer than the warm perturbation they created.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says: anything except CO2.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante thats because the question was where the other 65% came from.

          • Svante says:

            Sorry bill, I was too quick there, sloppy of me.

          • bill hunter says:

            no problem I think all of us pull the trigger too fast. I write a number of white papers and am fully aware of how important it is to double and triple verify everything as it is way too easy to do and the damage to credibility can be devastating, though completely unintentional.

            I see all the persecution going on on social media destroying careers and think its a bad harbinger for the future that this kind of persecution is tolerated. It truly is 1984. TCP/IP was invented in 1983 so it may have arrived right on schedule.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            Great. Now add up all of the additional energy the solar grand maximum, ENSO, and PDO have added to the geosphere and let’s see if it makes sense.

            BTW…how does ENSO and PDO add energy to the geosphere anyway? That’s new to me.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:
            bill,

            Great. Now add up all of the additional energy the solar grand maximum, ENSO, and PDO have added to the geosphere and lets see if it makes sense.

            BTWhow does ENSO and PDO add energy to the geosphere anyway? Thats new to me.

            =====================================
            Adding up past stuff is kind of like adding up an estimate of TOA imbalance from an estimate of missing heat. Pick a number for your estimate what was the increase in solar wattage coming out of the LIA, what difference does high frequency light have on oceanic evaporation rates (its known to have some but not documented at climate levels as near as I can tell), what is the evaporation rate seen in a typical pass of storm tracks across the Pacific Ocean and how do moving hotspots affect both those tracks and evaporation and the same can be said for all the hotspots associated with ocean related changes in weather and clouds. What are the effects of ice sheet changes on deep ocean circulation.

            In other words a lot of the same sort of massive funding for CO2 effects but applied a bit more democratically.

            Then you have the potential of more poorly understood theories like the effects of cosmic rays on clouds when the solar wind is reduced, what are the effects of massive changes in magnetic fields associated with solar variation.

            A lot of that stuff if not all is currently being studied some of it is finding its way into IPCC reports.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            So…you say natural factors can explain the heat uptake, but you can’t quantify the amount or explain how it happens?

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:
            So…you say natural factors can explain the heat uptake, but you can’t quantify the amount or explain how it happens?

            =====================================

            I don’t know what you are talking about. I have heard that science says that something on the order of 80 to 90% of solar energy not reflected ends up getting entrained in the water cycle and ends up in the ocean. What doesn’t is almost entirely made up of what goes out the atmospheric window.

            thus its insanity to not understand the primary heat transfer processes and claim you know them.

            To rationally discuss the ghe you have to explain the fate of this energy, obviously.

            I am also having a discussion with Nate about the processes in the atmosphere. And all Nate can do there is blubber like a baby.

            If best guess is the order of the day. . . .gee pick one.

  11. barry says:

    Difference between the record 20th century anomaly in 1998, with one of the strongest el Ninos, and the current year, both to August.

    1998 0.57 C
    2020 0.50 C

    Compared to warmest year Jan to Aug:

    2016 0.58 C

    2020 isn’t likely to get any closer with a probable la Nina predicted by 3 of the main monitoring institutes.

  12. Snape says:

    We should take a screen shot of those charts, and in a few weeks, compare the newer projections for winter with what we see today.

    My bet is they will be quite different.

    • bill hunter says:

      right. we don’t know the cause of enso. we have only identified its symptoms and accounts for why the symptoms have to show up in the late spring for the predictions of the coming year to start coming together.

      • Midas says:

        Please inform your buddy-in-denial Scott R that we don’t know the cause for ENSO.

        • bill hunter says:

          I am well aware that a lot of people are peddling a lot of theories surrounding climate change. Nothing wrong with peddling theories as its worthwhile for discussion. It only becomes objectionable when it is used to support more government control over people’s lives. In that case it becomes extremely objectionable.

          As to major astronomical influences on climate, IMHO, can’t be ruled out. Depending upon the actual mechanism and that mechanism’s specific effectiveness in creating feedbacks.

          There is a strong correlation with the solar cycle on surface warming rates. One only needs to plot it on a graph to see it. That certainly is not an effect created by CO2. We also see effects from ENSO on surface temperature. We also see effects of PDO on the surface temperature. PDO and its subdecadal variations strongly appears to be a predictor of ENSO.

          Living here on the West Coast we see El Nino’s and La Ninas before they show up as SST anomalies in that little postage stamp sized rectangle on the equator. ENSO is an effect that comprises the entire ocean circulation patterns in the Pacific Ocean.

          When I say it shows up here earlier its really a statement of a natural variation that generally doesn’t show up in SSTs as it appears to be variation in current flow. And like a cold house when you turn a forced air furnace on it you feel it well before it shows up on the thermometer of the thermostat.

          When you combine politics with science, scientists begin to wear selective blinders. We are all corrupt. It takes a huge self reflective effort to evade corruption and bias. It seems most people exert little effort in that.

    • Eben says:

      I have them and I have pointed out those predictions are a total joke
      https://i.postimg.cc/3rg40Znv/nino34.gif

      • barry says:

        That was NINO3.4 temp projections made in Feb 2020. Here is how they turned out since then.

        https://i.imgur.com/V0X8Dvt.png

        Correct sign of change (negative), well within the spread of forecasts made in February, and not far off the mean forecast.

        Total joke?

      • bill hunter says:

        I wouldn’t say they are a total joke.

        For sometime the ENSO predictions have been useful with the current 9 month forward projection. That projection has always come in the past with a caveat of having essential zero skill going through the spring predictability barrier.

        So if you read the documentation you will understand when you can rely on it and when its in experimental mode.

        I haven’t read the documentation for a few years but my casual observation is the spring predictions have been gradually becoming more skillful, however, that observation hasn’t been measured by me as do the guys that run the models.

        That process is needed in all modeling work. ENSO has a one year generation time. . . .which is almost as good as it gets. But it takes several generations to start zeroing in on good model assumptions. I hold practically no hope for climate models as the generation time is a lot longer. Defined by science as a minimum of 17 years and probably a good deal longer than that. Then we have the science being greatly hamstrung by political dogma. Its a such a sad state the truly illustrious Richard Lindzen says it should be shut down on the basis of failing to make any progress. Its being found progress has been occurring outside of the modeling exercise and like mail sorting machines the money and space should be put to better use.

  13. Scott R says:

    Until we get past the great conjunction, the AMO will stay elevated. We can see that sun spots in the NH of the sun are coordinated to the period that follows this conjunction type. Sunspots in the SH are associated with warming, and NH cooling. Because the UAH dataset starts at the beginning of the AMO warming trend, we are making monthly highs still. That said, we can see that the cold is hiding in Antarctica. There is a link between the southern ocean temperatures, and ENSO. Ocean circulation is everything.

    Also, 5/6 of the VEI 6+ eruptions occurred during periods of very low solar activity. A VEI 7 looks likely for this approaching GSM. (most likely we avoid an extremely rare VEI 8) That said, a VEI 7 will reverse all of the warming within a year. The little ice age was the coldest period of the past 11,000 years since we recovered out of the younger dryas. You can equate the rise in temperature to a dead cat bounce within a long term down trend as the Holocene ends. Good news, none of us will have to worry about the Holocene ending. Solar activity is predicted to recover quickly after this GSM.

  14. Snape says:

    Eben,
    Good job saving the screen shot!

    The forecast seems pretty good to me though. Made way back in February. and it had early September at about – 1.25 C.

    Compare that to the recently observed -0.705. Not bad. Even better considering forecasts made in February are more challenging than most other times of the year:

    [Forecasts issued this time of year are typically among the lower skill forecasts. Given the fairly high degree of uncertainty, the large spread among the models is not too surprising. As far as improved accuracy, model forecasts prior to the spring barrier continue at times to be quite challenging.]
    – Emily Becker

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2020-0-43-deg-c/

  15. Aaron S says:

    Midas,
    Are you implying lags are not important, Or highly measurable in climate data? Lol. I’m not sure who you are talking about but denying the role of lags and taking a literal approach would be “cute”.

    • Swenson says:

      Midas just trolls. Plays with words – or attempts to. Probably gullible enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, and that Michael Mann is not a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.

      See his comment above attempting to convince anyone that climate sensitivity has any meaning whatsoever. Just manipulate your figures so the result is 1! How easy is that?

    • Midas says:

      I said no such thing. I said the person in question (who has not yet made an appearance this month) chooses to invoke them when it suits his cause, and not to invoke them when it doesn’t.

      I stated that so clearly in my comment, and then repeated it, so that even a dunce could understand. Yet you still manage to argue against something I didn’t say or imply.

    • Nate says:

      “Midas just trolls.”

      OMG, this from our trolliest of trolls, Swenson/Amazed/Mike Flynn, who just can’t stop himself from butting in with snark attacks.

    • Bindidon says:

      Aaron S

      That there is a 5 month lag between ENSO signals and LT anomalies is known since years and years.

      J.-P. D.

  16. Aaron S says:

    Midas,

    I dont think asking is inappropriate and I only asked a question. I am sorry if my wording was wrong but I really am into lags myself so there was insufficient description what you meant because I dont know the history of this unnamed individual. There is a high probability for a La Nina based on the models. And I have never actually done the math for specifically La Nina, but for El Nino there is a clear lag between the Nino 3.4 SST and UAH satellite response. I am now motivated to optimise the correlation coefficients between La Nina and L Trop data to see if there is a lag is for La Nina based on a correlation optimization .

    • Bindidon says:

      Aaron S

      ” There is a high probability for a La Nina based on the models. ”

      *
      Is it not quite interesting that, as soon as cooling or La Nina is ahead, numerous climate ‘skeptic’s suddenly start considering models they otherwise discredit ad nauseam?

      J.-P. D.

      • Midas says:

        Consider a particular climate model, and a randomly chosen individual.
        Let D be the event “The individual is an AGW denier”
        Let C be the event “The model shows cooling”
        Let A be the event “The individual accepts the model”

        Evaluate:
        (a) P [ A | (D and C) ]
        (b) P [ A | (D and not C) ]
        (c) P [ A | (not D and C) ]
        (d) P [ A | (not D and not C) ]

        Hence:
        (e) Comment on the relative abilities of deniers and non-deniers to draw correct inferences independently of preconceptions, and their tendency to sophomania, making reference to the answers to (a)-(d).

  17. Snape says:

    Aaron,

    Midas was accusing someone of being inconsistent. acknowledging a lag during the onset of la nina, but failing to do so during the onset of el nino.

    • Richard M says:

      Snape, as is common among many alarmists, Midas lied. I’ve always stated there is a lag. But, I also admit there are other factors that come into play which muddy the water. Hence, you won’t always see the lag perfectly.

  18. Snape says:

    Dang, I keep repeating things already discussed.

  19. Snape says:

    Bill Hunter says,
    [There is a strong correlation with the solar cycle on surface warming rates. One only needs to plot it on a graph to see it.]

    A big fish at WUWT strongly disagrees with you:

    [I started out as a true believer that sunspots (or something that changes in sync with sunspots, like heliomagnetism, cosmic rays, solar wind, etc.) had a strong effect on the weather. When I was a kid I read that the great British astronomer William Hershel had said that British wheat prices were affected by the sunspot cycle. Made sense to me …]

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/04/sunspots-verse-25/

    • bill hunter says:

      big fish’s analysis is weak. He is trying to measure actual warming.

      Solar cycle maximums and minimums are only a couple years or so and we think of climate change in terms of rates of warming per decade.

      so in a climate cycle you can have a lot of warming relatively speaking occurring during sunspot maxs and have it amount to the warming we have seen but you need a properly designed analysis to spot it.

      My analysis shows all of it it attributable to solar maximums and practically none of it attributable solar minimums.

      The big fish just subtracted temperatures during low sunspot times from temperatures of high sunspot times.

      But since the warming rate varies between zero to meagre warming at minimums to in excess of .2 degrees per decade warming at solar maximums; when big fish takes a solar maximum temperature and then subtracts the subsequent solar minimum temperature from it he should come up with zero or a slight negative number because hey it warms a lot during maximums and none or just a little during minimums.

      Then his analysis ends on a minimum to maintain that near zero value. LMAO!

      I won’t go and suggest that to him because he will bite my head off.

      But his methodology is guaranteed to show no result!!

      And of course no cooling occurs during minimums because the oceans are too slow to adjust switch to cooling mode to eliminate pipeline warming.

      NOAA used to think solar was the driver. They used to feature a longterm graph of solar activity correlating to temperature change.

      the graph got criticized because solar activity ceased increasing in the 1980’s and it kept warming.

      But NOAA’s graph always depended on 60 year smoothing to smooth out ocean oscillations and other temporal variations. They were looking for the cause of the recovery from the LIA.

      But smoothing has a ‘tail’ problem. 60 year smoothing screws up beginning and ending data reliability. To get the effects of the 2007 sunspot collapse you need 30 years before and after of real data. Of course it will start resolving sooner but we do have a good 10 year delay in climate effects due to surface ocean adjusting on top of that.

      So the signal we might be looking for might be less than .1 cooling per decade. Maybe as low as .05 per decade.

      I just described a process and no doubt some folks will start losing their minds. I don’t know what longterm solar grand maximums and grand minimums do to the climate. I am not in that cadre of academics that look for a small hint and then project it out for a hundred years.

      The really nice thing is we have the sun changing its behavior some. Hard to say if it’s going to get as serious as the Dalton or Maunder minimums but if it does then we are going to learn a lot about the effect of the sun on climate.

      But I am going to be like Dr Fauci here and say the experiments are underway and its uncertain when the results are going to come in.

      Will low solar activity prove to be the vaccine against climate change? Gotta wait and see. The youngsters around here who haven’t had many rodeos are always impatient.

  20. I am still here. The reason I am not posting is because all the arguments have been made and the climate has not changed enough to warrant any new commentary.

    • Bindidon says:

      Hello Salvatore

      I’m happy to see you are alive and hopefully healthy enough.

      ” The reason I am not posting is because all the arguments have been made and the climate has not changed enough to warrant any new commentary. ”

      This is correct. Despite numerous trials to sell us a ‘Great Cooling Ahead’, we keep way away from it.

      As you know, I would wish a decent cooling over the next decades.

      Because persons like me, living in Western Europe, can’t welcome any excessive warming, as this might be the cause for excessive ice melting in the Northern Atlantic region, leading to an excessive cooling of that region, and thus to an increase of atmospheric perturbations in Germany where I live.

      Buona notte
      J.-P. D.

    • Eben says:

      The last dip from 2016 elnino almost touched the zero and it took almost 3 years to drop which is rather typical , we are less than a year from the last elnino so give it another 1.5 to 2 years and then check back, meantime spare yourself reading trolling posts from Bindidongs dements et al

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks for insulting me, Eben.

        All you are able to present are posts and youtubes out of dumb pseudoskeptic blogs discrediting honest climate workers and distorting their data, Roy Spencer included.

        Only a few posters wouldn’t say your are the real troll of us two.

        Go with them!

        J.-P. D.

    • barry says:

      I’m glad to see you, Salvatore. Hope you are well and happy.

    • Midas says:

      Salvatore

      I note that the link in your name to “climatebusters” is broken. Have you abandoned that too?

  21. Bindidon says:

    ” There is a strong correlation with the solar cycle on surface warming rates. ”

    *
    Done years ago already, here is a more or less recent version, updating it wouldn’t change a bit:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d70-k06I_jfziFHvLLraXl-mhUvJbUAB/view

    And then they say: “But there is a lag! A laag! A laaag! ”

    No.

  22. Bindidon says:

    Once more, some debunking of nonsensical Coolista claims, again by Scott R.

    ” Also, 5/6 of the VEI 6+ eruptions occurred during periods of very low solar activity. ”

    Wrong, Scott R, for the second time.

    Here are the most known solar minima (Dalton is in, 1790-1820), but was kept unnamed):

    https://tinyurl.com/y5fwqsfn

    And now look at these nice eruptions:

    – 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7+
    – 1280 Quilotoa, Andes VEI 6
    – 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
    – 1477 Bárðarbunga, Iceland, VEI 6
    – 1563 Agua de Pau, Açores, VEI 5
    – 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
    – 1586 Kelut, Iceland, VEI 5
    – 1600, Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
    – 1641, Mount Melibengoy, Phillipines VEI 6
    – 1650, Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
    – 1660, Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6

    At a first glance, it seems to me that of these 11 major eruptions (35 with VEI 3-4 occurred in between),

    – the by far most destructive one, Samalas, occurred in 1257 within the MWP, far outside of any Solar Minimum;
    – only two of them (Bárðarbunga and Agua de Pau) occurred during a solar mimimum (Spörer).

    Two of eleven!

    Warmistas aren’t good, but Coolistas are even worse.

    J.-P. D.

  23. Aaron S says:

    JPD,
    1. Sorry my replies drop to bottom.
    2. Yes 4 to 5 month lag for El Nino in SST to L.Trop is easy to see but when La Nina is isolated does it also have a 5 month lag? Not sure I have seen this.
    3. Models for ENSO are well calibrated for uncertainty because they have been tested by the high frequency (intra-anual) phenomenon for decades and refined iteratively. This is Not the same as CO2 models that in essence have not been tested and are therefore not calibrated. I would consider them hypothesis only until tested. If we take them at face value then they show a low sensitivity to CO2. The debate is does ECS have a lag that means CO2 ultimately causes more warming than the 1.5 to 2.5 degrees C warming that you get from extrapolation from satellite data. For all we know there could be negative feedbacks that dominate the long term ECS. So I consider models for a high frequency, well calibrated ENSO a poor analogy for climate models. I can model the diurnal cycle very accurately. That doesn’t mean I can do the same with El Nino. They are different forcing mechanisms and one is highly periodic and constrained. So CO2 and ENSO are different processes because el Nino is quasi periodic and CO2 is a trend. So again models are not the same.

    • Bindidon says:

      Aaron S

      ” 2. Yes 4 to 5 month lag for El Nino in SST to L.Trop is easy to see but when La Nina is isolated does it also have a 5 month lag? ”

      Why should the LT response to an ENSO signel differ depending on whether it is positive or negative?

      ” Not sure I have seen this. ”

      Did you ever try, by e.g. downloading UAH LT and MEI, and comparing them in a graph?

      J.-P. D.

      • bill hunter says:

        Bindidon says:

        Why should the LT response to an ENSO signel differ depending on whether it is positive or negative?

        Perhaps because warm air mixes and cold air not so much?

  24. bdgwx says:

    On this 2020/8 update I found 11 adjustments to past months. The net effect of these adjustments pulls the trend down a hair.

    As of 2020/8 the trend is +0.136C/decade +- 0.0067.

    As of 2020/8 the trend line sits at +0.338C. This puts the +0.43C value +0.09C above the trend line.

    As of 2020/8 the mean is +0.055C. This puts the +0.43C value +0.37 above the mean.

    As of 2020/JJA the ONI index is at -0.4.

  25. bdgwx says:

    Here is the ranking of consecutive months above the trendline.

    1999/02 – 20
    1988/10 – 19
    2020/08 – 15
    1980/11 – 15
    2016/11 – 14
    1981/12 – 12
    1991/09 – 12
    2002/09 – 12

    With this update 2020/8 is tied for 3rd place.

  26. bdgwx says:

    One more…

    As of 2020/8 the TLT minus TLS trend is +0.418C/decade +- 0.0134.

  27. PhilJ says:

    Anybody figure out how much increased uvb exposure raises ocean temps yet?

    Phd paper there for someone research it…

    Watching the ozone hole development with interest to see if increases or decreases from last years numbers..

    https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/SH.html

    • bdgwx says:

      There are all sorts of publications addressing this question. Refer to section 8.3 of the IPCC AR5 WGI report for a brief summary and citations for literature on the topic. In a nutshell the RF from ozone is about +0.15 W/m^2 in the shortwave spectrum and about +0.20 W/m^2 in the longwave spectrum. Stratospheric ozone changes net out to close to zero while troposphere changes are close to +0.35 W/m^2. Ozone is tricky because it responds to both shortwave and longwave radiation.

  28. Gordon Robertson says:

    salvatore…”I am still here. The reason I am not posting is because all the arguments have been made and the climate has not changed enough to warrant any new commentary”.

    Be patient, my friend, what goes up must come down. There is no known reason for the persistent warming since 2016, even though the trend since then is essentially negative. Why would CO2 have no effect for 18 years then suddenly produce such warming since 2016?

    While we wait, we’ve had some interesting debates the Moon, Eli Rabbett’s blue plate/green plate nonsense, and covid. Of course, the alarmists take the sane position they do with global warming and their thinking on the aforementioned subjects reflects the errors in their assessment of anthropogenic global warming.

    • Svante says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “Why would CO2 have no effect for 18 years then suddenly produce such warming since 2016?”

      Why would sea level rise have no effect during low tide, and then produce such flooding during high tide?

      • ClintR says:

        Silly Svante doesn’t recognize that both tides and Earth temperatures are cyclical. But, his irrational fears are constant.

        Silly Svante.

      • Swenson says:

        Svante,

        I dont know. Do you have an answer, or is this some strange gotcha?

        • Svante says:

          Yes, very dangerous gotcha.

        • bill hunter says:

          Well the next thing for Svante to admit is the implication of his admission of an existence of natural tides of unknown source and thus unknown capabilities is a major crack in the armor of the position that has been established for the past 40 years.

          If this were a dam they would be evacuating everyone downstream.

          While the irresponsible try to lobby to use some tree ring study trick to make adjustments to historic temperatures to hide the crack by applying a coat of fresh plaster over it.

          The IPCC gets it when is Svante going to get it? Probably reads too much Skeptical Science.

      • Svante says:

        My metaphor was too difficult for ClintR, Swenson and bill hunter. Will Gordon get it?

        • Swenson says:

          Svante,

          Your supposed metaphor was too stupid to bother with. Whats wrong with facts? Oh wait! Alarmists havent got any facts. Thats why they try convincing people that facts dont matter. Metaphors, analogies, and cryptic comments are the fare of the idiot alarmist.

        • bill hunter says:

          Svante says:

          My metaphor was too difficult for ClintR, Swenson and bill hunter.

          ==============================

          No I got it! The earth’s high tides have been getting bigger for 15,000 years.

          So the tide of natural warming from the early 20th century is just smaller than the tide of natural warming in the 21st century.

          • Svante says:

            You didn’t get it, you took it literally.

          • Swenson says:

            Bill,

            Whatever answer you give, Svante will claim he meant something else. Standard idiot alarmist tactic. Alarmists love metaphors and analogies. It just means they dont understand the subject matter well enough to explain it to someone else in scientific terms.

            Try extracting a testable hypothesis about the effect of CO2 on the weather (climate just being the average of weather), out of Svante or any of his idiot fellow travellers.

          • Nate says:

            Lets face it, these guys are not the sharpest knives in the deck..

          • Svante says:

            Well, yes.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      The actual truth is that your thinking is the nonsense not the rest of the Universe of thought. You are a blind and irrational contrarian who accepts, without thought, whatever some Contrarian says.

      If a contrarian said it was warm in the cold dark winter of Central Canada but the media and everyone else said it was freezing you would blindly accept what the contrarian says because the established view is corrupt. The media is only saying it is cold out to get people to buy coats, the rest are blindly following what the established meteorologists are saying (who are wrong because they learned their subject from a corrupt University and error prone textbooks). A contrarian who is an expert at growing tomatoes claims it is actually warm in this dark winter Canada. He knows because he is not brainwashed by the corrupt universities and he has his own blog saying how corrupt the established world of science is and you should not trust anything they say. Of course the contrarian lives in Arizona and has never been to Canada but he is much smarter than all the people that think it is cold who are corrupted by established thought.

      Gordon you are wrong about the Moon rotation. You speak with total and complete ignorance on Covid. i had this disease and you sound really stupid when you talk about it. I mean real stupid. You are clueless. Go get the disease and talk to me after that. Get some information before flapping your mouth with stupid ideas.

      You are totally wrong in your understanding of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and how heat transfer works. You are clueless about radiant energy and how it is generated. You endlessly repeat your false contrarian narrative.

      You are the one who is wrong. Not the rest. The rest know actual physics, they are not blind contrarians. If you present good factual information with some real knowledge on the topic they will accept your ideas. You just put out endless lies and contrarian propaganda.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”You speak with total and complete ignorance on Covid. i had this disease and you sound really stupid when you talk about it”.

        The data is making it abundantly clear that the healthy immune system is handling this contagion, whatever it is. Only bean-counters and idiots are clinging to the notion that social distancing and masks is controlling it.

        Recent studies have revealed that the contagion started to recede naturally before human efforts were pathetically put in place to contain it.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Do you have evidence to support your claims. I do not accept contrarian blog information as valid data.

          Do you have data that proves that the contagion was receding naturally? Do you have data that proves a healthy immune system is “handling” the contagion and what does your word handling mean? I did not go to the Hospital or die but I was in a terrible state for over 2 weeks. I would not want anyone to feel what I did even if that is “handling” it and would be willing to take precautions to minimize the chance of anyone getting what I had. (which at least tested positive for Covid using the PCR test).

  29. Eben says:

    Looks like children playground squabble in here

  30. Bindidon says:

    Scott R

    You wrote upthread

    ” I dont see how these volcanos are supposed to prove that there is no correlation between low solar activity and volcanic activity. ”

    Sorry, but this becomes now a bit boring.

    It is so simple, Scott R! You don’t see it because you only consider, out of a considerable amount of data, what fits to your own narrative.

    Here is my answer.

    For your convenience

    – I added, though AFAIK nowhere officially referenced, the period around 1900, due to the very low values in both the SSN and the TSI records;
    – I dropped all VEI 5 eruptions off the list, though this is bare nonsense when you look at El Chichon’s 1982 signature in the lower stratosphere:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view

    *
    1. A list of the known solar minima

    Homeric -950 -800
    ? -390 -330
    ? 650 720
    Oort 1040 1080
    Wolf 1280 1350
    Spörer 1450 1550
    Maunder 1645 1715
    Dalton 1790 1820
    ? 1890-1920

    2. A list of all known VEI 6+ eruptions since 1050 BC

    Mount Pinatubo -1050 6
    Raoul Island -250 6
    Mount Okmok -100 6
    Apoyeque -50 6
    Ambrym 50 6
    Mount Churchill 60 6
    Taupo Volcano 230 7
    Ksudach 240 6
    Lake Ilopango 450 6
    Rabaul caldera 535 6
    Mount Churchill 700 6
    Pago 710 6
    Dakataua 800 6
    Ceboruco 930 6
    Katla 934 6
    Baekdu Mountain 946 7-
    Mt. Rinjani 1257 7+
    Quilotoa 1280 6
    Kuwae 1452 6
    Bárðarbunga 1477 6
    Billy Mitchell 1580 6
    Huaynaputina 1600 6
    Mount Melibengoy 1641 6
    Kolumbo, Santorini 1650 6
    Long Island 1660 6
    Grímsvötn 1783 6
    Source unknown 1808 6
    Mount Tambora 1815 7
    Krakatoa 1883 6
    Santa María 1902 6
    Ksudach 1907 5
    Novarupta 1912 6
    Quizapú Volcano 1932 6
    Mount Pinatubo 1991 6

    *
    Out of this list, all eruptions within or very near to a minimum were considered: there were 15 of 34.

    That, Scott R, is statistically insignificant, to say the least.

    *
    You wrote further:

    ” We have been in a long term solar max since the late 40s, and have had only 1 VEI 6 eruption during that time.

    How come you dont show any eruptions during the medieval maximum? You seem to have a lack of eruptions during the late 1300s during another maximum. ”

    Yeah Scott R… As opposed to you, who claimed a relation between solar minima and VEI 6+ eruptions, I never pretended that the inverse ever happened. I only contradicted your claim.

    But… for the sake of completeness, let me add that during the Roman warming period (-250 +400), which was definitely free of any solar minimum, not less than seven VEI 6 eruptions have occurred, as you can see in the list.

    But I’m sure that you will ignore all this, as you did often enough before.

    J.-P. D.

    • Eben says:

      “But Im sure that you will ignore all this, as you did often enough before.”

      Are you trying to prove to us you are insane by doing the same thing over and over with the same predictable results ?

  31. Snape says:

    Gordon asks,
    Why would CO2 have no effect for 18 years then suddenly produce such warming since 2016?

    ************

    *c represents CO2*

    Year one, the mean is 3
    a = 5
    b = 3
    c = 1

    Year two, the mean is 2
    a = 4
    b = 1
    c = 1

    Year three, the mean is 4
    a = 6
    b = 5
    c = 1

    *******

    c had the same value throughout. so why did the mean drop in year two, then suddenly increase in year three?

    • Swenson says:

      Snape,

      Are you trying to say that CO2 has remained constant, but natural variation is far greater, so that CO2 has no effect?

  32. Snape says:

    @Swenson

    No effect?? Look what happens to the mean if we lower the value of c

    Year one, the mean is 2.7
    a = 5
    b = 3
    c = 0

    Year two, the mean is 1.7
    a = 4
    b = 1
    c = 0

    Year three, the mean is 3.7
    a = 6
    b = 5
    c = 0

    *******

    Did you struggle with arithmetic, Mike?

    • Swenson says:

      Snape is confused. Cannot figure out whom he is addressing, just like the idiot Midas.

      Snape stated c represented CO2. Now he has no CO2 at all. He doesnt state what a and b are, so the whole exercise is meaningless. Snape seems to think that plucking numbers out of the air and averaging them, proves he is a genius!

      I doubt it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…why are you messing with statistics? Show me the scientific proof, based on the scientific method, that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.

      • studentb says:

        “Today, the Los Angeles basin will experience our hottest day in 125,000 years. Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in several cities.”

        Show me the scientific proof, based on the scientific method, about what is warming the atmosphere – if not increased CO2.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          student…”Show me the scientific proof, based on the scientific method, about what is warming the atmosphere – if not increased CO2″.

          1)Recovery from the Little Ice Age. Akasofu claimed it should re-warm at about 0.5C/century. So far, he’s spot on.

          2)According to Tsonis et al, variations in the ocean oscillation like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, etc. They concluded that over a century, when the oscillation are in phase it has warmed. When out of phase it has cooled.

          3)According to the Ideal Gas Law, and based on mass percent, CO2, at about 0.04% mass percent, should not add any more than about 0.04% to 1C warming.

          • studentb says:

            (1) recovery ? recovery ? Only an imbecile would state that an increase in temperature can be explained by a “a recovery”.
            (2) Of course! “Natural fluctuations”! Why didn’t anybody else think of that. (Geez, what a stupid answer)
            (3) Ha ha ha ha! That wins the prize !

          • Nate says:

            “1)Recovery from the Little Ice Age. Akasofu claimed it should re-warm at about 0.5C/century. So far, he’s spot on.”

            ‘Recovery’ is not a forcing.

            It cannot go on recovering, non stop, at 0.5 C/century, 170 y later.

            The cooling forcing in mid 1800s was volcanic in origin. We know from modern volcanic activity that the full recovery from this cooling requires less than 1 decade.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, a recovery should slow down as it approaches the old high.
            This one accelerates as it goes through the old high.
            Some recovery!

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Recovery is not a forcing.
            ===================================

            don’t so stupid Nate. Of course it’s a forcing. A forcing is anything that establishes a new equilibrium and will continue to change climate as long as the forcing is in place until equilibrium is obtained.

            Nate says:
            It cannot go on recovering, non stop, at 0.5 C/century, 170 y later.
            ================================
            Wheres your evidence?

            Nate says:
            The cooling forcing in mid 1800s was volcanic in origin. We know from modern volcanic activity that the full recovery from this cooling requires less than 1 decade.
            =============================

            Here you double down on stupid. Recovery from volcanic effects occurred as a result of a very short residence time of the volcanic effect not from reaching full equilibrium.

            We recover from a hot afternoon in about the same time it takes for an evening to pass.

            the longer a forcing is in effect the longer the recovery time.

            Either your pocketbook is being lined by your deceptions or you are just stupidly inculcated. If it’s your pocketbook you a con man. If its because you are inculcated then you are a stupid fool.

            The only question in play is whether you are smart enough to know which it is.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Yes, a recovery should slow down as it approaches the old high.
            This one accelerates as it goes through the old high.
            Some recovery!
            ================================

            Hmmmm, I have a few questions for you Svante.

            1. What makes you think all the climate length variations in temperature seen since the LIA would have to be due to a recovery from the LIA?

            2. Ever hear of ocean oscillations?

            3. If a recovery were occurring from the LIA and ocean oscillations were occurring at the same time with an amplitude of about .7 to .8 degrees C over 30+ years in each positive or negative phase, and we were now in the midst of a warm surge of those ocean oscillations as appears to the be case if you look at their pattern over the past 100+ years, and you estimate .5degC per century warming; then how much would you allocate to an LIA recovery, the warm phase of the ocean oscillation, and CO2?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate..”Recovery’ is not a forcing”.

            There is no such thing as a forcing, it is climate model jargon. Climate models are based on differential equation theory and a forcing is stolen from the term forcing function. If you have a DE setup to model something, like an electronic amplifier, and you want to test it for stability, you apply a forcing function like a square wave (unit impulse function). You test and equation with a forcing function.

            The idiot modelers have applied that theory to the real gases in the atmosphere. A CO2 forcing is nothing more than than an equation used in a climate model. It’s theory, not reality.

            If the Little Ice Age cooled the planet as some scientists like Akasofu claim, by 1C to 2C, then re-warming won’t be reached till somewhere in that range. We are arguably close to 1C warming now so there’s room for more warming.

          • Nate says:

            ” Recovery from volcanic effects occurred as a result of a very short residence time of the volcanic effect not from reaching full equilibrium.”

            Yes indeed! And the individual volcanoes that produced the mid 19th century cooling were short!

            You can clearly see here the short volcanic forcing, and the short response and recovery in the temperature record.

            http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png

            The so-called ‘recovery’ is not a forcing, and not arbitrarily long , certainly not centuries.

          • Sanjib Dutta Roy says:

            West coast of North America (NA) centered at Californea is historically dryer and hotter region for centuries , due to cooler Californea current along the West coast of NA , that bring less moisture in land causing dryness . Currently increased strength of westerly wind at NH ( due to declining obliquity , which is declining last 9-10Kyr and shall continue to decline coming 10-11 Kyr and currently at 23.44 Deg. and increased strength of coriolis force ) causing increased coastal upwelling , that leading to accelerated further increased dryness inland and hotter atmosphere. Here it is also pertinent to mention , while increased water vapor (WV) at tropic maintain a stable temperature ( just like that in sea beach areas ) due large heat capacity of water/water vapor and in contrast to that in hot desert temperature shoots up during day time & sharply falls down during night , due to minor presence of water vapor . Needless to mention highest temperature in century observed at Death Valley on 10th July 1913 ( 134 Deg. F i.e 56.7 Deg. C) which could not be crossed yet .

        • Swenson says:

          studentb,

          An unsupported claim of the hottest day in Los Angeles in 125,000 years is your idea of proof that CO2 is warming the atmosphere? Only an idiot would think anybody with a brain would accept that as an example of the scientific method!

          • studentb says:

            So….it wasn’t hot?
            Is that what you believe?

          • Swenson says:

            studentb,

            You idiot. What has your question to do with the scientific method? Or with CO2 levels? Were CO2 levels also the highest in 125,000 years, or are you now claiming they are not really related?

            Maybe you should try exercising your stupidity somewhere else? On an alarmist bog site, perhaps.

          • studentb says:

            The predictions of warming and more extreme temperatures based on enhanced greenhouse gas theory are pretty much correct.

            Therefore the theory has not been proven incorrect for several decades now. I would take that as pretty convincing.

            Sorry, that should read “convincing to anybody with half a brain”. I am afraid your lobotomies must have failed.

          • Swenson says:

            studentb,

            There is no *enhanced greenhouse gas* theory. Get with the times. Even NASA has given up on that particular piece of nonsense.

            Keep obfuscating. You still haven’t answered the question, have you?

            What a dummy!

          • studentb says:

            NASA ? You refer to NASA ?
            Why would you believe anything that comes out of NASA ?
            Better call Gordon half a brain.

          • Nate says:

            “Even NASA has given up on that particular piece of nonsense.”

            Nope.

            You couldnt supply evidence for this fake news before, so its still just a stinking pile of dung.

            As fully expected from our resident troll Flynn.

          • bill hunter says:

            studentb says:

            The predictions of warming and more extreme temperatures based on enhanced greenhouse gas theory are pretty much correct.

            Therefore the theory has not been proven incorrect for several decades now. I would take that as pretty convincing.

            ===========================

            Convincing of what? It took thousands of years of warming to rise to the Holocene optimum. What does length of time have to do with proof of the cause of the warming?

          • Swenson says:

            Nate.

            Try and find any mention of a Greenhouse theory on the NASA site. Or anywhere else for that matter.

          • Svante says:

            Here Swenson:
            https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

            You’re welcome!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            stupidb..”The predictions of warming and more extreme temperatures based on enhanced greenhouse gas theory are pretty much correct”.

            How can a prediction be correct before the fact?

            Besides, the IPCC claimed in the 3rd review that future climate states cannot be predicted. For a while, they contradicted themselves by using climate models to predict scenarios, then expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, told them they could not use unvalidated models to predict anything. The IPCC complied and changed predict to project.

            BTW, that’s what they are now doing with covid, they are using unvalidated models to predict outcomes.

            Just found out that the social distancing distance of 6 feet is 120 years old. No one has ever tested it using the scientific method. By the same token, no one has ever proved that 0.04% CO2 can cause any warming in the atmosphere.

            Stick that up your hooter.

  33. Snape says:

    [c had the same value throughout, so why did the mean drop in year two, then suddenly increase in year three?]

    Do you know the answer, Gordon? If so, explain the reasoning.

    • Swenson says:

      Snape poses another stupid and pointless gotcha. If he thinks Gordon is a fool, he could just say so, and explain his reasoning.

      Snape cannot explain how CO2 is supposed to affect weather, and the average of weather, which is climate. Hence all the ridiculous diversions and attempts to make others look stupid. Snape is an idiot, for supporting a concept he cannot even justify to himself.

  34. Bindidon says:

    Where is ren?

    I miss his link to abrupt cooling in Denver coming soon:

    https://www.wetteronline.de/?ireq=true&pid=p_wotexte_ticker&src=wotexte/vermarktung/snippets/ticker/de-DE/images/2020/09/06/image_post_202009069981751_001b031d25cc8b164551f8c0ac955b22.png

    Duh, a fall of 34 degrees in one day …
    Reminds me ‘The day after tomorrow’.

    J.-P. D.

  35. Wayne says:

    It’s a shame that these comment threads have devolved into such petty squabbles. I used to learn things from some of the debates on here. As a layperson, I have to ask: why is it that physcists can debate each other with humility and respect, but those claiming climate knowledge cannot? No scientific theory is perfect. The interesting points tend to be the contradictory anomalies that cast doubts. You know what might be a really interesting article, Dr. Spencer? One in which so-called alarmists and deniers each talk about their worries/doubts about their own beliefs, the same way that Leonard Susskind openly discusses the weaknesses of his own theories.

    Here, let me start things off. As an alarmist, I worry about pre-CO2 periods of warming that have not yet been adequately explained. I also worry about historical temperature adjustments that seem to contradict newspaper reports or archaelogical evidence from the same time (like the Vikings farming southern Greenland). As a denier, I worry about man injecting anything of quantity into natural systems. And even if temperature swings are mostly the result of natural cycles, I worry about the amplification effect of CO2 during a natural warming cycle.

    There, is that so difficult?

    Wayne

    • Svante says:

      I’m more alarmist than anyone here, but I can’t say I have any such worries (is that a contradiction).

      There is a lack of precision though. Climate models can tell us where we are heading, but they are not spot on year to year. Attribution is uncertain. ECS and sea level rise have large uncertainties.

      Radiative transfer calculations come out OK whenever you check them, but we don’t have global 24/7 gridded spectrums, multi-layer sounding, up and down.

      The paleo climate picture is fairly clear, but uncertainties could be less and resolution could be higher.

      Science is working on all that so precision will improve.
      Radical revisions are highly unlikely.

      • Wayne says:

        Hi Savante,

        Okay, so, going back to the issue of historical temperatures, why were the 1930s so hot? Why were the Vikings able to farm in southern Greenland 1,000 years ago? And when I say “why?”, I mean why did these periods of excessive heat occur before the rise in CO2?

        Please note, I’m not attacking your viewpoint here. I’m asking a question that has always honestly puzzled me, and for which I’ve never heard a good explanation.

        Wayne

        • bdgwx says:

          Okay, so, going back to the issue of historical temperatures, why were the 1930s so hot?

          The 1930’s were hot in the United States; not so much globally. The heat waves that plagued the US were in part an anthroprogenic effect as well due to the land use changes that were occurring at the time.

          Why were the Vikings able to farm in southern Greenland 1,000 years ago?

          The MWP and LIA were most acute in the North Atlantic region (Canada to Europe). Changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is the leading hypothesis. A stronger flow brings equatorial warmth to these regions. When the flow wanes this region cools.

          Despite what is posted in the blogosphere the broad consensus had always been that the MWP and LIA were more local than global. Hubert Lamb who pioneered this line of research and even coined the term Medieval Warm Epoch had been saying all along that it was a regional effect and that many parts of the world cooled during the MWP. The LIA was probably more global than the MWP, but even it was more acute in the North Atlantic as well. Volcanic activity and grand solar cycles likely played a role in both the MWP and LIA as well of course.

          • Wayne says:

            Bdgwx,

            I think it makes sense that land-use changes can impact local temperatures, but the elevated temperatures were pretty widespread in North America, if memory serves. And isn’t it true that there was very poor temperature measurement across much of the rest of the world at the time? So how certain can we be that this was purely a local event, and wasn’t present in other geographical pockets, too? Also, if land use can have that much impact on temperatures spanning nearly a decade over most of a continent, what is the impact of the 20 % global greening reported by NASA over the past 30 years? Are these new land use changes, accidental as they may be, factored into our temperature models?

            Note, I don’t know the answer to any of these questions. Keeping in mind that I’m against humans disrupting natural systems of any kind based purely on common sense, I would still like to have more confidence in climate scientists. Having a million years of perfect global temperature records would boost that confidence. But so, too, would honest, self-skeptical scientists who, in the absence of solid long-term data, actively search for anomalies that disprove their own theories, rather than dismiss hard evidence (newspaper reports, achaelogical evidence, etc.) with speculation.

            We get that scientific humility with leading physicists. Just watch any TED talk between them debating, say, string theory, and they will readily admit what they don’t know. Most of them are in total agreement on the unknowns. But climate science seems to be the exact opposite. One scientist claims the Great Barrier Reef is dying; another says it’s adapting and is fine. Can’t the two of them get in the same bloody boat and figure it out?

            Sorry for the rant, but a lot of people on this site seem to know a lot more about climate than I do. I and I suspect others would greatly benefit from substantive debates between expert participants. That’s not what we’re getting.

            Wayne

        • Svante says:

          Wayne says:

          Okay, so, going back to the issue of historical temperatures, why were the 1930s so hot?

          The AMO added 0.3 C between 1910 and 1940:
          https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/669cb5c3-8bf8-4c3f-b91c-98b1e53345b8/eft234-fig-0010-m.jpg

          Why were the Vikings able to farm in southern Greenland 1,000 years ago? And when I say why?, I mean why did these periods of excessive heat occur before the rise in CO2?

          The MWP was a natural variation, brought to an end by the Samalas eruption (it’s a hypothesis):
          https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168.

          It was nothing like what we have now:
          http://railsback.org/FQS/SFMGLast2kyrCombo02.jpg

          • Wayne says:

            Hi Svante,

            Thank you for those. You’re aware, of course, that other charts and graphs from other accredited scientists show different data and conclusions.

            As a layperson, who to believe? But my real question is, why aren’t scientists with opposing views getting in the same room and hashing these things out? I spent 30 years in data analytics, 15 in healthcare analytics, much of that working on data re: efficacy of drugs. With lots of complex variables, there were often widely divergent interpretations of that data. But with enough discussion, I can’t remember a single situation in which we didn’t eventually reconcile our differences, usually by opening each others eyes.

            Yet, here we are in 2020, and our scientists can’t even agree on the polar bear count.

            You’ve described yourself as more alarmist than others. If MWP was likely a natural variation that isn’t completely understood, are you not at least a bit concerned that some other natural variation may pop up to temporarily derail the warmist narrative? If that happens, are you not at least a little concerned that, even if you’re right about CO2, a sudden, extended cooling, for whatever reason, would destroy the credibility of warmist theories for decades to come?

            I’m not a physicist, btw, but at least they seem to be hedging their bets.

            Wayne

          • Svante says:

            Wayne says:

            As a layperson, who to believe? But my real question is, why arent scientists with opposing views getting in the same room and hashing these things out?

            Trust mainstream science, it is settled enough. More issues are being hashed out in papers and conferences.

            … are you not at least a little concerned that, even if youre right about CO2, a sudden, extended cooling, for whatever reason, would destroy the credibility of warmist theories for decades to come?

            Hopefully people can understand that there are many factors that come and go, and one that is only going up. A super volcano could reverse all the warming for decades, and when the dust settles CO2 wins.

          • Svante says:

            Wayne says:

            As a layperson, who to believe?

            Do not trust politicians, newspapers, TV, blogs and … me.
            Find their scientific sources.

            Having said that, there are many people here that are more knowledgeable than me. Here’s Roy Spencer’s introduction:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

    • Bindidon says:

      Wayne

      ” It’s a shame that these comment threads have devolved into such petty squabbles. I used to learn things from some of the debates on here. ”

      I agree.

      But as a person having been repeatedly named an idiot, by absolutely incompetent boasters, just because I simply presented graphs comparing Mr Spencer’s data with surface data, I can only say: this is by no means an alarmist problem.

      And when you look at all recent comments in all this blog’s recent threads, you see that the same people discredit everything what does not match their egocentric narrative:

      – Einstein’s research and its use in e.g. GPS,
      – the Moon’s rotation about its center of mass
      or even
      – the existence of viruses,
      – etc etc.

      No idea about why
      – they do that
      let alone why
      – they are allowed to do that here.

      None of these ‘commenter’s would ever have enough cojones to post their nonsense anywhere else, even not at the very ‘skeptic’ tolerant WUWT.

      Because all of them very good know that they would be banned everywhere within one or two days.

      But all of them very good know that this never will happen to them here.

      J.-P. D.

      • Svante says:

        They do get banned, but come back with a new name, e.g.
        ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (from anger).

      • Wayne says:

        Hi Bindidon,

        So what do you think is the cause of the disagreement between satellite data vs surface data, and which dataset is correct?

        This is a subject of considerable concern to those of us not involved in the science of all this. Having spent 30 years in data analytics, the first step in every analysis is to obtain clean data. Without it, one’s analysis is likely to produce errors.

        According to my understanding, surface data is pretty dirty and also woefully incomplete from a global historical perspective. Satellite data is subject to evolving technologies and also went through a bit of learning curve re: deteriorating orbits, etc. If we don’t have a clear picture, how can we draw any conclusions?

        Wayne

        • Bindidon says:

          Wayne

          Thanks for your convenient and interesting reply.

          But it’s now over 2 AM here at GMT+2, a bit late for answering in the accurate form this reply merits.

          Just a hint in front:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhsNLiPz9Rs87SCaxcEv2TE8pONmHSbc/view

          J.-P. D.

        • bdgwx says:

          There are 4 kinds of datasets that provide global mean temperatures. Satellite, radiosonde, surface, and reanalysis. The most important thing to understand is that satellite datasets are measuring higher up in the atmosphere than surface datasets. Even comparisons between UAH and RSS is more apples to oranges since their respective TLT products are at different levels. But with that said satellite data isn’t that different from surface data. UAH is a notable exception though. It is an outlier compared to the more than a dozen other datasets available. Although we don’t know the exact reasons why it has been suggested that the techniques for dealing with satellite merging, instrument temperature body effect, diurnal drift, orbital decay, contamination from the stratosphere, etc. could be contributing factors to the difference. In lieu of a compelling reason to prefer one dataset over another many of us equally weight the available datasets and use the mean warming trend from all of them as the best estimate.

          • Wayne says:

            Bdgwx,

            Thanks for that reply. I just learned something afterall!

            As you know, outliers can be mistakes, but they can also be indicators of erroneous or incomplete models. Is there currently any ongoing effort to reconcile the disagreeing datasets?

            Wayne

          • bdgwx says:

            Not really. Neither UAH nor RSS have expressed much motivation to reconcile their differences. And neither seem inclined to release the full details (like source code) to the public for independent review. The scientific community’s only recourse is to make comparisons with other datasets (radiosonde, surface, and reanalysis). Fortunately many of these 3rd party datasets do release the full details of their methodology including source code to the public.

        • Bindidon says:

          Wayne

          Sorry, I’m currently busy with lots of communication about tide gauges and satellite altimetry.

          Now it’s again 2 AM here, I’m tired.

          I’ll come back to you; I share some of your thoughts, but by far not all of them.

          And… when I look at this dumb trash

          Bindidon chimes in with his perpetual whine of me calling him an idiot. I do so because he presents falsified data from NOAA and compares it favourably to the UAH record. He truly is an idiot.

          I get a bit sad of such people.

          J.-P. D.

        • Svante says:

          Wayne says:

          So what do you think is the cause of the disagreement between satellite data vs surface data, and which dataset is correct?

          Both agree with AIRS, so both are good.
          UAH measures temperature at a higher altitude which is cooler.
          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/the-weakness-of-tropospheric-warming-as-confirmed-by-airs/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      wayne…”why is it that physcists can debate each other with humility and respect, but those claiming climate knowledge cannot?”

      Some physicists can debate with humility and respect, some cannot. Scientists in general are getting out of control. In the climate science world, many are ganging up on skeptics going so far as to have them removed from their livelihood for questioning the anthropogenic theory.

      In medical science, Peter Duesberg, who was the youngest scientist of his time inducted into the National Academy of Science (before climate modelers took it over and corrupted it) had his career ruined for claiming HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. His reasoning was scientifically sound, not a conspiracy theory.

      Furthermore, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, now agrees with him. As Montagnier pointed out, he has a Nobel, which pretty much allows him to speak his mind.

      More recently, Dr. Andrew Kaufman was fired from his job for questioning the theory behind covid. His theory is perfectly sound from a scientific perspective.

      I’m afraid your theory on physicists is viewed through rose-coloured glasses. Science is now corrupt.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      wayne…”The most important thing to understand is that satellite datasets are measuring higher up in the atmosphere than surface datasets”.

      You have just been hit on by mainstream alarmists who are feeding you a load of nonsense.

      Svante claims climate models can tell us where we are going, which is a sci-fi fairy tale. All climate models are unvalidated, meaning they have never been tested against reality and proved to represent reality. In fact, models cannot even predict the past given past data.

      bdg tells you the same old alarmist bs. that UAH sats don’t measure down to the surface. That is a gross misunderstanding by alarmists who have no idea how the telemetry on sats works. They use receivers that detect microwave radiation from oxygen in split wavelength bands. One of the bands can measure oxygen temperature right to the surface. Of course, the temperatures have to be interpolated for altitude which required an averaging against known temperature vs altitude profiles.

      What bdg does not tell you is that sat telemetry covers 95% of the Earth’s surface whereas surface stations cover barely 30%. Of that 30%, most of the data has been fudged by NOAA, the grand poobah of surface station data acquisition. They have slashed 90% of the reporting stations since the 1990s and have admitted more recently to slashing the number of stations from 6000 to less than 1500.

      NOAA is now using climate models to fill in the gaps they have created in the reporting station record. They have one station covering the entire Canadian Arctic and 3 stations in California, all near the warm coast. They had no station data for Bolivia so they created a temperature for the high altitude, colder region using stations up to 1200 km away. Guess what, Bolivia now shows warming.

      With regard to your question as to why the 1930s was hot, no one knows. 1934 is still the hottest year in the US and the number of consecutive heat waves in the 1930s has never been exceeded.

      NOAA recently tried to erase that record and replace it with a cooler temperature. NASA GISS did the same.

      Bindidon chimes in with his perpetual whine of me calling him an idiot. I do so because he presents falsified data from NOAA and compares it favourably to the UAH record. He truly is an idiot.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ps. climate models are programmed with 2 serious errors. One of them is an estimated warming factor for CO2 of 9% to 25% which has never been proved using the scientific method. The other is a claim of a positive feedback from GHGs that can warm the surface. There is no such feedback in the atmosphere since such a feedback requires an amplifier.

        The claimed positive feedback also contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics and since it represents a recycling of heat to raise the temperature of the heat source, it is also perpetual motion.

        • Wayne says:

          Hi Gordon,

          I’m aware of most of what you’ve written. With an inability to reproduce the results of something like 50 % of published scientific papers, I’d say that science has been badly damaged, yes. And I’d say that if the CO2 theory turns out to be wrong, it’ll take 50 years to repair the public’s trust, given all the hype and publicity of these past 20 years especially.

          But I don’t think I’m wearing rose-colored glasses re: our leading physicists. If you haven’t seen the devates I’m talking about, I can post the links to them here. They will reassure you science is alive and well, even if it’s on the run in many areas.

          Personally, I don’t think I can have any faith in climate science until its leading scientists start behaving the same way.

          Wayne

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            wayne…”They will reassure you science is alive and well, even if its on the run in many areas”.

            I still have faith in science and scientists but there are many modern scientists who have been raised on bad paradigms and lack the courage to speak out. Or maybe they lack the intelligence to see the errors in the paradigms.

            You need look no further than this site to see an example of scientists with integrity. Roy Spencer and John Christy have had the courage and integrity to stand in the face of hostility and disparagement and still tell the truth.

            I recall the time John was testifying before a US Senate committee with Hillary Clinton being rude with him while she glared at him with folded arms. She’s a complete idiot and I hooted with laughter when she lost to Trump.

            In the Climategate emails, the leader of Had-crut, Phil Jones, is caught bragging that he and ‘Kevin’, presumably Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, his partner as a Coordinating Lead Author, would block skeptical papers from reaching the review stage. One such paper was co-authored by John Christy.

            John Christy has been a lead author and reviewer on IPCC reviews and he pointed out that many reviewers are there to get along while not rocking the boat. They have no intention of giving an objective review, they are at the reviews to maintain the status quo.

            Climate science is corrupt and that has nothing to do with scientists like Roy, John, and Richard Lindzen, who have kept an open mind and tried to tell the truth.

      • bdgwx says:

        GR,

        Dr. Spencer goes into great detail on how the TLT product is derived.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

        Look at figure 7 in the link above. Also note that the TLT product uses the following weighting function…LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS. You can clearly see that TLT is an average of the entire troposphere weighted at about 6km above the surface.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Wayne, Gordo, screws up his description of the MSU/AMSU measurements, as is usual.

        As Spencer & Christy have described it, these instruments measure a “bulk temperature”, i.e., the total of the emissions in specific microwave wavelengths which reach the satellite, a measure called “brightness temperature” by others in the field. As such, the emissions for each channel exhibit a theoretical peak at some pressure level, but include emissions from both above and below that level. The UAH MT, which is the basis for the UAH LT, includes an emissions component from the surface and these emissions are different over land vs. over water, snow and sea-ice, thus adding confusion. The UAH LT, which is a combination primarily of their MT and TP data, exhibits a theoretical peak level of emissions which is lower than the MT, the result being a stronger surface component. Thus, the LT does not explicitly provide a surface temperature value, separate from the atmosphere above.

        Gordo continues, claiming that “sat telemetry covers 95% of the Earth’s surface”, which sounds great, but isn’t actually true either. The nadir location track for the sub-arctic scans only provide one measurement a day in each grid location, either a day or night pass, always at a fixed local time of the day. The off nadir scans values are “binned” into a stack of gridded data sets, one for each scan position, since each position exhibits a different peak in pressure level due to their differing scan angles. There are many positions in the stacks of grids for which no data is added each day. At the end of each month, these gridded data sets are processed, using theoretical models, to produce the MT, the TP and the LS products. The LT is the result of another processing step based on another theoretical model of the emissions for each channel.

        Of course, there is no way to validate these processes, as they are based on theoretical modeling of emissions under assumed conditions of temperature vs. pressure height (aka: altitude). Gordo’s glowing endorsement of John Christy and the UAH products just displays his ignorance of the uncertainty of these results. His bias is obvious as he failed to mention the MSU/AMSU results from RSS, which exhibit a greater warming trend when compared with the UAH products. Which analysis gives the most accurate trend? I can’t say, but the UAH data appears to indicate the smallest trend compared with most other data sets.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swannie…”As Spencer & Christy have described it, these instruments measure a “bulk temperature”, i.e., the total of the emissions in specific microwave wavelengths which reach the satellite, a measure called “brightness temperature” by others in the field”.

          What you are missing is that the bulk temperature is comprised of oxygen emissions from near the surface. Those microwave frequencies will be different than frequencies from higher altitudes and that will show up in the overall spectrum received by the telemetry in channel 5.

          How else do you think they can project surface temperatures? They are not using a climate model to guestimate them, they have actual pertinent data.

          • Wayne says:

            The technicalities of this discussion are a bit above my head, but is it safe to say that the UAH temperatures, regardless of how they agree/disagree with other temperature sets, can still be relied upon as an accurate measure of trends? Put another way, if we see a consistent upward or downward trend in UAH temperatures, is that likely to reflect a real change in global temperatures in trend if not precise measurement? If not, why?

            Regarding Drs Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, and Curry, etc. I’ve never understood why people bash them as deniers. They could be right, they could be wrong. But they seem to have entire lifetimes of credentials. I’ve read a lot of what they have written, and even if I’m incapable of judging their science, they’ve always struck me as being incredibly professional.

          • Svante says:

            The people you name are all proper scientists.
            They have questioned how much, which is a valid question.

            Meet the scientists:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0

          • Svante says:

            … *climate* scientist.

          • bdgwx says:

            Wayne,

            Yes and no. It’s complicated.

            There is a correlation between mid troposphere and near surface temperatures. So generally speaking the trends will be similar. But they may differ in magnitude and will have substantial variability month-to-month. It happens quite frequently that reanalysis and surface datasets will show opposite movements from satellite datasets on a month-to-month basis. But over sufficiently long periods the the trends are correlated pretty well at least in terms of the direction of the trend.

            UAH, RSS, and STAR do NOT produce surface temperature estimates. I believe AIRS is the only satellite dataset that is considered to be near surface. You can read about AIRS here. https://tinyurl.com/y32gpfwj

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo wrote:<
            What you are missing is that the bulk temperature is comprised of oxygen emissions from near the surface. Those microwave frequencies will be different than frequencies from higher altitudes and that will show up in the overall spectrum received by the telemetry in channel 5.

            Spencer and Christy use the term “bulk temperature” to describe the aggregate microwave intensity received by the microwave receiving channels on the MSU and AMSU instruments. S & C have repeatedly pointed out that this energy is the result black body emissions by O2 molecules within the atmosphere and these emissions are both absorbed and emitted along the path between the surface and TOA, rather like what happens with CO2 absorp-tion and emission from the surface to Deep Space.

            The contribution from surface BB emissions is said to represent only a small fraction of the total for MSU 2 and AMSU 5 that are used to calculate the MT product, as evidenced by theoretical calculations of the “weighting” function vs. pressure level. The three channels selected for the MT, TP and LS products have peaks at different pressure levels in the emission weighting, thus the names given to these products. Trouble is, the lowest level product, the MT, is distorted by contamination from above, particularly the stratosphere, which is known to be cooling. The LT product is an attempt to correct for this influence, as was the earlier TLT product.

            These UAH products do not provide a separate time series for the surface, as bdgwx notes below, thus do not “project” anything.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            The people you name are all proper scientists.
            They have questioned how much, which is a valid question.

            ================================

            As they say a fool is born every minute.

            Proper scientists are in disagreement about what? Oh, about ‘how much’. Does anything else matter? Zero is an expression of how much.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says:
            “Zero is an expression of how much.”

            Not really, because it depends on feedbacks.
            You have to have the initial perturbation before you can have a feedback.

            They all understand that CO2 has given that direct effect.
            Lindzen thought a doubling of CO2 would give a 0.5 C increase.
            But we have got 1.2 C for half that increase.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            wayne…”Regarding Drs Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, and Curry, etc. Ive never understood why people bash them as deniers. They could be right, they could be wrong. But they seem to have entire lifetimes of credentials”.

            It’s not just in climate science that good scientist are being maligned for daring to offer skeptical comments or to offer alternate theories. We are in this mess with covid because certain scientists have cornered the market, so to speak, on a myopic theory that viruses that cannot be isolated using the standard method for identifying a virus can somehow be inferred based on questionable science.

            An example. The scientist who won a Nobel for discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, has been claiming since 2010 that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. Other scientists, who have cornered the market on an unproved HIV/AIDS theories are ignoring him. One of them is Anthony Fauci, who is now advising the US on covid.

            Who is likely to be right, a scientists who has devoted his life to HIV research and who was recognized with a Nobel, or some run-of-the-mill scientists who are hung up on a bad paradigm and who have finacial conflicts of interest?

            This is not about Montagnier’s opinion versus the rest, the data backs Montagnier totally. A very tiny fraction of 1% of populations have been affected by AIDS deaths, yet the charlatans keep offering their gloom and doom theories on a harmless virus to most people.

            The same is true for covid. Only a tiny fraction of 1% of populations die from this virus.

            The entire theory surrounding covid, and the tests, come from HIV research. Montagnier has openly admitted that he has never seen HIV because it simply cannot be found using the standard method for identifying a virus. Same with covid. Both are inferred viruses and the tests for both are simply based on bad science.

            If you cannot see a virus on an electron microscope you don’t have the genome of its RNA. Yet the tests are based on amplifying the RNA BELIEVED to be from a virus.

            Peter Duesberg came out a long time ago to claim that HIV cannot possibly cause AIDS. Montagnier now agrees. Duesberg’s career was ruined for expressing such skepticism. Who the hell are these idiots who can ruin the career of another scientist?

            Today, Dr. Andrew Kaufman was fired from his job for daring to question the covid theory. He has simply pointed out the truth, that covid has never been isolated or seen on an electron microscope, hence the tests are unreliable.

            The US CD-C has confirmed his claims but not using his words. They claim 40% of those testing positive for covid show no symptoms. Kaufman claims that as proof the tests are unreliable, the CD-C claims it as proof that those 40% are silent carriers of a virus that cannot be isolated or seen on an electron microscope.

            There are a lot of cheating, conniving b***ards in science these days. The CD-C has proved to be corrupt. One of their leaders was forced to resign and immediately got a cushy job with a pharmaceutical company.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Not really, because it depends on feedbacks.
            You have to have the initial perturbation before you can have a feedback.

            They all understand that CO2 has given that direct effect.
            Lindzen thought a doubling of CO2 would give a 0.5 C increase.
            But we have got 1.2 C for half that increase.
            ============================

            Yes we have an increase but that doesn’t mean its CO2.

            Lindzen’s estimate is within the range of my estimate.

            And as sensitivity has been broadly defined, IMO, i see it as a factor of increasing negative feedback.

          • Svante says:

            Lindzen’s iris theory was an interesting idea.
            It hasn’t materialised.

            It’s worth mentioning that CH4 contributes 50% of what CO2 does. It’s not as nasty because it breaks down to CO2 and water in a decade or so.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Lindzen’s iris theory was an interesting idea.
            It hasn’t materialised.

            ==============================

            You can’t say it hasn’t materialized as sensitivity is far below projections as observed. While it may true the Iris Effect has not been identified as the cause for that, obviously a cause exists.

            My opinion is that the way feedback is defined the Iris Theory is simply a theory that negates much of the initial radiant imbalance well up in the atmosphere even before it any of it reaches the surface.

            I think the way the Iris theory is defined it would pretty much encompass just about any negative feedback. I further would suggest that the various radiation budgets all scream negative feedback. Its a very complicated system and the Iris Theory merely posits a great deal of more complication than the simple forcing models suggest.

            For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

            H. L. Mencken

          • Svante says:

            CO2 has gone up 25% since 1979.
            UAH has added more that 1 C in that time.
            Lindzen said 100% for 0.5 C.
            The iris theory is not working.

          • Svante says:

            Sorry, “1 C” should be “0.5 C”.

          • Nate says:

            “My opinion is that the way feedback …”

            Science is fact-based, empirical.

            Your opinions about it are neither.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            CO2 has gone up 25% since 1979.
            UAH has added more that 1 C in that time.
            Lindzen said 100% for 0.5 C.
            The iris theory is not working.

            ===============================================

            That is an ignorant conclusion. Feedbacks don’t need to operate in the same way with different climate influences.

            In fact, I would suggest the mainstream theory of feedbacks is ignorant on its very surface as it mysteriously transports energy exclusively back to the surface to be manifested exclusively as heat before any feedbacks occur.

            First the iris effect is potentially able to be realized by the movement of IR within the atmosphere both before and after any energy is reabsorbed by the surface and manifested as heat.

            Second, chemical effects are well known to be associated with any change agent of climate (evaporation and cloud formation being at the top of the list) everything from Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory to a hatful of other theories have the potential to be realized and/or modified by the IRIS effect producing both positive and negative feedbacks.

            The Iris effect is not anything less than a rough description of the complexity of energy exchange and chemical processes occurring in the atmosphere.

            So perhaps the climate length and even the sub climate length phenomena we see going on in our atmosphere creating ENSO, changes in wind patterns, changes in convection are a result of these complex processes.

            The guilty party to all this are those making projections based upon extremely simple theories and modifying them in ways to achieve the desired level of warming projections whether it be from postulated ocean heat uptake, aerosols or whatever (namely all those things in the Iris theory sorted out to desired outcomes)

            Bottom line Svante its obvious there are mechanism at work that have caused failure in the climate model projections. If somebody wants to propose a theory for why such as natural variation, external solar variation, or a negative feedback mechanism or a combination of all of them (most likely case). . . .why not. . . .just add to the long list of unproven theories. . . .including your favorites.

            But don’t give us some silly argument similar to your half-baked and unsupported claim that energy prices aren’t affected by taxation as a reason to handwave the Iris Effect away.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            My opinion is that the way feedback

            Science is fact-based, empirical.

            Your opinions about it are neither.

            ===========================================

            Pretty much all knowledge about climate as a basis for certainty of one theory over another fits into the class of items you note above which of course calls into question, what is your purpose here?

          • Svante says:

            I didn’t say “unsupported claim that energy prices aren’t affected by taxation”.

            You have many words and no evidence.

            The iris effect was through cloud feedback.
            Here’s some evidence for it:
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL089059

          • bill hunter says:

            I said:
            “Oligarchical pricing covers all costs with markups. Taxes will reduce volume of sales but enhances the margin per unit.”
            You said:
            That depends on price elasticity. If it was that low they could have added it themselves.
            ==============

            you suggested price elasticity of demand could be an explanation. i explained that it can be determined from a simple market survey that it didn’t happen the way you suggested.

          • Nate says:

            Bill, I’m being honest here when I suggest that you learn the science, in sufficient depth, before tossing out il-informed opinions about it, that seem more based on your feelings and beliefs.

            Lindzens IRIS effect, is a very specific effect. It is not, as you assert, whatever you want it to be, in your opinion.

            “it would pretty much encompass just about any negative feedback’

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Bill, Im being honest here when I suggest that you learn the science, in sufficient depth, before tossing out il-informed opinions about it, that seem more based on your feelings and beliefs.

            Lindzens IRIS effect, is a very specific effect. It is not, as you assert, whatever you want it to be, in your opinion.

            it would pretty much encompass just about any negative feedback

            ===============================

            You are just stuck on stupid. You believe whatever you are told by whom you want to listen to.

            As to the IRIS effect its a theory without proof. Its a theory not limited to specific feedbacks from the greenhouse effect.
            Its also not well described how it works. Yet you conclude there is science that suggests its a very specific effect caused by very specific effects for a very exclusive use.

            Where did you get that opinion from? Did you read that somewhere. You don’t see the multitude of ways it might occur is it really the case that you are so ignorant of climate that you can’t think of the holes in the current models? Holes that exist on all sides of the climate debate.

            Dr. Judith Curry writes extensively on the issue of uncertainty. Recognizing uncertainty suggest both intelligence and often education as well.

            Certainty in the conclusion department of climate causes and effects indicates ignorance and stupidity regarding both education and susceptibility to suggestion.

          • Nate says:

            “issue of uncertainty”

            When you, Bill, are uncertain about how a scientific theory works, that is called ignorance. Your ignorance.

            A very different thing from what science calls ‘uncertainty’.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            “issue of uncertainty”

            When you, Bill, are uncertain about how a scientific theory works, that is called ignorance. Your ignorance.

            A very different thing from what science calls ‘uncertainty’.
            =================================

            So you, a little moron, is calling Dr. Judith Curry ignorant?

          • Svante says:

            bill, you don’t even know what price elasticity is.

          • bill hunter says:

            Not only do I know what price elasticity is I know when its appropriate to use it. Gasoline has low price elasticity to demand.
            Meaning prices can be raised and demand doesn’t fall off much.

            OPEC attempts to manipulate prices by withholding supply. Here they are expecting high price elasticity to supply as demand holds as prices go up as a result of shortages.

            That strategy got kicked in the balls with America’s new found energy independence and recent new status as a net exporter of petroleum products.

            See you are stupid about that too. Can’t you get anything right Svante?

          • Nate says:

            “So you, a little moron, is calling Dr. Judith Curry ignorant?”

            No I isn’t. Judith Curry perfectly understands what scientific uncertainty is, and doesnt blurt out gobbldegook.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            “So you, a little moron, is calling Dr. Judith Curry ignorant?”

            No I isn’t. Judith Curry perfectly understands what scientific uncertainty is, and doesnt blurt out gobbldegook.

            ===============================

            Good then I can make it perfectly clear to you. I have like 37 years of professional experience in assessing uncertainty. I am in complete agreement with Judith Curry’s various papers on the topic and really have nothing to add to it.

            So if you don’t understand something I wrote you could point that out rather than sticking your head in the sand and blurting ad hominems.

          • Nate says:

            “So if you dont understand something I wrote you could point that out”

            Generally, I take issue with your ongoing use of ‘argument by assertion’ and ‘gish gallops’ in your posts.

            But here, Bill, as I have many other times, I raised a specific problem:

            “Lindzens IRIS effect, is a very specific effect. It is not, as you assert, whatever you want it to be, in your opinion.

            ‘it would pretty much encompass just about any negative feedback'”

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            “So if you dont understand something I wrote you could point that out”

            Generally, I take issue with your ongoing use of ‘argument by assertion’ and ‘gish gallops’ in your posts.

            But here, Bill, as I have many other times, I raised a specific problem:

            “Lindzens IRIS effect, is a very specific effect. It is not, as you assert, whatever you want it to be, in your opinion.

            ‘it would pretty much encompass just about any negative feedback’”

            ============================

            You are discussing semantic issues not climate uncertainty. So what uncertainty is that I have expressed that you take issue with. Or your you just spouting stuff with the grey matter switched off.

          • Nate says:

            ‘your you just spouting stuff with the grey matter switched off.”

            Exactly my point. You can’t spout confusing opinions about the Iris affect or uncertainty or anything in science without first getting informed about it.

            There is uncertainty in the amount of warming projected for the future, because there is legit uncertainty in the Magnitude of Feedbacks due to various effects including the Iris effect.

            That is not equivalent to YOUR uncertainty (ignorance) about how a feedback is defined or what it is.

            Science has defined it, and is not uncertain about what it is.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Exactly my point. You can’t spout confusing opinions about the Iris affect or uncertainty or anything in science without first getting informed about it.
            ============================
            Besides your point being exactly irrelevant lets move down to the topic.

            Nate says:

            There is uncertainty in the amount of warming projected for the future, because there is legit uncertainty in the Magnitude of Feedbacks due to various effects including the Iris effect.

            That is not equivalent to YOUR uncertainty (ignorance) about how a feedback is defined or what it is.

            Science has defined it, and is not uncertain about what it is.
            ========================

            The way feedbacks have been defined is off an unphysical insulation model that allows current convection through a multi-layered stack of absorbing surfaces with vacuums between them.

            Conveniently the initial effect is near one degree, so in effect the conversation can turn 180 degrees to an exclusive examination of the feedback such that a feedback sensitivity of zero equals zero effect.

            So it makes zero sense to talk about the basis of the model beyond being constructed in such a way that anything that would modify that unreal world would in fact by definition be a feedback.

            Now I haven’t read Lindzen’s Iris Effect in detail, merely skimmed it and have accepted it in the context of what an Iris actually does namely regulates the amount of light that reaches the retina. If thats not what it does then it misnamed like greenhouse gases are misnamed.

            Thus sensitivity (feedback) becomes an all inclusive category where if sensitivity is zero, greenhouse gases no longer affect surface temperatures.

            The argument for my model is that while it’s clear that at least the first layer of greenhouse gases at some temperature above that of outerspace definitely has an effect on the surface.

            Where I begin to diverge is on the topic of the second layer.

            Does the second layer act on the 1st layer in a warming fashion as the first layer acts on the surface.

            Real nerds will note that some warming must occur to instigate the motion of air in our atmosphere, but with my experience with heating of all sorts the key issue isn’t a pulse of heat but a constant source of heat.

            Our atmosphere is like steam above a cauldron of boiling liquid and we are trying to study how much of that escaping heat makes it way back into the cauldron. It’s clearly yes where the cauldron is interacting with what’s above it. the theory goes on to say the relationship between the layers is repeated as if those were static layers.

            The problem comes in that while the surface of the cauldron is relatively static the layers of the atmosphere are not.

            But no problemo if we define it as sensitivity on an unitary effect. . . .sensitivity will always equal what ever warming is achieved. . . .like how r and u factors are computed except that with the model at hand a sensitivity of one suggests a warming and in a more conventional model of insulation a value of one would indicate zero warming.

            No big deal because folks working on it accept that and even in some cases like Roy they sometimes come up with a less than one fractional value where zero equals no warming.

            So I think you are right the magnitude of feedbacks as defined by the sensitivity multiple is the only point of discussion. . . .despite how much warmists want to put their thumb on the scale and argue that a sensitivity of 1.0 is assured before any feedbacks they want to talk about.

            The bottom line is the warmists aren’t going to eschew the word ‘greenhouse’ as it serves a nice propaganda word that invokes common perceptions about effects inside of a greenhouse.

            Don’t fault me if I am incorrect about the Iris Effect to include feedback affects occurring prior to any surface effects.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, you’re incorrect.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Yes, youre incorrect.

            ===================================

            So now you are fancying yourself as a fascist where whatever you say goes without argument?

          • Svante says:

            I was agreeing with you.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            I was agreeing with you.
            ======================

            Your vote doesn’t add anything to the debate. And you weren’t agreeing with me.

          • Svante says:

            You are right.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            You’ll have to get your questions answered, if you truly care about the answers, by reading and learning about the real theory yourself.

            Eg layers with vacuum between. No convection in the models except as feedback. These are wrong assumptions. The radiative-convective equilibrium that determines the lapse rate is already present in the steady-state GHE models.
            ============================

            I didn’t say the atmosphere had a vacuum between the layers in the atmosphere. I said the model prior to forcing the surface effectively assumes a vacuum because of not doing anything besides radiation transfer between the layers.

            convection and evaporation is not documented anywhere in a quantified manner as a condition of the model.

            Only when all the known conditions sufficient to establish a surface effect are known and quantified as following some kind of quantified theory do models elevate themselves above human intuition.

            One can propose the concept of a layered atmosphere with zero convective change to TOA perturbation until that perturbation finds its way back to the surface.

            But it requires a big jump in science to do so. I can demonstrate a greenhouse effect with multiple layers of radiation blocking glass panels. One can build a greenhouse and start doubling panels (if other heat losses can be contained) and get the same sort of logarithmic increase in heat retention.

            That’s the greenhouse model everybody is stuck on. No matter how hard you try to obfuscate it.
            =================
            =================

            Nate says:
            As much as you are paying me to be your research assistant, to find the articles you need to read, read them for you, and tell you whats in them, so that you can then tell me Im wrong while not ever reading them yourself….This job is not really working out for me.
            ========================
            So how many articles should that be Nate? Seems to me it could be a one page blueprint.

            And the only one page blueprint out in the public is the grade-school model. Whats the deal? Do they think they are better off educating adults in a different way? Especially the most trained, disciplined, and obedient ones ready to lick somebody else’s boots?

            =================
            =================

            Nate says:
            Its a hostile workplace and a toxic environment. And now with the sexual harassment..Im done with this job.
            ===================
            It was a metaphor! I apologize if its actually a chosen lifestyle you have been victimized into.

            =================
            =================

            Nate says:

            If I add one more inch of insulation to my attic, my house will be warmer in winter with the same furnace heat-flow into the house.

            Not only that, but the entire temperature profile from the top of the new insulation, through the existing insulation, through the wood framing and the ceiling will be altered, with the end result that at the bottom end of the profile, in the living space, the temperature will be higher.

            How can that happen that a change of the very top layer of insulation can propagate all the way down the temperature gradient into the house?
            =============================

            I already explained that in this response but once again. Most insulating panels or batts operate by locking parcels of gases in place in little unmoving pockets like in foam or in batts of fine haired fibers. Foams work best because they inhibit movement of the gases more than fibers. But convection operates inside of the little pockets so insulation is like multiple panes of glass except that in foam you can get a whole lot more layers.

            Allow those gases to unobstructively convect and the insulation fails to insulate. Simple enough explanation of insulation 101?

            There is only one place in the atmosphere where a psuedo panel exists restricting convection and that is at TOA.

            There is a lot more than that but I will stop there as it is fully responsive to why your belief is operating in an unreal world.

            I mean seriously Nate! Can you even find one landmark paper that proposes what you just proposed? Or did you read that on some blog someplace?

            ===========================
            ===========================

            Nate says:

            You’ll undoubtedly declare that home insulation is different!

            But the same heat-transfer basic principles are in action.
            =================================

            Insulation is different and I just explained why. And yes the basic real principles apply and are in action. Just some of them don’t exist in multiple layers in the atmosphere.

        • Nate says:

          “allows current convection through a multi-layered stack of absorbing surfaces with vacuums between them.”

          FALSE. Nobody claims a vacuum between them.

          “Conveniently the initial effect is near one degree, so in effect the conversation can turn 180 degrees to an exclusive examination of the feedback such that a feedback sensitivity of zero equals zero effect.

          So it makes zero sense”

          Agree with only the last sentence.

          “So it makes zero sense to talk about the basis of the model beyond being constructed in such a way that anything that would modify that unreal world would in fact by definition be a feedback.”

          And more gobbldegook.

          The way the model is constructed is clearly beyond your comprehension.

          What are readers supposed to do with this kind of gish gallop?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            “allows current convection through a multi-layered stack of absorbing surfaces with vacuums between them.”

            FALSE. Nobody claims a vacuum between them.
            ================================

            Yes they do Nate. They don’t say they do. But without a vacuum they would have add on effects from convection and conduction. They set those add in effects to zero. The only real world model that would allow it to be zero is when a vacuum is present between the layers.

            They allow for convection and conduction as a feedback but not as a basis for the claim of 1degC per doubling for CO2 without feedbacks.

          • Nate says:

            “do. But without a vacuum they would have add on effects from convection and conduction.”

            Bill, as usual, you are simply ignorant of what the actual theory is. Convection IS included in the real theory. Conduction is negligible.

            It does your side no good to keep arguing from a place of willful ignorance.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            “do. But without a vacuum they would have add on effects from convection and conduction.”

            Bill, as usual, you are simply ignorant of what the actual theory is. Convection IS included in the real theory. Conduction is negligible.

            It does your side no good to keep arguing from a place of willful ignorance.

            =======================================
            Stop with your ignorance of the theory.

            The basic theory does not contain convection. Yes convection is manipulated in the models as feedback but the basic 1decC or whatever it is precisely calculated out of rocket science as the amount of light absorbed by CO2 traveling through the atmosphere was then converted to theory of backradiant energy reaching back to the surface unperturbed in its journey. That warming reaching the surface then generates feedbacks in order for the assumption that feedbacks will triple the initial surface forcing.

            I learned this by utilizing the old UI Modtran program that provided surface forcing with various controls that allowed one to adjust atmosphere parameters. Further its the model frequently offered descriptions of multiple layered radiation models.

            What I am saying is radiation does not need to get back to the surface to spur convection. The only way for heat to get back to the surface from TOA is by warming the atmosphere otherwise the surface will continue to look solely at the first absorp-tion layer that has no changes.

            If you can offer a different explanation be my guest but don’t just cruise along saying everybody else is wrong without explicity detailing how back radiation from upper layers in the atmosphere operate to force the surface.

          • Nate says:

            “The basic theory does not contain convection.”

            Pose whatever strawmen makes you feel better better, Bill.

            The idea that meteorology or climate science neglect convection is utterly ridiculous.

            Simply look at any climate science energy-balance diagram that pops up in a Google search.

            I can continue to give you a fish or..

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            The basic theory does not contain convection.

            Pose whatever strawmen makes you feel better better, Bill.

            The idea that meteorology or climate science neglect convection is utterly ridiculous.

            Simply look at any climate science energy-balance diagram that pops up in a Google search.

            I can continue to give you a fish or..
            ===========================

            You need to learn to read Nate. I said the basic physical ‘theory’ of the GHE ignores convection.

            I didn’t say that when the theory is encoded into a model they ignore convection.

            Convection is treated as a feedback in the models.

          • Nate says:

            “the basic physical ‘theory’ of the GHE ignores convection.”

            No Bill.

            That is at best the grade-school cartoon version of the GHE, not the real theory.

            Find a source describing the real theory and you will see that it includes convection.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            the basic physical theory of the GHE ignores convection.

            No Bill.

            That is at best the grade-school cartoon version of the GHE, not the real theory.

            Find a source describing the real theory and you will see that it includes convection.
            =========================
            LOL! Hmmm, grade school huh? You mean we are plying our kids with propaganda?

            Whats the matter Nate can’t you bring your argument home with a source?

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            You think climate scientists are ignorant of convection? Seriously?

            Genuine question…where do you get stuff like this?

          • Nate says:

            “Whats the matter Nate cant you bring your argument home with a source?”

            No, I think, once again, YOU made a stupid claim and have no source to back it up.

            Now you throw up chaff.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            bill,

            You think climate scientists are ignorant of convection? Seriously?

            Genuine question…where do you get stuff like this?

            ====================================================

            Yes or no question bdgwx. Do you believe that the amount of additional energy absorbed by CO2 coming from CO2 doubling its concentration in the atmosphere will initially manifest itself as surface warming before feedback?

            Nate admits to this approach being used to instruct grade schoolers on how CO2 operates to warm the surface. I am very much interested in seeing the diagram that shows it to be different. If only one version is available. . . . I am right. Bring it on!

            Nate wanted me to produce evidence of my assertion and he provided it for me.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            Assuming I’m understanding the question…yes.

            CO2’s radiative forcing perturbs the Earth Energy Imbalance before any feedbacks take place. The geosphere accumulates this energy and warms. The warming then causes feedbacks to activate.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx:
            Assuming I’m understanding the question…yes.

            =========================================
            LOL! I don’t see any hard words in the question. The surface is like you know the radiating surface of the planet.

            So you believe what I stated that Nate started to deny but then copped to. He backtracked and called that the ‘grade school cartoon’ version that NOAA peddles as a known scientific fact to deceive the less sophisticated into believing that’s settled science. I will let him explain it to you.

            I am surprised I haven’t seen a cartoon with little Joulemen in uniforms with J’s printed on their chests all holding hands and forcing the surface.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate admits to this approach being used to instruct grade schoolers on how CO2 operates to warm the surface.”

            So Bill admits that he is only familiar with the cartoon/grade school version of the theory, and not the real scientific theory.

            That explains a lot!

            I congratulate him for finding issues with the cartoon model for kids.

            But he should understand that any issues he raises with the cartoon version do not apply to the real adult scientific theory, which climate science and meteorology uses, and obviously does take account of convection.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Nate admits to this approach being used to instruct grade schoolers on how CO2 operates to warm the surface.

            So Bill admits that he is only familiar with the cartoon/grade school version of the theory, and not the real scientific theory.

            That explains a lot!

            I congratulate him for finding issues with the cartoon model for kids.

            But he should understand that any issues he raises with the cartoon version do not apply to the real adult scientific theory, which climate science and meteorology uses, and obviously does take account of convection.

            ========================================

            well there seems to be a gulf between bdgwx and my views and your view Nate. I know that bdgwx and myself are perfectly aware that convection is considered by the science community as a feedback response to surface warming. but the question at hand is in regard to radiant surface forcing prior to the feedbacks resulting from it.

            This issue may not be relevant to single layer radiant models but is obviously relevant to multiple layer radiant models.

            So if it were a radiant model convection would not be a factor prior to surface forcing and my take on what it looks like, namely a radiant model that ignores convection would be correct and logical.

            However, the logic falls apart in multi-layered models yet bdgwx does believe the radiant forcing affects the surface to that 1 deg C prior to feedback and convention exactly as I characterized prior to your objection.

            So if you could zero into the crux of the issue and explain your position to both bdgwx and myself that would be great.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            I’m not understanding your point. Convection does not (with caveats) cross into the stratosphere nevermind into space. Therefore it is NOT a mechanism by which Earth sheds heat. And keep in mind that the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming and the stratosphere is cooling. Just make sure whatever hypothesis it is your’re conjuring up is at least consistent with this observation.

            BTW…convection plays a role in things like the Simpson-Nakajima limit. In fact it is, in part, because of convection that the SN limit is lower than the Komabayashi-Ingersoll limit. What this means is that the Earth is closer to a runaway warming state because of convection and not in spite of it than it would be otherwise. Mind you scientists are reasonable confident that a runaway greenhouse is not possible on Earth because the SN limit is still sufficiently high, but the same cannot be said of a moist greenhouse. Though it is estimated that even a moist greenhouse would require upwards of 10,000 ppm of CO2 to initiate.

          • Nate says:

            bill, just stop trolling, and distorting what people say. You already admitted your knowledge of the theory is at a grade school level.

            You simply have no credibility..

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            bill,

            I’m not understanding your point. Convection does not (with caveats) cross into the stratosphere nevermind into space. Therefore it is NOT a mechanism by which Earth sheds heat. And keep in mind that the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming and the stratosphere is cooling. Just make sure whatever hypothesis it is your’re conjuring up is at least consistent with this observation.
            ======================

            bdgwx, your point doesn’t make any sense. Bulk movement of water vapor, which defines the top of the troposphere, does not cross into the stratosphere by definition.

            that does mean any related to the 1 deg C forcing on the surface as calculated by modtran directly from the absor-ption of light into the troposphere without consideration of convection. Convection is considered but after the initial surface forcing.

            I actually agree that convection should be but its a total crapshoot what the results are if you let that in the door before you increase surface forcing. Nobody wants to document that or chart it because they have no theory that ends up with surface forcing if the energy intercepted ends up in water molecules before they get back to the surface. I mean you may as well be making a recipe for primordial soup.

            At the current state of primary research on ghe’s its at about the level of UFO science with same characteristics. . . .few key facts and a lot of folks with tinfoil hats that aren’t likely to go away anytime soon.

            ======================
            ======================

            bdgwx says:
            BTW…convection plays a role . . . What this means is that the Earth is closer to a runaway warming state because of convection and not in spite of it than it would be otherwise.
            =============================
            Actually that appears to me to be a bunch of hooey. I don’t know any scientist that believes that beyond a few real nut cases. Thats like one of those polar bears are going extinct scare tactics to try to move the needle politically.
            =====================
            =====================
            bdgwx says:
            Mind you scientists are reasonable confident that a runaway greenhouse is not possible on Earth.
            ============================
            Yep I agree. You just say it nicer than I do.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            September 18, 2020 at 5:10 PM
            bill, just stop trolling, and distorting what people say. You already admitted your knowledge of the theory is at a grade school level.

            You simply have no credibility

            ===============================

            Ahha going ad hominem. Good advice if you don’t have anything intelligent to say in the debate, stop digging.

          • Nate says:

            “you donAhha going ad hominem. Good advice if you dont have anything intelligent to say in the debate, stop digging.”

            Bill calls me a ‘moron’ and many similar things, but is horribly offended when I point out a fact: that he has no credibility to judge a scientific theory that has never learned anything about.

            Thats ok, hypocrisy is one of Bills main talents.

            And still waiting for ANY evidence suppprt his claims that the theory that he has never studied contains no convection.

          • bill hunter says:

            Any moron should know that it’s not possible to prove non-existence of a piece of paper so you need to accept the paper found even if you want to deny its existence as grade-school.

            You are certainly free to produce the one you believe that exists but until then its kind of like a God paper where the only documentation to be found is on a par with the earth being about 6,000 years old.

            Oh the things we lie to our kids about. Is Michael Mann really Santa Claus with a dyed goatee?

          • Nate says:

            Bill, this gets back to your original claim about layer models with no convection.

            See here for example under radiative-convective models

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

            “one-dimensional radiative-convective model, which considers two processes of energy transport:

            upwelling and downwelling radiative transfer through atmospheric layers that both absorb and emit infrared radiation
            upward transport of heat by convection (especially important in the lower troposphere).”

          • Nate says:

            Introductory section of above link.

            “Quantitative models vary in complexity:

            A simple radiant heat transfer model treats the earth as a single point and averages outgoing energy.

            This can be expanded vertically (radiative-convective models) and/or horizontally

            Finally, (coupled) atmosphereoceansea ice global climate models solve the full equations for mass and energy transfer and radiant exchange.
            Box models can treat flows across and within ocean basins.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate:

            I am aware of radiative and convective models. But the example you gave does nothing to dispel the ‘grade-school’ version.

            On the issue all that is offered in your link is: ”But added parameters are needed to determine local emissivity and albedo and address the factors that move energy about the earth.”

            It does not include a footnote to what those parameters are or what processes the parameters apply to.

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            “nothing to dispel the grade school model”

            Hilarious.

            You’ll need top find a 4th grader to continue to argue about that.

            But we are here to discuss the real adult models of the GHE and AGW.

            The link and its references make clear that convection is definitely included in the real models that climate science actually uses.

            Your hopes to use this ‘One simple trick to prove climate science has it all wrong’ are dashed.

            Oh well.

          • bill hunter says:

            Just goes to show Nate that the adults continue to write fairy tales for the kiddies because they can’t come up with a blueprint of how the adult version works.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate your link to a description of how convection operates in the process of transferring hypothesized forcing down through the atmosphere via multiple episodes of radiative transfer layer by layer consists of one clause that’s less than a complete sentence:

            “upward transport of heat by convection (especially important in the lower troposphere).”

            Thats not the kiddie version thats the idiot version and you slurp that down like you suck down yo daddy’s hog as fact?

            I ask for a description of how a forcing at TOA transfer gets to the the surface in a highly responsive convection system which can easily be shown to not work in the lab is suddenly made to work by making the radiative forcing of the topmost layer weaker.

            It seems a bit counter intuitive. It seems to be a construct to address what we don’t know about radiative transfer in convective systems to create a psuedosolidsheet conductive model of solid sheet insulation. But to do that you need some evidence it works. So where is it?

            A simple blueprint of the radiative and convective transfer process would suffice. I mean don’t you see the need to see at least a description of how it works before you conclude that it does work?

            Obviously you bought hook line and sinker into the kiddie version.

            The way you are producing documentation on this topic Nate you wouldn’t last 2 days as an auditor apprentice with your conclusion that we should accept what you have produced as adequate evidence of the truth of the assertion of surface forcing arising out of multi-layered model. An audit manager might take two maybe three looks at that and conclude you lack the ability.

            You have had a lot more than three opportunities here to produce something even partly convincing. Managers have huge potential career liabilities they need people who can recognize the substance of the stuff they are looking at correctly as they depend upon the staff to alert them to issues.

            Again let me stress I get the model where radiation is returned to a surface incapable of convecting, but thats a single layer model.

            So I conclude you became convinced via the only model you have been able to produce so far. . . .the grade-school model which you already admitted doesn’t have a convective element prior to surface forcing. So that either makes you a liar or really freaking dumb.

            Speaking quite honestly myself I have heard by way of scuttlebutt that in fact the issue isn’t explored scientifically. To explore a topic scientifically you need a blueprint. Instead its all buried in a non-transparent way where most likely the grade-school model parameter is used (zero convective effect prior to surface forcing)

            It seems to be the case arising out of the official description where they talk very broadly about forcing on ”surface-troposphere systems”. Swenson produced an IPCC definition of that.

            V. Ramanathan refers to ”entrains that energy into the troposphere/surface system.”

            thats called being vague Nate. All the experts dodge the issue by naming a generic forcing on the ”surface-troposphere” system for which the only documentation available in the scientific discourse sphere is the grade-school model.

            Its like a embezzler claiming he took the money to the bank by saying I gave the money to my bank-wife. And inspector Nate responds ”OK you are cleared”

            this would make for a great movie. . . .Pink Panther II with Peter Sellers playing the role of Nate Clouseau – Son of Jacques. Or work it into a Dudley Doo-Right episode.

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            I provided what you originally asked for, evidence that the models include convection. They clearly do.

            I led you to the water, now you need to learn how to fish yourself.

            Find a paper, read up on the real theory, and ONLY THEN critique it.

            And pls make a succinct point, rather then going off on yet another gish gallop to nowhere.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate, I very clearly said I know they are included in the models as feedback. What I asked for was how convection is parameterized in the process of a TOA perturbation and transfers that energy thousands of feet through the atmosphere and multiple layers of greenhouse gases down to the surface.

            Your response is like a blubbering baby either dumb as a rock or intentional obfuscation by building a strawman that I was asking a question you answered. What a dickhead you are!

            You are obviously a serial liar the only question is are you paid to do this or are you just too stupid to see what the question is?

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            “by building a strawman that I was asking a question you answered. What a dickhead you are!”

            “Nate, I very clearly said I know they are included in the models as feedback. ”

            You’ll have to get your questions answered, if you truly care about the answers, by reading and learning about the real theory yourself.

            And you will find that you have had several misconceptions about it from the start that have hindered your understanding.

            Eg layers with vacuum between. No convection in the models except as feedback. These are wrong assumptions. The radiative-convective equilibrium that determines the lapse rate is already present in the steady-state GHE models.

            As much as you are paying me to be your research assistant, to find the articles you need to read, read them for you, and tell you whats in them, so that you can then tell me Im wrong while not ever reading them yourself….This job is not really working out for me.

            Its a hostile workplace and a toxic environment. And now with the sexual harassment..Im done with this job.

            As far as

            “What I asked for was how convection is parameterized in the process of a TOA perturbation and transfers that energy thousands of feet through the atmosphere and multiple layers of greenhouse gases down to the surface.”

            Let me just ask you to consider the following example.

            If I add one more inch of insulation to my attic, my house will be warmer in winter with the same furnace heat-flow into the house.

            Not only that, but the entire temperature profile from the top of the new insulation, through the existing insulation, through the wood framing and the ceiling will be altered, with the end result that at the bottom end of the profile, in the living space, the temperature will be higher.

            How can that happen that a change of the very top layer of insulation can propagate all the way down the temperature gradient into the house?

            You’ll undoubtedly declare that home insulation is different!

            But the same heat-transfer basic principles are in action.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            You’ll have to get your questions answered, if you truly care about the answers, by reading and learning about the real theory yourself.

            Eg layers with vacuum between. No convection in the models except as feedback. These are wrong assumptions. The radiative-convective equilibrium that determines the lapse rate is already present in the steady-state GHE models.
            ============================

            I didnt say the atmosphere had a vacuum between the layers in the atmosphere. I said the model prior to forcing the surface effectively assumes a vacuum because of not doing anything besides radiation transfer between the layers.

            convection and evaporation is not documented anywhere in a quantified manner as a condition of the model.

            Only when all the known conditions sufficient to establish a surface effect are known and quantified as following some kind of quantified theory do models elevate themselves above human intuition.

            One can propose the concept of a layered atmosphere with zero convective change to TOA perturbation until that perturbation finds its way back to the surface.

            But it requires a big jump in science to do so. I can demonstrate a greenhouse effect with multiple layers of radiation blocking glass panels. One can build a greenhouse and start doubling panels (if other heat losses can be contained) and get the same sort of logarithmic increase in heat retention.

            Thats the greenhouse model everybody is stuck on. No matter how hard you try to obfuscate it.
            =================
            =================

            Nate says:
            As much as you are paying me to be your research assistant, to find the articles you need to read, read them for you, and tell you whats in them, so that you can then tell me Im wrong while not ever reading them yourself….This job is not really working out for me.
            ========================
            So how many articles should that be Nate? Seems to me it could be a one page blueprint.

            And the only one page blueprint out in the public is the grade-school model. Whats the deal? Do they think they are better off educating adults in a different way? Especially the most trained, disciplined, and obedient ones ready to lick somebody elses boots?

            =================
            =================

            Nate says:
            Its a hostile workplace and a toxic environment. And now with the sexual harassment..Im done with this job.
            ===================
            It was a metaphor! I apologize if its actually a chosen lifestyle you have been victimized into.

            =================
            =================

            Nate says:

            If I add one more inch of insulation to my attic, my house will be warmer in winter with the same furnace heat-flow into the house.

            Not only that, but the entire temperature profile from the top of the new insulation, through the existing insulation, through the wood framing and the ceiling will be altered, with the end result that at the bottom end of the profile, in the living space, the temperature will be higher.

            How can that happen that a change of the very top layer of insulation can propagate all the way down the temperature gradient into the house?
            =============================

            I already explained that in this response but once again. Most insulating panels or batts operate by locking parcels of gases in place in little unmoving pockets like in foam or in batts of fine haired fibers. Foams work best because they inhibit movement of the gases more than fibers. But convection operates inside of the little pockets so insulation is like multiple panes of glass except that in foam you can get a whole lot more layers.

            Allow those gases to unobstructively convect and the insulation fails to insulate. Simple enough explanation of insulation 101?

            There is only one place in the atmosphere where a psuedo panel exists restricting convection and that is at TOA.

            There is a lot more than that but I will stop there as it is fully responsive to why your belief is operating in an unreal world.

            I mean seriously Nate! Can you even find one landmark paper that proposes what you just proposed? Or did you read that on some blog someplace?

            ===========================
            ===========================

            Sorry for the repeat post for posting the other in a remote place:

            Nate says:

            You’ll undoubtedly declare that home insulation is different!

            But the same heat-transfer basic principles are in action.
            =================================

            Insulation is different and I just explained why. And yes the basic real principles apply and are in action. Just some of them dont exist in multiple layers in the atmosphere.

          • Nate says:

            Done with the job, Bill. Was that not clear? Do your own effing homework! Chase your own windmills!

            You keep asserting things about a model, but never show us a model.

            Show us which REAL climate science model you are referring to, and that it actually has the properties you claim. Hint:see refs from the wiki article.

          • Nate says:

            You give a decent description of batt insulation. In my attic it is blown-in cellulose. Convection is only hindered not stopped. And radiation and conduction are at work also.

            Doesnt matter what mixture of heat transfer mechanisms are at work, this principle still applies. And you need to explain why it works for batts and why it cannot for an atmosphere. Both have heat flow and a temperature gradient, and thus thermal resistance.

            “How can that happen that a change of the very top layer of insulation can propagate all the way down the temperature gradient into the house?”

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate continuing to resort to the dishonest practices of obfuscation and strawman building.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            You give a decent description of batt insulation.
            =============
            Thanks
            ==================
            ==================

            Nate says:
            In my attic it is blown-in cellulose. Convection is only hindered not stopped. And radiation and conduction are at work also.
            ====================
            Yes fiber insulation is not as effective as I said.
            ==================
            ==================

            Nate says:
            Doesnt matter what mixture of heat transfer mechanisms are at work, this principle still applies.
            =====================
            If your roof convected to TOA you wouldn’t have any insulation Nate.
            ==================
            ==================

            Nate says:
            And you need to explain why it works for batts and why it cannot for an atmosphere. Both have heat flow and a temperature gradient, and thus thermal resistance.
            ======================
            You are correct batts dramatically slow convection by about half per inch thickness thus you get R-11 insulation with 3 1/2″ fiberglass fiber batts. You can get R-13.1 insulation out of 2″ Polyisocyanurate Foam.

            If you eliminate convection completely you can do a lot better with the cells filled with a vacuum but you can’t do it with foam as the foam will collapse. This partly explain the efficiency difference between a vacuum thermos versus a thermos with foam filled walls.

            This is all basic stuff Nate. If there was anything to what you say a simple experiment would squash almost all dissent on the basic starting principle of a multi-layered system. Instead you have dozens of scientists and hundreds of bloggers agonizing and arguing about the topic.

            Whats the deal? Has science gone so computerized they forgot how to do and document experiments?

          • Nate says:

            Bill,


            =====================
            If your roof convected to TOA you wouldn’t have any insulation Nate”

            You think convection through a layer of air gives R = 0?

            False, Bill. Look up R value of a thin air layer. Not 0.

            Convection is not like a superconductor of Heat. Where do you get this idea?

            Particular not through a layer 20 km thick.

            “Nate says:

            Doesnt matter what mixture of heat transfer mechanisms are at work, this principle still applies.

            And you need to explain why it works for batts and why it cannot for an atmosphere. Both have heat flow and a temperature gradient, and thus thermal resistance.”

            Did you explain that? I don’t see that anywhere in your post.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            You think convection through a layer of air gives R = 0?

            False, Bill. Look up R value of a thin air layer. Not 0.
            ==============================
            No I don’t think the convection through air has an R=0.

            LMAO.

            First the R factor is equivalent to 1/U where U is thermal transmittance. Thermal transmittance is Stefan Boltzmann radiation heat to temperature plus other means of heat transfer in total such as convection/conduction given as essentially equal to radiant heat transfer rates.

            So an R-2 means half the energy loss of the system without insulation. R.0001 would be a ten thousand fold acceleration of heat loss. Thus R1 essentially equals no insulation.

            Second, the value for convection in windows and rooms and stadiums of all sizes calls for an R1. For an atmosphere it would be an R1. For a lapse rate atmosphere it is speculated to be somewhat larger.

            How much larger? Nobody knows. Thus there is no blueprint and the reason for many models is try to figure out what it is.

            In window technology with multi-paned windows its assumed to be R=1 with combined radiant and convective blocking through a single pane. For 2 panes its R2. In double pane technology the R2 can be raised only by reflective coatings.

            So the atmosphere is given to be at least one pane because convection is stopped and radiation is stopped.

            If you extrapolate that to the atmosphere you come up with no insulation until somebody imagined that the lapse rate would reduce radiation to space. But radiation to TOA is already greatly reduced by multiple layers. Thus the system is dependent upon convection delivering the heat to TOA.

            Then because there is a measurable greenhouse effect there must be something happening to cause it. That’s as far as I am willing to go.
            =======================
            =======================

            Nate says:
            Convection is not like a superconductor of Heat. Where do you get this idea?

            Particular not through a layer 20 km thick.
            ============================
            You are just spouting ideas like the people you criticize whose ideas you don’t believe who spout ideas of how it works. Where is the evidence Nate?

            ===================
            ===================

            Nate says:

            Doesnt matter what mixture of heat transfer mechanisms are at work, this principle still applies.
            =======================
            What principle is that? Evidence please.

            ===================
            ===================

            Nate says:

            And you need to explain why it works for batts and why it cannot for an atmosphere. Both have heat flow and a temperature gradient, and thus thermal resistance.

            Did you explain that? I dont see that anywhere in your post.
            ===========================================
            the thinner you make the batts the more that gets through Nate.

            Its like any liquid flow through a screen. You have unrestricted flow and you have restricted flow.

          • Nate says:

            “I said the model prior to forcing the surface effectively assumes a vacuum because of not doing anything besides radiation transfer between the layers.

            convection and evaporation is not documented anywhere in a quantified manner as a condition of the model.”

            In which model!? Youve never shown us which REAL GHE model you are referring to.

            In the real GHE models that are used for ~ 50 y, convection and evaporation must be incorporated even in equilibrium, else the temperature profile obtained in the model fails to match the real atmosphere’s lapse rate. Hence the term ‘radiative-convective equilibrium’. See manabe and wetherald 1967

            “Only when all the known conditions sufficient to establish a surface effect are known and quantified as following some kind of quantified theory do models elevate themselves above human intuition.”

            Yes! in the real GHE models that is exactly what is done. And since you havent bothered to learn about those models, you cannot credibly assert that they havent done that, can you?

            The only honest, accurate, thing you can say, Bill, is that YOU don’t yet know enough about the real theory to say one way or the other whether they have done it correctly.

          • Nate says:

            “So an R-2 means half the energy loss of the system without insulation. R.0001 would be a ten thousand fold acceleration of heat loss. Thus R1 essentially equals no insulation.”

            Uhhhhh no.

            R has units hrft2F/Btu and is ratio of temperature-difference across a layer to heat-flow-per-unit-area thru that layer.

            in any case, an air layer above a surface has a nonzero R value

            Surface Direction R (hrft2F/Btu)

            Horizontal Upward (winter) 0.61

            from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate

            R-value less than one isn’t insulating.

            R0 is undefined for anything as you cannot divide by zero.

            versus 1″ glass p

          • Nate says:

            R is not a logarithm, Bill. See the link.

          • Nate says:

            “R-value less than one isnt insulating.”

            There is nothing special about R = 1. Where are you getting this?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            The only honest, accurate, thing you can say, Bill, is that YOU dont yet know enough about the real theory to say one way or the other whether they have done it correctly.

            =========================================

            You are correct there Nate. How could I have anything to say about the theory when nobody has provided me with a blueprint of the theory top to bottom?

          • bill hunter says:

            And if you claim to have the necessary knowledge I will simply call you a liar and your only recourse to fending that off would to produce the blueprint.

          • Nate says:

            “How could I have anything to say about the theory when nobody has provided me with a blueprint of the theory top to bottom?”

            OMG, no one is providing it to you?

            The work is all published in widely available science journals and textbooks. I already pointed you to a foundational paper from 1967. Did you find it? Read it? It is available in various online content, eg university courses (see eg MIT Kerry Emmanuel).

            As much as any other science, it HAS been provided to you.

            You show little desire to seek it out and read it. And do you even have the differential equations knowledge to comprehend it?

            “YOU dont yet know enough about the real theory to say one way or the other whether they have done it correctly.

            You are correct there Nate. ”

            Great. Then you should really stop saying that science hasnt figured it out yet, or imply they have it all wrong.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Great. Then you should really stop saying that science hasnt figured it out yet, or imply they have it all wrong.
            ==============================

            Why, all you have produced is a model with a bunch of assumed parameters on an idealized atmosphere. Where is the test that its correct?

            the answer of course is it is assumed to be correct.

    • Svante says:

      Short term.

      • Bindidon says:

        Svante

        The problem is not the short term.

        It is that Eben did not even understand a little bit of what the third link shows.

        J.-P. D.

        • Svante says:

          OK, I know he’s deluded in many ways.
          I just find the ENSO rather uninteresting because it’s short term.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            OK, I know hes deluded in many ways.
            I just find the ENSO rather uninteresting because its short term.

            =====================================

            Maybe you need to up your game a bit and not just hand wave stuff away Svante. It interesting that one of the main characteristics of the PDO is the frequency of El Ninos vs La Ninas.

            What we have seen over the past 40 years is a dominance of El Nino over La Nina both in amplitude and frequency.

            And you believe it’s a non-factor? Its funny how bias works and we treat various hypotheses differently.

          • Svante says:

            ‘O’ means oscillation, net contribution zero.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            O means oscillation, net contribution zero.

            ==========================================

            You must mean net contribution smoothed/averaged over a 65 to maybe 80 or 100 years or so comes out to zero.

            You have to account for stupid people armed with thermometers.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says:

            You must mean net contribution smoothed/averaged over a 65 to maybe 80 or 100 years or so comes out to zero.

            I agree. I haven’t seen those higher numbers in the records but I’m not going to nitpick.

            You have to account for stupid people armed with thermometers.

            Yeah, if you compare many you can find bad readings.
            Random errors even out.

            Thermometers are actually quite easy to calibrate if you have access to ice and fire. Uncalibrated ones can still provide rate of change.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            The math says that the more stupid people you have the BETTER your measurement will be.

            The error of the mean is…

            E = S/sqrt(N)

            …where E is the error of the mean, S is the amount of stupidity each person has, and N is the number of stupid people.

            For example, if people have 10C of “stupidity” on their own, but if there are 10,000 stupid people then the error of the mean is E = 10/sqrt(10000) = 0.1C.

          • bill hunter says:

            The stupid part comes in not with the reading of the thermometer. The stupid part comes in when somebody assumes all the additional or less heat they are measuring is new to the system.

            thats even true with the human body. A person dies and he will be cool to the touch in about 12 hours and to the core in more than 24 hours.

            The earth system isn’t just bigger its more complicated. For example ocean bottoms are able to maintain temperatures near freezing despite being wholly enveloped by warm crust and a warm atmosphere and the adjustment time there is about 1500 years.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            Everything in the geosphere is warmimg: oceans, air, land, ice, etc. If that heat is not new to the system then where did it come from?

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            Everything in the geosphere is warmimg: oceans, air, land, ice, etc. If that heat is not new to the system then where did it come from?
            ===============================
            All the explanations you are looking for can be found in the long list of explanations for CO2 recovery and feedbacks.

            For example, the LIA and ice gain then ice loss after surface temps hit a nadir likely sometime around 1700 after a decline from the 1000 max. Thats 700 years.

            The solar grand max is more complicated issue as it can involve a number of effects from straight up forcing to accelerated evaporation from high frequency variations.

            PDOs and ENSO probably isn’t a straight up energy input output change. Either interior or exterior. Instead it seems likely to be a variation in foul weather pathways across the Pacific Ocean
            creating variation in moisture uptake.

            So yes any good theory is going to include greenhouse effects.

            Where change by greenhouse effects are probably centered is not on CO2 but on clouds. More clouds the warmer it is the less clouds the cooler it is.

            Clouds reflect a lot of energy but albedo has nothing to do with equilibrium according to Stefan Boltzmann equations.

            The only reason why a white line in a black asphalt surface has a big difference in temperature is probably associated heating rates and cooling rates via different that radiant pathways.

            So the common perspective of clouds is probably created by an illusion. They quickly cool during the day and at night they slow cooling. The effect of them is probably delayed because of the reflection and location of the absorp-tion, taking time to affect the surface. This is consistent with the idea of convection being a major player and consistent with the idea of blackbody pollution in the sky having a neutral effect (e.g. you must be transparent to one band to have an effect)

            CO2 OTOH IMHO is well distributed and well saturated in a single layer. Some small shoulders exist that could create some modest warming but isn’t as intrusive into the IR windows in the same way water is especially clouds. Water though is not evenly distributed and is readily available for perturbation.

            I get the upper atmosphere multi-layer idea of the greenhouse effect but really see it as a construction that could well fall apart by variation in the height of divisions in the atmosphere via convection.

            So that forms the basis of my idea that since almost 2/3rds of heat is taken to TOA via evaporation and condensation that represents a negative feedback from ‘above TOA’ climate control.

            My range of values for doubling of CO2 starts around .35. And I really don’t have a big handle on feedback sensitivity. I know Curry et al has it on observation a 1.5 but one needs to know what the base value is first. Its convenient and confusing at the same time the doubling value of CO2 alone is 1.0.

            So there you have it. There is more about the GHE IMO but thats a brief and incomplete summary surrounding your question.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            Ok. So I think I saw solar input and cloud albedo changes as candidates for explaining the additional energy in the geosphere.

            1. Can you explain how each of these has changed and does the amount of energy they injected into geosphere match observations?

            2. Where did the energy that was trapped by CO2 go if not into the land, air, ocean, and ice?

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            Ok. So I think I saw solar input and cloud albedo changes as candidates for explaining the additional energy in the geosphere.

            1. Can you explain how each of these has changed and does the amount of energy they injected into geosphere match observations?
            ============================
            I will answer each in turn in different replies.

            Solar input is many faceted. Its more than just watts its also frequency of light. Frequency of light has an effect on evaporation.

            I would be interested in much more research on this to get better numbers at atmosphere temperatures. But it sort of makes sense that a vibrating molecule isn’t going to be affected much by a low vibrating photon. That could explain the unique characteristics of radiation right there and how energy moves only in the direction of hot to cold.

            2nd part of first question is clouds and albedo. Albedo seems to be rather cavalierly used in climate science. SB equations show that albedo has zero impact on the temperature to needed to equilibriate. All it does is slow down the absorp-tion and emission of energy at a specific temperature. Thus a small change in clouds could explain all the warming we have seen. Something like 1% change in bright cloud cover hits about 3watts. Yet we don’t have sufficient means of measuring clouds to detect a 1% change.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            2. Where did the energy that was trapped by CO2 go if not into the land, air, ocean, and ice?
            ======================================

            Well the first thing you have to be aware of is that I believe in a first layer ghe.

            So I will only address additional layers. So what you have to realize we are not talking about surface radiation any more the radiation here we are talking about is radiation from other layers in the atmosphere already trapped from the surface. So at this point we aren’t any longer trapping surface radiation that has already been accounted for in the single layer model.

            And since the top of the atmosphere would look something like a boiling pot of liquid if gases were visible that interchange of energy brings about enhanced convection which delivers that recaptured energy up to TOA.

            The grade-school depiction essentially allows multiple bites at the apple. Thus a clear process needs to be described.

            Then probably the most important element of that is most of the energy being bussed around by convection comprises water vapor at values double that of CO2 and that energy isn’t lost to any substantial degree via convection.

            I can concede some of it might make its way back to the surface but think it should probably be measured before one starts adding up the largest possible number.

            Having engaged in a number of discussions about latent heat and how wild they can get I am not so sure our knowledge of its real nature is well enough understood to answer this problem because this is the primary product of convection and its not much disturbed by convection.

            I can certainly acknowledge that this is a huge area of uncertainty and I am ready aiming and able to read the studies that would alleviate my concerns. But 15 years hasn’t been sufficient to find anyone in possession of the information.

            Not much point in discussing it further without some reference material.

            What I have found odd is how many accept that black hole in science. I realize the grade-school version avoids even any suggestion of the problem. Can’t tease the imagination of any of our students any on this topic as their indoctrination and inculcation isn’t yet complete where they can find an appropriate niche in the big machine.

            The lack of a blueprint subject to criticism and disproof is pretty much key to keeping the funds running in the right direction.

    • Eben says:

      Ignore the barking ankle biters, just watch the thermometers sink,

      And make sure you don’t miss any of the new Greta doom videos.

      https://youtu.be/89hv4cUC6Iw

      • Nate says:

        “Ignore the barking ankle biters, just watch the thermometers sink”

        And if they do, so what?

        It is as expected from a La Nina, and no reason to expect it to be lasting.

        Of no relevance to climate change, which is long term.

        • bill hunter says:

          You are right Nate! In fact that can include the 5/40/100/1000 years of climate variation.

          Its abundantly clear that all the variation we have seen in the last 1000 years has a temporary nature to it. No reason to not believe that will continue.

        • Nate says:

          N ‘from a La Nina, and no reason to expect it to be lasting.’

          Bill “that can include the 5/40/100/1000 years of climate variation”

          “all the variation we have seen in the last 1000 years has a temporary nature to it. No reason to not believe that will continue.”

          Nice try at False Equivalence fallacy.

  36. Svante says:

    1) I don’t think that.
    2) “Oscillation” means they don’t explain our long term warming.
    PDO/AMO are 60 years or less, +/- 0.2 C approximately.
    Longer cycles would have been seen in paleo records.
    3) This is what you have:
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/669cb5c3-8bf8-4c3f-b91c-98b1e53345b8/eft234-fig-0010-m.jpg

    • Bindidon says:

      Svante

      Thanks for the info: it is 4me2!

      J.-P. D.

    • Eben says:

      It sez right on the chart the oscillations are “Estimates”

      You are posting crap that somebody just made up

    • bill hunter says:

      From your link I would point out two interesting aspects.

      1) In chart a, the green line indicates CO2. You will note that in the warming of 1910-1945 the green line increases at a much lower slope than the temperature. But when you look at the warming of 1970 to the present the greenline rises much more rapidly and almost matches the slope of the temperature.

      However, since CO2 effects are logarithmic you would, if anything, expect the opposite.

      Somebody should carefully explain why we are seeing what we are seeing. I can think of several explanations but since there is a large contingent of publicly funded interests in all this perhaps they would prefer to treat the public like a mushroom farm. Keep them in the dark and feed them shiit.

      2) In chart c, the temperature matches the AMO index very nicely except begins to show some anomalous behavior in the late 1950’s and goes far off track around 1970 with temperature not dropping as much as in previous cycles.

      Such an anomaly probably wouldn’t be remarkable except its in time with the solar grand maximum. That occurred with cycles 18-22.

      Since we are dealing with climate change well within the boundaries of natural variation (which albeit are not sharp) that raises serious uncertainty issues which deserve far more attention and respect from interests heavily invested in public funding.

      I can absolutely guarantee you the public would demand as much from Exxon. A seasoned investigator is naturally drawn to the lack of interest and the stink of corruption. Imagine Exxon respecting truth far more than the academic science community.

      But the 35 years from 1910 saw .525C warming. Cooling was limited after that concurrent with a solar grand maximum setting the stage possibly for another warm surge that carried temperatures above the previous peak. But if one ponders the nature of chaotic or seemingly chaotic (like multiple causes) climate change that’s exactly the kind of behavior one would randomly see.

      Add to that there is no reason to think a little warming would be a bad thing. Raises a big question of what the real agenda is. Its clear for academia, just follow the money. For the politicians it’s a bit less clear.

      • Svante says:

        1) The green line is the GHG forcing, not CO2.
        The CO2 effect is logarithmic, but emissions grew exponentially.

        2) There are 25 lesser factors to consider, solar is one.
        In 1970 you have Nixon’s clean air act, i.e. less aerosols.
        Increasing feedbacks are expected.

        Exxon funded its own climate research and they came to the same conclusion as everyone else.

        Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s Technological Forecast C02 Greenhouse Effect
        by H. Shaw and P. P. McCall
        https://tinyurl.com/y73ybuzq

        “ExxonMobil’s understanding of climate change has tracked the scientific consensus on climate change, and its research on the issue has been published in publicly available peer-reviewed journals”.
        https://tinyurl.com/yabzr7z5

        • Svante says:

          “ExxonMobil supports a revenue-neutral tax on carbon and we urged the United States to remain in the Paris Climate Agreement. These actions demonstrate our commitment to reducing the risks of climate change.”

        • bill hunter says:

          Svante says:

          Theres nothing wrong with that if they paid for the cost to third parties.

          ===========================

          Then there is nothing wrong with it because the consumer obviously pays off those costs as determined politically.

          Though some people want to have their cake and eat it too.

      • bill hunter says:

        Svante says:
        1) The green line is the GHG forcing, not CO2.
        The CO2 effect is logarithmic, but emissions grew exponentially.
        ==============================

        So you are saying you expect the need to triple the forcing to get the same of warming? when CO2 concentration has increased by 30%?

        Svante says:
        2) There are 25 lesser factors to consider, solar is one.
        In 1970 you have Nixon’s clean air act, i.e. less aerosols.
        Increasing feedbacks are expected.
        ========================

        Increasing feedbacks? That’s not computing.

        Svante says:
        Exxon funded its own climate research and they came to the same conclusion as everyone else.
        =====================================
        Irrelevant. Regardless they call everything climate research including reading all the BS journals out there on the topic.

        It’s irrelevant to the thrust of my point. Exxon’s auditors would not allow significant uncertainty in their operations to not be expressed. The way it works is either you take a profit hit or you disclose the uncertainty. Which is done is a matter of a great deal of discussion and analysis. What individuals in Exxon talk about internally or publish on non-financial matters is allowed to fit the same standards as academia. But the public demands more out their financial disclosures in seeking capital and loans.

        Science issues being used in policy discussions there should be the same standards of disclosure.

        But politicians lie and the public allows it. I wonder for how long. As an environmentalist I worry about the discrediting of science by the public. There is plenty to worry about as I have been around long enough to see science abused and how that alienates the very people needed to believe in it. The story of Peter and the Wolf is reality.

        And on the BS journals. Most science journals aren’t BS except where big bucks are involved. Like in the purpose of financial statements. If you go down the list of BS papers you will find almost all over are doing stuff like tree ring studies on sacred trees to express certainty about what is uncertain.

        Positively we have seen a reversal of that misfortune. Scientifically its cut the likelihood of future warming from emissions in half on the basis of longterm warming actually observed. However, uncertainty still exists in that longterm warming. It likely isn’t enough to take a ‘hit’ but it still deserves more disclosure than its receiving.

        • Svante says:

          bill hunter says:

          “So you are saying you expect the need to triple the forcing to get the same of warming? when CO2 concentration has increased by 30%?”

          No, I don’t say “the need to triple the forcing to get the same of warming”. I said the logarithmic effect was offset by the exponential increase.

          “Increasing feedbacks? That’s not computing.”

          If e.g. snow or sea ice is reduced albedo goes down and absorbed solar radiation goes up. That’s additional energy on top of the CO2 effect.

          “Irrelevant.”
          You say climate scientists are in it for the money.
          That’s a silly conspiracy idea.
          Why would Exxon’s scientists be rewarded for saying their product has a problem? Exxon would pay billions for the opposite result, but it just didn’t exist.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            No, I dont say the need to triple the forcing to get the same of warming. I said the logarithmic effect was offset by the exponential increase.
            =======================

            Exponential increase in what?
            ==================
            ==================

            Svante says:
            If e.g. snow or sea ice is reduced albedo goes down and absorbed solar radiation goes up. Thats additional energy on top of the CO2 effect.
            =======================

            Yes indeed, glaciation continued to increase for 150 years after temperature began to increase after the LIA. Thats a great example of positive feedback from cooling that delayed warming from commencing for 150 years. This delayed effect only would occur when temperature changes direction and it would be largely proportional to how long the internal system had been out of balance due to different warming rates of different environments like the atmosphere, the surface ocean, the deep ocean, glaciers, and built up sea ice.
            ===============
            ===============
            Svante says:
            You say climate scientists are in it for the money.
            Thats a silly conspiracy idea.
            ==========================

            LOL! So its a conspiracy you go to work (do you work?). Its a conspiracy because you want to eat better than just beans? Nope, no conspiracy necessary. Money influences virtually everybody. . . .whether part of a group or as an individual.

            Certainly you aren’t so naive as to believe otherwise that you need a daddy and a secret plan to be influenced by money. ROTFLMAO!
            =======================
            =======================

            Svante says:

            Why would Exxons scientists be rewarded for saying their product has a problem? Exxon would pay billions for the opposite result, but it just didnt exist.
            =========================
            Your ignorance of oligarchical industry is stunning. They don’t care (corporately industry wide) about how much tax is levied.

            Oligarchical pricing covers all costs with markups. Taxes will reduce volume of sales but enhances the margin per unit.

            Their biggest financial risk is alienating nutcases that join mindless boycotts that singles out the Goodwill of their brand name. That fact is why stores like Costco and Walmart only sell certain products that are certified as sustainably harvested.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says:
            “Exponential increase in what?”
            Emissions.

            “So its a conspiracy you go to work”.
            They could make more money elsewhere.
            They prefer research because they are interested in it.

            “Oligarchical pricing covers all costs with markups. Taxes will reduce volume of sales but enhances the margin per unit.”

            That depends on price elasticity. If it was that low they could have added it themselves.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            bill hunter says:
            Exponential increase in what?
            Emissions.
            =======================
            do the math!

            Svante says:
            So its a conspiracy you go to work.
            They could make more money elsewhere.
            They prefer research because they are interested in it.
            ==================

            Thats only a maybe depending upon how you can sell yourself and your successes. In private enterprise you may not advance.
            Ot at least your chances of advancing by licking ass is way down.

            Svante says:
            Oligarchical pricing covers all costs with markups. Taxes will reduce volume of sales but enhances the margin per unit.

            That depends on price elasticity. If it was that low they could have added it themselves.
            ===============
            LMAO! Thats the answer I would expect to get from somebody that took a class in economics at the University.

            But for real life lesson, which would be the best lesson you ever got in your life. . . .trust but verify.

            All you have to do is run an easy check off Gas Buddy and a list of state gasoline tax rates and you will quickly find out how full of shitt you are.

          • Svante says:

            I forgot, universities are corrupt.
            How does your buddy determine gas price elasticity?

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            I forgot, universities are corrupt.
            ==============================================

            thats correct. when it comes to money virtually everybody is corrupt which by that nature, requiring the vast majority of law to be focused on the subject. That makes all institutions, since they individually comprise many individuals whether being for profit or not for profit, corrupt.

          • bill hunter says:

            and just to clarify, corruption is a far larger category of behavior than what is illegal.

            Corruption encompasses any behavior offered to the public or to an individual either under the color of authority or professional expertise that fails to properly disclose issues such as uncertainty and or significant mitigating information in consideration of funding either personally, their family, friends, partners, or for the institution the individual works for.

            And institutions is interpreted broadly.

          • bill hunter says:

            Also it should be noted that everybody being corrupt has been recognized for millennia and among other places noted as very closely related to the “original sin”.

            another way of expressing it is one believing he knows best for everybody else when all he project is what has been believed to be good for him.

          • Svante says:

            Why did Exxon get the same result then?
            Why do all major oil commpanies agree.
            Why did all fossil fuel producing countries sign the Paris climate agreement?

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Why did Exxon get the same result then?
            Why do all major oil commpanies agree.
            Why did all fossil fuel producing countries sign the Paris climate agreement?

            ===========================================

            Politicians have been pouring billions in for studies that show what they want to show. Probably makes up 97%+ of the funding for climate science coming from politicians.

            I suspect Exxon did a literature search since they don’t have billion dollar research budgets. Don’t you think? Or do you have a reason to believe otherwise?

          • Svante says:

            “In 2019, ExxonMobil’s revenue amounted to approximately 256 billion U.S. dollars.”

            “ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in the forefront of climate research for four decades, understanding and working with the worlds leading experts on climate. Our research in climate science has resulted in nearly 150 publicly available papers, including more than 50 peer-reviewed publications, and nearly 300 patents for cutting-edge technological advances in emissions reductions and other related applications.”

            https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            for four decades, understanding and working with the worlds leading experts on climate.
            ===========================
            You are reading a Madison Avenue promotion of Exxon as a responsible citizen. You might actually strive for facts.

            Svante says:
            Our research in climate science has resulted in nearly 150 publicly available papers, including more than 50 peer-reviewed publications, and nearly 300 patents for cutting-edge technological advances in emissions reductions and other related applications.
            ==================================

            Drop in the bucket and probably mostly earmarked toward the development of mitigating patents.

            But beyond that is your rather unscientific way of confusing popular with science. Corporations like all elites whether you are movie star, recording artist, widely read publication, an institution is the most susceptible to the growing fascism of the left. A fascist fanaticism is extremely harmful to these interests that depend upon people giving them money. Boycotts, cancel culture, smears. and even the violence we are seeing are all tools of the fascist.

            You need to study how the fascism of the left we hence emerged both Italian and German fascism.

          • Svante says:

            Ah, that leftist fascist CO2 molecule.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Ah, that leftist fascist CO2 molecule.

            ========================================

            So what is your interest in intentionally misidentifying who the fascist is?

          • Svante says:

            The CO2 molecule has physical properties that no sensible person can deny, including EXXON.

            Now you throw in politics. It’s weird.

            By the way, how do these statements agree:
            “Gasoline has low price elasticity to demand. Meaning prices can be raised and demand doesn’t fall off much.”

            “Taxes will reduce volume of sales”.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            The CO2 molecule has physical properties that no sensible person can deny, including EXXON.
            ====================
            I am not deny any physical property of CO2 Svante. A total non-sequitur

            Svante says:
            Now you throw in politics. It’s weird.

            By the way, how do these statements agree:
            “Gasoline has low price elasticity to demand. Meaning prices can be raised and demand doesn’t fall off much.”

            “Taxes will reduce volume of sales”.
            ==========================

            they agree because low price elasticity of demand does not mean zero affect on prices.

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    svante…”Lindzen thought a doubling of CO2 would give a 0.5 C increase. But we have got 1.2 C for half that increase”.

    Lindzen said no such thing. He offered an upper bounds of 0.4C over a century.

    Page 7 of 15…

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

    “Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4 over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate”.

    Lindzen does not agree with the GHE as written, he has his own version.

    With regard to the 1.2C warming, there is not a shred of scientific proof that it was caused by GHGs. As Akasofu pointed out, it is far more likely that the warming is a recovery from the Little Ice Age. He claimed the IPCC erred by ignoring that information.

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/guest-post-the-continuing-recovery-from-the-little-ice-age-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/

    • Svante says:

      Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.”

      That’s you Gordon.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…” He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.”

        That’s you Gordon.”

        You’re the nutjob, you’re comprehension level is lacking and seriously biased.

        I have never denied that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. I call it by its proper name, an infrared absorbing gas. I have also pointed out many times that it comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere. I have asked repeatedly for proof that such a trace gas can raise the temperature of the atmosphere by a significant amount.

        I have supplied proof from the Ideal Gas Law that CO2 can contribute no more heat to the atmosphere than its mass percent of approximately 0.04% will allow. That’s not my opinion, it is based on Dalton’s Law Of Partial Pressures, an integral component of the IGL.

        • Svante says:

          You need the physical property “power” to warm the Earth.
          Those laws don’t give you that.
          CO2 IR absorption does.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            You are a deluded donkey. No magic necessary. Go down around 20 kms, and the rock is really, really, hot. The deeper you go, the hotter it gets. Around 50 tonnes/year of mass is turned into energy. E=mc^2 tells you how much energy. Heat moves from hotter to colder. Outer space is nominally around 4 K.

            Now bray like a donkey. Is the Earth cooling or warming? Bray the answer really, really, loudly, so the maximum number of people know what a donkey you are.

          • Svante says:

            Molten Mike is back!

            Outer space is 2.7 K, isn’t it?

            You say Earth produces:
            4493775893684088 MJ
            The solar input is a thousand times more:
            3400000000000000000 MJ

            Bit of a non-sequitur though, the GHE works better on geothermal energy since GHGs block some of the solar input.

          • Nate says:

            “Molten Mike is back!”

            Indeed he is!

            He cant help himself.

            “Around 50 tonnes/year of mass is turned into energy.”

            What? Are you talking about U decay?

            In case red herring. Its heating the core but not the surface much at all.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante brays away. Refuses to answer a simple question. Pretty simple, really – both the question and Svante. The Earth is hotter than outer space. Will it lose heat to outer space, or gain from it?

            Svante remains silent. Stubborn, just like the donkey.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante brays about a GHE. Refuses to accept that he cant point to a single testable hypothesis based on this GHE,

            Even NASA have given up! Back to the blanket analogy for them!

            Some donkeys never learn.

          • bill hunter says:

            Swenson says:

            Svante brays about a GHE. Refuses to accept that he cant point to a single testable hypothesis based on this GHE,

            Even NASA have given up! Back to the blanket analogy for them!

            Some donkeys never learn.

            ========================================

            Indeed. they are full of analogies to things that have different physical characteristics.

            Blankets insulate through the characteristic of blocking cooling by convection. So they want to analogize something known not to possess the characteristic of modifying the cooling rate of convection to something that does modify that rate.

            That’s the definition of stupidity. Obviously fed to them by somebody. And they lack the critical thinking ability to spot the BS.

            It would be really interesting to know who the tremendously respected scientist was that spoon fed them that BS.

          • Svante says:

            Here’s something you can check up in the UAH data.
            GHGs will cool the upper atmosphere and warm the surface.
            The Sun will not do that.
            Geothermal energy will not do that.
            More clouds will not.
            Recovery from the little ice will not.
            Will your leprechauns do it?

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Here’s something you can check up in the UAH data.
            GHGs will cool the upper atmosphere and warm the surface.
            The Sun will not do that.
            Geothermal energy will not do that.
            More clouds will not.
            Recovery from the little ice will not.
            Will your leprechauns do it?

            ============================

            LOL! You are pretty weak on the critical thinking Svante.

            1) all those things can warm the surface Svante.
            2) Clouds can cool the upper atmosphere by reflecting heat to space.
            3) all those things can cause feedback which will cool the upper atmosphere.

            You have been sold a bill of goods by somebody. when are you going to wake up and smell the coffee?

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says:

            1) “all those things can warm the surface Svante”.
            But not cool the upper atmosphere at the same time.

            2) “Clouds can cool the upper atmosphere by reflecting heat to space”.
            That would cool the surface.

            3) How?

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            2) Clouds can cool the upper atmosphere by reflecting heat to space.
            That would cool the surface.
            3) How
            ===============================

            Wow you need to study the first course in climate Svante.

            Energy acting on the surface is going to evaporate water and lift it into the atmosphere. We know those sources of energies do that on the surface because its warm stuff warming cool stuff and not the opposite. It’s going to cool the upper atmosphere via creation of clouds both high and low.

            And yes I do think that feedbacks are generally negative but negative feedbacks only reduce the surface warming not eliminate it. Seems to me that should be the first thing you understand about climate that feedbacks are not primary forcings and that they are thought of in general to only serve to amplify or reduce the initial forcing.

          • Svante says:

            Energy originating at the surface will dissipate upward and warm the whole column.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Energy originating at the surface will dissipate upward and warm the whole column.
            ===========================

            Yes we know undoubtedly that occurs by conduction. But basic greenhouse theory does not leave a single watt for that to be occurring by radiation. Its allegedly either going to space or warming the surface.

          • Svante says:

            There goes your other theories.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            There goes your other theories.

            =============================

            Nope I have a cohesive set of theories about the greenhouse effect. Whether other than my main theory can do it remains to be seen.

          • Svante says:

            You have many theories but they are not cohesive.
            You can throw out your solar theory for a start.
            It would not cool the upper atmosphere.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            You have many theories but they are not cohesive.
            You can throw out your solar theory for a start.
            It would not cool the upper atmosphere.

            ======================================

            You have a simpleton single track mind Svante. I just told you how solar change could increase clouds. Any forcing that warms the surface has the ability to increase clouds. And solar has more than one way of doing it either by warming the surface of affecting the upper atmosphere creating cirrus clouds that would still allow solar to heat the surface directly and indirectly.

            You are simply a believer in what you are told by those you want to believe. Do you worship them daily also?

          • Svante says:

            Until you find some evidence for your claims you are simply a believer in what you are told by those you want to believe.

          • bill hunter says:

            there is plenty of evidence.

            Lets start with the efforts of Michael Mann and Al Gore to make long term natural climate change disappear. It came off to the public as a slow speed, white bronco chase. Has guilt written all over it.

            Really the same applies to all the temperature adjustments that go back into history (versus current work to clean up new data). The bottom line is shows that either mainstream climate science didn’t really build its theories on historical temperatures and instead took it straight from theory to the models with the models being tuned to bring the theory forward with really zero empirical support.

            Then all that flows to the fact the models still don’t track.

            So uncertainty is plastered all over the place every place that is obvious to anyone who is experienced and dedicated to verifying theories.

            So what we are left with is a large pile of speculation. We have really no legitimate eye to sensitivity without knowing for certain what the sensitivity should be applied to.

            So we end up applying it entirely to CO2 and it still doesn’t match. OK at some point you adjust the CO2 theory to what has been observed but guess what warmists instead start speculating on all sorts of other changes to keep it spinning in the thin air.

            Lindzen has rightly noted this is a huge waste of time. Primary research is what is needed to reduce uncertainty not modeling. Anti-oil folks don’t want that as there isn’t hardly any hope for research validating the CO2 theory.

          • Svante says:

            Oil folks say you are wrong:

            ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in the forefront of climate research for four decades, understanding and working with the world’s leading experts on climate. Our research in climate science has resulted in nearly 150 publicly available papers, including more than 50 peer-reviewed publications, and nearly 300 patents for cutting-edge technological advances in emissions reductions and other related applications.

            https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Oil folks say you are wrong:
            ======================================

            In the case of Exxon the explanation is simple. . . . profits.

            Certainly you can advance the cause of the oil companies here if you wish to. But I would think logically thats an approach probably that should be left to people with a financial interest in that.

            I see the debate from the perspective of what is good for the general public and the nation. But it’s a free nation that allows all perspectives.

          • Svante says:

            You say science blames CO2 because they are corrupt.
            That is false because people with nothing to gain arrive at the same result.

            Our lives depend on energy wherever we live. But in order to prosper while tackling climate change, society needs to provide much more energy for a growing global population while finding ways to emit much less CO2.

            We strongly support the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the rise in the average global temperature well below 2° Celsius. The Paris Agreement also said the world should pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            You say science blames CO2 because they are corrupt.
            That is false because people with nothing to gain arrive at the same result.
            =======================================

            I said we are all corrupt.

            The oil companies may not view all this as their favored path but they are selling products so they are willing to sing you a Madison Avenue written lullabye.

            I am sure they would do just about anything legal to maximize their profits. . . .just like scientists. . . .just like you.

          • Svante says:

            A scientist would maximize his profit by coming up with something radically new.
            For long term success it needs to be true.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            A scientist would maximize his profit by coming up with something radically new.
            For long term success it needs to be true.
            ==============================

            You are absolutely right. And if that were universally true and folks didn’t try to take shortcuts and go for immediate profits I wouldn’t have a job.

          • Svante says:

            I think your job has given you a skewed view of people.
            It has drawn you to wherever there is a problem,
            and you have been paid to find problems.
            Most people are great, especially scientists.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            I think your job has given you a skewed view of people.
            It has drawn you to wherever there is a problem,
            and you have been paid to find problems.
            Most people are great, especially scientists.

            ========================================

            Most people are great despite being corrupt Svante. And why do you think scientists are better? Is this some religious/bigotry idea you have of being just born that way?

          • Svante says:

            They are not primarily motivated by money,
            or they would be doing something else.
            Like working for a conservative think tank.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq8Jo9QN0qA

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            They are not primarily motivated by money,
            or they would be doing something else.
            Like working for a conservative think tank.

            =====================================

            What makes you think scientists employed by the private sector make more than scientists paid by the government?

            The video doesn’t even discuss what the scientists earn it talks about grants to institutions and profits of entrepreneurs instead.

          • Svante says:

            Typical Starting Salaries for Physics PhDs:
            https://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/phdsalary.cfm

          • bill hunter says:

            You have to look at more than starting salaries.

            Only a stupid graduate would not do that. .

            In fact you have to look at the whole picture that includes more than salaries like time commitments, number of paths for advancement, etc.

            You need to look deeper into where you got that graphic you offered.
            https://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/upload/phdinitemp-0316.pdf

            Most startling is this comment:

            “The vast majority of physics PhDs who accepted postdoctoral fellowships were working in the field of physics, with most continuing in the field of their dissertations.

            Eighty-six percent of physics PhDs employed in other temporary positions were employed either in physics but outside of the
            field of their dissertations, or in different fields entirely.”

            Bottom line is PE only hires 31% of graduates and the majority of them hired by PE is for jobs outside of physics and its even worse for the number hired in the field of their dissertation.

            PE does hire the cream of the crop for work in their field of dissertation and pays well but its a highly competitive job opportunity and one that a graduate may not have the option of selecting beyond seeking interviews.

          • Svante says:

            “The majority of potentially permanent positions accepted by physics PhDs were in fields other than physics.”

            So much for the gravy train. They went to:
            Engineering 14%
            Computer software 20%
            Business or Finance 11%
            Other sciences 8%
            Education 2%
            Medical services 2%
            Other 5%

  38. studentb says:

    (1) Lindzen wrote that over 13 years ago. I am sure he must have changed his tune by now.

    (2) Akasofu (just look at his figure) looked at data ending years ago and effectively predicted a cooling after 2000 due to “multi-decadal” oscillations. In fact, the observations up to the present show continued and enhanced warming exactly as predicted by the IPCC. So, contrary to your intention, you have provided an example of an “imminent cooling” believer coming unstuck – spectacularly.

    • studentb says:

      BTW:
      + 50.1 C was recorded in Mexicali in the north of Mexico on 6 September 2020. This is yet another national record, only days after the previous September record was broken.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      student…”(1) Lindzen wrote that over 13 years ago. I am sure he must have changed his tune by now”.

      Why should he, Lindzen works in real physics not modeled bs.

      “the observations up to the present show continued and enhanced warming exactly as predicted by the IPCC”

      You are seriously out of touch. Including the 1998 El Nino, there followed an 18 year flat trend. The IPCC is on record as qualifying the truth of 15 years of that flat trend. Since 1998, we’ve had 18 years of no warming and 4 years of one-shot warming from an El Nino.

      The warming following that 18 year flat trend was the 2016 El Nino. It has been followed by a negative trend that keeps oscillating up and down.

      Akasofu is a scholar who wrote books on the solar wind. You are a dumbass student.

      I first encountered Lindzen when I began investigating the IPCC claim that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming. Lindzen tuned me onto the fact that this stupid claim did not come from the reviewers but from the 50 lead authors who appoint them. Most reviewers were unconvinced and wanted to wait and see what happened.

      The IPCC has a corrupt system in which 2500 reviewers submit their findings in a main report. At the same time, BEFORE the main report is submitted, the lead authors write the Summary for Policymakers. Then the main report is amended to suit the Summary.

      In other words, the politically-appointed Lead Authors reflect the wishes of their political masters while the corrupt IPCC allows them re-write the main report to suit their political opinions.

      • studentb says:

        Geez Gordon. You are truly unhinged.

        • bill hunter says:

          Actually studentb you are just a gullible mark in a con game played by those that want to control the behavior of others. And old as dirt con.

          Truth, great uncertainty in key areas of IPCC thinking, modified into high confidence by the lead authors, then mischaracterized to yet another level of BS by the summary to policymakers authored by the politically appointed.

          the third report was the most corrupt. That corruption led to a backlash from respected scientists whose efforts to provide balance to the issue has made huge changes to the mainbody of the IPCC reports. However, the main body is technical and voluminous so to begin to understand the true level of uncertainty one needs to carefully read each chapter. Lead authors tend to run roughshod over these uncertainties. Go to Judith Curry’s website and search on uncertainty and read the many articles she has written about. My profession focused on uncertainty. Dr. Curry’s body of work on it is a bit untypical for academics who have learned to use their imagination and speculate to give a lot of deliberation to uncertainty. However, in most of those cases that speculation doesn’t have any real impacts on ordinary people’s lives.

          Science tends to advance at a level of least uncertainty without formally entertaining what level of actual uncertainty exists. In my profession where real liabilities exist of accepting uncertainty as certainty the things discussed by Dr Curry mirror precisely the sort of conversations had in assessing the actual level of uncertainty in order to determine where additional investigation was needed, where hits needed to be taken, and where disclosures of that uncertainty needed to be made.

          The secret is not to be just a run of the mill sucker but instead to be skeptical to the level of insisting upon evidence or admissions as to the real levels of uncertainty.

          It isn’t amazing why so many people leading real simple lives and dealing with uncertainty on a daily basis get that clearly in comparison to the sheltered, the young, and the inexperienced.

  39. Brad says:

    Dear All,
    I don’t profess any special knowledge here, but as an interested reader I like to follow the climate debate, whilst I dislike the word skeptic, I suppose my camp is the somewhat cynical, my uninformed question to the alter of greater knowlege is this.
    If the world atmosphere / surface/ sea enviroment is viewed as an energy system, and unnatural co2 emissions are increasing the energy (read heat) in the system, wouldn’t a resultant increase in weather “energy” events such as increased evaporation / rain and hurricanes / cyclones be the result , but at the same time be self canceling – or nearly?
    One always reads breathless accounts of a hurricane releasing the equivant of X number of Hiroshima atomic weapons etc etc, well energy in – energy out… yes?
    I suppose put simply isnt there a point of equiliblium? ( plant growth perhaps?) assuming of course, we don’t get to some crazy co2 ppm ratio.
    hoping for some informed responses, and not aggro… 🙂
    B

    • Wayne says:

      Brad,

      Great question. Ever since I read an article on a measured increase in the earth shedding heat, I have always wondered about equilibrium.

      Here’s another question for those with more knowledge than me. For decades, I’ve heard that changes in the sun’s energy output have a neglible effect on climate compared to CO2. But in recent years, I’ve seen a lot of discussion about changes in the sun’s magnetic field affecting cloud formation, which in turn may impact climate.

      Can someone succinctly clarify the current consensus view of the sun’s impact on climate vs CO2? I’m particularly interested in this because it appears to my untrained eye that were about to undergo an experiment over the next few solar cycles. Any predictions about the outcome of this natural experiment? Also, if changes do occur, which satellite or measurement system will likely detect this change first?

      Wayne

      Wayne

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wayne…”Can someone succinctly clarify the current consensus view of the suns impact on climate vs CO2? ”

        I think the truth is along the lines of what Roy Spencer and John Christy have claimed, that the atmosphere is far to complex to lay any serious claims as to how it works.

        As for the Sun, an average figure is produced for its intensity at the top of atmosphere (TOA). The Sun’s radiation output spectrum is so large, however, that averaging it is an exercise in futility. What kind of instrument could measure changes in output over the entire spectrum?

        It has been posited that radiation in the ultraviolet range is variable. That may depend on the activity level of the Sun but who in climate science is monitoring the UV radiation spectrum? Variations in the UV range can affect the average temperature of the stratosphere since it gets its heat from UV activity. It can also affect temperature issues on Earth.

        Climate modelers tend to bs about solar input but they simply don’t know. Heck, they don’t even know how to program a climate model to reflect real conditions.

        • Wayne says:

          Hi Gordon,

          Thanks for explaining that.

          I think I’ve heard Curry, Lindzen, and Nakamura make similar statements about complexity. I have always wondered about this, since I used to build simulation models for nanufacturing plants, where all the variables are known, and getting those to make accurate predictions even half the time was incredibly difficult.

          What are the counter-arguments? Do climate scientists believe that they have adequately mapped the sun’s impact on climate? Are there any physical experiments I can read about that prove this? Or are the next two solar cycles going to be the first real test?

          Wayne

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            wayne…”What are the counter-arguments? Do climate scientists believe that they have adequately mapped the suns impact on climate?”

            Unfortunately the IPCC and climate science peer review is controlled by the alarmists. Even the National Academy of Science has been taken over by the vermin as witnessed by a clown like Michael Mann being inducted. That means it would be very difficult for climate scientists outside the inner-sanctum to get published or heard.

            The Climategate emails revealed how hard the inner-sanctum are working behind the scenes to suppress any climate science other than alarmist climate science.

            I don’t think the inner-sanctum cares about solar effects on the climate. They have their per theories and they have no interest in anything outside those theories. Even the IPCC has a mandate to find only proof that humans are causing the warming. The mandate prevents them considering anything natural.

          • Svante says:

            Aah, conspiracy!

            How would solar effects cool the upper atmosphere and warm the lower though?

          • bill hunter says:

            feedback!

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo wrote:

          …What kind of instrument could measure changes in output over the entire spectrum?

          Answer: a cavity radiometer, such as that first placed in orbit as part of the ERBE project.
          Gordo continues:

          It has been posited that radiation in the ultraviolet range is variable. That may depend on the activity level of the Sun but who in climate science is monitoring the UV radiation spectrum?

          Answer: Ever heard of NASA’s Earth Observing System program? Or ACRIM 1, 2,and 3?
          As one who claims to have studied climate science, Gordo’s lack of awareness represents either profound ignorance or (more likely) intentional deception.

          • Swenson says:

            E Swanson,

            What is the claimed frequency response of your cavity radiometer? If it is less than zero to infinite Hz, either you have no clue, or you are lying. Which is it?

      • bdgwx says:

        Wayne,

        The Sun has 3 primary modes of changing its output.

        Short Solar Cycles – These are approximately 11 year intervals. TSI changes by about 1 W/m^2 over one cycle. But since the cycles are short the TSI changes have little impact on the climate.

        Grand Cycles – These occur on centennial scales. They are still impossible to predict. TSI changes by 1-2 W/m^2 between max and min periods. Since the cycles are long the TSI changes do have an impact on the climate.

        Aging – The Sun brightens by about 1% every 120 million years. Because the scale is so long it is only important in the context of paleoclimate.

        TSI is measured with great accuracy. You can visit the SORCE website for lots of data.

        https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/

        The relationship between TSI and CO2 forcing is best expressed with radiative forcing. To convert TSI to an RF you multiple by 0.7 to account for Earth’s albedo and then divide by 4 to convert from the cross sectional area to the spherical area. So a +2 W/m^2 change in TSI over a grand cycle is equivalent to +0.35 W/m^2 of RF. For CO2 you can estimate the RF via the formula 5.35 * ln(C/Co) where C is the target concentration and Co is the reference concentration. For example, the RF for a change from 280 to 410 ppm is 5.35 * ln(410/280) = +2.0 W/m^2. The change in RF of CO2 is about an order of magnitude higher than the solar forcing from the Maunder Minimum to the Modern Maximum.

        Solar magnetic flux does modulate galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). There is a hypothesis from Svensmark that the solar magnetic flux influences the climate. The hypothesis goes like this. An increase/decrease in solar magnetic flux causes a decrease/increase in GCR flux on Earth which leads to a decrease/increase in low level cloud seeding which in turn leads to a positive/negative radiative force. This hypothesis has proven to be quite weak based on many studies that question its effectiveness and even weather GCRs have any impact at all. Nevermind that it predicts that the Earth should have been cooling since the 1960’s which is obviously contrary to observations.

        In terms of whether we are about to enter a new grand solar minimum…it’s hard to say. Since they occur every couple of centuries or so the timing makes sense. But it’s impossible to know exactly when it may begin. It might be on this cycle or it might be 100 years from now. No one really knows. But should one occur it will suppress the warming rate. However, the planet will continue to warm as the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) remains elevated from an expected increase in radiative forcing agents that will dwarf the solar effect. The planet will warm at a slower rate for sure, but it will still continue to warm.

      • Svante says:

        Wayne says:

        Can someone succinctly clarify the current consensus view of the suns impact on climate vs CO2?

        Wikipedia can:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate

        Gordon thinks they are part of a global conspiracy, but they have references that you can check up.

        Ive seen a lot of discussion about changes in the suns magnetic field affecting cloud formation, which in turn may impact climate.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate#Cloud_condensation

        • Swenson says:

          Svante,

          From your link * Much of the Earth was molten because of frequent collisions with other bodies which led to extreme volcanism. Over time, the planet cooled and formed a solid crust, eventually allowing liquid water to exist on the surface.*

          So you are claiming the Earth was formed cold, but the skin got a bit molten from volcanism, but the volcanoes were erupting cold stuff which magically melted? Remember, you claim the Earth was created cold throughout. At least, the part about the Earth cooling seems to be factual!

          As to CO2 and the Suns impact, maybe you should actually read what you link to. A loudly braying donkey is still a donkey!

  40. Eben says:

    The funny thing about climate shysterz is they are now setting up the scenario that sun minimum can in fact cool the planet , all the while maintaining the claim the sun maximum could not have caused the warm up, as if the sun’s activity can affect the earth temperature but in one direction only.
    It is Alice in Wonderland science

  41. bdgwx says:

    Let me see if I can spell this out for you.

    – Increasing/decreasing solar output yields a positive/negative radiative forcing.

    – The RF is approximated by the formula RF = 0.7 * TSI/4.

    – A typical grand cycle causes TSI to change by 1-2 W/m^2 which results in 0.18-0.36 W/m^2 of RF.

    – Long term global mean surface temperatures are modulated by the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).

    – A positive/negative EEI results in warming/cooling.

    – EEI is currently estimated to be +0.87 W/m^2 +- 0.12.

    – Even if the next grand minimum happens to be particularly deep and its onset is sudden and GHG concentration increases stall the EEI would still be 0.87 – 0.36 = +0.51 W/m^2.

    – +0.51 W/m^2 is positive therefore the Earth continues to warm.

    – From the Maunder Minimum to present the solar RF is about +0.1 W/m^2.

    – From the Maunder Minimum to present the GHG RF is about +3.0 W/m^2.

    – From the Maunder Minimum to present the aerosol RF is about -0.5 W/m^2.

    – Solar forcing is then 0.1 / 2.6 = 4% of the total forcing.

    – GHG forcing is then 3.0 / 2.6 = 115% of the total forcing.

    The Modern Maximum DID contribute to the contemporary warming…about 5% of it.

    The next grand minimum WILL contribute to the total RF. It will suppress the EEI, but it will not make it go negative. The Earth will still warm.

    Ask questions if there is something you do not understand.

    • bdgwx says:

      This was meant for Eben just above. And, as always, figures are debatable. If you don’t agree with them present your own and justify them.

    • Swenson says:

      Bdgwx,

      There is no such thing as radiative forcing. The term is a nonsensical piece of climatological jargon. If you dont believe me, have a look at the supposed definition provided by the IPCC. Gibberish.

      You are a deluded fanatic.

      • Svante says:

        The IPCC says:
        “RF is the net change in the energy balance of the Earth system due to some imposed perturbation.”

        • Swenson says:

          Svante,

          Try the actual defition, donkey.

          *The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm−2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropo- spheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values*

          Gibberish of no practical use whatever. As I said, meaningless jargon for the gullible and slow minded.

          • Svante says:

            Very good “defition”, thank you.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            Just checking to see if you were paying attention. You agree that the IPCC definition of radiative forcing is meaningless gibberish, I take it?

          • Svante says:

            No, makes sense.

          • Nate says:

            “Gibberish of no practical use whatever. As I said, meaningless jargon”

            Yes, Swenson/Mike, we get that science seems to be gibberish to you. We understand very well that you are not here to discuss science, which you do not comprehend in any case, but merely to troll, post strawmen and ad homs.

          • bill hunter says:

            Might be a useful definition if we actually lived in the tropopause.

          • bill hunter says:

            Or maybe more precisely. . . .if anything lived in the tropopause.

          • Nate says:

            “Might be a useful definition if we actually lived in the tropopause.”

            More knee-jerk anti-science red herrings.

            No one lives on the sun either. Yet if its output changes much, we will be impacted.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            More knee-jerk anti-science red herrings.

            No one lives on the sun either. Yet if its output changes much, we will be impacted.

            =================================

            We know the sun is a player in climate and are just starting to work on the idea that the tropopause might also, except that its a lot colder than the surface so its not readily comparable.

          • Nate says:

            ” are just starting to work on the idea that the tropopause might also”

            YOU are just starting. Science started long ago.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            are just starting to work on the idea that the tropopause might also
            YOU are just starting. Science started long ago.
            ==============================

            Well that depends partly on what you consider to be a long ago in science and what you consider to be in fact serious work.

            A paper from a century ago and a huge gap followed by some modeling efforts less than 50 years ago essentially a faction with many other agendas doesn’t comprise serious work. From my perspective serious work commenced less than 20 years ago which in comparison with other sciences like physics, chemistry, medicine, biology, botany, ichthyology etc. . . .20 years of serious work is a pretty short period of time. Before that it was obvious to be more science being done by a sect. And that is actually quite true with the development of all what you might call ‘applied sciences’. Medicine for example with blood letting and beliefs about evil spirits in the body. Its not that people have evolved to any significant degree since then and of course you can see the process repeat itself throughout history starting with ‘witch doctors’ and to the modern day with alarmism about tipping points and runaway greenhouse effects for which no evidence exists. None of that is science.

          • Nate says:

            Confirming your essentially anti-science stance.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Confirming your essentially anti-science stance.

            =============================

            Its actually you who has an anti-science stance. I still work on a half time basis in partial retirement year round with science. I am constantly working to improve it. I am a jealous guard of its reputation because in the areas I work there is a lot of disillusionment about science. . . .the reason being is the amount of BS that passes it self off as science. The BS artists try to point the blame and those who have been screwed by BS science.

            Where I work we have found that science needs to go through multiple levels of review to avoid one special interest agenda from screwing it up.

            In addition there is a ton of honest mistakes made in science that doesn’t help the reputation of science either. thus the multiple levels of review. Where I work there are 4 to 5 levels of review. Better standards in science would help reduce that burden.

            Here you are just going ad hom because you just got caught.

    • bdgwx says:

      Here is a recent comprehensive study showing the EEI of +0.87 W/m^2 +- 0.12 I cited above.

      https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf

  42. Wayne says:

    Thanks, all. So, let me see if I can summarize. Some of you believe that the effect of changes in the sun can be expressed precisely in established formulas. Others believe this is junk science that oversimplifies a mix of complex variables, some likely unknown.

    IF these next two solar cycles are extremely low, do we all agree that they will essentially constitute a natural experiment that will, possibly for the first time, test these opposing views? I say “for the first time” because this will be the first time that we have instruments in place to measure global temperatures, etc., during such an event.

    Wayne

    • Svante says:

      There is data from the past, but yes, future measurements will be better.

      NASA says:

      Several studies in recent years have looked at the effects that another Grand Solar Minimum might have on global surface temperatures. These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down but not reverse human-caused global warming. There would be a small decline of energy reaching Earth; however, just three years of current carbon dioxide concentration growth would make up for it. In addition, the Grand Solar Minimum would be modest and temporary, with global temperatures quickly rebounding once the event concluded.

      • Eben says:

        I already debunked that fake chart twice , but besides that , the funny part is when I once linked to something on wikipedia they tried to mock me like look at him he went wikipedia and now thinks he is an expert,
        and now they keep posting this fake misleading butchered chart on wikipedia as if it was some kind of trump card.

      • Swenson says:

        Svante,

        Not *NASA says . . .* Try *Some people who work in NASA say . . . *.

        Why will measurements in the future be *better*? What difference will it make?

        Maybe you are unaware that all energy from the sun during the day departs at night. Otherwise, after four and a half billion years or so, the temperature would be millions of degrees, wouldnt it?

        • Eben says:

          No “Some people who work in NASA” is not good enough , I want their names , because who ever wrote this is so sure with himself he must posses the magical crystal ball

        • Svante says:

          Swenson says:
          “Why will measurements in the future be *better*?”
          Because we have better instruments than last time (18th century).

          “Maybe you are unaware that all energy from the sun during the day departs at night.”
          Not quite. Since global temperature is trending up.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            You are definitely unaware that all the Suns energy received during the day, is reradiated at night, then. Otherwise, billion year old rocks exposed on the surface would be hotter than recently constructed concrete structures, wouldnt they?

            How silly would that be?

          • Svante says:

            Global temperature is trending up.
            That means the Earth is accumulating thermal energy.
            So Earth is not radiating as much energy as it receives.

            So “billion year old rocks exposed on the surface” are about one degree warmer than they were 200 years ago.

            They are not hotter than newly constructed concrete structures because temperature is evened out by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            So after a billion years of cooling, the Earth started warming because a blanket was wrapped around it?

            As to the rest, do you realise how ridiculous you sound? Billion year old rocks and recent concrete the same temperature because entropy always increases? So a billion years of accumulated sunlight makes absolutely no difference to present temperatures?

          • Svante says:

            Heat moves from warm to cold remember?

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            So now you revert to cryptic stupidity?

            About as silly as providing a link to a GHE *theory* which doesnt even contain the word *theory*!

            Maybe you should quit while you are behind? Or keep trying to achieve the status of complete idiot. The choice is yours.

      • Wayne says:

        Thanks, Svante. So there is a hypothesis (or theory…I always forget the distinction) that will be put to the test on the next Grand Solar Minimum. That’s what I was hoping to learn.

        Wayne

        • Svante says:

          Yes. You can also get a measure of the impact by studying previous solar cycles. Check out the 17 references in the comment section!

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    svante…”You need the physical property power to warm the Earth.
    Those laws dont give you that.
    CO2 IR absorp-tion does.”

    Power is a measure of the rate of energy transfer, not the solar energy that creates the heating. The Ideal Gas Law measures the relationship between the pressure, temperature, volume, and number of molecules/atoms in a gas.

    What is the atmosphere? A gas. What is CO2, a gas. The IGL applies.

    • Svante says:

      You need solar energy at certain rate to balance the loss to space, i.e. solar power. The ideal gas law does not give you power.

      The IDL says fixed temperature with fixed P and V.
      What keeps compressing the atmosphere do you think?

      • Swenson says:

        Svante,

        You *need* nothing. The Earth has obviously cooled. Try putting some hot coffee in the Sun. It will cool, donkey.

        By the way, what has gravity to do with CO2? You dont support the mythical gravitothermal hypothesis, do you?

        • Svante says:

          No I don’t, but Gordon does support the gravitothermal hypothesis.

          The inside of the Earth is cooling.
          The surface is warming up.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            So the inside of the Earth is cooling. It is radiating heat towards a cooler environment. Where does the heat go?

            Unfortunately, alarmists calculate that the Sun cannot make the surface any warmer than 255 K. They also claim that the surface is 288 K or so. Obviously, the surface is hotter than the Sun is capable of maintaining. Oh dear. Looks like it must continue to cool.

          • Svante says:

            The heat from the inside of the Earth is going spaceward like it has for millions of years.
            Together with the surface solar input which a thousand times greater.
            For static temperatures they must match the output at the top of the atmosphere, which is equivalent to 255 K.
            Since temperatures are trending up we have a surplus.

          • Nate says:

            “Unfortunately, alarmists calculate that the Sun cannot make the surface any warmer than 255 K. They also claim that the surface is 288 K or so. Obviously, the surface is hotter than the Sun is capable of maintaining. Oh dear”

            OMG our idiot strawman specialist just can’t help himself!

          • Svante says:

            It’s hard to understand his point.

            The GHE would raise surface temperature just as well if all heat came from the core of the Earth, and nothing came from the Sun.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            Are you saying that the GHE doesn’t actually need the sun? That would at least be a step in the right direction. Probably a step too far for you.

          • Svante says:

            The GHE operates on outgoing energy, regardless of source.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            Now you claim it is a magic one way insulator, do you? Allows energy from the sun in, but doesnt allow it all out?

            Thats just nonsense. Try another solution. One that obeys the laws of physics. Even the dills at NASA now claim the GHE is a process. They just cant explain how it works!

          • Svante says:

            Swenson says:

            Now you claim it is a magic one way insulator, do you? Allows energy from the sun in, but doesnt allow it all out?

            It doesn’t matter if it’s a one or two way insulator.
            We all now that some solar energy reaches the surface.
            As long as it insulates surface from space it’s good.

            Sun => insulation => Surface => insulation => Space.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yep. CO2, CH4, etc. allow more shortwave radiation to pass through than longwave radiation. There is nothing magical about it though. And it has been explained adequately already. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean that the rest of us are equally perplexed by it.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            Yep. CO2, CH4, etc. allow more shortwave radiation to pass through than longwave radiation. There is nothing magical about it though. And it has been explained adequately already. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean that the rest of us are equally perplexed by it.

            ================================

            Perhaps you need to listen more closely to Swenson’s comments and become a bit more perplexed. The debate (particularly as outlined by Lindzen) states that the amount of perplexion we should be feeling is occurring up there in the atmosphere where the Iris operates and not at the surface or to the extent it operates at the surface its not necessarily in a positive way.

            Since the only response to Lindzen is ‘gee’ it’s been warming perhaps a bit more reflection is needed.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            Swenson says “Now you claim it is a magic one way insulator, do you? Allows energy from the sun in, but doesnt allow it all out Thats just nonsense.” It is this argument that is nonsense. CO2 allows more shortwave radiation to pass through than longwave radiation. That fact is as settled as anything in science can be settled. So no, I don’t think listening more closely to the argument is going to change anything.

            And Lindzen’s “iris effect” theory is looking more and more wrong with each passing year. In fact, it is more likely taht clouds are actually a positive feedback. Lindzen also said the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is a mere 0.5C. Well…the planet has already warmed 1.1C with only 0.5xCO2 and with a net negative radiative force from all natural factors combined. And his prediction of little warming over the last 2+ decades is contrary to observations. Clearly whatever model(s) he’s using to analyze the climate are inferior to the consensus.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            Swenson says Now you claim it is a magic one way insulator, do you? Allows energy from the sun in, but doesnt allow it all out Thats just nonsense. It is this argument that is nonsense. CO2 allows more shortwave radiation to pass through than longwave radiation. That fact is as settled as anything in science can be settled. So no, I dont think listening more closely to the argument is going to change anything.
            ==========================

            I agree that he doesn’t always phrase the issue correctly but he does say some other things buried in his discourse that reveals he has examined it a lot more closely than his narrative sometimes indicates. But thats normal. All people are pretty inefficient at communicating what they mean, some a lot better than others. I am trying to write something that is coherent across the communications barrier that expresses a few points he made. Its very difficult to write because of the profusion of bunny trails.

            Language is symbolic and has to be carefully constructed both in saying what you mean and saying it in the same understand of the language of others.

            I detect some sophistication to Swenson’s thinking and will agree that he isn’t communicating it consistently.

            there are a lot of people who observe real oddities about the greenhouse effect that the greenhouse effect scientists haven’t done anything to clear up. Using 30+ different climate models that all do it a bit differently kind of expresses the problem and we shall see an example of it before this post is done.

            bdgwx says:

            And Lindzens iris effect theory is looking more and more wrong with each passing year. In fact, it is more likely taht clouds are actually a positive feedback.
            =======================
            I tend to think that might be correct. But my interest in the Iris Effect isn’t explicit examples of it or predictions, its the concept of mid atmosphere negative feedbacks that I am attracted to.

            Climate science is so loosey goosey they can’t seem to get a unanimous consensus on anything regarded as feedback which is essentially the entire climate system.
            ===================
            ===================

            bdgwx says:

            Lindzen also said the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is a mere 0.5C. Wellthe planet has already warmed 1.1C with only 0.5xCO2 and with a net negative radiative force from all natural factors combined.
            =========================
            Your argument is called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy:

            X and Y are compared by several criteria.
            A conclusion is made based on only the criteria that produce the desired outcome.

            Even a blind squirrel sometimes locates an acorn.

            Even worse some of the recorded hits have been done by moving the target after the shot.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate, Svante,etc.,

            Some of the dills at NASA now claim the GHE is like a blanket around the Earth.

            I agree. Place a thermometer on the ground in in the Sunlight. Place another beside it under a blanket. Leave as long as you like. As long as the sunshine intensity is increasing, the thermometer under the blanket remains cooler, does it not? All the nonsense about GHGs being transparent to some frequencies, while absorbing others, is just misdirection. It doesnt matter.

            And, as an example, refrigerators, liquid nitrogen flasks and so on are surrounded by insulating blankets – to keep the contents cold, dummies! Read your definition of insulation, and then start braying about the supposed GHE process again!

            Even the dills at NASA cant or wont specify how this process works. Thats because its nonsense.

          • Nate says:

            “Place another beside it under a blanket. Leave as long as you like.”

            I did your experiment with a transparent plastic blanket. Transparent just like the atmosphere. The thermometer under the blanket got a lot hotter.

            Why? Did you use an opaque blanket? Well there’s ur problem.

          • Svante says:

            bdgwx, you are right of course.

            Swenson stumbles on an interesting question though.
            What if the atmosphere was a symmetrical two way insulator?
            Incoming solar energy would heat up the atmosphere.
            There is no cooling system inside, on the contrary there is the molten core. So the surface temperature has to follow.
            It can hardly shed any energy directly to space in such an atmosphere, so it would be more like Venus.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            I dont believe you did, but feel free to provide recorded results. What type of surface were the two thermometers placed on, and all the rest.

            Or are you just making stuff up, as alarmists do?

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            No stumbling.

            When energy from the sun is absorbed, the temperature rises. The specific heat of the atmosphere is very low, by comparison with the surface, with the usual consequences. Conversely, when the sun is absent, the temperature falls as the atmosphere radiates energy away. Basic physics.

            As a matter of interest, temperatures in the thermosphere reach around 2000 C due to absorbing solar radiation. But of course, you would refuse to accept this fact.

            You are just a donkey in denial of reality. Stubborn.

            Still no one-way insulator. If there was, a perpetual motion machine would be easily constructed. Even the climate dills at NASA dont make such stupid claims any more.

          • Svante says:

            Earth would be sitting inside an atmosphere that is warmer on average. Like Venus.

          • Nate says:

            “I dont believe you did”

            Oh well, you’d be wrong. Im a gardener, obviously you are not.

            If you doubt that the temp under the transparent blanket was warmer, then you are very very very ignorant.

          • bill hunter says:

            the correct test is to put both thermometers under blankets. One under and IR opaque blanket and the other under an IR tranparent blanket. . . .with the blankets being the same thickness and have the same conductivity.

          • Nate says:

            “IR opaque blanket and the other under an IR tranparent blanket.”

            A visible light transparent blanket is used because the atmosphere passes visible light.

            Of course a clear blanket is like a greenhouse, and has some overlap with the atmospheric GHE, but of course has differences with a 10 km thick atmosphere.

            And modeling that requires more atmospheric physics that cannot be mimicked with just a blanket.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            And modeling that requires more atmospheric physics that cannot be mimicked with just a blanket.

            =======================================

            Yes indeed. And we have NASA still spending money on junk like this:

            https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/greenhouse/en/

            Ozone is BAD because it contributes to the greenhouse effect? Give me a f-king break!

            And greenhouse blankets? What a joke that was discredited more than a hundred years ago.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yes bill. Ozone, being a polyatomic gas species, is a GHG. Let’s see… it’s Friday so this has been known by scientists for about 170 years now. BTW…It is particularly effective near 10 um. It also causes smog which most people consider bad.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            Yes bill. Ozone, being a polyatomic gas species, is a GHG. Lets see its Friday so this has been known by scientists for about 170 years now. BTWIt is particularly effective near 10 um. It also causes smog which most people consider bad.
            ===========================
            Ozone has a list at the site I listed, 2 good, and 2 bad. I was only taking issue with calling Ozone bad because its a greenhouse gas. This planet would not be habitable without greenhouse gases and it would be a lot different if ozone wasn’t absorbing many of the harmful rays of the sun or destroy a number of pollutants mid troposphere.

            Using their list it should be 3 good and 1 bad. But that doesn’t fit the political agenda of smearing the greenhouse effect.

  44. E. Swanson says:

    Gordo wrote:

    What is the atmosphere? A gas. What is CO2, a gas. The IGL applies.

    No, Gordo, the atmosphere is a mixture of gasses, liquids and solids. It includes water which appears in a gas, a liquid and/or a solid phase, each of which impacts the transfer of energy from the surface to deep space.

    A parcel of a gas which is warmer than it’s surroundings will rise and cool due to the resulting lower pressure. That same parcel will sink if it’s colder than the surrounding air, warming as it’s pressure increases. The IGL says nothing about the processes which cause that parcel to warm or cool, such as IR radiation heat transfer.

    Furthermore, the atmosphere’s water vapor adds considerable complexity which the IGL can not capture because of the energy absorbed or released during water’s changes between phases. The water vapor within a surface parcel is less dense than the other gasses within, the lower density of the mixture promoting upward motion. As the parcel rises and cools, the water vapor condenses into liquid droplets called clouds, which releases thermal energy into the parcel, promoting further warming and upward motion. Still higher up, the water may freeze into the ice phase, adding still more thermal energy to the parcel. Finally, after the parcel has cooled and lost most of it’s water vapor through precipitation, it then sinks back toward the surface.

    Without radiation heat transfer out to deep space at high elevations, that parcel would not cool and sink. The IGL does not govern any of those heat transfer processes. But you should understand that, if you had actually taken a course in meteorology, as you have claimed to have completed.

  45. Wayne says:

    Bdgwx,

    As it should be apparent by now, I’m neither an alarmist nor a denier, but I have to say, I don’t trust the temperature data in that chart.

    Before you react to that statement, let me walk you through a sequence of events that shook my confidence in NASA/NOAA, and try to put yourself in my shoes to understand why.

    First, a few years ago, I was aware that NASA’s own charts from 20 years ago showed the 30s as being hotter than every year up until 2000, if I’m not mistaken. I think 2016 is the only year that has broached those old levels since.

    There had to be adjustments, we’re told, and I was fine with that. The fact that those adjustments were all in favor of one narrative looked bad, but I had no factual reason to doubt them.

    Then I stumbled onto a story about the NOAA whistleblower re: the report that was presented at the Paris climate accord, and that was the first whiff I got that some people in NOAA/NASA MIGHT have an agenda. Note my emphasis on the word “might” there, as I’m not quick to jump on conspiracy bandwagons.

    When others raised questions about the legitimacy of the temperature adjustments to the 30s data, I took the better part of a weekend to read old newspaper articles from the 30s, and I have to say, the anecdotal evidence strongly suggested that the 30s were every bit as hot as originally reported. Not scientific nor conclusive, I know, but that’s what a layperson does when the sources we trust lose some of that trust.

    That’s why I began asking about satellite data when I first started posting on this site. As an interested observer, I was looking to find a temperature dataset that I can trust that doesn’t have to be adjusted 80 years after the fact, which always struck me as a risky undertaking.

    Waybe

  46. bdgwx says:

    Wayne,

    Here is the official report regarding the NOAA whistleblower controversy.

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

    I don’t understand your concern about adjustments to datasets. Why would anyone trust a dataset that did not consider and make adjustments for urban heat island bias, instrumentation bias, station moves, time of day bias, measurement methodology, homogenization, corrections for mistakes or bugs in algorithms, etc? Somehow the blogosphere has convinced people that considering these factors is somehow a bad thing and that making adjustments/corrections to fix known problems is unethical. Isn’t it more risky to ignore known problems and play them off as unimportant?

    BTW…here is the Karl 2015 paper that got Bates all worked up.

    https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf

    Pay particular attention figure 2B. That is the end result of all adjustments to the NOAA dataset. So if adjusting is risky then perhaps we should accept that the amount of warming was even more than Karl reported?

    • Swenson says:

      *The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of The MITRE Corporation and should not be construed as an official government position, policy, or decision . . . *

      Oh goody! Another not-for-profit whose motives are beyond question? Funded by?

  47. Wayne says:

    bdgwx,

    In an era where too many scandals of all kinds are followed by official declarations that nothing went wrong, you can’t honestly believe that people are simply going to accept that report. When Bates came out with his claims, the damage was done owing to his position and credibility. It’s like those Climategate emails. They did an official review of those, too, but when you read the actual emails, it’s hard to avoid the smell.

    And, look, I reference those events as someone who wishes they didn’t happen because I like having full trust in scientific data.

    Re: the adjustments, if you superimpose a NASA 1998 temperature graph over its 2018 version, it appears that they cooled the past and warmed the present. Are you saying that doesn’t happen if you superimpose the graphs?

    Wayne

    • Svante says:

      The instrumental temperature record is consistent with proxy data: https://tinyurl.com/y4woe6ox

      • Wayne says:

        And here are a bunch of proxy data studies that disagree with that study: http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/

        I assume that you have some kind of scientific background. If so, you can’t possibly contend that our surface record temperature data from the past 100 years is your idea of a clean dataset, witness:

        – poor current global coverage of recording instruments;
        – even worse historical coverage;
        – embarrassing errors in the the existing dataset re: temperatures both above and below feasible values;
        – continued use of recording stations that have clear visual evidence that they have been compromised by UHI effects;
        – historical, rudimentary, unreliable data collection methods like having passing ships measure ocean temperatures;
        – NASA’s own claim that the historical data us inaccurate, combined with its dubious claim that it knows how to fix it;
        – contadictory proxy studies;
        – contradictory anectdotal evidence in newspaper articles;

        None of this means that the CO2 warming theory is wrong. But we should be honest about it. We have at most 40 years of global, reliable, verifiable data. It seems that we are much better off to draw what we can from that data, then to waste our time trying to rationalize bad data.

        Wayne

        Wayne

        • Svante says:

          Local data is noisy, it evens out on the global scale.
          Here is a UHI estimate:
          http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

          • Eben says:

            Do they give out free hockey sticks with those “Estimates” ?

          • bill hunter says:

            The Berkeley earth study is flawed beyond hope.

            Comparing dense urban to less dense urban which are the elements used as examples doesn’t begin to test the fact that of the stations remaining in the surface record are primarily airports and developed lands.

            One cannot mow a 10th acre of grass, put a chainlink fence around it and a Stevenson screen in the middle of it and declare that as equivalent to areas not influenced by UHI. Or place a stevenson screen on a tarred rooftop of a firestation and claim that as not being influenced by UHI.

            I am contemplating adding more thermometers to my home where I have indoor and outdoor temps. My outdoor temp is on the north side of my house on the second floor but its a few feet above the first story roof that extends another 16 feet before dropping to the ground. While the thermometer is protected from early morning and late afternoon sunlight despite the sun covering about 2/3rds of the horizon, its pretty clear the air temperatures on the southside of my house are cooler due to ocean breezes. (can feel the differences at my windows)

            The randomness of satellite coverage mostly deals with the effects of UHI. The surface record though takes it an multiplies it by extrapolation between non-randomly place thermometers.

            I can prove the case that even small rural thermometer locations are inadequate under the current rules for station siting.

            Where I live which is a very small community 95% exposed to the natural environment still has full UHI effects that amount to 10 to 20F UHI warming on a warm day.

            I don’t pay much attention to cool days as we have far fewer of them that warrant attention. So I can’t say the mean is off by that much. And being a near sea shore location I can’t say its globally representative either.

            However, human development while significant at a global level based on all time development isn’t probably all that significant to satellite measurements as a rate of increase.

            But lets face the facts. Total measured warming by any record has almost undoubtedly a number of issues regarding attributing warming to CO2.

            You need to subtract something for UHI, something for natural variation (almost undoubtedly having been positive at least over the past 40 years with solar grand maximums and warm phase PDO which favors El Nino over La Nina – which strongly suggests that the dominance of El Nino’s is at least partly a positive natural occurrence).

            Then there is more. . . .deforestation and increase in agricultural lands, reduction in ground water due to irrigation.

            Also undoubtedly there is some effect from the recovery from the LIA with its resultant feedbacks. (i.e. studies showing that not only are areas of the Pacific still recovering from the LIA but that some areas are still cooling from the LIA).

            And of course in bringing it down to anthropogenic greenhouse gases you have to factor in the natural release of CO2 on the basis of natural warming.

            And finally since academics and modelers often control temperature records as well there is a tendency of bias in the direction of belief in searching for, finding, and doing something about uncertainties in the temperature recording system itself.

            I am not going to tell you how much all that all adds up to other than to say it is a bias against the assumption all observed warming is anthropogenic. I would say the same thing in support of anthropogenic warming against an argument that argued it was all natural.

            the only reason the debate isn’t honest is there is a lot of money involved for special interests in all this. Fortunately in free nations one can be honest if one chooses to be and not worry about getting hung like that Iranian wrestler.

          • Svante says:

            You are confusing physics with politics again.

            Sure, thermometers at your house give different values.
            Urban sites are warmer that rural sites.
            But their increase was not faster.

          • bill hunter says:

            Evidence please.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            You are confusing physics with politics again.

            Sure, thermometers at your house give different values.
            Urban sites are warmer that rural sites.
            But their increase was not faster.
            =============================

            LOL! Are urban sites greener than rural sites?

            We know greenery accelerates its transpiration rate as it gets warmer. Seems to me the most amateurish climate researcher should know that fact that any farmer and hobbyist gardener knows.

            So what expert are you saying that measured by how much? You claimed they came up with no negative feedback from transpiration or None you say? Or did you say that they came up with urban sites being as green as rural sites? Which is it Svante?

          • Wayne says:

            My issue with the data, and with the notion of going back 100 years to adjust it, is more fundamental. Let me use clinical data as an example. In just the past 20 years:

            – the average clinic has changed its EHR system 2.3 times. Every change required a data migration with all its inherent mismatches;
            – treatment methodologies have changed;
            – medical devices (and thus the data they produce) have changed;
            – the medical system changed its primary data coding system from icd-9 to icd-10. During the multi-year transition, the same events were coded at different levels;
            – patients switch doctors, who not only differ in treatment methodologies, but also in how they record events;
            – patient behavior has changed…more aware of diet, the effects of the sun, etc.

            The net effect of this is that only tiny slivers of historical data are even remotely consistent enough to be reliable. There are data gotchas everywhere. And this is only a 20-year span dealing with businesses and people who are computer and data savvy!

            The notion that people recorded data temperatures consistently 100 years ago is a stretch; the idea that we know enough about what they did, their equipment, circumstances, etc., to correct it all 100 years later is an even bigger stretch.

          • Svante says:

            Hi Wayne,
            The data has those kinds of problems.
            Earlier groups threw out suspect data manually.
            The concern was that it created a bias.
            BEST set out to correct it with an automated process that used all data (even bad data can improve accuracy if it is not completely random).

            The method puts a breakpoint at data jumps compared to neighbouring stations. Between breakpoints you can still see the rate of warming or cooling (they found that 1/3 of US stations had cooled, and yes, the 30’s where hot there).

            Here’s the methods paper:
            http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf

            Saul Perlmutter went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics for other deeds.

          • Bindidon says:

            hunter’s surrealism

            ” While the thermometer is protected from early morning and late afternoon sunlight despite the sun covering about 2/3rds of the horizon, its pretty clear the air temperatures on the southside of my house are cooler due to ocean breezes. (can feel the differences at my windows)

            It’s hard to believe somebody would write that, but as we see, things simply happen.

            I think hunter never has seen any temperature measurement station in his entire life.

            I did.

            And the first thing I understood beyond the Stevenson screen idea is that it is not sufficient to protect a station against insolation only.

            You have OF COURSE to protect it against WIND.

            Simply because otherwise, your temperature measurements depend on any sudden modification of wind, exactly as it would be wrt sudden, random insolation changes dur to clouds when lacking the Stevenson screen.

            Thus, lacking wind protection, two nearby totally rural stations equipped with a Stevenson screen nevertheless would produce completely different measurements, depending on how strong the wind blows around them.

            *
            At home, I have also two external thermometers.

            As I want to know how the temperature is really when exposed to wind chill, one of the two is intentionally left unprotected against wind.

            And, as expected, while the wind-protected guy shows a temperature very similar to the interpolation of up to 6 stations around us as shown on our local weather web site, the unprotected thermometer regularly shows between 1 and 2 C below the other one…

            It’s so simple.

            You just need to think and learn instead of guessing and doubting.

            J.-P. D.

          • bill hunter says:

            Bindidon says:

            As I want to know how the temperature is really when exposed to wind chill, one of the two is intentionally left unprotected against wind.
            ===================================
            LOL!

            wind chill the climate for outdoorsy types and wildlife. Stevenson screen measures are for the indoor pantywaists who might turn on an air conditioner. LMAO!

            Silly Bindidon. I didn’t say anything about not protecting the thermometer. The ocean side is the south side so I don’t want the thermometer bulb exposed to the sun.

            On the north side cause I don’t have a stevenson screen but it appears to being affected from convection off the first story asphalt shingled roof below it.

            While it doesn’t have a Stevenson screen it is in a plastic container designed by the weather station maker, and it is out of the sun and attached to the side of the house per manufacturer instructions.

            On the front side it would be better exposed to the cool ocean air with no first story roof protruding out from under it.

            I can imagine you know nothing about seashore climates or you wouldn’t have run down that bunny trail.

            I have two NWS weather stations I can use. One several miles southeast on an ocean pier and one several miles north at an airport. Huge difference between the two virtually everyday.

            I suspect one side of my house is like the ocean pier and the other side is indeed almost identical to the airport.

            However, the NWS forecasts my weather by extrapolation as close or identical to the pier.

            So what is screwed up Bindidon?. Is it my thermometer location or is it the NWS? I’m betting at least in part on the thermometer location, though the nature of the position of my house isn’t a pier out in the ocean either.

        • bdgwx says:

          Wayne said: And here are a bunch of proxy data studies that disagree with that study:

          Not really. I read through the papers regarding the proxy data. Most are actually consistent with the consensus regarding holocene temperature reconstructions. It’s just that NoTricksZone took the information out of context. Some come right out and say the 20th century is unprecedented. Some of those publications appear in “social” journals and not science journals. Others are narrowly focused and have nothing to do with hemisphere or global temperatures. Some are focused on particular seasons. And even more disturbing some of the graphs on that link may actually be forgeries. I can’t find them anywhere in the original manuscripts. This is par for the course with NoTricksZone. The operator has a history of promulgating disinformation.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            Some of those publications appear in social journals and not science journals. Others are narrowly focused and have nothing to do with hemisphere or global temperatures. Some are focused on particular seasons. And even more disturbing some of the graphs on that link may actually be forgeries. I cant find them anywhere in the original manuscripts. This is par for the course with NoTricksZone. The operator has a history of promulgating disinformation.

            =========================================

            I wouldn’t be jumping to conclusions that you have no evidence for. And the fact that ‘social’ journals weigh in on the topic is a result of the heavy handed politics people are playing to get journal editors fired, boycott journals, and a lack of uniform standards to ensure good peer review.

            You should go with what you can verify before impugning anything. Pointing to an explicit fact, like lack of uniform peer review standards, lack of enforced responsibility, and efforts to enforce conformity with a single groups belief system are the sorts of things one can assume about all science these days where politics is involved.

            there really is zero assurance for any of it. Replicability, understanding what was tested and whether the test is well controlled,and whether all assumptions are referenced to work that stands up to those principles is absolutely the only way for an individual to wade through a political debate.

            Mine is bigger than yours isn’t a science debate. It ain’t how big it is it is how you use it is what counts.

            Some people get overly focused on trying to prove or disprove a science theory. Al Gore, Michael Mann, and UEA sort of went to an extreme in an attempt to erase variously up to several thousand years of science on historical climate variation. Today I would say that effort was an abject failure despite peer review and Nobel Prizes.

            IMO, a better approach for everybody is to accept the uncertainty and dedicate ourselves to primary research to better understand what drives climate.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            Let me give you an example. One of the papers on that NoTricksZone link was published in Energy & Environment. That is a social science journal which also happens to have a low reputation. One of their editors even said “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?” when asked to defend the journal’s review process. They exist primarily to discuss the social aspects of scientific topics of interest to them and proudly proclaim a political agenda when doing so.

            Or the Xiang 2016 paper…the image NTZ posted and attributes to Xiang doesn’t appear anywhere in the manuscript as pictured on NTZ. It was probably adapted from fig 5, but it omits important context contained within the manuscript. Furthermore the manuscript says and I quote “In the context of 1150-year reconstruction, the accelerating warming in 20th century was likely unprecedented”, but NTZ fails to mention this and instead focuses on only a single method (MDVM) used within the paper even though the paper uses multiple proxy reconstructions methods.

            Pretty shady stuff don’t you think? Perhaps congress should open an investigation. There is precedent for it (Mann, Karl, etc.).

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            Let me give you an example. One of the papers on that NoTricksZone link was published in Energy & Environment. That is a social science journal which also happens to have a low reputation. One of their editors even said Im following my political agenda a bit, anyway. But isnt that the right of the editor? when asked to defend the journals review process. They exist primarily to discuss the social aspects of scientific topics of interest to them and proudly proclaim a political agenda when doing so.

            ===============================

            Even the most reputable of journals publish some quite iffy papers from time to time. And a disclosure of a political agenda is points for not against. Everyone has one. We are all corrupt. What that corruption leads to is typically and proportionally related to personal investment and risk.

  48. Eben says:

    I stayed out of the covid debate but this update is important

    https://youtu.be/W3pe_yVNIJQ

    • Bindidon says:

      Eben

      The one and only important update concerning COVID is that your friend the Trumping boy knew by February the latest that COVID was at that time 5 times more aggressive and dangerous than the seasonal flu.

      But at that time, he told the Americans that ‘it is just a sniff and will soon disappear’.

      Today, when we compare, in the US,

      – the flu using either the average yearly mortality per capita (20 deaths per million) or its case mortality (0.1 deaths per case)

      with

      – the COVID guy (600 deaths per million and 3.0 deaths per case since January), we see that the Feb factor of 5 has moved inbetween up to… 30. Yeah.

      Good grief, Trumpy.

      J.-P. D.

      • Eben says:

        Bidendong go be stupid somewhere else

        • Bindidon says:

          Eben

          You, Eben, think I’m stupid?

          And you can’t manage to do anything better than posting absolutely dumb, trashy youtube links, or pseudoskeptic hockeyschtick blah blah?

          Ha ha ha haaah.

          J.-P. D.

      • bill hunter says:

        Bindidon says:

        The one and only important update concerning COVID is that your friend the Trumping boy knew by February the latest that COVID was at that time 5 times more aggressive and dangerous than the seasonal flu.
        =========================

        You are obviously ignoring Nancy down in Chinatown inviting everybody down to party and Joe calling Trump’s travel restrictions xenophobic and racist. Not to speak of Nancy’s recent romp through hair salons.

        Yes Trump downplayed the virus but not as much as some others and the jury is still out whether strict lockdowns in free nations are going to prove the most effective in the long run.

        In the US where lockdown strategies were devised state by state Trump found himself contesting that in the more stringent lockdown strategies.

        If one looks at the data only two Republican run states are in the top 10 in per capita deaths and only 2 others are in the contested category but both were criticized for overly aggressive lockdowns.

        IMHO, what needs to be considered is that in a free nation an overly intrusive government tends to breed almost instantaneous backlash which in essence glamorizes walking around in a state of obvious civil disobedience. In fact the same kind of effect is being seen big time on the part of the BLM movement both gaining cachet from its anti-authoritarian posture.

        So while this political issue might make some inroads with the weak minded and already committed its questionable if it has much in the way of legs. Seems rather contradictory to the image of an authoritarian President.

        • Nate says:

          My state, Massachusetts had one of the highest mortality rates. It is republican run.

          The high population density states in the northeast were hit earliest and hardest, before we had widely available testing, hospitals overwhelmed, before we knew about how it spread, learned best treatments, or learned about mask wearing.

          That was the moment when the US needed to keep it contained to hotspots, but failed.

      • Nate says:

        “Trumps travel restrictions xenophobic and racist.”

        DT has successfully conned many uncritical thinkers into believing that his China ‘Travel restrictions’ saved the day.

        Sorry folks, community spread was already well under way in the US by the time of his travel restrictions, and led to the 200,000 deaths.

        A rousing success??

        Well, DT gives himself an A+ rating. He also aced the SAT I understand.

        Meanwhile China’s own travel restrictions and lockdowns were highly efffective at limiting the spread, and mortality in China.

        Same with its neighbors, S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan. Very low mortality in those countries.

        They get a true A rating.

        • bill hunter says:

          Medical experts disagree Nate. What are you anti-science?

        • Nate says:

          “Medical experts disagree Nate.”

          Intentional vagueness?

          • bill hunter says:

            start with the favorite of the democrats. Dr Fauci said travel ban saved many lives.

          • Nate says:

            The best you got is someone who works for the administration?

            Ya think he is free to critique it’s actions?

          • bill hunter says:

            So now you don’t like him?

            Yes he is free to critique the administration and has done so repeatedly. I haven’t seen Fauci hold back on anything.

            And here you are accusing him of lying for the administration.

            You asked and you got. And if you had a brain inside of that bone cavity on the top of your head you would realize yes travel bans can slow stuff down.

          • Nate says:

            “And here you are accusing him of lying for the administration.”

            Bill you are becoming proficient at misrepresenting, actually straight up lying, about what people say, to make them say whatever you want.

            Very dishonest.

            Fauci wants to keep having
            influence over policy and be a voice of reason to the people.

            Therefore he wont get into the politics, or critique the past actions of his boss. He is foreward focused.

            You cant find anyone not in the administration?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Fauci wants to keep having
            influence over policy and be a voice of reason to the people.
            Therefore he wont get into the politics, or critique the past actions of his boss. He is foreward focused.

            ========================

            Really!!! So that’s why he giving information for how future Presidents should act in the face of a viral threat?
            Or is that what you would do and you are just projecting?

            LMAO!

            You are such an little hater pest Nate.

      • Nate says:

        Do you guys really not see how we’ve entered an Orwellian ‘1984’ country?

        “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

        and

        “War is peace.
        Freedom is slavery.
        Ignorance is strength.”

        and many more..from George Orwell, ‘1984’

        • bill hunter says:

          Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

          Yes we have seen that in the climate debate. . . .and totally legitimized by Al Gore.

          Its part of the Saul Alinsky doctrine. It was the modus operandi of Joseph Goebbels.

          One of the best safe guards is skepticism of any BS covering everything or everybody. The reason for that is there is no comparative study to refute it. Power seekers are always on an ambitious pursuit of control of everybody else and uses any technique at their disposal to fire up masses of supporters. Any universal code is going to be abused. It is our fate to either be slaves or face the future with resolve to act in unison (through law) only when the consequences of not doing so is clear.

          • Nate says:

            “One of the best safe guards is skepticism of any BS covering everything or everybody.”

            Great, let see you apply that skepticism to the statements of the President.

            Let’s see you apply that analysis to his performance evaluation.

          • Nate says:

            “any technique at their disposal to fire up masses of supporters. Any universal code is going to be abused. It is our fate to either be slaves or face the future with resolve to act in unison (through law) only when the consequences of not doing so is clear.”

            Yes I agree with this. This seems to be happening.

            DT dramatically accelerated the abuse of the ‘universal codes’. That made him appealing to many, who enabled it.

            Just as authoritarians through history have been enabled by many, and only later were the horrible consequences apparent.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Great, let see you apply that skepticism to the statements of the President.

            Lets see you apply that analysis to his performance evaluation.

            DT dramatically accelerated the abuse of the universal codes. That made him appealing to many, who enabled it.

            Just as authoritarians through history have been enabled by many, and only later were the horrible consequences apparent.
            ===============================
            Yeah lets do the analysis.

            What actions and statement do you see as best exemplifying DT as squashing freedom?

            I don’t agree 100% with DT nor anybody for that matter. I see Trump exhibiting tremendous restraint in the face of a lot a treasonous behavior and calls for authoritarian actions from the other party. Action on climate change would be but one example.

            So what do you see in Trump’s actions that is authoritarian?

          • Nate says:

            If you havent seen hundreds of examples by now, you must be living in the Faux News information bubble..

            Just in last 24 hours. He stated he would not commit to a peaceful transition of power. Something that has alwys happened in 220 y of elections.

            He continues to do all he can to promote doubt that the election results will be legitimate.

          • Nate says:

            Justice is supposed to be blind, but under Trump and his atty general Barr, justice has not been. Supporters of his get special treatment in the justice system, while opponents get threatened, investigated or prosecuted. Non partissn Inspector Generals and whistleblowers get fired for crossing him.

            This is a whole chapter in the Autoritarian Handbook, and Putin is expert at it.

          • bill hunter says:

            LOL!

            The question he answered was: ”win lose or draw would he commit to a peaceful transfer of power.”

            How do you answer a question like that?

            https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/trump-election-day-peaceful-transition/index.html

            Then in the sidebar a CCN reporter is breathlessly saying Trump is going to do everything possible to win.

            What a bunch of doltheads and you are sucking to them. I guess that makes you one too.

          • Nate says:

            It is epically sad for the country, that you guys find an excuse for anything he does.

          • Nate says:

            Trump has fired 5 agency non-partisan Inspector Generals.

            Recently the State Dept IG, who was investigating the Secretary of State for serious corruption charges.

            What is your excuse for his enabling corruption??

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate if thats all you got its pretty sad. There hasn’t been any new revelations about that firing for about 3 1/2 months and the supposed victim isn’t saying anything.

            All you have allegations that amount to innuendo. The House looked into it and appears to have dropped it.

            I seriously doubt Trump is going to fire anybody doing their job; that would really be unwise politically. You dem sycophants seem willing to believe anything without evidence as long as it fits the political agenda.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate if thats all you got its pretty sad. ”

            As I said, last 24 h, oh any has already doubled down on it.

            There is plenty more, but it is clear that his actions just dont matter to you guys, because, as any good con man can, he has you convinced that he is on your side.

          • Nate says:


            I seriously doubt Trump is going to fire anybody doing their job; that would really be unwise politically.”

            Your defense is your belief that he wouldnt do something he has already done?

            Sounds like a mom defending her son, Bernie Madoff.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Your defense is your belief that he wouldnt do something he has already done?

            Sounds like a mom defending her son, Bernie Madoff.

            ==========================================

            Big difference is Trump while possibly the most investigated man in history they still haven’t found a crime. Can’t say the same thing about Hillary.

            You are just suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.

            What really ticks the dems off is Trump is actually doing something about US jobs and the common man who depends on that regardless of race.

            Both parties for over a generation have just been lying to American worker and doing nothing for them while that have been wholesaling US jobs overseas in exchange for royalties.

          • bill hunter says:

            Its called ”royalties” for a reason.

          • Nate says:

            “You are just suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.”

            Ok we’ll just label your issues with dems and hillary your ‘derangement syndrome’

            Its not a real defense. Just trying to blame someone else for his problems.

            That is Trumps specialty, scapegoating, and its another chapter in the Authoritarian handbook.

            “What really ticks the dems off is Trump is actually doing something about US jobs and the common man who depends on that regardless of race.”

            Jobs are not rushing back anytime soon, though he tried to ignore the pandemic. So thats on him.

            Prior to that, unemployment simply continued the Obama trend. GDP growth under him was ~ 2%. Identical to Obama years. The corp tax cut was… meh.

            So the reality is more DT hype, that you guys eat up.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Ok we’ll just label your issues with dems and hillary your ‘derangement syndrome’
            =================================
            I have nothing against Hillary. I voted for her husband twice. I didn’t vote for her primarily on the US jobs issue and China.

            I had a security clearance and know I would have spent time in jail for what she did. But elite folks don’t have to follow the same rules. Colin Powell skated pretty much on the same thing.

            I wasn’t mad she wasn’t put in jail because that would have looked politically bad. Perhaps they need to reevaluate some of this stuff and establish new standards and punishments (often not prison) that can be applied to everybody.

            Trump has been doing a great job on jobs. I hope when he leaves office the next President realizes that world government is a pipe dream in a world where human rights are not equal across nations. Neocons and dems seem committed to far beyond their ability to do it fairly for all Americans.

            the corp tax cut was way overdue. I believe in graduated taxes on individuals according not just to the income but their wealth as well. Corporate taxes are regressive taxes at a non-graduated flat rate. Further why tax what makes jobs. Tax individuals and stuff that destroys jobs.

            ”So the reality is more DT hype, that you guys eat up.”
            The reality is you have no clue.

          • Nate says:

            Some people are ideology driven, others results-oriented and data-driven.

            Given the massive corp tax cut, and increased govt spending, the massive deficit, and super-duper low interest rates… given all that juicin, the economic growth was a paltry 2%. The private sector? Less.

            Corps did stock buybacks. Lame.

            2% was same as Obama 2nd term, when the Repub watchword was ‘austerity’.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Corps did stock buybacks. Lame.
            ============================

            The dems are always talking about that. Just goes to show how ignorant you are about financing.

            Markets are about choosing what you want to invest in an paying the going rate for the investment. You buy stock back it means you are not looking to spend a lot on internal expansion. Just because you come into a tax break doesn’t mean thats the right strategy. So instead you buy your stock back, the sellers take the money they get for the stock and invest elsewhere.

            Some if they think you are making the wrong choice will just buy the stock back after the market judges your choice and maybe the price goes down, instant profits for the seller come buybacker.

            Rather than have yo daddy pontificate about what everybody should invest in the decision is democratic and people vote with money.

          • Nate says:

            And you cant refute anything else?

            IMO, corporations are incentivised poorly, by short term interests.

            I think a wiser tax policy would have been to give corps a break ONLY if they invested the money in expansion and job creation.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            IMO, corporations are incentivised poorly, by short term interests.
            =======================
            who told you that?

            Seems you have a lot of opinions about stuff you actually know very little about.

            Let me ask you when you get a job are you waiting an average of 7 years to get a paycheck?

            No you aren’t you want to get paid at least monthly, more likely bimonthly.

            In fact the only short term thinking of a corporation are coming from their employees and customers.

            Most investors they are waiting a long time to get a return on their money. In fact the biggest investment sector are pension funds.

            Investors have a challenge in devising compensation packages for their salaried workers that incentivizes they to look beyond the next paycheck. Sometimes they are not successful but there isn’t perfection in anything.

            It’s extremely important to investors that auditor’s ensure that bonuses paid to officers and employees running the day to day business represents genuine returns, the kind of returns that that help ensure that the firm is a going concern with a bright never-ending future.

            Nate says:
            I think a wiser tax policy would have been to give corps a break ONLY if they invested the money in expansion and job creation
            ============================

            LOL! Its simply you not having an accurate view of the situation. Money in a corporation is there to work and create jobs. Fewer taxes on business ensure more is available for that.

            The alternative is they could pay dividends to the investors. That’s when it should be taxed at a graduated rate, when the money is taken out of the business and used for personal purposes.

            However, thats not how it’s taxed its taxed for the purpose of making government more powerful, more intrusive, less responsive, and restrict choices to the population. This country has gone through decades of having lost their way down that path murmuring moral cliches and believing in promises never delivered upon.

            And be aware I am expressing a liberal position that it be taxed at a graduated rate. As it stands corporate taxes are a flat tax. The little old retired lady from Pasadena living on social security and a few hundred dollars a month in dividends pays the same tax rate as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates on the corporate taxes. Those taxes either subtract from her dividends or subtract from the business creating jobs and building the value of her stock account.

            There are more complications to it all but nothing that can’t actually considered and cured in a quest to create a tax system that is more fair to those who have less.

            bottom line is if employees wanted to wait 7 years to get paid like most businesses then the outlook of corporations would be longer. If employees reinvested their money in the corporation instead of spending it outlooks would be extended.

            Corporations are merely the reflection of their employees and the consumer and how far out into the future their customers and employees look. They can’t be anything else or they wouldn’t survive.

          • Nate says:

            Lets get back to the point.

            “Given the massive corp tax cut, and increased govt spending, the massive deficit, and super-duper low interest rates given all that juicin, the economic growth was a paltry 2%. The private sector? Less.”

            The results of these policies are very unimpressive.

            Do results matter to you, or do you just believe the ideology no matter what the results are?

          • bill hunter says:

            It is true that economic growth didn’t grow as fast as Trump predicted. But through 2019 he exceed CBO projections and accelerated Obama’s rate of growth.

            Today obviously its not doing as well but thats understandable. But it has cheated Trump out of a critical year to prove his direction works.

            What isn’t understandable is what is the democrat agenda in not approving supposedly bipartisan agreement as pandemic relief? Is it they want the economy to sink?

            Certainly agreeing to the bipartisan support for those affected by the pandemic, and especially since they are the federal party out of power, doesn’t prevent them using what they didn’t get as an election issue.

            And below the economic line the country’s competitive position has been greatly strengthened and vast amounts of venture capital is available to new and upcoming US firms.

            This underlying economic structure bodes well for the future. If you had any experience at all in this issue, you would know it takes time to create new markets that have been gone from the US for over a generation.

            Also there needs to be a shift in the role of government from being anti-business, putting up huge roadblocks, to being more supportive of business and improve government permitting processes. Its difficult to say what progress is going on there. Unfortunately, government agencies tend to be empire builders just like everybody else.

            In many ways the persecution of Trump by the democrats has worked in his favor as this type of bias is what businesses deal with every day as well. Of course already knew that having had to deal with government permitting for his entire adult life.

            He would be a slam dunk 2nd term President if it weren’t for his tariffs on China harming many people with business in that country from China retaliation. But despite that the best interest for the nation is to have a fair trade relationship with China.

          • Svante says:

            Market economies need to be stabilized.
            You need to increase spending in bad times,
            and cut back in good times.

            Obama got the financial crisis so he had to spend.
            The deficit was on the mend when he left.

            Trump increased the deficit at the top business cycle.
            Unemployment and growth outran themselves.
            Now he has to borrow even more.

          • Nate says:

            Yep, heavy govt borrowing should be reserved for emergency times, like we have now, or we had in the financial crisis, or WWII.

            Balancing the budget used to be a priority for conservatives. What happened?

            BTW, any interesting Trump news make it into the news bubble, Bill?

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Market economies need to be stabilized.
            You need to increase spending in bad times,
            and cut back in good times.

            Obama got the financial crisis so he had to spend.
            The deficit was on the mend when he left.

            Trump increased the deficit at the top business cycle.
            Unemployment and growth outran themselves.
            Now he has to borrow even more.
            ===================================

            Your conclusions are just wrong. You have a lot of it right but you don’t factor in the role of the pandemic. Also, from Trump’s perspective we weren’t even close to the top of the business cycle with Democrat obstructionism going on and harming his plans. One would think that a bit of success would have spurred more cooperation. But no! Thats not the objective of mainstream politicians who are in it for themselves.

            Thats particularly acute right now as the democrats refuse to spend anything when we need spending and thats because they would rather see the economy tank than see Trump get reelected.

            All you dems see what Trump sees as being overly optimistic. You guys are living in a constant state of pessimism (explaining your belief of being at the top of the business cycle as you have been trained to pessimistically think that way); that has more to do with what’s been wrong with the economy than anything else. Trump’s motto ‘make America great again’ is a program of optimism, an end to foreign wars and the forceful spreading of democracy to conquer the rest of the world to pave the way for world control. Its an Alexander the Great ambition destined to failure.

            So Trump’s program is a significant turn toward non-interference in foreign issues. A program where foreign nations bear their own costs of defense, a program to end the constant entanglements in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan and who knows where next.

            The strengthened military serves as the big stick to discourage attacks on America and discourage world terrorism. But leave the nation building to the populations concerned.

            All the American hegemony policies have been incredibly stupid and corrupt. Enriching individuals at a cost of jobs for Americans or a huge cost to the nation as no nation can endure endless wars.

            The war on terror morphed into nation rebuilding during the administration of GW Bush on the Day the Mission Accomplished sign was deployed on that aircraft carrier.

            I won’t argue that much more than that. Our security agencies apparently may have misinformed the public as to the threats posed by the Hussein regime who was being restrained by treaty on the basis of his own world conquering efforts.

            And who was mocking it the aircraft carrier sign the most?

            Bottom line Svante, until Trump came along an succeeded the majority of politicians had sold out to special interests.

            Democrats had gained under Clinton the favor of the owners of intellectual property rights. Under Obama they went strong for the MIC support.

            Obama promised change then completely reneged on the deal something I knew he would do having been the biggest earmarker in the Senate.

            So by early 2016 I had the two candidates in mind I would be voting for. They showed the most promise of ending that sell out of our federal government.

            I became fully aware of all this long before Trump was even talking about being a candidate. For years I had seen the issue playing out in the specific areas I was working but really wasn’t aware of the breadth of the issue. That all changed in December 1999. The Battle of Seattle happened and for the first time I became aware that the corruption I was witnessing was a nationwide across the board issue of corruption at the highest levels.

            You might review the issues of the riots in Seattle and note all who were there representing a huge cross section of the country.

            In 2016 only two candidates were actually pushing back on this. Trump and Sanders. So in I think January of that year I told some friends I was probably going to vote for one of the two of them should one of them win the nomination.

            Today I think Sanders has sold out a lot of his appeal he had back then in endorsing not just democrat candidates but also in voicing the ”monied position” on a lot of the issues he once seemed opposed to. And I think that was actually reflected in his loss of support in the recent democrat primaries too.

            So the question to you is that now that we are in your preferred spending mode how come your party doesn’t want to spend?

          • Nate says:

            Much of the war policies you say, I can agree with.

            Why did Trump increase military spending so much, while cutting many domestic spending in many cases?

  49. Bindidon says:

    hunter

    ” I have two NWS weather stations I can use. One several miles southeast on an ocean pier and one several miles north at an airport. Huge difference between the two virtually everyday.

    I suspect one side of my house is like the ocean pier and the other side is indeed almost identical to the airport. ”

    *
    I was sure you wouldn’t understand.

    Around me, the weather stations out of which my local temperature is calculated by interpolation, show huge differences as well, sometimes accounting for several degrees C.

    But all these stations nevertheless are highly correlated when you look at their anomalies, of course computed wrt the same reference period.

    Here is a nice example of two stations in Alaska, which hardly could differ more concerning their location and their readings:

    – Anchorage International AP
    USW00026451 61.1689 -150.0278 36.6 AK ANCHORAGE INTL AP 70273

    – Kenai
    USW00026563 60.7236 -150.4483 86.0 AK KENAI 29 ENE CRN 70342

    While the INTL AP station indeed is located in the middle of the airport (Woaaah! I’m sure you feel the incredible heat coming from the engines, UHI power ten), Kenai ENE is in the middle of nowhere:

    https://tinyurl.com/y6axg97o

    And while their absolute data differ by sometimes about 6 C, look at their anomaly-based comparison:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhCuDiAFUT80Ws4S8XopciaWQTp4rorn/view

    Not only are their linear trends and running means perfectly similar: moreover, Anchorage’s anomalies mostly show smaller deviations from the mean than do those of Kenai.

    *
    Quite a while ago, I compared all 71 USHCN stations specified in 2011 as low UHI, ‘pristine’ stations by Watts’ surfacestations.org, documented by NOAA in 2012, with all available GHCN daily stations in the US:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pbQCHFwTTy1HIns9pDNj6mDQ85Vau7NC/view

    The trend for the pristine stations is even higher than that for all GHCN daily stations.

    Your UHI stuff is no more than a Fata Morgana.

    ***
    Instead of ranting with your trivial stuff, it would be better for you to learn, hunter.

    But… that is EXACTLY what you do not want to do!

    Because your egocentric, distorted view of the reality counts for you much more than what you discredit as ‘appeal to authority’.

    And that is the reason why people like you deny for example the fact established by century-long theoretical research and observation, that Moon spins about its center of mass, as do nearly all celestial bodies.

    Weiter so, hunter!

    J.-P. D.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      Thermometers are designed to measure the degree of heat to which they are exposed. The impact of wind on a dry bulb thermometer is precisely zero, unless the winds velocity is enough to cause frictional heating.

      As to the Moon, Newtons Law of Universal Gravity, and Newtons Laws of motion are sufficient to explain the motion of that body.

      You are full of it. Learn some physics.

      • Bindidon says:

        Swenson

        You are exactly as dumb as are Robertson, ClintR, hunter, Pseudomod, JD*Huffman and some other ignorants I don’t recall the name.

        J.-P. D.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Just more unsupported braying from another alarmist donkey? Are you upset because I have pointed out you are full of it, so to speak, and have provided reasons why I have come to that conclusion?

          No more wonder some people come to the conclusion that you are stupid.

          • Bindidon says:

            Swenson

            ” No more wonder some people come to the conclusion that you are stupid. ”

            It seems to me that you forgot to think about

            – how many people do come to the conclusion that I am all but stupid?
            – how many do come to the conclusion that you are very well stupid?

            You are a specialist in posting completely useless comments.

            No arguments, only discrediting and denigrating stuff.

            J.-P. D.

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            I know English is not your native language, but you have lapsed into incomprehensibility.

            I forgot nothing,

    • bill hunter says:

      Bindidon says:

      I was sure you wouldnt understand.

      Around me, the weather stations out of which my local temperature is calculated by interpolation, show huge differences as well, sometimes accounting for several degrees C.

      But all these stations nevertheless are highly correlated when you look at their anomalies, of course computed wrt the same reference period.

      ================================
      You are convinced because you don’t understand.

      1. The forecast for my home is obviously not an interpolation.

      Nearly equi-distant from two very different weather stations doesn’t result in an interpolation as its identical or nearly identical to one of the two stations.

      How much of that short distance interpolation occurs in climate grids I have little idea except I have only heard of straight up interpolation with a small amount of discussion offered up years ago by James Hansen about whether we should interpolate from sea to land or from land to sea. I saw that as maybe one should consider which way the wind is blowing.

      However, my example actually places some doubt about that because the spot forecast for my home favors the natural environment that surrounds it and ignores the environment where I actually live. i.e. if done consistently it would make climate gridding more accurate. But the UHI effect has no effect occurring from the process of interpolation. . . .all interpolation can do is magnify any existing error in the station siting themselves. Which can only be mitigated by having representative stations.

      My quest for another thermometer location is spurred largely be a desire to mitigate that error to improve accuracy for my actual community, a very small microclimate. One can often find microclimates in ones backyard but we have no real backyards here.

      So you so full of it and have thought so little about what I posted you are arse backwards on the whole thing.

      2. The point I was making was not at all about interpolating between two weather stations regarding the issue of UHI. I only mentioned that as the original source of my motivation to investigate my local matter a little more closely and determine how much my thermometer location was reflecting UHI in a decidedly non-urban environment.

      3. UHI in my view has nothing to do with interpolation per se and has everything to do with a fundamental difference between environments, primarily I believe it is a rate of evaporation and transpiration and how that varies, and the lack of random sample selection to include those types of environments on a representative basis. . . .instead of favoring airports and fire station roof tops that only see any evaporation post precipitation.

      So I am about 3 levels of sophistication beyond the level you are talking at. If my weather forecast were the same as climate gridding it would actually tend to correct for UHI error I am likely getting at my thermometer location.

      So I don’t know if any of that sunk in considering you are going about one thousand miles per hour parroting confidence in the monitoring system and completely missing any discussion about ways to improve it.

      • Bindidon says:

        hunter

        Why should I discuss with people completely misunderstanding / misinterpreting what I wrote, and replying with
        – lots of superficial blah blah
        – no arguments matching what I wrote
        and above all,
        – no data.

        You discuss about temperature exactly in the same way as you do about Moon’s spin.

        That’s too boring for me.

        Thanks hunter, and… bye bye

        J.-P. D.

  50. Bindidon says:

    I always get a big, big laugh when I read these scary Cooling alarmista comments repeatedly posted by people like SAMURAI, Scott R{obertson?} and others.

    If you happened to believe what they write, then you would believe that the Globe is ahead of a harsh cooling period!

    When you look at the Arctic sea ice extent daily data

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

    in absolute form

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rIi_Ml6yinPkUWPDFPz4VEy9BUX4fZL/view

    or as anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view

    you see that though claimed around February as the precursor of a Grand Cooling, the 2020 Arctic extent is well below the mean of the 2015-2019 period, and way way below the 1981-2010 mean.

    But you don’t start thinking that Arctic sea ice is about to disappear!

    No, you rather think that these Cooling alarmistas are heavy wrong with their Zharkova blah blah.

    I don’t need any exceeding warming, let alone exceeding cooling.

    J.-P. D.

    • bill hunter says:

      Actually I don’t see any reason why cooling needs to be harsh.

      Looking at the ice core records it appears cooling tends to occur much more slowly than warming.

      That logically does not seem to be an attribute of orbital variation which is the favored explanation.

      However, rapid short term cooling does occur, though the frequency of it seems to challenge prediction.

    • Snape says:

      [My quest for another thermometer location is spurred largely be a desire to mitigate that error to improve accuracy for my actual community, a very small microclimate. One can often find microclimates in ones backyard but we have no real backyards here.]

      You are seriously confused, Bill. The motivation for the various temperature datasets, like GISS or UAH, is not to find an accurate global temperature (which would be both pointless and exceedingly difficult), it is to document temperature change. IOW, what is the average temperature today, in the sample grid, compared to a past reference period?

      To that end, it doesnt matter what the actual temperature is between two stations. The anomaly is all that matters.

      • bill hunter says:

        Snape says:
        You are seriously confused, Bill. The motivation for the various temperature datasets, like GISS or UAH, is not to find an accurate global temperature (which would be both pointless and exceedingly difficult), it is to document temperature change.

        Hmmmm, did I say anything different?

        Explicitly I have said in 2 or 3 posts today and maybe yesterday that while UHI is a difference in temperature it makes perfect sense that its an issue that is only relevant to the surface record. The satellite record is free of it. The satellite record may have an effect in it but its reality (such as warming arising out population increases and construction) not a erroneous multiple of the effect.

        Of course its handwaved effect in the midst of an argument for why people would like to adopt the warmest temperature record they can get their hands on.

        Myself I am pretty convinced that the LT record should be warmer or the same as the surface record. but I don’t rule the possibility that errors could be being made in it from totally other factors. I remain skeptical of all the temperature records except that I am comfortable they are accurate enough. . . .probably because a couple of degrees warming doesn’t spook me.

  51. Eben says:

    The weather man in chief predicts cooling

    https://youtu.be/tRQwqWN5k_M

    • Bindidon says:

      Eben

      ” The weather man in chief… ”

      That’s for the first time since you post on this blog, a somewhat intelligent comment of yours.

      Thanks. More of that!

      J.-P. D.

      • bill hunter says:

        Well IMO the best approach is for the President to continue to buidl the economy. Those extra dollars will help with research and better understanding. Always has always will from the standpoint of a typical scientist these days. We know we have control over the economics, it remains questionable if we have control over the climate.

        We just have to avoid fascism and militarism whether it comes in the form international meddling in the affairs of other nations or in terms of a fraction (including a majority) of the population dictating the behavior of all on the basis of prognostication and hypocrisy.

        Trump is right on the mark. We need to take the assured, short term fix on a priority basis and not get locked into mindless ideas of stopping all change in the world for the sake that is change.

        Namely precisely reverse the total prohibition of changing nature to our benefit and instead doing it an working to mitigate any negative effects from that. Otherwise known as ‘wise use’.

        Bottom line is the rest of the world is free to do what they think is best and so are you.

    • Eben says:

      An analysis published in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences reveals the 1880-2013 temperature changes fit “perfectly” (0.9 correlation) into a calculation utilizing 15,295 periodic functions of natural variation…The authors claim this affirms that the non-anthropogenic “major climate factors” (i.e., solar-cloud and ENSO forcing) can still be considered the “main reason” driving modern warming.

      Four climate scientists assert (1) the last ~130 years of temperature changes fit “perfectly” into statistical indices of natural variation, and (2) a long-term deep cooling of the Earth system has recently commenced.

      https://bit.ly/3hzhAH2

      • bill hunter says:

        Very interesting. Actually it appears to be about the equivalent of predictions arising off CO2 assumptions regarding emerging surface warming.

        Intuitively this all seems possible but depends upon climate actually being predictable and that the future will be like the past.

        I didn’t delve in and investigate the provenance of the assumptions but if one looks at natural change unexplained by CO2 theory it intuitively looks to be possible.

        It would be nice to see if any real criticism of the techniques can be raised beyond simply attacking the paper on the basis of the authors, journal, etc.

      • Svante says:

        So the peak was 2000-2010, then down by 0.2 degrees.
        So UAH should be at 0.0.
        Hello, we’re at +0.5!

      • bdgwx says:

        Hey…I read that paper last year!

        I guess it’s still making the rounds.

        Basically this is a physics-less curve fit using a stochastic predictor similar to what is used for stock chart analysis. The stochastic oscillator predicts a downtrend because and only because the past exhibited an uptrend. That’s what stochastic oscillators are designed to do!

        Does the NoTricksZone site tell you any of this. Of course not! They seem to be hell bent on tricking as many misinformed lemmings as possible.

        BTW…Here’s the paper.

        https://file.scirp.org/pdf/ACS_2019010914482656.pdf

        • bill hunter says:

          They predict down trends due to extended uptrends because history is full of such relationships. Its probably the biggest predictor for the end of ENSO events too.

          So yes indeed, in fact mainstream science predicts a continuing uptrend in warming from emissions on the sole factors of CO2 being a climate factor contributing to the greenhouse effect (or at a minimum able to contribute to the greenhouse effect in the absence of water) but that assumption is done without considering whether CO2 is both necessary and sufficient to have created a greenhouse effect much less enhance it.

          So the paper is essentially an identical style analysis that does not establish a clear process of causation like mainstream CO2 theory. Its going to happen on the presumption it happened in the past.

          Power of prediction comes from a history of failures and successes something completely lacking in the area of climate science no matter what your theory is. Science accepts anything they want that does a good job of resembling the past except when it conflicts with their favored theory.

          Its like the topic of free speech where one demands it at the same time trying to take it away from somebody else on the claim their speech is virtuous and the speech is not.

          • bill hunter says:

            that would be “the speech of others with different opinions is not”

          • bdgwx says:

            CO2 creates a positive radiative forcing. There is a clear process of causation for CO2 (or any GHG) to put a warming tendency on the planet. It’s not even disputed among reputable scientists (Lindzen, Curry, Spencer included). It’s about as settled as anything in science can be settled.

            This paper literally throws physics to the way side and predicts that the planet will cool in the near future because and only because the planet had been warming in recent decades. And their prediction is astonishingly bad too. The 12 month mean in 2010 on UAH was about +0.3C. The prediction in the paper is for about 0.4C of cooling from 2010 to 2020. But here we are in Aug. of 2020 and the 12 month mean is now +0.5C. Their prediction is off by an almost unbelievable 0.6C in just 10 years. Their prediction for 2035 is for yet another 0.2C drop from 2020. How on Earth is the planet going to cool by 0.8C in just 15 years with a +0.8 W/m^2 energy imbalance that has not only persisted, but has even increased in recent decades?

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            CO2 creates a positive radiative forcing. There is a clear process of causation for CO2 (or any GHG) to put a warming tendency on the planet. It’s not even disputed among reputable scientists (Lindzen, Curry, Spencer included). It’s about as settled as anything in science can be settled.
            ===================
            You are spouting off and committing the fallacy of appeal to authority and you can’t even support the fallacy you present. I am very aware of the viewpoint of all 3. All 3 consider as I do that the theory is plausible and unproven. If can’t call that settled science.

            And to be clear I recognize greenhouse gases as a gas that has a critical role in our atmosphere and a critical role on climate. However, without a specified testable physical chain of events being documented there is no way to refute the theory.

            You seem to be claiming a testable theory has been developed and documented but that just shows how ignorant you are about climate.

          • bdgwx says:

            Here are the tests that would falsify GHG warming.

            – An observation that GHG concentrations are not increasing.

            – An observation that the atmosphere did not warm.

            – An observation that oceanic heat content did not increase.

            – An observation that troposphere minus stratosphere temperature did not increase.

            – An observation that CO2 does not impede the transmission of longwave radiation any more than shortwave radiation.

            Things that would cast doubt on the hypothesis.

            – An absence of a record of CO2 catalyzed warming in the paleoclimate record.

            – An explanation for the faint young problem that does not invoke GHGs.

            – An explanation for the glacial cycles that does not invoke GHGs to explain the magnitude of the temperature changes.

            And here would the ultimate convincing argument.

            – An alternative theory that matches ALL observations (contemporary and paleoclimate) better than what we already have.

            And this isn’t even an exhaustive list. You can claim that the theory isn’t testable. That doesn’t make it true. Just because YOU can’t figure out how to test it doesn’t mean other people are as equally perplexed.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            I’m going to challenge with the same thing. What observations, tests, experiments would YOU accept that would falsify the natural-only or at least natural-mostly hypothesis?

          • bill hunter says:

            Well actually bdgwx something like that is forthcoming in a publication I am working on. I can’t get into details at this point.

            I thank you for the list of things you find convincing and critical to your support for the theory.

            That is actually my motivation to engage in here to try to better understand why the current theory has such wide support. My prodding is intended to invoke rational and non-fallacious responses.

            It is indeed a pleasure to have somebody actually provide what they see as the key legs of the theory. So thank you for the thoughtful list which I will not respond to it at this moment but gives me a reading list on which to actually ensure my forthcoming publication is in compliance with.

            From my perspective GhG is necessary for the most conventional view of surface warming and fully endorse the ‘blanket’ model. This model is well exemplified in window technology and I don’t think you can do without it. . . .which of course is the direction that some alternative theories take.

            Can I say they are wrong? Well I can say they are incomplete without the recognition of the role of ghg.

            So ghg are absolutely a necessity for the ghe. However, that statement alone does not amount to evidence that the climate is subject to continued warming via the simple increase of a weak trace ghg.

            I accept and believe that climate does vary likely in major part because of variation in the amount of water in the sky primarily because water is not evenly distributed.

            What I see as neglected is the effect of clouds and their role in all this. That also seems to be the thrust of most proposed alternatives for explaining not the greenhouse effect per se by variation in climate. Its not likely I will delve in that much as my focus is the base alternative theory. . . .though its helpful to be consistent with climate change occurring from cloud changes.

            the primary reason I object to all the monies being spent on mitigation, confabs, and models is it is mostly a result of political pressures from many directions and its not likely to solve the problem.

            I am not too sure I have enough time on my hands to dive into the faint young problem or the co2 catalyzed warming as I have limited available free time for free work. But I have jumped in somewhat on the debate on polar warming and have alternative ideas there not inconsistent with my alternative theory and in fact incorporate elements of that theory.

            So it is your most recent response and not invoking fallacious reasoning that I truly value. So thank you.

          • Svante says:

            – Seen from space, that increasing CO2 did not cut TOA spectral power in its absorption bands.
            – Or conversely that those bands did not increase seen from the surface.

            That’s all you need to bring down the GHG theory, I think.
            All three are already verified of course.
            It would also shatter physics to its core.
            Physics verified a million times.
            There are other GHGs as well of course, e.g. CH4.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            That’s all you need to bring down the GHG theory, I think.
            All three are already verified of course.
            It would also shatter physics to its core.
            Physics verified a million times.
            There are other GHGs as well of course, e.g. CH4.
            =====================
            Spectral power at TOA is undisputed and a strawman.

            I would be interested in proof that the view from the ground has been measured as a uniform increase across the surface of the surface of the earth to arrive at a mean global value.

            Saying that CO2 absorbs IR and that sometimes you can actually see that in the atmosphere is next to meaningless. Its kind of a cosmic ray sort of argument where you observe cosmic rays creating cloud precursor nuclei and then proclaiming that as the means of natural variation that explains everything.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says:
            “Spectral power at TOA is undisputed and a strawman.”

            How’s that? It’s the essence of the GHE.
            Cut output power and you get a radiation surplus.
            Warming must follow (until total spectral power is back where it was).

            Unless it is offset by an an inherent steepening of the lapse rate curve, you may want to add that.

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            You are an idiot. You cant just cut output power at the TOA (whatever that is supposed to mean).

            There is no such thing as a radiation surplus. The only essence involved is one you may have been overindulging.

            Insulation is also used to keep things cool – especially from the effects of the sun, donkey!

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            What observations, tests, experiments would YOU accept that would falsify the natural-only or at least natural-mostly hypothesis?

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            bill hunter says:
            Spectral power at TOA is undisputed and a strawman.

            Hows that? Its the essence of the GHE.
            Cut output power and you get a radiation surplus.
            Warming must follow (until total spectral power is back where it was).

            Unless it is offset by an an inherent steepening of the lapse rate curve, you may want to add that.

            ===========================

            Well you do understand that increasing energy in an atmosphere results in no warming but instead an expansion of the atmosphere.

            We also know that net surface radiation into the atmosphere is equal to the amount of radiation lost to space by the atmosphere (or the atmosphere would be forever expanding or shrinking)

            Obviously these rules have to be subject to internal movement of energy say between the ocean and the atmosphere so the rule may not hold on scales less than a few thousand years.

            So I look at those facts and wonder where does the warming come from? Anybody?

          • Svante says:

            bill,
            You do realize that any object in a vacuum with a radiation budget surplus will warm up? That includes Earth.

            bill hunter says:

            Well you do understand that increasing energy in an atmosphere results in no warming but instead an expansion of the atmosphere.

            No, the atmosphere is actually shrinking. That’s because the upper atmosphere is cooling. It’s what happens when you add a thermal barrier.

            We also know that net surface radiation into the atmosphere is equal to the amount of radiation lost to space by the atmosphere

            Yes, but it is no longer equal to the net input from above.
            Because the output to space has dropped (in the CO2/CH4 bands).

            Obviously these rules have to be subject to internal movement of energy say between the ocean and the atmosphere so the rule may not hold on scales less than a few thousand years.

            So I look at those facts and wonder where does the warming come from? Anybody?

            We have warming in the oceans and the surface at the same time, and there is no evidence of change in geothermal output, so it’s not like we are depleting any old heat storage. You can not have this long term warming without a surplus at the top of the atmosphere.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            You do realize that any object in a vacuum with a radiation budget surplus will warm up? That includes Earth.
            =============================
            That is a conditional statement Svante that I can agree with.
            ==================
            ================

            Svante says:

            No, the atmosphere is actually shrinking. Thats because the upper atmosphere is cooling. Its what happens when you add a thermal barrier.
            ========================
            that doesn’t make any sense Svante. You are selectively looking at a relatively small region in the atmosphere in terms of heat content as your viewpoint is contradictory to your views on energy change in the atmosphere.

            ==================
            ================

            Svante says:

            We also know that net surface radiation into the atmosphere is equal to the amount of radiation lost to space by the atmosphere

            Yes, but it is no longer equal to the net input from above.
            Because the output to space has dropped (in the CO2/CH4 bands).
            =========================
            Yeah maybe assuming the energy isn’t leaving before warming the surface, or perhaps more accurately warming the surface to its absolute full ability whatever that is.

            thats the job science needs to still perform a lot of work on.
            ==================
            ================

            Svante says:

            ”Obviously these rules have to be subject to internal movement of energy say between the ocean and the atmosphere so the rule may not hold on scales less than a few thousand years.

            So I look at those facts and wonder where does the warming come from? Anybody?”

            We have warming in the oceans and the surface at the same time,
            ===================
            with the same energy or as an allocation of that energy? In your view?

            If its an allocation then you need to understand that there is apt to be a good deal of long term natural variation as that ocean allocation gets mixed around over the centuries.

            And since something like 80 to 90% of solar energy at some point ends up in water that provides a whole lot of opportunity.

            ==================
            ================

            Svante says:

            and there is no evidence of change in geothermal output, so its not like we are depleting any old heat storage. You can not have this long term warming without a surplus at the top of the atmosphere.
            ==================
            I just discussed above why that is an incorrect statement. What period of time would be sufficient to reach the conclusion you reached? Well it seems current knowledge suggests heat mills around in the ocean for up to 1,500 years so I guess one could say if climate variation lasts longer than that then one might be assured it must be an incoming vs outgoing imbalance in the absence of actual measurement.

            Actually thats why a science study on the imbalance needs a sign on by of about a couple dozen authors not actually working on the project so it can be claimed as or toward some kind of expert consensus.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says:

            with the same energy or as an allocation of that energy? In your view?”

            If its an allocation then you need to understand that there is apt to be a good deal of long term natural variation as that ocean allocation gets mixed around over the centuries.

            If it was the same energy then any warming had to be matched by an equal (energy wise) amount of cooling. Instead we measure increasing heat content in oceans and on the surface, plus melting land and sea ice. The atmosphere is negligible but the bulk of it is warming to.

            Since energy cannot be created or destroyed it has to come from outside Earth.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            If it was the same energy then any warming had to be matched by an equal (energy wise) amount of cooling. Instead we measure increasing heat content in oceans and on the surface, plus melting land and sea ice. The atmosphere is negligible but the bulk of it is warming to.

            Since energy cannot be created or destroyed it has to come from outside Earth.
            ==========================
            Not necessarily Svante. It is about the same temperature now as it was 1,000 years ago. Intervening was a LIA. We don’t know if that was an internal or external event. We are just 170 years out of the LIA and the oceans require 1500 years to adjust. Its such a petty amount of warming, something I have never seen as significant when reading a thermometer for either cold or hot. It all could be internal readjustment.

            Do I think it is? No, its just among the possibilities. You need validated science where the uncertainties have been eliminated. When you get to that point then the science debate between qualified scientists ends.

          • Svante says:

            To help your argument, ocean heat capacity is so great that one small part of it could heat the surface globally. There is such a place of cooling south of Greenland.

            What is increasing the total ocean heat content though?

            “Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019”
            https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7.pdf

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            To help your argument, ocean heat capacity is so great that one small part of it could heat the surface globally. There is such a place of cooling south of Greenland.

            What is increasing the total ocean heat content though?
            ===============================

            LOL! Pretty funny stuff. The study proclaims the ocean is the warmest in recorded human history. So what is the history of recording the ocean heat content? Uh. . . .about 16 years?

            Thats not to speak of the fact the heat content of the entire ocean has never been recorded.

            And what does it amount to on a century warming scale? About 2 tenths of a degree? Since some parts of the ocean are still warming from the MWP I suspect they have lots of LIA to catch up with still.

            You ask what is causing it. I don’t know. But assuming the study is accurate and not affected by ocean currents or xbt biases or whatever other means (ouija boards) they measured to ARGO depths before ARGO its not a lot of warming.

            Here is a another page for you. https://www.rankred.com/ocean-absorbed-heat-energy-in-zettajoules/

            they claim that if the ocean were only 9 meters deep the energy increase would warm the ocean by 6.5C every 10 years.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says:

            That’s not to speak of the fact the heat content of the entire ocean has never been recorded.

            Here’s how you can determine ocean heat content and radiative imbalance since the ice age.

            https://www.pnas.org/content/116/30/14881

            There is evidence there that you can use, the AMO influence for example.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            bill hunter says:

            Thats not to speak of the fact the heat content of the entire ocean has never been recorded.

            Heres how you can determine ocean heat content and radiative imbalance since the ice age.
            =============================

            You are overly enamored to projections based upon the assumption that what has been sampled is representative and thus mean values can be used to project.

            You are also overly impressed with the completely unfounded assumption that we understand that the energy balance equation coming out of the LIA is presently zero.

            I am not impressed. I have too much experience to be impressed.

          • Svante says:

            Read the paper, in explains the basic relationships.

            If it was a recovery from the LIA it would slow down as we approached the old equilibrium. Since the rectifying force would depend on the delta. Instead we are shooting past the old high at an increasing speed.

            If you study the paleoclimate record you will see that we were in a six thousand year decline, along the path of many previous ice ages. It was a good thing that we emitted enough GHGs to break out of it. So the human contribution to current warming is more than all of it.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Read the paper, in explains the basic relationships.
            ———————
            I did. Before I replied. I confirmed my suspicions that it was a multi-proxy reconstruction of essentially small samples of data in relationship to what it was concluding upon.

            In such studies with small samples, unverified assumed biases, incomplete random coverage runs roughshod over multiple uncertainties arrive at a mean value which then is extrapolated across the entire ocean.

            It features very large numbers (higher than most people have ever heard of) that amount to really very little warming for the ocean.

            Study Judith Curry’s various papers on uncertainty in the climate regime and that will give you an introductory course on uncertainty in climate science. Then look at this paper and its underlying sources, many of which I have also read in detail over time, read the review comments from other scientists and statisticians, noted a lack of directed rebuttal and as a result from my experience of doing this kind of stuff over and over professionally conclude that the paper may not be wrong but there is also little reason to believe it is right either.

            then paste that on top of another level of uncertainty regarding delayed ocean warming and its unknown effects on climate and the little bit we know about the LIA the results disappear into a fog of uncertainty.

            Then the final and conclusive analysis. How much warming are they suggesting and does it matter. It doesn’t pass that test either.

            So no reason to draw any conclusions from it other than asking the question ‘is that all we got on the topic?’.

            Then one can go to the IPCC compilation of climate information that is already out and conclude yeah probably.

            Then expect some IPCC author to slap some one dimensional characterization of the level of uncertainty about it. Of course
            other dimensions are ignored.

            Result? A politically motivated paper fit for a political document. . . .which of course explains why that unneeded piece of work got done in the first place as opposed to hiring new research scientists or building more diving buoys with those dollars

            After all Svante every budget request needs a marketing program. . . .right?

          • Svante says:

            Forget about the IPCC and politics.

            The oceans are warming, from the top down. Ice is melting and the surface is warming up. You suggest recovery from the LIA. Where was the energy hiding all this time? It’s not coming out of the oceans because the oceans are not cooling down.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            Forget about the IPCC and politics.

            The oceans are warming, from the top down. Ice is melting and the surface is warming up. You suggest recovery from the LIA. Where was the energy hiding all this time? Its not coming out of the oceans because the oceans are not cooling down.
            ===============================
            sure I will have to cut it up into pieces.

            OK I will take the oceans are warming (but keep in mind we don’t know if the bottom of the ocean is cooling or not)

            Its rather simple Svante. Lets just talk hypothetically so we don’t get in an argument of the details.

            LIA begins in year 1000 it proceeds to gradually cool for 700 years. Surface climate leads the way because we are going to hypothetically that his cooling has something to do with external change (of say the sun)

            Solar records indicate that its quite possible solar cooling occurred slowly over centuries and about 3 major cold periods The Wolf, Sporer, and Maunder minimums.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%B6rer_Minimum

            The oceans though needing 1500 years to adjust lost its cooling influence from the atmosphere at year 1700. And the depth of the surface temperature minimum only reached that briefly around 1700. So the ocean has 700 years of moving toward equilibrium in the ocean and lacks 1500 years to reach the minimum surface temperature.

            The surface warms starting in 1700 but not enough to stop glacial advance as precipitation continues to freeze and expand the glaciers because surface temperature are still to cold to stop glacial advance from the influence of both the oceans and glaciers and sea ice elevated albedo and all that.

            In fact the albedo increases over the next 150 years as the glaciers advance until 1850 (confirmed science) off sets the resumption in solar forcing lost during the previous 859 years.
            1000-1850

          • bill hunter says:

            During this period from 1700 you might see a quick warming after 1700 from the increased solar input that started in 1700 but the recovery might not have been lasting getting another cold blast from the Dalton Minimum which then set off a period of relatively level temperatures where increased solar output was offset by a combination of ocean temperatures, glacial temperatures, and sea ice and glacial albedo.

            But since most of this forcing was going into the ocean (~80%) the oceans were warming even while glaciers were expanding.

            Now sea ice and glacial advance have latitude and elevation limits so glaciers and sea ice advance decreases with the same forcing over time. But the warming of the oceans continued.

            Finally, the warming influences overcame the cooling influence at the end of the LIA in 1850. 150 years after the end of the solar minimum. (With the exception of the short Dalton Minimum)

            So now the globe is in a warming period starting in 1850 that has nothing to do with industrialization. Plus we got a solar grand maximum the approximate length of the Maunder Minimum in the middle of the 20th century.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            I’m still interested in hearing what observations, tests, experiments you would accept that would falsify the natural-only hypothesis?

          • Svante says:

            bill, it’s funny talking to you, you have some weird ideas and then you switch to something quite sensible. I think Roy Spencer might agree with what you just said.

            One minor comment: the MWP went into the 13th century.
            My pet theory is that Samalas started the LIA, and solar minimums certainly helped.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            bill,

            Im still interested in hearing what observations, tests, experiments you would accept that would falsify the natural-only hypothesis?
            ====================================

            Excellent question!

            In general I don’t think modeling is helping. I have for many years been involved in modeling work and understand its limitations. That doesn’t mean there should be zero modeling just that it should be deemphasized.

            So what to do instead. Fact is most of the alternative hypotheses are capable of experimentation and extrapolation from micro-scale test beds. They don’t suffer from the lack of a lapse rate test bed.

            But spending money on them in an environment of the science is settled is a huge setback for science. Warmists seem to fear this as they apparently thinks it detracts from needed action and needed additional public support. But the truth is open, transparent, and logical public discourse is the best way to enlist public support.

            I think that with a serious effort at looking at alternatives that are capable of experimental examination combined with enhanced above surface atmosphere monitoring and below surface ocean monitoring the problem can be solved.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            bill, its funny talking to you, you have some weird ideas and then you switch to something quite sensible. I think Roy Spencer might agree with what you just said.

            One minor comment: the MWP went into the 13th century.
            My pet theory is that Samalas started the LIA, and solar minimums certainly helped.
            ==================================

            I think the idea that the MWP went into the 13th century is interesting. After all you have peaks and valleys and you have means. So is normal the mean? We really don’t know. You have normal interglacials, you have normal multiple peaks in interglacials, and due to poor resolution short term peaks can be missed.

            So your comment is well taken. Is the total amplitude of the cycle and indication of a return to normal for the LIA or is half of it? We don’t know. IMO, mean values don’t mean a lot they are just another statistic that can be wrongly interpreted. And without a doubt that effects the periods of time that comprise these events.

          • Svante says:

            There is a problem with the LIA recovery.
            We have passed the MWP and the speed is accelerating.

            There is a longer term downward trend from the Holocene max.
            We broke it and may be past that too.
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            There is a problem with the LIA recovery.
            We have passed the MWP and the speed is accelerating.
            ==================================

            1. There are questions if the rate is accelerating.
            a) Had crut 3 does not suggest so
            b) warm PDO and Enso El Nino favorability is easily within the shortest of climate feedback windows.
            c) acceleration is the product of surface records whose major updates in Arctic models and conversion to the temperature record was headed up by the scientist with the most lurid record of bias – Climate-gate
            d) uah does not support the idea of an accelerating warming and instead supports just the opposite.

            2. There remains debate whether we passed the MWP. Also, the MWP itself lacks and argument for being a benchmark. You also have the Roman optimum, the 3k optimum, and a history of multiple peaks in interglacials.

            Svante says:
            There is a longer term downward trend from the Holocene max.
            We broke it and may be past that too.
            ======================

            Besides Nature actually displaying all those other peaks the science is questionable because of
            1) accuracy of proxies
            2) validation of proxies
            3) mixing proxies of different resolutions which results in data loss in the low resolution prior periods.
            4) a lack of acknowledgement that our knowledge of natural variations and orbital/whatever effects for longterm interglacials is very sparse.

            Then of course Nature Magazine make nice profits selling coffee table editions to the socially elite who are in need of things to worry about not possessing the worries of the population of ordinary people. Is that a badge of ‘woke’?

          • bdgwx says:

            bill said: Excellent question!

            Thanks. I thought it was good too. I’m still interested in knowing what tests, experiments, observations you would accept that could falsify the natural-only hypothesis. If feel that an adequate test, experiment, or observation does not exist yet then propose them.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            bill said: Excellent question!

            Thanks. I thought it was good too. Im still interested in knowing what tests, experiments, observations you would accept that could falsify the natural-only hypothesis. If feel that an adequate test, experiment, or observation does not exist yet then propose them.

            ==========================================

            Well actually over the past 15 years I have done just that. It would be a huge mistake to conclude that I am the only guy that holds these ideas. Currently a rather large funding effort is going to an expansion of the ARGO project to measure the entire ocean rather than relying upon lots of proxies and scant data to tell us about the heat in the ocean. Which is a key element in energy imbalance.

            Further for 3 years I have been working on a paper to propose some other approaches. Its taken that long because I have a paying job that I write stuff for. Love what I do and getting paid is like having icing on the cake so it gets priority.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter,
            1. I’m talking long term, from 1800 forward, UAH is just the last leg, at which rate we would be at +3 C now.

            2. “There remains a debate whether we passed the MWP.”
            In politics and the blogosphere, yes.
            Try the Minoan warm period.

            The proxy science is getting better and better, and the picture is getting clearer and clearer. Do we act on the best evidence we have or do we discard it?

            “Then of course Nature Magazine make nice profits”.
            Why do you fall for this political BS?
            The science came first, then the publication.
            You need to discredit PAGES2K, I’m sure you have plenty of sources for that on the internet.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            1. I’m talking long term, from 1800 forward, UAH is just the last leg, at which rate we would be at +3 C now.

            2. “There remains a debate whether we passed the MWP.”
            In politics and the blogosphere, yes.
            Try the Minoan warm period.
            ======================================

            In science also Svante. The motivation for making an effort to erase the MWP and LIA was the difficulties it creates for the political message.
            ===================
            ===================

            Svante says:
            The proxy science is getting better and better, and the picture is getting clearer and clearer. Do we act on the best evidence we have or do we discard it?
            ==========================
            Evidence please. That in fact usually not true. Typically after maybe 100’s of tries one gains favor and science advances. You need more than a biased majority concurring.

            I can guarantee you of that fact on the shoulders of 35 years experience.

            Svante says:
            “Then of course Nature Magazine make nice profits”.
            Why do you fall for this political BS?
            The science came first, then the publication.
            You need to discredit PAGES2K, I’m sure you have plenty of sources for that on the internet.
            ================================

            Now that’s intellectual dishonesty at work on your part Svante.

            Don’t you think that peer review is important? If I am not mistaken I think you have in the past used the lack of or existance of as evidence.

            But the fact is in political hot topics peer review doesn’t work. Having it is merely provides political cover.

            And the reason peer review doesn’t work in that situation is peer review lacks both standardization and enforceable responsibility on the shoulders of an anonymous peer review team.

            Instead it becomes a game of who has the best artwork on the cover. You may as well saying science can be best judged by the Crown.

          • Svante says:

            How easily you switch to your political mumbo jumbo.
            A convenient way to discard evidence you don’t like.
            Are you affiliated with any political organization?

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            How easily you switch to your political mumbo jumbo.
            A convenient way to discard evidence you don’t like.
            Are you affiliated with any political organization?

            =====================================
            A little argument and you think thats political? I see it as apolitical. I mean if you are running around spouting the Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and somebody asks you for evidence of that and you don’t have it can I conclude you are a religious believer? I think so.

            As to politics, its not politics Svante. Its the first day of audit OJT. You are planning an audit. First thing to document is what business the client is in and how they make money.

            From that you can understand the motives of the auditee and know what you should be looking for. If you don’t do that you are going to be mostly spinning your wheels.

            Follow the money and you will find the motivation. Day one man, day one! Real basic stuff.

            No I am not affiliated with any political organization, not even close. I work for the environment. Part of which has been for 5 different administrations and the rest pro bono or for 501(C)(3)’S. So probably just the opposite of a political affiliation as everything I do is for not-for-profits.

            And no I don’t toss anything out at all. If something doesn’t have evidence doesn’t mean it’s not true. I just pile that stuff into the uncertainty bin to add up latter.

            what I do is look at the evidence they offer in support of the science. I look at the logic and determine if what they say follows from the evidence is physically logical and complete. If its statistical in nature I look for good solid basic statistics.

            I have a political philosophy. Its conservative especially on fiscal matters. I also recognize the government is poor manager. They have a lot of great people working for them in the civil service but they are heavily burdened with policy and procedures so I am conservative in the sense of being free. Regulations mostly help the rich and harm the poor. In industry regulations help the biggest companies and make them more competitive on several levels and harm the start ups and small businesses. thats just facts. You can’t change the relationships you can just change which class you are working for.

          • bill hunter says:

            Perhaps I should have been more direct Svante. You came up with the “do you work for a political organization” in response to my comments on peer review.

            Do you understand what I am saying there Svante?

            You see the firm I originally worked for offered what in substance was professional peer review. Much of it occurring under professional trade organization promulgated standards. We adhered to several volumes of standards to ensure our reviews were complete, documented, consistent, and that adequate evidence was gathered.

            then the owners of the firm would sign public statements that they had done the work in accordance with those publicly available standards at huge potential penalties both civil and legal up to an including prison if the work had not met those standards depending upon how egregious the violations were.

            All that is required by law. Laws made to protect the interests of the public.

            The firm does this as they are representing the public. Its on behalf of investors are anybody who becomes an investor after the report is issued. Its for public funding including lending from banks, including public insured banks. So the liability is palpable.

            Such standards are completely absent science peer review. Even the reviewers remain anonymous. It works fine with random science that the public doesn’t have a special interest in.

            Scientist authors, magazines sold as coffee table decorations to the public, and institutions all have one common interest which is receiving public funding and/or the public buying subscriptions.

            Who is representing the public in this Svante? The answer is nobody.

            This is the perfect area for me to get involved representing the unrepresented.

            I enjoy it so much I would want to do it for nothing. No better rewards in the world. But I get paid most of the time and thats because I do have to make money to live and pay my bills. I feel blessed that my work is in sufficient demand so that I am enabled to do it.

            so what kinds of things do we look at?

            One of the first is who benefits. Maybe we should look at the motivations of the owner of the magazine that is making money from the public. After all they manager the peer review, pick the peer reviewers etc. then the peer review is used to sell the magazine. Kind of a carnival barker type approach.

            So how do we do that? Well we should know who the owners are.

            so who owns Nature Magazine and also Scientific American magazine?

            they are owned by the same tightly-held family corporation.

            The first thing you find out is Scientific American is no longer American. Its German owned. Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.

            Holtzbrinck was founded by George von Holtzbrinck.

            I will let you read his biography.

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

            I am not going to make any comments on it. but thats one of the first things we have to do as apprentice auditors. Here it may not matter but OTOH there isn’t much there to build confidence.

          • Svante says:

            So we have the same political philosophy, but differ on physics. That’s weird, gentlemen don’t argue about facts.

            The study was financed by the National Science Foundation. NSF “is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 ‘to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…'”.

            Rubbish you say, because you have bought the russian message that you can not trust your institutions (though/since they have been a major factor in your success).

            You also say Northern Arizona University can’t be trusted, “with Regents’ professor Darrell Kaufman as lead author and associate professor Nicholas McKay as co-author, along with assistant research professors Cody Routson and Michael Erb. The team worked in collaboration with scientists from research institutions all over the world to reconstruct the global average temperature over the Holocene”.

            Rubbish you say.

            “Earlier this year, an international group of 93 paleoclimate scientists from 23 countries — also led by Kaufman, McKay, Routson and Erb — published the most comprehensive set of paleoclimate data ever compiled for the past 12,000 years, compressing 1,319 data records based on samples taken from 679 sites globally. At each site, researchers analyzed ecological, geochemical and biophysical evidence from both marine and terrestrial archives, such as lake deposits, marine sediments, peat and glacier ice, to infer past temperature changes. Countless scientists working around the world over many decades conducted the basic research contributing to the global database.”

            Rubbish you say.

            Readers of ‘Nature’ pay for scientific information.
            Rubbish you say.

            Georg von Holtzbrinck died in 1983.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            Rubbish you say, because you have bought the russian message that you can not trust your institutions
            ===============================================
            Rubbish! You are projecting your own weakness to messages you don’t understand fully.

            Where exactly have the Russian’s infiltrated by thinking? Oh where they tried on you? Where did you pick up on this lunatic idea?

            The correct message regarding any institution or anybody else for that matter is ”trust but verify”.

            You seem to be struggling greatly with my efforts to seek the verification behind the dogma you have adopted. So is your reply here motivated by some discomfort of me pointing out your lack of verification?

            If not, then why not just get on with it and explain to me why you like to cherry pick institutions to believe in without verification.

          • Svante says:

            I just think your crusade is rather naive.
            Thousands of scientist gone wrong.
            Not likely.

          • bill hunter says:

            lol!

          • Svante says:

            Regarding Exxon, you said they don’t care about taxes on their product. That doesn’t hold up because while their research said CO2 will create global warming, their public message played it down.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382

            Now you can add Jerry Taylor, Marty Hoffert, Naomi Oreskes, and BBC to your list of untrustworthy people. In fact you can add anyone with a brain.

          • bill hunter says:

            ”But he noticed a clash between Exxon’s own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that “currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate”.
            “They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups,” said Hoffert.” (Hoffert being the world class climate modeler at Exxon)

            Thats freaking hilarious Svante! So some egotistical computer nerd tells his bosses his computer model conclusively shows CO2 are having a significant effect (what ever that is!!) on the world’s climate and his managers all the way up the line think he is a nutcase.

            Then to underline this sordid tale: ” Angry, he left Exxon, and went on to become a leading academic in the field.”

            Where of course he still hasn’t created a climate model that accurately predicts warming from CO2. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

            Pleeeze somebody get me an oxygen bottle.
            Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  52. Eben says:

    cycle 25 has started
    save the “official” solar cycle 25 predictions for your future reference
    The panel has high confidence that Solar Cycle 25 will break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles. “We predict the decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21 through 24, has come to an end,” said Lisa Upton, Ph.D., panel co-chair and solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. “There is no indication we are approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
    https://bit.ly/3mlRbQF

    • Snape says:

      Bill

      Sorry, I obviously jumped into the conversation too late.

      Regarding any warming bias due to the UHI, possibly more than offset by the local cooling effect of irrigation, which to my knowledge has not been accounted for.

      As for wind and a thermometer – my thinking is wind would only affect temperature if the thermometer or surrounding screen is exposed to direct sunlight. The wind would enhance convective cooling for both.

      • Swenson says:

        Snape,

        Maybe think it through a bit more?

        As to your thinking, did you actually mean to say evaporative cooling? That has no impact on a dry thermometer or dry screen. That is why wet-bulb thermometers were needed.

        • Snape says:

          [Maybe think it through a bit more?

          As to your thinking, did you actually mean to say evaporative cooling? That has no impact on a dry thermometer or dry screen. That is why wet-bulb thermometers were needed.]

          The temperature of the Stevenson screen has the potential to influence the temperature of the thermometer inside. This is a problem if the temperature of the Stevenson screen has a different temperature than the outside air, which is what we want to measure.

          What factors can cause the Stevenson screen to be a different temperature than the surrounding air?

          1) radiative cooling at night
          2) solar warming during the day
          3) evaporative cooling when wet

          To help mitigate the problem, I would make sure that outside air is able to freely circulate within the enclosure, and put two or three separate roofs on top.

          ********

          Windy conditions during number 1 and 2, would actually help restore the temperature of the Stevenson screen to the temperature of the surrounding air. A good thing.

          As for number 3, windy conditions would enhance evaporative cooling, potentially increasing the temperature difference. Not so good.

          • bill hunter says:

            Yes its pretty challenging. Especially when you note that besides the roof being exposed to the sun, during the summer all four sides are as well.

      • bill hunter says:

        I am not sure that agriculture doesn’t come out as neutral. Deforestation usually has its own account though but its most often done to clear for agriculture taking a rain forest and turning it into fields. OTOH, there is desert reclamation.

        On the wind chill factor protecting the thermometer from the wind is like protecting the soil surface from the wind.

        As I understand it Stevenson screens were designed to protect the thermometer from sunlight and the hygrometer from the wind. Weather station designers probably weren’t interested in an overstatement of temperature introduced by limiting wind on the thermometer. wind is going to have a huge range of effects depending upon if there is water present.

        So the expected increased convection would be another error to add to the surface station monitoring program, though its probably pretty small as I am not aware of anybody actually detecting an increase in winds or storms.

        • E. Swanson says:

          bill hunter wrote:

          As I understand it Stevenson screens were designed to protect the thermometer from sunlight and the hygrometer from the wind.

          Sorry, bill, that’s not the way Stevenson screens work. for example, a hand held Sling psychrometer is intentionally spun rapidly to cool the wet bulb thermometer to record the dew point temperature. The sides of the screen are double louvered, which still allows air to flow thru the enclosure, though at a speed lower that that of direct wind. So-called “wind chill temperature” is a calculated number which is supposed to represent the cooling effects of wind on exposed human skin.

          Note also that screen with a double roof which shields the thermometer from precipitation and the warming of sunlight and the cooling effects of clear sky exposure. Night time surface cooling due to radiation heat transfer is the cause of surface freezing/frost even when the air temperature remains above freezing.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:
            So-called wind chill temperature is a calculated number which is supposed to represent the cooling effects of wind on exposed human skin.
            ===================================

            I think that was the thrust of my comments. What are we measuring here? Surface temperatures or air temperatures. Lets keep in mind that surface temperatures are the basis of the greenhouse effect.

            IMO, thats an area of intense interest to me as it is a key assumption surrounding the GHE theory.

            Obviously one needs to provide ventilation in the box or it becomes a POW torture chamber. I sit in my second story room with windows open (more than 3 times minimum ventilation standards for a bedroom) where the thermometer inside every after noon rises between 1 and 5 degrees warmer than max outside temperature for the outside thermometer that is exposed to convection from the 1st story roof and exceeds local forecasts by a very significant amount.

            I am not questioning my interior thermometer but every day despite insulation albeit below standard (R-13) in the ceiling and (R-7) it gets hotter in my room than outside. Logically its due to a lack of breezes and inadequacy of insulation both attributes of Stevenson screens. I realize that NWS doesn’t put much faith in absolute mean temperatures but without it makes outputs rather mushy for calculating actual surface warming.

            Actually I am looking for a database that includes absolute temperatures gridded to a global scale and includes both maximum and minimum temperatures either daily or averaged over a period of time of a year or less, ideally monthly. Of course a study on the these types of trends and issues would be even better as long as they archive well and I can look at the details.

          • E. Swanson says:

            bill hunter wrote:

            I sit in my second story room with windows open (more than 3 times minimum ventilation standards for a bedroom) where the thermometer inside every after noon rises between 1 and 5 degrees warmer than max outside temperature for the outside thermometer

            Since we don’t know where you live or the details of your structure, other than it’s poor insulation, one would conclude that it’s likely that your roof is covered with dark asphalt shingles, which absorb solar energy that is conducted thru the ceiling into your room. Thus, it would be no surprise that your room is warmer than the outside temperature. Obviously, if you had painted your roof white and added more insulation, things would be different. White roofs are common in hot climates, such as south Florida.

            As the Wiki article notes, “The whole screen is painted with several coats of white to reflect sunlight radiation, and usually requires repainting every two years.”

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            Since we dont know where you live or the details of your structure, other than its poor insulation, one would conclude that its likely that your roof is covered with dark asphalt shingles, which absorb solar energy that is conducted thru the ceiling into your room.
            ======================
            thanks for the reasonable reply. Yes I absolutely know that the lack of insulation and my medium brown asphalt shingles all contribute to the temperature in my room.

            Probably 3 decades ago I fixed that problem for my Dad who complained of heat in the house. I added R-30 insulation where only an R-2 felt was applied and finished the roof with white elastomeric roof topping (which was the original color as well except that it was primarily white gravel originally as the roof pre-dated the availability of the white elastomerics). It involved building a new roof on top of the old roof because he had a beautiful open beam roof with zero attic space. After that my Dad said if anything he was cold.

            And that just is a tiny scratch of my architectural knowledge on the topic. My dad lived in a beautiful architect designed home with expansive windows and long overhangs on the south side to protect the windows from direct sunlight. He talked to me after getting a bid from a window replacement company selling insulated windows claiming to solve the problem.

            I had left the building industry just a few years before to pursue other passions. But I knew the window sellers were selling him a line of BS. So for about 20% of the cost the windows I found a handyman to do the work on my design and did solve the problem that the windows never would hardly make a dent in.

            I know enough about the topic that a simple double roof and white paint isn’t going to get the job done and turn the roof into sky temperature. Millions of people still suffer in inadequately insulated homes with effective double roofs (roof/ceilings) with vented attics. Few are told that their best option is an inexpensive insulation of their attic up to modern R-30 standards and instead you have folks trying to sell them a bunch of stuff that isn’t going to do much at all. In fact one of my in-law relatives just a few years ago had looked into and gotten a sales pitch on windows as solving her attic problem. I set her straight too.

            And while on this topic of modern new building standards that require huge investments for little return in energy efficiency then cry about the housing crisis. . . .total BS. Many people are put out of homes in the name of concepts that really are incredibly minor compared to making them homeless. The truth is most people just don’t care about truth they only care about personal effects whether that be comfort or life style. Thus the sales pitch.

        • Snape says:

          Bill
          [OTOH, there is desert reclamation.]

          Doesnt have to be a desert to need irrigation, just has to be hot and dry during the growing season.
          See our hosts recent post (derecho).

          • bill hunter says:

            hot and dry during the growing season may not matter if the roots are getting water. . . .which typically is the case when the agriculture was replacing other greenery.

            In California hot and dry is a long term climate variable and the demand for water continues to grow for all sectors including flushing it down a drain into the ocean.

            So California agriculture has in significant part had to focus on drought tolerant plants, tree agriculture with deeper root systems, drip irrigation that maximizes efficiency of water use.

            Overall I would think that agriculture contributes water to the climate system especially when you consider the creation of large reservoirs to hold water back from the ocean. But removing rain forests and heavy vegetation to make way for farms and generally less dense vegetation removes a lot also.

            I have been an outdoorsman for over 65 years starting at about the age of 6 or 7 living adjacent to wild areas most of my life in environments stretching from deserts to rainforests and agricultural fields – even working as an agricultural picker at a couple points. I can see and feel the differences in an awful lot of diverse environments both natural and manmade. I would think with some kind of satellite technology this day and age and sufficient ground work to sum up a variety of experience like I have had but with better instruments somebody could probably put a number on it. Not sure if that has been done or not.

        • Snape says:

          [I am not sure that agriculture doesnt come out as neutral. Deforestation usually has its own account though but its most often done to clear for agriculture taking a rain forest and turning it into fields. OTOH, there is desert reclamation.]

          Those are good points. Thanks.

    • bill hunter says:

      Eben says:

      cycle 25 has started
      save the ”official” solar cycle 25 predictions for your future reference
      The panel has high confidence that Solar Cycle 25 will break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles. ”We predict the decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21 through 24, has come to an end,” said Lisa Upton, Ph.D., panel co-chair and solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. ”There is no indication we are approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
      ================================

      I would take all that with a huge grain of salt as the experts simply haven’t established any skill at predicting major solar turns. . . .even while its obvious they think they do.

      OTOH, if a big news outfit comes to interview as an expert you can at least retain the color of expertise by making a prediction. Deferring to do so makes it look like you know nothing. Can’t pass up that opportunity to take a step towards stardom.

      At least detectives and investigators have an excuse by saying its early in the investigation and they don’t want anybody to know what they have as that takes investigative tools away. But a solar expert isn’t likely to spoil any of their work by letting the sun hear what they know.

    • Bindidon says:

      Eben

      Thanks for the info; it matches what Leif Svalgaard said two years ago already.

      He published that at WUWT; apart from the usual ankle biters, no one having the necessary knowledge contradicted.

      J.-P. D.

    • bdgwx says:

      I guess Dr. Upton didn’t get the memo from Zharkova saying that the next grand minimum was already underway. Expect 1C of cooling by 2043 she says.

  53. Eben says:

    can you keep your circular ass debate in your own thread ???

  54. Eben says:

    The new science educators and The fizzix of CO2 as temperature control knob – it’s like this
    https://bit.ly/3iEiROd

  55. Nate says:

    Yesterday, the sky was grey-white. I pointed my IR thermometer at the sky and it showed -20 C. In the range of what I get for a clear blue sky. So there were no clouds.

    It was the smoke from the west coast fires, as confirmed by my weather reports.

    Really weird. I live on the east coast.

    Clearly this blocks sunlight over a huge area, but doesnt seem to block outgoing IR that much.

    You can see how volcanoes cause cooling.

  56. bill hunter says:

    I would say volcanoes generally represent short term climate change with only a few of them slightly going beyond ENSO and perhaps IR isn’t blocked because of the narrow window exploited by your IR detector. CO2 doesn’t block it either. If it did then your IR detector would be rather worthless for many uses at all.

    • Svante says:

      He said smoke, not CO2.
      Didn’t Norman say IR detectors avoid the CO2 bands?

      • Swenson says:

        Svante,

        If he did, he was wrong. A handheld IR thermometer reacts to heat. An inbuilt computer uses many assumptions to infer the temperature of an object a5 which the thermometer is pointed. Dimwitted alarmists have been known to make all sorts of bizarre assumptions about handheld IR thermometers.

      • bill hunter says:

        Svante says:

        He said smoke, not CO2.
        Didnt Norman say IR detectors avoid the CO2 bands?
        =============================

        Come on?

        He said his reading is -20C, the tropopause is about -50C.

        Blue sky days he is reading mid troposphere moisture. Certainly not outer space.

        Further it is well known that smoke aerosols absorb IR. . . .robustly.

        If he proved anything its that the multi-layered greenhouse effect doesn’t work as that IR emitting smoke didn’t raise the temperature of the lower IR absorbing moisture.

        What are we running here? A kindergarten class?

        • Nate says:

          “If he proved anything its that the multi-layered greenhouse effect doesnt work as that IR emitting smoke didnt raise the temperature of the lower IR absorbing moisture.”

          OMG, Where does he get this claptrap?

          ‘Blue sky days he is reading mid troposphere moisture. Certainly not outer space.’

          I didnt realize I said I was measuring outer space.

          Oh wait, I didnt.

          It is just an observable fact that with a cloudy sky or high humidity the reading is much higher, because those are well known absorber/emitters of IR.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            OMG, Where does he get this claptrap?

            It is just an observable fact that with a cloudy sky or high humidity the reading is much higher, because those are well known absorber/emitters of IR.
            ========================

            I don’t disagree that clouds and moisture in the sky make the sky warmer.

            Fact is science doesn’t know the net effect of aerosols.

            They note that they make the planet darker absorbing sunlight that otherwise would be reflected by clouds. But none of that applies in cloudless skies.

            But you are such a moron and uninformed you stood out there with your IR detector, noted no change in temperature of the sky and concluded that aerosols are a cooling influence.

            If you still believe that you better quickly contact V. Ramanathan he will be really interested in your findings. . . .not.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            All gases absorb and emit IR. As a matter of measurable fact, O2 and N2 in total absorb and emit more IR than CO2.

            As to higher temperatures from clouds, any clouds above the freezing level are ice, maximum temperature 0 C, but decreasing with altitude. However, ice crystals reflect IR nicely, up to total reflection at low angles of incidence. You are probably reading reflected IR from the surface.

            You obviously know nothing useful about physics, and precious little about the instrument you are using.

          • Nate says:

            Ugggh.

            “But you are such a moron and uninformed you stood out there with your IR detector, noted no change in temperature of the sky and concluded that aerosols are a cooling influence.”

            False.

            I claimed I made two observations for one particular aerosol, smoke, when it is very high in the atmosphere, brought to my area in the jet stream.

            I notice you conveniently left out the first observation, which was that the sky was grey-white, which I could conclude was caused by the smoke scattering the sunlight. That would definitely be a cooling influence, similar to large volcanic eruptions.

            The second observation, that the sky temperature was low, I interpret as the aerosol not emitting much DWIR.

            That is consistent with what smoke particles very high in the atmosphere should do.

            So yes, I think for this particular aerosol high in the atmosphere, it would likely be a cooling influence.

            “Fact is science doesnt know the net effect of aerosols.”

            Notice I never concluded that aerosols, in general, ‘are a cooling influence.’

            Bill, I hope you are not going to become just another troll like Swenson/Mike Flynn, constantly posting misleading/incomplete versions of what other people are arguing, and then tearing that strawman down.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Ugggh.

            False.

            I claimed I made two observations for one particular aerosol, smoke, when it is very high in the atmosphere, brought to my area in the jet stream.
            ============================================

            LMAO!!! What a Gish Gallop!

            Yes you discussed two observations and noted that your IR detector measured no noticeable temperature difference between the two.

            You said:
            ”Yesterday, the sky was grey-white. I pointed my IR thermometer at the sky and it showed -20 C. In the range of what I get for a clear blue sky. ”

            You do realize that

            1) your detector pointed at the sky measures the temperature of the water in the sky?

            2) assuming your detector is accurate within the range you are using it and then failing to note that corresponds to the temperature at that level in the atmosphere and failing to note that the temperature you got is not the level of the jet stream where these cold aerosols are traveling across the sky and then concluding that aerosols aren’t emitting IR.

            Well the truth is they are emitting IR. they are generally near blackbody (depending on composition of the aerosols). But you did not note any cooling or warming occuring from those emissions.

            Yet you did conclude they are cooling.

            Pretty hilarious I would say. You should read V. Ramanathan on the topic to better understand how aerosols work.

            The theory that aerosols are thought to potentially bring about some cooling (science is unsure) is by absorbing incoming sunlight that would otherwise be reflected. The absor-ption of energy destined to be reflected entrains that energy into the troposphere/surface system. Thus Nate, there is no way to see what goes on beyond clouds. And if you are standing on an ice sheet or a glacier or a cloud for that matter you are going to measure nothing that isn’t yet reflected.

            With that explanation maybe you can begin to understand why science doesn’t know the answer either.

            But blackbodies in the atmosphere would presumably act just like a greenhouse gas as far as IR is concerned according to mainstream ghe theory. they would absorb energy from the ground and reflect it back.

            but who knows you could keep digging.

          • Nate says:

            “by absorbing incoming sunlight that would otherwise be reflected. The absor-ption of energy destined to”

            The observation was of light SCATTERING by the smoke. A well known phenomena used in smoke detectors.

          • Nate says:

            “your detector pointed at the sky measures the temperature of the water in the sky?”

            Water and Co2.

            “2) assuming your detector is accurate within the range you are using it and then failing to note that corresponds to the temperature at that level in the atmosphere and failing to note that the temperature you got is not the level of the jet stream where these cold aerosols are traveling across the sky and then concluding that aerosols arent emitting IR.”

            The detector detects IR over a range of thermal IR wavelengths. Certain wl bands will be dominated by tropospheric water vapor and co2 and ozone, but others within the IR atm window will extend to high in the atmosphere.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Of course you could list those frequencies which you claim your instrument measures, couldnt you?

            Only joking, you are just making stuff up as usual. Thermal IR? What other sort is there? Non-thermal IR?

            Do microwaves count? They seem to make water hot. They appear to be longer than visible red, so that would make them infra red. No?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            “by absorbing incoming sunlight that would otherwise be reflected. The absor-ption of energy destined to”

            The observation was of light SCATTERING by the smoke. A well known phenomena used in smoke detectors.

            ============================
            the light scattering that makes the sky blue isn’t considered in the GHE either.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            The detector detects IR over a range of thermal IR wavelengths. Certain wl bands will be dominated by tropospheric water vapor and co2 and ozone, but others within the IR atm window will extend to high in the atmosphere.
            ===================

            The atmospheric window is a relative concept. Water is a full spectrum emitter just some frequencies require more of it than others.

            You were detecting something at about 500mb. The jetstream and the smoke was likely at about 200-300mb

          • Nate says:

            “You were detecting something at about 500mb. The jetstream a