500 Years of Global SST Variations from a 1D Forcing-Feedback Model

December 11th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

As part of a DOE contract John Christy and I have, we are using satellite data to examine climate model behavior. One of the problems I’ve been interested in is the effect of El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) on our understanding of human-caused climate change. A variety of ENSO records show multi-decadal variations in this activity, and it has even showed up in multi-millennial runs of a GFDL climate model.

Since El Nino produces global average warmth, and La Nina produces global average coolness, I have been using our 1D forcing feedback model of ocean temperatures (published by Spencer & Braswell, 2014) to examine how the historical record of ENSO variations can be included, by using the CERES satellite-observed co-variations of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative flux with ENSO.

I’ve updated that model to match the 20 years of CERES data (March 2000-March 2020). I have also extended the ENSO record back to 1525 with the Braganza et al. (2009) multi-proxy ENSO reconstruction data. I intercalibrated it with the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) data up though the present, and further extended into mid-2021 based upon the latest NOAA ENSO forecast. The Cheng et al. temperature data reconstruction for the 0-2000m layer is also used to calibrate the model adjustable coefficients.

I had been working on an extensive blog post with all of the details of how the model works and how ENSO is represented in it, which was far too detailed. So, I am instead going to just show you some results, after a brief model description.

1D Forcing-Feedback Model Description

The model assumes an initial state of energy equilibrium, and computes the temperature response to changes in radiative equilibrium of the global ocean-atmosphere system using the CMIP5 global radiative forcings (since 1765), along with our calculations of ENSO-related forcings. The model time step is 1 month.

The model has a mixed layer of adjustable depth (50 m gave optimum model behavior compared to observations), a second layer extending to 2,000m depth, and a third layer extending to the global-average ocean bottom depth of 3,688 m. Energy is transferred between ocean layers proportional to their difference in departures from equilibrium (zero temperature anomaly). The proportionality constant(s) have the same units as climate feedback parameters (W m-2 K-1), and are analogous to the heat transfer coefficient. A transfer coefficient of 0.2 W m-2 K-1 for the bottom layer produced 0.01 deg. C of net deep ocean warming (below 2000m) over the last several decades which Cheng et al. mentioned there is some limited evidence for.

The ENSO related forcings are both radiative (shortwave and longwave), as well as non-radiative (enhanced energy transferred from the mixed layer to deep ocean during La Nina, and the opposite during El Nino). These are discussed more in our 2014 paper. The appropriate coefficients are adjusted to get the best model match to CERES-observed behavior compared to the MEIv2 data (2000-2020), observed SST variations, and observed deep-ocean temperature variations. The full 500-year ENSO record is a combination of the Braganza et al. (2009) year data interpolated to monthly, the MEI-extended, MEI, and MEIv2 data, all intercalibrated. The Braganza ENSO record has a zero mean over its full period, 1525-1982.

Results

The following plot shows the 1D model-generated global average (60N-60S) mixed layer temperature variations after the model has been tuned to match the observed sea surface temperature temperature trend (1880-2020) and the 0-2000m deep-ocean temperature trend (Cheng et al., 2017 analysis data).

Fig. 1. 1D model temperature variations for the global oceans (60N-60S) to 50 m depth, compared to observations.

Note that the specified net radiative feedback parameter in the model corresponds to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.91 deg. C. If the model was forced to match the SST observations during 1979-2020, the ECS was 2.3 deg. C. Variations from these values also occurred if I used HadSST1 or HadSST4 data to optimize the model parameters.

The ECS result also heavily depends upon the accuracy of the 0-2000 meter ocean temperature measurements, shown next.

Fig. 2. 1D model temperature changes for the 0-2000m layer since 1940, and compared to observations.

The 1D model was optimized to match the 0-2000m temperature trend only since 1995, but we see in Fig. 2 that the limited data available back to 1940 also shows a reasonably good match.

Finally, here’s what the full 500 year model results look like. Again, the CMIP5 forcings begin only in 1765 (I assume zero before that), while the combined ENSO dataset begins in 1525.

Fig. 3. Model results extended back to 1525 with the proxy ENSO forcings, and since 1765 with CMIP5 radiative forcings.

Discussion

The simple 1D model is meant to explain a variety of temperature-related observations with a physically-based model with only a small number of assumptions. All of those assumptions can be faulted in one way or another, of course.

But the monthly correlation of 0.93 between the model and observed SST variations, 1979-2020, is very good (0.94 for 1940-2020) for it being such a simple model. Again, our primary purpose was to examine how observed ENSO activity affects our interpretation of warming trends in terms of human causation.

For example, ENSO can then be turned off in the model to see how it affects our interpretation of (and causes of) temperature trends over various time periods. Or, one can examine the affect of assuming some level of non-equilibrium of the climate system at the model initialization time.

If nothing else, the results in Fig. 3 might give us some idea of the ENSO-related SST variations for 300-400 years before anthropogenic forcings became significant, and how those variations affected temperature trends on various time scales. For if those naturally-induced temperature trend variations existed before, then they still exist today.


1,140 Responses to “500 Years of Global SST Variations from a 1D Forcing-Feedback Model”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Trend is up no matter how you slice it. Can’t go against the data.

    • gbaikie says:

      It’s not really data. It’s mostly modeling. Using a few “other people’s models”. And making simple/starting point of model for effects of “ENSO-related forcings”.

      The data is mostly satellite record and ARGO float data as foundation of models. {because it’s accurate data}.
      And hasn’t got to point of predicting and no one can predict “ENSO-related forcings” and maybe once model “done” it maybe can predict
      “ENSO-related forcings”??

      Or I am not looking at data, I am looking at a possible useful model.

  2. Jane says:

    I wonder if changes in the sun or changes in space dust have anything to do with the tempature on earth.na could not passage be.

  3. DMT says:

    Can you run the model forward beyond 2020 using CMIP5 forcings plus an arbitrary ENSO forcing (e.g. ENSO forcing from 1920 onwards) ?

    • Roy Spencer says:

      yes, I’ve done that.

      • Jimmy says:

        Is it true that the sun in the last 2000 years is closer to the earth than ever? According to the computer program Stellarium, we have in this period been in the warmest period in a 40,000 year cycle

        In a Computer program Stellarium you can go back and forth in time

        – On 01.01.2019, the distance to the sun was 147,106 M km
        – On 01.01.-13900 the distance to the sun was 150,811 M km
        – On 01.01.-22000, the distance to the sun was 152.105 M km

        (sundata from Norway, and remember they moved the calendar 10 days in 1700)

        That makes a difference of 5 million kilometers, if I have understood this correctly. And how much change in temperature cold that be?

        The sun now moves slowly but surely away from the earth, so little that it will hardly be felt for the next 2000 years.

        We also know that the magnetic shield that protect us from the strong sun has weakened by ten percent in the last 150 years …

        (Google translate…)

  4. CO2isLife says:

    Is there any evidence that LWIR between 13 and 18 Microns can actually warm water? Are there any controlled experiments where an insulated container has had differing amounts of LWIR radiated upon the water it contains? I can see how surface evaporation can cause cooling, but I can’t see how a wavelength that doesn’t penetrate water and has very low energy to being with can warm the oceans.

    I’m pretty sure that if you look at the cloud cover over the oceans, and match that chart to ocean temperatures, you will quickly discover what is causing the oceans to warm. Shortwave, very high energy blue light penetrates and warms the oceans. More visible light reaching the oceans, the warmer they will be.

    Lastly, simply do the math. The energy to warm a gram of H2O is known. The energy in W/M^2 for LWIR between 13 and 18 Microns is known. The volume of the top 200 meters of the oceans is known.

    A hurricane in the Gulf can lower the water temperature by 2 or more degrees. It would take years for LWIR to replace that much energy to the system. Visible light could do it much much faster.

    • Entropic man says:

      There was some discussion of this on the previous thread.

      The ocean is mostly warmed by sunlight, absorbed in the upper 90m or so. It then loses this heat to the atmosphere by conduction and evaporation or by ME radiation from the surface.

      Since seawater is opaque to LWIR it is absorbed by the surface film and the heat transfers mostly to the atmosphere rather than increasing the temperature below the surface.

      There is a possible mechanism by which increased downward LWIR can increase the temperature of the water in the first few metres.

      LWIR creates a warm surface film which acts as a barrier slowing heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. The more LWIR, the more heat retained and the higher the ocean temperature.

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351#:~

      • CO2isLife says:

        4) Simply calculate the W/M^2 of Visible light on the oceans and compare that energy to the W/M^2 of LWIR Peak 15. A single cloudy day removes the energy equivalent of months if not years of marginal CO2 LWIR back radiation.

        5) Has anyone run lab experiments of LWIR on Water to prove this theory? Seems pretty simple to me. IR filters are available. Insulated containers are available. Variable lights are available. Simply have multiple containers of H2O, IR filtered light port, light of variable illumination. Black body of room temperature emits X W/M^2 of LWIR peak 15 is your control.

        6) BTW, simply open your eyes. The oceans control the global temperatures. If you can’t explain the warming of the oceans, you can’t explain the climate. Simply go to NASA GIS and find isolated weather stations with long term records. Select them to control for the Urban heat island effect and water vapor, ie select isolated dessert locations. Use and NASA Giss v3, not the corrupted v4. What will you find? You will find 0.00 temperature increase with an increase of CO2 from about 280 ppm to 410 ppm. How is that possible if CO2 is the cause of warming? Tony Heller over at Real Climate Science is publishing about that today. The Teenage Super Sluths made videos about it last summer.
        https://youtu.be/9gqpD5QZm60
        https://youtu.be/ZUVqZKBMF7o

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          4) The marginal effect of CO2 is about 10-30 W/m^2 for clear skies (depending primarily on humidity & temperature). Average sunlight absorbed is ~ 160 W/m^2. So a cloudy day is equivalent to a week or two of CO2 — not months or years as you imagined. http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/greenhouse-gas-and-KT-diagram.jpg

          “but I cant see how a wavelength that doesnt penetrate water and has very low energy to being with can warm the oceans.”
          Again, the phasing is critical. Sunlight provides the heat that warms the surface. IR provides a cooling mechanism. But limiting the cooling will result in the surface becoming warmer then it was.

          Analogies abound. If a pond has 1000 L/m flowing in and 1000 L/m flowing out, the level will stay the same. If I restrict the outflow so that only 500 L/m can escape, the level will rise. Since the only change is restricting the output, it is reasonable and intuitive to ascribe the rising levels to the change in output, even though the input is actually where the water is coming from.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Nope, looking up from the surface. 410 ppm CO2 adds 8.16 W/m^2 on a clear day. Add clouds and it changes by 0.63.

            Downward heat flux is 361 W/M^2 without any CO2, 367 W/M^2 with 410 PPM.

            Visible radiation adds about 1,000/(8×2) x the amount of energy as CO2 back radiation. A single day of sunlight equals 64 days of CO2 back radiation at the surface. About 100 for the top of the atmosphere. That however is irrelevant for the most part. Visible radiation penetrates and warms the oceans. No one doubts that and it can be demonstrated in a lab very easily.

            At the upper reaches of our atmosphere, the energy density of solar radiation is approximately 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter). At the Earth’s surface, the energy density is reduced to approximately 1,000 W/m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at sea level on a clear day[1].

          • CO2isLife says:

            The key question is can the marginal CO2 back radiation due to changing CO2 from 270 preindustrial to 410 current can warm the oceans.

            270 PPM = 368.322 W/M^2
            410 PPM = 369.264 W/M^2
            Difference = 0.94 W/M^2

            Do we really think an additional 0.94 W/M^2 can honestly warm the oceans? Also, Mother Nature has natural safety valves.

          • Nate says:

            “Do we really think an additional 0.94 W/M^2 can honestly warm the oceans?”

            The First Law of Thermodynamics says YES. But slowly.

            And if you add up the heat gained in top 2000 m of ocean:

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Ocean_Heat_Content_%282012%29.png

            which has a recent trend (slope) of 1.14e22 J/y , which gives 3.6e14 W, divide by area of ocean 4e14 m^2, gives 0.91 W/m^2.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, 1st Law says nothing about temperature gain. Adding 50 degree water to 50 degree water does not result in an increase in temperature, although energy has been added. Adding more ice to ice does not result in an increase in temperature.

            It gets even trickier with IR. An ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. You can radiate 300 W/m2 at something at room temperature, and the temperature will not increase. You can bring in more ice, and the temperature will not increase.

            To get a temperature increase, just more energy will not do it. You need energy that can increase average molecular vibration frequencies. “CO2isLife” was talking about this when he mentioned the energy in the 13-18μ.

          • Nate says:

            Clint is our very own physics denier. He denies many physics laws and principles, just he does here with 1LOT.

            He can be safely ignored.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, I didn’t “deny” 1st Law, I corrected your false interpretation of it.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, 1st Law says nothing about temperature gain.”

            IN this application, it undeniably does.

          • ClintR says:

            Wrong Nate. You’re making the same mistake as is common in climate “science”. This is the mistake make by the idiot that claims Sun can raise Earth to 800,000K.

            You’re still trying to make something hotter by adding more ice. You don’t understand 1st or 2nd Laws.

            Energy does not “stack up” like you’re trying to do. To raise temperatures, you need higher frequency vibrations. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you can’t learn. You run from reality.

          • Nate says:

            “To raise temperatures, you need higher frequency vibrations.”

            Impossible to discuss with such an ignoramus/troll, who casually makes up his own fake physics, like this..

          • ClintR says:

            Here’s some more reality for you to reject/deny, Nate:

            In water, thermal energy is determined by the vibrations/rotations of atoms and molecules. To raise the temperature requires higher frequencies. More of the same frequency, or lower frequency, won’t work. That’s why two ice cubes can’t make something hotter than just one ice cube.

          • Svante says:

            And for reasons of symmetry, a 2nd ice cube in your whiskey makes no difference.

          • Nate says:

            Evidence??? Of course not..ha ha ha.

          • Another Joe says:

            ClintR,

            I like the short and precise way, that you explain the requirement for the radiation energy to increase the average molecular vibration frequencies in matter to be able to increase the temperature.

            This is fundamental to understand, that the atmospheric radiation is not capable to rise the surface temperature a single bit.

            It seems not anyone here does understand that.

            And as you correctly point out, one ice block does not make another one warmer.

            Thanks for the thoughtful and correct explanations.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah, another ice cube in your whiskey makes no difference whatsoever.

          • Another Joe says:

            The first ice cube is too much already. But that’s a choice of taste!

            But no ice cube in whiskey has the chance to increase the temperature nor does it radiate. What’s your point Svante?

      • CO2isLife says:

        I’m not sure that I’m buying that argument. Like all climate science, it starts out assuming GHGs are the cause, and then just starts to twist some explanation that would keep their funding going.

        1) Oceans are extremely violent, and continually stirring the water. There theory seems to require a still water.

        2) Oceans are above freezing, the atmosphere above the oceans are above freezing, the bulk of the IR being emitted is around 10 microns. LWIR peak 15 microns is consistent with a black body of -80 degrees C. Water has the highest specific heats of all common substances, and LWIR Peak 15 has very very little energy

    • Roy Spencer says:

      The IR emissivity of pure water and seawater has been measured experimentally, it is close to 1. This means water emits IR energy, and if water emits IR energy, it must also absorb IR energy (Kirchoffs Law of Radiation and energy conservation). The fact that IR only operates at the skin surface is also true of evaporation.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Dr Spencer, I’m not sure that is correct for LWIR around 15 Microns.
        https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/inchi?ID=C7732185&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0

        Every warm body emits IR, but not as a black body. Water doesn’t transmit the entire LWIR spectrum.

        Glass emits IR too, but not all wavelengths.
        https://www.crystran.co.uk/userfiles/images/silica-glass-ir-transmission.jpg

      • Nate says:

        CO2 your plot shows IR Transmittance for a THIN layer of water. The ocean is not that, and doesnt transmit any 15 micron IR. Its close to a black body, as are most solids/liquids, unless they are good reflectors like metals.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Nate Says: “Do we really think an additional 0.94 W/M^2 can honestly warm the oceans?”

          The First Law of Thermodynamics says YES. But slowly.

          I Say: That is where you are wrong. 100% wrong. People treat this like a closed controlled system, where only one variable is changed at a time, and they don’t impact the others.

          To warm water takes a lot of time, a whole lot of time. CO2 and 15 Micron LWIR is like a drip of energy into the oceans. Visible radiation is like a massive fire hose. Eventually enough energy builds up in the oceans that it triggers the El Nino pressure valve to release. Huge amounts of energy are released into outer space, and the temperature of the oceans collapses. If people would think of the climate as a pressure cooker, they would understand why we will never have CAGW until the pressure valve breaks, which is never.

          Go to a water park and you will see Giant Buckets being filled with water which eventually pass the tipping point and they pour all their water down on the kids below. That Bucket is the ocean, the energy is the water, and the tipping point is the El Nino.

          Now think about that bucket being filled by a small garden hose. That is the contribution of CO2. It would take forever to reach the tippingpoint. Now think of a firehose being used to fill that bucket. That is visible light. All CO2 can do is slightly cause the timing point to be reached a bit sooner. It can not cause the water to fill above the tipping point. CO2 simply can’t cause the oceans to warm to a temperature that they wouldn’t normally reach with visible light. Any extra energy added by CO2 is easily removed by El Ninos. Simply calculate out the energy released by an El Nino, and then calculate out how long it would take CO2 to replace that energy.

          • Blaz says:

            That doesn’t make sense. This data shows the oceans warming for the last 100 years or so, but we have had many El Nino in that timeframe and yet the water temperatures continue to rise unabated.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Nate, “and doesnt transmit any 15 micron IR.”

          That was my point.

        • CO2isLife says:

          BTW, thinking through this, there is no way the oceans are black bodies. Much of the energy absorbed by the oceans is converted to chemical energy through photosynthesis. It absorbs radiation and converts it in form. There is no way for that radiation to be re-emitted in the previous form. Also, if H2O doesn’t absorb an X-Ray, it can’t emit it later unless I assume it absorbed higher energy wavelengths and somehow split the energy. If water just lets a wavelength pass through it without being absorbed, it can’t re-emit that wavelength. Because 15 micron LWIR never reaches molecules below the surface, on the very top layer, a layer that can’t hold much heat or energy can emit 15 micron LWIR. Also as you change the temperature of water it takes on different forms, liquid, solid and gas. Phase changes absorb and emit energy, so once again, H2O won’t be a good black body.

          Quantum wave
          This part of the story of radiation was first explained by James Clerk Maxwell via wave theory but the predicted and actual intensity vs. frequency curves did not go together right. At higher frequencies classical physics predicted that more and more energy would be radiated from the body until the energy became infinite. This broke the first law of thermodynamics which is a fundamental part of all physics. This was called the ultraviolet catastrophe.

          When it was realised that classical physics did not work for blackbody radiation, the German physicist Max Planck explained their relationship by saying that there are individual things (he did not try to guess what kind of things) that vibrate, each at its frequency. Each wave of each frequency has its special energy level. A single x-ray is very high photon energy and can go right through the human body.

          A single wave or photon of infrared light is very low energy, cannot go through the human body, and can only warm it. Planck’s good thinking was to realize that to get a single wave at the x-ray frequency, it was necessary to have a big enough package of energy (or “quantum”) to make such a strong wave. So if a blackbody took in a single wave at the x-ray frequency, then it could give off an x-ray at some later time. But if the blackbody only took in infra-red light it would not matter how much of it was absorbed.

          • Nate says:

            CO2 “People treat this like a closed controlled system, where only one variable is changed at a time, and they dont impact the others.”

            Your original issue was not about feedbacks and responses of the whole Earth to this heating effect.

            SO that is called ‘moving the goal posts.’, and is an entirely separate complex issue.

            “To warm water takes a lot of time, a whole lot of time. CO2 and 15 Micron LWIR is like a drip of energy into the oceans”

            Yes, but small changes over a long time add up. And as you can see with the calculation I showed you, the change, summed over time, agrees approximately with the accumulated extra heat in the ocean.

            Feel free to rebut the calculation.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Does lumen cumulate?
          The answer is it depends. If two light sources are not closely coherent with each other, a lumen is definitely cumulative. So if three 1000 lumen bulbs are scattered perfectly in the ceiling of a house, you can expect 3000-lumen brightness in your home. This is how big spaces such as open stadiums and gymnasiums get lit for maximum illumination especially at night.

          If, however, two or more light sources are coherent to each other, the lumen will be non-cumulative. This is the sole reason why it is very out of the blue to see two illumination tools sitting too close together. It would be senseless to buy multiple high lumen products if keeping them close to each other is your plan. To maximize the brightness of your target space, strategically scatter your light tools along the ceiling or whatever spot you plan to put them into. To make all of these matters understandable, here are the basics for your reference.

          • Nate says:

            “If, however, two or more light sources are coherent to each other, the lumen will be non-cumulative.”

            Why?

            Not making much sense here, CO2. Why do they point multiple spot-lights at stage performers?

            So they will literally be more lit up, obviously.

            In any case lumens striking the same spot most certainly do add.

            Example, we can consider the right half of the sun and left half of the sun as two sources illuminating the Earth. Each source contributes 1/2 of the illumination.

            During the onset of a solar eclipse one can clearly see and measure the reduced illumination when part of the sun’s disk is blocked.

            http://www.mkrgeo-blog.com/light-level-measurements-during-total-solar-eclipse/

      • Nate says:

        “BTW, thinking through this, there is no way the oceans are black bodies. Much of the energy ….”

        This is a science-based discussion CO2.

        But what you have there is just creative writing. You are in the wrong class.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Nate, are you claiming that H20 is a black body? Really?
          1) Water is both refective and refractive
          2) Water is transparent to some wavelengths
          3) Water is opaque to only a few wavelengths
          4) Water easily changes in form from solid, liquid and gas, try heating H20 to the temperature of the Sun, top of the atmosphere, and any temperatures associated with visible radiation
          5) Water isn’t black
          6) Water isn’t solid

          Here, let me save you the effort of proving yourself wong…again. Funny how someone with no knowledge in this field knew you were wrong immediately. Maybe you should stop telling people they are wrong and try figuring out what you don’t understand.

          Is pure water a black body or near black body?

          A physics blackbody? – NO
          A visually black object? – Sometimes

          A perfect blackbody object absorbs all electromagnetic wavelengths and does not reflect any frequency. It can however emit light, so its not necessarily visually black.

          Water, even at very large volumes, is transparent to some frequencies, and it reflects/diffracts many frequencies. This is true for all the states of water (ice, gas, etc). So not a blackbody.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Here is more:

          Black Water:
          Sometimes people are confused by the fact the water, in sufficient volume, does absorb all visible wavelengths. But, due to reflection, the circumstances under which water will appear black are rare.

          Small amounts of liquid water will have no color, as its semi-transparent in the visible range, and is not thick enough to absorb the light.

          Larger amounts of water will appear blue because its slowest to absorb blue, and the blue light will either pass through the water (if its back lit), or be reflected from the upper volume of the water near the surface (if its front lit).

          Very large amounts of water will absorb all visible light, but will appear blue due to the reflection near the surface.

          Water does emit electromagnetic radiation, but not in the visible range. So while its perceived color is blue, its color in any circumstance that does not directly reflect light towards you, is black. This can be demonstrated using polarized light.

          • Nate says:

            You don’t listen, nor learn. You are getting the physics wrong.

            I said “Its close to a black body, as are most solids/liquids, unless they are good reflectors like metals”

            We have been talking about the thermally relevant IR wavelengths. Not x-rays, not visible.

            For that range of wl, water is close to being a good black body.

            I have an IR thermometer that operates in the standard thermal range of IR. YOU can buy a cheap one, and easily use it to measure the temperature of warm water at various temps. It works well compared to an ordinary thermometer. That is good evidence that water has an emissivity close to 1 in that range.

            As Roy noted Kirchoffs law applies. Look it up.

            The surface abs*or*ption layer is too thin argument is a red herring, because it ignores heat conduction.

            MOST of the time the ocean surface is a NET emitter of IR.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Nate Says: “Yes someone making up their own fictional science did.

            Do you have any expertise in this topic? In physics? Meteorology? Atmospheric science? It is evident that you do not. Are you aware that you have gaps in your knowledge?

            Then its hard to understand why you have such confidence that many people who do have expertise and years of study”

            CO2isLife Says: Nate, you are very presumptuous. You know nothing about me. If you think my challenges to this science is from a person not familiar with these topics, then so be it.

            BTW, please fill in my gaps of knowledge. That is the whole purpose of discussing these topics. Tell me again how a reduced cloud cover can’t result in a warming ocean? Tell me again why no one bothered to consider that as the cause?

          • Nate says:

            “BTW, please fill in my gaps of knowledge. That is the whole purpose of discussing these topics.”

            I have tried for several days to point out the problems with your analysis, particularly of radiative heat transfer.

            But you seem to be fixated. Rather than follow the facts and evidence to reach a conclusion, as science does, you have decided what the conclusion must be, and inventing scenario after scenario to achieve this outcome.

            The reality is that the science behind the GHE is well established and central to meteorology.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Did a little more research into this claim. There is no way the ocean is a black body. A deep pool of still water in a laboratory may come close to a Black Body as you mentioned. The Oceans aren’t H20. They are H20, NaCl, CaCO3, Algae, and have a very irregular surface.

          Anyway, the only energy we’re talking about here is the energy from CO2. That is specifically 15 micron LWIR. If you do a black body calculation, that is consistent with a temperature of -80 degree C. That is very very very low energy, and you aren’t going to warm 18 degree C water by adding energy consistent with -80 degree C. The water molecules already have more energy than that. They are already vibrating at a much higher energy.

        • CO2isLife says:

          BTW, all this can be tested. Simply take a light meter and point a 500-lumen flashlight at it. Then add a second 500-lumen flashlight at it. What does it read? Do 2 500-lumen flashlights = 1 1,000-lumen flashlight?

          In other words, does adding more ice to a glass warm it up?

          • Nate says:

            “That is specifically 15 micron LWIR. If you do a black body calculation, that is consistent with a temperature of -80 degree C. That is very very very low energy, and you arent going”

            Not how T of BB radiation is calculated.

            Please only use real physics from legit sources.

            “Do 2 500-lumen flashlights = 1 1,000-lumen flashlight?”

            If pointed at the same surface, Yes of course!

            Just look at performer on stage lit by multiple spot lights. Or a football field.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Nate Says: Do 2 500-lumen flashlights = 1 1,000-lumen flashlight?

          If pointed at the same surface, Yes of course!

          Just look at performer on stage lit by multiple spot lights. Or a football field.

          CO2isLife Says: I don’t think that is correct. There is a difference between lumens and lux. The further you get from the light source the lower the intensity of the light. The light is simply getting spread over a larger area, like spreading butter on bread. Pointing more lights at a single point makes the object brighter, but the object will never be brighter than the brightest light being shined on it. They aren’t addictive. I could have a thousand flashlights and they will never be as bright as the sun. I will always be able to look at the mass array of flashilights.

          • Nate says:

            “Pointing more lights at a single point makes the object brighter”

            Yes very good.

            “but the object will never be brighter than the brightest light being shined on it. They aren’t addictive.’

            Not making sense. How does this jive with what you just said above this?

            You need to understand optics before making such claims.

            They are additive, up to a very very high intensity limit. That limit is reached only when the entire space in view of the object is COVERED with flashlight filaments. Actually the whole theatre wall surface at the temperature of the filament of the flashlight ~ 3000 K.

            With adding spotlights onto a stage performer, we are nowhere near that point, so the light is additive.

            “I could have a thousand flashlights and they will never be as bright as the sun.”

            You certainly could if the filaments were at 6000 K, the temperature of the sun, and the total filament area had the same angular size as the sun 0.5 degrees wrt the performer.

            The sun shines with 1000 W/m2 on Earth surface.

            That could quite easily be obtained with a few stage spotlights shining on the performer.

  5. ren says:

    La Nina and El Nino together form a complete cycle. The stronger La Nina, the stronger the mixing of water in the equatorial Pacific. The stronger the subsurface wave in La Nina time is, the stronger El Nino is. La Nina is formed at the beginning of the solar cycle as solar activity increases, El Nino appears at the end of the solar cycle as solar activity decreases.
    The trade winds, in piling up water in the Western Pacific, make a deep 450 feet (150 meter) warm layer in the west that pushes the thermocline down, while it rises in the east.
    The shallow 90 feet (30 meter) eastern thermocline allows the winds to pull up water from below, water that is generally much richer in nutrients than the surface layer.

  6. Nate says:

    Looks nice..

    Even has the mid 20th century plateau. Is that caused by the forcing having a plateau? Or ENSO?

  7. Entropic man says:

    A short examination of Figure 3 suggests that ENSO can briefly increase or decrease global temperatures by up to 0.2C.

    This is comparable with the +/- 0.2C internal variation in the temperature record. It confirms that ENSO is a possible cause of this internal variation.

    This is sufficient to possibly explain temporary changes in rate such as the late 1930’s peak, the post-war plateau or the
    2000s Pause.

    It cannot explain the long term trend, the 0.56C gain in forty years, shown in the UAH data.

    • John V says:

      I’ve been siting on the sidelines for years listening to both sides of this debate and believe Dr. Spencer is definitely an expert. I’m a degreed mechanical engineer (Registered PE in WI), recently retired. I’m by no means an expert in this field but it seems to me that there is a loss of perspective and practicality.

      The graphs look far worse than I think the problem is. When you have a vertical axis expanded as these are, in my opinion you can read in more doom and gloom then their should be. We’re getting all caught up in our underwear about less than 2 deg.C measured a hundred years ago with questionable accuracy and are betting the planets future on that? Really?

      My company recently purchased a $160k laser tracker for machinery measurements, that has accuracy of .03″ in 100′. Our customer pay us $20k-$25k to come to their plants to measure the alignment of their machinery. They love the precision and repeatability of the device. The problem is we could do the same thing with 40 year old surveying equipment and get the measurements they need. The reason being the equipment operates without issues if it’s within +/- 1/4″. But data looks great and the more zeros there are behind the decimal point the better it looks.

      If you need a reality check watch George Carlin’s monolog on U-Tube Re climate change. Just saying.

      • Entropic man says:

        Two worries.

        1) We hadn’t seen rates of temperature change this fast at any time in the past. It is playing hob with the normal checks and balances in the climate system and the resulting instability is creating a lot of extreme weather.

        2) We have built a global civilization optimised for 14C. We are now at 15C and rising. As an engineer you will be well aware of the problems which occur when you try to operate a machine outside its designed temperature limits.

        • John V says:

          I am very aware of design operating temperatures and also of the reality that machines often operate outside their design temperature band and not just by 2 deg.C. This is true of both the mining equipment my company works on and the race cars I work on as a hobby.
          Temperature “excursions” are common. Normally the systems weather these excursions just fine.
          Our planet has been around for millions of years and has changed tremendously, all by itself. But my gut feeling is that we are making much to do about nothing. Correlation is not causality.

          • Entropic man says:

            “Correlation is not causality. ”

            But that’s the way to bet.

            If A correlates with B it will be because A causes B, B causes A or both are caused by C.

            We are measuring increased global temperatures, decreased 13C/12C ratio, decreased oxygen.increased sea level, increasing ocean heat content, decreased Arctic ice cover, a cooling stratosphere, a rising tropopause, Winters warming faster than Summers and high latitudes warming faster than low latitudes.

            if you do the physics, all of these are expected to correalate with increasing CO2 due to human activity. None of the natural alternatives are powerful enough to have much effect.

            If you have a better alternative which explains all these observations, a Novel Prize awaits.

          • John V says:

            Sorry for the typo. I meant “Correlation is not Causation”.

      • John V.
        The deception is worse than the tenth of a degree C. anomaly charts with a 1.0 to 1.5 vertical range that make slight temperature changes look huge..

        Surface measurements were far from global before WWII. After WWII there was still too much wild guessing that does not become more accurate by calling it infilling. There are also hundreds of “revisions” every month. Only the UAH satellite data have any chance of being accurate enough for real science. And that starts in 1979. Everything before that is questionable temperature numbers.

        More important: It’s good news that the climate has warmed slightly since the old days — people living from 1650 to 1750 thought it was too cold. Climate alarmists falsely claim the climate was “perfect” in 1750 and any change since then is an existential climate crisis … that can only be solved by powerful leftist governments, staffed by leftists. And they don’t want all that power for themselves, of course, they are trying to save the planet for our children.

        John V., you are obviously a smart person and wouldn’t fall for that fairy tale … but half the planet seems to be convinced our wonderful climate is bad, and getting worse.

        • Nate says:

          “people living from 1650 to 1750 thought it was too cold.”

          If the 0.5 – 1 degree drop in temperature was large enough to cause N. Europe big problems, like famine, etc. then that pretty much nullifies the whole concept of small changes dont matter.

          “Were getting all caught up in our underwear about less than 2 deg.C ”

          Not to mention that N. Europe is not the WORLD.

        • bdgwx says:

          RG, I’m not sure what you mean. A 1.0 – 1.5 change is very large even over thousand year timescales.

    • barry says:

      There was a JohnV on climateaudit around 2007/08 who was taking the good stations Anthony Watts’ people were rating around the US, creating a temperature record from those, and comparing that with the official US record. It was a great conversation that I lurked at.

      We could plot your height from age 2 to age 60, but we won’t get much visual information if we make the y axis intervals in miles.

      When constructing a graph, you generally arrange the axes to give you the maximum amount of visual information. Any graph will, as a result, be filled out, rather than left with lots of empty space.

      But it’s not the look of the graphs that matters, it’s the information behind them, as you know.

    • Nate says:

      “Were getting all caught up in our underwear about less than 2 deg.C measured a hundred years ago with questionable accuracy and are betting the planets future on that? Really?”

      JohnV, how do we know if 2 C is a lot for the globe or not? It shouldnt be based on just a feeling that its no big deal..

      Past climate gives us clue.

      The last ice age was only ~ 5C cooler than now, globally. Yet NYC was covered by a km thick ice sheet.

      The Holocene Optimum 8000 y ago was warmer than year 1900 by 0.5-1.0 C.

      Yet the Sahara was much greener, and the Amazon was much drier, not s rain forrest.

      So it seems that regional climates can change drastically with modest changes in global temps.

      • ren says:

        I see the reason in the long-term changes in atmospheric circulation. During La Nina, for example, the global temperature tends to drop, but California is drought.

      • gbaikie says:

        –JohnV, how do we know if 2 C is a lot for the globe or not? It shouldnt be based on just a feeling that its no big deal..

        Past climate gives us clue.

        The last ice age was only ~ 5C cooler than now, globally. Yet NYC was covered by a km thick ice sheet.–

        hmm, I thought it cooler than about 5 C.

        “Scientists have predicted that the global average temperature during the ice age was around 46 degrees Fahrenheit (7.8 degrees Celsius.)

        However, the polar regions were far colder, around 25 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degree Celsius) colder than the global average.”

        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/last-ice-age-global-temperature-scientist-predict/

        15 – 7.8 is difference of 7.2 K
        But global warming or cooling is mostly about polar amplification.
        And regions around polar region would also be quite cold.
        So Canada average temperature is about -3.5 C and during Little Ice Age was as cold as -5.5 C:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/canada
        And being at least below -10 C yearly average during the entire glaciation period- would not be too surprising, though doesn’t seem Continent US would be as cold as Canada’s current average temperature even when there was 1 km of ice above NYC. But Europe instead of current average of about 9 C could be about same as Canada or about -10 C.
        But France would probably as warm as Alaska is currently and have warmer summers then in Alaska {currently}. Or Alaska in summers has “heatwaves”, now and during glaciation, France could have hotter heatwaves, then. But -50 C winter days, in France, probably happens a fair amount. Though a general dryness might be larger problem and dryness itself gives wide swings in daily and yearly temperature.
        Though it’s possible one could have some kind general weather pattern which tends to make it wetter, and France could have more moderate temperatures- but more snow than current Sweden {current average temp of 3.5 C- about same current Alaska}.
        But Germany and Russia would be would resemble Antarctica and probably with even worse weather as anywhere on that cold continent- or just, run away from it, anytime near winter.

  8. barry says:

    Hi Roy, seasons greetings.

    I remembered you had commented that the CERES data were too uncertain to work with, specifically:

    “….the global LW energy loss isn’t known to 10 W/m2 absolute accuracy from CERES measurements. The instrument isn’t good enough.”

    Does this impact your model?

    As CERES data features in our discussions from time to time, do you think the product has improved in accuracy?

  9. RickWill says:

    Something to ponder.

    Three oceans that cross the equator with limited connection in the northern hemisphere and some connection through the Southern Ocean circulation.

    All have maximum surface temperature at the equator around 31C:
    https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhAeQGp_7ns2Kulo9

    In fact it is physically impossible on Earth for the open ocean surface to exceed 32C. Cloudburst begins at 26 degrees surface temperature to produce highly reflective cloud. Once the surface reaches 28.5C, the energy uptake is at its maximum then declines with increasing temperature above that as the shutters go up to effectively block sunlight from reaching the surface. It is observed as monsoon and cyclones in latitudes above 10 degrees.

    The notion of some delicate energy balance through the ridiculous “Greenhouse Effect” is just silly. Sea ice forms at 271.3K. Tropical ocean temperature can never exceed 305K due to the basic physics of the atmosphere. It is no accident the average surface temperature is smack in the middle of the two extremes at 288K.

    The rest is noise.

  10. ren says:

    It is worth comparing La Nina from 2010 (beginning of the 24th solar cycle) and La Nina from 2020 (beginning of the 25th solar cycle). You can see that the trade winds are weaker now than they were in 2010. It could also mean that solar activity is weaker now than in 2010.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.201012.gif

    https://i.ibb.co/bBpJdxf/number-of-days-with-a-ge.jpg

  11. Entropic man says:

    RickWell

    “Tropical ocean temperature can never exceed 305K due to the basic physics of the atmosphere. ”

    Unfortunately land temperatures are not so constrained. Populated areas are starting to exceed and sustain 35C wet bulb (308K) which is the physiological upper limit for a healthy person.

    Climate change is killing people.

    • RickWill says:

      Land gains energy from oceans. Land has net loss of energy. Land would be much colder on average if it did not take up energy from the oceans.

      The land masses are not warming up. The measurements are warming up through a well known process of data homogenisation.

    • Nate says:

      “The land masses are not warming up.”

      Uhhhh…in fact they are warming faster than the ocean, as they should. They have much lower heat capacity.

      • RickWill says:

        Land has roughly zero thermal capacity. What comes in one day is all gone by the start of the next day. The atmosphere above the land limits the temperature range of the land because it has some thermal inertia and the atmosphere gains energy from the oceans.

        Follow the energy. The tropical oceans take the energy in and redistribute it. However the tropical ocean temperature is thermostatically controlled. Maximum energy input occurs at 28.5C. Heat uptake is increasing right up to 28.5C but as temperature increases beyond 28.5C the energy uptake begins to fall such that 32C in open ocean water is simple a physical impossibility courtesy of the buoyancy of moist air creating a level of free convection and subsequent cloudburst producing high altitude, dense and highly reflective cloud:
        https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3vzCCr-yZNwAEVd

        “Greenhouse Effect” is a fairy tale for people unable or unwilling to follow the energy. The myopic focus on CO2 might garner funding but it it is detail gone mad. It has diverted focus from the thermostatic control that the process of cloudburst imbues to Earth’s atmosphere.

        Incompetents who focus on CO2 are blind to the incredibly powerful thermostatic control of the SST. Negative feedback so powerful that equatorial waters vary no more than a couple of degrees through the seasons and never exceed 32C across three, widely separate oceans that have vastly different energy balances.

        • Nate says:

          Rick,

          “Follow the energy. The tropical oceans take the energy in and redistribute it. However the tropical ocean temperature is thermostatically controlled.”

          I see no need to ignore the rest of the Earth and Land masses.

          The point is you have to follow the energy to the Top of the Atmosphere, where the Net gain from added GHG is happening. The ‘thermostat’ at TOA brings it back to Net 0 by warming the Earth below.

          That warming is distributed around the world thru the General Circulation of atmosphere as well as ocean currents.

  12. Still have to see what the final outcome will be of weakening magnetic fields.

    If they should result in an increase in albedo even 1% all the warming will be gone.

    Will they accomplish this through increased major geological activity, snow cover, sea ice expansion, change in major oceanic currents as a result only time will tell.

    Major sustained volcanic activity is a game changer.

  13. frankclimate says:

    It would be interesting IMO to vary the ECS of the model ( according to Fig. 3 it’s 1.91 K/2*CO2) and detect the RMSE for the mixed layer simulation while changing the ECS value to find a best estimate and the 95% confidence level for it?

  14. Bindidon says:

    RickWill

    It seems to me that you’ve posted that stuff a while ago, maybe at WUWT.

    1. ” All have maximum surface temperature at the equator around 31C… ”

    Like Entropic man, I ask you: why do you restrict your view on ocean temperatures? Are land temperatures irrelevant in your concept?

    And, if you stay so good with the oceans: why do you keep looking at their surface?

    Why don’t you look at the ocean heat contents?

    2. ” The notion of some delicate energy balance through the ridiculous “Greenhouse Effect” is just silly. ”

    Oh how interesting!

    Suppose the mean global atmospheric temperature drops – due to a Milankovitch cycle or Yellowstone’s magma chamber exploding – such that all water vapor precipitates, leaving this poor little CO2 guy alone.

    What then happens is that our planet moves into an ice ball, with an albedo of 0.3 by accident identical to the current one, and nearly all LW radiation emitted by Earth (the same quantity of energy as it obtains from Sun as SW radiation) reaching outer space directly, because N2, O2 and Ar don’t intercept IR.

    What is then the average temperature? How do your lovely 32 C oceans look like?

    J.-P. D.

    • ren says:

      Not only has the A68a iceberg not broken up, it is headed for South Georgia Island, where it can remain a permanent fixture for up to 10 years.
      https://i.ibb.co/XsyB5fm/S-daily-extent-hires.png

    • ren says:

      Look for a sea surface temperature above 32 degrees C.
      https://i.ibb.co/k4xSGdz/global-small-fc.gif

    • RickWill says:

      Are land temperatures irrelevant in your concept?

      Lend is irrelevant from an energy balance stand point because the oceans maximum and minimum surface temperature are thermostatically controlled. The oceans give up energy to the land masses but it does not make them cooler because their energy balance will be whatever it needs to achieve the maximum SST below 32C.

      Land masses are net absorbers of energy. That energy comes from the oceans via latent heat of evaporation from the ocean surface and the energy is released over land to form rain and snow.

      Land plays no role in the ocean energy balance. The oceans dramatically slow heat loss when sea ice forms and dramatically reduce heat uptake when cloudburst kicks in above 26C. If there was no land, the SST would still be in the range 271.3K to 305K.

      • ren says:

        “Land masses are net absorbers of energy.”

        https://i.ibb.co/Xtr0brD/gfs-T2m-asia-1.png

        • RickWill says:

          I have no idea what relevance the temperature plot has with regard to energy balance and the fact that land is a net absorber of energy.

          The linked plot shows net energy across the globe:
          https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_NETFLUX_M
          Note how the land masses are visible by the fact that they typically have less then zero net energy – Sahara desert very clearly near zero net energy. Greenland and Antarctica very high net energy loss.

          The Pacific Ocean is the major energy collector for the globe. It is Earth’s big solar panel. Despite the Pacific having a large net radiative energy balance it never exceeds 32C because it is temperature controlled. Excess radiative energy is transferred to land via latent heat of evaporation and to the Southern Ocean, Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean via ocean currents

          • ren says:

            The area of Asia that I have shown is perhaps the largest land area on Earth. If the temperature reaches -44 C in mid-December, what will it be like in mid-January? This is very much related to the less water vapor in the atmosphere during the La Nina period.

          • ren says:

            Here you can clearly see that the oceans are the accumulators of the Earth.
            Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. It is derived from AVHRR Channels 1 and 2. The mean is displayed on a one degree equal area map on a seasonal basis. This product is also referred to as Shortwave Absorbed Radiation (SWAR). Absorbed solar radiation is the difference between the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the outgoing reflected flux at the top of the atmosphere.
            https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/swar19_prd.gif
            Radiation Budget Products
            https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/rad_budget.html

      • Nate says:

        People come here with such strange ideas.

        “Land masses are net absorbers of energy. That energy comes from the oceans via latent heat of evaporation from the ocean surface and the energy is released over land to form rain and snow.”

        Land plays no role in the ocean energy balance. The oceans dramatically slow heat loss when sea ice forms and dramatically reduce heat uptake when cloudburst kicks in above 26C. If there was no land, the SST would still be in the range 271.3K to 305K.”

        Global warming models MUST consider the ocean and the land masses.

        The fact that there is open ocean at the N POle and a Land MAss at the S Pole makes a huge difference to climate.

        Where the land masses have been located has made a HUGE difference to past climate, to glaciation cycles, etc.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Global warming models MUST consider the ocean and the land masses.”

          I think you could just consider the ocean, though this blog post is comparing the ocean to global air surface temperature. And we haven’t measuring the ocean, long or well.
          By land masses I assume one mostly talking about glacial land masses- which has been historically fundamental and how one measured global climate and it’s proxy as is global surface air temperature.
          Or like modeling in general, it gives some clues and can used in comparative analysis.

          “The fact that there is open ocean at the N POle and a Land MAss at the S Pole makes a huge difference to climate.”

          Open ocean in N pole in winter is quite enormous. And having land mass at south pole, seems to strongly related to why we are in an Ice Age. And it seems it has large effect upon our ocean, and large effect perhaps, can be amplified or be diminished.
          Or ocean can hold massive amount of heat and over time period of 100,000 years, that heat content changes- huge amount of energy added and huge amount energy is removed.
          And people assumes that this has something to do with Milankovitch cycles. And I assume its effect of Milankovitch cycles upon the oceans. Though repeating myself, rather key part is related to how effects ocean circulation, and sort again repeating myself, I guess Antarctic with it’s sea ice could be part of it- how effect ocean circulation. But it seems in terms of within last million years, change is more related arctic polar region and North Atlantic ocean.

    • RickWill says:

      Suppose the mean global atmospheric temperature drops due to a Milankovitch cycle or Yellowstones magma chamber exploding such that all water vapor precipitates, leaving this poor little CO2 guy alone.

      The thermostatic control is very powerful. Once ice forms, heat loss from ocean surface drops dramatically. The radiating power of sea ice is often 50% the radiating power of open water adjacent to it. So the ice is retaining considerable ocean heat.

      The net energy uptake does not begin to reduce until the SST reaches 28.5K then there is a sharp decline in energy uptake:
      https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3vzCCr-yZNwAEVd
      A cyclone, which is the supercharged energy rejection process, can reject 80% of the ToA insolation and cool the surface under the tropical midday sun. Brightest spot on Earth on July 30th this year was in the middle of the Atlantic:
      https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg20rmI6ZbdeTV0c9
      Hurricane Isaiah reflecting an average of almost 350W/sq.m. Surface cooling 3 degrees C in its wake.

      The only event that would change earth’s thermostat is to remove all water from the surface. It would need a massive asteroid hit to achieve that.

      Orbital cycles do not alter energy input, it gets redistributed. Glaciation is a hemispherical phenomena. If fact glaciation indicates an excess of ocean energy transferred to land resulting in land ice accumulation. It has a positive feedback because the land ice is reflective so is slow to melt. Glaciation requires a tremendous rate of evaporation.

      The thermostatic control has worked fine through billions of years and will continue to work for the next billion excepting a severe asteroid hit.

      By the way, the global average water column ranges annually from around 17mm to 24mm. There is not a lot of water in the atmosphere but once it gets to 30mm above tropical and sub-tropical oceans it enables cloudburst and at 38mm it enables daily cloudburst that is observed as monsoon and can spin up cyclones at latitudes above 10 degrees..

      • Nate says:

        ” If fact glaciation indicates an excess of ocean energy transferred to land resulting in land ice accumulation.”

        ??

        You have a lot of strange ideas..

        • RickWill says:

          Follow the energy – where did the water come from to forms the ice, which make glaciers?

          Answer that and you begin to get a clue.

          Evaporation is an energy intensive process. That energy is taken in by the ocean surface, absorbed as latent heat of vaporisation in the water to produce water vapour. The water vapour is transported by air currents over land where it release the energy to space resulting in precipitation in the form of snow. It accumulates during the winter period and hopefully melts during the summer period. If it does not all melt then it accumulates.

          Just think about how much energy it takes to vaporise a tonne of water then elevate it maybe 3000m or more into the atmosphere and finally transport it to land where it gets deposited as it releases the energy it took to vaporise it.

        • Nate says:

          “Just think about how much energy it takes to vaporise a tonne of water then elevate it maybe 3000m or more into the atmosphere and finally transport it to land where it gets deposited as it releases the energy it took to vaporise it.”

          Yes the water cycle. And?

          That is happening all the time, regardless of whether we are in a glacial period, with much more land ice, or an interglacial with much less land ice.

    • Entropic man says:

      We probably should. If the high Arctic above 80N is ice covered, any heat coming in above the ice goes into ice melt and the temperature stays close to 0C.

      Open water absorbs heat and increases both air and water temperature. This Summer about 1/4 of the area above 80N was open water and surfacetemperatures went several degrees above the long term average.

      Go to the Moyhu temperature page here.

      https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html

      Scroll down to the graph of daily temperatures above 80N and note how far 2020 Summer temperatures (green) exceeded the long term average (blue).

  15. ren says:

    Great “peace” on the solar disk! The forecast of a geomagnetic storm has not come true.
    https://i.ibb.co/f8sjfs2/AR-CH-20201211-hres.png

  16. above article is geo magnetic effects and the climate

    • ren says:

      Magnetic field in the Arctic regions
      The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
      Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
      The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
      Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.
      https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php

    • ren says:

      This applies to the graphics in the article above.

  17. And I think all this magnetic info we talk about does impact the climate.

  18. A drop of as little as 0.01 in Earth’s albedo would have a major warming influence on climate—roughly equal to the effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would cause Earth to retain an additional 3.4 watts of energy for every square meter of surface area.

    The reverse is an increase in albedo of 0.01 would have a major cooling effect and swamp all global warming due to GHG’s .

    • ren says:

      It must be remembered that the Earth’s magnetic field is a protection against cosmic radiation. So weakening, for example, in the geomagnetic field in the Arctic region causes an increase in high-energy radiation in that region.

  19. If Earth was completely covered in ice, its albedo would be about 0.84, meaning it would reflect most (84 percent) of the sunlight that hit it. On the other hand, if Earth was covered by a dark green forest canopy, the albedo would be about 0.14 (most of the sunlight would get absorbed). Changes in ice cover, cloudiness, airborne pollution, or land cover (from forest to farmland, for instance) all have subtle effects on global albedo. Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.

    So albedo can change

  20. Darwin Wyatt says:

    I suspect the cycles have mostly to do with volcanic activity under the ocean. Look at geysers on land. The same thing is going on under the ocean at all the oceanic riffs on a much larger scale. They prolly synchronise at times. Mostly with shifts in the crust due to outside gravitational forces. ACo2 is background noise. A trace trace gas. Sorry skeptics. Ho Ho Ho.

  21. ren says:

    The action of La Nina is already visible in the western equatorial Pacific. Heavy rainfall begins in eastern Australia.
    https://i.ibb.co/nmKZN8J/gfs-mslp-pcpn-swpac-1.png

  22. Good article on albedo and it is complicated, but could be changed in response to increases in ice cover, snow cover, volcanic activity etc.

    Will it if weak enough solar/geo magnetic fields conspire to promote the above. Yes. The question is will they conspire to promote the above and if they do when?

    So I am watching the geo/solar magnetic field.

  23. Magnetic changes if they impact ALBEDO will render any increases in CO2/global warming as a non event. Will it happen?

    So all the warming if real from CO2 could be wiped out in less then a decade if ALBEDO were to increase as a result of what I have been talking about.

    No one knows but tis approach is not being studied or given serious consideration by most of the scientific community.

    This is a hard theory/approach to accept I admit that.

  24. Reflection is due to the surface property . For example snow is capable of reflecting only in visible spectrum, absorbing all the other radiation(so it appears white to our naked eye but it is nearly a black body).

    On the other hand emission is due to surface temperature, the surface of any body can absorb radiation up to some limit so that it can raise its surface temperature to its maximum extent and after that it emits radiation..

  25. Albedo is the percentage of solar energy striking a surface that is reflected away from the earth. Surface Reflectance is ratio of the amount light not absorbed by a surface to the amount of light striking the surface. Albedo is a measure of energy and Surface Reflectance is a property of a material.

    Just trying to clarify the differences between emissions, reflectivity, albedo.

    Input appreciated.
    \
    How does reflectance figure into al this if at all?

    • ren says:

      The Earth will now enter the dust tail of the asteroid Phaethon, which is heading towards the Sun. At the same time, the combined gravity of Jupiter and Saturn is working, which could draw more space dust into Earth’s orbit.

      • ren says:

        J.A. OKeefe first suggested (1980) that Earth might have a ring system of its own. An Earth ring could account for some climate events. OKeefe remarked that formation or thickening of a ring system in Earths equatorial plane could drive glaciation by deepening the chill of the winter hemisphere. (It is very well established that volcanic dust is an effective agent for the extinction of sunlight; this factor can be overwhelmingly apparent in eclipse observations.) OKeefe died in 2000 and the speculation was not pursued, but the idea of an Earth ring has a prima facie reasonableness that calls for its renewed consideration. The program of this note is to hypothesize that, as OKeefe proposed: (a) an Earth ring system exists; (b) it affects Earth’s weather and climate; (c) the tektite strewn fields comprise filaments of the ring fallen to Earth’s surface on various occasions of disturbance by comets or asteroids.
        https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.P23B1635H/abstract
        No rings have yet been observed in the inner solar system, but after all, rings in the inner solar system might simply tend to be fainter and more transient than those of the outer solar system: the inner solar system is more affected by the solar wind, and the Suns perturbing gravitational influence is greater.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ren…”J.A. OKeefe first suggested (1980) that Earth might have a ring system of its own”.

          Some geologists believe the Moon originated in the Earth but they have omitted an explanation of how:

          1)a mass the size of the Moon acquired the explosive power to break free of Earth’s gravity.

          2)where the hole is located that once contained the Moon

          3)how the Moon got into a spherical shape

          4)how the Moon acquired linear momentum to go into orbit after being accelerated vertically. Satellites are put into orbit after a vertical liftoff but the trajectory of the rocket is calculated in great detail.

  26. Much of the warming could be due to a decrease in ALBEDO rather then CO2.

  27. Tim S says:

    I am making this comment for humor — sad humor as it is. CBS News has a climate reporter who claims to have a computer simulation showing the earth will freeze if CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. I am not misquoting him.

    “It’s true, carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, less than a tenth of a percent. But because of CO2’s powerful heat-trapping greenhouse properties, its presence makes a huge difference. Currently, CO2 levels keep Earth’s temperature at a comfortable average of nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit. As shown in the below animation, if CO2 abruptly dropped to zero, Earth’s average temperature would also drop far below freezing, eradicating most life as we know it.
    To be clear, a drop in CO2 wouldn’t directly cause the whole drop in temperature. The biggest impact comes from the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which condenses out due to the fact that colder air holds less water vapor; this is what tanks the greenhouse effect in the simulation. Positive feedbacks like the growth of ice cover would further precipitate the temperature plunge. But it’s CO2 which drives all this change.”

    • ClintR says:

      I remember seeing that also, Tim S. I always smile when I see “heat-trapping”, but he took it to the next level with “powerful”!

      “But because of CO2’s powerful heat-trapping greenhouse properties, its presence makes a huge difference.”

      He believes CO2 “warms the planet” to 60 degrees F.

      “Currently, CO2 levels keep Earth’s temperature at a comfortable average of nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit.”

      What he fails to understand is that CO2 cools. Their own “model” indicates a cooling of about 25 degrees F.

    • barry says:

      It’s not controversial that there would be less atmospheric WV in a colder climate. Nor is that the only study that has looked at what happens without CO2 in the atmos.

      We also conduct one experiment where we keep TSI at its present-day value but reduce atmospheric CO2 to 0.1% of its pre-industrial value (simulation no CO2).

      https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81095225.pdf

      We used the GISS 4° × 5° ModelE to calculate changes in instantaneous LW TOA flux
      (annual global averages) in experiments where
      atmospheric constituents (including water vapor,
      clouds, CO2, O3, N2O, CH4, CFCs, and aerosols)
      were added to or subtracted from an equilibrium
      atmosphere with a given global temperature structure, one constituent at a time for a 1-year period.

      https://tinyurl.com/yxn4blm7

      Eliminating the 50 W/m2 of tropical CO2 greenhouse effect would drop the tropical temperature by about 25 K, once amplified by water vapor feedback. When further amplified by ice-albedo feedback, this would certainly cause the Earth to fall into a snowball state.

      http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf

    • Nate says:

      Yep, you may find it funny, but if you cant critique the science then…so what?

      This is well known, simulations published a few years ago.

      Paleo record shows periods of ice ball Earth, and hothouse Earth.

  28. I agree Tim. The AGW enthusiast really think they are correct and they can back it up some with data but as I have pointed out it could be something entirely unrelated to CO2 which has caused the temperature to increase of late.

    ALBEDO for example. Even 1/2 of 1% change would do it.

    • Entropic man says:

      Solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere is 342 Watts per square metre and albedo is 102 W/m^2, reflecting 29.8%.

      A decrease of 0.5% would increase the amount of energy entering the climate system by 340*0.005 = 1.7W/m^2.

      What would this do to the temperature?

      The best estimate is that increasing incoming energy by 3.7W/m^2 would warm the equilibrium temperature by 1C.

      1.7W/m^2 would produce 1.7/3.7 = 0.46C warming.

      To produce the observed warming of 1.2C entirely by albedo decrease would require a change of 1.2*3.7 = 4.44W/m^2.

      That would be an albedo decrease of 4.44/1.7*0.5=1.3% of the total incoming radiation.

      Now you can start to test your theory. If you are correct it predicts that albedo has dropped from 31.1% to 29.8% in 140 years, a decrease of 4.44W/M^2.

      Since most of our data postdates 1979, you are looking for a decline of 0.09% per decade or 0.3W/m^2 per decade over 40 years.

      Have fun checking the data.

  29. Entropic man says:

    Salvatore Del Prete

    ” I have pointed out it could be something entirely unrelated to CO2 which has caused the temperature to increase of late. ”

    Possible but not probable. The weight of evidence is against you.

    You’ve seen the lists of observations which are predicted by the CO2 based AGW hypothesis.

    Scientists are not idiots, not are they part of a conspiracy. The evidence is real. The interpretation is another matter.

    To produce a convincing alternative hypothesis you need to show that it explains the evidence better than AGW does. If you want to overturn the AGW paradigm you need to put something better in its place.

    Einstein did not prove Newton wrong. He extended Newton’s theory of gravity by explained the already existing evidence in a better way. Do the same for AGW and a Nobel Prize awaits.

  30. Only time will tell. AGW or any other theory will need time. It just so happens that many have latched on to the CO2 theory.

  31. The evidence is real as far as why the temperatures are warming but the cause has still been yet to be determined.

    More time will be needed.

  32. Those who are embracing AGW are jumping the gun. As I said more time will be needed.

    YOU CAN’T DO THE EXPERIMENTS UNFORTUNATELY.

  33. Entropic man says:

    Salvatore Del Prete

    Under your 3.16 post is a way of testing your theory against observation. It is my calculation of the albedo change needed to produce 140 years of observed warming and the changes you would expect to see in the data.

    You can now compare your predicted albedo against the measured albedo data. I’m off to bed. I’ll be interested tomorrow to see what you found.

  34. Curious George says:

    “An initial state of energy equilibrium.” A tempting but surely incorrect assumption. I can’t suggest anything better.

    Can life develop in a state of energy equilibrium?

  35. http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html

    This has a calculator where you can change the value for average albedo or anything else to get a resultant temperature for the globe. It is really cool.

  36. If you change the average ALBEDO from .31 to .32 average global temperature will change from 59f to 57 f

    Entropic man you will like this I think. Have a good sleep.

  37. The problem is what is the real actual ALBEDO today. Answer we do not know exactly what it is. I could 30.2 or 29.9 or 30.7 we don’t know

  38. This calculator for changing parameters that effect the climate show how powerful ALBEDO changes are.

    The slightest of change has a BIG impact on the global temperature.

    • Entropic man says:

      Measurements by satellite and earhshine show quite a noisy signal for albedo. If there is a long term trend it is of gradually increasing albedo, ie cooling.

      I’m afraid your hypothesis is falsified. Data and links to papers here.

      https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect-basic.htm

      • Entropic that site is biased toward AGW.

        That said the data you presented shows nothing . I have seen that data it is useless. Even if you look at the period 2000-2010 the temperatures since 1998 in those following 10 years were down.

        If you are trying to say a 100 ppm increase in a trace gas is not only warming the climate but over coming ALBEDO effects I will have to conclude you do not know what you are talking about.

        You were doing so well but this is sad and it really takes away from all your other good arguments.

        You can’t be that detached but then again you in your mind are determined to conclude AGW is real and you will not be swayed from that opinion no matter what .

        I have shown clearly that ALBEDO is the main driver of the climate . The only reason it is not showing up is because it has not changed much over the past several ears and add to that no one has any good data on it.

        • cor – years I have shown a 1% change in ALBEDO will bring down the global temperature by 2F.

          Prove that wrong Entropic man. I will be waiting.

        • Entropic man says:

          “Even if you look at the period 2000-2010 the temperatures since 1998 in those following 10 years were down.”

          We’ve been over this before. A short term temperature trend calculated from 1998 will always underestimate the long term trend because it starts with the high point of the strong 1998 El Nino. The subsequent years were cooler because they lacked a strong El Nino, not because of a reversal of the long term warming trend.

          “You were doing so well but this is sad and it really takes away from all your other good arguments.

          You cant be that detached”

          Like any good scientist I took your theory at face value and calculated what albedo change would be necessary to produce the observed warming.

          I then compared that prediction of decreasing albedo with observation and found that the observed albedo was static or slowly increasing. Failure to match prediction against reality disproved the theory.

          This is what scientists are trained to do, put aside their biases and analyse objectively. Your suggestion that that I allowed bias to influence my analysis is a major insult to any scientist.

          • ClintR says:

            E, if you want to practice science you must respect reality. You cannot deny reality, in favor of your beliefs.

          • Very shallow argument this time. You have not made the case not even close.

          • That data is highly not reliable. The other missing reliable data is total cloud coverage for the globe.

            We have no conclusive data as to what ALBEDO is or is not doing that is the reality and the objective conclusion not the biased conclusion that ALBEDO increased and global temperatures did the same. That did NOT happen.

          • Hate to burst your bubble but I have. You can’t prove anything when it comes to what the current ALBEDO is, what trend has taken place and the climate response.

            That is the objective bottom line. The article from junk science agrees with me.

            Also if you look at the historical temperature data and contrast it with co2 the match is poor at best and temperature always leads co2.

            You have a long way to go to prove AGW is real.

          • So I guess all the time periods in the past such as 1940-1975 when temperatures decreased while co2 increased mean the same as you said about albedo/temperature conclusions.

            To short a time try.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            entropic…”A short term temperature trend calculated from 1998 will always underestimate the long term trend because it starts with the high point of the strong 1998 El Nino”.

            If you do enough calculus, you begin to understand that a tall, thin spike has the same area as a much shorter, fatter area. The 98 EN spike is tall and thin and it was followed by a wide, fat dip, with part of it below the baseline.

            The IPCC claimed a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012, some 15 years. Look at the UAH graph and presume the average over those 15 years was 0.15C. Now look at the area between 1999 – 2001 below that average. It pretty well cancels out the 1998 EN warming area above 0.15C.

            Now follow along the 0.15C line from 2001 – mid-2007. Those squiggles on the red curve pretty much cancel out as well. From mid-2007 – mid-2009 you have the extreme 2008 La Nina cooling, followed by the extreme 2010 EN warming. The area under the curve on the 0.15 anomaly more than cancels out the 2010 EN warming. That leaves a relatively flat area till 2015.

            You alarmists are always on about cherry-picked ranges and I have just demonstrated there is no need to cherry pick anything. Fact is fact, the range from 1998 – 2015 was flat and that was 18 years.

            No trend for 18 years.

      • ENTROPICMAN – a question if CO2 increases by 100ppm how much does the proportion of OLR returned to earth increase in response?

        The calculator had it at .397 what is that value now?

      • Entropic man your still good at this make the best case.Just a discussion. We will learn..

      • Norman says:

        Entropic man

        The Skeptical Science article may be wrong. They do say there was a slight decrease in albedo from Ceres data.

        From your LINK: “Over a five-year period, scientists found that albedo did increase slightly. Since 2003 the CERES satellite records shows a very slight reduction.”

        But on the NASA link:
        https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/5484/earths-albedo-in-decline

        This one gives a value of what the slight reduction does:
        ” Over the 4-year span (2000 through 2004), the CERES instrument measured an albedo decrease of 0.0027, which equals 0.9 watt of energy per square meter retained in the Earth system.”

        This amount of energy is greater than what has been actually measured from an increase of CO2.

        https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/5484/earths-albedo-in-decline

        Which gives a value of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade. The albedo effect was 0.9 W/m^2 in 4 years.

        Salvatore if most correct. This effect has to be closely studied. The sensitivity of CO2 may be lower than prediction if current warming is a combination of effects.

        • Entropic man says:

          Norman

          Your link was written in 2005. This is the 2014 update.

          https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo

          This is probably the key sentence.

          “Taken across the planet, no significant global trend appears. As noted in the anomaly plot below, global albedo rose and fell in different years, but did not necessarily head in either direction for long. “

          • Norman says:

            Entropic man

            Thank you for the updated data on Earth Albedo. From the graph it would indicate that albedo has been considered as a potential cause of warming and was eliminated because there is not long term trend to support the UAH long term trend.

        • Entropic man says:

          Yes. It might have contributed to short term changes like the postwar and noughties pauses, but not the long term changes.

  39. Svante says:

    Salvatore, it’s a bit confusing that you can’t reply to the right message thread.
    Which platform and browser are you using, perhaps there is a solution?

  40. Svante we are trying to solve the climate . How about you?

    • Svante says:

      Just looking for new science, but the basics are solved:
      https://tinyurl.com/y4z7sqkz

      • ClintR says:

        Yup, CO2 is keeping us cool. Without all that CO2, Earth would have an average temperature of 303K. That’s 15K hotter than it is.

    • Nate says:

      303? Why not 313? 333? Cmon. When ur making em up, why not go bigger?

      • ClintR says:

        Sorry Nate, but that’s the calculated value. No more no less.

      • Bindidon says:

        Nate

        What ClintR pretends is absolute rubbish.

        No atmospheric gas intercepting IR and reemitting only half of it up to space (and moreover, at a much lower temperature than the surface, thus with much less energy), can cool Earth.

        That is the same level of pseudoknowledge as Moon not spinning about its axis, or Einstein being wrong, or GPS not needing to integrate relativity concepts, et etc etc.

        One day, ClintR will come here around and tell us that we can’t be sure that Earth is not flat.

        J.-P. D.

  41. Svante Entropic man wanted me to come up with something for ALBEDO.

    You should try the calculator I posted AT 7:38PM it is fabulous!

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    salvatore…your openin comment on this thread…”Trend is up no matter how you slice it. Can’t go against the data”.

    If the data is retrieved directly from the NOAA satellites by UAH then I trust the data. If it is retrieved by NOAA personnel and passed on to UAH, I suspect it has been fudged.

    Since NOAA created the format for the data collection on the sats they have all the info required to create an algorithm that could slide it up the temperature scale. They have done that with surface station data why would they not do it with sat data?

    There is no explanation for why the 2016 El Nino warming has persisted for 4 years. The 1998 EN spike did not even last a year. What’s so different about the 2016 EN?

    CO2 could not possibly cause warming to that degree and over such a narrow range. The only other explanation coming to mind is the alarmists working at NOAA. And let’s face it, they are alarmists who support the anthropogenic theory. When the IPCC declared the lack of a warming trend from 1998 – 2012, NOAA immediately went back and fudged the SST to show a warming trend. Their sole purpose has been to show a continuing warming trend and the last bastion against it was the UAH analysis.

    • bdgwx says:

      GR said: There is no explanation for why the 2016 El Nino warming has persisted for 4 years. The 1998 EN spike did not even last a year. Whats so different about the 2016 EN?

      – Increase in GHG forcing
      – Decrease in aerosol forcing
      – Decrease in albedo from low Arctic sea ice
      – Persistent positive Earth Energy Imbalance

      BTW…despite the La Nina NASA just reported the warmest November surface temperature in their record and said 2020 will now likely take the #1 position over 2016.

      • ClintR says:

        Gordon was wanting explanations, not beliefs. None of your beliefs are supported by reality.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”despite the La Nina NASA just reported the warmest November surface temperature in their record and said 2020 will now likely take the #1 position over 2016″.

        NASA GISS reported 2014 as the warmest year ever with a confidence level of about 35%. The only difference between that lie and the most recent lie is they have not included their confidence level.

        What was the NOAA lie? The reported 2014 as the warmest year ever with a 48% confidence level. That means a NOAA lie is about 13% better than a GISS lie.

        • bdgwx says:

          So including the uncertainty on temperature anomalies is lying?

        • Entropic man says:

          The back of my envelope tells me that after 11 months the average for 2020 is 1.03C.

          The 2016 record was 1.01C.

          A 2020 record is looking probable. For 2020 to come in below 2016 would require December 2020 to come in below 0.68C. There hasn’t been a month that cold since 2014.

        • barry says:

          “The reported 2014 as the warmest year ever with a 48% confidence level.”

          For the umpteenth time, no. That figure is the probability, not the confidence level.

          You got it wrong for NOAA. Their probability estimate for 2014 being the warmest year in their data set was 38%.

          https://tinyurl.com/ybwqfrre

          The next ranked warmest year was 2010, with the probability it was so being 23% for GISS, and 18% for NOAA.

          Why the difference? Because their yearly values are slightly different, as is the difference between 1st, 2nd, 3rd ranked etc.

          I would guess that they also use different methodologies to estimate the probability, but I only know about the NOAA methodology.

          “Annual rankings of global temperature are an important component of climate monitoring. However, there is some degree of uncertainty for every yearly value in the global temperature time series, which leads to uncertainty in annual rankings as well. This study applies a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center’s global land-ocean surface temperature (NOAATMP) time series….”

          https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013GL057999

          By the way:

          “Figure 2 shows the 95% confidence intervals associated with each annual ranking (using the independent assumption simulations). Not surprisingly, the range of rankings is larger during the earlier half of the record when the NOAATMP standard errors were larger.”

  43. Nate says:

    https://tinyurl.com/y9pobxg3

    Liquid water IR spectrum first two graphs. Yours was for gas form.

  44. Dan Pangburn says:

    The consensus contention is that initially CO2 increase warms the planet and then increased water vapor from the warmed water adds to the warming as a feedback.

    The amount of WV increase as a result of temperature increase is readily calculated from the known vapor pressure vs temperature for water given that the percent increase in WV is about the same as the percent increase in vapor pressure.

    Water vapor has been measured worldwide by satellite by NASA/RSS since Jan 1988. They report the total precipitable water (TPW) anomalies at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202011.time_series.txt
    (the last 6 digits are year and month of the available report)

    Measured WV has increased faster than possible from warming. This demonstrates that the WV increase was not caused by the CO2 increase and that CO2 increase did not cause planet warming. CO2 does not now, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate
    https://tinyurl.com/yxehr2pj

    • Nate says:

      in your plot the ratio of trends WV/(T-based-predicted WV)

      is 0.435/0.299 = 1.45 when you use UAH TLT Temperature.

      But the ratio of trends of tropospheric temperature TLT for the two different analyses of TLT RSS/UAH is 0.236/.143 = 1.65

      Thus you will get a much higher trend in predicted WV using RSS TLT, than using UAH, and it may match or exceed the observed WV Trend.

      Have you checked that?

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Yes, and they are very close to a match. But, because measured WV has to be more, that demonstrates that temperature increase reported by RSS is faster than possible.

      • Nate says:

        “Yes, and they are very close to a match. But, because measured WV has to be more, that demonstrates that temperature increase reported by RSS is faster than possible.”

        Uhhhh. I thought the plot was supposed to be EVIDENCE that WV trend ‘has to be more’?

        Now you are saying that is already a fact, and can be used to demonstrate something else?

        Oh Dan Dan Dan…

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Apparently you are unable to figure out why WV has to be increasing faster than possible as the result of temperature increase. Irrespective of the WV increase from temperature increase, humanity adds more.

        • Nate says:

          “you are unable to figure out why WV has to be increasing faster than possible”

          But your plot was literally presented as a test of that hypothesis!

          “Measured WV has increased faster than possible from warming. This demonstrates that the WV increase was not caused by the CO2 increase”

          Then when the plot FAILS to support the hypothesis with RSS data, you THEN ASSUME the hypothesis MUST BE TRUE, in order to reject the data!

          Cmon Dan, that is just plain awful science.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Picking the steepest reported trend as the right trend is awful science. RSS v3.3 was following UAH. Apparently v3.3 did not support their agenda so they abandoned it. Adjusting data to support an agenda is not just awful science, it is science malpractice.

          • Svante says:

            RSS is just weighted at a lower altitude, so it’s more like the surface record, isn’t it?

          • Nate says:

            “Picking the steepest reported trend as the right trend is awful science”

            Didn’t say pick. Said it cant be rejected that way, in normal science.

          • Bindidon says:

            Nate, Svante

            When I read Pangburn’s utter nonsense:

            Picking the steepest reported trend as the right trend is awful science. RSS v3.3 was following UAH. Apparently v3.3 did not support their agenda so they abandoned it. Adjusting data to support an agenda is not just awful science, it is science malpractice .

            I get a big, big laugh.

            So so!

            When RSS ‘abandons’ a revision, it is allegedly ‘science malpractice’.

            Very, very interesting.

            Namely because years before RSS detected a cooling bias in his evaluation of the microwave emission data, UAH did exactly the same, but with the opposite sign: they detected a WARMING bias, what led to UAH5.6 getting soon replaced my the much ‘cooler’ UAH6.0.

            You will never hear people like Pangburn talking about UAH5.6!

            Most people don’t know where it is located in the UAH data tree, and some even pretend it never existed… Memory can be very, very selective.

            Luckily, I have it in my database , and do pretty good know where to find it.

            The UAH5.6 trend probably would be today at about 0.18 C / decade, if the revision had not been shut down in July 2017.

            But for Pangburn, that’s no problem: UAH5.6 was simply… wrong, and UAH6.0 is… simply good.

            J.-P. D.

        • Nate says:

          Is it really that simple Svante?

  45. Dr. Spencer is very fair and puts up with us including myself.

    I can go over board at times.

  46. Entropic man says:

    This is UAH linear trends for 1998-2015 and 1999-2015.

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/every/trend

    What a difference a year makes!

    • Entropic man says:

      To emphasise my point.

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2016/every/trend

      Three linear trend graphs.

      The red line is 1998-2015. This graph shows a cooling trend, with an El Nino at the beginning.

      The green line is 1999-2015. No ENSO events and an intermediate warming trend.

      The blue line is 1999 to 2015. This graph shows the strongest warming trend, with an El Nino at the end.

      This is how cherry-picking works. You choose start and end points which give the trend you want to believe.

      1998-2015 makes good denialist propoganda. 1999-2016 makes good alarmist propoganda. 1999-2015 gives the best indication of the actual trend.

      • Entropic man says:

        Correction.

        “The blue line is 1999 to 2016. This graph shows the strongest warming trend, with an El Nino at the end.”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”This is how cherry-picking works. You choose start and end points which give the trend you want to believe”.

        It was the Mother of All Alarmists, the IPCC, who declared 1998 – 2012 a warming hiatus. Till 2012, NOAA showed the same warming hiatus, then they went back and fudged the SST to create a warming during that period.

        Are you claiming an alarmist organization cherry-picked that range to show a flat trend?

        Tell me, what possible reason could NOAA, the Mother of All Fudgers, have for retroactively fudging the SST to erase the IPCC’s warming hiatus?

        • Entropic man says:

          The graphs used UAH data.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I repeat…it was the IPCC who declared 1998 – 2012 a warming hiatus. Are you claiming the IPCC cherry picked that range?

          • barry says:

            ‘Skeptics’ had been yakking so hard about temp trends from 1998, getting in the media with it and even taking it to congress, that the IPCC decided to look at the issue. It’s flatly false that the IPCC initiated this topic.

            The IPCC also said that the period showed a slight trend of 0.05 C/decade, and that the trend was not statistically significant. IPCC also said that short-term trends are not indicative of underlying trends.

            All of which you’ve managed to overlook for 7 years.

          • barry says:

            “Tell me, what possible reason could NOAA, the Mother of All Fudgers, have for retroactively fudging the SST to erase the IPCC’s warming hiatus?”

            The NOAA trend for 1998 to 2012 as reported by the IPCC at the time was:

            0.037 C/decade

            Hiatus?

            The adjustments to the NOAA record since have resulted in an increase of this trend for the same period to:

            0.086 C/decade

            All global climate data, including UAH, is updated and changed on a regular basis.

  47. Gordon Robertson says:

    bdg…”So including the uncertainty on temperature anomalies is lying?”

    Do I really have to explain the lies of NOAA and GISS to you? When you claim 2014 as the warmest year ever with a confidence level under 50% you are saying you don’t know. So why say it? The standard confidence level in science is 90% and NOAA and GISS both know that. So why would they offer up 2014 as the warmest year ever with a confidence level of 48% and 35% respectively?

    Here, I have a good one for you. 2020 was the coolest year on record. My confidence level is 0.5%. You don’t have to dig for it as you did with the NOAA and GISS statements re 2014. It was hidden away while the media blasted out the headlines, ‘2014 hottest year ever!!!’.

    Liars!!!

    • bdgwx says:

      GR said: So why would they offer up 2014 as the warmest year ever with a confidence level of 48% and 35% respectively?

      It has to do with the way normal distributions work. I think Berkeley Earth has the best visualization of what is going on.

      http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Probability_Distribution-768×433.png

      Notice how the probability distributions overlap. Whenever you have only 2 distributions to consider (like 2016 and 2019) the confidence in your ordering of the values is > 50%. But when you have 3 or more (like 2005, 2010, and 2014) the confidence in your ordering can easily be < 50%.

      GR said: Here, I have a good one for you. 2020 was the coolest year on record. My confidence level is 0.5%.

      That is quite a claim. Can you post an image similar to the one from Berkeley Earth above showing the probability distributions for the 2 coolest years showing that their probability distributions perfectly overlap? Don’t worry…we can build the probability distributions for you if you can point us to the dataset you used to support your claim.

      • ClintR says:

        bdgwx, it appears you are now out of rehab and well on the road to recovery. You’re back trolling around believing you are correcting things. Great.

        Now you can correct your nonsense back when you had your breakdown, one sentence at a time:

        “So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2.”

        Wrong bdgwx, that was your hallucination caused by substance abuse. I didn’t make it up. That is from your GHE nonsense. It’s the “steel greenhouse” model where back-radiation supposedly raises the surface temperature. It is based on the bogus equation, and is a good example of why the equation is wrong.

        But, you’re stuck with it. You’ve chosen to believe in that nonsense, so you get to believe in all of it. For the sphere to be emitting 480 W/m^2, it must be at a temperature of 303K. But Earth is only at 288K. That obviously means radiative gases are cooling the planet by 15K below what it should be.

        If you now understand how stupid your first sentence was, we can move on to your second sentence.

    • bdgwx says:

      GR,

      BTW…the value you are looking for is sometimes called the overlap coefficient. It is a bit tricky to compute, but there are formulas and example source code for doing so if you google for it. You can also use Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the value easily.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…I was joking about the 0.5% confidence level. I was trying to demonstrate how absurd confidence level can become when not applied at the 90% level.

        Why the heck would anyone declare a confidence level of 48% to support a statement that 2014 was the warmest year ever. 50% is a coin toss so you are claiming heads it is the warmest year, tails its not.

        The only reason NOAA and GISS used such idiotic confidence levels is that they are both corrupt alarmists trying to push the anthropogenic agenda. The have both lied to make it appear warming due to anthropogenic sources is setting record temperature levels.

        • bdgwx says:

          The values NOAA and GISS report are at the 95% confidence interval. The issue is that when you order a population by the measured quantity the confidence that the relative ordering is true is greatly reduced when the individual probability distributions significantly overlap. That’s just the way the math works. Omitting the uncertainty on individual years and confidence levels of the relative ordering of years would likely be considered unethical by some. But even if they didn’t openly report them we’d all compute them anyway. Your argument here is bizarre because it is insinuating that not disclosing these details is preferable to disclosing them which obviously makes no sense. And how you equate this to being idiotic and lying is even more bizarre.

        • bdgwx says:

          To help you better understand what is going on consider this population of data ranked in descending order. The uncertainty on the values are reported as 2 sigma (95%).

          A: 1.00 +/- 0.05
          B: 0.98 +/- 0.04
          C: 0.96 +/- 0.06

          What is the probability that A is positioned correctly?

          What is the probability that C has a higher value than A or B?

          This is actually relatively easy to solve if you use the Monte Carlo method. Give it a shot.

        • Swenson says:

          GR,

          Actually, saying Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, quoted a confidence level of 48% is giving him too much credit.

          He actually stated that 2014 was the hottest year ever, and used his high level mathematical expertise to calculate a probability of 38%, not 48%!

          In other words, nearly twice as likely to be the direct opposite of his hottest year ever pronouncement.

          Standard alarmist practice. Say any stupid thing at all, believing that nobody will dare to question a self appointed expert!

          A triumph of faith over fact.

        • bdgwx says:

          GR, here is another example for you to work on.

          A: 0.666 +/- 0.05
          B: 0.663 +/- 0.05
          C: 0.659 +/- 0.05

          What is the probability that A is in position 1?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”GR, here is another example for you to work on”.

            What are the chances that you cannot accept what I am saying and that you are intent on defending the chicanery of NOAA and GISS?

            “The issue is that when you order a population by the measured quantity the confidence that the relative ordering is true is greatly reduced when the individual probability distributions significantly overlap”.

            You can try that double-talk on someone who has not studied probability and statistics at a university level. When NOAA and GISS claim 2014 as the warmest year ever, and NOAA’s confidence level is 48% and the GISS CL is 38%, they are straight-out lying/cheating.

            Both institutes have been lying/cheating all along. On one occasion, GISS, under James Hansen, tried to switch the hottest year in the US from 1934 to 1998. Fortunately, they were caught by Steve McIntyre at climateaudit dot com.

            Why you alarmists continue to defend these blatant cheaters is the question. When I submitted a direct quote from NOAA that they had slashed their global reporting stations from 6000 to less than 1500, I was challenged by several alarmists trying to explain the NOAA chicanery.

            Why would a scientific institution discard 75% of its reporting station while replacing them with synthesized temperatures from a climate model. Since 1990, they have discarded 90% of their reporting stations. The answer is obvious. The warming they have predicted is not there and they have devised a method of manufacturing warming where none exists.

          • bdgwx says:

            GR,

            In regards to your claim that NASA is lying…would you mind showing me mathematically how they are lying? What is your answer to the question directly above?

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, in regards to your false accusations and misrepresentations…

            “Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”

            1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?

            2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?

            Were you somehow “medicated” when you made that comment, or are you just that incompetent and irresponsible?

  48. UAH data is my gold standard, and it shows the temperature trend is rising of late.
    That is a fact the question is why.

    CO2 could be one of the reasons but then again maybe not.

    We have gone over possible alternatives the past few days.

    I just wish the climate did not take so much time to unfold. It takes far to long for are short relative life to witness much.

    • bdgwx says:

      I’m curious…what is it about UAH that makes it the gold standard for you?

      I agree with your last point. It is frustrating to have to wait so long for things to play out.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      salvatore…”That is a fact the question is why”.

      That’s a good place to leave it for now. No one knows why the 2016 EN came along and why it has persisted for 4 years. CO2 cannot begin to explain such rapid warming as in 2016 therefore it has nothing to do with the current state of affairs.

    • Bindidon says:

      Salvatore

      Why is UAH your ‘gold standard’ ?

      Let me try to answer for you in all humility.

      The reason is simply that you are a fan of Earth cooling soon, and therefore tend to refute all temperature measurements differing from what you hope and expect.

      But the reality is not so simple, Salvatore.

      You first would need to accurately prove that UAH’s measurements in the lower troposphere are more accurate than those made by both RSS and NOAA STAR.

      NOAA STAR’s measurements in the middle pert of the troposphere, for example, are incredibly similar to those performed by UAH in the lower troposphere – since 2015, at the time their revision 6.0 replaced 5.6.

      But… neither you nor me are able to decide who is right.

      J.-P. D.

  49. Two reasons I think Dr. Spencer is neutral and I trust the concept of measuring temperatures using satellites. It seems like a very good way to do it.

    • Svante says:

      No need to wait, there plenty of proxies that can tell you about the global warming that already happened.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”No need to wait, there plenty of proxies that can tell you about the global warming that already happened”.

        I am currently reading a recently published book on the Little Ice Age and it is based on proxies. The Viking community on Greenland was thriving between 1000AD and 1300AD then it suddenly disappeared, concurrent with the beginning of the Little Ice Age. The sudden cold played havoc with their crops and they resorted to fishing for survival.

        If you are referring to ice core proxies, they also reveal the 400+ years of colder climate produced by the LIA on Greenland and elsewhere so any of your warming proxies indicated a recovery from the LIA.

        • Svante says:

          There are dozens of proxy types to choose from, have your pick. You need global coverage if you want to know global temperature.

          The LIA was certainly not good for the Greenland colony.
          The Portuguese globalization effort was even worse:
          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200106103457.htm

          Now the LIA and MWP are history, as we are breaking through the Holocene optimum.
          https://tinyurl.com/y25t5le4

          • ClintR says:

            Svante, we know you believe in your cult.

            Do you have ANY science to support AGW?

            And I’m talking REAL science, not a sack of papers that mean nothing. If all you have are “papers”, then give us your very best one.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”The LIA was certainly not good for the Greenland colony”.

            According to this book, written by a prof in the department of history at Ohio State, the Spaniards trying to establish a colony in Florida circa 1520 AD reported extremely cold weather and snowstorms. Near the present location of Galveston, Texas, they reported similar conditions with mixed snow and sleet.

            Natives North Americans, in the same era, as far south as Florida, were having difficulty with the cold temperatures with crop failures.

            The books revealed an interesting explanation of the word climate. In those days, circa 1500 AD, climate was rated by latitude. They believed that all climate at all latitudes should be the same anywhere. They were puzzled by the climate in the Americas, especially in the southern parts near the Gulf, being far different than what they had expected.

            According to the author, the Atlantic seaboard is affected by winds from the inner continent and the LIA affected those temperatures causing the seaboard to be much colder, even as far south as Florida.

            Even today, we are affected by Arctic air in the winter. You can imagine the effect of that Arctic air if the LIA made the Arctic even colder.

          • Svante says:

            Interesting Gordon, thanks for giving me the highlights.

  50. But that is because you believe in it while others do not.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      salvatore…”But that is because you believe in it while others do not”.

      Svante specializes in being smarmy.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        And you are this blog’s greatest specialist in discrediting, denigrating, distorting all scientific results which do not match your arrogant, ignorant and unscientific narrative.

        J.-P. D.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Im shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

          Heaping all your praise on Robertson! Dont you love me any more?

          Im cut to the quick! A tiny tear is running down my cherubic cheek.

          Oh well.

        • ClintR says:

          Bindidon, thanks for your “arrogant, ignorant, and unscientific narrative”.

          Maybe you could have sounded smarter if you’d used 7-8 different languages?

  51. E says:

    Belief. You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means the same for you and the scientists.

  52. Ask the scientist to explain why global temperatures cooled from 1940-1975 while CO2 concentrations were on a rapid increase.

    Why not then if now?

    • bdgwx says:

      Aerosols increased substantially after WWII until about 1980. They have been relatively stable since.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        And? So aerosols dont prevent IR from radiating directly to space? As far as I know, aerosols absorb your beloved LWIR even better than the CO2 which you worship so assiduously!

        Did water vapour increase or decrease? After all, its supposedly the most important greenhouse gas!

        Or maybe you really have no clue, and just regurgitate whatever some other idiot said.

    • Entropic man says:

      You haven’t commented on the graph so I shall. This is the pattern you would expect it the long term trend is due to increasing CO2, with other factors such as albedo and ENSO causing short term variations in temperature above or below the long term trend.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        ENSO is just a word for a pattern of temperature changes. It is an observation, not a causation. It causes nothing.

        Get some clue, at least!

      • Nate says:

        “ENSO is just a word for a pattern of temperature changes. It causes nothing.”

        Flynson has very strange logic indeed.

        Weather events no longer cause things.

        Hurricanes are just a word for a pattern of wind and rain, they don’t CAUSE destruction.

        Snow accumulation can longer be blamed on snowstorms.

        Sweat can no longer be blamed on high temperatures.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you really unable to comprehend simple English?

        Why would weather events not cause *things*?
        Why would hurricanes not cause destruction?
        And so on.

        I referred to the definition of ENSO. If you disagree, just say so, and provide your reasons.

        Or just carry on avoiding reality. The choice is yours.

        • Nate says:

          Nope, neither one.

          El Ninos are ocean events that reduce the upwelling of deep cold ocean water, and thus raise the temperature of the Pacific tropical ocean.

          This CAUSES the troposphere to warm and to transport that heat to different parts of the Globe. As a result, the average global surface and troposphere temperatures rises.

          La Ninas are the opposite, and CAUSE the average Global surface and troposphere temperatures to drop.

          These rises and falls are obvious in the UAH record.

    • Entropic man says:

      If CO2 was the only cause you would expect a much smoother temperature curve.

      If temperature was driving CO2 you would expect a much noisier CO2 curve.

  53. ren says:

    New York it is white, as in Christmas.

  54. ren says:

    This is the current distribution of ozone in the northern hemisphere’s stratosphere. The accumulated ozone sinks over the Bering Sea, making room for water vapor. That’s why the lows reach Alaska and push air from Canada to the southeast of the US.
    https://i.ibb.co/cvnytFy/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png

    • What does the current distribution of ozone tell us Ren? Thanks

      For me the climate works on all different scales some short some long and sometimes at odds with one another.

      SHORTEST TO LONGEST CLIMATE FACTORS

      VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY/POLLUTION

      ENSO

      ATMOSPEHRIC CIRCULATION PATTERNS

      SURFACE OCEANIC TEMPERATURES

      SEA ICE

      SNOW COVER

      CLOUD COVER

      CO2

      WATER VAPOR

      SOLAR ACTIVITY

      GEO MAGNETIC ACTIVITY

      OCEANIC CIRCULATION PATTERNS

      MILANKOVITCH CYCLES

      CONTINENTAL DRIFT/ MEAN LAND ELEVATION

      OF COURSE THE RARE COSMIC EVENT WHICH COULD TURN THE CLIMATE UPSIDE DOWN.

      Does any one agree or see this different ?

  55. ren says:

    SANTIAGO (Reuters) – More than 30,000 tremors have rocked Antarctica since the end of August, according to the University of Chile, a spike in seismic activity that has intrigued researchers who study the remote, snowbound continent.

    Scientists with the universitys National Seismological Center said the small quakes – including one stronger shake of magnitude 6 – were detected in the Bransfield Strait, a 60-mile wide (96-km) ocean channel between the South Shetland Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula.

    Several tectonic plates and microplates meet near the strait, leading to frequent rumbling, but the past three months have been unusual, according to the center.

    Most of the seismicity is concentrated at the beginning of the sequence, mainly during the month of September, with more than a thousand earthquakes a day, the center said.

    The shakes have become so frequent that the strait itself, once increasing in width at a rate of about 7 or 8 mm (0.30 inch) a year is now expanding 15 cm (6 inches) a year, the center said.

    Its a 20-fold increase … which suggests that right this minute … the Shetland Islands are separating more quickly from the Antarctic peninsula, said Sergio Barrientos, the centers director.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chile-quake-antarctica/antarctica-rocked-by-30000-tremors-in-3-months-chilean-scientists-say-idUSKBN28Q2XO

  56. Gordon Robertson says:

    revisiting Swannies experiment in which he located a metal plate over a heated plate then claimed the unheated metal plate was radiating IR back to the heated plate and raising its temperature.

    Quite by accident today (serendipity??) I was using a double boiler arrangement on the stove today. It is comprised of a lower pot in which water is boiled and an upper pot with holes in the base in which vegetables can be steamed. A lid goes on top of the upper pot to keep steam contained in the upper pot which has been boiled off water in the lower pot.

    I usually get the lower pot boiling with the upper pot in place with no lid. When the water is boiling, I half fill the upper pot with frozen vegetables. When I added the frozen vegetables today, I noticed that the water stopped boiling almost immediately. According to Swannie, the water should have started boiling harder as the upper pot radiated heat back to the water.

    Certainly, Norman has claimed ice will radiate to water and increase its temperature, so why did the water stop boiling with the frozen vegetables in the upper pot?

    There is a partial explanation in that the upper pot cooled due to the added frozen veggies and via conduction, heat was transferred from the lower pot. Still, the base of the lower pot is touching an electric stove ring with water at 100C on the other side, and should not be cooled to the extent that the water stopped boiling.

    A more plausible explanation is that the cooled upper pot reduced the steam temperature in the lower pot causing the pressure to decrease. That would have affected the boiling.

    But hey, according to Swannie, Norman, et al, the frozen veggies should have radiated IR back to the boiling water, maintaining the boil.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Is it possible for you to be as stupid as your post suggests? You are almost as stupid as ClintR (which is a very hard task to accomplish!).

      Norman (me) has never stated that “Norman has claimed ice will radiate to water and increase its temperature”

      I give complex explanations that you are too ignorant to understand and they you post how stupid you are when you repeat what you are not capable of understanding (just like the brain-dead ClintR).

      Water radiates away more energy than it receives from ice!! Do you get that? Probably not, your reasoning ability is severely limited.

      If you heat water with an external energy source, surrounding it with ice will cause it to reach a higher steady state temperature than if if was surrounded by colder dry ice. You can’t hope to understand or reason it out. But you will get it wrong, that is more than certain.

      • ClintR says:

        Norman, what Gordon is referring to is your confusion about ice confirmed by your unwillingness to face reality. You ran from the simple question about ice cubes. You run from reality. Want to run again?

        An ice cube rests on a table very close, but not touching, a thermometer. The ice cube and everything in the room is at 32 F.

        A second ice cube is placed on the other side of the thermometer, very close, but not touching.

        Will the second ice cube raise the temperature indicated by the thermometer?

        A) Yes
        B) No

        What is Norman’s answer?

      • Swenson says:

        N,

        What do you mean by surrounding? If the dry ice (radiating 15 um wavelength) is touching the water, the water stops being liquid. If it isn’t touching, then its insulating capability will depend on its optical properties, like transparency, reflectivity, etc., WRT the wavelengths emitted by the water at a given temperature.

        You may be aware that the Earth is surrounded by a medium with a nominal temperature of 4 K or so.

        This is far colder than dry ice, so according to you, surrounding water on the surface should result in hotter temperatures!

        You really dont understand basic physics, let alone the physics of radiation, do you?

        Try being specific. For example, you might be silly enough to say you are trying to heat the water from above (like the Sun is supposed to heat the deep oceans)! Give it a try sometime – in reality, rather than the make-believe world of climate alarmists.

        All your silliness always involves a heat source of unspecified location, unspecified intensity, and unspecified temperature! Get a grip – on reality, that is.

        • Norman says:

          Mike Flynn

          You are another stupid poster that is not able to understand anything people post. You repeat stupid things over and over and people respond sometimes. Usually to their immediate frustration. Once they realize how ignorant and unthinking you are they usually give up reasoning with you.

          • ClintR says:

            Norman, you can’t answer my simple question. You don’t understand science.

            All you understand is trolling.

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            Your mind has been taken over by your fantasy. I am not your imaginary adversary, Mike Flynn.

            Or Santa Claus, for that matter.

            However, I will point out to others that you refuse to specify what you are talking about, as usual. Of course, ice at any temperature higher than that of dry ice will be warmer. What is so novel about hot things being warmer than not-so-hot things?

            It doesnt change the fact that you cannot use the radiated energy from even an infinite amount of ice to increase the temperature of the most miniscule amount of water.

            Similarly, you cannot use the radiated energy from even an infinite amount of CO2 to raise the temperature of anything warmer – for example, if the CO2 is part of the atmosphere, then it cannot make the warmer surface even hotter.

            Your pathetic attempts at amateur magical illusions only convince fellow alarmists, and the mentally challenged.

          • Entropic man says:

            Hmm. I take a mercury thermometer and put in in a freezer until it indicates -20C.

            I then put the thermometer with a bulb at -20C between two blocks of ice at 0C and watch it warm to 0C. How come ice can warm a thermometer?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            entropic…”I then put the thermometer with a bulb at -20C between two blocks of ice at 0C and watch it warm to 0C. How come ice can warm a thermometer?”

            Do you really think the ice at 0C will remain at 0C long enough for the thermometer to reach 0C? And, when have you ever encountered ice at 0C? Normally they come out of the freezer at -18C or so.

          • ClintR says:

            E, we know you can pervert reality. But, can you deal with the issue without such trickery?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-573895

            Norman can’t.

    • bobdroege says:

      Kick Gordon out of the kitchen, he doesn’t know the difference between a double boiler and a steamer.

      I could tell you why the water in your steamer stopped boiling, but you wouldn’t understand anyway.

  57. ren says:

    The polar vortex forecast in the lower stratosphere shows a clear track for Arctic air masses over Alaska to the interior of North America. You can see the polar vortex blockage over the Bering Sea, where ozone accumulates in the stratosphere.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2020/12/23/0600Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-97.43,87.95,372
    https://i.ibb.co/bKMq15G/gfs-t70-nh-f120.png

  58. ren says:

    A sharp jump in the SOI index over the past few days.
    https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

  59. Entropic man says:

    he goal was growth capitalist growth so that the future would be bigger, fatter, richer, more luxurious than the present. Which worked fine until you come up against the planets limits.

    Stephen Baxter

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”Which worked fine until you come up against the planets limits”.

      Do you mean real limits or those imagined by myopic eco-weenies?

  60. ren says:

    Europe would be trapped in the Russian frost in ten days.

  61. barry says:

    Gordon has the yearly rankings thing completely wrong. Despite being corrected multiple times over several years.

    The values he quotes are NOT the ‘confidence levels’.

    In early 2014, NOAA and GISS issued a joint statement that 2014 was the warmest year. During the press briefing they showed a slide. This one.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybwqfrre

    48% is NOT the confidence level, or confidence interval.

    It is the probability that 2014 is the warmest ranked year (for NOAA’s data set).

    The second ranked year, 2010, had a probability of 18% of being the warmest year in the record.

    You can read up on the methodology here, if you’re interested.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013GL057999

    GISS gave 2014 a 38% probability of being the warmest year in their record, with 2010 having a 23% probability of being the warmest.

    • Clint R says:

      barry, NASA GISS indicated 38%, NOAA indicated 48%. Did that mean that NOAA needed more funding?

      Funding is part of the agenda. You don’t see GOV agencies saying “We have too much money”. Science has become “$cience”.

      And speaking of “agenda”, bdgwx stated “The values NOAA and GISS report are at the 95% confidence interval.”

      Why aren’t you attacking bdgwx equally? Is it because you don’t attack your other cult members?

    • Bindidon says:

      barry

      ” Despite being corrected multiple times over several years. ”

      People like Robertson you may contradict and correct as long as you want. They silently ignore that, and endlessly repeat their boring, egocentric trash.

      Robertson is the one here who discredits, denigrates, distorts the most – regardless what he talks about, be it climate, Einstein, viruses or even astronomy.

      Luckily, only his few affiliated altar boys listen to his lies. All others only smile for him.

      J.-P. D.

    • bdgwx says:

      Exactly.

      There is a difference between NASA’s 95% CI of around +/- 0.05 for individual annual means and the probability that a particular year would truly land in a particular position in a given ranking.

      NOAA and NASA report their values with a 95% CI envelope. It is because of this 95% CI envelope that we can only say with a given probability that the year with the highest annual mean would truly land in position #1. 2010 was close enough to other years that the probability ended up being < 50%. That's just the way the math works out.

      I was hoping I could get GR to understand this difference by having him attempt to compute these probabilities himself.

      I still think Berkeley Earth provides the best visualization of what is going on.

      http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_Probability_Distribution-768×433.png

        • bdgwx says:

          Oh yeah. That’s better. Thanks.

          • Swenson says:

            Does that mean you are 95% confident that you both have no clue?

            Berkeley Earths silly graph refers to a Global Mean Temperature Anomaly. Temperature of what? Not the land surface, not the sea surface. Maybe air temperature? Nope, certainly not over the 70% of the surface covered by oceans, and meaningless over land for a variety of reasons.

            Berekely Earth is a non profit organisation, begging all and sundry for funds to keep its operators looking important. Their target audience is gullible donkeys like you – except wealthy ones, of course.

            Im guessing you dont think Berkeley Earth is worthy of a donation. Not quite that gullible, or just mean?

          • Svante says:

            It’s land and sea surface temperature combined.

          • Nate says:

            “Berkeley Earths silly graph refers to a Global Mean Temperature Anomaly.”

            Its pretty obvious to anybody with a bit of intelligence what this means.

            Flynnson seems unable to comprehend it.

            Well there we have it.

  62. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, I think I have a lab experiment that can answer many of the questions that are discussed on your blog. The experiment would be to isolate the impact of LWIR on CO2. I think there is a lot of confusion about the conservation of energy, but this issue involves the conversion of energy from one form to another. EM radiation travels through outer space without ever losing any energy. Only when the EM radiation strikes a molecule is that energy converted to thermal energy. Shine visible light through a flask of CO2 and the light simply passes through the gas without causing any warming. If the molecule doesn’t absorb the photons, it doesn’t get converted to heat energy.

    Because LWIR of 15 Microns is consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degree C, the experiment would be to:

    1) Fill a flask with pure 100% CO2.
    2) Place a 15 Micron LWIR Filter on the top of the flask
    3) Use dry ice to get the CO2 below -80 degree C
    4) Administer LWIR of 15 micron to the CO2
    5) Make sure that the flask either transmits or reflects LWIR, and does not thermalize it
    6) Record the temperature of the CO2

    My bet is that the LWIR won’t increase the temperature of the CO2 above -80 degrees C. If it does, CO2 would be emitting radiation at a higher energy than it is absorbing. If that is the case, CO2 is better than cold fusion 🙂

    • Nate says:

      OMG,

      “Because LWIR of 15 Microns is consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degree C, the experiment would be to:”

      Again, your equating a narrow band of wavelengths with a full BB spectrum @-80K makes NO SENSE.

      “My bet is that the LWIR wont increase the temperature of the CO2 above -80 degrees C.”

      You need to work with fluxes in W/m2, and undserstand that reducing outgoing flux, even in a wl band, matters. Because its all about net energy gain or loss and 1LOT.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Nate, you do understand the physics here right? This is a quantum physics issue. You understand that right?

        You understand the meaning of this graphic, right?
        http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/595px-atmospheric_transmission.png

        And this one?
        https://climateilluminated.com/media/CO2/Slide5.JPG

        Here is Spectralcalc’s Blackbody Calculator. Enter -80 Degree C and 15 Micron 13 min 18 max.
        https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

        The only, the one and only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through thermalizing 15 micron LWIR, that is the one and only defined mechanism. That is the Greenhouse Gas Effect in a nutshell. Do you know of any other mechanism?

        If you can take 15 micron LWIR and warm something above -80 degree C, then you have found a perpetual energy system. You just found cold fusion. If 15 micron LWIR can warm something above -80 degrees C, you would simply take something of -80 Degrees C, use it to warm another material beyond -80 Degree C, and then use it to warm another material to a warmer temperature. See the problem? You are creating energy. A Blackbody of -80 degrees C can’t warm another material beyond – 80 Degrees C.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “A Blackbody of -80 degrees C can’t warm another material beyond – 80 Degrees C.”

          You keep ignoring the sun! The COMBINATION of sunlight and radiation from a -80C blackbody will warm an object to a higher temperature than the COMBINATION of sunlight and radiation from a -270C blackbody.

          This really is not that complicated.

          • Clint R says:

            A combination of -80C and sunlight will NOT raise the temperature of a 288 K surface more than sunlight alone.

      • CO2isLife says:

        BTW, why don’t we have Greenhouse Gas Effect Powered Cars?

        CO2 exposed to LWIR back radiation warms and expands. It pushes the piston, PV/T, the gas cools, the cycle then compresses the CO2, the LWIR warms it, and the cycle starts all over again.

        All you need is a Piston with an IR Transparent Compression Zone and an IR shielded expansion zone. This would be similar to a Sterling Engine.

        Where is Elon Musk when we need him?

        • Svante says:

          The GHE modulates heat loss, heat gain is from the Sun.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “the gas cools”

          This stage in a heat engine requires an actual heat SINK. The cooling as the gas expands is not sufficient.

          For an idealized Sterling engine like you imagine, you need two thermal reservoirs — lets say at 0C (273K) and -80 C (193 K). There are 4 stages.

          “CO2 exposed to LWIR back radiation warms and expands”
          Yep — those are the first two stages.
          1) CO2 @ -80 would warm first to 0C due to IR radiation from the ice.
          2) CO2 @ 0 C would expand and do work, kept in thermal contact with the 0 C ice .

          “It pushes the piston, PV/T, the gas cools”
          Not in a Sterling cycle. The gas is kept warm as it expands by maintaining thermal contact with the hot reservoir (the ice in this example).

          3) the actual 3rd step is to take the expanded gas and cool it by putting it in contact with the cold reservoir (something @ -80 C).

          “the cycle then compresses the CO2
          4) Yes, by doing work on the gas while keeping it at -80 C.

          The point is that you need a thermal connection an actual reservoir at -80 C and another thermal contact to an actual reservoir at 0 C (or whatever two temperatures you want to use).

          “All you need is a Piston with an IR Transparent Compression Zone and an IR shielded expansion zone. ”
          What you actually need during expansion is an IR window to the hot side and an IR reflector to the cold side.
          Later, during compression, you need an IR window to the cold side and an IR reflector to the hot side.

          If you can find an actual thermal reservoir that you can make contact with at -80C, then you can build your engine. Since these are basically impossible to find on earth, such an engine is basically impossible to build.

          • Clint R says:

            A combination of -80C and sunlight will NOT raise the temperature of a 288 K surface more than sunlight alone.

      • Nate says:

        “Here is Spectralcalcs Blackbody Calculator. Enter -80 Degree C and 15 Micron 13 min 18 max.
        https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

        What am I supposed to see here?

        Again, it takes a broad range of wl to have a BB spectrum, nit just around 15 microns.

        You are confused.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Dr. Spencer you would likely have to use liquid Nitrogen, not Dry Ice. Dry Ice, solid CO2, would likely complicate the experiment.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Coincidence? CO2’s sublimation point is almost exactly -80 Degree C. CO2, after emitting its LWIR photon on 15 microns, stops vibrating and turns solid. When is absorbs the 15 micron LWIR Photon, the CO2 warms and turns to a gas. Very interesting, and shows how well engineered the systems are. Everything is in perfect balance.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Take a look at MODTRAN.
          http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

          CO2 remains at 410 PPM all the way up to 70 km. The atmospheric temperature reaches a low at 17 KM of 195 Degrees K. Just what is 195 Degrees K? You got it, the IR Signature of CO2. Imagine that. The lowest temperature the atmosphere reaches happens to be -80 Degrees C. Why? Because at 17 km, the only greenhouse gas present is CO2. CO2 puts a floor in the atmosphere, it doesn’t raise the ceiling. CO2 thermalizes the outgoing LWIR and that is why the temperature bottoms at -80 Degrees C.

          Once again, everything is in perfect balance, as if someone designed it that way.

          • Svante says:

            “The atmospheric temperature reaches a low at 17 KM of 195 Degrees K”

            Only in the standard tropical atmosphere.

          • CO2isLife says:

            @Svante, under no location according to MODTRAN does the -80 Degree C barrier get broken. None. Do you have evidence that temperatures in the lower 70 KM fall below -80 Degree C?

          • Svante says:

            No, but it is higher in many places.

          • CO2isLife says:

            @Svante: “No, but it is higher in many places.”

            It is higher at the surface. Higher isn’t the issue. The point is CO2 puts a floor, not a ceiling. Adding additional energy can raise the temperature. This issue is thermalizing 15 micron LWIR puts in a floor.

          • Nate says:

            “Once again, everything is in perfect balance, as if someone designed it that way.”

            Yes someone making up their own fictional science did.

            Do you have any expertise in this topic? In physics? Meteorology? Atmospheric science? It is evident that you do not. Are you aware that you have gaps in your knowledge?

            Then its hard to understand why you have such confidence that many people who do have expertise and years of study of this topic, such as Roy Spencer, have it all wrong, and you, a non-expert have found the flaws.

            Can you explain that?

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate can not offer any science. He can only attack.

          • Nate says:

            As usual, we can interpret that to find the truth

            ‘Troll Clint can not offer any science. He can only attack.’

            That actually works.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong troll Nate. That’s another example of you MIS-interpresting my words.

          • Svante says:

            That’s ClintR confirming Nate was correct.

          • Clint R says:

            Svante joins Nate in attempting to misrepresent me.

            Sorry trolls, zero added to zero is still ZERO.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “4) Administer LWIR of 15 micron to the CO2”

      The easy way to do this, of course, it is use warm CO2. You could surround your cold flask with CO2 held at, say 20C or 200 C. This CO2 would emit primarily at 15 um for the same reason the CO2 inside the flask abs.orbs at 15 um.

      My bet is that the CO2 in the flask will come to exactly the same temperature as the surrounding CO2. That is required whenever two ‘systems’ are brought into thermal contact (exchanging thermal radiation).

      It is the UNTENSITY of the radiation that matters, not the WAVEMENTGTH per se. Warm CO2 will emit a lot of 15 um radiation, while the cold CO2 only emits a little. The cold CO2 absorbs net energy and warms up.

      (This experiment would be considerably more complicated than you seem to imagine, but assuming you could set it up, I could use the warm CO2’s 15 um radiation to warm up the cold CO2.)

      • CO2isLife says:

        “The easy way to do this, of course, it is use warm CO2. You could surround your cold flask with CO2 held at, say 20C or 200 C. This CO2 would emit primarily at 15 um for the same reason the CO2 inside the flask abs.orbs at 15 um.”

        Tim, I don’t think that would work. The whole purpose is to isolate the impact of LWIR on CO2. If you warm the CO2 gas up to a certain temperature, the IR given off would be consistent with that temperature. That is the thermal IR being given off as the gas cools.

        Venus’s atmosphere is Largely CO2 and this IR photo shows the many colors due to the various temperatures.
        https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA00112

        The key is to isolate the warming effect if LWIR of 15 Microns, not the addition of thermal energy.

        Dry Ice sublimates at -78 Degree C, so that is step one of the experiment.

        1) Does CO2 sublimate at a faster rate when exposed to 15 micron LWIR. My bet is that it does.

        2) Once the dry ice has turned to gas in the insulated flask, its temperature should be just about -80 degree C.

        3) Without adding any external thermal radiation (keep the CO2 contained in the insulated container) apply LWIR of 15 microns.

        My bet is that the addition of 15 micron LWIR won’t warm the CO2 gas above -80 degree C.

        Once again, we are focusing this experiment on the green house gas effect, not the thermal effect of a gas. Outiside 15 microns, CO2 is just like every other gas. In that case, it is the wavelength not the intensity of the light. If you shine an intense light on a gas that is transparent to that light, you will get no warming.

        Anyway, the experiment I just detailed above could easily be done in my garage, and certainly in any University Lab.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          You have apparently never tried to do experiments at these temperatures.

          You are trying to isolate the impact of one SMALL effect: changing the intensity of one small band of weak IR radiation acting on one small sample of gas. You also have the mass of the container for the gas. And conduction and convection from the surroundings to/from the container. And all the OTHER wavelengths of thermal IR interacting with both the CO2 and the container.

          This will NOT be a simple experiment!

  63. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-causes-a-volcanic-winter.html

    YES YES YES

    Yes I am expecting some major volcanic activity sooner rather then later. Yes this is part of my global cooling position. Yes this can lead to other changers to enhance the cooling.

    Yes the AGW crowd will say temporary at best and yes they will say not due to low geo magnetic/solar activity.

    Yes they will be wrong as usual.

    Yes they are so confident right now in their AGW theory because temperatures have been trending up but this has happened many times in the past with greater rates of temperature increases.

    Yes the sea ice is a big factor but has to reach a level where it can exert a change. Yes major volcanic activity could be the catalyst for this to take place.

  64. Very interesting and that is type of thing is real not fantasy.

    A MAJOR VOLCANIC ERUPTION – If location was correct ,height of explosion is high enough, ash composition thick enough, with heavy SO2 emissions would impact the climatic system in a quick severe way.

    Of course a major volcanic eruption could have much less effects it all depends on the above.

  65. ren says:

    It is worth seeing the forecast of a polar vortex in the lower stratosphere on December 29. The polar vortex will be over Siberia and Scandinavia, where it will form its center.
    https://i.ibb.co/g6HML8L/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png

    • Curious says:

      Ren

      What do you assess as a result of that. For example, Scandinavia.

      • ren says:

        The Russian high will probably attack Europe. I predict a large negative temperature anomaly in Europe.

        • Bindidon says:

          ren

          Over the years, I learned a lot of how accurate your predictions are.

          In Germany, I don’t see day temperatures going below 0 C until February.

          I had a look at the GHCN daily data till Jan 2020 for Scandinavia, i.e. Norway (NO), Sweden (SW) and Finland (FI). Ignore Denmark, it’s much too warm there.

          Here is the top20 of the ascending sort of daily TMIN reports for December days in Scandinavia:

          FI000007501 62-82 1915 12 31 -30.65
          NO000097250 63-82 1904 12 31 -29.88
          SWE00140886 63-80 1985 12 31 -29.88
          NO000097250 63-82 1915 12 31 -29.61
          FIE00146067 62-83 1978 12 31 -29.55
          FIE00146408 62-83 1978 12 31 -29.49
          NO000097250 63-82 1955 12 31 -29.25
          NO000097250 63-82 1985 12 31 -29.14
          SWE00140824 62-79 1985 12 31 -29.01
          FI000007501 62-82 1985 12 23 -28.95
          SWE00140886 63-80 1967 12 31 -28.91
          SWE00140906 63-79 1985 12 31 -28.88
          NOE00111327 63-81 1986 12 31 -28.81
          SWE00140906 63-79 1986 12 31 -28.63
          SWE00140700 62-80 1978 12 31 -28.58
          SWE00140742 62-79 1978 12 31 -28.51
          SWE00140886 63-80 1978 12 31 -28.44
          SWE00140620 62-78 1985 12 31 -28.39
          NOE00109485 63-81 1985 12 31 -28.34
          FIE00146543 63-82 1985 12 31 -28.30

          As you can see, this top20 doesn’t contain any data since 2000; the first record came far below from 2010, Dec 31 in Sweden.

          *
          For Scandinavia, we currently expect a short drop between -17 C and -19 C (night temperatures) on Dec 27-29.

          ren: please stop telling us about cooling in Europe.
          It is behind us.

          If you still are so fixated on posting cooling reports, then please tell us about the temperatures in Northern CONUS. It’s really cold there since years, due to the weakening of the polar vortex.

          J.-P. D.

  66. ren says:

    La Nina is fully operational, as indicated by the subsurface temperature anomalies in the equatorial Pacific.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC002&year=2020&month=12

  67. Ren is saying we have a nice La Nina , and it lopks like it may be around for a while.

  68. Swenson says:

    Entropic Man tries to play the flim-flam game himself.

    He says –

    * December 18, 2020 at 5:10 PM
    Hmm. I take a mercury thermometer and put in in a freezer until it indicates -20C.

    I then put the thermometer with a bulb at -20C between two blocks of ice at 0C and watch it warm to 0C. How come ice can warm a thermometer? *

    Hmmm. Because its hotter than the thermometer? Listen up. 273 K is hotter than 253 K. Boiling water at 373 K is hotter than both.

    Now that the audience can see your attempts as misdirection have failed, you could try explaining to them why no amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of the smallest amount of water! Feel free to quote the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Swenson, you make a pretty good rebuttal. Let’s take things up a notch.

      I have a small coffee pot that sits on a constant-power hotplate. Inside my house (20C), the coffee stays about 80 C. If I take the coffee pot outside on a cold winter night, I think we all agree the coffee in the pot will not stay as hot. Maybe it will be just 40C.

      Now surround the coffee pot with ice @ 0C (or put it in a refrigerator set to 0C). The coffee will warm up a bit — say to 60C.

      And viola! The radiation from the ice at 0C (in conjunction with the input from the hot plate) just raised the temperature of the water from 40C to 60C. The ice at 0C is radiating MORE than the initial -20C surrounding.

      (In this case, there is also conduction at play. But It is easy to imagine doing a similar experiment in a vacuum chamber with no conduction.)

      • Svante says:

        Tim Folkerts says:
        “I think we all agree the coffee in the pot will not stay as hot.”
        Our friends in the lunatic reference frame do not agree. They do not do experiments, only hand waving.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        I see you dont want to specify the temperature of your cold winter night. Just more illusory flimflam.

        If it is 0 C, for example, the same temperature as your refrigerator or ice, why would your pot miraculously get 20C hotter?

        Magic, perhaps?

        Turn off your heat source, and your beverage will quickly achieve equilibrium with its surroundings.

        As a side issue, to anyone silly enough to say the sun acts like your constant power hotplate, I will just point out that the hotplate is underneath your beverage for a reason. Try using it to heat your drink from above. Now you appreciate why the bottom of any deep body of water is colder than the rock surrounding it.

        Or maybe you dont.

  69. Rob Mitchell says:

    Hey ren, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that the Arctic ice grew by an average of 116,000 km^2 per day in the month of November 2020. This is the fastest average daily growth on record for the month of November.

    I’m sure Bindidon will dismiss this statistic because the month of October had the 2nd lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record. He will point to October as strong evidence for human-caused global warming.

    But what I contend, and I believe you and Salvatore argue as well, is that the earth warms and cools, warms and cools, and warms and cools over several decades of time. I think the global warming advocates have made the classic mistake of correlation is causation. They see the rising CO2 levels since the 1950s, and they attach that to the multi-decadal global warming trend since the 1980s. And then they extrapolate that into the future and warn us all that a climate catastrophe is in store for us. I think this is complete nonsense.

    The melting Arctic ice was the front and center example by the global warming alarmists that the earth is warming, and humans are the cause of it. And that the sea ice is going to melt away, followed by Greenland ice, and the sea levels are going to rise at a rate beyond our capabilities to cope with it. But guess what? The melting Arctic ice is slowing down, and is now showing signs of bottoming out. The Greenland Surface Mass Balance is showing signs of recovering back to normal. And, if you look at the combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, the average global sea ice extent has gone from 23,000,000 km^2 in 1979 down to 22,000,000 km^2 today. I really don’t see anything alarming about that at all.

    To me, the record Arctic ice growth in November only means that the earth is constantly in the process of equalizing its heat distribution. There was a deficiency of sea ice in October, so there was more water to freeze up in November. The earth does this on longer time scales as well. If there is an excess of sea ice, that is more ice to melt. And so it goes over decades of time. Excess ice melts away some, then a deficient ice cover freezes up in a seesaw manner. The alarmists only pay attention to one side of this natural climate variation, and declare it “human caused.”

    • Exactly Rob. They think they are correct but the reality is they probably are not and chances are pretty good global temperatures by the end of this decade will be lower then now.

      • bdgwx says:

        How do you think that will be possible with the Earth Energy Imbalance at +0.8 W/m^2 and with the effective radiative forcing continuing to increase?

        https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf

        • Clint R says:

          bdgwx, here you are making another mess. Your cult indoctrinated you with that bogus “+0.8 W/m^2 Energy Imbalance”. Earth has no such thing. All energy imbalances are handled as they occur. You have no understanding of Earth’s systems or the physics involved. You just make messes for others to clean up.

          And speaking of cleaning up your messes, here’s another one you left:

          “Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”

          1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?

          2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?

          Clean up you messes. Don’t be a child.

        • bdgwx they act as though CO2 is the ONLY item that matters in the vast climatic system of earth. Foolish and will be wrong in time.

          • bdgwx says:

            Who is “they”?

            Climate scientists definitely do NOT act as though CO2 is the ONLY item that matters. A read through the IPCC AR5 WGI report shows that ‘s just blatantly false.

          • Entropic man says:

            Straw man alert.

            The climate scientists measure and often monitor a wide variety of variables which affect weather and climate. All but one act in cycles, locally, over the wrong timescale, have too small an effect or are cooling. Put all but one together and their net effect is 0.005C cooling/decade.

            The odd one out is increasing CO2. The 0.2C/decade long term increase in surface temperature matches the rate expected from theory with a lag of 25 years. Nothing else comes remotely close.

            No-one claims that CO2 is the only variable which might affect climate. We do claim that it is the only variable significantly affecting the decadal trend at present.

        • Very good article I will give it that. I wish this could be a topic for discussion with Dr. Spencer giving his pros and cons about it.

          It makes sense on the face of it but I just do not think the complex climatic system can be so easily reduced to such simplicity.

          There are to many things /unknowns that could easily trip this up.

          Time will tell.

    • bdgwx says:

      You get high refreeze rates like when the minimum is so low like it was. Even with those high refreeze rates Arctic sea ice extent is still below the 2-sigma climatological envelope. Expect this refreeze rate record to get repeatedly broken.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx makes another “mess”. He claims Arctic sea ice extent is below “2-sigma”. That would mean bdgwx has to know what Arctic sea ice extent is supposed to be.

        But, of course, he doesn’t.

        He’s messier than a toddler with diarrhea.

        • bobdroege says:

          Found this gem in ClintR’s nappy, it stinks

          “That would mean bdgwx has to know what Arctic sea ice extent is supposed to be.”

          Where do you come up with this garbage?

          The two sigma is based on what sea ice extent is, not what it’s supposed to be.

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            And all this drivel about sea ice means . . . ?

            Not a damn thing? Of no practical use to man nor beast?

            I thought so.

          • Nate says:

            “And all this drivel about sea ice means . . . ?”

            If something has no meaning to you, then your comment upon it has no meaning to anyone. It is rather useless.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Whose drivel are you complaining about, my drivel or ClintR’s drivel.

            I was just pointing out that ClintR is all off of his meds and making stuff up again. Doesn’t know what to do with data.

            The loss of sea ice is a potential feedback adding to more warming from whatever warming caused the ice to start melting in the first place.

            In arguments with me, you have already admitted that CO2 can warm the planets surface so off you go.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        A climatological envelope? You do realise that averages are derived from a series of numbers, and are the cause of nothing at all?

        If you believe that you can predict the future by examining the averages of historical numbers, you should join the cult of climatology. Even most governments these days require financial prognosticators to warn their gullible clients that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Climatologists are different, of course.

        Climate alarmists can predict any lunatic future they like, without fear of being held accountable! Authority without responsibility. Yeehaw!

    • Bindidon says:

      Rob Mitchell

      ” Im sure Bindidon will dismiss this statistic because the month of October had the 2nd lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record. He will point to October as strong evidence for human-caused global warming. ”

      Bare nonsense, Mitchell, you intentionally misrepresent my meaning, AND you know that.

      Because as opposed to you, I never cherry-pick single months to demonstrate anything, let alone any strong evidence for human-caused global warming.

      Here is the daily stuff for daily NSID-C Arctic sea ice extent data, managed by colorado.edu:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view

      YOU, Mitchell, are the one who cherry-picks.

      If I was a cherry-picker like you, I would of course intentionally hide data about the Antarctic, from the same source:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BCEkUrq8b2d_DwZZZRM43rQwMDrWnEdM/view

      You are a poor guy, specialized in nothing else than useless polemic.

      J.-P. D.

      • Bindidon says:

        I just downloaded the SIDADS data for Arctic sea ice extent, and we can clearly observe that currently, the anomaly level has moved above that of 2019, below 1 Mkm2.

        Good news!

        I have always said that this loss of Arctic sea ice is NOT good for us here in Europe, because its consequence is a cooling of the Northern Atlantic (plus a decrease of salinity), what in turn results in an increase of atmospheric perturbations together with a lack of precipitations.

        We have in Northwestern Germany no winters anymore since years, no snow here, and it is much too dry.

        Here is the Europe forecast for January 2021:

        https://tinyurl.com/ybn4pqt2

        My reaction: please give us more sea ice in the Arctic!

        J.-P. D.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        Merry Christmas everybody!

        Bindidon, you sure sure do get agitated over little-itty-bitty things, don’t you? All that I was doing is to show how the earth compensates for excesses and deficiencies over short periods of time, and this constant equalization process also occurs over longer time periods as well.

        Bouncing off the point about albedo Salvador mentions a lot, this is yet another way the earth balances itself out. If the earth gets abnormally warm, this increases cloud cover and the albedo, then the earth cools some subsequently. If the earth becomes abnormally cool, the cloud cover and albedo decreases, allowing for the earth to warm again over various periods of time.

        To make the point that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary factor involved with this multi-decadal warming period we are going through seems to throw out all of the other factors as negligible. I think it is just the opposite. Increasing CO2 is negligible in comparison to everything else. I know Dr. Lindzen has been making this point quite well over the decades. His climate science foes have all been reduced to personal insults by accusing him of taking fossil fuel money, because they can’t debate him on the science. I know Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy have endured the same.

        • Svante says:

          Rob Mitchell says:

          “To make the point that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary factor involved with this multi-decadal warming period we are going through seems to throw out all of the other factors as negligible.”

          It’s been a logarithmic function CO2 for 250 years. Other factors are cyclic, random or temporary. Lindzen had a good theory but it didn’t work out that way.
          https://tinyurl.com/wz6oelr

  70. ren says:

    Another snowstorm will strike Pennsylvania and New York. During the previous one, 4 feet of snow fell in parts of southern New York.
    https://i.ibb.co/YBV9sgR/Screenshot-1.png

    • bdgwx says:

      There are details science still does not understand. We’ll never have perfect understanding of Earth’s climate. But…I’m curious…what big picture issue do feel has not be reconciled?

      BTW…keep this in mind when trying to reconcile past climate. Like all main sequence stars the Sun brightens as it ages. You can estimate the luminosity change via simple Gough 1981 formula. It comes out to about 1% every 120 million years. So 600 million years ago the solar forcing was 12 W/m^2 less. All other things being equal it would take 10x the amount of CO2 to compensate for that. Of course all other things are never equal. You have to consider other GHGs, continental positioning, dust, volcanic activity, biological activity, albedo, other aerosol sources, etc.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx believes: “You can estimate the luminosity change via simple Gough 1981 formula.”

        bdgwx, you can make up a formula based on your beliefs. But, that ain’t science.

        You can make up a formula for the number of unicorns living inside the Moon!

        That ain’t science!

        Do you have any REAL SCIENCE to support AGW?

        Linking to a large number of “papers” won’t do. If “papers” are all you’ve got, give us your very best one.

  71. You have to consider other GHGs, continental positioning, dust, volcanic activity, biological activity, albedo, other aerosol sources,

    bdgwx says.

    That is exactly what I am saying which is why I find it hard to believe how positive they are that the climate will continue to warm as long as CO2 concentrations continue to increase. CO2 is not in a climate vacuum .

    Your right about the sun brightening, but if you look at the chart one can see long periods of time when CO2, and temperatures parted.

    One thought I have is major volcanic eruptions could put both SO2/CO2 into the atmosphere which could explain at times how co2 could increase while temperatures till went down.

    I do think as of today (this includes myself) that none of us know why and how the climate changes. We have good thoughts but it has yet to be put together. To many factors and those in addition to being to many are unknown as to how, and to what degree they interact with the climatic system. Thresholds may be present, it is just so complicated.

    • bdgwx says:

      A lot of people know and why the climate changes. The science is not perfect and it never will be, but that doesn’t preclude conclusions from being made with reasonable confidence.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, you don’t understand what “science” is. You are confusing “science” with “beliefs”. Real “science” withstands the test of time — numerous experiments, observations, independent verifications, etc. Real science does NOT violate the laws of physics.

    • ren says:

      “Troposphere
      Known as the lower atmosphere almost all weather occurs in this region. The troposphere begins at the Earth’s surface and extends from 4 to 12 miles (6 to 20 km) high.

      The height of the troposphere varies from the equator to the poles. At the equator it is around 11-12 miles (18-20 km) high, at 50N and 50S, 5 miles and at the poles just under four miles high.

      As the density of the gases in this layer decrease with height, the air becomes thinner. Therefore, the temperature in the troposphere also decreases with height in response. As one climbs higher, the temperature drops from an average around 62F (17C) to -60F (-51C) at the tropopause.”

  72. ren says:

    To make matters worse, the technology used in the reference periods, either 1961-1990 or 1971-2000, is far less accurate than the measurements made today. In fact, NOAA weights Argo float and drifting buoys, introduced in the early 2000s, by 6.8X, relative to the weight given to ship’s data (Huang, et al., 2017). The Hadley Centre says that Argo floats reduce their uncertainty by 30% (Kennedy, Rayner, Atkinson, & Killick, 2019). During the two reference periods almost all the data was from ships. This means that the greater inaccuracy of the measurements, relative to today, in the 30-year reference periods is significant. We might assume that the additional uncertainty is random, but that is unlikely to be the case.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/20/sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
    https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
    https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sst_1-day.png
    Is not it better to use the actual data?

  73. Clint R says:

    THE GREAT CONJUNCTION OF JUPITER AND SATURN: Want to see something that astronomers have been waiting 800 years to witness? Just step outside at sunset and look southwest. Jupiter and Saturn are having their finest conjunction since the Middle Ages. At closest approach on Dec. 21st, Saturn will appear as close to Jupiter as some of Jupiter’s moons.

    https://spaceweather.com

    TIPS FOR VIEWING:
    Look Southwest where the horizon is clear
    Plan on peak viewing for up to one hour
    It will look like one big star from the naked eye, but if you have a telescope you’ll be able to see the planets and some of the moons

    https://abc11.com/the-great-conjunction-christmas-star-2020-december-21/8872787/

    • ren says:

      Abstract
      One of the most famous climate oscillations has a period of about 60 years. Although this oscillation might emerge from internal variability, increasing evidence points toward a solar or astronomical origin, as also argued herein. We highlight that the orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents prominent oscillations with a period of quasi 60 years due to its gravitational coupling with Saturn. This oscillation is found to be well correlated with quite a number of climatic records and also with a 60‐year oscillation present in long meteorite fall records relative to the periods 6191943 CE. Since meteorite falls are the most macroscopic aspect of incoming space dust and their motion is mostly regulated by Jupiter, we propose that the interplanetary dust influx also presents a 60‐year cycle and could be forcing the climate to oscillate in a similar manner by modulating the formation of the clouds and, therefore, the Earth’s albedo.
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL089954

      • ren says:

        I suppose the cumulative gravity of Jupiter and Saturn will draw more cosmic dust into Earth’s orbit. Only a strong solar wind could interfere with this action.

    • Nate says:

      What?

      You believe astronomers can predict such things?

      How can they do that when they cant even get the Moons orbital properties right??!

      • Clint R says:

        “Rotating about an axis” is NOT an “orbital property”, troll Nate. Two independent motions.

        Why bring your nonsense here?

      • Nate says:

        For the perpetually confused, properties like axial tilt, polar coordinates, rotational period, etc.

        You reject these astronomical observations while accepting others. On what basis? Religious.

        • Clint R says:

          “Rotating about an axis” is NOT an “orbital property”, troll Nate. Two independent motions.

          Why bring your nonsense here?

  74. CO2isLife says:

    To show how biased and blinded climate science is, warming oceans is one of the best examples. Many many many things can cause the oceans to warm, yet everyone simply looks at CO2 and tries to justify their funding. People are even willing to overlook the problems with the quantum physics. Before I ever made the claim that a trace gas was causing all these problems, even knowing the geological record shows CO2 was as high as 7,000 ppm and life thrived, I’d want to rule out all the other for more likely causes. That is how real science works.

    Observation: The oceans are warming

    What warms the Oceans?: Largely visible radiation from the sun

    What causes variations in the radiation reaching the oceans?: Clouds, celestial objects like passing through galaxy fingers and dust, eclipses, and natural variations in the sun (sun spots).

    Has the cloud cover been decreasing over the oceans over the past few decades allowing more radiation to reach the oceans? Yes according to the data pvovided by WoodforTrees.
    https://www.woodfortrees.org/

    Did anyone bother to even look to see if a decreased cloud cover may be the cause of the warming? I doubt it.

  75. REN I figured out the climate analyzer. thanks for that valuable Info!

    CO2 is life spot on. With La Nina conditions clouds should increase? Agree?

    Of course the mean cloud coverage is going to have the greatest impact on oceanic sea surface temperatures.

  76. Chris Rasmus says:

    Nate wrote:

    “The last ice age was only ~ 5C cooler than now, globally. Yet NYC was covered by a km thick ice sheet.

    The Holocene Optimum 8000 y ago was warmer than year 1900 by 0.5-1.0 C.”

    How can we accurately make such statements when we’re talking about thousands of years ago when there were no way to make accurate measurements, or there is no recorded data to base such a statement on?

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, the more you reveal about your false beliefs, the funnier it gets.

        The first sentence of the abstract was funny enough:

        “An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available.”

        Guesses, estimates, assumptions, and “associated uncertainties” are funny, but that ain’t science.

        Where’s your REAL science to support AGW?

      • bdgwx I don’t believe that study. The Holocene Optimum was warmer then today.

        • bdgwx says:

          It’s actually a collation of 582 studies. The companion publication that documents it more thoroughly is this.

          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3

          • Clint R says:

            582 believers do not make a false belief legitimate.

            582,000,000 believers do not make a false belief legitimate.

            Believing otherwise ain’t science.

          • It is all agenda driven. False!

          • Svante says:

            Has it ever crossed your mind that you might be agenda driven?

          • Nate says:

            “Guesses, estimates, assumptions, and ‘associated uncertainties’ are funny, but that aint science.”

            Sounds like CLint rejects all our understanding of past climates and eras.

            Apparently Geology ain’t science.

            We’ll add it to the growing list of science that Clint rejects.

          • Clint R says:

            Quoting me exactly is okay, Nate.

            What makes you an idiot troll is when you try to misrepresent my words.

          • Nate says:

            You are quite consistent in dismissing science of all kinds.

            Here you do it again.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, troll Nate.

            I didn’t dismiss any REAL science. Real science is something that is demonstrable, repeatable, observable, and does NOT violate the laws of physics.

            You don’t have any REAL science that adding more CO2 will raise Earth’s surface temperature. All you have are you cult beliefs.

            Cult beliefs ain’t science.

            Now troll some more. That’s all you can do.

  77. ren says:

    Will UK children see snow on December 28, 2020?
    https://i.ibb.co/TTjR656/hgt300.png

  78. ren says:

    It is interesting to follow how the unusual weakening of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere above the North Pacific is progressing. It is unusual because the polar vortex should get stronger during this phase of winter.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-104.38,97.30,281

  79. Strop says:

    Roy says:
    “If nothing else, the results in Fig. 3 might give us some idea of the ENSO-related SST variations for 300-400 years before anthropogenic forcings became significant, and how those variations affected temperature trends on various time scales. For if those naturally-induced temperature trend variations existed before, then they still exist today.”

    Looking at fig.3, there are 10-20-30 year bands of variation of approx 0.8deg but when the data enters the 20th century (1900’s) these bands narrow and particularly the last 50 years of the chart has a very small band of variation. If the naturally induced variations still exist today then what makes the band narrow? Or is the historical interpreted / modelled info wrong?

  80. Aug 19, 2018 The warmest conditions of the present cycle occurred between 10,000 and 6,000 B.P with temperatures about 1C above modern values. This warmer climate was mild, with light winds and lush forests. Last thought

    This is the factual data the correct data.

  81. ren says:

    The circulation of ozone in the stratosphere indicates an influx of arctic air in the east of the US at the time of Christmas.
    https://i.ibb.co/hmWtVbK/gfs-toz-nh-f120.png

  82. Has it ever crossed your mind that you might be agenda driven?

    NO.

  83. https://cryosphere.today/IMAGES/arctic.recent.png

    Arctic ice coming back. I thought it was all suppose to be gone by now according to AGW.

    • bdgwx says:

      Arctic sea ice comes back every year around this time as it refreezes. That’s pretty normal. What is not normal is that it is STILL below the climatological average interdecile range.

      The consensus estimate for the first drop below 1 million km^2 of Arctic sea ice extent at the summer minimum is around mid century. If you thought it was supposed to be gone by now then you’re probably only looking at blogger sites still.

  84. Using a new observational approach to an old but most important question, CLINTEL President Guus Berkhout finds that about 62% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to natural sources, not human emissions. The study then looks at the implications for drastic CO2 reduction measures, finding that these measures will not stop the atmospheric increase. Actually, they will have very limited effect. Hence the title of the report is Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earths Atmosphere.

    Could very well be the case.

    • bdgwx says:

      Can you post a link to Berkhout’s publication documenting his new observational approach?

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        You might have heard of a wondrous thing called the internet. Use it.

        Of course, its not of much use for whining crybabies who demand to be spoon fed.

        Or slimy trolls too lazy to think for themselves.

      • NO. If you want more info you do it.

        • Svante says:

          Yes, scrutiny might be bad for your agenda.
          Like the New Zealand paper you just quoted.

          • Swenson says:

            S,

            Unlike bdgwx, you actually found the paper, using the Internet?

            Amazing. Maybe you could explain why New Zealand paper is different from, say, a United Kingdom paper. Or a Chinese one, for that matter.

            Denigration without explanation is just alarmist trolling of the slimy variety.

            How are you going finding a consistent scientific definition of the greenhouse eff3ct? Not so well?

            No surprises there,

        • Nate says:

          “Of course, its not of much use for whining crybabies who demand to be spoon fed.

          Or slimy trolls too lazy to think for themselves.”

          Good to know.

          Next time Swenson demands that we show him a testable model for GHE or similar, like he so often does, we’ll just remind him that he is being a SLIMY LAY TROLL.

          • Nate says:

            slimy lazy troll, obviously.

          • Swenson says:

            N,

            Dont be stupid. Testable model for GHE?

            You obviously dont have a clue about the scientific method. do you?

            You cant even describe the GHE in any way that would allow a testable hypothesis to be formulated! You live in a world of fantasy and delusion. I demand nothing. You idiots keep on about GHE theory, as though a GHE theory actually exists! It doesnt, of course.

            About as stupid as the ex chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, claiming the science was settled. He couldnt even say what the science was! What a donkey! At least he managed to die before his sexual harassment trial.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            So do we have to go through all this again, you have been shown the facts, yet you continue to banter like you are in the movie Groundhog Day and want to argue the same things that have been refuted a thousand times.

        • Entropic man says:

          Salvatore Del Prete

          It is the custom in scientific debate that it you refer to someone’s results, you provide a reference.

          It would only have taken you a minute.

          Or perhaps not. My internet search found neither “Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earths Atmosphere. ” nor a climate scientist named Berkhout.

          • The reference ploy is a ploy if you are interested that much find it yourself.

          • Svante says:

            Salvatore, do you mean:
            Augustinus Johannes “Guus” Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who has worked for the oil and gas industry, and as a professor.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yeah, that’s the guy. Apparently he was not privy to the confidential documents from his employer acknowledging that fossil carbon is the main cause of atmospheric CO2 increase.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, funny that the big oil companies agree that CO2 emissions cause global warming – saying the opposite would be crazy.
            That doesn’t stop Salvatore and the DREM Team though.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes, funny that silly snowflake Svante does not understand big public corporations. He’s never been involved in the decision making to know how they have to play politics. Often they even donate to opposing parties.

            That’s one of the reasons Svante is such a silly snowflake. He doesn’t get out much.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, their own science says global warming is real.
            Their PR department funds organizations with the opposite message.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382

          • Clint R says:

            Simple Svante says: “…their own science says global warming is real.”

            Okay then, it shouldn’t be hard to provide that “science”, huh?

          • Svante says:

            Here: Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s Technological Forecast C02 Greenhouse Effect
            by H. Shaw and P. P. McCall
            https://tinyurl.com/y73ybuzq

          • Clint R says:

            Silly snowflake Svante, did you find another link you can’t understand?

            That link basically makes two points: 1) Mankind is helping Nature maintain a healthy level of CO2 in the atmosphere. 2) Even if you accept the AGW nonsense, we won’t see any meaningful evidence until years in the future.

            And there was NO science proving AGW.

        • bdgwx says:

          I searched for it by name and title. I cannot find it in any journal. I can’t even find it on the CLINTEL website.

  85. Bindidon says:

    Salvatore

    ” Arctic ice coming back. ”

    Sorry, this is wrong.

    1. Here is a year-by-year comparison of monthly Arctic sea ice data since 2012, together with the usual mean of 1981-2010:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j_-oXhfQcI_bx1ZsvBMsN_cOu-dOiYg4/view

    You can clearly see that 2020 just passed over 2016, the year with the slowest, least sea ice reconstruction in the Arctic.

    2. Here is a sort of the average Arctic sea ice monthly extents for January till November, since 2012 (December 2020 isn’t known yet):

    2020: 10.03
    2016: 10.04
    2019: 10.05
    2018: 10.21
    2017: 10.27
    2012: 10.28
    2015: 10.46
    2014: 10.67
    2013: 10.80

    mean of 1981-2010: 11.54

    Source:

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/

    The eternal problem with your guesses is that you restrict your view on tiny periods, moreover shown in very approximating graphs.

    J.-P. D.

  86. I meant over the last 3 months.

  87. Swenson says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote –

    * It is the UNTENSITY of the radiation that matters, not the WAVEMENTGTH per se. Warm CO2 will emit a lot of 15 um radiation, while the cold CO2 only emits a little. The cold CO2 absorbs net energy and warms up. *

    – which happens to be absolutely wrong.

    As I recollect, a guy called Albert Einstein received a Nobel Prize for showing the fallacy of the Tim Folkerts train of thought, (shared by most physicists of Einsteins time).

    Tim is a bit behind the times – 100 years or so. Cheer up, Tim. Your erroneous thinking is still shared by many who dont know any better.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Swenson,

      We had been discussing 15 um photons, all of which individually have the same energy (the connection you were trying to make to Einstein). If you shine a lot of them on an object (for examples from a hot black body), the object receives a lot of energy. If you shine fewer of them (for example, from a cold black body), the object receives less energy.

      The point I was making is that “15 um” does not define a temperature. It is a serious misunderstanding to work backwards from Wein’s law, as was being done. The most intense radiation from a blackbody at 193 K is 15 um, but 15 um photons are not “193 K”. A warmer black body will also emit 15 um photons, and actually emit MORE of them than the 193 K object. As an extreme example, CO2 lasers operate near 10 um, which would be “associated with” ~ 290 K using wiens law. But a CO2 laser can melt metal.

      • Clint R says:

        This idiot probably can’t explain why a CO2 laser is NOT representative of atmospheric CO2. He obviously does NOT understand physics. The “CO2 laser” ruse is just another attempt by the cult to distort reality.

        They have NOTHING real, so they have to make things up.

      • Nate says:

        As usual, Tim clearly states some physics facts, and Clint the dimwit-troll claims he’s gotten it all wrong.

        Proof positive that Clint understands no physics WHATSOEVER.

        • Clint R says:

          Troll Nate, you’re always so impressed by this “Tim Folkerts” idiot. Why don’t you help him out?

          Explain to us why a CO2 laser is NOT representative of atmospheric CO2.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Nate, It is always amusing to guess whether Clint will say “You need to learn some standard physics” or “Standard physics is wrong an you need to ignore what is in the textbooks.”

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        Unfortunately, the CO2 laser has nothing to do with natural emissions from CO2.

        You seem to have convinced yourself that CO2 can only absorb and emit photons of a particular energy level, which is complete nonsense.

        Just rapidly compress some CO2. Its temperature rises. You seem to be convinced that this compression has magically created photons of a particular wavelength. Now try compressing air.

        Suddenly, the same amount of compression results in wavelengths absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, radon, water vapour, carbon dioxide, and all the rest! Do you really believe this to be true?

        Time to learn some real physics, Tim.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “the CO2 laser has nothing to do with natural emissions from CO2.”
          True, but it does not change the point that I was making C02islife that, in principle, light of a given wavelength can warm an object above the corresponding Wien’s Law temperature.

          “You seem to have convinced yourself that CO2 can only absorb and emit photons of a particular energy level, which is complete nonsense.”
          Well, a whole series of particular energies, dictated by quantum mechanics applied to a CO2 molecule’s vibrations, rotations, etc. (With some broadening due to pressure, & the Doppler effect.) That is “real physics”. If you don’t like it, march down to your local university and demand they fix their curriculum.

          “Just rapidly compress some CO2. Its temperature rises.”
          Yeah. This is basic thermodynamics.

          “You seem to be convinced that this compression has magically created photons of a particular wavelength.”
          Ummm … no. That is not even close to what think. There is no magic involved.

          The compression does work on the system, which adds energy. This extra energy gets distributed among the CO2’s kinetic energy, rotational energy, and vibrational energy — ie the gas gets hotter. The hotter gas generates more photons — again with specific energies dictated by the structure of the CO2 molecule. And again, exactly in line with the laws of physics.

          “the same amount of compression results in wavelengths absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, radon, water vapour, carbon dioxide, and all the rest!”
          Absorbed? In the previous paragraph you said “created”. Which is it?
          But to address what I assume is your issue, these gases have different masses and different structures, which (as described above) results in their onw (different) sets of energies boing possible. When these gases warm up by compression, they will “create” photons with their own specific allowed energies.

          This is all “standard” physics. Get a physics degree if you really want to know more.

        • Nate says:

          “You seem to have convinced yourself that CO2 can only absorb and emit photons of a particular energy level, which is complete nonsense.

          Just rapidly compress some CO2. Its temperature rises. You seem to be convinced that this compression has magically created photons of a particular wavelength. Now try compressing air.”

          Shining light vs compression???

          He is simply working very hard to create meaningless strawmen.

      • Nate says:

        Yep. So true.

        Notice he said youve got it all wrong, but won’t EVER specify what, offers no links, and claims without evidence that you/we distort reality.

        Clint : here are some absolutely TRUE things that Tim said.

        Is this:

        “’15 um’ does not define a temperature.”

        True or False? Why?

        “It is a serious misunderstanding to work backwards from Wein’s law”

        True or False? Why?

        “The most intense radiation from a blackbody at 193 K is 15 um, but 15 um photons are not ‘193 K’. ”

        True or False? Why?

        “A warmer black body will also emit 15 um photons, and actually emit MORE of them than the 193 K object.”

        True or False? Why?

    • bdgwx says:

      You’ve found one! However, this is for the Baltic Sea region only. And note that the citations (like from Seppa) attribute the warmth of the Holocene Thermal Maximum to a regional affect. This publication does NOT suggest that the HTM was warmer than today on a global scale.

    • Entropic man says:

      Salvatore Del Prete

      Yes, we know.

      Under natural conditions changes like Milankovich cycles force changes in temperature, as happened 15,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period.

      Rising temperatures cause carbon sinks like the ocean and permafrost to release CO2.

      The extra CO2 acts as an amplifying feedback,raising 1.5C of orbital warming to 5C total.

      At the end of an interglacial orbital forcing lowers the temperature and the CO2 is absorbed back into the carbon sinks.

      Mostly CO2 follows temperature. Occasionally temperature follows CO2.

      The prolonged eruptions which produce large igneous provinces generate enough CO2 to significantly raise temperatures.

      We are artificially relaasing as much CO2 as a large igneous province volcano, with the same result.

      CO2 is increasing by 20ppm/decade and temperature is following it up at 0.2C/decade.

      • Temperatures have been rising since the Little Ice Age ended. Long before the man made global warming scam came to be.

        • Entropic man says:

          You are using the “belief” word again.

          Your use of the term “global warming scam” is an indication of your belief that it is a conspiracy.

          Believers in conspiracy theories are usually impervious to evidence.

          • Clint R says:

            E, if AGW is REAL, present the relevant physics.

            Your “model” indicates Earth should be at 303K. But Earth’s average temp is 288 K. If you “believe” your “model”, then you must realize radiative gases are significantly cooling the planet.

          • Nate says:

            303 K again pulled out of th vacuum? Evidence? No of course not.

      • Clint R says:

        E, you get all confused, the more you type.

        Warm the oceans, they release more CO2. Cool the oceans, they take in more CO2.

        That’s science.

        Believing that CO2 can warm the oceans is a belief. “Beliefs” ain’t science.

        • Nate says:

          Beliefs aint science. Heard this somewhere, starting to sound like whit noise.

          What is you definition of science? And belief? Just so we’re clear.

  88. Entropic man says:

    Salvatore

    You might want to read the New Scientist article more carefully. It supports my view, not yours.

  89. What is interesting is during the Holocene Optimum CO2 concentrations were only 260ppm yet it was as warm if not warmer then today.

    Also Mars has an atmosphere which is 94% CO2 yet why is the surface so cold? Where is the runaway Greenhouse on Mars?

    Thanks Ren for the info.

    • bdgwx says:

      Mars has about 160 kg/m^2 of GHGs in its atmosphere. This compares to Earth of about 100 kg/m^2. So in terms of the cross sectional area Mars has about 60% more IR trapping molecules than Earth. But Mars average temperature is 210K whereas Earth is 288K. This means Mars has about 105 W/m^2 compared to Earth which has 370 W/m^2 of radiation that can activate the GHGs or about 30% of that of Earth. Furthermore Mars’ atmospheric lapse rate is 2.5 C/km whereas on Earth it is 6.5 C/km. Other considerations are that Mars has a much lower pressure which reduces the pressure broadening effect and a much lower temperature which reduces the doppler broadening effect. Earth also has trace GHGs that are at least an order of magnitude more potent on a molecular basis which Mars does not have. What this all means is that Mars’ GHE is actually weaker relative to Earth despite its atmosphere containing a higher concentration of GHG molecules in general. Nevertheless, its weaker GHE is still able to increase the temperature by about 6C relative to an IR transparent atmosphere.

    • bdgwx says:

      Regarding your point about CO2 during the Holocene Optimum…as we’ve been trying to explain there is more to the determination of global mean temperature than just CO2. Aerosols offset about 50% of the CO2 effect right now. Also keep in mind that it will take decades of warming to get the climate to equilibriate to the current concentration and that is assuming there is no further increase and only for the fast feedbacks. When you consider the slow feedbacks it will take an additional hundreds to even thousands of years for the climate to fully equilibriate.

    • Bindidon says:

      Salvatore

      I don’t know why bgdwx didn’t explicitly mention H2O aka water vapor.

      THAT is namely the major difference!

      J.-P. D.

    • bdgwx says:

      I wonder why the creator only added 0.75C after 1940 to the chart. The Arctic region is warming at 2-3x that of the global rate. When you add 1.5-2.0C to the 1940 value you get something closer to 3.1-3.6 or about on par with the Holocene Climate Optimum. And it is a rocket shot up with a +0.8 W/m^2 Earth Energy Imbalance all but guaranteeing that this will continue upward for decades to come. And I probably don’t need to point out that this STILL is not representative of what is happening on a global scale. The Earth has way more to offer than just Greenland. It even has a whole other hemisphere.

  90. Entropic man says:

    You do have this fixation with CO2 to the exclusion of everything else.

    You forget that Earth was on the orbital forcing sweet spot. We slipped off it about 5000 years ago and cooled by 1C.

    Mars’ atmosphere is 94% CO2. Average atmospheric pressure is also 1% of Earth’s, solar insolation is 50% of Earth’s and there’s negligible water vapour.

  91. Bindidon says:

    Entropic man

    Re.: your WFT plot in a comment above, dated Dec 15:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2016/every/trend

    Please let me add some details.

    1. If you show only the trends, no one understands where they originated from. I thought it would be better to show the 12 month running means (WFT doesn’t support centred means).

    2. in WFT and at Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer, ‘2016’ is the same as ‘2015.99’. If you want your chart on include 2016, the therefore have to select ‘2017’ as end date. The same holds for 2015 of course.

    Thus:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2017/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/mean:12

    and we compare ‘red plus blue’, ‘blue’ and ‘blue plus green’…

    Of course I could have merged the two graphs, but.

    J.-P. D.

    • Bindidon says:

      Duh! Salad… should read

      If you want a plot in your chart to include 2016, you therefore have to select 2017 as end date.

      • Entropic man says:

        Thanks for the date setting tip.

        I didn’t include more than the linear trends because my purpose was to show that short term trends are very sensitive to start and end dates.

        Salvatore encountered the “no warming since 1998” meme somewhere and is still using it. He’s not going to change, but perhaps a lurker learned something.

  92. https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/08/19/this-just-in-co2-doesnt-drive-temperature/

    Now is the time to prove AGW theory wrong once and for all.

    To my fellow skeptics on this site we have to put our minds together and try to come up with some comprehensive arguments, and of course keep showing data that refutes this theory. What I am sending is some of that kind of data.

    It is unfortunate we have the coincidence of rising temperatures with rising CO2 at this particular time. This could end at any time, through a natural event.

    The problem is when a natural event occurs AGW enthusiast are going to claim temporary but it is NOT, it is part of a natural event impact upon the climate.

    They will always come up with an excuse to further their theory, and this is going to continue even if temperatures stop rising or even fall much less if they keep rising.

    So let’s hope this coincidental rise in temperatures/CO2 come to a halt, and the sooner the better.

    • Svante says:

      Salvatore, a graph of 600 million years, are you serious?

      The Sun was 6% weaker then. You need a model with continental drift for a start.

      • Clint R says:

        Silly snowflake Svante believes: “The Sun was 6% weaker then.”

        The silly snowflakes can’t seperate science from beliefs. There is NO science to support Sun was weaker 600 million years ago.

      • bdgwx says:

        Salvatore,

        Svante is right. Gough 1981 provides a simple way of estimating solar luminosity evolution over time. Refer to page 28 for the formula. It comes out to about 1% every 100 million years or so.

        https://tinyurl.com/yd4vydn3

        • Clint R says:

          Wrong again, bdgwx.

          Since you are so infatuated with that “Gough 1981” formula, maybe you could provide the derivation?

          But, you can’t! There is no derivation. The formula is a guess, based on beliefs.

          Maybe you don’t know, but beliefs ain’t science.

          (Do you ever get anything right?)

        • Nate says:

          Backasswards. Science is not about belief, and stellar evolution is well tested science. Hint: there are billions of stars to learn from.

          • Clint R says:

            The formula is a guess, based on beliefs.

          • Nate says:

            So says an idiot troll. Why should we care? No one does.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate acknowledges his disinterest in reality.

          • Nate says:

            News flash: reality is not created by dimwit internet trolls, It is evaded.

          • Clint R says:

            I agree Nate.

            And when you trolls are not evading reality, you’re trying to pervert it.

          • Nate says:

            Where is your reality?

            Show us a shred of evidence to back up your idiotic claims that the science being discussed here is just ‘a guess’.

            If, as I can scientifically predict, you will not be able to back up your claims with evidence, then it will prove my point, that your so-called reality is only a reality in the mind of a dimwit troll, YOU.

  93. Bindidon says:

    I’m sure somebody asked already for the same info, but I’m too lazy to scan the thread.

    I see John Christy’s and Roy Spencer’s model evaluation:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/1525-2020-model-Tsfc-and-0-2000m.jpg

    and… miss the LIA.

    Are there no data representing it in some way in the model’s sources? Hard to imagine…

    J.-P. D.

  94. Entropic man says:

    I wanted to see how well the ice core records matched up with the temperature records. So I calculated three records from the Berkeley Earth land-only dataset. (I used the land-only dataset because Im comparing with a location on land. ”

    This was when I stopped reading.

    Let me explain.

    To measure past temperatures in an ice core you measure the proportion of the heavier oxygen 18 isotope relative to the more oxygen 16 in the water molecules at a particular depth.

    Water molecules with 18O are heavier and need more kinetic energy to evaporate than 16O water.

    This means that at lower temperatures the evaporate contains less 180. As the temperature of the ocean surface from which The water evaporates increases, so does the proportion of 18O.

    You can calibrate this in the laboratory and use it to deduce past ocean temperatures.

    Note:- Ocean surface!

    The Alpine core is not measuring the temperature in the Alps. It is measuring the temperature of the ocean surface from which The water in the core epaporated.

    So why is Willie Eisenbach comparing an ice core with land temperatures instead of ocean temperatures?

    If his understanding of ice core temperature measurement is so weak, how can the rest of his article be trusted?

  95. Got you Entropic man . You don’t like the data because it is a threat to your AGW theory.

    • Entropic man says:

      Enough with the insults.

      I don’t disagree with Eisenbach’s conclusions because they are a threat to AGW theory. They aren’t.

      I disagree with them because they are poor science.

      He made elementary errors of knowledge about the use of ice cores, he distorted the Berkeley land data (which should have been ocean data) to fit his graph and then compared the ice core temperatures with his distorted graph.

      You are correct that the sceptics don’t present a strong scientific case against AGW, mostly because they isn’t one.

      I’ve been debating this for a long time now. I used to meet intelligent sceptics who pointed out legitimate concerns, but they have mostly faded from the debate as the data improved.

      Now even long-term sceptics like Roger Pielke Jr, Judith Curry and Clive Best accept the science and the data. They differ from the consensus mostly in its interpretation, expecting less damage to society from future temperature rises.

      • Clint R says:

        E, before you start crying, you should pay attention to the constant insults Skeptics get.

        Next you should understand that REAL science is not about “blah-blah”. Typically, you and your cult members can wear out a keyboard in a week. Endless comments, filled with nothing but opinions and insults ain’t science.

        You have been asked to present REAL science proving AGW. You have avoiding doing so.

  96. To my fellow skeptics the data Willis has presented is MOST compelling.

    Will be following up on this.

  97. ren says:

    On December 28, the polar vortex will be so weakened that the circulation over Europe will completely change its direction to the north-east. I predict a harsh winter in the UK.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR3U3E1jWrFrtTiGN_hTEFkBU87QMeOYoluI8wDZ4F7-heF5LVXF5SwDYj0#2020/12/28/0000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=3.66,88.47,373

  98. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/12/22/eastern-alps-may-have-been-ice-free-5000-years-ago/

    Note this article confirms Holocene warmer then today.

    It is funny how any science that does not agree with AGW is poor science.

    I would say the opposite. The poor science is on the AGW side of things that either ignore or change data to make it fit their theory.

    • Entropic man says:

      “analyse microscopic bits of organic material extracted from the ice cores and found that the glacier is 5200 to 6600 years old.”

      No problem.

      “tzi is thought to have lived between 5100 and 5300 years ago, and his body was found preserved in ice.”

      Not quite . He was found when his possessions started melting out of the ice.

      The glaciers age means it formed during a time called the mid-Holocene warm period, when Earths climate was warmer than it is now.

      We know when the glacier formed. We do not know that it was warmer than now. That is the assumption you are trying to prove.
      .

      It is also dome-shaped, which Bohleber says is rare in the Alps and means that the ice has seen very little movement over time, meaning we can use it to study the climate when it formed.

      The glacier doesnt flow. It builds up in Summer and melts again in Summer.

      All your paper shows is that 5600 years ago it was cool enough for the glacier to grow and is now warm enough to for it to melt. You cant say from that whether it was warmer then, or is now

  99. https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/06/14/ask-otzi/

    Another study along the lines of what I am exposing.

    I suppose all of it is poor science.

    Yes this is how you go about debunking AGW theory by looking into the past.

    Another great Article which I will dig up later is the sea ice/Little Ice Age connection and how fast that could happen.

    • ren says:

      A violent attack of winter in the Midwest. Gusts of freezing wind up to 70 km/h.
      https://i.ibb.co/648RzGV/Screenshot-3.png

    • ren says:

      “From another perspective, Alaska, -and Siberia-, are sites where well preserved mammal remains have, and still are, being found, that raise questions on how they perished. The Ice-age mammals of the Yukon show the wide variety of fauna and flora. They were preserved by a fast freeze at a time when the climate of the locality then appears to have been warmer than today, as evident by the flora and fauna that the melting ice is uncovering.”

  100. CO2isLife says:

    Question to Challenge the Conventional Wisdom:
    1) CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of 15 micron LWIR.
    2) If thermalization isn’t its only mechanism, it should by definition cause warming, and offers no explanation for extended periods of cooling.
    3) The CO2 molecule and the LWIR of 15 Microns has a photon of certain quantifiable energy.
    4) 15-micron LWIR is transparent to O2 and N2 which accounts for 99% of the atmosphere. CO2 represents 1 out of every 2,500 molecules.

    Question:
    1) Does it seem possible that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can significantly alter the thermal energy of the other 2,499?
    2) According to Dr. Clapper, CO2 doesn’t absorb the LWIR and collide with another molecule, it absorbs the photon, and then re-emits the photon. Limiting the thermal contribution to vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules.
    3) Water vapor also absorbs 15 micron LWIR and is measured in parts per 100. In other words, with or without CO2 LWIR IR of 15 micron will be absorbed by some molecule (Evidence is that you first start to see the CO2 signature only at elevated altitude where H2O has precipitated out of the atmosphere)
    4) Once a CO2 molecule has absorbed a 15-micron LWIR Photon, it can not absorb another one until it releases the one it has already absorbed.
    5) CO2 is effectively saturated by the time you get to 300 ppm. Emitting more LWIR won’t get absorbed because all the CO2 molecules are already likely activated.
    6) In that case, wouldn’t adding more CO2 simply increase the altitude that CO2 gets saturated, and wouldn’t actually increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere? Once again, a CO2 molecule that is activated by LWIR of 15-microns has a limited and quantifiable amount of thermal energy. Increasing CO2 from 1 out of every 2,500 molecules to 1 out of every 2,499 molecules. At the start of the industrial age, CO2 was 1 out of every 3,700, now it is 1 out of ever 2,500, when CO2 was 7000 ppm, CO2 was 1 out of every 140 molecules, and life thrived and we had no catastrophic warming.

    • Bindidon says:

      CO2isLife

      Sorry, this is simply wrong.

      CO2’s (very, very tiny) action begins where that of WV aka H2O stops due to WV’s precipitation: above the troposphere.

      Try to translate this paper writen by two French climate specialists:

      documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf?sequence=1

      I lack the time to do.

      In short: CO2’s main activity is, like does every other IR sensitive gas, to intercept IR at those frequencies it can absorb, and to reemit it – half up, half down.

      That is the first, rather evident point. H2O does that much better due to is higher abundance (10:1) but at other, less relevant frequencies.

      The somewhat less evident point is that the higher the altitude a molecule absorbs and reemits, the lower is its reemission energy, due to the lower reemission temperature.

      CO2 is more or less uniformly present in altitude columns, up to 50 km. Here is the average temperature, depending on altitude:

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg

      *
      There is a much shorter paper publicly available, sort of resumee of Dufresne’s and Treiner’s paper:

      https://www.centrale-energie.fr/spip/spip.php?article151

      It has the advantage to keep outside of Adobe’s private PDF world.

      When I have time to, I’ll translate it into English.

      For the moment, I’m too busy with contradicting uneducated persons pretending that the Moon doesn’t spin around its own axis… OMG.

      J.-P. D.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Bindidon Says: CO2isLife

        Sorry, this is simply wrong.

        For the moment, I’m too busy with contradicting uneducated persons pretending that the Moon doesn’t spin around its own axis… OMG.

        CO2isLife: I’m confused, everything I posted is 100% consistent with what I wrote, and yes the Moon does spin around its axis. It does so in a manner that keeps one side always pointing towards the earth.

        • Clint R says:

          Don’t fall into the same trap as many do. Moon rotation is easily debunked. But, as with debunking AGW, individuals have to be able to think for themselves.

  101. Bindidon says:

    Yesterday I was wondering about the weak LIA presence in Roy Spencer’s model chart:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/1525-2020-model-Tsfc-and-0-2000m.jpg

    but today I no longer do: I understand that to see it, you need the full encompassing context.

    1. Here is for example the PAGES2K data with the inevitable hockey stick, object of harsh critique to say the least, but due in fact to the extreme compression of the last 170 years:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view

    Now we see the LIA; but it is evident that WUWTmaniacs for example would complain about the MWP keeping absent! Ooooh.

    2. For those who don’t understand, here is the same yearly data from 1850 till 2019 (together with the global Had-CRUT4 data, and UAH6.0 LT):

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view

    The bloody hockey stick is merely an optical illusion, like the raising Moon.

    3. Now we can compare PAGES2K starting with 1525, entailed by Had-CRUT4, with Mr Spencer’s graph (caution: all my graphs are based on departures wrt the mean of 1981-2010, his isn’t):

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mkY0qiYcwWEeIrJiEgHQKd-_07_7DX2z/view

    *
    And here too: no hint on the LIA.

    If we make abstraction of the departure differences due to a completely different reference model (equilibrium temperature vs. mean of 1981-2010, differeing by about 0.6 C), the global similarity between PAGES2K and Mr Spencer’s model output is amazing.

    I would enjoy him providing us with the time series out of which his graph was generated.

    I would then produce a graph with PAGE2K and Spencer plots, uniformly scaled on percentiles like e.g. here:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view

    allowing for the best possible comparison.

    *
    Anyway, the usual Pseudoskeptics and Contrarians will have to either
    – start pretending that Roy Spencer is an Alarmist
    or
    – stop claiming that the people who made PAGES2K were Alarmists.

    Entweder oder, denn beides geht nun einmal nicht!

    *
    Source for PAGES2K: https://tinyurl.com/y9u9uy63

    J.-P. D.

  102. CO2isLife says:

    ” Here is for example the PAGES2K data with the inevitable hockey stick, object of harsh critique to say the least, but due in fact to the extreme compression of the last 170 years”

    People, start with the basics. Ask the obvious questions. The truth is staring you right in the face.

    The Grapic shows a Dog Leg at 1985. There is no way that the gradual and immaterial increased in CO2 and its W/M^2 back radiation could ever cause a dog leg. Just think about it logically Y = mX+b. Why would m change in 1985? Did the physics of the CO2 molecule suddenly change? The dog leg is a dead give away that CO2 isn’t the cause of the warming. If I was presenting in a court of law, I would use every climate chart with a dog leg to make my case. The physics of the CO2 molecule are constant. They don’t cause dog legs. Watch the Magic Grits video on YouTube from My Cousin Vinny. Anyone that believes that CO2 is causing the warming and uses that chart as evidence simply doesn’t understand multi-variable modeling. Trust me, the slope attriputed to CO2 is a constant, it won’t cause a dog leg. The model is missing some other variable, ie Cloud Cover and radiation reaching the Oceans.

    • Bindidon says:

      CO2isLife

      ” The Grap[h]ic shows a Dog Leg at 1985. ”

      Please, guy. Keep us free of such stoopid nonsense you probably obtained on a scienceless blog like iceage.info, Gosselin’s TricksZone or similar. Some WUWTmaniacs love to make use of such nonsense as well.

      This is so ridiculous… You Pseudoskeptics try all possible tricks to denigrate the work of others.

      Make use of science!

      J.-P. D.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Bindidon, “This is so ridiculous… You Pseudoskeptics try all possible tricks to denigrate the work of others.”

        That doesn’t explain how the physics behind the GHG and CO2 can cause a dog leg. Please explain, how can a relative constant cause a dog leg? Did the physics of the CO2 molecule suddenly change in 1985?

        Insulting me doesn’t explain a question any serious scientist would want to be answered.

        Please, explain how CO2 can cause a dog leg in 1985. What changed?

        • Bindidon says:

          CO2isLife

          I did by no means insult you. I just state things and name them.

          One more time:

          YOU are here the one who pretends

          – that, in your fantasy, there is a so called ‘dog leg’ in the data in 1985, and

          – that, again in your fantasy, it could be put in some alleged relation to the “physics of the CO2 molecule”.

          And thus

          YOU are the one who starts with explaining us where you see this ‘dog leg’ in the data, how it does look like, etc.

          Oh Noes…

          J.-P. D.

    • Bindidon says:

      CO2isLife

      And let me add this: what is horrifying with people like you is that you are so incredibly fixated on you bloody CO2 blah blah, that you can#t even stop explaining anything without referring to this poor little gas.

      It’s so stupid.

      What the heck does this 1985 corner have to do with CO2?

      No one, YOU EXCEPTED, is here talking about CO2 in relation to the PAGES2K record.

      What I’m interested in is the comparison between Roy Spencer’s and PAGES2K’s results.

      Can you DEFINITELY get that into your head, CO2isLife?

      J.-P. D.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Bindidon, the whole blog post is about 1D Forcing Feedback. Just what do you think is causing the “forcing” in that model? I’m pretty sure that CO2 is a major forcing factor. Or an I wrong? If I’m right, then there is no way any model based upon CO2 can possibly explain a dog leg. None nada zip. If it can, I’m all ears.

        Facts are, you have observations that show a dog leg. That rules out CO2 as the cause. Explain the dog leg and you explain global warming and climate change. What warms the oceans warms the atmosphere above it. The oceans hold 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere. The oceans are the hypothalamus of the earth. Explain the oceans and you explain the climate. Your chart proves CO2 isn’t the cause of the warming, or climate change. CO2 can’t cause dog legs.

        Magic Grits:
        https://youtu.be/_T24lHnB7N8

        • Bindidon says:

          CO2isLife

          Could you now please DEFINITELY stop boring me with your pathological CO2 syndrome?

          Sorry, I have now really enough of that.

          Explain where you see your strange dog leg in the data in 1985, and that’s all.

          J.-P. D.

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            I agree with you.

            Dimwits like Gavin Schmidt write stupid things like * Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature *.

            Unfortunately, other alarmists share this same pathological CO2 fixation.

            Ridiculous, isnt it?

    • Entropic man says:

      “The Grapic shows a Dog Leg at 1985. ”

      There was a decline in albedo from 1985 to 1998.

      That would explain the dog leg.

      https://skepticalscience.com//earth-albedo-effect-intermediate.htm

  103. ren says:

    Arctic air continues its attack to the Southeast.
    https://i.ibb.co/qxhZ2wz/Screenshot-2.png

  104. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/sea-ice-triggered-the-little-ice-age-finds-a-new-study/

    I think if the atmospheric circulation changes enough and is sustained (example -AO state) that could cause sea ice to grow and drive and spread to lower latitudes.

    Ren what to do you think?

  105. Bindidon says:

    Who is interested in PAGES2K info can read this:

    A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era

    https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788

    and who is interested in downloading the data generated out of all proxies may access this:

    https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/15176039

    Don’t care about pseudoskeptic boasters who discredit, denigrate and distort everything that doesn’t match their narrative.

    J.-P. D.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Bindidon: Dont care about pseudoskeptic boasters who discredit, denigrate and distort everything that doesnt match their narrative.

      Being a skeptic is the foundation of science. Asking questions is the foundation of science. Censoring, insulting and refusing to answer questions is the mark of a Pseudoscientist.

      I ask again, how can CO2 cause a dog leg? That is a simple question. As Einstein said, it only takes one question to prove me wrong. Answer my question and prove me wrong. That is how real science
      works.

      The problem I see with climate science is that they don’t force themselves to undergo cross-examination. This “science” will never hold up in a court of law. Never.

      Magic Grits:
      https://youtu.be/_T24lHnB7N8

      • bdgwx says:

        I’m unfamiliar with the term “dog leg”. What “dog leg” are you talking about?

        • Bindidon says:

          bdgwx

          Will we ever get an answer? This CO2 fixation is a bit strange.

          And above all:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view

          Even before I ask what it might be, I ask:

          Where is that dog leg in 1985?

          J.-P. D.

        • CO2isLife says:

          A dog leg is a sharp bend in a linear chart. A rapid and sharp increase in slope. An L on its side is a perfect dog leg.

          CO2 shows a log decay in W/M^2, so temperatures should have its slope flatten with higher CO2 not have their slope increase.

          • bdgwx says:

            First…where exactly are you seeing a dog leg?

            Second…maybe the issue is that your model is too simple because you only consider the direct radiative forcing of CO2. What happens when you consider feedbacks and other forcing agents. I recommend reading through the IPCC AR5 WGI Physical Science Basis Report for a brief introduction to the many variables that you should have already be considering.

          • CO2isLife says:

            This sounds a lot like Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, something he claims was his greatest mistake.

            “Secondmaybe the issue is that your model is too simple because you only consider the direct radiative forcing of CO2. What happens when you consider feedbacks and other forcing agents.”

            That just sounds of inspiration of someone trying to curvefit a model. If you play around with the code enough you can fit any line or curve you want, but that is called data mining, curve fitting, it isn’t called science. In real science you identify the most significant independent variables and the impact they should have on a dependent variable. Run the analysis, and if you have a valid model you get a high R-Squared. In real science you don’t keep adjusting the data and coefficients to make things work. That is pseaudoscience.

          • CO2isLife says:

            “Firstwhere exactly are you seeing a dog leg?”

            Just look at the chart, it starts in 1985. Also, look at the Hockeystick in 1902 and 1980. It has 2 Hockeysticks. The problem is when you look at all these charts, they fail to line up the dog legs. If there was a sharp increase in teperatrues starting in 1902 as the Hockeystick claims, sea level would also show a Hockeystick, but it doesn’t. Ocean temperatures would show a Hockeystick, but they don’t. They problem with perpetrating a fraud is that everyone have to stick to the same story, but charts were published before the hoax was devised. That is the real problem of Climate Science. The previously published data destroys the hoax for anyone that digs deep enough. That is why skeptics have to be silenced.

      • Bindidon says:

        CO2isLife

        I speak about pseudoskeptic boasters. Try to read before you write.

        I’m over 70, and my entire professional life was based on sound skepticism.

        Don’t try to teach me about what that means.

        • Clint R says:

          Bindidon, based on your performance here, your “professional life” was one of licking boots and groveling for crumbs.

          That’s why you’re here, like Norman, trying to pretend you have a life.

    • Bindidon why do you believe this agenda driven garbage. All the recent temperature reconstructions are wrong.

      • bdgwx says:

        Are you saying the sources that you have directly or indirectly pointed us to (like from Alley, Kaufmann, Marcott, etc.) are wrong? That begs the question…why are you pointing us toward them? And do you have a reconstruction that has been vetted by experts that you do trust?

        • I just sent info. That is what I believe . The one that says liars. Look at that and you will know where I stand.

          • bdgwx says:

            So you believe Alley, Kaufmann, and Marcott?

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            Richard Feynman said that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.

            You seem to disagree. Presumably, you still believe in phlogiston, the indivisible atom, and continents not moving.

            As to your experts, if one of them was stupid enough to include * The global climate is warming, and the Greenland Ice Sheet is responding. . . *, in a paper, then you might need to choose your experts more carefully, if you think anyone should take notice of your appeals to authority.

  106. CO2isLife says:

    I’m sorry Bindidon, was there an answer as to how CO2 can cause a dog leg in your answer? I seem to have missed it. Here, I’ll ask it again. How does CO2 cause a dog leg in the chart?

    • Entropic man says:

      CO2is life

      I posted this above.The increase in CO2 drives the long term warming trend. Other effects cause short term variations in that trend. For example:-

      Entropic man says:
      December 23, 2020 at 5:40 PM
      The Grapic shows a Dog Leg at 1985.

      There was a decline in albedo from 1985 to 1998.Look at Fig. 2 here or at the original Palle 2004 paper.

      That would explain the dog leg.Lower albedo, more surface illumination, more rapid temperature increase.

      https://skepticalscience.com//earth-albedo-effect-intermediate.htm

      • CO2isLife says:

        BTW, I’m no rocket scientist, but all the trouble they go through to measure albedo seems for naught. It seems to be highly unreliable anyway, and suspect anyway.

        Isn’t the only thing that really matters how much sunlight is reaching the oceans? You could cover most of North America and if you have clear sky over the oceans things will warm. The earth’s surface cools very very fast relative to the oceans. Green areas never hold much heat to begin with.

        Why don’t they simply replace please luminocity meters on the buoys and ships through the oceans. Or use satellite photos of the brightness of the oceans or visibility of the oceans?

        • Entropic man says:

          If you’ve ever seen the “old moon in the New Moon’s arms” you’ll know that the night side of the Moon is illuminated by reflected sunlight from the Earth.

          This is directly proportional to the planetary albedo and gives a good measure thereof.

          There are a number of satellites positioned to directly measure albedo, which is probably best done from space.

          There are sunlight detectors at most good weather stations, but measuring cumulative energy input from illumination is more complex and less common.

    • Entropic man says:

      While I think of it, climate change has had its day in court.

      https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/san-francisco-court-room-climate-science-gets-its-day-docket

      Judge Alsup later found for the science, but dismissed the case against the oil companies because it could not be proven that they were directly responsible for the global warming in California.

      • CO2isLife says:

        I’m not sure I would call it a victory for the science. If the science can prove CO2 is the cause, Big Oil would be sued out of existence. They haven’t been.

        Q: Could heat from power plants add much to the planet overall?
        A: No, its dwarfed by the energy trapped by greenhouse gases.

        I doubt anyone doubts that, but it is meaningless. Everyone knows the atmosphere holds a lot of heat. Without largely water vapor and other GHGs the atmosphere would be cooler.

        Q: Was the relationship between rising temperatures and rising greenhouse gases logarithmic or linear?
        A: Logarithmic.

        Lying by omission. This halftruth is twice the lie. Yes it is logarithmic, but is a decaying log function, ie, no dog legs like you see in the Hockeystick.

        Q: How high would sea levels get if all the ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and other continents melted?
        A: More than 60 meters.

        That assumes that the water flows into the oceans, and that Greenland isn’t a giant bowl, which I believe it is. BTW, the Greenland ice sheet is melting from below? How does CO2 cause the volcano below the glacier to melt the ice? How does LWIR penetrate 1 mile of ice to melt the glacier from its underside?

        Q: During the last ice age, could people have walked across land in what is now the Bering Strait?
        A: Yes.

        Yes, but more important is why did temperatures increase before CO2 to end the ice age, and why do ice ages start when CO2 is at a peak? There is no mechanism by which CO2 can explain the glacial cycles.

        • Entropic man says:

          CO2 does not cause ice ages.

          The current ice age began several million years ago when narrowing of the Bering Strait stopped water flowing across the Arctic Ocean.

          Since then changes in the Earth’s orbit have produced a 100,000 year cycle with approximately 90,000 years of ice to New York and 10,000 years like the Holocene. Glacial periods and interglacials.

          The cause is changes in the pattern of illumination in the Northern Hemisphere. Research Milankovich Cycles.

          The role of CO2 is to amplify the temperature changes, not cause them.

          CO2 and temperature are linked in a feedback relationship. Sometimes temperature leads and CO2 follows. Sometimes CO2 leads and temperature follows.

          In interglacial temperature leads. In AGW CO2 leads.

          • CO2 does not lead because the temperatures started to rise long before AGW was even thought of.

          • bdgwx says:

            Salvatore,

            Probably true. Considering the LIA was likely heavily influenced by the AMOC, increased volcanic activity, and reduced solar activity it only makes sense that when those factors reversed then warming would ensue. The problem is that those factors cannot explain why the warming has continued and why it has accelerated. To better understand this we have to broaden our list of influencing factors.

            And remember, CO2 both leads and lags depending how the initial temperature change was catalyzed. It lagged (sort of) during the Quaternary Period because there was no actor that caused large and sudden releases of it. The resulting behavior was feedback first and forcing second. But, it lead during the PETM and other ETMx events when large and sudden releases due to things like flood basalt events. The resulting behavior was forcing first and feedback second. We just happen to live in an era where there is an actor that is releasing CO2 in huge quantities independent of the temperature. The resulting behavior is forcing first with the feedback probably only just now starting.

            And it should go without saying…CO2 isn’t the ONLY thing that modulates the climate. Any model of the climate should consider all forcing and feedback variables for it to be successful. In other words, don’t fixate on CO2.

  107. CO2isLife says:

    Thanks Entropic Man, that makes my point. Your article pretty much proves the points I’ve been making. CO2 doesn’t impact albedo. Clouds to. More clouds, less radiation making it to the oceans, they cool. Fewer clouds, less albedo, more radiation making it to the oceans, the oceans warm. No CO2 needed.

    My whole point that you just supported was that CO2 can’t cause a dogleg, and you just provided the evidence that would explain a dogleg. Once again, there is no need for CO2 in that model. Clouds and solar radiation explain the warming fully.

    • Entropic man says:

      It’s a matter of scale. There are a number of forcings which potentially impact climate.

      A partial list:-

      Albedo, continental arrangement, orbital cycles, solar insolation, albedo, volcanoes, CO2, land use.

      These forcing are monitored. Some, like albedo, can cause temporary changes in the rate of temperature change as you saw. CO2 is the only one with the correct intensity and timescale to explain the long term trend.

      • Clint R says:

        “CO2 is the only one with the correct intensity and timescale to explain the long term trend.”

        E, you’re getting pretty good at making stuff up, and then fleeing the scene.

        Sometime when you want to hang around, we’re still waiting for your “proof” that CO2 can raise the temperature of planet Earth.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        Good grief. Several billion years of sunlight hasnt stopped the Earth from cooling.

        If you heat a highly reflective metal sphere and a dull black metal sphere to say, 100 C, and put them in the Sun, they will both cool.

        Albedo has no effect on the final result.

        All this talk of forcings is just nonsensical. Try convincing anyone that you can quantify the effect of any of your silly forcings on weather.

        Whats the relevance? Climate is just the average of weather, isnt it? Go on, what is the impact of CO2 on the weather?

        Like any other alarmist clown, you havent the faintest clue. Just unbounded religious fervour!

    • bdgwx says:

      CO2isLife said: Clouds and solar radiation explain the warming fully.

      Can you post a link to a model that only considers clouds and solar radiation which plots the forcing and temperature on various different time scales including over the last 140 years, over the Holocene, over the Quaternary Period, and finally over the last 500 million years. Bonus points if this model can solve the faint young Sun paradox, PETM and other ETMx events, temperature observations immediately following contemporary volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, etc.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        Step out of the shade of a cloud into the sunshine. See? You get warmer. What dont you understand?

        Alarmists have difficulty facing reality, it seems.

      • CO2isLife says:

        1) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and life thrived
        2) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and coral reefs, sea life and mollusks thrived
        3) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and we never experienced CAGW
        4) CO2 has a log decay for W/M^2, and is approaching a horizontal asymptote
        5) Ice Ages begin when CO2 is at a peak, and end when CO2 is at a minimum
        6) H20, measured in parts per 100, absorbs the same 15 micron LWIR that CO2 does
        7) The CO2 signature isn’t even visible until you are up 3 km or more
        8) A black body of temperature -80 degrees C emits 15 micron LWIR
        9) A single cloudy day can wipe out months if not years of the marginal energy contributed by the additional CO2 from Man
        10) CO2 and LWIR or 15 micron can’t explain the warming oceans
        11) The HockeyStick has a dog leg, CO2 can’t cause dog legs

        • Clint R says:

          12) CO2 can’t raise surface temperatures.

        • bdgwx says:

          Just to be clear here…I’m asking you to present your model for review so that it can be scored objectively. If it does better than what we already have then great. If not then go back to the drawing board, make refinements, and resubmit for review. Let’s just start with 1880-2020. Post a csv file with three columns: year, temperature, and 95% CI. I’ll compute the deviation from observations and then compare it to CMIP5 and CMIP6.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            Ask away. Compute anything you like. While you are at it, produce your research which shows how and why CO2 affects weather, as climate is the average of weather.

            Only joking, you dont have any. Nobody does.

            You are delusional – a fanatical alarmist.

            Ho Ho ho.

          • Clint R says:

            “Just to be clear here…I’m asking you to present your model for review so that it can be scored objectively…”

            Easy.

            T = .012(Y-1979), since evidence suggests slight natural warming will continue until it doesn’t.

            T = Temperature anomaly (°C), Y = Year

          • Nate says:

            Dimwit troll.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes Nate, bdgwx is a troll, but he doesn’t consider himself a “nitwit”.

            He’s pretty impressed with his knowledge of nonsense.

        • Entropic man says:

          I hate Gish Gallops.

          If you want a sensible scientific debate stick to one topic at a time, rather than putting up a dozen dubious statements at once.

          Let one stand for all.

          2) is wrong. The last time CO2 concentration was 7000ppm was 700 million years ago, before corals evolved.

          • Clint R says:

            “…rather than putting up a dozen dubious statements at once.”

            Yeah, so don’t pretend that you know anything about “700 million years ago”.

        • Nate says:

          CO2, this is just a continuous game of whack a mole. Whacked enough for one week, and its Christmas…

  108. Mark Wapples says:

    Can I just take this oppurtunity to wish everybody a happy Christmas and a better new year.

    • Bindidon says:

      Yes you can!

      Same to you from the snow-free, not so Xmas-like Northern Germoney.
      I hope you Brits won’t start suffering from this stoopid Brexit.

      J.-P. D.

  109. ren says:

    Over the Great Lakes the cold and dry air from Canada will mix with the warm and humid air from the south.
    https://i.ibb.co/4WmMbCK/Screenshot-4.png

  110. Bindidon says:

    CO2isLife

    Last trial. You wrote, as answer to the question ‘where exactly are you seeing a dog leg?’, the following statements:

    Just look at the chart, it starts in 1985.

    Also, look at the Hockeystick in 1902 and 1980. It has 2 Hockeysticks.

    The problem is when you look at all these charts, they fail to line up the dog legs.

    If there was a sharp increase in teperatrues starting in 1902 as the Hockeystick claims, sea level would also show a Hockeystick, but it doesn’t.

    1. Since when does a hockey stick have even two hockey sticks?

    2. Which chart of those I posted you you mean?

    (a) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view

    (b) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view

    (c) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mkY0qiYcwWEeIrJiEgHQKd-_07_7DX2z/view

    If the chart has more than one plot, which color do you mean?

    3. Why should SSTs, sea levels, sea ice etc etc show any hockey stick like does the global temperature?

    4. Are you a German?

    All you write here is very, very confused.

    J.-P. D.

  111. CO2isLife says:

    “1. Since when does a hockey stick have even two hockey sticks?”

    Look closely, the slope changes in 1) 1902 when instrumental data is added and 2) 1980 when they drop the proxy data and there is only instrumental data. Funny how the slope changes each time the reconstruction changes. In my world that is called fraud.

    Other things to consider:
    1) There is no little ice age or medieval warming
    2) The variability of the temperatures demonstrates heteroscedasticity, with variability reaching a min right before the dag leg
    3) Nothing about CO2 changed in 1902 or 1980 to abruptly alter the slope, ie the magic grits problem
    4) Instrumental data, by far the most accurate data, existed long before 1902, yet it was ignored. In my world that is pure fraud.
    5) Simply go to NASA GISS, change the version to v3 and look up ever desert location you can find that existed prior to 1902. What you will find is that there are absolutely no dog legs in any temperature chart that is controlled for the urban heat island effect and water vapor.

    I dream of the day someone uses the Hockeystick in a court of law.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Other things to ponder:
      1) Al Gore’s CO2 Temp chart shows all major temperature peaks being above today’s temperature, yet at lower CO2
      2) CO2 can’t explain the variability of the glacier cycle, where ice ages begin when CO2 is at a peak and end when CO2 is at a minimum. The exact opposite claimed should happen by the alarmists
      3) What is causing all the variability if it isn’t CO2? What caused warming in the past is causing it today, and it ain’t CO2

      Greenland Ice CO2:
      1) Shows many period withing the Holocene of higher temperatures than today at lower CO2
      2) The Holocene has had some extreme climate change not due to CO2
      3) We are near the low of the Holocene for Temperature
      4) Combine the NASA Satellite and NASA GISS/NOAA Data into one data string, and measure the mean and variance. Then compare that mean and variance to the entire Holocene and entire Vostok ice core record. You will discover that the variability of the industrial age is well within historical norms.

      Try taking those arguments to court. Who do you think wins? The computer or the alarmist? The only way alarmists will ever win is with a biased and corrupt judge, ie that is why they choose San Francsico.

    • Bindidon says:

      Co2isLife

      Could you please deliver SHORT, CONCISE answers to questions?

      I await answer for my question

      2. Which chart of those I posted [do] you mean?

      *
      Especially your point (4) made me btw laugh quite a lot, because every Pseudoskeptic will tell you that instrumental data is not accurate at all.

      And why do you please think that data before 1902 is ignored???

      I know only one exception: BoM’s ACORN V2, starting with 1910. All others start either in 1880, or 1895 for CONUS, BEST starts even in 1750.

      Don’t you see that for example, the Had-CRUT4 temperature series starts with 1850?

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H3mDVGgtHXG4Nct8LM9qcB85jnM1U_v1/view

      When I generate a temperature series out of GHCN daily

      https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x

      for Europe, it starts with… 1763. But that is from ONE station only, located in Italy! And that you name ‘accurate’? Oh Noes.

      J.-P. D.

      • CO2isLife says:

        All your charts show dog legs. Did the physics of the CO2 molecule magically change around 1900?

        Simply explain how CO2 can cause a rapid change in the slope? My original comments were about the Mann Hockeystick, but I see you have created your own Hockeystick charts. If you believe your charts, what happened in 1900 to alter the slope of the temperature graph. What dramatic change happened between 1900 and 1910 that altered the physics of the CO2 molecule?

        • Clint R says:

          “…the physics of the CO2 molecule…

          The word “physics” to an Alarmist, is like a wooden stake to a vampire.

          Alarmism is “no physics, none of the time”.

          It has to be that way. If they knew physics, their nonsense would be over.

        • Entropic man says:

          CO2islife

          It seems impossible to communicate a very simple concept.

          The gradual increase in temperature of 1.2C since 1880 is due to the gradual accumulation of CO2 released from fossil fuels.

          Short term variations either side of that long term trend, such as pauses and doglegs, are due to other variables such as albedo.

          The existance of the short term variations does not invalidate the long term trend, or prove that it is not due to CO2.

          • Clint R says:

            “The gradual increase in temperature of 1.2C since 1880 is due to the gradual accumulation of CO2 released from fossil fuels.”

            Wrong E.

            The gradual increase in temperature is due to the increasing number of pizza ovens.

            Before WW2, there were hardly any pizza ovens, outside of Italy. Now there are pizza ovens ALL over the planet! There are even pizza ovens in Alaska!. No wonder the glaciers are melting.

          • Entropic man says:

            Clint R

            As a good Pastafarian I can assure you that climate change is not due to an excess of pizza ovens. It is due to a shortage of pirates.

            If you plot temperature against the number of pirates, you see that the temperature increases because the number of pirates decreases.

            We Pastafarians are trying to reverse global warming by dressing up as pirates. The plan is to fool the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster into believing that the number of pirates is increasing, so that he will then cool the climate.

          • Clint R says:

            Yeah, that’s what someone paid by the “big pizza” would say….

          • CO2isLife says:

            “The gradual increase in temperature of 1.2C since 1880 is due to the gradual accumulation of CO2 released from fossil fuels.”

            Actually, it isn’t a simple concept.
            1) CO2 has been increasing since the end of the Ice Age, start of the Holocene
            2) CO2 increasing from 0 to 270 PPM added 29.3 W/M^2
            3) CO2 increasing from 270 to 410 added 2.01 W/M^2
            4) Adding 29.3 W/M^2 resulted in a gradual increase in temperatures yet an additional 2.01 W/M^2 causes a dog leg?
            5) Temperatures are very variable, CO2 isn’t, how does a relatively constant CO2 cause both increases and decreases in temperature?
            6) CO2 and W/M^2 is easily demonstrated to have a log decay, yet for some reason the impact of W/M^2 on temperatures is linear?
            7) How does Climate Science convert a log decay into a linear function?

            The fact that you think this is a simple problem, and can’t answer any of the above questions pretty much proves to me that you don’t understand the basics of this problem.

          • Nate says:

            “2) CO2 increasing from 0 to 270 PPM added 29.3 W/M^2”

            ??? Oh CO2, your fact checkers need to be fired.

          • Nate says:

            “5) Temperatures are very variable, CO2 isnt, how does a relatively constant CO2 cause both increases and decreases in temperature?”

            Yeah, and its weird that we have a cold winter and hot summer without CO2 changing more than 1%!

            Cmon CO2, end this reign of ignorance.

            Go home and learn about Earth’s orbital cycles before posting more nonsense.

        • Bindidon says:

          CO2isLife

          ” … but I see you have created your own Hockeystick charts. ”

          Sorry, this is now a bit too much of your ignorant nonsense.

          I never create ‘own’ charts. I generate them out of publicly available data. Those you permanently suspect to contain your nonsensical dog legs come from PAGES2K, the Hadley Centre or UAH.

          Please stop right now, and manage to communicate with people ready to swallow your unscientific blah blah. I’m sad of it.

  112. CO2isLife says:

    Bindidion: I never create own charts. I generate them out of publicly available data. Those you permanently suspect to contain your nonsensical dog legs come from PAGES2K, the Hadley Centre or UAH.

    Then the data you use rules out CO2 as the cause, unless you can explain how a log decay results in a sharp upward increase in temperatures.

    Bindidion: Please stop right now, and manage to communicate with people ready to swallow your unscientific blah blah. Im sad of it.

    How real science works:
    1) Observation: Climate changes over time
    2) Hypothesis: Climate change in natural and not caused by man (Null)
    3) Collect data for temperature change for the past 800,000 years and the Holocine
    4) Analysis: What is the mean temperature for the pre-industrial Holocene and that is the mean temperature for the Industrial age

    Does the Industrial Age Mean Temperature fall outside 2 standard deviations of the per-industrial Holocene?

    Conclusion: The industrial mean does not fall outside the per-industrial mean by 2 standard deviations, so the Null is not rejected, climate change is of natural cause.

    That is how a real science approaches a problem.

  113. CO2 IS LIFE I agree still I want to see the temperature trend start to fall the sooner the better.

  114. Entropic man says:

    CO2islife

    “explain how a log decay results in a sharp upward increase in temperatures. ”

    Let’s put some numbers on that.

    To determine the effect of a change in CO2 on energy input, the forcing equation is ∆F=5.35ln(final CO2/initial CO2)

    To determine the temperature you include climate sensitivity (3) and the forcing constant (3.7 W/degree)

    ∆T=5.35ln(final CO2/initial CO2) climate sensitivity / forcing constant

    The ln is natural logarithm, hence the logarithmic relationship between the change in concentration and the change in temperature.

    Now to double the CO2 concentration and see what happens. Start with the 1880 280ppm and double to 560ppm, expected about 2050.

    ∆T = 5.35ln(560/280)3/3.7 = 3.01C

    Double again to 1120ppm and the temperature increase becomes

    ∆T = 5.35ln(1120/280(3/3.7) = 6.01C

    The second doubling createss lightly less than a second doubling of the temperature, but the difference is negligable.

    Third doubling to 2240ppm

    ∆T = 5.35ln(2240/280)3/3.7 = 9.02C

    Fourth doubling to 4480ppm.

    ∆T = 5.35ln(4480/280)3/3.7 = 12.02C

    Fifth doubling to 8960ppm.

    ∆T = 5.35ln(8960/280)3/3.7 = 15.03C

    If doubling CO2 increased temperature by the same amount each time, five doubling would produce 15.05C, a difference between linear and logarithmic growth of 0.02C.

    I don’t think logarithmic decay is going to rescue you from climate change.

    By the way, when CO2 was 7000ppm temperature was 14C warmer than the present.

    The forcing equation projects

    ∆T = 5.35ln(7000/280)3/3.7 = 13.96C

    Quite good agreement between theory and proxy.

    • Entropic man says:

      If you take an incremental approach, the news looks better.

      This time I’ll increase the CO2 from 280ppm to the present value, 410ppm and see what happens. Then I’ll increase CO2 in further steps of 120ppm and see what happens.

      I’ll ignore the lag.

      ∆T = 5.35ln(410/280)3/3.7 = 1.65C

      ∆T = 5.35ln(530/280)3/3.7 = 2.76C

      ∆T = 5.35ln(650/280)3/3.7 = 3.65C

      ∆T = 5.35ln(770/280)3/3.7 = 4.38C

      The first 120ppm produces a warming of 1.65C.

      The next 120ppm produces 1.15C.

      Subsequent increments produce 0.89C and 0.73C.

      You can continue the calculation to find the asymtope, but I doubt it will come early enough to save us.

      • entropic man that is not going to happen.

      • CO2isLife says:

        “Ill ignore the lag.”

        There is no lag. The GHG effect is literally immediate and travels at the speed of light. We’re dealing with radiation, it literally travels at the speed of light.

        There is no way your δT measurements are accurate. No way in Hades.

        1) Ice Core Data shows an increase in temperature of around 1 degree C as CO2 increased from 180 to 280.

        2) Simply look at the Central England Temperature Chart, there has been no warming since 1650.

        3) There are plenty of stations on the NASA GISS website that when controlled for H2O and the Urban Heat Island effect show 0.00, no, nada, zip warming.

        The problem your model has it that you are meaning temperature as a function of corrupt NASA data “adjustments”, the urban heat island effect and weather vapor.

        No climate model is valid unless it has control to isolate the impact of one variable on another. That is the only way to build a valid multivariable model.

        Key question that every judge will want to know. What data set did you use to represent the incoming radiation to the oceans? If the oceans are the key factor, you had better have a way to measure it, and explain what is causing it to warm, and why that warming is due to CO2.

  115. CO2isLife says:

    Thinking through this, I have to make a few adjustments.
    1) Assuming plants die at 180 ppm. I will assume that CO2 doesn’t start at 0.00 ppm, but bottoms around 180 at the bottom of an ice age. That I will assume is the theoretical minimum for CO2.
    2) I will take the measurement from 180 to 270 for the Pre-Industrial and 270 to 410 for the industrial.

    W/M^2 for the change between 180 and 270 is: 1.95 W/M^2, clearly showing that the vast majority of CO2’s contribution to the energy balance is natural.

    W/M^2 for the change between 270 and 410 is: 2.01 W/M^2, nearly identical to the addition from 180 to 270.

    Problem is, I don’t know when to start the analysis, but I do have a NOAA Chart showing CO2 at 280 in 1750, and 300 in 1900.

    W/M^2 for the change between 280 and 300 is 0.31 W/M^2

    Temperatures increased 1 degree from the bottom of the little ice age to the about 1880 when the NOAA Charts start. So an additional 0.31 W/M^2 produced 1 degree in warming if it was caused by CO2.

    Between 1900 and today, the CO2 increased from 300 to 410, and the W/M^2 increased by 1.51 W/M^2.

    According to NOAA, Temperatures were effectively flat between 1880 and 1980.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/1987_yearly_temperature_anomalies_from_1880_to_2019.jpeg

    Temperatures appear to fall between 1880 and 1920.
    Increase from 1920 to 1940.
    Fall between 1940 and 1980
    Increase sharply post 1980.

    When temperatures do increase, they increase in a linear fashion.

    There are 3 dog legs in the NOAA Chart, 1920, 1940, 1980

    The physics on the CO2 must change dramatically because during some periods temperatures increase due to more CO2 and then they fall due to more CO2 and then they go back to increasing due to more CO2. Between 1880 and 1980, during the majority of the CO2 increase, temperatures are literally flat.

    Anyway, that is a “reconstruction.” Simply identify temperature stations that aren’t impacted by H20 and the Urban heat island effect and you will see that there has been no warming since 1980. Simply look at the Central England Data Set. There has been no warming since 1650.

    • Nate says:

      Why can’t skeptics be more self skeptical?

      Really not that hard.

      Before posting items, just apply a little skepticism. Are they factual or just made up? Logical or completely silly? Do I have some evidence to back this up? Or none at all?

      This would avoid a lot of unnecessary gish gallops, and subsequent mole whacking.

  116. CO2isLife says:

    This is the problem climate “science” faces. Cross examination.

    It is very easy to convince a Judge that Water Vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas, no expert witness would ever disagree with that statement. If an expert witness does disagree, I would simply pull out Modtran and show the Judge that the “Expert” is disagreeing with the industry standard climate modeling software. I would win that point.

    It is very very easy to convince a Judge that the Urban Heat Island Effect is a major contributor to global warming and has nothing to do with CO2. If the opposing “expert” witness disagrees, I could show experimental evidence of a temperature stations on a hot asphalt roof vs one in a field. I would win that point.

    Once I win those 2 points, I then go to the Industry Standard NASA GISS Website and identify desert locations that are unaffected by water vapor and the urban heat island effect. Basically dry and cold deserts. I would also use the “unadjusted” data.

    Here is what you will find time and time again. There is 0.00 degree warming of locations that are unaffected by the urban heat island effect and water vapor. How can multiple locations show no warming over the past 140 years when CO2 increased from 280 to 410 ppm if CO2 is the major cause of warming?

    Most importantly, how did I know where to look? That is how real science is done. Hypothesis: Warming isn’t due to CO2, but is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor. I didn’t reject that null, and you can test it yourself…if you dare.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=501943260000&dt=1&ds=5

    • E. Swanson says:

      CO2isLife, Sorry to be late to the party, but your denialist crap must be rebutted. For example, about 72% of the Earth is covered by oceans and there’s no heat island effect for the oceans. The data from UAH and RSS over the oceans indicates that the atmosphere over those areas is warming. This is especially so over the Arctic and there the warming trend is reported to be greatest in Winter. As for land measurements, these are area averaged and the fraction of the total land area covered by cities is quite small, thus the urban heat island effect has little impact.

      As usual, your denialist rant about data ignores the fact that there are standards for siting the official stations and there must be corrections, such as accounting for station moves and changes in time of day of reading the low-high thermometers.

      A proper judgement would throw out your claims, just like Trumpy’s claims that the election was stolen. You guys never learn, do you?

      • Clint R says:

        E Swanson, thanks for admitting the attempt to adjust the data. So often your side tries to deny it.

        It’s just like your side refuses to explain how CO2 can warm the planet.

  117. Entropic man says:

    Are you sure Alice Springs is a good example? It is a small town in the middle of a hot desert. Small UHI effect, no water vapour and low latitude (low latitudes warm more slowly than high latitudes.)

    You would expect a lower rate of warming than average. A cynic would wonder if you dug through the data until you found an example which supported your argument.

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      Ah. You have noticed that hot deserts lack the most important GHG – H20.

      So the less GHG, the hotter it gets.

      That is the reverse GHE, is it? No wonder you alarmists have difficulty actually describing the GHE. Cant be observed when its hot, cant be observed when its cold, cant be seen in urban areas, at night, in the shade, in the laboratory . . .

      Are you sure it exists?

  118. CO2isLife says:

    “Are you sure Alice Springs is a good example? It is a small town in the middle of a hot desert. Small UHI effect, no water vapour and low latitude (low latitudes warm more slowly than high latitudes.)”

    Could you name a better one? I would say the South Pole would be a good one because it is very dry and has an IR spectrum close to what CO2 absorbs. Does Antarctica get much below -80 Degree C?

    No warming in Antarctica either:

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=700896060008&dt=1&ds=5

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=700890090008&dt=1&ds=5

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=700895710008&dt=1&ds=5

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=700896420008&dt=1&ds=5

    Isn’t that amazing that me, an amateur, having never taken a Climate Science Class, can somehow figure out where you will find no warming? Am I a magician? Do I have special powers? Am I ET? Nope, I just know how to smell a fraud and identify the weak spots of an argument. Having an expensive background in the real sciences doesn’t hurt, but simple common sense pay the biggest dividends. Climate Science is simply blinded by group think and they overlook the obvious in favor of the implausible. That tends to happen when you are paid to argue for the implausable.

    • Entropic man says:

      Antarctica is something of a special case. All of Antarctica, except the West Antarctic peninsula is isolated from the rest of the climate system by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Heat doesn’t transfer from lower latitudes as easily as in the Arctic. The South Pole is also 3000 metres above sea level. It is officially the slowest warming station on the planet. Curiously the second is Armagh Observatory near me in Northern Ireland.That’s probably due to a weakening Gulf Stream.

      You are getting good at this. Nice to find an intelligent sceptic here. I’d given up hope.

      You do need to read up a bit. You’ll find when you research them, that most of your 11 points were mistaken.

        • Bindidon says:

          Oh sorry, your comment wasn’t on thread as I began to write the mine.

          J.-P. D.

        • CO2isLife says:

          “CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. ”

          “However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far.”

          Nice try, but the first sentence pretty much proves how wrong the author is. BTW, why would CO2 be causing mountain glaciers to melt then? More CO2 would cause mountain glaciers to grow. Go tell Dr Lonnie Thompson to quit wasting all those tax payers dollars trying to prove just the opposite.

          Anyway, some of those Antarctica stations are coastal, and are not elevated. Once again we find another magic grits problem.

          • Svante says:

            CO2isLife says:
            “the first sentence pretty much proves how wrong the author is.”
            CH4 from rice fields was a prominent anthropogenic forcing in preindustrial times.

            “why would CO2 be causing mountain glaciers to melt then? More CO2 would cause mountain glaciers to grow.”
            Mountain Glaciers can not block incoming weather from surrounding areas.

            “Anyway, some of those Antarctica stations are coastal, and are not elevated.”
            Cold air sinks, flow down slopes, and is mixed by winds.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Svante Says:

            CO2isLife says:
            “the first sentence pretty much proves how wrong the author is.”
            CH4 from rice fields was a prominent anthropogenic forcing in preindustrial times.

            “why would CO2 be causing mountain glaciers to melt then? More CO2 would cause mountain glaciers to grow.”
            Mountain Glaciers can not block incoming weather from surrounding areas.

            “Anyway, some of those Antarctica stations are coastal, and are not elevated.”
            Cold air sinks, flow down slopes, and is mixed by winds.

            1) H20 is by far the most significant GHG, and since the industrial age the earth has become much much much greener, We have turned deserts into farmland, fields into forests and cornfields, and we now use steel instead of wood to build our ships. I’m pretty sure droughts have become far less frequent and shorter than they used to be.

            2) Neither can Antartica, which is consistent for both locations but you attribute a different effect for the identical cause. Once again, another magical grits problem.

            3) You don’t seem to grasp the concept here. There was no temperature change with an increase in CO2 from 270 to 410 ppm. Inverted GHG effect or not, the temperature didn’t change. The GHG effect still exists, and the measured effect of changing CO2 from 270 to 410 is 0.00 degrees. Sure cold air falls, but temperature also falls with altitude because it thins. Either way, there is no trend in temperatures.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Svante, you do realize that an inverted GHG effect works against disappearing mountain glaciers right? With an inverted GHG effect, mountain glaciers should be growing with more CO2, not shrinking.

          Anyway, we all know that the most famous mountain glacier, Mt. Kilimanjaro’s glacier, the one Al Gore used to generate alarmism, isn’t disappearing due to warming, it is disappearing due to sublimation.

          https://youtu.be/iKxiTV3EOSo

      • Bindidon says:

        I have nothing to do

        – with CO2 discussions in general, because most people – me included of course – really know very very about how it really works,

        and even less
        – with this strange discussion about it suddenly running here, full of dog leg and sudden slope nonsense.

        *
        But I recall that Antarctica is a special corner not only because temperature, snow fall, ice sheet and sea ice keep so constant there.

        It is also because due to extremely low temperatures in Central Antarctica, it seems that the CO2 effect gets inverted there:

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749

        … Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space.

        As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long‐wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission.

        However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far.

        We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long‐wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth‐atmosphere system.

        These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.

        No idea whether or not this is of interest…

        J.-P. D.

        • Bindidon says:

          Ooops typo, should read

          ” … really know very very few about how it really works … “

        • CO2isLife says:

          “with this strange discussion about it suddenly running here, full of dog leg and sudden slope nonsense.”

          I feel like I’m in some alternate universe. What real science doesn’t use regression analysis on a time series of data?

          Is this entire field of Climate Science not based upon Temperature = Function of CO2? Y=mX+b where Y = Dependent Variable = Temperature and X = Independent Variable CO2.

          m = the sensitivity of temperature to a change in CO2?

          Unless you live in LaLa Land, m, the slope, is the most important issue of this discussion. I’ve proven that when the correct locations are chosen the m = 0.

          m BTW is dependent upon the physics of the CO2 and should be constant in a valid model.

          The dogleg makes a constant variable. The slope is different depending on the time period used. The problem with that is that m isn’t a variable, m is a constant, the physics of a CO2 molecule are constant.

          I get the feeling you’ve never taken basic science, hypothesis testing, scientific method and statistics.

          Once again if you want the scientific truth don’t create a computer model, simply test and see if the mean temperature of the industrial age is different from the mean temperature of the pre-industiral Holocene. That is the first test any real scientist would run. That is why you haven’t run that obvious way to reject the AGW hypothesis.

      • Entropic man you are not objective that is your problem . You have decided 100% that AGW is real and correct.

        Why are you the ONLY one that is correct? Why?

      • CO2isLife says:

        “Antarctica is something of a special case. All of Antarctica, except the West Antarctic peninsula is isolated from the rest of the climate system by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Heat doesn’t transfer from lower latitudes as easily as in the Arctic.”

        I’m pretty sure that the physics of the CO2 molecule are the same in Antarctica and Alice Springs, and the results are the same.

        Once again, control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O and you get no warming. I can show you many many many examples of that fact and I’m using NASA’s own data.

        Once again, the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by thermalizing 15 micron LWIR, and when CO2 increased from 270 to 410, it resulted in an immeasurable increase in temperatures. Once again, that is proven by the NASA temperatures stations.

  119. ren says:

    The jetstream with heavy rainfall visible over Canada will reach central Greenland where a lot of snow will fall.
    https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/montreal/h3a/weather-radar/56186

  120. CO2isLife says:

    More from an amateur Climatologist.

    1) From what I’ve learned about Climate “Science” they seem to live in a bubble and instead of debating the issues they tend to want to censor and exclude differing voices. By using that approach they remove themselves from the necessary rigor of real scientific exploration and discovery.

    2) Because they only listen to themselves, they make beginner’s mistakes that would easily be discovered during cross-examination in a court of law.

    Examples:

    1) Dogs that don’t bark. I’ve seen many graphs showing dog legs in temperature, yet they don’t appear in other derivative charts. For instance if the rate of change in temperatures sharply increased in 1902, so should have the rate of change in sea level. Sea levels don’t show a corresponding dog leg, even though sea level is a function of atmospheric temperatures.

    2) The oceans dominate the climate system, yet there is no way to measure if there is more radiation reaching the oceans. Climate science has reached conclusions without haveing the most necessary data set.

    3) If climate science really wanted to reach valid conclusions they would have photometers all over the oceans recording the radiation reaching the oceans. Without data measuring the additional energy being added to the oceans, no valid conclusion will ever be reached.

    4) Atmospheric temperatures are a derivative of ocean temperatures. Recording atmospheric temperatures without explaining why the oceans are warming is simply blind speculation.

    5) As I’ve said a million times, CO2 puts a floor in temperatures, it does not warm the atmosphere. That is what the physics of the CO2 molecule dictate. 15 Microns is consistent with 15-micron LWIR. That is apparent because the upper atmosphere never gets materially below that temperature. Not only does the upper atmosphere never fall below that level, guess what the coldest temperature on the surface is? You got it -80 degree C. Imgine that, just like magic. Everything seems to align with this magical -80 degree C.

    6) Other dogs that don’t bark. Plenty if not all of the temperature stations controlled for water vapor and the urban heat island effect show no dog legs starting in 1902 or consistently at any other time for that matter.

    Climate science needs to start inviting skeptics to cross-examine their conclusions because that will ultimately happen in a court or law.

  121. ren says:

    Increased ozone accumulation over eastern Siberia (polar vortex blockade). Ozone flows to North America.
    https://i.ibb.co/PQtNg9k/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
    https://i.ibb.co/yR4c57B/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png

  122. CO2 IS LIFE RIGHT ON.

    In addition oceanic temperatures are up a mere.2c from the 1971-2000 averages.

  123. Entropic man says:

    “, the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by thermalizing 15 micron LWIR,

    You forgot DWLR and the raised tropopause.

    • CO2isLife says:

      “DWLR and the raised tropopause”

      What is DWLR? What evidence do you have that CO2 raised the tropopause? By what mechanism? Also, how would raising the Tropopause cause the surface temperature to increase?

      • Entropic man says:

        When a GHG in the atmosphere radiates it does so in all directions. On average half eventually escapes to space. This is upwelling longwave radiation. The other half radiates downwards and is eventually absorbed by the surface.This is downwelling longwave radiation, DWLR.

        This is the DWLR spectrum.

        https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png

        Note the big peak at 15 micrometres, reflecting the effect of CO2. The rest is mostly emission by water vapour.

        If you look at the outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, the observed spectrum neatly matches what you get when you subtract the DWLR from the expected black body radiation.

        https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png

        In the troposphere a longwave photon is almost certain to hit a CO2 or water molecule and be reradiated.

        Above the tropopause the air is thin enough that a longwave photon heading upwards is more likely to escape to space.

        The tropopause is effectively the radiating height of the planet, sending energy to space by a combination of GHG radiation and thermal radiation/black body radiation.

        Increase GHGs and the atmosphere becomes transparent to longwave radiation at a lower pressure, a higher altitude. This is the new altitude of the tropopause.

        Because the higher tropopause is colder, it radiates less black body radiation. The result is a reduction in the total outward radiation.

  124. CO2isLife says:

    Svante: And it has a negative greenhouse effect:

    The entire atmosphere has a negative GHG effect. The spacing between molecules increases with altitude. That means it is far easier for LWIR to leave the atmosphere than to make it back to the surface. Remember after all the whole purpose of the GHG effect is to facilitate the transfer of energy out of the atmosphere.

    Ways to remove energy from the atmosphere:
    1) Conduction
    2) Convection
    3) Radiation

    Radiation is by far the fastest way to remove energy from the system.

    Rain forest stay warm at night, deserts don’t. Why? Because CO2 doesn’t do much to maintain heat in the atmosphere. H2O does.

  125. CO2isLife says:

    Svante: And it has a negative greenhouse effect:

    The entire atmosphere has a negative GHG effect. The spacing between molecules increases with altitude. That means it is far easier for LWIR to leave the atmosphere than to make it back to the surface. Remember after all the whole purpose of the GHG effect is to facilitate the transfer of energy out of the atmosphere.

    Ways to remove energy from the atmosphere:
    1) Conduction
    2) Convection
    3) Radiation

    Radiation is by far the fastest way to remove energy from the system.

    Rain forest stay warm at night, deserts don’t. Why? Because CO2 doesn’t do much to maintain heat in the atmosphere. H2O does.

    Simply understand this graphic: Won’t post but it is the IR spectrum absorbed by GHGs

    There is an atmospheric window where most of the relevant IR, consistent with room temperature simply radiates straight to outer space. The GreenHouse Gases define the tails. CO2 places a floor in the temperatures to the right, H2O provides a baseline warmth for the atmospheric window area, and really kicks in for the tropical areas represented by the left side of the atmospheric window. CO2 is basically irrelevant. H20 is what regulates the atmospheric temperature. Simply understand the meaning of that chart. It tells you everything you need to know.

    Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest greenhouse gas, and the concentration of this gas is largely controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere. As air becomes warmer, it can hold more moisture or water vapor.

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also an important greenhouse gas. It has a long lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide strongly absorbs energy with a wavelength of 15 μm (micrometers).

    Simply look up what wavelengths are associated with what blackbody temperatures.

    15 microns = -80 degree C
    10 Micron = room temperature or 18 degree C
    9.5 Micron = Tropical 30 degree C

    CO2 only impacts the cold areas like Antarctica which reaches a low temperature of, you guessed it, -80 Degree C.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Co2…”Rain forest stay warm at night, deserts dont. Why? Because CO2 doesnt do much to maintain heat in the atmosphere. H2O does”.

      We live in a rain forest climate in the Vancouver, Canada area, and we hold the dubious honour for having most deaths from exposure in the world in forests near a major city. If you tried to spend a night in our rain forest at this time of year, and you had inadequate clothing, or wet clothing, you’d have a good chance of dying overnight.

      ***

      “There is an atmospheric window where most of the relevant IR, consistent with room temperature simply radiates straight to outer space”.

      That’s a theory based on climate model based greenhouse theory. Models are programmed with equations that rely on radiation while ignoring, for the most part, heat transfer by direct conduction to all air molecules at the surface. The truth is that radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a poor means of heat dissipation.

    • Norman says:

      CO2isLife

      You may want to reconsider your point on GHG and its effects.

      Actual measured values clearly demonstrate the effect of GHG on outgoing energy and the peaks are not in the “window areas”

      https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Physical-chemistry-of-climate-metrics.-Ravishankara-Rudich/d5b46c7f6b02b858ca3bef854928ca8a66347a77/figure/5

      This one shows some of the contribution of CO2 to the Downwelling IR

      http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/node3.htm

      This paper does discuss the overlap between water vapor and carbon dioxide.

      https://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf

      • Clint R says:

        Norman found 3 more links he can’t understand. That’s his purpose in life. State his opinions, then use links he can’t understand as support. If someone takes the time to explain why his links are wrong, or don’t support his beliefs, he starts the personal attacks.

        He loves his cult, but hates reality. He can’t learn, and he can’t change.

        • Norman says:

          ClintR

          Is there any real valid reason you post on this blog. I addressed an intelligent skeptic who goes by CO2isLife. Your childish posts that make false claims and show how stupid you are are not necessary. I understand your purpose here is to provoke people to get responses. It is not such a useful goal. I can’t change who or what you are but do you always have to post? Can you take a break and let an adult reply?

          Your words describe you completely. In your blindness you fail to see you describe yourself “He loves his cult, but hates reality. He cant learn, and he cant change.” That is you!

    • E. Swanson says:

      CO2isLife wrote:

      Ways to remove energy from the atmosphere:
      1) Conduction
      2) Convection
      3) Radiation

      Radiation is by far the fastest way to remove energy from the
      system.

      Conduction and convection do not remove energy from the atmosphere, that is to say, move energy out of the Earth’s atmosphere above TOA to deep space. Only radiation can accomplish that.

      Then too, your rant ignores the effects of CO2 above the troposphere, where there’s little water vapor to absorb/emit IR radiation. FYI, The temperature above the tropopause in the tropics can be around your -80C point.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Remember after all the whole purpose of the GHG effect is to facilitate the transfer of energy out of the atmosphere.”
      First, nature doesn’t have ‘purposes’ — it has causes and effects.
      Second, the effect of GHGs is to *inhibit* the transfer of energy away from the earth. Yes, a GHG like CO2 does allow the transfer of 15 um radiation from the top of the atmosphere. But it simultaneously *blocks* more intense 15 um radiation from the warmer surface. The NET effect is to REDUCE the 15 um radiation escaping to space, thereby INCREASING the radiation at other wavelengths to compensate and result in the same total energy out.

      “Simply look up what wavelengths are associated with what blackbody temperatures.”
      There is no single, sharply defined wavelength associated with each temperature. Each temperature has a broad curve that peaks at the wavelength you quote.
      So if you “look up” the wavelengths associated with -80C (193K), you would find that
      ~ 25% of the intensity is from 6-15 um
      ~ 25% of the intensity is from 15-21 um
      ~ 25% of the intensity is from 21-32 um
      ~ 25% of the intensity is from 32-200 um
      IE the energy is spread out over a WIDE RANGE of wavelengths.
      And if you looked up the wavelengths associated with 0 C (273K), you would find that there is actually MORE energy in the 14-16 um band than there is from radiation from a -80 C object.

      “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also an important greenhouse gas.”
      Yes. Less important overall than H20, but still important. And since it can absorb at least some energy from areas at -80 C or 0 C or 50 C, it can help warm the earth as it does so.

      • Clint R says:

        Folkerts, a combination of -80C and sunlight will NOT raise the temperature of a 288 K surface more than sunlight alone.

        • Norman says:

          ClintR

          Your declarative statement is totally without merit and experimental evidence proves the ignorance. You can declare things but that will never make them true.

          Evidence proves you are wrong. Unfortunately you do not accept evidence as declarations are easy to proclaim. Wrong as they most certainly are.

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

          You don’t understand physics and you are not able to process this experiment and what it implies. I guess you will keep declaring false points. It is what you do.

          • ClintR says:

            Wrong Norman. That’s not even close to the topic.

            What is being discussed is the fact that fluxes don’t simply add. Like the two ice cubes example that you refuse to answer. You won’t answer because reality conflicts with your belief system.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Svante says:

            Heat loss depends on (T^4) temperature difference.
            Which gives the biggest diff, -80 C or -273 C?

          • Nate says:

            “What is being discussed is the fact that fluxes dont simply add.”

            Of course fluxes do add. As clearly explained here.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-576277

            Rebuttal?? No of course not, insert childish insult here.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            It is not necessary that you add lying to your list of incompetence (like no knowledge of real physics, no logical thought process, not very smart, not able to read and process language, short attention span).

            I answered you ice example maybe your reading skills are too poor to understand it.

            Fluxes do add. You are just wrong with this incorrect claim. You seem stuck that is is true, not sure why you think it or where you obtained this knowledge. Even simple tests can prove it wrong like turning on more lights, you get more flux through the pupil of your eye and more energy reaches your light sensing cells. That is why I think you lack rational thought. You are not able to understand the most basic and simple of ideas that even a young child would grasp.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            You are also wrong, Roy Spencer experiment is exactly what the topic is about. The colder ice sends less IR to the heated plate than the warmer cover so the heated plate cools in respect to the warmer cover. The energy of the cover, colder than the heated plate, warms the heated plate more than the the colder ice (which contributes less IR to the heated plate).

            Learn some real physics you complete moron! You call me an idiot but you can’t even think in rational or logical fashion. About as dumb as they get.

          • Clint R says:

            Svante and Nate join up to try to pervert the issue, since Norman got caught.

            The issue is illustrated by a simple experiment, which all the trolls refuse to answer:

            An ice cube rests on a table very close to, but not touching, a thermometer. The ice cube and everything in the room is at 32 F.

            A second ice cube is placed on the other side of the thermometer, very close, but not touching.

            Will the second ice cube raise the temperature indicated by the thermometer?

            A) Yes
            B) No

          • Nate says:

            Nope. No answer for your vague idiotic strawman, while you consistently evade answering our specific questions.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate believes my simple question is a “vague idiotic strawman”, while he believes he and Svante are asking “specific questions”.

            Nate’s “specific, non-vague question”: Response?
            Svante’s “specific, non-vague question”: Which gives the biggest diff, -80 C or -273 C?

            That’s why they’re trolls.

          • Nate says:

            You cant advance to calculus and physics while denying addition, of fluxes. Building ice strawmen is pointless if you are stuck in this rut.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, an ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. If you believe fluxes add, then what is the total flux is a second ice cube is added?

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, an ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. If you believe fluxes add, then what is the total flux is a second ice cube is added?”

            Norman already gave you a problem that specified the geometry and temperatures where flux addition becomes relevant.

            But you ignored it, and keep returning to your favorite pointless strawman.

            Lets make it as simple as possible.

            1. Two incomes coming into one bank account ADD. But your income and my income DO NOT ADD. They are not going into the same account.

            2. If you change jobs, your income from the old job and your income from the new job DON’T ADD.

            These are the basic principles at work here.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR asks:

            Will the second ice cube raise the temperature indicated by the thermometer?

            A) Yes
            B) No

            The answer would be “B”. You are ignoring the fact that the thermometer is receiving IR radiation from the walls of the room at 32F in the first case. Placing the second solid ice cube next to the thermometer will block that IR radiation while emitting IR radiation at the same rate (assuming both have the same emissivity), thus the thermometer would experience no change in it’s IR radiant energy environment and therefore no change in the measured temperature.

          • Clint R says:

            Thank you E Swanson, for attempting some science.

            Norman and Nate were terrified to attempt an answer. All they could do was evade.

            Yes, “B” is the correct answer. Adding the same flux to the thermometer does not raise it’s temperature.

            But, you made a slight mistake in mentioning the walls. The walls are also at 32F, so any flux from walls would be less than the ice flux, due to the inverse-square Law.

            Fluxes don’t simply add.

          • Svante says:

            The hidden wall has the same view angle due to greater area.
            What you see is what you get Snowflake.

          • Clint R says:

            We already know you can’t understand physics, silly.

            All you have to do is remember 4 simple words: “Fluxes don’t simply add”.

          • Svante says:

            That depends on whether they land on the same area.

          • Nate says:

            ” due to the inverse-square Law.”

            False. As Svante notes.

            “Placing the second solid ice cube next to the thermometer will block that IR radiation while emitting IR radiation at the same rate”

            Exactly.

            “2. If you change jobs, your income from the old job and your income from the new job DON’T ADD.”

            Given an appropriate geometry, ie the two fluxes are hitting the same spot then Fluxes do indeed add.

            But If a flux is simply replacing an equal flux from the background, then nothing is gained.

            Downwelling IR from the atmosphere DOES ADD to solar flux striking the Earth.

            The ‘background’ being replaced by the atmosphere is space @ 3 K, so it is producing negligible flux.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate and Svante are in a tizzy-fit, since they have to face some reality.

            A second ice cube will not raise the temperature over the first ice cube. 300 W/m^2 “added” to 300 W/m^2 will be 300 W/m^2. It’s analogous to adding 40 degree water to 40 degree water. You get 40 degree water.

            Once again, the idiots see their beloved cult beliefs go down the toilet bowl.

          • Svante says:

            What else is new Sunshine?

          • Nate says:

            “second ice cube will not raise the temperature over the first ice cube. 300 W/m^2 added to 300 W/m^2 will be 300 W/m^2”

            So we agree that your ice cube experiment has no point whatsoever, since it has no general applicability to any other geometry and temperatures.

            It simply demonstrates that fluxes both add and subtract. In this special case that produces net 0.

          • Clint R says:

            Silly snowflake Svante babbles incoherently.

            Troll Nate attempts to pervert reality, but ends up babbling incoherently also.

          • Nate says:

            So says our resident fizuks genius who cant understand BASIC radiation theory, with his ‘inverse square law’ flub.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate continues his futile effort to pervert reality.

            Yawn….

          • Nate says:

            So you still think that the inverse square law applies, or did you realize your blunder?

          • Clint R says:

            Inverse-Square Law applies, troll Nate.

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html

            My only blunder is in choosing to reply to idiot trolls.

          • Nate says:

            As expected.

            So you think the wall of a room is a point source?

          • Clint R says:

            I gave troll Nate a simple discussion of the Inverse-Square Law. But, instead of trying to learn, he tries to distort reality.

            He refuses to learn and rejects reality. That’s why he’s an idiot.

          • Nate says:

            Dunning Kruger poster child. Please give to help this poor confused child who still thinks he understands physics.

            So you think the wall of a room is a point source? That was a clue as to what you were missing.

            Even your source shows a point source.

            A wall aint a point source. Thinking it behave like one, that aint science.

            The radiation from a wall will barely decrease with distance AT ALL until the distance is comparable to the height of the wall.

  126. Entropic man says:

    “Other dogs that dont bark. Plenty if not all of the temperature stations controlled for water vapor and the urban heat island effect show no dog legs starting in 1902 or consistently at any other time for that matter. ”

    Numbers please. How about a table showing the warming trend at several stations, some urban and humid, some rural and dry.

    Using rural desert stations to control for UHI and water vapour is a good idea, but so far all you’ve given us is a graph of Alice Springs, but no trend data for comparison.

    • Bindidon says:

      Entropic man

      I have all the GHCN V3 data on disk, and will manage to do the job (one TMIN vs. TMAX series with deserts + Antarctica, one with all available stations, one restricted on 20N-20S).

      On verra! Frenchies would say.

      It’s imho not really too late to write

      Merry Xmas!

      J.-P. D.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Be sure to use the “unadjusted” data. NASA “adjusts” the data to create warming where it doesn’t exist.

        • Bindidon says:

          CO2isLife

          You don’t know what you are telling about.

          1. GHCN (V1 – V4, daily) is a NOAA product, and has nothing to do with NASA. NASA is, like others (CRUTEM in GB, JMA in Japan till 2000, etc) a USER of GHCN.

          2. As opposed to you, I downloaded GHCN V3 already years ago, implemented, verified and validated software to process it, and was then wondering about strange claims made by Goddard aka Heller, concerning trends of V3 adjusted station data allegedly being always higher than the unadjusted source.

          This was wrong: of the 7,280 V3 stations, about 4,000 indeed have shown a higher trend when adjusted, that’s OK, but the rest was either unchanged, was within +- 0.1 C difference, or was even lower than the unadjusted variant. But Goddard never mentioned the latter 3,000 ones.

          Hear you see it:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OxZ9ith9rvAWvU-mvZAWaKigJREJRBKE/view

          *
          A typical example: Prague, Czechia (Europe)

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdeNtl2SEhzFoEZ7oXlLeLgDXJ2bGy6G/view

          A measurement error was detected and communicated by the Czechs, what led the adjusted NOAA data look as if it had been artificially augmented.

          I know: you Pseudoskeptics always believe those who tell you what you want to hear. But that’s a point I don’t care much about.

          J.-P. D.

          • CO2isLife says:

            “This was wrong: of the 7,280 V3 stations, about 4,000 indeed have shown a higher trend when adjusted,”

            Funny, over 50% showed an increase in temperature adjustment. Did you bother to test to see how many had a decrease in temperature? Funny how a “random” data set has all the “adjustments” fall to one side. It sounds like the people counting votes in Georga must work for NASA.

            My bet is that the upward “adjustment” will dwarf any downward adjustments. Just a hunch that I’d bet my life saving on.

          • Bindidon says:

            Oh well oh well!

            A Trumpista & conspirationist… great.

            One more of those strange people who didn’t understand why Trump didn’t vote by mail this year, for the very first time since quite long a time. Hmmmmh.

            *
            What now concerns your blah blah about GHCN V3: I read such stuff since years.

            Instead of blah blah, I prefer data (which some ignorant always denigrates as ‘faked graph out of fudged data, maybe you are a bit less ignorant):

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YPpBGeP8K5YzwIt3oFcIU16XqLKoxI04/view

            Trends in C / decade for 1880-2018:
            u: 0.06 +- 0.002
            a: 0.09 +- 0.002

            and for 1979-2018:
            u: 0.20 +- 0.01
            a: 0.21 +- 0.01

            *
            The point which matters here is rather: why had NOAA’s land-only data made out of the adjusted V3 data a harsh trend of 0.29 instead of 0.21, while GISS land-only had quite acceptable 0.23?

            If you need something to complain about GHCN data, then you’d better manage to have a closer look at GHCN V4. That stuff has a really, really impressive adjustment corner… I didn’t even process it until now for exactly that reason.

            J.-P. D.

        • bdgwx says:

          You are literally making statements up to keep your gish gallop going. I run the GISTEMP code every day. I get the exact same result NASA does. No part of their code creates warming where it doesn’t exist.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Just look at any chart. The “adjusted” and “Homogenized” data almost always shows warming vs the raw data. Just look at Death Valley.

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1

          • bdgwx says:

            CO2isLife,

            You can run the GISTEMP code with the GHCN qcu file instead of the qcf file. Take a guess as to what happens when you do that.

          • Clint R says:

            I’ve noticed the idiots are using this term “Gish Gallop” a lot. It’s a signal that they have no way of refuting someone’s facts and logic. So they hide behind a meaningless term.

            bdgwx is really good at hiding.

          • CO2isLife says:

            bdgwx, prove me wrong. Parse out only the high temperatures for the day. Don’t use NASA’s “adjusted” data, and chart a composite of the daily high temperatures. Compare the chart of daily high temperatures, daily low temperatures, and then plot NASA’s “adjusted” data chart. The fraud becomes obvious, so obvious a judge with an arts degree could understand it.

          • bdgwx says:

            CO2isLife,

            Yes. We know that the time-of-day, station move, etc. adjustments result in a higher warming trend relative to the unadjusted data for some time series. But that step cannot be skipped. Adjusting data does not mean that fraud has occurred. In fact, most people consider it unethical to not correct for known errors/biases in the time series. We want GHCN to adjust the data to make it more accurate. That is a good thing. And remember…there’s more than just the handful of cherry-picked time series that the bloggers only report on. I recommend you do the comparison you explained with all 27,000 time series and not just the ones Heller tells you about.

            So what happened when you ran the GISTEMP code with the QCU files?

    • CO2isLife says:

      Enrtopic Man, here is the data:

      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v3/

      Simply go and identify remote locations with a BI of less than 10. Download the data. Create a composite and you will see, there is no uptrend and there is wide dispersions between when warming does occur per location.

      https://youtu.be/ZNShlh8OHcs

      https://youtu.be/FBoAdu8GtR0

      https://youtu.be/ZUVqZKBMF7o

      • Entropic man says:

        Thank you, my computer skills are too obsolete for this sort of data analysis.

        It’s not full data, but I note that earlier this year Death Valley recorded 54.3C, the highest station reading ever recorded anywhere.

        Death Valley is one of your control group of low UHI, low water vapour deserts which are not supposed to be warming. Where did the record come from?

        • CO2isLife says:

          WUWT did a whole series on Death Valley, the weather station is corrupted an located near the parking lot. My bet is that if you go and find similar sites near the park on it won’t show the same trends.

          BTW, there is no trend in Death Valley over the past 110 years. Death Valley is another great example of no water vapor and urban heat island.
          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          Antarctica. * Nearly 100 locations reached surface temperatures of -98 degrees Celsius. * in 2018.

          Coldest temperatures ever recorded. Low water vapour, low UHI, desert.

          I will see your hot record, and raise you a few colder ones. Where did these records come from? Like Death Valley, basic physics, laddie. Physical laws apply equally everywhere.

          Away with ye, laddie. Take a rest, have a good lie down, and accept reality.

          • Entropic man says:

            This are Winter temperatures.

            Remember the sequence of events by which GHGs warm the surface.

            1) Sunlight warms surface.

            2) Surface radiates longwave radiation.

            3) GHGs absorb longwave radiation and reradiate it in all directions.

            4) Some of that longwave radiation is absorbed by surface.

            In midwinter in Antarctica there is no sunlight. GHGs slow the cooling, but don’t stop it reaching very low temperatures.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Antarctica. * Nearly 100 locations reached surface temperatures of -98 degrees Celsius. * in 2018.

            That pretty much shatters the myth of global warming, doesn’t it?

            Coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth in Antarctica: -94.7C (-135.8F)

            The reading won’t be featured in the Guinness Book of World Records because it was satellite measured

            Newly analysed Nasa satellite data from east Antarctica shows Earth has set a new record for coldest temperature ever recorded: -94.7C (-135.8F).

            It happened in August 2010 when it hit -94.7C (-135.8F). Then on 31 July of this year, it came close again: -92.9C (-135.3F).

            The old record had been -89.2C (-128.6F).

            BTW, -94.7 C falls within the band of 15 microns absorbed by CO2.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            A point. About 40% of sunlight never reaches the ground, due to the presence of the atmosphere. Surface temperatures never exceed 90 C or so.

            The Moon, with no atmosphere, has surface temperatures in excess of 127 C. More energy reaches the surface, you see. After the same exposure time, too. No climatological temperature accumulation.

            As to your silliness about GHGs reducing the rate of cooling, you must share the pseudoscientific redefinition of slow cooling really means warming.

            Try it. Put your hot beverage in one of finest cooling slowing devices known to man – a vacuum flask. Now delude yourself into thinking that the temperature of your beverage is rising!

            You should demand a refund from your alma mater, if that is where you supposedly learnt physics.

        • CO2isLife says:

          CO2 can not cause a “spike” in temperatures, it can only cause a long-term trend. CO2 can’t cause a record 1 day, and then go back to normal the next day. A real science would understand that CO2 evenly blankets the globe, so they wouldn’t look for a single record here or there, they would look for a universal increase in temperatures and many records being set. You don’t find that. In fact, the mistake NASA does with their “adjustments” is they only adjust the average temperature upwards. If you look to see if there is a trend in high temperatures you will see that record high temperatures are actually FALLING.

          How can you have global warming if the record high temperatures aren’t increasing? That is clear evidence of fraud, and rating the average without raising the max and min on which those averages are based is clear fraud. The fraudsters are simply lazy, just like the vote counters in Georgia. They were so confident in their fraud that they didn’t even bother to turn off the CCTV camera.

          • Nate says:

            “A real science would understand that CO2 evenly blankets the globe, so they wouldnt look for a single record here or there, they would look for a universal increase in temperatures and many records being set. ”

            1. Many warm records ARE being set around the Globe, but not uniformly.

            2. The globe has complex weather patterns that are affected differently by the warming.

            3. Arctic amplification was predicted 40 years ago, and since observed. W Antarctica was predicted to warm faster 40 y ago, and it is. The Southern Hemisphere was predicted to warm more slowly than the N. Hemisphere, 40 y ago, and it is.

            4. Your naive intuitions are not real science.

            Heres a good example where self-skepticism would have avoided posting a lot of embarrassing gibberish CO2.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes troll Nate, we are in a warming trend.

            If you didn’t have a penchant for trolling, you could have avoided posting a lot of embarrassing gibberish.

          • Nate says:

            As expected insult absent rebuttal. Pointless trolling.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes troll Nate, I prefer to keep my comments insult-free. I concentrate on reality. People that believe they can avoid reality are idiots.

  127. Entropic man says:

    “Entropic man you are not objective that is your problem . You have decided 100% that AGW is real”

    I find it amusing that you do not believe in AGW and neither do I.

  128. CO2 is LIFE, IS MAKING GREAT ARGUMENTS!

  129. Gordon Robertson says:

    CO2…”Climate science needs to start inviting skeptics to cross-examine their conclusions because that will ultimately happen in a court or law”.

    I am thinking of writing to my local and federal governments asking them to bring in scientists from other disciplines to monitor the current paradigm related to covid. The current theory is seriously out of whack with reality.

    When we hear the word virus, I imagine that many of us picture a tiny sphere with spikes on it that can attach to a cell with the spikes and transfer the virus genetic material to the cell. No one has ever seen that happen and according to microbiologist, Stefan Lanka, no one has seen an actual virus on an electron microscope. The Net abounds with such photos but Lanka has pointed out with each photo of a known virus that the photos are of dead cells.

    The current theory on HIV and covid is likely hideously wrong. If we don’t bring in independent scientific auditors to ask important questions, we could be dealing with this covid nonsense 50 years a from now as we are with HIV.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson the cheating SOB

      ” The current theory on HIV and covid is likely hideously wrong. ”

      Hideous? that, cheating Robertson SOB, is exactly what YOU are!

      Here in Germany, in France, in Italy, we see more and more doctors in intensive care units reporting that most intubated people are currently not surviving. They say it’s worse then in April.

      *
      You are an absolutely disgusting creature.

      How is it possible that bullshit writers like you are allowed to write their trash on a science blog?

      It’s a shame no one can force you to work in a hospital without a mask during the next 6 weeks!

      J.-P. D.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        Just a couple of points for consideration.

        Everybody thought peptic ulcers were caused by all sorts of things – but not bacteria. Wrong.

        There are lots of other examples. Maybe GR is right, maybe not. Time will tell.

        As to most incubated people not surviving, this has always been the case. However, doctors just refuse to believe their treatment is not working, and it is the fault of the patients that they are dying!

        Once again, time will tell.

        It is a shame that alarmists want to inflict pain and misery on anyone who disagrees with them. That is the way of the blowhard and the thug.

        • Bindidon says:

          Swenson / Flynn

          You are exactly the same kind of arrogant and ignorant dumb ass as Robertson, the only little difference being that you probably won’t be brazen enough to name the translator of Newton’s work a cheating SOB.

          Your reply to my comment, as all others anyway, is the perfect explanation for the word ‘redundance’.

          J.-P. D.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Stefan Lanka is not a good source for proof of anything. His is quite a phony and makes money feeding the Contrarian Conspiracy belief system. He rejects conventional wisdom and science in favor of the thought process where you can make up anything and it is real.

      He feeds the contrarians their rotten food and collects money for it.

      https://animal.mx/2020/05/virus-no-existe-noticia-falsa-stefan-lanka-medicina-germanica/

      Maybe read through this. It has a slight chance of deprogramming your Contrarian mental state and allowing you the freedom to think critically.

      https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/06/24/75-reasons-why-vaccines-are-needed-and-deniers-are-dangerous/

    • Carbon500 says:

      Gordon: ‘According to Stefan Lanka’ – that says it all!
      I spent many years working in medical laboratory science and technology.The knowledge of how viruses infect their hosts has been painstakingly accumulated over the years by many scientists. It’s a complex field, but certain basic principles are well established. To give you an idea of what is known, have a look at this link to the Journal of Cell Biology:
      https://rupress.org/jcb/article/195/7/1071/54877/The-cell-biology-of-receptor-mediated-virus
      It’s a detailed resume, but you should be able to get the general idea.
      You’ll find that Lanka’s eccentric views tell you very little about the real world of molecular biology. It really is time for you to question his views, and to do that you need to read around the subject.

  130. ren says:

    After heavy rainfall on the snowy ground, there will now be frost in the Northeast. This is how a glacier is formed.
    https://i.ibb.co/zJ7ZLGY/Screenshot-1.png

    • ren says:

      This is how the stratosphere interferes with the troposphere in winter.
      https://i.ibb.co/MPX3Tb9/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f036.png
      Someone who ignores the effects of solar activity on circulation in winter does not understand the dynamics of the atmosphere.

      • ren says:

        The current magnetic activity of sunspots is very weak.
        https://i.ibb.co/mFFfGQ8/rozbyski-soneczne.jpg

        • CO2isLife says:

          What is important isn’t how hot or cool the sun is, it is how much warming radiation reaches the oceans. A hot sun can disrupt the cosmic rays reaching the earth, making fewer clouds, and resulting in warming. A “lazy” sun allows more cosmic rays to enter out atmosphere creating more clouds, resulting in cooling.

          In its 10 years of operation, CLOUD has made several important discoveries on the vapours that form aerosol particles in the atmosphere and can seed clouds. Although most aerosol particle formation requires sulphuric acid, CLOUD has shown that aerosols can form purely from biogenic vapours emitted by trees, and that their formation rate is enhanced by cosmic rays by up to a factor 100…We won’t know until we try, but by the end of the CLOUD experiment, we want to be able to answer definitively whether cosmic rays affect clouds and the climate, and not leave any stone unturned.”

          The idea is that cosmic rays seed clouds by ionizing molecules in Earth’s atmosphere that draw in other molecules to create the aerosols around which water vapour can condense to form cloud droplets. The low-lying clouds that result then have the effect of cooling the Earth by reflecting incoming sunshine back out to space. Since the Sun’s magnetic field tends to deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, the planet will be warmer when solar activity is high and, conversely, cooler when it is low.

          When the Sun is lazy, magnetically speaking, there are more cosmic rays and more low clouds, and the world is cooler.
          When the Sun is active fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth and, with fewer low clouds, the world warms up.

  131. Bindidon says:

    Wooooaah!

    Incredible but true: tiny SNOW FLAKES FALLING!

    During… 10 minutes, for the first time since a couple of years, I think the last time we saw a little bit of snow was in January 2018.

    Salvatore, I tell you: the GREAT COOLING now soon cometh.

    J.-P. D.

  132. CO2isLife says:

    Bindidon says:

    The point which matters here is rather: why had NOAA’s land-only data made out of the adjusted V3 data a harsh trend of 0.29 instead of 0.21, while GISS land-only had quite acceptable 0.23?

    If you need something to complain about GHCN data, then you’d better manage to have a closer look at GHCN V4. That stuff has a really, really impressive adjustment corner… I didn’t even process it until now for exactly that reason.

    The points that matter are:
    1) CO2 is 410 PPM over land and sea. How can CO2, a constant over both locations, cause a differential in temperatures over the oceans that is different than over land?

    How much have temperature increased over land? How much have temperatures increased over sea? Adjust them for the same latitude and longitude.The difference between the land and sea temperatures is the portion of warming due to the Urban Heat Island and Water Vapor effect. Has anyone even bother considered that issue? Nope.

    2) Simply chart out the high temperatures instead of the adjusted data. You will see that there is no upward trend in the high temperatures for the stations. How can that be if CO2 does in fact trap heat and causes global warming. High Temperatures have to have an uptrend.

    3) Simply look at Alice Springs or Death Valley. There is no uptrend in those locations even though CO2 has increased from 280 to 410. How is that possible if CO2 is the cause of the warming? Do you people even think to challenge your conclusions?

    • Entropic man says:

      “Do you people even think to challenge your conclusions? ”

      I just did. See my 11.15AM post.

      Death Valley warmed by 0.73C. Perhaps you should measure before making rash statements about “no uptrend.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Entropic Man:

        Death Valley warmed by 0.73C. Perhaps you should measure before making rash statements about “no uptrend.

        CO2 in 1910 295

        1910 Temp Death Valley 24 Degree C
        1915 Temp Death Valley 27.5 Degree C
        1935 Temp Death Valley 26.75 Degree C
        1945 Temp Death Valley 26.00 Degree C
        1960 Temp Death Valley 26.00 Degree C
        1980 Temp Death Valley 26.25 Degree C

        2000 Temp Death Valley 24.00
        2010 Temp Death Valley 24.5
        Current Temp Death Valley 25.75

        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1

        And that is using the “adjusted” data. If that is an uptrend, you don’t understand the concept of an uptrend. Anyway, this is a “science.” The R-Squared of CO2 vs the Death Valley is most likely just about 0.00. I didn’t bother to run the regression, but I’m pretty sure there is no relationship between CO2 and temperatures using that data, “adjusted” or not. A 2-year-old with legally blind vision could see there is no real relationship.

    • Entropic man says:

      “1) CO2 is 410 PPM over land and sea. How can CO2, a constant over both locations, cause a differential in temperatures over the oceans that is different than over land? ”

      It’s a matter of heat capacity. The amount of sunlight and DWLR per square metre can be the same over land and sea, but the ocean is a much bigger heat sink than the land.

      As a result the ocean changes temperature more slowly than the land.

      Think of two identical saucepans put on identical hobs at the same time. The pan half full of water boils before the full pan.

      Similarly land heats up faster than ocean.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        At 10 km deep in the ocean, temperature will be around 4 C.

        At 10 km deep in the lithosphere the temperature will be around 250 C.

        Are you really claiming these temperatures relate to sunlight, DWLR, or anything remotely connected to climatologically pseudoscience?

        How about the ocean being colder than the hot rock basins which contain it, due to physical laws which are reasonably well understood?

        I am happy to explain it to you, if you find it too difficult.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Swenson, great point:

          How about the ocean being colder than the hot rock basins which contain it, due to physical laws which are reasonably well understood?

          A similar observation is that the Greenland Glaciers are melting from beneath the glacier. How does CO2 and LWIR or DWLR cause the Volcanic activity below the Glacier?

          • Swenson says:

            CO2isLife,

            Alarmists invariably invent some nonsensical pseudo-physics to support their beliefs. Hidden heat from the Sun lurking in ocean depths. Warm, less dense water, which sinks, rather than floating. Floating ice from glacial flow pushing back, and preventing land based ice from flowing!

            They still cannot actually define their GHE, and they admit that their miraculous GHGs seem to have different effects in different places at different times.

            I enjoy your comments. Keep it up.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Entropic Man:

        1) CO2 is 410 PPM over land and sea. How can CO2, a constant over both locations, cause a differential in temperatures over the oceans that is different than over land?

        Its a matter of heat capacity. The amount of sunlight and DWLR per square metre can be the same over land and sea, but the ocean is a much bigger heat sink than the land.

        As a result the ocean changes temperature more slowly than the land.

        CO2isLife:

        1) Define DWLR, I believe it is downwelling longwave radiation but I want to make sure.

        2) Entropic man, I’m beginning to get the feeling that you won’t understand how to run a controlled experiment or even the basic concepts. The whole purpose is to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature. If we build cities and roads and that causing warming, so what. If we plant forests and they produce H20 and they cause warming, so what.

        You claim CO2 is causing the warming. CO2 is 410 ppm over land and sea. You claim CO2 can warm the oceans. CO2 will cause a parallel shift in temperatures over land and sea. I’m assuming that H20 is relatively constant over the oceans, as is CO2. I’m also assuming there is no Urban Heat Island Effect over the oceans.

        That being said, cold and dry deserts and the oceans become a control for the Urban Heat Island Effect, as well as H20 (but to a lesser extent). Over the oceans H2O is assumed constant, whereas in the deserts it is assumed to be absent all together.

        If my statements are true, than the difference between land and sea temperatures for the same latitude and longitude should represent the contribution of the Urban Heat Island and H20. The residual is the contribution that can at least partially be explained by CO2.

        Another way to isolate the CO2 impact would be to simply compare the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly H2O. I’m 100% certain if you look at those 2 data sets that you will find once again, a temperature differential. Remember, CO2 is 410 ppm over both the N and S Hemi.

        Please explain how CO2 can cause that temperature differential?

        • Entropic man says:

          You might want to scroll back a bit. I’ve already answered some of your questions, but you seem to have missed them.

          • Entropic man says:

            You need to control for a lot more than UHI and water vapour. A quick contemplation suggests that you need to control for latitude, altitude, aspect, distance East or West from a coasline, influence of ocean currents, rain shadows, monsoons, mistals and the Foehn effect.I’m pretty sure that I’ve missed more than I’ve included.

            I began as a biologist. I know about controlled experiments and know how hard it is to control for a number of variables at once. It is easy to investigate the behaviour of GHGs in the lab; all you need is a gas tube, a tunable IR emitter and an IR spectrometer. In the field it’s a nightmare because you can’t separate one variable from the mix. One of a climate scientist’s dearest wishes is for Slartibarfast to supply duplicate planets to try different emission scenarios on.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            It is indeed easy to investigate GHGs in in the lab.

            The more GHGs in the path of the IR, the less IR reaches a thermometer at the far end, resulting in a lower temperature.

            Anybody who thinks climatological physics results in a higher temperature is in denial of reality – like you, apparently.

            Maybe you should provide something which actually supports your beliefs.

  133. Entropic man says:

    CO2islife

    I looked at your Death Valley graph.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1

    By inspection it is hard to pull a trend out of the short term variability and I don’t have the software for a linear regression. I calculated the average for the first ten years and the last ten years.

    The early 20th century decadal average was 25.04C and the 21st century average was 25.77C. That’s an increase of 0.73C.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Entropic Man: I don’t have the software for a linear regression.

      It is easily done in Excel.

      =RSQ
      =Slope

      Or

      Use the Data Analysis Module “regression” to create ANOVA Tables

      • Entropic man says:

        Thank you. Try it yourself for the Death Valley annual averages. Bet you sixpence you find a trend.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Entropic Man, you really don’t understand statistics well do you?

          Any child could have looked at that chart and known there was no trend. Here are the actual numbers from the regression.

          Slope: -0.308369011
          R-Squared: 0.002264416

          I had to make a minor adjustment for some missing values, but other than that, those numbers are good.

          The Trend is for FALLING temperatures, but in reality, the 0.002 R-Squared basically means there is no real significance to that slight downtrend.

          Id I ran the regression of Temp=f(CO2) the R-Squared would likely to be even less, and the slope would be even more (-).

          Sorry, the computer doesn’t lie.

  134. ren says:

    Will the global sea surface temperature anomalies fall below 0.1 degrees C from the 1981-2010 average?
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png

    • Ren you are correct.

      Yes they are trending down of late especially the sea surface temperatures. Ocean tid bits +.109c deviation down from over +.40c deviation a year or so ago. ocean tid bits base 1981-2010.

      With that said oceanic sea surface temperatures are only .2c above the 1971-2000 mean. A small further dip will bring us back to no change since the period 1971-2000.

  135. Entropic man says:

    GISS are still rising. Go here and choose
    “Annual Mean Temperature Change over Land and over Ocean”

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

    Harry’s problem has always been lack of coverage at high Northern latitudes which have been working fastest. It usually underreads relative to other datasets.

  136. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”When a GHG in the atmosphere radiates it does so in all directions”

    What do you mean by a GHG? Are you referring to one molecule of CO2 or WV or to a large mass of such a gas?

    In their article in which they disprove the greenhouse theory, Gerlich and Tshceuschner, both experts in thermodynamics, claimed that the paths of radiation from atmospheric molecules like CO2 is unknown. They claimed it would require Feynman diagrams to explain the path of radiation from an individual molecule because its very complex.

    Adding to the complexity is this. If GHG molecules radiate energy in packets, called quanta, or photons, that infers a straight-line emission path, not an isotropic wave as you suggest. Those photons from individual electrons in the molecules would have to add somehow to produce emissions of a particular IR frequency.

    None of it makes sense, yet climate alarmists throw the nonsense around as if it is fact.

    Climate modelers/alarmists have done science a huge disfavour by simplifying the alleged behavior of GHGs to a stupid level. Trenberth and Kiehle added to the stupidity by alleging that back-radiation from GHGs could transfer as much heat to the surface as what is radiated away via IR emissions.

    As G&T pointed out, from a perspective of thermodynamics, a transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have heard many arguments justifying this contradiction but they all come down to a mysterious net balance of energy which no one has explained adequately.

    It’s all very cute to claim that if a net balance of energy is positive, then the 2nd law is not contradicted. What net balance of energy? Clausius stated the 2nd law clearly: Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. No mention of a net energy balance as an exception.

  137. Entropic man says:

    CO2islife.

    You asked how to measure the altitude of the tropopause. It’s more of a band than an exact level, but the easiest way is carry a thermometer up through it on an aircraft or a radiosonde.

    The tropopause is the altitude at which the temperature reaches its minimum and starts rising again.

    The tropopause varies from about 9km in the tropics to 12km at high latitudes. Since people started measuring it a century of so ago, the average altitude has risen by about 60 metres, it is 0.5C cooler and it’s black body contribution to the outgoing longwave radiation has decreased by about 1%.

    • Entropic man says: