An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict

April 22nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based upon computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years.

Just about every climate claim made by politicians, and even many vocal scientists, has been either an exaggeration or a lie.

While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority (true), or that I am a climate denier (not true; I do not deny some level of human-caused warming), the fact is that the “official” observations in recent decades are in disagreement with the “official” climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing expensive, economically-damaging, and poverty-worsening energy policies.

Global Ocean Temperatures are Warming at Only ~50% the Rate of Climate Model Projections

Today’s example comes from global-average sea surface temperatures. The oceans provide our best gauge of how fast extra energy is accumulating in the climate system. Since John Christy and I are working on a project that explains global ocean temperatures since the late 1800s with a 1D climate model, I thought I would show you just how the observations are comparing to climate models simulations.

The plot below (Fig. 1) shows the monthly global (60N-60S) average ocean surface temperature variations since 1979 for 68 model simulations from 13 different climate models. The 42 years of observations we now have since 1979 (bold black line) shows that warming is occurring much more slowly than the average climate model says it should have.

Fig. 1. 68 CMIP6 climate model simulations of global average sea surface temperature (relative to the 5 year average, 1979-1983), and compared to observations from the ERSSTv5 dataset.

In terms of the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.

Fig. 2. Linear temperature trends, 1979-2020, for the various model and observational datasets in Fig. 1, plus the HadSST3 observational record.

Deep Ocean Warming Could Be Mostly Natural

A related issue is how much the deep oceans are warming. As I have mentioned before, the (inarguable) energy imbalance associated with deep-ocean warming in recent decades is only about 1 part (less than 1 Watt per sq. m) in 300 of the natural energy flows in the climate system.

This is a very tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. We know NONE of the natural energy flows to that level of accuracy.

What that means is that global warming could be mostly natural, and we would not even know it.

I’m not claiming that is the case. I am merely pointing out the level of faith that is involved in the adjustments made to climate models, which necessarily produce warming due to increasing CO2 because those models simply assume that there is no other source of warming.

Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies.

Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.

Why does it matter?

It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.

Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).

But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.


1,499 Responses to “An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. slow to follow says:

    “It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.”

    Agreed and I’d welcome actual testable evidence and argument to the contrary.

    • Ossqss says:

      I second that request. What climate metric shows an emergency?

      I would also like to know what those SST numbers would look like without the Karl et al (pause buster paper) upward adjustment from adapting “made for purpose” ARGO data higher to better resemble the “not made for purpose” ship engine intake readings.

      What was that upward adjustment anyhow? .12C?

    • OWilson says:

      There is no statistically significant warming anomaly over the NOAA 42 year record. (see below).

      Likewise GLOBAL ice cap extent is where it was back in 1980, (NSDIC) with the NW Passage still frozen solid.

      The fooferaw about catastrophic warming in the MSM is presented as an assumption, with no scientific evidence, save “models”.

      Next time a TV Talking Head tells you it’s getting hot out there, give the old Johnny Carson audience response, “But how hot IS it?”

      Only sites such as this quote actual science observations, and not anecdotes!

      • bdgwx says:

        owilson said: There is no statistically significant warming anomaly over the NOAA 42 year record.

        The warming trend from 1979-present via NOAAGlobalTemp is +0.1749C/decade +/- 0.0047. The trend is statistically significant at +0.1655C/decade.

        owilson said: Likewise GLOBAL ice cap extent is where it was back in 1980, (NSDIC) with the NW Passage still frozen solid.

        The 1979-2020 mean is 23.022e6 km^2 with an SD of 0.784.

        1980: 23.567e6 km^2

        2020: 21.695e6 km^2

        2020 is 2.4 SDs below the 1980 value.

        The trend is -0.497e6 km^2/decade +/- 0.065.

        owilson said: The fooferaw about catastrophic warming in the MSM is presented as an assumption, with no scientific evidence, save “models”.

        Can you define “catastrophic warming” objectively? What warming rate in C/decade or total warming in C qualifies as “catastrophic”?

        owilson: Only sites such as this quote actual science observations, and not anecdotes!

        Patently False. Dr. Spencer does not hold a monopoly on “actual science observations”.

    • Bill in Calgary says:

      Thank you Dr Spencer. Your faithful data gathering and objective observations are very helpful. Here in Canada, it is arguable that Canada as a whole has seen no net temp increase in roughly 20 years. Its also interesting to see that a frequent global warming proxy, extreme weather, doesn’t seem to be doing much of anything the past couple of years. In my mind, the evidence for a much reduced CO2 climate sensitivity is growing. The next 5-10 years will be critical to assessing the relative strength of CO2 ghg versus solar and related factors. Unfortunately, even then we won’t know whether the sun is in a short-term low or a longer-term low, but at least we’ll have a better fix on how strong the CO2 ghg effect is.

      And it does matter. There certainly is now climate crisis right now, and there may not be one anytime in the foreseeable future. Hopefully we’ll have convincing evidence before we do too much more damage to societal progress.

  2. Ken says:

    My understanding is the Greenhouse Effect means that there is a decrease of thermal radiation to space of some 342 Wm-2. The Greenhouse Effect causes the earth’s temperature to go up from -18C to 15C. Schwarzschild equations show that if you double the concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm there is further decrease of thermal radiation to space by about 3Wm-2.

    If the current GHG effect decreases thermal radiation to space by 342 Wm-2 and the net effect is to raise the atmosphere temperature anomaly from -18C to 15C or about 1C per 10Wm-2, does it not follow that the added 3Wm-2 would lead to about 0.25C gain in temperature over the 200 years needed to double the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

    • gbaikie says:

      “The Greenhouse Effect causes the earth’s temperature to go up from -18C to 15C.”
      The Greenhouse Effect theory says this.
      And Greenhouse effect theory isn’t even a theory.
      Greenhouse effect theory if started with Earth having no greenhouse gases, Earth would have average temperature of -18 C.
      There are so many problems with this.
      But simplest, is that premise, starts with the ideal thermally conductive blackbody. And this is a planetary sphere which has uniform temperature of 5.3 C.
      Then atmosphere is added without greenhouse gas, and it drops to -18 C.
      A question one can ask, is, does drop to uniform temperature of -18 C OR an average temperature of -18 C.
      In my opinion, when “read other’s people’s mind” {which is impossible} it seem they imagine it being uniform temperature of -18 C. And uniform temperature of -18 C is quite different than an average global temperature of -18 C. Or one could have [possibly} Earth having an average global temperature of -18 C AND a chuck of the tropical at reasonably warm temperature.
      And what mean reasonably warm average temperature is a warmer average temperature of the United State. US averages about 11 C and is quite cold compared to say India which has average temperature of about 24 C.
      Or idea of slushball or snowball Earth could be colder than average temperature of -18 C. Or it can be imagined the tropics is even colder than US.

      But backing up, the premise is say when add an atmosphere you making a warmer world get colder {until you add greenhouse gases- a some imagine, one can limit that to just adding 400 ppm of CO2}. And backing up further, an ideal thermally conductive blackbody require no rotation. It wouldn’t matter if planet spinning twice as fast as Earth or Earth was tidally locked with the Sun.
      And it’s assuming a planet can have 70% of surface as ocean [and somehow not having water vapor]. Well, the far away, and very dry planet Mars has 210 ppm of water vapor. And it you moved this dry world closer to sun, it would have higher amount of water vapor in it’s atmosphere- the planet is not a water planet.
      Back to mythical snowball Earth, it no matter, how cold the average temperature was, would have water vapor. If whole surface of planet was frozen solid, it have water vapor- and one could lose C02 as it freeze out at pole. Earth simply has too much water at it’s surface- and it doesn’t have a vast ocean of CO2- the CO2 could be buried frozen under frozen ice. Or you can’t put the all the that water in the polar regions- and easily stack all it’s CO2 in the very cold polar regions.
      This if course assuming a planet like Earth as close as it is to the Sun, could in anyway could become a Snowball Earth or slushball earth. Or other than sunlight, the other factor is all volcanic activity going on in our present ocean. In a word, impossible.

      • Stephen Lindsay-Yule says:

        “But simplest, is that premise, starts with the ideal thermally conductive blackbody. And this is a planetary sphere which has uniform temperature of 5.3 C.” This is actually true. Only 23C not 33 comes from not greenhouse heating but from solar heating at high latitudes (tropopause) where sunlight is 24 hrs (11.5C) and solar absorbed surface heat (11.5C) added to the illuminated side.

    • bdgwx says:

      The GHE does not substantially alter OLR. Both ASR and OLR are ~240 W/m^2 both with and without the GHE when in steady-state (with caveats). The interesting piece is when the GHE is perturbed. Consider the hypothetical scenario of changing the Earth from a no-GHG state to a with-GHG state instantaneously. At that moment the OLR is reduced by 155 W/m^2 such that the ASR-OLR imbalance is also 155 W/m^2 with CO2 contributing about 20% or 30 W/m^2 to this perturbation. However, it is important to note that once the 33C surface temperature rise has completed the OLR goes back to ~240 W/m^2 to balance the ASR again.

      The average sensitivity for this one-shot change is 33C / 155 W/m^2 = 0.2C per W/m^2. If you project that sensitivity onto a 3 W/m^2 RF that is a 0.6C increase in temperature. However, this ignores the fact that the 3 W/m^2 figure in this context is the no-feedback RF. If you account for feedbacks this value is closer to 15 W/m^2. So taking our bulk 0.2C per W/m^2 figure yields 15 W/m^2 * 0.2C/W.m^2 = +3C.

      See this publication for more information.

      https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf

      • bill hunter says:

        That’s not correct unless you take all the water. Then if you asr jumps to 341. The clouds can’t radiate at surface temps.

      • bdgwx says:

        What is not correct?

        Under what scenario are you thinking ASR would jump to ~340 W/m^2?

        • bill hunter says:

          you only took ghg. cloud tops are still cold and instantly getting colder and so is the surface.

        • bdgwx says:

          Well actually when I refer to the “with-GHG” state I’m also including the effect of clouds. In fact, clouds account 25% of the 155 W/m^2 GHE per Schmidt 2010. I’m still not sure what is incorrect though nor am I understanding you’re comment about the surface getting colder.

          • bill hunter says:

            You can’t keep your cake and eat it too bdgwx. Clouds are the primary reason 341watts doesn’t reach the surface. They are also a huge share of reduced OLR.

          • bill hunter says:

            So the bottom line bdgwx is if CO2 is the control knob you must remove all its negative feedbacks as well as the positive ones or the only person you are fooling is yourself.

          • bdgwx says:

            I’m still not sure what the criticism is here. Clouds, snow/ice cover, land usage, etc. are all reasons why ASR is closer to 240 W/m^2 than 340 W/m^2. And because ASR is ~240 W/m^2 then OLR must be ~240 W/m^2 (steady-state) as well. No one is saying otherwise here.

            GHE attribution analysis considers all feedbacks both positive and negative. And CO2 isn’t the only control knob. It happens to be an important one, but there are many others as well. Again, no one is saying otherwise here.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:
            ”Consider the hypothetical scenario of changing the Earth from a no-GHG state to a with-GHG state instantaneously. At that moment the OLR is reduced by 155 W/m^2 such that the ASR-OLR imbalance is also 155 W/m^2 with CO2 contributing about 20% or 30 W/m^2 to this perturbation. However, it is important to note that once the 33C surface temperature rise has completed the OLR goes back to ~240 W/m^2 to balance the ASR again. . . . Well actually when I refer to the “with-GHG” state I’m also including the effect of clouds.”

            OLR in your scenario is cut from 395 to 240.

            But without GHG to have 395 OLR you would need 395 ASR.

            So when you add the GHG and clouds to such a hypothetical example you reduce OLR and ASR.

            But actually you start with 341ASR and OLR. You add greenhouse gases and clouds and OLR goes down 101 and so does ASR. and the surface ends up emitting 395.

          • bdgwx says:

            The hypothetical no-GHG scenario starts with ASR and OLR at 240 W/m^2. The ASR is less than 340 W/m^2 because we want to keep the albedo the same between no-GHG and with-GHG states. Therefore the instantaneous switch from no-GHG to with-GHG puta a 155 W/m^2 perturbation (the greenhouse effect) on the EEI through a reduction of OLR from 240 to 85 right at the moment of the switch. It is important to understand that Earth’s albedo is supposed to remain unchanged between the states. That necessary means that not only are you supposed to consider a hypothetical Earth with no atmosphere, but also a hypothetical Earth with a barrier that fixes ASR at 240 W/m^2 like it would be with the real atmosphere. That’s the point of the exercise actually. It is answering the question…how might things be different between a no-GHG and with-GHG state if you keep ASR fixed at 240 W/m^2 on both states. At no time do you allow ASR to change.

            Don’t hear what isn’t being said. ASR isn’t static in the real world. It can and does change when the GHE changes. In fact, both the ASR and OLR change in a very non-intuitive way. When the GHE increase both the ASR and OLR actually increase! Refer to Donohoe 2014 (https://tinyurl.com/jpfk8jea) figure 1 for a good visualization of what happens. Note that GCMs predict both ASR and OLR to increase and that this is exactly what we observe today.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            The hypothetical no-GHG scenario starts with ASR and OLR at 240 W/m^2. The ASR is less than 340 W/m^2 because we want to keep the albedo the same between no-GHG and with-GHG states.
            ==================
            Of course you do bdgwx. That is essential to the fiction of dangerous warming from CO2.

            The realistic view is starting from a greatly reduced albedo and getting water vapor into the sky to form clouds and fall as snow to create an enhanced albedo.

            By not recognizing the negative feedback from GHG you exaggerate the greenhouse effect by a factor of 3.

            Private enterprise would never be allowed legally to commit such a fraud. All sorts of negative stuff comes down like bank fraud charges, tax evasion, liability to investors, etc.

            You simply cannot do such manipulation without first convincing outside independent auditors Why do you think so-called skeptic scientists all work on feedback sensitivity?

            The problem is in large part the warming that has occurred is natural. Its signature can be rather easily detected if not its modus operandi. Warming is correlated to solar activity and the rush to capitalize on the corruption is fully heated up before the other shoe drops.

          • Nate says:

            “By not recognizing the negative feedback from GHG you exaggerate the greenhouse effect by a factor of 3.”

            Strawman.

            Climate science is NOT ignoring negative feedbacks. Clouds are known to have both positive and negative feedbacks.

            Venus makes clear that even with tons of clouds you can have a very strong GHE.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill said: By not recognizing the negative feedback from GHG you exaggerate the greenhouse effect by a factor of 3.

            Nobody is ignoring negative feedbacks.

            But the GHE actually lowers albedo. The cloud feedback here is positive. This is why a positive EEI eventually leads to an increase in both ASR and OLR with ASR increasing faster to pull the EEI back to 0 W/m^2. See Donohoe 2014 (https://tinyurl.com/jpfk8jea) for more information. The counter-intuitive but modeled and expected increase in OLR has been confirmed via satellite observations.

            A no-GHE Earth with the same ASR would have the surface emitting an average of 240 W/m^2. The surface actually emits an average of 395 W/m^2. That is the GHE of 395 – 240 = 155 W/m^2. 50% is attributed to water vapor, 25% to clouds, 20% to CO2, and the remaining 5% to other agents per Schmidt 2010.

          • bill hunter says:

            so where is the evidence that co2 decreases albedo.

            co2 is claimed to be the control knob for water vapor which is the control knob for precipittion and clouds. so bring forth the argument here

          • bdgwx says:

            CO2 is not the control knob, but only a control knob.

            CO2 itself does not modulate clouds. That is a feedback. A warming/cooling planet changes cloud patterns. Changes in cloud patterns can alter albedo in not so obvious ways. Snow/ice cover, on the other hand, is intuitive. A warming/cooling planet causes net melting/freezing which in turn causes a decrease/increase in albedo. It is important to note that it is not CO2 (or any other GHG) that directly causes this. Any agent that catalyzes a temperature change via an OLR perturbation will cause this effect. And although I have not researched this aspect myself I’d say it is likely that any agent that perturbs ASR (like solar or aerosols) would have a similar effect.

            High clouds block more outgoing LW than incoming SW. So more/less high clouds are a positive/negative feedback.

            Low clouds block more incoming SW than outgoing LW. So more/less low clouds are a negative/positive feedback.

            It is important to note that there is a diurnal component as well. For example, more low clouds by night is net positive while more low clouds by day is net negative. This is intuitive because incoming SW radiation has high diurnal variability while outgoing LW radiation has low diurnal variability.

            The trick is figuring out what the net effect will actually be. Some models suggest the cloud is negative while others suggest it is positive. Most suggest it is positive. Based on observations from the ISCCP and ASR/OLR monitoring it does appear that the net cloud feedback is indeed positive. Clouds are a tough nut to crack though so I wouldn’t blindly assume that just because it was positive in the past that it will remain positive in the future.

          • Nate says:

            “so where is the evidence that co2 decreases albedo.”

            See Happer, without the CO2 caused GHE the Earth would be much colder and iced over.

            Melting ice decreases albedo.

            One way CO2 decreases albedo.

          • bill hunter says:

            Bdgwx, seems to me to be important to figure it out. After all there are plans for pretty dramatic positive atmospheric feedback.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        bdgwx,

        If “the GHE does not substantially alter OLR,” then how in the world are you going to measure the effect of increasing CO2? On top of that, now you’re saying CO2 isnt the only control knob. How much more difficult are you trying to make it for yourself to prove that more CO2 will warm the planet any further?

        It’s no use playing no-GHE versus with-GHE games. It’s immaterial. We are never going there. How about providing some real evidence with teeth.

        • bdgwx says:

          Chic said: If the GHE does not substantially alter OLR, then how in the world are you going to measure the effect of increasing CO2?”

          First note that I included “with caveats” to accompany that statement. That’s important because both ASR and OLR do subtly change (possibly unexpectedly) when the GHE is perturbed. But the context of this statement is the comparison between no-GHE and with-GHE states. OLR is balanced with ASR at ~240 W/m^2 in both scenarios. The GHE is the difference trivial DWIR – ASR which is about 155 W/m^2. Attribution from H20, clouds, CO2, and other players is estimated per the technique in Schmidt 2010 and others like it.

          Chic said: On top of that, now youre saying CO2 isnt the only control knob.

          I’ve always said CO2 isn’t the only control knob. That’s nothing new from me.

          Chic said: How much more difficult are you trying to make it for yourself to prove that more CO2 will warm the planet any further?

          I always try to make a good faith effort to answer questions, but I’m not really sure how to even respond to this. This question doesn’t seem to have any technical relevance to the discussion.

          Chic said: Its no use playing no-GHE versus with-GHE games. Its immaterial. We are never going there. How about providing some real evidence with teeth.

          It is an interesting thought experiment that can be used to learn, teach, and communicate fundamental concepts regarding the GHE. And it is useful in the sense that people are forever curious about the magnitude of the GHE. What better way to answer this question than to compare the Earth’s current with-GHE state to a hypothetical Earth with no-GHE but the same ASR? If that question isn’t interesting to you then you likely won’t find the thought experiment interesting either. But it is interesting to a lot of other people. That is why it is discussed.

          • bill hunter says:

            Oh hell yes its interesting to a lot of people bdgwx. What do you estimate the government budget is on this and how much do you estimate people are lobbying for it to increase to?

          • bdgwx says:

            Errata…

            “The GHE is the difference trivial DWIR – ASR which is about 155 W/m^2.”

            …should have been…

            “The GHE is the trivial difference UWIR – ASR which is about 155 W/m^2.”

          • Nate says:

            “Its interesting to a lot of people”

            Even well-known expert climate skeptics:

            “This simple example illustrates how important greenhouse gases are for life on Earth. The surface temperature with no greenhouse gases would be 14F (-10C), well below the freezing point of water. Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a lifeless
            snowball with all water frozen.”

            Dr. William Happer, Princeton U.

            https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20449054-radiation-transfer

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You are discussing the GHE as if it is something measurable like ASR and OSR. What instrument measures GHE?

          • bill hunter says:

            nate your source says adding another 400ppm co2 will only result in three more watts greenhouse effect

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            GHE = UWIR – ASR

            UWIR is calculated via surface temperature measurements.

            ASR is calculated via TSI, albedo, reflected solar, OLR, or combination of these plus other factors like EEI, surface solar, sensible/latent heat fluxes, etc. may be useful as well.

          • Nate says:

            “nate your source says” that your denial of the GHE is dumb.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            Is UWIR calculated from global average temperatures or some other more discrete manner? What and where are the instruments that are measuring the surface temperatures located? I know where to find values of ASR, but where would I find the corresponding data to plot UWIR – ASR versus time?

          • Nate says:

            Hansen defined the magnitude of the GHE by the difference between the ave surface temp Ts~288K, and the effective radiating Temp, Te~255K, as measured from space.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            nate your source says that your denial of the GHE is dumb.

            —————————-

            Now you are a liar Nate. Either that or a 2 digit IQ if you don’t know my position on GHE after all this time,

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            How does GHE = UWIR – ASR change with time? We know that ASR changes depending on time and conditions. What about UWIR? Where is that data? By plotting UWIR – ASR shouldn’t we see how GHE changes as CO2 increases with time?

  3. Rhee says:

    apparently the Extinction Rebellion folks think very little of the climate summit and have taken steps to dump wheelbarrow loads of masculine bovine feces in front of the White House to demonstrate what they think of Biden’s climate plans

  4. Willard says:

    > But if we waste trillions of dollars

    Trillions don’t disappear out of thin air, Roy, unless they’re spent on military weapons or on scams like teh Donald tried to pull.

    • HotScot says:

      What scams did Trump try to pull?

    • gbaikie says:

      So, saying trillions of dollar don’t come out of thin air and then disappear into thin air?
      Or is that what you are actually saying?

      I think a government should wisely spend any money they take from it’s citizens.
      And also think a government shouldn’t get any money from anyone who are not it’s citizens.
      And I would be rather strict about that.
      So, “everyone” involved with working directly for US government, should not profiting from say, Chinese workers of concentration camps, as example.

      • Willard says:

        > Or is that what you are actually saying?

        No, I’m saying that if the US of A wastes money on an F-15, it gets an F-15.

        • gbaikie says:

          Right, Biden should not spend any more money on F-15, and should sell most/all F-15s US is currently spending money maintaining, to say, Taiwan or India. And/or Jordan or Egypt. And/or Canada.
          Anyone these would fine, whichever would pay the most money for these F-15s.

          Also should sell some of the cheaper F-16 Fighting Falcon or maybe
          convert them so they can fly without needing pilots.
          US has over 900 of them.
          And focus on making the aircrafts which doesn’t need pilots flying in them.

          • Evelyn Schofield says:

            Don’t sell the damn F-15s to Canada, thank you very much. They don’t even work in cold weather, which we still have in Canada. And we’re still trying to fix the useless submarines that the Brits dumped on us.

        • Willard says:

          > Biden should not

          Focus, gb.

          Someone who armwaves to trillions “wasted” when there are clear returns on tackling AGW is thinking like a troglodyte more than anything.

          To take one example, we already know that

          The worlds best solar power schemes now offer the cheapestelectricity in history with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

          https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

          Not that I would mind if Joe slacked a bit on the US’ role of Cop of the Universe.

          I’m just making a basic economic point here. You have nothing against it.

          • gbaikie says:

            –To take one example, we already know that

            The worlds best solar power schemes now offer the cheapestelectricity in history with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.—

            So, China would be a major country, and China emits twice as CO2 as US, and China leading manufacture of solar panels.
            So, I can assume that China will use the cheapest technologies to replace Coal powerplants with solar panels.
            No need to spend more trillions of US tax dollars- as China will be quick to get on it.
            Not reducing Co2 matters much, but using the cheap way to make electricity would matter a lot to China. To everyone, but it would reduce China air pollution would be quite important for the people breathing it.

          • Willard says:

            > So, China

            Economics ain’t zero-sum, gb:

            At the end of 2019, more than 3.3 million Americans worked in clean energy occupations—renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean vehicles and fuels. That is more Americans who worked in clean energy than worked as schoolteachers, real estate agents, farmers or bankers—and nearly three times the number of Americans that work in fossil fuel companies.

            https://e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Clean-Jobs-Better-Jobs.-October-2020.-E2-ACORE-CELI.pdf

            Let you or Roy go tell these people they’re just money wasted.

            I concede, however, that it takes less F-15s to produce that kind of energy.

          • gbaikie says:

            “At the end of 2019, more than 3.3 million Americans worked in clean energy occupations—renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean vehicles and fuels. ”

            Hmm.
            It seems Willard is starting to find some the trillions of dollars being wasted by the global governmental subsidies.

            And 3.3 million is about 1/3rd of the army of the 1.5 trillion dollar “global warming market”.

            Germany was wanting 1/2 million souls:
            “The goal of 500,000 people employed in the renewable energy sector moves further out of reach every year.”
            https://energytransition.org/2020/06/germanys-losing-renewable-jobs/
            But Germany has got about 1/3 US population.
            And US has got about 1/2 million people involved directly and indirectly in nuclear energy.
            I’m guessing the 3.3 million number includes nuclear energy and however many people are working in hydropower.
            And I suppose the wood burning business requires a large number of people.

            But also governments in general aren’t known for their ability of counting anything accurately.

          • CultivatingMan says:

            Solar is cheaper only if you disregard many costs of having solar power and focus only on what the panels cost to install. There is, of course, the “small” issue of intermittency which is HUGELY expensive and for which no practical solutions exist, the problem of disposal after their short life cycle and the issues and costs of the vast tracts of land in favorable places needed for solar along with the tremendous sums needed to build and maintain transmission lines from the remote locations to users.
            So sure, ignore all that and solar is “cheaper”! Just don’t expect to use it regularly.

          • Willard says:

            > Solar is cheaper only if you disregard many costs

            Saying stuff won’t work here, Cultivating Man:

            The table shows that solar electricity is some 20-50% cheaper today than the IEA had estimated in last year’s outlook, with the range depending on the region. There are similarly large reductions in the estimated costs of onshore and offshore wind.

            This shift is the result of new analysis carried out by the WEO team, looking at the average “cost of capital” for developers looking to build new generating capacity. Previously the IEA assumed a range of 7-8% for all technologies, varying according to each country’s stage of development.

            Now, the IEA has reviewed the evidence internationally and finds that for solar, the cost of capital is much lower, at 2.6-5.0% in Europe and the US, 4.4-5.5% in China and 8.8-10.0% in India, largely as a result of policies designed to reduce the risk of renewable investments.

            In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says the solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour (MWh).

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

            As a token of appreciation for you saying stuff:

            Leaf and bloom events are generally happening earlier throughout the North and West but later in much of the South (see Figures 2 and 3). This observation is generally consistent with regional differences in temperature change (see the U.S. and Global Temperature indicator).

            https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-leaf-and-bloom-dates

          • gbaikie says:

            “Willard says:
            April 23, 2021 at 8:03 AM
            > Solar is cheaper only if you disregard many costs

            Saying stuff won’t work here, Cultivating Man:

            The table shows that solar electricity is some 20-50% cheaper today than the IEA had estimated in last year’s outlook…”

            Cultivating Man is correct.
            One doesn’t need a table to look at.
            If they were cheap, the market would buy them without the governmental “help”.
            In some situations solar power is cheaper.
            If you are miles from grid access and there enormous cost to get grid access. And faced with having no electrical power, some electrical power is better. Or if doing relays from mountain tops, you would use solar.
            And of course using solar energy for what it intended for- space satellites, it what you use.

          • Willard says:

            > If they were cheap, the market would buy them without the governmental help.

            That must explain fossil fuel subsidies.

            You sure don’t need to look anywhere to spout Freedom Fighters talking points, gb.

          • gbaikie says:

            “That must explain fossil fuel subsidies.”

            These would related to tax code, so with that metric, any kind business cost could be falsely called to be receiving a subsidy.
            Or for any type investment, buying a house, buying any kind of car, day trading, or whatever.
            Or Donald Trump losing money, likewise was a tax write off.

            But with the gasoline tax, gasoline sales fund highways.
            Whereas they have not started yet doing something similar for electric vehicles which use the roads {but they are talking about it}.

            One also lie about using governmental land, as being a subsidy- whereas it’s source of governmental revenue.
            Fossil fuels were mined before the fed could tax anyone- other than tariffs {which is consumer tax}

          • Willard says:

            > with that metric

            That word may not mean what you take it mean, gb.

            Here are some numbers:

            The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report estimates 6.5 percent of global GDP ($5.2 trillion) was spent on fossil fuel subsidies (including negative externalities) in 2017, a half trillion dollar increase since 2015. The largest subsidizers are China ($1.4 trillion in 2015), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion). According to the IMF, “fossil fuels account for 85 percent of all global subsidies,” and reducing these subsidies “would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.”

            https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

            How much tap dancing will you need to sidestep 85% of all subsidies?

          • gbaikie says:

            Looking for a subsidy:
            “Governor Greg Abbott today announced that San Patricio County has been selected as the site for the development of a petrochemical plant that will represent a multi-billion dollar investment in the State of Texas. ExxonMobil Chemical Company and SABIC US Projects LLC have developed a partnership to build the plant for the production of components used to manufacture polyester, anti-freeze, plastic bottles and food packaging products for emerging global markets.

            A Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF) offer of $1.35 million has been extended to SABIC and a TEF offer of $5 million has been extended to ExxonMobil. The project is expected to create over 600 direct jobs and as many as 3,500 indirect jobs. This project will have the largest capital investment of any TEF awardee during Governor Abbott’s tenure and is expected to generate $22 billion in economic output during the construction phase and more than $50 billion in economic output during the first six years of operations.
            https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/A-Multibillion-Dollar-Petrochemical-Project-Coming-To-Texas
            From:
            Subsidy Tracker Individual Entry
            Company: Exxon Mobil and Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
            Parent Company: Exxon Mobil
            Subsidy Source: multiple
            Location: Texas
            County: San Patricio
            Project Description:
            Petrochemical plant

            Year: 2017
            Major Industry of Parent: oil and gas
            Specific Industry of Parent: oil & gas
            Subsidy Value: $460,000,000

            Capital Investment: $10,000,000,000
            https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker/tx-exxon-mobil-and-saudi-basic-industries-c
            From:
            https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/exxon-mobil

            The biggest one on the list.
            So the state, Texas, and local spent total 460 million to get
            10 billion dollar spent in the their area. In order to
            “to build the plant for the production of components used to manufacture polyester, anti-freeze, plastic bottles and food packaging products for emerging global markets.”

            So, like I said. If someone going invest in making football stadium. Or Amazon putting it’s facilities in Queens”
            “Almost two years after Amazon pulled out from a proposal to build a massive headquarters along the Queens waterfront, the site is a vacant eyesore — and, to many locals, the squandered economic opportunity is even more painful amid the coronavirus pandemic.

            “The site just sits there empty. It’s terrible,” said Donna Drimer, owner of the Matted LIC art gallery and gift store. “We’re in the middle of a pandemic. People say, ‘If we only had Amazon.’ We got nothing.”
            https://nypost.com/2020/12/13/queens-biz-owners-haunted-by-amazon-loss-amid-pandemic/

            So remember that, AOC thought that was a bad idea.

          • Willard says:

            > So remember that, AOC

            Your hippie punching is duly noted, gb.

            I’ll take that as a concedo.

          • gbaikie says:

            Willard

            I reached the conclusion that neither you nor
            AOC, are Italian.

          • bill hunter says:

            Willard says:

            That must explain fossil fuel subsidies.

            You sure dont need to look anywhere to spout Freedom Fighters talking points, gb.
            ——————

            Willards talking points here:

            1) Two wrongs make a right!
            2) What? You aren’t feeding out of the hog’s slop trough too?
            3) Move along there isn’t anything to see here.
            4) What you still here? You must be a competing hog!

          • Willard says:

            There are only two points, Bill:

            1. Money spending is how the economy rolls.

            2. If you’re whining about subsidies, go for the alpha, i.e. the ones we have for fossil fuels.

            You’re not very good at this.

          • bill hunter says:

            nate has no response

          • Willard says:

            For Nate, Bill, that’s another lawn.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  5. Eben says:

    If you plot the observed over the original Hansen “ABC” scenarios chart it will look even better , I lost the one I made myself but I will do it again

  6. AaronS says:

    Thanks for the update and very useful graph. There is clearly an issue with the climate sensitivity to CO2 that has been used to define the climate catastrophe.

    Also, what I don’t understand is why people believe the proposed “solution”. The efforts to mitigate CO2 are unrealistic because wind and solar lack the energy density to meet societies energy needs unless the land use footprint is so extreme from mining and infrastructure (solar farms and windmills) that they greatly impact the ecosystems themselves. The solution is a poison. Policy to mitigate oil and gas companies is useless because overwhelmingly the majority of hydrocarbons currently produced are from national oil companies in developing countries that have no intention of slowing.

    I’d be inclined to believe a political movement that was focused on a scalable alternative energy source like nuclear plants. However, the math of the Biden green plan just does not hold up to scrutiny. So it appears an exaggerated problem and an unrealistic solution.

    • gbaikie says:

      Biden says he for nuclear energy.
      But I would focus on other stuff, also.
      I focus lunar exploration, and Biden is doing that.
      And focus more on the potential of mining methane in the
      ocean. And again government effort would be exploration of
      ocean floor {with attention on methane hydrates, but also other
      things}.
      With the Moon, the focus in one possibility of commercially minable
      lunar water. To be clear don’t want a government mining ocean floor
      or mining lunar water, rather want government effort directed towards exploration which no one doing at moment. Though the lack of such kinds of exploration, could be discouraged by existing laws, or could government has painted itself into corner, causing it to be only party which can do this kind of exploration. But whatever, at moment only government can do such exploration, it should do it, as long as other parties aren’t doing it.
      Or would say one purpose of exploring the Moon to determine if there is minable water, is could encourage further exploration of the Moon by non-governmental parties. {or it’s become immediately “profitable” to engage in such exploration]
      Now if lunar water is minable, this leads to the development electrical power generation market in the space environment, which would lead to such things as space power satellites. In which electrical can used in space environment and/or transmitted to Earth surface. But at moment the cost/price of electrical power anywhere in space is too expensive. And lunar water mining and making lunar rocket fuel, would lower this cost. So, in terms electrical from space to Earth surface, it could decades after lunar water mining has begun. Or looking future starting because before 2100 AD. Though lunar mining would “help” make Mars settlements more viable. And Mars settlments could take off in rapid manner {as Elon Musk imagines} and that shorten the time before SPS are shipping electrical power to Earth surface. Though on could just shift Earth industry to space, if there is cheap enough electrical power in space [or as Amazon, Jeff Bezos, sees it}.

  7. Greg61 says:

    Everything Roy says is true, but also, their solutions even if you believe everything they say are crap. It takes too much energy to make solar panels, wind mills, energy storage. You would need to front load fossil fuel energy for the next decades to accelerate the mfg of these environmental hazards. Add GWhrs today to save MWhrs tomorrow?

    • Alex Pope says:

      Problem is that China is front loading fossil fuel, it makes good scientific and economic sense and we are killing our economy and promoting China’s Economy.

  8. HotScot says:

    How much heat is leaking into the Oceans from the Earth’s core?

    I mean, scientists only discovered 91 volcanoes under the West Antarctic ice sheet in 2018.

    How many lie undiscovered in Seas and Oceans around the world?

    • Entropic man says:

      0.1W/m^2.

      • Swenson says:

        E,

        Bad luck for you.

        The fluid magma warming the ocean at the mid-ocean ridges is around 1000 C to 1500 C.

        It is direct contact with the sea water above. Underwater photos are spectacular.

        Ice can emit 300 W/m2.

        Which do you think is hotter? Ice or 1500 C magma?

        Which will raise the temperature of the ocean more, do you think?

      • Bindidon says:

        Entropic man

        0.1 W/m^2. ”

        Despite Swenson’s stubborn, ignorant and arrogant blah blah, you are simply CORRECT.

        J.-P. D.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          I was just pointing out that W/m2 is not a measure of temperature, or even of heating, if the emitter is colder than the receiver.

          Your shouted outrage is misplaced.

          • Bindidon says:

            Swenson

            Stop writing stuff you don’t know anything about.

            You are this blog’s most persistent and ignorant troll.

            And stop claiming you aren’t Mike Flynn.

            It is easy to see that both ‘comment’ers are the same person: we see, by searching with Google in all Spencer threads, the same, unusual blah blah in all Flynn and Swenson comments.

            J.-P. D.

    • Alex Pope says:

      How much heat is leaking into the Oceans from the Earths core?
      About the same as always, sometimes more and sometimes less. nothing to do with anything we can control.

      • bdgwx says:

        “Energy Unleashed by Volcanic Eruptions Deep in Our Oceans Could Power All of the United States”

        1 Mtoe = 41.86e15 joules
        2018 US Energy Consumption = 2258 Mtoe * 41.86e15 j/Mtoe = 9.5e19 j

        This is an average energy flux of 9.5e19 j / 510e12 m^2 / 365.24 days/year / 24 hours/day / 3600 s/hour = 0.0059 W/m^2

        0.0059 W/m^2 is but a small fraction of the 0.1000 W/m^2 total geothermal energy flux.

  9. Roy is absolutely right on this.
    The obvious shortfall in relation to the model predictions brings the observed global temperature variations well into the range of natural variability.
    The behaviour of our leaders in light of that is utterly disastrous.
    Meanwhile, less developed nations and the political competitors of western civilisation are largely maintaining business as usual whilst laughing up their sleeves at our self destructive approach to energy production.
    There is more damage being caused to the planet by the unwise pursuit of solar and wind energy than would have ever resulted from careful use of fossil and nuclear fuels.

    • Ken says:

      The real disaster is that even if you can get our leaders to look at the data they still won’t acknowledge the reality that AGW hypothesis is profoundly wrong.

      • Willard says:

        When was the last time you looked at the data, Ken?

        • ken says:

          I looked at the chart indicating model projections compared to observations at the top of this blog today.

          Anyone of technical common sense should be able to look at that chart and understand there isn’t a climate crisis.

          Our leaders are not demonstrating any technical common sense.

          • Willard says:

            > I looked at the chart

            Charts are not data, Ken.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot,

            Your point, idiot?

          • Willard says:

            Charts are not data, Mike.

          • Alex Pope says:

            Charts are not data, that is correct.
            Data can be presented on charts, that is correct.

            To say that charts are not data has nothing to do with charts being used to present data.

            What kind of discussion is this? And I got pulled into it.

            If you want to support any conclusion explain what data matters.

          • Willard says:

            There’s no discussion to speak of, Alex, and so are welcome to start one if you please, say by practicing what you preach.

            Politicians read charts all the time, including tendentious ones like what Roy just posted. They seldom audit data sets.

          • Swenson says:

            A,

            Wee Willy is a strange laddie.

            He might just as well have pointed out that whisky is not water, for all the relevance.

            For all I know, he has a pointless random comment generator running in the background.

          • bill hunter says:

            Willard says:
            Politicians read charts all the time, including tendentious ones like what Roy just posted. They seldom audit data sets.
            ==================================

            Uh Willard actually what politicians do is count how many people are frantically waving charts in front of their face. Thats why the silent majority which simply is less prone to such neurosis has to throw a bucket of cold water on the politicians every so often to cool down their zeal to solve non-problems.

          • Willard says:

            > what politicians do is count how many people are frantically waving charts

            Don’t tell me, Bill: they do that using charts?

          • Willard says:

            > For all I know

            Exactly, Mike.

            For all you know.

            Which isn’t a lot.

            Hope this helps.

          • bill hunter says:

            Typically only the title of some potential chart is waved. But usually somebody could make up a chart to fit the title.

          • Willard says:

            You’re confusing politicians with teh Donald, Bill.

            Angela Merkel has more scientific education that you have.

          • bill hunter says:

            Lots of people have more scientific education than I have Willard. But just think what they missed out on while getting it!

          • Willard says:

            I’m not sure if the world would be a better place if we were all Bills, Bill, but there would indeed be more Bills around.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  10. Before there are the usual 3,000 to 4,000 comments here:

    This may seem like a minor point, but we science believers would communicate better if we said models predict double the warming that actually happens.

    I believe that phrase communicates better than:
    “Global Warming” is Only 50% of What Models Predict”

    In addition, we could remind people that predictions of a coming climate crisis seemed to start with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957 — that was 64 years ago — so where is the climate crisis?

    There are two choices in thinking about global warming:

    (1) Believing predictions of a coming climate crisis, that have been wrong for 64 years in a row, or

    (2) Considering your own experience, along with about seven billion other people, LIVING WITH some, or all, of the mild, harmless ACTUAL global warming since the mid-1970s.

    You will hear the objections:
    “Scientists say … ”
    and
    The computers say …”.

    That is the time to remind people:
    “Computers “say” whatever their programmers want them to say.

    And they have consistently predicted double the global warming that actually happens”.

    There is no point in arguing the science — one wild guess of the future climate is no better than any other wild guess.

    But actual experience LIVING WITH global warming is real.

    • gbaikie says:

      One thing which can be predicted, is we will remain in our icehouse climate {which started 34 million years ago, and it is called Late Cenozoic Ice Age or also called Antarctic Glaciation}.
      It’s safe to say we going remain in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age for thousands of years {or even millions of years} and due to having a cold ocean. Our cold ocean is about 3.5 C [or about 38 F- about a warm as your refrigerator] and more 90% of all warming is warming the cold ocean- and not by much}.
      Could also point anyone to PBS’s NOVA:
      https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
      So, that would be for the broad general view of the global climate we have always been living in.
      And the humans evolved during to coolest time of Late Cenozoic Ice Age, when Africa forests were dying, and being replaced with the vast grasslands- as the climate was becoming drier and cooler.

    • Alex Pope says:

      start with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957

      Roger changed his opinion, but it was too late, he had helped the alarmism get started.

      • bill hunter says:

        Roger Revelle never changed his opinion.

        He viewed CO2 as a ‘potential’ problem. And in his paper with Fred Singer he restated his position that the science wasn’t there yet.

        Where it got all screwed up was he had a student in one of his classes named Al Gore. Al Gore in his inimitable style figured he knew the answer even though his instructor was struggling with it.

        • Willard says:

          Oh, Bill:

          How Revelle’s name got there beyond the fact that Fred Singer put it there is a matter of interest that is explained by Justin Lancaster, Revelle’s student and last assistant. Lancaster, to put it softly, was quite skeptical that Revelle was in any meaningful sense an author of that paper and said so. Singer SLAPPED and got a statement from Lancaster as a settlement.

          http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html

          • bill hunter says:

            You missed the key point Willard. Never ever did Roger Revelle say the science was ready on CO2.

            I am sure lots of people think he did, but they have zero evidence of that. I knew Dr. Revelle and attended a couple of his lectures at Scripps and found him to be a very disciplined scientist. There are some videos of his lectures on CO2 and he always referred to it as a ‘potential problem’.

            And its not uncommon that a coauthor not write much of a paper. But they do get to review and approve the final text.

            Lancaster should be ashamed of himself for essentially slandering both Revelle and Singer. I have heard suggestions that he was senile but I think its total BS. Revelle was a important contributor to science right up to his demise from a sudden heart attack. A huge loss in my opinion.

            My interest in Revelle came from Oceanography and he is credited for making our local Scripps College a leading institution in that field. I have spent a good deal of time on that campus, never as a student (though at one time I had an acceptance letter there before deciding on going someplace else). All my involvement came later in attending events, seminars, lectures, meetings, and tours of new facilities.

          • Willard says:

            > I knew Dr. Revelle and attended a couple of his lectures at Scripps

            Nice story Bill but I think I’ll stick with the testimony of Roger’s own assistant. Besides:

            Revelle told journalists about the issues and testified to Congress that “The Earth itself is a space ship”, endangered by rising seas and desertification. A November 1957 report in The Hammond Times described his research as suggesting that “a large scale global warming, with radical climate changes may result” the first use of the term global warming.[6] A biographer of Suess later said that, although other articles in the same journal discussed carbon-dioxide levels, the SuessRevelle article was “the only one of the three to stress the growing quantity of CO
            2 contributed by our burning of fossil fuel, and to call attention to the fact that it might cause global warming over time”.

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

            You know, to say that AGW carries risks makes lots of sense. I myself told you so not long ago. This does not imply that I side with Fred. In fact it’s quite clear that I don’t.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

      • 1957 was about 17 years into a global cooling period.

        So it would have been tough to get media attention by predicting a coming global warming crisis at the time.

        Now they are more hysterical
        Generalizing: Scientists tended to be more professional back then. Now they are more hysterical.

        In the mid-1970s a few scientists got a lot of media attention by predicting a coming global cooling crisis.

        Other scientists noticed.

        By the 1980s many scientists were getting media attention by predicting a coming global warming crisis.

        Ignoring that small minority of very visible global cooling scientists in the 1970s, I believe predictions of a coming global warming crisis began in the last 1950s, starting with Roger Revelle.

        Back in those days, however, scientists had uncertainty.

        Now they claim certainty, wave their arms, and predict the future “whatever” will be “worse than we thought?

        And converting modern climate “science” into junk science.

    • m d mill says:

      Nicely said Mr. Greene.
      Although, computers can give the correct answers
      when the programs have been well verified by experiment or observation.
      Don’t imply the climate programmers are trying to deceive, more likely they simply make mistakes when trying to solve a very difficult problem.
      I think arguing the science will ultimately result in predictions that are not wild guesses.

  11. Nick Stokes says:

    ““Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict”
    A misleading heading. It refers only to a discrepancy in SST (in fact, 60S-60N), not “global warming”. If you look through subsets, you’ll always find a discrepancy somewhere.

    But a more comprehensive mislead is the word “predict”. CMIP6 is the current round of modelling. It is far too soon to be testing predictions. What this post tries to show is a discrepancy in the models’ representation of recent past years and observations. Since the data is known, there is a question as to why that should be. I suspect that the reason is a mismatch between what depth is included in ERSST and what models treat as the surface. The sea at even small depths is warming more slowly than the surface.

    • Nick Stokes says:

      On thinking more about GCMs and SST, I think the reason for discrepancy is clear, and is related to the question of SST depth. GCMs don’t do SST at all. What Roy has done is to compare ERSST with the GCM bottom layer of air temperature, possibly extrapolated to surface. They are not the same thing, and it is no surprise that the air is warming faster than SST. Comparison of GISS dT (met stations only) with dT+SST (land/ocean) has been telling us that for years.

    • m d mill says:

      I think you are wrong? The TREND in the mix layer when averaged over years is relatively independent of depth up to 50 meters.
      “GCMs dont do SST at all.”
      Really? Isn’t CMIP6 a coupled ocean & atmo simulation which provides a true SST?

  12. Norman says:

    Roy Spencer

    I like your posts and I am glad you make them. Unfortunately I do not think there will be a shift in public opinion on the climate issue. Now Scientific American is declaring it a Climate Emergency.

    The fear generation is too great to overcome by rational thought. Every bad weather event is proclaimed as caused by climate change. The Texas drought, the Moscow heat wave, the European heat wave, any flood that is bad, fires in the West. Mostly past extreme weather events are completely ignored. This is what saddens me with Scientific American. They are not doing any science at all or investigation. Just using the same fear process to elicit a predictable behavior.

    The media seems to think everyday was perfect before climate change. No drought, no floods, no tornadoes, no hurricanes, no forest fires, no heat waves, no extreme blizzards, no polar vortex moving far south and damaging crops in Florida. Nothing bad happened before, sunny and mild with rain at the right time and in the right amount.

    It is almost a sickness with media. But disaster sells and gets people interested so the more outrageous a story the more it sells.

    I would expect this behavior from the normal media. Just painful when an alleged science magazine with an outstanding record starts doing this.

  13. bdgwx says:

    Something doesn’t seem right here.

    I can confirm that the ERSST observations appear to be correct (https://i.imgur.com/0H932fC.png). There’s not much difference between 60S-60N and global. But Hausfather (https://tinyurl.com/yr893sp7) is showing a global 2 meter temperature warming of only 1.0C for CMIP6 from 1979-2020 which is about what Dr. Spencer’s graph shows above. This is especially peculiar because the 60S-60N trajectory should be less than the global trajectory due to Arctic amplification. Is CMIP6-SST actually being shown here? If so…why is CMIP6-2mT the same as CMIP6-SST? And which CMIP6 scenario is being shown?

    Note that the ERSST trend from 1979-2020 is +0.11C/decade vs GISS LOTI of +0.19C/decade. GISS uses ERSST for the ocean portion. The point…land warms faster than the sea surface. We don’t expect SST warming rates to equal 2mT warming rates. If CMIP6 really is predicting those kind of SST increases then it seems to me an even bigger problem than the cloud microphysics concerns that have been well publicized. I don’t even know how CMIP6-2mT could even yield a warming of only 1.0C with an SST prediction that aggressive. Just seems like something is off here.

    • bill hunter says:

      And the surface land is where they have unquantified UHI.

      • Willard says:

        Bill, please stop squirreling “but UHI.”

        • Swenson says:

          Whining Wee Willy,

          You are an idiot. Nobody wrote the words you “quoted”. What does “but UHI” even mean”?

          Make stuff up if you wish.

          Expect me to call you out, if I feel like it.

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            You seem to be forgetting about the many usages of quotation marks.

            Did you have your morning tea?

            Thank you for your concerns.

          • Swenson says:

            Wriggly Wee Willy,

            Not even good attempt at obfuscation and evasion.

            Do you really assume that everyone is as stupid as you?

            Bad assumption, Wee Willy.

          • Swenson says:

            Wriggling Wee Willy,

            Now you are appealing to Wikipedia as an authority?

            I can’t be bothered clicking a link which contains the words “Quotation_marks”.

            What part of “quotation” in quotation marks do you not understand? Like the usual idiot alarmist, you just try to weasel out of something when you are called out, by attempting to redefine a meaning.

            Like redefining a reduction in the rate of cooling to mean warming, and then claiming that warming doesn’t really mean a rise in temperature! On the other hand, claiming that global warming results in raised global temperatures!

            Bad luck, Wee Willy Weasel. Answer the question – what does “But UHI” really mean? Another meaningless, obscure, and cryptic attempt to appear intelligent?

            Keep trying.

          • Willard says:

            Let me assure you, my fallacious Mike:

            Compared to your empty pronunciamentos, Thy Wiki is a gift from the Gods of language!

            Please keep the chin up,

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Nick Stokes says:

      “Is CMIP6-SST actually being shown here? If so…why is CMIP6-2mT the same as CMIP6-SST? And which CMIP6 scenario is being shown?”
      All good questions, especially scenario. Where does one get CMIP6-SST? I think Roy usually uses KNMI explorer. AFAICS, the only data available to make a plot like this is to get tas (surface air temperature) with a land/sea mask. And it looks like that is what he did. TAS is certainly not the same as SST.

  14. Lawrence Miller says:

    First of all I want to say that even as Canadian I was shocked to hear this speech by John Kerry, was he there to make America/Trump look bad was he there to give his political bias, when he said that Trump made his decision without any scientific evidence he proved himself as either a complete moron or bad loser. But we don’t need to dwell on this because there is something more important and obvious staring everyone of us in the face. That is the CO2 data recorded at Mauna Loa for the pandemic year of 2020, when human emissions of CO2 were at an all time minimum, some estimates are in the range of at least a 17 % reduction globally. i.e. this is what things would look like if the world spent trillions trying to reduce emissions… and what do we see in the CO2 data? not even a blip anywhere no decline no change from the constant rise in CO2 what does this mean??? I can suggest a number of things, the first is that man made global warming is a complete farce. I think that this also suggests or confirms what many have suspected from the beginning and that is that the rise in CO2 is an effect and not a cause it is moving higher due to global temperatures rising. Another scary possibility is that the Mauna Loa data is an artificial construct based on wishful thinking… sometimes called calibration.

    • Ken says:

      Why would you think that CO2 emissions are at an all time minimum because of pandemic?

      The only real reduction is in transportation for leisure purposes.

      Yeah sure, Toronto and Montreal might be experiencing big traffic cuts due to lockdowns but, unlike Canada, most of the rest of the world has responsible governments that recognize they need everyone to go to work or they will experience a sovereign debt crisis (coming to Canada soon).

      Heating, electrical generation, manufacture and transport of goods, operating farms; these are not discretionary uses of energy.

      • Lawrence Miller says:

        when I wrote that, I assumed that most people would know this

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x

        • Ken says:

          My favorite bit in your article is the statement:

          “Given the lack of real-time CO2 emissions data”

          Let us know when you have data instead of some cockamamie estimate.

          • bdgwx says:

            You might give that publication a fair shake. Their confinement index technique produced 3 estimates for the 2020 reduction. 4.2%, 5.3%, and 7.5%. The real reduction ended up being ~6.7% (final analysis will be later this year) so their technique ended up being very skillful. And that was done without real-time emission data and they were trying to predict human behavior which is known to be notoriously difficult. I’m extremely impressed with this publication.

          • Swenson says:

            K,

            Another good bit –

            “In this analysis, we used a combination of energy, activity and policy data available up to the end of April 2020 to estimate the changes in daily emissions . . .”

            Cue John Kerry sprucing his “”scientific qualifications – apparently he majored in Political Science.

            Who says policy data can’t be used as a replacement for physical fact? Political “Science” says . . .!

        • Ken says:

          This particular blog article is about someone’s estimate about SST when compared to observations. Its about how profoundly wrong such estimates are despite their makers best efforts.

          I would suggest you really think about the methods used to make the wild guesses (WAG) your article makes. It would be a miracle if they came within several orders of magnitude to the actual values.

    • bdgwx says:

      Global carbon emissions were reduced by about 6.5% in 2020. This represents about 0.3 ppm. But the SD on the departures from the long term trendline is about 3.0 ppm. This means the pandemic induced reduction signal is only 1/10 of the noise. In other words, the signal-to-noise ratio is too low to be detectable with trivial signal processing techniques. There just wasn’t a large enough drop for long enough for it to be detectable.

      • Lawrence Miller says:

        You got to love this reply… common sense tells you that if the downturn in man’s CO2 emissions in the pandemic year of 2020 failed to register any sort of deviation in the Mauna Loa data, then there is no point in spending trillions to attempt to further reduce emissions. If you say that the reduced 2020 emissions are not even detectable. Then we are forced to conclude that man’s emissions are but a drop in the ocean in the sea of CO2. This is what many have said from the very beginning of this CO2 debate, that man’s contribution to this problem (if there is one) is pathetically small, and certainly not a crisis and certainly not responsible for supposed warming

        • bdgwx says:

          Common sense is often a terrible arbiter of reality. For some this may be a good example. Anyway, the pandemic emission reduction “experiment” is inconclusive regarding the hypothesis that human emissions are the primary cause of the yearly CO2 concentration increases using trivial signal processing techniques. For an experiment of this type to be conclusive we would have needed to see either a much larger reduction or have the ~6.5% reduction persist for several years. I will say that more advanced signal processing techniques may be able to detect this particular reduction as-is. I suspect we may see studies regarding the matter in the next several months. I actually thought about doing a deeper analysis myself with noise filters (like ENSO and seasonality) to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio, but I just haven’t had time.

      • Clyde Spencer says:

        While the ANNUAL decline in anthropogenic CO2 may be less than 7%, the decline during the three months of March, April, and May was more than twice that. That is important because before the N Hemisphere trees leaf out, the sinks are relatively inactive and the net result is that the Winter through early-Spring is a steeply rising curve. In the absence of significant sinks, the curve is most sensitive to reductions in sources. Yet, even during this time period, there is no flattering of the slope, or a reduced peak in May.

        By the logic of the apologists, if an 18% decline in anthropogenic sources is undetectable, a 50% decline in the future may be detectable, but will probably unimportant.

        • Clyde Spencer says:

          Flattening

        • bdgwx says:

          For the Mar, Apr, and May period the 3-month change has a range of 1.8 to 3.7 ppm with a mean of 2.8 and an SD of 0.4. The 2020 value for these months was 3.0 ppm. A 20% reduction over this period is equivalent to 0.2 ppm. That means the expectation sans pandemic was 3.2 ppm which is within 1 SD. The one tailed p value on this test was 0.15. Null hypothesis testing requires a minimum of p < 0.05 to falsify and typically p < 0.01 preferable. That means even a 20% reduction over three months was an insufficient test. Note that I'm being generous with the p value of 0.15 here since I did not factor in ENSO phase which pumps spring gains during positive phase (El Nino). In reality the p value was likely higher.

  15. CultivatingMan says:

    All I know is that during the 40 years I have been on my place the Apricots almost always get some frost during blossom set. Same this year as 40 years ago. I also see that date of first blossom for cherries and apples kept for 100 years at the Wenatchee research center shows no pattern one way or another.
    Guess those apples are just deniers.
    https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2086/2014/05/blomdate.jpg

    • Bindidon says:

      CultivatingMan

      CONUS is 2 % of Earth’s surface, and 6 % of its land surface.

      And the Washington state is with 185,000 km^2 a tiny bit of CONUS…

      J.-P. D.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        Are you indicating that “global climate” isn’t really global?

        I agree, it’s a completely pointless phrase. Obviously, if some locations cool or stay the same, “global warming” is nonsense – it’s not “global”, is it”

        Blathering on about “averages” is just the refuge of dimwits trying to escape the consequences of their stupidity. Just ask one of the “experts” if their Greenhouse Effect has anything to do with greenhouses.

  16. AaronS says:

    Or as media would say: “the climate models overpredict oceanic global warming by 300% compared to measured satellite data” True but not in context.

  17. Arjan Duiker says:

    Dear Dr. Spencer,

    Could you share your position on the possible cause(s) of SST warming?

    1. Water hardly heats up by infrared radiation, so I would say any additional atmospheric back radiation cannot be the only or main source.

    2. The slight increase of average temperature difference between lower atmosphere and SST over the last century is a driving force in terms of convectional heat exchange, but my estimation would be that that’s far from sufficient to heat up such a large amount of water with a couple of tenths of a degree. Even over a period of decades.

    3. Could oceanic mixing behavior or increased solar activity be the main cause?

    Thank you in advance for any answer.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, no one is suggesting that the increase in sea surface temperature is the direct result of increased IR warming of the upper layers.

      As you suggest, IR radiation can only warm the top few micrometres of the surface skin layer. However, my understanding is that this surface skin warming is sufficient to reduce the temperature differential at the air/ocean interface. This slows the rate at which heat leaves the ocean at night.

      If this is indeed the case, then the oceans aren’t warming because more energy is going directly into them. They are warming because the rate at which the energy escapes has slowed.

      • Arjan Duiker says:

        I’ve read different things about it. Some warmists say that the warmed skin layer mixes up with the bulk and that way the back radiation is yet captured. But, higher skin layer temperature will increase evaporation resulting in additional cooling. Which effect will be dominant?

        To my understanding a higher skin layer temperature will by definition always lead to higher heat transfer to the air above, whether it’s night or day.

      • Swenson says:

        TFN,

        Considering that radiative cooling takes place from the surface, any notion that the warmer surface prevents underlying cooler water from cooling even further seems a bit silly.

        Heat leaving the ocean at night is due to the surface cooling, and denser water displacing anything less dense as it descends. No “layers”, just water molecules.

        Alarmist climate cultists don’t seem to appreciate reality. They just make stuff as they go along, and bluster and make excuses when anybody sensible points out their lack of physical knowledge!

        • Willard says:

          How poetic of you, Mike.

          A master of physical poetry, I say!

          Cheers.

          • Swenson says:

            Woeful Wee Willy,

            Who cares what you say?

            You are an irrelevant idiot.

            Keep it up.

          • Willard says:

            To answer your rhetorical question, my most flimsy Mike:

            Anybody who responds to my comments!

            Now, do you happen to know *who* that might be?

            Take all your afternoon to think about your answer.

            Swoon.

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wonky Wee Willy

            You wrote –

            “Now, do you happen to know *who* that might be?”

            I suspect that you are not seeking knowledge – rather, thinking that obscure and cryptic pseudo-questions will make you appear intelligent. So, my answer is simply – no.

            You are still an idiot.

          • Willard says:

            Keep suspecting, Mike.

            Keep suspecting!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Richard M says:

      Arjan asks an important question and there is data which shows the oceans have been warming for around 400 years. While not global it is informative. It also shows the oceans salinity tracks nicely with that warming trend.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4/figures/2

      Higher salinity reduces evaporation which is a cooling effect. Hence, science predicts that more saline oceans will be warmer. Interestingly, they will also outgas more CO2.

      Humans have been using salt for roads, water treatment and farming for at least 50 years which would enhance ocean salinity. But, yet another feature of human generated pollution is plastic. Micro-plastic pollution would have much the same effect on the oceans as increasing salinity, possibly more.

      So, what we have is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for ocean warming that matches the global temperature data. No need for any warming by CO2.

      The reason why CO2 provides little additional warming is because the growth in the biosphere produced by increased CO2 utilizes the additional energy. I’m always amazed that climate science appears to believe that plant growth does not require energy.

      • Willard says:

        > what we have is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for ocean warming that matches the global temperature data.

        Correlation is not explanation.

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          So let’s kill the economy because you leftists say correlation is not an explanation?

        • Richard M says:

          Willard, sorry to see you are a science denier. As I described, there is solid science behind the salinity driven warming theory. Probably far better science than the loose correlation you have with CO2 and temperatures.

          I see you ignored the science. Is there a reason you don’t like science?

          • Willard says:

            Richard,

            Sorry to see you are punching hippies. As I describe, you are conflating correlation with explanation. Probably concepts you have less experience with than hippie punching.

            I see you are punching hippies.

            Is there a reason why you are punching hippies?

            Etc.

          • Richard M says:

            Willard, you didn’t explain anything. You simply denied established science. I can only chuckle that is now beyond obvious you don’t understand the first thing about real science.

          • Willard says:

            Richard,

            You must be new to Climateball.

            I simply echoed your question-begging and abusive comment.

            Look. You handwaved to a correlation you just found. You can then armwave all you want, that does not explain anything.

            The concept of explanation requires more than that:

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/

            Welcome to Climateball!

          • Swenson says:

            R,

            Wannabe Wee Willy sidles about, hoping somebody will think his obscure and pointless comments are the mark of a superior intelligence.

            Alas, Wee Willy seems to be the intellectually impaired poor cousin of the usual alarmist climate cultist.

            Like you, I chuckle from time time to time. I also chortle, and occasionally laugh out loud at Wacky Wee Willy attempting to appear clever. I have not actually rolled on the floor, laughing my backside off, but there is still time.

            Don’t expect to get any sense out of Witless Wee Willy. He lives in a richly bizarre fantasy, where is powerful, wise, and respected.

            Completely divorced from reality is Woebegone Wee Willy. Bad luck for him.

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            I must correct you:

            “I chuckle from time time to time.”

            You chuckle every morning.

            You wake up and reply to my comments at Roy’s.

            That’s what you do best.

            Keep at it.

            Love,

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy now claims mind reading skills. What an idiot he is.

            Good to see I’m not the only one who think’s he’s a laughable object of derision.

            Keep up the silliness, Silly Billy Willy!

          • Willard says:

            Which mind reading skillz do you believe I claim, my most ridiculous Mike?

            Don’t evade! Don’t obfuscate! Answer the question!

            Ho! Ho! Ho!

          • Richard M says:

            Willard spews more nonsense clearly attempting to take over as the stupidest person on the internet.

            Somehow this fool think reducing evaporation is just a correlation. I really can’t laugh any harder at the obvious lack of understanding inherent in that claim.

            Stupid is as stupid types.

          • Willard says:

            Thank you for the kind words, Richard, but no u.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

      • bdgwx says:

        That paper is for a single site just off the continental shelf southeast of Houston, TX. The authors hypothesize that the loop current modulates both SST and SSS synchronously since it transports both heat and salinity.

        We should be able to test the hypothesis that reduced evaporation is contributing to ocean warming by measuring the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If it is increasing/decreasing then evaporation has increased/decreased. Is water vapor increasing or decreasing in the atmosphere?

        • Richard M says:

          bdgwx, actually you won’t see reduced evaporation if the oceans warm to compensate. And, the data shows the oceans have been warming for around 400 years.

          The micro-plastics also have a secondary warming mechanism. They will absorb solar energy closer to the surface since they are solids. This should also lead to increases in surface warming.

          While the data is somewhat limited to the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, it is near the gulf stream. This would bring warmer water into the Arctic which reduces sea ice. That would act as a positive feedback. Might not need any other oceans to warm to cause the minor warming we have seen.

        • bdgwx says:

          I’m not understanding your statement about not seeing reduced evaporation if the oceans warm to compensate. Can you provide some more details about what you mean here?

          • Richard M says:

            bdgwx, when the oceans have a higher salinity that will reduce evaporation. Established science. The oceans have become more saline according to many observation. However, as the oceans warm they will increase evaporation forced by the temperature. You end up with the same amount of evaporation at a higher temperature.

            IOW, the salinity decreases evaporation and warming occurs. As the warming occurs you get more evaporation. A new equilibrium point.

            Keep in mind that the salinity changes are not global. It is the average salinity that has increased but some areas have actually seen decreases. This could also make a difference in the overall amount of evaporation.

          • bdgwx says:

            Gotcha. If you end up with the same amount of evaporation you end up with no net change latent heat transport from ocean to air though.

          • Richard M says:

            bdgwx, no gotcha, sorry. Evidently you have no clue that simply by warming it will increase the ocean radiation at T^4 rate as well as conduction. You really should learn a little science.

          • bdgwx says:

            I’m familiar with the T^4 relationship. What does that have to do with evaporation?

      • Clyde Spencer says:

        400 years? I’m certain that the oceans have been warming for 21,000 years! That was the peak of the last glaciation.

      • Richard M says:

        The paper is suspect. Using clouds to simulate CO2 radiation is clearly wrong. When the authors showed such a poor understanding of science I stopped reading.

        • bdgwx says:

          The publication isn’t focused on how CO2 specifically warms the ocean. It is focused on how increasing DWIR warms the ocean regardless of why or how the DWIR increased. What better way is there to observe and model the ocean’s behavior than by using the real ocean, the real atmosphere, and a real increase in DWIR?

          • Richard M says:

            bgdwx, clouds have a different radiation spectrum which will not match the CO2 radiation spectrum. As such it tells you nothing about what increases in CO2 will do.

            Did you really think all IR was created equal?

            Face palm.

          • bdgwx says:

            RM said: clouds have a different radiation spectrum which will not match the CO2 radiation spectrum.

            Duh.

            RM said: As such it tells you nothing about what increases in CO2 will do.

            That’s not true.

            RM said: Did you really think all IR was created equal?

            Of course not. But Arjan’s question isn’t specific to a particular IR frequency.

            Why not just read the paper? They do discuss various IR frequencies and their differences and how it relates to oceanic uptake and specifically the penetration depth.

          • Richard M says:

            “How the spectral features of CO2, O3, and CH4 modify the response of the TSL’s gradient compared to increasing clouds or H2O vapor concentration requires further study, but a thorough assessment would require full radiative modeling through the atmosphere and in the TSL, which is beyond the scope of this paper.”

            Face palm.

          • bdgwx says:

            What else does the publication say?

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        The paper is nonsensical – pretty much from start to finish. The authors must have slept through their physics courses.

        They did acknowledge one obvious fact which is normally disregarded by fanatical cultists –

        “It is also not possible for the additional energy in the TSL to be conducted into the bulk of the ocean (i.e., beneath the viscous skin layer) as that would require conduction up a mean temperature gradient in the TSL.”

        Bad luck for fantasists like Trenberth. The hotter water sits on top. No magical “diffusion” of heat into the depths. No “hidden heat”.

        That sort of nonsense is merely an attempt to avoid admitting that the GHE does not exist.

        • Richard M says:

          Swenson, can’t really agree with your here. The rest of the ocean is warmed by solar energy which eventually works its way to the surface. If the increased IR warmed the TSL you could see a slow down in the loss of the solar energy resulting in a warming effect.

          The key is whether evaporation is enhanced at what they called the EM layer. If increased IR caused more evaporation then you could get a cooling of the TSL and faster release of the solar energy. Or, it could balance out.

          This paper did not answer this question because they used cloud generated IR which penetrates up to 9 times deeper than CO2 IR. It penetrates beyond the area where evaporation takes place. They did some handwaving but it was nonsense. They did not find an answer.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “If the increased IR warmed the TSL you could see a slow down in the loss of the solar energy resulting in a warming effect.”

            Think about what you wrote there. First of all, solar will swamp any IR warming. Wouldn’t that warming diffuse from warm to cold (deeper) all the faster not slower?

            Also turbulent mixing, evaporation, daily warming/cooling, and convection all make for quite a mathematical dilemma to explain what’s going on in any depth beyond a hand-waving exercise.

          • Richard M says:

            Chic, the solar energy bypasses the TSL so it won’t swamp the IR initially. It then slowly rises to the surface where it will be additive to the IR energy constantly entering the TSL.

            In addition, there is no solar energy coming in half the time. The paper did their testing at night to avoid this complication.

            The paper indicates that cloud energy was enough to slow down the release of that energy. As I mentioned above the cloud IR energy penetrates 9 times deeper than CO2 generated IR so the paper didn’t really answer the question, but it still is possible the answer is yes.

            It seems to me this could and should be tested in a lab where better equipment can be used. The fact it wasn’t raises a big question. Why not? Makes me wonder if it has been tested and they got an answer they didn’t like and have not or weren’t allowed to published it.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Richard,

            The abstract contains the phrase “upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL,” which should cause one to wonder about the validity of the hypothesis that a TSL controls heat loss through the air-sea interface. The fourth paragraph of the introduction contains the phrase, “heat typically flows from the ocean to the atmosphere,” which changes the misleading premise by substituting conduction with flows and allows the authors to claim a TSL warmed by IR retains ocean heat.

            The paper explores hypothetical details on how a TSL COULD influence ocean heat content at least HALF the time.

            The ocean is warmed by solar radiation without bypassing any particular layer. It cools during the night as radiation and evaporation continue cooling the warmed ocean surface layers causing denser water to sink and be replaced with warmer water below. Any net heat transferred is due to the combined influence of insolation, evaporation, convection, turbulence, and conduction. Heat conduction, regardless of direction, will always be from warm to cool and likely be the least influential.

            So if you are doubtful about the degree a TSL controls ocean heat content, I agree with you.

          • bill hunter says:

            The processes described are weak. It like trying to make a single ant carry a potato.

          • Willard says:

            [TONY GWYNN] Hold my breakfast tacos.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  18. Joe R says:

    False options (only defense or climate)
    Not an argument against data presented (you help validate it) .

    Surely Letting Middle class Choose how to spend the money IT earned is best option. IF Government spending has to take place, how about education? Or paying off debt so future generations aren’t burdened by our over spending.?

    • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

      You don’t pay off the debt by spending. You pay off the debt by not spending.

      • Willard says:

        What if you spend to make money?

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          Government never pays off the debt. It only pays the interest on the debt. The debt continues to grow.

        • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

          I don’t know what spending government can do to make money. They don’t produce anything. They only extract from the economy. They spend on roads, education, research, etc., which allows them to collect tax revenue, but they always spend more than they receive, and the debt continues to grow. They spend too much on entities that generate no return for the government. I don’t know where it states provide for the common good in the Constitution, provide equity, etc.

          • Willard says:

            You obviously don’t know much, Stephen.

            What do you intend to do about that?

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy,

            You are obviously a deranged idiot.

            What do you intend to do about that?

          • gbaikie says:

            “I dont know what spending government can do to make money.”

            As rule, whatever private sector can’t do, that government can do, and government doing gets a good result.
            So, one could say fusion research- if the government could get a good result {which they haven’t}. The part of “getting good results”, is the part which doesn’t normally work.

            One also point space exploration, but results haven’t very good either.
            In terms last few decades, fairly bad, though one could point to COTs as something vaguely useful or at least less destructive/wasteful or just, dumb.
            Or one give some credit to NASA for doing this, though I tend give a bit more credit the US military space. And US military space gets some credit for detecting water on the Moon.
            Which NASA should have been able to do a decade or two prior to this.
            But we now have 300 billion dollar global satellite market, because there was {and is} a military advantage of using earth’s orbit- it makes military costs much cheaper, as it also makes civilian costs, cheaper.
            And in beginning one could not expect the private sector to start it- or at least not as quickly.
            And now global market is mostly involves the private sector- though governments around the world are involved- it could be done private sector- or for example China or Europe have high degree of involvement in this commercial space- as is say, Boeing largely tied in to Military and NASA space “business”.

          • Willard says:

            > You are obviously a deranged idiot.

            So you say, dear Mike.

            So you say.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Weasel,

            What do you intend to do about that?

            Answer the question!

            What an idiot you are! Denial, diversion and avoidance won’t make you look clever, will it?

            Oh, why am I asking you? You are too stupid to know how stupid you look.

          • Willard says:

            Dearest Mike,

            You forget that Stephen himself says many things he did not know.

            That is, at best you forget.

            Chances are you paid no attention at all.

            Once again.

            Better luck next time.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Weasel,

            Stop obfuscating. Stop deflecting. Stop evading.

            Answer the question. What’s the matter?

            Are you momentarily struck dumb, or just dumb most of the time?

          • Willard says:

            Again, my dimmest Mike:

            What question is there to answer?

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Willie,

            I know Thoreau said the government that governs least governs best. You leftists disagree. I know that.

          • Willard says:

            Not really, Stephen, but then I suppose that depends on what “least” and “best” means in practice.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Ahh, wikitruth.

          • Willard says:

            On the one hand, thy Wiki.

            On the other, a troglodyte.

            Tough choice.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Easy choice, troglodyte every time.

          • Willard says:

            Thus spake thy troglodyte.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  19. mf says:

    There is no climate emergency.

    However, there is energy scarcity emergency. It is a very simple calculation. If we want to bring US oil use per capita to 8 billion people, the world oil production needs to increase by ~600%. To the EU level, by ~300%. This is unlikely to happen.

    Developing countries are not going away, they will continue to develop and draw growing share of resources. China is just the first major country that got it’s act together.

    Energy transformation is needed and it will have to take us away from fossil fuels because there are not enough of them to go around. Dumping the emergency part would allow us to be more rational about this transition, treat fossil fuels as a necessary bridge and, most importantly, would stop the currently ongoing debasement of science for political purposes.

    • gbaikie says:

      –mf says:
      April 23, 2021 at 8:19 AM
      There is no climate emergency.

      However, there is energy scarcity emergency. It is a very simple calculation. If we want to bring US oil use per capita to 8 billion people, the world oil production needs to increase by ~600%. To the EU level, by ~300%. This is unlikely to happen.–

      Well, it seems there is cheap energy scarcity.
      And we could get cheapest and most abundant amount energy- not on Earth, but in space. But this can’t near term solution, but concerned getting energy 100 years from now, then quite possible.

      But I do think have cheap energy shortage within the next 100 years and that nuclear energy is existing and proven way that could be
      used. And no shortage nuclear fuel for +1000 years. But nuclear better works a lot better in the space environment. And solar energy
      in space could be argued to better. The Sun is huge fusion reactor and better if get you even closer than the Earth distance from the Sun. But if Earth distance, and limiting to just Earth Geostationary orbit, there far energy that what Earth needs.
      Another thing besides using more nuclear energy, seeing if we economically get natural gas from ocean hydrate deposits, which seems like particular good path to solve global energy needs- assuming it can cheaply mined.
      Another unproven technology getting geothermal energy from the ocean floor. Though also seems possible use a lot more geothermal energy from land areas. Example:

      “After many years of failure to launch, new companies and technologies have brought geothermal out of its doldrums, to the point that it may finally be ready to scale up and become a major player in clean energy. In fact, if its more enthusiastic backers are correct, geothermal may hold the key to making 100 percent clean electricity available to everyone in the world. ”
      https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/10/21/21515461/renewable-energy-geothermal-egs-ags-supercritical
      Or:
      https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/how-enhanced-geothermal-system-works

  20. Strop says:

    Willard, start with one.

  21. Erik says:

    funny how you use the 1991-2020 climatology nowdays to show the temps. to try to hide the rising temp. 1991-2020 is used for weather not climate if you want to track global warming stop changing the climatology also i would like to see how much warmer 1991-2020 is compared to 1961-1990…..oh wait the satellite based temps do not go back that far.

    • Bindidon says:

      Erik

      ” … to try to hide the rising temp. ”

      Are you serious?

      UAH installed the 1981-2010 period as a welcome alternative to the deprecated 1979-1998, and did that years before WMO installed it as the official reference period.

      The reason for these repeated changes of the reference period is to allow new measurements to obtain such a period, making departure-based comparisons possible.

      *
      What would we do if only 1961-1990 was valid worldwide? Even sea level altimetry still can’t use 1991-2020, as it started… in 1993.

      Shifting to a new period of course lowers the anomalies when the Globe slightly warms (for UAH: by 0.14 C on average) but the trends don’t change (above the fourth digit after the decimal point).

      *
      Now we might really think that numbers are living beings who try to tease us wherever possible.

      A look at the anomaly average difference between 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 for GISS, BEST, NOAA, Had-CRUT, RSS4.0, JMA and UAH6.0 1979-2019 shows for all seven time series the same value as their linear trend for 1979-2020:

      RSS: 0.21
      GISS: 0.19
      NOAA: 0.18
      BEST: 0.17
      HAD: 0.17
      JMA: 0.14
      UAH: 0.14

      Hmmmh. What’s that???
      *
      Now, to answer Erik’s question for the difference between 1991-2020 and 1961-1990, it is for the surface series above:

      GISS: 0.51
      NOAA: 0.48
      BEST: 0.47
      HAD: 0.47
      JMA: 0.39

      *
      For CONUSians: all values in C, not in F.

      J.-P. D.

  22. Milton Hathaway says:

    Focusing on ocean temperatures has always made the most sense to me. That’s where the vast percentage of the climate ‘memory’ resides, right?

    In other words, if the ocean temperature profile were to instantaneously revert to the 1979 profile, the climate would revert to the 1979 climate, right?

    • Richard M says:

      That is right, but you won’t get the climate cultists to admit it.

    • bdgwx says:

      Keep in mind that there is a difference between bulk ocean temperature and SSTs. There is not much thermal inertia or “memory” at the surface. SSTs are highly variable with an SD of about 0.15 on a month to month basis. It’s the bulk ocean that provides the a huge thermal inertia or “memory” to the climate system. The inertia represented by the ocean surface operates on daily, monthly, or yearly scales while the bulk ocean inertia operates on scales exceeding 100 years.

  23. Nate says:

    “As I have mentioned before, the (inarguable) energy imbalance associated with deep-ocean warming in recent decades is only about 1 part (less than 1 Watt per sq. m) in 300 of the natural energy flows in the climate system.

    This is a very tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. We know NONE of the natural energy flows to that level of accuracy.”

    Again, this is highly misleading. WE DON’T care about the large daily, weekly or monthly energy flow variations.

    For climate change we are ONLY concerned with energy flow imbalances that PERSIST over years or decades

    We DO know from Top of the Atmosphere flux measurements by CERES the NET natural energy flows very well. The annual average NET flux variations are ~ 1 watt/m^2.

    The decadal average variations of NET flux are < 1 Watt/m^2.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1375

    This mixing of science and political advocacy just produces bad science.

    • Andre De Rick says:

      ‘For climate change we are ONLY concerned with energy flow imbalances that PERSIST over years or decades’
      Others, using the CERES observations, came to different conclusions : ‘As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ ) W/m2dec.’
      (PDF) Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance (researchgate.net)

    • Nate says:

      “As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec”

      No disagreement that I see.

      The paper is claiming to resolve energy flows to 0, and averaging ~ 0.9 W/m^2.

      https://www.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-11-00663/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-11-00663-g014-550.jpg

    • Nate says:

      ?? Both are positive.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Nate,

      I think the point Dr. Spencer is making is that you can’t differentiate human-caused from natural warming when the alleged energy imbalance is less than the measurement error of the energy flows.

      Please stop obfuscating.

      • Willard says:

        Chic,

        I think that Roy is downplaying the potential of an imbalance of 1 Watt per square meter over time.

        It does not matter if I’m making 500K a year if each second I’m losing a quarter. Over decades I’ll be in the hole.

        • Swenson says:

          W,

          What is the temperature of 1 Watt per square meter? You don’t know?

          I suppose that is why you resort to irrelevant and pointless analogies.

          The Earth is not a closed system. It has cooled for billions of years. Tell me about the energy balance that allowed this to occur.

          On your way, laddie.

        • Willard says:

          Good morning, Mike.

          Which part of “imbalance” you do not get?

          How many times will you fail to bait me before you stop?

          Many thanks!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy,

            No imbalance you dimwit. The Earth is not a closed system.

            I ask again, what is the temperature of 1 Watt per square meter? If it is less than 0 C, it won’t even warm water!

            Try again, laddie. Learn some physics first.

          • Willard says:

            Dear Mike,

            Your point would make sense if the imbalance was negative.

            Since AGW does not stand for Anthropogenic Global Cooling, your point is a bit silly.

            But keep making it: it’s always entertaining when you pretend to be the only person in the universe to know about entropy!

          • Swenson says:

            Wacko Wee Willy,

            #2 I ask again, what is the temperature of 1 Watt per square meter? If it is less than 0 C, it wont even warm water!

            No answer? No surprise!

          • Willard says:

            Never stop playing dumb, Mike.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Willard,

          Assuming neither of us can read Dr. Spencer’s mind, why not just try to understand what he wrote:

          “This [1 W/m^2] is a very tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. We know NONE of the natural energy flows to that level of accuracy.

          What that means is that global warming could be mostly natural, and we would not even know it.”

          Are you doubling down on Nate’s obfuscation or do you have some data not in evidence yet?

          • Willard says:

            Chic,

            I have a page for a similar claptrap:

            https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/

            No need to read minds to spot a fallacy.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            What does that link have to do with my question? I don’t know how to play your game, but metaphorically I call strike two on you.

            Do you know how much of the alleged, possibly insignificant, (insert your opinion here), energy imbalance is due to human influence versus what could be all natural energy flows?

          • Swenson says:

            C,

            Woeful Wee Willy loves posting pointless and irrelevant links. He boasted previously about making someone waste space (or something similar) by being foolish enough to follow one of his idiotically meaningless links.

            He’s also a fan of obscure, cryptic, and mysterious comments. He probably associates inscrutability with intelligence. His bad.

            Poor Wee Willy.

          • Willard says:

            > Do you know how much of the alleged, possibly insignificant

            My link addresses your “possibly insignificant,” Chic.

            When you’ll learn not to ask a loaded, you’ll get better room service.

            The answer, BTW, is more than 100%.

          • Willard says:

            > loaded

            … question, that is.

            It’s also a leading question, but one thing at a time.

          • Nate says:

            ” Nate’s obfuscation”

            Wow, Chic wastes no time getting right into troll mode.

            Are you going to add anything useful to the discussion?

            The CERES data I showed make clear that the TOA energy flux variations are KNOWN, measured, to better than 1W/m^2.

            So when Roy claims we don’t know them, he is simply wrong.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            >more than 100%

            At least you answered my question which BTW you loaded by revealing you didn’t understand why Nate was doing his usual obfuscation.

            Now where is the data that humans produce your >100% of your statistically insignificant energy imbalance?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            Remember the difference between precision and accuracy? Averaging a series of measurements gives you precision, but it doesn’t tell you how accurate your measurements are. When you subtract the averages of two series of questionable accuracy, the error is propagated even further.

            Anyway Dr. Spencer’s statement is irrefutable without additional data from you proving the human contribution to any EEI is greater than natural.

          • Willard says:

            > my question which BTW you loaded by revealing you didnt understand why Nate was doing his usual obfuscation.

            I don’t think the concept of loaded question means what you make it mean, Chic, and you’re still evading my point regarding Roy’s invalid argument.

            As for your other question, you’re a bit late to the party. Vintage 2014:

            http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            >my point regarding Roy’s invalid argument.

            What point, what argument? Is this how your game is played?

            Strike three.

          • Willard says:

            > What point, what argument?

            Here, Chic:

            I think that Roy is downplaying the potential of an imbalance of 1 Watt per square meter over time.

            It does not matter if I’m making 500K a year if each second I’m losing a quarter. Over decades I’ll be in the hole.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-673120

            I know you’re not new to Climateball, so why are you playing like a rookie?

          • Nate says:

            “Remember the difference between precision and accuracy?”

            Yes accuracy of CERES is an issue. It has a poorly known offset. But the offset is constant for ~ last 20 y.

            The natural variations over that period aare well resolved.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            > why are you playing like a rookie?

            Game over. You lost.

            But I’m vain enough to want to know where you think I’ve played before?

          • Willard says:

            Here you go, dear sealion:

            https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%22chic+bowdrie%22+climate

            It’s been a while we’ve seen you at AT’s.

            When you’ll have anything against the point I made, don’t hesitate to share.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            > It’s been a while

            Wow. That’s a trip down down memory lane with Brandon Gates at Climate Consensarian and WUWT, Davie App*ll vs. gallopingcamel at Digging in the Clay, and all the way back to comments in 2010. Before that I was commenting at HuffPost for awhile. Thanks for the memories.

            At ATTP, is there any new openness to alternative views or anything other than the same old warmed-over AGW dogma?

          • Willard says:

            JAQing off might not count as an alternative viewpoint, Chic.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            > JAQing off

            I didn’t mean to get you that upset, Wee Willy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Richard M says:

          Willard, how do you think all our fossil fuels were created? Did that not require an “energy imbalance”?

      • bill hunter says:

        Chic Bowdrie says:
        Nate,

        I think the point Dr. Spencer is making is that you cant differentiate human-caused from natural warming when the alleged energy imbalance is less than the measurement error of the energy flows.
        ====================================
        Indeed! And the situation is even much worse than that.

        The majority of any current imbalance could well be simply the recovery from the LIA.

        If you look at this IPCC chart, 300 years out from the turn of a major 2C natural climate change event like the LIA would still have only about half its journey from TCR to ECS completed!!! Perhaps .7 or so still to go before the ocean catches up as the feedback effects slowly manifest themselves and continue to add heat content to the ocean. (and the description of this IPCC chart says: ”a simple illustrative model with no exchange of energy with the deep ocean”. So that means its underestimated!!)

        https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm

        • Willard says:

          > The majority of any current imbalance could well be simply the recovery from the LIA.

          Indeed!

          It could be unicorns too!

          Lots of theories:

          https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/

          At least you discovered the old TAR.

          More power to you!

          • bill hunter says:

            Well at least now you understand now why there was such a huge and rather scientifically questionable effort to make the LIA go away.

            Lets see they tried. . . .uh its just the world falling into an ice age. That was rather softly pedaled for obvious reasons. So they tried instead to suggest it really wasn’t a decline in temperatures at all but a hockey stick with the handle flat on the ground and tried to get rid of the MWP instead. LMAO!

            Today all those Al Gore and Michael Mann shenanigans have been discredited.

          • Willard says:

            Your conspiracy ideation is duly noted, Bill.

            I suppose you realize that a bigger MWP means a bigger climate sensitivity?

          • bill hunter says:

            Willard says:

            I suppose you realize that a bigger MWP means a bigger climate sensitivity?
            ———————–

            where on earth did you hear that? Folks are arguing over the cause of it. without knowing the cause of it how could one estimate sensitivity?

            If you look at Monckton and his mathematical approach to sensitivity its very small. 33 degrees greenhouse effect in relationship to 341watts of uniform radiant forcing on the climate system. Sounds quite small. (1.16-1.18)

            I haven’t ever seen a thorough investigation of sensitivity so quite honestly if you are just parroting something you heard a good article on it would be interesting to read.

          • Willard says:

            > If you look at Monckton

            No thanks.

            Think of it this way, Bill: the more variable were past temperatures, the more sensitive is our climate.

            So either you go for “but it’s not unprecedented” or “but luckwarm.” Can’t have it both ways.

            Perhaps you can try it, say by galloping very quickly. And Nate knows how good you were at galloping. So I’d say you have a fair chance if you tried against a Climateball noob.

            Good luck with that.

          • bill hunter says:

            That is only true for those who have their head buried in the sand Willard.

          • Willard says:

            What is true is true for everyone, Bill.

            That’s, like, what truth is supposed to do.

          • bill hunter says:

            That depends upon whether the discussion is about subjective truth or objective truth. One alone or both can be true at the same time.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Nate says:

          “The majority of any current imbalance could well be simply the recovery from the LIA.”

          You think the ocean waited 300 years to start re-warming, then hit the gas?

          Nope.

          And Globally the LIA was 0.5-1.0 C.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate its not my work that says a global imbalance will take 500 years plus to resolve.

            Its here: https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm

            You have to also factor in the recovery wasn’t entirely sudden. Its only been 3 decades since solar activity hit either a full recovery from the LIA or what some term a solar grand maximum.

            Then just about a decade after that (corresponding to the 10 years or so of ocean mixing zone involvement) we hit a pause in warming. Now the only outlier is one El Nino.

            I can openly admit that we are at a crossroads if the current moderate solar activity continues we should see that reflected in either a reduce rate of warming or even possibly some slight cooling.

            Slight cooling because it must overcome the imbalance arising from high ice levels from a colder age continuing to melt and also feed heat into oceans that are also cold from a colder age.

            Certainly if the sun went into a Maunder like minimum all that should occur more than twice as fast. But we can’t reliably predict the sun even though we had experts just a few years ago thinking we were descending into a Maunder like minimum.

            I did some analysis on this years ago before Leif Svalgaard rewrote the sunspot record. He increased sunspots historically reducing but not eliminating the recent solar grand maximum.

            But Leif might have had other motivations getting bombarded by folks thinking the sun controls climate. He is very biased about the threat of CO2 and even participated in a website scientists created to respond to G&T. But that effort was a big flop because nobody could describe or agree upon how the warming was occurring. LMAO!

          • Nate says:

            Sure, if something takes 500 y to relax to equilibrium, its relaxation does not speed up after 300.

          • bill hunter says:

            Could be the small matter of a high solar activity maximum that peaked over the 1980’s, ended in 1996, followed by a moderately high cycle.

            Its worth noting that UAH shows a slow down in warming post 1996 even with the recent 6 years included from april 2015 when the El Nino effects began to show in the global record.

            Here is how it aligns with a solar theory.

            High solar activity – as seen from 1933 to 1996. (Maximums averaged 218 solar spot count.)47% higher than total record average (including the Maunder Minimum and noting that 5 cycles weren’t counted after the minimum apparently due to a lack of agreement on how to count spots).

            End of which shows a slowing of warming over the past 25 years.

            Moderate high solar activity -as seen from 1996-2008 (Maximum 180)

            Moderate solar activity – roughly 40-60% of the high average.
            (90-130 maximum) beginning in 2009 to present.

            Thats putting the cards on the table for solar influence. What happens next if solar activity remains moderate as expected?

            Hmmm, we have one cycle in the coming cycle if similar should begin to demonstrate the surface ocean catching up. So I would predict either warming to continue on the momentum at a lower level than 1996 to the present to perhaps even a slight cooling over this coming solar cycle.

            then of course based on a solar theory one needs to predict cycle 26 which even the experts won’t attempt for probably 8 to 10 years from now.

          • Willard says:

            \o/

            Gallop Bill for the kill!

          • bill hunter says:

            Well there is a good deal of uncertainty there Willard. After all it is based on IPCC work which has in the past often been highly politically influenced.

            But as typical with political or manipulative influence some stuff isn’t exaggerated, mostly out of not being an organized conspiracy.

            It is remarkable though how well it fits the solar theory don’t you think?

            Certainly not much confidence can possibly arise out of such an observation with less than a handful of slight generational changes in direction.

            Its all about wait and see.

            Certainly CO2 lacks any generational changes in direction. So the only alternative appears to be something akin to Russian Gulags, Cambodian Reeducation camps, or Chinese Uygher ‘Vocational Education and Training Centers’ to make Nike shoes for LeBron James to create a change in direction.

          • Willard says:

            > there is a good deal of uncertainty

            Uncertainty adds risk, Bill.

          • bill hunter says:

            Willard uncertainty doesn’t add risk. Thats because risk is inherent in everything and uncertainty means its as likely to be less risk as it is to be more risk.

            The risk with climate comes equally with change in either direction inclusive of not changing.

            What is a well understood risk is authoritarian government. Thats why pioneers in everything that took the risk of change, moved and became the leaders of tomorrow while the sheeple stayed and got trodden on by their authoritarian governments as the ‘next in line’ for exploitation.

          • Willard says:

            > uncertainty doesn’t add risk.

            I hope you do not drive, Bill.

          • bill hunter says:

            Why?

          • Willard says:

            Because if you drive as if uncertainty carries less risk you’re a danger, Bill.

            Think ice, snow, fog, rain, tired breaks, etc.

          • bill hunter says:

            ice, snow in socal? LMAO!

          • Willard says:

            How about raging hipsters and sharknadoes, then?

          • bill hunter says:

            Willard says:

            Because if you drive as if uncertainty carries less risk youre a danger, Bill.

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

            And you are certain of that right Willard? LMAO!!

          • Willard says:

            That’s, like, a theorem, Bill.

            More uncertainty, more risks, costlier insurance.

          • bill hunter says:

            So Willard are you in the insurance business or are you just talking through your hat as usual?

          • Willard says:

            Let’s just say I know enough mathematicians, actuaries, and reinsurers not to hedge what I just said, Bill.

            All you got left is silly semantic games, and for that I can hold my own.

          • bill hunter says:

            Small talk while you give them a rim job doesn’t count Willard.

          • Willard says:

            All you got is small talk, Bill.

            Give yourself a chance.

          • bill hunter says:

            Willard uncertainty doesn’t add risk it encourages a fear of the unknown in the timid.

            Its all psychological. No pain no gain, no courage no success. All you are doing here is describing the snowflake view of the world.

            The homebody, the member in the 3rd rank of the uniform briefcase drill team, sycophants, followers, sheeple.

            Conquering uncertainty by not being intimidated is the very essence of the survival of the fittest. It is the essence of opportunity. Testing boundaries is the lifeblood of progress. Its a two year old striking out on his first exploration.

          • Willard says:

            > uncertainty doesnt add risk

            Tell that to the airplane pilot, Bill. Or a Poker player. Or a movie producer. Or a power plant designer.

            I’m not talking about deep uncertainty or risk aversion here. I’m talking about a situation S and you add uncertainty to your means for evaluating it. More risk emerges eo ipso.

            You can appeal to degenerate cases all you want, none of them apply to the risks of AGW.

          • bill hunter says:

            Willard spews:

            ”I’m not talking about deep uncertainty or risk aversion here. I’m talking about a situation S and you add uncertainty to your means for evaluating it. More risk emerges eo ipso.”

            You mean there is more risk you will be wrong than if you were certain!

            The risk of the action doesn’t change just because you are a dumbass. The dumbass is the couch potato that won’t do anything until they are sure they should.

          • Willard says:

            > You mean there is more risk you will be wrong than if you were certain!

            No, Bill. Think of a stock. You got blue chips. They’re safe bets. You’re never sure they won’t fall, but they’re not penny stocks. The more volatile the stock, the riskier it is.

            That doesn’t mean there’s no risk in buying nothing. You can be sure you won’t win anything. With risks often come rewards. Doing nothing about AGW comes with opportunity costs.

            Roy is whining like an old man who never made money in his life. But you are supposed to made some. Contrarian investing is still investing, you know.

            I told you about the silly semantic games.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  24. CO2isLife says:

    “Deep Ocean Warming Could Be Mostly Natural”

    How could energy from CO2 warm the deep oceans without ever reading the deep ocean? To warm water takes enormous amounts of continuous energy. LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate H2O, and it never penetrates beyond the top microlevel of the water.

    The W/M^2 of LWIR from CO2 can be calculated. The amount of energy required to warm the oceans can be calculated. Simply do the math, there imply isn’t enough energy provided by CO2 to warm water.

    • Entropic man says:

      3000+ Argos floats measure ocean temperatures. From the change in temperature you can calculate the annual increase in ocean heat content.3*10^21 Joules/year.

      From the known energy imbalance of 0.7W/m^2 you can calculate the amount of energy that the Earth is gaining. 3*10^21 Joules/year.

      About half of sea level rise is due to melting ice. The other half is due to thermal expansion. You can calculate the amount of energy the oceans must gain to produce that amount of expansion. 3*10^21 Joules/year.

      Given that three different methods all give the same result, the amount of energy the Earth takes up per year is well established.

      Note that none of these calculations require us to know the mechanism by which the stored heat is increasing. They just measure the amount.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, it’s bad enough that you rely on ice melt estimates and ocean heat content assumptions for your false beliefs, but the “EEI” is pure nonsense.

    • Entropic man says:

      “LWIR between 13 and 18 doesnt penetrate H2O, and it never penetrates beyond the top microlevel of the water.”

      I dont understand why you have a problem with the idea that LWIR leads to warmer oceans. The water is warmed by sunlight and LWIR reduces the amount of heat lost by the ocean to the atmosphere.

      Clint R, Gordon and Swenson all tell me that heat cannot, on it’s own, move from colder to warmer.

      Suppose that the ocean is at 10C and the atmosphere is at 9C. Heat moves down the temperature gradient from the ocean to the atmosphere.

      Now add LWIR. The LWIR warms the surface film to 11C. Now heat from the ocean has to move from colder to warmer (10C to 11C) if it is to cross the surface film to reach the atmosphere. The effect of LWIR is to limit the amount of heat loss from the ocean, leaving the ocean at a higher temperature than if there was no LWIR.

      • Swenson says:

        E,

        Why ignore physics?

        The sun heats the top of a body of water during the day. The warmer water floats on top. At night, the surface cools. The denser water sinks if it is denser than the water below. Basic physics.

        This process eventually ensures that the densest water, quite naturally, lies at the bottom of the ocean. Luckily, water is peculiar, and is at its densest above its freezing point. This ensures that deep bodies of water do not freeze right through.

        Oceans are heated from below. Hence, convection, deep ocean currents etc. Im sure I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, but you seem to be in a severe state of denial.

        Oh well it takes all kinds, I suppose.

        • Entropic man says:

          “Oceans are heated from below. ”

          Silly Swenson.

          The oceans receive 240W/m^2 from above and 0.1W/m^2 from below.

          • Clyde Spencer says:

            https://scitechdaily.com/energy-unleashed-by-volcanic-eruptions-deep-in-our-oceans-could-power-all-of-the-united-states/

            The 0.1W/m^2 is probably a serious underestimate in the light of newly obtained information about megaplumes released by volcanic eruptions. Mixing is observed!

          • Swenson says:

            E,

            It doesn’t matter how hot the sunshine is on the ocean, even if it is 24 hours a day, which it isn’t. You can’t heat any body of water much from the top. The blasted heated water keeps rising to the top, and keeps trying to cool. It does, at night, in accordance with physical laws.

            So keep dreaming. Your wattages are completely irrelevant. Ice can emit 300 W/m2 – not much warming there! Your 240 W/m2 is even less.

            Maybe you have been studying at the Gavin Schmidt School of Climate Physics! OK, I made that up. Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician, who believe in magic, apparently. He refers to himself as a Climate Scientist.

            Any fool can call himself a Climate Scientist, and many do.

            I suggest you learn some actual physics.

        • Entropic man says:

          Oceans warming from below would be like a saucepan warming from below. Convection would mix the layers and destroy the temperature stratification you describe.

          • Swenson says:

            E,

            No. The ocean is not a saucepan. The heat input is extremely small. The liquid ocean behaves as a chaotic system. I also didn’t mention temperature stratification. You are getting as bad as Wee Willy with making stuff up.

            Try something else.

          • Willard says:

            > Try something else.

            Is that a command, Mike?

            Ho! Ho! Ho!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling..

        • Swenson says:

          E,

          As you point out, the input is very small.

          But sufficient. It stops the oceans from freezing. And, of course, as Ed Lorenz pointed out, a potentially chaotic system has no minimum change to initial conditions which will result in chaos.

          Convection is chaotic – atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere – it makes no difference.

          If you have a more realistic hypothesis, I would be happy to hear it.

          Currents exist. Heat from the top doesn’t create them. Warm water floats on top of cold.

          Over to you.

          • Entropic man says:

            The process is called upwelling.

            There are varius types. They have in common that a surface current draws colder water up from below. The classic example is the Humboldt current. Winds blowing North along the Pacific coast of South America create a Northward surface current which the Coriolis effect deflects into an offshore surface current. This draws cold deep water towards the shore and lifts it to the surface.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling

          • Swenson says:

            E,

            Ekman made assumptions which have not been borne out by experiment.

            There are currently several speculations about the causes for observed upwelling. The processes are still not clearly understood.

            However, the fact remains that convection currents in a fluid are caused by density differences, which cause less dense fluid to ascend, and more dense fluid to descend – in general.

            You may be aware that deep ocean currents at different depths may flow at 180 degrees teach other. Nothing at all to do with upwelling, Ekman transport, surface winds or CO2!

            The ocean is heated from the bottom (and sides).

            As an example, at a depth of 10,000 m, water temperature is around 3 C. or so. At a depth of 10000 m in the Earth’s crust, the temperature is around 300 C or so.

            In other words, the oceans sit in buckets of hot rock, which are continuously cooled by descending denser water, following physical laws. The energy lost by the rock as it cools does not vanish, and the water is heated, the density lowers – and bang! – convection starts.

            There are still many mysteries to be unravelled, but water still seems to obey the laws of physics as currently known.

            Wikipedia is not a particularly good source of fact, on occasion, by the way.

          • Willard says:

            > Wikipedia is not a particularly good source of fact, on occasion, by the way.

            What would be a better source, Mike?

            For once you could be useful.

          • Swenson says:

            Wondering Wee Willy,

            Why do you ask? Don’t you believe everything you see in Wikipedia?

            If you know enough to know that Wikipedia is wrong about something, why are you asking me a stupid gotcha?

            Don’t be an idiot, Wee Willy.

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            You claim that thy Wiki isn’t a good source on upwelling.

            For that claim to have any value, you should be able to cite a source you find good.

            That way, you’d prove yourself useful.

            If you feel the need to play dumb once again, don’t hesitate to pretend you don’t understand basic pragmatics.

          • Swenson says:

            Wily Wee Willy,

            Please stop putting your idiotic words in my mouth. I believe you have heard of quotation marks. You put them around something I have written, rather than just making stuff up.

            I know you are trying to pick a fight, but you look like you have brought a wet noodle to a gun fight.

            Lift your game, laddie, lift your game!

          • Willard says:

            Here, Mike:

            “Wikipedia is not a particularly good source of fact, on occasion, by the way.”

            Citation, please.

          • Swenson says:

            Wriggly Wee Willy,

            Thank you for quoting my words, instead of just making stuff up, and pretending I said it.

            Why should I provide you with anything? In your fantasy world, you apparently think I am someone else.

            Should I dance to the tune of someone who is obviously delusional? I don’t think so, laddie.

            Oh well, if you are idiotic enough to believe that everything you read on Wikipedia is a good source of fact, then good luck to you!

          • Willard says:

            > I believe you have heard of quotation marks

            Check Roy’s title, Mike.

            Report.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  25. Roger Higgs DPhil (geologist) says:

    Excellent, Roy, thank you.

    “I do not deny some level of human-caused warming”.

    I respectfully think you are wrong there; also here …

    “Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming.”

    Yes, CO2 has an undeniable ‘greenhouse’ effect. But IPCC’s climate models completely ignore natural feedbacks, notably the rise in biogenic BVOCs (google) emitted by vegetation with increasing CO2. It is possible that BVOC-feedback alone fully offsets (negates) the CO2 greenhouse effect; it might even mean that increasing CO2 causes overall (net) cooling.

    Here’s an impartial geologist’s view of climate truth in 500 words (3 minutes) …

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350726458_Global_warming_and_cooling_for_last_2000_years_mimic_Sun's_magnetic_activity_not_CO2_scientific_literature_synthesis

    Please keep up the noble fight.

    • Entropic man says:

      Truly you are a benefactor of mankind. Your paper must have given the organisers a good laugh.

      You’re rather behind the times. The evidence behind the CO2AGW hypothesis has become so strong that only a few of the old school reject it. The discussion now revolves around how much damage it will do and what we can do to mitigate or adapt.

      • Swenson says:

        E,

        What in blue blazes is the CO2AGW hypothesis?

        Never heard of it, and I will bet you can’t even put it into words!

        Without readers collapsing into laughter, of course. Give it a try, why don’t you?

        Ho, ho, ho!

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, give us your best “evidence behind the CO2AGW hypothesis”.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Roger Higgs DPhil (geologist) 1:40 AM

      The Anthropocene Working Group

      The ‘Anthropocene’ is a term widely used since its coining by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000 to denote the present geological time interval, in which many conditions and processes on Earth are profoundly altered by human impact. This impact has intensified significantly since the onset of industrialization, taking us out of the Earth System state typical of the Holocene Epoch that post-dates the last glaciation.

      Phenomena associated with the Anthropocene include: an order-of-magnitude increase in erosion and sediment transport associated with urbanization and agriculture; marked and abrupt anthropogenic perturbations of the cycles of elements such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and various metals together with new chemical compounds; environmental changes generated by these perturbations, including global warming, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and spreading oceanic ‘dead zones’; rapid changes in the biosphere both on land and in the sea, as a result of habitat loss, predation, explosion of domestic animal populations and species invasions; and the proliferation and global dispersion of many new ‘minerals’ and ‘rocks’ including concrete, fly ash and plastics, and the myriad ‘technofossils’ produced from these and other materials.

      Many of these changes will persist for millennia or longer, and are altering the trajectory of the Earth System, some with permanent effect. They are being reflected in a distinctive body of geological strata now accumulating, with potential to be preserved into the far future.

  26. Feynman's Ghost says:

    Funny how you promote Sea Surface Temperatures, then completely ignore the effects of increasing CO2 on the oceans. As you already know, the Earth is 71% ocean. It’s convenient to ignore the 29% land until you decide to promote the idea that plants are more important than marine life.

  27. Erl Happ says:

    Loved Roy’s post here. But I don’t share the notion that CO2 is involved in the warming. The Earths climate system is not closed. Its open to external influences most obviously at high latitudes.

    Changes in the Earths albedo are part of the ‘annular modes’ phenomenon that documents change in surface pressure and the planetary winds.

    Readers may be interested in the relationship between the Earths albedo and ENSO as described in a post on my website just now.

  28. gbaikie says:

    “As little as 6,000 years ago, the vast Sahara Desert was covered in grassland that received plenty of rainfall, but shifts in the world’s weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth.”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161130141053.htm

    It seems one can ask, does global temperature increase and cause the Sahara desert to green. Or does the Sahara desert green and cause global temperature to increase. Or is it both.

    One thing about both, is one would seem one need less Sahara greening and less or earth getting warmer. As you have both doing it.
    One can also ask does a greening of Sahara desert always cause increase in global temperature. And does a warming Earth always cause the Sahara desert to green. And there is third option that
    a greening of Sahara desert cools global temperature- so instead less global warming needed, you more global warming as it’s counter balanced with Sahara desert greening.

    Wiki thinks it has to do with precession of the Earth’s axis:
    “For several hundred thousand years, the Sahara has alternated between desert and savanna grassland in a 20,000 year cycle caused by the precession of the Earth’s axis as it rotates around the Sun, which changes the location of the North African Monsoon. The area is next expected to become green in about 15,000 years”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

    Anyhow, generally I think the dry region radiate a lot energy directly to space. Or ground surface gets very hot and air is dry. Or would guess the area responsible for a higher portion of global average of 40 watts global average going directly in space. And also the vast Sahara desert is tiny part of total global surface area. Though less tiny, in regards total global land area. Or Wiki:
    “With an area of 9,200,000 square kilometres (3,600,000 sq mi), it is the largest hot desert in the world and the third largest desert overall, smaller only than the deserts of Antarctica and the northern Arctic.”

    • gbaikie

      > It seems one can ask, does global temperature increase and cause the Sahara desert to green. Or does the Sahara desert green and cause global temperature to increase. Or is it both.

      I think, the greener Sahara desert will cause some minor global temperature increase.

      The Earth average specific heat will rise, with the consequent of less day-time IR energy emission from the greener Sahara desert areas.

  29. Ken says:

    when the Romans owned the desert it was green.

    They paid farmers to grow and tend olive trees along their roads.

    When Islamists came to own the desert they brought goats. The goats were allowed to graze on the farmers lands and the farmers had no say because they weren’t Islamic.

    Islam ended the greening of the desert. Not climate change.

    • Bindidon says:

      Ken

      ” … when the Romans owned the desert it was green. ”

      For sarcasm it isn’t good enough.

      The Romans named the country south to Carthago ‘Terra deserta’.

      *
      ” Islam ended the greening of the desert. Not climate change. ”

      Ken… Sahara is bigger than CONUS: 9 Mio km^2. The Arabs would have needed billions of goats for that…

      *
      Maybe you start reading a bit about it?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Desertification_and_prehistoric_climate

      J.-P. D.

    • gbaikie says:

      City of Rome:
      “According to tradition, on April 21, 753 B.C., Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, found Rome on the site where they were suckled by a she-wolf as orphaned infants”

      And Islam started around 700 AD.
      I don’t think you could even blame the Egyptians or the Greeks, either.
      Roman roads in Africa, wiki:
      “Almost all Roman roads in Africa were built in the first two centuries AD. In 14 AD Legio III Augusta completed a road from Tacape to Ammaedara: the first Roman road in Africa. In 42 AD the kingdom of Mauretania was annexed by Rome. Emperor Claudius then restored and widened a Carthaginian trail and extended it west and east. This way the Romans created a continuous coastal highway stretching for 2,100 miles from the Atlantic to the Nile.”
      Takapes, the ancient name of Gabès, current pop: 152,921

      Anyhow roads are fairly close to coast, and this Mediterranean coastal region has been involved with fishing, trade, and farming for a long time. And trade has travelling thru various vast wastelands of deserts, since, basically, forever.

    • bill hunter says:

      Don’t know about goats but the MWP corresponds to Islam influence in North Africa.

      Below are some charts plotting greenery and humidity.

      Currently North Africa is GREENING as is the entire world. Going back up to that Holocene peak could be a very good thing and provide for a few more hundred years of advancing technology to ease adaptation to a colder and dryer world. (a pro-human outlook)

      https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/doc/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-532-graphic-004-full.gif

      https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/doc/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-532-graphic-007-full.gif

  30. In this PDF you can read about the specular reflection not being associated with diffuse reflection and not being taken in consideration when estimating Earth.s average albedo value of
    a = 0.3

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf

    19940020024.pdf (nasa.gov)

    ………………………….

    NASA Technical Memorandum 104596

    An Earth Albedo Model

    A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation From the Earth Below

    Thomas W. Flatley
    Wendy A. Moore
    Goddard Space Flight Center
    Greenbelt, Maryland

    National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration
    Goddard Space Flight Center
    Greenbelt, Maryland

    1994

    (NASA-TM-IO459&) AN EARTH ALBEDO MODEL: A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE RADIANT ENERGY INPUT TO AN ORBITING SPACECRAFT DUE TO THE DIFFUSE REFLECTANCE OF SOLAR RADIATION FROM THE EARTH BELOW (NASA) 33 p

    Page 1

    “With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.

    Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.”

    Page 2

    “According to Wertz, Fsun, the solar constant in the vicinity of the Earth, is approximately 1358 wad/m2. The sunlight strikes the Earth with this intensity at point B. At locations away from this point, the intensity of the incoming sunlight decreases proportional to cos_, so that the solar flux reaching any given incremental area is:

    Fin = Fsun(ne’,S) wa_/m2

    This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedo constant, ALB, which depends on the Earth’s surface characteristics. (See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earth’s surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3”

    Page 15

    “Conclusions

    This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. It is based on several approximations. Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected. For an elliptical orbit, the unit vectors associated with the incremental areas should change direction with altitude; instead, this algorithm assumes a circular orbit. The albedo constant is set to the annual global average for the entire Earth; Appendix II illustrates how the percentage of light reflected truly varies with geographical features. The Earth is considered a perfect sphere which does not rotate; it was unnecessary to model rotation since the albedo constant was not varied.”

  31. JimDK says:

    Does Dr.Spencer reply to his critics? Thanks

    “There are some other key problems in the paper. It doesn’t provide enough information for other scientists to repeat the study. When two other climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo) tried to replicate its results as best they could with the information provided, they found quite different results (see the Advanced version of this rebuttal for further details). Spencer and Braswell’s conclusions also only seems to work using the satellite data set they chose, but Trenberth and Fasullo found that using other data sets also changes their results.

    Trenberth and Fasullo also found that when using a few different climate models, the one which replicated the observed data best was the one with a climate more sensitive to greenhouse gases, which directly contradicts Spencer and Braswell’s conclusion that the climate is not sensitive to greenhouse gases.

    It’s also worth noting that the journal which published Spencer and Braswell’s paper does not normally publish climate science research. This may explain how the paper made it through their peer-review system with so many problems. In the end, Trenberth and Fasullo find that the Spencer and Braswell study has no merit. “https://skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

    • Swenson says:

      J.

      Is this the same Trenberth who wrote –

      “The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.”

      The data are surely wrong? Really?

      Or maybe the Trenberth who doesn’t seem to accept that W/m2 is not a measurement of temperature? Or maybe the Trenberth who treats the Earth as a closed system, and presumes that some “energy balance” must exist – because he says so, and he is a meteorologist!

      Is this the same Trenberth to whom you refer?

      Maybe you need to appeal to a better authority

    • barry says:

      Trenberth’s comment bemoaned an inadequate monitoring system. I trust no one thinks that less data would be better.

  32. I am basing my calculations on radiation only, as in a black body.

    I do not agree with … Lindzen proposed that the Earth’s surface temperature without convection would be above 70C.

    Earth.s surface theoretical uniform temperature, the so-called effective temperature Te.

    It is used to be calculated as

    Te = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Te = 255 K

    It is not correct, because it does not take in consideration the specular reflection of the planet.

    To calculate Earth’s Corrected Effective Temperature we should use the following data values

    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless)

    a = 0,306 Earth’s average albedo

    So = 1.361 W/m², solar flux on the top of the Earth’s atmosphere

    Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Corrected Effective Temperature Equation Te.correct.earth is:

    Te.correct.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Te.correct.earth = [ 0,47 (1-0,306) 1.361 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Te.correct.earth = [ 0,47 (0,694) 1.361 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Te.correct.earth = ( 1,957.367.636,68 )¹∕ ⁴ = 210,34 K

    Te.correct.earth = 210,34 K

    or

    Te.correct.earth = 210 K

    This corrected calculation obtains Earth.s effective temperature

    Te.correct = 210 K

    Now, in the new approach the Earth.s average surface (for theoretical purposes only) the average surface incident solar flux is calculated as

    112 W /m^2

    and not the wrongly estimated

    240 W /m^2

    It is a very big difference. And this difference occurs because of the not considering the planet very strong specular reflection.

    Earth radiative behavior is of planet without atmosphere, because Earth atmosphere is very thin.

    Earth high Albedo a = 0,306 accounts for the clouds in atmosphere, and that it is. For the rest, atmosphere has a very insignificant greenhouse effect, not worth mentioning.
    And not the +33 oC.

    We should not compare the

    Te.correct = 210 K

    with the planet surface average temperature

    Tmean = 288 K

    because the Tmean = 288 K is calculated based on the the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING phenomenon.

  33. 1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation

    Tmean.earth

    So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)

    S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So

    Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306

    Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47

    (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

    N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin

    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:

    Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K

    Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ

    And we compare it with the

    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

    These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

    Conclusions:

    The mean surface temperature equation

    Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    produces remarkable results.

    The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.

    Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean

    Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K

    Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K

    Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ

    Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K

    The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

    There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.

    The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

    There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.

    Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:

    Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Potholer’s Interrogative

      You believe you have discovered a basic error in the accepted Physics. Which is the most likely explanation?

      (A) You have discovered something that all the PhD Physicists have missed.

      (B) The Physicists are involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth.

      (C) The Physicists know something you don’t know.

      • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

        Which physicists would that be?

      • Swenson says:

        T,

        Is that the best you can do? Really?

        Maybe you could name one of the “PhD Physicists . . .”? to whom you refer?

        Probably best not to name any of the National Science Foundations PhD physicists who refused to accept Archimedes’ principle for several years, and kept claiming that melting sea ice caused sea levels to rise!

        You will also find that physicists with PhD’s are somewhat absent amongst the more vocal AGW cultists. Real physicists know that the GHE is just alarmist nonsense, and can’t even be put into words in any sensible way.

        Your appeal to non-existent authority of mysterious unnamed persons and “accepted physics” is just stupid. How does that work with phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether, or the indivisible atom? All “accepted physics” at the time.

        Go away, you silly chap.

        • Sigmund Hanslien says:

          Roy Spencer among many others,

          • Swenson says:

            S,

            Only if you redefine a meteorologist to be a physicist. Is this more climatological redefinition?

            And the many others? Come on, name a few. How hard can it be?

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          Swenson 5:42 PM

          …Real physicists know…

          Course Information Sheet for entry in 2020-21 D.Phil in Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics

          About the course
          The sub-department’s research focuses on the study of physical processes in the atmospheres, surfaces and oceans of the Earth and other planets, using experimental and theoretical techniques. Admission is highly competitive and is either directly to this course or via the physical climate system stream of the Environmental Research NERC Doctoral Training Partnership. How does the Earth’s climate evolve? How do we connect measurements made from space and the ground to the future direction of the Earth’s climate? What can we learn from observations of other planets to tell us more about the Earth and the evolution of the Solar System? These are the types of research problems members of the Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics (AOPP) sub-department of the Department of Physics are engaged in. You are allocated at least one supervisor who should be your primary contact for guidance throughout your research degree. Research students join an existing research group that typically comprises at least one lead academic plus postdoctoral research assistants or fellows and other research students. Research projects in AOPP can be highly interdisciplinary and students often have additional co-supervisors either within AOPP or another University department.

          If admitted directly to AOPP, you will be assessed via the successful completion of classes and a first year transfer report of around 10,000 words submitted during the summer of your first year.

          You are admitted as a probationary DPhil student, and transfer from a probationary status is dependent on successful completion of the taught component of the course and assessment of your fist year report by at least two academics that are not directly connected to your project. A further second year report, also assessed, is required before status as a DPhil candidate is confirmed and your thesis can be submitted.

          Supervision
          For this course, the allocation of graduate supervision is the responsibility of the Department of Physics and it is not always possible to accommodate the preferences of incoming graduate students to work with a particular member of staff. Under exceptional circumstances a supervisor may be found outside the Department of Physics.

          Expected length of course:
          Mode of study: Full Time Only.
          Expected length: 3 to 4 years.

          Additional cost information
          All DPhil projects are provided with a research training support grant to cover travel, equipment and consumables. Expenditure is dependent on the project and always requires the supervisor’s agreement.

      • bill hunter says:

        TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
        You believe you have discovered a basic error in the accepted Physics. Which is the most likely explanation?

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

        How could anybody ever find a basic error in a physics process that has never been described?

        The backradiation model within the atmosphere has been refuted by experiment.

        So we are left with a the physical argument that makes a fair case that within the troposphere an emission from a higher level results in less emission thus warming must occur.

        However, it doesn’t prove such an attenuation occurring in a frentic environment such as a gas, it doesn’t have a description of how attenuated heat reaches back to the surface. There is no physical description to find an error in. Its like asking somebody to find an error in the statement ‘God exists’ when nobody can provide a physically verifiable description of God.

        But I suppose you also think you know the answer to that as well.

        • Entropic man says:

          “The backradiation model within the atmosphere has been refuted by experiment.”

          Perhaps you should tell Dr Spencer.

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

          Or buy an oven thermometer and check for yourself.

          • Swenson says:

            E,

            Above every square foot of surface, there is about a ton of atmosphere. All of it has a temperature (high enough to keep it gaseous).

            What makes you believe this ton of gaseous atmosphere is not radiating infrared?

            Of course it does. And of course, even a consumer hand held IR thermometer will register the IR hitting its sensor. However, any temperature reading is misleading, coming as it does from a column of gas along the direction of the sensor.

            Point it straight up, the column is shortest. Point it towards the horizon, the optical density is maximal.

            So what is the temperature of the column? A meaningless number!

            The device is calibrated for a particular assumed emissivity. What’s the emissivity of a column of gas, varying in density from about 1 bar to no bar at all? Don’t know? Who does?

            No back radiation. Just radiation from matter above absolute zero.

          • Swenson,

            > The device is calibrated for a particular assumed emissivity.

            I think you are right. I think, device is calibrated for a solid matter, and not for the gases. Also I think device is calibrated for a solid body at some measured body s temperature.

            Device is not calibrated to measure the body s temperature when the body is irradiated.

            Example

            We are used to see medical personnel pointing temperature measuring device onto patient forehead. The device is calibrated to measure the forehead s temperature.
            Now, if the forehead is exposed to sunshine, what temperature device supposed to measure?

            The temperature of the body is still the same. What about device measurements?

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          bill hunter says: April 25, 2021 at 5:05 PM
          … There is no physical description to find an error in…

          Reply
          Spoken like a true accountant.

          • bill hunter says:

            I suppose Tyson if you were a scientist you could give a physical description of how the greenhouse effect works. . . .of course only if it did work.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            bill hunter April 26, 2021 at 3:39 PM

            It is well known, by those who know it well, that there is a greenhouse effect, if there were not, we would all be dead!

            So, is the greenhouse effect a good thing? Well, yes, if you appreciate living.

            The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and the atmosphere.

          • bill hunter says:

            Gee Tyson thanks for imparting the sum or your knowledge on that topic. Thats pretty informative.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            bill hunter April 26, 2021 at 6:03 PM

            Reply

            Spoken like a true accountant.

            Ask and ye shall receive.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tyson, please stop trolling.

  34. Clyde Spencer says:

    Roy,
    You have taken a lot of flak here in the comments. You must be over the target!

  35. Tim Wells says:

    Climate change-driven by CO2 started off as a cranky conspiracy theory in the 70s, nothing has changed. It was used for political reasons, in the UK, by Thatcher to close down coal pits. She invested money in universities to prove this fact and this started the fraudulent IPCC.

  36. Mark Wapples says:

    Roy.

    Ever evening at about 10 pm I take my dog out for a walk.

    An observation I have made over the year is that the sky is clearer, evident by the brightness of the stars and more being visible. I have also noted that the temperature appears to drop off quicker in the evening.
    Is there any correlation in the data of a change in the temperature gradient in the atmosphere due to changes made to the water content since the number of planes flying has dropped substantially in this time period?

  37. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Nate says:

    “The natural variations over [~last 20 year] period aare well resolved.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-673906
    References?

    While you’re at it, why not cite your sources for the variations of human influences on the energy imbalance? Two significant figures should be sufficient.

    • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

      Nate, Nate. Say Ed Berry.

    • Nate says:

      References given already. Stop trolling and read.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        No, Nate I don’t see where you have supported the indefensible and have expected me to be following your every comment to know where you tried.

        Where are the references that show “The natural variations over [~last 20 year] period aare well resolved?”

      • Nate says:

        Search in comments for CERES.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          “We DO know from Top of the Atmosphere flux measurements by CERES the NET natural energy flows very well. The annual average NET flux variations are ~ 1 watt/m^2.”

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-672043

          This does not explain the difference between human and natural sources of any alleged imbalance. Does CERES measure one and not the other?

          Are you daft or just up to the usual obfuscation?

        • Nate says:

          “the difference between human and natural sources of any alleged imbalance”

          The AGW portion is presumed to be proportional to the GHG forcing, which can be determined and is monotonically increasing.

          The natural part is the rest, and produces variability that we see in the data.

          So yes indeed: “The natural variations over [~last 20 year] period aare well resolved.”

          As I noted, that variability is low over the last 20 years, in the CERES data. See figures 2 and 3 in nature paper. The annual variation is < 1 W/m^2. Most variation related to ENSO.

          Over 5 y periods to smooth ENSO effects, the variation is even lower.

          The OTHER paper shows EEI from ocean measurements. This variation is presumably mostly natural variation.

          https://www.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-11-00663/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-11-00663-g014-550.jpg

          It also shows variation in it over last 20 y are well under 1 W/m^2.

          Thus,

          So when Roy claims we don’t know the natural flows that well, he is simply wrong.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “The AGW portion is presumed to be proportional to the GHG forcing, which can be determined and is monotonically increasing.”

            And if we don’t presume and actually want data that proves something is monotonically increasing?

            “This [EEI] variation is presumably mostly natural variation.”

            Presumably? You get partial credit for providing references. You still flunk for declaring Dr. Spencer wrong.

            The King of Obfuscation reigns supreme.

          • Nate says:

            “You still flunk for declaring Dr. Spencer wrong.”

            Why because your heroes can’t be wrong?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            No. Because a low-life like you has no business saying it, even if true.

          • Willard says:

            > even if true.

            Take that, SCIENCE!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            “No. Because a low-life like you has no business saying it, even if true.”

            Yes, I understand, its very painful to hear that your heroes, like Roy, or Rush, made mistakes. Its really much better not to have to hear it.

            That’s why right-wing-media is so popular. It presents soothing, filtered information, that never exposes you to the unvarnished facts that make you uncomfortable.

            And it presents rousing ‘news’ echoed from the chamber that are never fact checked. Like:

            Biden’s going to take away your hamburgers
            Kamala is gifting her book to new immigrants
            The newest climate models fail to match ocean warming

        • Nate says:

          Unless you want to claim that natural and anthro variablity are always cancelling each other over the last 20 y, we can conclude that the Natural variability is low (< 1W/m^2) over this period.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I don’t presume to claim anything. Until you don’t either, you will continue to be King.

          • Willard says:

            > I don’t presume to claim anything. Until you don’t either, you will continue to be King.

            This, but unironically.

          • Nate says:

            Ok, so the AGW is not always cancelling the natural stuff.

            So then we know that the natural variation is smaller than 1W/m^2, for 20 y at least, and Roy is absolutely wrong.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You don’t know jack, King.

          • Willard says:

            > You dont know jack, King.

            Harder to presume not to claim anything, Chic.

            Don’t fall for the “we don’t know everything therefore we know nothing” line.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            “You dont know jack, King.”

            This is always Chic’s go-to argument, when, as so often, he has no facts to support his erroneous beliefs.

          • bill hunter says:

            another 3 worthless posts from Nate where all he does is blubber out facts handed to him by his handlers and doesn’t understand it nor has any evidence to support it.

          • Nate says:

            And then there’s Bill…always lurking in dark corners ready to troll.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            Dr. Spencer’s credentials are well known and he is respected even by many who don’t agree with him.

            What are your credentials? If you think Dr. Spencer is wrong, make the case on your own blog or publication. Low-lifes make drive by assertions like the ones you are making here.

          • Nate says:

            I can see that you are attracted to authoritarianism. The Dear Leader cannot be questioned.

            I am making the case here, where his article was posted. I am making the case with facts, not with credentials.

            You are welcome to rebut with facts, but appeals to authority are unwelcome.

            As a scientist, Roy knows that his ideas will be and should be tested against the facts.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Your obfuscatory facts only claimed to make your case by assumptions and appeals to work done by others, hypocrite.

          • Willard says:

            I too would welcome science without assumptions, Chic.

            Where can I find some?

          • Nate says:

            “appeals to work done by others”

            Yep, as all science does..

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate, please stop trolling,

          • Nate says:

            Bill, police your own Team of trolls.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            The only time I can recall challenging a Dr. Spencer post was when I modified his CO2 sink model using my own hypothesis and my formula for estimating data of known processes of ocean outgassing and plant decomposition. I did use his FF emission data and assumed the world was round.

            Where are your original presumption-free contributions indicating natural variability <1 W/m^2?

          • Nate says:

            Chick,

            I admit that I didnt build the CERES satellite or launch it.

            I am simply using its published results to test Roys claim against real measurements, which he did not offer.

            The use of the CERES data by others to test hypotheses was the intent of funding it and publishing it.

            Did you publish your spreadsheet to make it useful for science?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Not yet. But I’ll give you one more shot at backing off accusing Dr S wrong.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-680006

          • Nate says:

            Chic, we have been over this ad nauseum. Your ‘model’ makes big assumptions. It invents data that has never been measured with the intent of confirming a belief.

            In contrast, what I have shown is real data from real measurements. No belief required.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            My model makes two assumptions, that the distribution of CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans follows Henry’s Law and that non-FF emissions are increasing due to population growth. It is only a matter of time before data comes out that will confirm my model hypothesis and expose your denial of reality. Most importantly I’m not claiming anybody wrong yet.

            But you falsely claim Dr. Spencer wrong. You have not shown data that addresses his central point that energy flows are not known to be as accurate as 1 part in 300, or less than 1 W/m^2. You continue to conflate absolute measurements with NETs, averages, variability, and trends and you misuse other people’s papers in the process.

            For example, the Nature paper you cited provides a supplemental addendum giving measurement uncertainties: https://tinyurl.com/mjzdfc5x

            “Uncertainties for months when both Terra and Aqua are available (07/2002 – 12/2010) are determined by comparing regional fluxes derived by applying diurnal corrections to the average of Terra and Aqua SSF1deg Ed2.6 fluxes with average Terra and Aqua regional fluxes from SYN1deg Ed2.6. In that case, the regional RMS error decreases to 2.7 Wm-2.”

            It is time for you to publicly admit Dr S is not wrong.

          • Nate says:

            “that non-FF emissions are increasing due to population growth.”

            Pretty big assumption, with an invented multiplicative factor. The result is a MASSIVE additional inflow of carbon that has no observational basis.

            You do understand that this is NOT DATA, don’t you?

          • Nate says:

            “the regional RMS error decreases to 2.7 Wm-2.”

            Did you miss the word REGIONAL?

            Not global.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            You do understand that this is NOT DATA, don’t you?

            ———————————

            I understand very well that this is data the establishment doesn’t want.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Bill,

            I appreciate the vote of confidence.

            Nate is so far up sh*t’s creek he doesn’t know how bad he’s stepped in it.

          • Nate says:

            “data the establishment doesnt want.”

            It is true that established science has litttle tolerance for completely made-up data.

            There is nothing for Bill to have confidence in, yet he does anyway????

            Delusions are contagious.

          • bill hunter says:

            Say Nate if you have credentials to speak on behalf of the’scientific community’ please produce that evidence.

            Beyond that we are really used to bugle mouths like yourself attempting to hold the political line in a science with huge uncertainties.

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            The data tossed out by Chic, is made-up by him, using his completely made-up, completely unrealistic model of the carbon cycle that has no observational or physics basis.

            It is neither real data, nor real theory. Why he thinks these hen-scratchings in Excel have greater or equal value to actual satellite measurements of energy flows, is inexplicable.

            It is Dunning Kruger taken to extremes.

            Did you even know what its all about before posting your unwavering support?

            Do you just believe-in any dog-pile a climate-denier posts without bothering to check what it is?

            What kind of skeptic does that? A faux skeptic.

          • bill hunter says:

            nate Lindzen even thinks the modeling project is a fool’s errand. i encourage voluntary efforts like Chic’s as ultimately its as good as any, is likely to be educational, doesn’t cost anything.

            once politics seized on this money is just going into the toilet with little progress. nothing but cat fights and trying to marginalize fringe ideas. science doesn’t advance on that front.

            yes some good peripheral science is getting done on clouds and more data on oceans is available with ambitious deep dive technology being developed in the wings.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Bill,

            Thanks again for the encouragement and “unwavering support,” heh heh. I wish you luck with Nate though. His obfuscation is beyond control. He cannot help himself.

            “Why he thinks these hen-scratchings in Excel have greater or equal value to actual satellite measurements of energy flows, is inexplicable.”

            I intended nothing of the kind, of course. I, too, was interested in Nate’s credentials with respect to climatology knowing that he only regurgitates work published by others and usually misuses it to confound, confuse, conflate, and generally obfuscate other people’s points.

            So what would cause him to think my modelling atmospheric CO2 concentration can be compared to satellite measurements of energy flows?

            You guessed it. It’s a bait and switch. Just another tool in an obfuscator bag of tricks. And it deflects from his having to address the problem of falsely accusing Dr. Spencer wrong.

          • Nate says:

            “voluntary efforts like Chics as ultimately its as good as any”

            So you think some anonymous dude fooling around in Excel produces results ‘as good as’ models using first-principles physics, improved over decades with observational feedback, that are able to reproduce the observed General atmospheric circulation?

            Sure thing.

            “My model makes two assumptions, that the distribution of CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans follows Henrys Law and that non-FF emissions are increasing due to population growth.”

            Unless he incorporates known ocean science, such as Revelle Factor, sizes of the mixed-layer, deep ocean, land, and atmospheric carbon reservoirs, (as we have discussed) he will not get a sensible answer. And if he did incorporate real world numbers he would see that it is impossible to get Henry’s Law to produce the magnitude of carbon flux that his ‘model’ claims, but of-course has never been observed.

            The mechanism for ‘population growth’ to produce the amount of excess carbon is completely vague, and its large multiplicative factor is simply made up and not consistent with observations (that are, BTW, easily checked).

            Chic has been unwilling to do the most basic back-of-the-envelope calculation reality-check on this model to see if it has any real-world plausibility. Hint: it doesn’t.

            Thus this ‘modeling’ effort is not science, it is pure mathturbation. It feeds a self-delusion, religious belief, hope, dream, prayer, that atm CO2 growth of the last 150 y is somehow ‘natural’.

            Yet Bill, the faux skeptic, applies zero skepticism.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Bill,

            Almost everything Nate complains about my model is false. I love talking about it, so let go through his many obfuscations.

            There is nothing unphysical about my model which assumes CO2 partitions between the atmosphere and the ocean according to Henry’s Law. It might be his anonymous sources that claim ocean-atmosphere partitioning is controlled by the difference in CO2 concentrations now versus preindustrial. That is not first-principles physics.

            A sensible answer does NOT require any more factors than required to make a model work. In fact, Occam’s razor and “give me four, I can fit an elephant; give me five, I make the tail wag” cautions against an over-complicated model.

            Real world numbers will not invalidate my model, because they are not yet available in publications as he keeps saying. Note that he provides no evidence contradicting my data estimates. Furthermore those numbers, vegetation decomposition and other non-ocean sources, have nothing to do with Henry’s Law. They are simply projections of natural CO2 emissions that overwhelmingly supplement FF emissions.

            My population growth mechanism is vague, but totally realistic as a reason for increasing natural (anything but FF) emissions. I repeat, where are Nick’s references for my estimates “not consistent with observations” if they are so easily checked?

            I don’t need a back-of-the-envelope calculation reality-check on my model. It speaks for itself. It is elegantly simple: inputs from known FF and my estimates of other CO2 sources are sinked by a single rate constant, which fits Mauna Loa data perfectly.

            My model is the essence of science. I have a hypothesis and I reduced that hypothesis to a model. Only thing left to do is get measurements of the non-FF contributions to atmospheric CO2 to see if the data confirms my model.

            So, if anyone feeds a self-delusion, religious belief, hope, dream, prayer-based paradigm, it is Nate who cannot see the distinction between human and natural emissions and cannot admit to his sin of claiming Dr. Spencer wrong. The Dark side is strong with this one.

          • Nate says:

            “I dont need a back-of-the-envelope calculation reality-check on my model. ”

            Translation: Checking it against reality is not in my best interests. Besides I don’t know how.

            “Real world numbers will not invalidate my model”

            Yep, because its religion. See above.

            “because they are not yet available in publications as he keeps saying.”

            Translation: I havent bothered to look, because testing my hypothesis would not be in my best interests.

            Hint: there are lots of data on carbon fluxes into and out of the ocean and land. You have been shown them several times.

          • Nate says:

            “There is nothing unphysical about my model which assumes CO2 partitions between the atmosphere and the ocean according to Henrys Law.”

            Again Revelle Factor goes unmentioned…..

            Lots of calculations and measurements of Revelle Factor and its implications for carbon cycling out there. Are they all wrong> Why??

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “…there are lots of data on carbon fluxes into and out of the ocean and land. You have been shown them several times.”

            That will stand as a lie unless you link to where I was shown or you provide references to the data.

            I don’t need to involve the Revelle Factor in my model. It is only needed by those who claim ocean CO2 will saturate or hypothesize multiple e-times for ocean CO2; and those models do need to address the Revelle Factor. If data appears showing my estimates of natural emissions too high, then I will need to address the possibility of CO2-ocean saturation. I have private communication with someone who alerted me to a possible rate limitation involving atmosphere ocean chemistry. But at this point, there is no evidence that the e-time for CO2 is anything other than the 3.6 years my model indicates. And that is consistent with a host of other publications.

            Please don’t resort to attacking their credibility and appealing to authority. You have no credibility here. No model. No data. Just obfuscation.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            So you think some anonymous dude fooling around in Excel produces results ‘as good as’ models using first-principles physics, improved over decades with observational feedback, that are able to reproduce the observed General atmospheric circulation?

            Sure thing.

            —————————-

            Absolutely Nate. Einstein did it with pencil and paper.

            Computers don’t make you smarter. . . .thats probably a shock to you considering what a toady you are.

            Ever hear of garbage in, garbage out?

            ——————–
            ——————–
            ——————-
            ——————-
            ——————-

            Nate says:

            blah blah blah

            ——————–

            The rest doesn’t matter if backscatter doesn’t insulate or warm anything Nate.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate I don’t see any applicability of the Revelle Factor to anything Chic is saying. Do you know how it affects anything he is saying or just throwing stuff at the wall?

          • Nate says:

            “I don’t need to involve the Revelle Factor in my model. It is only needed by those who claim ocean CO2 will saturate or hypothesize multiple e-times for ocean CO2”

            As we have discussed at length before, the Revelle Factor tells us the factor by which the time of removal of excess carbon, from the atmosphere and near-surface ocean mixed layer (ML) to the deep ocean, is increased, relative to a ‘simple’ equilibration process. It is currently ~ 10.

            I have shown you, and we discussed at length the pioneering papers that led to the Bern model. Remember??? They showed that sophisticated multi-reservoir models were required to explain ocean observations, after earlier simpler models failed to work.

            When 60 years of study of carbon cycling in the ocean clearly show its complexity, it is foolish to ignore this base of knowledge, in order to make an unfounded assumption that the system must be ‘simple’.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate you didn’t explain where that was relevant to what Chic was talking about. What happened? Were you just obfuscationg through your hat or did you have to go back and remind yourself of what it actually is?

          • Willard says:

            “Unless you want to claim that natural and anthro variablity are always cancelling each other over the last 20 y, we can conclude that the Natural variability is low (< 1W/m^2) over this period." is the top claim of this subthread, Bill.

          • Nate says:

            “you didn’t explain”

            You weren’t involved Bill in the discussion, Bill. Everything you say is il-informed. Just stop trolling.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            What you claim about the Revelle Factor’s influence on the ML and deeper ocean may be true. I will share the information from a chemist who is working on this. Meanwhile the turnover rate from atmosphere to ocean continues unabated.

            Please do not bring up the Bern model to avoid embarrassing yourself any further unless you can show data indicating the Bern model works. It is an unproven hypothesis just like how increasing CO2 increases global temperatures is an untested hypothesis.

            I am not discarding any studies of ocean carbon cycling by hypothesizing something new. My model may be wrong and, as already acknowledged, may require modification if new data shows my estimates of natural emissions wrong. You are welcome to provide contradictory data. I look forward to it.

            I love talking about my model and would be keen to continue discussing here or, to save time going back and forth, over on the 5/3 post.

            And there is still the apology to Dr. Spencer on the table.

          • Willard says:

            > It is an unproven hypothesis

            I too prefer my hypotheses proven, Chic.

            Not stirred.

          • bill hunter says:

            Chic Bowdrie says:
            My model may be wrong and, as already acknowledged, may require modification if new data shows my estimates of natural emissions wrong. You are welcome to provide contradictory data. I look forward to it.

            ——————————–

            You are a stud Chic! These other wimps around here worry their butts off afraid somebody might think they aren’t a know it all.

          • Nate says:

            “may require modification if new data shows my estimates of natural emissions wrong. You are welcome to provide contradictory data. I look forward to it.”

            Anyone can toss out speculation. Flat Earthers do it. Anti-vaxxers do it. It is not my job to prove your speculations wrong.

            Carbon cycle has been studied for > 60 y. You want to claim they’re understanding of it is wrong, show us evidence!

            You want to claim your speculation can do better? Show us evidence.

            Real scientists make hypotheses and then actively seek to test their ideas with available data and known facts. There is a lot out there.

            It is puzzling that you show so little interest in doing that.

          • Willard says:

            Here’s what Nate said, Chic:

            “Again, this is highly misleading. WE DONT care about the large daily, weekly or monthly energy flow variations.”

            Would you be so kind as to correct your claim?

            Swoon.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: It’s time to admit Dr. Spencer was NOT wrong.

            You probably didn’t see what went on behind the scenes since that article was posted. Let me fill you in. He cherry-picked the CanESM5 model from CMIP6 which is the hottest outlier among the CMIP6 suite. Then he compared the modeled TAS (near surface temperature) field to the observed TOS (SST) field. These two problems combine to produce an incredibly skewed comparison. When the comparison is done correctly we see that the modeled TOS field matches the observed TOS with pretty good skill. His mistakes were probably unintentional at first, but Dr. Spencer has been informed of the mistakes and requested to resubmit his work for review. The longer that posts stays up without a retraction the more likely we are to upgrade it from misinformation to disinformation.

          • bill hunter says:

            Cherry picked? Isn’t it true that only some of the models are available in their latest incarnation?

            And do the models that Roy used contribute to CMIP6 error against observations?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            I am not particularly interested in what percentage of warming models predict. But that is not what Nate was accusing Dr. Spencer of being wrong about. No, Nate was doing his usual MO by using averages and net values to claim that EEI estimates are more accurate than the absolute measurements used to calculate them.

            You are starting to pull a lot of the same crap. Are you a Nate wanna be?

          • Nate says:

            ” using averages and net values to claim that EEI estimates are more accurate than the absolute measurements used to calculate them.”

            Huh? Not more accurate.

            The Net values are sums of energy flows. Roy’s claim was that the claimed NET imbalance is “This is a very tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. We know NONE of the natural energy flows to that level of accuracy.”

            Again, CERES measured the energy flows THAT MATTER for the EEI, the total inputs and total output energy flows at the TOA.

            What I have claimed is still true. The VARIATIONS in these flows over the last 20 years ARE measured to that level, to < 1 W/m^2.

            Again UNLESS, you can show that the Natural and Anthro flows have all conspired over the last 20 years to perfectly cancel, and thus produce tiny NET flow variations, the Natural flow energy variations must be < 1 W/m^2, and << 1W/m^2, when ENSO portion is removed.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Again, NO, no, no. CERES measures INDIVIDUAL flows and the NETs and the averages over time are CALCULATED. The errors are propagated, meaning they increased with each calculation. The fact that the calculated differences come out less than 1 W/m^2 CONFIRMS Dr. Spencer’s very tiny imbalance claim. You are confirming he is right, not wrong.

            You conflate variations, nets, unknown natural vs anthropogenic, averages, and…. Have I left anything out? These have nothing to do with Dr. Spencer’s factual statement that absolute measurements are not as accurate as 1 W/m^2. Only an arm-chair scientist wouldn’t know this.

            You are an obfuscation-meister and guilty of libelous statements against Dr. S, IMO.

  38. Swenson says:

    Earlier, a commenter made a claim about the accuracy of CERES. A possibly nonsensical claim.

    From a recent paper –

    “A second major challenge is that the reflected solar instruments [e.g., Geostationary Operational Envi-ronmental Satellite (GOES), MODIS, AVHRR, VIIRS, CERES, Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget (GERB), and Landsat] all have very different spectral response functions. This means that the accuracy of even relative intercalibration between these instruments is typically limited to a few percent . . .”

    Alarmists often make claims of astonishing accuracy and precision. For example, NOAA claims measurements of global sea levels (whatever that is supposed to mean!) to 0.1 mm.

    This is about the thickness of a thick human hair. Complete nonsense. As NOAA (correctly) points out –

    “The Earth’s mass is unevenly distributed, meaning that certain areas of the planet experience more gravitational “pull” than others. Because of these variations in gravitational force, the “height” of different parts of the geoid is always changing, moving up and down in response to gravity. The geoidal surface is an irregular shape with a wavy appearance; there are rises in some areas and dips in others.”

    Anyone interested will soon discover that, even theoretically, MSL is constantly changing – without any influence from the atmosphere, let alone CO2!

    The end result is that any purported measurements from “climate scientists” need, at best, to be regarded with suspicion.

    Amateurs masquerading as professionals, in many cases.

    • Nate says:

      “This is about the thickness of a thick human hair. Complete nonsense. As NOAA (correctly) points out”

      Why do we have to get all the 3rd string skeptics who seem to have no idea what a GLOBAL AVERAGE means?

  39. ren says:

    Soon a drop in sea surface temperatures in the central tropical Pacific.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png

  40. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Potholer’s Interrogative

    You believe you have discovered a basic error in the accepted Physics. Which is the most likely explanation?

    (A) You have discovered something that all the PhD Physicists have missed.

    (B) The Physicists are involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth.

    (C) The Physicists know something you don’t know.

  41. Bindidon says:

    As usual, Swenson aka Flynn, who is and keeps totally uninformed (regardless the domain) misunderstands things, and hence inevitably misrepresents them.

    NOAA does not claim about measurements of sea levels ‘to 0.1 mm’.

    What they say is that over the last 100 years, the trend for the sea level rise, calculated out of the measurements performed by over 1500 tide gauges and corrected for their vertical land movement, is

    1.8 ± 0.1 mm / year.

    So we see that while the all times distorting Ignoramus Swenson pretends that NOAA talks about sea level height measurement precision of 0.1 mm, NOAA in fact talks about the confidence interval of a linear trend.

    Swenson aka Flynn is one of these heroes who don’t know anything, and (intentionally) discredit everything.

    J.-P. D.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      You see that 1.8? That is mm. Not 1.7 or 1.9 – 1.8 mm.

      And 1.8 mm differs from 1.7 mm by the thickness of a human hair! Amazing accuracy.

      This from NOAA –

      “Therefore, the total topography of the sea surface transformation uncertainty is computed, for the Chesapeake Bay, as SD-tss = {(2.3 cm)^2 + (2.5 cm)^2}^1/2 = 3.4 cm.”

      Other maximum calculated uncertainties around the US coast range up to 22.6 cm.

      Hmmmm.

      Now you would be aware that “vertical land movement” was not able to be measured over the last 100 years, as there were no satellites, and no GPS for most of that time. So somebody is either ignorant, delusional, or mistaken.

      Now tell me again, given MCU of 226 mm, how can someone compute “sea level rise” of 1.8 mm plus or minus the thickness of a human hair, over a period where vertical land movement was unknown?

      Nobody has the faintest idea of changes in ocean basin topography between any two points in time. Of course, changes in the volume of the basin result in changes to MSL, as do changes in the geoid.

      Back to your delusional fantasy, Binny. Reality is obviously too much for you.

      • Bindidon says:

        Swenson

        You are even dumber as I thought.

        Simply to read documents is too much for you.

        Your one and only interest: to show off with your ignorant and stubborn blah blah, with as goal: to distort, discredit and denigrate.

        J.-P. D.

        • bill hunter says:

          The point is Bin neither nor a doctor, nor an engineer, nor an accountant, nor a pharmaceutical company would be allowed to treat you on the type of science spewed in climate science.

          So why should we allow our government to operate on us? I say no! If you want to be the guinea pig be my guest do it voluntarily.

          • Bindidon says:

            hunter

            ” The point is Bin neither nor a doctor, nor an engineer, nor an accountant, nor a pharmaceutical company would be allowed to treat you on the type of science spewed in climate science.

            So why should we allow our government to operate on us? I say no! If you want to be the guinea pig be my guest do it voluntarily. ”

            It’s with any other discussion you come in: the discussion leaves science and engineering, and enters dumb politics.

            Why don’t you write your stuff at Fox News or the like?

            J.-P. D.

          • bill hunter says:

            Its not about politics Bin. Its about a level of ”certainty” in science considered appropriate for the justification of the use of force.

            You can go on forever and day arguing about the certainty of science no matter how certain it is. Without a standard of certainty its a conversation/debate/argument that simply cannot be resolved. . . .unless of course you want to argue solely for the purpose of arguing.

            So go ahead pull the covers up over your head and pretend this public forum is about anything other than about a level of certainty in science to tell other people what to do with the claim they will be better off with the treatment than without.

            If you want to call that politics fine. Politics in some shape or form exists in all avenues of science whether its a competition between two scientists working on the same arcane issue or if its about declaring war and killing a lot of people due to scientific-based forensics.

      • Nate says:

        Again, the whole concept of averaging seems lost on Swenson.

        “Now you would be aware that ‘vertical land movement’ was not able to be measured over the last 100 years.

        And he seems completely ignorant about what geologists know and can figure out.

        Lets be clear, Swenson understands very little science, and he assumes that scientists cannot possibly know any more than he does.

        • bill hunter says:

          Only a too young, too inexperienced, and too naive individual though would think that you needed to first establish averages before you looked for causation.

          • Willard says:

            The question then becomes how do troglodytes look for causation, Bill?

            You should consider throwing out all your meds.

          • bill hunter says:

            one can bet that if you ask for a roll call of the too young, too inexperienced, and too naive, Willard’s hand is going up.

          • Willard says:

            Don’t let me tap the SEP sign, Bill:

            Causal models are mathematical models representing causal relationships within an individual system or population. They facilitate inferences about causal relationships from statistical data. They can teach us a good deal about the epistemology of causation, and about the relationship between causation and probability. They have also been applied to topics of interest to philosophers, such as the logic of counterfactuals, decision theory, and the analysis of actual causation.

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causal-models

            The SEP sign reads: “don’t say stuff that can be refuted with a single SEP entry.”

        • Nate says:

          “ou needed to first establish averages”

          You think we’re not allowed to measure averages even though we can, because…???

  42. BeyondSmartLady says:

    “Ovserations?”

    Don’t forget to proofread your charts before publishing.

    • Bindidon says:

      Has BeyondSmartLady ever published something worth proofreading?

      Either way, the nickname doesn’t suggest that too much, does it?

      J.-P. D.

  43. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    Just for the record, I will post this comment here since it seems I’m not allowed to comment at ATTPs:

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/

    “No need to check: minding our units leads to a reductio. Flux is a rate of energy by unit of surface. The more surface for the same energy {6}, the less flux there is; if the Earth was infinite, flux would be nil. One can’t get twice the Sun’s power out of twice the area. That’s absurd.”

    It’s not twice the Sun’s power out of twice the area, it is double the flux out of half the surface area. When you divide by 4 you spread the incoming sunlight over the entire Earth’s surface area. 960 W/m^2 (after factoring in albedo) becomes 240 W/m^2. This equates to a blackbody temperature of 255 K. If you think of the Earth in real time, it is actually only ever receiving sunlight over the lit hemisphere at any given moment. In that same moment, energy leaves from the entire surface area of the globe.

    So what is actually being received, on a second by second basis, is 960 W/m^2 divided by 2 = 480 W/m^2. That’s the real time flux impinging on the lit hemisphere. This balances the approx. 240 W/m^2 leaving from the entire Earth’s surface area at any given moment. Energy is conserved, because in real time the surface area the energy is received over (the lit hemisphere) is only half that over which the energy leaves (the entire sphere).

  44. Swenson says:

    “We also detect a significant GMSL acceleration over the 25-year period at 0.120.07 mm yr−2”

    Peer reviewed. It must be true! Miracles still happen!

    Pffffft.

    • Clint R says:

      Roy would agree:

      “This is a very tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. We know NONE of the natural energy flows to that level of accuracy.”

      Exactly. We know energy arrives and energy leaves, but how much and when we don’t know. We do know that flux can NOT be treated as energy.

      “What that means is that global warming could be mostly natural, and we would not even know it.”

      Bingo, again. And “mostly” could easily be “all”.

    • Bindidon says:

      Chic Bowdrie

      I clearly agree that lots of emergency claims are due to overestimation of some observations.

      But the original version of this graph below I did not accept three years ago as a proof for lack of emergency:

      https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/extremely-hot-days.png

      and I still don’t accept it.

      Simply because it is a graph showing how temperature maxima behave in the Contiguous US.

      And CONUS has few in common with the Globe: this is due to the fact that it represents at best 6 % of the Globe’s land surfaces.

      As Roy Spencer presented John Christy’s graph in 2018, a commenter asked for a global version of it, and I made one, based on the worldwide GHCN daily data (Prof. Christy’s graph was based on the US local USHCN).

      Here is the output for CONUS (1):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view

      and here is that for the Globe (2):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view

      { I should add here that while (1) was based on the direct average of the entire station data, (2) required an area weighting: of the approx. 40,000 stations worldwide, 20,000 are in CONUS alone.

      Conversely, area weighting has a slight cooling effect when locally applied to CONUS. }

      *
      So it’s okay for me when people want to put alarming statements into perspective; but that should at least be done with correct data .

      *
      You might say: Is that all you have to complain about?

      My reply then would be: why should this one, totally CONUS-based view be the only one in Eschenbach’s long sequence?

      J.-P. D.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Bindidon,

        I agree it is disingenuous using only CONUS data instead of global data. But let me ask you, do you think the increasing trend in global hot days is a climate emergency?

        • Bindidon says:

          Chic Bowdrie

          No idea.

          If I had been working in meteorology during the last 40 years, sure I would answer differently.

          I only wanted to highlight ‘CONUS vs Globe’.

          When I compare, using all available PSMSL tide gauges, all those located at CONUS’ coasts with all gauges worldwide, a similar difference appears.

          But is the worldwide trend for gauges which, for 1993-now, shows nearly the same sea level trend as that measured by satellite altimetry, a hint on climate emergency?

          No se!

          The same holds for ice sheets and sea ice extents, snow cover etc etc.

          Between climate data processing and drawing appropriate conclusions out of it, there is some gap I can’t fill.

          J.-P. D.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “…there is some gap I cant fill.”

            On many (most/nearly all?) climate science issues, this must be true for all of us if truly honest with ourselves.

            We may have a perfectly good hypothesis, but either the necessary experimental controls are impossible to apply, the analytical tools are of insufficient accuracy, or we can’t put them where we need them to be. It will never be rocket science, but it needs to be better than it is now to agree on what a climate emergency is beyond the occasional tsunami, etc.

          • Willard says:

            I’m sure you can stretch your incredulity more than that, Chic:

            https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  45. Nate says:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:12/from:1978/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:12/from:1978

    Shows the global sea surface temp trend over the same period as shown above.

    The trend of 0.6 C over the period 1988-present puts it right in the middle of the pack of CMIP6 model trends in Roy’s graph above.

  46. One can do a simple calculation that shows the thermal energy above freezing contained in the deep ocean could melt all of the sea and land ice several times over if they were to come into contact. The unique properties of water make this partitioning of thermal reservoirs possible. Seawater in the 1-4 C range is denser than both colder sea water and ice and finds its way to the deep ocean. There is no way that deep ocean thermal mass happened just since the industrial revolution. Earth has been accumulating heat there for countless millenia. I suggest that if the planet did not have this tendency to warm it would never recover from the cooling that occurs from the impacts of asteroids, comets, etc. that are more frequent than used to be accepted. The fact that the deep ocean currents are increasingly undercutting and melting floating ice shelves on west Antarctica cannot be immediately assigned to surface warming. What causes changes in deep ocean current flows near land masses is a complex and poorly understood aspect of ocean dynamics. Changes in ocean bottom topography and shifts in ice shelf forms can shift deep ocean currents as they approach shores. The melting becomes self sustaining like a thermo siphon once the deep ocean water begins melting the fresh water ice mass. It is a huge heat engine with enormous reservoirs. One paper suggested berming the sea floor to divert the deep ocean current away from the ice shelf.

    • ren says:

      Bottom topography is constantly changing in regions of smaller tectonic plates.
      “The Scotia Plate is made of oceanic crust and continental fragments now distributed around the Scotia Sea. Before the formation of the plate began 40 million years ago (40Ma), these fragments formed a continuous landmass from Patagonia to the Antarctic Peninsula along an active subduction margin. At present, the plate is almost completely submerged, with only the small exceptions of South Georgia Island on its northeastern edge and the southern tip of South America.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotia_Plate

  47. Bindidon says:

    DREMT

    Second try.

    *
    Sorry, feel free to name call me ‘pompous’. No problem!

    But what you write is exactly on the same argumentation line as the merry-go-round and the ball-on-a-string wrt Moon’s spin.

    Please read and digest

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf

    It might help you in understanding some basics.

    Gerlich tried to discredit Smith’s contribution, but Prof. Lueders and Dr. Luening, the science staff of Germany’s most skeptic Web site (EIKE) clearly contradicted him at that time (2009).

    J.-P. D.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      OK, Bindidon.

      • Willard says:

        Check (1.3), kiddo.

        • Swenson says:

          Woeful Wee Willy,

          And if he doesn’t?

          You are a typical alarmist idiot. “Follow this link. Do this. Do that. Waste your time as I direct.”

          Accompanied by attempts at being gratuitously insulting, in general.

          Maybe you have something relevant to say, but so far, all anybody sees is irrelevant and pointless demonstrations of delusional idiocy.

          Do you think this might be because you are a delusional idiot, or just so delusional you look look like an idiot?

          • Willard says:

            Good morning, Mike.

            If kiddo does not check (1.3) he’ll miss something important.

            Not that it matters if he does.

            And I bet you have no idea why.

            Not that it matters much to you.

            You’re a natural, Mike, you never fail to put your foot in your mouth.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy,

            I don’t know who “kiddo” is, for a start.

            Do you think just because you say something is important, anybody should believe you? You are an idiot who just wants other people to waste their time.

            I’m sure “kiddo” doesn’t care what you want him to do. If anything was truly important, no doubt you would waste your own time cutting and pasting this “important” thing.

            You say it doesn’t matter whether he dances to your tune or not. Your “important” bleating is immaterial, then, as you say yourself. You are right, it matters nought to me. Why should it?

            Waste your time whining, Wee Willy. Calling people “kiddo”, Mike, Charlie, Jan – you live in a fantasy world where you create your own reality. Just another alarmist idiot, trying to waste peoples’ time, so that you can feel important.

            Give it your best shot Wee Willy Waster. See how you get on!

          • Swenson says:

            Woeful Wee Willy,

            In what strange fantasy do you think I can be bothered following your inane and irrelevant links?

            You demanded “Start here”.

            No.

          • Willard says:

            You’re stuck in a loop, Mike:

            [L1] Make me a sammich!

            [L2] Do you think I care about your sammich?

            Something tells me that loop cannot be felicitous.

            But who knows?

            Keep trying!

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Bindidon says:

        DREMT

        I had a link to Smith’s answer to Kramm, but unfortunately I can’t find it back; probably I didn’t sync Firefox often enough years ago.

        There is a long discussion in

        http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Doch.pdf

        about Kramm’s mistakes in his evaluation of Smith’s work, but it is in German.

        J.-P. D.

  48. Ken Gregory says:

    Digitizing the chart of trends, the average trend of the climate models is 0.272 °C/decade. The trend of the measurements (ERSSTv5) is 0.116 °C/decade. The model trend average is 2.34 times the ERSSTv5 trend.

  49. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Willard,

    Nate posted a comment above claiming Dr. Spencer’s trend was wrong, IOW, in the middle of the pack of model predictions and not at the 6th level on Dr. S’ Fig. 2. Nate showed a Wood-for-Trees plot of HadSST3 data from 1978 through 2020 which I estimate comes out to 0.14 K/decade. That is exactly where Dr. Spencer has it.

    You and Nate are welcome to change the goal posts and use 1988 as the start date instead of 1978. Complain about it on a post at ATTP if you want. Knock yourself out. It won’t change anything.

  50. Swenson says:

    Whining Wee Willy wrote –

    “Youre stuck in a loop, Mike:

    [L1] Make me a sammich!

    [L2] Do you think I care about your sammich?

    Something tells me that loop cannot be felicitous.

    But who knows?

    Keep trying!”

    Maybe someone knows what this idiocy is supposed to mean. Too cryptic for me. Sammiches? Mike?

    • Willard says:

      “Mike” refers to you, Mike.

      “Sammich” refers to a meme:

      https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/make-me-a-sandwich

      Oh, right, you won’t click!

      How will I ever be able to live without you informing yourself about the stuff about which you play dumb?

      I may never!

      Ho! Ho! Ho!

      • Swenson says:

        Writhing Wee Willy,

        Memes? Why do you bother? Why should I waste my time clicking on something you are too reluctant or lazy to explain?

        Why should I inform myself about something which I have to reason at all to believe will benefit me? Because you think i should?

        Ho, ho, ho! Even you aren’t that thick, are you? Or maybe you are!

        Whether you live or die is of no consequence to me. That is your decision.

        Let me know what you decide.

        • Willard says:

          Mike, Mike

          You say:

          “Why should I inform myself about something which I have to reason at all to believe will benefit me? Because you think i should?”

          I agree with you:

          You don’t have to reason at all.

          In fact you never do.

          Why would anyone here expect that you reason?

          Please rest assured that your inability to reason won’t make me spoon feeding you.

          Enjoy your afternoon,

          • Swenson says:

            Oh dear! I made a typographical error! Shocking!

            Of course, I meant “no reason at all” rather than “to reason at all”.

            Apologies to everyone who didn’t understand what I meant. This includes idiots. I am not biased.

          • Willard says:

            > Apologies to everyone who didnt understand what I meant.

            Did you mean anything, Mike?

            It does not matter.

            What matters is that you mean well.

            Joy!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

  51. barry says:

    Dr Spencer, could you tell us the precise source for the CMIP6 models in your graphs? Is it SSTs or air temperatures?

  52. Ken says:

    It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.

    This is the message that needs to get out wide and far.

    • barry says:

      Messaging – I’d like to know how accurate Dr Spencer’s graphs are. If his blog has any influence at all in the wider world, then maybe it does matter. If not, it’s an academic exercise.

      By now most qualified AGW skeptics, including Dr Spencer, agree that more CO2 = more warming, so even if the warming is slower, that just moves the risk forther down the road. As the messaging from critics seems to be to do nothing about it, then perhaps the messaging on “climate crisis” is seen by proponents as necessary to counter this do-nothing view, as well as the knowledge that 3 decades of calling for emissions reductions has barely moved the needle on the global scale.

      • Clint R says:

        barry, you are still clinging to the 3 decades of anti-science.

        There is no “climate crisis”. The alarmism is all a false religion. It ain’t science.

        Radiative gases in the atmosphere help to cool Earth. Earth’s oceans and atmosphere respond to the laws of thermodynamics to maintain Earth’s temperature. Moon receives approximately the same solar energy as Earth, but because it has no oceans or atmosphere, it’s temperature range is drastic — from about 100K to 400K! (-173C to 127C, -280F to 260F).

        (I always like to leave a crumb so the trolls can trap themselves. Let’s see how many get trapped.)

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        “…perhaps the messaging on ‘climate crisis’ is seen by proponents as necessary to counter [skeptics’] do-nothing view….”

        Or perhaps climate-crisis proponents are making things worse because of a burn-now-pay-later effect:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/23/8669091/

        “We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier ‘burn now, pay later’ approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future.”

        • Willard says:

          That’s a very good point against the Lomborg collective and other cornucopians, Chic!

          Since most Climateball players I know have made the same point over and over again for more than a decade, I might be biased.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Willard, please stop trolling.

  53. Swenson says:

    Wrathful Wee Willy wrote –

    “Roy’s point is that “computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years,” Clint.

    That’s only true of Roy’s pet dataset.

    No, make that the new version of Roy’s pet dataset.

    Or is it the new Beta version of Roy’s pet dataset?

    Why Sky Dragons applaud a lowballing effort that only confirms AGW is left as an exercise to the reader.”

    Why don’t you like “Roy’s pet dataset”?

    Is it a different colour from someone else’s “pet dataset”, perhaps? You sound a little upset, Wee Willy. Why don’t you try demanding that someone clicks on one of your irrelevant links – to a blog run by a fantasist alarmist, possibly?

    Or have a go at attempting a gratuitous insult or two. I know your cunning plan is to get banned, and then you can whine about being persecuted. Trying to emulate the delusionally psychotic Michael Mann, are you? Poor diddums. Are you going to print yourself a Nobel Prize certificate too?

    Don’t be concerned, Wee Willy. Nobody really cares what an anonymous idiot does.

    • barry says:

      “Why don’t you like ‘Roy’s pet dataset’?”

      There is doubt that it is what it purports to be. Dr Spencer has provided no clear source, just labels.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        Maybe you could try complaining to Witless Wee Willy. One anonymous whiner, grumbling to another. Someone might care. Not me. I don’t care about your “doubts”. I doubt you have anything to back them up. If you did, you would gleefully let everybody know, wouldn’t you?

        What does “it” purport to be?

        • Mark B says:

          It purports to be a “like to like” comparison.

          In previous analyses of this sort, Dr Spencer has sourced model data results from KNMI Climate Explorer and likely did the same this time. However, Climate Explorer does not have sea surface temperature data for CMIP6 model runs. It’s likely that he’s shown a comparison of measured sea surface temperature with 2m air temperature (TAS) from the modeling.

          The warming trend of the 2m air temperature is known to be significantly higher than the sea surface temperature. Reference Cowtan etal 2015: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL064888

          While I wouldn’t expect the average schmuck to know or care about this sort of thing, it’s disturbing when that’s the case for someone like Dr Spencer who is recognized as an expert on earth temperature time series.

          To be very blunt this is the sort of thing that damages one’s credibility as a topic authority.

          • bdgwx says:

            That’s a great paper. They are saying you should use the following formula.

            Tblend = w*Tair + (1-w)*Tocean

            Where Tair is the “tas” field, Tocean is the “tos” field and w is a weighting parameter derived from the “sic” and “sftof” fields.

            You then compare Tblend with the global mean surface temperature datasets. Further adjustments to Tblend must be considered on a specific basis depending on which GMST dataset is used for comparison. They use Had.CRUTv4 as an example.

          • Swenson says:

            M,

            So model outputs don’t match observations. Who’d have suspected?

            From the paper’s extract –

            “While the Earth system continues to accumulate energy due to anthropogenic and other radiative forcings, . . .”

            Complete nonsense. The Earth system is not closed. It has, in fact, cooled.

            From the paper’s conclusion –

            “Finally, we emphasize that robust comparisons of observations and models require a like‐with‐like approach and encourage further development of appropriate diagnostics from model simulations to facilitate such comparisons.”

            Comparing a model to an observation is “like-with-like”? Complete nonsense.

            Reread the paper.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • barry says:

          “Maybe you could try complaining to Witless Wee Willy”

          I went one better and asked Roy what the dataset was exactly.

          “Someone might care. Not me.”

          Yes, ‘skeptics’ approve of and call for auditing mainstream data and results, but are uninterested when the data and results come from like-minded people with results they like.

          One more reason why I put the word ‘skeptics’ in quotes when speaking of that milieu.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            Did Dr Spencer bother responding?

            As to unbelievers in the indescribable Greenhouse Effect (you refer to them as ‘skeptics’), try describing the Greenhouse Effect – when and where it may be observed and measured, what parts of the effect are novel (to justify a new scientific effect being accepted), and what independent experiments have been performed to verify that the proposed effect does, in fact, exist.

            Don’t expect me to believe in something you cannot even describe. That is the province of faith, not science. Climatology seems to have more in common with Scientology than Astrology or Phrenology.

          • barry says:

            “Did Dr Spencer bother responding?”

            Nope. No way we can replicate the work because we don’t know the data he used.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      “I know your cunning plan is to get banned….”

      That thought occurred to me as well.

  54. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Hoping we get to Eemian levels of natural variability before the ice age sets in. Does anyone think aco2 will prevent the ice age and if so how much do we need to emit to stop it? Shouldn’t we get started?

    • Entropic man says:

      Darwin Wyatt

      The descent into the next glacial period started 5000 years ago.

      http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg

      Then the Industrial Revolution began and turned a cooling into a warming trend.

      We were cooling at 0.02C/century. Now we’re warming at 2C/century.

      That Eemian looks quite pleasant if you don’t mind abandoning most of your coastal infrastructure.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

    • bdgwx says:

      We are currently in an interglacial phase of an ice age. 410 ppm is likely to be sufficient to prevent the next glacial advance. It may even be sufficient to melt out the polar ice caps albeit over thousands of years and end the current ice age.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        “…end the current ice age.”

        Of the “interglacial phase of an ice age” we are currently in?

        This makes no sense. Want a do-over?

      • bdgwx says:

        There are still polar ice caps during interglacials. They just don’t extend as far as they do during glacial eras. You will see the term “ice age” used confusingly to describe only the glacial eras of the Quaternary period and the entire Quaternary or Pleistocene Epoch as well. Most literature opts for the later meaning and describes the current 2.5 million year period as one of Earth’s five ice age periods since the polar ice caps have persisted the entire time. So yeah, most accept that we are currently in an ice age since ice is still prevalent. The question is…is 410 ppm enough to end the ice age and begin a new greenhouse period in which there are no ice caps whatsoever?

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          “…we are currently in an ice age since ice is still prevalent.”

          You need another do-over, because ice has been present since over 30 million years ago.

          Moving on, the answer is eschatological. There will never be another ice free age without divine intervention.

          1) There is no solid evidence that more CO2 will continue to raise the global temperature whatever that is.

          2) There isn’t enough fossil fuels to double CO2 because the ocean sink is too effective and can never be saturated.

        • bdgwx says:

          The 5 broadly accepted ice ages are:

          Huronian from 2400 to 2100 MYA
          Cyogenian from 720 to 635 MYA
          Andean-Saharan from 450 to 420 MYA
          Karoo from 360 to 260 MYA
          Quaternary/Pleistocene from 2.5 MYA to present

          There was indeed ice in the SH beginning around 34 MYA as part of the Antarctic glaciation, but the NH resisted until after 3 MYA. That’s why the ice age label typically isn’t applied until the Quaternary era. There are, of course, other ice age candidates and since climate states and transitions are not binary but instead a spectrum there is some liberty in which may or may not constitute an ice age. But broadly speaking and generally accepted is the fact that we are in an ice-age today that began around 2.5 MYA.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Yes, well obviously there’s no one old enough to argue from personal experience. It seems “ice age” is used both to describe eras, which includes the present Cenozoic one beginning about 34 million years BP, and interglacial periods such as the Holsteinian, Eemian, and our current Holocene covering the last 500,000 years BP. Can we agree that this is an interglacial period and the question remains will the “current ice age” disappear for the first time in at least 30 million years? I think not.

          • Clint R says:

            Idiots like bdgwx are clearly impressed by such nonsense as: Huronian, Cyogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo, Quaternary/Pleistocene

            He believes that is “science”. He wants to believe so badly. Anyone can make up names.

            But, beliefs ain’t science.

            To be science, it MUST be verified, tested, repeatable, and of course, not violate the laws o of physics.

            “Consensus” ain’t science.

          • Willard says:

            > Consensus aint science.

            Nice one, Clint:

            https://climateball.net/but-consensus/

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy,

            You like your pointless and irrelevant links, don’t you?

            What’s up? Running out of idiots who want to waste their time visiting your stupid blog?

            Viewer numbers dropping?

            Oh dear, Wee Willy. Maybe you should just go back to playing “silly semantic games” with yourself. Or just play with yourself. That should keep you happy, at least.

            Enjoy.

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            How can you tell if the link is pointless if you don’t click on it?

            I’m not asking you to be coherent, but well, you know, that could help you.

            But you’re your own man!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • bdgwx says:

          Chic said: There is no solid evidence that more CO2 will continue to raise the global temperature whatever that is.

          There is a mountain of evidence that says otherwise. In fact there is so much evidence no one person can comb through it even a lifetime.

          Chic said: There isnt enough fossil fuels to double CO2 because the ocean sink is too effective and can never be saturated.

          There is nearly 800 GtC of proven recoverable fossil fuel reserves. That is nearly 3000 GtCO2 which is equivalent to 380 ppm. Assuming the biosphere and hydrosphere continue to buffer 50% that is an additional 190 ppm increase. We can easily double CO2 with just proven fossil fuel reserves alone and assuming the carbon cycle buffer capacity does not decline. There are significant carbon sources other than fossil fuels though and we expect buffering capacity to get reduced as the hydrosphere warms.

          • Clint R says:

            bdgwx believes: “There is a mountain of evidence that says otherwise.”

            bdgwx, just give ONE “evidence” that CO2 can raise global temperature.

            And “correlation” is NOT “causation” unless you’ve got some physics to support.

          • Willard says:

            Clint,

            Just give ONE “evidence” that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

          • Clint R says:

            Better than meaningless evidence, in the morning I will supply absolute, undeniable PROOF.

            Then, will you leave your cult and worship me?

          • Swenson says:

            Woeful Wee Willy,

            Don’t appear even more stupid than you are. Just give ONE evidence that you are not delusionally psychotic. How hard can it be?

            That has nothing to do with the fact that nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter using CO2, either.

            Just more “silly semantic games” from you?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            “There is a mountain of evidence….”

            No one has ever measured an increase in global temperature due to an incremental rise in CO2. It can’t be done so don’t bother trying.

            “There is nearly 800 GtC….”

            My model says that if both natural and fossil fuel emissions continue at current rates, 800 GtC of fossil fuel will barely get us to 600 ppm of CO2 in the air by 2060.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/59r5517a4cq52ac/Future%20scenarios.xlsx?dl=0

          • Willard says:

            Good morning, Mike.

            Here’s a primer on the point Clint is trying to bypass:

            Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction–that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world. Among Hume scholars it is a matter of debate how seriously Hume means us to take this conclusion and whether causation consists wholly in constant conjunction.

            https://iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

            It is amazing that those who claim they’re skeptics know so little about skepticism!

            Ho! Ho! Ho!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy,

            More “silly semantic games”?

            Another pointless and irrelevant link?

            Who gives a toss about what Hume or anyone else “shows”, unless it can supported by reproducible experiment?

            Keep being amazed! Maybe if you learn something about physics, you won’t find opinions so amazing.

            Facts? That’s a different matter. But you have little regard for fact, so reality doesn’t concern you.

          • Clint R says:

            Wee Willy isn’t even up to the level of Bindidon and Norma. At least they know a little how to fake it.

            Poor Willy has a lot to learn, just to be an idiot troll….

          • Willard says:

            Mike, Clint,

            Your mix of obliviousness and arrogance is very endearing.

            I love you both!

          • gbaikie says:

            –Chic said: There isnt enough fossil fuels to double CO2 because the ocean sink is too effective and can never be saturated.

            There is nearly 800 GtC of proven recoverable fossil fuel reserves. That is nearly 3000 GtCO2 which is equivalent to 380 ppm.–

            It doesn’t mean we will use them. Burning Coal is nearly as stupid as burning wood.
            In hundred years, we could have million people living on Mars.
            If we have 1 million or even 100,000 people living on Mars, that means we are spacefaring civilization.
            It means going to the Moon is like presently going from US to Europe. And going from US to Europe will take about 1 hour.
            Strangely enough, we will probably still use chemical rockets.
            Maybe they will be chemical rocket plus some anti-matter, or simply chemical rockets.
            Using only chemical rocket are lousy way to leave
            Earth, but chemical rockets do have a lot horsepower. And they could be improved in ways other than adding anti-matter. One could have beamed power rocket assist to our ion/chemical rocket. Or something like rail launcher as rocket assist.
            Anyhow, in 100 years, having industry on Earth, could something read in history books.
            From Space it’s quite easy to land on Earth. It’s a lot easier now, to land, then leave- and should become even easier.
            And space is 50 miles up. Getting to space, now, is about 7 mins, getting something from space in future, could be about 5 mins. So, it’s not 1 day, delivery, it’s less than hour. Pizza, might be 5 mins.
            We do have to go to space, end of all industry. It could be “all” 3 d printed. But aspect of space is like all exploration in Human history- we find out stuff we don’t know.
            You can’t predict it. But being spacefaring civilization will make a lot of things, different.

          • Entropic man says:

            I look forward to it, but there’s a time limit. Our resources are depleting and at some point we will need what the solar system can provide, but be unable to get out of our own gravity well.

            Rather like the man stuck at the bottom of a hole because he burned the ladder as firewood.

            How long have we got? It took 190 years from Jamestown for America to become self-sufficient. On that basis we have until 2210 if the resources and environment allow. Better start now.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes Ent, it is a gloomy future for idiots. Those of us that can deal with reality will do just fine, as always.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: No one has ever measured an increase in global temperature due to an incremental rise in CO2. It can’t be done so don’t bother trying.

            Patently False. Just because you are unfamiliar with efforts in this respect doesn’t mean that it hasn’t or can’t be done.

            Furthermore, can you imagine what state science would be in today if scientists had said “Meh…it can’t be done. Don’t bother trying.” instead of “Wow…that is interesting. Let’s try to figure out what’s going on here.”

            Chic said: My model says that if both natural and fossil fuel emissions continue at current rates, 800 GtC of fossil fuel will barely get us to 600 ppm of CO2 in the air by 2060.

            All it takes is 560 ppm to double CO2 from the preindustrial era.

          • Clint R says:

            bdgwx, you keep mentioning that “mountain of evidence”, but so far it’s just an empty hole.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            “Patently False.”

            Well then, out of a mountain of evidence, you should be able to come up with at least one controlled experiment where a specific increase in atmospheric CO2 caused a definitive change in global temperature.

            Let me save you some trouble. You can’t add an experimentally controlled increase in CO2 and accurately measure the resultant change in temperature. It’s impossible to do that experiment, because there will always be too many uncontrolled variables. For you to imagine there is a way to do it is laughable.

            Your mountain of evidence probably includes all the theoretical, proxy, and multiple lines of evidence stuff that has you believing in AGW. How about this. Pick a reference that most convincingly proves to you that further increases in CO2 will lead to indefinitely increasing global temperature. Post it in a new thread and let’s discuss.

          • Willard says:

            > out of a mountain of evidence, you should be able to come up with at least one controlled experiment

            Y tho.

          • Clint R says:

            Willard attempts to fill the empty hole with garbage. He doesn’t understand that a natural warming trend is only evidence of a natural warming trend.

          • Willard says:

            > garbage

            Show me, Clint.

            You asked for a sammich. You got served.

            Don’t make me compel you to eat it.

          • Clint R says:

            Willard doesn’t even try to fake a knowledge of physics. He just keeps throwing his garbage in the hole.

            As much as he trolls, he’ll be able to fill it up soon.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            We are running the experiment right now on a planetary scale. Scientists have developed techniques for controlling variables in this experiment. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it good enough to draw conclusions with confidence? Definitely.

            And the results of the experiment makes sense from a theoretical perspective as well. This includes almost 200 years of scientific progress in fields including but not limited to thermodynamics, molecular physics, quantum mechanics, carbon cycle, water cycle, volcanic, solar/stellar evolution, continental drift, orbital, biological, geological etc. This is definitely a substantial fraction of that mountain of evidence. All comes together to provide a picture of reality. And as science continues to progress that picture comes into sharper focus.

            Don’t conflate your rejection of this evidence with claims that it does not exist.

          • Clint R says:

            bdgwx, you aren’t running any experiment. You are practicing your false religion.

            You don’t have a “mountain of evidence”. You’ve got a mountain of words.

            You are anti-science.

          • Willard says:

            > You are anti-science.

            That’s a great argument you got there, Clint.

            What evidence would convince you?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            “We….”

            I am having nothing to do with your illusion of trying to prove causation by correlation. Give it up.

            It’s impossible to control for all climate variables no matter how much science progresses. You cannot control for clouds no matter how much better you can measure them, let alone solar output. You have no ability to differentiate between human and natural emissions.

            Continental drift? Good grief, Charlie Brown. What does that have to do with AGW?

            “Don’t conflate your rejection of this evidence….”

            What evidence? Did you post something I can reject?

          • Clint R says:

            Willard keeps trying the same schtick.

            He attempts to fill the empty hole with garbage. He doesn’t understand that a natural warming trend is only evidence of a natural warming trend.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Entropic man says:
            April 28, 2021 at 4:32 AM
            I look forward to it, but there’s a time limit. Our resources are depleting and at some point we will need what the solar system can provide, but be unable to get out of our own gravity well.–

            Well, good news we can always get off Earth if getting off Earth was a serious problem. As we use Nuclear Orion, which technically are great, but politically very difficult.
            Or we have to go back to nuclear explosion in our atmosphere- and a lot more of them.

            There is the big government type thing {which never works well and with all kinds of oppression] Or the there is market solution. The market solution is already happening. We have global satellite market which is about 300 billion per year, and in couple decades be more than 1 trillion.
            If NASA explores the moon {and they way behind schedule- by a couple decades} And if there is mineable lunar water. Then that adds to the growing “space market”. There also the sub-orbital market {which crawling towards “some” progress}.
            And is Mars [which like the Moon, should explored, first, by NASA
            but maybe NASA will simply not do it’s job. And Mars will be explored like other places which have explored- lots of people die, trying to explore a dangerous environment.
            If Moon doesn’t have mineable water, and if living on Mars isn’t possible, yet. It will just take longer to become a spacefaring civilization. Venus is habitable. Problem is it’s got same gravity as Earth- hard to get into orbit. But if low gravity of Mars is a factor, in not making Mars livable. Then Venus is only alternative. Being in Venus orbit is better than Earth orbit- much easier to go to Mars or outer planets from Venus orbit. But I talking about living in Venus sky as the Mars alternative.
            The problem with L-5 is food production- which Mars could solve- if people can live there.
            Of course, one probably want to Nuclear Orions if living in the sky of Venus. But it seems we could have Mars settlements- assuming alien life is not problem.

          • Willard says:

            > He doesn’t understand that a natural warming trend is only evidence of a natural warming trend.

            Clint has a knack for question-begging proofs by assertion.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            We are running the experiment right now on a planetary scale. Scientists have developed techniques for controlling variables in this experiment. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it good enough to draw conclusions with confidence? Definitely.
            ——————-

            Not conclusions on climate obviously. While research into atmospheric phenomena is greatly improving such as in hurricane prediction. One can’t point to anything climate related that actually gives us a good picture of what climate will look like in a hundred years.

            And some of those people making progress on those atmospheric processes and running private companies successfully aiding businesses are pointing out that the climate IPCC process while gathering excellent information is not responding to it at the upper echelons of long term climate predictions.

            Now thats a fact man!

          • Nate says:

            “One cant point to anything climate related that actually gives us a good picture of what climate will look like in a hundred years.”

            Of course 100 is hard when you don’t know what human’s will emit in the interim.

            But we have done pretty well with 40 y. Hansen’s 1981 projected warming and its global distribution, has proved quite accurate.

  55. Swenson says:

    Witless Wee Willy,

    You wrote –

    “Roy is whining like an old man who never made money in his life. But you are supposed to made some. Contrarian investing is still investing, you know.

    I told you about the silly semantic games.”

    You didn’t tell anybody you about the random incoherent and meaningless comments you were going to make, did you? Or are you claiming they are brilliant examples of your silly semantic games?

    Have you thought about learning physics? You are clearly not very adept at trolling, or clear English expression. You can probably find a picture book called “Physics for Idiots”.

    Let me know if you need any help.

  56. Sigmund Hanslien says:

    “Stephen` Paul Anderson says:
    April 25, 2021 at 2:35 PM
    Who here besides Sigi believes climate models are physics? Raise your hands, please.”

    Who in this world would listen to you? Even Sidney Powell says you are not a reasonabe person.

    “Pro-Trump lawyer says no reasonable person would believe her election lies”.

    There are plenty of example on this blog that Stephen really believed these lies.

  57. Bindidon says:

    No, there is no CAGW visible to me anywhere.

    Climate emergency? No se. Only real experts should IMHO debate about it.

    *
    But when people like OWilson write upthread:

    There is no statistically significant warming anomaly over the NOAA 42 year record. (see below).

    Likewise GLOBAL ice cap extent is where it was back in 1980…

    that is really either ignorant or dishonest… or both.

    *
    bdgwx replied to this already.

    *
    My guess: climate data hyperexpert OWilson looked at NOAA for CONUS instead of selecting global data.

    *
    And concerning Global sea ice, I just add here a little sea ice picture of monthly absolute extent values for Arctic + Antarctic since 1979:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxoDtocaaq5K-mqPwfYrPBzR4GufaEyE/view

    Source: NSID-C data, stored at colorado.edu:

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/

    Linear estimate for 1979-2021:

    -0.48 ± 0.10 Mkm^2 / decade

    For anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010, the trend is the same; only the standard error (± 0.03) is somewhat lower, due to the removal of the annual cycle.

    The trend line looks as if I had drawn by hand a line from 24 Mkm^2 down to 22 Mkm^2. But… I didn’t.

    My guess: climate data hyperexpert OWilson compared March 2021 with March 1980: 19.09 Mkm^2 vs. 19.33 Mkm^2.

    An excellent idea.

    J.-P. D.

    • OWilson says:

      Your chart of Global Sea Ice is not up to date.

      Care to tell us what has happened in the last 2 years?

      Hint. Global Ice Extent grew substantially.

      • bdgwx says:

        The chart is up to date. It is valid through March 2021.

        And as of April 27, 2021 the daily global sea ice extent has a z-score of -0.7 wrt to the 1981-2010 average so it is still below average. It has remained in negative territory since mid-2015.

        Keep in mind that the IPCC predicts that SH sea ice extent should increase slightly through at least 2030 and possibly even through 2050. It is the NH sea ice extent that is taking a big hit and dragging global sea ice extents down.

        • OWilson says:

          We have 2 Poles. (OWilson) Lol

          Arctic Ice has increased since 2005 (NSDIC)

          UN “predictions”?

          Lol

          • bdgwx says:

            owilson said: We have 2 Poles. (OWilson) Lol

            Duh. SH is expected to slightly increase over the next few decades. NH is expected to continue to decrease over the next few decades.

            owilson said: Arctic Ice has increased since 2005 (NSDIC)

            Nope. It decreased.

            The 1979-2020 mean is 11.78e6 km^2 with an SD of 0.7.

            The 2005 mean is 10.91e6 km^2.

            The 2020 mean is 10.16e6 km^2. This is a new record low.

            The 5yr centered mean in 2005 is 10.96e6 km^2.

            The 5yr centered mean in 2018 is 10.25e6 km^2.

            The 2005-2020 trend is -0.40e6 km^2/decade.

  58. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Steven Koonin’s new book “Unsettled? What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters” is reviewed at WUWT and addresses several issues related to this post.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/26/unsettled-steven-koonins-new-book/

    “The earth has warmed during the past century, partly because of natural phenomena and partly in response to growing human influences. These human influences (most importantly the accumulation of CO2 from burning fossil fuels) exert a physically small effect on the complex climate system. Unfortunately, our limited observations and understanding are insufficient to usefully quantify either how the climate will respond to human influences or how it varies naturally. However, even as human influences have increased fivefold since 1950 and the globe has warmed modestly, most severe weather phenomena remain within past variability. Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose.”

    • Willard says:

      I do think it’s unfortunate when physicists live up to the stereotype. I’m not a fan of suggesting that researchers should stay in their own lane, but I do think the lone genius who overturns a well-accepted paradigm is a rarity. There’s, of course, nothing wrong with challenging our current understanding, but continually repeating well-debunked talking points is not the ideal way to do so. I also think that if you have the kind of profile that allows you to be promoted in the mainstream media, you should be cautious about the views that you promote.

      I was thinking that I would rebut some of what Koonin says in the Wall Street Journal article, but realised that I’d mostly done so in this post, and that Gavin has been even more thorough in this Realclimate post. I’m not really sure what else to say, other than be cautious of accepting the views of (retired) physicists who think they’ve uncovered some truths that have been missed by a large number of experts in another field.

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/18/did-a-physicist-become-a-climate-truth-teller/#comment-190446

      • Swenson says:

        Wayward Wee Willy,

        More links to your favourite idiot? You really should figure out a way to disguise the link, you know.

        I believe Ken Rice is the Director of Communications at a university, and a fanatical climate cultist.

        Claims to be a believer in polite discourse, but has been known to tell commenters to “fuck off” if he doesn’t like them. Not a very mature attitude – either cannot control himself, or just vituperative and idiotic. Much like yourself, I suppose.

        Or are you Ken Rice using a pseudonym? That would make sense – hunting for new converts to the climate cult! Their numbers seem to be dwindling.

        Good luck with that!

        • Willard says:

          Mike,

          It would take minutes to anyone with auditing skillz to realize that I’m not AT, and that AT is in fact an astrophysicist.

          You’re not alone in being so ridiculously slow, for Joe does not even seem to have realized it yet!

          Keep on the good work!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy,

            More attempts at obfuscation? Who is AT? I assume that AT is another pseudonym for Ken Rice. I didn’t say you were Ken Rice. I asked if you were Ken Rice. If you say you are not (and I note you haven’t), then I believe you. What has auditing to do with anything?

            As to AT being an astrophysicist, who cares? That’s a fairly stupid and pointless statement. Is there supposed to be some relevance?

            Who is Joe? Does he join the list of AT, Charlie, Mike, Jan, kiddo, and all the rest of your obscure and enigmatic attempts to appear sophisticated?

            How are your “silly semantic games” working out for you? Not too well, in the face of fact, I assume.

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            Quick question:

            Are you still in Darwin?

            I have a friend who does not live far from there.

            I’m sure he’d like you.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy,

            You have a friend? Another denialist idiot?

            Do you sit around playing with other, or do you just play with yourselves?

            Eeeeew!

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            Why should I tell you?

            Go off, King.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Entropic man says:

      https://xkcd.com/793/

      “The earth has warmed during the past century, partly because of natural phenomena and partly in response to growing human influences. ”

      What natural phenomena? Apart from increased CO2 and changing land use, all the natural phenomena are neutral or forcing slow cooling?

      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      • Swenson says:

        E,

        The world has not warmed. This is just more cultist distortion. Thermometers in various places indicate variations in the heat they are exposed to.

        However the “world”, in the sense of the planet Earth, is a > 99% molten blob, suspended in space, is most definitely cooling.

        What cultists are implying is that heat generated by people does not register on thermometers, but CO2 generated by those same people does, in some magical fashion.

        Nobody has ever managed to demonstrate that CO2 can cause thermometers to show higher readings! All fantasy and wishful thinking!

        Even Wee Willy Weasel’s “silly semantic games” can’t turn fantasy into fact. Yours stand no chance.

      • Willard says:

        Mike,

        You write:

        “Thermometers in various places indicate variations in the heat they are exposed to.”

        MIND. BLOWN.

        Let’s celebrate that there is a place like Roy’s to learn REAL science!

        Thank you, Sir!

        • Swenson says:

          E,

          You are most welcome. Lots of cultist deniers refuse to believe that thermometers measure temperature. They are thick enough to believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, and that temperatures are strictly proportional to W/m2!

          You won’t be that stupid again, will you?

          You don’t need to thank me. My pleasure.

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            I have never met anyone who disputed that that thermometers measure temperature.

            Like, duh.

            That has no bearing on the fact that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.

            Which is also a big duh, but for different reasons.

            Reasons that still escape you.

            Or not. It’s hard to tell, for “reason” and “Mike Flynn” seldom go hand in hand in a sentence.

            However, keep on the science lessons!

          • Swenson says:

            Oh so scientific Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “That has no bearing on the fact that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.”

            The fact is that CO2 does not make thermometers hotter! Are you a fool or a fraud?

            All your “silly semantic games” involving the usual cultist “duh”, and “big duh” come to naught in the face of fact. You can’t name these “reasons”, can you?

            Try some inane appeals to non-authority, or post a link to something which turns out to be quite irrelevant.

            The cultist idiots like yourself can’t even describe this “Greenhouse Effect” in any useful way. Apparently, it has nothing to do with greenhouses, and doesn’t seem to have any observable scientific effect. Depending on the cultist, it has something to do with CO2, carbon, pollution, or some magical property which has never been scientifically examined.

            Carry on being a denials idiot, Witless Wee Willy.

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            You say –

            “The fact is that CO2 does not make thermometers hotter!”

            Do you think that negative facts exist?

            Take your time before responding, for your answer carries ontological commitments that you may not want.

            Do you really think I would not notice that you’re trying to sell a negative fact?

            I told you I could hold my own at silly semantic games.

            You can’t say you were not warned!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Weasel,

            I’m sure you can hold your own. I assume you do it frequently.

            Feel free to keep playing your “silly semantic games”. It doesn’t change the fact that CO2 does not make thermometers hotter.

            If you don’t agree, you could say so. But you won’t, because you’re an idiot.

            As to warnings – warn away, idiot. Warnings from impotent, powerless idiots are worth what I pay for them – nothing. Who would willingly pay for advice from an idiot? Another idiot? Not me.

          • Willard says:

            Mike,

            Since you insist:

            “It doesn’t change the fact that CO2 does not make thermometers hotter.”

            How do you know this fact?

            Many thanks!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Witless Willy,

            Why should I tell you? Go off and play your “silly semantic games” with yourself.

            Or just play with yourself, if you prefer. I don’t much care, either way.

          • Willard says:

            Thank you for that splendid response, Mike.

            Every time you’ll ask me something I will remember it.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “Every time you’ll ask me something I will remember it.” Good for you.

            The chances of me asking you anything further are remote. I’ll try not to strain your memory too much. It doesn’t seem to be capable of holding much.

            Have you retained the difference between Charles and Joseph Fourier? Can you remember that Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, or that Michael Mann is not a Nobel Laureate?

            If anybody is paying you to remember things, they are are even more stupid than you.

            Remember that, if you wish.

          • Willard says:

            > The chances of me asking you anything further are remote.

            Is that a promise, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Woebegone Wee Willy,

            You really are a slow learner, aren’t you? I’ll repeat what I said before –

            Why should I tell you? Go off and play your “silly semantic games” with yourself.

            Or just play with yourself, if you prefer. I don’t much care, either way.

  59. Bindidon says:

    Chic Bowdrie

    Somewhere upthread, you were asking me

    … do you think the increasing trend in global hot days is a climate emergency?

    *
    I gave you a honest answer, starting with

    No idea.

    If I had been working in meteorology during the last 40 years, sure I would answer differently.

    and ending with

    Between climate data processing and drawing appropriate conclusions out of it, there is some gap I can’t fill” .

    *
    Your reply

    On many (most/nearly all?) climate science issues, this must be true for all of us if truly honest with ourselves.

    is far less honest, as you unduly misused my comment, by implicitly extrapolating general lack of knowledge and experience inside of the climate science, out of a lack of knowledge and experience, explicitly formulated by an engineer who never was involved in climate affairs.

    That, Chick Bowdrie, I did not appreciate at all.

    J.-P. D.

  60. ren says:

    Isn’t the Earth’s obliquity of the ecliptic and the occurrence of perihelion in January the cause of higher ocean temperatures in the north ?
    Earth’s obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. Based on a continuously updated formula (here Laskar, 1986, though since 2006 the IMCCE and the IAU recommend the P03 model), Earth’s mean obliquity (without taking into account the nutation in obliquity) is currently about 23°26′11.5″ (or 23.43652°) and decreasing; according to P03 astronomical model, its value (without taking into account the nutation in obliquity) was 23° 26′ 11,570″ (23.4365472133°) on January 1st 2021, 0 TT.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt#Short_term
    https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600×337/sun-distances.png?1

  61. Bindidon says:

    Wooooah!

    Imminent Grrrand Coooling ahead!

    Germany will very certainly have had this year its coldest April since… 1980.

    J.-P. D.

  62. PhilJ says:

    Models based on a funamentally flawed assumption are doomed to always be imprecise,
    No matter how many ‘epicycles’ are added

    • Swenson says:

      P,

      Ah, yes, but as a climatologist would say “If my epicycle had two extra wheels, it would be a tricycle!”

      If you complained that an epicycle was not a mode of transportation, they would just redefine it to be such.

      Just like slower cooling becomes warming!

    • bdgwx says:

      And yet somehow CMIP6 predicted a warming rate of +0.07C/decade for 1880-2020 and we observed +0.07C/decade. Furthermore, there have been 2-sigma excursions since 1929. We should have expected 4 of them. We got none. CMIP6 is performing better than expected. That is pretty remarkable for a model “based on a fundamentally flawed assumption”.

  63. ren says:

    It promises to be a very cold start to May in western Europe.
    https://i.ibb.co/s1bnkqs/hgt300.png
    https://i.ibb.co/BqYnffG/hgt300-1.png

  64. ren says:

    In three days, Arctic air will strike again in the Midwest.
    https://i.ibb.co/TLV0RT0/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f084.png

  65. Alejandro Rodríguez says:

    Dear Dr. Spencer:

    One piece of data I miss is the date when all these models were run. It would help to get a complete picture.

    Thank you for all the work you do to keep people well informed.

    • Entropic man says:

      For all matters CMIP6, this is probably your best starting point.

      https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/CMIP6/

      • Alejandro says:

        So I must understand that in a report dated in 2019… the projections are that far from reality?

        • bdgwx says:

          No. The CMIP6 projections are not that far off. Dr. Spencer’s graph is combination of being misleading and olain wrong. It is misleading because 50 of the 68 members come from a single model that is known to run hot. It is plain wrong because the model projections are far 2m T (tas field) and the observations are SST (tos field). To illustrate the problem look at the CMIP5 tas and tos projections vs observations.

          https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2021/04/ersst.png

          Also, check out Dr. Hausfather’s article on CMIP6. There he correctly compares both CMIP5 and CMIP6 model projections to observations.

          https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained

          • Alejandro says:

            Anyway, for me to accept that models can predict anything, I need to compare the results of those models run at a certain point of time with the actual temperatures measured after that model run… and nobody is showing that.

          • bdgwx says:

            That is literally what is being shown in both links I provided.

          • Alejandro says:

            I still cannot see when the models were run. If they could not predict 10 years ago what it is happening now… what good are they to predict about the next 100 years?

          • bdgwx says:

            They start with the state of the climate system in 1880 and project forward into the future. For example, CMIP5 and CMIP6 predictions for the global mean surface temperature in 2020 was 1.25C and 1.31C. The observation was 1.19C. That is not 10 year, but a 140 year prediction.

            But from the context of your question I think what you are wanting to know is how well did a model developed in the past perform compared to observations today. Hausfather 2019 (https://tinyurl.com/rc7px28f) has a summary of how well models from the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s performed. Summary…they did really well and the bulk of the differences were attributed not to inadequate physics, but to inadequate assumptions regarding the inputs (like human behavior). It turns out that the physics in our models from decades ago are really good, but that our modelers were bad at guessing how humans would behave (think emissions). And these models are primitive by today’s standards.

            The short answer to your second question is that we should expect model skill over the next 140 years to be similar to how they performed over the previous 140 years for a given scenario. The trick is figuring out what scenario will play out in the future. That’s why all forecasts are scenario based. Ya know…it is an “if this then that” will happen projection. CMIP5 and CMIP6 both provide various scenarios that can be analyzed.

          • Alejandro says:

            Projections for 140 years? Nobody was running models 140 years ago and we are assumedly emitting CO2 in unprecedented quantities is it that difficult to answer to the the question: when were those model results obtained? Not that hard!

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Alejandro at 1:09 PM

            I still cannot see when the models were run. If they could not predict 10 years ago what it is happening now… what good are they to predict about the next 100 years?

            Reply

            Exxon did a hell of job predicting temperature anomaly and CO2 concentration 40 years ago so some models are definitely useful.

          • bdgwx says:

            Alejandro said: Projections for 140 years? Nobody was running models 140 years ago

            It doesn’t matter. The model doesn’t know when it was run. It only knows about the initial conditions and the inputs that are fed into it. The model has no idea which dates are past, present, or future. It just makes projections all the same. When projections are ran from a past date to a present date we call that hind-casting. When projections are ran from a present date to a future date we call that fore-casting. But the model knows nothing about this distinction or whether it is hind-casting or fore-casting. In other words, had CMIP5 been developed and ran in 1880 with 1880 initial conditions it would have projected the 2020 annual global mean surface temperature to be 1.24C. This is true regardless of whether it was ran in 1880, 1950, or 2020. As long as it is initialized with the same 1880 initial conditions at the start it will produce the same result every time.

  66. Entropic man says:

    For a general overview

    https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-overview

    For all detailed matters CMIP6, this is probably your best starting point.

    https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/CMIP6/

  67. CO2isLife says:

    In science if you are 2 or 3 std deviations outside the mean, you reject the null. I only see 1 out of 68 models being in the ball park. That to me is a rejection of the null that CO2 is causing warming. Also, what is the standard deviation and mean of all those models? Dr. Spencer will you produce a mean chart with a standard deviation band so we can see how far from the mean the actual values are?

  68. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Entropic man April 28, 2021 at 4:32 AM
    I look forward to it, but there’s a time limit. Our resources are depleting and at some point we will need what the solar system can provide, but be unable to get out of our own gravity well.
    Rather like the man stuck at the bottom of a hole because he burned the ladder as firewood.
    How long have we got? It took 190 years from Jamestown for America to become self-sufficient. On that basis we have until 2210 if the resources and environment allow. Better start now.

    Reply

    The [rhetorical] question then is, is it ethical for us to saddle future generations with solving problems we created and, further still, consumed the resources needed for solving them?

    The obvious answer is of course no.

    Though woefully late we are working on solutions using all available technology options. Yes, including space: the LUNA RING.

    The denialists’ are akin to the man that blows out the candle and then curses the darkness.

  69. Entropic man says:

    Testing

  70. Entropic man says:

    Blame dis*count*ing.

  71. CO2isLife says:

    Global Temperatures are back to the level of 1983. There has literally been no warming since 1983. How many models predicted temperatures would be flat over the past 38 years? CO2 in 1983 was 343 ppm, today it is 415 ppm. Also, CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ won’t warm water and the oceans are warming. Visible radiation warms the oceans.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2021_v6.jpg

    • Entropic man says:

      ” LWIR between 13 and 18 wont warm water ”

      I’ve never understood that. Water is almost opaque to LWIR. It is absorbed in the first millimetre of the surface film.

      If that absorbed energy does not warm the water, what does it warm?

    • bdgwx says:

      CO2isLife said: There has literally been no warming since 1983.

      Patently False. Per UAH-TLT the warming trend from Mar 1983 to Mar 2021 is +0.1442C/decade +/- 0.0078. This represents a warming of 0.55C +/- 0.06 (2-sigma).

      CO2isLife said: Also, CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 wont warm water and the oceans are warming. Visible radiation warms the oceans.

      Patently False. Water greedily takes up LWIR and is warmed by it. That’s why IR lamps are used ubiquitously in the restaurant industry to keep food warm. Interestingly they don’t use visible light for this purpose.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, if you knew any physics, you would understand how ridiculous your “food warming example” was.

        Hint: Check the emitting temperature of the bulb.

        Or, try warming food with ice — lots of ice….

        • Willard says:

          > Check the emitting temperature of the bulb

          By serendipity, Clint, here’s a link a commenter at AT’s provided today:

          You should really quit while you can Joe, you are making a fool of yourself when you make such claims that are so easily disproven. Anthony

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/new-wuwt-tv-segment-slaying-the-slayers-with-watts/

          https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190549

          Back in my days, a flashlight was enough to scare a Sky Dragon.

          • Clint R says:

            More links that have nothing to do with the issue?

            ATTP = And Then There’s Perversion.

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            Why would anybody follow an old link to WUWT, or a link from any date to Ken Rice?

            Rhetorical question of course. No need to answer.

            You are a delusional idiot.

          • Willard says:

            Good morning, Mike.

            Yesterday you said:

            “The chances of me asking you anything further are remote.”

            Looks like it’s a special day!

            Best.

          • Swenson says:

            Woeful Wee Willy,

            Read what I said. Oh wait, you can read. You just can’t make any sense of the words!

            Or is there another reason?

            Try to comprehend, idiot.

          • Willard says:

            Mike, Mike,

            What is the action that precedes “…a rhetorical question”?

            Try not to answer it with “ask” or a synonym.

            Good luck!

          • Swenson says:

            Wriggling Wee Willy,

            Your request that I provide an answer to your question is denied. You are just trying to play your “silly semantic games”.

            I do as I wish. You are deluded if you think I value your opinion.

            Bad luck for you.

            Carry on being an idiot, laddie. It’s all you can do, I know – you don’t need me to tell you that you can only act in an idiotic fashion. You might be delusional psychotic for all I know.

          • Willard says:

            > I do as I wish.

            You sure can, Mike.

            Be as inconsistent as you like!

            <3

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            You’re learning, laddie, you’re learning.

            You surprise me.

          • Willard says:

            Ask your dad about his flashlight, kiddo.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ask True Sceptic to explain the error in your own article to you, child.

            😉

          • Willard says:

            You mean, the

            Sphere = 1 (flux = = 240)
            Hemisphere = (flux = = 480)
            Disc/k = (flux = 1 = 960)

            bit, kiddo?

            480 is twice the size of 240.

            A hemisphere is twice the size of a disc.

            Which part you do not get?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I agree with him. You did not. You said, “I’m not sure I understand your numbers.”

            You have left out the fractions.

          • Willard says:

            You’re just mimicking understanding, kiddo, and it shows.

            Do you agree with his other comment too:

            Average flux has be doubled if you halve the area and want the same total.

            240*4 = 480*2 = 960

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190532

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, of course.

            Postma is not doubling the Suns power by doubling the surface area, as you erroneously wrote in your article. The flux is doubled (compared to the 240 W/m^2) because the surface area of a hemisphere is half that of the full sphere.

            Sphere = 240 W/m^2
            Hemisphere = 480 W/m^2
            Earths shadow disk = 960 W/m^2

          • Willard says:

            The Sun’s power is not S, kiddo. That’s a constant. I already showed you Joe’s graphs thrice. You should be intelligent enough to realize I’m not saying or even implying that Joe is using 2600 W/ms.

            The Sun’s power on the Earth is the result of the flux. He found a way to double the number we usually get by using an area that is twice the size we usually use. That contradicts the very concept of a flux.

            What you’re sidestepping with this fool’s errand is that once corrected for Lambert’s law, a hemisphere equals a disc at right angle, so corrected hemisphere = divide by 4.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The incoming flux from the Sun is 1,360-odd W/m^2. The Earth’s shadow disk receives this flux in full. Correcting for albedo, the amount absorbed by the disk is approx. 960 W/m^2. The disk has a quarter of the surface area of the sphere, and half the surface area of the hemisphere.

            As the Skeptical Science quote confirmed, when you divide the 960 W/m^2 by 4, you spread that incoming flux over the entire surface area of the sphere. 240 W/m^2 is the flux averaged over the entire sphere. When you divide the 960 W/m^2 by 2, you are spreading it over only the lit hemisphere, which obviously has half the surface area of the sphere. 480 W/m^2 is the flux averaged over the lit hemisphere.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “The Sun’s power on the Earth is the result of the flux. He found a way to double the number we usually get by using an area that is twice the size we usually use. That contradicts the very concept of a flux.”

            No, the “number we usually get” is 240 W/m^2. That number applies to the entire surface area of the planet. He gets 480 W/m^2 by using half of that area, the lit hemisphere only.

            How many different ways do I need to explain this to you?

          • Willard says:

            You’re still trying to evade my point by hermeneutics, kiddo. We’re not in a Bible class.

            Check back Joe’s diagram:

            https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/energy-model.jpg

            Only the small disk is at zenith. For everywhere else on the hemisphere, Joe needs to reduce the irradiance. That means he can’t divide by 2 directly.

            That means Joe can’t divide by 2 unless he can show that the small disk is about the size of the hemisphere. If the small disk was >90%, as I thought at first, his argument would make sense. But you assured me that it wasn’t what he meant.

            So thank you for that.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Look at the left-hand graphic here:

            https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/which-one-4.jpg

            It has the 960 W/m^2, 480 W/m^2 and 240 W/m^2 all spelled out for you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Only the small disk is at zenith. For everywhere else on the hemisphere, Joe needs to reduce the irradiance. That means he can’t divide by 2 directly.”

            Again, look at the diagram I just posted. It is clearer than his older diagram. The small disk is where the Earth is absorbing greater than 90% of the zenith (960 W/m^2) flux. The rest of the hemisphere is receiving less than 90% of the zenith flux. When you average it over the entire hemisphere, it comes out to 480 W/m^2. Remember, the article he did where he found that the weighted average still worked out ultimately to the “divide by 2”?

          • Willard says:

            You’re still evading a very basic point, kiddo:

            Unless and until Joe can prove that every point on the hemisphere are at zenith, he can’t divide by two {1}.

            Yet Joe already conceded that only a small disc was at zenith.

            Seldom do we see such a pure reductio ad absurdum in Climateball.

            Thank you for helping me find it!

            {1}: We can indeed divide by four because we take all the points of the disc as being at zenith.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “{1}: We can indeed divide by four because we take all the points of the disc as being at zenith.”

            All points of the disk are indeed receiving the full zenith flux. Hence the disk receives the full 960 W/m^2. You do not divide by 4 for the disk. You divide by 4 to spread the incoming flux over the entire sphere. As usual, your understanding is completely backwards.

            “Unless and until Joe can prove that every point on the hemisphere are at zenith, he can’t divide by two {1}”

            He can divide by 2 because every point on the hemisphere is not receiving the full zenith flux.

          • Willard says:

            > You do not divide by 4 for the disk.

            The 4 represents the disc, kiddo. No disc, no division by 4. You’re stuck with verbal defenses.

            Let me repeat what you’re still trying to evade:

            Unless and until Joe can prove that every point on the hemisphere are at zenith, he can’t divide by two.

            Do you have something against that?

          • Dr Roy's Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The disk receives 960 W/m^2. Averaged over the lit hemisphere = 480 W/m^2. Averaged over the entire sphere = 240 W/m^2.

            “Unless and until Joe can prove that every point on the hemisphere are at zenith, he can’t divide by two.

            Do you have something against that?”

            Yes. If every point on the hemisphere was receiving the full zenith flux, then the hemisphere would be receiving an average flux of 960 W/m^2.

          • Willard says:

            > If every point on the hemisphere was receiving the full zenith flux, then the hemisphere would be receiving an average flux of 960 W/m^2.

            And how did you get that number?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Because the zenith flux (after factoring in albedo) is 960 W/m^2. So if every point on the hemisphere is receiving 960 W/m^2 then the average for the hemisphere will be 960 W/m^2.

          • Willard says:

            > the zenith flux (after factoring in albedo) is 960 W/m^2.

            “after factoring in albedo” suffices to answer the question.

            So all Joe did is F x (1- \alpha), where “alpha” represents the albedo. This has for effect of reducing F, the zenith flux.

            Joe has yet to factor in any area. To factor in the area, you need to divide by something. Do you agree with what I’m saying so far?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, you can divide by 4 to spread it over the entire sphere and you can divide by 2 to spread it over the lit hemisphere. If you would just take the time to look at the diagram I linked to, you would see it all clearly spelled out for you.

          • Willard says:

            > you can divide by 4 to spread it over the entire sphere and you can divide by 2 to spread it over the lit hemisphere.

            You mean you divide by 4 to spread it over a disc (the so-called “flat earth”), and you divide by 2 to spread it over a hemisphere. Again: 4\piR^2 is the sphere, 2\piR^2 is the hemisphere, and \piR^2 is the disc. If you wanted to spread it over a whole sphere, you divide by 1, as the Area at the left and the right would cancel out.

            However, let’s carry through. Pay no attention to what I just said. Consider this: the division by 4 is for a disc at zenith. Is the division by 2 for a hemisphere at zenith?

            I think you said no. Please confirm.

          • Willard says:

            > the Area at the left and the right

            … of the equation, that is, i.e.

            [EMB] (Disc) x (Sun) x (1 Albedo) = (Area) x (Emissivity) x (SB) x (Temp + Conv)4

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/

            But again, pay no attention to this detail for now. I want us to concentrate on the concept of zenith.

            So I repeat my question: the division by 4 is for a disc at zenith; is the division by 2 for a hemisphere at zenith?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “You mean you divide by 4 to spread it over a disc (the so-called “flat earth”), and you divide by 2 to spread it over a hemisphere. Again: 4\piR^2 is the sphere, 2\piR^2 is the hemisphere, and \piR^2 is the disc. If you wanted to spread it over a whole sphere, you divide by 1, as the Area at the left and the right would cancel out.”

            No. When you divide by 4 you spread the incoming radiation over a sphere. How many times are you going to keep making the same mistakes?

            Divide by 1 = the disk (960 W/m^2).
            Divide by 2 = the hemisphere (480 W/m^2).
            Divide by 4 = the sphere (240 W/m^2).

            “However, let’s carry through. Pay no attention to what I just said. Consider this: the division by 4 is for a disc at zenith. Is the division by 2 for a hemisphere at zenith?”

            No. The division by 4 is to take the zenith flux and average it across the whole Earth’s surface. The division by 2 is to take the zenith flux and average it across only the lit hemisphere.

          • Willard says:

            > The division by 2 is to take the zenith flux and average it across only the lit hemisphere.

            You would not divide by 2 if every point on the hemisphere was at zenith, correct?

            That’s what I understand from this:

            “If every point on the hemisphere was receiving the full zenith flux, then the hemisphere would be receiving an average flux of 960 W/m^2.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If every point of the hemisphere was receiving the full zenith flux of 960 W/m^2, then the hemisphere would have an average flux of 960 W/m^2…but every point of the hemisphere is not receiving the zenith flux. Hence the overall average flux for the hemisphere must be lower than 960 W/m^2. It works out as being 480 W/m^2.

          • Willard says:

            > every point of the hemisphere is not receiving the zenith flux. Hence the overall average flux for the hemisphere must be lower than 960 W/m^2. It works out as being 480 W/m^2.

            Which means that to divide by 2 once is meant to spread the flux on an area and to correct for the average angles.

            Am I getting this right?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The lit hemisphere absorbs 480 W/m^2 from the sun, all things considered, including angles, yes. That is what Postma is arguing.

          • Willard says:

            > The lit hemisphere absorbs 480 W/m^2 from the sun, all things considered, including angles, yes.

            And to do so Joe divides by 2 only once, both to spread the flux on the hemisphere, and to correct for the angles.

            Don’t you see the problem here?

            If Joe divides by two for each, he gets the divide by 4 trick everyone but him understands and uses!

            AT and Bob already provided the geometrical proof, btw.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, the divide by 4 spreads the incoming solar radiation over the entire Earth’s surface. Pay closer attention to what Bob said:

            “Taking 1/cos(z) into account, and doing the integration over the enter earth and entire day you get, well, you get what people have already presented here who are not from the land of the clueless. Hint: the answer is 4.”

          • Willard says:

            > The divide by 4 spreads the incoming solar radiation over the entire Earth’s surface.

            Now that we have established Joe’s double accounting, kiddo, we can look at where the “divide by 4” comes from.

            Take a look at the following model:

            [EMB] (Disc) x (Sun) x (1 – Albedo) = (Area) x (Emissivity) x (SB) x (Temp + Conv)4

            Would you agree that Joe simply replaces the Disc variable with the area of the hemisphere?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We have not established any double accounting. You seem to be attempting to argue that we should divide by 4 to spread the incoming solar radiation over a hemisphere.

            Does this mean you think to spread the incoming solar radiation over a sphere, that you should divide by 8?

            Lol.

          • Willard says:

            Since your argument would lead us to think that quasi-infinte surface with all points at zenith would keep the same flux as Joe calculated for his Sky Dragon model of the Earth, kiddo, I’d wait a bit before lulzing if I were you.

            I indeed argue that Joe should divide by 4 to spread the incoming solar radiation over a hemisphere, yes. That’s in fact what our current energy balance models do.

            He can divide by two twice if he prefers.

            That’s negotiable.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Thanks for leaving this permanent record of your stupidity, and for repeatedly linking to it from your own website for everyone there to see.

            The disk receives 960 W/m^2.
            Spread over the lit hemisphere = 480 W/m^2.
            Spread over the entire sphere = 240 W/m^2.

            Your article needs to be corrected.

          • Willard says:

            Thank you for the kind words, kiddo.

            Here is where you committed your crucial mistake:

            If every point on the hemisphere was receiving the full zenith flux, then the hemisphere would be receiving an average flux of 960 W/m^2.

            Let’s extend that conclusion:

            If every point on the sphere was receiving the full zenith flux, then the sphere would be receiving an average flux of 960 W/m^2.

            If every point on sphere twice the size of the earth was receiving the full zenith flux, then it would be receiving an average flux of 960 W/m^2.

            If every point on a quasi infinite sphere was receiving the full zenith flux, then it would be receiving an average flux of 960 W/m^2.

            Do you still not see the problem with your claim?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, there is no problem with what I said. You do not seem to understand that flux is a measure of power per square meter. If every square meter of the Earth was receiving 960 W/m^2, then of course the average flux for the whole Earth would be…960 W/m^2.

          • Willard says:

            > You do not seem to understand that flux is a measure of power per square meter.

            And you do not seem to understand that varying the number of meters changes the flux, kiddo, and you’re still stuck at understanding (Disc) x (Sun), the two first terms I presented in my model. In fact, I am starting to believe you can’t follow equations at all.

            Since you know Joe’s corpus so well, you should be able to me where the “divide by four” comes from in the following:

            [EMB] (Disc) x (Sun) x (1 – Albedo) = (Area) x (Emissivity) x (SB) x (Temp + Conv)^4

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The disk receives 960 W/m^2.
            Spread over the lit hemisphere = 480 W/m^2.
            Spread over the entire sphere = 240 W/m^2.

            Your article needs to be corrected.

          • Willard says:

            You keep repeating stuff you can’t support, kiddo.

            Here’s how pros do it:

            [I]f you do the integral over the hemisphere and take the solar zenith angle into account, you recover that the energy intercepted per unit time is the incoming flux times the cross-sectional area of the Earth.

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190372

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            The disk receives 960 W/m^2.
            Spread over the lit hemisphere = 480 W/m^2.
            Spread over the entire sphere = 240 W/m^2.

            Your article needs to be corrected.

          • Willard says:

            Your “Divide by 1 = the disk” is wrong, kiddo.

            On the one side of the equation, you have Disc x Sun.

            On the other, you have a Sphere.

            Revise and resubmit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            The disk receives 960 W/m^2.
            Spread over the lit hemisphere = 480 W/m^2.
            Spread over the entire sphere = 240 W/m^2.

            Your article needs to be corrected.

          • Willard says:

            > Your article needs to be corrected.

            You have not shown where.

            You can’t.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        Amazing precision again. 0.1442 C? Decade or not, do you not understand how ridiculous the figure is? The Earth is cooling. Thermometers react to the radiation they absorb – nothing more, nothing less. No GHE. Just more heat – 7 billion people producing it as hard as they can’

        IR (heat) lamps are indeed used to keep food warm. Or heat plates or flatware, or dry paint or . . .

        You might be confusing IR with the microwave radiation used in microwave ovens.

        Wikipedia contains the following amazing piece of nonsense about water vapour and IR –

        “As well as absorbing radiation, water vapour occasionally emits radiation in all directions, according to the Black Body Emission curve for its current temperature overlaid on the water absor.ption spectrum.”

        Occasionally emits? The rest is equally nonsensical.

        As to liquid water, if you have access to a still lake or pond more than 3 meters or so deep, wait until the surface is hottest in direct sunlight, and then gently enter. You should be acutely aware that the hot water is definitely sitting on the top.

        I leave the physics to you.

      • CO2isLife says:

        bdgwx Says: “CO2isLife said: There has literally been no warming since 1983.

        Patently False. Per UAH-TLT the warming trend from Mar 1983 to Mar 2021 is +0.1442C/decade +/- 0.0078. This represents a warming of 0.55C +/- 0.06 (2-sigma).”

        You are arguing with the Graphic Published by Dr. Spencer not me. Facts are current temperatures are exactly where they were back in 1983. If I take a skillet and warm it on the stove to 100C° and it cools back to the level before I warmed it. YOu can’t claim CO2 warmed the skillet. The only way if can warm back to 100C° is if you add additional energy, that is the only way. CO2 increased by 30% since 1983, the W/M^2 fractionally increased during that time, yet temperatures haven’t. You can’t claim that because yesterday was warmer than today it is due to CO2, CO2 can only result in warming.

        “CO2isLife said: Also, CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 wont warm water and the oceans are warming. Visible radiation warms the oceans.

        Patently False. Water greedily takes up LWIR and is warmed by it. That’s why IR lamps are used ubiquitously in the restaurant industry to keep food warm. Interestingly they don’t use visible light for this purpose.”

        Not true at all. IR doesn’t penetrate the oceans at all. It can’t warm the deep oceans, and it can’t warm the top 20m. Also, the energy contained between 13 and 18µ is extremely low energy consistent with a -80C° Black Body, and the spectrum is only a small fraction of a black body. Get out a calculator. Believing that the energy contained in a spike of radiation of 15 microns can warm water is pure nonsense. It take huge amounts of incoming radiation to warm water, and that energy is visible radiation.

        • bdgwx says:

          CO2isLife said: You are arguing with the Graphic Published by Dr. Spencer not me.

          On the contrary I’m using Dr. Spencer’s data; the same data in that graphic. And Dr. Spencer definitely agrees with me. He even puts the +0.14C/decade warming rate for 1979-present in the text file.

          CO2isLife said: If I take a skillet and warm it on the stove to 100C° and it cools back to the level before I warmed it.

          The problem with your approach is that you are cherry-picking individual months that are outliers among a population with high variability. Mar 1983 is +0.33 above the trendline while Mar 2021 is -0.21 below the trendline. In other words you cherry-picked an anomalously high month and compared to another cherry-picked enormously low month.

          To illustrate how absurd this cherry-picking is let me do the same. I’m going to pick Sep 1984 and Feb 2016. Using that approach one could argue (erroneously) that it warmed 1.37C in less than 32 years for a warming rate of +0.44C/decade.

          CO2isLife said: IR doesn’t penetrate the oceans at all

          Neither does solar radiation. They are both taken up greedily by water. For DWIR it is in the first few millimeters. For solar it is with the first few meters. Neither penetrates below the thermocline.

          CO2isLife said: Also, the energy contained between 13 and 18µ is extremely low energy consistent with a -80C° Black Body,

          Patently False. We’ve explained this to you multiple times. 13-18 um radiation is consistent with ALL black body temperatures. In fact, the 13-18 um band radiance at -80C is only 5.36 W/m2.sr whereas at 0C it is 23.02 W/m2.sr.

          CO2isLife said: Get out a calculator.

          I did! I recommend you do the same.

          CO2isLife said: Believing that the energy contained in a spike of radiation of 15 microns can warm water is pure nonsense.

          On the contrary believing otherwise is pure nonsense. The 1LOT is usually enough to convince people. But, if like some posters, you reject the 1LOT then you can easily do the experiment yourself. Get a pan of water and observe the temperature with and without an IR lamp. Or you could just accept the countless times this experiment is run daily in the food industry.

        • barry says:

          This has been explained to CO2isLife many, many times, and they still come back as if they’ve never heard it.

          It’s really basic stuff, so I can’t figure out if they have a cognitive deficiency or an agenda. Either way, it seems there is no hope.

          • Steve Case says:

            CO2isLife said: Believing that the energy contained in a spike of radiation of 15 microns can warm water is pure nonsense…the energy contained between 13 and 18µ is extremely low energy consistent with a -80C° Black Body…

            bdgwx said: On the contrary believing otherwise is pure nonsense … Get a pan of water and observe the temperature with and without an IR lamp.

            Barry said: This has been explained to CO2isLife many, many times,

            Groan . . . An IR lamp that radiates at 15 microns? What exactly is that? bdgwx left off the part about 15 microns being consistent with -80°C. You know, like a brick of dry ice. Dunno where bdgwx & Barry get their ideas from, but if a brick of dry ice is held over a pan of water, the water isn’t going to get any warmer.

            So how does 15µm back radiation and the greenhouse effect cause warming? CO2 Blocks the 15µm upwelling radiation which has the effect slowing the rate at which the Earth cools. The sun however continues the warm up the Earth at the same rate it always has. So the world will warm up until other wavelengths of outgoing radiation increase enough in strength to make up the difference.

            CO2isLife has it right, 15µm radiation doesn’t warm the surface, the sun does.

          • barry says:

            I shouod have quoted.

            CO2isLife believes that in a steadily warming/cooling world, every month should be warmer/cooler than the last. They don’t understand that short-term weather has a larger amplitude than any long-term signal.

            This leads them to conclude that if a particularly cold month in year Y is cooler than a particularly warm month in year Y-X, then there has been no general warming.

            bdgwx’s attempt would be about number 37, I think, to explain something that even a moron should get. To quote:

            The problem with your approach is that you are cherry-picking individual months that are outliers among a population with high variability. Mar 1983 is +0.33 above the trendline while Mar 2021 is -0.21 below the trendline. In other words you cherry-picked an anomalously high month and compared to another cherry-picked enormously low month.

            To illustrate how absurd this cherry-picking is let me do the same. I’m going to pick Sep 1984 and Feb 2016. Using that approach one could argue (erroneously) that it warmed 1.37C in less than 32 years for a warming rate of +0.44C/decade.

            We’ve tried to get it into this hardened cranium using the analogy of seasonal change, stock market, etc. Nothing penetrates.

            Either CO2isLife is incredibly thick, or incredibly motivated to keep pushing the same idiocy.

          • Steve Case says:

            barry says:
            April 30, 2021 at 6:28 PM
            I shouod have quoted.

            OK, I take that to mean that you agree that using an IR lamp to simulate the effect of the 15 micron back radiation from CO2 is without merit.

            And it looks like you agree with the notion that greenhouse gas slows cooling while the sun is the heat source for greenhouse effect global warming.

            You didn’t mention it, but I agree that The Escalator from our good friends at Skeptical Science is pretty accurate.

            I don’t agree that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a problem. Warmer weather, more rain, more arable land, longer growing seasons and increased food production due to that extra CO2 in the air just doesn’t look like the catastrophic disaster that your side of the coin has been screaming about for the last 40 years. Thames TV Warming Warning 1981

          • bill hunter says:

            yep, i would think it would be the opposite that long term variability would be greater than short term.

          • barry says:

            “OK, I take that to mean that you agree that using an IR lamp…”

            I didn’t talk about that.

            CO2isLife thinks every month should be warmer than the last in a warming world.

            Do you think that’s what we should expect of our climate system under warming?”

          • barry says:

            “And it looks like you agree with the notion that greenhouse gas slows cooling while the sun is the heat source for greenhouse effect global warming.”

            Yep, that’s a fair way to put it. As there is a lot of uncertainty about the rate of warming and the consequences – and the risk cuts both ways – then it is prudent to slow down this experiment with the only atmosphere we have till we have a better handle on it.

          • Steve Case says:

            barry says:
            May 1, 2021 at 9:42 PM
            OK, I take that to mean that you agree that using an IR lamp
            I didnt talk about that.

            OK. I said using a heat lamp to simulate back radiation was without merit.

            CO2isLife thinks every month should be warmer than the last in a warming world. Do you think thats what we should expect of our climate system under warming?

            That’s a straw man on your part. CO2isLife should verify whether that is what he thinks or not. But to answer your direct question, no I do not think each successive month should be warmer.

            barry says:
            May 1, 2021 at 9:45 PM
            As there is a lot of uncertainty about the rate of warming and the consequences and the risk cuts both ways then it is prudent to slow down this experiment with the only atmosphere we have till we have a better handle on it.

            Global Cooling 1970-1979 Global Warming 1981-2021 That’s over 50 years of projections and predictions and how much of it has come true?

            Warming? Since 1850 world temperatures have gone up and down but mostly up amounting to about a degree since then. In my neck of the woods winters are warmer. That’s consistent with what the IPCC says. Summers? Not so much and again in my neck of the woods a bit cooler.

            Extreme weather? Tornados and Tropical cyclones are pretty much the same over that time.

            Sea Level? Since the beginning of the 19th century sea level has been rising (NOAA says 1.7 mm/yr) with an acceleration of around 0.01 mm/yr.

            Precipitation? The United States shows an increasing trend over the last 100 years, I don’t know about the rest of the world, there aren’t very many reliable records.

            Ice caps and glaciers? They are receding and have been for centuries, after all, the water for all that sea level rise has to be coming from somewhere.

            Polar Bears? As far as I know, their population over the last decade has increased.

            …prudent to slow down this experiment…
            The people who count the stomata on underside of fossil leaves tell us that CO2 levels over the eras and eons has been much higher than today, and you know what? We are still here.

          • bdgwx says:

            Steve Case said: OK, I take that to mean that you agree that using an IR lamp to simulate the effect of the 15 micron back radiation from CO2 is without merit.

            An IR lamp would indeed be a bad way to simulate 15 um back radiation from CO2. But we’re not talking about specifics here. CO2isLife makes a broader statement that IR in general cannot warm water which is patently false.

            There are two scenarios here to consider here.

            1) A pan of water has equilibrated to the environment. An IR lamp suspended over the pan is turned on and is emitting at a higher temperature than the water. The water warms directly from the IR lamp.

            2) A pan of water has equilibrated to the environment. It is then warmed from underneath with a separate heat source. It is then allowed to achieve steady-state with the water now warmer than the environment. An IR lamp suspended over the pan is turned on and is emitting at a lower temperature than the water, but higher temperature than the environment. The water warms indirectly from the IR lamp.

            #2 is most analogous to the real world.

          • Steve Case says:

            bdgwx says:
            May 3, 2021 at 9:45 AM
            Steve Case said: OK, I take that to mean that you agree that using an IR lamp to simulate the effect of the 15 micron back radiation from CO2 is without merit.

            An IR lamp would indeed be a bad way to simulate 15 um back radiation from CO2.

            Thanks for that, I’ve seen the heat lamp “experiment” actually a demonstration too many times. Bill Nye the “science guy” is one of the many perps engaging in that misrepresentation.

          • bdgwx says:

            I will say that the penetration depth of 15 um radiation is not substantially different from the broader IR band. IR in general whether it is 10 um, 15 um, 20 um, or whatever gets absorbed right on the skin within a couple of mm at most. So there’s no reason to think that CO2’s back scatter behavior upon water will be substantially different than H2O’s back scatter or any IR channel emitted by the atmosphere.

            Higher frequencies like that from the Sun do penetrate a lot more, but at depths beyond 200 m there isn’t enough energy to sustain photosynthesis. It starts getting pretty dark at 500 m I believe. So solar radiation can’t really warm the ocean depths directly either.

  72. Entropic man says:

    “Global Temperatures are back to the level of 1983. There has literally been no warming since 1983.”

    It’s not wise to emphasise individual months like that. You need to put them in context.

    When you look at the individual months compared with the 13 month averages you see that February(?) 1983 was an outlier 0.3C above the average.

    March 2021 was an outlier 0.3C below the average.

    Though the two anomalies were the same, the context is of a 0.6C warming over 40 years.

    • bill hunter says:

      It is even less wise to rely on a single 6 year ENSO effect as an excuse for denial of the pause.

    • CO2isLife says:

      ET Says: Its not wise to emphasise individual months like that. You need to put them in context.”

      It certainly is when you are dealing with a flux. The atmosphere isn’t a battery. Once it cools, all previously added energy that can be attributed to CO2 warming is gone. That is the problem you face. You act like CO2 traps energy. It doesn’t. It simply thermalizes a very very very small fraction of the outgoing LWIR spectrum, and that energy leaves the system in milliseconds.

      • bdgwx says:

        CO2isLife said: The atmosphere isnt a battery. Once it cools, all previously added energy that can be attributed to CO2 warming is gone.

        What is it with the rejection of the 1LOT on this blog? Had you asked me a couple of years ago how fervently posters on here would reject the 1LOT I would have scoffed.

        The energy isn’t “gone”. It just went somewhere else. Other heat reservoirs include the oceans, cryosphere, and land. Heat is constantly being transferred between reservoirs. These processes ebb and flow.

        CO2isLife said: You act like CO2 traps energy.

        It does. Infrared spectroscopy proves it. The countless CO2 NDIR sensors prove it. The persistently positive planetary energy imbalance after the industrial revolution proves it.

        CO2isLife said: It simply thermalizes a very very very small fraction of the outgoing LWIR spectrum, and that energy leaves the system in milliseconds.

        It does indeed thermalize IR radiation. It also reemits it in a random direction with ~50% having downward trajectories. GHGs take a configuration that would otherwise allow 100% of the IR radiation to escape to space and transforms it so that less than 100% of it now escapes to space. The difference winds up being distributed into the ocean (90%), land (5%), cryosphere (3%), and air (2%).

  73. Swenson says:

    “Gavin Schmidt says there’s nothing really wrong with climate models – in fact, “they’ve done a pretty good job of predicting what has happened.” One reason they aren’t more precise, he says, is people.

    Dr. Schmidt is the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and one of the country’s top climate scientists. He acknowledges most climate models fall short of precise predictions.”

    That’s climatology for you.

    The models are correct. The problem is people. And Nature as well, it seems.

    “Kevin Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisors of the IPCC. Trenberth asserts “. . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been”. Instead, there are only “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. According to Trenberth, GCMs “. . . do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.”

    None of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate?

    All a bit complicated. Predictions which are not really predictions, which are pretty good, apart from people, and don’t bear any relation to reality. Oh dear.

  74. Ken says:

    Taking away access to cheap reliable plentiful energy through carbon taxes has a parallel with Holomodor famine where access to food was taken away for political reasons. Carbon taxes are genocide.

    • Entropic man says:

      A better analogy is drug dealing and drug addiction. A dealer will give a new customer cheap drugs, knowing that he will profit when the customer becomes an addict.

      If you subsidise fossil fuel plants in a third world country you trap them into paying you more for your imported fuel than the lifetime cost of renewables.

      • Ken says:

        So called renewables don’t make sense. They are a real environmental disaster and don’t make economic sense without massive taxpayer subsidy. See the experience Germany, Australia, and any other place where the ‘Greens’ got to set the agenda.

        The ‘Green’ agenda is anti-human and amounts to genocide too. They want populations to die off to 1800s levels of about 1 billion.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent has a way of perverting reality.

        He’s even stated that passenger jets can fly backwards.

        Anything to support his false religion.

      • Mike Mitchell says:

        Trying to recall who subsidized the first world with fossil fuels starting ~150 years ago? To my knowledge no one is subsidizing Botswana but their GDP/capita has surpassed South Africa and Egypt.

        And they’re doing it with coal just like we did. Good for them!

        • Entropic man says:

          Speaking of Botswana.

          “Botswana’s state-owned Morupule Coal Mine (MCM) plans to boost production by over a third as the country seeks to cut its dependence on imported power, ”

          “But Botswana is anxious to use its estimated 212 billion tonnes of coal resources to curb its reliance on imported power”

          “Botswana has national power generation capacity of 720 megawatts (MW) but plans to double output in the next six years through solar and coal-fired power as it strives to wean itself off imports ”

          https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/botswanas-state-owned-coal-miner-aims-boost-output-by-35-2021-04-28/

          They sound desperate to wean themselves off their reliance on imports. Hard on the foreign companies profiting from their dependance.

          • bill hunter says:

            what they are desperate for is the World Bank to loosen their green agenda and let them invest in more affordable energy technologies

        • Ken says:

          Really. Renewables make no economic, environmental, or technological sense. Sure there is a place for solar and wind but to consider them as replacement for coal oil and gas is ludicrous. If you want to change out coal oil gas and hydro your only real proven option is nuclear.

      • Bindidon says:

        Ken

        You write upthread: ” See the experience Germany… ”

        What do YOU know about Germany, Ken? Maybe some dumb stuff like this?

        https://tinyurl.com/4tfvfh8x

        We get a big laugh here when we see such ‘articles’, especially when having a quick look at

        https://techstartups.com/category/emerging-technology/

        *
        In 1991, we had in Germany 67 % coal, oil and gas, 28 % nuke, 4 % hydro. Today, it looks like this:

        https://tinyurl.com/22dpnsbt

        and it would even look more ‘renew’, if a strange coalition of electricity providers, conservative and social-democratic lawmakers had not done all possible to keep alive, against all odds, the stoopid brown coal extraction and burning.

        *
        Gas? So what! All plants were moved on standby during years (some of them located even outside of Germany), because gas was too expensive compared with supercheap coal coming from… the US or Oz.

        *
        Greenies? Yes, we luckily had them, together with social-democrat chancellor Schroeder during 8 years till around 2005; they started the nuke shutdown, push up the renews, and developed for the first time a huge program for building insulation support. But that’s long time ago.

        *
        It is really brazen to speak about ‘massive taxpayer subsidy’.

        1. Not a single owner of a building with rental apartments would have ever lifted a finger for thermal insulation on own initiative.

        2. How many taxes, do you think, were paid worldwide from 1945 on for the development of the nuclear industry?

        Don’t tell me you’d be naive enough to believe that was all paid by that industry.

        J.-P. D.

        • Ken says:

          My ‘favorite’ source and by no means my only source is Youtube interview Benny Peiser and Dr Philipp Lengsfeld German MP title ‘Climate Euphoria, Climate Hysteria: Insights from the German Political-Media Complex’

          • Bindidon says:

            Ken

            And?

            Do you think such people would be willing to inform you about Gwermany, Ken?

            They have their own narrative, light years away from what Germany represents and needs for the future.

            Feel free to continue being naive enough. No problem for me.

            J.-P. D.

          • Ken says:

            The salient points are

            -That electricity costs 30 cents per kwh.
            -That price is double the cost of electricity in France where electricity is on order of 80% nuclear.
            -That German industry gets 1 trillion euro in subsidies so that they can compete within a high energy cost environment.
            -That CO2 emissions in Germany are rising (unlike USA)

            This information is widely found in the literature about renewable energy in Germany. Go ahead and deny it.

  75. Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

    Clint,
    You need to appreciate a master when you see one-a propagandist extraordinaire!

  76. Swenson says:

    Warbling Wee Willy wrote –

    “Youre just four guys, Clint.

    Wait a bit before bragging about that bandwagon of yours.”

    Oh, how masterful! Oh, how obscure!

    Wee Willy, is just 17 idiots, by his standard. The wheels have fallen off his bandwagon – who will dance to his discordant wailing now?

    What an idiot is Whining Wee Willy!

    • Willard says:

      What a master stroke, Mike!

      Let me see if you won’t click on this:

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

      Play dumb once more!

    • Swenson says:

      Waffling Wee Willy,

      You really are a slow learner, aren’t you?

      You are not even good at playing your “silly semantic games”, are you?

      Maybe you are even stupid enough to believe everything I say!

      Or only if it suits you?

      Maybe you need to brush up on getting results by playing “silly semantic games”. So far, you just seem to be playing with yourself. With the inevitable outcome, of course.

      What a delusional, impotent, powerless, idiot you are.

      Ah well, about par for the usual run of climate cultists.

      • Willard says:

        I point at

        [MF1] The chances of me asking you anything further are remote.

        And I point at

        [MF2] Maybe you need to brush up on […]

        That is all.

        • Swenson says:

          Waffling Wee Willy,

          Point at anything you like. As often as you like. To anyone you like.

          I hope it keeps you happy.

          Maybe you can combine your “silly semantic games” with some “auditing skillz”?

          That might achieve something, do you think?

          You are still and idiot. I don’t need to point it out, but I will anyway.

  77. Mike Mitchell says:

    I am no longer hanging on to the idea that the tiny GHE increase by human CO2 has even an insignificant influence Roy. By what little we know, yes it should have ~some~ sort of influence but this paper points to that word “little” being smaller than the inverse of climate modeling hubris. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm

    Their conclusion: “This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate. “

    • Entropic man says:

      Their conclusion: This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.

      They are correct too. On geological scales the main climate drivers are the gradual increase in solar insolation, plate tectonics and orbital mechanics.

      CO2 is a secondary player, mostly during mass extinctions.

      However, that does not preclude the artificial warming due to industrial CO2 emissions observed over the last 140 years.

    • Bindidon says:

      Mike Mitchell

      Yeah.

      You managed to present the probably 100th paper telling us the Holy Truth:

      ” X 100 million years ago, CO2 didn’t drive temperatures. ”

      Thanks. Rien de nouveau à l’Ouest.

      J.-P. D.

  78. CO2isLife says:

    Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, using your analysis of the vertex/hemi/globe, and given that 70%+ of the globe is water, and we know CO2 adds 15µ back radiation. Would you isolate the energy from that band (it is consistent with a black body of -80C°) and calculate how long it would take for that backradiation to warm the top 1 meter of the ocean by 1C°? This should be a rather simply math problem, and knowing that H2O has a very high specific heat, I’m pretty sure that CO2 won’t be warming the oceans anytime soon. They calculate how much extra visible radiation is required to warm the oceans and there you will have your answer.

    BTW, I’ve been running IR and H2O experiments and have yet to get the water to warm, and that is using an IR Lamp. Longpass filters that emit only 13µ and beyond are too expensive for my budget.

    Maybe NASA could afford those filters. They would go a long way to dispelling the myth that CO2 can LWIR can warm water.

    • Bindidon says:

      CO2isLife

      You are in progress: at least did you stop boring us with your endless lists of desert stations.

      The next step would be to stop boring us with your endless CO2 backradiation nonsense.

      The effect of CO2 – if any – is, as you were told often enough, at least 15 kilometers above the surfaces.

      Good grief.

      J.-P. D.

    • Entropic man says:

      You are assuming that LWIR warms bulk water. In practice it creates a film of warmer water which acts as a partial barrier to heat loss.

      I suggest a slight modification to your experiment. Put a saucepan of water on a low heat (to simulate incoming sunlight) and let it come to an equilibrium tempereature.

      Then shine your IR source onto the surface for a few hours and see if the equilibrium temperature increases.

      Remember that the effect you are looking for is not like turning up the heat, it is more like putting the lid on to slow the heat loss.

      • Swenson says:

        E,

        You wrote –

        “You are assuming that LWIR warms bulk water. In practice it creates a film of warmer water which acts as a partial barrier to heat loss.”

        If there is enough LWIR to heat the surface, why would the colder water underneath lose heat and cool?

        If it was on the surface, it would just get hotter – as it did!

        As to your irrelevant analogy, heating a saucepan from below is identical to what geothermal heat conducted through the crust to the ocean is doing. Shining IR on the surface is what the sun does.

        What is wrong with reality?

  79. E. Swanson says:

    It’s great to hear from Roy that Global Warming isn’t much of a problem. If it were, the US could expect to see even more intense convection feeding storms such as this batch yesterday, which likely resulted in more than $1 Billion damage:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/04/29/texas-oklahoma-large-hail/

    • Clint R says:

      E. Swanson, your cult must have convinced you there were never hail storms before now.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint R,

        Did you read what Swanson said?

        Clearly you didn’t understand it, and go off on your strawman attack that he thinks there never were hail storms before.

        What an idiot, you can’t read and you can’t learn.

        • bill hunter says:

          bob calls bs on the idea hail storms are a unique global warming signature. making progress there clint.

          • bobdroege says:

            We got another one who can’t read.

            Perhaps a trip to the library, maybe check out a Dick and Jane primer.

          • bill hunter says:

            bob can’t find the words to say what he is thinking clearly so he wants to blame it on others.

          • barry says:

            “the idea hail storms are a unique global warming signature…”

            Is something Clint invented in order to argue against. Classic strawman technique.

            bill plays dumb.

          • bill hunter says:

            What are you arguing for Barry. An argument to the point would be at least useful to figure out what you are trying to imply.

    • E. Swanson says:

      HERE’s AccuWeather’s report about those hail storms. Their quick guesstimate of the damage is around $3.5 Billion. Today’s weather forecast for Eastern Texas is heavy rains with local amounts of as much as 6 inches with flash flooding.

      It was just another (not) normal Spring day. Of course, I must include the usual caveat that one storm doesn’t prove anything about climate change.

  80. Bindidon says:

    Until recently, we had Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn.

    I thought he would be the trolliest commenter evah on Roy Spencer’s blog.

    But now, we have Swenson and Willard fighting day after day to appear as the more stupid troll.

    This blog is in real progress.

    J.-P. D.

    • Entropic man says:

      Enjoy it while it lasts. Swenson only has a limited repertoire. Once he’s used it up Willard will move on.

    • Willard says:

      JP,

      You can always skip my comments. Don’t worry, I skip yours. Had EM not commented, I would not have noticed you playing the ref.

      You’re not the first old guy I meet who’s oblivious to Climateball. Since my strategy satisfies minimax, I can tell you what’s happening:

      Mike, Clint, and kiddo have created a Dark Triad operation. I act like a lightning rod. All the energy that they waste on me, they don’t redirect it on those who prefer to discuss scientific matters. And as soon as they can’t reply to me they lose their social status. The overall process is more complex, but that’s all you deserve for now.

      Finally, if you think that my replies to Mike are all I can do, think again:

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units