UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2021: -0.05 deg. C

May 2nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2021 was -0.05 deg. C, down from the March, 2021 value of -0.01 deg. C.

REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.

The global cooling impact of the current La Nina is being fully realized now in global tropospheric temperatures.

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

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 16 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.31 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 2021 should be available within the next few days here.

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

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


5,463 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2021: -0.05 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Math says:

    How long can we expect the global cooling impact of the current La Nina to last?

    • Richard M says:

      Math, the UAH numbers tend to follow SST numbers with a 5-6 month lag. Note the November 2020 SSTs saw a small drop just like April UAH numbers.

      The SSTs continued to fall through January 2021 which means a couple more months of lower UAH values. The SSTs have increased slightly in Feb/Mar so I expect July/Aug to see UAH to also increase although only slightly.

      Longer term it depends on whether we see another La Nina next fall. If we get one then it should balance the dominate El Nino pattern from 2014-2020. If not then we could see some warming as the oceans still have some left over El Nino influence.

      Those of us who believe that the oceans are the true driver of climate do not foresee a big cooling as 400 years of ocean warming is still with us. Whether we continue to see warming is questionable as the AMO cycle is set to switch in a few years. That should balance any additional ocean warming in the pipeline.

      The lack of any additional warming should put the AGW nonsense into the dust bin of history.

      • Don says:

        There’s too much money and control at stake in AGW. It will be very difficult to put it into the dust bin of history.

        They’ll claim the CO2 reductions that America and the EU have achieved prove them right and we need to keep reducing CO2. Only a massive long-term cooling can rid us of the AGW crowd.

        • Milton Hathaway says:

          Don – Agreed, CAGW is not quite poised over the dust-bin of history. But since CO2 is measured so prolifically, they’ll need another reason besides the (non-existent, I predict) CO2 reductions, along the lines of the “missing heat” arguments.

        • Nate says:

          “they’ll need another reason besides the”

          As noted by Roy, there is another reason, called La Nina, which are temporary coolings.

          No sense in getting to excited.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Dons Says: They’ll claim the CO2 reductions that America and the EU have achieved prove them right and we need to keep reducing CO2. Only a massive long-term cooling can rid us of the AGW crowd.

          The problem with that theory is this:
          https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

          They will have to manipulate the CO2 measurement. Problem with that approach is that anyone can measure CO2 levels to see they are lying. The problem is these fools tied global warming directly to CO2 and hyped it beyond belief. They bet the farm. They published nonsense like this:
          https://i.postimg.cc/Cw9xTpv3/Hansen2130.jpg

          They found a period of time, a unique period when we are emerging from the little ice age when by coincidence CO2 and Temp trended together. They took that and created some twisted Marxist Scientific Theory to try to destroy capitalism. Over time, Temp will stabilize and CO2 will continue higher. They don’t care because that is 100 or more years in the future.

          They will have destroyed America by then, and no one will care about the climate or environment.

          • Patrick says:

            The ONI (Ocean Nino Index) is still running cool. The ONI changes over time are perfect matches to the changes in the global average temperature anomalies. I’ve been following Ventusky.com for the last couple of years. The ocean west of the Galapagos is almost an exact tell-tale sign of global fluctuations in temperature.

            https://www.ventusky.com/

            https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

            ENJOY!!!

          • gbaikie says:

            –They will have destroyed America by then, and no one will care about the climate or environment.–

            It seems to me, they have been successful mostly at destroying the Dem party.
            Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and the Lurch are the leading lights of the party.
            That is just sad.

            And they used to have major news anchors.

            If NYC is America, ok, lately, they have seemed to have done a number on that town.

            It might bounce back.

          • barry says:

            “They took that and created some twisted Marxist Scientific Theory to try to destroy capitalism.”

            What a nutjob you are.

            Thatcher and Reagan pushed for reductions on CO2 emissions, based on scientific advice. Fossil fuel companies also did studies on it and concluded more CO2 = warmer surface temps. It’s not a leftist conspiracy, you raving twit.

          • AGW ceased to have anything to do with facts or science a long time ago. It’s all ideology now and will only fade away, if ever, when some counter ideology becomes more fashionable.

          • Dixon says:

            Having been there, I think Thatchers ‘scientific advice’ was more a convenient way of breaking the back of the Coal Miners Union and promoting Nuclear Power than it was fear of Climate Change. Do you know different?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Barry, there is no other purpose for claiming CO2 is a pollutant than to control energy production for political purposes. Now, that is nut-job.

          • barry says:

            Politically motivated nincompoops are in full flight on this thread.

            No, the concern is about global warming, first and foremost. The isolated voices calling for abolishing or re-engineering capitalism can safely be ignored.

            Except, of course, if you want to try and claim AGW is a Marxist hoax. Then you amplify these voices on a blog to help you rail against a non-event.

            I mean, come on, guys. Stop being so damned paranoid. Fer chrissakes stop listening to the shock jocks. They thrive on amping people up on issues that are nothingburgers.

            If you don’t want your government to make policy mitigating GHG emissions, then vote for the party that doesn’t do that.

            That’s all you have to worry about.

            Meanwhile, businesses worldwide have already taken up the cause, so no doubt they are blithely contributing to their own demise.

            :eyeroll:

          • Carbon500 says:

            Barry: you comment that ‘Thatcher and Reagan pushed for reductions on CO2 emissions, based on scientific advice. Fossil fuel companies also did studies on it and concluded more CO2 = warmer surface temps.’
            Where have you got this information from?
            I live in the UK, and I have no recollection of Margaret Thatcher ever seeking reductions in CO2 emissions. She resigned as Prime Mimister in 1990. The IPCC had been formed just two years earlier, so I doubt that CO2 emissions were ever a concern during her tenure.
            Clearly this is an interesting historical point of interest. I’ve looked on the UK government’s official website about British Prime Mimisters,and again, no mention of CO2 whatsoever. Can you supply any more information, please?

          • barry says:

            Carbon500,

            This is what you are looking for: Margaret Thatcher’s speech to the UN.

            https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817

            “Of all the challenges faced by the world community in those four years, one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance – I refer to the threat to our global environment. I shall take the opportunity of addressing the general assembly to speak on that subject alone…

            While the conventional, political dangers – the threat of global annihilation, the fact of regional war – appear to be receding, we have all recently become aware of another insidious danger. It is as menacing in its way as those more accustomed perils with which international diplomacy has concerned itself for centuries.

            It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself.

            Of course major changes in the earth’s climate and the environment have taken place in earlier centuries when the world’s population was a fraction of its present size. The causes are to be found in nature itself – changes in the earth’s orbit: changes in the amount of radiation given off by the sun: the consequential effects on the plankton in the ocean: and in volcanic processes.

            All these we can observe and some we may be able to predict. But we do not have the power to prevent or control them.

            What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways…

            The difference now is in the scale of the damage we are doing…

            We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air…

            We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation of greenhouse gases.

            It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect — but only in the right proportions…

            Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: The land they cultivate ever more intensively; The forests they cut down and burn; The mountain sides they lay bare; The fossil fuels they burn; The rivers and the seas they pollute.

            The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all…”

            Thatcher had backed John Houghton’s efforts to set up the IPCC. In 1990 she said:

            “The problems which science has created science can solve, provided we heed its lessons. Moreover, we have already established a structure of international co-operation on the environment to deal with ozone depletion, as some speakers have already mentioned. For the first time ever, rich and poor nations alike set out together to save our planet from a serious danger, and this painstaking work culminated in the historic agreement reached in London this year. That agreement is a real beacon of hope for the future…

            Within this framework the United Kingdom is prepared, as part of an international effort including other leading countries, to set itself the demanding target of bringing carbon dioxide emissions back to this year’s level by the year 2005. That will mean reversing a rising trend before that date.”

            https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237

          • Carbon500 says:

            Barry: thank you very much for your link to Margaret Thatcher’s speech to the UN, and also the material you’ve quoted. I appreciate your taking the trouble to rely to my query.
            I’d seen references to Margaret Thatcher’s views on several occasions, but I was never certain as to whether this was the truth or an oft-repeated myth. Now I know, rock-solid proof!

          • barry says:

            You’re welcome, and the sincere quest for truth is appreciated!

          • Strop says:

            Carbon500,

            Here’s a reference to Thatcher.

            The Great Global Warming Swindle
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

            Watch from 36mins 45sec into the doco for about 3 mins.

            Not proof. But a reference. Maybe one of the ones you’ve seen.

        • Robert Ingersol says:

          Literally no one is claiming that the COVID slowdown is responsible for the temp dip. It is all on La Nina. The COVID reduction in emissions is too small to be detectable in a chaotic temp record. And the effect would be a decrease in the warming rate, not cooling. In fact, the accompanying decrease in aerosols might have made the planet a little warmer than it would have been otherwise.

          Yeah, the pesky temperature going up and up as predicted over 100 years ago really makes it hard for climate science deniers to convince the public.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Depends on what happens with average global TPW. It is one of the measurements which glaringly demonstrate that the GCMs are pathetically wrong. NASA/RSS stopped reporting on TPW when Trump left office and might not report honestly again until objective people prevail over the Deep State. Until then, about the only credible information we have on average global temperature is what is reported here. The long term is an uptrend but the short term trend (from 2016) is down.

          • Wayne says:

            The excessive heat of the 1930s was followed by almost 4 decades of cooling (prompting the global cooling scare of the 70s), followed by almost 40 years of warming. Given a long list of failed predictions by alarmists (the end of snow, NYC under water, the Maldives sinking beneath the waves, etc.), why would you characterize skeptics as “deniers”? Doesn’t it seem reasonable to you that some of us want to wait to see more data before drawing conclusions? If you wanted to earn our trust, you should have demonstrated your knowledge with more accurate predictions. Right now, alarmists appear to many of us to be making wild guesses at something they don’t yet fully understand.

          • Leo belill1v says:

            dummy- -have you ever checked out the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the ages? Almost non-existent- – -do you think that’s suddenly changed?

          • bdgwx says:

            Leo said: have you ever checked out the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the ages? Almost non-existent

            Just taking GHG + albedo with 0.75C per W/m^2 forcing alone yields an astonishing match to temperature over the last 800,000 years. See figure 6 in Hansen 2013 (https://tinyurl.com/2pc9wfu8). And over million year time scales the GHG + solar forcing provides a reasonable match to the secular temperature decline. See Foster 2017 (https://tinyurl.com/y5ts6u79) for more details. The Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) and other hyperthermal events in which in CO2 immediately lead the temperature change are worth checking out as well.

      • Joe says:

        Richard M –
        “The lack of any additional warming should put the AGW nonsense into the dust bin of history.”

        Yes! Thank you

    • barry says:

      Eben should carefully read his source material.

      “CAUTION: Seasonal climate anomalies shown here are not the official NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks.”

      The official forecast is here (PDF).

      “The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts an imminent transition to ENSO-neutral and continuing into fall 2021. Borderline La Nina conditions are predicted during the late fall or winter 2021-22.”

      • barry says:

        If you’re curious where Eben got his graph from, it’s on this page: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2seasonal.shtml

        He chose the E3 scenario under monthly NINO3.4 SSTs outlook. The model is run with the most recent 10 days as the initial conditions. The official forecasts use a longer initialization period, which makes for more accurate forecasts.

        The other link is to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Their outlook reads thus:

        “The El NinoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral. Climate model outlooks indicate this neutral phase will last at least until September. With little sign of El Nino or La Nina developing, the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook status is INACTIVE.”

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    • TechnoCaveman says:

      Math,

      Well the Atlantic Multidecade oscillation (AMO) is headed for its cold cycle for a fifteen or more years.
      Solar cycle #25 is still forecast to be smaller than #21, #22 and #23. Some say it will be like #24, others say smaller. Let’s say the same – so cold.
      Volcanic cooling has been light over the past twenty years. If this heats up things will get colder (pun & mental twisting intended)
      What worries me is shutting down nuclear (atomic) power plants. Most other power plants need daily (oil, gas) or biweekly (coal) fuel deliveries. 2 GigaWatt/ 2,000 MegaWatt New York Indian Head being shut down with several other nuclear plants going off line. Texas power debacle should be a lesson learned.
      I’m stocking up on parkas, and indoor food growing and diesel oil heaters. Air/air heat pumps will not make it, even in Texas. I hope air/water(ground heat) driven heat pumps will.
      Natural gas is not demonized like oil & coal but does make CO2. Its biggest limitation is pipe size. Capacity is set by “slightly above average use” not “Holy [email protected]” once in a decade use.

      What do you think ?

      • barry says:

        As far as I’ve read there is as much evidence that AMO follows global temps than leads them.

        https://tinyurl.com/fd6h2eh8 [AMO and global temps plotted together]

        You can also see in the graph is that there are times when global temps and AMO are out of phase.

        Recent work suggests that the AMO isn’t even a real thing, but North Atlantic temps aliasing global.

  2. CO2isLife says:

    Now we’re back to the 1980 level. A 30% increase in CO2 has caused absolutely no warming. None. How can anyone have any credibility in this theory? Let me repeat, CO2 has “trapped” a net 0.00 W/m^2 in the atmosphere since 1980 even though CO2 is 30% higher.

    • Richard M says:

      The oceans have warmed and that energy will influence atmospheric temperatures after the influence of the current La Nina ends. I agree it has nothing to do with mythical “trapped heat”.

      Sorry to say, this temporary cooling is not going to end the climate debate.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Richard Says: The oceans have warmed and that energy will influence atmospheric temperatures

        Yep, now we have to ask, what is warming the oceans. CO2 and 13 to 18µ, can’t and doesn’t warm the oceans, especially at the 50m depth, which is where the warming is. That is warmed by visible radiation.

        Also, as you pointed out, El Nino will cool the atmosphere and remove energy from the system. No one denies that. If that is a fact, then there is no way for CO2 to cause catastrophic warming unless El Ninos end. Facts are, at best CO2 can cause an increased frequency of El Ninos, not catastrophic warming.

        • Richard M says:

          What is warming the oceans? I suspect there are multiple factors involved but two things may be more important than most people think.

          Ocean salinity has been on the increase for around 400 years. This may be part of the reason for the recovery from the LIA. Higher salinity reduces evaporation which is a cooling mechanism. Humans have also been adding to the natural levels.

          On top of that humans have been polluting the oceans with plastic. It is light enough to float near the surface. It gets broken down into micro-plastic bits which makes it hard to see but it is there. This also reduces evaporation as well as absorbing higher energy solar energy which would normally penetrate much deeper into the water.

          It is not unreasonable that much of the warming of the last 40 years is due to these effects.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            When someone explains exactly why temperatures have always fluctuated on times scales of multiple decades, centuries, and millennia, then I will believe they will have some basis for saying why they have done so for the past few decades.
            Pre-global warming alarmism, there was a clearly and well documented pattern of several decades of cooling following several decades of warming, and going by data collected up to that point in time, it was clear we have seen nothing like the 1930s-1940s warmth and frequency of all manner of weather calamities.

            The only thing that has changed is that some people want to convince everyone that bad weather is a new thing that never used to happen, and it is getting steadily and inexorably worserer and worserer.
            Where exactly is the climate crisis on this graph?
            Or in the actual world?
            It exists no where at all, except in the deluded raving of alarmist panic-mongering end-of-world catastrophists.

            The internet and the MSM is the new city street corner sandwich board.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            And, I forgot to add, elected politicians are the new crazy old men holding those sandwich boards and screaming about the end being nigh to anyone stupid enough to listen.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Richard M Says: Ocean salinity has been on the increase for around 400 years. This may be part of the reason for the recovery from the LIA. Higher salinity reduces evaporation which is a cooling mechanism. Humans have also been adding to the natural levels.

            Great point Richard, and that raises another issue I doubt any of the CO2 alarmists thought of. They claim we have been warming and sea level increasing. That is 100% inconsistent with an increase in salinity. An increase in salinity is associated with a decrease in sea level. Have sea levels been decreasing? Actually yes. Look at any major historical site in antiquity. Thermopyle is 2 km inland, Troy is 2km inland, Hannable crossed the Alps, Carthage harbor isn’t under water, Pompaii graves that used to be accessed by boat are now tourist attractions that you walk to.

            “On top of that humans have been polluting the oceans with plastic. It is light enough to float near the surface. It gets broken down into micro-plastic bits which makes it hard to see but it is there. This also reduces evaporation as well as absorbing higher energy solar energy which would normally penetrate much deeper into the water.”

            That is nonsense. Micro plastic is warming the oceans? Show some data to support that claim.

          • Richard M says:

            CO2isLife asks for data about plastic pollution: Here’s a paper that talks to the pollution itself.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15611

            This is from rivers and does not count beaches and boats in the ocean itself.

            Will it cause warming? What we know is fresh water has the highest evaporation rate and will hold the most CO2. Anything that reduces the freshness will lead to less evaporation and more CO2 outgassing.

            Is it enough to have cause the warming we have seen? I don’t think it would be completely responsible. However, on top of the natural salinity change it could be a factor.

          • Ken says:

            How does a neutral substance like plastic influence pH or the ‘freshness’ of water?

            Yeah, plastic can’t be a good thing to throw into the water but it isn’t a toxic substance and so far there isn’t evidence of it affecting the carbon cycle at any stage.

      • Tim Wells says:

        No what you mean is your lost the argument and can’t admit you was FOOLish.

    • Bellman says:

      “Now we’re back to the 1980 level.”

      Not sure what you mean by that. There was only one month in 1980 that was as warm as April 2021. The first 4 months of 2021 have been 0.21C warmer than the first 4 months of 1980.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Bellman Says: Not sure what you mean by that. There was only one month in 1980 that was as warm as April 2021. The first 4 months of 2021 have been 0.21C warmer than the first 4 months of 1980.

        The atmosphere isn’t a battery, the energy level of the atmosphere is back to the level of 1980. CO2 has “trapped” exactly 0.00 W/M^2. How is this possible that 30% more CO2 has temperature levels back to the identical level it was back in 1980? Light comes in and leaves the atmosphere at the speed of light, leaving a bit slower, but still very fast. CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules. There is a whole lot af area between CO2 molecules even in the lower atmosphere, but the distance between them increases with altitude. Evidence CO2 actually helps cools the stratosphere. You act like warming next month may be important and you can blame it on CO2. You can’t. Warming will only occur if new energy is added to the system, that is the only way, and CO2 doesn’t add energy to the system.

        • Bellman says:

          I never mentioned CO2, I just asked what you mean by “back to the levels of 1980”?

          • CO2isLife says:

            Bellman, just look at the graphic. The level is back to where we were in 1980. The current month is below the average.

          • Bellman says:

            Maybe you should have said one month in 1980 if that’s what you mean. But then by that logic we are also 0.3C warmer than 1980.

        • Bellman says:

          Where do you think energy goes during a La Nina? Does it cause less energy to enter the system or more to leave it?

          • CO2isLife says:

            Bellman: Where do you think energy goes during a La Nina? Does it cause less energy to enter the system or more to leave it?

            How would La Nina prevent energy from entering the system? Once the warm water from El Nino leaves, cold water from La Nina fills in the void. It is more energy shuffling/moving than adding or subtracting.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “It is more energy shuffling/moving than adding or subtracting.”

            So sort of like a rechargeable battery that can shuffle energy to and from the atmosphere at various times. Like shuffling in energy in 1980 and shuffling out energy in 2021.

        • Nate says:

          “The atmosphere isnt a battery, the energy level of the atmosphere is back to the level of 1980. CO2 has ‘trapped’..”

          Co2 ignores contradictory facts, as usual.

          As to electrical analogs, the atm is more like a resistor, and the ocean is a capacitor, a rather big one.

          The ‘trapped’ heat is mostly in the ocean, the atm is the medium through which it gets into and out of the ocean.

          The land and ice sheets also soak up some heat.

    • Eze says:

      “Now were back to the 1980 level. A 30% increase in CO2 has caused absolutely no warming. None.”

      You seriously need to learn how to build a linear trend
      You can start here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_trend_estimation

      • straight says:

        draw a line from the warmest month in 1980 to today

        the net (seasonally adjusted) energy gain over that entire period is ZERO

        nada

        zip

        zilch

        the various ways we can fit curves to the space between doesn’t change that

      • CO2isLife says:

        Eze Says: You seriously need to learn how to build a linear trend

        Really? What does a linear trend have to do with current temperatures? CO2 is 30% higher and temperatures are back to 1980 levels. Please explain the linear regression I get when I have a data point in 1980 at 0.00 and today at 0.00. Just what is the slope? Also, newsflash, there is no linear trend anywhere in that data set longer than maybe 5 years. Also, if you run your linear regression you will get an R-Squared of about 0.00. Basically there is noise, there isn’t a linear trend. Anyway, Δ Temp isn’t a function of ΔCO2, it is a function of &Delts;W/m^2. Feel free to explain how you get a linear relationship out of this relationship. Hint, it is a log function, not a linear function.
        https://open.oregonstate.education/app/uploads/sites/37/2019/07/f09_rfco2_t3.png

        • Nicholas McGinley says:

          “CO2 is 30% higher and temperatures are back to 1980 levels.”

          Yup, exactly.
          And while it may only be one month from 1980 and one month of 2021, that is only so far.
          The present trend can continue, and if it does, the graph will look a lot different pretty quickly.

          It also needs to be pointed out that 1980 was at the bottom of a decades long sharp cooling trend.
          So we are now cooler than the period of 1950-1980 for the most part.
          Far below the vast majority of the months in those three decades.
          And we are heading down, and we could have a strong volcanic eruption at any time. We are overdue for some of them, historically speaking.
          It is beyond belief how selectively warmistas are able to focus their minds.
          None of these data points exist in isolation.
          Not looking at everything we know, IOW, the Big Picture, by definition means one is applying selective attention.

          We have very good surface observations going back many decades in quite a few cities worldwide, and we have such data for the US going back over 100 years.
          And in none of these places, do unadjusted records show any long term overall warming. Instead they all show various patterns of cyclical variation.
          Anyone who is not a child and who has spent a lot of time out of doors over many decades observing the weather, knows that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING UNUSUAL HAPPENING WITH THE WEATHER, ANYWHERE!

          It is really as simple as that.
          Take away all the fake crap by biased advocates for a failed hypothesis, and there is no actual measured data showing anything like CO2 caused global warming is occurring.
          I have been following this issue since the day James Hansen gave his talk to congress in 1988, and have been a careful observer and student of these subjects for a lot longer than that, and I can say with 100% certainty, that not one single warmista gave any possibility of 2021, or any month in this year, heading back to 1980 temperatures.
          What we have had is 43 years of grave and urgent pronouncements of imminent and sure-as-the-Sun-will-rise-tomorrow catastrophic impacts. The projected date of the onset of doom has been various within a few years, or actually in progress, and the only question was how bad is it going to get?
          Six feet of water on the west side highway, tens of millions of climate refugees, and not a maybe about it, the end of ice, the end of polar bears (who were already starved to skin and bones and adrift on an ice floe), the end of snow, huge and frequent hurricanes from now on, starting in 2004 and not only no possibility of that being wrong, but in fact we will need to invent a few new categories about cat 5, never gonna rain again in Texas, end of the story, never gonna rain again in Australia, end of the story, never gonna rain in California again, end of the story, the only place habitable by mid century will be Antarctica, end of the story because the rest of the Earth is a doomed inferno of hellish death, last time we will ever see even a decent crop harvest, sea level drowning the Maldives and every atoll in the Pacific, and we might as well start splitting up the people on them and shipping them out, cause it is a done deal, Oranges growing in Iowa, the end of permafrost, sea level rise drowning Miami, it is already started, the collapse of the ice sheets, the end of glaciers…they are ALL melting fast and all but gone already, We have five years left to save the planet, make that 12 months, no, make it 6 months…oh wait, make it two years…Widespread megadroughts everywhere except where there will be megafloods, more tornadoes, more and stronger hurricanes again, forget about the hurricane drought, those are not the droids you are looking for, six years with no warming will prove the idea wrong, better make it ten, pause, what pause, oh that pause, 87 reasons for the 15 year long pause, oh wait, no…no there never was a pause, the atolls are almost gone now, only inches left, any day any day, wait…wait, the real problem is ocean acidifciation, I mean coral bleaching, I mean ice sheet collapse, I mean the urgently important frozen wastelands at the poles must stay frigidly ice locked or WE ARE ALL DEAD(!), we only have a few years to act again, we have to act now, we have to act before 2031, we only have 13 years to act, sea level will rise several inches by 2100, Antarctica is gaining ice…wait, what…no no no that is not true, it is melting fast…or soon will be, WAIS could be gone very quickly, in the end the last of the Arctic sea ice will just vanish quickly away, death spiral, the Arctic is screaming(!), the real issue is climate crisis, climate crisis ongoing, we must tackle the climate, climate deniers are killing your children, must take to the streets, we could warm by the last few fractions of a degree that will tip us over into Cinderville, Coral bleaching again, Get rid of all the CO2, and also all the ways to make power within CO2 emissions, hate them hydro dams, hate that nuclear, climate crisis an existential threat, windmills and solar panels are the only hope, stay on message, avoid specifics, just hammer the climate crisis, we need to tackle the climate, global weirding, climate chaos, private jets and megayachts at luxury resorts for me, eating bugs and ride your bike for thee…It does not matter how or what is gonna happen, the important thing is to stay on message, move the goalposts, alter the data, and pretend that although it seems every measure of prosperity is way up across the planet, and the islands are larger, and the coral grew back…everyone knows the crisis must be tackled and it is all the deniers’ fault.

          Yeah, 40 years of moving goalposts and failed predictions, but in 2021 we can pretend that the entire lower troposphere being no warmer than the warmest month of the coldest year of the entire 20th century, does not really mean warmistas have gotten anything wrong…does it?
          You warmista jackasses make the Mr. Short Term Memory skit guy on SNL look like the president of Mensa.
          Seriously…do you ever read anything, or recall what you were yammering about a couple of years ago?
          Any of you?
          Ever?
          I mean it…I want an answer from each and every one of you for why any serious person on the planet should take anything you say as anything other than a joke or a naked power grab or a sign of a brain tumor grown wild?

          I wish I knew how to grow a selective memory, because then maybe I would not have to think about how much you fools wasting all of our money and time make me so goddamn SICK!

      • barry says:

        “draw a line from the warmest month in 1980 to today

        the net (seasonally adjusted) energy gain over that entire period is ZERO”

        Nope. That’s not “the entire period.”

        The period being tested here is exactly 2 months.

        If you want to figure out the energy gain over the “entire” period, you use all the data for that period, not 2 cherry-picked months.

        I could pick a warm day in Winter that is as warm as a cold day in the following Summer, and hey presto! There was zero net energy gain in my hemisphere between Winter and Summer.

        Using your logic, that is the conclusion.

        But use all the temperature data for Winter and all the temperature data for Summer, and you will see that there WAS a net energy gain.

        Avoiding cherry-picking data is easy once you realize that this is what you are doing.

        • bill hunter says:

          how many months would you suggest Barry?

        • barry says:

          All months for the selected period, which in this case is 1980 to present.

          • bill hunter says:

            ok so pretty harmless warming then.

          • barry says:

            So far.

          • Steve Case says:

            barry says:
            May 3, 2021 at 5:26 PM
            So far.

            So Far is 40 years, and if you count Global Cooling, 50 years.

            When is this catastrophic disaster going to begin to happen?

            Well OK, not zackly the topic of the last few posts, but you know where I’m coming from. The climate crisis is always a tipping point away, over there, just under the surface, you can’t see it, and it won’t feel that much different, but it’s gonna gitcha.

          • bdgwx says:

            Steve Case said: When is this catastrophic disaster going to begin to happen?

            Can you define “catastrophic”? What amount of warming would you consider “catastrophic”?

          • Steve Case says:

            bdgwx says:
            May 4, 2021 at 2:05 PM
            Steve Case said: When is this catastrophic disaster going to begin to happen?

            Can you define catastrophic? What amount of warming would you consider catastrophic?

            You can Google “catastrophic climate change” to see how often the fear mongers use the phrase. Ask them for a definition.

          • bdgwx says:

            I did just that. There does not seem to be an accepted definition. It is different depending on who you ask. For example, The Guardian seems to think 1.5C of warming is catastrophic and you could infer from Hansen 2013 that 16C is catastrophic though Hansen’s rhetoric suggests lower values as well, but the IPCC does not think any amount of warming is catastrophic or at least is mute on the topic. For me no reasonable amount of warming is catastrophic. So to answer your question we need to know what your definition of “catastrophic” is.

        • straight says:

          lol we gave you a cherry and you complained it was cherry picked

          neither date is arbitrary

          the present date is obviously the present date

          the warmest date in 1980 is the earliest date at which we can say the energy of the Earth was the same

          learn some basic logic, then try physics

          • bdgwx says:

            UAH-TLT is not a good proxy for the climate system. It is but a subset of the atmosphere which itself is a subset of the climate system. The atmosphere only accounts for about 1% of the total excessive heat uptake. The climate system as a whole (land, atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere) has accumulated over 250 ZJ of energy since 1980. So the energy of “the Earth” is not the same today as it was in 1980…not even close. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj).

          • also says:

            good point, also don’t forget the Earth’s core

            plus if you factor in the Sun the Earth barely has any energy anyway

          • bdgwx says:

            Earth’s surface absorbs 3.9e24 j of energy from the Sun each year.

            Earth’s surface absorbs 1.6e21 j of energy from the radiothermal heat generated in the core and tidal dissipation of the Earth-Moon system each year.

            Neither of these sources of energy have been forgotten by scientists.

          • mdmill says:

            1)catastrophe: an event causing great and often sudden damage or suffering.

            2)The UAH global average temperature trend is not a proxy for the climate system, it is an estimation of the observable global average temperatures and trend. Further, according to the models, the UAH (and RSS) global average lower troposphere anomaly can be taken as an upper limit on the same surface anomaly, unless the models are simply unreliable. And satellite and radio sonde balloon data indicate the models are probably significantly over estimating observed warming, by roughly a factor of 2 (and the models vary amongst themselves by roughly a factor of 2).

          • bdgwx says:

            1. The part about being sudden is the main reason why I don’t think any reasonable amount of warming can be described as catastrophic.

            2. If by models you mean the CMIP suite then understand that they do reproduce surface temperatures quite well. They certainly aren’t perfect, but not even remotely close to overestimating by a factor of 2. https://tinyurl.com/yr893sp7

          • bill hunter says:

            ‘great and often sudden damage ‘

            so your opinion is based on a misreading of the definition.

            ‘great’ damage is all that is required.

            sometimes minor damage is considered a catastrophe also when it happens suddenly and unexpectently. ‘Catastrophe struck and the quarterback fumbled.’

            in that latter use its essentially slang.

            many will die from the cost of increasing the price of energy in a world built on such energy. that would be a catastrophe. and the only justification for it be an assured much larger cafastrophe. the government should not be dictating who should live and who should die

        • straight says:

          “I could pick a warm day in Winter that is as warm as a cold day in the following Summer,”

          in winter we know it’s going to get warmer

          the future path of global temperatures is far less predictable

          • barry says:

            “in winter we know it’s going to get warmer”

            Yes, we do, and we are not fooled that Summer is canceled just because one day in Summer was colder than a warm day the previous Winter.

            But AGW ‘skeptics’ are fooled that all the warming was canceled when one month 40 years ago is warmer than a month 40 years later.

            It’s the difference between weather and climate. ‘Skeptics’ don’t understand it.

        • Nicholas McGinley says:

          Well, Barry gets my vote for most elaborately inane and irrelevantly contrived triple somersault mental gymnastics.

          Seriously…do you know that every word you are saying is the very definition of sophistry?
          A warm day in December is exactly the same as no trend over 40 years on a seasonally adjusted map of the heat content of the entire atmosphere, and global warming is actually proceeding apace?
          When will you apprise us all of the actual date of extreme and dangerous warming?
          What is the new estimate of doomsday?
          Nothing bad happening now, nothing bad was happening in the warmest year on that graph, or any other…you know that, right?
          Bad weather has always been a thing, you do know that, do you not?
          Sea ice is not shrinking anyplace, it is growing, glaciers are surging, places in both hemispheres are have days long and widespread cold not seen since the the global cooling scare that never was.
          No refugees, coral grew back, ocean still not vinegar, still no cat 11 hurricanes, islands not a single square meter smaller, and in the ultimate same old same old…warmistas have still not thought of a single new thing to say, and still have no explanation for being completely wrong about every single thing every one of them has said for over 30 years now.
          And that is a long time.

          You guys have painted yourselves deep into a corner.
          Not a one of you has left a single way to extricate yourself from absolute and abject humiliation, which of course no even semi-intelligent mind can ever allow to happen to the consciousness of the person lugging around that big brain everywhere.

          I can say one thing I am very glad of: I am glad I learned how to stay objective and evidence based, and not jump to conclusions and stick my fool neck out while leaving myself no qualifying remarks or intellectual recourse.
          I say this with all seriousness…it must be a very nervous place to be living inside such a mind.
          I feel pity for you all, real pity.

      • Nate says:

        “draw a line from the warmest month in 1980 to today”

        Ok so if plot heights of Presidents, I should draw a line from 1865 (Lincoln 6’4″), to today (Biden, 6’0), and conclude that Presidential heights have been trending downward for the last 150 y?

        Or perhaps, should I use all the heights of Presidents in between? Hmmm.

    • Skye says:

      Absolutely no warming since 1980?

      Look at the red line my dude.

      *sighs in basic statistics*

  3. CO2isLife says:

    One thing I want to note is that the entire range of temperature variation in the above graphic is 1.4C°. That is far less than the average diurnal change in temperature.

    In the absence of such extreme air-mass changes, diurnal temperature variations typically range from 10 or fewer degrees in humid, tropical areas, to 40-50 degrees in higher-elevation,

    People are hysterical because the global temperature variation is a fraction of the daily temperature variation.

    To make matters worse, we are now back to the level in 1980, so you can’t even say CO2 has caused any change in temperatures.

    • Chris Schoneveld says:

      That argument doesn’t hold water. The diurnal temperature variations during the Little Ice Age were equally large, yet the estimated average global temperature was only some 2 degrees C lower than today’s. Apparently a change in global average temperature of 2 degrees is significant, unless you also want to downplay the difference in climate between then and now. Don’t get me wrong, I do think that an increase in global temperatures (and CO2) is beneficial overall.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Chris, my point is that the temperature change since 1980 is 0.00C°, and the variation over that time is a fraction of the daily variation, meaning that we are way way way within any confidence interval or possible normal temperatures due to normal variations.

        • Chris Schoneveld says:

          You are comparing apples and oranges: the peak temperature during an El Niño with a low temperature during a La Niña. You could also call this: cherry picking. You should use the trend 0.14 °C/decade, which would amount to 0.6 °C increase since 1980, not 0.00 °C.

          Wouldn’t you think it dishonest if an alarmist would claim in 2016 (at the peak of the El Niño with +0.7 °C) that the temperature increased by 1.4 °C in only 31 years by comparing it with the bottom of the La Niña in 1985 (-7°C)? You are doing the same in the other direction.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Chris says: ou are comparing apples and oranges: the peak temperature during an El Niño with a low temperature during a La Niña. You could also call this: cherry picking. You should use the trend 0.14 °C/decade, which would amount to 0.6 °C increase since 1980, not 0.00 °C.

            Really? remove El Nino and you get no warming and the volatility drops. Even with El Nino we are back to 1980 levels. Also, the oceans are warming, not the surface, 50 m deep. How is CO2 warming that depth of water? If you can’t explain how 13 to 18µ LWIR can warm that water, you can’t claim CO2 is causing the warming.

        • Chris Schoneveld says:

          There was a font problem:

          You are comparing apples and oranges by comparing the peak temperature during an El Nino with a low temperature during a La Nina. This is cherry picking. You should use the trend 0.14 C/decade, which would amount to 0.6 C increase since 1980, not 0.00 C.

          Wouldnt you think it dishonest if an alarmist would claim in 2016 (at the peak of the El Nino (with +0.7 C) that the temperature increased by 1.4 C in only 31 years by comparing it with the bottom of the La Nina in 1985 (-7 C)? You are doing the same in the other direction.

      • Nate says:

        “yet the estimated average global temperature was only some 2 degrees C lower than todays.”

        Where are getting this from?

  4. Matt1685 says:

    You can’t just picked out months. There’s month to month variability. There’s clearly a warming trend in the data over the 40+ years. How much of that is natural variability on decadal time scales and how much is manmade is another matter. But you have to be oblivious to not see the warming trend. The convenient red line points it out for you.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Matt1685: In the absence of such extreme air-mass changes, diurnal temperature variations typically range from 10 or fewer degrees in humid, tropical areas, to 40-50 degrees in higher-elevation,

      Oh yes I can. The atmosphere isn’t like a battery. Energy leaves this system at the speed of light. The energy in the atmosphere is identical to the level in 1980.

      How can an increase in CO2 by 30% result in no warming if CO2 causes warming?

      Please explain how that can happen.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Ooops, Matt1685 Says: You cant just picked out months. Theres month to month variability.

        Oh yes I can. The atmosphere isnt like a battery. Energy leaves this system at the speed of light. The energy in the atmosphere is identical to the level in 1980.

        How can an increase in CO2 by 30% result in no warming if CO2 causes warming?

        Please explain how that can happen.

        • Matt1685 says:

          Yes, you can. It only makes you wrong to do so. It’s no different than looking at a warm day in December and saying, “Oh! It’s 70 degrees today, the same as it was on June 16th 5 years ago! Seasonality of temperatures is a myth! How can there be over twice the incoming solar radiation in June as December and yet the temperature is the same?! Clearly there isn’t really any difference in incoming solar radiation in June and December!”

          • CO2isLife says:

            Matt1685, that is the deviation from the mean. The energy level is consistent with the whole atmosphere. That total atmosphere energy level is the same level as 1980. That means that CO2 has trapped 0.00 energy since that time period. How can CO2 increase by 30% and the current energy level be below the mean and at levels seen back in the 1980s? How is CO2 causing warming?

          • Ken says:

            Clearly there IS a difference in incoming solar radiation in June and December. 91Wm-2 due to orbital mechanics. Way more than the 1.7Wm-2 attributed to CO2 since 1950s.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            Here is the thing…we do not know what will happen going forwards.
            If the people that say the last 30-40 years is simply part of a cyclic fluctuation, up and then down, within a range, then the graph will look a lot different a few years from now, and 30-40 years from now, it will be a sine wave like pattern.

            Clearly none of the warmistas ever predicted what we are now seeing.
            Just like they never predicted the pause, and eventually erased it from the data sets they could alter, in order to not have to do a bad job of explaining it away any more.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            Meant to say, if those people are correct, who say the past years of warming are merely a leg of a cyclic fluctuation…

          • Nate says:

            “That total atmosphere energy level is the same level as 1980. That means that CO2 has trapped 0.00 energy since that time period.”

            C’mon CO2, do you severe memory loss? It has been discussed numerous time that most of thermal energy is in the ocean. And the Ocean Heat Content is still well above the levels of of 1980.

            And AGAIN, “How can an increase in CO2 by 30% result in no warming if CO2 causes warming?” is a strawman.

            No one is claiming that ONLY CO2 causes atmospheric temperature change. There is also internal variability like ENSO.

          • Swenson says:

            N,

            The ocean is no different from any other salt water with regard to solar heating. Heats up in sunlight, cools at night.

            Self styled “climatologists” believe in magic. Heated water gets denser, cold water starts floating, melting sea ice raises sea levels, plate tectonics doesn’t exist . . .

            Believe the science deniers if you wish. Still won’t change facts. Boo hoo.

          • Matt1685 says:

            CO2isLife, it’s irrelevant if you’re talking about a global reading or a local reading, the problem with the reasoning is the same. There is inherent variability and two data points are cherry picked with the same value and then used to declare that a conclusion that can be made by looking at the entire information available to us can’t be true.

            Ken, yes that’s the whole point. There clearly is a difference in incoming solar radiation between June and December, and that’s exactly why the situation I proposed demonstrates the problem with CO2isLife’s reasoning.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Ken Says: Clearly there IS a difference in incoming solar radiation in June and December. 91Wm-2 due to orbital mechanics. Way more than the 1.7Wm-2 attributed to CO2 since 1950s.

          What hemisphere are you talking about? Winter in the N Hemis is Summer in the S Hemi. Just look at the data sets. Do you see an annual trend? Nope. Jan 0.42 July 0.31 Nov 0.40

          YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
          2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
          2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
          2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
          2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
          2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
          2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
          2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
          2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
          2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
          2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
          2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
          2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
          2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
          2021 02 0.20 0.31 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
          2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
          2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29

          • Ken says:

            The moderating effect of ocean currents means the temperature data isn’t going to show the contrast in energy flux changes over the same period.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Do you see an annual trend? “

            These data are *anomalies*. Each month’s value is compared to previous values *for that month*. Any variations within the year are averaged away. The actual data looks more like this: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/hottest-month/

            The temperatures are warmer in July it seems — summer in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the land is.

            “What hemisphere are you talking about? Winter in the N Hemis is Summer in the S Hemi.”

            The elliptical shape puts the earth closer in January, which makes “which hemisphere?” moot. The earth as a whole gets more energy in January.

          • Bart says:

            Not in a time-averaged sense. It is a remarkable fact about elliptical orbits – you spend less time at periapsis than you do at apoapsis. The intercepted energy is the same over any identical angular spread.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bart, I suspect you mean something like “in an angle-averaged sense”. I have not specifically heard of or thought about this, but it sort of makes sense that as the earth moves 1/12 of an orbit = 30 degrees around the sun, that the energy is the same. But that 30 degrees would take less time in January than July (maybe 30 days vs 32 days).

            But January still gets more in its 31 days than July gets in its 31 days.

            (I thnink I got that right, but I have to rush off to work).

          • bdgwx says:

            Bart,

            TSI is 1360 W/m^2. This is the average over one orbital cycle. The instantaneous value varies between 1310-1410 W/m^2. At apogee the Earth receives (1310 / 4) W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 86400 s = 1.44e22 joules in one day. At perigee the Earth receives (1410 / 4) W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 86400 s = 1.55e22 joules in one day. Despite the Earth moving faster at perigee than apogee it still receives more energy on days in January as compared to July.

            The fact that the angular velocity is higher at perigee vs apogee is interesting in that it means that changes in eccentricity of Earth’s orbit do not substantially alter the total integrated energy received over one orbital cycle. In other words a more circular orbit still receives roughly the same energy as a more elliptic orbit over the course of a complete orbit. The reason why Earth’s eccentricity is so crucial in long term climatic change is not because the yearly energy changes, but because the timing and distribution of that energy changes. It’s the same with axial tilt. Changes in Earth’s axial tilt do not change the total amount of energy Earth receives, but it does change the timing and distribution of that energy.

          • Bart says:

            Tim:

            “But January still gets more in its 31 days than July gets in its 31 days.”

            This is an arbitrary delineation. It’s always daytime somewhere.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            ME >> But January still gets more in its 31 days than July gets in its 31 days.

            BART > This is an arbitrary delineation. It’s always daytime somewhere.

            No, this is not arbitrary, and has nothing to do with “daytime somewhere”. The earth is closer to the sun in Jan than in Jul. So in 24 hr in Jan, more energy arrives across the face of the earth than in 24 hr in Jul. bdgwx just showed the calculations.

          • Bart says:

            bdgwx added nothing to the conversation. Yes, it is arbitrary. The annual cycle has to do with revolution about the Sun. The daily cycle with rotation of the Earth. They are decoupled.

          • Bart says:

            Honestly, I’m not sure what we’re arguing about here. I was just trying to be helpful to whomever in pointing out that, solstice to equinox (and equinox to equinox, and solstice to solstice, etc.) the Earth receives the same amount of solar energy regardless of the eccentricity of the orbit.

          • bdgwx says:

            Bart,

            The point is that Earth receives more energy on a daily basis in January than it does in July yet the global mean temperature is higher in July than it is January. My comment is spot on relevant to topic being discussed in this subthread.

          • barry says:

            If it helps, Roy Spencer posted about the annual cycle in UAH global temp data here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/

            Roy’s explanation of the annual cycle, where LT temps are 2C warmer in July than January:

            “The annual cycle is shown in the inset, with peak temperatures in July, due to the Northern Hemisphere land mass responding so strongly to summer sunlight.”

    • Steve McGee says:

      True, longer term trend is clearly positive.

      But the extent is small and the effects benign.

      And the recent decreases may be a reversion to the mean of absorbed solar, which, according to CERES, has been anomalously high the past two decades.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Matt1685 says: You cant just picked out months. Theres month to month variability.

      Actually there really isn’t if you look at the data. Remember these are global temperatures so when one hemi is in winter the other is in summer. If what you say was true you would see a serrated chart, with the low in Dec, high in July, and back down to Dec. You don’t see that because when one hemi is in mid Summer the other hemi is in mid winter.

      Anyway Dr. Spencer, he does make a good point. Why not instead of haveing a 30 year annual average, have a 30 year January average, 30 year February average, etc etc etc, and have each month compared to the average of its month, not the annual average?

      • Bellman says:

        “If what you say was true you would see a serrated chart, with the low in Dec, high in July, and back down to Dec. You don’t see that because when one hemi is in mid Summer the other hemi is in mid winter.”

        You don’t see that because these are monthly anomalies. The absolute temperatures do vary across the year.

        “Anyway Dr. Spencer, he does make a good point. Why not instead of haveing a 30 year annual average, have a 30 year January average, 30 year February average, etc etc etc, and have each month compared to the average of its month, not the annual average?”

        That’s exactly how the monthly anomalies are computed.

      • barry says:

        CO2isLife,

        With no seasonal adjustment to UAH data there is a 2C difference globally between January and July.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/

        So what you said:

        “Remember these are global temperatures so when one hemi is in winter the other is in summer. If what you say was true you would see a serrated chart, with the low in Dec, high in July, and back down to Dec. You don’t see that because when one hemi is in mid Summer the other hemi is in mid winter.”

        is completely wrong and you do see a ‘serrated’ effect. Check the link. It is straight from the people who compile the UAH data set (ie, Roy Spencer).

        You are STILL blunderingly asserting that if there is a steady change to underlying energy amounts (either warming OR cooling) in the global heat budget, you should see global air temperature change in the same direction every month.

        That is as stupid as saying that Summer is no warmer than Winter, just because one day in Summer happened to be cooler than a warm day in Winter. But that is simply weather variability, and seasons actually exist.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Barry Says: You are STILL blunderingly asserting that if there is a steady change to underlying energy amounts (either warming OR cooling) in the global heat budget, you should see global air temperature change in the same direction every month.

          Ok, the data is seasonally adjusted like I recommended to Dr. Spencer. That doesn’t help your CO2 causes climate change argument, it weakens it. If CO2 was truly the cause you wouldn’t seem randomness like you are seeing. The linear trend would be undeniable. Clearly there are many exogenous factors that are driving temperatures. Have you developed a model to tease out those factors? Nope, and you say I’m blunderingly. You obviously have no experience with multivariate modeling because climate models are a complete joke.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Ok, the data is seasonally adjusted like I recommended to Dr. Spencer.”

            Seriously? You have no concept that these are monthly data, nor do you recognize the most rudimentary facts about earth’s elliptical orbit, and you want us to believe that you are giving advice to Dr Spencer and you are an expert in multivariate modelling?

          • barry says:

            I mean, seriously, how deluded is this fool?

            “If CO2 was truly the cause you wouldn’t seem randomness like you are seeing.”

            Yes, of course you would. You would continue to see ups and downs, no matter what the cause of long term global temperature change. You are insane to suggest otherwise. Just plain loopy.

            “The linear trend would be undeniable.”

            0.14 C/decade (+/- 0.05)

            The linear trend is undeniable. It’s also corroborated, including with statistical significance, for the same period for all the other data sets.

          • bdgwx says:

            CO2isLife said: If CO2 was truly the cause you wouldnt seem randomness like you are seeing.

            That’s absurd. CO2 doesn’t stop weather from happening. It doesn’t ENSO from happening. It doesn’t magically stop heat transfer between land, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and the cryosphere. The atmosphere has a very small thermal mass/inertia as compared to the rest of the climate system so small changes in heat transport yield large changes in its temperature. Atmospheric temperatures are very noisy. I highly recommend you look at the climate system as whole where there is far less noise. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj) for a brief overview of how the excess heat/energy is distributed throughout the climate system.

      • barry says:

        “Why not instead of haveing a 30 year annual average, have a 30 year January average, 30 year February average, etc etc etc, and have each month compared to the average of its month, not the annual average?”

        Is this a joke?

        That is actually how it is done.

        • Chris Sc says:

          Barry,
          The temperature trends for the months are not the same as the annual trend.
          The annual trend is 0.14 C/decade. However, the trend from September to March (from 1979-2021) is around 0.15 C/decade. The trend for the period March – September is 0.125 C/decade.
          If you select only the January months, this would give a warming trend is 0.156 C/decade. So the January months have warmed more than the July months. Is that maybe what CO2islife is referring to?

        • Chris Schoneveld says:

          Barry,
          The temperature trends for the months are not the same as the annual trend.
          The annual trend is 0.14 C/decade. However, the trend from September to March (from 1979-2021) is around 0.15 C/decade. The trend for the period March – September is 0.125 C/decade.
          If you select only the January months, this would give a warming trend is 0.156 C/decade. So the January months have warmed more than the July months. Is that maybe what CO2islife is referring to?

  5. skeptikal says:

    I’m predicting that 2021 will NOT be the warmest year ever.

  6. Matt1685 says:

    Yes, you can. It only makes you wrong to do so. It’s no different than looking at a warm day in December and saying, “Oh! It’s 70 degrees today, the same as it was on June 16th 5 years ago! Seasonality of temperatures is a myth! How can there be over twice the incoming solar radiation in June as December and yet the temperature is the same?! Clearly there isn’t really any difference in incoming solar radiation in June and December!”

  7. Richard M says:

    Once again we see an almost perfect match between 6 month old SST changes and UAH. The HadSST3 value for 11/20 had a .02 drop while UAH shows a .04 drop.

    The changes in HadSST3 for Dec (-.09) and Jan (-.03) predict we will see minor drops in UAH over the next couple of months. Of course, other factors could come into play so keep that in mind.

    It would not be surprising to see a value around -.20. Satellite data at the peaks and valleys of SST variation often shows larger extremes so it could even reach -.30.

    https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend

    • barry says:

      I wonder why UAH global trend is exactly the same as HadSST trend?

      In all data sets, global land trend is warming faster than global sea surface trend (including UAH).

  8. Tim Wells says:

    Expected greater cooling as we are still waiting for Spring in the UK.

  9. Pat from kerbob says:

    Its an illusion. Im sure this will be the warmest year ever because Biden demands it be so

  10. ren says:

    Very low UV radiation compared to previous solar cycles (no strong solar flares) means a decrease in total solar radiation. In this situation, the Pacific accumulates less heat during La Nina. In addition, longer periods of declining solar wind speeds will cause zonal circulation to block and winter polar vortex attacks in the mid-latitudes.
    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
    https://i.ibb.co/KN92gYb/plot-image-1.png
    The last period of decreasing solar wind speed was from late March to mid-April.
    This resulted in a brief weakening of the south polar vortex.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2021.png

  11. Tim S says:

    I think it is proven once again that ENSO is the controlling factor in climate, but not the only factor. I think we have to wait for the AMO to shift to the cold phase before any conclusion about other factors can be made.

  12. Rob Mitchell says:

    I have a question for the atmospheric scientists and physicists. I often see how global warming alarmists like to attach the Keeling Curve to the end of proxy data for dramatizing the extremely rapid increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the 1950s. And they make the argument that the earth has never seen such a dramatic rise of CO2 in a million years. This is unnatural, and will no doubt lead to a climate catastrophe.

    But I was wondering about the proxy data. Are we able to pick up the decadal fluctuations of CO2 content in the atmosphere back thousands of years ago like the instruments we use to measure CO2 with today? I suspect that the proxy data methods will not reveal temporary spikes of CO2 over decades of time. This makes a convenient comparison for those who want to demonstrate how humans are destroying the planet with excess CO2. Shouldn’t attaching instrument data to proxy data come with a caveat?

    It is difficult for me to believe that the atmosphere never had 400 ppm CO2 in the past million years until now.

    • barry says:

      If you’ve seen the Keeling curve you will have noted that there is no decadal fluctuation, just a steady rise, with very little year to year fluctuation (pretty much always goes up every year, in line with global emissions).

      Now, do you imagine that at 1956, when the curve starts, that CO2 levels magically stabilised in the atmosphere, so that suddenly there was no annual or decadal fluctuation (just a steady rise)?

      For a layman’s read of some of the technicalities I recommend AGW skeptic Ferdinand Englebeen, who is critical of many aspects of the mainstream view.

      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/climate.html

      This is the best page for your query.

      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

      • Bart says:

        Ferdinand is not a specialist. He’s just a process engineer who says things a lot of people want to believe.

        Meanwhile, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is still tracking temperature, just like Dr. Salby said.

      • barry says:

        Nope. Correlation is very inconsistent.

        https://tinyurl.com/4refms7s

        Temps went down, CO2 went up. When you plot your derivative graph, the fit is by the month, so there should be no opposite signed movement over 22 years. CO2 should have gone down from 1957 to 1979 if temps drive atmospheric CO2 content.

        Too far in the past for you? How about using UAH6.0 data?

        https://tinyurl.com/3wvk9r9r

        Temps go down or flat between 1998 and 2013 – the famous pause! – but CO2 climbs unimpeded.

        At certain times and scales, CO2 has lagged temps. Not currently.

        • Bart says:

          So, basically, you don’t understand calculus. Okay.

        • barry says:

          Meh.

          If CO2 followed temperature we shouls see that consistently, but we do not.

          We get 20 years of flat to cooling temps, and CO2 rises.

          I don’t need to know calculus to see that that is a departure.

          Monthly temperature changes can have an tiny affect on CO2, particularly during ENSO events, but this can only be seen at the micro level, as changes in the rate of accumulation (acceleration).

          Like the headwind buffeting your car after you pull away, where the micro changes in acceleration are not caused by fluctuations in the engine, so the micro changes in acceleration caused by ENSO not responsible for the macro increase of CO2 to the system.

          • Bart says:

            We do see that consistently.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Bart is referring to the incremental rise in CO2 that is sensitive to the temperature of the year. IMO, absolute CO2 is rising because of population growth. There’s a lot of burning, plowing, and decomposing going on out there.

          • Nate says:

            Yep and burning of FF are the largest source of Net additions to the carbon cycle.

          • Bart says:

            Absolute CO2 is the sum total of incremental changes. Incremental changes come about due to temperatures being offset from the equilibrium level.

            This relationship accounts for virtually everything we see. There is little to no room for inputs from FF combustion to be making a significant impact.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Yes, Bart, and the gNat just can’t avoid buzzing in with no model, no data. Not even references! Just obfuscation.

          • barry says:

            Bart,

            “Absolute CO2 is the sum total of incremental changes.”

            Absolute CO2 rise is definitely not the sum of changes in the acceleration of that rise, whihc is what your graph purports to show.

            It’s like saying the chopy headwinds that affect the acceleration of a car are what powers its engine.

          • Nate says:

            “no model, no data. Not even references!”

            Except the 47 times I gave you guys data and references.

            Facts seem to have no lasting effects when youve got belief.

          • bdgwx says:

            Bart said: This relationship accounts for virtually everything we see. There is little to no room for inputs from FF combustion to be making a significant impact.

            Mass is increasing in the atmosphere reservoir. Mass is increasing in the biosphere reservoir. Mass is increasing in the hydrosphere reservoir. But…mass in the fossil reservoir is actually decreasing and interestingly enough this decrease matches the total increase in other three. So I wonder…if the fossil reservoir is not the source of the mass for the other three then where did the fossil mass go and what sourced the increase in the other three reservoirs?

          • Nate says:

            “This relationship accounts for virtually everything we see. There is little to no room for inputs from FF combustion to be making a significant impact.”

            Contrarians all have different faiths.

            Bart goes the way of absolutism. He has absolute faith in temperature, many contradictory facts be damned.

            Meanwhile Chic’s model says ‘No’ to Bartism. Its Anthro, but not the glaringly obvious fossil fuels.

            But here he “Yes, Bart”?? I guess its whatever.

            Then we have Bill, whos just tryin out for cheerleader.

            Its all just about supporting contrarianism in all its crazy forms.

            What they’re FOR doesnt matter, is what they’re AGAINST!

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Meanwhile Chic’s model says ‘No’ to Bartism.”

            My model explains how Bartism = Salby.

            “…if the fossil reservoir is not the source of the mass for the other three then where did the fossil mass go and what sourced the increase in the other three reservoirs?”

            Nature doesn’t discriminate between the sources of CO2 that end up in the atmosphere. It’s obvious to those not blinded by AGW bias that FF emissions distribute in all other reservoirs and the increase in atmosphere CO2 is a contribution from all of the other reservoirs.

          • bill hunter says:

            Absolutely Chic. The only thing we have to go on for some kind of steady state co2 in the atmosphere are ice core studies and the meat I put in my freezer doesn’t do a good job of preserving much of anything except some leathery dried out chunk of horrendous tasting bone and sinew. The logic behind why that is a reliable figure is beyond me.

          • Nate says:

            “increase in atmosphere CO2 is a contribution from all of the other reservoirs.”

            Ha! Science is just whatever pops into your head I guess.

          • Nate says:

            “The logic behind why that is a reliable figure is beyond me.”

            True, it is beyond you.

            And once again, science will keep calm and carry on without you.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate can’t explain it either so he just goes ‘trust me’.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Bill,

            What you can trust Nate for is to obfuscate any comment that questions his belief in AGW.

      • barry says:

        “Ferdinand is not a specialist. He’s just a process engineer who says things..”

        You are also someone who says things. The difference is he makes cogent points with references, and he speaks to the topic.

        • Bart says:

          He dreams up how he wants things to be, and constructs a narrative unmoored from physical reality to support it. Total meh.

        • barry says:

          That’s complete nonsense. Compare the work he has done at the links I provided with your replies here. Your comments are vacuous pap.

        • Nate says:

          “We do see that consistently.”

          Given that you, Bart, have shown the inconsistencies countless times, isnt this a very good example of

          “he dreams up how he wants things to be, and constructs a narrative unmoored from physical reality to support it.”?

          • Nate says:

            arghhh “have been shown the inconsistencies”

          • Bart says:

            There are no inconsistencies.

          • Nate says:

            Thats religion talk.

          • bill hunter says:

            Iceball Earth Nate says:

            he dreams up how he wants things to be, and constructs a narrative unmoored from physical reality to support it.?

            ———————
            Kind of sounds like the pot calling the kettle black Nate.

          • Nate says:

            ‘There are no inconsistencies’

            Except for all the ones I’ve ignored or dismissed without cause.

            From 1958-1975 inconsistent.

            1992-95 inconsistent.

            1000-1850 AD, 7 ppm variation while Global temps varied from Medieval Warm Period thru Little Ice Age by ~ 0.5-1.0 C, inconsistent.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            Can you even describe in English what Bart, Salby, and I are claiming as consistencies in the relationship between temperature and CO2? Unless you can do that, throwing out a bunch of time intervals is meaningless.

          • Nate says:

            Yours and Barts notions are different. Or have u changed your mind? All very confusing.

            Barts idea that T drives CO2 derivatives has those periods of inconsistency.

            For example 7 ppm variation for 850 y while T supposedly varied considerably.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You really don’t get it. Direct measurement of CO2 has no influence on temperature, as the periods you refer to point out. But the magnitude of changes in each year’s cycle of CO2 correlate with the absolute value of the temperature. IOW, in warm years there is a larger incremental rise in CO2 whereas in cooler years the incremental rise is less. It’s an amazing correlation since 1979 at least. There should be a similar good correlation with Had.crut data as well.

          • Willard says:

            > Direct measurement of CO2 has no influence on temperature

            I too would welcome if directly measuring CO2 had an effect on temperature, Chic.

          • Nate says:

            You really don’t get it. You don’t get Bartism.

            Bart claims that the rise of CO2 by 100 ppm in the last 60 or so years is caused by temperature rise of ~ 0.8 . That is not just the year to year correlation.

            And that is entirely inconsistent with the record of temp and CO2 changes of the years 1000-1850.

          • bill hunter says:

            It isn’t confusing at all to me Nate, I would think a 3rd grader could understand the difference between somebody who thinks all of the additional CO2 is natural and someone who thinks some unquantified percentage of it is natural. Though I am not sure which grade they introduce percentages in math classes these days.

            It seems demanded by the laws of science that some of the CO2 is of natural origin if any of the warming is and some of it certainly is. Current scientific thought is half the warming is anthropogenic and the other half not fully understood.

            Does that ring any bells in your head Nate or are you so badly inculcated into the cult that you can’t even accept that green scientists aren’t omniscient?

          • Nate says:

            Non-sequitur, Bill, as usual. If you can’t understand whats being discussed, don’t post.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “…CO2 changes of the years 1000-1850.”

            There is no record of year to year CO2 changes back that far.

            Wish I had a bit-coin for every time Nate obfuscates. He obfuscates so often, I can’t tell whether he gets it or not.

            The total emissions of CO2 from FF and other sources are relatively well-mixed in the atmosphere. FF emissions are 1/20th of other sources. The land and ocean sinks “breathe” due to seasonal temperature variations. The contribution of FF emissions is obscured in the presence of the other emission sources. Total CO2 year to year incremental rise from Mauna Loa measurements tracks with temperature measurements from UAH TLT. There are no more accurate measurements prior to 1959. This is data that is out there for all to see.

            Where are Nate’s data, model, and 47 references?

          • Nate says:

            Chic, You still dont seem to get Bartism. It is not just year to year changes. It is centuries of change.

            Ever heard of ice cores?

            You guys want to claim ice core data should be thrown out? Why?

            Feynman sez sorry, you dont get to throw out data that doesnt fit your theory. Your theory doesnt fit data, its wrong.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Ever heard of ice cores?”

            Your AGW is so far up your butt you can’t see straight. You can’t finesse yearly CO2 changes from ice core data. It’s inherently smoothed. Yet from that data one sees the lag in CO2 following long-term temperature changes. It isn’t complicated if you had an open mind and weren’t addicted to obfuscation in every one of your comments.

            Just stop it.

          • Nate says:

            “You can’t finesse yearly CO2 changes from ice core data. ”

            And no one claims you need to, dimwit.

            Can 0.8 C temperature of increase be the driver of 100 ppm of CO2 rise?

            Lets test that hypothesis: ~ 0.5 C of cooling from MWP to LIA. 7 ppm of CO2 decrease.

            https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth75.gif

            https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41561-019-0400-0/MediaObjects/41561_2019_400_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp

            Hypothesis fails!

            Oh well. Try again.

          • bdgwx says:

            It’s the same problem with Berry’s trivial and myopic “e-time” for the carbon cycle. His value of 16.5 years (as of preprint #3) and conflation of it to the adjustment time are in sharp disagreement with observations over the glacial cycles which show full adjustment times on the order of tens of thousands of years. His model is off by 3 orders of magnitude. I will give him credit for creating a model that predicts the D14C values with skill. Too bad these models have already been created and in widespread use among the radiocarbon dating community decades ago otherwise his work would be noteworthy.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate,

            1) nobody says throw the ice core data out. . . .thats just another of the many strawmen you construct. You construct so many its hard to believe you are not a liar. But maybe you are just a sycophant who believes whatever and whom they admire sez.

            2) and feynman would not say you should not simply automatically throw any doubt to the wind and conclude that what level of CO2 is in bubbles in the ice is the same as it was 400,000 years ago or any other time in the many thousands of years represented in the ice core record.

            To put it simply Nate if the ice core record is bad it won’t show any variations worth speaking about. But without confirmating being flat could well be Henry’s law at work or some other form of mixing leaving no history of variations at all. whereas if the opposite were true and a good deal of variaation were present you could conclude some kind of preservation of a record was maintained. .

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            Give it up. No one claimed these processes are linear.

            bdgwx,

            Give it up or I’ll share some ridiculous analogies you posted sometime back while trying to learn carbon cycle concepts and AGW talking points.

            In fact, go for it. It will give me another opportunity to post my model.

          • Nate says:

            “Give it up. No one claimed these processes are linear.”

            What is that? The get of jail of free card?

            Sorry your model fails to explain the data, you lose.

            But you can see the data I posted, go ahead and try to explain it with your model, obfuscation free.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            No need to dig them up. I’ll present another here.

            You have a safe with 280x$1 bills. Each year you deposit 100x$1 bills and withdrawal 100x$1 bills. Your balance remains stable at $280. Then one year grandma gives you a gift of 120x$1 bills so that your balance is now $400. After 4 and 8 years the number of bills with grandma’s fingerprints is 11% and 4% respectively. Yet grandma can still rightfully claim that the $120 was 100% because of her and the 30% of your total balance of $400 is because of her.. Without grandma your balance would still be $280 even though her fingerprints only show up on a small fraction of the bills now.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            Apparently you are still confused about e-times and adjustment times. Thanks for saving me time by presenting a new analogy that is equally as bad as an old one.

            Using your hypotheticals, I adapted my model to show how e-time actually works. The $100 in and out keeps the balance constant at $280 because the removal rate is 100/280. The inverse of that is the e-time or 2.8 years.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl2fea6appitk0s/Grandma%20gift.xls?dl=0

            In four e-times (about 11 years), the balance returns to less than 1% more than the starting balance before grandma’s gift. That’s an adjustment time based on a criteria of 99% return to baseline. A true 100% adjustment can never be reached if inputs and removal rates remain constant.

            The difference between your analogy and reality is that the ocean does not decide to limit withdrawals to a constant amount as your spending analogy does. Temperature does affect the RATE that the ocean makes withdrawals, which is why the derivative of annual CO2 additions tracks with temperature.

            My CO2 model uses the same ENSO corrections that Dr. Spencer uses to account for some of that temperature influence.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            No. I am not confused about residence time and adjustment time. I am using the definitions accepted by everyone in the field.

            In my scenario the RT before and after grandma’s gift is 2.8 and 4 years respectively. The AT is not applicable yet because the balance is not declining. It is steady at $400. For AT to be applicable the balance must be declining.

            Grandma’s fingerprints among the 400 bills representing the $400 balance continues to decline even though the balance remains steady at $400. After 24 years there likely will not be even a single bill among the 400 that has grandma’s fingerprints. Yet grandmas is still 100% responsible for the increase in your balance from $280 to $400.

            Do not add any complexity this scenario or otherwise change the scenario until you have understood this trivial case. If you don’t understand this trivial case you will not be any more likely to understand more complex cases nevermind the vastly more complex carbon cycle.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Please state the definitions everyone is using in the field and where you learned them. Then explain why my definition, illustrated by how my model uses them, is wrong.

            Your balance continues at $400 because you fixed the removal to a flat $100/year, not a rate based on a percentage of the balance. Nature doesn’t work that way. Did you even bother looking at my model? The balance returns to almost the original amount. That happens during the adjustment period. In your stupid analogy, there is no adjustment. You can make it forever if you want.

            “Do not add any complexity this scenario….”

            OK, go on to grandma’s house and sit on her $120 gift, but don’t forget to do your homework requested in the first paragraph.

          • bdgwx says:

            RT: The amount of time a specific CO2 molecule or $1 bill remains in circulation. RT = L / O where L is level and O is the outflow rate. Note that RT can be calculated regardless of whether the level is increasing, decreasing, or is stable. And it does not tell you anything about what the level is doing.

            AT: The amount of time it takes the level to drop by a certain amount toward the level it was originally at before the increase occurred. AT = 1 / ((O(L) – I(L)) / (Lm – Li)) where L is level, I(L) is function of the inflow given L, O(L) is a function of outflow given L, Lm is the maximum level, and Li is the initial level. If the inflow and outflow are not dependent on the level then you can replace the numerator with the trivial dL/dt term.

            For my analogy RT = 4 years and AT = undefined because the balance is not dropping and will never reach $280.

            My scenario is left simple intentionally. It is simple because I want to communicate fundamental concepts without the distraction of complexities. The main concept here being that the ratio of fingerprinted bills wrt to all bills changes because of the outflow. But that in no way takes away from the fact that the balance increase from $280 to $400 is 100% the result of grandma’s gift. Even when all of grandma’s specific bills are removed 30% of your balance is what it is because of grandma. We don’t care if the bills have grandma’s fingerprints on them or not. They still have the same value and behave like all of the others all the same. So the ratio of fingerprinted bills wrt to all bills and the causes why that ratio changes has little importance to you. But the balance and the causes of why that balance is what it is is important for obvious reasons. This is the point that is being made with this trivial analogy.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Your scenario is fictional because you manufactured a change in RT from 280/100 to 400/100 with no explanation.

            Grade: F

            No references? Back to the drawing board.

          • bdgwx says:

            There was a one time deposit of $120. That is the cause of the increase in the balance from $280 to $400. I made that abundantly clear.

            RT is determined by the balance and withdrawal rate. The withdrawal rate stayed the same, but the balance increased. Therefore RT also increases.

            Do you understand why, in this specific scenario, the number of bills with grandma’s fingerprints continually declines to zero and why grandma is still the cause of 100% of the increase in balance and 30% of the total balance?

            If that makes sense we can add another layer of complexity where adjustment time comes into play.

          • bdgwx says:

            A good introduction to the carbon cycle and the metrics used to quantify it can be found in chapter 6 of the IPCC AR5 WGI. The IPCC provides a glossary that is helpful (https://tinyurl.com/4t69z58c). Refer to Adjustment Time, Lifetime, and Response Time in the document. Kohler 2018 (https://tinyurl.com/af2jmc3s) provides concise commentary on AT and RT that gets to the point quickly. O’Neill 1994 (https://tinyurl.com/4vvkrc6d) has a great summary as well. Note that you’ll often see turnover time, transit time, exchange time, and similar terms are used for residence time in the literature. Likewise time to adjust, time to equilibriate, lifetime, response time, and similar terms are used for adjustment time.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            So you’ve doubled down on your simple, but fictional and most importantly non-physical scenario. This analogy simply fails, because it doesn’t happen that way in the real world.

            I will relate your terminology and symbology to the definitions you provided for residence time (RT or as you’ll often see, turnover time, transit time, exchange time) and adjustment time (AT, or likewise, time to adjust, time to equilibrate, lifetime, response time, and similar terms).

            Turnover time (T) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M/S. You wrote RT = L/O (level/outflow) which is the same as turnover time, T = M/S.

            Adjustment time…is the time scale characterizing the decay of an instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir. Unlike my reality model, your fictional model doesn’t have any adjustment, so we can skip that.

            Kohler gives roughly the same definition for AT, but muffs the RT definition and doesn’t even give an equation for it.

            There is nothing in those definitions that conflict with my model. It’s a model based on the physical reality that the removal rate (withdrawal rate) is proportional to the mass (or balance). By rearranging the equations defining residence time, removal rate is S = M/T or O = L/RT. The proportionality coefficient is 1/T, the rate CONSTANT.

            Prior to the gift, the withdrawal rate was $100/year. When the balance increases, so should the withdrawal rate increase temporarily until the balance is returned to the original amount.

            Here is your Waterloo: “The withdrawal rate stayed the same, but the balance increased. Therefore RT also increases.”

            By fixing the withdrawal rate, you are defying nature. End of story.

            If you disagree, please explain why I am wrong:

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl2fea6appitk0s/Grandma%20gift.xls?dl=0

          • Nate says:

            “Temperature does affect the RATE that the ocean makes withdrawals, which is why the derivative of annual CO2 additions tracks with temperature.”

            And yet T cannot explain the 100 ppm rise, as you see in the data. As you would see if you applied Henry’s Law.

            Lets just stop pretending that facts actually matter to you guys.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Facts matter. And if you evaluate them with and open mind rather than a closed AGW mindset, you might at least be open to another view.

            I already explained that temperature’s effect on CO2 isn’t linear although the last 100 ppm rise in CO2 is roughly correlated with a temperature rise. You interpret this as CO2 forcing a gradual temperature rise superimposed with a naturally-caused variation. That may be true, but you have no data showing how that 100 ppm is nothing but natural sources causing both the gradual rise and the variation.

            I showed you factual data that explains how the absolute temperature determines the magnitude of incremental yearly rise in CO2. The cumulative rise in CO2 over six decades also corresponds to a temperature rise. You presented no factual data evidence to refute those facts.

            Again, you have no facts, no data, no model. Only obfuscation.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            I forgot to mention that your fake phony analogy is fabricated so that you could make up the fingerprint story-book false narrative that the whole $120 gift remains even though the fingerprints weren’t on it.

            Please don’t come up with another phony analogy. Just explain how my model, that is mathematically and physically realistic, is wrong OR better, show me your model that realistically demonstrates atmospheric CO2 RT and subsequent AT after a bolus injection of CO2.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            The money analogy is simple. It is simple by design to help illustrate fundamental concepts without the distraction of complexities. It is not meant to be a proxy for the carbon cycle.

            It’s okay to look at the money analogy and real carbon cycle and identify where they are different. We’re not there yet though. We haven’t even introduced the concept of adjustment time.

            I’ll do that now. We are going to add a layer of complexity to introduce adjustment time. Because grandma’s gift bumped the balance to $400 we now take the liberty of spending a little more. We spend a little more until the balance drops to the original $280. In the spirit of starting simple we do this by spending an extra $1 per year. The adjustment time for a 50% adjustment is AT(0.5) = 1 / ((101 – 100) / (0.5*(400 – 280)) = 60 years. After 60 years the balance will be at $340. At that moment RT = 340 / 101 = 3.4 years. Let me repeat… with this additional complexity and the introduction of adjustment time we have AT(0.5) = 60 years and RT = 3.4 years. Do you understand what AT and RT are, why they are what they are, and why they are different?

          • Willard says:

            > your fake phony analogy is fabricated

            I too would prefer if analogies were not fabricated.

            More srsly, Chic: which part of “balance” you do not get?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            Your money analogy is simply wrong. If it is not meant to be a proxy for the carbon cycle, then please go to a financial blog and see how well it goes.

            Now it is my turn for an analogy. A warmist goes to a psychologist complaining that a skeptic did not agree with him. The skeptic confronted the warmist with an actual realistic scenario backed up by climate data. The warmist tried again and again using the same failed argument to prove he was right. Eventually the psychologist asked the warmist why he continues to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

          • Willard says:

            You’re channeling incredibilism, Chic:

            http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/

            It’s really hard to have a more dubious stance.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl2fea6appitk0s/Grandma%20gift.xls?dl=

            At least twice now you avoid criticizing my model illustrating CO2 e-time = residence time, removal rate, and adjustment time.

            Put up or shut up.

          • Willard says:

            Lines on a spreadsheet do not a mode makes, Chic.

            Here’s what real models look like:

            https://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3280

            Here’s what your Climateball move looks like:

            https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/

            I added the “avoid” line just for you, and can explain what commitments mean if you need.

          • Nate says:

            “I already explained that temperatures effect on CO2 isnt linear”

            Nope that is a speculative wish, that when you look into it quantitatively, can’t be taken seriously. That would require an increase of ppm/degree of ~ 10x for Temperature rising from 287 to 288 K! There is no known phenomena with that extreme non-lineariy.

            “although the last 100 ppm rise in CO2 is roughly correlated with a temperature rise. You interpret this as CO2 forcing a gradual temperature rise superimposed with a naturally-caused variation. That may be true, but you have no data showing how that 100 ppm is nothing but natural sources causing both the gradual rise and the variation.”

            Correlation is not causation. There are several things rising during this period, T, CO2, emissions, etc. The causal link between them is unknown, until you try to identify mechanisms.

            The T causing CO2 has no identified plausible quantitative mechanism, while the reverse does. Emissions causing CO2 rise is a quantitative match.

            “I showed you factual data that explains how the absolute temperature determines the magnitude of incremental yearly rise in CO2.”

            Yes, this is a well-known effect of ENSO. The mechanism has been identified as the warming and drying of tropical land regions. This effect is only observed over ENSO time-scales of 1-3 years.

            “The cumulative rise in CO2 over six decades also corresponds to a temperature rise. You presented no factual data evidence to refute those facts.”

            I have shown this data to Bart many times. The magnitude of the observed long-term CO2 rate-of-rise vaguely matches temperature (they are both rising), but with a very different scale factor that does not match the short-term short-time ENSO-related variation factor.

            There is no link between these two phenomena, long term rise and short-term variation.

            https://tinyurl.com/cy4pjnew

            In addition if you look at CO2 rate-of-rise data back to 1900, it continues to drop to near zero, and the the match to temperature fails completely. You can see the separation beginning 1958-1970 above.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: Your money analogy is simply wrong.

            The scenario is neither right nor wrong. It’s just a defined scenario.

            And I’m pretty sure my calculations for RT and AT are correct for my scenario.

            Again…they are AT(0.5) = 60 years and RT(1) = 3.96 years, RT(0.5) = 3.37 years. If you get different results let me know.

            Chic said: Now it is my turn for an analogy. A warmist goes to a psychologist complaining that a skeptic did not agree with him.

            I’m trying to be serious here. I’m trying make a good faith attempt at explaining what adjustment time and residence time are.

            Chic said: At least twice now you avoid criticizing my model illustrating CO2 e-time = residence time, removal rate, and adjustment time.

            The scenario you are modeling is different than mine. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong. I’m not discussing it because your scenario is unique in that AT = RT. That makes it incredibly difficult to explain how adjustment time and residence time are different concepts.

            Remember…we are keeping the scenario simple in effort to understand fundamental concepts like residence time, adjustment time, and why the level/mass/balance/etc. can behave differently than the ratio of one kind of entity wrt to the other kinds of entities.

            Do you understand what RT and AT are? Do you agree that in my scenario the values I calculate are correct? Do you agree that grandma’s fingerprints will eventually vanish from the stock of bills? Do you agree that grandma is THE cause of the increase in balance from $280 to $400? If yes then we can add another layer of complexity. If no then I’ll have to try another approach in explaining these concepts.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            I think you need to obfuscate less on your first Nope. I don’t follow your reasoning at all. It may relate to your last point which I will address on a new thread.

            “Emissions causing CO2 rise is a quantitative match.”

            Not exactly. And you know that is just a correlation which is easily debunked by pointing out that natural emissions are 20 times greater than FFs…

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/ih7g7xtovuey6no/Yearly%20emissions.jpg?dl=0

            …and cumulative FF emissions increase exponentially while CO2 long term rise is closer to linear.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/1pchjgwn82jpi4m/Cumulative%20emissions.jpg?dl=0

            I think we would agree more on a lot of this data, if you weren’t interpreting it through the AGW lens. Either that or someone is paying you to obfuscate so Big Climate stays in business. I am open to more data that would strengthen your position, but I’m just not seeing it.

            Also, you shouldn’t obfuscate the “link between…long term rise and short-term variation” by manipulating the data presentation: https://tinyurl.com/4hpb78br

            I’m taking your “CO2 rate-of-rise data back to 1900” point to a new thread to separate it from my other conversation with bdgwx.

          • Willard says:

            Chic,

            I have one word for you.

            Only one word.

            Are you listening?

            No, not “plastics” – “logarithm.”

          • Nate says:

            “Not exactly. And you know that is just a correlation”

            Not JUST a correlation. It is a quantitative match, within uncertainty, when CO2 in atm, ocean, and land is tracked. And the match is excellent for 6 decades of Mauna Loa.

            The temperature driven CO2 relationship is JUST a correlation, and the weakest type, two variables rising. There can be no quantitative match since the mechanism is completely unspecified.

            “which is easily debunked by pointing out that natural emissions are 20 times greater than FFs”

            Sorry you cannot debunk conservation of mass. You are mixing up natural transfers between the reservoirs with ADDITIONS from an external source, which adds to all reservoirs.

            And the graph is not manipulated. It is transparent data, that you once again, try your best to ignore.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            You gave me references for RT and AT definitions. I verified those definitions are consistent with my understanding of the terms and their AKAs. We have discussed this ad infinitum. Somehow you think I don’t understand RT and AT despite writing it several times and providing a model that demonstrates exactly how those terms work in a physically relevant realistic model. Your model is not physical. You make up changes in RT that don’t happen in any physical world. It doesn’t work like a bank balance. Please stop with these stupid bank analogies.

            “…your scenario is unique in that AT = RT.”

            No. Do you not know how to read a spreadsheet or haven’t you even looked at that model where I demonstrate the realistic RT of atmospheric CO2 using your numbers? The original and constant RT is 2.8 years. You can’t change it just to prove a point. My AT(0.5), IOW the time for the balance to go half way towards the starting balance, is only half an RT. AT(0.9) is about 6 years, AT (0.99) goes up to 11 years or 4 RTs, etc.

            I revised the section of the spreadsheet showing the % adjustments AT(x) and how many RTs and the equivalent number of years for the balance to relax to the % adjustment.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl2fea6appitk0s/Grandma%20gift.xls?dl=0

            I also made another spreadsheet and modified it to show your calculations just in case you don’t think I know what you are doing. It shows your calculations correct using your fake phony model.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgbesx2c0moyysx/bdgwx%20finance%20model.xls?dl=0

            “If no then Ill have to try another approach in explaining these concepts.”

            Please don’t!

            Your formula translated into English means if one manually adjusts the throttled withdrawal rate from $100 to $101, then half of the gift ($400 – $280) will be withdrawn in 60 years, 0.5*$120/($1/year).

            That is financial correct, but not realistic of the natural processes governing atmospheric CO2.

            1) My model demonstrates the same principles as you do, but I do it with the correct physical laws. CO2 sinks just don’t decide to increase themselves.

            2) This is the Nth time you suggest I don’t understand the terms RT and AT.

            3) You seem unwilling or unable to recognize that my model applies the RT and AT concepts correctly using realistic physical mechanisms, not manufactured ones.

            My next response is going to a new thread to avoid the long one here. I hope we can resolve the conflict and move away from fake phony models that have nothing to do with climate.

          • bdgwx says:

            Conservation of mass. That is a point worth repeating.

            – The mass in the atmosphere reservoir is increasing.
            – The mass in the ocean reservoir is increasing.
            – The mass in the biosphere reservoir is increasing.

            but…

            – The mass in the fossil reservoir is decreasing.

            That is a very powerful observation.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            Great. You get RT and AT. I accept that.

            And if RT and AT are different in your model then I definitely missed it. They look pretty close to me. I’ll accept that they are not the same though.

            Let’s discuss the real carbon cycle now. The real carbon cycle has an RT of about 4 years while the AT is believed to be on the order of 50+ years for the first half-life, several hundred years for the second, and ten thousand years for the third. Though these values are certainly debatable. The glacial cycles had an AT that were far longer than what is believed to be in play today. But regardless of what the actual RT and AT values are we know that the human fingerprints drop out rapidly even though humans are at least close to 100% responsible for the increase from 280 ppm to 410 ppm.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            Pleasse see my response in a new thread. This one is getting too long.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-691098

          • Bart says:

            Nate @ May 12, 2021 at 4:19 PM
            Not exactly. And you know that is just a correlation

            “It is a quantitative match…”

            It isn’t. Both signals had a roughly linear rise in rate. Such signals are always affinely similar. So, they picked a start time and a scale factor of roughly 1/2 and, no surprise, the integrated signals looked somewhat similar. This is not an impressive feat.

            Meanwhile, temperature matches both the roughly linear rise and all the more information-rich features of the CO2 signal as well.

            “Sorry you cannot debunk conservation of mass. You are mixing up natural transfers between the reservoirs with ADDITIONS from an external source, which adds to all reservoirs.”

            The deep oceans are effectively an external source, as transfers to and from them require timelines of many centuries to interact. This is such a dumb argument.

          • Nate says:

            “The deep oceans are effectively an external source, as transfers to and from them require timelines of many centuries to interact. This is such a dumb argument.”

            What you call a ‘dumb argument’ is actually empirical science, based on many observations of the carbon cycle in the ocean over many decades, requiring more and more sophisticated models, built with observational feedback.

            There loads of contemporary studies of carbon dynamics, which are all published and available.

            You alternatively offer hand-waving speculation that makes no quantitative predictions.

            Whereas real scientists eagerly seek to confirm or falsify their hypotheses, you make no attempt to test yours against all the available data, or even make the simplest back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if your model has any feasibility whatsoever.

            It seems you prefer to have an untested, unfalsifiable theory. That properly places it in the religion category.

          • Nate says:

            “‘It is a quantitative match’

            It isnt. Both signals had a roughly linear rise in rate. Such signals are always affinely similar. So, they picked a start time and a scale factor of roughly 1/2”

            Both signals are NOT roughly linear. The Co2 rise shows acceleration, with a decade by decade match in rate-of-rise, as demonstrated by the constant scale factor, which is the singular parameter required to make a match.

            The scale factor makes actual physical sense based on the simple conservation of mass mechanism (Occam is quite pleased), and quantitatively fits observations of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere and ocean and land.

            Your attempted minimization of this relationship with a fancy name is simply a refusal to accept contradictory facts.

            The integrated temperature CO2 relationship requires two or more arbitrary parameters that have no physical explanation whatsoever.

            Meanwhile the scale factor in the temperature Co2 relationship is far from a constant, the fast dynamics require low CO2 scale factor, while the long term rise requires a much higher scale factor.

            Your dogmatic desire for it to be constant, and unjustified filtering of the data to make that appear so, is simply a lack of scientific integrity.

            The relationship match between temperature and CO2 rate of rise breaks down before the 1970s, and only gets worse in the first half of the 20th century.

            In the centuries from 1000 to 1850, and the during glacial cycles, the scale factor between temperature and CO2 rate is much much to small to account for the 20th century rise.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate,

            See close correlation between between the rise in population and the national dept? The cumulative fossil fuels are confounded with other variables. Your “quantitative.” correlation is not statistically meaningful. Get off it and quit obfuscating.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/mq4n6ncruxl9dwk/Pop%20vs%20CO2.png?dl=0

            And stop conflating the FF emission versus CO2 rise with the temperature versus CO2. Apples and oranges.

          • Nate says:

            “See close correlation between between the rise in population and the national dept? “Your ;quantitative.; correlation is not statistically meaningful. Get off it and quit obfuscating.”

            To claim a link between any two variables that are rising, without a clear causal mechanism, is called the correlation-causation fallacy.

            That is a valid concern for the temperature-driven 100 ppm CO2 rise. There is no plausible quantitative mechanism identified.

            It is not a valid concern for the emissions-CO2 relationship, two things that have a clearly identified causal mechanism: and a clear quantitative relationship that is in fact observed.

            This relationship is so predictable, that it was predicted at the end of the 19th century, well before it was observed!

            “The cumulative fossil fuels are confounded with other variables.”

            Huh???

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You are in full speed obfuscation mode now. I cannot discern what two variable relationships you claim is a correlation-causation fallacy. All of these relationships are conflated with each other. You cannot just plot one variable correlated with another and claim a clear quantitative relationship.

            “There is no plausible quantitative mechanism identified.”

            A plausible quantitative mechanism is that every year 20 times more non-FF CO2 gets emitted and a little bit more stays in the atmosphere during warm years than during cooler years. That’s what the data says, not just Bart and I. Of course there is a FF contribution that is swamped by the natural contribution. You need data to prove otherwise.

            I’ll repeat for clarity sake. You post a graph showing cumulative fossil fuels perfectly correlated with rising CO2. If there were no other contributions to the rise, concluding a causative mechanism would be appropriate. But there is reasonable doubt of no other contributions.

            That is what the statement, “The cumulative fossil fuels are confounded with other variables” means.

            Your middle paragraphs are so convoluted, it is impossible to know which two variable relationships you are talking about.

            Give it up or post a new thread. This one is entirely too long.

          • Nate says:

            “I cannot discern what two variable relationships you claim is a correlation-causation fallacy.”

            Hmm, maybe the one I specifically pointed out???

            “That is a valid concern for the temperature-driven 100 ppm CO2 rise. There is no plausible quantitative mechanism identified.”

            T causing the 100 ppm CO2 rise. Can’t discern that?

            “All of these relationships are conflated with each other.”

            Yeah, its too complicated for science to figure this shit out, right?

            Wrong. One relationship is extremely simple:

            None of the other variables CAUSE anthro emissions. But Anthro emissions CAUSE CO2 rise. It was predicted long ago. It is a clear, and simple mechanism. And one that is OBSERVED.

            “You cannot just plot one variable correlated with another and claim a clear quantitative relationship.”

            Stop playing dumb. This has been explained over and over in this thread.

            The plot shows STRONG agreement between the cumulative rise of CO2 and anthro emissions, decade by decade, over all 6 decades of careful observation.

            This alone, addresses the often heard criticism from blogs that they are NOT tracking each other.

            But there is a constant multiplicative factor between them that can be understood simply with CONSERVATION OF MASS. The cumulative additions of CO2 to the atmosphere, together with that in the land and ocean, altogether, is in QUANTITATIVE agreement with CO2 emissions (within uncertainty of the measurements).

          • Nate says:

            “A plausible quantitative mechanism is that every year 20 times more non-FF CO2 gets emitted”

            Red herring. 20x more, 20x more reabso*rbed. Not added CO2, just moved from one reservoir to another.

            The ‘mechanism’ is not in quantitative agreement. The scale factor cannot be explained with any theory.

            I have to do your homework for you to find out how much CO2 could be expected to rise per degree of ocean warming.

            The answer is: dlnPCo2/dT =.042

            https://tinyurl.com/paabh6sj

            That means that for a 1 degree C rise in ocean temp, we would expect a 4% rise in PCo2. Say initially it is 280 ppm, we would expect it to rise by ~ 12 ppm.

            This is consistent with the 7 ppm drop from MWP to LIA, and NOT NEARLY enough to explain the 100 ppm rise of the last century.

            “and a little bit more stays in the atmosphere during warm years than during cooler years. Thats what the data says, not just Bart and I.”

            As explained, over and over, this is an ENSO effect. Lots of literature on this. Look it up!

            The long-term effect of Non ENSO-related T change on CO2 is much smaller (different scale factor), as I showed you, but you try to ignore.

      • Bindidon says:

        I forgot to have a look at this corner.

        All I can say is that years ago, ‘Bart’ tried to contradict Engelbeen with some little arguments of his own, and… utterly failed.

        Everybody can search the web for such discussions, I’m too lazy and too tired to do such nonsense job.

        Bart is here simply dishonest.

        J.-P. D.

    • Ken says:

      Here is link to a paper describing 180 years of CO2 measurements. Keeling isn’t the only data set.

      https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/180_yrs_Atmos_CO2_Analysis_by_chemical_methods_Beck_2007.pdf

    • gbaikie says:

      “It is difficult for me to believe that the atmosphere never had 400 ppm CO2 in the past million years until now.”

      Obviously in last million years, Earth has had warmer temperatures, but you don’t need higher CO2 levels to have warmer temperatures.

      But it difficult to believe the measure Global CO2 levels.
      Global CO2 levels are determine a careful method of getting global CO2 level. If it’s not necessary to do this, why are doing it?

      So obviously we currently making precise measurements in order to measure global CO2 level. And past determination of CO2 are guesses.

      It’s same way they measure global average surface temperature, guesses compared to later guesses. Which gives us global average temperature of about 15 C.
      And at moment that average is going down.
      And a lot this fuss, is trying to determine how much warming a doubling of CO2 would cause to our Ice Age world.
      No answer, yet.
      I hoped to would be more, but apparently it seems to be less.
      But even if it was more, we would still be in an Ice Age.

  13. Eben says:

    In case you forgot , I was the one who predicted this drop a year ago, for later predictions down the line you will have to wait a little longer

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-454034

    • barry says:

      “The last dip almost reached the zero line, the next one will cross it”

      You were wrong. When you posted that the xero line (baseline) was 0.12 lower. It is only because the baseline has been raised that we got negative anomalies this year. Here is how the data looks with the old baseline – the one operating when you posted last year.

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.12/plot/uah6/trend/detrend:0.579/offset:0.368

      The latest anomaly isn’t on the UAH source page yet, which that applet uses, but it’s still above the zero line.

      Now, if you want to claim credit for predicting the baseline would change, you go right ahead.

    • bdgwx says:

      Eben,

      I still have that comment bookmarked. Apr 2021 is at +0.07C on the 1981-2010 baseline. You need another significant drop for that prediction to verify. La Nina peaked in November. The UAH-TLT lag is about 4-5 months so it could be close. I’m rooting for you though.

    • Nicholas McGinley says:

      Eben,
      While I have no doubt you were A one, I am pretty sure you were not THE one.
      As in the only one.
      I predicted as much, although I did not put a time deadline on it, just that it is a’comin’.

      It logically must be, if CO2 is not the thermostat control knob of the atmosphere.
      It has always fluctuated on every time scale, including multidecadal ones.
      So where adjustments and UHI are not wrecking the data, it stands to reason that it will always do what it has always done, unless by some incredible coincidence, permanent gradual warming just happened to coincide with a sharp rise in CO2 levels in the air.

      Anyone who thinks other factors outweigh CO2, such as anyone who has looked at the past, ought to feel fairly confident that we have not seen the last multidecade cooling period.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        In fact, we already know that from the early 1950-ish period to about 1979-1980, temp did not go up, it went down, while CO2 was already rising steadily.
        So ad hoc explanations involving particulates notwithstanding, we already have many years of evidence that other factors outweigh CO2.
        And the decades of warming prior to that show that sharp warming occurs for other reasons than steadily rising CO2.

      • barry says:

        “we already have many years of evidence that other factors outweigh CO2..”

        for the period you indicated, which is well discussed in the literature.

        • Nicholas McGinley says:

          Well, who forgot to send me the memo re changing the laws of physics?

        • Nate says:

          Huh??

          Just about 40 y ago, Hansen tried to account for the up and down 20th century temperature record before 1980, with volcanoes, solar variation, and CO2.

          https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

          He then predicted that going forward, GHE forcing would increase and become dominant, and global T would rise up enough out of the background variation produced by other factors, to become noticeable.

          He predicted when, where, and how much temperature would rise. The Arctic and Northern Hemisphere more. The tropics and SH less. West Antarctica would warm, but not East. Arctic Sea Ice melt would become significant in early 2000s. Globally ~ 0.7 C rise from 1980 to now.

          The main features proved remarkably accurate (within error). Prior predictions in science are, IMO, more convincing then post-hoc explanation.

  14. Maz says:

    Of course there’s a difference in received Solar generation between January ( the most) and July (the least).
    We are much closer to the Sun in January than in July. ( About 6 million Kilometers closer)

  15. Maz says:

    Grrrr autospell. Radiation

  16. Joe R says:

    At the next El Nino, would your same argument apply. Can’t we all use 30 yr trends and not 1-2 yr blips?

    • bill hunter says:

      30 year trends have there own problems as they can be affected by major natural short term variation events. ice core records show regular fluctuations similar to the modern warming that only look significant when temperatures from different climate zones are appended on to the record

      • bill hunter says:

        one example can be seen in this record. it seems to fluctuate between 1.2 and 1.4 starting with the warming surge detailed by Santer.

        now with a longer record the fluctuation is taming as expected.

        the multidecadal fluctuation seen in all the temperature record has this warming surge getting long in the tooth. we will need to see what the next couple of decades brings.

      • barry says:

        “we will need to see what the next couple of decades brings.”

        AGW ‘skeptics’ said that 20 years ago. They will say it 20 years from now. They will always say it, because they are no true skeptics.

        • bill hunter says:

          brry somebody is always saying something. even with a huge estimated eei assisting (ever larger portion manifesting itself at the surface as time has gone on) surface warming has been slowing. Get that slowing out 30 or 40 years and it could very well turn into cooling. NOAA has recognized a need to smooth the solar data with a 60 year filter for decades.

        • barry says:

          I’ve been at this for 14 years, bill, and the physics is pretty straightforward. More GHGs, slower cooling of surface until GHGs stop accumulating and energy in/energy out reaches equilibrium.

          We’re not going to stop pumping out CO2 any time soon, so the surface is going to continue to warm.

          I can cite you reams of ‘skeptics’ with failed cooling predictions from even before my time in the debate. Published papers advising that by 2020 global temps will plummet by 1.5C for example.

          Global cooling has been around the corner for 20 years at least (setting asdide the handful of 70s cooling papers), according to the ‘skeptics’. Obviously, it is wishful thinking. You can see it all over this thread, as people hope for another la Nina, tell us that warming has peaked etc. Same old denial of long term reality.

          I think people who shrug about it are playing dumb or otherwise just ignorant. The physics isn’t hard to understand, and it is well-verified. So something makes these people reject it, ignore it, dismiss it or whatever they feel the need to do.

          This has nothing to do with alarmism or politics or modeling. It’s just physics. Cool, neutral physics. If you slow the cooling rate of an object receiving continuous energy, then that thing will get warmer.

          That’s it. Simple.

          • Steve Case says:

            I’ve been at it for about the same length of time and the bullshit is pretty strait forward. To use one example of bullshit from your side of things, the polar bears are still here.

            Why do I pick that one. Because about 15 years ago I was in a captive audience and some PhD egghead was telling us how the polar bears would be extinct by 2020. I knew it was bullshit but I didn’t have much ammunition to fight back. I’ve been obsessed with the climate topic ever since.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I agree, Steve.

            Barry’s physics is straight forward, but not well-verified. There is no experimental evidence that more CO2 is going to affect global temperatures. The GHE has maxed out.

          • barry says:

            Of course there is experimental evidence, as well as empirical measurements of CO2 in the lab. Spectroscopy shows that the CO2 effect is not saturated, and why would it be anyway? If ‘saturation’ happens in the first meter, then that layer radiates energy in all directions, including upwards to the layer that is not saturated.

            I’m afraid the fact that polar bears exist does not forbid the greenhouse effect.

            And while some boffin in a lecture said something, this is not mainstream understanding. It’s a lame argument when you have to rely on straw men.

            Did you know that Einstein’s work has been completely debunked? I can even cite published papers. :eyeroll:

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I wrote that the GHE, I regret using the term, is maxed out presuming Steve Case understands basic climate science enough to know that IR absorbing gases thermalize all the available IR within meters of the surface except for what goes through the window. Thermalization means that radiation is no longer in control of the cooling process that occurs mainly by convection while the sun is out. From the surface up, while cooling, each layer becomes cooler, less dense, and less saturated the higher up in the atmosphere so that eventually the radiation goes to space by reverse thermalization.

            Lab experiments, polar bears, and boffin lectures have nothing to do with job of showing how an increase in CO2 above current levels will have any further effect on global temperatures.

          • barry says:

            If the greenhouse effect is saturated in the layer of atmosphere near the ground, that just means that this layer is now radiating IR in all dirfectiopns, including upwards to layers where the effect is NOT saturated.

            Even Venus CO2 heating effect is not saturated, and it demonstrates that a planet can get much hotter with more GHGs.

            It’s not the proximity to the sun. Venus is twice as far away as Mercury, but the globally averaged surface temp is hotter than Mercury.

            It’s also nearly the same temperature on the night side as the day side on Venus, as well as being relatively uniform temperature across latitude bands. The greenhouse atmosphere, in the absence of oceans on the surface and receiving only 2% of sunlight at the surface (compared to Earth’s 50%), is what makes Venus’ heat globally uniform, and hotter on average than Mercury.

            Our greenhouse effect is nowhere near saturated throughout the atmosphere, though it is somewhat saturated near the surface (there are still lines of absorp.tion that are not saturated near the surface.)

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Using greenhouse effect means nothing to me if you don’t say what you mean by it. By writing “our greenhouse effect” is nowhere near saturated throughout the atmosphere, you are agreeing with me. You just need to understand better how the atmosphere works and stop using the term GHE assuming everyone knows what you mean.

            Understandably, you know less about Venus than you do about Earth. The confirmation bias is strong with you.

        • Steve Case says:

          Chic Bowdrie says:
          May 5, 2021 at 7:35 AM
          I agree, Steve.

          Barry’s physics is straight forward, but not well-verified. There is no experimental evidence that more CO2 is going to affect global temperatures. The GHE has maxed out.

          I expect there’s a “Z” curve. At very small concentrations, there’s no set increase in temperature per doubling. I have no idea at what concentration the same temperature rise per doubling begins, and similarly no idea where it finally maxes out. I doubt that we are there yet.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            My view is that a critical amount of IR-absorbing gases are responsible for intercepting the full spectrum of IR surface radiation. CO2 fills in a gap and is otherwise just ordinary except for one thing. It is uniquely suited to radiate strongly at around 200K, the temperature at the TOA.

            All the radiation that can be absorbed at the surface is thermalized in a matter of meters. Convection gets that energy up to the TOA where CO2 can radiate the bulk of it away.

  17. CO2isLife says:

    NASA seems to understand that visible radiation is warming the oceans. Funny how they don’t point this out in the Congressional Hearings.

    Radiation from the sun constantly strikes the earth’s surface but unlike land, the ocean is not opaque. It has a special transparancy property which allows for the transmission of light on an average depth of 60 m in the ocean, though in some areas it can go to as deep as 300 m. This zone is known as the photic layer and the process is known as transmissibility. As the sunlight penetrates through the ocean it converts to heat energy, more at the surface progressing down. The ocean is also constantly mixing the surface water with the deeper water. Both conditions allow for the distribution of heat and thus allow the ocean to hold large amounts of heat.
    https://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/1997/oceanchars/lev_t_zon.gif

    https://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/1997/oceanchars/temperature.html

    • CO2isLife says:

      How does NASA reconcile the above post with this graphic? They don’t. They just count on people now understanding the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule.
      https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/par_light-depth.jpg
      https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/sites/default/files/Fig9.7-LightPenetration.jpg

    • Swenson says:

      From your link. GISS –

      “When solar energy reaches the earth, most of it is spent on evaporating water and melting ice. It is the oceans that prevent the world’s temperature from having wide variations, whereas the moon, without any water, has variations of about +135°C at noon to about -155°C at night.”

      Actually, they have got it wrong, yet again.

      It is the atmosphere which prevents the world’s temperature from having wide variations. The oceans do not “store” or “accumulate” solar radiation, any more than rocks or lakes do.

      The upper water gets heated during the day, cools during the night. Just like anything else heated by the Sun.

      • Willard says:

        > From your link

        Good for you, Mike!

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “It is the atmosphere which prevents the worlds temperature from having wide variations.”

        Really? Then why are temperatures less extreme near oceans and more extreme in the middle of continent?

        “Just like anything else heated by the Sun.”

        No. Water has a large heat capacity, and an ability to mix warm and cool water, which moderates the temperatures. If the ocean were “just like” the ground, its temperatures would have temperature swings like the ground and costal areas would not have temperate climates.

      • barry says:

        “It is the atmosphere which prevents the world’s temperature from having wide variations. The oceans do not…”

        Oh dear God.

        “Really? Then why are temperatures less extreme near oceans and more extreme in the middle of continent?”

        Exactly. Anyone who grows grapes for wine knows this for an experienced fact.

        The sheer weight of ignorance deposited by ‘skeptics’ here could stun a team of oxen ten times a day.

        • bill hunter says:

          The retort by Tim and Barry is hilarious!

          Evaporation from the oceans puts water vapor in the atmosphere.

          So is it the oceans or the atmosphere that controls the wide variations in temperature that saves our butts from freezing solid overnight and having our blood literally evaporate out of bodies at noontime.

          And in this environment GISS all set to say no greenhouse effect would exist without CO2 and the earth would be an iceball. LMAO!!!

          As I said earlier here there is no consensus. There is just a huge crowd of rabble following the money. Like seen in the days of large armies advancing on foot. Whores, trinket vendors, intoxicant salesmen, folks that would do anything for a dollar that the army wasn’t already sufficiently providing for its soldiers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            The retort by Bill is perplexing.

            “So is it the oceans or the atmosphere that controls the wide variations in temperature “ … which of course was exactly the point we were both making! Oceans moderate temperature swings.

            ” [saves our butts from] having our blood literally evaporate out of bodies at noontime”
            What? Yeah, it would be hot with no atmosphere at noon, but blood would not ‘literally evaporate’ from within sealed blood vessels inside sealed skin. We would die from other causes long before our blood ‘evaporated’.

            So you are only slightly off-base here.

            “saves our butts from freezing solid overnight “
            This is more problematic. Now you are completely off-base.

            Oceans are only buffers; they absorb heat and release heat, but they can’t create heat. Without the greenhouse effect, the 960 W/m^2 of sunlight can’t keep the average temperature above ~ 255 K globally. A quick calculation shows that — even at the equator with 960 W/m^2 of sunlight varying through the day — the average temperature would stay below freezing without the greenhouse effect.

            So, no. The ocean by itself cannot save our butts from freezing.
            So, yes. The earth would literally be a frozen iceball without greenhouse warming.

          • bill hunter says:

            Wow Tim you are a regular fount of misinformation!

            What happens when you cook a turkey to an internal temperature of 240F?

            Yes oceans moderate temperature swings by putting water vapor in the atmosphere cooling the ocean surface in the process, and warming the atmosphere in exchange.

            And yes I am fully aware of the fairy tale yo daddy told you that you earnestly ascribe to that if greenhouse gases were totally removed clouds would remain in the sky like they were pasted there preventing the mean temperature of the earth from rising above freezing. LMAO!!!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill says: “if greenhouse gases were totally removed clouds would remain in the sky like they were pasted there preventing the mean temperature of the earth from rising above freezing. LMAO!!!

            If you want to play that game, if GHG’s were completely removed then there could be no life on earth. Where would that blood have come that you conjectured? Or if there were no oxygen and carbon around, then the solar system itself would be completely different — there might not even be an earth then!

            You can play these ‘what if’ games for ever. Or you can make reasonable assumptions — assume “everything else being equal” as is commonly done in science. Like … a planet the size of earth but with a surface slightly more reflective. We could hire the Magratheans to build it. It could have either no atmosphere or a pure N2 atmosphere the same mass as earth’s atmosphere.

            Or you could simply use the moon as a surrogate. But you won’t be happy. The moon has a ‘blackbody temperature’ of 270.4 K = -3 C = below freezing. And the actual ‘average temperature’ is significantly cooler than that. So even that enhanced sunlight darker surface won’t get us above freezing (on average).

            Clouds are not the reason the earth is below freezing. Lack or thermal radiation from the sky is the reason.

            So you won’t be “LMAO”, you will be “FMAO”.

          • Willard says:

            > if greenhouse gases were totally removed clouds would

            What clouds?

          • bill hunter says:

            you won’t give up even if wrong tim.

            earth would not be an ice ball without ghg.

            1) mean temperture doesn’t mean same temperature everywhere

            2) the equator receives ~415w/m2 on average.

            and do you really think i believe tere would be life on earth after pointing out you blood would boil? and tim, tap on the shoulder,….the earth is not freezing and it wouldn’t be an ice ball without ghg.

            thats just something your daddy conned you with to make you believe co2 controls the climate….i.e. no ghe without co2.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “1) mean temperature doesn’t mean same temperature everywhere”
            But is does mean that if some areas are warmer than the mean, others must be cooler. So some areas some times would be warmer than my calculation and other will sometimes be cool.

            “2) the equator receives ~415w/m2 on average.”
            That is the right ballpark. If that were distributed evenly, that would be constant at about 293 K (20 C) 24/7.

            But it is NOT distributed evenly. The actual temperature will necessarily be lower. How much lower depends on just what assumptions you make about rotation, heat capacity, etc.
            And that is at the equator!

            So you have shown that — without the GHE — the equator could be about as warm as the actual global average! Congratulations! A band in the tropics would not freeze. The polar ice caps would only cover basically all of the temperate zone. (Which would of course change the albedo, and make the earth even colder than the simple calculations.)

            “earth would not be an ice ball without ghg”
            So if your point was “Earth wouldn’t ENTIRELY be an ice ball with dark ground and no clouds – just 60 or 80 or 90% would be an ice ball” — well, then I accept your refinement on my quick calculations earlier.

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim you should learn something before just guessing at it. Its not a tropical band, the greater than freezing would extend to near 45 degrees.

          • bill hunter says:

            and of course even ice gives off some water vapor, especially since the mean by latitude isn’t the same temperature over the diurnal cycle either. ever hear of henry’s law? you would have get rid of the oceans as well, then you have no ice either.

            and don’t blame me for playing this stupid game. you were the first to try to make fun of the comment about ghg making climate more moderate and then when I called you on it you told me there would be no life without GHG. LMAO! So you want your cake and eat it too huh Tim?

            .

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I wrote a longer reply, but it got lost. Here is the shorter version.

            * NASA was right that the oceans play a moderating roll.
            * Swenson was wrong to deny oceans do not play a moderating roll.
            * I was right to question Swenson’s claim.

            Furthermore, none of this is about GHGs — nothing NASA said nor Swenson said nor I said. The ocean’s ability to moderate temperatures is not about the greenhouse effect (but rather about penetration past the surface and mixing and heat capacity and convection). Bill was the one who took the discussion off on a tangent about GHGs and rabble and iceballs.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Furthermore, “what if” scenarios are always fraught with peril. Any one change in the real world will, of course, lead to other changes. So asking “what if the earth had no water” or “what if sunlight were uniformly distributed” always entails many other, intertwined issues. (For example, if we assume “no greenhouse effect in the atmosphere” does that mean no H2O at all, so no oceans and no icecaps — or maybe we just ‘seal the earth’ so water can’t evaporate. Or maybe we just imagine that CO2 and H2O didn’t emit IR.)

            So claims like “the greater than freezing would extend to near 45 degrees” or “60 or 80 or 90% would be an ice ball” always include some implicit, unstated assumption. (I tend to make the assumption of “all other things being equal”, but that is also somewhat arbitrary.)

            I am curious what assumptions you made to be confident that regions up to 45 degrees would remain ice-free.

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim you are stretching.

            The atmosphere is what forms the clouds, condenses water and drops it on the land via snow, ice, and water.

            Marine influence on the land is something that Hansen went back and forth on, ultimately choosing land influencing the water probably because he needed some more heat.

            Marine influence can travel in up to 50 miles here is socal as the air eventually will be sent skyward from convection off the hot and dry desert. From there it goes back out to sea cooling and descending for another run across the coast picking up more water like a fire fighting airplane. Thats the prevailing condition anyway.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Marine influence can travel in up to 50 miles here is socal ”

            In Europe, in influence of the warm ocean is felt far across the continent. And the moderating influence of the oceans stretches the *other* direction all the way to the opposite shore (ie over most of the earth(.

            As further evidence, there is the recent discussion of the global temperatures following the northern hemisphere’s temperatures — warm in July and cool in January (despite the face the earth gets stronger sunshine in Jan than July). Temperatures swing more widely over the land of the northern hemisphere than over the oceans of the southern hemisphere.

            Again, factors are interconnected. Yes, the atmosphere is what forms the clouds, condenses water and drops it on the land. But the ocean provides that water. And the land changes albedo due to ice. No one factor could exist without the interplay of land oceans, and atmosphere.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            PS. Even if the polar ice caps would only extend down to 45 degrees as you claimed, that is still acknowledging that the GHE (IR radiation from the atmosphere back to the surface) is responsible (at least somewhat) for keeping the ice caps limited to the polar regions.

            Sun light by itself cannot provide the answers.
            Clouds cannot provide the answers.
            Moderation by oceans or atmosphere cannot provide the answers.

            PPS I would still like to know where your got your “45 degree” answer. What calculation led you to that number?

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:
            May 3, 2021 at 7:32 PM
            “It is the atmosphere which prevents the worlds temperature from having wide variations.”

            Really? Then why are temperatures less extreme near oceans and more extreme in the middle of continent?

            —————————–

            seems you have conceded this argument with ”Again, factors are interconnected. Yes, the atmosphere is what forms the clouds, condenses water and drops it on the land. But the ocean provides that water. And the land changes albedo due to ice. No one factor could exist without the interplay of land oceans, and atmosphere.”

            and now we are in agreement

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            PS. Even if the polar ice caps would only extend down to 45 degrees as you claimed, that is still acknowledging that the GHE (IR radiation from the atmosphere back to the surface) is responsible (at least somewhat) for keeping the ice caps limited to the polar regions.

            Sun light by itself cannot provide the answers.
            Clouds cannot provide the answers.
            Moderation by oceans or atmosphere cannot provide the answers.

            PPS I would still like to know where your got your “45 degree” answer. What calculation led you to that number?
            ————————-

            i interpolated it from a cloud-free insolation by latitude table that only listed tables for 0, 30, 60, 90. that would give or take a few degrees. i know that the people you like to believe isn’t lying to you but you would be wrong about that. the lies are as thick as locusts, little lies but numerous.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill says:
            “earth would not be an ice ball without ghg.”
            “the greater than freezing would extend to near 45 degrees.”
            “i interpolated it from a cloud-free insolation by latitude table”
            [Here is a nice chart of insolation: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1004%5D

            Thanks for the explanation. But insolation only provides part of the answer. Eyeballing the chart, at 45 degrees, the average annual insolation is about 310-320 W/m^2. This translates to an effective black body temperature right around 0 C. So far, so good.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            But the earth does not ab.sorb all the incoming sunlight, so you have to knock off some energy off the top, depending on what sort of surface you have (around 8% for oceans, 10-40% for various soils/sand/rock, 30-80% for ice or snow) (plus possible additional scattering/absor.ption by the atmosphere before the sunlight gets to the surface). So that puts us perhaps at 35 degrees as the dividing line for a ‘typical’ southern extent of our ‘ice line’ (and possibly all the way to the equator). The position of the ‘ice line’ will also of course depend on the season.

            Furthermore the actual average temperature is ALWAYS less than the effective BB temperature without IR from the atmosphere (ie without GHGs), due to the non-uniform nature of the incoming sunlight. This pertains both to day/night cycles, and to seasonal cycles.

            This is where all those complications come in. Are there oceans or atmosphere on our hypothetical planet to temper the swings? What is the thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the ground? What exactly is the albedo of the surface? Will ice form and dramatically increase the albedo?

            But whatever values we choose, it ALWAY pushes the ‘average ice line’ even closer to the equator than the simple “effective black body calculation”.

          • bill hunter says:

            tim folkerts you need to work a lot more on those numbers. If all the soil/sand albedo was sand it would be about 30% albedo. 30% albedo out of the 23 watts of 184 watts in Trenberth budget gets you about 7 watts. Scaling up to 341 mean insolation moves up to about 12 watts. 320 watts at 45 degrees less 12 watts and you are still above freezing.

            Forget ocean, snow, and ice because you can’t have any of those and NOT have greenhouse gases.

            and worse than that for your imaginary world any body with intelligence would realize that the words iceball and even the word freezing would be meaningless.

            You are just a mark in a con game dude! Wake up and smell the coffee and get a little skepticism about what you hear coming out of the mouths of scientists.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Bill, an albedo of 0.3 means 30% reflects. 30% of whatever comes in. So if an average of 320 W/m^2 of sunshine comes in at 45 degrees north, then 0.3 * 320 = 96 W/m^2 reflects and 0.7 * 320 = 224 W/m^2 gets absorbed. I have no idea where your 12 W/m^2 of reflection comes from!

          224 W/m^2 is DEFINITELY not enough to keep that sand world from dropping WAY below an average of 0C at 45 degrees north.

          Even the equator with 415* 0.7 = 290 W/m^2 would not achieve an average temperature of 0 C.

          • bill hunter says:

            Understand Tim that total earth surface albedo is 23 watts estimated cloud free mean. That is with insolation of 184w/m2 global average not reflected by clouds..

            Change that to 341w/m2 and it becomes 43w/m2.

            Now look at your own estimates of how albedo is spread between water, ice/snow, and soils.

            A finger in the air look would seem to put 30% of 43watts as the high end of the range. . . .or about 13w/m2.

            You also have to factor in that these soils are not blackbody emitters. Sand one of the more reflective at 30% emits at an emissivity of 94% knocking a couple more percent off the effective albedo. Not sure effective albedo would be the way to put it terminology wise, but that would be albedo times emissivity. . . .to get to the effective albedo number for estimating temperature at equilibrium. But I am not factoring that in below.

            That is about sufficient to reduce your figures for zero degrees down to 297 to 307. At 30 degree the average insolation would be well in excess of 400w/m2 (about 415w/m2)

            So lets say 397w/m2 for 30 degrees and 300w/m2. That wouldn’t move it down to 35degrees. So we are looking for 1/6th the distance between 45deg and 30deg. . . .say 3 degrees. 42 degrees. OK so lets be conservative and say 40 degrees. That hardly qualifies as an iceball.

          • Willard says:

            Bill,

            Bond Albedo:

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

            That’s a robust measurement.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “A finger in the air look would seem to put 30% of 43watts as the high end of the range. . . .or about 13w/m2.”

            No, we need 30% of the TOTAL INCOMING sunlight to your hypothetical airless, sand covered planet. Not 30% of 12% of incoming light.

            For the hypothetical planet as a whole:
            ** 341 W/m^2 –> 239 W/m^2

            For the equator on your hypothetical world
            ** 415 W/m^2 –> 291 W/m^2

            For 45 latitude on your hypothetical world
            ** 320 W/m^2 –> 224 W/m^2

            These are the absorbed energies.

            You *are* absolutely right about these materials not having emissivity = 1. That does increase the temperatures a bit.

            If we spitball the emissivity at 0.9 (probably a low value), we get
            415 W/m^2 –> 275 K (rather than 268 for a blackbody).

            The equator could (on average) be *slightly* above freezing.

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim light colored sand is very rare. . . . .even in ocean bottoms.

            I wasn’t talking about a planet that was 100% sand. what we have is a planet increasing greenery which has the lowest albedo of all natural surfaces and evapotranspiration cools the surface while immediately warming the air where the thermometers are. But no snowballs or iceballs dude!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill, I think this conversation has run its course. There an an infinte number of variations for surface albedo and surface emissivity and cloud cover and GHGs in the atmosphere and non-GHGs in the atmosphere and latitudes and feedbacks and …

            I want to keep coming back to “choose particular values for parameters that allow calcualtions from first principles”. You seem to keep objecting to specific variations either being “unphysical” or “not what I was imagining”.

            If we can’t agree on a starting point, there is really no point.

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim thats fine since you have already acknowledged that your claim up at the top of this subthread was totally bogus an an example of scientists conning the public on global warming.

            Your statement:
            ”So, yes. The earth would literally be a frozen iceball without greenhouse warming.”

            No it would not be ‘literally’ a frozen iceball. How ridiculous.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            No, Bill, the claim is not “totally bogus”. The original claim is “Without the greenhouse effect, the 960 W/m^2 of sunlight cant keep the average temperature above ~ 255 K globally.”

            I stand by that. Since the true emissivity is less than 1, the temperature could be a bit higher — maybe 10 K higher. However, since sunlight is not definitely uniform, the average temperature must the a bit lower that this calculation. In any case, ~255 K is a reasonable estimate. And the average temperature for the hypothesized conditions is certainly going to be below 0 C.

            Now, you could add your OWN stipulations and change the conditions and then argue that for YOUR conditions, the average temperature could be above freezing. You could choose your own albedo. You could choose an emissivity. You could do detailed calculations to show just what latitude might stay above 0 C average temperature under specific conditions.

            That is all fun and interesting. But it can’t negate basic physic. A world absorbing an average 960 W/m^2 of solar radiation (like earth) simply cannot maintain an average global surface temperature above 0 C without ‘back radiation’ ie without ‘the greenhouse effect’.

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim the moon’s average temperature is well below freezing but its not even close to being an iceball. Its daytimes get up 100C and above. Your blood would boil.

            Scientists tell you this iceball krapola so you won’t ask questions about why day times got hotter instead of cooler if there were no greenhouse gases.

            Thats why they want you to think of average temperature.

            Its all part of the con game. Lie their arses off to take advantage of you. And you bit on it like a cod on any anchovy.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Scientists tell you this iceball krapola so you wont ask questions about why day times got hotter instead of cooler if there were no greenhouse gases.”

            ‘Skeptics’ cling to the high daytime temperatures on the moon to avoid having to deal with the ‘balmy’ nighttime temperatures on earth. The hot noontime temperatures on the moon are trivial to understand — neither the theory nor the data are controversial. The nighttime temperatures of the earth are much more complicated. But one of the factors that MUST be included is ‘the greenhouse effect’ ie ‘thermal IR from the sky’.

            Also, it turns out the moon *is* an ‘iceball’ in terms of temperature — at least once you get past the top half meter where the temperature swings wildly.
            “It turns out that near the equator the immediate sub surface temperatures are around 260K, possibly slightly higher. Of significance is the fact that from 0.5m down the two weeks of day and two weeks of night do not alter this value; such is the insulative properties of the lunar regolith.”
            https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-inner-temperature-of-the-Moon-Just-below-the-surface-Deep-in-its-core?share=1

            A swimming pool full of water on the moon (sealed to prevent evaporation) would freeze solid overnight and would not thaw out during the day. A lunar colony needs to be more concerned about freezing than boiling.

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim you are a hopeless sycophant. The moon isn’t an iceball anymore than the earth would be one.

            The only ice on the moon is near its poles.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill, you need to learn to be less literal and to move beyond the “concrete operational” developmental stage. An object can be “ice cold” without having to be made of ice!

          • bill hunter says:

            tim you already acknowledged that the mean freezing line was about about 35 degrees latitude. About 1/2 the area of the globe is between the 30’s.

            Also you won’t get the iceball albedo without water vapor.

            The notion of an iceball earth seems totally at odds with any kind of reasonableness test.

            So if you want to continue advance this seeming nonsense, you need to actually come up with some area by area calculations to support your case.

            My thought is its all an imaginary fairy tale. Do you have any evidence beyond some global warming scientist telling you so?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Bill, the calculations depend critically on what assumptions we are making. This is turn depends on how closely we are trying to ‘match’ the actual earth.

            “tim you already acknowledged that the mean freezing line was about about 35 degrees latitude. “
            No, I acknowledged that 35 degrees latitude was still a “best case” estimate. This estimate for the “effective blackbody temperature” assumes that the sunlight is evenly distributed over the surface. Sunlight is NOT evenly distributed. It is concentrated in a ring that briefly gets quite warm around ‘noon’ and then spends a long time being quite cold. This pushes the “average” temperature much lower than the “effect BB temperature. This in turn pushes the ‘frost line’ much further south than 35 degrees latitude.

            “The notion of an iceball earth seems totally at odds with any kind of reasonableness test.”

            Define “reasonable”. The behavior of the universe is not limited by the imagination of any one person!

            For the moon, measurements mentioned above show that even the equator stays below 0 C on average. So here we have an actual example of world that has permanent icy conditions just a foot or two below the surface at the equator (and all the way up to the surface at many places near the poles). So an iceball moon is not only reasonable, but is indeed observed.

            For earth, it is much more complicated (and the results depend dramatically on what assumptions are you willing to make). I will just point out that scientists have proposed that ‘iceball’ conditions have existed in the past (maybe not all the way to the equator, but close). So again, many think it is perfectly ‘reasonable.

            Finally, one of the main reasons that it might seem unreasonable is that our experience of climate includes both the moderating influences of the oceans and the warming effects of GHGs.

          • bill hunter says:

            Tim lots of people have strange beliefs. But thats not a reason to believe them. I said bring the evidence. . . .not your opinion.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I’ve brought more evidence and done more calculations than you have, Bill.

            Lets start by re-iterating the evidence of the chilly subsoil of the moon. The average surface temperature at the equator must be below freezing to keep the lower layers at 260 K. Even with a lower albedo than the earth. There is a real-life experiment.

  18. Entropic man says:

    Testing

  19. Norilsk says:

    420 ppm of CO2 and nothing to show for it.

    • barry says:

      Huh?

      Global surface temperatures since 1850: https://tinyurl.com/74nszba2

      Global lower troposphere temperatures since 1979: https://tinyurl.com/seze3sb4

      Basic linear trends included, using all the available temperature data for each plot.

      • Norilsk says:

        Temperatures have been up and down in the past, all when CO2 was lower. Going way back in time, CO2 was many times higher and life existed. CO2 is not driving the climate or the temperature.

        • bdgwx says:

          CO2 had to be many times higher in the past to offset the lower solar radiation. CO2 is actually an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem.

      • barry says:

        “420 ppm of CO2 and nothing to show for it.”

        Do you want to deal with what you said and the reply to it, or did you change the subject to avoid that?

        No one is contending that life will cease to exist if CO2 goes up or down. Looks like you’re new to the discussion.

  20. ohwell says:

    welp

    back to the drawing board for the CMIPs

    Roy should re-publish the CMIP5 comparison trendlines, it was ugly several years ago but now it is just brutal

    eventually modelers will be forced to accept reality and add some negative feedbacks (e.g. tropical thunderstorms have been suggested)

    even though that means admitting there’s no crisis

    but since they claim it’s already a crisis that shouldn’t matter much

    still, for the sane folks, ECS trending lower

  21. Denny says:

    If temperatures stay flattish for the next few years, those who have been pushing CAGW will all of a sudden be embracing natural variability. Something that was persona non grata for so long will feel their warm embrace. Otherwise what kind of excuses will they have.

    Natural variability is going to find a lot of friends. From the most unexpected places.

    • bill hunter says:

      yes even warming seems likely to win a lot of friends if the horn of plenty continues to support a burgeoning population.

  22. Afterthought says:

    Literally nothing is happening.

    • Swenson says:

      Awwww – the Scientific American wrote –

      “We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and Were Going to Say So” and .Its time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed”

      That’s impressive! 13000 scientists!

      That’s less than 0.2 % of the more than 7,000,000 scientists in the world. This means that more than 99.8% of scientists either don’t think there is a “climate emergency”, haven’t been asked, or have no firm opinion.

      We all need to rush about to “halt or reduce climate change” do we?

      Is the Scientific American published by idiots, or do they assume their readers are idiots?

      Climate is the average of weather. It changes.

    • barry says:

      “Literally nothing is happening.”

      Huh?

      https://tinyurl.com/seze3sb4

      A couple of relatively cool months didn’t wipe out the long term trend, I’m afraid.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Actually the last few months did wipe out most of the atmospheric heat gained over the last 20 years. A trend only tells you what happened. It doesn’t guarantee the future.

        Several things could happen. The next El Nino will restore the heat lost over the last few months with the trend continuing. Or a new paradigm begins with a decreasing trend persisting for decades. Or something in between.

      • barry says:

        “Actually the last few months did wipe out most of the atmospheric heat gained over the last 20 years.”

        That’s a strange way of putting it. Like a cold day in Summer canceled the season…

        Atmospheric temps are volatile. Nothing much can be learned about long term change by comparing a couple of months. 2021 is still, on average much warmer than 1980, even though 1980 began with an el Nino and 2021 began with a la Nina.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          It is what it is and will be…who knows. Like you said, temps are volatile.

          But 20 years ago was 2001, not 1980. And don’t bet the farm that won’t be wiped out too eventually.

        • barry says:

          2001 was warmer than 1980. 2021 is so far warmer than both.

          We’ve been due a cold year after so many warm ones.

          “… who knows…”

          I think mainstream understanding of what will happen to surace temps as a result of CO2 increase is very solid. Absent global dimming from some cataclysm, the globe will continue to warm. The only uncertainty is the rate at which that will happen.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I am beginning to wonder if you truly understand the concept of wiped out. It means gone, erased, vanished; sayonara.

            Next month, we may see a jump back up to 2016 levels or another 0.4 degree drop. Both unlikely. Most likely about the same up or down.

            If you don’t think that heat was lost to space for good, where do you think it went?

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic asked: If you don’t think that heat was lost to space for good, where do you think it went?

            Land, hydrosphere, cryosphere, or even a different layer of the atmosphere are options as well. Heat and energy move around the various reservoirs continuously. This movement ebbs and flows and creating a very noisy atmospheric temperature record. But the total heat/energy uptake of the entire climate system is much less noisy. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj) for an overview of how excess heat/energy is distributed throughout the climate system.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            So your hypothesis is that the generally always colder atmosphere lost its energy lately by warming the generally always warmer land, hydrosphere, and cryosphere?

            Or maybe you’ve detected the missing hot spot above? Finally after all these years!

            “…a very noisy atmospheric temperature record.”

            I’ll bet the Schuckmann crowd burst out laughing when they heard that.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            The hypothesis is this. Each body has an ingress and egress of heat/energy. The net change in heat/energy dictates the bulk temperature of that body. A body will cool/warm if the ingress decreases/increases more than the egress. And, of course, per the 1LOT all energy is conserved so if a body experiences a net gain/loss then it will have to balance with a net loss/gain in all of the other bodies of equal but opposite magnitude.

            So how can the atmosphere cool you might ask? There are several ways. 1) Egress stays the same and ingress decreases. 2) Ingress stays the same and egress increases. 3) Egress increases more than ingress. 4) Ingress decreases more than egress. Don’t get trapped into thinking that cooling only occurs when a body sheds more energy. The body could cool all the same if it begins receiving less energy than it did before. In fact, it is the later scenario that is play when the atmosphere cools in part because of ENSO negative phases.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            That is BS climate pseudo-science. The atmosphere doesn’t cool just by receiving less energy. To cool, it must lose more energy by radiating to space than it gains from anywhere warmer, not by receiving less energy from its warmer sources. IOW, the difference between all your ingresses and egresses goes to space not backwards in violation of 2nd LOT.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: That is BS climate pseudo-science.

            Patently False. The 1LOT is an unassailable physical law of reality and it has nothing to with climate.

            Chic said: The atmosphere doesn’t cool just by receiving less energy.

            Patently False. If sensible, latent, or UWIR energy flows decrease then the atmosphere will cool. The 1LOT says so.

            Chic said: To cool, it must lose more energy by radiating to space than it gains from anywhere warmer, not by receiving less energy from its warmer sources.

            To cool it must lose more energy than it gains. Period. Sure, the loss part of the budget includes space, but it also includes flows from warmer parts of the lower troposphere to cooler parts of the land, hydrosphere, and cryosphere. This is a frequent occurrence on small spatial and temporal scale due to advective and diabatic processes. But even if these valid flow pathways from the atmosphere to the surface are not enough to convince you the simple fact that the generally warmer surface to the generally cooler atmosphere to the even colder space is in full compliance of the 2LOT even when the surface-to-atmosphere transfer rate decreases while the atmosphere-to-space transfer rate stays the same. The flow of heat is still from hot to cold. This is in full compliance with both the 1LOT and 2LOT.

          • barry says:

            “I am beginning to wonder if you truly understand the concept of wiped out. It means gone, erased, vanished; sayonara.”

            I understand, I just don’t agree.

            Firstly, you said ‘the atmosphere’. UAH data only covers a slice of the whole atmosphere.

            Secondly, the (UAH) lower troposphere constantly exchanges energy with the rest of the biosphere (including upper atmosphere and near surface atmosphere) on short time-scales. The energy has not been ‘wiped out’ it’s been displaced by normal weather activity.

            If you want to say that the lower troposphere as the same temperature as it was for one month in 1980, that’s fine. But 40 years of warming hasn’t been wiped out by one cold month, any more than a cold day in Summer wipes out Summer. The background warming is still there.

            The old difference between climate and weather. And semantics, I suppose.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Barry and bdgwx,

            A temperature drop means heat loss, not heat hiding. The recent heat loss from the atmosphere isn’t hiding in the oceans or upper atmosphere or anywhere else. It radiated to space. Get over it.

            If it’s any consolation, it could warm up again with an El Nino or ASR > OLR.

          • barry says:

            “The recent heat loss from the atmosphere isn’t hiding in the oceans or upper atmosphere or anywhere else. It radiated to space.”

            Which monitoring system did you check to see that happening? Could you provide a link?

            The reason temps are cooler is simple – there is an ongping la Nina. And yes, ENSO events move energy between the atmosphere and the oceans.

            “But the surface warming and cooling during El Niño and La Niña don’t involve more or less heat energy entering or escaping the climate system as a whole. In other words, the whole climate system isn’t really cooling or warming. Heat energy that's already present in the climate system is simply shifting back and forth between the atmosphere (where it shows up in the global surface temperature value) and the deeper layers of the ocean (where it doesn't).

            The changes in sea surface temperatures during El Niño and La Niña are caused and helped along by changes in the trade winds, which normally blow from east to west across the tropical Pacific Ocean. When the trade winds are stronger than normal during La Niña, the winds push more surface water to the western half of the Pacific basin. The pool of warm water grows deeper, storing excess heat at depth, and allowing for colder, deeper water to rise to the surface in the eastern half of the Pacific basin….

            All of this amounts to a shuffling of heat from one place (ocean) to another (the atmosphere) without affecting the Earth's overall energy budget—the balance between incoming and outgoing energy across the entire planet. So unlike volcanic eruptions, which actually block energy from the Sun from reaching the surface, or solar minimums, which reduce the total amount of energy the Sun emits, the phases of ENSO are not creating or removing energy from the climate system. La Niña hides some of Earth’s existing heat below the surface, while El Niño reveals it.

            https://tinyurl.com/sj2wmmkv

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            What good would providing a link do? With access to CERES data, I could confirm that energy loss to space occurred. Stop being simple minded. How could the atmosphere cool if more energy did not go to space than entered from somewhere else?

            You ask me for a link but you provide a link with no data!? And in that irrelevant description of ENSO, you highlighted the wrong sentence. It should have been “…the phases of ENSO are not creating or removing energy from the climate system.” But the atmosphere DID remove energy by radiating it away to space. That’s why the UAH measured a drop in the lower troposphere temperatures the last few months.

            The atmosphere is colder than the land and oceans. It can’t lose NET energy to them. Don’t be daft.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: A temperature drop means heat loss, not heat hiding.

            It means there was a net transfer of energy out of that body. That energy has to go somewhere. It could escape to space or it could accumulate in other bodies in the climate system. It is probably a combination of both.

            Chic said: The recent heat loss from the atmosphere isnt hiding in the oceans or upper atmosphere or anywhere else. It radiated to space.

            How do you know that?

            Chic said: If its any consolation, it could warm up again with an El Nino or ASR > OLR.

            El Nino is a mechanism by which more heat transfers from the ocean to the air. That’s why UAH-TLT is correlated well with the ENSO phase.

            Chic said: The atmosphere is colder than the land and oceans. It cant lose NET energy to them. Dont be daft.

            Actually it can. It is frequently the case that the air temperature above the surface is warmer than the surface itself because of advective processes. Heat transfers from the atmosphere to the surface in these scenarios.

            But that’s not the only mechanism behind the ebb and flow of energy in the atmosphere on a global scale. It is also caused by a waning of the energy transferring into the atmosphere from other bodies.

            A good analogy here is your home. On a cold day your furnace may run at full capacity 24×7 to maintain a comfortable 22C temperature. If you turn your furnace off you are reducing the energy input into your home but keeping the output the same. Your home has a net negative energy imbalance not because the output increased, but because the input decreased. Your home will begin to cool.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx, the bulk of it most likely radiated to space due to less water vapor in the atmosphere that primarily originates in the tropical oceans.

            Besides lower seaside temperatures cool water offshore of the US west coast (the westcoast being downwind due to prevailing westerlies) sees big drops in precipitation. It is also a growing prevalence of this effect that hasn’t been seen since the 50’s and 60’s that accounts for increases in wild fires. Its particularly bad when precipitation begins to seesaw from wet to dry as the wet grows the fuel and the dry allows it to burn. Nearly all wildfires in California are a result of either arson or human carelessness. . . .a factor that grows with population. . . .just to bust up yet another CAGW myth.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            You make a few statements that agree with me and those that don’t remind me of Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

            How do I know the recent heat loss from the atmosphere was radiated to space? Because that’s what it does.

            “Actually [the atmosphere can lose NET energy to the land and oceans].” Technically you are right if you only consider inversions. But that is hardly often enough to result in NET energy transfer over several month’s time. Which is what my original claim was. The heat went to space, not back into the warmer ocean or land.

            Dumb analogy for you, but good for me. The room cools because heat continues going outside like it always does, warm to cool.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: Dumb analogy for you, but good for me. The room cools because heat continues going outside like it always does, warm to cool.

            That’s right. The home cools because heat continues going outside like it always does. That’s the point! The rate at which the inside-to-outside flow of energy occurs didn’t increase. The negative energy imbalance on the home is not because more energy is leaving the home. It is because less energy is coming in.

            Chic said on May 4, 2021 at 4:42 PM: The atmosphere doesnt cool just by receiving less energy. To cool, it must lose more energy by radiating to space than it gains from anywhere warmer, not by receiving less energy from its warmer sources.

            The home and furnace analogy is contradictory to your statement here. The atmosphere can cool by receiving less energy when the inflow from the ocean is reduced just like your home cools by receiving less energy when the furnace is turned off. No change in the magnitude of the output flows are required in either case. That’s the 1LOT (dE = Ein – Eout)!

          • bdgwx says:

            bill said: the bulk of it most likely radiated to space due to less water vapor in the atmosphere that primarily originates in the tropical oceans.

            It’s a fine hypothesis. But then why is OHC inversely correlated with UAH-TLT? In other words, why does OHC have a tendency (albeit small) to increase/decrease when UAH-TLT decreases/increases?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Why do I waste time playing these semantic games? My whole point to barry was that the energy that caused the recent temperature drop went to space.

            Can you honestly double down on the idea that the energy went somewhere else?

            No more what ifs. Yes, no, or data please.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: My whole point to barry was that the energy that caused the recent temperature drop went to space.

            Can you show that the inflow of energy from other bodies to the atmosphere stayed the same while the outflow of energy to space increased?

            Is the magnitude of the increase in outflow to space consistent with the magnitude of the temperature decrease?

            Chic said: Can you honestly double down on the idea that the energy went somewhere else?

            OHC and UAH-TLT data says it happens (albeit by a small amount) so I don’t see how this hypothesis is unreasonable for the current drop. The atmosphere has interface points with the land and the cryosphere bodies as well. At the very least it is highly likely changes in both inflow and outflow terms of the atmosphere energy budget explain the drop.

            Chic said: Yes, no, or data please.

            The OHC data comes from Dr. Cheng (https://tinyurl.com/3sboqkgt) and UAH-TLT comes from Dr. Spencer (https://tinyurl.com/hzsp6sjt).

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            The answer to your first question can be answered by you taking your OHC and UAH data and see if the majority of TLT temperatures are greater than the ocean temperatures. A necessary occurrence for any net energy going from atmosphere to ocean in the last few months.

            The answer to your second question is, who cares? But there doesn’t need to be and probably isn’t any increase in outflow to space. Take a nice warm bath and think about it. Open the drain and experiment by adjusting the tap and observing the water level.

            The proof that your hypothesis is unreasonable is in the data. Analyze it and report back.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:
            bill said: the bulk of it most likely radiated to space due to less water vapor in the atmosphere that primarily originates in the tropical oceans.

            Its a fine hypothesis. But then why is OHC inversely correlated with UAH-TLT? In other words, why does OHC have a tendency (albeit small) to increase/decrease when UAH-TLT decreases/increases?
            ————————-
            well if u look at trenbeths global budget you will see a large amount of sky backscatter that convects to toa. . . .it doesn’t penetrate the ocean surface. less wv less backscatter less clouds.
            bottom line is upwelling water must be replaced more study is needed on net effects. but the net effect of less wv is a cooling of the atmosphere as water is a huge heat delivery system taking heat from the surface into the atmosphere.

            you would normally argue less wv means less warming eroding the ghg. isn’t that the objective of the ipcc?

          • bill hunter says:

            oh!….OHC! where is that being measured down to a single la nina event? and does backscatter warm or cool oceans in your master book on climate?

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: The answer to your first question can be answered by you taking your OHC and UAH data and see if the majority of TLT temperatures are greater than the ocean temperatures.

            No. That wouldn’t answer my question. BTW…UAH-TLT is about -10C and is far colder than the ocean. That means heat does not flow from TLT to OHC. It is the other way around heat flows from OHC to TLT.

            The question is…is that heat flow reduced? To answer that question we need to look at dOHC and dTLT. When I do that I get a negative correlation. When OHC increases TLT decreases and vice versa. The correlation is small explaining less than 10% of the TLT changes, but it is there. That means this observation is consistent with the hypothesis that a reduced inflow of energy from hydrosphere-to-atmosphere causes the hydrosphere to accumulate more energy and warm and the atmosphere to dissipate more energy and cool.

            This is the 1LOT (dE = Ein-Eout) in action.

            Chic said: Take a nice warm bath and think about it. Open the drain and experiment by adjusting the tap and observing the water level.

            Just like there is conservation of energy (dE = Ein-Eout) there is also conservation of mass (dM = Min-Mout). The bathtub analogy works great for demonstrating this.

            If the tap is 1 gal/min and the drain is 1 gal/min then the mass of the water in the tub stays constant. If you decreases the inflow but keep the outflow unchanged a negative mass imbalance occurs such that mass and thus level of the water begins dropping. That tub lost mass not because the outflow increased, but because the inflow decreased. The tub analogy should be a rather intuitive way to understand reducing inflow can cause a drop in temperature (energy) just like it causes a drop in level (mass) for the water in the tub even when the outflow is unchanged.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill,

            You can get OHC on a monthly basis from here (https://tinyurl.com/3sboqkgt).

            Increasing backscatter puts a warming tendency on the ocean.

          • bill hunter says:

            Just as long as it is clear its not reality, its CMIP5 ocean heat content reconstruction on a short term scale.

            Reality is reality. La Nina – less evaporation, less lapse rate super stabilization – less clouds – more IR escaping to space. . . .unless of course you want to concede that ghg don’t warm anything so that the additional solar input will override any cooling. Myself I am betting on a job critical need to not lose heat.

            So perhaps rather than pointing to the model reconstruction in a locked black box you could as I have attempted to do. . . .explain it differently?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            I refuse to start name calling and questioning your intelligence. You don’t seem to play games, so I conclude you are struggling with conformational bias to find some way to avoid saying, “OK, I agree with you.” /psych analysis.

            Look, it is this simple. When the water level dropped, NONE of the lost water went back through the tap. All of it went down the drain.

            I should know better than to use another analogy, but I know how much you like them. So it’s rush hour. The traffic over the xyz bridge into Gotham City is steady at 10 cars/minute on and off until 9am when 100 cars are on the bridge. At 10 am, only 80 cars are on the bridge, because the rate on dropped to 8 cars/minute while the rate off only dropped to 9 cars/minute. How many cars turned around and went back home?

            Answer: None. All of them went to the City.

            Caveat: On a micro level, there is always diffusion back (against the gradient) and forth, but the net flow is always from concentrated to less concentrated. So please don’t dig yourself any further into the hole by pointing to times and places where heat was transferred from atmosphere to ocean. We are discussing a period greater than two months here.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic said: Look, it is this simple. When the water level dropped, NONE of the lost water went back through the tap. All of it went down the drain.

            That’s right. The outflow is through the drain and only the drain.

            That in no way changes the fact that the water level began dropping not because the outflow increased, but because the inflow decreased.

            A change in inflow rate is the cause of the water level decrease.

            Chic said: The traffic over the xyz bridge into Gotham City is steady at 10 cars/minute on and off until 9am when 100 cars are on the bridge.

            Gotcha. 10 cars/minute inflow and 10 cars/minute outflow. The mass balance on the bridge is balanced with it holding steady at 100 cars.

            Chic said: At 10 am, only 80 cars are on the bridge, because the rate on dropped to 8 cars/minute while the rate off only dropped to 9 cars/minute.

            I get 40 cars at 10 am. dM = Min – Mout = (8 cars/min * 60 min) – (9 cars/min * 60 min) = 480 – 560 = -60 cars. Mnow = Mpast + dM = 100 – 60 = 40 cars.

            In this case the mass of cars on the bridge decreased because the inflow decreased more than outflow.

            Note that this scenario is subtly different than the bathtub scenario in that water level in the bathtub decreased because and only because the inflow decreased, but the cars on the bridge decreased because the inflow decreased more than the outflow. The former is like configuration #1 and the later like configuration #4 in my comment here (https://tinyurl.com/esbbk72b).

            Chic said: How many cars turned around and went back home?

            Answer: None. All of them went to the City.

            Sure. No challenge here on that.

            Just keep in mind that question and answer have little relevance to the number of cars on the bridge. In the same manner it doesn’t matter where the water goes after falling down the drain. The water level in the tub drops all the same. Likewise, it does not matter whether the energy in the atmosphere goes when it leaves. As long as Ein Eout and decreases when Ein < Eout. Either changes in Ein or Eout or a combination both can contribute to increases and decreases of it contained within the body in question.

            All of this is in direct contradiction to your statement “The atmosphere doesn’t cool just by receiving less energy.” which is patently false per the 1LOT which says dE = Ein – Eout. The fact is that the atmosphere can, in fact, cool just be receiving less energy. If the atmosphere continues to shed energy at the same rate as before and if the hydrosphere-to-atmosphere transfer rate decreases and all other things remain equal then the atmosphere WILL cool. Period. That is not debatable.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You went through all that just to prove me wrong by writing the atmosphere “doesn’t” cool instead of “didn’t” cool?

            You got me. +1 for you. Congratulations.

            Now stop the nonsense. This thread went south after I said the heat in the TLT four months ago was lost to space and you obfuscated:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-683070

            BTW, I never said anything about outflow increase!

          • bdgwx says:

            Saying the atmosphere cooled because the energy escaped to space is like saying the level in the bathtub went down because water went down the drown. But that explanation tells us nothing about why the level in the bathtub was stable at one moment and then began dropping in another or why the energy in the atmosphere was stable at one moment and then began decreasing in another. In fact, that explanation could be misleading because it may be interpreted by some that the change in state was due to an increase in outflow even though the outflow rate never changed. The explanation misses the crux of the issue at best and is misleading at worst.

          • barry says:

            Chic wrote:

            “My whole point to barry was that the energy that caused the recent temperature drop went to space.”

            I asked you umpteen posts ago to provide the evidence for that happening in the last few months – where the energy coming in from the sun was exceeded by the energy leaving the Earth.

            You mentioned CERES, but did not provide that data to corroborate your claim.

            We are experiencing a la Nina – it is well-known that during la Ninas air temperatures decrease because energy shifts from the atmosphere to the oceans. unfortunately we’ll have to wait for the ocean heat content data to be updated to see if energy accumalted there in the last few months.

            Meanwhile, you made an unequivocal claim that the energy loss from the atmosphere was not transferred to the oceans but was instead lost to space.

            Please provide the data for the last few motnhs substantiating that claim.

            No more argumentation, just the data, please.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Point to the any time when I said ASR > OLR in the last few months. All I wrote was that the atmosphere cooled and that energy went to space. It couldn’t go any where else warmer. If you think otherwise, it is up to you to prove it. The data will show it. Why should I have to prove to you the 2nd LoT is obeyed?

  23. AaronS says:

    This reminds me of that brief cooling phase or the great “hiatus”.

    This low is a clear LA Nina anomaly and is difficult to be interpreted as more significant than that to the global warming story. I do find the ocean pattern very interesting because it does appear there is potential for another cooling trend and two LA Nina in succession would make an actual cooling trend in the global temperature. The other potential pattern I see is that this LA Nina trough appears it may get significantly lower than the previous few LA Nina troughs, which is abnormal since the mega 97 98 El Nino. The peaks at El Nino and troughs at La Nina tend to have been warming as per global warming trend after 97 98 event. Another fun story for me to watch- will a new hiatus form!

  24. Michael G says:

    Non-scientist here. Simple question, I hope, about the graph at the top of the post:

    Given the +0.14 C/decade trend, would an anomaly for 2021 of about +0.22 C be pretty close to exactly in line with that trend?

    Thanks.

  25. SAMURAI says:

    CAGW is so screwed…

    According to CMIP6.0 global warming projections, the global temperature trend should be at 0.5C/decade by now when reality shows it to be 0.14/C/decade—-3.5 TIMES too high; what a joke.

    It only gets worse from here as the PDO and AMO will both soon reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles which will bring 30+ years of global cooling, as observed from1880~1913 and again from 1945~1978.

    Moreover, empirical evidence show that for past 80 years, there have been NO long-term increasing global trends of frequency nor severity for: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, and hail. CAGW is a complete bust.

    The earth has been around 4.5 billion years, and It’s hilarious Leftists can’t wait another 5 years to see what cooling effects will occur when the PDO and AMO reenter their respective cool cycles, before wasting $100’s of trillions on the completely disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis.

    CAGW has always been a political phenomenon and not a physical one…

    How much longer must we endure this silly charade?

    • barry says:

      “According to CMIP6.0 global warming projections, the global temperature trend should be at 0.5C/decade by now…”

      That’s complete bullshit.

      https://tinyurl.com/w8kfprus

      The fastest warming scenario (RCP8.5) is about 0.25 C/decade between 2020 and 2040.

      If by “now” you mean, say, a 20-year trend with 2020 in the middle, then it’s just over 0.2 C/decade, by my eyeball, again using RCP8.5 for the CMIP6 projections.

      No reason to choose the highest possible scenario, other than to make any discrepancy as large as possible. You’re welcome.

      Of course, these are projected surface temperatures, and so should be compared with surface temperature data (not lower troposphere).

      As you used the 1979 to current data period for your trend, here is the same in C per decade for various surface data sets.

      GISS: 0.19
      Had4: 0.17
      NOAA: 0.17
      BEST: 0.19

      • Denny says:

        Of course the more important question is what the trend would have been without any increase in CO2. With volumes of evidence and peer reviewed studies on the Holocene Thermal Maximum, Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and that the LIA was one of the coldest periods of the Holocene, it’s a stretch to say some of the warming the last 200; years isn’t just what you would expect with natural variability.

        • Entropic man says:

          Until the Industrial Revolution hit its stride the trend was downward, 1C in 5000 years.

          Without humanity, I imagine the downward trend would have continued. Sooner or later the ice sheets would reform and we’d be back in another glacial period.

          • denny says:

            Entropic

            No, the sea level rise started in 1700s (Jevrejeva), glaciers were melting early 1800s. Both signs of warming prior to CO2. Per IPCC, CO2 had an effect Post 1950. And then we had Roman and Medieval Warm periods. Some of the warming is a repeat of both of those periods.

          • barry says:

            For the warming to be a ‘repeat’ of those periods, then you need to say what the common mechanism is. And to match your complete certitude on this, there needs to be no doubt about cause.

          • Denny says:

            There are new papers coming out all the time providing insights into and challenging previously held views about climate science. There are many uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge about why concerning numerous scientific areas. Why about past Climate is just one area in our ignorance.

          • barry says:

            If your comments reflect these uncertainties, that will be more useful than espousing things with certitude.

            We have no determined mechanism causing the Roman and Medieval warm periods, or even if they were truly global, so it is impossible to say that any of the current warming is a “repeat” of those.

            Science progresses by testing conventional wisdom, but it’s usually a refinement rather than an overhaul. It’s fine to be hopefulo, but until something really convincing overturns the general understanding, we continue to board planes even though we model tubulence imperfectly, and make many decisions based on knowledge that has ‘gaps’.

          • Frank Olsen says:

            Thank GOD for the CAGW, if that is the reason 🙂

          • Denny says:

            Natural variability is going to be every warmists friend over the next 20 years. As the divergence between models and observational data widens like a giant crocodile jaw, excuses will abound. The most convenient reason for why the correlation between CO2 and temperatures went kaput will be the obvious- natural variability.

            I hope those hanging onto the myth of CAGW have their mental health insurance premiums paid up. It’s going to be a rocky ride.

          • bill hunter says:

            barry says:
            M
            For the warming to be a repeat of those periods, then you need to say what the common mechanism is. And to match your complete certitude on this, there needs to be no doubt about cause.
            —————————-

            Its been said barry.

            Its solar activity. About as well described as CO2. Sure we could make up some numbers to make everything fit but we would need to understand how hot spots work up in the sky to do that.

          • barry says:

            “Its been said barry”

            It has not been demonstrated. At all. Denny’s certitude that some of the current warming is a repeat of prior warming events is misplaced, as Denny conceded in their reply.

            Denny: “There are many uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge about why concerning numerous scientific areas. Why about past Climate is just one area in our ignorance.”

            The causes of the current warming period are far less obscure than those of a millenium or two ago.

          • bill hunter says:

            barry says:

            “Its been said barry”

            It has not been demonstrated. At all.

            ——————————

            And neither has CO2. At all!

            As I see it I can easily extract solar effect trends that strongly suggest solar activity accounted for up half of the warming in the last 2 decades of the 20th century and 1st decade of the 21st. I haven’t figured out how to separate CO2 from longer termed solar variations.

            Its a factor in modeling that when your driver has cycles it only takes a few generations of the cycle to build a statistical case. . . and solar cycles provides an opportunity to look at that variable

            so solar effects have more science behind them than does CO2

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            It is an extreme form of wishful think to suppose, let alone expect, that we have ended the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods that have prevailed for millions of years.

            It is just a matter of time.
            We can not control a light frost, or a warm day, on one place, for one minute, let alone the preposterously idiotic notion that we can control the temperature regimes of a planet over decades and centuries via the powerful mechanism of woke political philosophy, or the granting of all power and much credulity to some dimwitted elected officials and disaffected middle school dropouts from northern Europe.

          • barry says:

            “As I see it I can easily extract solar effect trends that strongly suggest solar activity accounted for up half of the warming in the last 2 decades of the 20th century and 1st decade of the 21st.”

            I doubt that very much.

            https://tinyurl.com/2s7eevxb

            But let’s test solar against the IPCC claim that CO2 has been the dominant driver since 1950.

            https://tinyurl.com/4v6fy5n2

            Solar has been on the wane while global temperatures have risen.

            Do you imagine that natural factors have not been researched and assessed? Have you bothered to read the IPCC docs at all? Solar, cloudiness, volcanic activity, galactic cosmic rays and others influences have been assessed at length and contiunue to be.

            I came to this ‘debate’ 14 years ago when a ‘skeptic’ said that the coming IPCC report (AR4) would completely omit water vapour and SO2. When it came out I checked meticulously. Hundreds and hundreds of mentions of each, and whole sections devoted to water vapour and SO2.

            That was my introduction to ‘skeptics’ and the online debate. Since then I’ve met plenty of ‘skeptics’ who were just as ignorant of what research has been undertaken, and who are just as confident in their ignorance as he was. You remind me of him.

        • Clint R says:

          Correct Denny, the effort should be to learn about “natural variability”, not chasing imaginary fears for funding.

          In just the 40 years of satellite data, it appears monthly anomalies can deviate about 0.7C from the zero lone. In another 40 years, we should have some pretty solid evidence of “natural variability”.

          What we know now is that CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures.

          • Willard says:

            > CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures

            Not even on the side of the Earth where it’s -270C, Clint?

          • Ball4 says:

            What ClintR knows now is that CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures because CO2 molecules only radiate toward space writing:

            “Exactly Bindidon. CO2 emits to space. The more CO2, the more emission to space.”

            What an entertaining ClintR 3ring circus to read twisting his faulty science comments into pretzels to protect his cult.

      • SAMURAI says:

        Barry-san:

        You’re so cute when you get angry.

        The hilarious new and improved CMIP6 models predict 5C+ of glooobal waaaarming by 2100, which is a trend of 0.5C/decade, which is completely devoid from reality…

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained

        It must be so frustrating being a CAGW cultist and realizing your Leftist religion is dead.

        Cheer up, perhaps Leftists will switch the narrative back to manmade global cooling like they did in the late 70’s…

        Don’t worry Barry-san, I’m sure your Leftist high priests will come up with a another doomsday hoax for you to believe in…

        • Entropic man says:

          Remind me again. Rightist. When is the Rapture due?

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, thanks for reminding us that you trolls never have anything of value to offer.

          • Ken says:

            Rapture? Judging by the craziness that marks our times … soon.

        • barry says:

          Sorry, Samurai, you’re still posting bullshit.

          You can’t read. Look at the time period for the 5C projection in your link. Hint: you halved it.

          Not to mention the projected warming isn’t linear, so even if you didn’t halve the time frame, you would still have to account for that.

          Happily, the article gives you the current trend – what you call “now.” It is 0.22 C/decade for CMIP6, 1970-2019. The model uncertainty range completely encompasses the observed trend for the same period.

          You really blew the reading on the article you googled.

          There is no anger when I say that you are posting bullshit. When presented with dreck it’s often best not to mince words. Hopefully the fool commenter will feel some shame and take more care the next time.

          Only works if the commenter has the kind of humility that permits them to feel shame, Samuri-san.

          • Entropic man says:

            “what you call now. It is 0.22 C/decade for CMIP6, 1970-2019. The model uncertainty range completely encompasses the observed trend for the same period. ”

            Interestingly the trend for the most recent ten years of UAH is 0.2C/decade.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2011/to:2021/every/plot/uah6/from:2011/to:2021/every/trend

          • barry says:

            Time period is way too short to derive a meaningful trend, EM.

            I get 0.46 C/decade starting January 2011 (to present), using UAH6.0.

            The uncertainty is +/- 0.38.

            It’s a numerical fluke that we get a statistically significant trend, though. Add a year to the beginning and the trend becomes statistically non-significant.

            2010 : 0.32 C/decade (+/- 0.35)

            http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

          • Entropic man says:

            Barry

            “Time period is way too short to derive a meaningful trend, EM. ”

            I agree entirely, but the contrarians here are statistically unsophisticated. They are happy to take a little bit of short term numerical straw and spin the end of global warming from it.

            You never know, they might even accept short term evidence as proof of warming

      • Clint R says:

        barry, you overlooked the very start of Samurai’s comment: “CAGW is so screwed…”

        Instead, you went off bickering over your “eye ball” reading of the graphs.

        What you need to focus on is the “science”. “Believing” CO2 can heat the planet ain’t “science”. That false belief is built on nonsense like:

        1) Earth only receives 240 W/m^2 solar,
        2) Flux is energy,
        3) Flux can be averaged,
        4) CO2 molecules don’t emit to space.

        If you focus on the REAL science, you will learn “CAGW is so screwed”.

        • Willard says:

          > Earth only receives 240 W/m^2 solar.

          That figure rather represents the steady-state temperature of the Earth.

        • Bindidon says:

          Clint R

          ” 4) CO2 molecules dont emit to space. ”

          Nobody ever wrote that except yourself.

          The contrary has been written.

          Namely that

          – in the absence of CO2 molecules (and of course, of H2O molecules as well), more IR is directly emitted to space;

          – in the presence of such molecules, more IR is absorbed by these, and only half of the IR then is directly reemitted up to space;

          – the other half is reemitted down, and reaches either surface or again IR intercepting molecules, which again reemit only half of that IR to space, and so on.

          *
          You are all the time distorting, discrediting, denigrating and lying.

          J.-P. D.

          • Clint R says:

            Exactly Bindidon. CO2 emits to space. The more CO2, the more emission to space.

            I know it makes you frustrated and angry when your cult religion fails. But, the upside is there is no charge for you being an idiot.

          • Bart says:

            Clint R has a point. CO2 molecules cool the atmosphere via thermalization and subsequent emission. More CO2 intercepts more surface IR, but also cools more atmospheric molecules. There is both a warming and a cooling tendency. Which one wins out depends on the state of convective overturning.

          • barry says:

            “More CO2 intercepts more surface IR, but also cools more atmospheric molecules.

            How exactly does that happen? I suspect that if you describe it carefully you will see that it provides no cooling of the atmosphere.

            But let’s see how you understand it, first, all the way to how this intermolecular activity provides more cooling with more CO2 molecules.

          • Clint R says:

            “I suspect that if you describe it carefully you will see that it provides no cooling of the atmosphere.”

            barry, this is where your lack of understanding of science messes you up.

            1) CO2 emits in all directions, including to space.
            2) Emission to space means energy lost to space.
            3) Therefore, more CO2 means more energy to space.

          • barry says:

            Yes, Bart, I understand thermalization, but not how you conceive that this process provides a coolng offset to the IR warming from increased GHGs.

            That’s why I asked you to explain it. I think if you lay it out carefully, piece by piece, you will see for yourself the flaw in your thinking.

          • Bart says:

            There is no flaw. This is actually very basic knowledge in climate science. You just didn’t read about it in the Cliff’s Notes.

          • barry says:

            A series of non-responses from you, Bart. Yawn.

          • Bart says:

            You’ve gotta’ do some legwork, Buckaroo. I can’t fill in all the blanks in your education in the response section of a blog.

          • barry says:

            That legwork has been done, which is why I know you are seeing it wrong.

            But I can’t see how you’re geting it wrong until you explain the way you see it.

            Which you’re not going to risk, because it will expose the flaw in your thinking. So your tactic now is to stall by putting the onus on me for your claim.

            In short, you are now trolling.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            No, the onus is on you to show why Bart is seeing it wrong. I think he has it exactly right. The problem is your failure to either want to understand or be able to understand.

          • Willard says:

            I too would prefer just to say stuff and burden otters with proving me wrong, Chic.

            Alas that only works for blog scientists like you.

          • Ball4 says:

            Chic 9:49pm, Bart is seeing it wrong because more informed others using well earned “basic knowledge in climate science” know added earthen well-mixed CO2 increases the higher-pressure lower atm. IR opacity resulting in less IR photons to thermalize in the upper atm. regions. It is Bart that is the buckaroo needing to pass a meteorology 1st course in atm. radiation.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            That is appealing-to-authority purely theoretical assertions overly seasoned with climatological gobbledyygook.

            But, welcome to the discussion anyway.

            Where is there any actual data showing that global temperatures rise by a statistically significant amount when an incremental dose of CO2 is added to an atmosphere containing more than 300 ppm?

          • Ball4 says:

            Chic, your answer is in the already observed actual data easily found with some work.

            Let’s see your bona fides: 1) compute the amount the black line in top post just went up, 2) from the ppm CO2 measurably added during the black line period compute the expected increase in TLT global temperature in the period, 3) find your two results are reasonably the same, 4) exhaustively research you can make no reasonable case for any other black line increase driver to be the monotonic cause.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Does anyone have a clue what Ball4 just wrote?

            BTW, those are not my bona fides. Look it up.

          • Bart says:

            Ball4 @ May 7, 2021 at 8:59 AM

            “Bart is seeing it wrong because more informed others using well earned basic knowledge in climate science know added earthen well-mixed CO2 increases the higher-pressure lower atm. IR opacity resulting in less IR photons to thermalize in the upper atm. regions.”

            Not even wrong. What does this have to do with convection?

          • Ball4 says:

            Bart, since you don’t understand what I wrote, please complete a college course in atmospheric radiation with a passing grade.

            I can try to dumb it down for you if you ask questions to try and fill in your lack of expertise in the subject matter. Obtaining a good text book on atm. radiation and studying it closely while working the relevant problems will also help fill in your lack of understanding.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “I can try to dumb it down for you….”

            It’s dumb enough already. Don’t embarrass yourself any further.

          • Ball4 says:

            Chic, looks like you lack understanding of lower atm. increased opacity effect on upper regions just like Bart. Even a beginning course in atm. radiation is hard, go ahead & ask questions to learn.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Find me a course that has actual data showing how much a 100 ppm pulse of CO2 causes a measureable change in global temperature and I’ll sign up. In fact any measurements proving your opacity non-sense.

            There is enough hand-waving arguments going on here. Just stop.

          • Ball4 says:

            Those measurements and data are already in the published literature; passing a basic course in the subject would help you look, find and understand the subject matter. I’m tired of the lack of understanding.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            One good reference could prove you right. Or just keep on blathering. Your choice.

          • Ball4 says:

            Chic 9:12 pm, I am not a college librarian. There are actually several publications and you haven’t found even one to answer your own question indicating a lack of preparation in the subject matter.

            Time to get to work Chic, your local college librarian will be happy to apply their trade for you.

      • SAMURAI says:

        Poor Barry-san….

        Your insane CAGW suicide cult is the one terrorizing children by indoctrinating them from 5 years old to believe CO2 will destroy all life in earth.

        The problem with making insanely unrealistic hypothetical projections is that they simply doom your CAGW suicide cult that much quicker.

        I know you must be traumatized your religion is on the verge of becoming a laughingstock, but, again, I’m sure your Leftist cult leaders will come up with a new religion you can blindly place your faith in and you’ll fall for the next scam, too…

        How sad…

        • bdgwx says:

          Can you tell us which page in the IPCC AR5 report says all life on Earth will end?

          Can you define CAGW objectively? What amount of warming is the threshold for the “catastrophic” part of CAGW?

          • Clint R says:

            bdgwx, are you going to deny all the “We’ve only got X years left” nonsense from the “Gretas” of your cult?

            Pretend it never happened, huh? Pretend the cone is receiving 180 W/m^2 over its entire surface, rather than 900 W/m^2 at its base, as clearly described.

            Pretend, pretend, pretend.

        • barry says:

          Can you link to anyone of note seriously saying “all life” will become extinct from increased CO2?

          The only people I’ve seen saying that are AGW critics, who invent it as a straw man.

          • Swenson says:

            Retweeted by Gavin Schmidt –

            “1. Global crop failures by 2°C.
            2. Most humans dead by 4°C.
            3. Earth uninhabitable by 6°C”

            Maybe he’s a fool who retweets straw men from AGW critics. Anything is possible in GHE World.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            “…anyone of note seriously saying all life will become extinct from increased CO2?”

            Well, now that you ask…
            Was Steven Hawking a “person of note?”

            Hawking said:
            “”Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”

            https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/902350/Stephen-Hawking-climate-change-Donald-Trump-Global-warming-weather-venus

            He also said on more than one occasion we are likely past the point of no return.
            Was he the only one?
            Hah!
            There are books written on the long list of such people.
            I have not heard one prominent climate scientist in the warmista camp speak up in the press and denounce proclamation of a ongoing climate catastrophe.

            Now, here is a counter challenge: Can you link to any of the serious dangerous global warming caused by humans proponents speaking up to contradict the raucous chorus of climate crisis prognosticators in the press, in Hollywood, on the political stage?
            Come on now…if no one has said it, they must have spoken out forcefully against wild exaggerations, and continue to do so whenever such unhinged claims are made, right?
            All of them should.
            All I hear is deafening silence from every last one of them, which is a black eye on the entire profession, to put it quite mildly.

          • barry says:

            Stephen Hawking was wrong. Well done finding someone of note who said that. But I don’t think his opinion weighs much in the general understanding. IPCC certainly doesn’t make such a claim (nor does Gavin Schmidt).

          • barry says:

            Swenson, you duplicitous troll. I looked it up and Schmidt criticised those quotes saying they were hyperbole.

            https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1386507724154888192

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            Unfortunately, Gavin Schmidt did not state why he thought they were hyperbole. Just more of Schmidt appealing to his own authority as a mathematician.

            So the following –

            “Here, a 6C rise in temperatures resulted in the extinction of 95% of the planets species, and is considered the worst event ever endured by life on Earth.” (You can look it up yourself, if you have mind to), is hyperbole also?

            How much exaggeration? Why do think AGW supporters say such things?

            It’s all about as pointless as asking the delusional Michael Mann what the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere is!

            What is your answer? Can’t say? Won’t say?

            If a 6 C rise is just hyperbole, what about 10 C? No danger that you could quantify?

            Keep wriggling. If you can’t quantify any danger from increased levels of CO2, why should anybody worry about it?

            You are an idiot.

  26. Entropic man says:

    Serious question ,Clint R.

    The Right has its own doomsday cults.

    Harold Camping predicted that the Rapture would come in 2011.

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

    David Meade predicted September 2017.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/856661/End-of-the-world-2017-september-23-bible-christians-prophecy-planet-x-nibiru

    • bill hunter says:

      doomsday cults are everywhere ET. But how many run the ‘SHOW’.

      • E says:

        Ah, but AGW is the only doomsday cult supported by scientific evidence.

        • Clint R says:

          Ent, it is a “doomsday” cult, but there is NO scientific evidence. There’s only your made-up nonsense, like passenger jets can fly backwards and sideways.

          Cults make up stuff to support their nonsense, but that ain’t science.

        • Nicholas McGinley says:

          E,
          Is it your contention that computer models are “evidence”?
          As in experimental evidence?
          Because according to the thingamahoozit called The Scientific Method, evidence is the result of experimentation and observation, not speculation.
          Speculation is not even counted as an hypothesis unless it makes clearly enunciated and falsifiable predictions, and proposes a method for obtaining such evidence.

          Note: Peer review is not evidence either. It is not even a method of verification, and is no part of The Scientific Method.
          Before it was dressed up as something it aint, it was merely something akin to formalized proofreading. A literary editing process.

    • Clint R says:

      Ent, it can’t be a very “serious” question if it’s not even a question.

      • Entropic man says:

        Were you smoking behind the bicycle sheds when you should have been in English lessons as well as science lessons?

        • Clint R says:

          Well at least you learned to phrase a question, including using the relevant punctuation.

          Who said idiots can’t learn?

        • Nicholas McGinley says:

          Ent,
          Come on now, let’s be analytical here.
          You indicated a question was forthcoming in the preface to your remark.
          No question can be detected, and I have had top men analyzing the utterance.

          “Literary Oops*” for $1000, Alex!

          * Yes, this is an actual Jeopardy! category. Three up from “Quotes & Quotable”, IIRC.

          Cue the music, aaannnd…CUT!

  27. bdgwx says:

    With this update the anomaly using the old 1981-2010 baseline is +0.07. The 1979-present trend is +0.1358C/decade +/- 0.0065. The trend line sits at +0.21C. The Apr 2021 anomaly is a 0.26 departure below the trend line. The SD on the trend line departures is 0.18. That gives this month a z-score -1.4. The probability of this happening in any given month is expected to be 7% though it is important to point out that departures have a clustering tendency due to the ENSO cycle.

    • barry says:

      “The trend line sits at +0.21C.”

      This phrasing has always been a little obscure to me. It is not ‘the line’ but the current endpoint that sits at value X above the baseline, right?

      Otherwise, interesting stuff. SD is 2-sigma, yes?

      • bdgwx says:

        Yeah, correct. The Apr 2021 endpoint of the trend line is at +0.21C.

        The SD of 0.18 is 1-sigma. So 2-sigma is 0.36. And those are departures from the trend line so clearly there is a lot of variability above/below the trend line.

      • barry says:

        1-sigma is 68% of the distribution, which is unconventially tight, isn’t it? I thought 2-sigma (95%) was standard for this kind of data.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule

        Never learned stats formally, hence the noob query.

      • bdgwx says:

        Excel’s LINEST and STDEV functions report 1-sigma. If you want 2-sigma you just multiple by 2, or for 3-sigma you multiple by 3, and so on. The caveat is that your population has to be “normally distributed”. The monthly departures from the trendline are indeed normally distributed so I can just do =2*STDEV.P(…) in Excel to get 2-sigma envelope of +/- 0.36 on the departures.

        Yes, 2-sigma is considered the minimum standard for “statistically significant”. It is really confusing because there isn’t always a standard for what sigma level the +/- X uncertainty you see is in reference too. When in doubt assume it is 1-sigma, but very often it is actually reported as 2-sigma. For example, the GISS uncertainty of +/- 0.05 is 2-sigma. The RSS-TLT uncertainty of +/- 0.10 reported by Mears 2011 is 1-sigma so you have to multiply by 2 which means the 2-sigma uncertainty is actually closer to +/- 0.20 for the satellite data. The +/- 0.0065 uncertainty on the +0.1358C/decade comes straight from LINEST so it is 1-sigma.

      • barry says:

        Thanks, understood.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      bdgwx,

      Although I doubt your comment is relevant to anything climatic, it’s statistically interesting to me and it appears to have been to Barry as well.

      A z score is a relative test of how far a measurement is from the mean. So your phraseologies “below the trendline” and “trendline departures” seem to be misplaced. What is that you are really trying to evaluate? How different this month is from the 1979-present average or how unlikely it is from what would have been predicted based on the trend?

      • bdgwx says:

        Chic asked: What is that you are really trying to evaluate?

        The “trendline” is computed via LINEST in excel. It is +0.136C/decade and starts at -0.36C and ends at +0.21C. The departures from the trendline are the trivial difference between the value of the actual anomaly and the value of the trendline for that month. The mean of the departures is 0.00 because the departures are normally distributed. The standard deviation of the departures is 0.18. So with the Apr 2021 anomaly at -0.05 and the trend line at +0.21 the departure is -0.05 – 0.21 = -0.26. A negative (or below trendline) departure of this magnitude has occurred 36 times out of 509 months in the UAH record (1979-presnet). This is a real recurrence rate of 7.1%. The expected recurrence rate with a z-score of -1.44 calculated from the SD of 0.18 is 7.6%.

        Chic asked: How different this month is from the 1979-present average or how unlikely it is from what would have been predicted based on the trend?

        The later. The probability that Apr 2021 would come in at -0.05C or lower is expected to be 7.6% based on the value of the trendline of +0.21C. The probability that any month in 2021 would come in at -0.05C or lower is 61%.

  28. CO2isLife says:

    The odd thing about Climate Science. Just read all the posts above. Everyone believes the oceans control the climate. El Nina, La Nina, location of the warming down 50 m, covers 70%+ of the Globe, contains more than 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere, etc etc. If everyone understands the oceans control the climate, why isn’t anyone explaining how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ? The oceans are warming 50 m below the surface. How could CO2 possibly cause that observation? CO2 has added an additional 0.63W/m^2 since the start of the industrial age. A single cloudy day can add 80W/m^2 or more. A single El Nino can remove the CO2 equivalent of hundreds of years.

    Why isn’t anyone trying to explain why the oceans are warming? If you claim CO2, prove it. Take an IR lamp and warm water 50 m deep. I’ve tried to warm water in a foil-lined bowl using an IR Filter and 1,000 Lumin Lamp and got no warming, none.

    That is a real easy experiment. Simply take a daylight lamp, IR Lamp, and 3 foil-lined bowls of water. Simply shine the various lights on the bowls of water and measure the temperature change. You will find as I found, the IR lamp won’t warm the water.

    • barry says:

      “Everyone believes the oceans control the climate.”

      Do they? I don’t. I would say the oceans have a moderating influence on weather. ENSO events exchange energy between ocean and atmosphere (ie, surface/atmospheric temps increase during el Nino, when energy is moved from the ocean to the atmosphere, and the opposite during la nina).

      ENSO events are partly responsible for the ups and downs we see month to month in the temperature record. These are weather, not climate events.

      Global climate change is a long-term phenomenon, measured in decades, not months.

      I hope I have been clear.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Barry Says: Everyone believes the oceans control the climate.

        Do they? I dont.

        Simply look at the Temperature Graphic. A single El Nino can increase temperatures by over 1C° in less than 1 year. Climate Alarmists claim CO2 does that in 100+ years. I’ve identified many Desert Stations that show no warming over the past 140 years proving CO2 doesn’t come close to 1C°

      • barry says:

        ENSO events don’t persist. They are weather events. They are also internal to the climate system, and not a source for long term change. They just move the energy around the system.

        You don’t understand the difference between weather and climate. Climate is a persistent phenomenon and is roughly predictable (think seasons), whereas weather events are more chaotic and harder to predict.

        Climate is the average of weather conditions over a given period. For the seasons it is roughly 3 months (in the mid-latitudes). For global climate it is roughly 3 decades.

    • barry says:

      Frgot to add: the initiating cause of ENSO events is not well known.

  29. Entropic man says:

    Clint R

    You’re doing the wrong experiment.

    DWLWR does not add additional energy to the oceans on top of that brought in by shortwave radiation. DWLWR reduces the amount of energy leaving the ocean surface.

    It is that imbalance between energy entering and leaving the ocean which causes ocean heat content to increase.

    Here’s how to modify your experiment. Put a saucepan of water on a low heat. Feel free to wrap a towel around the sides. When the water temperature stabilises equal amounts of heat are flowing in from below (Swenson will love this ) and out through the surface of the water. The saucepan is in energy balance and the temperature is constant.

    Now shine your IR lamp onto the water surface and watch the temperature increase. The IR is creating a warm surface film which makes it harder for heat to flow from the water to the atmosphere.

    • Clint R says:

      Ent, what in the world are you talking about?

      You seem to live in a tangled web of confused nonsense when you believe everything you imagine is reality!

      It doesn’t work that way….

      • Entropic man says:

        Clint R

        Did you actually try the experiment before opening your mouth and putting your foot in it?

        • Clint R says:

          Ent, what experiment are you talking about?

          Are you drunk, senile, an idiot, of all of the above?

          • Willard says:

            I think it’s this one:

            Heres how to modify your experiment. Put a saucepan of water on a low heat. Feel free to wrap a towel around the sides. When the water temperature stabilises equal amounts of heat are flowing in from below (Swenson will love this ) and out through the surface of the water. The saucepan is in energy balance and the temperature is constant.

            Now shine your IR lamp onto the water surface and watch the temperature increase. The IR is creating a warm surface film which makes it harder for heat to flow from the water to the atmosphere.

            If you had a hammer, EM may not mind.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            Dear Mr Willard,
            I tried your experiment.
            Any suggestions for how to extinguish the towel fire in my kitchen?
            It is getting real smoky in there, so any help is much appreciated.

            PS, I think I am passing out from smoke inhalation, but but I do believe the saucepan is warming, even without the IR lamp.

            PPS, I tried adding a UV lamp because, you know, Sun and all, but the cord has melted on that map from the towel fire, and now there seem to be an electrical problem…
            I hope you get my message soon. Tell my girl I loved her…

            -Menicholas

          • Entropic man says:

            Nicholas McGinley

            When your widow repeats the experiment, may I suggest that she uses an electric hob rather than a gas hob.

            As you observed, the extra heat generated by the burning towel and the electrical short circuit obscured the DWLR heat flow inhibition effect.

    • Entropic man says:

      Apologies. This post should have been a reply to CO2isLife’s May 3rd 10.34am post.

      I managed to put my reply in the wrong place and address it to Clint R instead of CO2islife.

    • Swenson says:

      E,

      You forgot something. Turn your IR lamp off 12 hours out of 24. When it is on, make sure that it provides the same amount of energy per unit area as the Sun does, varying from minimum to maximum and back again, just like the Sun. Make sure that the surface of the saucepan faces the same sort of radiation sink as the ocean does, and ensure that the bottom of your saucepan is held at 4C or so, like the ocean.

      Now tell me how the switched off heat lamp prevents the warmest top water from cooling. Don’t forget that as it cools, water sinks, displacing the water beneath, which rises to the surface – to cool.

      You are an idiotic denialist. Don’t you realise that proper experimenters like John Tyndall and others provided physical explanations for ocean temperatures and thermal gradients, as well as land surface temperatures and the underlying thermal gradients more than 150 years ago?

      No GHE. Neither you nor anybody else can even usefully describe such a crackpot idea!

      • Entropic man says:

        “Make sure that the surface of the saucepan faces the same sort of radiation sink as the ocean does,”

        That’s a good idea. The experiment might work better under an open sky.

        The rest of your comment is bullshit.

  30. Bindidon says:

    Co2IsLife

    ” Why not instead of having a 30 year annual average, have a 30 year January average, 30 year February average, etc etc etc, and have each month compared to the average of its month, not the annual average? ”

    I think it’s not the first time you write such nonsense, and show how ignorant you are.

    Maybe you finally start really learning instead of all the time blathering about things you don’t know anything about.

    This stuff you miss one more time: it is what ALL people calculating anonalies do, and is called, e.g. by Roy Spencer: ‘removing the annual cycle‘.

    Why, do you think, does the top of the descending sort of the UAH anomalies in the LT look like this:

    2016 2 0.86
    2016 3 0.77
    2020 2 0.75
    1998 4 0.74
    2016 4 0.73

    and not like this

    1998 7 1.71
    2020 7 1.63
    2016 7 1.58
    2019 7 1.58
    1998 8 1.53

    Your knowledge about anomalies is like that of weather stations or like of that of CO2’s activity: zero dot zero.

    J.-P. D.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Bindi Says: This stuff you miss one more time: it is what ALL people calculating anonalies do, and is called, e.g. by Roy Spencer: removing the annual cycle.

      Typically to “remove the annual cycle” you “seasonally adjust” the data by taking a 12-month average, or you take the deviation from the same month 1 year ago. If that is what they are doing, just what is the value that is reported? It says that the deviation is the deviation from the mean. The mean is the average temperature right? Are you saying that you seasonally adjust the data and then subtract the mean? If that is the case, just what then is that temperature point mean? It clearly doesn’t mean the current temperature deviation from the mean. If it is the seasonally adjusted value different from the non-seasonally adjusted average of the of temperatures?

      If I take the current -0.5C° deviation and add it to the 30 year average, just what does that mean? If it is what the actual temperature is, then that value isn’t seasonally adjusted.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Bindidon, if those points are seasonally adjusted, you have a whole lot of negative and falling values. If CO2 caused the warming, and that data is seasonally adjusted, you would see an extremely linear relationship between time and temp. Each month should simply step up from the previous year by the additional contribution of CO2. You don’t see that. You see randomness. One Jan can be up, the other down. That is hard to explain if CO2 is the cause of climate change because CO2 always increases. Care to explain how CO2 can cause randomness in seasonally adjusted data?

    • barry says:

      “If CO2 caused the warming, and that data is seasonally adjusted, you would see an extremely linear relationship between time and temp. Each month should simply step up from the previous year by the additional contribution of CO2.”

      This is where you fail. This is completely wrong.

      Seasonally adjusting data does not get rid of ENSO events, and all the other short-term influences on global temperature that exchange energy between the lower atmosphere and the rest of the biosphere. Seasonally adjusting the data does not remove the influence of cloudiness or the small changes in solar radiation. All these influence global temperature on short time scales (solar influence has an 11-year cycle).

      You are essentially arguing that with CO2 warming, ENSO should suddenly cease, cloud cover would suddenly become a static value, the solar cycle would suddenly cease, and any exchange of energy between the lower troposphere and the rest of the biosphere should likewise cease.

      This is nuts. There is no reason to expect any of that.

      But because you seem to believe that CO2 warming cancels all other activity, you have a hopelessly broken view of the issue.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Barry says: But because you seem to believe that CO2 warming cancels all other activity, you have a hopelessly broken view of the issue.

        Go back and re-read your post. You just debunked the AGW Theory. You listed many exogenous factors that cause temperatures. How do you tease out CO2’s effect from all the others? You do, and you can’t. You list all these events that DO cause Temperatures to change and can be proven it, and yet everyone says CO2 is the cause. Prove it. Design a model that adjusts for El Nino, Clouds, Solar Variation, Humidity, the UHI, etc etc etc. Problem is, no one does that. They just say CO2 is the cause, and ignore all the real causes of temperature change.

      • barry says:

        You have completely avoided the point. Obviously this is why you are being so stupendously stupid on the issue at hand. You simply turn away from it.

        The itmes listed are short term influences on global temperature. Global warming only becomes evident from the noise of interannual variability after a few decades.

        Your belief that all these other, short-term influences should completely disappear with long-term CO2 warming is brainless idiocy, and no amount of trying to change the subject is going to change that fact.

        Like the change from Winter to Summer and daily temps not following a straight line up, so too with steady background warming (or cooling) and monthly and interannual variability. This is the difference between climate change and weather volatility.

        There is absolutely no reason to expect “each month should simply step up from the previous.”

        This is your lunacy. You need to recognize it, discard it, and then make a better argument. As long as you hold on to this notion you will remain a dunce.

        • Swenson says:

          b,

          For about four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled.

          Long term enough?

          Or do you want to cherry pick a shorter period?

          • bobdroege says:

            How about what was the Earth doing, warming or cooling, before the Earth had a Moon?

  31. Bindidon says:

    denny

    Upthread you wrote:

    ” No, the sea level rise started in 1700s (Jevrejeva)… ”

    Sorry, this is nonsense.

    Firstly, J.’s series started in 1807.

    Jevrejeva’s sea level time series moreover has been analyzed years ago, and is simply incorrect.

    The reason is: her unluckily trivial approach to sea level anomaly construction, based on the fully deprecated, first-difference technique.

    All statisticians having constructed time series do this either

    – by calculating, out of absolute values, anomalies wrt the means of a reference period, or
    – by calculating such anomalies wrt the mean of local periods and then globally aligning the local anomaly series using ordinary least squares methods.

    If you want a today’s evaluation of sea levels, so please rely to real professionals, e.g.

    Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s

    Sönke Dangendorf, Carling Hay, Francisco M. Calafat, Marta Marcos, Christopher G. Piecuch, Kevin Berk & Jürgen Jensen

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0531-8

    Unfortunately behind paywall (I have it on my disk); maybe it is accessible somewhere else for free.

    The title sounds quite alarmistic, but the work done is, from my point of view as a former engineer, very good.

    And even if I don’t like the title, I have to agree that for the recent period, sea level does not increase linearly:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qBSUtBULXrWDDhbMYoe3fA9Iw9wytyY2/view

    I suppose that you perfectly know how to compute the numbers for 2100 out of the 2nd order polynomial equations.

    Data

    – Jev

    https://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/gslGPChange2014.txt

    – Dang

    https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0531-8/MediaObjects/41558_2019_531_MOESM2_ESM.txt

    J.-P. D.

    • barry says:

      You can get Bindidon’s paywalled paper here:

      https://sci-hub.do/10.1038/s41558-019-0531-8

      If ever you need to source a paywalled paper, sci-hub should be one of your first stops.

      https://sci-hub.do/

      That is the current domain. It changes sometimes, so just google ‘sci-hub’ if that link dies.

    • Denny says:

      You both need to read Jevrejeva 2008 CONCLUSION. It said sea level rise appears to have started at the end of the 18th Century.

      The 18th Century is the 1700s.

      You missed the overall. Whether before 1800 or after is irrelevant. It’s 150 years before the time the IPCC said CO2 had an effect on temperatures. This means natural variability.

      Both you and Barry need to get used to this kind of thing. When the AMO flips we will have 20-30 years of non warming. That means the myth of a climate emergency and climate disaster collapses. You have backed the wrong horse.

      • barry says:

        Jevrejeva et al (2013)

        “The time variable estimates of acceleration in 203 years of global sea level reconstruction suggest that there are periods of slow and fast sea level rise associated with decadal variability, which has been previously reported by several authors… Several studies have found various different accelerations in global sea level reconstructions, suggesting that results are very dependent on the time period considered for analysis. In addition, results from individual tide gauges are very dependent on the location and influence of high-frequency (2–15 years) variability. However, Fig. 15 and the associated uncertainties discussed in Section 3.4 show that long term estimates of time variable sea level acceleration in 203 year global reconstruction are significantly positive, which supports our previous finding (Jevrejeva et al., 2008a), that despite strong low frequency variability (larger than 60 years) the rate of sea level rise is increasing with time.”

        http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/504181/1/1-s2.0-S0921818113002750-main.pdf

        Jevrejeva’s projection of sea level rise published in 2012.

        “Here we use a physically plausible sea level model constrained by observations, and forced with four new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenarios (Moss et al., 2010) to project median sea level rises of 0.57 for the lowest forcing and 1.10 m for the highest forcing by 2100 which rise to 1.84 and 5.49 m respectively by 2500. Sea level will continue to rise for several centuries even after stabilisation of radiative forcing with most of the rise after 2100 due to the long response time of sea level…”

      • barry says:

        Jevrejeva et al (2008a), by the way, refers to the paper you are citing, Denny. According to Jevrejeva et al (2013), they have confirmed from the original paper that sea level rise is accelerating long term, while there is decadal variability in acceleration. This is consistent with most other authors on the subject.

        • Denny says:

          And after all that the conclusion still says sea level rise began in the 18th Century.

          You need to catch up with the science. It’s clear you have been brainwashed.

        • barry says:

          I’ve just quoted the author you cited.

          Saying that sea level rise has accelerated over the last 200 years.

          Saying that sea level will continue to rise with CO2 emissions.

          Are you saying that the author you approvingly cited is trying to brainwash people?

          • Clint R says:

            barry, how much have sea levels varied in Earths’s history? Underwater cities have been found, as well as sea-life fossils on mountains.

            And what is the “correct” sea level for Earth?

            Or, is sea level rise just another issue used to scare the sheep?

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            The sea life fossils on the mountains didn’t get there because the sea level was that high, they got there because the mountains rose from the tectonic plates pushing them up.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes bob, most people believe that.

            Do you also believe that tectonic plate movement can cause sea level change?

            And, don’t overlook the question — “What is the correct sea level for Earth?”

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Do you also believe that tectonic plate movement can cause sea level change?”

            Yes, it can change local sea levels, there is evidence for that, not that it matters what I believe. I believe you are a dumbshit.

            “And, don’t overlook the question — What is the correct sea level for Earth?”

            That’s a dumbshit question from a dumbshit. A different question might me more appropriate, maybe you can think of one.

            Probably not though, remember you are a dumbshit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            Says the troll

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH, please stop trolling.

  32. Tim S says:

    The emergency is very obvious. If the earth starts to cool dramatically before the climate change people can drastically change our economy and way of life, they will have to admit the whole AGW theory is just hot air. That will trigger a made rush to exploit every available fossil fuel which is probably a bad idea since it will run out at some point anyway. Oh what a tangled web we weave…..

    Planning for the future is not a bad thing if it is done carefully and intelligently.

  33. Dixon says:

    Except emissions in the upper troposphere which would be approx. halved.
    Im sure La Nia is at play, but for the decrease in jet aviation not to be visible in a dataset like this would be near impossible.

    • Entropic man says:

      Depends how big you expect the effect to be.

      Numbers please.

      How much do you expect the decrease in jet traffic to decrease the measurements?

      How does this compare with the 95% confidence limits of the data?

      • Dixon says:

        My comment was actually to Robert Ingersol who said:
        May 3, 2021 at 10:24 AM

        Literally no one is claiming that the COVID slowdown is responsible for the temp dip. It is all on La Nina. The COVID reduction in emissions is too small to be detectable in a chaotic temp record.

        I’m not trying to publish anything, I’m just saying that we are currently doing the most amazing atmospheric chemistry experiment ever and I’d be amazed if there was no impact on temperatures from the decline in global jet aviation.

        We will see when either we resume airline travel, or we go back into El Nino, or the temperature jumps back up without any of those things.

        Climate always has been, and always will be about water and it’s phase changes and how they affect the radiative balance on the planet. CO2 may have a small effect, but its a side show, especially compared to land use change like deforestation and draining swamps.

  34. Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

    The planet is cooling, folks. I hope this isn’t trouble.

    • bdgwx says:

      No it isn’t…not even close. And the EEI is still significantly positive which means more long term warming is still in the pipeline. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj).

      • Clint R says:

        No bdgwx, the EEI is NOT “significantly positive”…not even close. The Earth Energy Imbalance is some of the unscientific nonsense you continue to cling to. It’s NOT “Earth”, it’s an imaginary object. It’s NOT “Energy”, it’s flux, and flux is NOT conserved. And, it’s NOT “Imbalance”, as flux does NOT balance, as I taught you with the cone-in-space example.

        See a physics book.

      • bill hunter says:

        the eei may well be significantly positive from the lia recovery and climb to solar grand maximum extending to 2007.

        just that the climate nerds only recognize it when needed to account for missing heat.

        • bdgwx says:

          TSI peaked around 1960 and has been declining ever since. It is lower now than it was in 1880. The RF from 1960 to present is about -0.1 W/m^2. The RF from the Maunder Minimum to the Modern Maximum was about +0.3 W/m^2.

          https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Someone might be cooking the books on that TSI plot. It does not coincide with CERES data.

            https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/general-product-info/#total-solar-irradiance-tsi-information

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I forgot to mention that TSI is only indirectly responsible for the resulting Earth temperatures. ASR-OLR determines the EEI and that difference is not significantly different.

          • bdgwx says:

            The NASA data comes from SATIRE. The CERES data comes from SORCE. There will be differences. You might be able to cut the RF from 1960 down to -0.05 W/m^2 using the community consensus reconstruction from SORCE (which happens to use SATIRE prior to 1978). Either way the solar RF since 1960 is neutral to slightly negative. That means it puts downward pressure on the EEI. The EEI has been increasing since 1960.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            What I’m saying is, TSI only a contribution to ASR which determines the net solar input. OLR is the output. Regardless of what measurements you use, these measurements aren’t accurate to less than 1 W/m^2. IOW, TSI does not determine EEI = ASR – OLR.

            No one cuts solar RF down. It does what it does. Where are you getting this obfuscatory nonsense?

          • bdgwx says:

            Right. TSI is only a component of ASR. I agree there.

            According to SORCE which CERES uses the community consensus composite has an uncertainty of +/- 0.2 W/m^2 and +/- 0.05 W/m^2 for the daily data in 1980 and 2020 respectively. That means the monthly means would have an error of E = 0.2/sqrt(30) = +/- 0.04 W/m^2 and E = 0.05/sqrt(30) = +/- 0.01 W/m^2. An 11 year mean would have an uncertainty of E = 0.2/sqrt(4018) = +/- 0.003 W/m^2. In reality it is probably higher than that, but that’s pretty good nevertheless.

            TSI is a contributing factor to EEI because it is a contributing factor to ASR. If the 11yr mean TSI drops by 1.0 W/m^2 then ASR drops by (1.0 / 4) * 0.7 = 0.175 W/m^2. And because EEI = ASR – OLR that means EEI drops by 0.175 W/m^2 as well all other things being equal.

            Regarding “cuts down”…I just mean we can amend the estimated -0.1 W/m^2 of solar RF from 1960-presented using SATIRE data to -0.05 W/m^2 using SORCE data. I’m getting this from the TSI data provided by SORCE and Dr. Kopp’s TSI page and doing RF = (TSI/4) * (1-ALBEDO) on it. Nothing more.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx say.

            Either way the solar RF since 1960 is neutral to slightly negative. That means it puts downward pressure on the EEI. The EEI has been increasing since 1960.

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

            it would be nice if we knew what direction EEI was going but we don’t. if we did there would no need for deep argo and we would be wasting more taxpayer dollars on it.

            Of course some think you can simply extrapolate from some land surface station out 1500km over the ocean and create a temperature record like that also. …heck whey not extrapolate 3000 meters downward at the same time from the same station?

          • bdgwx says:

            bill said: it would be nice if we knew what direction EEI was going but we dont.

            We do know. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj).

          • bill hunter says:

            Don’t believe anything schuckmann writes bdgwx. She was the first to start tossing out cold ARGO buoys without any confirming reason whatsoever to begin the narrative against the ocean cooling. If you are going to believe anything be sure to pick through her work with a fine tooth comb first.

          • bdgwx says:

            There are 37 other authors on the publication.

            Do you have another equivalent comprehensive study of the EEI that comes to a significantly different conclusion that you want us to look at?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “…we can amend the estimated -0.1 W/m^2 of solar RF from 1960-presented using SATIRE data to -0.05 W/m^2 using SORCE data.”

            Who is we? Are you claiming solar RF known to that level of accuracy? Don’t confuse precision with accuracy. You can hit the same point on the target over and over again, but miss the bullseye every time.

            “At-launch absolute accuracy is estimated to be 0.48 W/m^2 (350 ppm), largely determined by uncertainties in instrument-power nonlinearities.”

            https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#quality

          • Willard says:

            > miss the bullseye every time.

            I too would like if scientific progressed by hitting the bullseye every time.

          • bdgwx says:

            I’m not conflating precision with accuracy here. Precision is the statistical or random error of measurements. Accuracy is the bias or offset error of measurements. Accuracy error is problematic if the analysis relies an the absolute value of the measurements like would be the case if you wanted to infer the BB temperature of the Sun. Accuracy error is moot if you only care about the change in the measurements like is the case for RF calculations. Dr. Kopp actually has a cool plot of TSI as measured by different instruments. There is clearly a difference in the absolute values provided by the different instruments, but the anomaly values are very similar. This allows Dr. Kopp to calibrate each instrument and form a consistent composite of TSI. The point…uncertainty on TSI measurements is low enough for us to conclude that solar RF is neutral to negative from 1960 to present.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:
            May 6, 2021 at 10:13 AM
            There are 37 other authors on the publication.

            Do you have another equivalent comprehensive study of the EEI that comes to a significantly different conclusion that you want us to look at?

            ————————-

            Of course not bdgwx and neither does anybody else.

            EEI is about ocean heat content and how it changes. We don’t yet know half of what we need to know to begin to come up with credible estimates of EEI. 37 scientists signing on to a paper is nothing more than a political statement and an indicator that science operates with about the same level of integrity and oversight as a 19th century carny barker.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I’ve lost track of this thread. If your point is TSI today is same as 1960, I agree. At least it appears to be 1361 W/m^2 now and back to 2000, although it varied +/- 2 W/m^2 in between.

            https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/general-product-info/#total-solar-irradiance-tsi-information

            The value of 1361.03 shown on the graph does not mean TSI is known to between 1361.01 and 1361.03. It’s just an average of measurements over a 20 year period.

            I don’t think we will agree on the uncertainty and I really don’t care to debate you further. Here, have a blue ribbon.

          • bdgwx says:

            bill said: Of course not bdgwx and neither does anybody else.

            There are other studies out there. Schuckmann lists several. They just don’t come to a significantly different conclusion. And if there is nothing else to be added to the body of evidence in this regard then I no choice but to go with what the evidence says now. That’s means the EEI is +0.87 W/m^2 +/0.12.

            bill said: EEI is about ocean heat content and how it changes.

            It’s about heat in the land, air, oceans, and cryosphere.

            bill said: We don’t yet know half of what we need to know to begin to come up with credible estimates of EEI.

            And yet Schuckmann 2020 estimated it to be +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 which is consistent with other studies regarding EEI. It’s also consistent with other lines of evidence.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx, numbers of studies doesn’t matter. How many modeling teams are being paid to model the climate using the same theory? There could be hundreds of studies considering model output as science. No other choice as there is no observation data to base it on. Use the right model or get your funding jerked.

  35. Joe says:

    “The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2021 was -0.05 deg. C, down from the March, 2021 value of -0.01 deg. C.”

    Uh oh, the anthropogenic global warming crowd is starting to get nervous..

    • Bindidon says:

      Joe

      You can’t imagine how nervous I am!

      Here is the top ten of a sort of UAH6.0 LT’s April anomalies, beginning with the lowest ones:

      1993 4 -0.46
      1982 4 -0.44
      1985 4 -0.43
      1979 4 -0.40
      1992 4 -0.39
      1997 4 -0.39
      1984 4 -0.37
      1989 4 -0.32
      1986 4 -0.28
      1994 4 -0.28

      April 2021 isn’t in Roy Spencer’s monthly file yet, but the first occurrence of ‘-0.05’ is

      2006 4 -0.05

      at position 26 of currently 42.

      So until we reach the top of this negative list above, I hope I’ll have some time to recuperate.

      J.-P. D.

    • barry says:

      “Uh oh, the anthropogenic global warming crowd is starting to get nervous”

      I don’t see that at all.

      What I do see is AGW ‘skeptics’ all abuzz about a few cold months, and predicting the the collapse of AGW theory because of that. It’s all over this thread and at WUWT etc.

      • Clint R says:

        barry, what Skeptics are “all abuzz about” is watching you AGW fanatics still trying to defend your nonsense. Your science was wrong from the start. CO2 can NOT warm the planet. So every time the anomalies fall below zero, we get to laugh at you.

      • barry says:

        “every time the anomalies fall below zero, we get to laugh at you”

        The anomalies are below zero for UAH purely due to changing the position of the zero line in February this year.

        That you and other ‘skeptics’ don’t get this, when it is explained in every update here since, doesn’t make me laugh. It makes me shake my head at how dense ‘skeptics’ are.

        • Clint R says:

          But barry, several of you are on record for approving the change in the zero line.

          Now you don’t like it?

        • barry says:

          I think only Bindidon has said he approves it.

          I don’t. For one reason only. It creates confusion.

          Which you have amply demonstrated in this very conversation. As have other hare-brained ‘skeptics’ since the change occurred.

      • Joe says:

        barry –

        Lol, of course, I’m just joking. You can’t paint all skeptics with a broad brush. Yes, some are taking it too far.

        But it doesn’t help the warming side that we’ve had a few months of notable cooling, that’s all.

        • barry says:

          A few months cooling doesn’t hurt the ‘warming side’ either.

          Well, except for in the minds of those ‘skeptics’ I so broadly brushed!

  36. R Allen says:

    Someone explain this. The temperature data shown by Dr. Spencer is a deviation from the mean. The measure of C02 in the atmosphere is the cumulative total amount of C02 present in the atmosphere. A graph of the C02 concentration over time is a smooth upward curve. A graph of the UHA satellite temperature data shows the deviation from the mean with significant variation of temperature deviations that spike sharply upward then fall precipitously downward. This pattern is repeated in what appears to be a random way over time. Because of the significance of the variation in the temperature deviation data, to view and enumerate its trend, requires a least squares time series analysis.

    If the cumulative C02 in the atmosphere were the prime driver of temperature, then the temperature deviation data would not have so much variation. Rather the deviations would more closely mirror the cumulative C02 data as it is that data which is the cause while the temperature data is the effect. However, because the effect shows much more variation than the cause, we must conclude that other influences are also attributing to the cause in order to create the sharp spikes and the precipitous declines.

    Now the sharp spikes and precipitous declines result in a confidence interval with significantly more magnitude about the mean with respect to temperature data (the effect) in deference to the confidence interval and its magnitude about the mean of the C02 data (the cause). If economic, or medical, or demographic cause and effect data exhibit these characteristics, the econometrician, the medical researchers and the social scientists would attribute only a portion of the effect to the cause variable.

    Mathematically, to get the cause and effect of relationship between C02 and temperature we must relate a first derivative to a second derivative, which in itself implies that other influences play a significant role. This assumes that the sharp increases and the precipitous declines may not be random but are functionally derived from an influence exogenous to to the C02/temperature relationship.

    Indeed, if the exogenous influence Is La Niña/El Nino, then one cannot conclude that C02 is the primary driver of temperature (especially in light of the magnitude of the confidence intervals of the temperature deviation data as compared to tighter confidence interval about the cumulative C02 data).

    Even if La Niña/El Nino is truly random and not functionally derived, the fact remains that until their incidences can be better understood, we cannot claim that C02 is the primary driver of temperature. The only thing you can and should do in the case where you cannot functionally derive their incidence is to statistically remove their influence.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      My initial premature reaction to your comment was to explain pejoratively that the UAH data are temperature anomalies relative to a reference temperature defined specifically as the average of all temperatures from 1991-2020.

      On further reading, I find your comments insightful. Prof Murry Salby was doing research along these lines until his untimely departure from Macquarie University in 2013. He used low-pass filtering of temperature and CO2 emission rates and found a near perfect correlation. His data supported his contention that FF emissions, being only 1/20 of total CO2 emissions, could not be responsible for the temperature change and that temperature is surely driving the CO2 increase.

      You can view his (latest?) presentation here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/13/new-video-dr-murry-salby-control-of-atmospheric-co2/

        • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

          The usual crickets when you post that chart, Bart.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Bart,

          Is the filter that makes Salby’s plot smooth or is it smoothed after filtering? I guess what I’m asking is how did he get your WoodforTrees data so smooth?

          Seems there are two or three steps, taking the delta CO2, applying a low-pass filter, and smoothing?

          • Bart says:

            I’m taking a yearly running average of the CO2 data. That squashes the annual variation which otherwise would dominate. So, that is what the “mean:12” part in the menu is doing.

          • Bart says:

            That’s not CO2 and temperature. That’s the rate of change of CO2 and temperature.

          • barry says:

            There you go – temperature is not responsible for the overall increase in CO2, but has an influence on the rate at which it increases.

          • Bart says:

            Betraying your ignorance of calculus again. The integral of the derivative is 1:1 modulo an integration constant with the original series.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            No, temperature’s strong influence on the rate at which CO2 increases means that temperature is predominantly responsible for the overall increase in CO2. And because the non-FF emissions are 20 times greater than FF emissions, it follows that FF emissions have an indistinguishable influence on CO2 increase.

          • barry says:

            “No, temperature’s strong influence on the rate at which CO2 increases means that temperature is predominantly responsible for the overall increase in CO2.”

            Doesn’t follow. If a car’s speed is slightly affected by winds, you are arguing that the winds power the car.

            This is an extraordinary failure on Bart’s part, and I am surprised to see you making the same gaffe.

            It’s really very simple – the amount of anthropogenically emitted CO2 is nearly twice the atmospheric increase.

            The annual turnover is a larger amount, but there is no getting around the fact that the overall increase is half the anthropogenic contribution.

            Bart’s answer to this is always “but Calculus!”

            There is also corroboration from isotopes that the rise is anthropogenic. All the evidence corroborates.

            Bart’s (actually Murray Salby’s) evidence is purely theoretical, and based on parameters that are simkply assumed and have no physical basis.

            Essentially, the “evidence” agains the rise of anthropogenic CO2 is based entirewly on a model and one that has no empirical physical basis.

            Which is why, whenever temps do not correlate with CO2, such as the relatively flat/cooling periods 1956 to 1978, or 1998 to 2012, Bart will always say, “but Calculus!”

            Salby is a maverick, his models are unphysical, his assumptions unempirical. And Bart is his lazy, unconvincing bulldog.

            While Salby and Bart try to use math to magic away the 30+ billion tonnes of CO2 humanity pumps out year after year, the rest of the world has accepted the obvious fact of anthropogenic rise in CO2.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            barry,

            Do you disagree with the concept that CO2 outgasses during the warm seasons is reabsorbed by the ocean during the cold months?

            And if so, wouldn’t those processes be governed by partitioning according to Henry’s Law?

          • Bart says:

            “Its really very simple the amount of anthropogenically emitted CO2 is nearly twice the atmospheric increase.”

            Simplistic. Simple-minded. It is those. This is a very dumb argument.

      • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

        The leftists worked really hard and quickly to silence Dr. Salby because his research revealed problems with climate change dogma. I wish he would reemerge somewhere. He is an intellectual giant.

  37. barry says:

    ENSO isn’t an exogenous factor in the climate sytem. It is internal to it, and it shifts energy between the oceans and atmosphere, partly why we see the ups and downs superimposed on the long term trend. Time scale is important. ENSO lasts for months. CO2 warming is measured in decades.

    A useful analogy to cut through some misconceptions is seasonality.

    When a hemisphere moves from Winter to Summer, and the daily temperature changes are essentially random – up and down and up and down – do you imagine that this indicates that the orbital pattern causing the change from Winter to Summer is not the prime cause of the seasonal change?

    If an ENSO event depressed Summer temperatures in one hemisphere, would you conclude then that ENSO is a significant factor in the cause/s of the change from Summer to Winter?

    You can also look at the stock market and see why people invest in share portfolios over the long term. A GFC may come along every now and then, but over the long term productivity continues and increases, as do the value of shares in general.

    Of course there are influences working on air temperatures other than CO2, especially at short time scales. But the increase of greenhouse gases is steadily rising underneath the dailly, weekly and even multi-annual fluctuations.

    We know the mechanism for seasonal change – the angle of the Earth’s axis and the revolution of the planet about the Sun.

    The mechanism for ‘greenhouse’ warming is also well-understood. The fact that other things influence global temperature from month to month and from year to year does not change the mechanism.

    And those other factors have been and continue to be heavily researched. Your query is fair, and has been attended to for many decades. Check out the IPCC documents, or the scientific literature supporting it for more information.

    • Swenson says:

      b,

      Couple of points –

      “You can also look at the stock market and see why people invest in share portfolios over the long term. A GFC may come along every now and then, but over the long term productivity continues and increases, as do the value of shares in general.”

      Nonsense. Look at the companies in any index even 50 years ago. Companies who go bust, or who fail to perform, are dumped, and replaced by current stars. Following an index fund will lose money, but at least it will be slow.

      You also wrote –

      “The mechanism for ‘greenhouse’ warming is also well-understood.”

      Rubbish. You can’t even give a useful scientific definition of the “greenhouse effect”!

      Carry on spruiking. Some gullible fools will buy what you’re selling, I’m sure.

    • barry says:

      Index funds that diversify to a large number (or all) of the holdings of an share index do indeed increase in value over the long term, simlarly to the share index.

      But your quibble is irrelevant to the point. During the 2008/2009 GFC the share markets took a big dip. If climate contrarians were investors, they would have said that this was the beginning of a return to share prices of the 1980s and lower.

      They would have been wrong.

      Every investor knows that the most recent performance is not indicative of future performance, especially in the near-term. Nor is it wise to compare a quarter’s performance 30 years ago to the latest quarter to get a good idea of the long term trend. Nor is it wise to judge the share market on a single company.

      But ‘skeptics’ do all this with respect to the temperature record, which is about as volatile as the stock market.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        My general point is that examination of the past is not a reliable guide to the future. I think you agree.

        If there is a physical basis for the GHE, then this should provide useful predictions. Predictions based on physics can be confirmed by experiments – if not confirmed by experiment, your speculation is wrong.

        So far, nobody can even describe the GHE in any useful way, let alone devise an experiment to check the premise of the GHE. It’s just not science, whatever you might call it.

      • Barry;
        After getting my finance MBA, I edited a for profit financial newsletter for 43 years. I’ve been an investor for 45 years.

        But I can’t figure out what you are talking about, and what the stock market has to do with climate science. The comment you replied to was even worse.

        Most important: What is a “climate contrarian”

        I think I might be one, and not realize it.

        I love global warming, and want a lot more warming. In fact I want enough warming to retire my snow shovels. I retired 16 years ago, and believe snow shoveling is worse than going to a job.

        Phrases like “climate contrarian” and “climate denier” seem like childish name calling to ridicule others — put downs that make people unworthy of debate.

        So there is no debate. We are told a climate crisis is coming, and don’t you dare question it.

        If you say: “But scientists have been predicting a coming climate crisis since the late 1950’s. Where is it?”, you are called a climate denier, and told to shut up.

        That’s nothing like the science I learned in college when getting my BS degree. Back then science had theories that were falsifiable. It seem the alleged coming climate crisis can not be falsified, and can not even be questioned without retribution.

        The stock market will tell you when your investment decisions were wrong. With the coming climate crisis, decade after decade goes by with no climate crisis, but the coming climate crisis prediction never changes.

        • bdgwx says:

          A contrarian is someone who goes against the consensus. A supporter is someone who advocates for the consensus. Neither are derogatory.

          I don’t know what “climate crisis” means to you so I can’t comment either way on whether hypothesis falling under that umbrella can be falsified or not. But I can say that the consensus theory on the cause of climate change in the contemporary era can definitely be falsified. For me there is no reasonable amount of warming that I would define as a “climate crisis”.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx, consensus is the wrong word. its more akin to the rabble that used to follow along behind large well funded armies of foot soldier infantry before armies became mechanized.

        • barry says:

          Richard,

          “But I cant figure out what you are talking about, and what the stock market has to do with climate science.”

          I’m explaining the difference between short term volatility and long term gain, which are both seen in stock indexes and global temperature data.

          That analogy has arisen because some people here don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.

          A contrarian is someone who goes against conventional understanding.

          It’s a term I use when I’m being polite.

          More accurate labels get too wordy. I trust people will accept some shorthand for the sake of brevity.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        barry,

        The only thing I know about investing is buy low, sell high. A lot of good that’s done me. /sarc

        Why does the stock market keep rising despite the ebbs and flows? I suspect it is because new technology, products, and increases in productivity outweigh obsolescence, declines, and failures. Can I prove it? Not without data.

        This is the problem for GHE proponents. Their hypotheses are legion, but the details cannot be demonstrated by experiment.

        • Willard says:

          Chic,

          I have a great stock for you.

          It’s called SKY.rp.

          The stock can generate huge dividends. 33% per year.

          On the flip side, it can generate huge losses. -273%.

          But that’s better than a stock that always loses -18%, don’t you think?

          • Swenson says:

            Witless Wee Willy,

            There you go again. More “silly semantic games”!

            You don’t have any stocks at at all, do you? All fantasy and delusion.

            You just make stuff up, trying to look intelligent. What an idiot you are!

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            You write –

            “semantic games”

            That’s more a a thought experiment.

            But then both concepts are foreign to you.

            So pick any word you like!

            SCIENCE

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          You can sell high and then buy low if you have the stomach.

        • barry says:

          Chic, I’m explaining the difference between short-term volatility and long-term gain, an analogy for climate and weather. I’m not using the analogy for a discussion of causes, just behaviour.

          I use the stock market analogy because people invest real money in it. It is a serious pproposition and something many people are acquainted with. I also hope that my interlocutors have some investment in shares, so they can’t just pass off the analogy as abstract and meaningless.

          As to why the stock markets increase in value long-term? I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess that a simple answer is capitalism works.

  38. OWilson says:

    AGF is mainly politics driven, and hyped by their fellow travelers in the Media and public education (read teachers unions)

    The plebs are told it’s a “given” that the Earth is warming at a dire rate, and any schoolkid these days will tell you that unless we dismantle the current capitalist system (and the cheap fossil fuels that currently are feeding the world’s hungry, and providing them with the basics of life) there will be human devastation.

    It seems only skeptics, in the fine historic tradition of scientific progress are reporting actual observations, rather than models and anecdotes.

    Fortunately we have benchmark satellite data now and can track the daily average temperature and ice data with more accuracy than ever.

    Compared to the usual NASA modeling nonsense that goes back to 1850, when large swaths of Africa, Australia, the Americas and both North and South Poles had yet to be reached.

    The 42 year satellite record covers our current definition of “climate” and is the only relational database we have.

    Likewise Global Ice Extent.

    Which of course shows no dire, or even scientifically significant change, over the entire satellite record, given a statistical margin of error.

    • barry says:

      Very little of that is factual.

      The satellite data is not “benchmark.” The two main satellite records are more different than the surface records of global temperature.

      UAH trend 0.14 C/decade
      RSS trend 0.22 C/decade

      Same period, late 1978 to present.

      The lead compiler of the RSS satellite record says that the land surface records are more reliable. None of the records are “benchmark.” They are all best estimates.

      NASA “modeling” does not go back to 1850. The NASA temp record goes back to 1880. The UK Meteorological Office temperature record goes back to 1850.

      There are other indicators of global climate, not just the satellite, lower troposphere temperature record. There is also ocean heat content, arguably a better source. Certainly skeptics have previously argued that it is a better source (eg, Roger Pielke Senior).

      It is unclear what you mean by “global ice,” but whether mountain glaciers, polar ice sheets, or sea ice, the trend globally is down for all 3, and statistically significant for mountain glaciers and the 2 polar ice sheets.

      http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

      Antarctic sea ice trend is is virtually flat from 1979, but Arctic sea ice has a statistically significant negative trend. Here is the combined data for a global chart.

      https://tinyurl.com/9t939u3b

      It is notable that the last few years have been consistently lower than the 2-sigma range for the rest of the record.

      Satellite retrieval of ice amounts over time are what lead and corroborate these findings.

      I don’t know where you got your information. I am happy to provide further references if you need.

      • bohous says:

        There was an explanation of the difference between RSS and UAH by Roy Spencer some time ago:
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/comments-on-new-rss-v4-pause-busting-global-temperature-dataset/
        Is there any problem with it?

        • Bindidon says:

          bohous

          ” Is there any problem with it? ”

          The problem begins for me with an unnecessary polemic title:

          Comments on New RSS v4 Pause-Busting Global Temperature Dataset

          At the time I asked myself: was I reading Roy Spencer’s blog here, or was I redirected to WUWT?
          *
          Maybe there is no problem for you ‘with it’, but there might very well be one for all people who checked years before 2016 UAH’s consistency wrt satellite sources (I intentionally exclude here the ‘Skeptical Science’ blog).

          It began soon after beginning of the satellite era. But one of the the most impressive papers was:

          Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies

          Stephen Po-Chedley, Tyler J. Thorsen, and Qiang Fu

          https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/6/jcli-d-13-00767.1.xml

          *
          Furthermore, I remember sound comments published by ‘Olof R’ at WUWT, here and on Nick Stokes’ blog.

          E. Swanson knows a lot about all that, but is here denigrated all the time by thoroughly incompetent Pseudoskeptics (I mean all those who say ‘I think they are wrong; prove me wrong’, instead of proving them wrong).

          I personally lack any scientific qualification allowing to contribute to such a discussion. But other people here think they can do that, though knowing even far less than me.

          All what I can say is that UAH’s LT time series fits a bit too good to NOAA’s MT series:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E-GWkQvAunLlcb2qsC1Qt143aA8IMIhD/view

          But that is layman’s view, and not a scientific contradiction.

          Some dumb Contrarians here of course will say: “NOAA’s data is fudged’, but this Pavlovian reflex doesn’t help much in a fair discussion.

          J.-P. D.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon, I seldom read all your comments since you typically have NOTHING. But, I’m glad I read this “I personally lack any scientific qualification…”

            What are the chances that the one time you hit on truth I was lucky enough to see it?

            My lucky day….

      • martinitony says:

        There is an assumption that you are making with the math that might be false. The deviation from the mean, your sigma, is being defined over a series of annual periods. Think about that.
        What if annual is not a very good time period to measure basis of change over time? What if a more appropriate period of time was 2 years or ten years?Then the true standard deviation from the mean might be substantially greater. And therefore, the radical departures from the mean that have been calculated might begin to make sense.
        Here is an analogy. Suppose I was graphing how often I laugh over time. If you start your observations while I’m at a party Friday night and drinking, I might laugh every 15 minutes. If you base your sigma on that, maybe the sigma is 15 minutes and if I went an hour without laughing my behavior lies way outside my normal behavior. Now suppose you then make observations over 6 hours starting Monday morning when I’m at work.
        Are you getting my drift here?

    • barry says:

      Been a while since I checked out Arctic sea ice. Turns out 2020 had the lowest annual sea ice average in the 42 year satellite record, but it’s very close to the minimum set in 2016, so probably not statistically significant.

      info here: https://tinyurl.com/3xcayjwb

      Click on link at number 3. “Sea ice extent and area organized by year” and you’ll get the data downloaded for a spreadsheet. Annual values are on the right.

      Lowest annual extent for the Antarcic was in 2017 (click on the correct tab in the spreadsheet)

      • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

        More disinformation from Barry. Bindi is not quite so quick to correct Barry, though. Barry, how does measuring sea ice extent prove anything other than sea ice extent rises and falls with temperature?

        • barry says:

          I’m not sure what your objection is, Stephen, but I’ll point out that I’m referring to annual averages, not seasonal change. Here’s a visual.

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

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            My point is that annual averages only tell us that the arctic has been warming (or cooling). Your implication is, “we’re causing it, and we better do something about it.”

          • barry says:

            “Your implication is, ‘we’re causing it, and we better do something about it’.”

            No, all I was doing was checking a claim someone made upthread (it was wrong). Policy had nothing to do with it.

            If you want to know what I think about policy, you can always ask.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Ice is likely to melt in a gradually warming world regardless of the reason for warming. Let’s stay focused on temperatures and why they rose.

        Any new data evidence showing how an incremental increase in CO2 warms the planet?

  39. CO2isLife says:

    Barry so politely corrected me regarding the seasonal adjustment of the temperature departures. What I don’t think Barry understood is that seasonally adjusted values greatly weakens the case for CO2 causing any warming. Today’s values are very close to or below the April values back in the early 1980s. Theoretically, because CO2 is claimed by some to be responsible for 100% of the warming since the start of the industrial age, there should be a clear and highly linear trend in temperatures. Each Dec would simply increase ΔT by the associated ΔW/m^2 due to the ΔCO2. Guess what? You don’t see that, not even close.

    What would be interesting is to create monthly charts to make the trends from the past more clear. My bet is you won’t see any relationships that would closely tied to CO2.

    BTW, no one ever even tried to explain why there is a difference between the N and S Hemisphere, and how it ties to CO2. The N Hemi has far more land, so the difference between the N and S Hemi isn’t due to CO2, it is due to a large Urban Heat Island Effect and relative increases in H2O due to the greening of the N Hemi.

    Keep digging and evidence pointing at CO2 keeps collapsing.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Funny, nothing seems to look like what Hansen predicted.
      https://postimg.cc/1gt2ZWtV

      I’ve explained why he is wrong countless times, yet the alarmists keep believing the big lie.
      https://postimg.cc/1gt2ZWtV

      • bdgwx says:

        That graph does not appear in the Hansen 2013 publication. It is photoshopped. See Hansen 2013 (https://tinyurl.com/2pc9wfu8) for details on what Hansen actually said.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Figure #10 clearly shows CO2 driving temperatures 10C° higher.

          That have never happened in 600 million years, even when CO2 was 7,000 PPM.

          • bdgwx says:

            The PETM was almost 15C warmer than today with about 2000 ppm. Regardless Hansen isn’t predicting a 19C temperature increase by 2120. If you don’t understand what this publication is saying then ask questions. You should have done that before posting a photoshopped graph that grossly misrepresents the publication.

        • Norman says:

          bdgwx

          I did read some of the Hansen 2013 publication. He does believe that a 1400 PPM CO2 level will lead to 20 C of land warming and 30 C increase at the poles making life on the planet mostly unliveable for people. I am almost thinking he is as much as a crackpot as Joe Postma or Claes Johnson. I do not think he has much empirical support for his claims and I think they are an extreme view. I think Hansen is a fanatic.

          Here is another study to balance his fanatic claims. Common sense would say his view is ludicrous. How do you think a 9 W/m^2 forcing could elevate and sustain temperatures of 20 C higher than now?

          https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm

          I guess you can view him as credible. I lump him in the lunatic bin. I certainly hope people stop listening to his voice.

          I think the contrarians are right about anything Hansen claims.

          • bdgwx says:

            He does indeed predict that 4.8xCO2 will lead to 16C of global warming (20C on land). That is a climate sensitivity of a bit over 3C per doubling of CO2. It is well within the IPCC’s 1.5-4.5C range and less than the CMIP6 inferred sensitivity. So in that regard Hansen’s prediction isn’t out of line or even noteworthy. And while Hansen’s bravado may be off-putting at the very least he still didn’t predict a 20C land temperature rise by 2120 in that paper and CO2isLife is still grossly misrepresenting Hansen here.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yikes. My post was a disaster. 16C @ 4.8xCO2 implies about 6.7C @ 2xCO2. That is way higher than 5.7C upper bound from the CMIP6. That definitely makes Hansen’s prediction a noteworthy outlier.

            Anyway, yeah, 16C from 9 W/m^2 is 1.8C per W/m^2. That is definitely on the high side of climate sensitivity estimates. Though to be fair I believe Hansen is speaking about the slow-feedback ECS here in which the ice sheets have fully melted out.

      • Bindidon says:

        Co2IsLife

        Now you really start behaving like a dumb ass.

        No arguments – only distort, discredit, denigrate, and lie.

        Thanks for that!

        J.-P. D.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Bindidion says that I “lie.”

          Even if I do, which I don’t, the numbers don’t lie. Simply do the experiment that I detail below. Download the Lower Trop data from above, chart each Month separately for the S Pole, and the graph will prove that CO2 has 0.00 effect on Temperatures. That is NASA’s own data, selected to control for the UHI and Water Vapor, and it isolates the effect of CO2 has on Temperature. It is none, nada, zip and Nasa data proves it. Only reason this hasn’t been demonstrated before is because alarmists don’t understand controlled experimentation.

      • barry says:

        By the way, I don’t necessarily agree that CO2 is 100% responsible for recent warming – that’s not what the IPCC says – but I understand it is responsible for most of the warming, because other factors are assessed to have had a negligible or cooling affect for the recent period.

        Yes, other factors DO get included in the assessment. Clouds (the biggest uncertainty), solar influence, volcanic activity (SO2), black carbon (albedo), CFCs, land use changes (albedo), etc. Also assessed are ENSO and other ocean/atmopsphere systems.

        You should try reading the IPCC technical summary (not the summary for policy makers, which is thin on the details) to see what has and hasn’t been assessed as contributing to global climate and change.

        “The primary purpose of this Technical Summary (TS) is to provide the link between the complete assessment of the multiple lines of independent evidence presented in the 14 chapters of the main report and the highly condensed summary prepared as the WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The Technical Summary thus serves as a starting point for those readers who seek the full information on more specific topics covered by this assessment. This purpose is facilitated by including pointers to the chapters and sections where the full assessment can be found.”

        https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf [17MB PDF]

        For the complete set of chapters of the latest IPCC report (2013), go here.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

        If you’re going to criticize the science, you’d do well to at least know what has been covered.

    • Entropic man says:

      “What would be interesting is to create monthly charts to make the trends from the past more clear. ”

      The first graph here shows monthly temperature trends since 1880.

      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

      • CO2isLife says:

        ET, I replicated this graphic controlling for the UHI and Water Vapor, and guess what? Absolutely no warming. None nada zip. Read the experiment, the numbers don’t lie.

    • CO2isLife says:

      “What would be interesting is to create monthly charts to make the trends from the past more clear. My bet is you wont see any relationships that would closely tied to CO2.”

      That prediction was proven 1,000% accurate. Funny how I can make predictions and the data seems to always prove me right. Why can I come up with these experiments but the climate alarmists fail to see even the easiest ways to debunk the CO2 drives temperature nonsense. It is as if they aren’t even looking for the truth, and simply ignore the obvious experiment that debunk this nonsense.

    • barry says:

      “Theoretically, because CO2 is claimed by some to be responsible for 100% of the warming since the start of the industrial age, there should be a clear and highly linear trend in temperatures.”

      No, that does not follow, and looks like the source of your misconception.

      The cause of the change from Winter to Summer is well known. It is a steady increase in the amount of sunlight received by either hemisphere.

      You are essentially arguing that because daily temperature does not smoothly rise with the steady increase of insolation on the hemisphere, orbital mechanics cannot be the cause of the change from Winter to Summer temperatures.

      That is essentially how you are pitching global climate change.

      And when we point out that other factors have short-term influence on monthly temperature changes, you exclaim that these then must be the cause of global warming.

      Which is like saying that the daily weather effects that make the evolution of daily temperature uneven from Winter to Summer, are therefore the cause of the changes in season.

      Even a single day’s temperature evolution is uneven, but the factors that make that change uneven are not the cause for the middle of the day being hotter than the middle of the night.

      So, the revolution of the Earth around the sun can be 100% responsible for the temperature difference between Winter and Summer – even though the day to day temperature evolution is uneven, and one day in Summer can be cooler than a hot day in Winter.

      Increasing CO2 can be 100% responsible for warming over a certain period – particularly if other factors have had a cooling influence over the same period. Monthly up and downs are normal weather processes, and do not detract from that understanding any more than daily temperature shifts forbid orbital mechanics as the cause of seasonal change.

  40. Mike says:

    List of failed predictions:

    http://www.extinctionclock.org

    Judith Curry said, “CO2 is not the control know of the climate”

    • Clint R says:

      That is a really cool website, Mike!

      Thanks for sharing.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Oh, that is a treasure chest. In a Psychology class we covered people that believed aliens would destroy the earth on a certain day. When they didn’t they changed their belief that they prevented the aliens from destroying the earth, or they simply claimed to have miscalculated the date and pushed it off further into the future. The key was to keep the lie alive. controlling people was the goal, not being truthful or accurate. The goal was to get gullible people to act like sheep.

  41. Howard Weizendanger says:

    My America hometown is getting colder and colder for 100 years:
    https://tinyurl.com/nrm4eznk

    Now the coldness spreads to whole world!
    Eiszeit kommt

    • CO2isLife says:

      Howard, thanks for that site. I’ll add it to the list. I have over 500 sites from all around the globe that show absolutely no warming. If you identify sites removed from the UHI and Water Vapor effect, you will find locations with no warming.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Howrd, here is another. If you simply define the location as one void of the UHI and Water Vapor effect, you fine no warming. Funny how I can find countless sites that the Alarmists can’t.
      Heron 2 Nw (48.0800N, 116.0014W) ID:USC00244084 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00244084&ds=14&dt=1

      Debunking the CO2 myth is like shooting fish in a barrel if you simply use real science.

  42. Bindidon says:

    OWilson

    ” AGF is mainly politics driven, and hyped by their fellow travelers in the Media and public education (read teachers unions) ”
    *
    Yeah.

    And of course, the Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation are both financially, economically completely disinterested, angelic companies that only want our very best.

    *
    ” It seems only skeptics, in the fine historic tradition of scientific progress are reporting actual observations, rather than models and anecdotes. ”

    Yeah.

    Like articles at WUWT, written by the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, endlessly repeating nonsense like this:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-by-two-months-to-6-years/

    *
    ” The 42 year satellite record covers our current definition of climate and is the only relational database we have.

    Likewise Global Ice Extent.

    Which of course shows no dire, or even scientifically significant change, over the entire satellite record, given a statistical margin of error. ”

    Yeah.

    That’s the typical (intentional) mistake: to put alltogether, in one data set,

    – sea ice extent around pack ice floating on water, enclosed by warming land masses

    and

    – sea ice extent around Earth’s coldest continent, enclosed by Earth’s coolest oceans.

    Like this, OWilson?

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxoDtocaaq5K-mqPwfYrPBzR4GufaEyE/view

    *
    Everybody knows, OWilson, that Antarctic sea ice is – nearly – rock solid.

    But… are you sure this holds for the Arctic as well? Sure you aren’t, OWilson: because otherwise you would have mentioned Arctic, and not Global sea ice, isnt’it?

    *
    Let us compare the two Poles: but not by splitting the data above into North ans South, but rather showing their recent years superposed, together with the mean wrt 1981-2010.

    Antarctic

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ag55YesvQdh6dlZCG9Pq_Gdqi3_Go2bq/view

    Arctic

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/121nlFUUGfmtIJnnbuu_5D-8cUOcmbKWZ/view

    *
    Oh. You prefer numbers? me2! Ascending sort of yearly extent averages, in Mkm^2:

    Antarctic

    2017 10.702
    2019 10.781
    2018 10.890
    1986 11.044
    2002 11.176
    2016 11.178
    1980 11.206
    1997 11.341
    1983 11.344
    1990 11.365

    No 2020? Oh, so what!

    Arctic

    2016 10.162
    2020 10.175
    2019 10.211
    2018 10.350
    2017 10.395
    2012 10.420
    2007 10.498
    2011 10.506
    2015 10.589
    2010 10.734

    Looks pretty good, doesn’t it?

    J.-P. D.

  43. CO2isLife says:

    Barry has provided a very very very easy to debunk the CO2 drives temperatures theory. He was kind enough to point out that the data is seasonally adjusted, making it much easier to isolate the effect of CO2 on temperatures.

    How then do you do it? I’ll have to post multiple posts because for some reason if I write the entire experiment it won’t post.

  44. CO2isLife says:

    As I’ve said countless times you have to identify locations that are natural controls for the UHI and Water Vapor Effect. That data set is the South Pole in the Lower Troposphere data set you can download from above. Link won’t post.

    To start the experiment, download the above data set and open it in Excel. Sort the data by Month and then by Year.

    • CO2isLife says:

      Once you’ve downloaded and sorted the data, graph each month separately. Here is what you will find.
      1) There is absolutely no uptrend in temperatures
      2) Only November has any chance of being called an uptrend, and no uptrend exists but the Alarmist will claim one does
      3) June and July actually have downtrends
      4) Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Aug, Sept, Oct and Dec are flat as boards.

      When you control for water vapor and the UHI effect, and isolate the effect of CO2 on Temperatures, NASA’s own data proves CO2 doesn’t cause warming unless the laws of physics ceases to exist in the S Pole.

      I also have a list of over 500 weather stations that show no warming, many going back to 1880. Simply control for the UHI and Water Vapor, and you get no warming.

      Anyone care to explain why a 30% increase in CO2 didn’t cause warming at the S Pole?

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        I am not an expert on the South Pole, but here is one hypotheses that seems very plausible.

        At the poles, the tropopause is lower in elevation and higher in temperature. According to this source, the temperature is about -50 C or -60 C at the poles. http://www.chanthaburi.buu.ac.th/~wirote/met/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/navmenu.php_tab_2_page_5.1.0.htm

        As it turns out the temperature at the south pole is ALSO typically around -50 to -60 C.

        So GHGS in the atmosphere block outgoing -50C to -60C IR from the ground and replace it with outgoing -50C to -60C IR from the tropopause. In other words, GHGs at the South Pole basically have no effect.

        Just a hypothesis … but it sure seems to explain the observations.

        • bdgwx says:

          Sometimes the lapse rate completely reverses down there. When that happens GHGs put a slight downward tendency on the surface temperature.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “…downward tendency on the surface temperature.”

            You mean upward, right? An inversion would warm instead of cool.

          • bdgwx says:

            The GHE puts a warming tendency on the warm side of the GHG layer and cooling tendency on the cool side of the GHG layer. Because the warm side is almost always the surface and cool side almost always the stratosphere this means the surface gets a positive/warming nudge and stratosphere gets a negative/cooling nudge.

            But over Antarctica the lapse is so extreme over a huge depth of the atmosphere that the inversion goes all the way up to tropopause and beyond sometimes. That means the warm side is the stratosphere and the cool side the surface. This completely reverse the direction of the GHE when this happens. The effect is isolated almost exclusively to central Antarctica and only for part of the year.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I needed a Rush Limbaugh disgronificator to understand what you mean. Let me translate and see if I understand you correctly.

            The untested hypothesis that IR absorbing gases make the atmosphere work like a greenhouse tends to make the lapse rate somewhat larger. The surface will be somewhat warmer and the stratosphere somewhat cooler.

            [The disgronificator added an inversion here.]

            The lapse rate over Antarctica is so much larger that this inversion of the lapse rate goes to the tropopause and sometimes further. The surface is cooler than the stratosphere and this only occurs in central Antarctica. When this happens, the IR absorbing gases completely reverse the way a greenhouse works.

        • Willard says:

          Tim,

          I tried to contact you by email. The emails just bounced back.

          You can find my email on my websites.

          Best,

          W

    • CO2isLife says:

      Eben, the alarmists will claim that we are below the mean, and not exactly normal. They don’t understand statistics and confidence intervals.

  45. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, Bindidon claims I’m a liar in one of his posts above. Would you or the DSEMT run the experiment I detailed above? It only took me 15 minutes, but it clearly shows 0.00 warming in the S Pole where CO2 has increased by over 30% since 1979 when you data begins.

    It is fascinating to see the findings, and I’d like to hear how the alarmists explain how the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole.

    Bottom line, you have all the data to blow the lid off this CO2 drives temperature hoax.

  46. Bindidon says:

    Howard Weizendanger

    ” My America hometown is getting colder and colder for 100 years: ”

    Are you kidding us, Howard?

    1. Your link

    https://tinyurl.com/nrm4eznk

    shows Spokane’s December months, with a tiny trend over the entire century. OK, slight decrease over 100 years…

    *
    BUT… didn’t you think of letting the page compute the trend for 1979 – now?

    The trend then looks quite a bit different, huh?

    https://tinyurl.com/y76fy3sm

    *
    Since many people here have nothing in mind with this crazy Fahrenheit stuff, I downloaded the annual data into Office Calc and converted it in Celsius:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wUM-FN7PDK9PL0qyQf-O3UWrTLkvn8zK/view

    Trend for 1921-2020: 0.04 +- 0.03 C
    ….. for 1979-2020: 0.20 +- 0.09 C

    0.2 C per decade!

    And you dare to write

    ” Now the coldness spreads to whole world!
    Eiszeit kommt ”

    Yeah.

    Die nächste Eiszeit mag vielleicht irgendwann kommen, Howard, in den nächsten Jahren aber ganz sicher nicht bei Ihnen.

    *
    Btw: only a completely uneducated, inexperienced guy like CO2IsLife can suck such a green banana.

    J.-P. D.

    • Ken says:

      You have to understand what a statement like “Btw: only a completely uneducated, inexperienced guy like CO2IsLife can suck such a green banana” does for your credibility. You could be singing complete TrVth that makes Einstein look like an idiot but you lose it with the insults.

      • Willard says:

        Ken, this is an Arby’s.

        • Swenson says:

          Waffling Wee Willy,

          You wrote –

          “Ken, this is an Arbys.”

          Is this an example of your “silly semantic games”, your “auditing skillz”, or just idiotic stupidity masquerading as trolling?

      • Bindidon says:

        Ken

        On the one hand, you are absolutely right.

        But on the other hand, you must understand that I can’t keep quiet all the time when seeing what a nonsense the CO2IsLife guy can write:

        ” If you identify sites removed from the UHI and Water Vapor effect, you will find locations with no warming. ”

        He didn’t even understand the mistake Howard Weizendanger had made.

        If he had checked the info before writing his nonsense, I wouldn’t have written what you correctly viewed as an insult.

        I’m regularly the target of insults by Robertson, Clint R and some others, and have to live with that too, Ken.

        J.-P. D.

  47. Bindidon says:

    Gosselin posted some weeks ago a thread on his TricksZone blog, which of course was soon replicated at WUWT:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/25/greenland-and-iceland-mean-winter-temperatures-continue-cooling-since-start-of-the-century/

    There we enjoyed to read, among other nonsensical things

    2021 Arctic melt refuses to start

    Finally, this winter’s Arctic sea ice was still continuing its climb as of March 21st and reached it

    *
    Below we can see how the melt actually refused:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mN-EMjLMAAHwZkz_VQLDd-KYV5MXesj9/view

    Wonderful.

    I use to say: “Warmistas aren’t good for us, but… Coolistas are even worse. ”

    J.-P. D.

  48. CO2isLife says:

    “Btw: only a completely uneducated, inexperienced guy like CO2IsLife can suck such a green banana.

    J.-P. D.”

    Dr. Spencer will you please school J-P-D?

    Anyone can read the posts on this blog and here are the facts:
    1) Many posts discuss the exogenous factors that impact global temperatures that are completely unrelated to CO2.
    2) None of the alarmists seem to have any interest in developing models that control for such exogenous factors.
    3) Alarmists simply accept CO2 as the cause of the warming without providing any evidence what so ever, while admitting things like El Nino have huge impacts on temperatures
    4) They point to facts like the oceans at depth 50 m is warming, yet never explain how LWIR between 13 and 18µ can warm that depth of water.
    5) Barry was kind enough to politely point out that the data produced on this website is seasonally adjusted, ie controlled for the season, so at least part of the data has an incorporated control.

    From the data collected from this blog I, an uneducated non-climate “scientist,” proposed a simple experiment that would control for the impact of CO2 on temperatures.

    Simply download the lower troposphere, sort by month and then year, and chart out each month for the South Pole. The South Pole is a natural control for the UHI and Water Effect (exogenous variables).

    What you will find is that either 1) the laws of quantum physics cease to exist in the South Pole or 2) CO2 has absolutely no impact on temperature proven by data collected by NASA.

    People need to ask why no one has done this experiment in the past? You literally have to be deliberately not looking for the answers to overlook such an obvious experiment. On another post I posted how to identify stations that will show no warming and have over 500 stations that show no warming, some going back to 1880. Now we have yet another data set, identified in advance, that validates the hypothesis this uneducated non-climate scientist has been promoting.

    I develop experiments and my critics simply call me names.

    “Btw: only a completely uneducated, inexperienced guy like CO2IsLife can suck such a green banana.

    Please publishe the charts I’ve described and ask these climate alarmists to explain why the laws of Physics ceases to exist.

  49. barry says:

    CO2isLife.

    It wasn’t just me, nor was I the first to point out to you that the UAH global temperature data is seasonally adjusted.

    But you haven’t learned the next lesson, which is that global temperature is affected by many things on different time scales, and the reason we see the quick up and downs month to month is because of these factors.

    I don’t know why you hold on to this bizzare notion that all these other factors that cause the ups and downs in monthly temperature should cease to occur with long term CO2 warming.

    Instead of taking the opportunity to exclaim that other things affect global temperature, which everyone knows and ‘alarmists’ have been telling you for months, why don’t you explain why these other factors should cease to operate with CO2 warming?

    Let’s keep this simple. You and everyone here knows that ENSO events affect global temperatures on the scale of several months to a couple of years, and can have an amplitude as large as 1C with respect to global temperatures (I paraphrase your own words here).

    Why do you think ENSO would cease to operate with a background warming of 0.2 C/decade? Why do you think that every month would suddenly not be influenced by ENSO events, but only be influenced by one thing – CO2 warming?

    And does your opinion hold the same for ANY cause of warming? If the sun began to warm, at a rate consistent with 0.2 C/decade global temperature increase, would the effects of ENSO likewise cease to operate, and would every month increase in temperature monotonically, as you say it should with CO2 warming?

    Or is is only CO2 warming that would cause every other short-term factor to stop working, and stop causing the month-to-month ups and downs in global temperature.

    I’m curious to hear your explanation for why warming would make all other factors cease to operate, and whether this would hold true for warming for any cause.

    I can’t figure out why you think CO2 warming cancels out everything else that affects global temperature, such that global temperatures shopuld perfectly match the climb of CO2. You are the only person I know who holds this view.

    • Ken says:

      The problem Barry is that all of the climate models work on the premise that all of the warming is due to CO2. There is no allowance in the models for ENSO etc.

      2016 was a warm year, probably due to El Nino, and we have to suffer Greta and others of her non-scientific ilk, telling us ‘look its the hottest year on record’ and we need to up the carbon tax because there is a climate crisis and its all due to human emissions.

      So here we come every month with bated breath hoping for more la Nina cooling … which is dumb because significant cooling would be much worse of a crisis than any warming scenario.

      There still is no loud and clear acknowledgement from our politicians, who have bought into the climate change claptrap hook line and sinker, that there are other factors in the climate than any warming that might be attributed to CO2 emissions.

      Until someone can get the simple fact that there is natural variation, and that its probably more significant than CO2, into the narrative, there will be no science behind the carbon policies that threaten our way of life.

      So far Biden has cut 11000 jobs in one fell stroke of a pen. Its starting to look a lot like Holomodor is happening again.

      • Willard says:

        > There is no allowance in the models for ENSO

        Vintage 2018:

        Many important modes of climate variability and intraseasonal to seasonal phenomena are reproduced by models, with some improvements evident since the AR4. The statistics of the global monsoon, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Niño-Southern Oscilla-tion (ENSO), the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Quasi-Biennial Oscilla-tion are simulated well by several models, although this assessment is tempered by the limited scope of analysis published so far, or by limited observations. There are also modes of variability that are not simulated well. These include modes of Atlantic Ocean variability of relevance to near term projections in Chapter 11 and ENSO teleconnections outside the tropical Pacific, of relevance to Chapter 14. There is high confidence that the multi-model statistics of monsoon and ENSO have improved since the AR4. However, this improvement does not occur in all models, and process-based analysis shows that biases remain in the background state and in the strength of associated feedbacks. {9.5.3, Figures 9.32, 9.35, 9.36}

        https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

      • barry says:

        Ken,

        A VERY detailed paper on radiative/convective climate modeling. From 1978, a seminal paper in the math behind climate models.

        Ramanathan & Coakley (1978).

      • Bindidon says:

        Ken

        ” The problem Barry is that all of the climate models work on the premise that all of the warming is due to CO2. There is no allowance in the models for ENSO etc. ”

        Why do you say such things when you know nothing about the subject?

        J.-P. D.

    • barry says:

      Ken,

      “The problem Barry is that all of the climate models work on the premise that all of the warming is due to CO2.”

      That is simply untrue.

      Modeling begins with control runs, where none of the various exogenous factors that might change global climate change. This is how they test the model to make sure it doesn’t just run warm or cold or does something bizarre with a process.

      Then various exogenous factors are included to see how the model is perturbed. These processes are all programmed on physcial principles. Atmospheric gases are modelled based on spectrosocopy from an empirical database like HITRAN, and the laws of physics.

      There is an excellent primer on GCMs here:

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        The article says –

        “As the climate is inherently chaotic, it is impossible to simulate with 100% accuracy, yet models do a pretty good job at getting the climate right.”

        The outcome of a chaotic system is impossible to predict using numerical methods. You or I are able to guess outcomes just as well, using naive prediction methods based on prior experience.

        As climate is the average of weather, “models do a pretty good job at getting the climate right” is just nonsensical gibberish, of no use whatever.

        Wishful thinking, and fervent hopes, are no substitute for reality. GCM’s produce nothing of use, at great expense. Have you any evidence at all to the contrary?

        I thought not!

        • Willard says:

          > The article says –

          Mike Flynn clicked on a link!

          Great SCIENCE success!

        • Swenson says:

          b,

          As I said, you or I can do just as well. No need for expensive and pointless models.

          As to the overall climate system, there is no such thing. Climate is the average of weather.

          Maybe you might like to define the Earth’s climate numerically? Is it better or worse than 100 years ago? Different, even? You can’t say?

          I didn’t think so.

      • barry says:

        I’m very sure that means that the exact state of the climate system – like when ENSO events will begin and end – is not possible to predict. But the overall climate system is predictable.

        From a model of orbital motion you can predict when Summer and Winter will occur in which hemisphere, but you couldn’t predict 6 months away which days will have rain or not.

      • barry says:

        There is plenty of evidence that models do a good job of getting the climate system right. For all the patterns that emerge purely from the physics and equations that are not parametrised, GCMs do a good job of replicating the real climate system.

        No model is perfect, is the general message, which goes for any model of anything. Are they good enough? Depends on the query.

        • Swenson says:

          Whoops. Posted in wrong place previously. Sorry. Laughing at Witless Wee Willy noticing that somebody follows other peoples’ links, just not his! What an idiot the is!

          b,

          As I said, you or I can do just as well. No need for expensive and pointless models.

          As to the overall climate system, there is no such thing. Climate is the average of weather.

          Maybe you might like to define the Earth’s climate numerically? Is it better or worse than 100 years ago? Different, even? You can’t say?

          I didn’t think so.

        • barry says:

          “As to the overall climate system, there is no such thing.”

          Curiosity is a cure for ignorance.

          “The climate system, as defined in this Report, is an interactive
          system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the
          hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface and the biosphere,
          forced or influenced by various external forcing mechanisms, the
          most important of which is the Sun.”

          https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-01.pdf

          I do not know how if there is a cure for a lack of curiosity.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            As usual, the cultists just come up with with a meaningless conglomeration of words,

            Climate is the average of weather. You can’t even say what the Earth’s “climate” is now, or how much it has changed since last week year, or century!

            The IPCC is in a similar predicament.

            As to “external” influences, the IPCC admits that the atmosphere behaves chaotically, and a chaotic system needs no external influences to exhibit chaos.

            This is presumably why the IPCC states elsewhere that it is impossible to predict future climate states.

            There is no cure for stupidity. No cure for the stubborn refusal to accept reality.

            Such is the nature of cultists.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ken…”The problem Barry is that all of the climate models work on the premise that all of the warming is due to CO2. There is no allowance in the models for ENSO etc. ”

      That’s right. The head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician/modeler, is on record as claiming CO2 contributes between 9% and 25% of the warming. Amazing stuff considering the Ideal Gas Law predicts about 0.04C per 1C rise in temperature.

      The other bs factor in models is a phantom positive feedback supposedly introduced by that same CO2 back-radiating EM to the surface and warming it. Since that warming in AGW theory comes from the surface, it means CO2 absorbs heat from the surface and returns it to increase the heat in the surface.

      When Schmidt tried to explain positive feedback he fumbled it badly. As a mathematician, he could not provide the proper equation for PF. Had he been able to do that he might have noticed that the equation requires an amplifier. There is no amplifier in the atmosphere. Schmidt thought PF caused gain whereas in reality it is a small factor in the overall gain of an amplification system, where the gain is produced by an amplifier.

      The notion that CO2 can radiated EM to the surface from a region is the atmosphere which is colder than the surface is a direct contradiction of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The notion that it can amplify heat is perpetual motion.

      I have no idea how this pseudo-science began or why anyone is stupid enough to believe it.

      • barry says:

        “That’s right. The head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician/modeler, is on record as claiming CO2 contributes between 9% and 25% of the warming.”

        You got that totally wrong, too. These figures are not coded into any model, and the numbers do not refer in any way to GCM input or output.

        Those figures are quoted at realclimate, and I’ll leave it to you to do the research, so you will hopefully learn what they refer to.

      • barry says:

        Just to help – the figures are 9% and 26%.

        Good luck!

        • Entropic man says:

          Actually 25-26% sounds about right.

          The most recent climate sensitivity estimates are around 4.

          Thus 25% of the observed warming would be directly due to CO2 and the other 75% to feedbacks like increased water vapour.

          Ignoring lags, that would be 0.3C directly due to the GHE of increased CO2 and 0.9C due to feedback amplification.

        • barry says:

          That is NOT what those figures refer to, and you got the figures wrong – 9% to 26%..

          Gordon is too lazy to inform himself and will continue to spread his crazy ideas.

          For you, EM, here is what the figures refer to.

          https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

          It’s the CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect, NOT the contribution to warming over time.

      • Entropic man says:

        Gordon

        In electronics you describe positive feedback using the closed loop gain function.

        A = a/1-af

        This is open ended and describes unlimited amplification. Applying the closed loop gain function to global warming may explain why some sceptics look for a runaway greenhouse effect.

        In the context of climate change unlimited amplification is impossible because limiting factors kick in and resist unlimited amplification.

        A more appropriate equation is the sigmoid function

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

        or the Gompertz function.

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

  50. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”Thatcher and Reagan pushed for reductions on CO2 emissions, based on scientific advice”.

    No Barry, Thatcher was her own scientific authority. She had a degree in chemistry and was advised by an advisor to use that scientific knowledge to baffle the UN, which she did. Based on her version of the science, they formed the IPCC and installed one of her cronies, climate modeler, John Houghton, as a leader.

    The IPCC did not need any prompting. Since the 1960s, they had been looking for a method to implement global taxation. To do that, they needed nations to agree on it but first they needed a scare tactic to get everyone onside. Catastrophic global warming became that scare tactic. When people failed to buy into the catastrophic warming theory it was changed to catastrophic climate change theory.

    Houghton admitted that. He claimed they needed to scare people to get them onside.

    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen,” Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three IPCC reports, stressed as early as 1994.

    The Observer, 7th February, 2010″.

    Thatcher’s plot involved making the UK coal miners look bad. She couldn’t handle them and had to create an international lie to make them look like the bad guys.

    Reagan was too stupid to understand anything scientific. His administration unleashed the HIV/AIDS theory on us without peer review. Now, the scientist who is credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, claims HIV does not cause AIDS and that it’s harmless to a healthy immune system.

    Obviously, AGW is a lie too.

    • barry says:

      You may have nmissed, Gordon, where CO2isLife claimed AGW was a Marxist hoax. That’s what I was replying to as you quoted me here.

      Now, if AGW is a Marxist hoax, and Thatcher is responsible for initiating it through the UN as you are saying….

      Well, I’ll let the geniuses work that one out.

      Meanwhile, you are posting a fabricated quote from John Houghton:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Houghton_(physicist)#Misquotation

      You were better off quoting Stephen Schneider.

      https://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/

    • Bindidon says:

      Again, the professional liar nicknamed Robertson claims:

      ” Now, the scientist who is credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, claims HIV does not cause AIDS and that its harmless to a healthy immune system. ”

      This is simply disgusting.

      Never did Montagnier say such a nonsense.

      Robertson is replicating lies produced by contrarian, pseudoscientific virus deniers.

      All these people claim also that poliomyelitis and similar diseases are not caused by a virus!

      J.-P. D.

      • Clint R says:

        bindidon doesn’t know crap about science. He’s just a “camp follower” to whatever the consensus is. He would have supported “flat Earth”, “blood letting”, and witch hunts.

        He is filled with hate, and despises anyone speaking against his cult. He’s a good example of what not to be.

  51. m d mill says:

    test

  52. The planet blackbody effective temperature formula
    Te = [ (1 – a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    is not capable to provide any realistic planet average temperature approach…
    Let’s see why,
    Moon’s average distance from the sun
    R = 150.000.000 km
    or
    R = 1 AU (AU is Astronomical Unit, 1AU = 150.000.000 km which is the Earth’s distance from the sun)
    In the solar system, for convenience reasons, astronomers use for distances comparison the AU instead of the kilometers

    Moon’s satellite measured average surface temperature (the mean surface temperature) Tmoon = 220 K
    Mars’ distance from the sun
    R = 1,524 AU
    Tmars = 210 K

    There is the planet blackbody temperature formula, which calculates the planet uniform effective temperature…
    It is a theoretical approach to the planet mean surface temperature estimation. It is defined as the temperature planet without atmosphere would have, if planet is considered as a uniformly irradiated blackbody surface. And therefore it is initially assumed a blackbody planet effective temperature being a uniform surface temperature.

    The planet blackbody effective temperature formula:
    Te = [ (1 – a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    a – is the planet average Albedo (dimensionless)
    S – is the solar flux on the planet surface W/m²
    So – is the solar flux on Earth. (since Earth has atmosphere with clouds, the So is measured above the clouds at the Top of the Atmosphere, or TOA)
    So = 1.361 W/m
    S = So*(1/R² ) it is the from the sun distance the square inverse law.
    The formula can be written as
    Te = [ (1 – a) So*(1/R² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Now, since the formula is a fundamental physics the planet surface average temperature approach, the planets’ effective temperatures should relay accordingly.
    So we can write the planet average surface temperature comparison coefficient:
    Let’s assume comparing the planet’s 1 and the planet’s 2 effective temperatures Te1and Te2.
    Then we shall have:
    Te1 /Te2 = [(1 – a1) So*(1/R1² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ / [(1 – a2) So*(1/R2² ) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    (Te1 /Te2 )⁴ = [(1 – a1) /(1 – a2) ]* [(1/R1² ) /(1/R2² )]

    Let’s compare Moon’s and Mars’ satellite measured temperatures
    Tmoon = 220 K
    Tmars = 210 K
    (Tmoon /Tmars)⁴ = (220 /210)⁴ = 1,0476⁴ = 1,2045

    Let’s compare Moon’s and Mars’ comparison coefficients
    [ (1 – a.moon) /(1 – a.mars) ]* [(1/Rmoon² ) /(1/Rmars² ) ]
    [ (1 – 0,11) /(1 – 0,25) ]* [(1/1² ) /(1/1,524² ) ]
    ( 0,89 /0,75)* (1,524² ) = (0,89 /0,75) * 2,32 = 2,75

    Conclusion:
    We obtained on the left side of the comparison equation the
    1,2045 number (for satellite measured planet average surface temperatures comparison)
    and on the right side the
    2,75 number (for planets’ coefficients comparison)
    Consequently we may conclude here, that the planet blackbody effective temperature formula is not capable to provide any realistic planet average temperature approach…

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  53. Entropic man says:

    “CO2isLife says:
    May 4, 2021 at 4:32 PM
    ET, I replicated this graphic controlling for the UHI and Water Vapor, and guess what? Absolutely no warming. ”

    I wonder if you realise the implications of what you are saying?

    Physically atmospheric water vapour increases by 7% per 1C warming and its greenhouse effect doubles the warming due to other forcing.

    To account for the 1.2C warming since 1880 using UHI and water vapour alone would mean that UHI had a direct warming effect of 0.6C since 1880.

    Do you have other data to support your claim?

    • CO2isLife says:

      ET Says: Physically atmospheric water vapour increases by 7% per 1C warming and its greenhouse effect doubles the warming due to other forcing.

      To account for the 1.2C warming since 1880 using UHI and water vapour alone would mean that UHI had a direct warming effect of 0.6C since 1880.

      Do you have other data to support your claim?

      CO2isLife Says: ET, do you not understand the concept of a controlled experiment? Do you not understand what I am doing by selecting data sets that control for the UHI and Water Vapor Effect? The whole reason I choose desert locations is to tease out the effect of the UHI and Water Vapor effect that you reference.

      Simply open your mind and think like a real scientists trying to develop an experiment. You clearly identify water vapor and the UHI affect as exogenous factors that need to be accounted for. Well, Deserts, hot and cold, meet that condition. What is the bets on on early? The isolated S Pole. Simply do my experiment, download the data, create monthly charts for the S Pole. You will see that when you remove the seasonal effect, the UHI effect and the Water Vapor Effect, AND YOU WILL FIND NO WARMING. None Nada Zip. Before I kept spreading the fake news, the disinformation about CO2 causing warming, I would first explain why CO2 ISN’T causing warming in the S Pole. DO the laws of physics cease to exist in the S Pole?

      • Entropic man says:

        The graph I linked showed global average monthly temperatures since 1880.

        How did you correct global averages for UHI and water vapour?

        • CO2isLife says:

          ET Says: The graph I linked showed global average monthly temperatures since 1880.

          How did you correct global averages for UHI and water vapour?

          ET, your question exposes that you don’t even have a basic understanding of scientific experimentation, and now I understand why you don’t grasp the concepts I’ve been posting about. I’m pretty sure now that you have a degree in History, Literature, Journalism, or Art. You certainly don’t have a background in science.

          • Entropic man says:

            You didn’t answer the question.

            You have been cherrypicking individual stations that might match your delusion and trumpeting them as disproving climate change. That is not science.

            So,once again, how did you correct the GISS global monthly temperature averages since 1880 to remove the effect of UHI and increasing absolute humidity?

            Show your calculations and link to your data so that I can replicate your work. That is how science works.

          • bill hunter says:

            ET says:
            You have been cherrypicking individual stations that might match your delusion and trumpeting them as disproving climate change. That is not science.
            ———————————-

            LMAO! You are correct its not science ET.

            Science cannot prove something doesn’t exist. Thus post normal science is essentially the elimination of science in favor of political fiat. . . .widely advocated by extremists of all stripes.

            Reversing the burden of proof via politically-determined fiat through the rationalizations for post-normal science is in effect a return to the days prior to the science revolution.

            I am fully aware of the real implications of post normal science and it seems as if few have paid any attention.

            Disproving the 3rd grade model of backradiation controlling temperatures at the surface is a piece of cake to demonstrate.

            And without ‘capable’ backradiation at the surface there is no physical basis for a CO2 controlled greenhouse effect.

            There is talk of CO2 super stablizing the lapse rate in order to slow the convective response, but the fact is the only gas known to super stabilize the lapse rate is water vapor.

            And when you then factor in that the radiative effect of CO2 is at best about 10% of blackbody radiation and that convection can override blackbody radiation. . . .a guy that is experienced at real world problems of this nature simply has to be skeptical of the hubris of those doing the accounting.

          • bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            You are funny,

            The only thing you have to do to verify the greenhouse effect is point an infrared thermometer at the sky.

            And no, it doesn’t control the temperatures at the surface, it’s one of several inputs that determine the surface temperature.

            You look at the whole picture, if you want be competent.

            So far, you are not doing so well.

          • bdgwx says:

            Exactly bob. The GHE hypothesis can be falsified by point a working IR thermometer at the sky and observation 0 W/m^2 or 3K (CMB temperature) on the display. Has anyone ever been able to falsify the GHE in this manner. NO!

          • bill hunter says:

            thats ridiculous bdgwx.

            reversing the burden of proof isn’t science its politics.

            Yes there is a ghe! But beyond that it doesn’t appear anybody is willing to even entertain alternative theories as they are as difficult to prove as any. Only difference is everybody else can’t use reversal of burden of proof because its a political issue thats not going to go away. and the institutional kingmakers are resistant to funding much at all thats a threat to the goose.

            brave scientists, standing up for science, have to remain quiet, carefully speak the correct way, play homage to the king and hopefully get a job to support the political windfall machine that ends up showing the truth. Then to get published you must put in caveats all over the place that the findings aren’t a threat to the King with no clothes.

          • Willard says:

            > it doesnt appear anybody is willing to even entertain alternative theories

            Are there any that satisfies your inner High Expectation Auditor, Bill?

          • bdgwx says:

            bill said: thats ridiculous bdgwx.

            Are you are challenging the idea that we can falsify that GHE hypothesis by pointing an IR instrument toward the sky and observing no backscatter? Or are you challenging the idea that an instrument can give us a reading with enough precision and accuracy that we can draw conclusions?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            What hypothesis are you referring to? I didn’t read the context and I plan to skip discussions about no atmosphere or no IR absorbing gas atmospheres which are useless for understanding the effect of any more CO2. Does anyone doubt the atmosphere makes for a warmer planet?

            I keep asking about that sensitivity problem, precisely for the reason that I don’t think it is falsifiable. How do you do that experiment?

          • bdgwx says:

            The hypothesis is that the GHE creates IR backscatter directed towards the surface. Even a cheap IR thermometer pointed upwards will report a temperature.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Is there anyone at this blog who doesn’t know that? I would have thought this trivial a point would be beneath you. So many other important questions to answer.

          • bill hunter says:

            bdgwx says:

            bill said: thats ridiculous bdgwx.

            Are you are challenging the idea that we can falsify that GHE hypothesis by pointing an IR instrument toward the sky and observing no backscatter? Or are you challenging the idea that an instrument can give us a reading with enough precision and accuracy that we can draw conclusions?

            ———————————-

            No I am merely saying nothing is proven until something is proven.

            You want me to prove there is no greenhouse effect when I agree there is a greenhouse effect.

            The issue isn’t if there is a greenhouse effect the issue is whether CO2 is responsible for the greenhouse effect.

            Nobody has proven it is and it is unscientific to proclaim it by default without proof and then suggest I should falsify that CO2 is the cause of the greenhouse effect.

            You are a smart guy bdgwx. How much money do you make promoting co2 as the master of climate here?

          • Willard says:

            > I am merely saying nothing is proven until something is proven.

            I too would applaud proofs in empirical sciences if they ever exist.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Ladies and Gentlemen,

            Since “The Effect(s)” is(are) not falsifiable, I propose we rename it(them) and propose, cite, and/or carry out experiments that address “The Effect(s).” Greenhouse analogies lend credence to misunderstanding in general and specifically to a multitude of useless discussions at drroyspencer.com and elsewhere.

          • Willard says:

            Here’s a quick n’ dirty guide to falsifying AGW:

            https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/a-quick-n-dirty-guide-to-falsifying-agw/

            You’re 10 years late, Chic.

    • Swenson says:

      E,

      John Tyndall, over 150 years ago –

      “In Sahara, where ‘the soil is fire and the wind is flame,’ the cold at night is often painful to bear. In short, it may be safely predicted, that wherever the air is dry, the daily thermometric range will be great.”

      Less GHG (H2O) in the air, the hotter during the day, the colder at night.

      And, of course, the higher you go, the less GHG there is, and the hotter it gets during the day –

      “From a multitude of desultory observations I conclude that, at 7,400 feet, 125.7°, or 67° above the temperature of the air, is the average effect of the sun’s rays on a black bulb thermometer. . . . ” – Hooke, quoted by Tyndall.

      The GHE fantasy does not seem to be borne out by observation, nor theory.

      No GHE from H2O. The hottest places on Earth are also the driest. As are the coldest.

      Sorry about that. Only joking, of course.

  54. CO2isLife says:

    Barry Says: CO2isLife.

    It wasn’t just me, nor was I the first to point out to you that the UAH global temperature data is seasonally adjusted.

    But you haven’t learned the next lesson, which is that global temperature is affected by many things on different time scales, and the reason we see the quick up and downs month to month is because of these factors.

    CO2Life Says, Barry you have to have been living under a rock to believe that I don’t understand that other factors affect temperature. That has been my whole point, and exactly why I have been developing ways to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. This blog is full of “experts” discussing the exogenous factors that ARE NOT accounted for in the models as demonstrated by the inability of models to model temperatures accurately. What you learn is that this “science” consists of “experts” that erroneously attribute warming due to exogenous factors to CO2. It is a completely fraudulent “science.” Simply read the posts on this blog. No one even tries to explain how the Oceans are warming at a depth of 50 m due to CO2. Clearly the oceans are warming, clearly extra energy is being added to the system, and yet everyone just ignores this fact and claims CO2 is the cause. I’ve said this millions of times, CO2 and LWIR beweteen 13 and 18µ. If you can’t explain how CO2 is warming the oceans at a depth of 50m, then you can’t even start to explain climate change.

    Climate Science is like a Dietitian claiming that you can gain weight by only drinking water. The data they collect is water intake and weight. Of course the patient goes to McDOnalds 3 times a day, but the Dietitian just ignores that fact, and only measures the water intake. The dietitican doesn’t report about the trips to McDOnalds, only the water intake. That is climate science. They only report what they want the voting public to know because if helps their cause.

    I’ve done 3 experiments, all of them isolate the effect of CO2 on temperature.
    1) I’ve identified over 500 stations, some with records going back to 1880, that are selected to control for the UHI and Water Vapor, and all show no uptrend in warming.
    2) I’ve run controlled experiments of water being radiated by IR Radiation, and the water does not show any warming when IR is applied.
    3) Thanks to you pointing out that the data is controlled for the season, I immediately identified the S Pole Data as a data set that would certainly show no warming. I knew this because the S Pole is the ideal control for the UHI and Water Vapor. Sure enough, I created graphs of each month going back to 1979 for the S Pole and you can check it yourself, there is no warming in any of the months. None Nada Zip.

    How can CO2 increase by over 30% and Antarctica experience no warming? No one can answer that. Why didn’t climate scientists already run the experiments that I’ve detailed that debunk CO2 causing warming? They don’t want to. Once again, I don’t have a Ph.D in Nonsense or Climate Science, so how can a non Expert so easily identify data sets that should show no warming? These flaws in this “science” are so obvious a non-expert like me can easily fine them. That pretty much proves there is no “science” backing this nonsense, and the people that know the truth work to hide it instead of publish it.

    Problem is, everyone can download the data and run the experiment I detailed above, so at least they will know the truth. You can keep fighting to hide and obfuscate the truth.

    • barry says:

      “How can CO2 increase by over 30% and Antarctica experience no warming?”

      Antarctica HAS warmed, just less than the rest of the globe.

      While it’s pat to say that this is a result of the largest ice cube in the world keeping temps depressed, it’s more complicated, as atmospheric gases besides CO2 have had significant changes over that region (ie CFCs, ozone).

      UAH6.0 has Antarctica (the land mass) warming at 0.09 C/decade since 1979.

      But if you want to find cooling somewhere on a large regional scale, UAH has the Southern Ocean cooling at -0.01 C/decade (from the edge of Antarctica to the 60th latitude South).

      Studies of temps going a bit further back also show warming since 1952 in Antarctica, but there is strong regional variation. Most of that warming has occurred over the Antarctic Peninsula.

  55. Entropic man says:

    CO2islife

    I’ve answered your questions and corrected your misconceptions repeatedly, yet you keep on spouting the same bullshit.

    There is old advice that you have one month and two ears. You should therefore spend twice as much time listening as talking.

    You might learn something.

    • CO2isLife says:

      ET, you have never explained by CO2 doesn’t cause warming in the S Pole. If you did, you would have to admit that the AGW Theory is pure fraud. Is that what you are admitting?

      • Entropic man says:

        Nothing to explain. The South Pole is warming.

        https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/record-warming-at-the-south-pole/#:

        • CO2isLife says:

          ET, your sources are once again, making my point.

          “By contrast, the South Pole located in the remote and high-altitude continental interior cooled until the 1980s, but has since warmed substantially. These trends are affected by natural and anthropogenic climate change, but the individual contribution of each factor is not well understood and challenging to precisely determine.”

          Antarctic interior during the last 30 years was chiefly driven by the tropics, especially warm ocean temperatures in the western tropical Pacific Ocean,

          “A team of scientists analysed weather station data,

        • barry says:

          CO2isLife, why do you keep acting surprised that climate scientists recognize that other factors besides greenhouse warming are also in play?

          This is particularly so when you scale down regionally to locally, which is well-known, much discussed in the literature, and features in each IPCC report.

          Do you base your entire understanding of mainstream climate science on the most alarmist NEWS articles you can find?

      • Entropic man says:

        This is from the original abstract.

        ” Over the last three decades, the South Pole has experienced a record-high statistically significant warming of 0.61  0.34 C per decade, more than three times the global average. ”

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0815-z

        • Ken says:

          More relevant is how much more will Antarctic need to warm before the ice starts to melt?

          • Entropic man says:

            IIRC the East Antarctic is holding it’s own, while the West Antarctic already has a negative mass balance.

        • CO2isLife says:

          ET, your referenced article simply isn’t supported by the data. I told you how to verify that article. Simply look at the data. Climate Scientists will simply write what they want to make their case. Simply look at the data provided above. The numbers don’t lie.

          BTW, my bet is that Nature Article, which I haven’t read yet, will reference stations near the ocean and are picking up what warming of the oceans, and that isn’t due to CO2.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Imagine that, I just read ET’s article and guess what? It totally supports my prediction. Here is a quote:

            “The warming resulted from a strong cyclonic anomaly in the Weddell Sea caused by increasing sea surface temperatures in the western tropical Pacific.”

            ET, please tell me how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18&micro’ warmed that water. If you can’t explain how CO2 warmed the water, you can’t blame CO2 for the warming of the Antarctic. Once again, you are proving you have absolutely no scientific background.

            Your article then goes on to explain that the interior HASN’T experienced warming, but somehow that too is due to CO2.

            “Further, this study shows that atmospheric internal variability can induce extreme regional climate change over the Antarctic interior, which has masked any anthropogenic warming signal there during the twenty-first century.”

            ET, if you understood the article you chose, you would understand that it supports my position, not yours. Thanks for proving my point…again.

        • Bindidon says:

          CO2IsLife

          ” Simply look at the data. ”

          About 50 stations, with only a few of them inland?

          Hmmmh.

          *
          ” BTW, my bet is that Nature Article,

          which I havent read yet

          will reference stations near the ocean and are picking up what warming of the oceans, and that isnt due to CO2. ”

          Yeah. You didn’t even take care to read its abstract.

          They did exactly the contrary, CO2IsLife.

          What you think they did, in fact would look like this:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YF52I9Thi2KaKGKs4sPXKUBnQiS9CdPN/view

          You see the blue line? That, CO2IsLife, is the average of all Antarctic station data available in the GHCN daily data set; nearly all are located at the coast…

          J.-P. D.

  56. CO2isLife says:

    Once again, this website has all the evidence needed to complete debunk the AGW Theory. Simply create the monthly graphs of the S Pole. If anyone has connections over at WUWT, please send them a message to do an article on this evidence.

    • E. Swanson says:

      I suppose that you are referring to the UAH LT time series. Please note that the data stops at 82.5S, thus does not include the South Pole. Also recall that the high elevations of the Antarctic distort the data, which is the reason given by RSS for excluding data poleward of 70S. Also, consider the effects of the Ozone Hole, given that ozone is another Greenhouse gas. Besides, playing with data isn’t an “experiment”

      Yes, you are indeed a “non Expert”.

      • CO2isLife says:

        E Swanson Says: I suppose that you are referring to the UAH LT time series. Please note that the data stops at 82.5S, …Yes, you are indeed a non Expert.

        What difference does it make? I’ve identified a data set covering a huge amount of the earth AND IT SHOWS NO WARMING. Please explain how that happens? Why does CO2 warm some areas and not others? DO the laws of physics cease to exist in some areas? Please “Expert” answer that simple question.

    • Bindidon says:

      CO2IsLife

      When will you be willing to get really informed about what you only manage to guess?

      I’m not a great fan of this lay(wo)man-based CO2 discussion, simply because the effects of CO2 are by far too complex for us.

      But… at least I understand that if there is ONE place on Earth where we can’t say ‘CO2 behaves equally everywhere’, then that is… THE ANTARCTIC.

      The very first reason is that it is, on average, so cold there at the surface that the atmosphere is, in comparison, warmer.

      This can’t be without consequences.

      What about learning a bit?

      Antarctic Specific Features of the Greenhouse Effect:
      A Radiative Analysis Using Measurements and Models

      Holger Schmithüsen

      https://epic.awi.de/37121/2/Dissertation_Schmithuesen.pdf

      *
      While the reemission of intercepted IR normally happens at places colder than the surface and therefore reduces the radiant energy leaving Earth, the inverse happens over the Antarctic (and, to a lower extent, also in Northeastern Siberia).

      *
      As long as you keep on your trivial ‘500 stations with no warming’, you will make no progress.

      And whining all the time and calling ‘ Dr Spencer! Dr Spencer!! Dr Spencer!!! ‘ won’t help you much more.

      J.-P. D.

      • CO2isLife says:

        “CO2IsLife

        When will you be willing to get really informed about what you only manage to guess?

        Im not a great fan of this lay(wo)man-based CO2 discussion, simply because the effects of CO2 are by far too complex for us.”

        How much more informed do I need to be when I can state a hypothesis in advance, identify a data set, and that data sets proves my point 100%. None of the “experts” can do that. They keep klinging to models that fail at every level. I have the data on my side, and the models I detail explain the observations. None, and I mean none of the experts can make that claim. I point to undeniable data, you point to failed models. Who has the better case?

        “Antarctic Specific Features of the Greenhouse Effect:
        A Radiative Analysis Using Measurements and Models

        Holger Schmithsen

        https://epic.awi.de/37121/2/Dissertation_Schmithuesen.pdf

        You can find thousands of Climate Scients that all say the same thing, and they are all wrong. The Data trumps the expert opinion. This is science, not politics.

        Anyway, everything is based on the GHG Effect. We all agree the oceans are warming. How does the GHG Effect warm the oceans? Please explain that one. If you can’t explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ warms the oceans, you can’t blame the GHG Effect for warming.

        • Bindidon says:

          CO2IsLife

          Instead of arrogantly claiming

          ” You can find thousands of Climate Scients that all say the same thing, and they are all wrong. ”

          You should better dead the dissertation I linked to.

          Because your idea

          ” If you can’t explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ warms the oceans, you can’t blame the GHG Effect for warming. ”

          simply is so incredibly trivial that it would make even the WUWT crowd get a big laugh.

          Why don’t you want to learn?

          J.-P. D.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon, when you graduate to a more advanced keyboard class, you will be taught to have a point before you start typing.

            Hopefully….

  57. CO2isLife says:

    You know I’m over the target because of all the Flack I’m getting. Once again, data on this website prove that when you control for seasoality, the UHI and Water Vapor you get absolute no, none, nada, zip warming due to CO2. Once again, you aren’t arguing with me any more, you are arguing against undeniable data. No matter how many corrupt scientists publish articles claiming otherwise, I have the undeniable data than anyone can verify.

    Some please send WUWT an message asking them to do an article on the experiment I detailed.

    I’m still waiting on the answer as to how CO2 warms water 50 m below the surface. I’m also waiting on the answer to “do the laws of quantum physics cease to exist in the S Pole?”

    • Bindidon says:

      ” Some please send WUWT an message asking them to do an article on the experiment I detailed. ”

      Why don’t you do that yourself?

      Are you so afraid of embarrassing yourself?

      • CO2isLife says:

        “Why don’t you do that yourself?”

        I’m not a climate science and would have no credibility. I’m also not experienced in writing climate articles. I’m sure Anthony Watts would be far better at writing an article and has far better and more experienced people than me that he could ask to look into my claims.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Willis isn’t a climate scientist and he publishes a lot on WUWT in the same vane as what you have done. But you need to write it up in a form that can be reviewed. Write it up and post it here. We’ll peer review it for you.

          If you can’t inspire someone else to do it, like Bindidon wrote “Why don’t you do that yourself?”

    • E. Swanson says:

      CO2Liver, Your repeated claims have no merit. for example, the ocean surface layer is rather well mixed by wind forcing, which is the reason one sees a warm layer on top of the very cold deep waters. throwing up graphs which you cherry picked without the context says nothing, for example, your post of a graph showing a snap shot of the tropical Pacific temperature anomaly profile. The shifting of the anomaly across the Pacific is the result of the ENSO cycle in the atmosphere, AIUI. The surface temperatures change from month to month, as seen in THIS GRAPH.

      • CO2isLife says:

        CO2Liver, Your repeated claims have no merit. for example, the ocean surface layer is rather well mixed by wind forcing, which is the reason one sees a warm layer on top of the very cold deep waters.

        Really? it mixes to 50 meters? Wind is mixing down 50 m? Over 1/2 a football field?

        Doubt it.

        Anyway, prove to me LWIR warms water. Just prove it. Dr. Spencer demonstrated a possible slowing of cooling using the entire spectrum, but not warming due to LWIR between 13 and 18µ.

        • E. Swanson says:

          CO2Lifer, Regarding Mixing, look up Ekman Pumping.

          Water is a good absorber of IR radiation, including both that from water vapor and CO2. As a result, the LWIR does not penetrate very deeply, unlike water in the open ocean.

      • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

        Swanson,

        As someone who has submerged and worked underwater in the Atlantic, I can tell you it isn’t well-mixed. The ocean is made up of thermal layers that don’t readily mix. That’s why submarines are so difficult to find with sonar from the surface. The active sonar bounces off the thermal layers. At 50m you are pretty much hidden from the surface due to the barrier caused by the thermal gradient.

        • E. Swanson says:

          SP Anderson, the CO2Lifer posted THIS GRAPH a couple of days ago. In the Atlanta around the tropics, above the thermocline, the ocean looks rather warm. Things are colder at higher latitudes. Perhaps that was where you were stationed…

        • bobdroege says:

          And sometimes in some places you have to rig for deep submergence to get below the thermocline.

          Tailed a Victor for 30 days that way, back in the day.

          Though all I did was sleep, make water, and play cards.

          A month with no field days.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            We usually ran from the Victors or waved at them when we went by.

      • bill hunter says:

        Swanson you need to sharpen your pencil a lot on thermoclines and how they mix.

        First only the top layer well less than 30 meters is wind and tide mixed. To get to 30 meters you need hurricane force winds that will generate 15 meter swells. Typically 7 meter swells occur due to winds several times a year. Larger ones are sporatic and don’t occur annually everywhere.

        Deeper mixing solar where heating is more at the surface than deep so no mixing in the summer. Winter the surface is cooling promoting convection but a typical winter only does part of the job. As can be seen in the following graph.

        https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/sites/7/2019/05/figure6.2.5a.png

        So the thermocline is believed to take about 10 years for solar absorbed warmth to be felt at the surface at near entirety levels and radiate away. any thing backscatter can
        do is instantly carried away.

        CO2isLife was asking for evidence that that wasn’t true and you answered by explaining how deep absorbed solar mixes in the zone that does not extend to the depth of the question. Hang in there Swanson you will eventually learn that there are a lot of significant uncertainties.

        • E. Swanson says:

          B Hunter, CO2Lifer made a claim based on THIS GRAPH posted on May 1, claiming that:

          This is the problem the Climate Alarmists face. The oceans are warming, but at a depth that LWIR between 13 and 18 never reaches. If you cant explain how CO2 warms the oceans, you cant claim that CO2 is changing the climate.

          The basis of this claim is the lower graph, which displays the anomaly data for a narrow band in the tropical Pacific. that data is usually associated with the El Nino/ENSO cycle, it’s not a long term warming trend.

          You replied with THIS COMMENT, writing:

          My perception was E. Swanson was agreeing with you and pointed out how the chart you used showed an ENSO effect in the ocean and that indeed it was NOT caused by CO2.

          .

          As I recall, I was pointing out that his referenced graph had nothing to do with CO2 warming, either for or against.

    • Clint R says:

      MH, where did you get your troll training?

      You never showed up here before UAH temps started dropping.

      Why are you here now?

    • CO2isLife says:

      Not to disagree with Dr. Spencer, but CO2 only radiates 13 to 18µ LWIR. If he were to use his IR Camera on a CO2 gas cell, it would show -80C°, not 7F°. You can verify that at Spectral Calc.

      His experiment didn’t show any warming, it showed a differential in cooling, and the water was exposed to the entire IR spectrum, most of which has nothing to do with CO2.

      I’ve run a similar experiment where I used 2 1,000 Lumen Lamps and a long pass filter. I recorded no warming at all. I have since gone out and purchased 2 IR Lamps and will soon re-run the experiment. I’ll post the results.

      As far as Desert Rock, there has been no warming there since the start of the record, or at nearby Death Valley.

      Mercury Desert Rock Ap (36.6206N, 116.0278W) ID:USW00003160
      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USW00003160&ds=14&dt=1

      Death Valley (36.4622N, 116.8669W) ID:USC00042319
      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00042319&ds=14&dt=1

      More importantly, Dr. Spencer’s own data, the S Pole Data shows no warming at all, none, nada, zip. Until someone can explain why CO2 has increased 30% and caused no warming in the S Pole, there isn’t much evidence CO2 causes warming.

      • Norman says:

        CO2isLife

        I might agree with your assessment that Death Valley does not seem to show warming but I would not agree that Desert Rock shows no warming. I am not sure how you determine a nonwarming signal in the data.

        With your experiment it really is more complex.

        Water does not absorb IR well in the Near IR range so it depends upon the lamp you are using. You may be removing most of the energy from the lamp with the filter or the energy that does reach the water is not in the correct bands.

        • Norman says:

          CO2isLife

          Wavelengths absorbed by water

          https://tinyurl.com/334e6ssw

          Different types of IR heat lamp emission wavelengths
          https://tinyurl.com/3fp2unpc

          IR heating can be very precise based upon what bands are primarily emitted by the source.

          https://tinyurl.com/2esr3aae

          • CO2isLife says:

            Norman, yes, that is true. CO2 emits and water absorbs 13 to 18µ LWIR, and that wavelength is consistent with a black body of temperatures -80C°. You don’t warm water with energy consistent with -80C°. In fact Ice emits IR of a shorter wavelength than CO2. In other words, if 13 to 18µ could warm water, Ice would melt itself.

          • bdgwx says:

            CO2isLife,

            13-18 um is consistent with ALL black body temperatures.

            13-18 um band radiance is higher for black bodies at higher temperatures.

      • bdgwx says:

        CO2isLife said: You can verify that at Spectral Calc.

        I think I will.

        BB @ 193K has a 13-18 um band radiance of 5.35 W/m2.sr.

        BB @ 259K has a 13-18 um band radiance of 18.98 W/m2.sr.

        • CO2isLife says:

          bdgwx, that is an interesting way to look at it:

          Band Radiance: 31.8612 W/m2/sr

          Change that to 10µ, which is the earth.

          Band Radiance: 107.868 W/m2/sr

          Problem is, H2O and CO2 both absorb those wavelengths, and it is a fraction of what the earth normally amits.

          Change the settings to:
          15µ
          Upper 18µ
          Lower 13µ

          Temp – -80C°

          You will see that at -80C° you get a peak of 15µ

          That is the true energy of CO2 and 13 to 18µ

          If those wavelengths could warm water, ice would melt itself. Change the settings to 0C° and you sell see that ice emits 10.5µ far higher energy than CO2.

          Band Radiance: 29.677 W/m2/sr for Ice vs Band Radiance: 23.0652 W/m2/sr for CO2.

          Ice would melt itself if 13 to 18µ could warm water.

        • bdgwx says:

          CO2isLife said: Change that to 10, which is the earth.

          This Earth isn’t at 10 um. The Earth is at 288K which is where 10 um has the highest spectral irradiance. The Earth emits in ALL wavelengths, but 95% of the total emittance is between 4-45 um.

          CO2isLife said: You will see that at -80C you get a peak of 15

          -80C (193K) is the BB temperature at which 15 um becomes the wavelength with the highest spectral irradiance. That does not mean it is the only temperature at which 15 um is emitted. In fact, the spectral irradiance at 15 um is higher at higher temperatures. At 0C body emits more 15 um photons than a -80C body.

          CO2isLife said: That is the true energy of CO2 and 13 to 18

          No. The true energy of the 13-18 um band is represented by the integration of the spectral irradiance of that band. It depends on the temperature of the body. A body with a higher temperature has a higher band radiance. CO2 at -80C has a band radiance of 5.35 W/m2.sr while at 7F it is 18.98 W/m2.sr.

          CO2isLife said: Band Radiance: 29.677 W/m2/sr for Ice vs Band Radiance: 23.0652 W/m2/sr for CO2.

          You’re still confused. Band radiance is dependent on the temperature. Both ice and CO2 can be at arbitrary temperatures. Ice is not always at 0C nor is CO2 always at -80C. And I’m not sure how you got the 29.677 and 23.0652 figures above.

          CO2isLife said: Ice would melt itself if 13 to 18 could warm water.

          There is clearly something wrong with your understanding of the physics because an increase in 13-18 um like any IR band increase does, in fact, lead to higher water temperatures. If you turn off the IR lamps from restaurants and cafeterias the food will be cooler than if the lamps were on. This experiment is repeated countless times every single day.

      • Norman says:

        CO2isLife

        Carbon Dioxide actually has a wider emission than just between 13 and 18 microns. It also emits at 3 and 4-5 bands. The total emission will be about 20% of what a blackbody emits.

        https://ozcoasts.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/oze_fs_009_04.gif

        Here is the emissivity of CO2 (the graph lines are based upon path length and CO2 concentration). At full concentration CO2 has an emissivity of 0.2 at cooler temperatures.

        http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf

        The -80 C only indicates the peak emission wavelength of a spectrum for a blackbody. It does NOT indicate how much energy CO2 can emit.

        The variable that determines how much energy CO2 emits is based upon it emissivity (based upon concentration and path length) and temperature.

        Saturated CO2 gas at 300 K will emit 91.85 W/m^2

        This is comparable to a blackbody at 200 K

        But if you had hot CO2 like at 600 K (620 F) it would radiate 1469 W/m^2 which would be the same rate as a blackbody at 401 K (262 F). CO2 will emit energy based upon its temperature so you are not correct to say it would only emit at the rate of a blackbody at -80 C (if that is what you are implying).

        Also, the lower energy DWIR does not heat the ocean surface. It reduces the rate the water loses energy. With no GHE the water could lose 450 W/m^2, with GHE it would lose a NET of only 110 W/m^2. Now the solar input of 24 hours can warm the water to a higher temperature.

        • CO2isLife says:

          Norman Says: CO2isLife

          Carbon Dioxide actually has a wider emission than just between 13 and 18 microns. It also emits at 3 and 4-5 bands. The total emission will be about 20% of what a blackbody emits.

          Yes, I am aware of that, but the Earth doesn’t radiate 2.7 and 4.3µ LWIR, except over volcanoes and fires. There just isn’t much 2.7 and 4.3µ LWIR for CO2 to absorb. The earth emits close to 10µ, far away from 2.7 and 4.3µ.

          • bdgwx says:

            CO2isLife said: but the Earth doesnt radiate 2.7 and 4.3 LWIR, except over volcanoes and fires

            Patently False. All of Earth radiates at 2.7 and 4.3 um. It’s just that neither of these channels have the highest spectral irradiance at the majority of locations.

            CO2isLife said: There just isnt much 2.7 and 4.3 LWIR for CO2 to absorb.

            Now that is a true statement. At 288K the spectral radiance at 4.3 um is 0.729 W/m2.sr.um. For 15 um it is 5.819 W/m2.sr.um. There is over 20x more energy from terrestrial radiation near 15 um than 4.3 um that CO2 can capture. So while 4.3 um is very relevant for CO2 NDIR sensors it can be mostly ignored when quantifying its GHE.

            CO2isLife said: The earth emits close to 10, far away from 2.7 and 4.3.

            Be careful with phrasing here. Everything emits 10 um. The warmer the body the more 10 um radiation there is. The Earth emits at all frequencies; not just 10 um. It’s just that 10 um happens to be the frequency with the highest spectral radiance relative to the other frequencies at 288K. Bodies less than 288K emit less 10 um while bodies higher than 288K emit more 10 um.

            Based on context I think you are erroneously thinking that 288K is the temperature which has the highest amount of energy at 10 um which isn’t the case at all. For example, a 300K body emits more energy at 10 um than a 288K body even the peak frequency has shifted to a lower frequency.

  58. Entropic man says:

    CO2isLife

    You are clearly struggling with the concept that you can warm a fluid by reducing its rate of heat loss.

    Consider the analogy of a bank account. You can increase your bank balance by decreasing your spending.

    You earn $1000 a month and spend $1000 a month. At the end of each month your bank balance is constant.

    Now you change your lifestyle. You earn $1000 a month and spend $999 a month. Your bank balance increases by $1 a month.

    • Clint R says:

      Ent, you are clearly struggling to understand that flux does NOT insulate.

      Norman is famous for finding links he can’t understand, but above he reported:

      Saturated CO2 gas at 300 K will emit 91.85 W/m^2. This is comparable to a blackbody at 200 K.

      If you assume Norman got it right, a black body at 200 K is NOT going to stop the ocean from cooling. An ice cube emits 300 W/m^2. You actually believe you can warm the oceans, or slow the cooling with a third the flux and ice cube emits?

    • CO2isLife says:

      ET Says: CO2isLife

      You are clearly struggling with the concept that you can warm a fluid by reducing its rate of heat loss.

      I’m fully aware of that concept. That also assumes that when things cool, they don’t cool below the level set the previous day. The seasons pretty much ensure that happens. That is why I’m always pointing out when temperatures reach levels below previous lows. All the accumulated energy you claim to be getting stored has been lost.

      Also, I’ve pointed out millions of times, CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and the oceans didn’t boil.

      Lastly, CO2 only radiates 13 to 18µ, so even if IR does warm water or slow its cooling, it is unlikely it is due to CO2.

      • Entropic man says:

        CO2isLife

        “All the accumulated energy you claim to be getting stored has been lost. ”

        That turns out not to be the case. You are thinking too short term. Over hours, days years the surface temperature varies. In the long term the ocean heat content shows an ongoing upward trend as, on average, heat is lost more slowly than it is taken up.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File%3AHeat_content55-07.png

        “CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and the oceans didnt boil.”

        I discussed this with Gordon Robertson upthread.

        ” In electronics you describe positive feedback using the closed loop gain function.

        A = a/1-af

        This is open ended and describes unlimited amplification. Applying the closed loop gain function to global warming may explain why some sceptics look for a runaway greenhouse effect.

        In the context of climate change unlimited amplification is impossible because limiting factors kick in and resist unlimited amplification.

        A more appropriate equation is the sigmoid function

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

        or the Gompertz function.

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

        “Lastly, CO2 only radiates 13 to 18, so even if IR does warm water or slow its cooling, it is unlikely it is due to CO2.”

        Look at this DWLR spectrum taken from the Winsconcin monitoring station. Being a wavenumber spectrum,the area under the curves represents total energy. Where is most of the area, and hence most of the DWLR? In the CO2 band.

        https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png

        • Entropic man says:

          CO2isLife”

          CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and the oceans didnt boil.

          Further to this discussion.

          Using the temperature form of the CO2 forcing equation you can calculate how much warmer a 7000ppm CO2 atmosphere would be.

          5.35ln(7000/280) = 14.0C

          Actual Preindustrial global average was 13.8C with 280ppm.That becomes 27.8C with 7000ppm.

          In practice, 27.8C is probably an overestimate because the Sun was dimmer then.

      • bdgwx says:

        CO2isLife said: Also, Ive pointed out millions of times, CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and the oceans didnt boil.

        That was 600 MYA. Solar RF was -12.0 W/m^2 relative to today. CO2 RF was +15 W/m^2 relative to today. That is a net of only +3 W/m^2. Of course, there are many other factors besides solar and CO2 that must be considered.

        • CO2isLife says:

          bdgwx, that is pretty easy to prove. Place a bucked to water in pure CO2 atmosphere and shine a daylight temp lightbulb on it. 0.00% chance the water boils. 0.00%. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Every highschool in the world would run that experiment if it works. Simply look at the experiment ALarmists aren’t running to get to the truth. Their selectivity proves they know this is a fraud.

    • Billy Bob says:

      Entropic,

      I think a better banking analogy related to the rate something cools is you have $500 in the bank and add $1000 in earnings at the beginning of the month. You spend $1100 that month resulting in a $400 end of month balance. By reducing spending to $1050, you could have $450 at the end of the month.

      I think many people struggle with the semantics that your bank balance is higher. Clearly, $450 is lower than $500, and thus lowering your spending did not increase your ending month balance. But it is higher than if you spent $1100.

      This could be analogous to a clear sky night vs. partly cloudy temperature wise. Unless a warm air mass move in at night, temperatures always decrease from the daytime high. Always! It is theoretically impossible for the earth to increase night time temperature without adding an energy source. Warm air mass/massive volcanic eruption are possibilities. But at night, DWIR originates from the surface, since slightly more IR leaves Earth then receives there is always net cooling barring a different energy source.

      Earth example: Day time temperatures shoot up 10c degrees (earnings) to 15c degrees from the 5c degrees beginning day temperature . On a cloudless night it cools to 4.5c. (9.75C average). Partly cloudy it cools to 4.8 (9.9C average). Fully cloudy it cools to 6C (10.5C average). This last scenario shows a higher beginning temperature.

      The Earth is usually in balance near the terminus of day/night. On average, day and night sides are typically out of balance. Though clouds can put the surface temperature in balance day or night. All over the world some places are increasing their temperatures and some places are decreasing their temperatures (seasons).

      The overall net may be positive (global warming) or negative (global cooling). Using Dr. Spencer’s running average data, there have been 14 global warming periods and 14 global cooling periods. We are currently below the 30 year average but above the 1979 (starting point).

      With multiple cyclic processes involved that impact global average temperature, linear temperature analysis is only as good as the largest cycle. Unfortunately, we will not live that long to see (or fortunately). Thus, in my opinion, the linear trend since 1979 is not very useful.

      • bdgwx says:

        Yeah. That is a really good way of looking at it. And I’ve used that analogy with a bank account that has inflow (deposits) and outflow (withdrawal) of money before myself both to describe energy content in a body and mass content in a body.

        • bdgwx says:

          BTW…the banking analogy works really well in explaining the nuances of the carbon cycle as well. Consider your balance is $280 all in $1 bills. You receive 100×1$ bills each year and you spend 100x$1 each year. Your balance remains at $280. But then one year you get an extra $120 worth of $1 bills from grandma. Your balance is now $400. However, due to the outflow of 100x$1 the stock of the original bills grandma gave you begins depleting. After 4 years and 8 years only 11% and 4% respectively of the 400 bills have grandma’s fingerprints on them. But grandma is still the cause of 30% of the $400 value and 100% of the value increase from $280 to $400. If grandma hadn’t been generous you’d still only have $280.

          In a similar manner only about 4% of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere have human fingerprints. But humans are still the cause of 30% of the 400 ppm and 100% of the increase from 280 to 400 ppm. The contrarians will say…yeah, but the carbon cycle is more complicated than the banking analogy. And I agree. It is. But if you cannot understand the fundamental concept that the banking analogy is trying to communicating then there is no way you will understand the vastly more complex carbon cycle.

          • gbaikie says:

            –bdgwx says:
            May 6, 2021 at 10:33 AM
            BTW…the banking analogy works really well in explaining the nuances of the carbon cycle as well.–
            Yeah, and one thing to note is rather look at increase in
            CO2 levels is increasing amounts Earth is removing CO2 from Atmosphere.
            Or if making CO2 is money, Earth making more money and is spending more money.
            And related is CAGW idea, that Earth will at some point stop spending as much money. That’s the doom.
            But like typical US consumers, Earth might be getting more in debt with more money it makes. Rather than “get tired” of spending more money.
            This might seem crazy, but Earth at moment is CO2 poor, and has been poor for tens of million of years. Earth used to have fat bank account of CO2 and then it become poor.
            Or I think Earth ‘knows” how to spend money- if it’s got money to spend.

            In terms global temperature, the bank account way of looking at it, is what I call illusion of warmth.
            I would start with obvious that 15 C is not warm.
            Second, we measure daytime high temperature. That sort like counting what in bank account by peak amount money it has, per day.
            Third, global temperature of 15 C, is caused by having 40% of earth’s surface having a high uniform daily temperature.
            The tropics has always been warm, and 60% of rest of world could freezing it’s butt off, but averaged with tropics, it seems warmer. And land and ocean difference, average ocean {which includes very warm tropical ocean surface temperature} is 17 C and average land is 10 C.
            [[Or if live on the ocean, we would be warmer, but we don’t.
            {and I think we should live on the ocean {and be warmer, then we actually are- particularly ocean water closer or at the tropics- or living in Gulf Mexico, is “artificial” tropical island paradises, but even off the coast of New York State could be warmer. So let’s have low income housing and with living on a beach]]

          • bdgwx says:

            gbaikie said: CO2 levels is increasing amounts Earth is removing CO2 from Atmosphere. Or if making CO2 is money, Earth making more money and is spending more money.

            Yeah. That’s right.

            gbaikie said: And related is CAGW idea, that Earth will at some point stop spending as much money. That’s the doom.

            I’m not sure what CAGW is. But that is an AGW idea as well based partially on Henry’s Law and the fact that biomass cannot increase forever. I don’t see any doom here though.

            gbaikie said: This might seem crazy, but Earth at moment is CO2 poor, and has been poor for tens of million of years. Earth used to have fat bank account of CO2 and then it become poor.

            Yeah. This partly explains why there has a long term secular decline in temperatures over million year timescales even though the Sun has become more luminous. CO2 is an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem.

            gbaikie said: In terms global temperature, the bank account way of looking at it, is what I call illusion of warmth.

            Warmth is relative just like the perceived value of the bank account. Some might think you’re rich while others think your poor. Both concepts are anchored to how the beholder perceives them. But at the very least everyone an agree that $400 is more than $280 and 15C is higher than 14C so at least we have that to work from.

      • Bindidon says:

        Billy Bob

        This comment sounds good to me, from start till end.

        ” Thus, in my opinion, the linear trend since 1979 is not very useful. ”

        Linear trends mostly aren’t.

        That is the reason why I don’t show them when posting graphs: over the satellite era, for example, a 36 month running mean tells us way more than a linear estimate, especially when you compare different time series.

        J.-P. D.

  59. Bindidon says:

    barry

    I didn’t see Anderson’s brazen reaction to your comment on polar sea ice.

    Typical Pavlovian reflex of a person manifestly much more interested in political polemic than in simply looking at numbers.

    *
    Here they are, top 10 for each pole (NSID-C at colorado.edu, Mkm^2), averaged out of their monthly data.

    Arctic

    2016 10.16
    2020 10.18
    2019 10.21
    2018 10.35
    2017 10.40
    2012 10.42
    2007 10.50
    2011 10.51
    2015 10.59
    2010 10.73

    Antarctic

    2017 10.70
    2019 10.78
    2018 10.89
    1986 11.04
    2002 11.18
    2016 11.18
    1980 11.21
    1997 11.34
    1983 11.34
    1990 11.37

    I’m more interested in the sum of the polar areas:

    2019 20.99
    2017 21.10
    2018 21.24
    2016 21.34
    2020 21.69
    2011 21.96
    2007 22.14
    2006 22.21
    2012 22.40
    2002 22.56

    The sum shows the influence of the Arctic: while e.g. 2012 belongs to the best Antarctic sea ice years (position 36 of 42 in the sort), in the sum it moves up to position 9.

    *
    That’s all, no need for any polemic, let alone for me correcting you!

    *
    Yearly averages are always better: they help in avoiding the

    ‘ Woaah! Look at the 2012 melting! ‘

    Most alarmists namely don’t even know that in the same year, the ice rebuild during the winter was excellent, what is best shown when superposing the years (here the HadISST1 ice data for the Arctic, with 2012 in red):

    https://tinyurl.com/f47t9uc5
    *
    This brings me back to OWilson’s comment above:

    ” Fortunately we have benchmark satellite data now and can track the daily average temperature and ice data with more accuracy than ever. ”

    Da muss ich wohl ein wenig schmunzeln! Look at the comparison:

    https://tinyurl.com/y35h2p86

    I’m not sure OWilson is aware of the fact that while satellite data shows, for 1979-now, a trend of -0.55 Mkm^2 / decade, the ‘bad’ surface observations by Hadley show only -0.34 for the same period, and thus look quite a lot less ‘alarmistic’, he he.

    J.-P. D.

  60. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    For Willard:

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comments

    “What you present is not a model. It’s a series of calculations to hide that you’re stuck with a division by 2.”

    They are a series of calculations that prove the 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out. What more do you need?

    If you want his equations that lead to an estimate of the effective temperature of the Earth, see equations 1-10 from what you call his “Magnum Opus”. There you go, that’s a citation. So you should let this comment stand.

    Other than that, I have no idea what you could possibly mean by “Joe’s model” so of course I am unable to provide for you that which you will not specify.

    • Willard says:

      I agree, kiddo: you have no idea what’s Joe’s model.

      Interactional expertise has limits.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      You will not specify what you are after, which allows you to avoid confronting the fact that the 480 in and 240 out balancing energy in and energy out demolishes your article.

      • Willard says:

        You’re playing dumb, kiddo. I’m looking for Joe’s model. A hemispherical model isn’t enough.

        Diagrams ain’t no real models. When will Joe write on his that on the other side where it’s supposed to be 30C it’s -273C?

        Besides, rotation also applies to the 30C figure. Has Joe ever tried to include any kind of dynamics to his “second by second” model?

        I bet not. His diagram is fit for only one purpose: con gullible people like you.

  61. CO2isLife says:

    DREMT, would you please produce the monthly graphics for the South Pole? It would be nice to have a link to reference in these discussions. Also, I would think NASA would want to publish and highlight that data as much as the evidence for warming. People have no idea there are areas that are showing no warming.

    • barry says:

      People who take an interest are fully aware that while most large-scale regions of the globe have warmed over the last 40-50 years, there are some places which haven’t.

      Parts of Antarctica havent warmed, and there is a zone in the North Atlantic that hasn’t warmed.

      There are also plenty of individual locations (on the scale of towns/cities) that cooled or haven’t changed.

      UAH6.0 has the ocean around Antarctica cooling at -0.01 C/decade, a figure that is not statistically significant (ie, it is not sure if there has been cooling, warming, or no trend for the satellite recording period).

      Otherwise, UAH6.0 data record warming for all other large-scale zones, including the South Pole.

      You can see the decadal trends for all those zones near the bottom of this UAH data page:

      https://tinyurl.com/x9jnrzyd

      If you know how to plot a graph from text values, this page provides plenty of zones to plot.

  62. Eben says:

    Here is one my prediction posts from a year ago, replies are fun to read now

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-459206

    • Willard says:

      Fun indeed:

      Amazed says:
      April 15, 2020 at 4:31 AM

      Midas Minibrain,

      Now give the rest of us the benefit of your awesomeness – does La Niña emit cold rays, or what? You are an idiot, La Niña is just a name given to a pattern of observations. Not very bright, are you? Just another deluded alarmist.

      I wonder who that might be.

    • bdgwx says:

      You do realize UAH-TLT is +0.07 wrt to the 1981-2010 zero line right?

    • barry says:

      What replies? The ones letting you know that your prediction hasn’t materialized yet, as you made it on the old baseline? Or were you thinking of something else?

  63. barry says:

    CO2isLife,

    “Barry you have to have been living under a rock to believe that I dont understand that other factors affect temperature.”

    Then why the do you claim that with CO2 warming every month should be warmer than the last?

    Why do you think that these other factors should cease to function?

    Can you not imagine that there could be underlying, long-term warming (from ANY cause), and we would still see the monthly ups and downs?

    If we controlled the sun and set it to increase by 0.1% every year, we would still see the monthly up and downs, and we would KNOW that the system was getting more energy and generally warming up.

    But as soon as it becomes CO2 warming, you – for a reason I absolutely cannot fathom – seem to believe that all the other factors should cease, and only CO2 warming would exist.

    You would not believe that the monthly variability would cease if the source of warming was something other than CO2.

    But you believe monthly variability would cease if the cause WAS CO2.

    Why?

    Please explain.

  64. March Hare says:

    Where do you find the monthly, TLT absolute values needed to calculate the anomaly WRT the old baseline?

  65. ren says:

    Will this be the last wave of Arctic air over the northeastern US?
    https://i.ibb.co/cCZBST9/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png

  66. Clint R says:

    Above, Entropic man and bdgwx got twisted up again, trying to discuss energy. The discussion started with CiL mentioning that CO2 infrared does not raise ocean temperatures. Ent tried to use the example of money flow in a bank account. Energy flow and money flow are analogous. Both are scalar quantities.

    But infrared flux is NOT a simple scalar quantity. Flux will not always “add up”. The example of a cone-in-space demonstrates that flux is not conserved. With the entire cone surface area 5 times the base area, 900 W/m^2 into the base would result in 180 W/m^2 being emitted from the cone, at equilibrium. “900” does NOT equal “180”. Flux-in does NOT equal flux-out.

    Confusing flux with energy is prevalent within the “climate science” cult. That’s one of the reasons the “Earth Energy Imbalance” is such nonsense. And they add to the confusion by believing an infrared flux always results in a temperature increase. After all this time, they still believe they can boil water with ice cubes!

    Their confusion is likely to continue because they are unable to learn. That’s why this is so much fun.

  67. Bindidon says:

    Grrrrrand Coooooling ahead!

    Today, 20 min snowfall near Berlin, Germoney. One more time, we have more Aypril than May.

    I guess that’s the price we’ve to pay for April’s begin: while in South Germany they had up to 50 cm snow, there were here 5 cm at best.

    And these poor Frogs had on April average their lowest TMIN temp since 50 years. Duh. (But the TMAX there was quite OK.)

    J.-P. D.

  68. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/science-ministry-funds-trial-on-effect-of-gayatri-mantra-in-treating-covid-19/article34111676.ece
    Science Ministry funds trial on effect of Gayatri Mantra in treating COVID-19
    The Department of Science and Technology (DST) has funded a clinical trial at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, to determine if the chanting of the Gayatri Mantra, a religious hymn, and performing the Yoga practice of Pranayama, can aid the quality of recovery as well as cure COVID-19 quicker in a subset of patients.
    The clinical trial, formally registered with the Indian Council of Medical Research’s (ICMR) clinical trial registry (a compulsory requirement for human trials), aims to recruit 20 COVID-19 patients with “moderate symptoms.” Divided into two groups, one will get the standard treatment and the other, along with the standard treatment, will be subject to a regimen of chanting and breathing exercises for 14 days, supervised by a certified yoga instructor.
    Dr. Ruchi Dua, pulmonologist and Associate Professor at AIIMS told The Hindu that recruitment for the study had already begun. “A postdoctoral researcher who researches yoga in the institute is also involved. We will measure markers of inflammation via levels of C-reactive protein as well as a standard scale to measure health outcome over the next two-three months,” she told The Hindu in a phone conversation.

    Sound familiar?

    We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

    We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

    • Clint R says:

      When reality matches your beliefs, you’re on fairly safe ground.

      But when you have to pervert reality to match your beliefs, you are in a cult. We see a lot of cult behavior here — passenger jets fly backwards, ice cubes can warm beyond the temperature of the ice, etc. It’s a long list.

    • Ken says:

      If you think that is weird … come to the land where people get rather good educations and still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that an increase in a trace gas like CO2 can cause climate to change.

      • Willard says:

        How come what you dismiss as a “trace gas” be the source of life on Earth, Ken?

        • Ken says:

          Yes CO2 is necessary for life to exist on earth. There is evidence we’d be better off with more of it in the atmosphere.

          • Willard says:

            One does not simply claim both that CO2 is essential to life and dismiss it as a trace gas, Ken.

            It’s one or the other. Which one do you pick?

          • bdgwx says:

            So this trace gas is so impactful that without it there would be no life on Earth, but you’re incredulous regarding its impacts on the climate?

          • Clint R says:

            It doesn’t surprise me that Willard and bdgwx are so confused about CO2. They know so little about science because their only source is the “papers”.

            To have a “food chain”, you must first have “food”. CO2 is where it starts. Plants feed on CO2, providing food for animals. This used to be taught early in the school systems.

            Real science teaches us that CO2 is the end result of combustion of a fuel. And then, it becomes food. When then CO2 becomes a fuel, carbohydrate, hydrocarbon. It’s all very confusing for Willard and bdgwx, who only know the “papers”.

            PS Paper is made from cellulose which is made from CO2!

            PPS Papers make very good liners for bird cages.

          • Willard says:

            Clint,

            Youre sure doing a lot of ankle-biting. It must be so frustrating for you, now knowing anything about the topics here.

            Thats why the simple number -270 upsets you so much. Just such a simple number shows how Sky Dragons are silly.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, the 3 K you are thinking of would only apply to the “dark side” of a sphere that was permanently lit only on one side, and which never received light over its whole surface…in other words a sphere that does not rotate at all…and even then the sphere would have to have no atmosphere.

          • Clint R says:

            Willard, I know you have nothing original, and you don’t understand any science.

            So keep confirming that as often as you like.

          • Willard says:

            Clint,

            You’re just trying to start a food fight.

            That’s because you have nothing against this:

            -270

            Sky Dragons are running a con.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Writing the word “cope” isn’t a rebuttal, Trollard.

          • Willard says:

            Cope, kiddo.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So you’ve got nothing.

          • Willard says:

            Neither do you have Joe’s model, kiddo.

            I’m sorry you got pwned.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Our argument was over whether or not 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output from the entire sphere, in real time, balances energy in and energy out. I won that argument.

          • Willard says:

            > Our argument was

            No it wasn’t. You just can’t talk about anything else than what you want to repeat over and over again until the end of times.

            You have one move and it’s the ad nauseam.

            Where’s Joe’s code?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That was our argument, clown, before you even wrote your incoherent mess of an article. I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.

            Joe doesn’t need “code” to balance the 480 in with the 240 out, Trollard. It’s just basic physics and math.

          • Willard says:

            No it wasn’t, Half Earther.

            Has Joe built a dynamic vegetation module yet?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You’re like a child.

          • Willard says:

            Not a rebuttal, kiddo.

            Is there an ocean carbon cycle in Joe’s model?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What “model”, child?

          • Willard says:

            Good question, kiddo.

            So you don’t know what model Joe keeps harping about?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I wasn’t aware he was harping on about any “model”, child.

          • Willard says:

            That’s because you only read what you want to read, kiddo.

            “If you were to compare my model and the climate science model side-by-side, which one would you pick?”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Oh, you’re talking about the 480 in 240 out again. Well, we know how that turned out…

          • Willard says:

            I’m not talking about your pet topic, kiddo.

            You have no idea what’s a model and it shows.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            When he said:

            “If you were to compare my model and the climate science model side-by-side, which one would you pick?”

            He was referring to his diagram, the numbers for which come from the 480 in 240 out concept.

          • Willard says:

            A diagram ain’t no model, kiddo. In this case, the diagram is meant to *represent* a model. Where’s Joe’s model that the diagram is meant to represent?

            You know where I checked.

            Meanwhile, if Joe could clarify on his diagram that the other side of his 30C it’s -273C, that’d help readers decide how much realness there is in his “model.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…the numbers for which come from the 480 in 240 out concept…”

          • Willard says:

            > for which

            Finally! You said it!

            We can now agree that numbers ain’t no model.

            Thank you!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, Willard. Everything both is, and isn’t, a model, as you require it to be or not to be to avoid acknowledging that the 480 in and 240 out debunks your article.

          • Willard says:

            > both is, and isn’t, a model

            So numbers and models are, and aren’t, models.

            You’re doing great.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You don’t even have the wits to realize when you’re being mocked, Willard.

          • Willard says:

            Let’s take stock on what has been established, kiddo:

            You haven’t read Joe as well as you pretend. You can’t read equations. You have no idea what’s a climate model. You have no idea what’s a model. You can’t even do basic algebra operations. You still haven’t realized what Joe is doing in his Mad Hat post.

            You don’t pay attention to anything else that what makes you peddle your pet lines. In fact you can’t read any other way than like a guided missile on a mission to reach one and only one target.

            You’re a one-trick pony. That makes you the perfect mark.

            Joe is conning you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, you did not even realize that multiplying by 0.5 is the same as dividing by 2.

            You are in no position to criticize others. More or less everything you applied to me actually applies to yourself.

          • Willard says:

            I wasn’t sure to what you were referring, kiddo, whereas you still don’t know *what* Joe is multiplying by 0.5. If you did, you’d see I was right. But who cares. I prefer the current paragraph.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The “TOA solar flux” so 1370 W/m^2, corrected for albedo so 960 W/m^2. That is what is being multiplied by 0.5, as I said at the time.

          • Willard says:

            “TOA” does not identify *what* Joe multiplies by 0.5, kiddo.

            TOA only means Top Of the Atmosphere.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I just told you what gets multiplied by 0.5 you ridiculous troll.

          • Willard says:

            You still don’t get it, kiddo: flux isn’t *power*. They don’t have the same units.

            How delicious to see how Joe keeps whining about the confusion between energy and flux when his diagram conflates them!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Troll, irradiance (flux) has units of W/m^2 and power units of watts. It is the irradiance (flux) that gets divided by 2, moron, not the power.

          • Willard says:

            You still don’t get it, kiddo:

            What’s the *energy* that comes into the system in Joe’s universe?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We have already been through that.

            Total power absorbed = Total power emitted = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts

            The 1.22 x 10^17 Watts comes from taking the solar constant (Joe typically uses 1,370 W/m^2) and multiplying it by the surface area of the disk (pi x r^2) intercepting the Sun’s energy, then multiplying the result by 0.7 to factor in albedo.

            So, it is 1,370 W/m^2 x pi x 6,371,000 meters x 6,371,000 meters x 0.7 = 1.22 x 10^17 Watts.

            That is the total power that the Earth absorbs, so it must be the total power that the Earth emits. In any one second, the Earth absorbs over the lit hemisphere. The area of the hemisphere is 2.55 x 10^14 square meters.

            1.22 x 10^17 Watts divided by 2.55 x 10^14 square meters equals approx. 480 W/m^2.

            In any one second, the Earth emits over the entire sphere. The area of the sphere is 5.1 x 10^14 square meters.

            1.22 x 10^17 Watts divided by 5.1 x 10^14 square meters equals approx. 240 W/m^2.

            At any given moment, the Earth absorbs 480 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. Flux is not conserved, but energy is, because the area the Earth absorbs the energy over is half that of the area that the energy leaves from.

          • Willard says:

            > We have already been through that.

            No we haven’t, kiddo, and it’s about time we do, since you still don’t get it:

            Check Joe’s freaking diagram.

            Tell me where the energy is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            All that there is on Joe’s diagram is flux and temperatures, moron. But if you read his “The Fraud of the AGHE Part 18: Conserving Wattage does not Conserve Physics – Rant Free Version”, you will see the 1.22 x 10^17 Watts (Joules/sec) figure mentioned.

            That is “the *energy* that comes into the system in Joe’s universe”. 1.22 x 10^17 Joules every second is absorbed by the Earth. I answered your question. Will you eventually make your point?

          • Willard says:

            > All that there is on Joes diagram is flux and temperatures

            You still don’t get it, kiddo:

            Joe presents his diagram as a model. He presents it as an alternative to the “climate science model,” whatever that is. It’s not balancing energy at all.

            If Joe misspoke and his diagram isn’t a model, where