Updated Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Forecast through 2050 and Beyond

July 18th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Summary

The simple CO2 budget model I introduced in 2019 is updated with the latest Mauna Loa measurements of atmospheric CO2 and with new Energy Information Administration estimates of global CO2 emissions through 2050. The model suggests that atmospheric CO2 will barely double pre-industrial levels by 2100, with a total radiative forcing of the climate system well below the most extreme scenario (RCP8.5) used in alarmist literature (and the U.S. national climate assessment), with the closest match to RCP4.5. The model also clearly shows the CO2 reducing effect of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption of 1991.

The Model

As described here, the simple CO2 budget model uses yearly sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2 to compute how much the atmospheric CO2 concentration changes from one year to the next.

The sink (removal) of “excess” atmospheric CO2 assumes that all of the biological and geophysical processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere do so at a net rate proportional to the excess of the CO2 value above some ‘equilibrium’ value. When the model is calibrated with the yearly Mauna Loa CO2 data from 1959 through 2021, this rate of removal is 2.02% of the atmospheric excess above 294 ppm. So, for example, at the current CO2 concentration of 417 ppm, the biological and geophysical removal processes are removing 0.0202 x [417 – 294] = 2.48 ppm per year for 2022 (preliminary estimate).

The long-term source of CO2 increase is assumed to be anthropogenic. There are various estimates of yearly CO2 emissions, some from energy use alone, some including cement production and land use. I’ve used the Boden et al. (2017) and Our World in Data yearly estimates for 1750 through 2009, and EIA.gov estimates of yearly emissions growth rates from 2010 to 2050, and then assumed their 2050 growth rate is constant to 2100.

I also have included an ENSO term (El Nino and La Nina) to empirically account for CO2 rising during El Nino and decreasing during La Nina. This term amounts to 0.45 times the Multivariate Enso Index (MEI) value averaged from May of the previous year through April of the current year. For example, the latest yearly-average MEI value is -1.29 (La Nina conditions), so 0.45 x [-1.29] =  -0.58 ppm CO2 decrease in 2022 from La Nina activity. 

The model is initialized in 1750. The MEI data are included starting in 1958-59.

Results

The model fit to Mauna Loa CO2 data is shown in Fig. 1. Note that the largest discrepancies between model and observations are due to major volcanic eruptions, especially Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.

Fig. 1. Model versus observed CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa, HI.

Contrary to popular perception, these eruptions actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This is likely due to increased photosynthesis due to a large increase in diffuse solar radiation from the sky, from sunlight scattered by volcanic aerosols, which can penetrate deeper into vegetation canopies.

When we run the model using 2021 EIA estimates of yearly CO2 emissions increases from 2010 through 2050, and then assuming the 2050 increase remains the same to 2100, the resulting atmospheric CO2 scenario is closest to the IPCC RCP4.5 scenario. The model CO2 concentration barely reaches the 2XCO2 level, a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 level.

Fig. 2. As in Fig. 1, but extended to 2100, with the various IPCC radiative forcing scenarios used in recent IPCC reports.

Note the model is well below the RCP8.5 scenario, which is the one most often used to promote alarmist projections of sea level rise, temperature increase, etc. The weaker the future radiative forcing from increasing CO2, the weaker resulting climate change will be.

Discussion

Climate model projections depend critically upon how much atmospheric CO2 will rise in the future. That, in turn, depends upon (1) future anthropogenic emissions, and (2) how fast nature removes “excess” CO2 from the atmosphere.

A simple budget model of the atmospheric CO2 concentration very accurately matches the Mauna Loa CO2 data during 1959-2021 using yearly estimates of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions as a CO2 source, and the observed average rate of removal of CO2 by biological and physical processes, which is proportional to the “excess” of atmospheric CO2 over a baseline of 295 ppm as a sink. An empirical factor to account for El Nino and La Nina activity is also included, which mostly affects year-to-year fluctuations in CO2.

The resulting model projection produces atmospheric CO2 concentrations late this century well below the IPCC RCP8.5 scenario, and even below the RCP6.0 scenario. This suggests that the most dire climate change impacts the public hears about will not happen. Note that this likely reduction in future global warming impacts is in addition to the evidence that the climate system is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 as is claimed by the IPCC. In other words, future climate change will likely be much weaker than projected due not only to (1) lower climate sensitivity, but also (2) weaker anthropogenic forcing, and it is the combination of the two that determines the outcome.


1,085 Responses to “Updated Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Forecast through 2050 and Beyond”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. stephen p anderson says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    Why don’t climate model projections have natural emissions as one of the components?

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      They do. IPCC climate models use radiative forcing scenarios that come from carbon cycle models. Those models simulate the huge natural flows of CO2 in and out of the surface. But like the climate models, they are “calibrated” so that the natural flows balance, and then only humans cause an imbalance (atmospheric increase).

      • Sarah says:

        I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop~ni185~As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this Im ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home~ni185~All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site> http://lifechange.gq

      • stephen p anderson says:

        That calibration is a construct that fits their Carbon Cycle Model narrative which treats natural and fossil fuel CO2 differently. Chic Bowdrie’s model (based on Berry et.al.’s work) also matches the Mauna Loa data and doesn’t treat anthropogenic CO2 differently. However, I do understand the point you’re making. Even, if we accept their assumptions, there is no dire scenario.

        • Another Joe says:

          If you implement in a model that the only change in CO2 comes from human sources, then the climate model will always infer that all change in the climate model comes from the humans.

          What do I miss?

        • Nate says:

          Some claim that the anthro emissions are too small to matter.

          And that there has been a much larger change in natural emissions that just so happens to match the 150 year history of the anthro emissions.

          Thus human emissions vanish, but are replaced by natural with an identical appearance.

          This is the ‘Body Snatchers’ theory.

          But they never offer evidence that these extra natural emissions exist, nor ever plausibly explain a mechanism for them.

          • Another Joe says:

            What about the sinks?

            For the human emissions to not matter, there should be less natural emissions if sinks were the same.

            So would one not have to explain away natural emissions?

          • Nate says:

            AJ,

            The natural emissions and sinking are mostly cyclical. Daily or seasonal. For example the summer leafing out of the N. Hem. forests, absorbing vast amounts of CO2, then dropping leaves in the Fall and releasing carbon back to the atmosphere. This produces the major annual oscillation in the Mauna Loa CO2 record.

            Daily there is plant respiration. When the ocean warms in summer it outgasses, when it cools in winter it sinks back into the ocean.

            These natural emissions are moving carbon around cyclically between three reservoirs (ocean surface mixed layer, atmosphere, biosphere), but not adding any new carbon.

            While anthro carbon is adding new (long stored) carbon to the system every year.

            Two different phenomena happening at the same time.

            Much of the sinking you mention is simply part of the seasonal or daily cycles, and is happening for both anthro carbon and natural. The added carbon also gets moved around to all 3 reservoirs.

            As a result, all 3 have increased their carbon content.

            The sinking of the excess carbon in all 3 reservoirs to the deep ocean is what matters here. That is a very slow process.

            Thus added anthro carbon is persistent in the atmosphere (and mixed layer, and biosphere).

          • Nate says:

            Maybe of interest,

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm

            Humans absorb and emit about 2 tons of carbon per year, in a cyclic process.

            A growing human might gain 2-3 kG, NET, per year. 1/1000 as much. This added carbon can persist in the human for ~ 80 y, before sinking back to the atmosphere.

      • Mark B says:

        Roy W Spencer says:

        Those (carbon cycle) models simulate the huge natural flows of CO2 in and out of the surface. But like the climate models, they are calibrated so that the natural flows balance, and then only humans cause an imbalance (atmospheric increase).

        I’m not sure what to make of this assertion. It would be kind of silly for a model not to achieve a net balance in accounting for whatever reservoirs it models. It’s also clear that the carbon cycle models don’t wind up with all human emissions in the atmospheric reservoir. So what exactly is “calibrated” to balance?

      • Fred M. Cain says:

        One question I have that I’d like to see addressed here, the population and tourist trade in and around the Hawaiin Islands has absolutely exploded since the Second World War. Therefore, how can we be completely sure that at least part of the CO2 getting picked up on Mauna Loa isn’t from local sources rather than global?

        Local sources can and often do affect climate. It is a statistical fact that Phoenix and Tucson, AZ, are both a lot hotter than they were just 50 years ago. But how much of that increase in heating is coming from “global warming” and how much of it is locally generated from the heat island effects of those large urban areas?

        Regards,
        Fred M. Cain

        • Mark B says:

          CO2 observations are made in sites other than Mauna Loa and the corroborate the growth rates seen there.

          The link below show the annualized growth rate from observation sites at MLO (Mauna Loa, Hawaii), SMO (American Samoa), and SPO (South Pole, Antarctica):

          CO2 Growth Rates

        • Nate says:

          Also, Mauna Loa is very high above the less populated Big Island.

          The trade winds bring CO2 from the East over a vast expanse of ocean.

  2. Entropic man says:

    I’m not seeing the figures on my Kindle Fire. The error message was that the website redirected me too many times.

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      I sometimes get that, too. I don’t know why.

    • WizGeek says:

      GeekSpeak: It’s likely your ISP doesn’t have a direct DNS (Domain Name Service) route to drroyspencer.com, so it routes “upward” to a larger and larger IP umbrella until it finds a DNS match.

      More GeekSpeak: If you are curious, open a shell (cmd.exe, bash, etc.) and run ‘tracert 172.67.184.213’ without the quotes. You’ll likely see several lines with your ISP’s domain indicating its DNS search chain. If you are using a VPN service, it may insert a few hops too. If you are in a remote area, expect a couple more.

      • Anglia says:

        They give American state $85 associate hour to end work on an Apple laptop. I definitely didnt assume it had been possible, however my sure friend created $26,000 in mere four weeks acting on this easy chance {ec83} and he or she influenced me to offer it a try. Discover a lot of directions by
        visiting the subsequent link http://takegoodwork24.blogspot.com/

  3. pochas94 says:

    Dr Spencer, for what it’s worth, I believe you.

  4. Ken says:

    Question about CO2 concentrations.

    Currently its 410 ppm.

    The reconstructions point to concentrations higher than 5000 ppm. Does that mean there was more CO2 in the atmosphere as now or does that mean there was less atmosphere and CO2 made up a larger percentage because there was less O2 and N2?

    How do we know that there was 1 atmosphere of pressure a million years ago and more?

    • Entropic man says:

      I answered this on the previous thread.

      How do we know that there was 1 atmosphere of pressure a million years ago and more?

      “We dont know.

      We can infer limits. If pressure or oxygen content gets too low animal breathing systems like lungs, gills and trachea cannot supply enough oxygen. Low oxygen levels may have contributed to mass extinctions. In at least one of them low oxygen tolerant genera survived better than those intolerant of low oxygen.

      During the Carboniferous there were some very large flying insects. These would have need a higher oxygen content to generate enough energy and a higher atmospheric pressure to make flight aerodynamically possible. “

      • stephen p anderson says:

        You should be a science fiction writer. You’re all about speculation.

        • Another Joe says:

          Not sure why you say that.

          Speculation about historical atmospheric pressure is fiction if we do not have the science to back it up. And if there is some science arguments, then it becomes a theory.

          Talking of it. This sounds like science fiction too:

          Contrary to popular perception, these eruptions actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This is likely due to increased photosynthesis due to a large increase in diffuse solar radiation from the sky, from sunlight scattered by volcanic aerosols, which can penetrate deeper into vegetation canopies.

          • Entropic man says:

            Shield volcanoes are very different beasts from small intermittent eruptors like Pinatubo. They erupt massive amounts of material and enough carbon dioxide to trigger significantly changed temperatures, ocean PH and oxygenation.

            I suggest you research the Deccan and Siberian Traps.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Untestable theories are speculation.

          • Another Joe says:

            Untestable theories are speculation.

            Name a few then! I can think of some.

        • Entropic man says:

          Yes. I’m that sort of scientist.

          I take what data is available about the past or present in the field and try to infer local conditions from them. I’ve been doing so since the 1970s when I was inferring local average temperatures from the pollen species present in peat bogs.

          Rather different from the comforting certainties of controlled experiments in laboratories.

          • Anglia says:

            They give American state $85 associate hour to end work on an Apple laptop. I definitely didnt assume it had been possible, however my sure friend created $26,000 in mere four weeks acting on this easy chance {ec84} and he or she influenced me to offer it a try. Discover a lot of directions by
            visiting the subsequent link http://takegoodwork24.blogspot.com/

  5. Eben says:

    This is why skeptics are losing the debate , by debating the wrong points.
    If you debunk the CO2 can cause warming by using the demonstrable laws of fizzix you don’t need to argue how much is in there, especially pointing out the thermodynamics law breaking energy budget where ground is reabsorbing its own emitted energy and increasing its temperature that way.
    When you just keep arguing the amount of CO2 you basically just handed it to the ararmistas

    • gbaikie says:

      In terms lukewarmer [skeptics] the debate over as results are in.
      The facts are we in icehouse global climate which currently has very
      cold ocean. The cold ocean has made last couple million year the coldest period in our Ice Age. Having a cold ocean anything less than say average ocean temperature 6 C or colder causes low global CO2 levels.
      The warmest time of the Holocene was over 5000 years ago, or global average surface air [and ocean] have been slowly cooling for 5000 years.
      What left to argue about is how cold will get in say 1000 years.

      • gbaikie says:

        In terms of CO2 emissions, it seems to me that China has reached peak Coal.
        It seems the stupid idea of burning wood for electrical power, is done.
        There will be increase in CO2 emission from coal burning in poorer countries [and Germany which has no excuse}. This could be limited by focusing on natural gas. But if not, it’s not much of addition to CO2.
        Though perhaps nuclear energy use can also lower CO2 emission in poorer countries [including Germany].

        We might in the future want higher levels of CO2, and we could burn wood to do that.

    • Nate says:

      “If you debunk the CO2 can cause warming by using the demonstrable laws of fizzix”

      Yep, Eben, fizziks will do the trick.

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      So, if those of us who think masks are of limited help in protecting against COVID would just claim they are of zero use, we could win the debate? Thanks for the tip!

      • Swenson says:

        Or, based on this study, “Carbon dioxide increases with face masks but remains below short-term NIOSH limits”, one might conclude that long term mask wearing is more deleterious to health, than the danger of going maskless.

        I would point out that Covid 19 virus bodies are significantly larger than CO2 molecules, and are presumably retained by the mask to an even greater extent, thereby increasing the chance of infection by rebreathing the trapped virus.

        As only one virus is sufficient to infect a human, why concentrate them within a mask?

        Maybe a garland of garlic may be as useful, “In conclusion, Allium sativum may be an acceptable preventive measure against COVID-19 infection to boost immune system cells and to repress the production and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines as well as an adipose tissue derived hormone leptin having the proinflammatory nature.” (from a peer reviewed Elsevier paper), with the added benefit that nobody wearing garlic has ever been attacked by a vampire!

        I ascribe my Covid free status to good luck.

  6. Tom says:

    I’ve wondered if all CO2 with “old” carbon is considered anthropogenic in models like these? Natural sources of old carbon include oil and gas seeps, coal fires and weathering of coal outcrops, volcanoes and warming oceans. As the last major Ice Age ended about 13,000 years ago massive sources of CO2 with old carbon began to be released naturally as their frozen sources warmed and/or melted. These include: 1) Oxidizing peat and other vegetation trapped in melting permafrost, 2) Onshore gas hydrates released from melting permafrost, 3) Offshore gas hydrates like the massive bubble trains — termed VAmpS — seen during 1980s cruises of R.V. S.P. Lee in the Bering Sea and Aleutians, 4) Unstable methane hydrates on the continental slopes of northern oceans, and possibly 5) decreased solubility of CO2 in warming ocean water. All these sources of carbon are older than three or four ~5000-year half lives of C14 and could mostly be mistaken for C from people burning fossil fuels. Rapid natural cycling of carbon is indicated by the quick reduction in atmospheric C14 following the end of atmospheric nuclear testing. Presumably this draws on some sources with old carbon. Models treating all old carbon as anthropogenic would overstate man made CO2 and man made climate change.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      IPCC differentiates carbon into fast carbon and slow carbon.

    • Entropic man says:

      You can come at human emissions from two directions. You can estimate them from changes in concentration, subject to the usual uncertainties or you can do it by accounting for the amount of fossil fuel burned and the release from other human activities.

      Put them all together and you get human emissions about equivalent to 4mm/year and 2mm/year taken out of the atmosphere into other reservoirs.

      Other natural sources and sinks are so far fairly small by comparison

  7. John Reid says:

    http://paradigm2.net.au/the-regression-of-atmospheric-concentration-on-carbon-dioxide-emissions/

    Plain Language Summary

    When using climate models to make projections of future climate it is important to know how the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will change in response to changes in carbon emissions. The impulse response of concentration due to emissions summarizes the required information in a single curve from which the response to any arbitrary emissions scenario can be easily determined. It is a curve showing how the concentration will change following a single short impulse in emissions. The impulse responses widely accepted by the modelling community all have a remnant fraction of between 10 and 20 percent implying that this fraction of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere forever. These curves are, themselves, based on circulation models similar to climate models. This paper develops a statistical technique for estimating the impulse response directly from the data while making no assumptions about the underlying physics. The impulse response estimated in this way shows that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a shorter time than hitherto supposed and has no remnant fraction. All the CO2 presently generated by fossil fuel will ultimately leave the atmosphere; half will be gone in the next half century.

    • Entropic man says:

      I can see why it was rejected.

      No mention that the atmosphere is one of three interconnected reservoirs that make up the pool of circulating carbon; land, atmosphere and ocean. No mention of the dynamics of carbon sinks. No mention of the mechanisms of the mechanisms which control the movement between reservoirs and the equilibria involved.

      This guy was trying to “debunk” the current theories regarding the fate of carbon released into the atmosphere without even understanding the carbon cycle.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Entropic Man, please stop trolling.

  8. Jim O'Brien says:

    Any indications of impact of the recent Tonga submarine eruption on weather/CO2 levels/climate?

  9. gbaikie says:

    Why is global temperatures lower when there a huge mile thick ice sheet on most of North America.
    Kind of obvious.

    What causes global surface air temperature?
    70% of the surface which is ocean.
    Our average ocean surface air temperature is about 17 C
    And average land surface air temperature is about 10 C
    The total equals an average global surface temperature of
    about 15 C.
    So the ice sheet on most of North American doesn’t make much
    difference.
    What makes a significant difference is when the ocean is covered with sea ice.
    And the amount sea ice depends upon the average temperature of the ocean.
    Am Ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C, has a lot polar sea ice and ocean average temperature of 3 C, has a lot more. And ocean of 4 C doesn’t have much in the winter..

    • Entropic man says:

      Care to comment on the effect of ice albedo?

      • gbaikie says:

        Yeah, sure, cover Mars with snow, and it warms Mars.

        Venus at Earth distance, absorbs less sunlight and emits less energy
        and it’s colder than Earth.

        Mars atmosphere is so small, warming or cooling the vacuum like air
        doesn’t make Mars warmer or cooler in any significant way.

        Or Moon has has lower average surface temperature as compared to Mars, one could say Mars whatever Mars average air temperature is it’s warmer than Moon.
        But say, talking about at 1 meter depth of lunar surface, that would an average temperature higher than it average surface temperature.
        And in sense 1 meter below surface Moon is warmer than Mars.

        And say living in caves in either Mars or Moon, they roughly the same. A Cave on Moon could be very cold, like 50 K, and probably will not find any cave on Mars which is this cold. But a cave temperature
        on Mars or Moon is not really a problem. A cold cave could be useful as cold storage area. But one make into a sauna, if you wanted to.
        Anyhow a cold cave could be regarded as a resource, and to get a hot cave resource, one have to go really deep under the surface.
        With both Mars and Moon, it seems one could go really deep- ie, 10 km or more under the surface, where this not really possible on Earth.

  10. Tim S says:

    Predictions are difficult — especially about the future.

    • Entropic man says:

      So don’t make predictions, make projections.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        What’s the difference?

        • Entropic man says:

          A prediction is a forecast of an exact outcome.

          “The GISS global annual average temperature for 2042 will be 1.50C.”

          A projection includes a measure of uncertainty.

          “There is a 95% probability that the GISS global annual average temperature for 2042 will in the range 1.5.0C +/- 0.1C.”

          • stephen p anderson says:

            There’s no uncertainty in a prediction?

          • greg says:

            And a projection characterized by a 95% confidence interval doesnt have an exact center of mass?

          • Nate says:

            “‘Prediction’ conveys a sense of certainty while ‘projection’ is associated more with the possibility of something happening given a certain set of plausible, but not necessarily probable, circumstances.”

            The uncertain circumstances are the future human emissions.

          • RLH says:

            The uncertain circumstances are the impact of future human emissions.

          • barry says:

            The difference between prediction and projection is that for a prediction given circumstances are fixed and the result is specific, while for a projection it is allowed that the given circumstances are mutable, and therefore projections tend to be more probabilistic and are usually expressed via alternative scenarios.

        • Entropic man says:

          Other waysof looking at it.

          A prediction implies certainty while a projection implies uncertainty.

          A prediction may just be a guess while a projection is the result of some form of analysis. For example, many projections are couched as a frequency distribution.

          You can then give a range and probabilities within that range. The mean or mode may be the most likely outcomes, but there is no reason why they are inevitable.

    • billybob says:

      Tim, based on the projection of the responses I predict that there will be no consensus on the differences of the meaning. But I am only 50 percent sure.

      • Tim S says:

        A “projection” is nothing more than a word game. The correct technical term for a projection is extrapolation. That requires an assumption that the missing data will behave in the same way as the previous data with all of the inputs and relationships being the same. Does anyone seriously believe that? For example, structural engineers are allowed to use linear interpolation of data in between data points for strength vs temperature values. Extrapolation is never allowed.

  11. Willard says:

    RCP 4.5 might not be a walk in the park:

    If you don’t like 8.5, add 10 years.

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/

  12. Entropic man says:

    Anybody contemplating discussion of carbon and carbon dioxide concentrations might want to study the carbon cycle first.

    https://projects.noc.ac.uk/greenhouse_gas_science/sites/greenhouse_gas_science/files/images/ccycle.jpg

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Hey Evolution man,

      Which decided to come first, the chicken or the egg?

      • Entropic man says:

        For egg substitute DNA.

        A chicken is it’s DNA’s way of making more copies of its DNA.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          How does DNA make a decision?

          • Entropic man says:

            It doesnt, but a population of DNA molecules is subject to mutation and to natural selection of the organisms they build.

            Succcess is passing on more copies of their DNA and that DNA becomes more abundant.

            Failure is dying or passing on fewer copies of their DNA, which becomes less abundant.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            By the way, genetic mutations almost always lead to the specie’s death.

          • WizGeek says:

            The “decision” is encoded in the DNA analogous to a flowchart in computer science. DNA uses Messenger RNA to communicate that “decision” to protein synthesis mechanisms that in turn affect biological processes.

        • Entropic man says:

          “By the way, genetic mutations almost always lead to the species death. ”

          Yes. It has been estimated that at least a billion species have evolved since life started here. Almost all of them are now extinct. By its nature, natural selection is a short term process.

          On the other hand, the DNA which codes for glycolysis enzymes has been outstandingly successful and has been copied in every organism on the planet for the last 3 billion years.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            More speculation. I’ll offer my own more plausible. Maybe it was programmed into every single organism.

      • RLH says:

        The egg was around before chickens first appeared.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Is that the IPCC carbon cycle I asked you questions about? Are you ready to answer now?

  13. Entropic man says:

    The concern about natural CO2 emissions is that they are temperature sensitive and non-linear, so they may continue to increase CO2 concentrations even if we stop.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z

  14. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Dr. Spencer, you assume, “all of the biological and geophysical processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere do so at a net rate proportional to the excess of the CO2 value above some ‘equilibrium’ value.”

    This is contraposed to the more physically correct model that those processes more likely remove CO2 by a first-order kinetic mechanism. IOW, the removal of CO2 is proportional to all the CO2 in the air, not just the excess over some assumed, and probably non-existent, equilibrium value.

    I will update my model, based on a revision of yours, using a constant removal rate constant. That model requires CO2 sources in addition to the Boden data emissions. The difference between the models greatly affects future predictions.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Can’t wait.

    • Nate says:

      “This is contraposed to the more physically correct model that those processes more likely remove CO2 by a first-order kinetic mechanism. IOW, the removal of CO2 is proportional to all the CO2 in the air, not just the excess over some assumed,”

      Remove CO2 to another reservoir, like the deep ocean.

      Which has processes that remove its “CO2 by a first-order kinetic mechanism” back to the atmosphere,

      with a removal rate proportional to all the CO2 in that reservoir. Which for the deep ocean is essentially unchanged from the equilibrium value.

      Thus the NET removal rate is proportional to the DIFFERENCE in CO2 between the two reservoirs, which is proportional to the difference between the atmospheric CO2 and the equilibrium value.

      • Nate says:

        correction:

        “proportional to the DIFFERENCE in CO2 concentration in the two reservoirs”

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The atmosphere’s removal rate is only proportional to the concentration in the atmosphere, not the net difference between the two. Chic just told you it’s a FIRST ORDER differential equation. The surface ocean and the deep ocean have completely different e-times. Berry calculated those in his third paper and shows their interrelationships. That’s how Berry showed that the IPCC’s anthropogenic carbon cycle is BS. By the way, maybe you can answer since you brought it up, how did the anthropogenic CO2 get into the Deep Ocean?

        • stephen p anderson says:

          Also, the model Dr. Spencer presented does not claim removal is proportional to the difference. It argues that the removal rate is only proportional to excess anthropogenic CO2.

        • Nate says:

          “not the net difference between the two.’

          No Stephen, the deep ocean is sending CO2 flux to the surface ocean (mixed layer) every year via upwelling of CO2 rich water…

          In the absence of the excess atm CO2, the downward and upward fluxes were near balance, in equilibrium.

          For the deep ocean, it is so large that its concentration is essentially unchanged from the equilibrium value.

        • Nate says:

          So it is indeed a reasonable approximation to assume the difference in concentration from the equilibrium value is what drives the NET flux from the atmosphere into the ocean and biosphere.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Assume? Really? Nothing you just wrote makes any sense. By the way, the IPCC disagrees with you. There is no human CO2 in the mixed layer. How did that happen? I’ll wait for you not to answer the question.

          • Entropic man says:

            By the way, the IPCC disagrees with you. There is no human CO2 in the mixed layer.

            Supporting evidence,please. The only way that would happen would be if there had been no exchange between the mixed layer and the atmosphere since 1880.

            What you keep calling the IPCC carbon cycle shows that about 90Gt of carbon including human carbon, moves from atmosphere to mixed layer each year.

            https://projects.noc.ac.uk/greenhouse_gas_science/sites/greenhouse_gas_science/files/images/ccycle.jpg

          • stephen p anderson says:

            NO, according to the IPCC, there is no human carbon in the mixed layer. Explain that. How did the human carbon get into the Deep Ocean? Still waiting for your answer.

          • Nate says:

            “the IPCC disagrees with you.”

            Nope

            ” There is no human CO2 in the mixed layer. How did that happen?”

            Nope.

            More declared ‘truths’ that are never backed up, from Stephen.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Here’s Eman’s link genius. Eman attaches a link and doesn’t know what’s in it. Then you and Eman spread disinformation and propaganda and neither of you knows what’s happening. You two are the most prominent propagandists on this board. You have no scruples.

            https://projects.noc.ac.uk/greenhouse_gas_science/sites/greenhouse_gas_science/files/images/ccycle.jpg

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Then You respond with some nonsense about the difference between the equilibrium and the mixed layer, or is it the excess. WTF knows. The change in atmospheric concentration with respect to time is equal to Emissions (Inflows) minus Absorp.tions(Outflows). That is the DIFFERENCE, genius. That is the conservation of mass in its entirety. Continue with your idiotic obfuscations.

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            I’ve already answered. You must have missed it.

            stephen p anderson says:
            July 19, 2022 at 5:59 PM
            Like, how did the anthropogenic carbon get into the deep ocean?

            Reply
            Entropic man says:
            July 20, 2022 at 12:16 AM
            Offhand, diffusion, turbulent mixing and the thermohaline circulation.

            Reply
            Entropic man says:
            July 20, 2022 at 12:43 AM
            And of course the constant rain of organic material.

          • Nate says:

            The fact is, Stephen, you make claims, like these, and cant back them up.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman says>

            Stephen

            Ive already answered. You must have missed it.

            stephen p anderson says:
            July 19, 2022 at 5:59 PM
            Like, how did the anthropogenic carbon get into the deep ocean?

            Reply
            Entropic man says:
            July 20, 2022 at 12:16 AM
            Offhand, diffusion, turbulent mixing and the thermohaline circulation.

            Reply
            Entropic man says:
            July 20, 2022 at 12:43 AM
            And of course the constant rain of organic material.

            Offhand? How can it diffuse, mix and thrmohaline circulate when there is no anthropogenic carbon in the mix layer, according to your linked Carbon Cycle Model?

          • Entropic man says:

            Stephen

            I burn some coal. The carbon enters the atmosphere as CO2 molecules.

            Once in the atmosphere those molecules move through the carbon cycle like any other CO2 molecules, even dissolving through the sea surface into the mixed layer.

            The carbon cycle diagram does not distinguish between “natural” and “human” CO2 molecules except at their point of origin. Once in the atmosphere they behave in exactly the same way.

            Which makes your claim that there is no human carbon in the mixed layer bullshit.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >The carbon cycle diagram does not distinguish between natural and human CO2 molecules except at their point of origin. Once in the atmosphere they behave in exactly the same way.

            You still don’t understand your own link, Dork.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            However, it was nice to see you admit that natural CO2 and fossil fuel CO2 are the same.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You know, I’m not letting you off that easy. The red arrows show the FF flows. The dark arrows show the natural flows. The red numbers show the anthropogenic carbon. The dark numbers show the natural carbon. There is no red number in the mixed layer. There are no red arrows from the mixed layer to the Deep Ocean. However, there is a red number in the Deep Ocean. Can you explain without obfuscation how it got there?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “There is no red number in the mixed layer. “

            Actually ….
            * there is a box for “surface ocean” (900)
            * there is a box for “Intermediate & deep sea” (37,100)
            * there is an *additional* box surrounding *both* of these (155 +/- 30).

            So it is pretty clear, if we think carefully, that the diagram says that *together* these two layers have gained “+155 +/- 30”. So there *IS* a “red number in the mixed layer”. (Presumably they were not confident enough to know how big the flows are nor how much has accumulated in the various sublayers. That is ‘beyond the scope’ of this diagram.)

            I can see how a cursory glance might make it look like the “155” is specifically associated with only the “37,100”, but one should be extra careful when drawing adamant conclusions from diagram (doubly so if one has not read the paper(s) that led to the diagram).

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Hey Tim,

            The mixed layer is essentially the surface. Read any study, and when they refer to the mixed layer, they are referring to the layer where you get wind and ocean turbulence. It isn’t the intermediate and deep ocean. Again, how did the human carbon get there?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Tim,
            Do Nate and Eman agree with your assertions?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Again, how did the human carbon get there [intermediate and deep ocean]?”

            You are trying to read too much into a simplified diagram.

            Anthropogenic carbon exchange with the ocean is 20 in and 17.7 out per year = 2.3 net into the ocean.

            This 2.3 goes into the surface layer (the “mixed layer”). From there it would impact the flows out of the surface ocean. Without reading the paper(s) and/or talking to the creator(s), it is tough to guess if they
            * forgot to add it
            * don’t know all the values for the flows
            * wanted to keep it simple
            * other??

            In any case, don’t try to draw detailed conclusions from a infographic on a webpage. Anthropogenic CO2 goes into the ocean at the surface (2.3) and has accumulated throughout the ocean (155). If you want details, read the literature!

          • Nate says:

            “Do Nate and Eman agree with your assertions?”

            Yes. All these diagrams are different in terms of what details they include.

            Absence of evidence in one diagram is not really evidence of absence..

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Yes. All these diagrams are different in terms of what details they include.

            Absence of evidence in one diagram is not really evidence of absence..

            OK, since the Anthropogenic carbon is in the mixed layer, which you agree with, the Revelle Factor isn’t a factor.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Also, this is to both of you, if there is Anthropogenic carbon in the mixed layer, why isn’t there any in the Deep Ocean?

          • Nate says:

            “Also, this is to both of you, if there is Anthropogenic carbon in the mixed layer, why isnt there any in the Deep Ocean?”

            Non sequitur, Stephen.

            Where do u get these notions?

          • Nate says:

            ” in the mixed layer, which you agree with, the Revelle Factor isnt a factor.”

            Also a non sequitur.

          • Entropic man says:

            “You still dont understand your own link, Dork. ”

            Yes, my mistake.

            I’m glad to see that you’ve acknowledged your own mistake.

            You now accept that there is anthropogenic carbon in both the mixed layer and the deep ocean.

          • Entropic man says:

            “You still dont understand your own link, Dork. ”

            Yes, my mistake.

            I’m glad to see that you’ve acknowledged your own mistake.

            You now accept that there is anthropogenic carbon in both the mixed layer and the deep ocean.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Non sequitur, LOL….FOS. What mistake did I admit? The arrows show the flux between the atmosphere and ocean, the mixed and deep layers, and the atmosphere and the land. There are no red arrows in the ocean, but they just stuck this red 155PgC down there because their model doesn’t balance, and they didn’t know what to do with it. But have either of you read IPCC 2013? I’m sure not. They claim those numbers and flows in the diagrams have 90% confidence. You guys realize it’s a piece of crap, and you tried to pass it off as, what did Nate say, all these diagrams are different in what details they include and then he concluded with the brilliant, absence of evidence in one diagram is not really evidence of absence in a diagram that the IPCC claims 90% confidence…..LOL, dimwits. Flying Spaghetti Monster.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “if there is Anthropogenic carbon in the mixed layer, why isnt there any in the Deep Ocean?”

            But there IS anthropogenic CO2 in the deep oceans! The “155” is spread (in unspecified ways) between surface, intermediate and deep oceans. Which is exactly what I said before and exactly what the diagram shows.

          • Nate says:

            “Yes. All these diagrams are different in terms of what details they include.

            Absence of evidence in one diagram is not really evidence of absence..”

            Here is one with different details shown.

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gavin-Cawley/publication/263946928/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/The-global-carbon-cycle-for-the-1990s-showing-the-main-annual-fluxes-in-GtC-yr-1_Q640.jpg

            Both mixed layer and deep ocean have anthro carbon, as expected.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Yep, and many skeptics like Roy Spencer as well.

            I’ve never seen Dr. Spencer state his position about the Revelle Factor. Maybe I missed it. Perhaps you can link it. However, he will present the IPCC or some paper’s position. The only positions he puts his reputation behind are the satellite measurement data and some of his research like cloud feedback, cloud formation, etc. Like this model above, Dr. Spencer presents the model mainly to show that even if this model is correct, there is no dire scenario as alarmists claim.

          • barry says:

            I don’t know if Roy has ever directly talked about the Revelle Factor, but he has certainly alluded to it on this board.

            Roy Spencer: “The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry… CO2 is the elixir of life… let’s embrace more of it!”

            Perhaps appropriately to this discussion, he wrote this under the heading Skeptical Arguments That Don’t Hold Water.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Barry,

            I dont know if Roy has ever directly talked about the Revelle Factor, but he has certainly alluded to it on this board.

            Roy Spencer: The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in todays temperature causing this CO2 rise? Cmon people, think. But not to worry CO2 is the elixir of life lets embrace more of it!

            Perhaps appropriately to this discussion, he wrote this under the heading Skeptical Arguments That Dont Hold Water.

            You’ll need to connect Vostok ice core data with the Revelle Factor. Don’t see the allusion there. Also, Dr. Spencer will need to show me how you can use proxy data for rate comparison from several hundred thousand years ago to actual temperature readings today and then say we don’t know how much of the temperature rise is natural or manmade.

            And then he says downwelling IR is 300w/m^2 when in the 5th assessment it is 159w/m^2 (of which 30 can be assigned to CO2). And, doubling CO2 will only add 3w/m^2.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re right. It isn’t. It is irrelevant. It is part of the slow carbon cycle.

          • barry says:

            The Revelle Factor is about the resistance in ocean solubility to CO2. Roy is clearly alluding to it in that comment when he says that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is half the rate of anthropogenic output. It’s the Revelle Factor causing that, and Roy clearly believes the increase in atmos CO2 to be anthropogenic in origin.

        • Nate says:

          “Also, this is to both of you, if there is Anthropogenic carbon in the mixed layer, why isnt there any in the Deep Ocean?”

          Still a non sequitur, Stephen.

          The diagram clearly shows anthro carbon in the deep ocean. Your question makes no sense.

          “in the mixed layer, which you agree with, the Revelle Factor isnt a factor.”

          Nothing discussed here supports your claim that Revelle Factor isnt a factor.

          You are just tossing BS all over the place.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You guys are full of crap. You can’t keep your stories straight. You say whatever is expedient at the moment. You flail in the wind. It’s junk science and difficult to defend.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Nothing discussed here supports your claim that Revelle Factor isn’t a factor.

            You claim the Revelle Factor inhibits anthropogenic inflow into the ocean, don’t you? You claim Berry didn’t take the Revelle Factor into his model. But here it is in their diagram, in the ocean.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Here is one with different details shown.

            Dimwit, the one that Eman linked, comes from AR6.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >if there is Anthropogenic carbon in the mixed layer, why isnt there any in the Deep Ocean?

            But there IS anthropogenic CO2 in the deep oceans! The 155 is spread (in unspecified ways) between surface, intermediate and deep oceans. Which is exactly what I said before and exactly what the diagram shows.

            Tim,

            That’s BS. They stuck the 155 there because they didn’t know where to put it because their model is crap. They have 90% confidence in the numbers and flows, but have no confidence in the natural numbers or the flows? They claim they know exactly what the anthropogenic numbers and flows are.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Sorry, I meant to say they have no confidence in the anthropogenic numbers and flows? Distributed throughout? Doesn’t make any sense.

          • Nate says:

            “You claim the Revelle Factor inhibits anthropogenic inflow into the ocean, dont you?”

            Yep, and many skeptics like Roy Spencer as well.

            “But here it is in their diagram, in the ocean.”

            Do you know what ‘inhibit’ means?

            Seems you don’t.

            It seems science with any complexity is beyond your capabilities, Stephen.

          • Nate says:

            In this diagram from the 90’s,

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gavin-Cawley/publication/263946928/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/The-global-carbon-cycle-for-the-1990s-showing-the-main-annual-fluxes-in-GtC-yr-1_Q640.jpg

            You can see that there is 165 anthro in the atmosphere, and only 18 in the ML and 100 in the deep ocean.

            If as claimed by Berry, the e-time was 4 years, then with 165 added to the atmosphere, about 41 should be flowing into the ocean annually.

            But only 2.2 is annually flowing into the ocean, and only 1.6 into the deep ocean in the diagram.

            I’d say there is inhibiting going on. Consistent with a Revelle Factor.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Dimwit, the one that Eman linked, comes from AR6.”
            No, the one Entropic Man linked is here:
            https://projects.noc.ac.uk/greenhouse_gas_science/sites/greenhouse_gas_science/files/images/ccycle.jpg
            “The material on this website is based on lectures and activities that were developed for a series of residential summer schools held in 2015 at the University of Edinburgh and in 2016 at the National Oceanography Centre … ”
            Not part of IPCC AR6.

            (The AR6 report is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ I skimmed and saw nothing like this diagram at all.)

            “They stuck the 155 there because they didnt know where to put it because their model is crap. They have 90% confidence in the numbers and flows, but have no confidence in the natural numbers or the flows? They claim they know exactly what the anthropogenic numbers and flows are.”
            Again, don’t base your knowledge on one diagram taken out of context. One diagram is not a 100% complete accounting of what “they” know. Read the papers. Understand the models. Find out what is measured and what is theoretical. Then (and only then) are you in a position to determine what is ‘crap’ or how confident ‘they’ might be about different numbers.

            *This* is what “flailing” looks like.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Tim,

            They said they have 90% confidence in those numbers and flows in 2013.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >If as claimed by Berry, the e-time was 4 years, then with 165 added to the atmosphere, about 41 should be flowing into the ocean annually.

            You don’t understand e-time. Also, the IPCC says the e-time or e-folding time is about four years. e-time is the time required for the level to move 0.693 the distance toward the balance level. Finally, Berry makes no claims or is required to adhere to your chart’s numbers. Berry states that the different treatment of natural and anthropogenic CO2 violates the principle of equivalence.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Tim,
            Thanks for linking that. It blows up your distributed throughout argument. The one Eman linked was AR5. The AR6 on page 700 has updated numbers. The anthropogenic number is plunked into the intermediate and deep ocean, not throughout.

          • Nate says:

            “You dont understand e-time.”

            Uhh, yes I do.

            “Also, the IPCC says the e-time or e-folding time is about four years.”

            Show us that.

            “e-time is the time required for the level to move 0.693 the distance toward the balance level.”

            Yep, if the level in the atmosphere is 165 higher than the equilibrium level, then you would expect it to drop by 165*0.693 = 114 in 4 years.

            Or, as I noted, this requires an outflow of 165/4 ~ 41, in 1 year, according to Berry. It hasnt been.

            “Finally, Berry makes no claims or is required to adhere to your charts numbers.”

            YOU have been arguing thoughout this discussion about how our claims are inconsistent with what the charts say.

            Now you wanna move the goal posts by ignoring the charts?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Nate,
            Come on, you’re the one who pulled up a new chart.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >YOU have been arguing thoughout this discussion about how our claims are inconsistent with what the charts say.

            No, I’ve been arguing that the IPCC chart Eman linked doesn’t make sense. How did the human CO2 get into the Deep Ocean? There’s none in the surface ocean.

            >Or, as I noted, this requires an outflow of 165/4 ~ 41, in 1 year, according to Berry. It hasnt been.

            You don’t know what it’s been. Who says your chart’s correct? Chick will produce a model that fits Mauna Loa data with both natural and human CO2.

          • Nate says:

            Stephen,

            “How did the human CO2 get into the Deep Ocean? Theres none in the surface ocean.”

            The other chart indicated there is.

            ‘Or, as I noted, this requires an outflow of 165/4 ~ 41, in 1 year, according to Berry. It hasnt been.’

            “You dont know what its been”

            Thats his model.

            Do you have evidence that the natural emissions grew by > 41 Gton/y by the 1990s?

            From where and by what mechanism?

            And more since then?

            Whereas we have strong evidence that anthro emissions grew over the last century to current ~ 10 Gt/year. And that is all that is needed to explain current levels, because of the Revelle Factor.

            We have a mechanism, we have required emissions.

            You have neither.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >Stephen,

            How did the human CO2 get into the Deep Ocean? Theres none in the surface ocean.

            The other chart indicated there is.

            No, it didn’t. The chart in AR6 clarified it. It was assigned to the intermediate and deep oceans. So, you just pick whichever chart you want even though they’re very different? Doesn’t work that way.

            Or, as I noted, this requires an outflow of 165/4 ~ 41, in 1 year, according to Berry. It hasnt been.

            You dont know what its been

            Thats his model.

            YOU said it hasn’t been, not him.

            Do you have evidence that the natural emissions grew by > 41 Gton/y by the 1990s?

            From where and by what mechanism?

            And more since then?

            Yes, look at Berry’s model based on conservation of mass. Also, Chic will provide a model based on Berry’s theory.

            Whereas we have strong evidence that anthro emissions grew over the last century to current ~ 10 Gt/year. And that is all that is needed to explain current levels, because of the Revelle Factor.

            We have a mechanism, we have required emissions.

            You have neither.

            I have that anthropogenic emissions are only about 4% of total emissions. CO2 flows through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the sinks. So anthropogenic can’t be much more than 4% of current levels. Also, your etime calculations are wrong but don’t have time to go into it now. I’ll show you this weekend if I have time.

          • Nate says:

            “Do you have evidence that the natural emissions grew by > 41 Gton/y by the 1990s?

            From where and by what mechanism?

            And more since then?”

            “Yes, look at Berrys model based on conservation of mass.”

            A model is not not an observation, Stephen.

            His model neglects Revelle Factor, but instead assumes a large increase in natural emissions to explain the rise in atm CO2 in the last century or so.

            But you guys offer no evidence or data to show that there has been such a rise. Nor have you offered a mechanism for this rise that works.

            Without any of that, it is pure speculation.

          • Nate says:

            “I have that anthropogenic emissions are only about 4% of total emissions. CO2 flows through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the sinks. So anthropogenic cant be much more than 4% of current levels. ”

            This is all unproven assertion by Berry without evidence.

            Out of all the research on the Carbon cycle, Berry’s view is an extreme outlier.

            He has also admitted that he is not very familiar with much of the previous modeling work, and Revelle Factor. I know this because I showed him classic papers he had never seen before.

            Its fair to ask, why do you favor Berry’s as being the correct view out of all the research by many on this topic?

            Is it because you are very familiar with carbon cycle science, and are able to detect scientific flaws in all other work, except Berry’s?

            Be honest.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            No, it is because the simplest explanation is usually correct… Einstein. Berry derives his solution from the conservation of mass and energy. His only hypothesis in his model is outflow is proportional to the level. Berry explains it using the ideal gas law, and real-world C14 data fit his hypothesis. If real-world Te is small, then Revelle Factor isn’t a factor. If Revelle Factor was a factor it would be a factor for Natural CO2 also. And, Chic has shown it isn’t. I’m looking forward to seeing Chic’s newer model when he posts it. His previous one was very good so don’t see how he’s going to improve it. I know it’s a lot of work on his part.

          • Nate says:

            “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” is the Einstein quote.

            Berry has made it simpler than the actual carbon cycle of the Earth, as shown by lots of research over 60 y.

            But of course, you are only familiar with Berry’s model, and assume he must be correct.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Again, you’re wrong. Berry uses the exact carbon cycle for natural carbon as IPCC. Also, you’re the one linking different numbers and stating all this stuff is kind of fuzzy, contradicting the IPCC claim of 90% confidence. Berry shows that the IPCC unscientifically uses different physics for the human cycle, violating the principle of equivalence to promote these long e-times for human carbon only. Please explain how the same molecule can have two different e-times. How does nature differentiate between human carbon and natural carbon? I’ll wait patiently for your answer.

          • Nate says:

            “Berry uses the exact carbon cycle for natural carbon as IPCC.”

            No Stephen, that makes no sense. Since the IPCC does incorporate a Revelle Factor and doesnt agree that anthro carbon is only 4% and doesnt agree that added carbon should decay in 4 years, their understanding of the carbon cycle is very different.

            For 60 y it has been understood why the added carbon from anthro emissions are not removed quickly into the ocean, as assumed prior.

            The understanding that the ocean carbon chemistry slows the ocean uptake of carbon is simply ignored and of no interest to Berry et al.

            If you only read contrarian ‘science’, you will remain uninformed, and unable to have an educated opinion.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Good grief, here are the numbers.

            Natural Carbon:

            Atmosphere=589PgC

            Flow to land= 108PgC
            Flow to ocean=60PgC

            Te(land)=5.4 years
            Te(ocean)=9.7 years

            THIS IS FROM 2013 ASSESSMENT!!!!!!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            So, here’s your Revelle Factor:

            Fossil Fuel=240PgC

            Te(land)=17.1 years
            Te(ocean)=12.0 years

            Te=7 years

            So, please, tell me how Revelle Factor is a factor with an e-time of 7 years even using THEIR F*ked up numbers.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            And, by the way, using THEIR numbers gives a natural carbon e-time of 3.3 years.

          • Nate says:

            What is Te Stephen? Is it calculated or measured?

            How are Te telling you about Revelle?

            You apparently think the ‘carbon cycle’ is just the annual flow numbers.

            No, the carbon cycle considers the various time scales that carbon persists in various reservoirs, not just the annual flows.

            These times matter for calculating how long added carbon will require to be removed.

          • Nate says:

            “And, by the way, using THEIR numbers gives a natural carbon e-time of 3.3 years.”

            A good example of why this is not correct is the Bomb curve, which has a MEASURED etime for removal of at least 16 y, as Berry agrees.

            This shows that your calculated e time is not the same as the etime to remove ADDED carbon.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Te is e folding time. The IPCC refers to it as residence time. And we’re not talking about the carbon in all the reservoirs. We’re talking about atmospheric carbon.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Yes, that is for C14 carbon. 98% of atmospheric carbon is C12.

          • Nate says:

            “the carbon cycle considers the various time scales that carbon persists in various reservoirs, not just the annual flows.”

            I’ll give you just one example. A forest of long lived trees. The trees may grow for 80 years, die, decay and release carbon over the next 20 years.

            So if we have added ‘extra’ carbon to this forest, it won’t be returned to the atmosphere for 100 y.

            Your 4 y etime is not capturing that.

          • Nate says:

            “Yes, that is for C14 carbon. 98% of atmospheric carbon is C12.”

            CO2 has molecular weight 44. With C14 it is 46.

            You think that small difference could produce a 4 fold increase in etime?

            Evidence? Berry had none.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re right. It isn’t. It is part of the slow carbon cycle, according to IPCC.

          • Nate says:

            “Were talking about atmospheric carbon.”

            Which is not isolated from all the others. Any flows to/from it must be from/to the others.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I think C14 e-times were calculated at closer to 10 years. Also, Berry referenced this study which showed reaction rates are slower for C14 than C12.

            https://accp1.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1986.tb03545.x

            Also, to calculate atmospheric e-times, the amount of carbon accumulating in reservoirs is irrelevant. Berry and Spencer recently showed that CO2 flows are first-order reaction kinetics. So the flows from the atmosphere are independent, the flows from land are independent, the flows from the surface ocean are independent, and the flows from the deep ocean are independentfirst order.

          • Nate says:

            “It isnt. It is part of the slow carbon cycle, according to IPCC.”

            Yes! And that is highly relevant to removal of carbon added to the fast cycle. Your 4 y, is the time to circulate carbon around amongst the fast responding reservoirs. That would include the ocean surface, soil surface, seasonal growth of plants. Plant respiration.

            But anthro carbon is ADDED to the fast cycle from an external source. It is not removed from the fast cycle until it can be moved into the slow responding reservoirs, which includes the deep ocean, long lived forests, etc.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re going in circles. The Te for fossil fuel carbon, according to IPCC numbers, is 7 years. (It is really the same as natural at 3.3 years but I won’t quibble.)

          • Nate says:

            “Berry and Spencer recently showed that CO2 flows are first-order reaction kinetics”

            “flows from the atmosphere are independent, the flows from land are independent, the flows from the surface ocean are independent, and the flows from the deep ocean are independent”

            The reservoirs are obviously connected to each other. Previous work used diff eqns that included flow from atm to ocean and ocean to atmosphere.

            What is the rationale for ignoring the return flux?

          • Nate says:

            “The Te for fossil fuel carbon, according to IPCC numbers, is 7 years. (It is really the same as natural at 3.3 years but I wont quibble.”

            That is the mantra, but it is too simple.. It ignores what you already agreed about the existence of a slow cycle.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            He’s not ignoring the return flows. The master equation is

            dL/dT= Inflow – Outflow

          • Nate says:

            “reaction rates are slower for C14 than C12.”

            How much slower? I see nothing giving a 4-fold increase.

            Diffusion into the ocean by a molecule with molecular weight 46 vs one with 44 is NOT going to be 4 x slower.

            The thermohaline current is not going to carry these slightly heavier molecules any more slowly to the deep ocean.

            Perhaps plants will uptake C14 more slowly , but there must be data on that..

          • Nate says:

            “Inflow-outflow”

            Good,

            Inflow will depend on carbon concentration in the reservoir it is coming from.

            Then the atm concentration is not independent of other surrounding reservoirs.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            It isn’t diffusion into the ocean. You can see from IPCC’s data that e-time for the atmosphere to land is a much more significant factor. For another thing, it is the number of collisions. It is collisions with plants, algae, and absorb.tion into soil and organics from more collisions, etc. As the level in the atmosphere increases, C12 undergoes more collisions than C14 because it is a lower mass.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re starting to understand. Inflow sets the balance level. Level sets the outflow. Te(Natural + FF)= Balance Level.

            Level/Outflow=Te

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Since natural = 97ppm, and FF=4ppm, Te=4 (approximations)

            4x(101)=404ppm

            FF = 4X4=16ppm
            Natural = 4X97=388ppm.

            FF is about 4% of the atmospheric concentration.

          • Nate says:

            “It isnt diffusion into the ocean. ”

            Yes, it is. Where do you get these made up facts?

            “For another thing, it is the number of collisions.”

            This is handwaving. Nothing you have shown is quantitative.

            We have an observed e-time of > 16 y. You have no evidence to support a 4-fold increase from the small difference in mass. Berry’s model cannot explain it.

          • Nate says:

            “Youre starting to understand. Inflow sets the balance level. Level sets the outflow. Te(Natural + FF)= Balance Level.

            Level/Outflow=Te”

            You keep repeating this mantra. But this is not an observation. This is what the over-simplified Berry model gives.

            As we’ve just discussed, there is a slow carbon cycle that doesnt fit this model. There is a bomb decay curve that doesnt fit this model.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >We have an observed e-time of > 16 y. You have no evidence to support a 4-fold increase from the small difference in mass. Berrys model cannot explain it.

            More circles from Nate. You agreed that dL/dT=Inflow = Outflow. So if dL/dT=0, then inflow = outflow. The level is at the balance level so Te=Level/inflow=Level/outflow. So, if we know that level is around 400ppm (Mauna Loa data) and inflow and outflow are about 100ppm, then Te is approximately 4 years.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            You’re a funny booger and not very logical. So, you will accept Berry’s paper that C14 e time is 16yr, but you won’t accept his argument that heavier isotopes react slower? And, you won’t accept the IPCC data that indicates short e times. Maybe you’ll accept this from Wiki. Or maybe go to countless physics and chemistry texts that will help.

            https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Oh, and by the way, even a 16yr e time renders the Revelle Factor a nonfactor.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >You keep repeating this mantra. But this is not an observation. This is what the over-simplified Berry model gives.

            LOL, then you need to tell IPCC they’re wrong and to stop publishing it.

          • Nate says:

            The level is at the balance level so Te=Level/inflow=Level/outflow.”

            What you are calculating is residence time. The e-time for individual molecules to remain in a reservoir before being exchanged.

            As discussed many times, this is not required to be the same as the e-time for carbon concentration.

            The evidence is clear that it is not the same. Much of the extra concentration produced by adding anthro carbon, has persisted for the last century. But these are not necessarily the same carbon atoms.

            “Youre a funny booger and not very logical. So, you will accept Berrys paper that C14 e time is 16yr, but you wont accept his argument that heavier isotopes react slower?”

            Unlike you, I understand that science needs to be quantitative. His heavier isotopes argument is NOT quantitative. His claim that it can explain a 4x increase is wild speculation. There is no evidence that either of you provided of a 4 x increase.

            The 16 y e-time is simply a fit to the curve, an observation, and Berry was not the first to show that.

            But the 16 y is the e-time for tracer concentration. Again the overly simplistic model assumes that once it leaves the atmosphere, C14, is gone forever. This is wrong. The C14 that has entered the surface ocean or the land biosphere, it can return to the atmosphere. Only when it has penetrated the deep ocean will it return to the previous level.

          • Nate says:

            However, the C14 won’t return to the previous level, since fossil fuel carbon is depleted of C14, as it continues to be added to the atmosphere, the C14 concentration in the atmosphere will decrease below the previous equilibrium level.

            This is the Seuss effect, and it was already observed to be happening (from tree rings) in the 1950s before the Bomb tests added new C14. And it is affecting the apparent e-time we observe. Without the Seuss effect, the Bomb C14 e-time would be longer.

            https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1504467112

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >There is no evidence that either of you provided of a 4 x increase.

            Do you mean a 4X decrease? What about the 3.3 year and 7 year e times calculated from IPCC data? Again, the C14 evidence only shows that e times are short, not 50 or 150 years. Berry has proven that. Talk about providing no evidence, you just ramble on and on without really saying anything but throwing out red herring after red herring. You and Eman, the propagandists.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Oh, and thanks for linking your red herring paper. By eyeballing their C14 chart, it looks like it gives an e time of about ten years. C13 and C12 will only be shorter.

          • Nate says:

            “Talk about providing no evidence”

            4 years is your predicted e-time. 16 y is 4 x larger than this.

            Where is your evidence that a factor of 4 increase in e-time would be expected or predicted for C14?? Where is a source for this claim?

            You seem to accept hand-waving with no numbers, as valid science.

            It aint.

            ’10 y by eye-balling’ is again, not quantitative science.

            Berry and all others found 16 y or more in a proper fit. A while ago, I downloaded data and fit it, and got 16-17 y. You can try it yourself.

            The observation does not agree with your simple model. As Feynman said: then your model is wrong!

            Oh well.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            That seems to be your tactic. You do the same thing to everyone else. You ask for evidence. Evidence is provided. You ignore it and ask for it again. It is provided again. You ignore it and ask again. Rules for radicals?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            I have no problem accepting your fit of 16.5 years. C13 and C12 will be shorter. It still blows up your Revelle Factor.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >The observation does not agree with your simple model. As Feynman said: then your model is wrong!

            That’s funny you quoting Feynman. CalTech is where Berry went on scholarship.

          • Nate says:

            Stephen,

            As you can see in the paper, in the rate equation for atmospheric carbon concentration, they include terms connecting all other reservoirs, which are themselves connected to others. There are terms connecting to the biosphere and mixed layer (which includes Revelle Factor) which in turn connects to multiple ‘boxes’ of the ocean.

            This is a so-called multi-box model, which got more complex over decades. The observations demanded that.

            I can see the appeal of the simplicity of Berry’s model for the common man.

            But there really is no requirement that the Earth actually be that simple. It need not be so simple that everyone, even non-experts, can understand it.

          • Nate says:

            “You ask for evidence. Evidence is provided. You ignore it and ask for it again. It is provided again. You ignore it and ask again.”

            Where, Stephen, did you show me evidence that the isotope factor can account for a 4x increase in e-time?

            Either you are clueless about what evidence means, about what quantitative means, or you are simply a liar-troll.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            That paper has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 other than C14 absorp.tion, it provides no hypotheses. It offers equations to a one-box diffusion model and has nothing to do with Berry’s model. It is an entirely different type of study. Who knows if it even fits actual data? However, it does fit something because it supports Berry’s claim that atmospheric e times are short.

            The evidence I keep giving you is the IPCC data is used to calculate the e times. It isn’t Berry’s data. It is IPCC’s data. The e-times are short, 3.3 years and seven years, and you keep ignoring and asking again.

          • Nate says:

            “calculate the e times.”

            With Berry’s MODEL. They dont match any OBSERVED e-time. They don’t account for any observation, while the models in the paper and others before it, do.

            It seems you will never get this, Stephen.

  15. Marcus says:

    “the natural equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere inplied by the model is about 295 ppm, rather than 265 or 270 ppm as is often assumed”

    My question is whether the assumption of a constant “equilibrium level” might not be correct if you are adding in external carbon into the atmosphere/ocean/ecosystem pools. Could you make a version of your model where there’s an assumption that some percentage of fossil fuel emissions actually increase the equilibrium concentration? The IPCC value is about 22%, but it would be interesting to see what would happen if you made it an uncertain parameter and see what your model finds as the best value.

    And if you added this adjustable “equilibrium” value, it might be interesting to see if the initial equilibrium value ends up being closer to 270 ppm.

    -Marcus

  16. Very interesting to see the effect of volcanic eruptions.

    I wonder if one reason for the reduction in CO2 could be the fertilizing effect of oceans from volcanic ash.

    This will lead to increased algae growth, and increased photosynthesis in the surface water and more uptake of CO2 from air to water

    • Anglia says:

      They give American state $85 associate hour to end work on an Apple laptop. I definitely didnt assume it had been possible, however my sure friend created $26,000 in mere four weeks acting on this easy chance {ec86} and he or she influenced me to offer it a try. Discover a lot of directions by
      visiting the subsequent link http://takegoodwork24.blogspot.com/

    • John in NZ says:

      My explanation is that volcanic particles in the upper atmosphere reflect sunlight away from earth. This shows up as cooling in the following year in the UAH data. This changes the equilibrium of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere. This results in the oceans absorbing more CO2 and so the annual increase in CO2 goes down.

  17. m d mill says:

    Thank you Dr. S. for continuing the good work.

  18. gbaikie says:

    “Note the model is well below the RCP8.5 scenario, which is the one most often used to promote alarmist projections of sea level rise, temperature increase, etc. ”

    How is RCP8.5 not just embarrassingly stupid?
    It’s seems RCP2.6 if governments stop causing more CO2 emissions.

    It seems govt is backing off from have tax dollars support wood burning. Wood burning is worse than burning Coal. And we can hope govt will not want start burning dung to generate electrical power.

    The billions of dollars government have wasted paying for solar farms and wind farms, have been a not net reduction of CO2 emissions either. And the damage to the environment has been enormous.

    That some governments have allowed fracking, is the most amount of CO2 reduction that any governments have done related to CO2 reduction. And governmental interfere with allow natural gas to be mining can amount one most that governments have done to increase CO2. But you probably could point out other things which have worse
    that governments have done, but might complicated to go over it.
    Preventing natural gas use is just most obvious and clearly the most stupid thing.
    Of course nuclear energy over the years has done more than natural gas reduce CO2 emissions but there also a multitude of other aspects
    in which government causing more CO2 emissions- due corruption in general and just dumbness.
    Or if governments were wise, RCP2.6 is likely. But government have been and will continue to be what they are, maybe, for forever.
    And it seems even possible that despite government efforts which cause more CO2 emission, RCP2.6 is possible.

  19. Tim S says:

    Meanwhile, President Biden is proposing to declare a national emergency so that our 9% of world wide carbon emissions will stop destroying the planet. The people advising him on this are insane.

    • Ken says:

      I like John Kennedy Senator Louisiana.

      Deeply, profoundly stupid. That is the only way I know how to describe one of the worst decisions behind an administration that has become famous for bad decisions. I am talking about Pres. Bidens assault on sustainable, affordable energy.

  20. Clint R says:

    If that prediction is accurate, it’s alarming.

    We won’t even get to 550 ppm in the next 50 years! That’s not going to be good. We’ll need all the CO2 in the atmosphere we can get. It’s time to get some adults in leadership positions.

    If we all get together, we can do it — “550 by 2050”!

  21. gbaikie says:

    More than 90% of global warming

    “More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system due to human-caused global warming has been absorbed by the oceans.”
    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

    “Jan 22, 2020 Scientists have determined that the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat, which is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.”
    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/ocean-heat-content-rises

    –This is where 90 percent of global warming is going
    https://www.washingtonpost.com news 2016/01/18
    Jan 18, 2016 Scientists find that the world’s oceans are storing vastly more heat than before.”

    Ocean Heat Content | Vital Signs – NASA Climate Change
    https://climate.nasa.gov vital-signs ocean-heat
    Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent …

    2018 was the ocean’s hottest year. We’ll feel it a long time.
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com article oceans-…
    Jan 16, 2019 The oceans have sopped up more than 90 percent of the heat trapped by human-emitted greenhouse gases, slowing the warming of the …

    Anyways I wonder if this is anything like Rorschach test.
    And/or wonder all above is saying the same thing, or some of saying it “better” or some are wrong.
    And what if ocean didn’t absorb more than 90% of all manmade warming, what is result. And does ocean only absorb manmade warming??

    My way of saying it, is more than 95% of global warming is a slightly warmed ocean. Which seems like a simpler way of saying it.
    Or global warming is mostly about a warmer ocean.
    And global cooling is mostly about a cooler ocean.
    Though it can a bit more complicated, like where warmed or cooled water goes, exactly. Vast amounts of cooled water can pool at bottom of ocean, like say Pacific ocean basin {and this as has been noted by people}. And/or we know cool water upwell as during La Nina, but in regards to that, how is really cold water or how fairly warm cold water. Or is just some cold water within 500 meter of the surface or whatever. If it’s really warm cold water, it’s just cold water at the surface. Or takes a bit longer to warm up, or less cooling until it warms up.

  22. D J says:

    The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano eruption will have a bigger impact than Pinatubo had.

  23. Joe says:

    Hi Roy,
    How do you explain times in Earth’s history when CO2 was higher than now, but Earth was in an ice age or glacial/cold period?

    Thanks.

    • gbaikie says:

      We are currently in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
      It is called a ice house global climate.
      The last couple million years have been the coldest period
      within this Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
      Ice house global climates have ocean with a cold average temperature.
      Our Ocean averages 3.5 C.
      You said glacial/cold period, and after rock that caused Dinosaurs extinction, what followed was a cold period, but not ice house global climate or also called an Ice Age.
      It was cold because there so much dust in atmosphere that sunlight was quite dim for many years. And there would be been high levels of CO2. When living in Ice House global climate one has low CO2 level.
      Before the impactor, Earth was not in a ice house climate.
      Let’s see what said it was:
      This has a graph of CO2 but to 66 million years:
      https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/ancient-deepsea-shells-reveal-66-million-years-of-carbon-dioxide-levels/
      Kind interesting because it indicates higher CO2 within the 33.9 million years of our Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
      So it was in Ice Age, and graph shows CO2 peaking at around 800 ppm, but that part of our Ice Age was much warmer than we are now. AND warmer than warmest peak temperature of any recent interglacial periods- Eemian or Holocene [Or ones before Eemian within last 1/2 million years].
      Here is 600 million years:
      https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046
      which indicate before dinosaur killing space rock, over 2000 ppm of
      CO2. And the impactor would incinerated a lot stuff.

      • Joe says:

        “Weaker sun”
        @Entropic man
        Ah, so if a ‘weaker Sun’ was a factor back then, then a stronger Sun is a factor now with current ‘warming’.

        • Entropic man says:

          The astronomers tell us that the Sun has warned by 25% in 3.8 billion years, yet the rocks tell us that the planetary average has stayed between 5C and 25C for a

          • Entropic man says:

            The astronomers tell us that the Sun has warned by 25% in 3.8 billion years, yet the rocks tell us that the planetary average has stayed between 5C and 25C for at least

          • Entropic man says:

            The astronomers tell us that the Sun has warned by 25% in 3.8 billion years That is six billionth of a degree per year, far too small to explain modern global warming.

            The rocks tell us that the planetary average temperature has stayed between 5C and 25C for at least 700 million years.

            The consensus view is that the warming due to the increase in solar intensity has been counterbalanced by the reduced greenhouse effect due to decreasing CO2 from thousands of ppm to a few hundred ppm. Some kind of feedback may be involved.

            Those who do not believe in the greenhouse effect may have an alternative explaination, but I haven’t heard it.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “The astronomers tell us that the Sun has warned by 25% …”

            To be more precise, it is the LUMINOSITY that has increased by 25%. The TEMPERATURE has remained fairly constant, but the radius is slowly increasing, which leads to more energy emitted from the surface.

    • Clint R says:

      Good question, Joe.

      More CO2 would result in more emission to space. More emission to space would result in more cooling.

      • Ken says:

        Spectrum is already saturated so no, it won’t result in any further changes in direct thermal radiation to space.

        • Entropic man says:

          Ken

          We went over this. Saturation only occurs close to the 15 micrometres spot absor*ption frequency.

          Over most of the 13-17 micrometres band CO2 absor*option is not saturated. Increasing CO2 reduces radiation to space in the band.

          • Ken says:

            Ent

            See Happer’s paper here. The spectrum is saturated. According to Happer if you double CO2 to 820 ppm you get 3Wm-2 reduction in direct thermal radiation to space.

            https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/

          • Entropic man says:

            If Happer claims complete CO2 saturation he is shading the truth.

            His own outward thermal radiation graphs show the notch due to absorbed CO2. It is a wedge shape between wavenumber 580 and 780.

            You can see the flat spot around 680. That is the part of the band which is saturated. The outer part of the band is not saturated and will continue to absorb more radiation as CO2 increases.

            If the whole band were saturated you would not see a wedge, you would see a rectangle with a vertical drop at 680, then a flat graph until a vertical rise at 780.

            Research band spreading.

            His 3W/m^2 per doubling is actually quite close, but don’t be misled by his temperature estimate. The DIRECT warming per doubling is about 1C. When you add the feedback due to climate sensitivity you get close to 3C.

        • gbaikie says:

          Mars has more CO2 than Earth does, particular per square meter.
          Mars is not cooler because atmosphere is about 95% CO2 and 3% nitrogen.
          Nor with Venus which is about :
          “96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2)”
          Both Mars and Venus absorb very little sunlight.
          If Mars was covered with snow or covered a ocean, it would
          absorb more energy from sunlight.
          With Venus rocky surface, it does not matter if snow or ocean, as very little sunlight reaches the surface.
          If you want Venus to absorb more energy, you have to put swimming pools in the sky. Or dark colored balloons or bunch greenhouses in the sky. And all Venus has is lots of acid clouds which absorb some sunlight which aren’t as reflective as water clouds, but they do reflect and scatter a lot sunlight. Which results in Venus only emitted about 160 watts per square meter, and Earth emits about 240 watts and gets about 1/2 as much sunlight due it’s further distance from the sun.
          Venus at Earth distance would absorb less sunlight and emit less sunlight [and it’s runaway effect would reverse}.

          • gbaikie says:

            What are elements of Venus runway effect.
            One is that Venus has a global winds, which makes cloudy surface have a day, which is 4 to 5 Earth days.
            Which is quite important when a surface does not absorb energy. Such as lunar surface likewise doesn’t absorb much sunlight, and if it had a day equal to 4 to 5 earth day, the moon would be warmer.
            And other factor in the elevation of it’s cloudy surface.
            And if Venus absorbs less sunlight because it’s at Earth distance, the cloudy layer will lower and global wind slows or stops.

          • Joe says:

            @gbaikie

            You forgot something – Mars has little to no clouds, so despite being further from the Sun, much of the Sun’s energy is reaching the surface, and should be just as warm as Earth, if CO2 was such a potent greenhouse gas. But it’s not, & therefore Mars is cold.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Joe says:
            July 23, 2022 at 9:26 PM

            @gbaikie

            You forgot something Mars has little to no clouds, so despite being further from the Sun, much of the Suns energy is reaching the surface, and should be just as warm as Earth, if CO2 was such a potent greenhouse gas. But its not, & therefore Mars is cold.–

            Well Mars is not particularly cold. Or to say Mars is cold, you have to say our Moon is colder. And with lunar noon surface temperature of 120 C, one might imagine the Moon is hot.
            But the average surface temperature of the Moon is colder than average temperature of Mars.
            But neither have much of atmosphere and think of temperatures as air temperatures.
            And I would say an air temperature on Earth which 15 C is cold.
            But if need it colder, both Mars and Moon could make or store stuff at very cold temperatures- easily.
            Or say on Moon and surface is 120 C, you dig a hole and have a refrigerator [no electrical power needed].
            I would say, Mercury is a cold planet. But usually all that’s mentioned is how hot it is. but at any time more than 1/2 of Mercury surface is quite cold. And lunar polar region has craters which are 50 K, and Mercury likewise has these cold craters in it’s lunar polar region. And likewise at sun rise and set, both Mercury and Moon surfaces are cold but anything vertical to surface could be heated quite bit by the sunlight. One could be waist deep in shadowed frozen ground and be able to face the very bright [and hot} sunlight.
            Though Mars has enough atmosphere that less stark contrast- you might see our feet from sky glowing a little bit.

            Anyhow Mars average air temperature of -60 C is not cold. And if Mars air is -100 C, it’s still not cold. There not enough air to be cold like Earth is cold at 15 C.
            Though it does snow in Mars, and it would be very cold CO2 snow.
            Anyhow, it seems one make warm lakes with frozen surface.
            Warm being 20 C [or 68 F, a cool room temperature].

        • Clint R says:

          Ken is so ignorant of the science that he doesn’t realize adding more CO2 changes everything. A simple analogy is a glass of water saturated with sugar. Saturation here means if you add more sugar, it will not dissolve. The water is saturated.

          But, if you add more water….

  24. ren says:

    The strength of the sun’s northern magnetic field is rapidly decreasing, and the spots in the northern hemisphere are aligning near the equator. This means that the maximum of solar activity in the northern hemisphere is approaching.
    https://solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png

  25. gbaikie says:

    Episode 1811 Scott Adams: Fun Times Ahead. I Will Follow The Money And Tell You The Future
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XznFH3aFdUI
    Scott thinks nothing is real- or we are in simulation.
    I don’t agree with him, but it’s possible as far as I am concerned
    that Scott is in a simulation.
    Or I have weird religious views, but not quite as crazy as Scott’s who doesn’t believe we landed on the Moon and their aren’t any robotic missions on Mars. And he think global warming is problem.
    How he thinks global warming is problem and he living in Sim, is weirdly interesting. I get it, in sense, we wasting effort related to
    topic, and in real world from which the sim is controlled, they might have problem with global warming problem.
    But if this was sim, the sim is actually saying we are in the coldest period is millions of years and the only real problem is that at some point we returning to another glaciation period. Though returning to glaciation period is not really much of problem. Or global warming or cooling is not much of issue.
    Anyways, Scott follows news, I don’t want to listen these lying brain dead idiots. And Scott is entertaining.
    What wondered about, is why the Chinese govt is not spending a lot money on space activities. Or:
    “The Chinese government spent an estimated US$13.35 billion on space activities in 2020, a dramatic increase from the $1.79 billion spent in 2009.”
    But with US, NASA also doesn’t spend much money either, or Military Space spends about twice as much as NASA. Though we don’t actually know how much money is spent on military space. But we have better idea of money US spends on Military Space, as compared to Chinese number of 13.35 billion and I could not find any guess on what Chinese military spends on Space.
    Anyhow, what actually wondering about, is the cost of doing anything in space is dropping a lot- we lowering the cost building satellites, and launch costs. If removed what SpaceX is doing, US is not launching a lot satellites as compared to China, SpaceX launching 1/2 of worlds payload mass to orbit. And China used to have a low launch costs, but Falcon-9 is cheapest launch in world.
    But point is what is US military Space going to do with all the money their are saving due to having much lower costs, now, and what will they be doing with much lower costs in the future?
    Sure, they can waste it on their bureaucracies and corruption in general, which is what normally is the case. But they have get funding from Congress and people in Congress are dumb as bricks, but they manage simple math [sometimes}.

  26. Richard M says:

    While estimating the long term rate of CO2 concentration growth has valid uses, estimating climate change is not one of them.

    The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere above 200 ppm will not cause warming. The ability of CO2 to produce warming is based on absorbing IR from the surface and adding that energy to the atmosphere. Once you get above 200 ppm over 99.9% of the surface IR is already absorbed very low in the atmosphere. As a result, the IPCC has moved to another mechanism for warming called the enhanced greenhouse effect.

    The IPCC claims that future warming is based on 34 watts/m2 increase in downward directed energy from doubling CO2. They argue the energy is taken out of the atmosphere by CO2 via kinetic energy transfers and half is directed toward the surface. This is true as far as it goes, but other factors come into play.

    The IPCC claims that increased CO2 blocks more energy high in the atmosphere which is then redirected downward. However, this violates basic physics known as Kirchhoffs Law of Radiation.

    This physical law leads to a requirement that every layer of the atmosphere exist in radiation exchange equilibrium (REE) with the rest of the atmosphere. Since increases in CO2 are well mixed in the atmosphere, the relative proportions of CO2 in every layer remain the same. Hence, REE is maintained when the CO2 concentration is doubled.

    With REE you end up with the same proportional flows of energy at every layer in the atmosphere. If you increase CO2, the flows will increase in exactly the same manner all through the atmosphere.

    The net flow of energy to space by CO2 molecules must therefore increase since it is already a positive value.

    The upward decreasing density of the atmosphere keeps upward directed energy flowing to space. It cannot be redirected downward in any significant quantities. That means the only energy that reaches the surface comes from very low in the atmosphere. This is where the 3-4 watts/m2 specified by the IPCC is emitted.

    The vast amount of this energy comes from within what is known as the atmospheric boundary layer. This layer is known to exist in thermal equilibrium with the surface itself.

    Two entities can only exist in thermal equilibrium if there exist quick and significant energy transfers between the entities. If one of the entities warms a little from any cause, energy is quickly transferred to its partner and vice versa.

    Basic thermodynamics tells us there can be no warming or cooling by energy moved around within a system defined to be in thermal equilibrium. All internal transfers are met with equal and opposite energy transfers by definition.

    As a result, the 34 watts/m2 of energy is moved right back into the atmosphere (via conduction, evaporation and radiation) and equilibrium is maintained.

    Clearly, the IPCC and those who quote their numbers are not following basic physical laws.

    • gbaikie says:

      This seems reasonable to me.

      And in terms of:
      “Clearly, the IPCC and those who quote their numbers are not following basic physical laws.”

      The left tends to be anti-science.
      As Left say men can give birth to children and endless other things, in addition to simply opposed anything from Age of Enlightenment and western civilization in general [America itself and Europe- unless Russia is Europe. And are quite opposed to industrial revolution which is why they always talking about returning to pre industrial times {when the world’s climate was better world, for some strange reason, which can sum up as, everything was better, and less population as big thing}.

    • Tim S says:

      You do not seem to understand that higher concentrations of CO2 increases back radiation. Period. The question is how much and to what effect? Kirchhoff’s law is not violated. Cooling of the upper atmosphere is enhanced, but that is a different issue than the surface effect which is slower cooling.

      • Ken says:

        See Happers paper here. The spectrum is saturated. According to Happer if you double CO2 to 820 ppm you get 3Wm-2 reduction in direct thermal radiation to space. 3Wm-2 is too small to have any significant effect on climate.

        https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/

      • Richard M says:

        Tim S, you do create more localized back radiation. However, since there are also more CO2 molecules at lower elevations, they absorb that back radiation. It never reaches the surface.

        The key is that the proportion of molecules stays the same with gravity always in control. Look at the average CO2 emission. Any downward emission will be reabsorbed sooner than a upward emission. This means the average emission is always upward. When you double CO2 you increase the total number of emissions but the average stays the same.

        • Tim S says:

          I understand the concept, but we know that increased humidity slows nighttime cooling. Why should the contribution from CO2 be different? The surface is the source of the heat. Everything above is at a lower temperature except when there is an inversion. Increases in the GH gases should slow surface cooling and increase upper atmosphere cooling.

          • Ken says:

            Why should an increase in GH gas do anything without a corresponding change to energy from the sun? CO2 spectrum is saturated.

          • Clint R says:

            Tim S: “…we know that increased humidity slows nighttime cooling. Why should the contribution from CO2 be different?”

            Water vapor and CO2 have very different emissions. CO2 emits mainly at the 15μ photon energy level, while water vapor emits in a broad band, centered around about 2.5μ. In rough figures, water vapor emits about 6 times as much energy per photon. The impact on Earth’s surface is significantly different.

            It’s the energy/photon that is relevant to the ability to heat a surface. 6 CO2 photons have the same energy as one molecule of water vapor, but that energy does NOT add, as related to being about to heat something. That’s why ice cube can NOT boil water, no matter how many ice cubes are used.

          • Tim S says:

            This relationship is extremely complex. There are different surfaces on earth at different temperatures and with different spectrum depending on surface features. There are different amounts of water vapor with an even more complex interaction with CO2. I did not believe that a simplistic analysis from a Professor at Princeton is any more accurate than a very complex analysis from the IPCC models. Everyone is guessing, even those are very educated guesses.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      ” The ability of CO2 to produce warming is based on absorbing IR from the surface and adding that energy to the atmosphere. “
      That is half of the equation. The other half is based on EMISSION of IR from the atmosphere and adding that energy to outer space.

      It is the IMBALANCE of these two that leads to warming (or cooling).

      “The IPCC claims that increased CO2 blocks more energy high in the atmosphere ” … which is true.

      “this violates basic physics known as Kirchhoffs Law of Radiation.”
      No. At its core, Kirchhoff’s Law says emissivity = absor.ptivity. Adding more CO2 to a thin layer of the atmosphere (eg ‘high in the atmosphere’) changes both emissivity and absor.ptivity. No violation of Kirchhoff’s Law.

      “This physical law leads to a requirement that every layer of the atmosphere exist in radiation exchange equilibrium (REE) with the rest of the atmosphere. ”
      No, this is only an approximate result, not a ‘requirement’. Various parts of the atmosphere are often not in “REE”, resulting in various parts warming or cooling.

      “The upward decreasing density of the atmosphere keeps upward directed energy flowing to space.”
      Specifically, the upward decreasing TEMPERAURE of the atmosphere keeps upward directed energy flowing to space. Density just happens to correlate pretty well with temperature in the atmosphere.

      “If you increase CO2, the flows will increase in exactly the same manner all through the atmosphere.”
      Your intuition is wrong here. If you INCREASE the CO2, the radiation travels a SHORTER distance and comes from (and goes to) layers that are CLOSER in temperature. This results in less energy transferred, not more.

      If you increase CO2, you DECREASE the flow through the atmosphere.

      “This layer is known to exist in thermal equilibrium with the surface itself.”
      No. This layer is in (approximate) “steady-state”, but NOT “equilibrium.” This distinction is important and messes with all of the conclusions you are trying to draw using “thermal equilibrium”.

  27. Patrick McGuinness says:

    I am grateful you shared this. This is the key point:
    “The sink (removal) of excess atmospheric CO2 assumes that all of the biological and geophysical processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere do so at a net rate proportional to the excess of the CO2 value above some equilibrium value.”

    Le Chatelier’s Equilibrium principle establishes that more CO2 in the atmosphere will allow for more in solution in the oceans; the oceans can hold many times (~37 times) the CO2 of the atmosphere at equilibrium, in a process that is derated /slowed by the Revelle factor. The chemistry aligns with this model.

    People are not told about these natural carbon sinks, ie, they don’t know that half our CO2 emissions are taken up by the biosphere and by the oceans (plankton and chemical processes), and that far from getting reduced over time, these will increase. Instead, the IPCC states that somehow these sinks are at capacity or will decline. From the IPCC: “Models indicate that the fraction of fossil fuel and cement emissions of CO2 taken up by the ocean will decline if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase.” They don’t apparently model any increase due to further dis-equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean as the CO2 ppm levels increase.

    I saw this contradiction in the IPCC reports some years ago, and I ran a calculation on the basis of a CO2 ocean uptake that obeyed equilibrium laws and came to similar conclusion as Dr Spencer above; namely, when the combined uptake increases another 60% and absorbs most/all of the emitted CO2, CO2 concentrations will ‘flatten out’ below 550 ppm. There will be no climate crisis.

    So the increase in carbon sinks as CO2 concentration rises is a very important point to make.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      patrick…”Instead, the IPCC states that somehow these sinks are at capacity or will decline”.

      ***

      The IPCC are notorious liars.

      • Patrick McGuinness says:

        Yes, and that’s why correcting this IPCC misrepresentation is a public service. This is one key place where they put the thumbs on the scale.

    • Nate says:

      “Models indicate that the fraction of fossil fuel and cement emissions of CO2 taken up by the ocean will decline if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. They dont apparently model any increase due to further dis-equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean as the CO2 ppm levels increase.”

      I dont see what error you belive you have found, and the evidence you have for it.

  28. They must find a way how to resolve this problem, What will happen to our next generation if this problem will continue.

    • Ken says:

      What problem? The salient climate data does not indicate a problem.

      Lord please save us from those who would save us.

      • Entropic man says:

        You may not have a problem but the UK record recorded temperature jumped from 38.7C in 2019 to 40.3C this month.

        That’s an increase of 1.7C when the increase is usually a few tenths.

        We don’t have infrastructure designed for these temperatures because when it was built such temperatures were regarded as impossible. Remember the record was set at 51N, the same latitude as Hudson’s Bay.

        Oh, and before you mention 1976, I was there. Temperatures never passed 34.1C.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I posted a link to the Met Office record for 2019 and not one month of the year, especially July, had an average of 38.7 C.

          I looked at every July in Oxford, UK, going back to 1879, and a typical July average was in the 24C range. Whoever is spreading this nonsense about a 38C average in the UK is an abject liar. Likely the BBC.

          Heathrow airport, in the outskirts of London, only goes back to 1948 but it corroborates that average July temperatures in London have been around 24C till 2021.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “… and not one month of the year, especially July, had an average of 38.7 C.”

            It was clearly stated that 38.7C and 40.3C were daily record highs, not monthly average highs.

            “Whoever is spreading this nonsense about a 38C average in the UK is ” … Gordon.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Tim.. the problem is, a few days of unusual heat is being sold as catastrophic climate change. I look forward to seeing how those hot days changes the typical 24C monthly average in the UK.

            I noted that some years got as high as 25C+ over a month. I presume that means there were months in past Julys where temperatures also rose as high.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            This is not a few days of ‘unusual heat’ — this is a few days of exceptional (dare I say “unprecedented”) heat. And it has been happening throughout the summer so far.

            ” I presume that means there were months in past Julys where temperatures also rose as high.”
            You presume wrong! There is no reason to ‘presume’ at all. There are clear records of temperatures back over 200 years for London, and this was the single hottest day. So no, the temperatures have NOT risen this high before. Those ‘month’s above 25C+’ simply had a number of hot days, but not this hot. We can wait until the end of the month to see if this indeed becomes the hottest July on record.

        • Ken says:

          We had the same thing happen last year here in BC. Lat 50N.

          Its an extreme weather event; not climate change.

          If you can’t survive 40C for a day or two the problem is with your health.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            NOAA claimed our heat event was related to La Nina. Environment Canada claimed it was due to climate change. Of course, EC is now called Environment and Climate Change Canada and I guess lying comes with the mandate.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “NOAA claimed our heat event was related to La Nina. Environment Canada claimed it was due to climate change. ”

            I know this might be hard to understand, but an outcome can depend on more than one factor. An extreme heat event could be due to a Ln Nina that is amplified by a rising temperature trend. One does not negate the other.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      We could solve the problem easily by sending off all the alarmists on an Elon Musk rocket to populate Mars. There they can rant and rave among themselves about the runaway greenhouse effect on Mars.

  29. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…”Predictions are difficult especially about the future”.

    ***

    Would have been nice had you given credit to Neils Bohr for issuing that comment.

    Thought it might have been Yogi Berra…

    Example…’I really didn’t say everything I said’

    “You can observe a lot by watching.”

    More Yogi…

    “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”

    “It’s deja vu all over again.”

  30. Tim Folkerts says:

    Roy, this analysis feels mostly like a good “senior research project” for an undergraduate in the natural sciences or math. It is interesting and well-done, but it has too many uncertain assumptions to really be predictive.

    John von Neumann famously said “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” This model has 3 such adjustable parameters:
    * 2.02% removal rate
    * 294 equilibrium value
    * 0.45 MEI factor.
    Each of these are empirically fit to the data. Given 3 factors that are adjusted to give the best fit, it is not surprising that the fit is good.

    Furthermore, the assumption that the rate is *proportional* to the excess is just that — an assumption. There is no real theoretical basis for that assumption. The rate could be proportional to the square of the excess or the square root of the excess; the rate could plateau at some maximum removal value, or accelerate at some tipping point. The point is that we just don’t know what function to use, given the complex biological and geological and hydrological features of the system.

    So … the fact that “a simple budget model of the atmospheric CO2 concentration very accurately matches” is not that impressive given 3 adjustable parameters. And the projection that the “resulting model projection produces atmospheric CO2 concentrations late this century well below the IPCC RCP8.5 scenario” is not very robust given the nature of this model. It *might* be close to correct, but it might be quite far off in either direction.

    *****

    A couple quick challenges that this model seems to fail.
    1) After Pinatubo, the rate of removal seems to have increased my at least an order of magnitude. So the 2.02% “constant” is not actually constant at all in real life.
    2) If 294 is truly an equilibrium value, and concentrations ABOVE 294 decrease at a 2.02% rate, then logically, concentrations BELOW 294 should INCREASE at 2.02% per year. But historically, concentrations stayed near 275 for a centuries (or millennia!). Within a century, a concentration of 275 should increase over 290 if 2.02% is accurate, but it didn’t. Clearly 294 is NOT a long-term equilibrium level.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim…”John von Neumann famously said With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

      ***

      Dawkins, one of the evolution theory propagandists, supported the theory that a monkey sitting at a typewriter hitting keys randomly could possibly produce a work of Shakespeare over millions of tries.

      Roy is trying to quantify the CO2 issues using simple models. Most of us can see intuitively that CO2 is having no effect on climate but Roy is only trying to add some science to the observations.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Gordon.

        1) Whatever Dawkins may have said has nothing to do with what I said. And nothing to do with what Roy said. My quote was at least germane to the discussion at hand — Roy’s model DOES have 3 adjustable parameters that are empirically set to fit the data.

        2) Roy is trying to model CO2. And his model is an excellent start.
        The question of its effect on climate is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Roy is adding NOTHING here to the question of CO2’s impact on climate.

        3) Arguing science based on intuition is shaky at best. Intuition has been wrong on many issues in science in the past and will be wrong on many more in the future. (Especially among those with little education or experience in the field).

      • bobdroege says:

        But all the works of Shakespeare are in the digits of Pi.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Tim, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

        • bobdroege says:

          In fact, all of DREMPTY’s please stop trolling comments are in the digits of Pi, so you can shut the fuck up, it’s already been said.

  31. ren says:

    My question is: why doesn’t the increase in CO2 affect winter temperatures in the southern hemisphere?
    https://i.ibb.co/cycPTny/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
    https://i.ibb.co/cKqj31K/S-daily-extent-hires.png

  32. Entropic man says:

    You’ve probably never heard of E Bruce Harrison, but lots of you here have been programmed by his PR campaign.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62225696

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      In order to get a job writing for BBC, your resume must provide absolute proof that you are a raving ninny, incapable of logical thought or honesty.

      The poobahs at BBC walk around in baggy trousers with 3″ cuffs located at least six inches above their shoes, with mismatched plaid socks, and the trousers held up by suspenders and a belt in case the suspenders fail. None of them qualify for management unless they have won at least one Monty Pythoneque ‘twit of the year’ contest.

      • Entropic man says:

        You are trying to discredit the source rather than discussing E Bruce Harrison.

        You must agree that climate change denial is a PR campaign paid for by the fossil fuel industry to protect their profits.

        • Clint R says:

          I agree it’s necessary to combat the AGW nonsense with a PR campaign. Most people don’t understand the science, so it’s necessary to negate as much of the alarmism as possible.

          It’s hard to combat people that attempt to pervert science to support their cult beliefs. But, reality always wins.

        • observer1 says:

          You don’t know much about the ‘fossil fuel’ industry. Here is something to work with – All fossil fuel resources are owned by governments. The private companies that actually have visible profits and losses represent about 10 to 15% of world production. People like Putin have more. The one thing these companies might do is invent a transition solution, they have done it before they know what a replacement needs to be able to do.
          If you have a political policy to shut in fossil fuels globally you create even more profits for that small group of companies no PR required at all. BUT more importantly you create mega profits for countries like Russia or saudi or nigeria etc..
          This plan is not possible globally with a world that is adding a net population the size of Europe every 5 years anyway.
          Until you create a reliable, viable replacement (not done yet) that must be cheap and freely available to the 90% of the world outside the rich west, profits will continue rise as cheap available resources are shut in. Climate change will not be addressed because you need oil and gas to make the stuff you are going to replace oil and gas with for now.
          So far nothing done or spent in the west will have any impact (very small relative population but rich enough to have lots of virtuesignalling projects). The world needs to create alternatives and it needs money and fossil fuels to do it. THEN you might have a transition and then it might work but might not. Carry on as we are and more profits will be made mainly by countries that are not on the green bandwagon—– forget combating climate change or cooling the earth.
          Changing energy is a technical challenege but it has become a religion and a political and economic weapon so nothing will be done. Deniers or supporters are irrelevant at this point – Bankrupt economies can’t address climate change.

          • Nate says:

            “If you have a political policy to shut in fossil fuels globally”

            What does shut in mean?

            If the policy is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, reduce demand, then I don’t see how that makes them more profitable for Russia?

  33. Joel says:

    Dr Spencer

    Wouldnt it be better to use CO2e instead of CO2 in your model?

    • Entropic man says:

      Probably not.

      This is supposed to be a simple model.

      Other changing GHGs making up CO2e; water vapour, methane, CFCs etc behave differently from CO2. Accounting for these differences would make the model much more complex.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Go back to your alarmist man-cave, Joel. I thought you had retired.

      I guess things must be pretty slow over at Eli Rabbet’s rabbett hutch, after you were all schooled by Gerlich and Tsceuschner on thermodynamics and the 2nd law.

  34. gbaikie says:

    “Ocean Atmosphere Response to Solar EMR at Top of the Atmosphere

    Richard Willoughby

    Summary

    This technical note shows how the ocean surface temperature responds to the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It highlights that the ocean surface is temperature constrained to the range -1.8C to 30C over a yearly cycle apart from less than 1% of the ocean surface near land masses in the tropics where the deep convection cycle is disrupted.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/23/ocean-atmosphere-response-to-solar-emr-at-top-of-the-atmosphere/

    • gbaikie says:

      “Reliable temperature records show the global oceans are not undergoing universal warming. The ocean water in the mid northern latitudes is warming. The Equatorial oceans are showing no cooling or warning trend. The Southern Ocean is showing a sustained cooling trend. How can CO2 be selective in how it warms, cools or neither cools nor warms different locations on the globe?”

      Interesting question. Short answer is CO2 doesn’t warm ocean.

      But when does Southern Ocean warm?
      The southern ocean has been cooling for 33.9 million years, it’s why we in an Ice Age. But it must have cycles of cooling and warming back up.
      As general thing it seems to warm, it can’t have ice free polar sea in the Summer as it does now. Or when doesn’t ice free summer, it gets more older polar sea ice, and winter polar sea ice become larger.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    Richard M…”The vast amount of this energy comes from within what is known as the atmospheric boundary layer. This layer is known to exist in thermal equilibrium with the surface itself”.

    ***

    If that was true, no heat could be dissipated from the surface since heat cannot be transferred between bodies in thermal equilibrium. That’s where convection comes in.

    As parcels of air are heated by the surface, the heated air rises and cooler air from aloft replaces it. Then heat can be transferred to the cooler air.

    Lindzen has estimated that the surface would rise to 70C+ if that convection was not present. I have experienced such conditions on a very hot, windless day at 45C. It’s not at all comfortable. We were camping and had to relocate due to the oppressive, stifling heat.

    With regard to back-radiation from CO2, there are two problems. The surface layers to which you refer, if in thermal equilibrium with the surface, would not allow heat transfer from the surface. Presuming that air above the surface, but in contact with it, can never be cooler than the surface, it must get progressively cooler with altitude.

    The 2nd law states clearly that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder region (body) to a warmer region (body). Climate alarmists have tried all forms of chicanery to get around this simple statement, but Clausius made it very clear that the law stands as written. There is no ‘net’ transfer and no mysterious net balance of energy implied.

    Therefore, back radiation comes from either GHGs that are cooler than the surface or in thermal equilibrium with it. That means heat transfer is impossible from any GHGs to the surface. If such a process was possible it would be perpetual motion, plain and simple. The AGW theory is based on heat transferred from the surface to GHGs, therefore any back radiation that raised the temperature of the surface would represent a perpetual motion machine.

    Again, alarmists have argued that back-radiation is added to solar radiation, an impossibility. The spectrum of the terrestrial IR is outside the solar spectrum and is not conducive to addition.

    • ren says:

      Air can warm the surface in winter, through the influx of moist tropical air, when the temperature of the incoming air is higher than the surface temperature. It can, for example, accelerate the melting of ice. This is why air circulation, which is not constant and is subject to long-term cycles, is so important.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ren…”Air can warm the surface in winter, through the influx of moist tropical air, when the temperature of the incoming air is higher than the surface temperature”.

        ***

        I agree, Ren, but the source of the WV is the ocean not anthropogenic sources. Here in Vancouver, Canada, we benefit immensely from the warming effect of heat from currents in the Pacific Ocean that originate in warmer climates. Also, we benefit from the effect of winds from those warmer areas.

        That’s not the same as arguing the trace gases produced by humans can transfer heat from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to the surface in such a manner as to raise the surface temperature.

        Alarmists argue that more of this trace gas produces higher levels of WV, which enables more back-radiation. The truth is that most WV, by far, is produced naturally by the oceans, lakes, rivers, and even ground water and has nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ps. remember that WV is a trace gas itself and the warming we receive in Vancouver from the oceans will be from the 99% nitrogen and oxygen making up the atmosphere.

          If you had two real greenhouses, one in an arid region and another in a rain forest climate, I doubt that the temperature of air in the greenhouse would be affected much by WV.

          There is no good reason why WV, as a trace gas, should warm the atmosphere any more than CO2.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > There is no good reason why WV, as a trace gas, should warm the atmosphere any more than CO2.

            Try harder, Gordon:

            a) there’s more WV than CO2
            b) WV is a stronger abso.rber than CO2 on a molecule for molecule basis

            The “trace gas” argument is silly. Abs.orbance is (among several other things) a function of the number of abs.orbing species contained in a given optical path, not the ratio of active to inactive species in the sample.

            In the case of Earth’s atmosphere the concentration of CO2 and WV are sufficient enough that it is completely opaque to LW radiation in many spectral bands, the 15 micron band of CO2 being a notable one.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Brandon, please stop trolling.

    • ren says:

      When moist air from over the ocean reaches the middle and high latitudes in winter and it starts to snow, temperatures on the continent can rise. Perhaps this is related to latent heat carried by water vapor.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      You want others to “open their minds” but at the same time you are not able to open yours. You are stuck in false beliefs and cannot get out of them. Like your own prison, you get the key and throw it back out.

      Scientists are NOT saying heat transfers from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. Energy does transfer both ways and always has. Heat is a one way transfer.

      The energy the atmosphere radiates to the surface acts to lower the amount of HEAT (not energy) the surface emits away. The total energy is what is emitting (based upon its temperature and make up) away minus what it receives from the colder source. The HEAT is always moving from the hot to the cold but as the cold gets warmer relative to the hot less heat is lost by the hotter object.

      If you need to consider two balls colliding. if one ball is stationary it receives all the energy from the moving ball and returns none to the previous moving ball. If one is moving faster the slower moving ball receives this energy and transfers what it has to the faster ball. Energy transfer is a two way process.

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

      Open your mind a bit Gordon.

      • ren says:

        No, dry air in the Earth’s troposphere has a constant vertical temperature gradient up to the tropopause, where the temperature is lowest. Warmer air rises due to its greater kinetic energy and expands as radius and volume increase with altitude. Only the water vapor content changes the value of the temperature gradient. Therefore, the global average
        vertical gradient depends only on the global amount of water vapor in the air and changes minimally.
        https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, your analogy is wrong. Heat is not analogous to an elastic collision. You are terribly confused, as you are about a “real 255K surface”. Then there is the “two fluxes adding to raise temperature” that you can’t support.

        Your confusion is getting worse, instead of better.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          Please kindly quit jumping in my posts with your stupid points. I have already addressed both your points many times. I can’t help you that you are too stupid to comprehend what I have already stated. You keep bringing up these old points over and over which is why I think you are a non-human BOT. A human can learn a little.

          Roy Spencer, proved with actual experiment, that two fluxes add together to raise a temperature. You have the link.

          So just please stop. Again if you bring my name up in your idiot posting, please refer to my 255 K surface as a radiating surface (I guess around 10 Km above the solid earth surface). You pervert the Truth with your claim “real 255K surface” attached to me. If you include real 255K radiating surface I will agree with that.

          https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld012.htm

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            So you admit that there is no “real 255 K surface”, (earthen or otherwise) do you? You just “guess” that it exists!

            That’s a start, at least.

            Now you just need to admit that neither Dr Spencer, nor anybody else has managed to add two fluxes from objects at identical temperatures to make something else even hotter!

            That would be as stupid as claiming that 10,000 watts of radiation from ice could be used to boil water – which would be rather idiotic, don’t you think?

            Get over it, fool. CO2 has no warming or heating properties. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years – deny reality all you wish. I am sure I am not the only one laughing at your attempts to make inconvenient facts vanish.

            Carry on,

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            I have made the statement so many times. If you want to comment on it you should know what I have already said or refrain.

            I do not guess a radiating surface that has an effective temperature of 255 K. It is in fact an average measured value.

            I would agree that 10,000 watts of radiation from ice will not boil water. I will not accept that this false comparison equates to that two fluxes do not add.

            Dr. Spencer actually used the emitted radiant energy of a colder object to warm a hotter one.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, we are talking about a “surface”. You are talking about levels in the atmosphere. The problem is, there are TWO levels in the atmosphere that are at 255K. Neither are at 10 km.

            You have NOTHING.

            You’re a braindead cult idiot. You have NO knowledge of the relevant physics. Also, you forgot to provide a valid source that two equal fluxes can add to produce an increase in temperature.

            Please continue.

            (Your nonsense is duly recorded for future real scientists so they can learn how your cult perverts reality.)

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            Here are your words “I guess around 10 Km above the solid earth surface”. Or maybe somewhere else – in your imagination?

            You also wrote –

            “Dr. Spencer actually used the emitted radiant energy of a colder object to warm a hotter one.”

            Well, actually he didn’t. You are fantasizing. What Dr Spencer showed, (quite rightly), is that allowing more radiation from a hotter object to impinge upon a colder one, raises the temperature of the colder.

            Go away, you silly little person. Seek professional advice, and adhere to the recommended treatment plan. Or not, as you wish.

            It’s a relatively free world, after all.

            The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. Energy use results in waste heat. Local ephemeral temperature rises result.

            Dimwits like climate catastrophists refuse to accept reality. Boo hoo!

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            I have no clue why you are so dumb.

            YOU: “Well, actually he didnt. You are fantasizing. What Dr Spencer showed, (quite rightly), is that allowing more radiation from a hotter object to impinge upon a colder one, raises the temperature of the colder.”

            Wrong silly one.

            Here:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

            Clint R is permanently stupid, do you have to follow him with your own stupid points that are easily proven wrong? What is the point of all you endless dumb people pretending you know science. You, Clint R, Gordon Robertson have never taken a physics class but pretend to be experts. Why are dumb people so arrogant. It is a mystery but it has been studied. Dumb people can be the most arrogant.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Instead of being a total moron maybe you should learn what the term effective temperature means.

            You are just such a dumb BOT your programmers are really lazy when they wrote your program.

            YOU: “Then there is the two fluxes adding to raise temperature that you cant support.

            Read this post and drop the subject. You don’t have a clue but you think you do.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

            The flux from the lamp impinging upon a black painted surface heats the surface to a certain temp. With ice emitting toward it it drops the temperature when the warmer lid is put back on the surface temperature increases. The black surface receives both energy from the lamp and energy from the lid. The resulting temperature is higher than when the energy was coming from ice. This experiment satisfies your request that fluxes add and increase temperature. Drop it dumb one. Your stupidity baffles me on how little you know and how much you pretend to know.

            Read a textbook, learn, come back when you have some real knowledge.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong Norman. You don’t even understand the issue. The issue is about two fluxes arriving a surface adding to raise the surface to a higher temperature than either flux could do by itself.

            You can’t provide ANY valid reference for such nonsense, because it’s IMPOSSIBLE. All you can do is insult, misrepresent and falsely accuse.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader grammie pups wrote:

            The issue is about two fluxes arriving a surface adding to raise the surface to a higher temperature than either flux could do by itself.

            its IMPOSSIBLE.

            Wrong. That the addition of fluxes result in greater surface temperature is easy to prove.

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks for linking to that nonsense again, willard jr.

            It’s fun when you cult idiots prove your own incompetence.

            Please continue.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader grammie pups, it’s heartening to see that your comment supports the conclusions from my efforts. Those two lights surely did heat that aluminum plate. If I had used 125 watt “heat lamps” instead, the temperature increase would have been greater still.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Absolute nonsense, Norman. EM, like heat, transfers in one direction as well, hot to cold. There is no two-way energy transfer of any kind between bodies of different temperatures.

        Climate alarmists would like to think so because the 2nd law is a thorn in their sides, just as UAH revelations about global temps is a thorn in their sides.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Again you are just wrong. You can declare your false teachings on this blog but they are still wrong. You basically do not know enough physics to understand why your points are wrong. There is a two-way energy transfer between objects at different temperatures.

          You make claims that are invalid and you have no support for them.

          I have already proven your ideas as false and suggest you do as well so you do not continue in misleading anyone who might read your posts. Take a common IR thermometer. Go between two objects with different temperatures. Point the IR gun at one object and get a temperature. What you read is based upon the IR the object is emitting and converting it to a temperature reading. Now rotate and face the other object at a different temperature and point the IR gun at it. It has a different amount of IR reaching your instrument. This IR will continue to the other object.

          Your ideas are garbage and easy to prove wrong. It won’t matter you are not one who likes the Truth. A few threads later you will peddle some more of your make believe bunk and pretend you never looked at this post.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you are confusing “energy transfer” with “heat”. Two objects can emit toward each other, and that means energy is transferring between them. It does NOT automatically imply that the energy will be absorbed by the hotter object. For “heat” to occur, energy must be transferred from “hot” to “cold”. And that means the energy is absorbed, raising the temperature of the colder object.

            You don’t understand the basics. You keep trying to boil water with ice cubes.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > You dont understand the basics.

            You’re funny, Clint.

            The emissivity of ice in the “thermal” IR range is 0.97, so a cube of it is going to absorb most of what’s beamed its way.

            > You keep trying to boil water with ice cubes.

            Wrong. A drop of water placed directly between the two cubes will not be evenly exposed to thermal IR over its entire surface. Thus the net radiation abs.orbed will not equal the simple sum of the two converging fluxes; it will be much less depending on view angles, and in no case greater than the flux emitted from each cube. Thus the water droplet does not boil.

          • Clint R says:

            Correct Brandon, you can NOT boil water with ice cubes.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            You didn’t deal with where we disagree, Clint. Namely that ice cubes at the same temperature absorb incident IR emitted by the other.

          • Clint R says:

            Where did you ever get the idea that I believe ice cubes cant absorb IR?

            Are you making stuff up Brandon, like some desperate troll?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Where did you ever get the idea that I believe ice cubes cant absorb IR?

            It’s a Dragon Crank article of faith that absor.ptivity of a receiving object is dependent on the temperature of the emitting object, and you are devout, Clint:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1338102

            Two objects can emit toward each other, and that means energy is transferring between them. It does NOT automatically imply that the energy will be absorbed by the hotter object.

          • Clint R says:

            Okay, I see you don’t understand any of this.

            But, at least you can imitate your hero quite well — misrepresenting, format, and even the lame “Dragon Crank” thrown in for good measure.

            You’re an accomplished troll, Brandon!

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Where did you ever get the idea that I believe ice cubes cant absorb IR?

            The question is the abs.orbtion dependency on the temperature of the emitting object, Clint. From just above:

            you are confusing energy transfer with heat. Two objects can emit toward each other, and that means energy is transferring between them. It does NOT automatically imply that the energy will be absorbed by the hotter object.

            And here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1335859

            There is no heat transfer between equal temperatures.

            Now’s your chance to clarify.

          • Clint R says:

            You don’t want clarification, willard. You want obfuscation.

            If you sincerely wanted clarification, that would mean you wanted to learn. If you sincerely wanted clarification, you would pose a responsible question that could be directly answered without trying to filter through all your garbage. But, you don’t want clarification, you want obfuscation.

            That’s why I no longer babysit you braindead trolls.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > pose a responsible question that could be directly answered

            Try these, Clint. Yes or No to each will suffice:

            1) Given two identical objects A and B, but A warmer than B, will A absorb photons from B?

            2) Same two objects but at the same temperature. Will A absorb from B and vice versa?

          • Clint R says:

            Use “H” for the hotter object, and “C” for the colder object, rather than “A” and “B” — less confusion.

            1) Both H and C will emit a spectrum, or range, of photons. The photons will range in energy from lower to higher. The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H, but they will not be able to raise the temperature of H. H would need a higher average energy than it has for its temperature to be raised. That would never happen from C.

            2) Same answer as above.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H

            The energy of a photon depends solely on its frequency. As I have shown you before, the emission spectra of two bodies close but not equal to each other in temperature all but completely overlap:

            https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl

            Given the overlap, how can H “know” that C is cooler on the basis of the frequency of incident photons from C alone?

          • Clint R says:

            The fact that the C spectrum is below the H spectrum is your clue. If somehow ALL of the C spectrum were forced to be absorbed by H, it would lower the temperature of H.

            No matter what you try, cold can NOT increase the temperature of hot. Ice cubes can NOT boil water.

            What will you try next?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > The fact that the C spectrum is below the H spectrum is your clue.

            Just above you wrote, “The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H”. Indicate on the chart which photons from C are the “higher energy” ones.

          • Willard says:

            > You want obfuscation.

            Thank you for telling what I want, Pup, but I ain’t Brandon.

            Here’s proof:

            https://imgflip.com/i/5i87xv

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, do you not even understand your own words: “…the emission spectra of two bodies close but not equal to each other in temperature all but completely overlap:”

            And, “Given the overlap…”

            Maybe H can’t absorb frequencies below the “overlap”, huh?

            No matter what you try, cold can NOT increase the temperature of hot. Ice cubes can NOT boil water.

            What will you try next?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Maybe H cant absorb frequencies below the overlap

            According to you, C emits some “high energy” photons which H can absorb. For the second time, where are those photons in the plot?

          • Clint R says:

            For the second time — Your overlap is calling you.

            Also for the second time —

            If somehow ALL of the C spectrum were forced to be absorbed by H, it would lower the temperature of H.

            No matter what you try, cold can NOT increase the temperature of hot. Ice cubes can NOT boil water. Reality always wins.

            What will you try next, Brandon?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Your overlap is calling you.

            I must defer to Planck for these curves.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl

            Meanwhile, the overlap is your problem because it prevents you from showing which of C’s photons are of the “higher energy” that can be absorbed by H, so I’ll break the suspense: all of C’s photons can be absorbed by H across all frequencies, and vice versa.

            > If somehow ALL of the C spectrum were forced to be absorbed by H, it would lower the temperature of H.

            Congrats, Clint, you’ve just invented negative energy photons.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, Brandon. You’ve got it backwards.

            All of C’s photons can NOT be absorbed by H, but all of H’s photons can be absorbed by C.

            That’s what you could learn from the emission spectra, if you understood any of this.

            And, no “negative energy” needed. Low energy photons that manage to be absorbed by a mass where the average vibrational energy is higher, will cool the mass. Again, you can’t understand any of this.

            No matter what you try, cold can NOT increase the temperature of hot. Ice cubes can NOT boil water. Reality always wins.

            What will you try next?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Thats what you could learn from the emission spectra

            I asked you twice to point out on the plot which of the “higher energy” photons from C can be absorbed by H, and twice you have failed to do so.

            Will you go for the hat trick, Clint?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R constantly thinks rational scientists are cultist. He is obsessed with cults since he belongs to one. He is a complete idiot saying foolish things and making up garbage yet he pretends he understands physics. Quite hilarious to see this level of ignorance and arrogance mixed in one simple minded poster.

            Can’t really believe a real human is that stupid so the most obvious conclusion is Clint R is not human but a word generating BOT. Can humans really be as stupid as Clint R? Maybe if they belong to a cult it is possible.

            Clint R theme song:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc88DU8dzQg

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, I asked you twice to understand your own “overlap”, and twice you have failed to do so.

            And now you’ve brought in braindead Norman to help you. He’ll help you go in the wrong direction, for sure.

            No matter what you try, cold can NOT increase the temperature of hot. Ice cubes can NOT boil water. Reality always wins.

            What will you try next?

          • Brandon Gates says:

            > I asked you twice to understand your own overlap

            You should be asking yourself that question, Clint. If you actually thought about it you’d realize why you can’t point to which “higher energy” photons emitted from C are able to be absorbed by H … as you have previously claimed exist.

            Good luck.

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, see if this simple analogy helps:

            H is emitting 7 energy level photons — 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, with 7 being the highest level. The average energy level, corresponding to a temperature, is 4.

            C is emitting 5 energy levels photons — 1,2,3,4,5, with 5 being the highest level. The average energy level, corresponding to a temperature, is 3.

            H is hotter than C, as 4 has more energy than 3.

            Now what is the temperature of H if it absorbs the entire flux from C?

            The answer is 4. The lower energy photons do NOT raise the average energy level.

            Cold can NOT raise the temperature of Hot. That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water.

            Does that help?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Please quit being so stupid. Your example means nothing. Roy Spencer experiment plus countless experiments previously established the Law you call bogus.

            Real Physics (not cult Clint R made up bullshit):

            https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_College_Physics_(OpenStax)/14%3A_Heat_and_Heat_Transfer_Methods/14.07%3A_Radiation

            Learn real physics and quit peddling your cult nonsense.

            What evidence do you provide for your incorrect ideas? None. You just spout opinions of what you think are correct.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, that’s what I like about simple analogies — they annihilate your confused cult beliefs. And that makes you ramble incoherently.

            Did you ever find a valid reference for your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can heat it to 325K?

            You know you’ve claimed you ALWAYS back up your beliefs….

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Maybe H cant absorb frequencies below the ‘overlap’, huh?”
            There is no “below the overlap”. Both object emit photons down to zero energy / zero frequency. The difference is the *intensity*.

            So I guess technically, you are correct. H cannot absorb photons with a frequency below zero! And H can therefore — by your own logic!– absorb any photons above 0 Hz from C!

            “Two objects can emit toward each other, and that means energy is transferring between them. It does NOT automatically imply that the energy will be absorbed by the hotter object. ”
            Suppose we have two large blackbody sheets close together. “H” is at 500 K emitting 1452 W/m^2. “C” is at 300 K and emitting 459 W/m^2.

            What do you imagine happens to the 459 W/m^2? All of the photons get absorbed by H? All of the photons get reflected by “H”? Some get absorbed (which??) and the rest … get reflect? disappear? Something else?

            Also, what is the net loss from H? What is the net gain by C?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            No your analogies do nothing expect expose your ignorance of science.

            Yes I have linked you to a condition where the energy of a colder object is combined with the energy of a hotter object to raise a surface temperature.

            If you are not a BOT then look at the data and think. If you are a BOT you will repeat the same things over and over several times.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

            There is a constant input energy from a lamp. When ice is emitting to the surface it has a lower temperature. When the warmer lid is emitting to the surface the temperature rises (look at Roy’s graphs). The energy of the lamp and the lid reaching the surface warm it to a higher temperature than the colder ice and lamp. The ice would also warm it to a higher temperature than the IR emitted from much colder dry ice. The answer you request is there in the data. Read it. Think of it and have the courage to admit you are wrong. Or be a BOT and repeat your points hundreds of times.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, Norman. You’ve found another link you can’t understand.

            That is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”. The high energy photons from the lamp are being reflected back to the hot plate. What Spencer built is called a “radiative reflector”. It’s in the same category as how a Thermos bottle works. The EMITTED photons from the “ice shield” can NOT warm the hot plate.

            You don’t understand any of this.

            Also, I see your cult hero has shown up. Maybe you could ask him for his “valid reference for your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can heat it to 325K”. After all, he’s the one that made up that nonsense….

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > see if this simple analogy helps

            It just digs you further into the hole you’ve made for yourself, Clint. First of all, it again fails to show “higher energy” photons emitted by C that can be absorbed by H — which you earlier claimed exist.

            Next, you show overlapping energy levels 1-5, which is near enough reality ***, but presents you the same problem you’ve had all along: how does H know that photons 1-5 came from a cooler object? Which can H absorb from C and which must it reject?

            ——

            * In reality C emits 1-7 just as H does, but at lower intensity, i.e. fewer photons per unit time in each frequency band.

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, you didn’t understand the simple analogy.

            The analogy specified all of the photons from C were absorbed:

            “Now what is the temperature of H if it absorbs the entire flux from C?”

            And it is NOT the “intensity” that is considered in natural processes. You may be thinking about lasers or microwave ovens. These are manmade devices that use “design” and external energy sources. In natural processes, it is the frequency/wavelength that determines whether or not the temperature will increase. A whole bunch of ice cubes can’t heat a surface more that one ice cube. C is NOT emitting the same spectrum as H.

            Study the simple analogy. Learning science requires discarding your bogus beliefs. Cold can NOT raise the temperature of Hot. That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water. And that’s also why a cold sky can NOT increase the temperature of a warmer surface.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            What are you claiming with Roy Spencer experiment. You are too irrational to follow. Read the article by Roy and come back when you understand the process. At this time you make no sense.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you can’t understand my comment because you don’t understand the “experiment”. You can’t understand ANY of this. That’s why you couldn’t solve the simple problem about the plate with 0.5 emissivity. You’re all blather, but no substance. You’re a complete phony.

            Did you ever find a valid reference for your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can heat it to 325K?

            You know you’ve claimed you ALWAYS back up your beliefs….

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > In natural processes, it is the frequency/wavelength that determines whether or not the temperature will increase.

            As shown you several times now, bodies close to each other in temperature emit over the same range of frequencies, Clint.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl

            Your “analogy” showed the same thing, H and C both emitting over the same “energy levels” 1 through 5. It did not show any “higher energy” photons emitted by C that can be absorbed by H as you previously claimed exist.

            In sum, you’ve not proposed a mechanism by H knows the temperature of C and vice versa and you’ve contradicted yourself.

            Reality is so much simpler; it does not require objects to “know” the temperature of any of its surroundings. Real objects “decide” whether to absorb an incident photon by its emissivity at that photon’s specific frequency.

          • Clint R says:

            Well that’s a lot of rambling Brandon. But at least you seem to be making some progress.

            It’s the photon frequency/wavelength, combined with surface properties and temperature, that determine absorp.tion.

            I’m always happy to see any progress.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > But at least you seem to be making some progress.

            I’ve been saying the same things all along, Clint. Too many times more than should be necessary if you ask me.

            OTOH, you keep changing your story:

            [Clint] Two objects can emit toward each other, and that means energy is transferring between them. It does NOT automatically imply that the energy will be absorbed by the hotter object.

            [Also Clint] The analogy specified all of the photons from C were absorbed [by H]

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, Brandon.

            I haven’t contradicted myself, and I haven’t changed my story.

            The simple analogy was to explain to you how even IF the entire flux from a colder object were absorbed, the temperature of H would not be raised.

            I can explain it to you, but I cant understand it for you.

            No matter what you try, cold can NOT increase the temperature of hot. Ice cubes can NOT boil water. A cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface. Reality always wins.

            What will you try next?

            (PS Any more false accusations and I will stop babysitting you.)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “H is emitting 7 energy level photons 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, with 7 being the highest level.”
            That is not how it works. Objects emit a range of photons based described by Planck’s Law. There is not a cut-off at some particular energy. (For a ‘simple analogy’, we can assume the surfaces are black bodies. If not, the discussion would be a bit more complicated, but the end conclusions the same.)

            “The average energy level, corresponding to a temperature, is 4.
            That is not quite right either, but we can assume the temperature is “4” in some units.

            “C is emitting 5 energy levels photons 1,2,3,4,5, with 5 being the highest level.”
            No! C emits according to Planck’s Law as well. If it is cooler the intensities drop across the board, but it would still emit over ‘all seven’ levels. The photons emitted by the 7th level would be less intense, but still there.

            “The average energy level, corresponding to a temperature, is 3.”
            Again, not exactly, but we can go with it. The average might be 3, but there are still “energy 7” photons coming out.

            “H is hotter than C, as 4 has more energy than 3.”
            OK. That is fine. Good work!

            “Now what is the temperature of H if it absorbs the entire flux from C?”
            This is a meaningless questions to ask about “the” temperature of “H”! If “H” was initially at temperature “4” but emitting all those photons you mention, then it is cooling! There is no fixed, constant temperature for “H”. It will go from 4 to 3.9 to 3.8 ….

            H could only have a fixed temperature if it has some heater to make up for the continuous lost of energy by photons. So we could imagine that “H” is losing 4 units of energy via those photons in some unit of time, but also has an electrical neater supplying 4 units of energy.

            But now to answer your question, if “H” ALSO absorbs the entire 3 units of flux from “C”, then H is receiving SEVEN units of energy but only losing 4. Now H would indeed warm up from the combo of electric heater and “C”. Warm up until it was hot enough to enough 7 units of photons.

            “Cold can NOT raise the temperature of Hot.”
            Quite true. If H it losing 4 units of energy and cooling quickly, the best C could do is make it cool slowly.

            But if an electric heater is supplying a steady 4 units of energy to hold H at a temperature of “4” and then we add the 3 units from C, H will definitely warm up!

            (Or similarly, if the sun is supplying a steady 240 W/m^2 (corresponding to 255 K) and then an additional flux from the cool atmosphere is added, then the surface willl warm above 255 K from the ‘colder flux’.)

            Does that help?

          • Clint R says:

            Yeah Folkerts, it’s a simple analogy. I like simple analogies because it’s fun to watch you cult idiots work laboriously to confuse the issue.

            Good job….

            Did you ever find a valid, credible reference to support your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can raise its temperature to 325K?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Yeah Clint, its a simple BUT WRONG analogy. Using a bad analogy will only lead to bad conclusions.

            Its fascinating to watch you work laboriously to confuse the issue with a bad analogy. We are just trying to point you gently in the right direction. Can you point to any reference that says hot objects emit 7 energies, but cooler objects only emit 5?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Yes Clint your trolling is obvious. You’re not without your amusements though; cooling photons is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read on the Internet.

            Never stop being you!

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong Folkerts. It’s a good analogy for its intended purpose.

            You don’t like it because it can be easily understood. Your cult hates simple, reality-based analogies like the ball-on-a-string.

            Now, get back to perverting physics like you did with your two 315 W/m^2 fluses heating a surface to 325K. That is a classic. It even has poor Norman bamfoozled. If it were true, it would mean you could boil water with ice cubes!

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > reality-based analogies

            What’s the wavelength of a level 4 photon, Clint?

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Brando, I’m not babysitting you today.

            You’ll need to troll someone else.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            That’s what I thought. Thanks for playing.

          • bobdroege says:

            Are these photons intelligent photons, or did they skip the class on Maxwell Boltzmann distributions?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            lol. One wonders.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, Brandon, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            “Heat transfer is always from hot to cold unless work is done on the system.”

            “Cold can not warm Hot.”

            One of these statements is bullshit and one is the second law of thermodynamics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            Drempty,

            Looks like you insist on being a fucking moron.

            Fine by me.

            I’ll keep trying to explain the correct science, but some morons won’t learn.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Its a good analogy for its intended purpose.”
            No, it’s clearly not, because it leads to wrong conclusions.

            “You dont like it because it can be easily understood.”
            No, I don’t like it because it leads to wrong conclusions. Like the caloric model is easily understood but wrong. Or the geocentric model is easily understood, but wrong. Being ‘easily understood’ is no indication that a model is correct.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, please stop trolling.

    • gbaikie says:

      — Gordon Robertson says:
      July 23, 2022 at 5:17 PM

      Richard MThe vast amount of this energy comes from within what is known as the atmospheric boundary layer. This layer is known to exist in thermal equilibrium with the surface itself.

      ***

      If that was true, no heat could be dissipated from the surface since heat cannot be transferred between bodies in thermal equilibrium. Thats where convection comes in.–

      It seems can’t/don’t have thermal equilibrium unless heat is dissipated or transferred.
      The surface of sun is violently disturbed {and is no place for a human} but has thermal equilibrium.
      It seems one can show the equilibrium of our atmosphere with stick dynamite. If detonated, dynamite very quickly gets hot, and one gets a localized disruption of the thermal equilibrium.
      Or things get violent when it’s changed significantly.

      • gbaikie says:

        The atmosphere thermal equilibrium is disturbed/disrupted by the 6 hours of peak solar hours each 24 hr day.
        If turned off the sun, one would still have weather.
        The land regions warm and cool faster than ocean regions.
        If Earth was entirely covered with oceans, the surface of ocean has different temperature, thereby still give weather.
        In say 1 month period, most of ocean surface would cool to the average temperature of ocean.
        If Ocean average temperature was 5 C or more. In month of time the ocean will still be ice free.
        The tropical ocean has most warmed water near it’s surface, and would take a lot longer the cool to average ocean temperature.

        When ice forms on the ocean, the ocean acts more like land- cools quickly, and create weather.
        Years later, with all ocean frozen, you would have little or no weather.
        And actual global temperature, hasn’t changed much, atmosphere is very cold, average ocean temperature is only slightly cooler.

        Turn the sun back on, and model it.
        Or you starting with snowball earth with a warm ocean [if 3.5 C or 5 C counts as warm]. But in terms of an Ice house global climate, 6 C average temperature of the ocean is still a cold ocean or still in an Ice Age. So, could have average temp of Ocean of 6 C, model that and see how “hot” that gets.

        • Swenson says:

          “If turned off the sun, one would still have weather.”

          Not really. No gaseous atmosphere, no aquasphere, surface around 35K.

          Irrelevant in any case. The Sun stays on, there is weather, and the finest minds in the world cannot predict what the “weather” will be in an hour, any better than an average 12 year old child.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…”It seems cant/dont have thermal equilibrium unless heat is dissipated or transferred”.

        ***

        The theory goes that because two bodies of the same temperature are in contact, heat will be evenly transferred between the bodies, at the boundary, and cancel out. If you have air contacting the Earth’s surface there is conduction between individual air molecules and the surface. However, conduction won’t take place unless the air molecules touching the surface have a lower kinetic energy, hence heat content.

        The magic re heat transfer occurs because heated air rises, due to its higher acquired KE. As it rises, it cannot leave a vacuum, therefore cooler air from above replaces it. Of course, that air has a lower KE therefore conduction is possible since it acquires heat from the surface.

        That rising air and replacement air is convection. As Lindzen once claimed, without that convection, the surface temperature would rise to 70C+.

        • gbaikie says:

          Most of heating of atmosphere is done over 70% of Earth surface which ocean and evaporation is creating pressure and water vapor condensing has latent heat in which droplets water are heating air.
          If spray water, one quickly cool or if warmer water, heat air.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “The surface of sun is violently disturbed {and is no place for a human} but has thermal equilibrium.”

        It is an oxymoron to have equilibrium that is constantly disturbed. So that makes this statement wrong right off the bat.

        Furthermore, it is well known that there is a temperature gradient from the center of the sun up through the photosphere and into the chromosphere. But definition, “thermal equilibrium” means a constant temperature throughout the system, so even a ‘calm sun’ would not be in thermal equilibrium.

        • gbaikie says:

          –Furthermore, it is well known that there is a temperature gradient from the center of the sun up through the photosphere and into the chromosphere. But definition, thermal equilibrium means a constant temperature throughout the system, so even a calm sun would not be in thermal equilibrium.–

          So, you saying stars can’t have a thermal equilibrium?
          Nor could a planet?

          Or more specifically, a planet which mostly molten rock, can’t have thermal equilibrium?

          I thought climate guys, were somewhat interested in Earth’s thermal equilibrium.

          Which seems to me, to be mostly about Earth’s ocean.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “So, you saying stars cant have a thermal equilibrium?”
            Correct!

            “A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium with itself if the temperature within the system is spatially uniform and temporally constant.”

            This is from wikipedia, but you will find a similar definition in any thermo textbook. Stars do not have spatially uniform temperatures, so they are not in thermal equilibrium.

            ******

            Many people informally and/or incorrectly say “equilibrium” when truly mean “steady-state”. Steady-state can have a steady gradient. But when speaking precisely, it is important to know which one you truly mean. Stars are in a (nearly) steady-state condition. The climate is in a (nearly) steady-state condition (on various scales of time and space).

          • gbaikie says:

            – Tim Folkerts says:
            July 26, 2022 at 4:34 AM

            So, you saying stars cant have a thermal equilibrium?
            Correct! —

            Ok, so how about the surface of Venus?

            But going back to our nearest star.
            The Sun has very uniform temperature.
            And our star is suppose to be more variable than other stars.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            You could say that. by definition, all parts of the sun that are at 6013 K are in thermal equilibrium with all other parts at 6013 K. or that all parts of Venus that are at at 730 K are in thermal equilibrium with all other part that are at at 730 K.

            But those are pretty meaningless statements.

            You cannot say the top of the photosphere is in thermal equilibrium with the bottom of the photosphere. So the sun as a whole is not in thermal equilibrium.

            But since each part of the sun stays (approximately) constant in temperature, you CAN say the sun as a whole is in thermal steady-state.

          • gbaikie says:

            –You cannot say the top of the photosphere is in thermal equilibrium with the bottom of the photosphere. So the sun as a whole is not in thermal equilibrium. —

            Well, top of photosphere, is sort like the top of our atmosphere.
            I regard Earth’s entire ocean as Earth surface. Or whatever above the rocky surface of Earth.
            So most of Sun surface is below the photosphere. And of course, Sun’s surface is very vast region which does include the photosphere.

  36. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 494.6 km/sec
    density: 5.71 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 24 Jul 22
    Sunspot number: 96
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 13.48×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: -0.8% Below Average
    48-hr change: -3.2%

    Lowest neutron count I”ve seen in 25 Cycle,
    but probably climb back up- and I would guess it might make
    another run going spotless, within a week.

    It seems spots were going towards equator, but it’s northern
    ones. Anyhow, not saying I can predict anything. It about like
    predicting, next month global temp.
    I guess it will continue to go down a bit.
    And it seems Hurricane season isn’t happening, yet.
    Nothing in next 48 hours seems common, which I am sure
    many are happy about.
    But it seems SlS launch might happen around time [end August], when situation will have changed.

    • ren says:

      La Nia is almost certain as heat from the western Pacific disappears and the Humboldt Current remains cold.
      https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
      https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

    • Bindidon says:

      In red you see the F10.7cm solar flux till Jul 22:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view

        • Bindidon says:

          Wrong.

          My starting date is absolutely correct: cf. Patrick Geryl and Jan Alvestad.

          https://community.spaceweatherlive.com/topic/1798-when-did-solar-cycle-25-start/

          Your problem is that you don’t understand the difference between

          – SSN and F10.7
          – Mg II.

          Search and learn, instead of permanently posting your boring, personal guesses a la ‘No warming since 1878’ (your usual college boy niveau).

          • RLH says:

            No warming since 1878 in the central Pacific please. That is not a guess it is backed up by the data.

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34-absolute.jpeg

            I just posted what bemen.de (and apparently NASA) use for SC25. They differ from you. Live and learn.

            “Patrick Geryl and Jan Alvestad developed a new theory” which just might be wrong.

          • Bindidon says:

            Linsley-Hood, you keep being a stalker, liar and trickster.

            1. ” No warming since 1878 in the central Pacific please. ”

            I just need to remember your college boy stuff:

            ” If the maximum sea surface temperatures have not changed that much in the central Pacific in over 130 years, how does AGW account for that fact? ”

            You are not talking solely about the Central Pacific, Linsley Hood.

            You are guessing about no warming in a minuscule region (less than a Mio km^2) being a possible proof for ‘no AGW’.

            One couldn’t behave more tricky.

            By the way: while the trend for NCEP-Nino3+4 since 1979 is -0.03 C / decade, that for UAH in exactly the same region (2.5 degree grid cells within 5N-5S — 170W-120W) is +0.06.

            *
            2. ” I just posted what b[r]emen.de (and apparently NASA) use for SC25. They differ from you. ”

            So? Apparently NASA?

            Look at this page

            https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/solar-cycle-25-is-here-nasa-noaa-scientists-explain-what-that-means

            The Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel, an international group of experts co-sponsored by NASA and NOAA, announced that solar minimum occurred in December 2019, marking the start of a new solar cycle.

            December 2019: this is EXACTLY what I use, and what Geryl/Alvestad computed out of F10.7 data.

            As usual, you are not only incompetent: you were lying as well.

          • RLH says:

            I did not incompetently predict that La Nina would be completely gone earlier this year, that was you (or your repetition of something that others claimed that you just repeated).

            The Nino 3.4 data shows that you (and they) were wrong in fact and that is not a prediction but a reality.

            “You are not talking solely about the Central Pacific”

            Ah, but I am, as that is supposed to be the maximum temperature that is achieved in the oceans. Unless you know somewhere on the water that is consistently higher of course.

            I know that you and others claim that AGW operates on everything other than the maximum temperatures (El Nino) but without saying just how that could occur (of course).

            The G/A claim for the start of SC25 is that a minimum determines the start of a cycle no matter if it could just be an exceptionally low point in the last cycle. We shall see if that is borne out by the maximum and the overall cycle in a few years time. Bemen.de still thinks that SC25 started later than your claim. Live with it.

            Got away from your claims that CTRM and 5 pass S-G are ‘wrong’ somehow I see.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Bemen.de still thinks that SC25 started later than your claim. Live with it. ”

            It seems that you are opinionated to such an extent that you even can’t correctly read the Bremen graph.

            There you read that the Mg II composite start for SC25 was 2018, March 3; the SC25 Mg II plot is currently in the 4th year, and not in the 3rd, as it is wrt SSN and F10.7cm.

            This is easily confirmed by downloading

            http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat

            and looking for the lowest value since 2017, giving 2018, March 2.

            *
            ” Got away from your claims that CTRM and 5 pass S-G are wrong somehow I see. ”

            Again, your stupid lies.

            I NEVER said CTRM let alone a multipass S-G would be wrong.

            YOU, Linsley Hood, are insinuating that all the time.

            I claimed – together with Mark B – that you were kidding and belying the blog when telling us CTRM and S-G would give the same results, what is UTTERLY wrong, as I explained many times (12 month CTRMs are equivalent to 16 month original S-G output).

            Some weeks later, you silently admitted to have used a tool which manifestly performs a big smoothing of the original S-G output, what makes it of course similar to CTRM.

            *
            All I see is your repeated lack of competence and urge in lying.
            Live with them!

          • RLH says:

            “I NEVER said CTRM let alone a multipass S-G would be wrong.”

            Just that my using them was wrong then I guess.

            “12 month CTRMs are equivalent to 16 month original S-G output”

            But it is the equivalent to only 12 months of 5 pass S-G which is what I was comparing it to. Indeed I verified that it was before using it (as I said in my original post).

            So my CTRM and the 5 pass S-G (which has been my method since 2014) are of exactly the same window size, something that both you and Mark B said was ‘impossible’. Both you and he were wrong.

          • RLH says:

            As to bemen.de their SC24 to SC25 comparison is

            https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

            red trace versa green trace. Duck and dive all you like. Those are the facts.

        • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

          Once again a decrease in magnetic activity on the solar disk.
          https://spaceweather.com/images2022/25jul22/hmi1898.gif
          UV radiation is falling again.

      • Cycle 25 is weaker than 24. Compare yourself 2012 and 2022. 2012 saw the peak of activity in the northern hemisphere.
        https://i.ibb.co/t25H7wn/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
        https://i.ibb.co/LQ2GLXR/ises-solar-cycle-f107cm.png
        https://solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 528.7 km/sec
      density: 12.40 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 100
      Updated 26 Jul 2022

      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 13.42×10^10 W Neutral
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -0.0% Below Average
      48-hr change: +0.8%

      “COSMIC RAY UPDATE: Cosmic rays in the atmosphere are rapidly subsiding. In the past year alone, radiation levels in the air high above California have plummeted more than 15%, according to regular launches of cosmic ray balloons by Spaceweather.com and Earth to Sky Calculus. The latest measurement on July 23, 2022, registered a 6 year low…

      The sun makes it more difficult for these cosmic rays to reach Earth. Simply put, when the sun is active, its magnetic field gets stronger and more tangled. Cosmic rays have trouble penetrating the magnetic thicket. Also, individual CMEs sweep aside cosmic rays, causing sharp reductions called “Forbush Decreases.” The two effects blend together to bring daily radiation levels down.”

      There is mediun spot entering our side, but still think could get towards spotless, in next week. Not that it means anything, except the lower level of cosmic rays, might climb back around 3% and then later dive back down to 0% and probably lower as we get further in to the solar Max

  37. gbaikie says:

    –Could Natural Hydrogen Kill Green Hydrogen?
    Eric Worrall

    Essay by Eric Worrall

    h/t David S. If you have never heard of natural hydrogen deposits before, youre not alone. But discoveries of substantial underground gas fields which mostly contain almost pure hydrogen have the potential to completely upend efforts to develop a green hydrogen economy. —
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/24/could-natural-hydrogen-kill-green-hydrogen/

    • Bindidon says:

      As usual, we must carefully read all what WUWT posts, from the first down to the last line and, if possible, even between them.

      A word of caution, information about natural hydrogen is pretty sparse, so I have no validation of the claim natural hydrogen occurs in sufficient quantity in exploitable deposits, other than a handful of papers. It may prove to be the cold fusion of the zero carbon industry. But serious people seem to be taking it seriously.

    • Ken says:

      Water Vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. Too, water vapor turns into water that will cause sea levels to rise and atmospheric oxygen levels to drop. I don’t know why people could think of hydrogen as a potential fuel replacement for fossil fuels.

      • Ken says:

        If you burn Hydrogen, water vapor is formed and oxygen is removed from the atmosphere.

      • Brandon R. Gates says:

        Your concerns are negligible by four orders of magnitude, Ken:

        https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8390

        The annual global formation of water from combustion of hydrocarbon fuels from 20052015 amounted to an average of 1.2×10^13 kg/yr, as shown in figure 1. By comparison, the atmosphere is estimated to hold on average approximately 1.3×10^16 kg of water, while the global rates of irrigation-induced and natural evaporation are on the orders of 10^15 and 10^17 kg/yr, respectively.

        • Ken says:

          If my concerns about H2O emissions are negligible then so are your concerns about CO2 emissions ‘negligible by four orders of magnitude’.

        • Ken says:

          You might want to read up on ‘carbon cycle’.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            It doesn’t rain diamonds either, Ken. At least not on our planet.

            https://www.americanscientist.org/article/on-neptune-its-raining-diamonds

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Brandon, please stop trolling.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            I’ll spell it out for you, DREMT, though you should already know this.

            The fast carbon cycle is slower than the atmospheric water cycle, by several orders of magnitude. Thus, even though burning fossil fuels releases about the same amount of water molecules as CO2 molecules, the water precipitates out in a matter of days, leaving total water content of the atmosphere virtually unchanged.

            For CO2 the the residence time is on the order of 5-10 years. However, the adjustment time to a CO2 pulse — the time it takes CO2 concentration to return to the pre-pulse equilibrium — is on the order of 50-100 years.

            This is why we don’t worry about water vapor emissions from our tailpipes. It doesn’t stick around long enough to be a factor.

            Where we do need to consider water vapor is as a positive feedback to a change in temperature, due to any cause anthropogenic or not. In that scenario as the most abundant GHG it can have a profound effect.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Brandon, please stop trolling.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Please stop PSTing, DREMT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            Brandon, please stop trolling.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Please stop acting like a bot, DREMT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #4

            Brandon, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            Some people with OCD have to touch all lamps. DREMT has to post last. Else he gets anxious.

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nina is working and will continue to work.
    https://i.ibb.co/zRwYhS4/gfs-nh-sat4-t2anom-1-day.png

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Look for spots on the sun.
    https://i.ibb.co/L6xYg42/latest.jpg

    • Bindidon says:

      87!

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        You have great eyesight! Just envy it.

        • gbaikie says:

          “The “sunspot number” is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Since most sunspot groups have, on average, about ten spots, this formula for counting sunspots gives reliable numbers even when the observing conditions are less than ideal and small spots are hard to see.”
          https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

          • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

            How many spots were there in 2012, and how many in 2022? Is the cycle of 25 weaker than 24 so far? Don’t mention forecasts, because they are fortune telling.
            http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png

          • gbaikie says:

            — Ireneusz Palmowski says:
            July 25, 2022 at 10:22 PM

            How many spots were there in 2012, and how many in 2022? Is the cycle of 25 weaker than 24 so far? —

            I wondering if 25 is going to give any hints about 26.
            And I am mostly interested in cosmic rays.
            So in terms 2012, you had about 2 years of moderately low levels
            of cosmic rays, it seems we could have less than 2 years with
            25.
            Which sort of means 25 would be weaker. But say in next 3 weeks, I expect we will get over 150 sunspot level for over a week of time.
            But the erratic nature, is sort of, kind of what I mean about clues
            about 26.
            But Sun is as unpredictable as weather on Earth.
            And don’t think is has much to do global climate.

          • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

            Cyclical 66-year changes in solar activity have a huge impact on changes in circulation and climate. The prolonged La Nia is a harbinger of such changes.
            “During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.”
            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum

          • gbaikie says:

            “Cyclical 66-year changes in solar activity have a huge impact on changes in circulation and climate. The prolonged La Nia is a harbinger of such changes.”

            One might have severe weather effect.
            And whether we in Solar Grand Minimum is dependent on solar cycle 26.
            The idea/theory that 25 would be like 24, seems mostly correct, in terms of what 26 is going to be like could be correct.

            In terms of global climate, it seems to me, we had more than hundred years of warming and warming was good thing, and I would prefer more warming. And doesn’t appear to me, we going to get much more warming, but I don’t think it due to solar activity, rather I would say we have recovered to the cool time of Little Ice Age, and we are not going to get as cool as LIA within a short period of several decades.
            And part of LIA was it’s volcanic activity, and similar or greater volcanic events which occurred within LIA is possible.
            But I have no confidence of predicting solar activity nor greater volcanic events. But it seems if had larger volcanic event as the worst during LIA, that would/should effect global climate in rapid way.
            But most volcanic activity occurs within the ocean- as some say over 80%. What volcanic activity in ocean during LIA is “unknown” and what oceanic activity in ocean happening recently is slightly less “unknown”. Or we have not explored our ocean, we have starting to do this to some degree, but a lot remains, unknown.

          • gbaikie says:

            Btw, if we make ocean settlements this would predicatively cause a Golden Age of ocean exploration.
            And if we explore Mars and have Mars settlements, we “have to” have ocean settlements.
            And we could have an ocean settlement before we send crew to Mars surface.
            Though this ocean settlement doesn’t have to be connected to launching rockets from the ocean.
            Other than governments preventing ocean settlements, due to general nature of governments, we could have had ocean settlements a long time ago.
            What I think which needed for ocean settlements is cheap breakwaters.
            And government can never do anything cheap, but it’s possible a government could allow cheap breakwaters to be made- just they have so far, allowed cheaper rockets to be made.

            So, if we explore Mars, and Mars has mineable water and other stuff
            which allow towns on Mars. Government will not be able to stop ocean settlements from being made.
            But me being optimistic, before this, one could hopeful some government may allow, may even encourage private efforts to make towns on the ocean.

        • Bindidon says:

          https://tinyurl.com/2p8646z6

          21 July : 119
          22 July : 102
          23 July : 102
          24 July : 84
          25 July : 87

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      I think I hear it singing
      Im so lonely . . .

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The “battle for coal” will soon begin in Europe. Prices will skyrocket.

    • gbaikie says:

      China is currently paying $414 per US ton, and in few months highest price was $420.
      What price is skyrocket compared to that?

      Back in the day when coal was less than $150 per ton and crude oil was less than $80 per barrel and now is about $100 per barrel.
      What is a bigger jump $200 to $400 for coal or $50 to $100 per barrel of oil.
      It seems difficult to have cheap electrical power when coal is $400 per ton.
      Though if paying 40 cent per kwh, it’s not cheap electrical power.

      But maybe Europeans can pay 60 to 80 cent per Kwh, but I don’t think Chinese can pay 40 cent per Kwh

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nina is causing droughts in Europe. Rivers are no longer navigable.

  42. Bindidon says:

    Oh yes! Let’s really compare them – with regard to one and the same reference period, of course, because all four series have their own one (UAH: 1991-2020, GISS:1951-1980, Had:1961-1990, RSS: 1979-1998):

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ni14vZsfKCNoq7u8OAOQQw9A1KMicUao/view

    and with 60 month running means looking like… 60 month running means :- )

    • RLH says:

      Running means again I see. Did you learn nothing from before. Others claim that running means are useless for anything other than a amateur, first pass, look at things, but I suppose that describes you pretty well.

      https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/

      • Bindidon says:

        Stubborn, opinionated reply again I see, nothing unusual from the stalking liar and trickster Linsley Hood.

        I intentionally avoided to add my (original, real) S-G filter’s low pass smoothing, to see what would happen, and… it happened.

        As usual too, your four simple-minded, separate charts show exaggerated low pass filtering (with, in addition, your manipulation with an alleged S-G ‘projection’, but allow for zero dot zero meaningful comparison. Useless college boy fancy work.

        *
        By the way 1, you little trickster: why do you show only the right ends of your ‘S-G’ plots, and stupidly misname them ‘projection’s, what they obviously are not at all?

        Why don’t you show the entire plots – of course with the ‘5 year’ low pass as thin as the ‘S-G’, so we can really compare them?

        *
        By the way 2, I downloaded years ago Goodman’s R3M ICOADS CTRM example: his 12 month CTRM has the same effect as a 16 month running mean as well. Nothing new since then…

  43. RLH says:

    What has reference periods to do with comparisons as such? Of course they are all different which makes a strict number to number comparison ridiculous.

    What is interesting is how the various maximums and minimums compare across the whole period. The thermometer series are in general less in range than satellite.

    • RLH says:

      Plus I should point out that the actual difference between RSS and UAH becomes quite clear in the 2002-2008 period. Something that is quite lost if OLS is just taken over the whole datasets.

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    These are the only reasonable predictions of solar activity.
    https://i.ibb.co/NZ0QbM8/295530875-477599434367038-5126776339027231087-n.jpg

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The La Nia pattern is well established in North America.
    https://i.ibb.co/25FjFKq/gfs-nh-sat1-t2anom-1-day.png

  46. First the Φ -Factor!
    in order to have the Planet RADIATIVE BALANCE calculated precisely!

    Second the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon
    in order to have the Planet Mean Surface Temperature NEW Equation completed!

    Not one, but two issues should be seen differently that is why the WHOLE ISSUE is not obvious at first glance,

    and it cannot wait, and it is not some difficult things, people have decoded DNA, people have invented INTERNET, the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not difficult at all, just FOCUS.

    It is not a Revolution in Physics, it is just the CORRECT PHYSICS!

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Bindidon says:

      ” It is not a Revolution in Physics, it is just the CORRECT PHYSICS! ”

      Why then don’t you publish it in some official science journal?

      • Bindidon, the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not difficult at all, just FOCUS.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

        • Ken says:

          Publish as suggested by Bindidon. And quit flogging your version of ‘science’ on us until it has had some sort of quality assurance.

        • Bindidon says:

          Vournas, don’t try to dodge again, you’ve done it enough times already.

          The problem is not that we wouldn’t understand what you write: the problem is that we can’t verify if it is correct.

          Thus I repeat:

          Why then dont you (try to) publish your stuff in some official science journal, and come back with the result of their review?

          • Bindidon

            “The problem is not that we wouldnt understand what you write: the problem is that we cant verify if it is correct.”

            You do not FOCUS enough, that is the problem!

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            christos…”You do not FOCUS enough, that is the problem!”

            ***

            The real problem is that Binny cannot think for himself. He constantly appeals to authority, even when the authority is obviously wrong.

          • Ken says:

            So far Vournas hasn’t convinced me (or anyone else) that he is right.

            Nothing to do with appeal to authority; its that there are no indications that quality assurance has been done to which Vournas can point.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ken…you mean there’s quality assurance on any of the stuff posted here? The argument presented by Christos is sound mathematically and intuitively.

  47. Bindidon says:

    Again, the trickster Linsley Hood tries to kid us.

    1. ” What has reference periods to do with comparisons as such? Of course they are all different which makes a strict number to number comparison ridiculous. ”

    Aha. Thus, comparing two times series wrt the same reference period is useless, or what does genius Linsley Hood think?

    Here is a correct comparison of UAH’s and RSS’s global time series:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p38CfnhJVwcNMfAuNXM5ey-GXRKstrci/view

    A comparison which of course isn’t based on OLS but on original Savitzy-Golay low pass runs (i.e., not the result of any subsequent, multipass filtering).

    *
    It seems that the genius still did not grasp that departures from the very same mean are very well useful for comparison.

    And his (resp. Greg Goodman’s) repeated denigrating of running means looks even more ridiculous when we compare, in the chart above, the thin running means perfectly meandering around the thick Savitzy-Golay outputs.

    **
    2. ” Plus I should point out that the actual difference between RSS and UAH becomes quite clear in the 2002-2008 period. Something that is quite lost if OLS is just taken over the whole datasets. ”

    When we look at the chart above, we see that the difference between RSS and UAH has not anything to do with what happened in 2002-2008.

    The difference encompasses the entire record.

    But like Robertson, who endlessly repeats his Putin, virus, Einstein, Moon spin and other nonsense despite being repeatedly corrected, Linsley Hood will endlessly stay opinionated on his strange, tricky manipulation, the probably dumbest WFT crackpottery I have ever seen:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:2002/offset:-0.23/plot/rss/from:2008/offset:-0.41/plot/uah6

    So what!

    *
    A technical, secondary point has nevertheless amazed me: the fact that the Swedish Savitzy-Golay tool I use, shows such a precision that its 60 month window outputs for RSS and UAH cross exactly at the same point as do the time series themselves, namely in January 2004.

    Well done, Mr Jonsson!

  48. RLH says:

    So Blinny yet again says that CTRMs are bad but won’t admit that Vaughan Pratt said otherwise and that they were MUCH better than Simple Running Means.

    • Bindidon says:

      So the stalking, lying trickster and crackpot Linsley Hood again and again lies and lies.

      For the umpteenth time: I never said that CTRMs are bad nor wrong nor anything else negative.

      I said AND say that at 12 month CTRM has the same effect on data not only as a 16 month running means, but also as an ORIGINAL 16 month Savitzky-Golay, and that anybody posting a chart mentioning ’12 month low pass’ intentionally misrepresents the reality.

      Not CTRMs, let alone Vaughan Pratt, are here a problem, but people like Greg Goodman and Linsley Hood who misuse what he did.

      But Linsley Hood will continue and continue and continue to lie.

      • Bindidon says:

        Should read

        ” … and that anybody using something like CTRM or equivalent, posting a chart mentioning 12 month low pass intentionally misrepresents the reality.

      • RLH says:

        “For the umpteenth time: I never said that CTRMs are bad nor wrong nor anything else negative.”

        So all my graphs which predominately use CTRMs are correct then.

        12 month low pass and 15 year low pass ARE CTRMs. Only the parts labeled S-G projections are S-G (and they are projections as I set out previously).

        You are the liar and mis-representer, not me.

        • RLH says:

          Some are 5 year CTRMs also.

          e.g.
          https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global-1.jpeg

          and

          https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-3.jpeg

          Open them both up in separate tabs and flip between them. Then you will see quite clearly the differences between them.

        • Bindidon says:

          For the stubborn, over-opinionated trickster, I repeat:

          ” I said AND say that at 12 month CTRM has the same effect on data not only as a 16 month running means, but also as an ORIGINAL 16 month Savitzky-Golay, and that anybody using something like CTRM or equivalent, posting a chart mentioning 12 month low pass intentionally misrepresents the reality. ”

          Your use of CTRM is correct, you genial college boy!
          What is incorrect and a lie, is

          – how you misuse its results;
          – how you kid us with alleged S-G outputs which are BY NO MEANS generated by an original, single pass S-G filter.

          • RLH says:

            And I have said, and can prove, a CTRM and a 5 pass S-G with the same window size have nearly identical outputs, the difference between which can be attributed to integer nearest rather than floating point usage in the various algorithms.

            A 5 pass, multi-pass S-G is like using a higher order Butterworth, does not alter the corner frequency only the rate of roll off.

            VP said, and I have no reason to doubt him, that a 12, 10, 8 month CTRM is the same as a Gaussian 12 month filter (or better) and that is what I use.

            You however do not understand anything of what VP said or the fact that I use what he said precisely.

          • RLH says:

            12 month low pass and 5/15 year low pass ARE CTRMs.

          • RLH says:

            “how you kid us with alleged S-G outputs which are BY NO MEANS generated by an original, single pass S-G filter”

            Nothing alleged about it. Those are results I plot from a 5 pass multi-pass S-G of the stated window size.

      • RLH says:

        Blinny is the problem as others can see quite clearly. The longer he deliberately mis-represents what is occurring, the more foolish he looks.

  49. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    See how TSI has grown since 1882. Can you see the reason for the gradual rise in global temperature?
    https://i.ibb.co/7YY8tRY/Screenshot-1.png

  50. RLH says:

    “What a dumb, ignorant question!”

    For which you do not have an answer.

    Why does RSS between 2002 and 2008 show such a difference to UAH over the same period? Could it be that they are including different satellites?

    https://imgur.com/JX5lHgw

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh how interesting!

      Suddenly, OLS trends become useful and correct again, after having been discredited so many times.

      Forgotten is the proud, teachy

      Linear fits (OLS etc.) are always suspect IMHO.

      Not only are they subject to potential cherry picking of start/end dates (possibly inadvertently) but also they take no account of how the maximums and minimums change over that time. That may also be relevant. ”

      *
      But apart from that funny moment, I strongly recommend you to compute, in a spreadsheet, all consecutive trends for different periods (5 years, 7 years, 10 years or so) of the UAH and the RSS time series, and to look at their differences.

      Maybe you understand that you are, like so many others, victim of an artifact.

      • RLH says:

        “Suddenly, OLS trends become useful and correct again, after having been discredited so many times.”

        OLS trends are useful for comparing that HAS happened. They are useless for predicting that WILL happen.

        If you think that that period between 2002 and 2008 is something that happens ‘all the time’ perhaps you will explain how come

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-3.jpeg

        and

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global-1.jpeg

        differ so obviously in that period.

        • RLH says:

          If you can only work with both images at the same time in the same window try

          https://imgur.com/a/Y96Ph5O

          • RLH says:

            Please note the thick traces (blue and green) are CTRMs of 12 month and 5 year periods. The thin traces at the end are a 5 pass, multi-pass 5 year S-G.

          • Bindidon says:

            The next lie:

            ” OLS trends are useful for comparing that HAS happened. They are useless for predicting that WILL happen. ”

            No, Linsley Hood, I won’t let you taking such a convenient exit.

            You ARE discrediting ALL uses of OLS, not only those used for predictions.

            Go back in all Spencer threads within the last 12 months, and collect ALL your posts concerning your OLS attitudes.

            *
            “If you can only work with both images at the same time in the same window try… ”

            But… who asks here for an overlay of two charts containing anomalies wrt completely different reference periods?

            This is completely useless!

            Manifestly, you are absolutely unable to generate a chart out of a spreadsheet containing different time series.

            Now you are becoming completely ridiculous.

            *
            Linsley Hood, learn how anomalies really work, learn how to use spreadsheets correctly, and come back when you are finally able to generate this:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zUov34Ag15anjLngigFBBEgvf5lcT5rO/view

            with your multipass filters instead.

            *
            Now I begin to understand why, after one year, you still are unable to generate a subhourly data based alternative to this chart comparing middle, median and mean series out of USCRN station data:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/15gED_1O6F5g5vvCulg71D3APZw9Nl9Ky/view

            and prove my hourly data is wrong.

            It’s simply because you can’t even create a chart out of several time series, let alone would you be able to generate latitude weighted monthly anomalies out of any station or grid data.

            *
            I know: you will endlessly continue to stalk me. You will never stop that, and nobody on this blog will stop you.

          • RLH says:

            “You ARE discrediting ALL uses of OLS, not only those used for predictions”

            I have always made clear what OLS is useful for and what it is not. Others like you want to show what will happen in the future by referring to OLS.

            “This is completely useless!”

            But shows quite clearly when the 2 series diverge.

            It was a quick paint response to you being unable to see what was in front of your face in 2 separate graphs. Do you think that making the code display both on the same image will be any different?

            “learn how anomalies really work”

            Now you are being your usual arrogant self. I know very well how anomalies are created and used thank you.

            “learn how to use spreadsheets correctly”

            I learned about spreadsheets when Visicalc and Muliplan first came out, unlike you it seems.

          • RLH says:

            If you want the same in woodfortrees.org try

            https://imgur.com/8IsfLYw

            because you don’t trust my paint.net skills.

          • Entropic man says:

            Go to Moyhu’s Latest Temperatures section. You will find a graph of the usual monthly temperature datasets plotted on a common baseline.

            RSS tends to follow the surface datasets. UAH is usually the lowest, sometimes several tenths below the others.

            Your graph confirms my previous opinion that UAH is underreading.

          • RLH says:

            RSS is deliberately constructed to follow the surface datasets by using incorrect or known bad sat6ellites between 2002 (2000 if you wish) and 2008 (see Roy for the detailed explanation).

            No-one has answered why 1998 is so low in everything other than UAH. At the time is was hailed as one of the biggest El Nino in history, now it languishes well down the pecking order, well below 2016 (which in itself is only the same as 1878).

          • RLH says:

            RSS over the period since 2008 to go with the one above in the earlier part before 2002.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45

            The problem with comparing the 2 series. RSS and UAH, over their whole time period is that the ‘error’ is not present in the later part or the later part, only in the center.

          • RLH says:

            ….in the earlier part or the later part….

          • Mark B says:

            No-one has answered why 1998 is so low in everything other than UAH. At the time is was hailed as one of the biggest El Nino in history, now it languishes well down the pecking order, well below 2016 (which in itself is only the same as 1878).

            You’ve repeatedly referenced a study that says 1998 is also ‘statistically indistinguishable’ from 1878 as part of your fixation with the 1878 and 2016 El Nino events. The statistical argument is largely down to the error estimation for the older part of the record.

            1998 is visually lower than 2016 in most of the time series because of the stronger underlying trend versus UAH. The trend relative magnitudes are similar. Also, the magnitude of El Nino events is higher in the satellite measurements because they’re measuring something different than the surface datasets.

          • RLH says:

            “The statistical argument is largely down to the error estimation for the older part of the record.”

            Except that L’Heureux has herself co-published a paper that says the exact opposite. 1878 is statistically similar to 2016.

          • RLH says:

            “Also, the magnitude of El Nino events is higher in the satellite measurements because they’re measuring something different than the surface datasets”

            You might be on stronger grounds if you claim that looking from outside the PBL/SBL inwards is different to looking outwards from inside the PBL/SBL. Both estimate the overall outcome from different perspectives.

          • RLH says:

            “Youve repeatedly referenced a study that says 1998 is also statistically indistinguishable from 1878 as part of your fixation with the 1878 and 2016 El Nino events”

            But GISS, Had5 and RSS say that 1998 is insignificant compared to 2016/1878.

          • RLH says:

            And GISS and Had5 say that 1878 is insignificant compared to 2016.

          • Mark B says:

            You seem to be confusing two different metrics.

            The ‘How Significant Was the 1877/78 El Nio?‘ paper compares Nino indices and finds no significant difference between 1877/78 and each of the 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16 El Nino events by that metric. From the paper’s abstract, ‘Based on the estimated uncertainties, the differences among the strength of these four major El Nio events are not statistically significant.’

            Now you’re comparing the magnitude of these events using global temperature metrics rather than Nino regional metrics. The global temperature metrics each have significant trends which will reduce the global average peak of earlier El Nino events. The UAH trend is lower, so it will reduce those events by less than the other time series.

          • RLH says:

            And the non trended absolute Nino 3.4 data backs up that observation.

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34-absolute.jpeg

            “Now youre comparing the magnitude of these events using global temperature metrics rather than Nino regional metrics.”

            Nino 3.4 data is regional data agreed. But 1878 was felt all over the world with many, many papers saying that was the case world wide.

            So are you saying that 1998 was similar to 2016 or not? UAH says that it was.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: So are you saying that 1998 was similar to 2016 or not? UAH says that it was.

            I’m saying there are different metrics and fixating on one to the exclusion of others is a sub-optimal path to understanding the natural world and the limitations to that understanding.

            If, on the other hand one is looking to start a food fight, one’s optimum strategy might be different.

          • RLH says:

            “I’m saying there are different metrics and fixating on one to the exclusion of others is a sub-optimal path to understanding the natural world and the limitations to that understanding.”

            Do you agree that there are multiple papers that say that 1878 was felt world wide, not just in the central Pacific, and that the El Nino affected world wide temperatures?

            Although GISS and Had5 do not represent that fact.

          • RLH says:

            GISS and Had5 also show that 1998 was considerably different to 2016 even though there are a lot of papers that say quite different.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: Do you agree that there are multiple papers that say that 1878 was felt world wide, not just in the central Pacific, and that the El Nino affected world wide temperatures?

            Although GISS and Had5 do not represent that fact.

            Relative to the time period the 1878/79 El Nino global temperature had perhaps it’s largest warm spike according to the Had global series. The GISS time series doesn’t go back that far.

            No one disagrees that 1878 was an unusually large El Nino event with broad impacts. That doesn’t change the fact that Had also says the 1998 event occurred on a warmer planet and the 2016 event on an even warmer planet.

          • RLH says:

            As Had5 does not record the 1878 event as being similar to 2016 in the global series even though other papers referring to the event say it was important world wide then I do not believe that Had is as accurate as you think it is.

            GISS and Had track quite well back to 1880 so I rather suspect that it is not that accurate either.

            Both do not show the 1998 event to be similar world wide to the 2016/1878 events even though other papers do.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mark b…”RLH says: So are you saying that 1998 was similar to 2016 or not? UAH says that it was.

            [Mark]Im saying there are different metrics and fixating on one to the exclusion of others is a sub-optimal path to understanding the natural world and the limitations to that understanding.

            ***

            Mark, I’ve heard so pretty good bafflebag in my life but yours rates right up there.

          • barry says:

            “Others like you want to show what will happen in the future by referring to OLS.”

            That IS a lie, RLH. No one here has done that in any of the threads that I have seen.

            The only person talking about this notion is you.

          • barry says:

            There is very little warming in the NINO3.4 region since 1870 (especially in the Had data set), while there is significant warming in the global temperature record, regardless of dataset used.

            Therefore, the very strong 1878 el Nino will have a similar amplitude to 2016 if you use only the NINO3.4 data, especially the Had data set, but the 2016 will have a higher amplitude in the global dataset because of the underlying warming globally.

            These results do not contradict because they are based on different metrics.

            And that’s before we talk about l’Heureux’s paper, which uses a detrended NINO3.4 dataset to compare el Ninos.

            Remember, RLH: if you think the Had.CRU global temperature record is suspect, then you must also find HadISST suspect, as it is a subset of the Had.CRU dataset, including the adjustments, made by the same people.

            And if you think detrending is illegitimate, then you must reject l’Heureux’s paper, which relies on detrended data (ONI).

          • RLH says:

            “there is significant warming in the global temperature record”

            Which does not show that 1878 was a global phenomena even though there are numerous papers that show it affected things world wide.

            The ‘global temperature record’ does not even show that 1998 was ‘significant’, at least as far as RSS, GISS and Had5 go.

            “if you think detrending is illegitimate, then you must reject lHeureuxs paper, which relies on detrended data (ONI)”

            Why? The Nino 3.4 non-trended data set (which is the only way you can truly compare things over very long periods without first removing the difference in trends over that time) supports her argument. You really don’t understand how trending works do you?

            Look at the artificial regularity in

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/ens-oni.jpeg

            compared to the fully natural

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nino34-absolute.jpeg

          • RLH says:

            “No one here has done that in any of the threads that I have seen”

            OLS trends (often stated as n degrees per decade with implications that it will continue unchanged far into the future) are often used in many threads, so you are demonstrably incorrect in that.

          • barry says:

            “OLS trends (often stated as n degrees per decade with implications that it will continue unchanged far into the future) are often used in many threads”

            You will not find that notion put forward by any of the regulars here.

            Your claim, yours to corroborate.

          • barry says:

            “there is significant warming in the global temperature record”

            “Which does not show that 1878 was a global phenomena”

            It certainly does. The 1878 spike in global temperatures is quite extreme compared to surrounding years. That spike is not exceeded for another 50 years, so, yes, that event shows up very clearly in the global temperature record. You can see it here.

            https://tinyurl.com/mr3hcnx7

            Global temperatures were about 0.8C warmer in the 2010s than they were in the 1870s. The 2016 el Nino has a taller spike in the global record simply because of this change in background temperatures.

            It’s like having a day in Winter that is 10C warmer than the average for Winter, and then comparing it with a day in Summer 10C warmer than the average for Summer. Both departures are 10C, equal in the departure from normal, but the background state is different, so the absolute temperature on those days will be different because they occur in different climate regimes.

            Because the NINO3.4 region has barely warmed in the same period, if at all, the el Nino spikes are little different in THAT record.

            Do you understand?

          • RLH says:

            “The 1878 spike in global temperatures is quite extreme compared to surrounding years.”

            But 1878 is not the same in global temperatures as 2016 even though many papers says the results were global in nature.

            Likewise 1998 is nowhere near the same as 2016 except in UAH.

          • RLH says:

            Often stated as n degrees per decade with implications that it will continue unchanged far into the future.

            You have many times claimed that AWG will continue rising unabated into the future have you not? At n degrees per decade.

          • RLH says:

            ….AGW….

          • barry says:

            “But 1878 is not the same in global temperatures as 2016 even though many papers says the results were global in nature.”

            Of course it’s not the same in global temperatures. That’s because global temperatures are 0.8C warmer in the 2010s than they are in the 1870s. So 2 el Ninos of equal strength will have 0.8C difference in their peaks simply because the background temperature has changed.

            A day 10C above average in Winter won’t be as warm as a day 10C above average in Summer. Because these events occur in a different climate state, even though they both have the same departure from normal.

          • barry says:

            “You have many times claimed that AWG will continue rising unabated into the future have you not? At n degrees per decade.”

            I have NEVER said that temperatures will rise in the future at N degrees per decade.

            Your memory is atrocious.

            I have repeatedly said that my expectation of future global warming is based on physics, not on past statistics and trend lines, and I have NEVER extrapolated a current trend line into the future and claimed that this is going to be the rate of warming.

            I’ve been debating this stuff since 2007, and have NEVER proposed such a stupid thing.

            I challenge you to find one post from the regulars here that does such a thing, RLH. You have simply come to this board with that idea in your head, and projected it when no one does this. And you have continued to project this idea when I and others have told you differently.

            What is wrong with you?

  51. RLH says:

    too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes.

    The frequency response starts to look more reasonable as you cascade filters because the side lobes die down.

    There are no side lobes with a perfect Gaussian filter, though there are very tiny ones with any finite-impulse-response (FIR) approximation to one. For a low-pass filter you could do a lot worse than a Gaussian filter.”

    Vaughan Pratt

    http://clim.stanford.edu/RLHF3.jpg

    12, 10, 8 (or 8, 10, 12) CTRM is definitely the preferred option.

    • Bindidon says:

      Simply look at the horrible difference between

      – a simple running mean
      and
      – the output of a Savitzky-Golay filter in the same window:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p38CfnhJVwcNMfAuNXM5ey-GXRKstrci/view

      My guess is that, after having elevated Savitzy-Golay up to heaven some months ago, but having had to discover in between that this low pass technique does not differ enough from simple running means, you have started ignoring it, and decided that from now on, only CTRMs and multipass S-G are worth considering.

      • RLH says:

        As VP and I discussed, a CTRM compared to a SRM is a no-brainer (see above). We did not discuss S-G.

        5 pass, multi-pass S-G is what I have been using from 2014 when Nate recommended it. As I said before I used it I verified it compared well to a CTRM of the same window size.

        No doubt Blinny will continue to ignore this fact having argued himself into a corner.

      • RLH says:

        Blinny is dumb enough to believe that Simple Running Means and single pass S-G are what should be used by everybody when Vaughan and Nate say that CRTM and 5 pass, multi-pass S-G are what we should use instead. But what do they know? Right?

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    brandon gates…”[anon]> The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H

    [BG]The energy of a photon depends solely on its frequency. As I have shown you before, the emission spectra of two bodies close but not equal to each other in temperature all but completely overlap:

    https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl

    Given the overlap, how can H know that C is cooler on the basis of the frequency of incident photons from C alone?”

    ***

    In the first part of your response you refer to the energy of a photon being dependent on its frequency. The equation may say that, as in E = hf, but we must be aware of the origins of E and f and why they are related as such.

    The relationship is due to an electron transitioning from a higher orbital energy level to a lower orbital energy level. The E in E = hf comes from the difference in electron volts between those energy levels and the freguency comes from the angular frequency of the electron.

    It’s obvious that the difference in electron volts between energy levels will depend not only on the atom to which the electron belongs but also to the temperature of the mass in which the atom resides. In order to reverse that transition those properties and conditions must be taken into account.

    In a cooler object, E = Eu – El which is the difference between the upper and lower energy levels, is obviously lower than in a hotter body. That means the frequency will be lower as well, since the electrons in the atoms of the cooler body won’t be orbiting as quickly.

    Ergo, when that cooler body’s electrons emit EM, they will have an E to f relationship that is inadequate for absorp-tion by electrons in a hotter body. The corresponds to the claims of the 2nd law.

    Planck’s curve has nothing to do with this since his curve represents the probability of tiny oscillators (frequencies) of EM having the shape of his curve. When we talk about an electron emitting a quantum of EM, we are talking about a single frequency, not a spectrum of frequencies.

    Quantum theory cannot be visualized using graphs because there is no complete theory covering bazzillions of electrons in atoms of a body emitting single-frequency quanta of EM. No one knows how that is converted to a wave front or whether photons exist at all.

    Remember, the photon is an invention to particalize EM. A photon is a definition, a quantum of EM with momentum but no mass.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      WTF are you talking about?

      Anyway, whatever it is, has no relation to modern physics.

      You should get a physics textbook and start over.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob d …”WTF are you talking about?”

        ***

        We are talking about Bohr’s theory, Schrodinger’s wave equation, and all related theories in quantum physics. Since you are just a janitor at a nuclear facility, I would not expect you to understand.

        • bobdroege says:

          Gordon,

          Maybe you could explain with a reference showing how the related theories of Quantum Physics support your bullshit.

          And since I have a degree in Chemistry, which requires study of Quantum Mechanics, and that allows me to call bullshit on your bullshit.

          Let’s take a look at this

          “When we talk about an electron emitting a quantum of EM, we are talking about a single frequency, not a spectrum of frequencies.”

          Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett, Pfund, and Humphreys all say you are wrong, the single electron in a hydrogen atom emits a series of frequencies. Depending on the energy level from and to.

          I though you were familiar with the Bohr theory!!!!!!!!!!!

          And the Nuclear Power Plant I worked at didn’t have janitors, they had Utility Men, just another thing you know nothing about.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          bobdroege, please stop trolling.

    • Brandon R. Gates says:

      > we are talking about a single frequency, not a spectrum of frequencies

      We need to talk about both, Gordon. The Planck curve of the emitting object tells us what photons to expect at the intercepting object, and the curve of the intercepting object tells us the probability an incident photon will be absorbed or rejected.

      The key point remains that the probability the intercepting object absorbs a photon is solely determined by its own emissivity at that specific wavelength. Period. It has nothing to do with the relative temperature of the emitting object; photons don’t carry that information.

      • Clint R says:

        Brando, a photon does NOT have an emissivity. “Emissivity” refers to a surface.

        Wikipedia provides a poor foundation in physics, just ask Norman….

        • Brandon R. Gates says:

          > a photon does NOT have an emissivity

          Congratulations, Clint, that’s the first correct thing you’ve written in some time now.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        brandon…”The key point remains that the probability the intercepting object absorbs a photon is solely determined by its own emissivity at that specific wavelength”.

        ***

        Hardly. If you speak of a photon you must reference it to an individual electron on an atom of the receiving surface. It is electrons that do the receiving and transmitting, there are no magical properties in a surface related to emissivity that governs whether a photon with be absorbed or not.

        If the energy state of of an electron and it’s angular frequency don’t match the photon’s energy or frequency, the photon will not be absorbed. That’s basic quantum theory. That theory supports the 2nd law since it prohibits EM from colder bodies being absorbed by warmer bodies.

        • bobdroege says:

          Gordon,

          Do you have a reference that supports this?

          “If the energy state of of an electron and its angular frequency dont match the photons energy or frequency, the photon will not be absorbed.”

          Or can we just call it made up?

        • Brandon R. Gates says:

          > there are no magical properties in a surface related to emissivity that governs whether a photon with be absorbed or not

          Correct, there are actual properties of that surface which determine it, Gordon. Those properties result in what is called absorpbtivity (which equals emissivity at thermodynamic equilibrium, see Kirchhoff), and it has nothing to do with the temperature of the emitting object.

          The upshot of all of this is that hot bodies can and do absorb photons emitted by cooler ones.

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, H absorbing some photons from a C does NOT result in increasing the H’s temperature.

            See if this simple analogy helps:

            H is emitting 7 energy level photons — 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, with 7 being the highest level. The average energy level, corresponding to a temperature, is 4.

            C is emitting 5 energy levels photons — 1,2,3,4,5, with 5 being the highest level. The average energy level, corresponding to a temperature, is 3.

            H is hotter than C, as 4 has more energy than 3.

            Now what is the temperature of H if it absorbs the entire flux from C?

            The answer is 4. The lower energy photons do NOT raise the average energy level.

            Cold can NOT raise the temperature of Hot. That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water.

            Does that help?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > H absorbing some photons from a C does NOT result in increasing the Hs temperature.

            I’m so glad you’re here to tell me these things, Clint.

          • bobdroege says:

            No it doesn’t help.

            “Cold can NOT raise the temperature of Hot. Thats why ice cubes can NOT boil water.

            Does that help?”

            Because it’s made up.

            Find a decent textbook and educate your ass.

            I know, that’s work, something you are not accustomed to.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob, you’re always accusing others of not understanding physics, yet you have not been able to answer even one of the simple problems I have presented.

            If you were mature and responsible, that should tell you something….

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > yet you have not been able to answer even one of the simple problems I have presented

            What’s the wavelength of a level 4 photon, Clint. I have asked several times now.

          • Clint R says:

            A “level 4 photon” comes from the simple analogy above. The simple analogy explains why “cold” can NOT raise the temperature of “hot”.

            So a “level 4 photon” would have level 4 photon energy, wavelength, and frequency. You could put in numbers, but then it would only complicate the simple analogy.

            When I’m explaining to people with no science background, I like to keep things as simple as possible.

            (BTW, your 3-minute response time was great stalking. No one likes a slacker stalker.)

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Braindead bob, youre always accusing others of not understanding physics, yet you have not been able to answer even one of the simple problems I have presented.”

            That’s because you can’t get the correct answer to all your “simple problems.”

            They are bullshit questions, in my best Maria Tomei voice.

            You don’t understand the physics, that’s why you claim bullshit like cold can’t warm hot and the bullshit about ice cubes.

            When it has been experimentally verifies that cold can warm hot and ice cubes can cause water to boil.

            You are just a fucking moron, that’s all I got.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > You could put in numbers, but then it would only complicate the simple analogy.

            This plot uses real numbers, Clint:

            https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl

            What do you find too complex about it?

          • Clint R says:

            Life is so frustrating when you reject reality, huh bob?

          • Clint R says:

            Brandon, my browser doesn’t get along with imgur, so you’ll have to conjure up some other lame, distracting question.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Pure gold, Clint. I’m guessing the dog ate a lot of your homework too.

          • Clint R says:

            Keep conjuring, Brando.

            Also, your response time is slipping. Step it up.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Go argue with Planck, Clint, Figure 1.15:

            https://ahtt.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/AHTTv500.pdf

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Who said this?

            “So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on.”

            Maybe you should argue with him, although he is a lot smarter than you.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            Clint runs around outside naked in the winter, Bob:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1335615

            Putting cold clothes on a warm body would not raise the bodys temperature.

            I couldn’t make this up.

          • Clint R says:

            No argument with Planck, Brando.

            What did you not understand about Fig. 1-15?

            Troll Brando goes on to make a fool of himself: “I couldn’t make this up.”

            You couldn’t understand it either, Brando. Clothes are NOT warming a person. It is the person’s body heat that provides the heating. If you put clothes on a dead body, the clothes will NOT warm it. The heat transfer is from a person’s body to the clothes. The clothes act as insulation.

            You don’t understand any of this.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Clothes are NOT warming a person.

            Yet your body warms up when you put them on, Clint.

            Something else has a heat source too, and a barrier to energy loss which causes it to be warmer than it would be otherwise.

            Bet you can’t guess what.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Mz Reality says you got the answers to your own questions wrong.

            She is laughing at you.

          • Clint R says:

            Brando, you’ve tried level 4 photons, Fig 1-15, and clothes.

            What will you try next?

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > What will you try next?

            I might try pointing out that there’s something seriously wrong with you comparing a dead body to the planet, Clint, but that was already obvious.

          • Clint R says:

            But I didn’t compare a dead body to the planet, Brando. That’s a false accusation. Which means it’s time to end this session of babysitting you.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > I didnt compare a dead body to the planet

            Of course not, Clint. Why else to bring it up in a thread about greenhouse gasses.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Brandon, please stop trolling.

  53. gbaikie says:

    I was wondering if you can magnified Coronal loops of the sun:

    The giant coronal loops are filled with gas particles heated to 3.5 million degrees Fahrenheit — a temperature hot enough to emit high-energy X-rays, which are invisible to the human eye.”

    And could you get say 1/2 million degrees?
    Or is it just low density plasma.

    Roughly, like a big fluorescent bulb.

  54. Ken says:

    The discussion is circling the drain again.

    Meanwhile our economies are being shut down because of Nitrous Oxide emissions.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Nothing to do with nitrous, it’s abut brain-dead politicians who are butt-kissing liars like the IPCC.

  55. Ken says:
    July 26, 2022 at 6:15 PM
    “So far Vournas hasnt convinced me (or anyone else) that he is right.

    Nothing to do with appeal to authority; its that there are no indications that quality assurance has been done to which Vournas can point.”

    “(or anyone else)” ??? You cannot claim that!

    Now, a simplest question to Ken:

    As we know Moon orbits sun at the same distance from the sun.
    Moon’s Albedo is a=0,11 whereas Earth’s Albedo is a=0,306

    Thus Moon “absorbs” 28% MORE THAN EARTH solar energy.

    Moon’s effective temperature Te = 270,4K
    Moon’s measured mean surface temperature Tsat = 220K

    Let’s Ken explain what PHENOMENON makes Moon’s mean surface temperature (Tsat=220K) to appear 50,4C lower than Moon’s effective temperature (Τε=270,4Κ) ???

    Ken, there are no ways getting around it…

    The PLANET ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON explains all the satellite measured planets and moons mean surface temperatures.

    Bindidon, it is the same question for you too.

    Please, explain, why Earth’s surface is on average 68C warmer than Moon’s?
    And, don’t you know Earth receives 28% less solar energy than Moon?
    So why? Why you go around of THAT HUGE discrepancy in your way of thinking?

    Bindidon:

    “The problem is not that we wouldnt understand what you write: the problem is that we cant verify if it is correct.”

    Why can’t you?

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      christos…”The PLANET ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON explains all the satellite measured planets and moons mean surface temperatures”.

      ***

      I agree, Christos, it’s obvious.

    • gbaikie says:

      It seems if Earth’s day was 1 month long, Earth would be colder.
      And if Earth day was 12 hours rather 24 hours, Earth would be warmer.
      [And solar power would work better.]

      But the Moon does not absorb much energy.
      Most of Earth is covered by a transparent ocean and about 1/2 of energy of sunlight directly warm 1 meter below the ocean surface.
      Whereas very little of heat of sunlight warms as deep as one meter below the lunar surface.
      The lunar surface is covered with fluffy dust which is very good insulation.
      Sand on Earth is not as good of insulation as lunar dust is, but sunlight doesn’t sand much below 8″ of below surface.
      If you simply step on the lunar dust, it will absorb more sunlight.
      If covered the lunar surface with 1 meter of transparent glass, the the lunar surface would absorb more energy from the sun.
      But ocean water is better than glass, 1 meter of water has twice heat capacity as 1 meter of glass.
      But say put 1 meter of glass over 10 meters of water, that should absorb a lot energy from sunlight. But water does not conduct heat well, mixing the water a bit, would make it absorb more energy.
      And on Earth, you have waves doing this.

      • gbaikie says:

        “It seems if Earths day was 1 month long, Earth would be colder.
        And if Earth day was 12 hours rather 24 hours, Earth would be warmer.
        [And solar power would work better.]

        But the Moon does not absorb much energy.”

        It is the planet (N*cp) product in sixteenth root that matters.
        For Earth (N*cp) = 1
        For Moon (N*cp) = (1\29,5)*0,19 = 0,00664 = 1\155,6

        If Moon had (N*cp) = 1 Moon would had been warmer than Earth, because of the Moon’s lower than Earth’s Albedo.

        If Moon rotated 155,26 times faster, 155,6\24h = 6,47 rotations\day
        Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been warmer than Earth’s.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

        • gbaikie says:

          The moon could only rotate up to certain speed before flying apart.
          Small objects [space rock] can and do spin very fast compared planet, like day of 9 mins, and they average around 5 C.

          Of course Earth is a very cold ice house global climate. A more normal Earth has average temperature of more than 20 C.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…”It seems if Earths day was 1 month long, Earth would be colder”.

        ***

        Depends which side you were on, the solar side or the dark side. The average would likely be colder but that would be meaningless if you were on the hot side or the cold aide.

        • gbaikie says:

          Hmm. Well:
          Currently we are in coldest time of an Ice Age and so to become colder, it’s the Snowball Earth.
          We are not just cold, we also dry, and would become even drier.

          But I don’t think Earth could have a Snowball global climate.

          But it could sort of a Slushball-ish global climate, which means a lot more “polar sea ice” than we have ever had before and drier world than we have ever had before.
          Anyhow, instead Canada with average yearly temperature of -3 C, Canada average yearly temperature would around -20 C or colder.

          Whereas the tropics is a bit cooler and drier.
          It seems in Southern California, we should get sea ice during winter.

          One could/might possibly travel via sea ice to Hawaii in winter and during the long night

          • gbaikie says:

            And you wouldn’t live in Canada.
            It seems humans would live in Ocean settlements.

        • gbaikie :

          “Currently we are in coldest time of an Ice Age and so to become colder, its the Snowball Earth.”

          Why do you think, gbaikie, we are currently in coldest time of an Ice Age?

          https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • gbaikie says:

            –Why do you think, gbaikie, we are currently in coldest time of an Ice Age?–

            Coldest time in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age

            Because this is what everyone says.
            Ie: Greenland ice sheet formed about 2 million years ago and last glaciation period was the coldest.
            Last interglacial periods were warmer and higher sea levels.
            No one dispute it.

          • gbaikie says:

            I would say an important question is, what would Venus temperature be if Venus was at Earth distance from the sun?

            Now, Christos Vournas seems to understand the speed of rotation of planet effects it’s temperature.

            Venus rocky surface is the slowest rotating planet compared to any know planet in the universe.

            And Venus is hot.

            Now, Venus upper atmosphere rotates every 4 to 5 Earth days.

            This alone, should logically inform anyone, that the upper atmosphere
            is warmed by sunlight
            And I know of no one that disagrees that upper atmosphere is warmed
            by sunlight, but if one believe rotational speed matters, regardless of what other say, this should confirm upper atmosphere is warmed by sunlight.
            And, if the rotation of atmosphere were to slow, it would not be rotating as fast, and so would be colder.
            {if slower rotation cools}.

            If Venus was at Earth distance it receives less sunlight.
            {unless you think Venus is not warmed by sunlight} then Venus
            should be cooler

            Therefore, less sunlight “probably” would make atmosphere rotate slower.
            Agree or disagree?

            If rotates slower, it cools.
            And if cools, it would probably make it rotate slower
            One to call that, a runaway effect.

            {There seems to me to be other cooling runaway effects but I think rotation aspect is a fairly important issue which can be addressed, first}

          • gbaikie, you mean, if Venus were at Earth’s orbit, Venusian atmosphere would be receiving less solar energy, as a result atmosphere would rotate less, and Venusian surface temperature would be less because of the bigger distance from the sun and because of the atmosphere the slower rotational spin.

            Yes, I agree.

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • gbaikie says:

            “Yes, I agree.”

            I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing.
            Though I can imagine much disagreeing about how much
            colder would be if Venus was at Earth distance.

            Much of the religion concerning “global warming” is that Venus
            was once like Earth. And the craziest think Earth could become like
            Venus.

            I think if made Earth have same rotational speed and at same distance
            from the sun as Venus, Earth would not become vaguely like Venus.

            And I think if Venus was at Earth distance, Venus would be colder than Earth. Colder is the sense of having lower average surface air temperature than 15 C. And colder because there would higher air pressure and higher air density and thereby quickly make a human feel cold [and/or die of freezing quicker even if the air was somewhere in Venus having a air temperature as warm as 15 C.

            But if there any science related global climate, one understood it should able to predict the average surface air temperature of Venus if it was at 1 AU distance from the sun.

          • gbaikie:

            “But if there any science related global climate, one understood it should able to predict the average surface air temperature of Venus if it was at 1 AU distance from the sun.”

            I calculate Venus surface temperature at 1 AU distance from the sun approximately as:

            Tvenus = 670K

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • gbaikie says:

            –I calculate Venus surface temperature at 1 AU distance from the sun approximately as:

            Tvenus = 670K–

            You missed YOUR point. The question is how fast in Venus atmosphere
            rotating.
            Venus is slowest rocky surface rotating planet, but it’s atmosphere rotates in 4 to 5 Earth day.

            How many earths days does upper atmosphere rotate it
            {as Venus in heated at it’s upper atmosphere NOT it’s slow moving
            rocky surface.
            Your answer is all about it’s rotational speed.

          • gbaikie says:

            Let’s see if I can answer your point.
            Your number for temperature is 670 K or 397 C
            for some kind average surface temperature [since rocky surface
            temperature varies with the varying elevation of Venus surface, which varies a lot more then Earth- because Earth has an ocean sea level covering 70% of the planet.
            And though it’s claimed air temperature doesn’t vary [if at same elevation] on it’s rocky by more than 5 C {it’s probably wrong and probably varies more in polar region- and if cooler, probably varies more in polar region].
            “Surface pressure: 92 bars
            Surface density: ~65. kg/m3
            Scale height: 15.9 km
            Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 1020 kg
            Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)
            Diurnal temperature range: ~0
            Wind speeds: 0.3 to 1.0 m/s (surface)
            Mean molecular weight: 43.45 ”
            Well, diurnal temperature range, is fairly meaningless
            and could remain at about 0
            and Mean molecular weight, should increase. But temperature
            of 737 vs your Earth distance temp of 670 K
            or 67 K difference.

            As starting exercise what happen is Earth 15 C were 15 K cooler?
            Earth atmosphere lowers and stays the same pressure.
            Standard Atmospheric is given at 15 C, though sometimes it’s 20 C
            and you have different surface air density, because of a mere difference of 5 K.
            Or if at 1 atm on Venus, and temperature drops, you can be at 1 atm,
            but you become closer to rocky surface.
            Oh I also have a table, bookmarked:
            https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-temperature-pressure-density-d_771.html
            1 atm: 10 C: 1.25 kg and 65.6 C: 1.04 kg per cubic meter
            68.95 atm: 10 C: 86.50 and 65.6: 72.08 kg
            Or if at 65.6 C and cools to 10 C it increases density by about 20%
            And if at 50 km elevation times .8 you drop to 40 km elevation at 1 atm pressure with temperature difference of 55.6 K

            So, Venus at Earth distance you at 1 atm at around 40 km from surface
            and at north pole. Sun is at very low horizon and is very dim.
            Now be at equator. Sunlight is bright and air is 67 K colder then if at Venus distance, so 0 to 5 C.
            Drop to surface and air is 670 K if surface somewhere at zero sea level elevation. Sunlight at surface is very dim. At Venus distance
            it’s dim, with half as much sunlight it’s dimmer.
            Go up to 30 degrees latidute and sunlight has to pas thru twice as much atmosphere, sunlight is lighter portion of very dark sky.
            This part:
            “Wind speeds: 0.3 to 1.0 m/s (surface)”
            Would be slower.
            And go back up to 40 km elevation, it’s wind speed rather than 100 m/s would also be going slower.

      • Bindidon says: July 26, 2022 at 9:28 AM
        “Vournas, dont try to dodge again, youve done it enough times already.

        The problem is not that we wouldnt understand what you write: the problem is that we cant verify if it is correct.

        Thus I repeat:

        Why then dont you (try to) publish your stuff in some official science journal, and come back with the result of their review?”

        “Why then don’t you (try to) … ?”

        Bindidon, I see now, the question is why (?)

        Please, Bindidon, could you write (offer) a selection of supposed answers, so I would choose one, among many? Please make the job easier for me.
        Just write the cause (in your opinion) of why I am not “publish my stuff in some official science journal”.

        You may as well propose some several causes of why.

        Maybe it will take an entire thread, maybe two threads or more… Just start suggesting and commenting on the matter…

        Bindidon, I am looking forward to it…
        Why, actually, I don’t publish (?)
        You made me become very much interested on the matter.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It seems that northern and central Europe must prepare for early autumn.
    http://en.sat24.com/en

  57. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Where is it hot at night now.
    https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2min

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      In the Northern Hemisphere we call it summer. The only explanation I have for the current heat in the Southern Hemisphere is La Nina effects.

      I was born in the UK and I was used to summers that were covered with cloud much of the time. I recall getting out of bed on a summer morning in Scotland, during a visit, at the latitude of Glasgow and finding it uncomfortably cold. Whn I tired to shave using a mirror in the bathroom, the hot water steamed the mirror glass so much I could not see my reflection. Of course, that may have something to do with vampirism.

      The first thing that affected me as a child, moving to Vancouver, Canada, was the hot summers. I got nauseous from the heat at first, likely due to heat prostration. Why was it that much hotter during a Vancouver summer than a summer in Scotland? I get it that Scotland is part of a narrow island surrounded by ocean, but Vancouver is right on the ocean.

      We now receive warnings about heat waves but in my childhood, it was just as hot, sans the heat wave warnings. The Sun was hot enough to give you a bad sunburn within an hour of being exposed. I mean a sunburn where the skin actually turns red and blisters.

      I recently supplied a link to Oxford, UK, where the average temperature in July was in the vicinity of 24C, dating back to 1860.

  58. RLH says:

    RSS and UAH directly compared, first before 2002 (2000)

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.23

    and then from 2008

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45

    It is apparent that UAH is not that dissimilar to RSS except for the central period between 2002 to 2008.

  59. Bindidon says:

    Linsley Hood definitely does not understand that you can’t simply shift anomalies as you want when you compare time series whose anomalies were constructed with respect to different reference periods.

    You have to ensure that all anomalies are correctly displaced by the mean of the major reference period chosen, here: UAH’s, i.e. 1991-2020.

    The anomaly mean within 1991-2020 for RSS Globe is 0.356; that for GISS LOTI is 0.613.

    *
    Here is a correct CTRM simulation using WFT, comparing UAH, RSS and GISS LOTI for the Globe:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.365/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.613

    As you can see here too, this 2002-2008 stuff is sheer nonsense, solely due to Linsley Hood’s own incompetence.

    He should ask for example Vaughan Pratt what he means about that, before naming me ‘arrogant’.

    Interestingly, CTRM-ing the three time series didn’t change the facts that

    – UAH clearly is the outlier here;
    – UAH crosses RSS near the beginning of 2004.

    **
    And let me add that a person who needs to physically overlay two plots to show what s/he means

    https://imgur.com/a/Y96Ph5O

    instead of simply creating a graph in a spreadsheet calculator and letting it produce a picture in e.g. tiff, gif or png format

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p38CfnhJVwcNMfAuNXM5ey-GXRKstrci/view

    can’t really know how to use such tools.

    No one having Excel and/or Libre Office Calc experience would be stupid enough to show us the level of the own incompetence by showing such an incredibly primitive picture like this Y96Ph5O.

    • RLH says:

      “Linsley Hood definitely does not understand that you can’t simply shift anomalies as you want when you compare time series whose anomalies were constructed with respect to different reference periods.”

      Wrong. Different reference periods which construct anomalies can simply be subtracted, one from the other in order to make direct comparisons.

      Anyway, in this case, the earlier part of the record and the later part both agree if you use different offsets. Nothing about single reference periods will correct that error.

      Now Blinny wants to say that woodfortrees.org is wrong because it does not show what HE wants.

      Of course the 2 series ‘cross’ in the middle. That is what

      https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

      shows quite clearly. Idiot.

    • Bindidon says:

      Linsley Hood, you can name me ‘idiot’ as long as you want.

      I repeat: you don’t understand how anomalies must be handled.
      Even Robertson wouldn’t make your mistakes.

      And, as usual, you continue stalking and lying

      ” Now Blinny wants to say that woodfortrees.org is wrong because it does not show what HE wants. ”

      like a 15 year old college boy.

      YOU dirty liar are the one saying I would want to ‘say that woodfortrees.org is wrong’.

      I never said woodfortrees.org would be wrong.

      What is utterly wrong, dirty liar, is how YOU use it.

    • RLH says:

      Question: If I add back in the normals in one case and then subtract a different set of normals in the other case how is that different to just subtracting the difference one from the other?

      “What is utterly wrong, dirty liar, is how YOU use it.”

      I just use it to display what happens if you use a different offset for RSS to produce 2 different traces and how that allows a single UAH trace to align with it at both ends.

      https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

    • Bindidon says:

      As we all can see, woodfortrees.org is absolutely correct:

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.365/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.613

      What is utterly wrong is how Linsley Hood misuses Paul Clark’s WFT software by shifting anomaly values with arbitrary values:

      https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

      But Linsley Hood will endlessly continue stalking, lying and cheating.

      • RLH says:

        Question: If I add back in the normals in one case and then subtract a different set of normals in the other case how is that different to just subtracting the difference one from the other?

        What is utterly wrong, dirty liar, is how YOU use it.

        I just use it to display what happens if you use 2 different offsets for RSS to produce 2 different traces and how that allows a single UAH trace to align with it at both ends over quite long periods.

        https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

        offset:-0.365

        So, yet again, you try and use a single offset to reason why the 2 ends are aligned but the middle is not between RSS and UAH. You dont get maths or logic do you?

  60. RLH says:

    Question: If I add back in the normals in one case and then subtract a different set of normals in the other case how is that different to just subtracting the difference one from the other?

    “What is utterly wrong, dirty liar, is how YOU use it.”

    I just use it to display what happens if you use 2 different offsets for RSS to produce 2 different traces and how that allows a single UAH trace to align with it at both ends over quite long periods.

    https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

    “offset:-0.365”

    So, yet again, you try and use a single offset to reason why the 2 ends are aligned but the middle is not between RSS and UAH. You don’t get maths or logic do you?

    • Bindidon says:

      ” So, yet again, you try and use a single offset to reason why the 2 ends are aligned but the middle is not between RSS and UAH. ”

      Linsley Hood, you give here more and more the proof that you either don’t know how anomalies must be handled, or deliberately ignore it.

      You can subtract or average them, like absolute temperatures.

      What you can’t do is to arbitrarily shift parts of them using different offsets, in order to let the artificial result look like what you want to see, which is an artifact.

      *
      Moreover, I don’t try anything.

      The number ‘0.365’ for RSS Globe is nothing arbitrary, Linsley Hood, exactly as least as is ‘0.613’ for GISS LOTI, or 0.618 for NOAA Globe, 0.544 for Had-CRUT5, -0,004916 for JMA, or 0.509 for… RSS land-only.

      All these numbers are the mean of all anomalies between Jan 1991 and Dec 2020 for these time series.

      Why is JMA’s value so small, Linsley Hood? Simply because JMA has switched from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020, like did UAH. It should be zero but isn’t, due to… rounding differences between JMA’s internal values and those they publish (with poor two digits after the decimal point – NOAA uses 6 if I well do recall).

      *
      Of course you don’t view anything I write as being relevant to you.

      If you don’t dare ask Emeritus Pratt about all this (because you fear his possibly harsh answer), why not ask Roy Spencer? His response will certainly be above suspicion of being against you, as I am very unlikely to be his favorite commentator.

      Ask him, Linsley Hood! Ask him!

      • RLH says:

        So adding in the reference period to the first set of anomalies to make a set of absolute temperatures for the first set then taking away another different reference period to make a second set of anomalies cannot be done without visiting the absolute temperatures? You definitely don’t do logic or maths.

        T1 + R1 = A = T2 + R2

        But not according to Blinny. Idiot.

      • RLH says:

        “What you cant do is to arbitrarily shift parts of them using different offsets”

        There is nothing arbitrary in what I have done.

        https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

        speaks for itself.

        • RLH says:

          P.S. The whole set is moved in the above example. There is no different parts. I did not make the parts align, maths did.

      • RLH says:

        Roy has already had his say about all this.

        “Despite the most obvious explanation that the NOAA-14 MSU was no longer usable, RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data. Since NOAA-14 was warming significantly relative to NOAA-15, this puts a stronger warming trend into their satellite datasets, raising the temperature of all subsequent satellites’ measurements after about 2000”

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/

        My direct comparison between RSS and UAH just proves that to be correct assessment.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          rlh…”Despite the most obvious explanation that the NOAA-14 MSU was no longer usable, RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime…”

          Roy is being professional and diplomatic. I don’t have to be, I call NOAA, RSS, and UW cheaters. Not only that, they are politically motivated, so much so, they are willing to cheat to get a political lie across to the public.

        • barry says:

          It’s quite well known here that UAH global temp record has a lower trend post-2000. We’ve discussed on this board multiple times, particularly after Roy posted the methodology.

          It’s also well-known to regulars here that UAH change from version 5.6 to 6.0 significantly lowered the long term trend for UAH, while the change from RSS3 to RSS4 significantly raised the long term trend.

          Fawning regard for the UAH revision is always qualitative, as is the antipathy to RSS.

          • RLH says:

            barry: I have just illustrated what Roy’s words mean in the actual data.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU
            speaks for itself.

            Nothing Roy said is about anything to do with ‘long term trends’, just about the period in which the drifting satellite is incorrectly used.

            This produces the permanent offset to be seen in the RSS output data from 2000/2002.

          • barry says:

            We haven’t contradicted each other.

            Roy disagrees with RSS and the other satellite temperature groups on their use of NOAA14 satellite, obviously. You have chosen to accept what Roy says without question.

            “RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data.”

            I’d be curious to know how you interpret this statement. Is Roy saying that RSS believe NOAA14 to be accurate, like NOAA15? What do you reckon he means?

          • RLH says:

            “You have chosen to accept what Roy says without question”

            The data shows that he is accurate in his analysis.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

            Do you believe that it is OK to continue to use NOAA-14 as though it had no drift when it demonstrably does indeed have some?

          • RLH says:

            “Is Roy saying that RSS believe NOAA14 to be accurate, like NOAA15”

            NOAA-14 is inaccurate, NOAA-15 is accurate. How you can you construe his words any differently?

            If RSS continues to treat NOAA14 as accurate they will be in error.

          • RLH says:

            Barry: What is your explanation for the differences shown in

            https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

            between RSS and UAH?

          • barry says:

            The data only shows that there are different datasets, not which is more accurate.

            barry: “Is Roy saying that RSS believe NOAA14 to be accurate, like NOAA15”

            RLH: “NOAA-14 is inaccurate, NOAA-15 is accurate. How you can you construe his words any differently?”

            There are various ways to construe it.

            “RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data.”

            That could mean that RSS treat both datasets as if they were equally inaccurate.

            The reason I ask is that RSS absolutely do not treat NOA14 or NOAA15 as if they are accurate. RSS state that they do not know which is accurate, or if they are both inaccurate, as there is no other robust data to compare the brief period of overlap. They make their methodology choice assuming that both are inaccurate.

            My point is that you wouldn’t know this was the case from the way Roy put it. You choose to accept his interpretation of other methodologies without question. And you are misled by it.

            When did you read the RSS methodology paper to see for yourself how they “treat” NOAA14?

          • RLH says:

            Barry: Just what is your explanation for the differences shown in

            https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

            between RSS and UAH?

          • RLH says:

            Barry: Why are the major differences between UAH and RSS concentrated in the period 2000 to 2008?

          • barry says:

            The major difference is the different handling of the switch from MSU to AMSU satellites, NOAA14 to NOAA15. Obviously, both groups argue that their methodology is superior.

            What do you think of Roy’s wording that misled you to believe that RSS think both NOAA14 and NOAA15 is accurate?

            “When did you read the RSS v4 paper to see how RSS ‘treat’ NOAA14?”

            I’ll take your silence to mean that you have not read it, and have simply accepted Roy’s interpretation without question.

          • RLH says:

            Barry: Why are the major differences between UAH and RSS concentrated in the period 2000 to 2008?

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1339494

          • RLH says:

            “The major difference is the different handling of the switch from MSU to AMSU satellites”

            So outside of that period (2000 to 22008) are you saying that RSS and UAH both agree in their trends and it is only in that period that they differ?

          • RLH says:

            ….2000 to 2008….

          • RLH says:

            Barry: Are you also saying that 1998 was completely insignificant as RSS shows whereas UAH shows it to be similar to 2016 in its strength?

          • barry says:

            “Why are the major differences between UAH and RSS concentrated in the period 2000 to 2008?”

            NOAA4 to NOAA15 covers that period. The major difference regarding methodology and its effect is as I said, but that is not the only difference in how UAH and RSS process almost exactly the same data.

            Why don’t you read the methods papers? Why are you asking me when you could be reading from source? You obviously haven’t done this, so you are arguing in a vacuum. Educate yourself.

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/19/jcli-d-16-0768.1.xml

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf

          • RLH says:

            The data from both UAH and RSS when compared says that Roy’s analysis is correct.

            The only major differences between RSS and UAH are during the period 2000 to 2008.

            Outside of that period they agree quite well one with the other.

            The only difference during this period is that RSS continues to use NOAA-14 whereas UAH does not. Why would the major differences between the 2 series only be during that period if it was not down to the use of NOAA-14?

            To say that it is impossible to decide if NOAA-15 is accurate or not is obviously wrong when you look at the data.

            Are you (and RSS) saying that only NOAA-15 is inaccurate and all others before and since then are accurate?

          • barry says:

            “Are you (and RSS) saying that only NOAA-15 is inaccurate and all others before and since then are accurate?”

            I’ve already answered this.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1339501

            And supplied the links to the methodology papers of both UAH and RSS that discuss inter-satellite calibration.

            You are proceeding, whether you realize it or not, on the assumption that UAH is correct, without questioning that assumption.

            What did you think of RSS take on the MSU/AMSU merge (NOAA14/15) when you read their paper?

          • barry says:

            “To say that it is impossible to decide if NOAA-15 is accurate or not is obviously wrong when you look at the data…

            NOAA-14 is inaccurate, NOAA-15 is accurate. How you can you construe his words any differently?”

            Roy Spencer thinks NOAA15 is inaccurate and needs adjustments to account for its drift.

            You would know that if you read the methods papers. You were given direct links to them 2 days ago, just a few posts up. It is appalling that you continue to talk about these matters without taking a little time to educate yourself from the direct source material.

            You think you are doing science by comparing graphs. You aren’t. You are compounding your ignorance.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH wrote:

            The data from both UAH and RSS when compared says that Roys analysis is correct…The only major differences between RSS and UAH are during the period 2000 to 2008.

            To which, barry replied with a link to the UAH v6 paper. If one reads that paper, page 7, one finds:

            …the theoretically-based AMSU5 reference incidence angle of 34.99 deg. was found to cause the resulting LT and MT trends…to be anomalously cold at very high terrain altitudes.
            ..
            To correct for this, we increased the AMSU5 reference Earth incidence angle…The adjusted AMSU5 reference Earth incidence angle is 38.31 deg., an increase of about 3.3 deg.

            We know that RSS corrects for this problem by simply excluding those areas of high altitude from their resulting data, particularly, the Antarctic (poleward of 70S) and Greenland. We also know that increasing the incidence angle moves the effective scan altitude upward into cooler air with more influence from the Stratospheric cooling trend.

            RLH, playing with graphs won’t show which data set represents the most accurate indicator of climate change. My latest comparisons present a different perspective than your filtering, suggesting a step downward in the UAH series around the year 2000, as found in the North Polar portion of the LT. Unlike you, I can’t say that my graphs “prove” anything.

        • Brandon R. Gates says:

          > My direct comparison between RSS and UAH just proves that to be correct assessment.

          No, all that proves is that they’re different.

          As if everybody didn’t already know that.

          • RLH says:

            The point that it is only 2000-2008 that the 2 series differ that much is most certainly not discussed. The claim usually is that over the whole time 1979 to present do they differ.

          • barry says:

            It’s worth having a look at the difference between UAH current and former version.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/to:2017.55/mean:12/offset:0.08/plot/uah6/to:2017.55/mean:12/offset:0.08/trend/plot/uah5/mean:12/plot/uah5/mean:12/trend

            I centred both plots on the peak of the 1998 el Nino, as it seems that they diverge after that.

            This divergence appears to have occurred from 2000, with a marked departure in late 2001, that increases over time.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:2000/to:2008/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2008/offset:0.08/plot/uah5/from:2000/to:2008

            This comes from UAH handling the NOAA14/15 crossover differently in each version.

          • barry says:

            “The point that it is only 2000-2008 that the 2 series differ that much is most certainly not discussed.”

            It certainly is discussed, both in the literature and more informally such as on blogs and other fora. The specific time period varies a bit, but the conversations cover the crossover from NOAA14 to NOAA15.

            You might be interested in Roy Spencer’s informal take on NOAA15:

            “Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years… we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”

            Roy says on the same page:

            “The RSS folks are our friends, and we both are interested in building the best possible datasets.”

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

            In these climate debates people who are tribalistic about their position will laud the datasets that confirm their opinions and trash the ones that don’t. This kind of thinking is the antithesis of science, and is patently absurd when the interlocutor has no fucking clue about the validity or otherwise of these datasets. These people typically don’t even read the methodology papers behind the datasets.

        • RLH says:

          So Brandon, you agree that

          https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

          is a correct assessment of the data.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            I agree that it’s a correct presentation of the data, Richard. The point you’re now doing your level best to miss is that simply comparing one or more data series to each other doesn’t tell you much about how correctly those data represent reality.

          • RLH says:

            So the data tells you that during the early part of the record RSS agrees with UAH and in the later part also but that in the middle, where the 2 series use different satellites, there is no agreement. Indeed all of the major differences between the 2 series are contained between 2000-2008.

            Not quite the assessment usual delivered about RSS and UAH.

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            > Indeed all of the major differences between the 2 series are contained between 2000-2008.

            Looking at rolling 10-year linear trends, GISS ran cooler than RSS between 1992 and 1997. They are in quite good agreement everywhere else.

            I would put the divergence of RSS to UAH at 1997 and ending around 2010, close enough to your assessment as to not quibble.

            My point stands that these comparisons don’t in and of themselves tells us about which product best represents reality.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/92RSylQ

            Units are degrees C per century.

            I didn’t do HAD, I’m watching baseball and just can’t be arsed.

          • RLH says:

            “I would put the divergence of RSS to UAH at 1997 and ending around 2010, close enough to your assessment as to not quibble”

            The 12 month CTRM of both series says you are wrong. It is 2000 to 2008. See the graph from woodfortrees.org.

            https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

          • Brandon R. Gates says:

            I should have known you would want to quibble, Richard. No matter, anyone interested can look at both our presentations and decide for themselves.

            I got around to adding HAD5 to the comparison:

            https://imgur.com/gallery/dPn6Gmd

            The surface record shows much better coherence than the satellite record, suggesting more robust results for the former than the latter.

            RSS shows better agreement to the surface data than UAH.

            We know that the period 2000-2008 is particularly problematic for the sats due to issues with NOAA-15 and Aqua. There is no equivalent issue in the surface record over the same period.

            To this layperson, the surface record inspires more confidence.

        • Nate says:

          “The data from both UAH and RSS when compared says that Roys analysis is correct.”

          “The data shows that he is accurate in his analysis.”

          How’s that? You look at the one that shows less warming and ASSUME it is the correct one?

          The fact is that the both teams have made rational arguments as to why their analysis is correct.

          Understanding this controversy requires technical expertise in remote sensing that you have not demonstrated that you have, RLH.

          Lacking technical expertise, there is no way for you to judge who is correct, other than by applying bias.

      • RLH says:

        “the artificial result look like what you want to see, which is an artifact”

        An artifact that is backed up by Roy’s observation about NOAA-14 (see above).

  61. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A large drop in the surface temperature of the equatorial western Pacific.
    https://i.ibb.co/2c8prTX/nino4.png

  62. Bindidon says:

    Bremen composite Mg II index

    Original 55 day smoothed plot chart

    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

    Their daily data

    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat

    A chart out of their daily data comparing SC24 and SC25

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TeTmv3aYPCjUhQcP2HMgftcEFwNOVlNH/view

  63. barry says:

    Some context for the OP:

    Roy Spencer:

    Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water

    7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

    The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

    • gbaikie says:

      I think Earth is older than 300,000 years, as are humans and polar bears.

      • Bindidon says:

        I think this is known to Roy Spencer, isn’t it?

        What you write doesn’t contribute to the discussion.

        Your reaction reminds me those at WUWT, where people always write

        ” Record lows in April in Germany!!
        The Globe is cooling”

        but conversely

        ” Record highs in June in Spain??
        Bah! It was way warmer during the Holocene. “

        • gbaikie says:

          Holocene was and is colder than the last interglacial period which was about 130 thousand years ago, Wiki:
          “The Eemian (also called the last interglacial,[1] Sangamonian Stage, Ipswichian, Mikulin, Kaydaky, penultimate,[2] Valdivia or Riss-Wrm) was the interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago at the end of the Penultimate Glacial Period and ended about 115,000 years ago at the beginning of the Last Glacial Period
          ,,,
          During summer months, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2-4 C higher than today.[10] The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 7110′21″N 2547′40″E. Hardwood trees such as hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.
          ,,,
          Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today,”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

          But couple millions ago it warmer than Eemian.

    • RLH says:

      There is an observed co-incidence between the rise in CO2 and the apparent rise in global temperature. There is no proof that CO2 actually drives that increase on its own without substantial input from other sources, there is just supposition.

      Please note it has been agreed that the maximum temperature caused by successive El Nino has not changed significantly in the central Pacific since at least 1878.

      Explain how that occurs if increased CO2 drives increased temperature.

    • Nate says:

      “Explain how that occurs”

      Are saying that you believe a long-term global trend can be falsified by a one-time event in a tiny subset of the globe?

      The tallest ever US President, Lincoln, was elected in 1860.

      Explain how that occurs if better nutrition has driven an increase in the heights of humans.

      Same dumb ill-logic as your question, RLH.

      • RLH says:

        Explain how maximum temperatures are not affected by increasing CO2. Demonstrably so.

      • Clint R says:

        Nate, you aren’t able to separate your beliefs from reality. The fact that you can’t state your GHE nonsense, in words that you can stand by, shows it ain’t science. The GHE nonsense is a squishy mishmash of false beliefs that keeps changing almost on a daily basis.

        One of the cult idiots that shows up here occasionally, tried to claim a hot vacuum tube was “proof” of the GHE! Everything is “proof” of the GHE nonsense. That ain’t science.

      • Nate says:

        RLH,

        So you do believe a long-term global trend can be falsified by a one-time event in a tiny subset of the globe?

        If so, you have no grasp of statistics.

        • RLH says:

          I understand that a maximum is a maximum and yet is unaffected by AGW.

        • barry says:

          Maximums definitely change due to global warming (or cooling). If the background temperature shifts up or down, so do maxima (and minima). So, for example, 2 el Ninos could have exactly the same intensity, but the peak in global temperatures will be different if the background temperature is different.

          You can easily see that with the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos, which each had a significant influence on the global temperatures of those years.

          https://tinyurl.com/mr3hcnx7

          Both of very similar strength, but the latter el Nino took place while the Earth’s surface was 0.8C warmer. Therefore the peak of the two el Ninos – as seen in global temperatures – are separated by roughly 0.8C.

          If you look at temperatures only in the NINO3.4 region, which has barely warmed, if at all over that period, then you will see that the peaks are little different. In fact, there is a small (not statistically significant) warming in the NINO3.4 region, and it so happens that the peak of the 2016 el Nino is slightly warmer than the 1878 (again, not statistically significant).

          So, yes, if global temperatures change, then temperature maxima and minima (or in this case, el Ninos and la Ninas) will follow along.

          Same as if you get a day 10C above average in Winter, and a day 10C above average in Summer. Both are equal in their departure from normal, but the absolute temperature difference between them will be equal to the difference of the average of Winter and Summer temps.

          Corroborating changes in maxima and minima is that when you gather all the record-breaking hot and cold days around the globe (without cherry-picking, RLH), you find that the vast majority are hot record-breakers for each of the the last 20 years. That’s because the background (global) temperature is warmer than previous, which statistically favours that outcome.

        • RLH says:

          “Maximums definitely change due to global warming”

          Except in the central Pacific as you have previously agreed.

          • barry says:

            Yes, for perhaps the 20th time I am agreeing that the NINO3.4 region has barely warmed, if at all.

            Will you require me to confirm this a further 20 times, or can we finally move on?

          • barry says:

            Can we also confirm you understand that if global temperatures rise, the peaks in global temperature caused by el Ninos will also get higher?

        • Nate says:

          “I understand that a maximum is a maximum and yet is unaffected by AGW.”

          So by simple looking at single event in a noisy data set, you are able to determine cause and effect? You are able to determine what does and doesnt affect it?

          How do you do that, RLH?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        >The tallest ever US President, Lincoln, was elected in 1860.

        Explain how that occurs if better nutrition has driven an increase in the heights of humans.

        Same dumb ill-logic as your question, RLH.

        It is believed Lincoln had a genetic defect that caused his disproportions. Who’s dumb?

  64. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 418.3 km/sec
    density: 6.53 protons/cm3
    Sunspot number: 53
    Updated 27 Jul 2022

    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 13.34×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +0.5% Elevated
    48-hr change: +1.0%

    So, it’s +0.5% and seems it rise more but
    it seems to me, we will back to Solar Max conditions
    in couple weeks, and before this could have a spotless sun
    and after this neutrons counts may dip eventually to -5%

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 337.2 km/sec
      density: 8.82 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 40
      Updated 29 Jul 2022
      https://www.spaceweather.com/

      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 12.97×10^10 W Neutral
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: +0.3% Elevated
      48-hr change: +0.7%

      –A SUNSPOT OF INTEREST: New sunspot AR3068 near the sun’s southeastern limb is still small, but it is growing rapidly, tripling in size since yesterday. It merits watching as a possible source of near-future activity.–

  65. gbaikie says:

    I live fairly near [within 300 miles] of spot in world with highest daytime temperature ever recorded:
    “Currently, the highest officially registered temperature is 56.7C (134F), recorded in California’s Death Valley back in 1913.”

    Anyhow forecast say it’s going to get to 103 F in next couple days, but with pretty cool nights, and then going to get cloudy and not get over 100 F.
    No hurricane predicted over in Atlantic for next 2 days:
    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

    And it’s time to guess global temperature.
    I going guess more cooler mainly due to apparent lack of hurricanes,
    So .1 C cooler than last month.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Maximum of cycle soon.
      https://i.ibb.co/wsd1Bdf/Tilts.gif

      • gbaikie says:

        Yeah. And sooner than most expected, but some were saying it was going peak quickly, and I was thinking they could be right.

        But it seems we going to get double peak, also. But some think it’s weaker and maybe long time before we long periods of spotless.
        And then weak 26 cycle.
        Which would mean if happens, we are in a solar grand min, but not a large solar grand min [though maybe have a large solar grand min] either way, bad for exploring Mars.

        • gbaikie says:

          In terms of bad for Mars, NASA needs to demonstrate a fast trajectory to Mars. It could offer a prize for it, say 1/2 billion prize, for 3 months to Mars and not a flyby, but something which enters Mars orbit and/or lands on Mars surface.
          NASA also needs to make a cheap artificial gravity station which is
          Mars gravity. It could also do it with a prize: 100 million for something which give a human Mars gravity for more than 1 month.

        • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

          Solar northen polar field is rapidly approaching the equator.
          http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif

      • Bindidon says:

        No, Mr Palmowski.

        You are referring as usual to something differing completely from what you write.

        • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

          No, it will be a weak solar maximum, when there will be a change in the magnetic fields on the Sun. The cycle will be short.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        Sunspot number: 52

        Updated 28 Jul 2022

  66. gbaikie says:

    “Humans evolved living in caves, and to caves we might return when we live on the moon,” said Paige, who leads the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment.”
    Sure.
    “Future human explorers on the moon might have 99 problems but staying warm or cool won’t be one. A team led by planetary scientists at UCLA has discovered shady locations within pits on the moon that always hover around a comfortable 63 degrees Fahrenheit.”
    https://www.moondaily.com/reports/UCLA_scientists_discover_places_on_the_moon_where_its_always_sweater_weather_999.html

    That seems surprising to me.
    I tend to think it’s wrong.
    Anyhow, we need to go there and find out.

  67. Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesnt work vice-versa !

    The T = ( J /σ )∕ ⁴ is a mistake !

    Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesnt work vice-versa !

    The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.

    Lets see:
    The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
    J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m) EM energy flux (1)

    The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:

    T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2)
    as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition.
    Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove. The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stoves inside walls area. Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.

    After multiple interactions with the stoves walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stoves inner walls

    The EM energy emitted out of the stoves hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function
    J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m).

    But the
    T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
    That is why we should consider planet effective temperature Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
    as a mathematical abstraction, which doesn’t describe the real world processes.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  68. Bindidon says:

    In a reply to genius Linsley Hood, I wrote

    ” What you can’t do is to arbitrarily shift parts of them using different offsets… ”

    This below was his answer:

    There is nothing arbitrary in what I have done.

    https://imgur.com/gallery/4MVQ8HU

    speaks for itself.

    P.S. The whole set is moved in the above example. There is no different parts. I did not make the parts align, maths did.

    *
    This is so incredibly brazen.

    The specifications for the two RSS plots in his construction are

    /rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45
    /rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.23

    Which maths did compute these two offsets? Where can we find the formula leading to them? Or did it happen ‘by magic’?

    Anyone having used Paul Clark’s WoodForTrees web site since over ten years knows by experience that no math was involved here.

    As do all manipulators using WFT (especially on Watts’ WUWT), Linsley Hood played with the offset specifications until the plots perfectly matched his expectations.

    *
    Linsley Hood really thinks that we all are dumb idiots on this blog.

    It is evident that when you push, on the left, RSS up where it was below UAH and vice-versa down on the right, the difference in the middle will be artificially magnified: compare this difference in a correct graph:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.365

    with that in Linsley Hood’s brazen manipulation:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.45/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.23

    What else could we expect???

    *
    Again: while Linsley Hood himself selected the ‘-0.45’ and ‘-0.23’ offsets to artificially obtain his graph, without use of any math, the ‘-0.365’ offset is what you obtain when computing for RSS the mean of its anomalies within UAH’s reference period.

    Trivial math, but… math.

    When correctly observed, i.e. wrt the same reference period, the anomaly differences between RSS and UAH within 1979-2022 range from -0.34 K (in December 1984) up to +0.24 K (April 2021); the smallest difference (0.00 K) was in January 2004.

    *
    Thus, again and again: the alleged major difference betwen RSS and UAH within 2002-2008 is a mirage directly originating from Linsley Hood’s imagination.

  69. Bindidon says:

    Some interested commenters might have been wondering about my claim (or better: neutral statement) that a 12 month CTRM (cascaded triple running mean) has the same effect as a 16 month SRM (simple running mean).

    Here is, using a WFT simulation, CTRM 12 vs SRM 12:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/uah6/mean:12

    and here is CTRM 12 vs. SRM 16:

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/uah6/mean:16

    That’s all, nothing to see, move along!

    • RLH says:

      So Vaughan Pratt was completely wrong when he said that a 12, 10, 8 month CTRM was the same (or better) than a month 12 gaussian LP filter in frequency response. I know who I prefer to believe.

      • RLH says:

        P.S. A 16 month anything will not help remove a 12 month seasonal pattern.

      • Bindidon says:

        Again your disgusting lies and tricky manipulations.

        I never and never said that Vaughan Pratt was wrong, let alone completely, Linsley Hood.

        YOU are insinuating this all the time.

        I just showed the difference between CTRM 12 and SRM 12, and that’s all.

        But you dirty liar of course urge in repeatedly misrepresenting what I say.

        Because you have nothing else to say than discrediting and denigrating.

        • RLH says:

          “I never and never said that Vaughan Pratt was wrong”

          But you claim that a 12, 10, 8 month CTRM is not the same as a 12 month gaussian. Even though that is exactly what he said. You do understand that a 12 month gaussian is the preferred 12 month filter don’t you?

          • RLH says:

            And if you do not understand where 12, 10, 8 months came from (or are just too lazy to look the reference up)

            1.2067 then 1.5478 was VPs mathematical calculation

            and from that

            12 / 1.2067 = 9.94447667191514 = ~10
            12 / 1.5478 = 7.752939656286342 = ~8

            which he agreed is the best 12 month solution.

          • RLH says:

            ….preferred 12 month low pass filter….

          • Bindidon says:

            Again: lies and lies and lies.

            I never told to prefer anything: I just show what people like you prefer to hide.

          • Bindidon says:

            I perfectly know what Vaughan Pratt wrote along Goodman’s gest post, Linsley Hood.

            But… I don’t forget how you recently eulogized Savitzky-Golay to the skies.

            Until you discovered how near original S-G keeps to ‘simple running means’.

            I don’t forget, Linsley Hood.

          • RLH says:

            How I ‘discovered’ in 2014 you mean.

          • Bindidon says:

            You liar never discovered anything about Savitzy-Golay in 2014.

          • RLH says:

            In 2014 I was informed (thus ‘discovered’) that a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G was the best use of it by Nate. As I have told you many times and is available as a simple Google search.

            This was the same year that VP informed me that a 3 stage CTRM of 12, 10, 8 months was the best 12 month low pass filter (i.e. the nearest to a gaussian).

            I have used that combined information ever since in all my graphs.

            Now you come along and say that a 16 month SRM would do the same thing as a 12 month CTRM. Pardon me if I am not convinced and I place VP well above you in both rigor and maths.

  70. RLH says:

    So Vaughan Pratt was completely wrong when he said that a 12, 10, 8 month CTRM was the same (or better) than a month 12 gaussian LP filter in frequency response. I know who I prefer to believe.

  71. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Strong negative surface temperature anomaly of the western equatorial Pacific.
    https://i.ibb.co/P4DSxQ7/ct5km-ssta-v3-1-pacific-current.png

  72. RLH says:

    So Vaughan Pratt was completely wrong when he said that a 12, 10, 8 month CTRM was the same (or better) than a month 12 gaussian low pass filter in frequency response and that a gaussian 12 month low pass filter was the best year long/seasonal low pass filter that there was.

    Blinny says that he could just have chosen a 16 month SRM instead!

    I know who I prefer to believe and it is not Blinny.

  73. gbaikie says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvGS8lcgi38

    Scott say Saudis are making a floating city.

    [I like floating towns which have surfing.}

  74. Entropic man says:

    Something of interest?

    Note that the Daily Mail is usually noted for its climate change denial.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11057043/Met-Office-report-reveals-sea-levels-UK-rising-0-2-inches-year.html

  75. RLH says:

    too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes

    Vaughan Pratt says but Blinny thinks otherwise.

  76. Ken says:

    Peterson interview with Yon

    The interesting bit for the climate cognoscenti begins at 34:20

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7gAEkzIgvw

  77. barry says:

    RLH,

    Regarding maxima and minima under global warming, I got data for record-breaking local temperatures around the world since 2002 (as much data as I could find for this metric). I posted the results in 2019.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-362938

    3 more years of this data can now be added.

    This is a count of how many record-breaking hot days, and record-breaking cold days there were at weather stations around the world for each year from 2002 to 2021.

    ———————————-

    2002 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 204
    Minimum 22

    2003 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 394
    Minimum 20

    2004 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 113
    Minimum 13

    2005 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 120
    Minimum 29

    2006 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 145
    Minimum 20

    2007 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 297
    Minimum 17

    2008 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 90
    Minimum 32

    2009 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 138
    Minimum 21

    2010 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 505
    Minimum 44

    2011 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 169
    Minimum 39

    2012 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 296
    Minimum 16

    2013 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 405
    Minimum 16

    2014 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 217
    Minimum 19

    2015 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 328
    Minimum 14

    2016 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 323
    Minimum 21

    2017 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 219
    Minimum 18

    2018 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 435
    Minimum 41

    2019 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 647
    Minimum 18

    2020 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 354
    Minimum 15

    2021 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 404
    Minimum 59

    ———————————-

    As you can see, the number of record-breaking maxima far outweighs the number of record-breaking minima.

    Data: 2002 – 2010, 2011 – 2020, 2021

    Yes, global warming affects the distribution (and intensity) of maxima and minima.

    And the reason for this is that the background temperature that extreme events occur in is warmer than before.

    In the NINO3.4 region, the background temperature hasn’t changed much at all, if any. So peaks in warm temperature haven’t changed much in that region, if any.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…record-breaking compared to what? Most records claimed today omit pre-1960 temperature data sets. Tony Heller has covered this scam very well.

      • barry says:

        RLH,

        This is the notion I am replying to:

        “I understand that a maximum is a maximum and yet is unaffected by AGW.”

        AGW raises the ‘height’ of those maxima, because the background temperature is warmer.

        The reason there are more record-breaking hot days than cold over the last 20 years is precisely because the background temperature is warmer.

        The increased frequency is a result of a warmer background temperature.

        It is patently obvious to Clint and others that this is a logical consequence of a warmer global surface temperature. It is also intuitively obvious. Like the difference between Winter and Summer. I do not know why it is so difficult for you to understand.

        • RLH says:

          “AGW raises the ‘height’ of those maxima”

          Except it doesn’t in the Nino 3.4 area as you have previously agreed.

        • RLH says:

          So the FACT that a lot of natural cycles are about to change from a rising trend to a falling trend does not influence your thinking at all.

          • barry says:

            I don’t accept your premise.

            But I would like you to be more specific. I am going to save your next comment to see how your prediction went.

            How soon will your prediction become evident? 5 years?

            Please make a testable hypothesis. A prediction that can be falsified within a given timeframe, please.

          • RLH says:

            2 to 5 years now you ask.

          • barry says:

            That’s half a testable hypothesis. Please indicate how temperatures will evolve over this time period.

            I’ll tell you what I think is a reasonable hypothesis for my view regarding AGW.

            The average temperatures of the past 10 years (to Dec 2021) will be cooler than the next 10 years. This will be the case regardless of the data set used.

            That is a hypothesis that can be tested. Can you provide one in a similar vein, please?

          • RLH says:

            “The average temperatures of the past 10 years (to Dec 2021) will be cooler than the next 10 years.”

            That claim is wrong. The average temperatures of the past 10 years (to Dec 2021) will be warmer than the next 10 years.

          • barry says:

            It’s not a ‘claim’, it is a prediction. Based on physics.

            RLH: “The average temperatures of the past 10 years (to Dec 2021) will be warmer than the next 10 years.”

            Excellent. You have made a testable prediction.

            Saved.

            Now you said something about 2 to 5 years. Will you also predict that:

            The average temperatures of the next 5 years will be cooler than the past 10 years.

            I am willing to make a bet with you. I hope you’ll go for it, because 5 years is short enough time to likely still see you around to collect.

    • RLH says:

      “the number of record-breaking maxima far outweighs the number of record-breaking minima”

      So now you change from the maxima altering in height to the frequency of them instead. Even though it has been well acknowledged that during the 20th century ENSO activity has been low and only recently we have had more maxima than minima.

      But L’Heureux says that La Nina is going to be more than 50% soon and as that is an indication of future cold water in the central Pacific it is quite possible that the previous history, where we are on the upside of most of the natural cycles recently, will soon change to something that favors more minima than maxima.

      Both the AMO, PDO, SOI, AO and AAO all show that we are soon to be heading downwards.

      https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/soi-3.jpeg
      https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/pdo-1.jpeg
      https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/amo-trended-1.jpeg
      https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/aao.jpeg

      We shall see.

      • RLH says:

        https://imgur.com/CauL1SE

        for the relative frequency of El Nino since the 1860.

      • barry says:

        Answered here:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1340097

        This is the notion of yours that I am contending with::

        “I understand that a maximum is a maximum and yet is unaffected by AGW.”

        Global warming raises the ‘height’ of those maxima, as well as the height of the minima troughs.

        The reason there are more record-breaking hot days than cold over the last 20 years is precisely because the background temperature is warmer. We are getting higher peaks more often than lower troughs because the background temperature is warmer than before.

        It is patently obvious to Clint and others that this is a logical consequence of a warmer global surface temperature. It is also intuitively obvious. As in – really very simple. Like the difference between Winter and Summer. A child could understand it. I do not know why it is so difficult for you to understand.

        • RLH says:

          “Global warming raises the ‘height’ of those maxima”

          Except in the Nino 3.4 area as you have previously agreed.

          • barry says:

            Sure. I’ve mentioned that twice in this page already. Can you progress to the next point yet?

          • RLH says:

            But you continuously post as though that is not the case.

          • barry says:

            Not true. I am consistent on what I say about the NINO3.4 area, and consistent about what I say when speaking of global temperatures.

            It is you having trouble understanding the difference, not me.

          • RLH says:

            The future will tell who is more correct. Not you.

          • barry says:

            Your reply does not even slightly correspond to what I said. You are incoherent. It is because you are purely argumentative.

        • RLH says:

          “I do not know why it is so difficult for you to understand”

          I do not understand how you can ignore

          https://imgur.com/CauL1SE

          either.

          • barry says:

            Besides the fact that I have not ignored it, it’s completely immaterial to my point here. Take your focus off the squirrels and attend to what is being discussed, please.

          • barry says:

            To remind you of what is being discussed:

            I am showing with data that AGW (or global warming) has certainly “affected maximums.”

            Specifically, it has changed the distribution of record-breaking hot days compared to record-breaking cold days, when you gather information from weather stations all over the world (and refrain from cherry-picking).

            That’s my point – not activity in the NINO3.4 region, which has nothing to do with what I’m saying, nor speaks against it.

            I’ve provided the links for you to check the data yourself in my post just above.

          • RLH says:

            “Specifically, it has changed the distribution of record-breaking hot days compared to record-breaking cold days”

            So far. But I would expect that from

            https://imgur.com/CauL1SE

            This shows that what you say is correct but how do you see this pattern continuing into the future. A continuously rising U shape or a sinusoid?

          • Nate says:

            “Both the AMO, PDO, SOI, AO and AAO all show that we are soon to be heading downwards.”

            Lets see the SOI going down would mean El Nino, and warming.

            PDO has recently been down at a minima, and has no where to go but up.

            AMO, as you show it is not properly detrended. It may go down, but if it went all the down to the level of a century ago, that would be an unprecedented drop. Good luck with that!

            The AO and AAO look like random hf noise.

          • RLH says:

            Nate: Indexes are just as easily up or down, better to consider them as being previously warm or cold.

            We shall see what the future brings won’t we. It will take a couple of years at least.

          • RLH says:

            P.S. If you want the AMO detrended you only have to ask.

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/amo-detrended-1.jpeg

          • Nate says:

            Of all of these, only AMO is due, sometime, to move to a cooling phase.

            Do you know if AMO has a large enough magnitude to reverse the present warming trend?

          • barry says:

            “how do you see this pattern continuing into the future. A continuously rising U shape or a sinusoid?”

            You think that global temperatures are completely dependent on the trajectory of the “40-year moving average of ensemble ONI values greater than +1,” which is what that graph shows?

            I think that is a ridiculous notion, and it has no support anywhere in the research literature.

            As we have greed, ENSO does not inject heat into the climate system. It is an internal dynamic that moves heat around, mostly between ocean and surface in the mid-Pacific region. It can’t possibly be responsible for long-term global warming (or cooling).

          • barry says:

            “how do you see this pattern continuing into the future. A continuously rising U shape or a sinusoid?”

            You realize that this graph is based on detrended NINO3.4 data? And this data is about 20% of the total SSTs in that area?

            I do not expect a subset of a subset of SSTs, from less than 1% of the Earth’s surface, to reflect global temperatures.

          • RLH says:

            “You think that global temperatures are completely dependent on the trajectory of the ’40-year moving average of ensemble ONI values greater than +1,’ which is what that graph shows?”

            So all I think is that global T is strongly influenced by ENSO. That is what everybody else thinks.

          • RLH says:

            “only AMO is due, sometime, to move to a cooling phase”

            Not true. But we shall see won’t we.

          • barry says:

            “So all I think is that global T is strongly influenced by ENSO. That is what everybody else thinks.”

            Everybody else thinks that this effect is transient – it lasts for the duration of the el Nino/la Nina event. You can see it in the spikes and troughs of the global record.

            It is only you that seems to think long term global temperatures are tied to ENSO.

          • Nate says:

            “Not true. But we shall see wont we.”

            Oh? Which other low-frequency cycle is ‘due’ for a change to a cooler phase?

            Evidence?

  78. Clint R says:

    barry, assuming all the data are correct, isn’t that what we would expect as the planet warms out of a cold period?

    • Willard says:

      If you are as serious as you pretend to be, Pup, why are you relying on an Inhofe Cheeseburger?

    • barry says:

      Yes, Clint, that’s exactly what we would expect if the planet is generally warmer over the period of record. RLH seems to want to deny this change in maxima and minima (based purely on a 2 peak SST values in the NINO3.4 region) so I’ve provided him with a more comprehensive (as in global) data set.

      • RLH says:

        We have agreed that the magnitude of the maxima and minima have not changed, only the frequency.

        As most natural cycles have been on the upside during the last century that is hardly surprising. If the natural cycles change to the downside as it seems most of them are going to do in the future they will not simply be an continuous upwards trajectory.

        • barry says:

          “We have agreed that the magnitude of the maxima and minima have not changed”

          What maxima and minima are you talking about?

          • RLH says:

            See the Nino 3.4 un-trended data. Assuming that the central Pacific is the maxima maxima ocean that there is.

          • barry says:

            Ok, so you’re talking about the NINO3.4 region SSTs. Yep, the range of variability hasn’t changed.

            The range of variability of ENSO hasn’t changed either.

            Neither has the variability of daily temperature.

            But global temperatures have changed, so when el Ninos come along, their impact on the global temperature has ever higher peaks. Even though their range of variability is the same. This is also the case for daily temperature. Generally speaking, Summer days are warmer, and so are Winter days, even though their variability around the current average (which itself is changing) is the same.

            “Assuming that the central Pacific is the maxima maxima ocean that there is.”

            If by this strange sentence you mean that the central Pacific has the warmest SSTs on Earth, that’s not so. And I’ve told you this twice already.

            The warmest SSTs on the planet are in the Persian Gulf.

            Does that mean we now have to switch our focus to the Persian Gulf? Why does it matter where the hottest SSTs are?

          • RLH says:

            Based on the recent history I am unsurprised. But how do you see

            https://imgur.com/a/kcrGRGr

            changing in the future?

          • RLH says:

            “Yep, the range of variability hasn’t changed”

            https://imgur.com/CauL1SE says otherwise.

          • RLH says:

            “the Persian Gulf”

            covers a lot less area than the Nino 3.4 area.

          • RLH says:

            https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif

            also shows that the Persian Gulf is not changing in line with any given cycle. Unless you can determine one.

          • barry says:

            RLH,

            You said:

            “We have agreed that the magnitude of the maxima and minima have not changed”

            but then you said:

            “https://imgur.com/CauL1SE says otherwise.”

            This is the problem with you being argumentative. You end up contradicting yourself.

            When you have determined what you actually think I’ll be able to answer you.

          • barry says:

            the Persian Gulf

            “covers a lot less area than the Nino 3.4 area.”

            Have you decided that observing the highest SSTs on Earth for maxima is not so important?

            “https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif

            also shows that the Persian Gulf is not changing in line with any given cycle. Unless you can determine one.”

            That data doesn’t even cover a single year and therefore is irrelevant to our discussion of long term changes over many decades. This is a very silly contribution to our conversation.

          • RLH says:

            “Have you decided that observing the highest SSTs on Earth for maxima is not so important?”

            Have you decided tat ENSO is not an important contributor to global T? Everybody else thinks so.

            I am not sure that the Persian Gulf is considered to be so important.

          • RLH says:

            What is your explanation for https://imgur.com/CauL1SE?

          • barry says:

            “Have you decided tat ENSO is not an important contributor to global T? Everybody else thinks so.”

            For perhaps the 8th time:

            ENSO is a transient phenomenon that affects global temperatures for the period of the significant events – el Ninos and la Ninas – for periods of between a fee months to 3 years. You can see that transient effect in the spikes and troughs of the global records.

            ENSO does not contribute to long-term climate change.

          • barry says:

            RLH: “We have agreed that the magnitude of the maxima and minima have not changed”

            but

            RLH: “https://imgur.com/CauL1SE says otherwise.”

            Have you made up your mind what opinion you hold yet, or are you going to stick with your self-contradiction?

          • barry says:

            “There is no contradiction at all in what I have said.”

            Of course there is. You said:

            “We have agreed that the magnitude of the maxima and minima have not changed”

            And when I confirmed this you quoted me confirming it and replied:

            https://imgur.com/CauL1SE says otherwise.”

            So has the magnitude of maxima and minima not changed as “we agreed”, or is it “otherwise?”

          • barry says:

            “You also seem to think that ENSO only effects the central Pacific”

            Why would you say that when I have said that ENSO has regional impacts on many occasions, such as

            Here

            here

            here

            here

            The issue is not with my understanding of ENSO but with your poor reading skills, and your persistent error trying to conflate spikes and troughs in NINO3.4 SSTs with long-term global temperatures.

          • RLH says:

            So your belief that AGW surmounts everything is your answer to it all.

          • RLH says:

            “So has the magnitude of maxima and minima not changed as ‘we agreed’, or is it ‘otherwise?'”

            The maxima, aka El Nino, has not changed in magnitude since 1878.

            The minima is more difficult, but the consensus appears to be that it has not changed much in that time either.

            Both have been less in evidence in the early to mid 20th century.

          • barry says:

            Ok, so this:

            https://imgur.com/CauL1SE says otherwise.”

            was purely argumentative because you don’t believe it.

            Let’s aim to understand stuff rather than butt chests. You up for that?

          • barry says:

            “So your belief that AGW surmounts everything is your answer to it all.”

            The matters you have tended to bring up to contest AGW have been transient phenomena, like ENSO events.

            AGW is a multidecadal phenomenon with respect to global warming. It doesn’t counteract more transient phenomena, like weather. Weather will still always happen. ENSO will still happen. Its transient effect on global temperature will continue to occur in much the same variability of the last 170 years. If global temperature changes, the ENSO variability will continue, but against the backdrop of whatever temperature regime arises in the future, hot or cold.

            So if the future is a cooling trend with more la Nnias, that longer term trend will be a stronger disindicator of AGW than the transient effects of more la Ninas. ENSO does not determine long term global temperature. ENSO DOES affect short-term (interannual) global temperature. A prevalence of one type of ENSO event in the future only offsets global temperature, at best, it doesn’t much impact long-term (multidecadal) trends.

  79. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Sunspot number: 50

    Updated 29 Jul 2022

  80. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperature statistics will not save Europe from a looming energy crisis. The stratospheric polar vortex will provide wintry temperatures in the winter. And no statistics will help.

    • Ken says:

      The shitheads in our governments are trying to kill us all.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        Think about the fact that Poland will run out of coal to heat homes. Not to mention the price of coal from Colombia, Indonesia and South Africa.

  81. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The likelihood of hurricanes in the Atlantic will increase in August.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/natl/mimictpw_natl_latest.gif

  82. Gordon Robertson says:

    bob d…[GR}When we talk about an electron emitting a quantum of EM, we are talking about a single frequency, not a spectrum of frequencies.

    [Bob D]”Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett, Pfund, and Humphreys all say you are wrong, the single electron in a hydrogen atom emits a series of frequencies”.

    ***

    Each one of those series represents exact and unique frequencies related to the emission of a single electron in a hydrogen atom. In the Lyman series, for example, there are several unique frequencies produced by electrons transitioning between different energy levels.

    As I said, when we talk about an electron emitting a quantum of EM, we are talking about a single frequency, not a spectrum of frequencies.

    In order to get a continuous spectrum, you’d need bazillions of electrons at vastly different energy levels emitting from the same source, like the Sun.

    Here’s the Lyman series…all discrete frequencies, no continuous spectrum as represented by Planck.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_series#/media/File:LymanSeries.svg

    All the other series are similar.

    The point you are missing, as a Utility Man, is that electrons emit only at one frequency as they transition.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      As you quoted yourself, you know you said the Hydrogen atom emits one frequency, that being the frequency of the electron as it orbits the atom.

      That is what I am calling bullshit on.

      The frequency of the electron orbiting the atom is not related to the frequency of the emitted photon.

      Each transition has a different frequency, and it’s again, not like you claim the frequency of the electron orbiting the nucleus

      I never said it was a continuous spectrum, learn to read.

      Here is a cite that says the electron does not have angular momentum in the ground state.

      https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-frequency-of-an-orbiting-electron

      Kinda sucks for your case.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob d…”As you quoted yourself, you know you said the Hydrogen atom emits one frequency, that being the frequency of the electron as it orbits the atom”.

        ***

        I said no such thing. In previous posts I have described the Balmer series of lines and explained they were derived from electron transitions from different energy levels.

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

        “The frequency of the electron orbiting the atom is not related to the frequency of the emitted photon”.

        ***

        Then where do you think the frequency comes from? Bohr’s theory is dependent on an electron transition having no intermediate action between energy levels. The electron must jump instantaneously between energy levels and there is no mechanism for creating a frequency in between.

        It’s clear, Bob, that you have no idea how quantum theory works. It is obviously the electron, with an electric field around it, and creating a magnetic field as it orbits, is the source of emitted EM.

        The electron gives up energy as it drops between levels. What kind of energy. Kinetic energy describes and energy in motion but what energy? Obviously it’s electromagnetic energy since it results in an emission of EM.

        Seriously, all you alarmist, anti-science types have these miraculous theories in which EM magically appears out of nowhere…with a specific frequency. None of you can explain how EM is generated with a discrete frequency. My explanation does explain it.

        The problem with your quote is a serious contradiction. The poster who claimed there is no angular momentum in the ground state also claimed it has the highest kinetic energy.

        What has the KE? It’s the electron, of course. The mass in KE = 1/2mv^2 is the mass of the electron and it obviously has a velocity. If it has a velocity how can it not have an angular momentum?

        I have argued in the past that the Moon has no angular momentum since angular momentum normally applies to a mass attached to an axis by a rigid connector. A tire on a rim has angular momentum, but the Moon has only linear momentum. It would be the same for an electron.

        Having said that, the posters at your link are so lost in the math and the theory they fail to grasp that an electron is a real mass. No one has proved or disproved it is orbiting the nucleus, we don’t know. It needs to be understood that Schrodinger was a realist who believed an equation had to represent a reality. Therefore, it’s highly doubtful he would create an equation based on a mysterious source of electromagnetic energy with a specific frequency.

        Schrodinger opted out of the quantum debate after Bohr ditched reality and began making ridiculous claims about quantum theory. Bohr endorsed entangelment theory, which means a particle in one location can affect the behavior of another particle at a distance. We are not talking electrostatic forces, we are talking sci-fi about a theory with no physical explanation.

        Einstein agreed with Schrodinger, both claiming an equation with no physical reality to support it was useless. Schrodinger’s wave equation has its basis in the real world of Newtonian physics. Then Einstein undid that by claiming a non-reality like time could dilate.

        Here’s a link…

        https://byjus.com/jee/schrodinger-wave-equation/

        “Schrodinger wave equation describes the behaviour of a particle in a field of force or the change of a physical quantity over time. Erwin Schrdinger who developed the equation was even awarded the Nobel Prize in 1933”.

        And…

        “Schrodinger wave equation is a mathematical expression describing the energy and position of the electron in space and time, taking into account the matter wave nature of the electron inside an atom”.

        Even this explanation confuses what is meant by the alleged wave nature of an electron. Electrons have no wave phenomena as some claim. They are particles, for cripes sake. The wave nature is a reference to the electron orbiting the nucleus with a simple harmonic motion.

        If you have an electrical generator and you place a mark on the rotor, you can drop a vertical line from the point onto the horizontal x-axis. The point on the x-axis traces out simple harmonic motion along the x-axis as the rotor turns. The point on the x-axis has a definite frequency. Same with the electron.

        • bobdroege says:

          Gordon,

          “Electrons have no wave phenomena as some claim. They are particles, for cripes sake.”

          More bullshit, everything is both waves and particles.

          How do you think an electron microscope works.

          Oh wait, you have no idea.

          You don’t even read the cites you post, when you do make a cite.

          “Schrodinger wave equation is a mathematical expression describing the energy and position of the electron in space and time, taking into account the matter wave nature of the electron inside an atom.”

        • bobdroege says:

          Gordon,

          “The poster who claimed there is no angular momentum in the ground state also claimed it has the highest kinetic energy.”

          He claimed it would have the highest kinetic energy if it was rotating, that’s why he put it in quotes.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        “I said no such thing. In previous posts I have described the Balmer series of lines and explained they were derived from electron transitions from different energy levels.”

        Stop lying, you did say the frequency of the emitted radiation is the frequency of the orbiting electron, and to be absorbed or emitted it has to match.

  83. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The strength of the magnetic field of the solar wind is much lower than in the 24th solar cycle.
    https://i.ibb.co/2sDxZ44/onlinequery.gif

  84. Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

    The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:

    Planets’ mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.

    ( N*cp ) ^1/16

    Where
    N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin .
    cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.

    This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.

    Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
    What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures.

    The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon can be expressed now also QUANTITATIVELY . And it happens so to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • RLH says:

      “because Earths surface is covered with water”

      So having a large evaporative heat sink at the surface is at least part of the reason.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      christos…”Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water”.

      ***

      Christos…it might help to clarify that we mean average temperatures. Obviously, the Moon has one surface exposed to the Sun for 14 days therefore it gets very hot. Then that side faces away from the Sun for 14 days and gets very cold. When we average the peak hot and cold temperatures, they are lower than the Earth’s average.

      The peak averages are between -180C and +106C. It’s obvious by inspection that the cold peak is almost twice as far below 0C as the hot side is above 0C. The average is not surprisingly (-180C +106C)/2 = -37C.

      It does surprise me that the high is only 106C. It seem that if the Earth rotated at the same rate as the Moon, it’s high would be around 106C as well. The oceans would have boiled off long ago.

      I don’t see why anyone would want to argue against the analysis of Christos. It’s blatantly obvious the difference in temperatures is due to the speed of rotation.

      • Gordon:

        “Christosit might help to clarify that we mean average temperatures. Obviously, the Moon has one surface exposed to the Sun for 14 days therefore it gets very hot. Then that side faces away from the Sun for 14 days and gets very cold. When we average the peak hot and cold temperatures, they are lower than the Earths average.”

        Yes, thank you Gordon! Every spot on planet surface experiences its peak hot and cold temperature. The less are those differences the higher is the average surface temperature for the same not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.

        The (N*cp)^1\16 is the way the planet average surface temperature “responds” to that.
        The faster the rotation, the less time every spot is exposed to the solar flux’ EM radiative energy, the lees the skin surface layer’s INDUCED temperature is.

        The more atoms (higher surface cp) are getting exposed (INTERACTED) on the skin layer to the solar flux’ EM radiative energy, the lees the skin surface layer’s INDUCED temperature is.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  85. Willard says:

    Sometimes a thing speeds up and slows down at the same time:

    > Over the past 3000 years, the core of the Earth has been speeding up a little, and the mantle-crust on which we stand is slowing down

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/global-warming-changing-how-fast-earth-spins-180957550/

    A bit like crank comments.

    • RLH says:

      Less ice at the poles and more water at the equator is likely to change the rotational speeds just like an ice skater bringing in their arms does.

      • Entropic man says:

        Water moving from the poles to the Equator will slow the Earth’s rotation.

        • Ken says:

          Basic Physics

        • Swenson says:

          But why would water flow from the poles to the equator? Unless heated from beneath, cold water just sits pretty motionless. Gravity holds it in place, and the oceans slosh around a bit as the Moon orbits the Earth. Just up and down, and back and forth.

          Don’t be misled by all the brightly coloured cartoon graphics which you see on the internet.

          Of course, the forces responsible for ocean currents are chaotic in nature. Edward Lorenz (Butterfly Effect) was initially intrigued by convection currents in water, before applying chaotic behavior to convective currents in the atmosphere.

          Predicting future ocean current behaviour is as impossible as predicting future climate states.

          • gbaikie says:

            “But why would water flow from the poles to the equator? Unless heated from beneath, cold water just sits pretty motionless. ”
            {It could be heated from below}
            Cold water cam fill up a basin and overflow the basin {in terms of arctic ocean]. In terms of southern pole it’s more complicated, but it can flow until fills up ocean basins.
            The outflow of bottom cold water of arctic ocean, makes warmer surface water come into the Arctic ocean. Southern polar ocean regions surface water are spun and open to many ocean basins.

            And last I heard this outflow from Arctic has not yet been measured and measuring it from Southern Ocean would be even harder to do.

          • Swenson says:

            gb,

            Nah. Won’t work. No cold water magically available to fill the basin. Even if there was, the water in the basin ain’t going nowhere. It just sits there.

            The myth of water cooling at the North Pole, sinking, and magically deciding to move towards the Equator is just fanciful nonsense. And of course, abyssal water at the Equator is the same temperature as that at high latitudes, so magic is definitely needed to move bottom water from one place to another.

            On the other hand, just applying known physical laws and chaos theory – no magic needed.

          • gbaikie says:

            The World’s Largest Waterfall Is Deep Underwater

            “Located in the little slice of ocean between Greenland and Iceland, the gigantic waterfall known as the Denmark Strait cataract is 100 miles (160 kilometers) wide. It plunges 11,500 feet (3,505 meters) straight down from the Greenland Sea into the Irminger Sea, carrying around 175 million cubic feet (5 million cubic meters) of water per second”
            “The most astonishing thing about the Denmark Strait cataract isn’t, perhaps, how it got to be so tall and mighty, but that an undersea waterfall can exist at all. It’s easy to picture an ocean as a giant bathtub that sloshes around with the tides, but seawater is actually very dynamic; waters of different temperatures and salinities and, therefore, densities are always interacting on large and small scales.

            The Denmark Strait cataract is formed by the difference in temperature between the ultra-cold Arctic waters of the Greenland Sea meeting those of the slightly warmer Irminger Sea. ”
            https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/worlds-largest-waterfall-underwater-denmark-strait-cataract.htm

            “The water from the Denmark Strait cataract doesn’t just hang out once it’s reached the ocean floor; it forms a massive current traveling south, replacing warmer surface water that’s flowing north. The amount of water in this massive flow equals between 20 and 40 times the sum of all river water that flows into the Atlantic.”

            I guess they did measure it.

          • gbaikie says:

            Another article:
            Where is Earths Largest Waterfall?
            The worlds largest waterfall is in the ocean beneath the Denmark Strait.
            Last updated: 02/26/21
            https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/largest-waterfall.html
            “In the Denmark Strait, southward-flowing frigid water from the Nordic Seas meets warmer water from the Irminger Sea. The cold, dense water quickly sinks below the warmer water and flows over the huge drop in the ocean floor, creating a downward flow estimated over 123 million cubic feet per second.”
            23 million cubic feet = 3,482,972 cubic meter in a second
            Or 12,538,699,200 cubic meters per hour
            And there is 8760 hours in a year:
            1.09839 x 10^14 cubic meter per year or
            109.8 trillion cubic meter per year.
            US uses about 600 billion cubic meter of water per year.
            Earth ocean has:
            “The volume of oceans is 1.35 billion cubic kilometres, i.e.,
            1350000000000000000 cubic metres.”
            1.35 x 10^18 cubic meter or less than 1/10,000th of ocean per year.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Lunar induced tides create a metre’s high bulge of water under the Moon as it orbits. That displacement has not slowed the Earth’s rotation based on recent historical evidence.

        With an ice-skater spinning about an axis, the mass in the arms is significant compared to the spinning mass. I doubt if the movement of a water mass as described would offset the considerable rotating mass of the solid Earth.

        Besides, if the theory is correct about ice ages, it is claimed ice built up as high as a mile in places on the Earth. That kind of mass should definitely have caused problems with the Earth’s rotational stability. Where’s the evidence?

    • Swenson says:

      You really are a gullible cultist, aren’t you? People like you even believe that slow cooling is really heating!

      Ah well, ignorant dimwits like yourself are obviously part of the reason that God works in mysterious ways. Either that, or you are ignorant and dim-witted for no particular reason at all!

      What are your ignorant and dim-witted views on the subject?

  86. RLH says:

    So I have been challenged with my comments about relevant maxima being unchanged since 1878. Of course the underlying assumption is that I meant relevant maxima wrt the global temperatures, for which El Nino/La Nina are considered directly to be. I should learn to be more precise in every detail in order not to allow Barry et all to nit pick what I have said.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Richard…if Barry et al don’t find something to nitpick, they will make up something to nitpick.

      When I first posted the flat trend from 1998 – 2012, Barry responded I was peddling bs. When I posted the quote from the IPCC confirming what I’d said, he replied with a red-herring argument about short term flat trends being insignificant.

      The IPCC reported the 15 year flat trend in 2013, hence the reference to 2012. That flat trend continued another three years, making it 18 years total. I don’t consider an 18 year flat trend to be insignificant.

      Now we are working n a 6 year flat trend.

    • barry says:

      “So I have been challenged with my comments about relevant maxima being unchanged since 1878. Of course the underlying assumption is that I meant relevant maxima wrt the global temperatures, for which El Nino/La Nina are considered directly to be. ”

      You are having trouble distinguishing between “maxima” in the NINO3.4 region, and “maxima wrt the global temperatures.” That is the main source of your confusion.

      “I should learn to be more precise”

      Heartily agreed.

      • RLH says:

        “You are having trouble distinguishing between ‘maxima’ in the NINO3.4 region, and ‘maxima wrt the global temperatures.'”

        You are finding it impossible to explain how rising CO2 does not affect Nino 3.4 T.

      • barry says:

        You are very forgetful.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327785

        “In a generally warming world there’d be no reason to expect that everywhere would warm at the same rate. There may even be a few places where it has cooled. Such as these for the past 50 years or so.

        https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004900/a004964/GISS2021F-Rolling1peryear-RollingAverageperyear.2021_print.jpg

        If weather patterns change with climate change (and that is something you WOULD expect, even if you couldn’t predict exactly how) then with the sheer variety of weather patterns you might anticipate that some places could cool if the hydrological flow is altered. What if the prevailing wind for some place changes over time from the equator to the pole?

        You see in the anomaly map above that just a few places have cooled relative to the 1951 to 1980 average. There is a time lapse of that anomaly map so you can see exactly how non-uniform weather patterns are over the Earth.

        https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4787

        Because you pay so little attention to what others say in reply to you, you forget what they say to you. And you don’t reply to what they say to you, preferring to repeat whatever your fixation is at the moment, which is has been the NINO3.4 region sea surface temperatures and 2 el Ninos.

        Every conversation about other stuff gets hijacked by your fixation. Doesn’t matter if your obsession is tangential to the current discussion or completely unrelated to it. You just repeat like a broken record. Because you are not interested in illuminating issues, only in being argumentative.

        Further to my earlier reply to you above, the oceans are expected to warm at a different rate to land, and the tropics – more slowly – because of the higher heat capacity of water compared to land.

        So no, not impossible to explain at all. It’s only ‘skeptic’ goofballs who believe the Earth should behave like a featureless billiard ball and warm at the same rate everywhere.

        • RLH says:

          So with your superb knowledge you will have no problem with predicting when the next El Nino will be and its relative strength compared to 2016.

          • RLH says:

            Please note that ENSO is well acknowledged to have significant effects outside of just the Nino 3.4 area, such as North and South America, Europe and Africa, India and Australia.

          • barry says:

            Both these replies have nothing to do with what I said.

            So I expect that before long you will once again announce that I have found it “impossible to explain how rising CO2 does not affect Nino 3.4 T.”

            Because you ignored my answer yet again in order to be argumentative.

            “Please note that ENSO is well acknowledged to have significant effects outside of just the Nino 3.4 area”

            As I’ve said to many times.

            But never fear. You’ve already switched your mind off while reading this comment, as you did the ones I’ve just linked, and you will ask me to “please note” the same thing later on.

    • barry says:

      “When I first posted the flat trend from 1998 2012, Barry responded I was peddling bs.”

      THAT is bs.

      I provided you at the time you first mentioned it the actual trend rate provided by the IPCC (0.05 C/decade), and alerted you to the fact that the IPCC said short term trends are uncertain and not indicative of underlying long term trends. I linked to the SPM for this.

      You replied at the time with a reference to the Technical Summary, which included the word “hiatus,” and I pointed out to you that the trend given in that section was still 0.05 C/decade, and that that section also said short-term trends are uncertain and sensitive to start and end dates.

      You banked your entire argumentation on the use of the word “hiatus” in the technical summary, and steadfastly refused to acknowledge everything else the IPCC said about 1998 – 2012.

      I have an excellent memory, Gordon. Yours can’t be relied on, obviously.

    • barry says:

      To give you your due, Gordon, I said that IPCC had not used the word “hiatus.” When you showed that they had in the TS I immediately acknowledged it. You continued to ignore everything else the IPCC said and hung your entire argumentation on the word, not on the science.

  87. gbaikie says:

    An ice house climate is when cold oceanic water falls and a greenhouse climate is when warm oceanic water falls.

    On Mars one can make warm water fall {as you can on Earth}.
    On Earth you generally don’t want totally sealed house and on Mars you need a totally sealed house.
    The international space station is a totally sealed house and ISS is a poor house with it’s lack of gravity is factor in making it a noisy
    house and without refrigeration it would a hot house.

    Making low income housing in orbit is not something we have done, but many people have considered it is possible, though it usually thought to involves very large structures, and I don’t think it require very large structures. And I tend to think they require a lot of water- and our solar system has a lot of water.

    Having low income housing in space requires cheap water in space.
    A reason Mars is considered most habitable planet, is it has lots of CO2 [some N2] and enough water. And the Moon, has shortage of water, CO2 [and little N2}.
    Cheapest water on the moon is somewhere around $500,000 per cubic meter- if can’t get water that cheap, then water is probably not mineable. It’s “cheap” because from water, you can make rocket fuel and rocket fuel at $1000 per kg on the Moon is cheap rocket fuel on the Moon. If lunar water starts at $500,000 per cubic meter, you don’t want it to stay at the price, you want for the cost [or price] of water to lower as more water is mined. Or want lunar price to be $100,000 per cubic meter when making say 10,000 tons per year. In terms of gross sales 100,000 times 10,000 = 1 billion dollars per year. But with 100 tons which is amount you start mining lunar water:
    500,000 times 100 is 50 million per year.
    You are losing money if making less than 1000 tonnes per year, but any start up business starts by losing money, or they need investment dollars. So you start with say 100 tons, but to make money you have
    do 1000 or 10,000 tons within the shortest time possible. And your business model, is than company will be mining millions to billion of tons of water per year, but it might not mined on the Moon. Or your business is mining water in space, which evenually involve trillion of tons of water per year. And you are starting on the Moon.
    And you don’t just mine water. On Earth a iron mine would be mostly mining iron, but mining other stuff- same applies to mining water on Moon. And very significant thing you might mine other than water could be CO2.
    With Mars there is more water, and rather than $500,000 per cubic meter, a cheap price is $1000 per cubic meter. And it’s not mostly about making rocket fuel, rather it’s most water for residential and industrial use, and start millions of tons of water mine per year, likewise quickly get to billions of tons per year.
    The Moon could have more water than we think it does, therefore if
    easier, one might start with 10,000 tons per year and much cheaper price for water- you might be mining billion tons of water per year just on the Moon, and the Moon as habitable as Mars [perhaps more habitable]

  88. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Isn’t the negative anomaly in the western equatorial Pacific breaking records this time of year?
    https://i.ibb.co/qgThfwg/nino4.png

    • barry says:

      Has it really been 10 years? Time flies.

      The predictable whinge is that climate gate-keepers kept the study from being published, but somehow Watts managed to get a paper on the same topic published the previous year. Couldn’t possibly be about the quality of the science could it?