Climate Sensitivity from 1970-2021 Warming Estimates

December 19th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In response to reviewers’ comments on a paper John Christy and I submitted regarding the impact of El Nino and La Nina on climate sensitivity estimates, I decided to change the focus enough to require a total re-write of the paper.

The paper now addresses the question: If we take all of the various surface and sub-surface temperature datasets and their differing estimates of warming over the last 50 years, what does it imply for climate sensitivity?

The trouble with estimating climate sensitivity from observational data is that, even if the temperature observations were globally complete and error-free, you still have to know pretty accurately what the “forcing” was that caused the temperature change.

(Yes, I know some of you don’t like the forcing-feedback paradigm of climate change. Feel free to ignore this post if it bothers you.)

As a reminder, all temperature change in an object or system is due to an imbalance between rates of energy gained and energy lost, and the global warming hypothesis begins with the assumption that the climate system is naturally in a state of energy balance. Yes, I know (and agree) that this assumption cannot be demonstrated to be strictly true, as events like the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age can attest.

But for the purpose of demonstration, let’s assume it’s true in today’s climate system, and that the only thing causing recent warming is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission (mainly CO2). Does the current rate of warming suggest (as we are told) that a global warming disaster is upon us? I think this is an important question to address, separate from the question of whether some of the recent warming is natural (which would make AGW even less of a problem).

Lewis and Curry (most recently in 2018) addressed the ECS question in a similar manner by comparing temperatures and radiative forcing estimates between the late 1800s and early 2000s, and got answers somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 deg. C of eventual warming from a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration (2XCO2). These estimates are considerably lower than what the IPCC claims from (mostly) climate model projections.

Our approach is somewhat different from Lewis & Curry. First, we use only data from the most recent 50 years (1970-2021), which is the period of most rapid growth in CO2-caused forcing, the period of most rapid temperature rise, and about as far back as one can go and talk with any confidence about ocean heat content (a very important variable in climate sensitivity estimates).

Secondly, our model is time-dependent, with monthly time resolution, allowing us to examine (for instance) the recent acceleration in deep ocean temperature (ocean heat content) rise.

In contrast to Lewis & Curry and differencing two time periods’ averages separated by 100+ years, our approach is to use a time-dependent model of vertical energy flows, which I have blogged on before. It is run at monthly time resolution, so allows examination of such issues as the recent acceleration of the increase in oceanic heat content (OHC).

In response to reviewers comments, I extended the domain from non-ice covered (60N-60S) oceans to global coverage (including land), as well as borehole-based estimates of deep-land warming trends (I believe a first for this kind of work). The model remains a 1D model of temperature departures from assumed energy equilibrium, within three layers, shown schematically in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Schematic of the 3-layer 1D forcing-feedback model, which computes time-varying temperature departures from energy equilibrium in 3 layers, land or ocean. Vertical dimensions are not to scale.

One thing I learned along the way is that, even though borehole temperatures suggest warming extending to almost 200 m depth (the cause of which seems to extent back several centuries), modern Earth System Models (ESMs) have embedded land models that extend to only 10 m depth or so.

Another thing I learned (in the course of responding to reviewers comments) is that the assumed history of radiative forcing has a pretty large effect on diagnosed climate sensitivity. I have been using the RCP6 radiative forcing scenario from the previous (AR5) IPCC report, but in response to reviewers’ suggestions I am now emphasizing the SSP245 scenario from the most recent (AR6) report.

Fig. 2. Radiative forcing scenarios used by the IPCC in AR5 and AR6 climate model experiments, including that which I use in the 1D model, based upon a blend of AR6 Annex III tabulated effective radiative forcing in scattered years and the yearly-resolution provided by the RCP 6.0 radiative forcing used in AR5.

I run all of the model simulations with either one or the other radiative forcing dataset, initialized in 1765 (a common starting point for ESMs). All results below are from the most recent (SSP245) effective radiative forcing scenario preferred by the IPCC (which, it turns out, actually produces lower ECS estimates).

The Model Experiments

In addition to the assumption that the radiative forcing scenarios are a relatively accurate representation of what has been causing climate change since 1765, there is also the assumption that our temperature datasets are sufficiently accurate to compute ECS values.

So, taking those on faith, let’s forge ahead…

I ran the model with thousands of combinations of heat transfer coefficients between model layers and the net feedback parameter (which determines ECS) to get 1970-2021 temperature trends within certain ranges.

For land surface temperature trends I used 5 “different” land datasets: CRUTem5 (+0.277 C/decade), GISS 250 km (+0.306 C/decade), NCDC v3.2.1 (+0.298 C/decade), GHCN/CAMS (+0.348 C/decade), and Berkeley 1 deg. (+0.280 C/decade).

For global average sea surface temperature I used HadCRUT5 (+0.153 C/decade), Cowtan & Way (HadCRUT4, +0.148 C/decade), and Berkeley 1 deg. (+0.162 C/decade).

For the deep ocean, I used Cheng et al. 0-2000m global average ocean temperature (+0.0269 C/decade), and Cheng’s estimate of the 2000-3688m deep-deep-ocean warming, which amounts to a (very uncertain) +0.01 total warming over the last 40 years. The model must produce the surface trends within the range represented by those datasets, and produce 0-2000 m trends within +/-20% of the Cheng deep-ocean dataset trends.

Since deep-ocean heat storage is such an important constraint on ECS, in Fig. 3 I show the 1D model run that best fits the 0-2000m temperature trend of +0.0269 C/decade over the period 1970-2021.

Fig. 3. The average 1D model simulation (orange) that fits the 0-2000m trend (1970-2021) in the Cheng 0-2000m temperatures (blue line, with uncertainty bars).

Finally, the storage of heat in the land surface is usually ignored in such efforts. As mentioned above, climate models have embedded land surface models that extend to only 10 m depth. Yet, borehole temperature profiles have been analyzed that suggest warming up to 200 m in depth (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Borehole based temperature reconstructions. The borehole retrieval model fit (black curve, bottom) was used here for the 1D model estimates of ECS over land.

This great depth, in turn, suggests that there has been a multi-century warming trend occurring, even in the early 20th Century, which the IPCC ignores and which suggests a natural source for long-term climate change. Any natural source of warming, if ignored, leads to inflated estimates of ECS and of the importance of increasing CO2 in climate change projections.

I used the black curve (bottom panel of Fig. 4) to estimate that the near-surface layer is warming 2.5 times faster than the 0-100 m layer, and 25 times faster than the 100-200 m layer. In my 1D model simulations, I required this amount of deep-land heat storage (analogous to the deep-ocean heat storage computations, but requiring weaker heat transfer coefficients for land and different volumetric heat capacities).

The distributions of diagnosed ECS values I get over land and ocean are shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. 1D model distributions of ECS for the full range of temperature trends (1970-2021) from 5 land surface datasets, 3 ocean surface datasets, the Cheng 0-2000m deep-ocean trends (+/-20%), and very-deep ocean heat storage (highly uncertain).

The final, global average ECS from the central estimates in Fig. 5 is 2.09 deg. C. Again, this is somewhat higher than the 1.5 to 1.8 deg. C obtained by Lewis & Curry, but part of this is due to larger estimates of ocean and land heat storage used here, and I would suspect that our use of only the most recent 50 years of data has some impact as well.

Conclusions

I’ve used a 1D time-dependent model of temperature departures from assumed energy equilibrium to address the question: Given the various estimates of surface and sub-surface warming over the last 50 years, what do they suggest for the sensitivity of the climate system to a doubling of atmospheric CO2?

Using the most recent estimates of effective radiative forcing from Annex III in the latest IPCC report (AR6), the observational data suggest lower climate sensitivities (ECS) than promoted by the IPCC with a central estimate of +2.09 deg C. for the global average. This is at the bottom end of the latest IPCC (AR6) likely range of 2.0 to 4.5 deg. C.

I believe this is still likely an upper bound for ECS, for the following reasons.

  1. Borehole temperatures suggest there has been a long-term warming trend, at least up into the early 20th Century. Ignoring this (whatever its cause) will lead to inflated estimates of ECS.
  2. I still believe that some portion of the land temperature datasets has been contaminated by long-term increases in Urban Heat Island effects, which are indistinguishable from climatic warming in homogenization schemes.

392 Responses to “Climate Sensitivity from 1970-2021 Warming Estimates”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Martin says:

    Good follow-up. I pretty much agree with the belief in contaminations by long-term increases in Urban Heat Island. I know that there are some that still believe that the urban effect has been ‘normalized out’ but it is clear that it has not…at least not fully. Also, good insight on the pre-heating tracking that the IPCC painfully ignores at all ‘costs’

  2. CO2isLife says:

    How was the urban heat island effect and water vapor controlled for? If you control for those factors you will see that CO2 doesn’t impact temperatures.

    • UHI is not a climate change variable

      The CHANGE if UHI is a climate change variable

      The CHANGE of UHI only affects a small percentage of the planet’s surface, n and not the 71% that are oceans.

      Atmospheric water vapor changes are not a climate change variable
      Water vapor changes are a feedback to other climate variables that affect the temperature of the troposphere

      The statement that CO2 di oes not affect temperatures is wrong and was proven in a lab in the 1800s.

      I agree that “CO2 is life” and support much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to improve C3 plant growth.

      But I don’t accept your claptrap science theories without comment.

      We Climate Realists can’t dismiss AGW as nonsense, and then expect to be taken seriously when trying to refute CAGW, as I have been doing for 25 years, to the best of my ability.

      • JOEL BLACK says:

        The change in UHI is local in the record, but is inappropriately smeared across the continents leading to inflated estimates of warming. Ocean heat estimates have their own adjustment problems, as I’m sure you know. I don’t believe we have expunged the thumb-on-the-scale measurements enough to know what the true picture is.

  3. stephen p. anderson says:

    Happer and Wijngaardeb agree with you Dr. Spencer.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098

  4. Ken Gregory says:

    You wrote “I used the black curve (bottom panel of Fig. 3) to estimate …”

    That should be “bottom panel of Fig. 4”.

  5. aaron says:

    If climate change is driving deep ocean temperature rise instead of surface, wont steric sea level rise be substantially smaller?

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      I believe they have computed the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise, taking into account the warming at different depths.

      • Swenson says:

        Roy,

        And nobody at all has the faintest idea how much heat is entering the depths from thermal vents, mid-ocean ridges (exposed magma), or wandering crustal hotpots.

        Nor the faintest idea of crustal sea floor vertical movement.

        And of course, all the heat of the day leaves during the night – ocean temperatures have dropped since the first liquid water appeared just under boiling!

        Thermal expansion? A SkyDragon dream – just like CO2 supposedly heating thermometers, which is not supported by four and a half billion years or so of history.

        Others will no doubt decide whether to put their money on faith or fact.

  6. Tim S says:

    If the heat island effect is affecting the data, to what extent is it affecting climate itself? What percentage of the earth is considered urban?

    • CAD says:

      Humanity has altered approximately 40% of the terrestrial surfaces, in one form another. Mostly by clearing surface ecological systems, and altering soils to some depth aided by diesel powered machinery.

      I propose this has impacts throughout the earth system, not least the biological mediation of cloud nucleation when it comes to climates. Vast plumes of airborne bacteria originate from continental biosystems, which influence global cloud nucleation temperature (height) and hygroscopicity (density).

      I have never seen the borehole data before, which suggests also direct surface effects by reduced moisture storage, slowing of biological and water cycling, and therefore reduced total latent fluxes of heat by evapotranspiration away from the surface. This all commencing around industrialization, and not a natural occurrence.

      • aaron says:

        The hydrological cycle is expected to accelerate (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123850409000013) and soil moisture is increasing (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704665115).

        Land water storage trends, summed over all basins, are positive for GRACE (∼7182 km3/y) but negative for models (−450 to −12 km3/y), contributing opposing trends to global mean sea level change.

        The land water captured implied by land carbon uptake is pretty sustainable, but only account for 32% of the observed additional water capture by land each year. The additional biomass likely enhances the ability of soil to hold water.

        2022 land biosphere carbon uptake is estimated at 3.4 gigatons https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/4811/2022/ . 5.1 gigatons water is consumed in photosynthesis, for a dry mass increase of 8.5, 28.3 wet mass, amounting to 24.9 km^3 of water captured by land each year, likely more than sea level rise from global warming melting glaciers.

        • CAD says:

          In reality the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing. Fewer cycles per unit time. Atmospheric water vapor is increasing more rapidly than precipitation.

          There is a perception that this non radiative flux of energy is of little net consequence. However, the water cycle is the primary mode which transports energy from the surface, through the boundary layer, and released into the free atmosphere as tangible heat in condensation.

          Any disruption to evaporation and condensation process will impact energy budgets, including latitudinal, zonal, and vertical energy transport of heat, mass, and momentum. Additionally, a longer residence time closes radiative windows for longer periods. Direct perturbation to evaporation and condensation process by human influence is not computed in GCMs.

          Vast changes to vegetation and soils impacts energy budgets and large scale circulations
          https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14861-4_4

          Computing direct perturbations to evapotranspiration and surface radiation budgets
          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311340976_The_role_of_water_and_vegetation_in_the_distribution_of_solar_energy_and_local_climate_a_review

          Massive disruptions to the continental water cycle impacts land-ocean temperature contrasts and large scale atmospheric dynamics
          https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12880

          Soil carbon loss reduces soil moisture
          https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/eint/26/1/EI-D-22-0003.1.xml

          • aaron says:

            Thank you for the links, which all support my point.

            Soils carbon is increasing. Vegetation is increasing. And plant respiration is increasing Observations of gravimetric data show increasing storage of water in the land biosphere as supported by the carbon budget.

          • aaron says:

            Vegetation Greening and Climate Change Promote Multidecadal Rises of Global Land Evapotranspiration
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26514110/
            The ET record shows a significant upward global trend of 0.88 mm yr(-2) (P < 0.001) over the 32-year period, mainly driven by vegetation greening (0.018% per year; P < 0.001) and rising atmosphere moisture demand (0.75 mm yr(-2); P = 0.016). Our results indicate that reduced ET growth between 1998 and 2008 was an episodic phenomenon, with subsequent recovery of the ET growth rate after 2008.

          • CAD says:

            NorESM2 LM ranks among one of the only groups beginning to explore the secondary organic aerosols in hygroscopic growth and condensation efficiency. Consequently, it ranks among the low ECS group in CMIP6. Further work on this must only reduce ECS further, as we begin to understand the vast array of human influences on climates.

            https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/13/6165/2020/gmd-13-6165-2020.html

          • aaron says:

            Thanks again.

            I wonder why we arent detecting much of an increase in precipitation when clearly more water is evaporating and being moved to land. Is it dew? I cant just be that. The amount of water accumulating on land is almost half of what glaciers lose each year.

          • CAD says:

            @aaron
            “I wonder why we arent detecting much of an increase in precipitation”

            Fallowing billions of hectares of land has exposed landscapes to increased UV which kills of microflora – this is done intentionally to keep disease at bay. Like a UV filter on a water system.

            Adding in additionally mass use of biocides/herbicides/pesticides can, of course, cause great disruption to bioprecipitation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24399753/

            Cloud condensation temperature and deficit of “giant” microflora crystallization sites both have important influences on atmospheric dynamics and precipitation efficiency. https://www.mpg.de/10470442/ice-formation-bacteria-syringae

            The abundance of airborne microflora has been known since the time of louis pasteur, as these numerous of nucleation sites are part of earth equilibrium process. These secondary aerosols have gone unnoticed to climatology. They quite literally pull the rain out of the air, as known to ecologists, and reinforce rainforest dynamics for example.

            https://www.mpg.de/10470442/ice-formation-bacteria-syringae

            In many cases the airborne microflora have been replaced by fine clay dust particles from exposed and desiccated landscapes. Fine dust is known to be hygrophobic and leads to persistent haze instead of cleansing rains.

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      Only about 1% of global land area is built-up.

    • Although it can seem like our expanding cities take up a lot of land, only around 1% of global land is defined as built-up area; rates of urbanization have been increasing rapidly across all regions (in 1800, less than 10% of people across all regions lived in urban areas)

      Weather stations are located in urban areas more than 1% of the time

      But UHI can be greater in rural areas such as when a village grew up near a weather station that was formerly “in the middle of nowhere”

      UHI is not a climate change variable
      The CHANGE of UHI is a climate change variable.
      NASA-GISS has a UHI adjustment.
      A few years ago, it had amounted to a fraction of a degree over a century. Just enough to say they “adjusted for UHI” (aka a baloney number)

      • Antcam says:

        UHI is both a factor in climate change (maybe minor or negligible, but energy spent in cities certanly contributes directly to warming locally) and a “noise” in trying to measure climate change with weather stations (too often located in urban areas) data. Roy recent study pointed that the effect may be distorting popular datasets and is probably not properly mathematically “filtered” through NASA and others efforts.

      • Nate says:

        “Weather stations are located in urban areas more than 1% of the time”

        And are all these used to calculate global average T?

        No.

        Each region of the world, whether urban or rural is sampled.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          In the rest of the world, the data has been “adjusted.”

        • Total BS

          Uninhabited portions of the world have few weather stations.
          Global coverage was bad before 1940
          Very bad before 1920
          And terrible before 1900

          There is no global average temperature before 1900.
          Anyone who claims there is … is a liar
          There is a very rough estimate of Northern Hemisphere average temperature because of very few S.H. measurements and haphazard ocean measurements, mainly in N.H. sea lanes.

          Many weather stations are missing some monthly data that gets guessed (infilling)

          You have no idea what you are talking about

        • Nate says:

          Before 1900 it is more difficult, but you havent rebutted my point that all of the data sets use methods to sample ach region of the world, whether urban or rural.

          If you think that today or in recent decades, areas with more stations are weighted more heavily, that’s wrong.

          Here’s how GISS explains it

          “Q. Why can’t we just average the available data to get a regional or global mean?
          A. Just averaging the available data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.”

          • Tim S says:

            That quote from GISS confirms 4 facts: 1) they know it is a problem, 2) it has to be adjusted using human judgement, 3) it is entirely up to their discretion how it is done, 4) and the big one is that it is completely shameful that they refuse to acknowledge the satellite data as a check against their publicly published work.

          • Nate says:

            “3) it is entirely up to their discretion how it is done”

            Not really. They have to have a scientific rationale that is stated in their methods paper. Others may read and criticize it, and if it has a poor rationale the data set loses credibility. Can you point out the flaws?

            A number of such data sets are produced independently, and by a different measurement: reanalysis. Yet the results for trends of last 50 y are quite similar.

          • Tim S says:

            Nate, you don’t like number 3, so the others must have hit the mark.

          • Nate says:

            “1) they know it is a problem,

            #1 is obvious but GISS and others show how they address this problem

            “2) it has to be adjusted using human judgement, 3) it is entirely up to their discretion how it is done,”

            2 is part of 3, already addressed

            “4) and the big one is that it is completely shameful that they refuse to acknowledge the satellite data as a check against their publicly published work.”

            This is nonsense. The satellite data and the surface data speak for themselves. The IPCC reports, and other publications certainly do incorporate the satellite data.

            But the satellite data does have a real problem. The adjustments that are required ALSO require human judgement. But the major groups analyzing it disagree on aspects of it, and report VERY different results. The check on the satellite data is balloon SONDE measurements, and they do not agree well with UAH. This is as yet unresolved.

  7. CO2isLife says:

    Thomas Sowell could teach climate scientists how to run a controlled experiment. Here is how you to it, just inject Urban Heat Island and Water vapor for the control factor other than the location of origin.
    https://youtu.be/OtBsyvpjjL8

    • Thomas Sowell is my favorite economist. I have read four of his books and am current reading his biography calles “Maverick”

      He does not know anything about climate science.

      The change in UHI is a climate change variable with no accurate measurements

      Water vapor in te atmosphere is not a climate change variable
      It is a climate change feedback.

      • lewis guignard says:

        Richard,
        First, Merry Christmas.

        Water Vapor is not a variable? Why not? If not, it seems CO2 atmospheric change wouldn’t be either. Why?
        Man has many processes which add H20 to the atmosphere.

        Coal plants, nuclear plants, lakes, plowing, internal combustion engines and irrigation all add H20 to the atmosphere. Yes?

      • Nate says:

        Basically the water cycle maintains the atmosphere at ~ constant relative humidity.

    • Nate says:

      Ah, Ok he is an economist.

  8. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    This will be a very strong intrusion of the stratosphere into the troposphere.
    https://i.ibb.co/nmJL49R/gfs-toz-NA-f096.png

  9. gbaikie says:

    –I believe this is still likely an upper bound for ECS, for the following reasons.

    Borehole temperatures suggest there has been a long-term warming trend, at least up into the early 20th Century. Ignoring this (whatever its cause) will lead to inflated estimates of ECS.
    I still believe that some portion of the land temperature datasets has been contaminated by long-term increases in Urban Heat Island effects, which are indistinguishable from climatic warming in homogenization schemes.–

    So, +2.09 deg C for doubling of CO2?

    I don’t think it will double. But I would suppose there would be a fair amount disagreement about when it doubles.

    • Greg says:

      Bore hole “suggest” whatever the authors wishes. The deep temperature profile result is TOTALLY dependent on model assumptions.

  10. Greg says:

    Dr Spencer.

    The main problem here is that you ( tentatively ) accept all for fake science which has been crafted over the years to support AGW hypothesis.

    The “last 30y” trick just sounds like an innocent round number but focuses on the recent warming period which by its monotonic nature roughly correlates with rising CO2. Any model tuned to that will fail to match the early 20th c. rise and the post war cooling which has now been mostly “corrected” out of existence.

    I realise the very limited OHC data is a limitation but this “last 50y” thing is a trap. Also any pretense that there was sufficient sampling to assess OHC as far back as 1970 is a joke.

    IPCC “forcings” are also rigged to roughly reconcile model output to the “corrected” surface record whilst maintaining high CO2 sensitivity. Lacis et al 1992 did some honest physical modelling of AOD forcing and scaled by 30 W/m2. By Hansen et al 1997, they had abandonned physical modelling in favour of arbitrarily tweaking parameters to reconcile output and dropped it to 21 W/m2 !! The large number of degrees of freedom then leaves them free to fudge it to have higher sensitivity.

    I cover this with citation in the “Discusion” section of this article: https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/06/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks

    By winding down the scaling of AOD, they can run a more sensitive model without have a too strong dip after Mt Pinatubo.

    Good luck with the paper but I fear you are making too many compromises in accepting the rigged IPCC “science”.

    Best regards.

  11. Greg says:

    A quick observation : your model is already running hot by the end of the calibration period and has a notably higher slope than the data in fig 3. where is it going to be in 20y ?

    Greets.

  12. angech says:

    Part of the problem is reconciling a whole of body, earth, atmosphere and oceans with a shell temperature on a rotating planet where the external part of the heat source is heating a constantly changing surface mix.

  13. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Stratospheric intrusion will bring extremely cold air to the Midwest. Snowstorm over the Great Lakes.
    https://i.ibb.co/B2v9VDv/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-20-044510.png
    https://i.ibb.co/Y7gyw9X/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f096.png

  14. aaron says:

    Vegetation Greening and Climate Change Promote Multidecadal Rises of Global Land Evapotranspiration
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26514110/

    The ET record shows a significant upward global trend of 0.88 mm yr(-2) (P < 0.001) over the 32-year period, mainly driven by vegetation greening (0.018% per year; P < 0.001) and rising atmosphere moisture demand (0.75 mm yr(-2); P = 0.016). Our results indicate that reduced ET growth between 1998 and 2008 was an episodic phenomenon, with subsequent recovery of the ET growth rate after 2008.

  15. angech says:

    The energy content of all planets is a combination of the energy they receive from the sun and the energy they produce themselves.

    The surface temperature depends on what one defines as the surface.

    Gas giants are hard to define.
    They are said to be cold at a “surface” where the atmospheric pressure is earth equivalent but can be as hot as the sun centrally?
    Saturn produces 2 times as much or more energy than it receives from the sun.

    Surface temperatures can be estimated as a TOA where the incoming and outgoing energies are in balance.

    This poses a nuanced problem for any planet, including earth, which has a heat producing core.
    All satellite products can estimate the incoming solar radiation though this information seems curiously lacking when applied to energy budgets.
    Most people here skim over this thought without giving it the serious attention it needs.

    Put simply since the earth radiates all the energy it receives from the sun in any given time period [Stefan Boltzmann] there is no need to focus on the earth temperature at all.
    Any fluctuation in temperature should be derivable from the suns input.
    If the earth gets warmer then the sun must be outputting more energy.

    • angech says:
      “Any fluctuation in temperature should be derivable from the suns input. If the earth gets warmer then the sun must be outputting more energy.”

      Baloney
      The Earth has been getting warmer since 1975
      There is no evidence that TOA solar energy has increased
      There is evidence that Earth’s cooling ability has been impeded.

      • Swenson says:

        Richard,

        You wrote –

        “The Earth has been getting warmer since 1975.”

        Maybe you mean certain thermometers have recorded increased temperatures commensurate with increased energy production and use?

        The Earth itself has cooled – unless you can show that the laws of physics have changed in 1975.

        • I was referring to the global surface average temperature
          You know I was referring to the global surface average tem[erature
          But you are a nitpicking troublemaker.

          • Swenson says:

            Richard,

            You wrote –

            “I was referring to the global surface average temperature.”

            Unfortunately, you can’t even describe this “global surface average temperature”, can you? Whatever you are talking about, it isn’t global, doesn’t refer to surface temperatures, and you don’t even know what this supposed average temperature is!

            Maybe you should try saying what you really mean, otherwise might just assume you are another loony SkyDragon cultist, who just spouts nonsense, and starts getting whiny when I point out how silly he is.

            I suppose you believe in the Greenhouse Effect, another thing that you can’t actually describe!

            Go on, tell me again what you think of me – and why anybody at all should value your opinion.

          • Nate says:

            “Unfortunately, you cant even describe this ‘global surface average temperature'”

            So Swenson, which of these words are too difficult for you?

            Global- as in all over the Earth

            Surface- as in neither underground nor up in the air.

            Average- a simple statistic, thats probably the one troubling you.

            Temperature-as in warm or cold, ya know what that is riiight?

            Now, put those words together and tell us what that could mean. Is that the hard part for you?

          • Swenson says:

            Nate, you donkey,

            There are no thermometers “all over the Earth”.

            The majority of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. No thermometers there at all. Where surface temperature readings are available, they are ignored in favour of temperatures “up in the air”, which don’t read the air temperature (in case you were stupid enough to believe they did).

            Global average surface temperature is a myth – you cant even find out what it is today, or what it was yesterday!

            It doesn’t matter anyway, does it? According to NOAA – “2020 Was Earths 2nd-Hottest Year, Just behind 2016.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, January 14, 2021.”

            A gullible fool like you thinks that because 2020 was colder than 2016, the Earth has magically cooled? Not enough CO2?

            Your zinger seems to have turned into a fizzer. Just stringing random words together like “global surface average temperature”, makes you look like just another deranged SkyDragon, not a mental giant!

            Oh well.

          • Nate says:

            “The majority of the Earths surface is covered by water.”

            And? The ocean surface has been measured for a long time by ships, lately a better job is done by satellite.

            So really there are thermometers all over the Earth.

            Your complaint is just your usual nonsense that science can’t do any of the things they do.

            All we can learn from your posts is that you hate science and scientists.

            Why? Were you beaten by one as a child?

  16. Nate says:

    Nice work!

  17. angech says:

    OK there is more to it than just the sun.
    Some planets have a greater albedo than others and this affects how much sun actually gets to the surface.
    So we do have to look at the planets after all to work out the albedo or reflection.

    Some planets or bodies like the moon have little atmosphere and a relatively stable albedo with mild contour variations.
    This can be estimated by splitting the light sensor information into visible light reflected and IR emitted.

    Earth however has both albedo changes due to ice, ocean, vegetation, rotation and clouds to name but a few.
    The albedo can be estimated from the data for most of these apart from clouds.
    Clouds vary in amount and area and height and seasonally and are partially dependent on having enough surface water to form them.
    The variation is enough to be statistically important but as the average humidity moves in a tight band cloud presence should do this in a slightly more difficult way to estimate.
    Spencer and Christy have written on this..

    • Changes of albedo
      Changes of cloudiness
      Changes of aerosols in the atmosphere
      Changes of UHI
      Unknown changes

      All these affect the amount of solar energy reaching the surface of our planet

    • Many variables affect the amount of solar energy reaching Earth’s surface:

      Changes of albedo
      Changes of cloudiness
      Changes of aerosols in the atmosphere
      Changes of UHI
      Unknown changes

      • Swenson says:

        Richard,

        The Sun’s input is irrelevant over time, as far as the Earth is concerned. Four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunshine demonstrates this inconvenient fact.

  18. angech says:

    Examining the climate sensitivity of earth involves examining the changes in the surface temperature over time with a change in the forcing, clouds or CO2 or whatever variable is noted to be changing and measurable over this time.

    This has to be in comparison to the known forcing by the sun which, as said, is the easy part though not often mentioned as a variable, it is usually considered invariant [which is wrong but useful] for the purpose of these studies.

    The first part is to consider if a change has been present at all.

    This is where the temperature and other observations come in.
    It is a hodgepodge of different techniques and estimations but again, in good faith, assuming a modest accuracy in most figures the world has increased in surface global temperature over the last 150 years.
    With ups and downs as all good data should.

    CO2 has gone up with clockwork regularity from the main source over the last 4 years, far too clockwork for my liking with very little reaction over that 64 years to link with irregular human production.

    It is an effect that one might see more from a gradual temperature increase affecting the CO2 concentration in all the water sources in the world, which is a lot more than the oceans.

    But yes there is a documented increase in both values. which must be considered

    • How about we stop worrying about the climate and start enjoying the current climate?

      We live in a global warming period during an interglacial period.

      Climate does not get much better than this for humans and animals.

      This is the best climate (CO2 level) for C3 plants in millions of years.

      There must be a few other problems in the world to worry about?

      The climate is not a problem.

    • Nate says:

      Yeah yeah, we know. You live in a cold place. Warmth is welcome to YOU.

      But where you live is not the world. And YOU are not the worlds population.

  19. angech says:

    I do not see the need, again, to work out the heat budget for the deeper layers of the surface of the earth.

    The reason is that the earth, as a planet, has a known amount of energy in it that reaches the surface.

    It is extremely difficult to work out how much it is in one way, Given that the different layers and the core have increasing heat going centrally, just like the Jovian planets and the sun.

    But it has a solid crust of known composition and this allows a cheat to be done in estimating its natural surface temperature.

    How so?

    If it has a solid surface with water present at its known mass and an atmosphere there with the sun present then its surface temperature, following SB, is simply the residue after removing the amount of energy that the sun inputs for a sphere of that size.
    This in turn must be the surface temperature for a sphere of that composition [or indeed of any composition].

    This is an important point which I am not being clear enough on.
    The earth, like all planets, for a defined surface [not always the solid surface] has a natural internal energy it generates which must always reach the outside continually detected as an emission temperature and is quite low and for the earth in the infrared.

  20. angech says:

    Following on this line of thought the best way to compare what such a temperature could be is to look at the airless moon companion which is at an exactly similar distance from the sun.

    Bond albedo 0.11 0.306 0.360
    Geometric albedo 0.12 0.434 0.28
    V-band magnitude V(1,0) -0.08 -3.99 –
    Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0 1361.0
    Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 254.0
    The temperature of the surface of the Moon can reach about -173C during night time, in the absence of sunlight.

    Therefore for a smaller body of the same material with less energy production internally a basal temperature would be 100 Kelvin.
    We cannot say that that would be the earths internal energy surface temperature without the sun but it would not be far off if it had the same internal energy reaching the surface as the moon.
    Since earth is more energetic its basal temperature must be higher than 100 Kelvin.

    I found this with google.”The temperature with Stefan-Boltzmann’s law for a black body in sunlight. SSUN = sigma T4 W/m2
    This law enables us to estimate the temperature T of such an object, From direct measurement, we know that at 1 A.U, SSUN = 1,360 W/m2.
    sigma = 5.67 x 10-8 W/(m2 K4).
    Thus, the nominal temperature of an object, in space and in sunlight, is 394 K.” [lit side.]
    The moon gets to 400 Kelvin on the lit side, pretty close,
    That extra 6 Kelvin seems a long way from the 100 Kelvin mentioned earlier but it reflects the fact that an extra 6 Kelvin hotter at the top end is probably 100 Kelvin at the bottom end in terms of the energy in the radiating bodies

  21. angech says:

    Regardless the measured incoming energy from the sun is known and can only produce so much heat.

    The outgoing energy can be estimated but has to have the dark side outgoing IR radiation added to the overall total and the difference is the amount of energy that the earth surface contributes to the IR radiation going to space.

    This is the same averaged out all over the globe.
    The earth is losing a constant amount of IR overall to space from land, sea, air and ice.
    Christy and Co and all the others at NASA etc should be able to account for it easily.
    I am sorry but there is no need for the more complex depth measurements.
    Most of it is internal heat trying to get out. What comes in from the sun is known to be radiated out as all bodies, black or grey must do.

    This raises the question about the meaning of changes noted or claimed for both land [from mines] and more importantly for oceans.
    It is both fair enough and true enough to say that the estimations for changes of ocean temperatures at depth is poorly measured and poorly understood.
    ARGO is fantastic as an effort but it not a whole of ocean measuring device, nor can it be.
    The changes in ocean temperature measurement are in milli degrees over decades, if they are even correct.

    But we do not need them.

  22. angech says:

    I have some ideas but not the maths.
    Basically the energy budget of the earth as a natural heat producing machine should be able to be estimated.
    Like the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn we should be able to say the natural temperature of the earth at the surface is such and such.
    On top of this is the energy from the sun modified by albedo changes.

    Is the temperature rise of the earth natural and due to these two factors alone?
    Most likely.

    Can CO2 be explained by not only warming oceans but by every drop of water containing CO2 with surface exposure to the air that exists?
    This includes the water in the bodies of all living things. All the clouds and droplets in the air and all the water in the top layer of soil, in artesian rivers and lakes and in ice.

    A line of reasoning against CO2 being expelled from water being the main cause is that the volume and surface area of the oceans cannot produce enough CO2 expelling at atmospheric pressure.
    What is missed is that the amount of water available to trap CO2 [remember rain drops are pH 5 which is thousand of times more CO2 containing due to the logarithmic pH scale] is mcu greater than just the oceans, deep as they are the surface are is not great.

  23. angech says:

    In summary using a series of estimates of the usual earth temperature should be able to give a range of Climate Sensitivities possibly more in keeping with Lewis Curry, but who knows, maybe not.

  24. frankclimate says:

    Roy, your central estimate of ECS=2.09/2*CO2 bolsters the assumption of Lewis(2022) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x, he found: “median 2.16 C, 1783% range 1.752.7 C, 595% range 1.553.2 C” reworking the approach of Sherwood et al (2020) without any model assumption. (“from multiple lines of evidence”). This is remarakable.

  25. CO2isLife says:

    It took me two seconds to find a location that shows no warming since 1880. CO2 is 25% or more higher during that time period.

    If there truly is a causal effect of CO2 on Temperature, then I wouldn’t easily find locations that refute that claim. Until someone can explain why there are so many locations that show no warming with an increase in CO2, all these studies on sensitivity are simply suspect. YOu have to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor. All these data sets are simply recording the impact of non-CO2 factors on temperature. The graphic proves it.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00121873&dt=1&ds=15

    • Nate says:

      Weather is not the same everywhere.

      • CO2isLife says:

        What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? The margin impact of CO2 on W/m^2 is constant everywhere on the globe.

        • “impact of CO2 on W/m^2 is constant everywhere on the globe.”

          NOT TRUE: There more CO2 in the northern hemisphere:
          The northern hemisphere’s carbon dioxide levels are higher because most CO₂ sources (fossil-fuel-burning installations) are mainly found in the north, whereas CO₂ sinks such as oceans are predominantly in the southern hemisphere.

          In Antarctica, where there is a temperature inversion, CO2 causes cooling rather than warming:

          https://www.snexplores.org/article/carbon-dioxide-has-unexpected-effect-antarctica#:~:text=But%2C%20as%20in%20other%20places,might%20otherwise%20remain%20near%20Earth.

          The impact of CO2 is not the same everywhere.

          • Swenson says:

            Richard,

            Presumably (only joking), you have experimental support for the remarkable heating and cooling properties of CO2?

            Have you considered that heat might be due to fossil fuel burning installations, rather than any CO2 they produce? When I boil water using a campfire, I’m fairly sure the water rises in temperature due to hydrocarbons being converted to CO2 and H2O, rather than the supposed effects of the greenhouse gases CO2 and H2O!

            Go on – try and convince me that increased heat on a large scale is due to CO2, H2O – and magic! The effect of the Sun, by the way, has resulted in cooling, after four and a half billion years, so magic is obviously a necessary ingredient!

            You really have nothing except your faith, have you? No experimental support, no theory, history contradicts you . . .

            Carry on.

          • Swamson

            CO2 does not heat anything

            It impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself.

            Known since the late 1800s.

            You have some catching up to do.

            I don’t debate hostile commenters like yourself

          • Swenson says:

            Richard,

            You wrote –

            “CO2 does not heat anything

            It impedes Earths ability to cool itself.

            Known since the late 1800s.

            You have some catching up to do.

            I dont debate hostile commenters like yourself”

            What you write seems reasonable – CO2 does not heat anything. To what do you ascribe recent apparent rises in temperature? Magic?

            As you say, CO2 heats nothing, and reducing the rate of cooling still results in lower temperatures – as four and a half billion years or so of history demonstrates. What “catching up” do you suggest? I’m well in front of SkyDragon cultists who believe in the magical heating powers of GHGs. Maybe they need to accept reality, and catch up with the real world.

            If you feel like taking offense at facts, or whining about someone being “hostile”, go your hardest. Neither Nature nor myself give a hoot whether you “debate” or not! Maybe you can go and find someone who cares for your opinion – an idiot SkyDragon, perhaps, firmly convinced that CO2 heats the planet!

            Give it a try.

        • Nate says:

          CO2, regions warm differently, that is just a fact. And there are no AGW predictions that warming should be uniform. So that is a strawman.

          You also need to consider statistics.

          Your data for a town shows annual variations of > 4 C.

          Globally the average T has risen 1 C.

          Do you really not understand how one town or region can differ from the global average?

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            In a fit of stupidity, you wrote –

            “CO2, regions warm differently, that is just a fact.”

            Well, on average, all regions have cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, whether you want to accept it or not.

            No CO2 heating. Some researchers claim that CO2 makes the Antarctic continent cooler! A miracle – heating, cooling – whatever you wish!

            Of course, you can’t even describe the GHE, can you? That sounds like religion, not science.

          • Nate says:

            I dont think you mean Norman,

            “Of course, you cant even describe the GHE, can you?”

            We’ve been there and done that several times. How conveniently you forget.

            ‘Well, on average, all regions have cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, whether you want to accept it or not.”

            As you well know. this has nothing to do with the existence of the GHE, nor does it alter in any way the fact that the Earth has warmed over the last century.

            Yet you keep posting this pointless information. Are you insane?

    • There are any causes of climate change, not just CO2

      The global average temperature change is the net result of all the climate change variables (plus unintentional or deliberate measurement errors).

      There are also local and regional climate change variables, such as ENSOs, changes of ocean currents, changes of the jet stream, etc.

      No one lives in the global average temperature

      Everyone is affected by their local climate.

      If climate hurts people someday, it will be from changes in their local climates (the climate where peoplelive and work).

  26. E. Schaffer says:

    How would aerosols be considered in this? It is one thing to assume all warming was man-made, but another thing to claim there is plenty of man-made cooling as well, which the IPCC does. So according to the IPCC 1/3 of GHG related warming is neutralized by negative aerosol forcing.

    It follows that actual warming would only represent 67% of GHG forcing, implying a much higher climate sensitivity to it. Then not much has changed, as 2.09 / 0.67 = 3.12K.

    I think there are other, more severe problems. We have most warming in the NH, where negative aerosol forcing should actually have dominated GHG related forcing since the late 19th century. This makes no sense.

    https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails/aerosols-in-climate-science

    Another thing is, that human energy use of ~600 exajoules is simply ignored. Globally it is not much forcing (~0.037W/m2), but in the industrious regions it is a factor. For instance in Germany energy consumption amounts to 1.09W/m2.

    And of course there is the elephant in the room – aviation induced cirrus. The figures assumed by the IPCC (0.06W/m2) are more like an alibi, so that they have not “forgotten” about it. In reality we are talking about totally different dimensions.

    From the IPCC special report on aviation..

    The potential effects of contrails on global climate were simulated with a GCM that introduced additional cirrus cover with the same optical properties as natural cirrus in air traffic regions with large fuel consumption (Ponater et al., 1996). The induced temperature change was more than 1 K at the Earths surface in Northern mid-latitudes for 5% additional cirrus cloud cover in the main traffic regions.

    https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=40

    or NASA..

    This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.:

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html

    • Aerosols are one of many climate change variables

      Aerosols were increasing from 1975 to 1980
      But the global average temperature was increasing, NOT decreasing

      Aerosols were decreasing in the past 8 years
      But the global average temperature was steady (UAH), not increasing.

      There are other five year or longer periods when SO2 aerosol emissions and the global average temperature do not move in the directions as they would have moved if SO2 emissions had been a climate control knob.

    • Nate says:

      “Aerosols were decreasing in the past 8 years
      But the global average temperature was steady (UAH), not increasing.”

      I think you know all about ENSO and its affect on global T, Richard.

      http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2022.pdf

      The two are highly correlated.

      But ENSOs trend is clearly downward over the last 8 years, while GISS global T is flat.

  27. Rotational Warming Phenomenon justifies for Earth and for Moon, the measured, but the so very much the different, the mean surface temperatures (288K vs 220K).

    Rotational Warming Phenomenon also justifies in the case of Moon and Mars, the measured, but this time the so very much the proximate, the mean surface temperatures (220K vs 210K).

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  28. Ken says:

    Why 1765? The CET shows a significant 2C warming from 1690 -1735. If this data were used would it have a significant effect on outcomes?

    • CET shows about +3 degrees C. warming from the trough in the 1690s during the Maunder Minimum period. And central England is still not a warm climate now, so it must have been awful in the 1690s!

  29. aaron says:

    And with increased transpiration water has to come from somewhere.

  30. Nabil Swedan says:

    Dr. Specer,

    What makes you so sure that the deep heat in land and ocean come from the climate and not from geothermal heat?

    • Entropic man says:

      Because the geothermal heat output is less than 0.1W/m^2.

      This is much smaller than the average 240W/m^2 entering the atmosphere from space and the 1W/m2 imbalance which is causing the observed temperature increase.

      The geothermal heat output has also remained constant over millions of years. Thus it cannot explain the recent change in global temperature.

      • Clint R says:

        Got any science to go with those opinions and beliefs Ent?

        Or are you must making stuff up again?

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        The internal geothermal heat stops the Earth from freezing. Even the SkyDragon cult calculate the surface temperature of the Earth without an internal heat source at about 255 K.

        However, the deeper into the crust you go, the hotter it gets. Currently the world’s deepest mines are only about 4km deep. Trying to keep the workers from expiring in the heat is very expensive.

        The deepest hole drilled is only about 13 km. At that depth, the crust is hot enough to be plastic, so the bottom keeps moving. The drill also gets really hot. Very complicated and expensive.

        At a thermal gradient of 25 C/km or so, the bottom waters of the Mariana Trench are 1 – 4 C, but the surrounding rock is about 250 C! No wonder there is ocean convection, and the oceans don’t freeze all the way through!

        Maybe you can explain try to explain observations made over thousands of years, hypotheses, theory, experiments, in terms of CO2 and magic, but I don’t think so. You have faith and belief – what more do you need?

  31. I trust Spencer and Christy and thank them for their unpaid UAH temperature data.

    But we already have far too many ECS estimates. We can’t verify any of them because ECS allegedly takes 200 to 400 years for the full water vapor positive feedback, which allegedly causes up to 2/3 of the predicted (wild guessed) warming over several centuries.

    Let’s be sensible about the subject of ECS:

    No one knows what ECS is.

    There are many causes of climate change — CO2 is just one of many.

    No one knows what percentage of warming since 1850 was caused by CO2

    Based on VERY rough estimates for 1850, the estimated almost +50% increase of CO2 since 1850 was accompanied by +1.1 degree C. of the global average temperature. So what?

    The only conclusion that is correct:
    We have evidence that some unknown percentage of the global warming since 1850 was caused by CO2.

    That is all we know.

    Anyone who claims to know ECS is spouting nonsense.

    Anyone who wants us to believe their ECS is right, while others have the wrong ECS, is deluded.

    The root cause of this problem seems to come from getting a Ph.D. degree.

    I don’t suffer from the problem because I only have a BS degree and MBA. Ph.D’s must be trained to NEVER say “we dont know”, even when that is the CORRECT answer to many climate science questions.

    We have all lived with some, or all, of the global warming since 1975. No one was harmed. We have enjoyed the warmer winters here in Michigan since the 1970s. Please give us more global warming here. We could not care less what the global average temperature is — no one lives in the global average temperature!

    My research of climate history strongly suggests that the current climate is the best climate for humans, animals, and especially

    We should be CELEBRATING the current climate, not fearing some CAGW boogeyman, predicted for the past 50 years, that never shows up. The invisible climate boogeyman! What is CAGW? It’s the prediction of a high ECS. Not reality. Just a prediction. Apparently, a wrong prediction based on 1940 to 2022 worst case (for CO2) estimates.

    Most ECS predictions seem to assume CO2 is the only climate change variable and use a fast CO2 growth rate calles RCP 8.5
    Those assumptions are worst case baloney!

    Climate science needs far fewer predictions, and far more people honestly admitting “we don’t know that”.

    Links to the best climate and energy articles I read every day are at the blog below. I’ve had over 350,000 page views publicizing good authors who know what they are talking about.
    My job as editor is to decide which authors knows what they are talking about.

    This article qualifies for today list because everything Dr. Spencer writes qualifies. Same for John Christy, Richard Lindzen and William Happer. No articles by Michael Mann, however! Al Gore and Greta Thunberg have a permanent ban for repeated climate nonsense.

    http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/

  32. angech says:

    Climate Sensitivity from 1970-2021 Warming Estimates.
    assume its true in todays climate system that the only thing causing recent warming is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission (mainly CO2)

    A big assumption with all the other variable forcings.

    Lewis and Curry addressthe ECS question by comparing temperatures and radiative forcing estimates between the late 1800s and early 2000s,

    A lot of assumptions in the 1800s estimates and data

    we use only data from the most recent 50 years (1970-2021),
    our model is time-dependent, with monthly time resolution,
    It is a time-dependent model of vertical energy flows,
    the domain from non-ice covered (60N-60S) oceans to global coverage (including land), as well as borehole-based estimates of deep-land warming trends
    The model remains a 1D model of temperature departures from assumed energy equilibrium, within three layers.

    Take the moon as a smaller, airless earth.
    No CS to CO2 of course but illustrating the concept of input from the sun and output from the surface.
    In this setting the only variables of note are the solar output ( which does vary, Richard Greene)
    and the land surface.
    Does the temperature of the moon surface vary over time?

    Would this imply a climate sensitivity?
    Yes
    If CO 2 was present on the surface and increasing over t time and no other cause of forcing was considered would the CO2 be the cause of the CS detected, small as it is?
    Yes
    Obviously no matter what temperature changes occur causation is not a given.

    Would the surface show increasing temperature changes to depth, land only?
    Yes.
    What significance is there in there being more heat at depth when the surface is receiving more radiation.?
    None.

    The planet land surface emits 2 lots of IR to space.

    The small amount coming from its own internal heat source.
    I think it is fairly safe to say all large bodies moon size or greater should have a core that is a source of outgoing energy.
    This gives the surface some heat even without a sun.

    Secondly every body when heated emits the energy that heats it back straight away.
    A controversial or silly comment when people say the surface layer is storing energy.
    deep-ocean heat storage is such an important constraint on ECS

    If one admits that heat, hence energy can be stored because a surface is warmer or a surface layer is warmer all manner of problems arise.
    The argument is that the heat scattering goes in all directions thus down into 2000 meters of water, or 20 meters of land. But why stop there and say this is stored energy?
    If this was the case SB cannot work.
    Take a rod of metal 1000 kilometers long and apply a heat source that makes the end white hot.
    In equilibrium the whole rod will never become white hot because at some level along it all the energy has gone back out to space.
    The other end and most of the 1000 kilometers will register no temperature change..
    How can we be so sure?
    Because if the energy continues travelling in the rod and never comes out the rod will be emitting less back to space than is going into it..
    It would be storing energy but also SB would not be working.
    The energy in would be greater than the energy coming out.

    Yes Roy, the surface layer seems warmer and is warmer when the earth is hotter.
    But the energy being detected, being measured is the energy coming out, not the innate energy.
    What you are measuring has already left the object.
    The object is therefore colder already by that amount of energy.
    When you say but it still feels hot or I can still measure heat. You are now measuring the new energy coming out that was going in while you were busy measuring the new energy.
    There is no storage.
    After any depth at all of a few mm in land and possibly 100 meters in water there is no more heating available.
    All the energy is already going back into space as IR.
    Remember the hottest part is the radiating surface layer which has to radiate both the suns heart and the internal energy of the planet.
    It gets colder away from the sun until it matches the heat level coming from the earth.

    The fact that oceans are not frozen may give a clue to the innate earth temperature
    If it was at moon innate temperature then the oceans would be frozen as there is not enough heat from the sun to melt water at that distance from the sun unless the earth was supplying enough Kelvin to help it melt.

    Where are all those scientist mathematicians out there?

    • “I”n this setting the only variables of note are the solar output
      ( which does vary, Richard Greene):

      NASA claims TOA solar energy has changed very little in the past 60 years (insignificant) and the change was slightly lower TOA solar energy, which could not cause any of the global warming after 1975.

      Can you prove NASA-GISS is wrong?

      The amount of solar energy that reaches Earth’s surface depends on clouds, aerosols and albedo. That’s another story.

      • angech says:

        Richard
        Thank you for your insights and replys.
        I note you say NASA does claim that solar energy changes( your words above.
        You then drag GISS into the argument without specifying what that entity says.
        You confuse a 47 year period with a 60 year period and then claim because a cherry picked date (60 years) showed a slightly lower TOA solar energy that therefore the global warming in the last 47 years could not be due to a warmer sun.

        Nowhere do those statements confirm no warmer sun in the 47 year period because cooler sun in a 60 year period.
        Your argument needs a lot of rewriting to be valid even if the facts are correct (which they most likely are.
        It is like saying in a Monckton pause that there could have been no El Ninos, just simply wrong.

        TOA estimations were done from different satellite data sets over different time gaps in the NASA data and were not easily reconciled historically. Look it up.

        Do I like and trust NASA? Mostly.

        GISS is a different kettle of fish.

        The sun output is variable and over several years can be significant.
        If the sun ha# been cooler over the last 60 years then the most likely cause would be a decreased albedo heating the earth from an increase in clouds and other albedo factors.
        CO2 does come out of water at higher temperatures so any consideration of CO2 increase due to mankind has to remove that significant component .
        In other words it would automatically decrease any climate sensitivity attributed solely to CO2

        • Total BS

          The change in the sun’s output as claimed by NASA could not even account for a 0.1 degree change in the global average temperature.

          I don’t trust NASA or NASA-GISS.

          But unless you have better data, and can prove them wrong, I have no evidence to second guess them.

          The pattern and timing of warming since 1975 is not the pattern expected from increasing solar energy reaching Earth’s surface. It is much more like the expected pattern and timing of greenhouse gas warming. That does not prove exactly what CO2 has done since 1975 but it strongly suggests CO2 is one cause of at least some of the warming since 1975.

          • angech says:

            Richard,
            I trust you read what I wrote.
            I believe that is why you did not address my comments directly.
            There is no one measurement of solar radiation that is reliably consistent.

            Accurate measurement of solar forcing is crucial to understanding possible solar impact on terrestrial climate. Accurate measurements only became available during the satellite era, starting in the late 1970s, and even that is open to some residual disputes: different teams find different values, due to different methods of cross-calibrating measurements taken by instruments with different spectral sensitivity.[35] Scafetta and Willson argue for significant variations of solar luminosity between 1980 and 2000,[36] but Lockwood and Frohlich[37] find that solar forcing declined after 1987.
            The 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR acknowledged that scientific understanding is poor with respect to solar variation.

            NASA GISS is models, not observations

            You may not like it but those are facts.

            The pattern and timing of warming since 1975 is not the pattern expected from increasing solar energy reaching Earths surface

            That is not relevant, is it.
            Particularly when you consider all the othe factors you mentioned, clouds CO2 etc .
            If they all have changes, as you insist (andI concur) .
            The pattern and timing may reflect increased solar activity or decreased solar activity or no change because Of all the other factors you insist on. It therefore cannot therefore have a fixed relationship as you claim.
            Come back with a decent scientific concept using these facts please

    • Swenson says:

      Angech,

      You wrote –

      “But the energy being detected, being measured is the energy coming out, not the innate energy.”

      True. I’m surprised that otherwise intelligent people don’t realise this. They seem to claim from time to time that deep ocean water, for example, can somehow absorb and retain heat – without apparently getting hotter, and radiating the absorbed energy away to colder surroundings!

      It just happens to be a fact that heat travels from hot to cold. The transfer of energy can’t be stopped – merely slowed. The Sun’s input is completely irrelevant over time. After four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, the Earths surface and oceans have cooled anyway.

      Vastly greater concentrations of mythical greenhouse gases in the past made no difference at all. The planet still cooled.

      No amount of jargon about “climate sensitivity” (which presumably refers to the temperature of certain thermometers here and there), or rambling about Watts/m2 (which presumably refers to temperature, in some obscure fashion), will change the fact that the Earth – lithosphere, aququasphere, atmosphere etc., – will continue to cool. It can’t help itself.

      • angech says:

        It just happens to be a fact that heat travels from hot to cold..

        Sigh.
        Thank you for corroboration on energy.
        I must however disagree with your comment above though I understand what you mean.
        If heat can travel (as energy) this implies that heat can move from one position to another.
        In that sense wherever it travels to and from can be either hot or cold.
        If it moves it can go from a cold place to a hot place.
        True whatever place it travels to will get hotter and whichever place it leaves gets colder.
        It just seems a way to avoid the real concept of back radiation.
        Sorry.

        To me the heat of an object was what the emitted frequencies of IR were for that object.
        We distinguish between the different amounts of energy emitted by hot and cold objects to say one is hotter than the other.
        Heat of an object is a feature of that object alone.
        The energy being emitted or heat of that object depends on what is causing it to emit that degree of radiation.
        Two objects emitting energy will both be at a higher level of energy emission than the sum of their individual emissions if they receive radiation from each other.

        • Clint R says:

          angech, you’ve got so much mis-information and rambling there that no one would dare try to help you.

          I’ll just mention that the thermodynamic definition of “heat” is the transfer of energy from hot to cold. So by definition, “heat” does NOT move from cold to hot. Further, cold can NOT raise the temperature of something hotter. For example, a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface.

          In real simple terms, ice cubes can NOT boil water.

          Now continue with your worthless rambling. Obviously you have nothing better to do.

          • All objects emit infrared energy.

            That energy is emitted from cold objects and hot objects, as long as the temperature is above absolute zero.

            Hotter objects emit more radiation than colder objects over all wavelengths.

            The net energy flow is from the hotter object to the colder object.

            That’s from my 1970s thermodynamics class, and may have been mis-remembered, as that class was a personal nightmare, with a teacher from India, with a strong accent.

          • All objects emit infrared energy. That energy is emitted from cold objects and hot objects, as long as the temperature is above absolute zero. Hotter objects emit more radiation than colder objects over all wavelengths. The net energy flow is from the hotter object to the colder object. Thats from my 1970s thermodynamics class, and may have been mis-remembered, as that class was difficult, with a teacher from India, with a strong accent.

          • Clint R says:

            Your statements are basically correct, RG. The problems arise when people start to twist and distort those kinds of statements. For example, the fact that a cold body is emitting energy to a hot body does NOT mean the energy will be absorbed. If all the energy from a cold body were absorbed by a hotter body, what would happen? The temperature of the hotter body would be lowered! Two 15μ photons can not make something warmer than one 15μ photon. A million 15μ photons can not make something warmer than one 15μ photon.

            Believing that two identical photons can increase the vibrational frequency would mean that ice cubes could boil water.

            Radiative physics agrees with thermodynamics. And thermodynamics agrees with radiative physics. Interesting how that works, huh?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            You never tire of peddling false and misleading physics over and over. Here again you offer your made up beliefs about physics with no support, no evidence, and no logic what so ever.

            YOU: “For example, the fact that a cold body is emitting energy to a hot body does NOT mean the energy will be absorbed. If all the energy from a cold body were absorbed by a hotter body, what would happen?”

            Why does it mean the energy emitted by the cold body would not be absorbed by the hotter one?

            If all energy from a hotter body is absorbed by a colder one what happens is the hotter body cools slower (which is established physics you do not understand at all). If the hotter body is continuously heated than it will increase in temperature as it absorbs energy from the colder body and has another energy input that adds energy to it.

            Your physics is wrong, distorted and cult mentality. Learn real physics.

            I make an offer. If you post one more of your false made up physics ideas you will agree to quit posting on this blog for 90 days. If you post physics you must give supporting evidence of your claims from some valid source. If you are unable than the blog is relieved from your endless stupid opinions as you no longer post for 3 months.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Norman, you forgot my new rule for handling you: If your comment contains ANY insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations, then I do not respond.

            You’re welcome to try again, without the trolling.

          • Noirman says:

            Clint R

            If you do not approve of insults then do not use them in your posts. You receive what you give. You give zero valid physics but you denigrate, demean and insult anyone who shows your errors.

            If you make a rule the first one to live by it is you. So no more insults and give lots of supporting physics for your opinions.

            You claim energy emitted by a cold object will not be absorbed by a hotter one. We have evidence you are completely wrong. Now you need to man up and prove your assertions are correct.

            If you can’t do this then you will agree to stop posting on this blog for 90 days.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry “Noirman”, but you’re still trolling. Remember, no insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations. Try to stick to reality.

            You don’t get the science right, but at least try to get your name correct.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I do get the real science right. I don’t believe any of your incorrect opinions and you have not verified one in all the many posts you have made.

            Your posts are just your made up opinions of how science works. You have not, to this date, confirmed your idea that energy from a cold object cannot increase the temperature of a heated object. You seem unable to validate this but you babble on and insult people endlessly. Why do you think this is a good use of your time?

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            This is what the IAEA have to say –

            “Fusion on the other hand does not create any long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. A fusion reactor produces helium, which is an inert gas. It also produces and consumes tritium within the plant in a closed circuit. Tritium is radioactive (a beta emitter) but its half life is short. It is only used in low amounts so, unlike long-lived radioactive nuclei, it cannot produce any serious danger.”

            Maybe the IAEA is composed of lying swines – what do you think?

            Any system which generates, converts, or distributes energy is dangerous. France produces about 70% of its electricity using nuclear fission, and radioactivity doesn’t seem to be wiping the population out too quickly. On the other hand, motor vehicles killed more than 2900 people in 2021. Converting liquid hydrocarbons into motive power kills people.

            No easy answers, I guess.

          • Swenson says:

            Richard,

            You wrote –

            “Hotter objects emit more radiation than colder objects over all wavelengths.”

            Not at all. It depends on size and emissivity of the emitting object, as well as absolute temperature. For example, the sparks from a piece of steel held to a grinder are white-hot, but will generally bounce off your skin.

            Plunge your hand into boiling water for a while, and your hand will cook. White hot steel is considerably hotter than boiling water to most people.

            Ice can emit 300 W/m2, which is far more than 40 W/m2 emitted by boiling water through a highly polished Leslie’s cube. The ice is colder than the boiling water, but is emitting more radiation! SkyDragons obviously live in some fantasy world, where CO2 can “multiply” heat, and temperature is measured in W/m2!

            There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, which demonstrates the complete ineffectiveness of the mythical GHE!

            None of this will affect the beliefs of the SkyDragon cultists. Many people choose faith over fact, and why not?

            If it makes you happy, believe anything you like.

          • Clint R says:

            Well Norman, three strikes and you’re out. Better luck next time.

            (I sure like my new rule.)

          • angech says:

            ClintR

            Ill just mention that the thermodynamic definition of heat is the transfer of energy from hot to cold.
            So by definition, heat does NOT move from cold to hot.

            Simply wrong.
            If energy can be transferred from one place to another then it can goto a hotter or colder place equally well.

            Transfer of energy is not the definition of heat.
            Transfer of energy will always cause an increase in energy at the place it arrives.
            Which if you then measure the emission from that place gives the temperature and heat at that place.

            Ice cubes would help a heat source boil water faster if the alternative surrounding was zero Kelvin space

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks angech for admitting you believe ice cubes can boil water. Science and reality conflict with your beliefs, but you’re probably used to that.

          • angech says:

            Clint R says:
            Thanks angech for admitting you believe ice cubes can boil water.

            Desperately clinging to an idea that is wrong leads to convoluted thinking and increased flailing at reality or science.
            As you say
            Science and reality conflict with your beliefs, but youre probably used to that.

            Reality unfortunately is our beliefs and beliefs system. What we are able to take in with the limited senses we have and process with the limited processing equipment we have.
            GIGO.

            In your case one of your core beliefs is that back radiation does not exist or else has no effect to sustain an idea you want to believe in that CO2 has no GHG properties.

            Hence your dilemma and flailing in the face of a much larger number of equally scientific people with science education who believe in back radiation.

            What I sad was the temperature of the room you are boiling water in is important to the ability to boil water.
            In a normal household the ambient temp 22 C means the water only needs enough energy to get it up to 100C.
            In an igloo where the water is now ice one has to input more energy to get it from 0C to 100 C .
            This is because the ice blocks of the igloo are keeping the water at a warmth of 0C.
            If you were in a refrigerated room at minus 50C you woul need even more energy to warm the water up from – 50 C to plus 100 C.

            Hence ice blocks (the igloo) help warm the water which means due to the presence of the ice blocks the water can boil.

            Your ploy to only consider the ice blocks and water on their own rather than consider that the ice has already warmed the water towards the nirvana of boiling is slick but wrong.
            The ice is radiating IR which has already helped warm the water and deep down you know it.
            Ta

          • Clint R says:

            angech, I’ve had to deal with rambling nonsense from trolls for about 3 years here, so you’re not the first.

            First, helpful hint: If you’re quoting someone, use quotation marks and attribution.

            Second, helpful hint: Don’t misrepresent or falsely accuse anyone. I NEVER said that back-radiation does not exist.

            Ice cubes can not boil water. You need to admit that, rather than trying to twist reality.

          • angech says:

            For ClintR
            Heavy snow, howling winds and air so frigid it instantly turned boiling water into ice took hold of much of the nation, including normally temperate southern states.

          • angech says:

            Heavy snow, howling winds and air so frigid it instantly turned boiling water into ice took hold of much of the nation, including normally temperate southern states.

          • Swenson says:

            a,

            You are delusional. Insulation cannot make an externally heated object hotter.

            You wrote –

            “The ice is radiating IR which has already helped warm the water and deep down you know it.”

            A nice try, typical of witless SkyDragon cultists, but your attempted illusion fails when confronted with reality.

            May I point out that there is a physical difference between water and ice? I know you love talking about water at – 50 C, but it is ice, at that temperature. The point of this, of course, is to say that no amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of even a microgram of water. Dimwits love pointing out that 273 K is hotter than 220 K, as if that fact is connected with secret SkyDragon cultist knowledge! But even the smallest amount of liquid water is hotter than an infinite amount of ice, you dolt!

            Carrying on about the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of some matter to a desired temperature presupposes a source of heat with a minimum temperature above your target. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be sufficiently well-informed to appreciate that you are just another witless SkyDragon.

            Feynman said it better than I –

            “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            Off you go now, use an infrared lens (or a parabolic mirror) if you prefer. Focus the heat from as much ice as you want, into as small an area as you can, and try to heat some water. I know you believe it can be done – you just can’t do it yourself, can you?

            Don’t worry, from time to time, someone with more enthusiasm than knowledge, figures that it should be possible to extract the heat energy from the ocean to power a ship, which would zip along leaving a trail of ice-blocks in its wake. So come on, start by describing the Greenhouse Effect – apparently the basis for your stupid attempts to redefine the laws of thermodynamics.

            Can’t do it, can you? How stupid does that make you look?

          • angech says:

            Swenson
            a. Insulation cannot make an externally heated object hotter.
            You wrote The ice is radiating IR which has already helped warm the water and deep down you know it. A nice try,

            Thank you, it is Xmas after all.
            It is also a fact

            May I point out that there is a physical difference between water and ice?
            water at 50 C, is ice, at that temperature.

            Temperature of an object can result in different physical states of that object.
            Ice, water, steam plasma are all forms of H2O commonly referred to as water.

            The point of this, of course, is to say that no amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of even a microgram of water.

            And that is an argument?
            No one disagrees with that statement.

            the smallest amount of liquid water is hotter than an infinite amount of ice
            Another great and true point

            Carrying on about the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of some matter to a desired temperature presupposes a source of heat with a minimum temperature above your target.

            Exactly.
            Ice radiates infrared.
            Ice at 0C radiates infra red.
            Water, in a frozen state at a colder temperature say 50 Kelvin will heat up to 273 Kelvin under the incredibly hot rays of water (ice) at 0C

            Water at 274K can have most of the energy causing that temperature supplied by its surrounds

            Feynman said it better than I
            Well he would.

            Describe the GHG effect

            An atmosphere containing GHG has the ability to act a a surface of variable depth intercepting IR from an external source and causing that layer to heat up.
            Additional IR produced from a lower surface heated by light is also intercepted in the lowest layer of GHG .
            This causes tall the layers of air contains GHG to warm to a higher temperature than would be possible if they did not contain GHG

          • Nate says:

            “You are delusional. Insulation cannot make an externally heated object hotter.”

            Swenson knows this has all been thoroughly explained to him by Tyndall.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1409697

            But he easily forgets..

            Its more fun for him to troll than to deal with annoying facts and logic.

          • angech says:

            Nate thanks
            Richard Greene on IR thanks
            Swenson the earth has been hot a long time and has a lot of internal mass never heated by the sun, but on back radiation you are wrong.
            Enjoy Xmas anyway.
            Keep up the arguing.

          • angech says:

            Clint R
            Rambling
            Emitted energy is NOT always absorbed

            That is your cop out line is it not?
            Pretending that you did not say hot objects cannot under any circumstances absorb cooler IR energy?
            An absolute farce.

            You want to say emitted energy cannot be absorbed by warmer bodies.
            You know that is ridiculous because emitted energy can be absorbed by warmer bodies.
            But you pretend to qualify it with a not always to cover your embarrassment.


            You believe that warmer bodies cannot absorb emitted energy that is colder than the body?
            Just say it.
            Out loud and proud.
            No fig leaf.

            I do not mind alternate views.
            Nobody here minds alternate views.
            – at least we can then discuss the physics of why you believe that and why most others do not

            Happy Xmas.

        • angech says:

          Clint R says:
          December 23, 2022 at 4:04 PM
          angech
          First, helpful hint: If youre quoting someone, use quotation marks and attribution.

          First step, dodge the question and comment on other peoples punctuation when you are losing.
          Hopefully you did recognise your own words.

          Second, helpful hint: Dont misrepresent or falsely accuse anyone. I NEVER said that back-radiation does not exist.

          Second claim misrepresentation ala Joshua or Dikran.
          Again a sign of losing the plot.

          You implied, suggested, intimed and basically said that back radiation does not exist.
          Can I quote you?
          Thanks

          Clint R says:
          December 22, 2022 at 11:58 AM
          Your statements are basically correct, RG. The problems arise when people start to twist and distort those kinds of statements. For example, the fact that a cold body is emitting energy to a hot body does NOT mean the energy will be absorbed.

          This is your standard practice for at least 3 years. Pretend you agree with the science
          – a cold body emits energy.
          Then say the opposite- the energy wil not be absorbed .
          Ie. In your own disguised words your central theme – back energy does not exist.
          You can try weasel words.
          I never actually said those exact words.
          Or weasel wriggling I never meant that energy is not energy and cannot be absorbed .
          Or limbo a little energy from cold objects is different from hot objects, except when those cold objects are hotter than colder objects when the energy that cannot be absorbed suddenly becomes energy that is absorbed..

          Richard Greene (sigh) is right .
          You are wrong.
          Admit it and get welcome on the true skeptic science train.
          I mean that.

          • Clint R says:

            ang, you’re not making any sense, and you can’t stop abusing your keyboard. Both are symptoms of trolls.

          • angech says:

            Clint R.
            I like a good argument.
            I blog more when frustrated, like most of us I guess.
            I tend to tune my tone to that of the people commentating.

            I do not know if the global warming argument is correct or not.
            The scientific evidence is definitely being misused.
            My arguments are more along the lines of probability and errors in assessing standard deviations.

            Richard Greene is correct in saying all objects > absolute zero emit IR.
            Emitted energy is absorbed when it reaches other bodies hotter or colder and adds to the energy load that space has to get rid of.

            Most people find that a reasonable assumption.

          • Clint R says:

            Rambling.

            More rambling.

            Emitted energy is NOT always absorbed. Ice cube can NOT boil water.

          • angech says:

            Clint R
            Rambling
            Emitted energy is NOT always absorbed

            That is your line is it not?
            Pretending that you did not say hot objects cannot under any circumstances absorb cooler IR energy?

            You want to say emitted energy cannot be absorbed by warmer bodies.
            You know that is ridiculous because emitted energy can be absorbed by warmer bodies.
            But you pretend to qualify it with a not always to cover your embarrassment.

            You believe that warmer bodies cannot absorb emitted energy that is colder than the body?
            Just say it.

            I do not mind alternate views.
            Nobody here minds alternate views.
            at least we can then discuss the physics of why you believe that and why most others do not

            Happy Xmas.

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Such is the polar vortex over North America.
    https://i.ibb.co/vmkhbTd/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f024.png

  34. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    In three days, a powerful stratospheric intrusion will bring extreme cold to the northeast of the US.

    https://i.ibb.co/txyKrFT/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png

  35. 1970-2020 has multidecadal oscillations having net upward change, because they mostly bottomed out in the mid 1970s. I think that caused about .05 to almost .1 degree C of the warming during this time.

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    North Dakota
    Meteorologist Kevin Lawrence

    We have some wind chills already in the 50s below zero this morning. It’ll be like this every morning through Saturday.

  37. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 406.0 km/sec
    density: 7.71 protons/cm3
    Sunspot number: 119
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
    Updated 21 Dec 2022
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 15.53×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +0.4% Elevated
    48-hr change: -1.4%

    I would say it’s close to Solar Max conditions.
    It go up a bit for Dec rather just going sideway like it has
    for months. Will climb higher next month and become more
    like a solar max or go back sideway or drop?
    But in next couple days sunspot number and 10.7 cm flux looks
    like it will continue downward.
    In terms Coronal Holes we several small ones, large ones are associated with solar min.

      • gbaikie says:

        I doubt this also, seems the peak of the solar max will be a year or so away. What mean is solar max conditions have been weak and we might heading towards more solar max conditions: such less GCR [Oulu Neutron Counts] and a more energized thermosphere and less Coronal Holes.
        I knew Solar Max has less GCR and I am wondering when- cause it’s related crew traveling to Mars.

        • gbaikie says:

          Or 0 is ok, -5 or lower is better.

          Or that is what I suppose.
          Or if crew had launch a few months ago, it would not have been good- unless it improves a lot in the coming months.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 470.7 km/sec
            density: 8.95 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 103
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 139 sfu
            Updated 22 Dec 2022
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 15.53×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: +0.1% Average
            https://www.spaceweather.com/
            “ALL QUIET: Solar activity is low and it is likely to remain so through Christmas. All of the sunspots on the Earthside of the sun have relatively stable magnetic fields that pose a threat for, at most, minor C-class flares. The situation could change next week when one or more farside sunspots come over the horizon.”
            3163 sunspot is going {gone} to farside, and the larger spots 3168, 3169, 3171 will hang around for while, some small spots could fade and nothing coming over from farside, soon.
            And the “all quiet” will neutral count remain about the same??
            It seems it depends upon activity of entire solar surface- which doesn’t seem high. I am to say because because coronal holes seem small, it’s going stay around +0.
            But I tend to wrong at least 1/2 of the time.

  38. TallDave says:

    thanks Roy, very interesting

    agree OHC, UHI, and natural trends are the major uncertainties, but good too see your values are close to Lewis and Curry

    of course any value below 2.0 means it’s very likely we’ve wasted trillions of dollars (and slightly increased winter excess deaths via higher energy costs) for no benefit

    hopefully by the time CO2 levels peak technology will have made the return of the glaciers more entertaining spectacle than existential catastrophe, as the long-term picture may otherwise become rather worrying for a civilization dependent on outdoor agriculture

    • gbaikie says:

      We have wasted trillions of dollars, the only thing good about it, should have been learning that governments are incapable control CO2 levels. But we should known that from the start.

      • Entropic man says:

        Democracies have never been good at persuading electorates to do things they don’t want to do. I can imagine a dinosaur POTUS saying “Let the next administration spend money deflecting the dinosaur killer.”

      • Governments are less interested in controlling CO2 levels, than they are in controlling us. From climate change scaremongering to Marxism. that’s my prediction.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” … than they are in controlling us. ”

          I propose that you soon move to Myanmar, North Korea, China, Belarus, Russia, Iran or so.

          You then will learn what ‘controlling us’ really means.

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You may have been influenced by propaganda from other Governments too, without being aware of it.

            For example, the USA, EU, Germany, Ukraine, UK, Australia, and so on,

            Their propaganda is just a little more subtle – sometimes.

            Who really cares about Government interference and control, anyway? As Newsweek printed recently – “The FBI Colluded With Twitter to Suppress Free Speech. Where Is the Outrage?”

            Governments of all sorts try to tell you what to do, what to think, what’s good, what’s bad . . .

            I propose you should move to one of the countries you mentioned, and try to convert their Governments to your way of thinking. Only joking, of course.

            In the meantime, is this true, or just lying propaganda from a country which has no involvement in the Ukraine/Russia conflict –

            “Zelensky and his regime, doesnt care about the concerns of Ukrainian soldiers. To hide his own dirty secrets, he even slaughtered his own soldiers. Remember the intense shelling over the Olenivka detention centre in Donbas in end of July resulting in at least 50 fatalities and an estimated 75 injuries? The majority of those detained within the detention facility were members of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion who were captured by forces backed by Russia in the fictitious Donetsk Peoples Republic.”

            Just another opinion – and why not?

  39. Tim S says:

    There seems to be something lost in some of this discussion. The question of Climate Change leading to a possible “climate crisis” is and open question. Whether we need to develop renewable energy is not an open question. All fossil fuels will run out at some point. Future generations will rightfully question why we squandered such a valuable resource by burning it up. We have time to do it intelligently without panic or waste, but it needs to get done. Aviation in particular works best with liquid fuel. Electric trains and batteries seem to work well for surface transportation. Did someone mention breeder reactors?

    • Swenson says:

      Tim,

      Or hot fusion – Chinese Tokamak has now run for over 17 minutes, being a test bed for the much bigger ITER Tokamak, involving around 35 countries.

      The devil is in the detail, of course.

      On a desktop, you can build a fusion device – the Farnsworth Fusor, and its later derivatives. Philo Farnsworth also designed the first all-electronic TV system. Clever guy.

      How about cold fusion? Just an impossible dream, like many other things were, that exist now.

      What will be, will be.

      • Tim S says:

        People who are knowledgeable in this area point out that fusion has clean chemistry, but still produces a large array of fallout radiation that would radiate and contaminate everything around the reactor. That is thought to be the biggest challenge. Breeder technology is available now. The problem is that breeders produce bomb grade isotopes.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” People who are knowledgeable in this area point out that fusion has clean chemistry… ”

          Wow. I’d like to read from a valuable source about that.

          Most people still propagate idealistic views about fusion, like ‘getting Sun’s power down to Earth’ or the like.

          *
          Fusion takes place in a plasma with two strict requirements:
          – maximal heat supply
          – maximal confinement time.

          These days’ realistic candidates for fusion are 2H (deuterium) and 3H (tritium). Other mixes either need too much heat supply or unrealistic confinement times or don’t give enough power.

          While deuterium is relatively abundant, tritium isn’t at all, and must be bred out of lithium by neutron bombardment in huge blankets placed around reactors. In case of scarce neutron flow, beryllium must be added as neutron replicator.

          A typical blanket will probably have 300 t beryllium for 100 t lithium, and 800 t steel for the container.

          Tritium is extracted out of the blankets exactly like plutonium is out of non-fissile uranium-238, or uranium-233 out of non-fissile thorium-232 in 4G reprocessing units.

          Processed blankets are 100 % highly contaminated waste.

          Last not least is tritium the probably most volatile element on Earth and its storage therefore is a big challenge, as it bypasses densest steel-zirconium alloys.

          *
          The 14 MeV neutrons generated by D+T of course are a great contamination problem too, but this is in the sum not much in comparison to the dismantling and the final waste processing of all existing components of the fission chain (enrichment, reactors, reprocessing, fuel rods).

          • Tim S says:

            I think the product of fusion, helium, is a clean chemical. Fission produces unclean chemicals. That is the context of my statement.

          • Bindidon says:

            Tim S

            That of course I had understood!

            But I’m still not sure you understood the major aspect I tried to underline:

            – the fact that fission produces unclean chemicals is negligible in comparison to the unprocessed waste lying around every nuclear plant since 5 decades

            – the fact that helium is ‘a clean product’ is way more negligible in comparison to the waste the process as a whole does generate.

            And you forget the tritium which definitely cannot be kept confined, and is since decades suspected of being the cause for child leukemia around fission nuclear plants.

    • gbaikie says:

      –Whether we need to develop renewable energy is not an open question. All fossil fuels will run out at some point. —

      I think China going to run out of $400 per ton coal pretty soon- perhaps it take awhile if one pays $1000 per ton. But it seems even $400 per ton is too expensive.
      So, at some point, seems to coming fast for China, but coal or anything else is not running out quickly with US and many other countries. It seems possible for China to switch to natural gas, either from domestic source and/or import it, but it can’t import much coal from elsewhere.
      “At some point” global if include natural gas, probably more than century though could be much longer, we just don’t know.

      In meantime world population is going to crash- and that probably that is much bigger and immediate issue. And in meantime we will explore the Moon and Mars.
      The space environment actually has free sunlight- a lot and constant.
      Are problem with using the space environment is high cost to launch things from Earth, and exploring the Moon and Mars can lower this cost.

      • Tim S says:

        Natural gas resources are good in the short term, but not well defined. The most abundant fossil fuels are shale and tar sands. The concept of “peak oil” is that demand for liquid crude oil would exceed the capacity to pump it out of the ground. That has already arrived and not affected the market because fracking can fill the demand. Fracking is a game changer.

        • gbaikie says:

          I was wondering if getting better with oil sand:
          Recent advances in applications of power ultrasound for petroleum industry
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786608/
          It’s recently posted but seems has been used for awhile.

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          Tim S December 22 at 6:17 PM

          “… The concept of “peak oil” is that demand for liquid crude oil would exceed the capacity to pump it out of the ground. That has already arrived and not affected the market because fracking can fill the demand. Fracking is a game changer.”

          But it has affected the market. Fracking, combined with horizontal drilling, has resulted in a four fold increase in [product] market price.

          • gbaikie says:

            “But it has affected the market. Fracking, combined with horizontal drilling, has resulted in a four fold increase in [product] market price.”

            Not an inflation adjusted price.

  40. Ben Wouters says:

    Good to see you are acknowledging the influence of deep surface and ocean temperatures (heat content) on the surface temperatures.
    One more step would be to use the daily solar input expressed in MJ/m^2 iso radiation on a BB. Numbers are max 25-30 MJ/m^2 in the tropics.
    Use this number on eg a sandy beach and the ocean just next to it, and we have the explanation for the very high sand temperatures during the day and the max 1-2 degrees warming of the ocean water.
    Due to the diurnal and seasonal variation of incoming solar, we find that the sun only influences the upper 100-200m directly. (mixing and conduction)
    Below the mixed surface layer no more solar warming.

    This makes it clear imo that the temp. (heat content) of the deeper ocean does come from geothermal heating.
    The avg ~100 mW/m^2 flux is enough to warm the average ocean column 1k every ~5000 year.
    The balance between this warming and cooling by mainly AABW decides whether the deep oceans are warming or cooling.
    Additional heating by eg large magma eruptions tips the scale towards warming.
    See eg the Ontong-Java plateau, good for ~80 million km^3 magma erupting in the deep oceans.
    (1 million km^3 magma is enough to warm ALL ocean water 1K.)

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Here is a summary of the low temperatures this morning observed across the Alaska interior.
    https://i.ibb.co/XjmPw2y/319056403-1759258614455492-3193391663001014287-n.jpg

  42. Very interesting analysis, Dr. Roy.

    Per your Figure 3, Cheng et al. say that the uncertainty in the 1970 temperature of the top 647,988,400,000,000 cubic meters of the ocean is 0.05C.

    By comparison, the Berkeley Earth global temperature uncertainty for 2020 is wait for it 0.05C.

    Am I the only one who finds the Cheng et al. claim less than credible?

    Berkeley Earth uses 36,000 stations for their analysis. Assuming each one is measuring the temperature of a cubic metre of air, to get equivalent ocean coverage would require ~45 MILLION ocean temperature measuring thermometers constantly taking daily max-min readings.

    In 1970.

    Sorry, not buying it. Even if it would only take 1/1000 of that number of stations, 45,000 ocean thermometers taking daily max/mean temps, it still doesn’t pass the laugh test.

    Seems like a huge misapplication of the law of large numbers.

    w.

    • Swenson says:

      w,

      “Berkeley Earth is run by a fraudster who claimed to be a climate skeptic in order to obtain funding.” Not my words, but I can’t find a reason to disagree.

      Do you support the Berkeley Earth claims about certainty, or anything at all? I’ll bet you can’t justify any support you give, but feel free to try.

      As to the law of large numbers, if your samples are nonsensical, then the average is likewise nonsensical. You could try and claim that the thermometer readings which Berkeley Earth use for “analysis” are somehow meaningful or useful. They aren’t.

      Thermometers are affected by “heat”, not CO2. Hence the UHI effect, and even “National Heat Island” effect! Peer reviewed and all!

      Maybe you could dream up some “thought experiment” to show why the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so – in spite of the mythical GHE.

      You appear to be criticising Dr Spencer on the basis of “Sorry, not buying it.” Who cares about your faux sorrow, and your unsubstantiated opinions? If you take every opinion you have ever had, and add $5, Im sure you can buy a $5 cup of coffee.

      Carry on.

    • angech says:

      Well said, Willis.
      I guess when we have nothing better we do have to use, with caveats, what is available

    • Entropic man says:

      Willis Eisenbach

      You might remember your statistics.

      You can never measure every cubic metres of a atmosphere of ocean , so you take samples. You then calculate mean and uncertainty.

      Two things affect the uncertainty of a sample mean. The first is sample size. The second is the variability of the volume being sampled. .

      Uncertainty due to sample size (n) = measurement uncertainty *1/√n

      Consider an old fashioned mercury thermometer. Measurement uncertainty might be +/-1C.

      For the sample mean

      When n=10 uncertainty is 1-1/√10 = 0.31

      When n=100 uncertainty is 1*1/√100 = 0.1

      When n= 1000 uncertainty is 1*1/√1000 = 0.03

      Plot uncertainty versus n and you get a rectangular hyberbola. Above about n= 10,000 the curve flattens and even big increases in sample size give you only a small improvement in uncertainty.

      How big should n be?

      In real world data the improvement in uncertainty due to increasing sample size meets the natural variation in the system being sampled.

      For most temperature data the natural variability is about +/- 0.05C. That corresponds to about 1000 well distributed samples. In practice they use sample sizes from 1500 on up.

      Claiming that you need millions of stations to get meaningful data is mistaken.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Willis Eschenbach December 22 at 2:08 PM

      I remind you of the analogous fact that, when measuring [human] body temperature, we don’t need to measure the temperature of every cell in the body. We’re cleverer than that.

    • Nate says:

      “Berkeley Earth uses 36,000 stations for their analysis. Assuming each one is measuring the temperature of a cubic metre of air, to get equivalent ocean coverage would require ~45 MILLION ocean temperature measuring thermometers constantly taking daily max-min readings.”

      But others use much less. The question is over what distance is weather correlated, or over what distance are T trends correlated. Only need to sample at just under that distance.

      In the ocean T trends must be correlated over a fairly long distance, and that could be verified.

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Will there be a white Christmas in New York? They may be very white.
    https://i.ibb.co/vqK9LRZ/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Very rapid SOI growth since mid-December.
    https://i.ibb.co/fYP4Mgv/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-23-095443.png

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Tomorrow the freeze wave will already be in the eastern US.
    https://i.ibb.co/NtqGJfX/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f024.png

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The frigid wave will also reach Florida.
    https://i.ibb.co/MM8KBZX/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-23-154434.png

  47. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There will be a sharp drop in temperatures in the northeast of the US. Everything will freeze. This is not a movie.
    https://i.ibb.co/dfgHkVg/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-23-163441.png

  48. CO2isLife says:

    I borrowed this graphic from Tony Heller. Until someone can explain why CO2 can increase 25% of more and cause no warming at all at many locations across the globe, then 100% of climate studies are suspect. Start with the basics. Why does CO2 cause warming in some locations and not others? Until you can explain that simple question, all these studies are nonsense, and certainly can’t explain this observation.
    https://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Polar_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

    • Entropic man says:

      That’s the Sourh Pole. Iis isolated from the rest of the climate system by the Southern Ocean and its high latitude. It is on the short end of the Milankovich cycle At 2800m it is high enough that the troposphere is thin and the greenhouse effect is minimal.

      Perhaps I should ask the counter question. Why do you expect the South Pole to warm as fast as lower latitudes and lower altitudes?

      • CO2isLife says:

        Nice Try:
        1) Not all of it is elevated
        2) The Quantum Mechanics of the CO2 molecule don’t change with location or altitude
        3) Not true as all, the stratosphere bottoms out at just the level one would expect, -80C, which is the temperature of 15 micron LWIR
        4) CO2 is the main GHG in the stratosphere, and sure enough, the temperature just happens to be -80C, imagine that. It is also the temp at which CO2 sublimates. Any colder and CO2 would precipitate out.

        There are also countless other locations around the globe at sea level that show no warming, mostly dry hot and cold deserts. Here is just one example.
        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00121873&dt=1&ds=15

        It would take any real scientist 2 days to go through many of these locations, and show how similar locations have wildly different temperature trends that can’t be explained by CO2.

        • Entropic man says:

          “There are also countless other locations around the globe at sea level that show no warming, mostly dry hot and cold deserts. ”

          ” mostly dry hot and cold deserts. ”

          That may be your key. Dr Spencer estimates 2.05 for climate sensitivity. This means that for every degree of direct warming due to CO2 you get another degree of warming due to feedbacks, mostly water vapour.

          A desert has low rainfall and low humidity. Care to bet that you get the direct warming but not the feedback?

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You wrote –

            “This means that for every degree of direct warming due to CO2 you get another degree of warming due to feedbacks, mostly water vapour.”

            No, to get warming, you need heat – CO2 won’t do it, nor will feedbacks (only created when it was pointed out to dimwits like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt that H2O was a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, according to their mad ideas).

            Try to describe the Greenhouse Effect in any meaningful way, and you will discover why nobody has ever managed to do it!

            By all means, if you disagree, feel free to provide some experimental support for the Greenhouse Effect. That might be difficult, if you haven’t managed to describe the Greenhouse Effect. Maybe you could try a diversion – waffle about overcoats, buckets, steel greenhouses, or anything else to make people overlook the fact that you are just another delusional SkyDragon cultist. Would that make you look more intelligent, do you think?

          • CO2isLife says:

            “This means that for every degree of direct warming due to CO2 you get another degree of warming due to feedbacks, mostly water vapor.”

            Newsflash, H2O absorbs the same wavelengths as CO2 and many many many many more, that mechanism is an endless spiral. There is no off switch in that model, so clearly, something is missing. Simply go look at a gas cell. Increasing CO2 does nothing more than slightly lower the level at which 100% of outgoing LWIR is absorbed. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form. So unless you can explain how absorbing 100% of LWIR of 15 micron at 1 meter is materially different from absorbing 10% at 99cm. That is what this whole issue boils down to.

          • Swenson says:

            CO2,

            To a SkyDragon cultist, slow cooling is heating.

            These donkeys don’t accept the reality that temperatures drop at night – slowly or quickly.

            Pack of fools, constantly creating new jargon, and redefining terms to suit their mad ideas.

            It won’t help them in the long run, though. Nature just laughs at their pretentious caperings.

          • Entropic man says:

            CO2 is Life.

            First the runaway warming. For small amounts of warming negative feedbacks such as increased low cloud cover stop a runaway.

            A runaway is possible, but only if the Earth absorbs more tha 340W/m2 from the Sun.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi%E2%80%93Ingersoll_limit

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Runaway greenhouse effect?

            That sounds like a SkyDragon fantasy. Only joking, it is definitely a SkyDragon fantasy!

            Are you really so stupid that you believe in fairytales?

            Rhetorical question – of course you do!

        • Nate says:

          CO2, please show us a reference to AGW theory or modeling that indicate T change should be uniform.

          Your feelings that it should be uniform are not science.

          40 y ago the warming to come was predicted to vary regionally, and it has.

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

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Please show a reference to AGW theory (without said theory, any modeling is fraud or delusion, of course), which shows that CO2 warms anything at all!

            Try describing the Greenhouse Effect, if you want to develop an AGW hypothesis and theory.

            Do you have to work hard at being an idiot SkyDragon cultist, or is it a congenital defect?

          • CO2isLife says:

            The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule are constant, the W/m^2 per marginal unit of CO2 are constant (shows log decay with increases). I get the feeling when I read these comments and debates that climate scientist don’t understand the basics of science, the scientific method, controlled experiments, and simple common sense. They clearly avoid the glaring holes in their theory. If CO2 doesn’t cause warming in large areas of the globe you can’t claim that it causes warmming in other areas until you can explain why it doesn’t cause warming. You can’t claim gravity exists only in certain areas.

          • Nate says:

            Swenson, I KNOW that you actually have zero interest, but if you ever did, you could find a brief theory of AGW, and modeling of it, in the paper mentioned above.

          • Nate says:

            “The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule are constant,”

            Indeed, but this does not negate the complexity of the Earth’s climate and weather patterns.

            Most land is in the N Hemisphere, most ocean in the S. hemisphere. Ocean has higher heat capacity. The arctic has open ocean. The Antarctic has a land mass.

            Ocean has larger heat capacity and warms more slowly than land.

            The Arctic has sea ice which melts and reduces albedo which amplifies the warming.

            The tropics have more water vapor and more heat goes into vaporizing water and producing convection and clouds than outside the tropics. Heat from the tropics is also transported to higher latitudes.

            etc.

            IF QM was sufficient there would be no need for Climate models to include all of Earth’s complexity.

          • Entropic man says:

            Many local effects. Latitude, altitude, prevailing winds, ITCZ, proximity to water, ocean currents, Fohn effects; I could go on for hours.

            In the UK the ongoing weakening of the Gulf Stream might well produce cooling instead of warming. Increasing CO2 can reasonably be expected to lead to increased global average temperatures, but locally all bets are off.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You wrote –

            “Swenson, I KNOW that you actually have zero interest, but if you ever did, you could find a brief theory of AGW, and modeling of it, in the paper mentioned above.”

            You should get a refund from the SkyDragon who gave you your mindreading lessons! You haven’t the faintest idea of what I think – obviously.

            As usual, you are so stupid that you think providing a vague anonymous link to something nonsensical will make you look intelligent. If you really are so stupid to link to something from GISS/NASA, I can see why you are too embarrassed to actually post some of its content – people would laugh if it was authored by a delusional fanatic like James Hansen, or the equally delusional self-proclaimed climate scientist, Gavin Schmidt!

            You are getting desperate now – maybe you are starting to realise that sprouting nonsense, accompanied by large lashings of obscurity and crypticism, gets you cynical laughter, rather than applause.

            Come on nutty one, try harder. How hard can it be? We all know that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, but if you believe it was due to a mysterious GHE that you can’t even describe, I won’t be the only one sniggering, will I?

            Carry on.

  49. Let’s consider two pairs of planets and their satellite measured mean surface temperatures:

    Earth and Moon (288K and 220K)
    Because of the Earth’s higher than Moon’s average Albedo (0,306 vs 0,11) Earth receives 28% less solar energy than Moon.

    Yet the Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K-220K= 68C warmer on average than Moon’s surface is.

    Moon and Mars (220K and 210K)
    Mars is at 1,5 AU from the sun, thus Mars receives 2,32 times less solar energy on its surface than Moon.

    Also Mars has higher than Moon average Albedo (0,25 vs 0,11). It can be shown that if Moon had the same as Mars Albedo, Moon’s mean surface temperature would also be 210K, therefore it would be equal to Mars’ mean surface temperature of 210K.

    Thus Mars receives 2,32 times less solar energy than Moon, yet Mars and Moon would have (for equal average Albedo) the same mean surface temperature 210K.

    Therefore, there is only the Rotational Warming Phenomenon what justifies for Earth and for Moon, the measured, but the so very much the different, the mean surface temperatures (288K vs 220K).

    And also, therefore, there is only the Rotational Warming Phenomenon what also justifies, now in the case of Moon and Mars, the measured, but this time the so very much the proximate, the mean surface temperatures (220K vs 210K).

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • gbaikie says:

      One can say Mars and Moon are a similar temperature, yet the Moon has far more sunlight and can heat it’s surface to 120 C. Or frying an egg on the Moon is easy to do, and Earth’s sunlight can’t do it, and neither can Mars sunlight.
      Or if imagine that Earth is hot, one should imagine the Moon can be much hotter.

      Though mention it often, despite far less sunlight at Mars distance from the sun, with the Mars surface, solar energy is better then trying to get electrical power from solar panels on Earth.
      Also in terms of most of lunar surface, solar energy is more practical on Mars as compared to the Moon, but in terms of lunar polar regions, the Moon is far superior in terms of harvesting solar energy compared to Mars.
      With both Mars and Moon, the best locations for harvesting solar energy are their polar regions, though lunar polar region are far better than Mars polar regions. And of course on Earth, it’s polar region are the worse place to harvest solar energy.

      Now, one use solar energy to make hot water and this is quite different than using solar energy to add to an electrical power grid.
      Solar energy to making hot water is inherently solving the battery storage issue- hot water made, can be kept hot, longer and more easily compared storing electrical power. And heating water is 3 times more efficient compared to PV panels. And if going to heat swimming pool, the swimming pool is rather large heat “battery”.
      The “crime” of AL Gore not heating his swimming pool with solar energy, is rarely mentioned.
      If want to pass law requiring the heating of swimming pools being required to use solar energy- I wouldn’t have much of problem with such a law- and I am a libertarian.
      But govt of course require us to do far stupider things. But government wants to subsidize all heating of pools with solar [rather punishing for not doing it] I would favor that also.

      In terms comparison solar water heating, I have not really considered the comparison of Earth, Mars, and the Moon.
      One factor is is low pressure on Moon and Mars allows a lower temperature of boiling. And storing hot water is easier on Mars and Moon.
      But with Earth solar water heating is viable in most places on Earth- unlike PV panels.

      • gbaikie says:

        –In terms comparison solar water heating, I have not really considered the comparison of Earth, Mars, and the Moon.–

        Because what is important is electrical power- unless washing dishes and taking a hot shower is important.
        On Mars and if using solar panel to create electrical power, with it’s 24 hour day, it is better than Earth.
        With Moon with 14 days of sunlight and 14 days of night- one has serious battery storage issue- but during 14 days of sunlight one can get far sunlight [and make far more electrical power than Earth or Mars can]. But this can be solved solar water heating, the heated water is a battery- if you want hot water rather than electrical power.
        But with the Polar regions of either Mars or Moon, using solar power to make more electrical power it is far better than making electrical power solar panel anywhere on the Earth surface, and polar regions on Earth is worse place to generate any kind energy from solar energy.

        With Mars or Moon, topography or simply very tall towers can increase the amount solar energy you can get AND it’s a shorter distance [compared to Earth] being in different time zone. Or at any pole you walk in a circle around the point of pole and reach all time zone in less than a minute or with circle hour it within an hour. Or with electrical grid, be 100 km from the pole. Though with Moon it’s tilt is 1.5 degree to sun and Mars is 25 degrees. But with Mars one can be say 500 km from the Pole and still have fairly short distant for grid power to transmit [electrical power] and reach all or more time zones and works better with advantages one get topography and/or high towers.
        But with solar thermal power, large part of Earth is better than any place on Mars- but not better than any place on the Moon.

        In terms climate if Moon was covered with water, the Moon would have a much higher average global temperature. Or if the Moon was covered in snow, it would have higher average global temperature, as would Mars have average temperature- but Mars would have a much lower average than the Moon- and the heat storage or battery would be in the atmosphere.

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Dreaming of a white Christmas? AccuWeather forecasters say that hopes may not be dashed across a large area of the country this year. As of Dec. 23, the area of the United States covered by snow stands at 53.7%. Thats more than any other year on record for the date, since record-keeping began by the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensor in 2003. The deep freeze gripping the eastern two-thirds of the nation into the holiday weekend is likely to keep a lot of that snow in place, and some areas, including locations downwind of the Great Lakes like Buffalo face even more powder feet of it, in fact, leading up to Christmas.

  51. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Snow and wind on Lakes Erie and Ontario over 60 km/h with gusts over 80 km/h.

  52. stephen p. anderson says:

    Katherine Hayhoe on CNN today says this extreme Winter weather event is due to Climate Change. She says extreme weather events are getting more common. Is that true?

    • Swenson says:

      spa,

      Well, seeing that climate is the statistics of historical weather events, Id say Katherine Hayhoe is suffering from some form of reality denial. Or maybe she changed the definition; of climate change to something else, while nobody was looking!

      Typical for SkyDragon cultists – slow cooling raises temperatures, the average of weather influences future weather . . .

      Good for a laugh, anyway.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Yes, climate change is occurring, but caused by changes in solar activity. We can already see changes in the circulation in the stratosphere during the winter.
      https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
      https://i.ibb.co/cvfdhYb/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png

      • Entropic man says:

        What mechanism?

        The longer term trend over the last 50 years is to a less active Sun (ask Eben).

        How does this produce the observed global warming?

        • Swenson says:

          Oh well, I might as well be obscure, cryptic and sarcastic.

          The question “How does this produce the observed global warming?”, might be recast as “What causes warming of any type?” Why limit yourself?

          And of course the answer is fairly clear – to anyone but a delusional SkyDragon cultist, that is.

          Heat!

          Not CO2, nor any other SkyDragon fantasy. I wait with bated breath for some idiot GHE supporter to demand an explanation of how heat causes warming, at which point I will laugh in the idiot’s face, and refuse his demand.

      • gbaikie says:

        https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

        That’s odd graph, it seems to suggest some causal aspect related to Solar Min and are a large way thru solar Max.
        Does suggest some kind prediction in near term?
        Like we going to get a lot solar activity within a month or two?
        Or perhaps the opposite, less solar activity within a month or two?

        I tend to we get a lot solar Max activity within 2 months what would argue against that happening?

        It seems things could be slowing down maybe for next week:
        Solar wind
        speed: 562.3 km/sec
        density: 11.40 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 100
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 128 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 15.58×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +0.5% Elevated
        48-hr change: +0.5%
        And everyone seems to be predicting less activity in near term.

        • gbaikie says:

          Solar wind
          speed: 602.6 km/sec
          density: 0.34 protons/cm3
          Sunspot number: 107
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 133 sfu
          Daily Sun: 26 Dec 22
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 15.77×10^10 W Neutral
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: +0.7% Elevated
          https://www.spaceweather.com/
          There is moderately large coronal hole in northern Hempsphere
          And fair number of small sunspots which might grow [or fade]
          it seems might bigger in next couple days, but bigger spots are leaving in 2 or 3 days and less activity in near term seems
          quite possible.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 519.6 km/sec
            density: 9.95 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 96
            Updated 27 Dec 2022
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 133 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 14.87×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -2.2% Below Average
            48-hr change: -2.9%

            For no apparent reason, apparent Neutron Counts, crash.
            The little spots not growing, probably fading.
            We have a fairly large coronal hole [in northern] which
            grew.
            I am going back and forth on whether this is the lull before
            the storm or lull before the drop.
            And as usual Neutron counts don’t make any sense

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 561.9 km/sec
            density: 2.96 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 113
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 163 sfu
            Updated 30 Dec 2022
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 14.92×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -0.7% Below Average
            Everything seems good in terms being
            in a solar max, except got two fairly
            large Coronal holes in north and south.
            Good in term Dec having a high average sunspot
            number and the 10.7 cm flux.
            And Jan will start with higher sunspot number- where the
            rest of Jan goes is a question- the big Coronal holes
            is not a good tea leaf reading “sign”. But they can change
            just fast as anything else.
            Of course Neutron count are a bit lower, but still remain
            high for solar max. Or returning to sideways, is quite
            possible for Jan.
            https://www.spaceweather.com/ comments:
            –COSMIC RAYS SINK TO A 6-YEAR LOW: Cosmic rays reaching Earth just hit a six-year low. Neutron counters in Oulu, Finland, registered the sudden decrease on Dec. 26th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) hit Earth’s magnetic field–
            Or if Earth was smacked, the neutral count would not look momentarily “better”.
            Continuing quote:
            –The CME swept aside galactic cosmic rays near our planet, abruptly reducing radiation levels. Researchers call this a “Forbush Decrease,” after American physicist Scott Forbush, who studied cosmic rays in the early 20th century.

            The Dec. 26th event continues a trend that began in 2020. Since then, cosmic ray fluxes have been fitfully decreasing as one CME after another hit Earth. The reason is Solar Cycle 25, which began around that time and has been gaining strength. The Forbush Decreases are adding up.

            Scott Forbush was the first to notice the yin-yang relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays. When one goes up, the other goes down. CMEs play a big role in this relationship. The solar storm clouds contain tangled magnetic fields that do a good job scattering cosmic rays away from our planet.–

            Or not be specifically helpful if crew going to Mars.
            Which is mainly what I am interested in.

          • gbaikie says:

            End of year, bang:

            Solar wind
            speed: 570.6 km/sec
            density: 1.29 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 121
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 162 sfu
            Updated 31 Dec 2022
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 15.13×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -0.6% Below Average
            48-hr change: +0.6%

            Is just getting started?

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 481.3 km/sec
            density: 6.96 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 94
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
            Updated 02 Jan 2023
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 15.21×10^10 W Neutral
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: +1.8% Elevated
            48-hr change: +2.5%
            And:
            https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

            Shows a leap for Dec: 113.1 average month sunspot number.
            Does Jan jump up more, or do return to sideways?

            It seems the thermosphere is recovering and I expect energy
            to continue up over next few days.
            It seems Neutron count should lower, it when up a lot
            in last 2 days

    • Entropic man says:

      Do you remember Dr Francis’ hypothesis from 2013 that a warmer Arctic would lead to a wavier jetstream?

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo

      That would bring more heat waves as warm air is carried further North than normal; and more extreme cold spells in Winter as cold air is carried further South than normal. The Rossby waves usually drift Eastward, but if they block whatever weather you have, persists longer.

      That is a reasonable description of the weather in recent years. More frequent heat waves, more frequent cold snaps and more frequent blocking.

      Not enough years data to spot significant trends, but the data to date suggests Francis is right.

      What of the current US cold snap? Definitely a wavier than usual jetstream. Would it have happened without global warming? That’s the $64,000 question?

      • Nate says:

        New article on that, suggesting somewhat a different mechanism, same result.

        https://www.science.org/stoken/author-tokens/ST-10/full

        • Swenson says:

          Nutty Nate,

          From your strange link –

          “A hypothesis that has received much recent attention is that AA is driving winter mid-latitude cooling (7, 22, 23). One theory that links less sea ice and/or more Eurasian snow cover to severe winter weather . . . ”

          These authors don’t seem to realise that SkyDragon fantasies are neither hypotheses nor theories – just speculations and opinions, worth precisely nothing.

          As Feynman said – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Experiments? SkyDragons don’t need no stinkin’ experiments!

          You didn’t even bother to read the related letters, did you? Even other SkyDragons thought the paper was rubbish, but said so in a much nicer way than I. Making the National Science Foundation look stupid for funding this sort of nonsense, might affect your own funding in the future. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

          • Nate says:

            ” Experiments? SkyDragons dont need no stinkin experiments!”

            Sure, get a different Earth, remove the CO2? Is that the experiment you need to be convinced? Good luck.

            The rest of us will go with observations of the existing Earth, and predictions of same.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate, you nutter,

            Feynman (again) – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            Don’t blame me if you SkyDragons are so stupid that you can’t even design an experiment to support a GHE which you can’t even describe!

            After four and a half billion years or so of history, this Earth has cooled. Presumably, you have a fantasy Earth tucked away which got hotter after four and a half billion years or so of GHE and continuous sunlight.

            No wonder SkyDragon cultists don’t need no stinkin’ experiments.

            You haven’t even managed to describe a GHE which allowed the Earth to cool, have you? That’s because you are too indoctrinated to be able to face reality.

            What a fact-free fool you are!

          • Nate says:

            “a GHE which you cant even describe!”

            The GHE was described to you quite clearly by Tyndall, no less. And shown to you several times. And you became mute and ran away..

            So if you keep asking the same question that has already been answered, and you show zero interest in the answer, then you must be either insane or just here to troll, or both.

    • Entropic man says:

      There’s a terminology problem in this debate, as shown by CO2 Is Life. He expects warming to be uniform, but it’s more complex than that.

      Human emissions are increasing temperature.

      The increasing global average temperature is global warming.

      Climate change is the consequences. Depending on the time and place climate change can make conditions warmer, colder, wetter, drier, windier or calmer.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        As Swenson alluded, Hayhoe is saying we will continue seeing more and more extreme events, like Hurricanes, Tornadoes, storms, blizzards, etc., etc. So, have we seen more extreme events as the planet has supposedly warmed? Do her views represent Climate Science?

        • Entropic man says:

          Hurricanes.

          Higher sea temperatures make storm formation more frequent and surviving storms stronger. Higher wind shear dissipates more storms.

          Net result. The frequency of hurricanes stays the same as the climate warms, but their average intensity increases.

          Similarly the effect of climate change on most types of extreme weather is more complex than the fossil fuel lobby propoganda would suggest.

        • Entropic man says:

          Yes.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            That seems like a very flexible theory.

          • Entropic man says:

            Not one theory, many. Climate science is a composite of science from many areas applied to the climate of planet Earth.

            I come from Biology, which gives me strength in areas such as carbon cycles and energy budgets, but leaves me weak on radiative physics.

            Most specialists have similar problems, professional expertise in some areas and having to study up on others.

            It’s also a work in progress. Most of the serious consequences are in the future and we won’t have ground truth on them until they happen. Rigid thinking isn’t appropriate.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You wrote –

            “Not one theory, many. Climate science is a composite of science from many areas applied to the climate of planet Earth.”

            Complete and utter nonsense. Climate is the statistics of historical weather events.

            You sound like one of those SkyDragon cultists who goes around trumpeting that CO2 can affect weather in some measurable way, making it wetter, drier, hotter, colder, windier or calmer! When asked to justify your nonsense, you change tack, abandon the GHE, CO2, and all the rest, and claim that climate science doesn’t actually exist, it’s a “composite” of many unspecified theories!

            There is no “climate science”, you fool. You’ve been sucked into accepting fairytales as fact.

            Come on, don’t try to weasel out. Using bizarre phrases like “the fossil fuel lobby propoganda [sic]” just makes you look like any other narrow-minded tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist!

            Be a man. Show some backbone. Give me the theoretical support base which explains how the GHE cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years or so. Can’t do it can you? That’s because there is no GHE!

            You’re not alone in wriggling and squirming, though. From National Geographic Dec 2022 –

            “Many scientists use the term “climate change” instead of “global warming”.” NatGeo abandoned the GHE, too. Not mentioned once – I wonder why?

            Carry on.

          • Nate says:

            “how the GHE cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years or so. Cant do it can you? Thats because there is no GHE!”

            Weve been over this countless times. The GHE is insulation. You even agreed. Insulation slows cooling. Your statement suggests you think insulation should CAUSE cooling, which makes absolutely no sense.

            If insulation neither causes nor prevents cooling, as you should understand very well by now , then why do you think the Earth having cooled falsifies the existence of the GHE?

            Are you a moron, Swenson? If not, then why do you keep repeating pointless illogical nonsense?

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        You wrote –

        “Climate change is the consequences. Depending on the time and place climate change can make conditions warmer, colder, wetter, drier, windier or calmer.”

        Hardly. Climate is the statistics of past weather. Maybe you are trying to imply that CO2 in the atmosphere has a quantifiable effect on weather – making it warmer, colder, wetter, drier, wondier or calmer, and by how much!

        You really are in a bind, aren’t you? You haven’t a clue, you can’t explain a thing, so you just keep saying that CO2 controls weather outcomes, hoping likeminded gullible fools will go along with you.

        There is no GHE, you donkey! That i# why you won’t find any description of the GHE which won’t result in cynical sniggers when examined.

        Take up another cause.

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Why can circulation in the stratosphere in winter cause rapid temperature spikes? The reason is very simple, the wave from the stratosphere can descend to below 6 km in mid-latitudes.
    https://i.ibb.co/124SZXS/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f000.png

  54. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The frost in the southern US will not end soon, and the front is already far out in the Atlantic. This shows how strong the stratospheric wave has fallen on the US.
    https://i.ibb.co/2NG4h2f/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-24-125515.png

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    “Timmer posted on his Twitter that the blizzard he was witnessing in Buffalo was a once-in-a-generation blizzard.

    Wind gusts in Buffalo have exceeded 70 mph multiple times throughout the day on Friday, with the highest being a 72.5 mph gust just before 10 a.m. EST. Temperatures in Buffalo began falling just after 7 a.m. EST and were already in the single digits before sunset.”

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    “The extreme cold, even for a shorter time period, is expected to once again be a test of resiliency of the Texas electrical grid, given expected surges in energy demand as people heat their homes and businesses,” Porter said. The largest difference between the 2021 storm and this week’s freeze will be the lack of snow and ice during the upcoming cold spell.”

  57. stephen p. anderson says:

    Isabel Vaughn-Spruce was arrested in Birmingham, England, for violating a Public Spaces Protection Order. She was praying outside an abortion center. Many Brits who post here occasionally comment about how terrible our second amendment is. Citizens don’t need guns. The government will protect you. Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. We also enjoy our first amendment, which many of the Brits and Germans who post don’t believe in either.

    • Entropic man says:

      “Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.”

      Americans have neither.

      You are not secure.

      This rich cower in gated communities.Schools live in fear of mass shootings by disgruntled pupils. If you are poor or non- white you can be shot by any passing policeman or any white who thinks you looked at them crooked.

      I live in England and have never been to the US, yet from my own village I know (or knew) two people killed in America and a third who was nearly shot.

      The lady who was nearly shot was stopped by the police and got out of her car to talk to them. She was told “Good thing we heard your English accent or we’d have shot you”.

      The deaths were an old couple visiting Florida who knocked on a farmer’s door to ask for directions. He shot them both.

      Not are you free.

      You are ruled by a wealthy oligarchy with “justice” dispensed by politically appointed judges who follow party lines. You vote in elections controlled by gerrymandering elected officials who make it easy to vote for the party in power and difficult for their opponents.

      Fine if you are rich, white and have the right political connections. Otherwise your freedom is an illusion.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        I’ve lived here my whole life and don’t know anyone who has ever been murdered by a handgun or shot by the police. Maybe you’re hanging out with the wrong kind of people. Also, mass shootings occur in “gun-free” zones. And, so your Brits’ solution to the abortion protestors was to infringe on their speech. Lovely country.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”I live in England and have never been to the US, yet from my own village I know (or knew) two people killed in America and a third who was nearly shot”.

        ***

        If you travel in the US, you need to learn the rules. People who get into trouble are not informed.

        Read a book by a guy from the UK blindly cycling across the States. He cycled through areas I’d never go near. He eventually paid the price for his ignorance when he was mugged near New Orleans. Not being satisfied by being mugged, he flipped a driver the middle finger when the guy cut him off in traffic. The guy came back and pointed a gun at him.

        There are places in the UK I’d never go near. I’m from Scotland, and I knew Glasgow could be a seriously dangerous place. However, when I was back for a visit recently, the parts of Glasgow that were deemed super-dangerous, like the Gorbals, had all been torn down and rebuilt.

        London has equally notorious areas and that has been compounded by ghettos of immigrants.

    • Entropic man says:

      Incidentally, you only told part of the story. She was the founder of an anti-abortion protest group which had been intimidating patients and staff entering the abortion clinic.

      The court put the PSPO in place to stop the intimidation by keeping the protesters away from the clinic. She was arrested for violating the court order.

    • Nate says:

      “Citizens dont need guns.”

      Well, probably not two for every person. And probably not the kind that allow any nutjob to shoot 100 people in 2 minutes.

      “According to data compiled by Bloomberg, four out of every 100,000 people die by gun violence in the U.S. every year. Thats eight times the number of gun deaths recorded each year in Canada (0.5 per 100,000), and a massive step above European countries, including Switzerland (0.2), Norway (0.1), Germany (0.1) and the United Kingdom (0.04).”

      Gee the 2nd amendment is making us feel secure!

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Why don’t you report on the lives of all those who were saved by the defensive use of guns? The second amendment wasn’t created to defend against your neighbor or for hunting. It was to defend ourselves against our government. So, our murder rate with handguns is an indicator of our liberty. So, yes, I will accept it. I don’t need the government to keep me secure like in Britain.

        • Entropic man says:

          So being a rich white armed Republican allows you the delusion that you are safe.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            I’m safer than the unborn in Britain.

          • Entropic man says:

            So that’s what this is about. Freedom for all until it disagrees with your prejudices.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You may not have noticed that you are starting your silly leading question gotchas with “So . . .”.

            So you admit that acting like a dimwitted SkyDragon makes you look clever, do you?

            Maybe you should employ your highly qualified and well trained mind to explaining the role of the GHE in allowing the Earth to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so. Feel free to invoke the miracle of averages if you find that you can’t find a description of the GHE which accords with observed fact.

            Or go on about rich white armed Republicans – I guess they all look the same, think the same, and smell the same to, you. No bias there, I suppose! Maybe rich white Republicans are worried by the thought of poor armed black Democrats trying to turn them into poor white Republicans. I don’t know for sure, but I assume that rich people are more likely to be attacked by poor armed muggers than the other way round. If you are associating Republicans with wealth, I wouldn’t blame them for arming themselves. Would you?

            You should stick with looking foolish about SkyDragon nonsense – you don’t need to branch out into other areas.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Eman it is one in the same. It is about liberty for the born and the unborn.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment feels like discrimination. Thomas Sowell

          • Nate says:

            This illustrates where we are with insane gun laws in the US.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/a-heavily-armed-man-caused-panic-at-a-supermarket-but-did-he-break-the-law.html

            A guy in a grocery store causes mass panic because

            “He was wearing body armor and carrying six loaded weapons four handguns in his jacket pockets, and in a guitar bag, a semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun.”

            But there was no law broken. Nothing he could be charged with!

        • Nate says:

          “Why dont you report on the lives of all those who were saved by the defensive use of guns?”

          Unable to put two and two together Stephen? The data are clear: more guns means more gun violence and gun deaths.

          The gun lobby is motivated by $$$. The more fear they create, the more guns they sell. The less restrictions on guns, the more guns they sell.

          In Texas the gun lobby has enabled the removal of ANY permit requirements on carrying a gun. Even in bars, college classes. Hence many more people, who previously were fearful of passing the permitting process, bought guns and are now walking, driving around, drinking, while armed.

          What previously would have been a bar fist fight becomes a gunfight. Driver annoyances become deadly road rage. Innocents get killed.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        I presume you are even more outraged about the hundreds of thousands of US citizens who die as a result of preventable medical mistakes each year.

        Rather than ban guns, maybe the Government could ban incompetent doctors. Just saying “I’m sorry, I made a mistake” won’t bring the dead back to life.

        Get over it, Nate. If you think you have the answers, all you have to do is convince the people with the power, to dance to your tune. In the meantime, if you dont like guns, dont buy one. If you don’t like living in a country with so many guns, move to one which doesn’t have so many.

        If you don’t understand why four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, (plus a mythical GHE), managed to cool the Earth by a few thousand degrees, you need to learn some basic physics.

        Or have you decided that pushing the GHE is a lost cause?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swenson…”Just saying Im sorry, I made a mistake wont bring the dead back to life”.

          ***

          The covid debacle was a huge medical error. From the lockdowns, to the vaccines, it was an unnecessary intrusion into peoples’ lives. I don’t expect to ever hear an acknowledgement of that fact let alone an apology.

        • Nate says:

          “more outraged about the hundreds of thousands of US citizens who die as a result of preventable medical mistakes”

          Wow, I thought Flynnson was pretty dumb before. But now he reduces our expectations for his intelligence to a new low.

          By his ignorant ill-logic, there is no need to worry about having speed limits or stop signs because, you know, there are OTHER ways to be killed…

  58. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another snowstorm in North Dakota with winds around 30 km/h. More snow in Buffalo.
    https://i.ibb.co/L1T9FrZ/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-25-100816.png

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The graphic shows a detached section of the stratospheric polar vortex spinning over Canada and bringing Arctic air to the eastern US.
    https://i.ibb.co/VTBz0g3/gfs-toz-nh-f00-1.png

  60. The planet Radiative “Energy In” is ruled by the three major parameters:

    1. The intensity of Solar flux “S” (W/m), which is defined as the solar energy intensity perpendicular to the planet cross-section cycle (it is the proximity to the sun dependent value).

    2. The planet average surface Albedo “a”.

    3. The planet surface Solar Irradiation Factor “Φ” (in other words – the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient).

    All those three major parameters are combined in the Radiative
    “Energy In” Equation:

    Energy In = Φ*(1-a)*S (W/m)

    Also, the planet mean surface temperature Tmean is amplified by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  61. gbaikie says:

    Nothing holier than the heavens.

    Merry Christmas!

  62. gbaikie says:

    Episode 1968 Scott Adams: Merry Christmas Everyone. Let’s Sip To That
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umdp0m_vd6Q

    Now, I almost got full cup of coffee.

    • gbaikie says:

      re: nuclear power if CO2 emission is a serious problem, nuclear nuclear power in needed.
      Or if there is shortage of fossil fuel, nuclear power is needed.

      But there is third factor no one mentions, nuclear power is needed
      in a modern world, nuclear power is the only way to make some stuff which is “life saving”.

      And forth reason, we have treaty obligation which we should following. Non nuclear nations were promised that rather than make nuclear weapons, Nuclear power State would help them use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

      And if one only help a nation get solar and wind- you are a murderer.

      • Entropic man says:

        A short term solution but, like fossil fuels, there’s only a limited amount of uranium. Sooner or later you run out of uranium.

        Unless you opt for fast breeder reactors and a plutonium economy.

        Now that any fool can make a nuclear weapon from plutonium, do you really want to spread fast breeder reactors around the third world?

        • gbaikie says:

          Ok, but we in an Ice Age. Warming is not problem.
          We live on a planet, it is finite in terms of cheap “fossil fuels”.

          We don’t know if or how we live in space. If worried about finite supply of cheap energy, one should find out if or how to live in space.
          Testing artificial gravity in space is very cheap and very easy to do. The main problem is perhaps we find out the challenges how to live in space- it might appear impossible.
          Which is all the more reason to find out, as soon as possible-or could longer than one could expect to figure it out- ie, it could take more than century though there could “no problems”.
          Same goes with whether Moon has mineable water, there could trillion of tons of mineable water, and there could be less than 1 million tons of mineable lunar water.
          We need to know, so we have the time to solve various unknown issues.
          China want to make a 1 km tall artificial gravity station- that would be a bad idea, and we know jack about making artificial gravity stations. NASA or someone should test it first in orbit. Likewise, the idea of mining lunar water is worse idea, we need to explore the Moon first.
          But if we lower cost of getting into space and if we can live in space [longer than 6 months- and not be crippled by the 6 months]
          then space has endless amount of cheaper than Earth, energy.
          And people can use less energy in space [probably].

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          Why not? Are you suffering from a severe attack of racial superiority?

          Are you really suggesting that fantasist SkyDragons such as yourself have the inalienable right to dictate what the majority of the world should do? Would this be because of your vast mental superiority, or because the “third world” is composed of semi-human brutes who should be grateful for whatever you allow them to have.

          It’s a bit late, anyway. Those evil Russkies have plenty of bombs. So do the equally evil Chinks – not to mention the unmentionable North Koreans! Maybe you should call for all these countries (plus India, Pakistan, and all the rest) to be pulled into line, and do as you tell them!

          Only joking. You’re an idiot, and your opinions don’t count. Feel free to prove me wrong.

          Carry on trying to run the world.

          • Entropic man says:

            I am reasonably confident that Russia or the US would not fight a nuclear war because they know nobody would win.

            However an Islamic state such as Iran might regard a million martyred Iranians in Teheran as a fair exchange for a million dead in Israel.

            It might even be terrorists. There are at least two low tech ways to create a low yield nuclear explosion if you can get enough plutonium.

            I expect the next nuclear weapon used in anger to be set off by a country such as Pakistan, India, or Iran; rather than one of the permanent Security Council members.

            “Carry on trying to run the world.”

            Perhaps someone should. What scares me is that noone is running the world.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            I suppose your opinion that neither Russia nor China are likely to use a nuclear bomb because they are permanent members of the Security Council is as valid as any other your opinions.

            One permanent member of the Security Council used two atomic weapons against civilian populations as terror weapons, and President Truman was “elated” when informed that possibly 150,000 people had been killed.

            I’m a little curious as to your reasons for assuming that it is not likely for the only country to have used atomic bombs against civilians to use them again. Are Pakistanis, Iranians, or Indians singled out on the basis of racial or religious inferiority, or are you just assuming that non-whites are inferior intellectually? Lacking self-control and your high moral,standards, perhaps?

            What happened to notions of equality, and equal opportunity for all? I hope you aren’t thinking that the 95% of the population which isn’t the US are just loving being what to do, and when and how to do it, by the 5% which is the US.

            Oh well, all your opinions and $5 in cash will probably get you a $4 cup of coffee in the US.

            By the way, have you figured out the science behind the role of the GHE in global cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”One permanent member of the Security Council used two atomic weapons against civilian populations as terror weapons, and President Truman was elated when informed that possibly 150,000 people had been killed”.

            ***

            That’s a touchy subject. It was OK for the Germans to terror bomb London and other British cities, killing thousands of innocent Brits, but when the same tactics were used on them, they cried foul. Hitler referred to Allied airmen as terror fliegers (terror flyers). No mention of that when they openly killed thousands of Brits in air raids, or later, with their flying bombs.

            The Japanese behaved like sadistic monsters when the opportunity arose, but when several million of their people were wiped out by nuclear weapons, modernists look back with horror.

            The situation was far more complex than can be imagined today. The invasion of Okinawa alone cost the US 12,000 deaths and nearly 50,000 casualties. It was estimated that a full-scale assault on the Japanese mainland would have cost upward of 200,000 casualties. Given the option against an enemy they knew would never surrender, Truman was forced to use the lesser of two evils.

            I realize that no one can justify killing the number of innocent Japanese who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshimo. It’s one of those outcomes in war that leaves the brain numb. Neither can anyone justify an outcome where several thousand US soldiers would be killed or injured.

            If the Japanese or the Germans had the nuclear bomb, there is no question they would have used it. It would have been ideal to take the high road and refuse the use of nuclear weapons on behalf of the innocents. However, people who think that way lose wars. That outcome was unimaginable in WWII since that outcome would have been a horror show.

          • Entropic man says:

            You forgot the evil yanks and the evil Limeys.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Nah. I didn’t forget anything. You wrote –

            “Now that any fool can make a nuclear weapon from plutonium, do you really want to spread fast breeder reactors around the third world?”

            Youre right, I suppose. The Yanks and the Limeys are rapidly becoming third world banana republics, so it’s pretty dangerous letting them have access to atomic weapons.

            Luckily, the rest of the world is pretty tolerant, and lets the “evil Yanks” and the “evil Limeys” (as you call them), to believe that they have the right to dictate how the rest of the world should behave. The advanced countries just make sure that the Yanks and Limeys are restricted to old fashioned weapons and technology, while the rest of the world moves on.

            All I want is a quiet life, and so far so good. How are you doing, yourself?

          • Entropic man says:

            After thirty years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland the Protestants and Catholics agreed on the Good Friday Agreement and were supposed to stop killing each other.

            Lately they have been drifting back into old habits. Perhaps I should resume my old habit of checking for bombs under my car.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Entropic man says:
            December 26, 2022 at 4:09 AM

            I am reasonably confident that Russia or the US would not fight a nuclear war because they know nobody would win.–

            Sure, I might say it’s almost impossible, but that is, of course, not good enough.

      • gbaikie says:

        Scott says doesn’t believe in God.
        He wrong. Every one believes in God.
        Scott believes in Simulation.
        Which boils down to believing in an imperfect god.
        God could be imperfect, it’s not really a issue. Jew argue
        with God- that is essentially a Jew.
        God certainly didn’t make Jews perfect, or any people or person perfect {including Christ}.
        But a simulation would have to be far more imperfect or quite possible or likely extremely wrong.
        A point of about God is no person is God. And things have not been revealed yet, or perhaps never.

        If we in a sim, the people running the sim, believe in gods.
        Or all gods believe in a God.
        Or God doesn’t use dice. He might use angels, and angels might gamble. And angels might run a sim. And I won’t put much faith in angels. Nor even much faith in God- Job: “Job, a righteous, God-fearing man, experienced severe trials and afflictions. Job lost all of his property, his children died, and he suffered great physical agony. In the midst of his suffering, Job was visited by three friends. Though Job’s friends intended to comfort him, they accused him of transgression”
        There some kind lesson in that- there are problems with being righteous. Angels, beware.
        And this planet might become incinerated.
        And if does, it doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.
        I believe there is space rock with our name on it, be it’s unlikely
        or unbelievable it will happen within say, a century.
        And we probably will stop it.
        Merry Christmas

  63. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another wave of Arctic air is descending on the Midwest.
    https://i.ibb.co/wLr052r/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-25-233125.png

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Citizens dont need guns.”

    ***

    That presumes our democracy will always be intact and that the police will be able to stay on top of criminals. There is no insurance for either scenario.

    There are bleeding hearts among us who have been lured into thinking a society without firearms would be a safe society.

    Idiots!!!

    • Swenson says:

      GR,

      Awww, why wouldn’t that work? Just pass a law against criminals being allowed to have guns!

      How hard would it be? Just to make sure everybody is safe, pass laws making thieving, murder, mugging, rape, and shoplifting, illegal.

      There you go. Fixed.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”Just pass a law against criminals being allowed to have guns!”

        ***

        Here in Canada they are passing laws to prevent law-abiding, citizens from having guns. No laws being passed to deal with the criminal element and their illegal guns.

        You can see where that is leading. The law abiding citizen will find a way to buy illegal guns and the government will be powerless to control the rise in sales of such merchandise.

  65. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”Human emissions are increasing temperature”.

    ***

    Prove it. The IPCC with all their so-called peer-reviewed papers cannot prove it.

    • gbaikie says:

      Or what the temperature next month.

      I tend to think is will less +0.0 C and seems should more +0.2 if there any serious amount of warming.
      Either way would prove anything, but has start going up pretty soon otherwise we get another big pause, soon.

    • Entropic man says:

      Not a scientist, are you?

      Science can never prove anything. The best you can do is weigh the evidence.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        Weighing evidence is for juries and SkyDragons.

        Science is about the scientific method. You must have slept through the explanation in high school. It involves things like hypothesis, theory – and experiment. Not acceptable to social scientists, political scientists, or climate scientists.

        No, I’m not one of those “scientists”. Are you?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Holy Crap. Eman is learning science.

        • Entropic man says:

          Holy crap. The rich white armed Republican is pretending he understands science.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Getting a bit desperate there, are you?

            Maybe a touch of jealousy showing, or are you just a congenital bigot – discriminating against an entire class of people for no particular good reason?

            Maybe you don’t realise that most science advances came about because someone was either wealthy enough to spend their time pursuing something that intrigued them, or had a wealthy sponsor.

            Nothing wrong with being rich – unless you aren’t, of course.

          • Entropic man says:

            Nothing wrong with being rich per se.

            It’s what you do with it that counts. Lord Grimethorp and Airspeed is an example of wealth well used.

            What bothers this Englishman is that the USA is run by rich white Repuicans for the benefit of rich white Republicans. Nobody else gets a look in.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ent…”What bothers this Englishman is that the USA is run by rich white Repuicans for the benefit of rich white Republicans”.

            ***

            And the UK is not run by rich, white Conservatives, for the benefit of rich, white Conservatives?

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Very odd that Eman believes wealthy, white Republicans run the USA. Most of the USA’s richest lean left.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Nearly four-in-ten U.S. adults (38%) identify as politically independent, but most lean toward one of the two major parties.–
            https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/

            It seems the wealthy fund either party, but in terms of federal govt, the dem are usually in the majority and tend to get more money from the wealthy, but someone like Bernie Sanders does not get much money from the wealthy- and despite this is considered quite threat to wealthy members of dem party.
            The wealthy mostly make easier to get elected, and most of the time, determine who is elected.

        • Entropic man says:

          Is either a good idea? Rule by the wealthy is oligarchy, not democracy.

          Especially when you realise that elections are won by mind control aka advertising and most elections are won by the candidate with the bigger advertising budget.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You wrote –

            “Especially when you realise that elections are won by mind control aka advertising and most elections are won by the candidate with the bigger advertising budget.”

            Well, what do you expect, when you want to be ruled by the winners of a beauty contest?

            About as rational as letting the inmates of Broadmoor decide on how the asylum should be run!

            Winston Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.”. Sounds fine – but the devil’s in the detail. Do you really support turning your country over to the ministrations of the poor, the disadvantaged, the mentally disabled, the homeless, smelly unwashed drug and alcohol addicted beggars – for starters?

            Of course not. You would no doubt be prepared to accept the role of appointing suitable candidates to run the country – for a small fee, I presume.

            Put on your tinfoil hat and join the queue – there are only a few billion in front of you!

          • Entropic man says:

            I rather like the Bahai system. Their communities appoint the leaders most likely to a good job and promise that they’ll appoint somebody else in a few years. Anyone actually wanting the job is disqualified immediately.

          • Entropic man says:

            “Well, what do you expect, when you want to be ruled by the winners of a beauty contest?”

            Whatever system you use should produce governance by the people best capable of doing the job.

            Any ideas?

          • gbaikie says:

            Any ideas?

            Make it illegal to harvest votes:

            “Ballot harvesting is the practice in which political operativescollect absentee ballots from voters homes and drop them off at a polling place or election office. It may sound pretty innocuous, butthis practice can and hasbeen abusedacross the country.”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…”Science can never prove anything. The best you can do is weigh the evidence”.

        ***

        There are different levels of evidence. Hard science has pretty compelling hard evidence that may be refined but never disproved.

        A soft science like alarmist climate science is content with seriously soft evidence. It can easily be disproved.

  66. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Heavy frost in the eastern US. Temperatures are falling again in Nebraska.
    https://i.ibb.co/BNW8d90/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-26-091728.png

  67. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The cold front will move into Arkansas and Alabama.
    https://i.ibb.co/rwttssH/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-26-181820.png

  68. gbaikie says:

    Is Mining in Space Socially Acceptable?

    “It was not a foregone conclusion, as there are some potentially negative environmental factors to mining in space. While it might not cause any immediate harm to ecosystems as it does here on Earth, it does destroy pristine environments that have arguably been around since the dawn of the solar system, at least in the case of the asteroids. As excellently portrayed in the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, there will always be a part of humanity that will want to leave space as it is.”

    “Another confounding factor is that the resources mined in space could, ostensibly at least, be used for products back on Earth. They could therefore end up in landfills, causing a longer-term environmental problem than if we simply recycled the material we already have in these large deposits of everything that humanity has created. So there was still an outstanding question of whether these potential downsides outweighed the risk in the eyes of the public.”
    https://www.universetoday.com

    Do people know that recycling costs energy and time?
    Why not bury in a hole and have a pristine record of now for the future.
    Now, might be the best time, ever. Particularly if we never mine space rocks.
    Environmentalism is not moral.
    At best it is a fashion- a fashion with many destructive aspects-
    recycling plastic is a fraud.
    Environmentalism is fraud. And makes a lot people very stupid- mainly
    because they imagine it’s somehow moral.

    It not known if we can mine anything in space- and we failed to explore space enough to determine if this is feasible- our delay in doing this, has not been moral.
    Without considering mining space, exploration to determine how and if
    space can mined has value.
    Apollo wasn’t about exploring the Moon- it was a race to land on the Moon- which included some exploration.
    We determined the Moon craters were not from Volcanic activity, rather they from impactors.
    And that was extremely valuable to know this.
    Equal to finding out our world is a sphere.
    We didn’t try to explore the Moon, but ended up finding out a lot of things, we did not know.
    And the technological challenge also had many benefits related to it.
    One thing we thought we discovered, was that the Moon didn’t have enough water- and wasted a lot time with that idea- which might be wrong- because we were primarily in race to go to the Moon- and then ending it, before there was a PR disaster of killing astronauts was significant factor is deciding not to explore the Moon.

    Anyhow, we are continuing to delay going back to the Moon- but maybe in few years we go to lunar polar region to determine if there enough water to mine on the Moon.
    If do this, then we going to explore Mars. Mars is cold dry desert of a world. And also the question is, does Mars have enough water to mine. The general assumption is Mars doesn’t much water, but it should have a lot water than the Moon. But simply having more water than the Moon, doesn’t mean there is mineable Mars water. The exploration of Mars will be find where there the most amount of mineable water.

    But what have failed to do and failing to do is determine whether Mars gravity is enough gravity, to be habitable world. This should have done, yesterday, and there is no plans to do it tomorrow, or within next few years, or within 10 years.
    Why?
    One reason is we in a race to go to Mars. Or we still stuck in Apollo.
    It’s just about as stupid of recycling plastic.

    • Entropic man says:

      Mining in space is a good idea. It’s already floating around with no need to.lift it out of a gravity well.

      As has been said, once you are in space
      You can cheaply go anywhere. It’s getting off the planets which costs.

      The second reason is that most of the exotic minerals we use are in limited supply on Earth. If we want to run our civilization past the early 2100s we need those space resources.

    • Entropic man says:

      In the long run, colonising to make money is probably nor worthwhile.

      The Darien colony bankrupted Scotland.

      The American colony took 200 years to start making money. They then rebelled and England lost their investment.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        For all the brilliant people produced by Scotland we’ve had our share of idiots. Anyone who would try to start a colony in the vicinity of Panama is a true idiot.

        Today, the Darien region is notable for its muggers, who prey on the unsuspecting. I’m sure it was no different in the day.

        Scottish comedian Billy Connolley joked about the whiteness of the Scots, claiming we are not white but blue. He used as an example a pathetically white Scot standing up to his ankles in the frigid North Sea and turning blue.

        I can only imagine a similarly ultra-white Scot in the blazing sun of the equatorial region near Darien. Fair skinned Scots turn an amazing lobster red quickly when exposed to sun, never mind the Tropical sun.

        • gbaikie says:

          On paper it would seem like a good idea to be on the shortest route to Asia. But in general it was fairly mad idea to go to the New World.

  69. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Very heavy precipitation in California proves that in winter it is the pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex that governs the circulation and weather, not La Nina. Temperature in degrees Celsius.
    https://i.ibb.co/f1f01DN/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-27-093126.png

  70. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    An “atmospheric river” is reaching California that will bring unusually heavy snowfall to the mountains. Moving around could be dangerous.
    https://i.ibb.co/51YQDkf/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-27-094156.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…rivers don’t flow through the atmosphere. The term ‘atmospheric river’ is a creation of idiotic climate alarmists.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        It may resemble a river, as the Pacific front is unusually long and precipitation occurs along this front on the south side. Therefore, the precipitation forms a long line.
        https://i.ibb.co/hFPg8qq/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-27-202704.png

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I still the the term ‘atmospheric river’ is about climate alarmists trying to scare people. Same with the term ‘bomb’.

          • Swenson says:

            Gordon,

            Witch doctors impress the faithful by using mysterious words and phrases – generally to disguise the fact that they don’t really understand more than their clients.

            Naming weather events or phenomena anthropomorphises them somewhat, with the implication that giving them human(ish) characteristics, makes them subject to human prayers. For instance, thunder was a manifestation of Zeus’ power, and the thunderbolt his weapon. Pray to Zeus, make the sacrifices, and if you observed the right practices, thunder and lightning just showed that Zeus had listened, and was keeping you safe. If you then got killed by lightning, well, you did something wrong – not enough fat on the sacrificial offerings, cutting prayers short to go fishing, who knows? Your fault, obviously!

            Things haven’t changed much. TV weather experts hoping “Hurricane Ida” will go somewhere else, speed up, slow down – as if human desires have any effect at all on the atmosphere!

            Still no GHE. No “forcings”. No “feedbacks”. No “climate science”.

  71. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…”I presume you are even more outraged about the hundreds of thousands of US citizens who die as a result of preventable medical mistakes each year”.

    ***

    I read a book years ago written by a surgeon. His advice was to never see a doctor unless absolutely necessary. His reasoning was based on your quote above.

  72. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    An unusually wide “atmospheric river” is approaching Los Angeles.
    https://i.ibb.co/YLX4dnK/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-27-200147.png

  73. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    I may be wrong, but I predict massive snowstorms in the Great Lakes region.

  74. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A front from the west is rapidly moving into Wyoming. Wind gusts are approaching 80 km/h. I advise people not to move from home.

  75. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    “What bothers this Englishman is that the USA is run by rich white Repu[bl]icans for the benefit of rich white Republicans. Nobody else gets a look in.”

    https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3204820/when-being-close-people-reveals-how-far-away-you-are?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=article&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1672234468

    “A former Goldman Sachs banker whose wife is the daughter of India’s richest man, Sunak was serving breakfast at a homeless shelter in London when he tried to chat up with a man who identified himself only as Dean.

    ‘Do you work in business?’ the prime minister asked Dean as he handed him a plate of sausages, toast and eggs.

    ‘No, I’m homeless. I’m actually a homeless person,’ Dean replied.

    Predictably, the opposition feigned outrage, though you can perfectly picture a Labour prime minister making the same faux pas. Labour or Tory, top politicians all mostly come from the same social classes.”

    FYI…
    Prime minister Rishi Sunak was a founding partner of Theleme Partners, a major investor of 380 million pound in Moderna, who signed a 5 year deal with AstraZenica in 2013 to discover, develop & commercialise mRNA. Sunak was the executive running the US office.

    • gbaikie says:

      Power corrupts.
      Even politician wise enough to know, they are servants of the public they represent, will become more corrupt- it’s human nature.

      We should not impose long periods of servitude upon politicians- Politician should get a life.

  76. Entropic man says:

    Two oligarchiess, three if you include Russia.

    What we really need is a meritocracy, but how do we get there from here?

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      You wrote –

      “What we really need is a meritocracy, . . . “.

      Unfortunately, different people have different opinions on “what we need”. Even more unfortunately, I’ve never met anyone at all whose opinion stood up to even a cursory examination. You and I probably have different opinions about some aspects of what comprises “good” government, and quite probably agree on other aspects. Not only that, opinions can change from day to day, depending on how you feel, what the weather’s like, and so on.

      I can see two problems with a meritocracy – first, that I might be asked to be one of the meritocrats, and equally scary, that I might not.

      I’m in favour of avoidance – avoid breaking local laws, or avoid getting caught if you do. Avoid getting in a fight you can’t win, and assume that if you get in a fight, you’ll probably lose anyway. Governments don’t like losing.

      Come up with a form of Government that persecutes the other guy, and passes the benefits on to me, and I’ll support it.

  77. gbaikie says:

    So a problem with living on Mars is that Mars Atmosphere lacks enough pressure- even if Mars atmosphere had high portion of it being oxygen gas, you couldn’t breathe it, or you need a pressure suit also called a spacesuit to breath due to the lack of pressure.

    Mars atmosphere has total mass of about 25 trillion tons, if 25 trillion tons of O2 was added, you would still need a pressure suit to breathe air. If you were in deep enough cave, the depth could be increase the pressure so you could breathe it.

    But one reason to have lakes on Mars, is that water depth increases pressure. Or with a diving bell with enough oxygen in, and 5 meters
    below surface- the open bottom of bell, give enough pressure:
    Diving bell: “Early bells consisted of a container open only at the bottom, usually provided with a source of compressed air.” And:
    “The force of the water pushes the air up, compressing it as water enters the bottom of the open bell. While there is some water in the bottom of the bell, the bulk of it remains packed with breathable air”

    Another reason to have lakes on Mars is to increase the real estate value of the land around it. Similar to how lakes on Earth increase real estate value- but on Earth, you don’t need more pressure.
    With Earth’s gravity, 10 meter water is 1 atm of pressure and human can breathe with as little as 1/4 of 1 atm of pressure.
    Due to lower gravity the water on Mars gets less pressure:
    Ratio (Mars/Earth): 0.379
    14.7 psi x 0.379 = 5.5713 psi. And one can breathe at 1/2 of that.
    And underwater on Mars can better than Earth as you have 0.379 of problem with “the bends”- which caused moving to different depths with less pressure- or problem is going up, rather down in the water. It also effects structural aspects, less {in a number of ways].
    Or living under water on Mars, has advantages, other than allowing you breathe without a spacesuit.

    Anyhow I was wondering about fish breathing under water on Mars. So if had pond or lake on Mars, and assuming water is oxygenate, fish could breathe [that you make so humans could breathe like fish is interesting sfi type thing] but question is how much of a lid would be needed to prevent oxygen from escaping the oxygenated water into Mars atmosphere. And also for plant life, you need CO2 in the water.
    Fish could add CO2, but escape CO2 to atmosphere is another reason to have a lid of some sort- and I tend to think of lid made of ice though thin plastic also.

    • gbaikie says:

      Other advantage of a lake on Mars is it’s a big container, and it seems one should large amounts water before the town people show up.
      But this doesn’t mean the town people can buy the water before they go to Mars.
      Now, if make a lake on Mars, you could expect various types of
      water loss as would if made a lake on Earth.

      I don’t think we need to worry evaporative water loss on Mars, because in a sense what doing is selling real estate- real estate near and in/on the lake- access to that water is major part of real estate you selling. Or there is vast amount of land on Mars which is
      roughly speaking free land, and reason people would pay money for Mars land, is it is near a large amount of water.
      And if land has snow on it, it’s better than land without snow on it, and if land not only has snow on it, but in time, could get more snow on it, it’s better land than just land which doesn’t get more snow on it. Land also has value, because more people are coming to your small region of Mars- city land has more value than rural land.
      Also people coming to your town, might want to make more towns in other parts of Mars. And one aspect is city land competes with other future city lands. And one advantage of a Mars town/city is having more and cheaper water.
      So looking at it from space, the lake evaporating “too much water” is going look like a large circle of white snow on the dull red Mars surface. So closer to lake, more snow, and further from it, less snow. And where ever it gets significantly less snow is beyond the town’s border.
      Anyway, the snow is decoration and has functional aspects- and might want to call your town, Christmas.
      So, a starting point is, the party mining water, and making lake, “owns” the land where falls, but people buy the land where snowfalls with agreement that they get more snow on there land is the future.
      Of course evaporate water would go global, but it seems in beginning you have clearly marked area of snow which came from the lake.
      And later in mars history, you might to change the rules, but there could be agreement that citizens the town called, Christmas, will forever get snow- it’s part of their real estate title.
      Also as get more people on Mars with evaporating lakes, lakes will evaporate less- or you will increase global water vapor levels.

      • gbaikie says:

        Now, in terms of a climate matter.
        I think snow covering Mars surface increases average temperature of
        Mars.
        And roughly the climate cargo cult believes the opposite.
        Or I think if Mars was covered with 100 meter depth of snow, Mars
        would warmer as compared to not having 100 meter depth of snow.
        So, if colder, how much colder?
        Or I am talking about a Snowball global climate Mars.

  78. gbaikie says:

    SpaceX, Blue Origin and ULA plan to launch huge new rockets in 2023
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352431-spacex-blue-origin-and-ula-plan-to-launch-huge-new-rockets-in-2023/
    “A new class of heavy-lift rockets is getting ready to launch from the US in the coming year, including the largest rocket the world has ever seen. These behemoths will be able to easily loft huge satellites into orbit, and even fly to the moon and beyond.

    The smallest of the giants, at nearly 62 metres tall, is the Vulcan Centaur developed by the United Launch Alliance. Its first flight, scheduled for early 2023, will go straight to the moon, launching a lunar lander built
    Continue reading
    Subscribe today”

    I didn’t subscribe, but I am happy if New Glenn gets launched this year. US second richest guy, has been going slow and is secretive- or
    unlike Musk who likes to talk about stuff.
    And I want even more competition than this. Including China or other nations.
    And I want rocket launches from the Ocean which have floating breakwaters and ocean settlements. But it seems that is unlikely in 2023.
    2023 could have a few Starship launches, and a few New Glenn- but just one would be good also. But also it seems we more falcon-9 and heavy launches in 2023 than we had in 2023 {61 of them] so, maybe more the 70 of them in 2023, or more crazy like more 80 or 90 of them. Plus it seems Starlink could be getting a lot more interesting- if line slows down I might even get it, but also more global satellite internet will happen in 2023 and might even crazier in 2024. All this could mean, Lunar exploration is unlikely to be delayed, again. And might even get ahead of schedule [maybe].

  79. Swenson says:

    Nonsensical Nate,

    You wrote –

    “Weve been over this countless times. The GHE is insulation. You even agreed. Insulation slows cooling. Your statement suggests you think insulation should CAUSE cooling, which makes absolutely no sense.”

    Why the fuss, then? What is all this “global warming” nonsense that SkyDragons go on about? You claim the GHE slows cooling, and cooling definitely does not result in increased temperatures (otherwise it would be called “warming”, wouldn’t it!)

    If you want to call insulation “GHE” because you like making stuff up, and replacing common words with meaningless jargon, be my guest.

    What do you think causes “global warming”, then? Not GHE, that is another name for insulation, which warms nothing, as you point out. Have you considered that heat effects thermometers? No? I didn’t think so – you are not terribly bright, are you?

    I suppose you think thermometers respond to CO2, or something equally idiotic.

    Carry on.

    • Nate says:

      “What do you think causes ‘global warming’, then? Not GHE, that is another name for insulation, which warms nothing, as you point out.”

      Nope. Tyndall explained how the GHE insulation produces warming of the Earth’s surface. In doing so he demolished your ‘there are no magic insulators’ complaint.

      Youve seen this several times. Why do you keep up the pretense that you have NEVER been informed about how the GHE works and results in warming?

      Do you have dementia? If so, then we can remind you what you learned:

      https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Radiation_(Rede_Lecture)

      Tyndall said

      “It might however be urged that, inasmuch as we derive all our heat from the sun, the selfsame covering which protects the earth from chill must also shut out the solar radiation. This is partially true, but only partially; the suns rays are different in quality from the earths rays, and it does not at all follow that the substance which absorbs the one must necessarily absorb the other. Through a layer of water, for example, one tenth of an inch in thickness, the suns rays are transmitted with comparative freedom; but through a layer half this thickness, as Melloni has proved, no single ray from the warmed earth could pass. In like manner, the suns rays pass with comparative freedom through the aqueous vapour of the air: the absorbing power of this substance being mainly exerted upon the heat that endeavours to escape from the earth. In consequence of this differential action upon solar and terrestrial heat, the mean temperature of our planet is higher than is due to its distance from the sun.”

      And BTW he proved the same effect by CO2

      • Clint R says:

        Tyndall got that correct. The atmosphere acts as insulation. It’s somewhat like a “blanket” between Earth and the extreme cold of space. Heat capacity of oceans is a huge factor also.

        He did not specifically mention that adding more radiative gases to the atmosphere acts as holes in the blanket, emitting more energy to space.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          You need to be able to comprehend things that are stated.

          Nate clearly stated the Earth’s surface!! Can you read?

          GHG cools the upper atmosphere via radiant energy to space, they do not enhance surface cooling, they reduce surface cooling. You need to get this correct.

          Roy Spencer has already addressed this.

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/

          Maybe read what the owner of this blog claims

          • Swenson says:

            Even more nutty Norman,

            Play with words all you like, dim-brain. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.

            No amount of sunshine, GHE, insulation, or magic SkyDragon pixie-dust, made the planet hotter. It got colder, you donkey – the temperature dropped.

            Any owner of any blog can claim anything he likes. If the facts contradict the claims, then the claims are wrong!

            You aren’t trying to suggest that Dr Spencer is claiming that the Earth has become hotter since its creation, are you? You really are detached from reality! The surface even cools each night, in the absence of sunlight! Maybe you could appeal to the authority of some SkyDragon who claims that the GHE (insulation) stops working in the absence of sunlight!

            Got any more fairy tales, Norman?

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Norman, Tyndall did not specifically mention that adding more radiative gases to the atmosphere acts as holes in the blanket, emitting more energy to space.

            You need to be able to comprehend things that are stated.

            Can you read?

          • Nate says:

            “Tyndall did not specifically mention that adding more radiative gases to the atmosphere acts as holes in the blanket”

            Nor would he have, given that he was the one who discovered the exact opposite effect!

            He discovered that replacing nitrogen in a tube with CO2 caused a REDUCTION in the radiative heat transferred through the tube.

            Then, more recently we see from satellite observations of the Earth that in fact, atmospheric CO2 produces holes in the emissions of radiation to space, confirming that the effect seen in Tyndall’s lab experiments applies to the atmosphere.

            But as always, when we ask troll Clint for any evidence at all to support his utterly stupid claim, he NEVER EVER has any.

            Now he will respond with nothing but ad-homs.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Nate, my Troll Detector© has identified several insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations in your comment. That makes you a worthless troll.

            You are welcome to try again, should you develop an interest in reality.

          • Nate says:

            As predicted..

          • Nate says:

            “identified several insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations in your comment. That makes you a worthless troll.”

            So Clint admits that his posts, which are weighed down with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, and lacking in facts and evidence, are those of a worthless troll.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”Tyndall explained how the GHE insulation produces warming of the Earths surface”.

        ***

        Tyndall ***theorized*** that the GHE produced warming. He did not prove it, although that fact is lost on modern alarmists who still quote Tyndall and Arrhenius.

        • Nate says:

          “Tyndall was also unaware of the infinite wavelengths of radiation and his statement ‘but through a layer half this thickness, as Melloni has proved, no single ray from the warmed earth could pass.’ is wrong.”

          FALSE, Tyndall was correct. Melloni was correct.

          “Well, tryit yourself. Put a pan of water with a tenth of an inch of water in it, on the surface at night. Then watch it cool, you fool! Looks like Tyndall and Melloni were wrong about the amazing insulating qualities of water, doesnt it?”

          OMG.

          Flynnson proposes an ‘experiment’ that observes the amazing fact that warm water cools!

          But doesnt test the one thing he said was wrong, the NEGLIBLE TRANSMISSION of IR thru water.

          What an ignoramus!

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You quoted –

        “In consequence of this differential action upon solar and terrestrial heat, the mean temperature of our planet is higher than is due to its distance from the sun.”

        Unfortunately, measured temperatures on the Moon show that Tyndall’s speculation was in error. As was Tyndall’s speculation that the source of the Sun’s heat was meteoric impacts.

        Tyndall was also unaware of the infinite wavelengths of radiation and his statement “but through a layer half this thickness, as Melloni has proved, no single ray from the warmed earth could pass.” is wrong. Well, try it yourself. Put a pan of water with a tenth of an inch of water in it, on the surface at night. Then watch it cool, you fool! Looks like Tyndall and Melloni were wrong about the amazing insulating qualities of water, doesn’t it?

        Or were they smarter than you, and realised, even at that time, that when an object absorbs radiation, it heats as a result, and the radiates away the excess energy. You need to get your physics up to 19th century levels at least.

        But no matter, you still want to deny the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so – as it does every night. No amount of insulation prevents the Earth from cooling.

        No danger about CAGW from the GHE, is there? That’s about as stupid as thinking a well insulated drink flask is going to start boiling all by itself, and spray you with boiling coffee!

        When you say “Nope. Tyndall explained how the GHE insulation produces warming of the Earths surface.”, that would be the magical SkyDragon “warming” which is really a decrease in temperature, would it?

        Keep at it Nutty Nate – maybe you can talk the Earth into heating up, rather than cooling!

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Its funny how a smart guy like Tindall could make such a huge mistake as to ignore conduction and convection. He treats the greenhouse effect as a layer of gas with a hard separation of non-convective and non-conductive space between it and the surface like a vacuum thermos bottle.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bill…when you read the lectures provided by Tyndall, he was surprisingly on top of scientific matters of his era. His experiments were incredible for his time. Scientists like Tyndall and Clausius surprise the heck out of me given the lack of what we take for granted today.

          For example, neither scientists knew anything about the construction of the atom with its quantum relationships to electromagnetic energy. Yet Clausius managed to describe internal energy in atomic masses in a way that modern scientists fail to do in our times.

          In fact, many modern scientist totally misinterpret the meaning Clausius gave to the 2nd law and entropy. Climate alarmist science is based on a total misinterpretation of the 2nd law which is so bad they had to invent the concept of ‘balance of energy’ in an attempt to discredit the 2nd law.

          As stated by Clausius in words, the 2nd law is about heat transfer and its direction. The modern interpretation by climate alarmists introduces electromagnet radiation to the definition, completely misunderstanding what the 2nd law means.

          One of Tyndall’s experiments is the basis of the Stefan-Boltzman equation. Tyndall heated a platinum filament wire electrically till it glowed different colours. He recorded the temperatures correlating with the different colours in a range somewhere between 500C and 1500C.

          Another scientist converted the colours to the equivalent colour temperature and Stefan added the final step of equating the colour temperature to radiative emission, deriving the T^4 relationship.

          It should be noted that some modern scientist have extrapolated the S-B equation from the 500C – 1500C range as if the relationship applies at the 15C average temperature of the Earth. It is absurd to presume such a relationship hence another nail in the GHE/AGE theory’s coffin.

          • gbaikie says:

            Most of sunlight reaching the surface, goes thru surface of ocean which covers most of Earth’s surface.
            When compare to ideal thermal conductive blackbody the temperature of surface when sun at at zenith is about 5 C. With the ocean it can be less than 5 C. Or roughly, it’s better than ideal thermal conductive blackbody.

            As I have said, there is not 1 greenhouse effect, but both ocean and atmosphere are a greenhouse effect [and ocean is a stronger greenhouse effect].

        • Nate says:

          ‘In consequence of this differential action upon solar and terrestrial heat, the mean temperature of our planet is higher than is due to its distance from the sun.’

          Flynnson sez:
          “Unfortunately, measured temperatures on the Moon show that Tyndalls speculation was in error. ”

          Nope, he is absolutely correct. ‘ the mean temperature of our planet is higher than is due to its distance from the sun.’

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Mean temperature isn’t a real temperature it is only a statistic. You can have higher mean temperature while have fewer hot days and fewer cold days.

        • Nate says:

          “Its funny how a smart guy like Tindall could make such a huge mistake as to ignore conduction and convection”

          Pulleez!

          Tyndall worked on this in the 1860s, before meteorology was a field.

          The theory has been improved over a century, eg by including CORRECTIONS for convection, as was finally done in 1967(!), but not upended.

          These corrections altered the amount of predicted warming, but not the fact of the warming.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            when was the warming of the near surface climate proven? Who did it and what is the name of the seminal paper?

          • Nate says:

            ” proven”

            I thought you understood that nothing in science is ever ‘proven’.

            As always, the preponderance of evidence adds up to strong support for GHE warming. So much so, that most prominent skeptical scientists agree that it is happening.

            Youve seen many papers, Bill. There is not one single paper.

            In any case, there is no evidence that you are able to judge them objectively on their science.

            The last one we discussed you dismissed with bizarre time-travelling politics from the future!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”I thought you understood that nothing in science is ever proven.”

            That depends upon how high you want to set the bar. Obviously doctors can prove you had a heart attack by looking at the damage to your heart from the attack. However, they aren’t so good at predicting one.

            And thats the case here where natural change is hand waved aside as a cause and not a whole lot is accepted by the institutions that benefit from having a man-made disaster to fix.

            Less than honorable scientists feed the press stuff to satisfy their desires for yellow journalism about hurricanes, tornadoes, polar bears, heat waves, rising sea level, melting continents so far no damage has been identified from a warming climate.

            But thats not the message being sent. Instead all we have seen is improvement. Better agricultural production, more drought tolerance of plants, and fewer weather related deaths because cold is far more dangerous than heat despite the temperate and equatorial regions of our planet being the most populated. But what do we get out of real science papers? Nothing that supports any of that. So then you guys resort to how if we don’t act now it will be too late, when we know that it isn’t likely we would have more than about a half of a degree of warming baked in when we decided to take action.

            Nate says:
            ”As always, the preponderance of evidence adds up to strong support for GHE warming. So much so, that most prominent skeptical scientists agree that it is happening.”

            You mean as measured by counting papers not impacts.
            This comment: ”But theyre not going to find something if they dont search for it.” If you want to chose papers as evidence you should first determine if the papers are representative of our real climate and its history. One cannot trust academia to do that in an unbiased manner obviously. I have no idea why we tolerate paying them for the work.
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

            Nate says:

            ”Youve seen many papers, Bill. There is not one single paper.”

            Nate reasserts that science is a popularity contest.

            Nate says:
            In any case, there is no evidence that you are able to judge them objectively on their science.
            ————————-
            Sure I am and so is anybody else with a background in statistics and able to follow the evidence. And certainly Roy is. And I gave you the link to his paper. There are many more. Lindzen, Curry, Michaels, Akasofu, Happer, Cristy, and thousands more. thus your ad hominem on me certainly does not make any kind of a case. Heck you could point to the IPCC but then you would want me to stay in the confines of the advise to policy makers edited by policy makers rather than the main body of the report that calls into question all the BS There is so little honesty coming out from those who wish to take action. Of course thats nothing new. This has been a problem with politics and special interests from the dawn of time. People are just greedy and its getting worse as all morality is being questioned.

          • Nate says:

            “And certainly Roy is. And I gave you the link to his paper. There are many more. Lindzen, Curry, Michaels, Akasofu, Happer, Cristy, and thousands more. ”

            Thank you for listing many of the skeptical scientists who AGREE that AGW is happening…

            “In any case, there is no evidence that you are able to judge them objectively on their science.

            Sure I am and so is anybody else with a background in statistics and able to follow the evidence. ”

            Bill, this is the essence of Dunning Kruger syndrome..

            Even with my physics background, I KNOW that papers outside my expertise are rarely going to be easy for me to understand.

            And you have consistently demonstrated a tendency to simply SUBSTITUTE your political conspiratorial ideation for genuine objective appraisal of science in papers.

            As you illustrated here

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1411569

            “Yes they did in the exact proportions to support previous models and without verifying if the parameters he used correspond to anything in nature.”

            Exactly the opposite of what they did in the paper! Showing that you didnt bother to read it.

            Because:

            “One does not solve these kinds of problems by producing a model that produces the desired political outcome.”

            Again, bizarrely taking politics of > 1990 and transporting them to 1967.

            Thus people have learned to not take your posts on science seriously. You reap what you sow.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ” ”And certainly Roy is. And I gave you the link to his paper. There are many more. Lindzen, Curry, Michaels, Akasofu, Happer, Cristy, and thousands more. ” Thank you for listing many of the skeptical scientists who AGREE that AGW is happening”
            ——————————-
            Oh who disagrees AGW is happening. There is no question there is a UHI effect. Likely deforestation and agriculture also contribute. How about some aerosols? There are lots of ways mankind affects the climate. That has never been the question. The question is how much and what is too much or worthy of mitigation.

            You really latch on quickly to the bandwagon and try to claim phyrrhic victories without ever showing that anything you stand for isn’t just for your own benefit.

            Nate says:

            1) ”Even with my physics background, I KNOW that papers outside my expertise are rarely going to be easy for me to understand.”

            2) “And you have consistently demonstrated a tendency to simply SUBSTITUTE your political conspiratorial ideation for genuine objective appraisal of science in papers.”
            ——————————————
            LOL! Agree with first statement. Auditors are faced with this regularly. So thats why above I listed a large number of experts who are not purporting to fully understand climate but have a lot of papers out there criticizing the Dunning Krueger Syndrome of a lot of scientist who think the science is settled. So you are incorrect. The Dunning Krueger Syndrome sufferers continually decline to debate with experts, and don’t publish papers that complete the logic in why AGW should be a concern. They just employ weak journalism using folks willing to sacrifice the very principles of journalism to mindlessly repeat what they hear from these Dunning Krueger Syndrome suffers. Of course they don’t publish you because you don’t have any credentials at all.

            Nate says:

            ”As you illustrated here

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1411569

            ”Yes they did in the exact proportions to support previous models and without verifying if the parameters he used correspond to anything in nature.”

            Exactly the opposite of what they did in the paper! Showing that you didnt bother to read it.”
            ———————————————-
            No its not.

            Nate says:
            Because:

            ”One does not solve these kinds of problems by producing a model that produces the desired political outcome.

            Again, bizarrely taking politics of > 1990 and transporting them to 1967.

            Thus people have learned to not take your posts on science seriously. You reap what you sow.”
            ————————————–
            Perhaps you were still a babe in 1967. I was there in the university system. Fact is Nate, if you study your history, those kind of politics have been in play as long as there has been politics. Its more than naive to believe otherwise.

          • Nate says:

            “Perhaps you were still a babe in 1967. I was there in the university system.”

            I was a kid but generally aware of the issues, and a fan of history in any case.

            If you think global warming was a big political issue 1n 1967 then your brain is fried.

            The point is if you feel the need to imagine 2000s GW politics was a driver of Manabe and Weathereld, 1967, then you are

            a. being ridiculous
            b. not able or willing to judge its science objectively.

            Which was my point.

          • Nate says:

            “Oh who disagrees AGW is happening. ”

            You. Regularly you doubt the basic science of the GHE.

            Those guys you listed don not. Sorry they can’t help you.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate would be baffled by the chore of separating the wheat from the chaff.

  80. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another wave of frigid air from the north is descending over North Dakota.
    https://i.ibb.co/NtGL3BG/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-29-094842.png

  81. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A cold front from the north on New Year’s Day may reach Lake Erie.

  82. Swenson says:

    Nate has now decided that the GHE is really just a silly name for insulation. Good for him!

    Unfortunately, faced with the fact that no amount of insulation has stopped the Earth cooling, even with four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, Nate is now bereft of any ideas to support the mad CO2 induced AGW fantasy of the SkyDragon cult!

    It will be interesting to see Nate wriggle and squirm, trying to claim that the GHE will increase future temperatures, whilst simultaneously allowing past temperatures to fall. Rare SkyDragon magic at work, no doubt.

    The rest of the idiots seem to have slunk off into their SkyDragon fantasies – where cooling is heating, where CO2 has magical properties, and the Earth just keeps getting hotter and hotter.

    Just another example of “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” writ large.

  83. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Arctic air masses are flowing into the central US behind the front, and this cold front may reach Lake Erie again on New Year’s Day.

  84. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It seems that the stratospheric polar vortex is strong because the temperature of the stratosphere is low. However, strong planetary waves in the upper stratosphere indicate a strong disturbance. Therefore, the polar vortex will continue to wave in the upper troposphere.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_OND_NH_2022.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png

  85. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Strong ozone accumulation over eastern Siberia (polar vortex blockage) is still evident.
    https://i.ibb.co/Y0NqhSC/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png

  86. gbaikie says:

    I was realizing, that I was a bit worried about a Starship launch,
    and I am bit less worried about it.
    I tend to worry a bit, even with a Falcon-9 launch [which has been very reliable] and I doubt I will never not be a bit worried about a starship launch. But it seems a lot work is being done to safely launch what could be quite dangerous, and I seem to be less worried, now.

    Not that I am predicting there will be no problems- it’s impossible
    to do that, but rather it seems there may have been enough effort, and I should be a bit less worried about it.
    Of course still wondering when and how it will go- it should happen sometime in first 1/2 of Jan 2023- if no problems are found.

    I have been somewhat against doing 33 engine static fire, and it seems starship can and “should” be able to lift off the pad with less than 33 engines firing. But something like a +20 engine static fire seems to be needed. And even that might take awhile.
    My uneducated view, is takeoff by getting +20 engine firing and you taking off, while you getting the rest of engines going and you are meter off the pad by time got all 33 engines going. And you should only need 30 engines [or less] to clear the tower- and get to orbit.
    And if get all 33 engines working good, that’s insurance, for only getting 5 engines working on second stage. Or it seems very likely the 6 engines will work, but insurance for other things, also.

    Anyhow, the 12 engine firing was crazy, and will be more so with the +20 engines, I hope to see within couple weeks.
    Launch schedule from two sources:
    20 total Jan And of 20, 13 total SpaceX
    https://www.rocketlaunch.live/

    10 Total Jan And 9 of total spaceX
    https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

    Not sure which is true or more true, but
    13 or 9 SpaceX launches in Jan is a lot.

  87. gbaikie says:

    –Thanks to a coder with sundry interests, a fine sense of humor, and keen graphics skills, you can spend New Years Day (and everyday thereafter) dropping assorted asteroids all over the earth and counting the number of people vaporized, crushed, and burned. You can help Grover Clevelands granddaughter squash people to death on trolley tracks. You can see how you match up in size versus a shocking range of astronomical objects. Or, if youre in a more bucolic mood, you can sit passively and watch the real-time births of hundreds of children, all over the planet. Those are just four of the bizarre and really entertaining activities available on Neal Agarwals website, neal.fun.–
    https://graboyes.substack.com/p/clang-clang-clang-went-the-planet

    Linked from: https://instapundit.com/

  88. gbaikie says:

    US Space Force launches new recruitment site with flashy Vulcan Centaur rocket
    By Elizabeth Howell
    published about 19 hours ago

    ‘Space is closer than you think.’

    “A near-future rocket launch is the keystone of the newest U.S. Space Force recruiting website.

    Space Force launched a fresh website face this week, featuring an interactive animation of a United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket sending a GPS satellite into space.

    The Vulcan Centaur rocket’s long-awaited first flight is expected in the first quarter of 2023. Curiously, however, the next GPS launch is actually going to be on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket no earlier than January, the military has said (opens in new tab).”
    https://www.space.com/us-space-force-recruitment-vulcan-centaur-rocket
    And:
    “In November there were roughly 8,400 personnel in Space Force, which is the smallest and youngest of the U.S. military branches, according to Defense One (opens in new tab).

    An illustration of a GPS satellite in orbit above Earth.”

    Again, from: https://instapundit.com/

    I think it fun when a govt is trying to do something.

  89. gbaikie says:

    Essay by Eric Worrall

    The mainstream media are failing us, not asking obvious questions, like how can we prevent energy prices spiralling out of control?.

    As the UK falls into a recession that could soon swallow Europe, this town offers clues on Englands cost-of-living nightmare
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/30/britain-has-become-a-poorer-country-but-still-chasing-net-zero/

    [[The MSM are failing us?
    I think they have long ago, reached and exceeded failing themselves.
    What comes long after cannibalism? We will see.]]

    “But people keep skirting around this obvious solution, including the author of the MSN article above.

    Even if you dont think the UK has enough frackable gas to make a difference, why stand in the way of people trying?”

    Well, that is good question.
    The answer is they are afraid they will be proven, wrong,
    once, again.
    It seems problem is UK and Europe, imagine they function like the US- which is really stupid.

  90. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Within five days, the polar vortex blockage over the Bering Sea will strengthen and air from Siberia will flow into the US.
    https://i.ibb.co/CVn4BhM/gfs-t100-nh-f120-1.png

  91. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another peak in solar activity.
    https://i.ibb.co/Zc8QYM5/EISNcurrent.png

  92. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Latest (2022/12/30) 1-day area-weighted 2m temperature anomalies calculated from the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS) and CFS Reanalysis (CFSR). The anomaly values fluctuate day-to-day and week-to-week depending on prevailing weather patterns. For context, daily temperatures for the domains below are available via interactive charts for the entire CFS/CFSR 1979present record. Anomalies are based on 19792000 climatology for the specific day of the year.

    World Northern Hemisphere Arctic
    + 0.59 C + 1.14 C + 2.78 C
    Tropics Southern Hemisphere Antarctic
    + 0.06 C + 0.03 C – 0.42 C

  93. angech says:

    Happy New Year all.
    Thanks for helping make 2022 bearable.
    I like predictions rather than resolutions.
    None of mine worked out last year.
    Not uncommon.
    So 2023.
    Putin will live forever and the war will still be going for for the second of its 10 years.
    Trump will be made the new head of the United Nations.
    No severe earthquakes or weather events for the first 3 months of the year.
    No Stockmarket correction and collapse.
    Tesla and Twitter will combine to form a super tech monster doubling in value.
    Resolution a second 70 year plan better than the first.
    Enjoy 2023!

    Taking a leaf out of Nick Stokes blog despite cold conditions Australia, US and Eastern Europe the ground level anomalies are high for the month so the global temps will end up 5th to 6th highest?
    Presume UAH will do something similar.

    No point crossing fingers hoping for a big fall with that data.

  94. gbaikie says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSuxD2rXiL0
    Episode 1974 Scott Adams: Let’s Say Goodbye To A Crappy Year And Talk About All The Fake News

    I was thinking it was a good year, but it seems likely 2023 will be a lot better.
    Or 2023 could possibly make all other years appear crappy.

    Anyhow, Scott say no one significant- vaguely knowledgeable- has ever actually wanted to reduce population, but some wanted to reduce population growth with some countries at some times.

    [Though I think some people might think Al Gore appeared to be “serious”.]

    But I don’t think there has ever been a good reason reduce population growth by any amount at any time and for any nation.

    • Entropic man says:

      “But I dont think there has ever been a good reason reduce population growth by any amount at any time and for any nation. ”

      Biologists study carrying capacity, the number of organisms a particular environment can support.

      Earth is 70% ocean. Of the remaining 30% half is too hot, cold, wet, dry, steep or lofty to live on.

      That gives us 15% of the surface to support 8 billion people, about 2 acres per person for all purposes including food production.

      Given high-tech agriculture that 16 billion acres could in theory feed perhaps 11 billion people. That is why we need to limit total population.

      Inefficiencies in distribution mean that we can’t properly feed the people we have. Go much beyond that and the Four Horsemen ride.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well, if you have to live on the land only, more than 1/3 of land is deserts. I live in desert which can lived in, mostly because water in imported. But most deserts are not getting imported water, and can’t really to live in.
        So, if confined to land, deserts should be made habitable, and thousands of years ago, when the world was warmer, a lot more deserts were habitable. And what changed this was a drier and colder world- one of the biggest climate change, the modern human has gone thru.

        So, world has to warm up some more, or one can bring cheap water to the the deserts. The US uses a lot water [600 billion tons per year] and has cheap water.
        And as has been known, a major problem with Africa is the high cost of drinkable water. If Africa had cheaper electrical power, it could get cheaper water. Or one find other ways to make cheaper water.

        So, one have more rain, or can work out other ways to get cheap water. The simplest is getting more and cheaper electrical power- which has been what international bodies in the past have been doing- with some success.

  95. gbaikie says:

    Questions Remain Over Met Office Claim That 2022 Was the U.K.s Hottest Year on Record
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/31/questions-remain-over-met-office-claim-that-2022-was-the-u-k-s-hottest-year-on-record/

    Well, I didn’t get any snow for Christmas and doesn’t look like
    snow in next week.
    Tomorrow, the low will about 35 F and cloudy which can give snow and next Friday also around 35 F but for last week or so it’s been mostly warmer 35 F. And it’s lightly raining now. Earlier [couple weeks ago] it much colder and drier.
    The hills around here had have little bit of snow.
    But if this is as hot as it gets, it doesn’t seem to be problem.

    • Entropic man says:

      Gbaikie

      Do you know RAF Coningsby. I suspect that Morrison does not.

      The main runway is 07/25 with the hangers and base buildings on the North side of the runway.

      If you can download an aerial photo of the airfield you will see three short curved parallel WW2 fairways on the southern edge. Just South of the end of these is the weather station, surrounded on three sides by fields.

      It is 1000m South of the runway, well away from aircraft exhaust and any built up areas. Chris Morrison is writing bullshit.

      • Entropic man says:

        I hate my spell checker. For fairways read taxiways.

      • gbaikie says:

        The bigger matter is UHI effect in general.
        Was UK 2022 the hottest ever?
        If you were global warming cargo cultist- you should not be happy about false claims regarding our religion.
        Or if this is the hottest, how we be religiously concerned about a hot world?
        Ie, thousands are dying from cold conditions.

        • Entropic man says:

          The previous record maximum was recorded in Cambridge, in the Botanic Gardens. That is South of the city centre (I once lived there) and might have been influenced by UHI.

          If you look at the aerial photos the weather station at RAF Coningsby would be classified by Anthony Watts as rural. The 2022 maximum record was not affected by UHI.

          The 2022 UK annual average was probably not affected by UHI either. UHI is a delta, an increase in urban areas over rural areas. If the rural areas increase by, say, 0.1C on average then you would expect the urban areas to increase by 0.1C too.

        • Entropic man says:

          “thousands are dying from cold conditions. ”

          God must have a sense of humour, giving the climate change deniers in the US the colder climate they wanted.

          • gbaikie says:

            Far more people die from cold conditions- even if limit population sample to Africa- the hottest Continent.
            UK ranks high in people dying from cold, due to it’s horrible govt policies.

  96. gbaikie says:

    –SpaceX has shattered the record for launches in a calendar year by a single rocket type while making large strides toward getting the successor vehicle off the ground, despite a few struggles with Falcon 9 launch delays and Starship testing mishaps.

    The record launch cadence is planned to be broken again in 2023, with as many as 100 launches planned according to Elon Musk. Starship, the eventual successor to the Falcon 9, did not fly this year as had been planned but is currently on track for its first orbital test flight as early as the first quarter of 2023.

    Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy

    The Falcon 9 Block 5, the current operational workhorse of the SpaceX rocket fleet, launched 60 times in 2022, with all flights successfully completing their missions. This cadence has set an all-time US and worldwide record for flights by a single type in one calendar year. The previous record was set by the Soviet Soyuz-U launcher in 1979, with 45 successful launches out of 47 overall that year.–
    https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/12/spacex-2022-2023/

    Long ago, the Soviets were said to be a superpower. And such things as US democracy could do a well as evil dictatorships [as was more lately said about China, and Canadian leader being envious about how China can govern]. The Soviets [as anyone] knew importance having satellites in orbit, so 45 launches was reflection of the might of
    the Soviet military- and 1 US billionaire is stomping on it’s record. And plans to double it in 2023. And he is just getting started. But he is not the only one, with big plans.

  97. gbaikie says:

    Episode 1975 Scott Adams: 2023 Starts With Some Excellent Fake News, Conspiracy Theories And More
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC_zrmmiBtY

    Hmm, I have not been interested in what Scott talking about, check wiki:
    “Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. A former editor, he is a public speaker and activist on behalf of the alt-right movement. He advocates for the reconstitution of the European Union into a white racial empire, which he believes will replace the diverse European ethnic identities with one homogeneous “White identity”.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

    So, this guy is obviously a Lefty. And Dem.

    https://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Bertrand_Spencer
    “Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American leftist operative, atheist, CNN consultant, community organizer for left-wing causes, and former white nationalist. Spencer is an infamous agent provocateur, who claims to have invented the term “alt-right.” Spencer is an enthusiastic supporter of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and called on supporters to vote straight Democrat.”

    So, narcissistic. Uneducated. He not former white nationalist, as he claims. Or he is Narcissist {lies about everything} and Atheist {uneducated and dumber than a brick}. Likes Joe Biden- very similar to Joe Biden [narcissist, liar, and a pervert, and ties to KKK and very dumb}. And would have Kamala Harris is the best black person- or she is an idiot [who is less liked the Joe Biden].
    Whereas an intellectual black person would be called an uncle tom {endlessly]- which is plainly, racist.

    • gbaikie says:

      Who identifies as alt-right.
      Could someone who likes or identifies as alt-right, explain in best light one can, what is a alt-right?
      All I think about regarding alt-right is an asshole- and at
      best uneducated. But the degree of being brainwashed is a question-
      moderately brainwashed, or very seriously brainwashed- and obviously mentally deranged.
      So, looking for the bright side of alt-right, any help from anyone?

      • Entropic man says:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

        I’ve to go to work now. Talk more later.

        • gbaikie says:

          “According to Slate magazine, the abbreviation “retains the former phrase’s associationsthe mix of alienation and optimism embedded in the act of proudly affirming an ‘alternative’ directionbut compacts them into a snappier package”.The “alt-right” tag was created with public relations in mind, allowing white nationalists to soften their image and helping to draw in recruits from conservatism.”

          So it’s the racist dem’s children who protest against racist policies of their parents.

          • Entropic man says:

            Know thyself.

          • gbaikie says:

            They are brainwashed that all white American are racists [btw, interesting note, Canadians aren’t] and the alt-right are plainly acting like racists.

            In America there has been and is systematic racism- which the public education is having largest and strongest effect [though also in other systems] and has been demonstrated in what the teacher’s unions have been doing for decades- which is strongly influenced with other atheistic ideologies, besides racism, and idea the world is overpopulated and the cargo cult of global warming.

            No one who having a sane and functioning brain thinks the world is over populated and needs reducing- but one has to ask, if the world is over population and needs reducing, a highly relevant question is, what nations exactly are over populated- and what would be the solutions {or in terms fascist racist ideology, what is the “final solution”?].

          • Entropic man says:

            https://biologydictionary.net/overpopulation/

            Why do you think this didn’t apply to humanity?

          • gbaikie says:

            “Why do you think this didnt apply to humanity?”

            Humans aren’t like animals.
            Though just watched Nova show on dogs, and dogs aren’t
            like animals either.
            Dogs seems pretty amazing- but wolves
            are smarter, apparently, according to the show, and people
            dealing wolves are well aware of this. Nova has show cats also- I haven’t seen it, yet.

            But basically at least in regards to the long term, humans can be
            spacefaring. Animals can’t.
            But at the moment, humans aren’t over populated.
            And could only become over populated if they no longer have
            cheap energy.
            In terms any imaginable future, Space can provide infinite cheaper energy than we currently have on Earth.

  98. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There is a high risk of further flooding in northern California.
    https://i.ibb.co/rcY2t5x/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f084.png

  99. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Very heavy precipitation north of Sacramento. Heavy snowfall in the mountains.
    The low is located over California.
    https://i.ibb.co/xfDyXsJ/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-08-100515.png

Leave a Reply